Ron Paul either a liar or incompetent

[lew]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Ron Paul apperance on Meet the Press and my partial analysis

oh reary?

Yes, really.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Simius

You might have to expand your post a bit because this went over my head...

...maybe I should post this in your linked thread, but I found it funny that he was talking about following the constitution AND talking about eliminating the income tax... which is allowed by the constitution.

I also found it funny that he thinks pulling our troops home would save money when our overseas bases are subsidized by the countries they are in. We'd still have to have bases and have the troops regardless of where they are stationed...

But again... I'm not entirely sure which part you wanted to highlight that demonstrates that he doesn't just blindly follow his principles.

yeah sorry the part in question was where he sacrificed his scruples to benefit is constituents, ie pork

[lew]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

yeah sorry the part in question was where he sacrificed his scruples to benefit is constituents, ie pork

Too bad he didn't do that.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by lew

Too bad he didn't do that.

NPH wouldn't do that, aight

[lew]

What I posted on OT:


I think most of us agree that Paul did not write those letters since they don't match his style found in numerous other articles, speeches, etc (except for maybe ghosthunter but no one cares what he thinks anyways).

So, that leads us to this: Either Paul agrees with the letters for the most part (even though he didn't write them) or he doesn't agree and was completely ignorant of them - which also probably means to some people that he is incompetent.

Given that Paul has come out numerous times saying he doesn't agree with the letters, then you're left with either he's a liar or he's ignorant of them. Being that I can't find him to be a liar in any other area, I'm prone to also believe him in this area. If he had a record of lying, then by all means, he'd probably be lying in this case.

So, to me that leaves him being ignorant and possibly incompetent. Being that Paul is very libertarian (just look here) (Tucker says "Paul is no demagogue, and probably couldn't be if he tried. He's too libertarian. He can't stand to tell other people what to do, even people who've shown up looking for instructions. On board the campaign's tiny chartered jet one night (the plane was so small my legs were intertwined with the candidate's for the entire flight), Paul and his staff engaged in an unintentionally hilarious exchange about the cabin lights. The staff wanted to know whether Paul preferred the lights on or off. Not wanting to be bossy, Paul wouldn't say. Ultimately, the staff had to guess. It was a long three minutes.") it's completely possible that he had no idea what was being written under his name in those newsletters since he wouldn't actively investigate them anyway since he allows people to do as they will. Let's assume this is the case: does that make him incompetent? Some will argue that if he can't (or chooses not to) control a small campaign staff, how could he "run the country?"

Let's ignore for the moment that the President even "runs the country" (since he doesn't) and let's get straight to the point - does his libertarianism make Paul incompetent? Some will say yes, I will say no. In fact, I view this as a perfect example of why Paul will make a great President. He will do what is exactly needed to once again make this nation great - he will get the hell out of the way. Let people live and do what they will. Let the economy work itself out. Let local government work out its problems. It won't be perfect, but it will make a better system than we have now. Those that love the welfare / warfare system will look at Paul's inactions and call him incompetent but I will look at those same inactions and call him great.

That about sums up my whole position on this issue.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

And just to get this straight, no one in this thread thinks RP is a racist, right? This is ALL about him getting a newsletter started to try to get the ideas of freedom out there, it getting out of control because the editor he hired was apparently inept thus creating a situation where he had to shut the whole project down, and him not knowing specifically who wrote those particular articles since that person had nothing to do with RP directly?

Am I summing this up correctly?

How about attaching your name to something you state that you are against. I have a little problem with that, I thought RP was a man of principle. This is what a man of prinicple says about his name:

John Proctor: Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name!

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by lew

What I posted on OT:


I think most of us agree that Paul did not write those letters since they don't match his style found in numerous other articles, speeches, etc (except for maybe ghosthunter but no one cares what he thinks anyways).

So, that leads us to this: Either Paul agrees with the letters for the most part (even though he didn't write them) or he doesn't agree and was completely ignorant of them - which also probably means to some people that he is incompetent.

Given that Paul has come out numerous times saying he doesn't agree with the letters, then you're left with either he's a liar or he's ignorant of them. Being that I can't find him to be a liar in any other area, I'm prone to also believe him in this area. If he had a record of lying, then by all means, he'd probably be lying in this case.

So, to me that leaves him being ignorant and possibly incompetent. Being that Paul is very libertarian (just look here) (Tucker says "Paul is no demagogue, and probably couldn't be if he tried. He's too libertarian. He can't stand to tell other people what to do, even people who've shown up looking for instructions. On board the campaign's tiny chartered jet one night (the plane was so small my legs were intertwined with the candidate's for the entire flight), Paul and his staff engaged in an unintentionally hilarious exchange about the cabin lights. The staff wanted to know whether Paul preferred the lights on or off. Not wanting to be bossy, Paul wouldn't say. Ultimately, the staff had to guess. It was a long three minutes.") it's completely possible that he had no idea what was being written under his name in those newsletters since he wouldn't actively investigate them anyway since he allows people to do as they will. Let's assume this is the case: does that make him incompetent? Some will argue that if he can't (or chooses not to) control a small campaign staff, how could he "run the country?"

Let's ignore for the moment that the President even "runs the country" (since he doesn't) and let's get straight to the point - does his libertarianism make Paul incompetent? Some will say yes, I will say no. In fact, I view this as a perfect example of why Paul will make a great President. He will do what is exactly needed to once again make this nation great - he will get the hell out of the way. Let people live and do what they will. Let the economy work itself out. Let local government work out its problems. It won't be perfect, but it will make a better system than we have now. Those that love the welfare / warfare system will look at Paul's inactions and call him incompetent but I will look at those same inactions and call him great.

That about sums up my whole position on this issue.

He attached his name to a racist newsletter and that would make him a great President

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

How about attaching your name to something you state that you are against. I have a little problem with that, I thought RP was a man of principle. This is what a man of prinicple says about his name:

John Proctor: Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name!

He's said he's not racist. I don't know what you're saying

[lew]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

He attached his name to a racist newsletter and that would make him a great President

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

He's said he's not racist. I don't know what you're saying

then he is incompetent.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by lew

hands off things, like his racist newspaper or leaving the lights on a plane, means he would be a great president?

[Thorgrim]

Again, I'll point out, he's racist like the Drayton's were racist

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Again, I'll point out, he's racist like the Drayton's were racist

the who?

[Fed Up]

Good analysis of this issue below...

...was defending him on Malkin's site and forgot about the "Election 2008" page of this forum. I was wondering why I didn't see it discussed on "the Floor" till just recently.

Ron Paul is Not A Bigot: Refuting the New Republic Charges

Fed Up

[kombayn]

I'm sorry, but Ron Paul is the only candidate that actually speaks about his programs and what they'll do for the country. Everyone either talks about the change they make and health insurance for everyone (which will most likely bankrupt of SS and Welfare system, which isn't a bad thing but I feel bad for the people that will suffer because it wasn't properly executed out of our system) or cutting taxes. Ron Paul is #1 when it comes to economics, he understands we can't keeping printing out money like we're doing, which is what we're doing. Only now are people coming to realize that the Federal Reserve is one of the most corrupted systems around and our government doesn't even have a say in it... Think about that, a private-company controls our currency, that's really sad to think about, because they'll bankrupt this country and it'll make the Great Depression look a little bit sunny.

[Simius]

Well, at least we aren't resorting to broad generalizations and scare tactics.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

the who?

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967) ?

His fault lies in having sought the support of racists in the past & being too scared of loosing their support by denouncing the comments at the time.

Claims that his libertarian principles dont allow him to correct/rebuke those who disparage his reputation seem disengenious to me. If true ,then he can be portrayed as dangerously permissive

Its simple, ..., either you think racism is such an important issue that politicos have to be able to show that they have a history of strident anti-racism or you dont think its that big a deal &/or are a racist yourself

I'm the former & thus RP is holed below the waterline for me, (as if that matters etc).
OTOH the TNR stuff does over-reach & does smack of Mcathyism, ..., slightly

I've been ill over the last week or so & so missed the analysis of the various primaries etc. Is it believed that this issue has cost him support? I'd be surprised & disappointed if it hasnt

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by avsp

His fault lies in having sought the support of racists in the past & being too scared of loosing their support by denouncing the comments at the time.

I've been ill over the last week or so & so missed the analysis of the various primaries etc. Is it believed that this issue has cost him support? I'd be surprised & disappointed if it hasnt

Your first statement is pure speculation on your behalf. There is no proof that he sought support of racists.

(And on a side note, it's "losing" - not "loosing" - common mistake)

Regarding the second statement I quoted above;

It hasn't cost him support. He was second in Nevada and Lousiana (maybe first as the counting hasn't finished). The MSM isn't interested. The questions haven't been asked during the debate by Fox News or MSNBC. If they thought it was important, they would pursue it.

Unless they are waiting to see how Paul does in Florida or Super Tuesday. Otherwise, it is a non-issue to them, but an issue for some in this forum, Michelle Malkin's Klan and a few others.

The other forums I participate on don't dwell on it. I have brought the subject up so as to not sweep it under the rug. I also don't have a problem with it being asked at the debate. Naturally, those that don't want Paul to win will ask it at some point right? I mean they've asked him every other question to connect him to conspiracies about 9/11, CFR, NAU etc. Just give them time and you'll get your wish.

I've gone back and forth on this issue with some on the forum. I wish it would end too.

But of course the naysayers will continue to say "that's not good enough." But the few who say this don't make up the rEVOLution, and are stuck voting for the remaining neo-con or socialist-lib progressive klan who would take America down the path towards bankruptcy.

Fed Up

[Rouger2]

Watching this government of ours over the years I know that it does not change very fast, and I think that our founding fathers meant that to be so that we would not make changes that we could overturn before they caused to much damage. Ron Paul wants to Make a major overhaul and It is just not possible so it is hard to take him serious. He should concentrate on what he feels is the most important change he wants. I really don't think people even see him as the kind of leader that can make changes and to do any good he will have to have a majority of the people behind him pushing their reps.