|
Post by ironbite on Dec 29, 2011 22:30:57 GMT -5
It's a typical Paul fanboy tactic to avoid discussion of Ron Paul's faults by shifting the focus to Obama, which assumes that the other person even voted for Obama in the first place. There are criticisms of Ron Paul from both the left and the right. One's opinion that Ron Paul is an assbutt has nothing to do with that person's opinion on Obama. And while I did vote for Obama, I never expected him to try and utterly change the system like Paul is promising to. I expected him to work with the system and try and make things better. Ironbite-he didn't really but that's to be expected.
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Dec 29, 2011 23:17:13 GMT -5
He may be an evangelical Christian, but at least he is keeping his religion, for the most part, out of his rhetoric, unlike Bachmann and Santorum.
I don't believe he said states should have the right to criminalize gay sex, only same-sex marriage. I disagree with this.
Whether he denies or disavows his racist sentiments, the point is is that he no longer holds them. I understand I have to take him at his word on that, but unless you can show clear racist actions in his work as a legislator, I'm not going to base my vote on some dusted-off newsletters someone dug up to sling at him.
The only thing I agree with him on is his stance foreign policy, nearly everything else I disagree with. But I agree with him so strongly on foreign policy I would be willing to consider voting for him.
|
|
|
Post by jackmann on Dec 29, 2011 23:21:50 GMT -5
The thing is, I find it hard to believe his denial. The newsletter posted racist material in his name. Either he didn't know about it, in which case he's incompetent, or he did, in which case he was probably racist. If he repudiated those views, I'd be all right. People can change. But when he denies even having them... Well, at that point, I start wondering how honest he's being about it. It gives the feeling that he's saying it because it's politically expedient, not because he means it.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Dec 29, 2011 23:30:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Dec 29, 2011 23:34:26 GMT -5
Again Vene, you don't actually read the articles you cite. Paul would have voted against the Civil Rights Act not because he is racist, but because he is a libertarian. He believes that if you own a private business on private property, you should be able to kick out whomever you like for whatever reason, and that the government shouldn't force you to serve anybody.
I disagree with that position, but I can respect that.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Dec 29, 2011 23:38:34 GMT -5
No, I'm pretty sure I read it. It's really not much different than the people who wave around the flag of the CSA and claim it's an homage to history and the war was really about state's rights.
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Dec 29, 2011 23:43:24 GMT -5
The only thing I agree with him on is his stance foreign policy, nearly everything else I disagree with. But I agree with him so strongly on foreign policy I would be willing to consider voting for him. So you're an isolationist that thinks the US should have stayed out of Germany. Gotcha.
|
|
|
Post by nickiknack on Dec 30, 2011 0:01:25 GMT -5
You know even if he isn't a racist, the newsletters show that he's an idiot for allowing that stuff to be printed in his name, and not doing shit about it.
|
|
|
Post by jackmann on Dec 30, 2011 0:05:12 GMT -5
You know even if he isn't a racist, the newsletters show that he's an idiot for allowing that stuff to be printed in his name, and not doing shit about it. Exactly. Also, I don't care why he thinks businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on race. I still find that to be an absolutely unsupportable position.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Dec 30, 2011 17:21:22 GMT -5
You know even if he isn't a racist, the newsletters show that he's an idiot for allowing that stuff to be printed in his name, and not doing shit about it. Exactly. Also, I don't care why he thinks businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on race. I still find that to be an absolutely unsupportable position. Because libertarianism is childish and moronic. Libertarians aren't even libertarian. They have absolutely no problem with gross violations of liberty by the private sector- in fact, as the Civil Rights Act point makes clear, they want to expand and extend the worst violations of basic liberty in modern society. The standard libertarian theory wants to expand the private violation of liberty in the name of reducing government 'tyranny'. Paul is even worse. He has no problem with outright tyrannical government policy, like discrimination in marriage- so long as state governments do it. The federal government may not even force states to respect the rights of individuals- because that would be 'tyranny'.
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Dec 30, 2011 20:12:18 GMT -5
It's a typical Paul fanboy tactic to avoid discussion of Ron Paul's faults by shifting the focus to Obama, which assumes that the other person even voted for Obama in the first place. There are criticisms of Ron Paul from both the left and the right. One's opinion that Ron Paul is an assbutt has nothing to do with that person's opinion on Obama. And while I did vote for Obama, I never expected him to try and utterly change the system like Paul is promising to. I expected him to work with the system and try and make things better. Ironbite-he didn't really but that's to be expected. Well, Ron may want to get rid of medicare, Social Security, but he isn't that stupid (hopefully) and knows that people are dependent on it, and I'm not sure what he can do in 4 years. He also wants to cut the department of education and the EPA and repeal roe vs. wade. Do you think he'll actually do anything about money going into defense and end the federal reserve were he to win?
|
|
|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Dec 31, 2011 0:00:11 GMT -5
Exactly. Also, I don't care why he thinks businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on race. I still find that to be an absolutely unsupportable position. Because libertarianism is childish and moronic.Libertarians aren't even libertarian. They have absolutely no problem with gross violations of liberty by the private sector- in fact, as the Civil Rights Act point makes clear, they want to expand and extend the worst violations of basic liberty in modern society. The standard libertarian theory wants to expand the private violation of liberty in the name of reducing government 'tyranny'.I consider myself libertarian. I consider the rights of states and corporations to be important, but not as important as the rights of individuals.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Dec 31, 2011 1:01:56 GMT -5
I really don't understand the rationale behind state's rights being so important. Why not just admit we are one country and act like it or split up into 50 independent nations? As far as I can see, state's rights does more to promote cultural divides and allow for abuse than it does promote any benefit. After all, if state's rights were stronger we would have even more racial segregation in the south (which is already pretty bad). We also have huge disparities in education between different states (places like Massachusetts and Minnesota are awesome, Mississippi and Alabama-not so much). We can look at various indicators of well being and use those states as a model to form a strong federal government and a healthy nation. Take the public health policies of the states with the longest lifespans, the education policies of the states with the most high school graduates, the economic policies of the states with the highest wealth and lowest unemployment, and so forth. Granted, more detailed analysis will be needed to (one state may have longer life spans due not to public health policies, but because the air is cleaner due to less industrialization), but we have 50 different governing methods to look at, why not take the best from the lot?
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Dec 31, 2011 1:29:43 GMT -5
Because libertarianism is childish and moronic.Libertarians aren't even libertarian. They have absolutely no problem with gross violations of liberty by the private sector- in fact, as the Civil Rights Act point makes clear, they want to expand and extend the worst violations of basic liberty in modern society. The standard libertarian theory wants to expand the private violation of liberty in the name of reducing government 'tyranny'.I'm here referring to the rightist ideology broadly held by the corporate prostitutes of the Libertarian Party. Left-libertarianism/anarchy is a different story. States don't have rights, they have jobs. The libertarian view of Corporate/property rights standing in contrast to human rights- the right to equal or fair treatment, to vote, to speak, to live and so on- is morally indefensible.
|
|
|
Post by Jodie on Dec 31, 2011 2:51:05 GMT -5
Any one remember this? 2007 says hello.
|
|