Calling all Ron Paulians!

Dumpy Dooby · 06-11-2007, 04:18 PM

There is a series of posts on the Daily Kos which contain a great deal of Ron Paul bashery. A lot of it seems like legitimate reasons to question the guy's integrity (don't get me wrong, I'm still voting for him; but some of those things had me going

). These are all points that will be picked up by mainstream media if he gets more popular. So how can we address these now? Is it possible for us to nip these in the butt before they spread far and wide? We're going to have to retaliate if we're going to see him to the top.

Daily Kos: State of the Nation

It's a very long read, but I suggest any Ron Paul advocate read all of it, and even check some of the sources. I spent a good three hours going over everything just now.

edit:
I'm starting a list of things with which I do not agree.

A bill authored by Ron Paul entitled, "Sanctity of Life Act of 2007" [link]
Voted against [link] reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act of 1965 [link]
He supports Defense of Marriage Act [link] and Marriage Protection Act [link], both of which violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

Ardentfrost · 06-11-2007, 04:46 PM

I don't have 3 hours to dedicate to looking through it like you did, but the first few racist quotes do seem bad. I can almost excuse him since that was back when DC was pretty freakin' bad. I don't think he was pointing his finger at the race, but rather them being a tool used to promote more government programs.

I think it's difficult to see exactly where he was coming from in that particular article without looking at what was going on at the time. He might be just another racist fuck, but this is the first indication I've seen he would be. I'm sure once shit hits the fan he'll have some sort of response.

Dumpy Dooby · 06-11-2007, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I don't have 3 hours to dedicate to looking through it like you did, but the first few racist quotes do seem bad. I can almost excuse him since that was back when DC was pretty freakin' bad. I don't think he was pointing his finger at the race, but rather them being a tool used to promote more government programs.

I think it's difficult to see exactly where he was coming from in that particular article without looking at what was going on at the time. He might be just another racist fuck, but this is the first indication I've seen he would be. I'm sure once shit hits the fan he'll have some sort of response.

He said the racist remarks weren't written by him, but he couldn't admit that during his campaign. After the campaign, he said that he didn't write that stuff.

But as the author points out, that shouldn't matter. Those comments were part of a nine page series. It's not like it was a 200pg book. He should have reviewed it before he let someone stamp his name on it. Plain and simple.

Nevertheless, as Ron Paul supporters, we should look to defend his credibility by diverting focus to the real author of those articles, the one that actually wrote the racist remarks.

RMNIXON · 06-11-2007, 04:58 PM

Funny that the Left-Wing anti-government conspiracy theorists want to bash Ron for his connections with the Right-Wing mirror image of the early 90's before Oklahoma City drove them back into the woodwork. Just remove the UN, CFR, Trilateral Commission, and replace it with NEOCONS, Haliburton, and PNAC and it reads much the same.

Daily KOS will throw rocks at anybody who is not with their agenda, Democrats and ant-war Republicans included. What a joke when they try to point out others narrow-minded intolerance!

But if half of this report is true Paul may be in serious trouble? Somebody is going to have those Newsletters and will sell them for a price. You can't keep dirty laundry out of a Presidential Campaign!

DosEquis · 06-11-2007, 05:03 PM

I dont think racist remarks are going to be detrimental to a republican campaign. They didn't hurt Bush.

Dumpy Dooby · 06-11-2007, 05:08 PM

A bill authored by Ron Paul entitled, "Sanctity of Life Act of 2007" [link]

Voted against [link] reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act of 1965 [link]

He supports Defense of Marriage Act [link] and Marriage Protection Act [link], both of which violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

RMNIXON · 06-11-2007, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I dont think racist remarks are going to be detrimental to a republican campaign. They didn't hurt Bush.

I am sure you have all kinds of quotes to share with us:

Ardentfrost · 06-11-2007, 05:13 PM

The more I read, the more I thought the writer was ignorant of a lot of things. The racist stuff I know nothing about, but a lot of the other stuff that he complains about is b/c RP wants the same thing as him.

For instance, at the end he mentions RP wants to repeal OSHA and Mine Safety Laws, but that's because he wants workplace safety to be in the hands of the people who want to be safe. By advocating more government intervention into those things, he is stupidly advocating less safety as history shows (I've been over it at least 3 times on these very forums).

The author criticizes RP's stance on taxation, but that's because he WANTS the taxation. So that's just a difference in opinions. There's little hope for the author in seeing that distribution of wealth is a bad thing.

The author uses these rating systems over and over again that are just silly. Because he votes against something that is intended to help a certain group of people does not mean he hates that group of people. That is a false dilemma. He wants a lot of the same stuff the author wants, but the author simply doesn't understand where RP is coming from.

With the church and state separation thing, again, RP doesn't necessarily want all forms of gov't to have religious dogma plastered around its buildings, but to let the people directly affected decide. If big city courthouse has the 10 commandments on the side of the courthouse and a shit ton of people complain and no one defends it, then sure, take that shit down... it's THEIR courthouse. But if you're in bumblefuck USA with a population of 200 people and one fucker complains about the same thing, fuck that guy. If he is really bothered by everyone else's desire to keep it up, then he can leave that area. Having a large and diverse nation means there's somewhere for everyone.

I do know about the non-libertarian stances RP has on immigration and Gays. No one is perfect, and I've pointed that out before. I don't think 4 or 8 years of him as president would give a chance for those unagreeable stances to make any headway with so much other stuff to do.

The author's assessment of Civil Rights is especially retarded. RP is 100% correct in saying that if you have racist legislation, you promote racism. This is the same thing we were talking about in the Hate Crime thread the other day. If someone kills a black man because he's black, he should serve the punishment for commiting the murder. Likewise, even without the Voting Rights Act, if a black man is kept from voting, it would STILL be illegal. By pointing out the race aspect of it at a federal level, you are merely propagating that racism.

That's my take on the last article the guy wrote. I skimmed all of them, and most of them looked equally misinformed and retarded. The guy does a good job of hiding the fact that he's misleading the reader though.

RMNIXON · 06-11-2007, 05:25 PM

A very thoughtful defense. I took another look at the Voting rights act:

"Sec. 1973 Denial or abridgement of right to vote on account of race or color through voting qualifications or prerequisites; establishment of violation

(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b) of this section."

Now what if it reads:

"Sec. 1973 Denial or abridgement of right to vote through voting qualifications or prerequisites; establishment of violation

(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b) of this section."

It would have the same legal power but would clearly mean all citizens, not just considerations of race and color. Civil Rights are for everybody!

Ardentfrost · 06-11-2007, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

A very thoughtful defense. I took another look at the Voting rights act:

"Sec. 1973 Denial or abridgement of right to vote on account of race or color through voting qualifications or prerequisites; establishment of violation

(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b) of this section."

Now what if it reads:

"Sec. 1973 Denial or abridgement of right to vote through voting qualifications or prerequisites; establishment of violation

(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b) of this section."

It would have the same legal power but would clearly mean all citizens, not just considerations of race and color. Civil Rights are for everybody!

Well, sure, except that is already a law via the constitution itself. Do we need to restate stuff in the constitution? I don't think so, because that lends itself to even more wording issues. Infringing on rights through "clarification." Not saying your rewording does that, but I just think we should be leaving constitutional interpretation to the courts instead of to legislators.

DosEquis · 06-13-2007, 11:29 PM

Ron paul to be on the Colbert Report in a few minutes

redwards · 06-14-2007, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Ron paul to be on the Colbert Report in a few minutes

He did great on Stewart, too.

It's hilarious, Ron Paul's biggest support is probably the mass of democrat or independant-registered youth. He's the only Republican candidate who'd have a great shot at mopping the floor with a democrat in the race, but he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell at getting nominated.

AVengeance · 06-14-2007, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

He supports Defense of Marriage Act [link] and Marriage Protection Act [link], both of which violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

Where did the Defense of Marriage Act come from? And the Marriage Protection Act? Looks like Paul just wants it to remain in the hands of the states, and not allow it to get Federalized one way or the other. I'm all for that as a step in the right direction. I think government at any level, ESPECIALLY federal, has no business defining ANY marriage, straight, gay, or otherwise. Marriage is from God, and the only way it's from the State is if your god is the State.

RMNIXON · 06-14-2007, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

Where did the Defense of Marriage Act come from? And the Marriage Protection Act? Looks like Paul just wants it to remain in the hands of the states, and not allow it to get Federalized one way or the other. I'm all for that as a step in the right direction. I think government at any level, ESPECIALLY federal, has no business defining ANY marriage, straight, gay, or otherwise. Marriage is from God, and the only way it's from the State is if your god is the State.

Marriage is historically a moral contract between two people who wish to have a family through sexual reproduction (Man and Woman). Both words "marriage" and "family" have clear meaning. Over time we have made marriage a legal issue. So what was an obligation has now become a right with benefits and you see people fighting over spoils not responcibilities. Paul wants society to decide what marriage is, not the government. The best way to do that is to keep it as a matter for the Church and local government.