School Me on Ron Paul

[Plutarch]

i heard alot of okay stuff about him over the last couple elections. . .when i seen him standing next to the person who runs kkk. . .

kinda destroyed the ok image i had of him

Could you say more about that?

 

[Plutarch]

Trill post b

indeed. but I assumed (from your previous posts?) that you didn't like Paul.

 

[Plutarch]

Figured I will go ahead a chime in on this. Seen this thread hovering around for a while, figured I'd let all the MIS-info get out there before I come on and join the party.

So what would you like to know about Ron Paul?

I can give you my perspective it will better help you.

I've been followed Ron Paul for a couple of years now. Back in 07-08, I was your normal Obama supporter. Although I have always had a level of mistrust with the govt and politicians, I couldnt get around the fact of a viable black president, and a guy who seemed like he had his head on str8. He was anti-war, pro civil liberties. Sounded like my type of guy. But there is always that nagging question in the back of my mind asking "Is he really who he says he is?"

So anyway, during the election, I kept hearing about this Ron Paul guy. I honestly didnt pay him any mind. One day, I saw a bunch of young people at the coffee shop, rockin Ron Paul shirts and shit, it was a mixed crowd of college kids and 30 somethings, whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc. It peaked my interest because I never heard of the guy. So I go and do a google search and read where he stand on issues. Abolish the IRS, Dept of Education, Energy, no income tax, etc etc. Im like WTF? This nicca is out of his damn mind. I liked his stance on wars, but still he sounded like a kook as far as I was concerned. And I kept it movin.

Months pass by, and then the economy crashes. All I hear on TV is how no one saw this coming, and govt needs to go further into debt for us to get out of this mess. John McCain and Obama talking about how we need to send these filthy rich bankers almost a trillion dollars of our money. Shit just rubbed me wrong bruh. Then some friends of mind sent me some videos of Ron Paul, talking way back in 03 how we are creating a housing bubble, and how it will eventually cause the collapse of the housing and banking industry, and so on. I researched more and found out about Austrian economics, Peter Schiff, Thomas Woods, all and kinds of guys affiliated with Ron. It was kind of eye opening.

On foreign policy the guy has just been spot on and consistent. He is the only politician that has a deep understanding of history, blow back, and how foreign intervention is wrong tactically and morally.

On economics, he might scare you a bit. But you have to understand, the path we've been on for the last 40 years is coming to a head. Monopoly money, corporate welfare, govt in control of everything, rampant spending and borrowing, etc is leading us to ruin. I told cats here on this board years ago with they were thinking the economy was doing good and we were getting out of the recession, that we are heading further into it. Remember the Great Depression didnt happen until 1933, 4 years after the crash of 1929. Most will lead you to believe this was the cause of greedy bankers and laissez faire capitalism. Wrong. I wont tell you, just research history.

He is the only politician that will speak out against Mandatory Minimum sentencing, the racism legal system, the insane drug war, illegal wars that only lead to death and fatten the pockets of corporate interests....and you cant buy his votes. Many have tried, all have failed. A lot of people like to say, "If Ron Paul was president, corporations would be in control." Well if thats the case, why aren't corporations lining up to finance his campaign? The corporations are lining up for Obama, Perry, Bachmann, Clinton, etc. Those are the ones the big corps used to wield power and influence.

Another thing about Ron Paul is he very principled, even to the point of voting against his own bills if congress stuffs it with stuff that defy his principles.

Also, some say "he is not electable" .....well a lot of those same said the same about Obama when he decided to run. He is very much electable and is polling very well, better than that bitch Bachmann.

One thing you need to understand about Ron Paul is that he does not want to be dictator and chief like most presidents do. He knows he wont be able to come in and do all things he really envisions. But he does want to point us in the right direction. Trust, this economy is head off of a cliff and I dont care what puppet they put up there, they arent stopping it. What you'll get from Ron Paul is a guy who has the ultimate respect for the people and a true belief in freedom.

If you want to holla at me about him hit me on PM.

Great drop! I pretty much have the same opinion as much as my knowledge allows me. That is exactly why I respect the man.

As for Paul being electable? I still believe that he is not. Why? Because the media doesnt like him. And you need the media to tell the public to vote for you and to get your name out. And it also seems that neither of the two major parties like him, even his own party, especially since it seems that he holds political views from both parties. I also think that his ideology empowers people, and the government might not want that. His ideology is also very different and people aren't exactly cozy with the idea of change despite their cries for change. I think that Paul's situation is very different from Obama's, and Obama had that charisma and propaganda thing going for him. There were other reasons why I thought that he wasn't electable, but they've escaped me somehow, meh.

But yeah, I have a few simple questions, I'll pm you.

 

[Pond Scum]

Very interesting drop (even though it seems like your [not at all talking about you specifically btw] common race card tactic), but I want to caution us all with two issues before we jump the gun:

1. Is that source credible? Imo, regardless, the source seems obviously slanted. Even if those documets were true, where is the evidence (I may have missed that) that explicitly shows that Ron Paul wrote or condoned that. I could easily go to another source that says the opposite concerning this issue. In fact, on that same page, there are posters who have said a coupel of things that disprove this whole Ron Pau controversy. For instance, one has said that this may merely be a propaganda/smear campaign against Paul especially considering that this all came out allegedly during election time. Now are these posters reliable sources? I'm not sure, but i'll try to do more research to find a less biased and more neutral truth on the matter before I can truly react to this.

2. Well, I either forgot this point or already made it.

It all boils down to the fact that Ron Paul, as is ever the case, has some explaining to do. If he is an honorable man, he’ll tell the truth whether it’s good or bad. I assume that he might avoid this question because the press and his opposition can twist his words up and eat him alive however which way he responds, especially in this race-sensitive society. Who knows? We can even assume that everything is true but who’s to say that he was racist and now has changed like George Wallace had. Is that possible? What he advocates today seems pretty incompatible with the kind of racism we are talking about. Doesn’t make sense logically imo.

dude... the newsletter was called "The Ron Paul Freedom Report" and he claims that the articles in question (there were images of them in my first link so I'm not sure where the question of authenticity comes from) was written by someone else although he can't remember who wrote them.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-10/...rs_1_newsletters-blacks-whites?_s=PM:POLITICS

Also I''ll leave you with one more link:

[video=youtube;A6rxts0-f9w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6rxts0-f9w[/video]

when asked about this shit he spouts off some random shit about eliminating drug laws to confuse the average pothead coon. those of us who stay sober aren't so impressed and can see the irony in his statements.

ps - wtf do you mean "common race card tactic"? you asked about ron paul and i pointed out that he spent 20 years publishing an often overtly racist newsletter (with references, i might add) yet somehow I'm the one using "common racecard tactics"?

you need to practice the common eat a dick tactic you half-educated nimrod. how you gonna start a thread with "school me on... X" and then all of a sudden you feel like you're the authority on X?

 

[Plutarch]

dude... the newsletter was called "The Ron Paul Freedom Report"

Oh? I didn't see/know that. I checked your link again but I still couldn't find that bit of information there. Edit: Ok I think that I found what you're talking about at the end of the article. Yes, it's more than likely that Ron Paul had much to do directly with those newsletter writings.

and he claims that the articles in question (there were images of them in my first link so I'm not sure where the question of authenticity comes from) was written by someone else although he can't remember who wrote them.

It was the image excerpts throughout the article that found potentially questionable. But now I see the other images, so it's cool. And I wasn't saying that what you were saying was false. I just like to see hard evidence for something before I can believe it.

Ok, I think that I misunderstood for some reason?? I thought that you or the article was saying that Paul wrote these newsletters? I may be missing something here, but I still see no direct evidence to confirm this? Is it fair for me to still say that the authorship (and approval?) of the newsletters (not necessarily the authenticity of the documents themselves) is in question?

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-10/...rs_1_newsletters-blacks-whites?_s=PM:POLITICS

Good drops. I'm guessing that you're giving me more sources to read up on the matter? I will definitely read up on them, thanks. Sorry, I cant now because I'm too busy. Though I already skimmed a little.

Also I''ll leave you with one more link:

[video=youtube;A6rxts0-f9w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6rxts0-f9w[/video]

when asked about this shit he spouts off some random shit about eliminating drug laws to confuse the average pothead coon. those of us who stay sober aren't so impressed and can see the irony in his statements.

Wow, that's odd. Because I have a very different (and imo, less biased?) reaction towards the video. I thought that he responded to the issue (the question wasn't very specific to be honest) very reasonably, sufficiently, and admirably. I think that it's hyperbolic to say that he avoided it and talked about something random. After responding to the issue, he did talk about another issue, but that issue was very related to the original issue. In addition, he made it very obvious that he was making the transition to talk about another different yet related issue in the interview in order to not play the interviewer's game and in order to play his own game. I wish I could see more of the interview, perhaps we're missing the best parts?

Since we differ so greatly about this video and since I want to better understand where you are coming from, can you explain to me why you think he was beign disingenuous and how what he said was ironic. Because I don't see that at all.

ps - wtf do you mean "common race card tactic"? you asked about ron paul and i pointed out that he spent 20 years publishing an often overtly racist newsletter (with references, i might add) yet somehow I'm the one using "common racecard tactics"?

Damn lol. I had reread that line of mine before you replied, and it seemed as if I was attacking you (which I was not!), so I edited it to include the "[not at all talking about you specifically btw]" line so that I could further clarify that I was not attacking you. So maybe you saw that before I edited my post? I'll repeat it again: I was not talking about you. I was rather talking about the media and whoever brought up this Ron Paul racist controversy in the first place (the idea that this was done for political purposes is being sorely overlooked imo).

Speaking of which, I do have one honest question that has been on my mind. Let's say that this controversy is true and that Ron Paul did write or approve of the newsletters. What would be the significance? That he is a racist? That he can't be trusted as a politician? What do you ultimately think that this will say about Ron Paul? I guess what I'm asking is: what is the essential purpose of informing me about this controversy. What about Ron Paul am I being schooled on here? Again, these are honest and not rhetorical questions, I do not know the answers to these questions. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from or what you are trying to teach me about Ron Paul.

I'll say one last thing. Or perhaps ask you one last thing. Do you think that Ron Paul is racist? Did it seem that Paul was racist in that video? Because, for me, it clearly seems that he's not, regardless of what happened in the past, and he clearly articulated that exact sentiment.

you need to practice the common eat a dick tactic you half-educated nimrod.

Wow, you seem mad lol. There's no need to resort to name calling, especially since you don't know me. But whatever lifts your luggage dude.

I didn't understand the "eat a dick" bit. Either it didnt make sense or it was exactly what I thought it was: a very lame and childish insult. As for me being half-educated? I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. And as for the nimrod comment. I've learned that "nimrod" can mean "warrior" or "hunter" but I doubt that you're calling me that. So you must be calling me an idiot. But I hoenstly think that you could've just taken out "half educated" because a "half educated nimrod" is a bit redudant. You're kind of saying the same thing twice. Kind of like a double negative. If that's the case, then those two words would cancel each other and your insult would lose its effectiveness. Anyways, I'd just go with "nimrod". But who even uses that term anymore? I'd just go with "dumbass" or "idiot" if I were you.

how you gonna start a thread with "school me on... X" and then all of a sudden you feel like you're the authority on X?

What!? When did I feel like I was the authority on Ron Paul!? Please show me. If I gave you that impression, I guess that I'm sorry? But I certainly don't think that I'm the authority on Paul. I actually thought that my whole post was basically full of mere speculations and not of confirmations, so I don't see your point at all.

 

[Drgoo0285]

Please explain.

And what do you have to say about my last response?

"Potentially" is a keyword there for me. I think that likelihood could be low. And who's to say that our government isn't racist itself? Whether it's state or federal may be irrelevant. And why the strong focus on race and racism? Where's the outcry that our businesses might be sexist or ageist? This is why I think that the race card is being pulled here just for dramatic purposes. Not necessarily for genuine purposes.

Cause racism is something almost everyone agrees is bad, to some level..

I think he'd mess up our environment, helthcare, and economy... Racism is just the tip of the ice berg.