Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: mnehring
I guess you missed the part where he cheered ‘scaring the blazes out of the establishment’ and saying he made good sense

Not really, but apparently you don't understand the sentence containing the reference to good sense:

"Duke’s platform called for tax cuts, no quotas, no affirmative action, no welfare, and no busing. “Tonight, we concede the election, “ he said. “But we will never concede our fight for equal rights for all Americans.”

To many voters, this seems like just plain good sense. Duke carried baggage from his past, but the voters were willing to overlook that."

The sentence containing the phrase "plain good sense" refers back to the sentence on Duke's platform of tax cuts, no quotas, no affirmative action, no welfare, and no busing. It obviously doesn't refer to Duke himself, or Duke's racist views, characterized as "baggage from his past" which the article indicates those who voted for him were willing to overlook due to their approval of the ideas in his platform.

Do you consider tax cuts racist? Do you think advocating an end to quotas and affirmative action is racist? Do you think Ward Churchill is a racist? Is ending or reducing welfare racist? Do you think Bill Clinton is a racist? Do you think busing is a good idea? Few conservatives would say "yes" to any more than one of those questions.

You obviously don't like Ron Paul, and that is an opinion you are certainly entitled to share. But arguing that some article which states that an endorsement of a platform of ideas like cutting taxes and ending affirmative action quotas is "plain good sense" is evidence of racism plays right into the hand of the most ardent liberal who sees every conservative political idea as racist.

Put more simply, if the Republican party advocated cutting taxes, reducing welfare, and ending affirmative action and quotas, would that make them a racist organization?

98 posted on 12/24/2011 6:52:18 PM PST by freeandfreezing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]


To: freeandfreezing

Apparently you fell for the wolf in sheep’s clothing too. Just because he claimed to stand for those things doesn’t change who he was or what he really stood for. They were window dressing and Paul was empowering him.

It is as bogus as the BNP saying their only goal is reduce crime.

I would suggest reading Goethe’s Faust sometime.


99 posted on 12/24/2011 7:53:59 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson