|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| cdninkorea wrote: |
| [. What hasn't changed is his views. Watch his '88 election speech, given at at a college to a small audience, and you'll hear a much younger Paul say the same things he says now. Truly a man of principle. |
Hmm...I don't know. I should certainly HOPE he has changed some of his views when he was younger.
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/why-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-matter/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
Note, I don't necessarily think that the state should be in marriage, I like the idea of people being able to form unions for things like visitation and tax purposes, but this is the system that we have.
I don't want to have a lame duck president who can't do anything, and a country where nearly every single vote takes a 2/3's super majority. If you look at the disfunction we have now, it would be like that, but worse. While I am certianly sympathetic to some of his causes, and it is nice to have some one speaking the truth on the war on drugs and some other issues, he would make a terrible president. |
Paul would like to end "the system we have" and institute exactly what you mean. The government upholds contracts, and citizens/religions/whatever call it marriage or whatever they want to.
Paul's idea is that almost everything the Federal government is doing should be done by the States, if they want to do it. The various things you're hoping the Congress will pass, but would be stymied by a supermajority vote, could probably be done as well or better by the States individually. I think Obama's healthcare bill was a great example of that.
More importantly though, Paul is by far the best option of the 8 GOP candidates and Obama. Based on my 7 positions above, Paul obviously is my choice from the GOP. And since Obama has actively rejected most of those positions, or failed to get it done in the case of universal healthcare, I refuse to vote for him again. As I've also said in the past, I fully expect to vote for a Democrat in 2016 if Paul doesn't win (which will require some compromise of at least one of the points). But until then, Paul is by far the best option. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In the video linked he admits that he had a moral responsibility to keep that crap out of the newsletters others wrote in his name. As he says in the linked video, with decades of video/audio recorded of Ron Paul, -nothing- like that racist dribble has ever come from him.
And if you need a more authoritative opinion, look to Nelson Linder, the Director of the Texas office of NAACP. He testifies to both knowing Ron Paul for decades and to the fact that Paul is absolutely not racist. There's -very- little for people to dig up on Ron Paul. There are racist newsletters written by someone else with his name on the front. There is his belief that earmarks show citizens where Federal money goes, but that Federal money would ideally only be used for basic Constitutional uses anyway. And then there is "unelectability". Oh, or they can make fun of his age. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
Note, I don't necessarily think that the state should be in marriage, I like the idea of people being able to form unions for things like visitation and tax purposes, but this is the system that we have.
I don't want to have a lame duck president who can't do anything, and a country where nearly every single vote takes a 2/3's super majority. If you look at the disfunction we have now, it would be like that, but worse. While I am certianly sympathetic to some of his causes, and it is nice to have some one speaking the truth on the war on drugs and some other issues, he would make a terrible president. |
Paul would like to end "the system we have" and institute exactly what you mean. The government upholds contracts, and citizens/religions/whatever call it marriage or whatever they want to.
Paul's idea is that almost everything the Federal government is doing should be done by the States, if they want to do it. The various things you're hoping the Congress will pass, but would be stymied by a supermajority vote, could probably be done as well or better by the States individually. I think Obama's healthcare bill was a great example of that.
More importantly though, Paul is by far the best option of the 8 GOP candidates and Obama. Based on my 7 positions above, Paul obviously is my choice from the GOP. And since Obama has actively rejected most of those positions, or failed to get it done in the case of universal healthcare, I refuse to vote for him again. As I've also said in the past, I fully expect to vote for a Democrat in 2016 if Paul doesn't win (which will require some compromise of at least one of the points). But until then, Paul is by far the best option. |
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. You want Paul because you think he would be better for universal healthcare than Obama? This is the first time I've ever heard this reason. Obama passed universal healthcare, did you not notice? There is a lot of reasons to be disappointed in the man, and surely the healthcare bill is far from perfect, but it is the most done on the issue, that is very difficult to get done in this country, ever. I wouldn't worry too much about it being repealed anytime soon, despite what the congress says.
What state are you from? Maybe I view it differntly because I am from a conservative state. I grew up in North Carolina, and my parents live there. My state is conservative, although not as much as many other southern states. I don't want my state to have the right to be more regressive than other states. Why should someone in another state have substanially more rights than me? Why should I have to move if I want to enjoy my rights. It's absurd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. You want Paul because you think he would be better for universal healthcare than Obama? This is the first time I've ever heard this reason. Obama passed universal healthcare, did you not notice? There is a lot of reasons to be disappointed in the man, and surely the healthcare bill is far from perfect, but it is the most done on the issue, that is very difficult to get done in this country, ever. I wouldn't worry too much about it being repealed anytime soon, despite what the congress says. |
That's exactly what I'm saying, and I guess I didn't explain that as well as I could have earlier. Obama's bill isn't anything near what I'd like to see and as you said, "that is very difficult to get done in this country, ever". I see Obama's bill (which was beneficial) as being the full extent of what can be done in a country with so much opposition to what I'll specify as a single-payer healthcare system. At it's best, the current bill will have everyone in America under private insurance. It's better than it was, but not what I want.
| Leon wrote: |
What state are you from? Maybe I view it differntly because I am from a conservative state. I grew up in North Carolina, and my parents live there. My state is conservative, although not as much as many other southern states. I don't want my state to have the right to be more regressive than other states. Why should someone in another state have substanially more rights than me? Why should I have to move if I want to enjoy my rights. It's absurd. |
I'm from Virginia, which is regionally divided politically. Usually it's a net-conservative State, but went to Obama 51/49 in 2008. I have no doubts that there would be a LONG fight ahead for a single-payer system, drug legalization, marriage rights, and possibly even abortion rights. But I think that success in more liberal States in each of these fields would make them more palatable for Virginia's voters.
On the other hand, keeping all of those issues Federal prevents anyone from seeing how successfully they can be implemented. California was well on its way to demonstrating how harmless marijuana legalization would be, until Obama's recent crackdown on medical distribution. When you include the bullshit the FDA has put people through over raw milk, I can't even imagine what a social conservative President would put Americans through. And what can we do to protect our food rights? Move to Canada? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
In the video linked he admits that he had a moral responsibility to keep that crap out of the newsletters others wrote in his name. As he says in the linked video, with decades of video/audio recorded of Ron Paul, -nothing- like that racist dribble has ever come from him.
And if you need a more authoritative opinion, look to Nelson Linder, the Director of the Texas office of NAACP. He testifies to both knowing Ron Paul for decades and to the fact that Paul is absolutely not racist. There's -very- little for people to dig up on Ron Paul. There are racist newsletters written by someone else with his name on the front. There is his belief that earmarks show citizens where Federal money goes, but that Federal money would ideally only be used for basic Constitutional uses anyway. And then there is "unelectability". Oh, or they can make fun of his age. |
Except for the fact that Ron Paul initially ADMITTED to writing this nonsense. It was only after people told him this would hurt his Presidential chances that he changed his tune and said that others had wrote it in his name.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8aEGs0WLEc
http://afgen.com/ron_paul_lied.html
http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2007/12/faq-ron-paul-and-his-racist-newsletter.html#q2
Among other things, this last link lists a number of newspaper interviews in which RP admits to writing these. Did all those reporters and papers get it wrong?
| Quote: |
The common theme among these articles is that Ron Paul never once denies writing for the newsletter, and insists that he's been quoted out of context. For instance, the Dallas Morning News reports that:
Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation.
That's a very odd statement to make if you had absolutely no involvement with the newsletter in question. Although Ron Paul supporters will insist that he already denied the story, the ghostwriter invention didn't happen for another five years. Ron Paul was either lying in 1996, or he was lying in 2001. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Except for the fact that Ron Paul initially ADMITTED to writing this nonsense. It was only after people told him this would hurt his Presidential chances that he changed his tune and said that others had wrote it in his name. |
I'm sure that some of the decades of newsletters were written by him. If he was even aware of the ludicrously racist ones, he obviously would know that there was no "taken out of context" to them. It's entirely possible that he's a closet racist who praised Martin Luther King Jr. in public but denigrated him in "private". But it's also very possible that he was unaware of the disturbing content of the newsletters.
The links to small quotes from newspapers that have a racist slant unfortunately don't provide a link to any source material, and may be taken out of context. I won't say it's impossible that he's a racist, and I wouldn't say he'd have my support regardless, but this isn't particularly damning... especially with the endorsements from black leaders who know him well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Paul's main attraction to me is his integrity. One of the few candidates that I think won't be bought off by special interest money. Cain is similar as well but I agree more with Paul than I do Cain. I think Cain, while being a great rags to riches story strikes me as a guy who would do great running a department like Commerce or whatever but not a good President. I can see Cain agreeing with big defense, etc. and thinking he's being ideologically consistent but in reality a de facto pawn.
I don't agree with Paul on everything but I agree with him enough that I would vote for him if it came down to him and Obama. If for nothing else, the big money wouldn't have own him.
If its not Paul, I'll go with the devil I know with Obama. I don't think Romney will be an improvement and my guess is he'll be worse than Obama. Perry I don't like at all. Social conservatives scare me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If what the Urban Myth brings up is true, I would say that is the end of the ball game for Ron Paul. His is a favorite of Jon Stewart and I am surprised he hasn't brought up these accusations.
States rights has been tried a few times in the U.S. without much success. It has been used at least one time as a way for Southern states to justify slavery and Jim Crow laws. How do we know that that won't be the end result of a third attempt at "State's rights"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
States have lost a lot of power. First by force (Civil Rights, etc.) and now they have surrendered it willingly. The states are badly run and now rely on federal money for things that were always local or state issues such as education, law enforcement, etc. I can't see why someone in LA would be asking the president what he's going to do about crime in LA. The mayor and to a lesser extent the governor of California is as far as that should go. Similarly with education. Local money funds the school districts, usually property taxes in most states. The president shouldn't be held accountable because little Johnny in DesMoines, Iowa isn't getting a good education.
States nowadays don't have the money so state's rights isn't a major issue in anything of substance save social issues (gay marriage, abortion, teaching evolution v. creationism, etc.). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. You want Paul because you think he would be better for universal healthcare than Obama? This is the first time I've ever heard this reason. Obama passed universal healthcare, did you not notice? There is a lot of reasons to be disappointed in the man, and surely the healthcare bill is far from perfect, but it is the most done on the issue, that is very difficult to get done in this country, ever. I wouldn't worry too much about it being repealed anytime soon, despite what the congress says. |
That's exactly what I'm saying, and I guess I didn't explain that as well as I could have earlier. Obama's bill isn't anything near what I'd like to see and as you said, "that is very difficult to get done in this country, ever". I see Obama's bill (which was beneficial) as being the full extent of what can be done in a country with so much opposition to what I'll specify as a single-payer healthcare system. At it's best, the current bill will have everyone in America under private insurance. It's better than it was, but not what I want. |
You do know that Paul would do his best to kill everything Obama did with healthcare, and bring it back to what it was, or less? You would risk the biggest gain in the issue ever for the slow uncertian battle by the states. The states can already do what you want to an extent, just look at Mass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Except for the fact that Ron Paul initially ADMITTED to writing this nonsense. It was only after people told him this would hurt his Presidential chances that he changed his tune and said that others had wrote it in his name. |
I'm sure that some of the decades of newsletters were written by him. If he was even aware of the ludicrously racist ones, he obviously would know that there was no "taken out of context" to them. It's entirely possible that he's a closet racist who praised Martin Luther King Jr. in public but denigrated him in "private". But it's also very possible that he was unaware of the disturbing content of the newsletters.
The links to small quotes from newspapers that have a racist slant unfortunately don't provide a link to any source material, and may be taken out of context. I won't say it's impossible that he's a racist, and I wouldn't say he'd have my support regardless, but this isn't particularly damning... especially with the endorsements from black leaders who know him well. |
No source material? The third link I posted provides DIRECT LINKS to two Texas newspapers. Are you saying that all these newspapers have a racial slant?
| Quote: |
May 22, 1996 Dallas Morning News
May 23, 1996, Houston Chronicle
May 23, 1996, Austin American-Statesman
May 26, 1996 Washington Post
July 25, 1996, Houston Chronicle
July 25, 1996, Dallas Morning News
July 29, 1996, Roll Call
Aug. 13, 1996, Houston Chronicle
Sept. 26, 1996, Austin American-Statesman
Sept. 30, 1996, San Antonio Express-News
Oct. 11, 1996, Houston Chronicle
Oct. 11, 1996, Austin American-Statesman
Excerpts can be found on their website. I have also provided direct links to the 5/23/96 Houston Chronicle and the November 1996 Austin Chronicle. The common theme among these articles is that Ron Paul never once denies writing for the newsletter, and insists that he's been quoted out of context. |
The link gives the links to the Houston Chronicle and the Austin Chronicle. These are local U.S. newspapers so please explain the "racist slant" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
The link gives the links to the Houston Chronicle and the Austin Chronicle. These are local U.S. newspapers so please explain the "racist slant" |
Perfect! Those newspapers are quoting some of the newsletters in question, not Paul directly. At first, I thought that the newspaper's quotations were from an interview with Paul, but they're from the newsletters printed under his name.
I'm sure many of the newsletters were originally written by him, and it's pretty unfortunate that he wasn't astute enough to prevent trash from being printed in his name... But the links to those newspaper articles reinforce that the only place you find racist remarks "from Paul" are from the newsletters he didn't write. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
The link gives the links to the Houston Chronicle and the Austin Chronicle. These are local U.S. newspapers so please explain the "racist slant" |
Perfect! Those newspapers are quoting some of the newsletters in question, not Paul directly. At first, I thought that the newspaper's quotations were from an interview with Paul, but they're from the newsletters printed under his name.
I'm sure many of the newsletters were originally written by him, and it's pretty unfortunate that he wasn't astute enough to prevent trash from being printed in his name... But the links to those newspaper articles reinforce that the only place you find racist remarks "from Paul" are from the newsletters he didn't write. |
Except that Paul didn't deny that he wrote them for the first five years this was an issue. Not until 2001 did he suddenly change his claim and say it was a "ghostwriter". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jrwhite82
Joined: 22 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
By that logic, no one should ever vote for anyone except the eventual winner.
|
And even then, sometimes the winner doesn't even win. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
