Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
willravel...in fairness to Ron Paul, after my last post, I checked on the points from the 1996 article and I found that Ron Paul said that they were the work of a "ghostwriter", but that Ron Paul accepted that the words were published in literature that displayed Paul's signature, and it was too complicated to deny or to explain to the public, so he accepted responsibility for their distribution, while emphasizing that he was not a racist.....
|
Interesting. I suppose coming out in public against the words would bring further attention to them, so from a political standpoint letting it die was the right idea. I prefer honesty, but w/e.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
It's not 1996 now, and if Ron Paul wants to appeal to enough voters to win primaries and the general election in 2008, he'll have to explain better than that, and he'll have to explain how his entire philosophy will benefit the "least of us".....because it's been the other way already, for the last six years, and for 18 years out of the last 26....
|
If it's a simple matter of "someone else wrote that", wouldn't that put the matter to rest? Or is there further evidence of racism or classism?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
If you're an upper middle class, or wealthier....white male with no concern for women's reproductive rights, civil rights, or an accurate assessment of "the Reagan years"....I guess Ron Paul is "yer guy". The poor, the women without resources to travel to blue states where affordable, legal, medically safe and antiseptic abortion is obtainable, as well as minorities with no access to the "legacy appointments" of Ivy league schools, as Bush enjoyed, or the networking opportunities that are the "bennys" of attending good schools, fraternities, civic organizations, professional groups, social clubs, or to job opportunities via referrals of friends already employed by that business, or that state or city agency....if Ron Paul is able to implement his agenda, I guess you would all be shit outta luck.
|
Supports don't ask don't tell, which is a step ahead of other republicans who disrespect service men and women who happen to be homosexuals. RP voted no on the constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages. RP voted against making the Patriot Act permanent. He voted no on a constitutional amendment banning flag burning. He has come out in support of non-violent civil disobedience.
But he did change his views of homosexuals when he voted yes on banning gay adoptions in DC.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
Ron Paul would roll back the 17th amendment, the one that took the selection of US senators out of the hands of state legislators and into the hands of individual voters....In Paul's view, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education, SCOTUS decision, and even Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, would be "states rights", not any of our federal government's business. Paul's ideology would allow for segregation as official state law or policy, and I would enjoy reading a post that persuades that a slavery law passed by an individual state would be counter to Ron Paul's political "vision".
|
I've heard both sides of the 17th argument, and while I've chosen that it should remain, I can understand why some want it gone. I only wish that instead of focusing on the 17th, they would focus on doing what they could to help keep the voter informed. That would solve the problem.
As to the race relations decisions and legislation being at a state level... I do like the idea of state's rights, but I see no reason for that to be retroactive. Racism allowed is racism committed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
Ron Paul's selective memories of Ronald Reagan....no $1,500,000,000,000 deficit, added to an existing Treasury debt in 1980, accumulated over 200 years, that was just $998,000,000,000 before Reagan's inauguration. No mention of Iran/Contra crimes and obstruction, or Reagan's dismal civil rights record and message, either...or Reagan's "non response" to the AIDS epedemic....:
|
Wasn't that quote intended to be an eulogy after Reagan died? If that's so, I can understand a little white-washing. If the stuff I've gotten into comes up at my funeral, my family wouldn't sleep for a week. With all the skeletons in the Reagan closet, and most people being aware of them (unless you're in a Republican presidential debate, where Reagan-love runs rampant), I would see no point in bringing them up right after he died.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
Some other "warts" on Ron Paul's ideology of strict "states rights", to consider:
|
Don't forget you're talking to a socialist.
I love that California can pass legislation pushing for alternative fuels years before similar federal laws, but if it honestly works here and the federal government wants to move, I don't think that some backwards, oil loving idiots to stand in it's way.
I remember something Aaron Russo once said in a interview that got my attention:
Quote:
|
(paraphrased)"Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner. In a republic, the sheep would have a gun.
|
Democracy is an interesting idea, but it hardly serves or protects the individual. The best form of government is a constitutional republic, like we have. My only improvement would be less reliance on corporations to make the free market run smoothly. Small businesses are what really make the free market work.