Conquer Club

... Anti-Racist Ron Paul may be a better topic title.

... He used that term in the video, actually.

...

Nobunaga wrote:... Anti-Racist Ron Paul may be a better topic title.

I thought Scott was using "unracist" as a verb?

Like "Lindsay Lohan used to be attractive but jail unsexied her."

If that's the worst they can dig up on this politician (and he didn't even write it), then more power to Ron Paul.

BigBallinStalin wrote:If that's the worst they can dig up on this politician (and he didn't even write it), then more power to Ron Paul.

I don't necessarily disagree. However, given how news works in our world, the headlines will read something like "Ron Paul publishes racist remarks" or something similar. For example, the is an editorial (I believe New York times) and that is basically what the headline says. So, the readers or news-hungry, will be fed by that line, rather than an explanation and apology that Ron Paul has given.

Additionally, for what it's worth, I think Ron Paul should have kept better track of what was going out in his name. And I find that to be a big issue with him (at least for me).

What I want at this point, is someone who thinks like Ron Paul, but is younger and has more charisma (and no racist newsletters published under his name).

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:If that's the worst they can dig up on this politician (and he didn't even write it), then more power to Ron Paul.

I don't necessarily disagree. However, given how news works in our world, the headlines will read something like "Ron Paul publishes racist remarks" or something similar. For example, the is an editorial (I believe New York times) and that is basically what the headline says. So, the readers or news-hungry, will be fed by that line, rather than an explanation and apology that Ron Paul has given.

Additionally, for what it's worth, I think Ron Paul should have kept better track of what was going out in his name. And I find that to be a big issue with him (at least for me).

What I want at this point, is someone who thinks like Ron Paul, but is younger and has more charisma (and no racist newsletters published under his name).

Look no further!

BigBallinStalin wrote:If that's the worst they can dig up on this politician (and he didn't even write it), then more power to Ron Paul.

He didn't write it, but he did endorse it and he greatly profited from it. Doesn't really matter if he is actually a racist or only provided endorsement and an outlet, normalising and giving voice to other racists and their rants, subsequently profiting from them.

I'm sorry but once Paul comes under the spotlight he will sink like a stone.

Iliad wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:If that's the worst they can dig up on this politician (and he didn't even write it), then more power to Ron Paul.

He didn't write it, but he did endorse it and he greatly profited from it. Doesn't really matter if he is actually a racist or only provided endorsement and an outlet, normalising and giving voice to other racists and their rants, subsequently profiting from them.

I'm sorry but once Paul comes under the spotlight he will sink like a stone.

where is the evidence he "Greatly profited from it"?

Ron Paul will win, and America will unite behind him. If you really want to side with the main stream media and the establishment, go right ahead.

Why is this a big story but Jeremiah Wright wasn't?

The left is the land of extreme cognitive dissonance.

Why is it that Barack Obama, who was the most liberal man in the Senate, and is the most liberal President we have had in many years, is not scrutinized for all the insanely idiotic moronic policies and statements he and his administration come up with, but if a Republican Presidential Candidate suggest that we do anything to reign in our runaway government, anything they have done in their past is drudged out against them.

Obama and the Democrats are the real radicals. The Republicans would have to nominate the biggest reactionary fiscal and social conservative to be as far right as Obama is left.

Iliad wrote:I'm sorry but once Paul comes under the spotlight he will sink like a stone.

if this is true, then why hasn't the mainstream media done it yet? they had no trouble with cain's sex scandals.

rockfist wrote:The Republicans would have to nominate the biggest reactionary fiscal and social conservative to be as far right as Obama is left.

Why do you even say nonsensical things like this? Obama has some "left" positions, absolutely. FAR left? Not particularly. And if you believe that at least half of the serious Republican candidates this coming election AREN'T at least as far right as Obama is to the left, then I don't believe you're looking at the situation very objectively.

rockfist wrote:Why is it that Barack Obama, who was the most liberal man in the Senate, and is the most liberal President we have had in many years, is not scrutinized for all the insanely idiotic moronic policies and statements he and his administration come up with...

Because he isn't HITLER! OMG!



And what insane moronic policies does Obama have? What moronic statements? Bush had sane and intelligent policies? Bush made highly intelligent statements?

Phatscotty wrote:

Iliad wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:If that's the worst they can dig up on this politician (and he didn't even write it), then more power to Ron Paul.

He didn't write it, but he did endorse it and he greatly profited from it. Doesn't really matter if he is actually a racist or only provided endorsement and an outlet, normalising and giving voice to other racists and their rants, subsequently profiting from them.

I'm sorry but once Paul comes under the spotlight he will sink like a stone.

where is the evidence he "Greatly profited from it"?

Ron Paul will win, and America will unite behind him. If you really want to side with the main stream media and the establishment, go right ahead.

[url]
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... rs/250338/[/url]
[url]http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man
[/url]


If you think someone other than Romney will win, you're delusional. If you think that someone is Ron Paul, doubly so.

Also nice ad hominem, but even a corporate broken clock is right twice a day. And I'M sorry to burst your bubble but Fox News is very much mainstream and you have fallen in line on many issues with them.

john9blue wrote:

Iliad wrote:I'm sorry but once Paul comes under the spotlight he will sink like a stone.

if this is true, then why hasn't the mainstream media done it yet? they had no trouble with cain's sex scandals.

For the same reason neither Romney nor Obama have said anything; they don't need to.Once the flavour of the month gets passed to Paul, this shit will pop up and man will watching the cognitive dissonance of the Paul worshippers be fun to see.

Woodruff wrote:

rockfist wrote:The Republicans would have to nominate the biggest reactionary fiscal and social conservative to be as far right as Obama is left.

Why do you even say nonsensical things like this? Obama has some "left" positions, absolutely. FAR left? Not particularly. And if you believe that at least half of the serious Republican candidates this coming election AREN'T at least as far right as Obama is to the left, then I don't believe you're looking at the situation very objectively.

Ok he may not have been the most liberal, but he was hardly middle of the road with his voting record meaning the Republicans would have to nominate someone quite conservative to be as far right as he is left:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/

CreepersWiener wrote:
And what insane moronic policies does Obama have? What moronic statements? Bush had sane and intelligent policies? Bush made highly intelligent statements?

Oh 99 weeks of unemployment with no step down is quite insane. Then there are these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZYsW_PxWAM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoqI5PSRcXM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsapJii1rMY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M1WlV7vafk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4

If that is not enough I can find more...

I'm not talking about Bush, stop trying to deflect. And when you raise Hitler in an argument it means you've lost.

rockfist wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

rockfist wrote:The Republicans would have to nominate the biggest reactionary fiscal and social conservative to be as far right as Obama is left.

Why do you even say nonsensical things like this? Obama has some "left" positions, absolutely. FAR left? Not particularly. And if you believe that at least half of the serious Republican candidates this coming election AREN'T at least as far right as Obama is to the left, then I don't believe you're looking at the situation very objectively.

Ok he may not have been the most liberal, but he was hardly middle of the road with his voting record meaning the Republicans would have to nominate someone quite conservative to be as far right as he is left:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/

How common is it for members of congress to have such a high vote part line percentage?

Its pretty common to be between 85-95%. He is on the high side, but not ridiculous. Just looking at the numbers it appears more common for Democrats to be higher, but some of the lower Republican numbers such as Rand Paul or Jim Demint could be misleading.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/112/senate/members/

Just to be clear he voted with his party his last year in the Senate as much as any Democrat (it could be more difficult for a President to oppose his party)

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/members/

rockfist wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

rockfist wrote:The Republicans would have to nominate the biggest reactionary fiscal and social conservative to be as far right as Obama is left.

Why do you even say nonsensical things like this? Obama has some "left" positions, absolutely. FAR left? Not particularly. And if you believe that at least half of the serious Republican candidates this coming election AREN'T at least as far right as Obama is to the left, then I don't believe you're looking at the situation very objectively.

Ok he may not have been the most liberal, but he was hardly middle of the road with his voting record meaning the Republicans would have to nominate someone quite conservative to be as far right as he is left:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/

Woodruff is correct Rock, Obama advocating that "spreading the wealth around is a good thing" is not a leftist idea...not even far left. It's actually right to far right ideology. Also, intentionally skipping over the part in our constitution..."endowed by our creator..." 7 or 8 times in the last few years as far right wing too, just like Jared Loughner...

Now, if we used the word "progressive" to describe Obama, we wouldn't even have to get into left or right.

Could you please explain how spreading the wealth through government redistribution is right wing?

rockfist wrote:Could you please explain how spreading the wealth through government redistribution is right wing?

lol Rock. I try to add this to let peeps know when I'm being sarcastic

I'm loving the sudden awkward silence about Ron Paul's newsletters.

Iliad wrote:I'm loving the sudden awkward silence about Ron Paul's newsletters.

haven't they already been discussed to death?

but keep thinking you're right and ignoring all evidence to the contrary. next time we decide to ignore you, you can pretend once more that you have the REAL truth if it makes you happy.

Phatscotty wrote:

rockfist wrote:Could you please explain how spreading the wealth through government redistribution is right wing?

lol Rock. I try to add this to let peeps know when I'm being sarcastic

I had surgery this week so I am not 100%...but even baring that I can sometimes miss it.

Iliad wrote:I'm loving the sudden awkward silence about Ron Paul's newsletters.

yeah this thread is 100% in response to the newsletters. You would know that if you took 3 minutes to watch the video in the first post of the thread. Awkward silence...?

john9blue wrote:

Iliad wrote:I'm loving the sudden awkward silence about Ron Paul's newsletters.

haven't they already been discussed to death?

but keep thinking you're right and ignoring all evidence to the contrary. next time we decide to ignore you, you can pretend once more that you have the REAL truth if it makes you happy.

Thanks for being objective once again, Johnblue! Next time you pretend to be a neutral observer we might go along with as well.

I'm really confused at how you managed to spin, me putting forward a criticism of Ron Paul, backing it up with sources, and then not have enough anyone even attempting to refute it, as somehow me ignoring reality.

I love you john, I honestly do. You wander in arguments, adopt a condescending tone with such ease as though you were born with it, complain how everyone( read; everyone who is left wing or atheist) is being illogical and leave before god fucking forbid you should prove what you're saying. Please tell me, john, how am I ignoring reality? The facts about Ron Paul's newsletters are easily searchable and it seems someone else, let's call him thinirishy, decided to ignore those facts. But then again facts do have a liberal bias.

(Now I've quoted Colbert, now johnny is going to be maaad)