Limbs
Joined: 04 Feb 2011
Posts: 637
|
MCGF wrote:
Limbs wrote:
3flip wrote:
Why is Paul such a scary alternative?
Because he is a crazy bigot.
Please elaborate.
I think the evidence for his bigotry and racism is pretty well documented on this here forum. |
Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:42 pm |
|
|
futuristxen
Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19343
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt |
At this point I think his racism is a bit overstated. Considering the claims are based on newsletters that he didn't even write from 30 years ago. He bears a responsibility that something like that went out like that under his name--but at some point you have to forgive the guy and move forward. There's nothing recent to indicate that he has extremely bigoted beliefs. At least any moreso than any of the other candidates. |
|
Sun Jan 08, 2012 6:21 pm |
|
|
tommi teardrop
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2180
Location: Las Vegas |
I'm pretty disillusioned with politics right now, but not to the point where I'm embracing a laissez-faire isolationist that wants to bring back the gold standard.
You guys are off your rocker. |
|
Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:30 am |
|
|
jakethesnake
guy who cried about wrestling being real
Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6244
Location: airstrip one |
tommi teardrop wrote:
I'm pretty disillusioned with politics right now, but not to the point where I'm embracing a laissez-faire isolationist that wants to bring back the gold standard.
You guys are off your rocker.
“Yes, Obama duped young people by not doing every single thing they want. So now, they’ll all vote Republican. It’s like when I want some bread, I won’t settle for half a loaf. Instead, I will have a muffin made of broken glass.” -Stephen Colbert |
|
Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:00 pm |
|
|
Jesse
Joined: 02 Jul 2002
Posts: 6166
Location: privileged homeless |
futuristxen wrote:
but at some point you have to forgive the guy and move forward.
What?? Why? Who says? No you can TOTALLY hold that shit against him forever; don't be ridiculous.
Also he is bigoted against WOMEN himself, personally, right now. Nobody wrote his anti-choice agenda for him, he genuinely has designs to fuck up abortion access as soon as he gets a chance, and he's psyched about it. Holy shit is it ever time for people to stop giving this fuckhead slack. |
|
Mon Jan 09, 2012 6:34 pm |
|
|
Self Conscious
Joined: 01 Apr 2009
Posts: 322
Location: Sleeping in a box car dreaming of lost starts |
Ron Paul isn't crazy?
<object><param></param><param></param><param></param></object>
he is talking about the NWO/Illuminati/Freemasons for fucksake |
|
Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:45 pm |
|
|
Self Conscious
Joined: 01 Apr 2009
Posts: 322
Location: Sleeping in a box car dreaming of lost starts |
|
 |
|
MCGF wrote:
Self Conscious wrote:
What more would you like him to do when in comes to helping the Palestinians? there is this thing called the public and influential Israel lobbying groups who would hit him hard if he did anything more. you cant get anything done if you lose an election and are out of a job. the arab spring will do more to help the Palestinians than anything we can do. once there are legitimate democracies in the middle east besides Israel, people will have to listen and adjust political one-sidedness that exists for Israel in this country.
MCGF wrote:
See, Ron Paul wouldn't give a shit about the Israel lobby. He would be tough on the Israelis which is what is needed for the peace process to actually begin.
you cant just ignore the Israel lobby. ron paul, and im guessing yourself, would argue that pushing democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan was the wrong way to go about it. It creates a certain smell of illegitimacy; which creates doubt in its strength and a strong basis for opposition. true peace process will come when both sides come to the conclusion that they want it; something that will probably never happen. the same goes for a change in public opinion on the case of Israelis vs. Palestinians. As I said above, the Arab spring will do more to help the Palestinians than anything we can do. once there are legitimate democracies in the middle east besides Israel, people will have to listen and adjust political one-sidedness that exists for Israel in this country. I cannot see how one might demonize the Bush administration for forcing something on a group of people while saying that that same thing is okay when it comes to something that they agree with? Ron Paul, as you state it, would be okay with telling a sovereign nation what to do and at the same argue that the United States shouldn't do the same for Afghanistan or Iran.
MCGF wrote:
Self Conscious wrote:
People need to get over Gitmo, he believes in trails for those prisoners.
Sorry, I'm not going to "get over Gitmo." How irrational of me! It's only indefinite detention of "enemy combatants" without trial! Yes, I know many Republicans would have squawked if Obama had actually tried to end Guantanamo. Some Democrats too. Obama would have needed to take a stand... but Obama never takes a stand. All of this boils down to: you would rather have a president whose "heart is in the right place" but consistently disappoints you than one who would take a stand for the rule of law regardless of the political climate (but who believes in all these naughty things and has an R next to his name!).
Defending civil liberties isn't ideology, numbnut.
You can resort to name calling all you want but that doesn't change the fact Gitmo was never going to get closed. Yes according to the Supreme Court, detainees should have legal rights under the constitution but politics does come in to play, as you mentioned. Obama cannot change anything if out of a job. Just standing on moral high ground without the ability to get anything done is in fact ideology getting in the way. You also (conveniently) ignore the fact that Obama did stick his head out when coming to charging detainees in civilian courts and almost got it chopped off.
I don't give a shit about the R next to Ron Paul's name. You are in fact letting your ideology in the way if you believe that being right is better than being in a position to get anything done. I talked about forgetting about Gitmo in the context of: blaming the president for disappointing your inflated expectations of the powers he has (same goes for Ron Paul) will not solve the answer, in fact, it deflects it. Talking about why detainees should have legal rights and why Gitmo should be closed is what you should be talking about not throwing exaggerated complaints against Obama.
Vote for Paul, do whatever you want. Just remember those inflated expectations you had for Obama when doing so. Maybe you haven't but don't ignore Paul's stances on everything other than foreign affairs when making you decision; which seems to be the case with many of Paul's supporters. |
|
Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:53 am |
|
|
Self Conscious
Joined: 01 Apr 2009
Posts: 322
Location: Sleeping in a box car dreaming of lost starts |
|
|
|
[quote="MCGF"] Self Conscious wrote:
ron paul's foreign policy is an authoritarian way of thinking, he ignores evidence contrary to his narrow point of view of the world. he is totally incapable of critical thinking.
You are speaking gibberish. Ron Paul has a libertarian viewpoint, yes. But incapable of critical thinking? One can have strong, persistent beliefs and still be capable of critical thinking. [\quote]
From the book The Authoritarians:
A filing cabinet or a computer can store quite inconsistent notions and never lose a minute of sleep over their contradiction. Similarly a high RWA can have all sorts of illogical, self-contradictory, and widely refuted ideas rattling around in various boxes in his brain, and never notice it.
So can everybody, of course, and my wife loves to catch inconsistencies in my reasoning when we’re having a friendly discussion about one of my personal failures.But research reveals that authoritarian followers drive through life under the influence of impaired thinking a lot more than most people do, exhibiting sloppy reasoning, highly compartmentalized beliefs, double standards, hypocrisy, self-blindness, a profound ethnocentrism, and--to top it all off--a ferocious dogmatism that makes it unlikely anyone could ever change their minds with evidence or logic.
Sound familiar? Paul believes in the return to the gold standard dispite the handful of evidence against it. Ex. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0195101138. He believes in removing all troops we have around the world dispite the evidence of how dangerous that would be. He believes that soon their will be a world currency indirectly creating a one world government, as referenced by the clip above, dispite the evidence against that notion. He thinks he has the answer to everything and that his is right even in the face of opposing evidence. |
|
Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:37 am |
|
|
3flip
Joined: 30 Dec 2003
Posts: 2199
Location: Minneapolis |
|
|
|
[quote="Self Conscious"] MCGF wrote:
Self Conscious wrote:
ron paul's foreign policy is an authoritarian way of thinking, he ignores evidence contrary to his narrow point of view of the world. he is totally incapable of critical thinking.
You are speaking gibberish. Ron Paul has a libertarian viewpoint, yes. But incapable of critical thinking? One can have strong, persistent beliefs and still be capable of critical thinking. [\quote]
From the book The Authoritarians:
A filing cabinet or a computer can store quite inconsistent notions and never lose a minute of sleep over their contradiction. Similarly a high RWA can have all sorts of illogical, self-contradictory, and widely refuted ideas rattling around in various boxes in his brain, and never notice it.
So can everybody, of course, and my wife loves to catch inconsistencies in my reasoning when we’re having a friendly discussion about one of my personal failures.But research reveals that authoritarian followers drive through life under the influence of impaired thinking a lot more than most people do, exhibiting sloppy reasoning, highly compartmentalized beliefs, double standards, hypocrisy, self-blindness, a profound ethnocentrism, and--to top it all off--a ferocious dogmatism that makes it unlikely anyone could ever change their minds with evidence or logic.
Sound familiar? Paul believes in the return to the gold standard dispite the handful of evidence against it. Ex. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0195101138. He believes in removing all troops we have around the world dispite the evidence of how dangerous that would be. He believes that soon their will be a world currency indirectly creating a one world government, as referenced by the clip above, dispite the evidence against that notion. He thinks he has the answer to everything and that his is right even in the face of opposing evidence.
you are wrong though. A big problem with all the Paul bashers here is a failure to distinguish between what Paul believes would be most efficient in a perfect ideological world and what he would actually do as president in this world 2012. He is an advocate of allowing competing currencies. He believes in drastically cutting military expenditures.
this is the one that really gets me. How is any progressive a bigger fan of Obama's foreign policy (an extension of the Bush foreign policy) than of Paul's? Do we really need troops in Germany? Should we really be aiding Pakistan while bombing them at the same time? You ready to go into Syria? Should we really have put sanctions on Iran? Isn't that the first step to war? What exactly do you think will happen if we cut our military by half? Most importantly, if we don't cut down on our military expenses (and in fact continue down the road of increasing it exponentially) we will end up like every other empire, bankrupting ourselves. |
|
Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:11 pm |
|
|
3flip
Joined: 30 Dec 2003
Posts: 2199
Location: Minneapolis |
Self Conscious wrote:
Ron Paul isn't crazy?
<object><param></param><param></param><param></param></object>
he is talking about the NWO/Illuminati/Freemasons for fucksake
disclaimer: Alex Jones is crazy and a fear monger.
having said that, you are being misleading. I didn't hear any mention from either of them on the illuminate or free masons. And, while Jones keeps talking about NWO then asks Paul about it he doesn't use the words but says "I think they are trying to push for a new monetary order" |
|
Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:29 pm |
|
|
Self Conscious
Joined: 01 Apr 2009
Posts: 322
Location: Sleeping in a box car dreaming of lost starts |
3flip wrote:
Self Conscious wrote:
Ron Paul isn't crazy?
<object><param></param><param></param><param></param></object>
he is talking about the NWO/Illuminati/Freemasons for fucksake
disclaimer: Alex Jones is crazy and a fear monger.
having said that, you are being misleading. I didn't hear any mention from either of them on the illuminate or free masons. And, while Jones keeps talking about NWO then asks Paul about it he doesn't use the words but says "I think they are trying to push for a new monetary order"
actually he says a world currency would be created indirectly creating a one world government |
|
Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:28 pm |
|
|
Self Conscious
Joined: 01 Apr 2009
Posts: 322
Location: Sleeping in a box car dreaming of lost starts |
|
|
|
[quote="3flip"] Self Conscious wrote:
MCGF wrote:
Self Conscious wrote:
ron paul's foreign policy is an authoritarian way of thinking, he ignores evidence contrary to his narrow point of view of the world. he is totally incapable of critical thinking.
You are speaking gibberish. Ron Paul has a libertarian viewpoint, yes. But incapable of critical thinking? One can have strong, persistent beliefs and still be capable of critical thinking. [\quote]
From the book The Authoritarians:
A filing cabinet or a computer can store quite inconsistent notions and never lose a minute of sleep over their contradiction. Similarly a high RWA can have all sorts of illogical, self-contradictory, and widely refuted ideas rattling around in various boxes in his brain, and never notice it.
So can everybody, of course, and my wife loves to catch inconsistencies in my reasoning when we’re having a friendly discussion about one of my personal failures.But research reveals that authoritarian followers drive through life under the influence of impaired thinking a lot more than most people do, exhibiting sloppy reasoning, highly compartmentalized beliefs, double standards, hypocrisy, self-blindness, a profound ethnocentrism, and--to top it all off--a ferocious dogmatism that makes it unlikely anyone could ever change their minds with evidence or logic.
Sound familiar? Paul believes in the return to the gold standard dispite the handful of evidence against it. Ex. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0195101138. He believes in removing all troops we have around the world dispite the evidence of how dangerous that would be. He believes that soon their will be a world currency indirectly creating a one world government, as referenced by the clip above, dispite the evidence against that notion. He thinks he has the answer to everything and that his is right even in the face of opposing evidence.
you are wrong though. A big problem with all the Paul bashers here is a failure to distinguish between what Paul believes would be most efficient in a perfect ideological world and what he would actually do as president in this world 2012. He is an advocate of allowing competing currencies. He believes in drastically cutting military expenditures.
this is the one that really gets me. How is any progressive a bigger fan of Obama's foreign policy (an extension of the Bush foreign policy) than of Paul's? Do we really need troops in Germany? Should we really be aiding Pakistan while bombing them at the same time? You ready to go into Syria? Should we really have put sanctions on Iran? Isn't that the first step to war? What exactly do you think will happen if we cut our military by half? Most importantly, if we don't cut down on our military expenses (and in fact continue down the road of increasing it exponentially) we will end up like every other empire, bankrupting ourselves.
i am a bigger fan of Obama's foreign policy. do i think that we can cut down on military spending? yes, but there is a huge difference between that and removing ourselves from every part of the globe and essentially dismantling our military. Despite what Ron Paul fans think there are very real reasons for housing troops in different countries. There are very real reasons why we should be giving aid to a nuclear nation in Pakistan. There are very real human rights claims and strategic reasons to help the people in Syria. Sanctions aren't the first step to war; despite what you hear we are not going to war with Iran. There are very real dangers in significantly cutting down our military, ones which Paul supporters ignore. With his supporters, it is always Paul is right and it is his way or no way. All of these things are ignored by Paul supporters because they are so dogmatic in their beliefs.
Another question I have for Paul progressives is how you feel about human rights in a case such as Syria? |
|
Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:41 pm |
|
|
AdamBomb
Joined: 05 Mar 2004
Posts: 3136
Location: Louisiana |
|
|
|
Its the same shit every election. Not to say abortion, same sex marriage and evolution aren't important issues, but the president has little to no power over these issues. All these candidates just manipulate voters by getting them to focus on all these polarizing topics and then in the mean time, shit that will really fuck us up goes unquestioned. Whether or not Ron Paul wins, his presence and dialog have put a lot of discussions on the table that wouldn't normally take place. Ron Paul brings up specifics and real issues, instead of "my business record shows..." and "my character is....". This is all superficial bullshit. A lot of you have problems with Ron Paul on his opinions of certain issues. I'm saying that at least he has opinions. All these other numnuts have no opinion on anything unless its been scrubbed through their handlers (I'm looking at Romney, Santorum and yes, Obama). Its all "fake it till you make it" and we are all worse off with assholes like these. If Romney or Santorum become president, I think I want to move to another country for those 4 years. |
|
Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:58 pm |
|
|
Z-0
Joined: 28 Sep 2004
Posts: 700
Location: Sydney |
from romney's NH speech tonight
“He doesn’t see the need for overwhelming American military superiority. I will insist on a military so powerful no one would think of challenging it."
though he's referring to obama there's an obvious reference to paul here too. |
|
Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:39 pm |
|
|
futuristxen
Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19343
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt |
|
|
|
I am so tired of left-wing scare tactics trying to scare me into voting for democrats.
There is not a significant difference between Obama and most of the republican field. The only candidate who legitimately offers something different from the one party system we have going now is Ron Paul. I'm willing to roll the dice on the social issues this time around if it means we get someone into office who isn't owned by Goldman Sachs, will dismantle the military industrial complex, and who will end these ridiculous robot wars with the rest of the world.
The Obama administration has shown it's true colors with NDAA, SOPA, and the violent repression of OWS. He has been just as bad as Bush was. And at least under Bush I had a job. I've never been out of work so long in my entire life as I have under the Obama administration. Get me a job. Stop fucking with the bill of rights. Stop killing innocent people in bullshit wars. Stop bailing out too big to fail banks.
Oh and his healthcare bill sucked too. That system is still broke as hell.
Oh also dude was president over one of the worst environmental disasters ever with the gulf oil disaster.
Hope and change indeed.
That said I won't be voting for any of the other republican nominees. Only Ron Paul if he makes it through. Otherwise I'll go third party. If that costs Obama the presidency, I could give a fuck. |
|
Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:31 am |
|
|
 
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours. The time now is Sun May 19, 2013 5:51 am
|
|
|
|
| |
