Posted on 06/04/2007 7:45:31 AM PDT by Dada Orwell
Today, we have instead the politics of the 30 second sound bite--the politics of the moronic slogan, and the half-baked, intellectually underdone candidates. Ron Paul might be our last, best hope to salvage the achievements of many generations of the upward struggle of our rooted peoples. Whether the issue is domestic or foreign, he shows the deepest understanding of the full context of the issue. For that very reason, those who fear real analysis--or are too lazy for it--fear Dr. Paul. He is indeed a throwback to the days when political leaders had to support what they advocated with reasoned analysis; when Americans would not tolerate the politics of slogan hurling demagogues.
William Flax
“Wow! What a powerful argument against the one man who dares to uphold the principles of the Founding Fathers! What you cannot debate, you insult!”
What’s to debate? His perception of history and foreign affairs is insane. Especially his assertion that a ‘declaration of war’ never happened even though Mr. Constitution never noticed that the document never specified that it had to occur in a certain way. What does he think congressional authorization for use of force, is?
He’s a clown.
His description of how Iran got to be where they are today in the last debate, was just insane. Jumping from supporting the pro-west Shah vs the Soviet supporting Mossadeq during the cold war, right to the Ayatollah’s revolution... Totally leaving our Carter. Like I said - clown.
“To understand where Ron Paul is coming from, you need to read the Constitution, Washington’s Farewell Address, and Jefferson addresses to Congress. Throw in the Federalist Papers, and you might really begin to understand.”
I have read them all. Jefferson - you mean the guy who made war on the Barbary Pirates? Jefferson wasn’t a Federalist after 1790, btw. He favored diffusion of power - he was more aligned with the philosophy of the ‘anti-Federalists.’
Pauls idea to leave Nafta and the WTO will be disasterous to the US economy - we will end up with more tariffs and Smoot Hawley revisited.
“on Paul might be our last, best hope to salvage the achievements of many generations of the upward struggle of our rooted peoples. Whether the issue is domestic or foreign, he shows the deepest understanding of the full context of the issue.”
His grossly inaccurate discussion of Iran in the last debate kind of killed that point.
It's a pity for them that Dr, Paul does not share their views.
Nice try at the usual RINO guilt by association smear tactics though.
Well, he can forget about the black vote. ;-)
But aren't folks' panties in a wad because he said it DID happen and reasoned at the various causes (all the while endorsing the military response in Afghanistan and calling for a declaration of war against Iraq?)
Oh I get it - you was just bein' funny...
The quotes are real...
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html
Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul’s 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.
Under the headline of “Terrorist Update,” for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, “If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”
Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of “current events and statistical reports of the time.”
(snip)
Paul, writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, reported about unspecified surveys of blacks.
“Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,”Paul wrote.
Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered “as decent people.” Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote:
“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” Paul said.
Paul also wrote that although “we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”
Fine, post the links. Shouldn't be too hard.
Either that or retract the statement, and have the post removed.
(a) Provide sources for your quotes or do not use them and (b) do not use the quote list as a spam post.
How is the war in Iraq like the war on the Barbary Pirates? I would like to hear it in your own words, not a hyperlink to Wikipedia or etc.
When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, “I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me. It wasn’t my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.” Paul says that item ended up there because “we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything.”
His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: “They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that’s too confusing. ‘It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.’” It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.
“How is the war in Iraq like the war on the Barbary Pirates? I would like to hear it in your own words, not a hyperlink to Wikipedia or etc.”
Will do - just as soon as you address the other points in my post. Such as how later Jefferson wasn’t a federalist, and about Paul’s myopic view of history esp relating to Iran in the last debate.
I suspect that he thinks it is just that. However, Bush has elected to treat that authorization as some sort of enduring authorization for his misuse of the military to socially engineer a new culture in Iraq. A declaration of War is a declaration of War, not a temporary use of force in an ad hoc situation. And the fact that the President refused to even accept funding for the troops with a cut-off, by the Congress which has the War power, changes the picture, does it not?
His description of how Iran got to be where they are today in the last debate, was just insane. Jumping from supporting the pro-west Shah vs the Soviet supporting Mossadeq during the cold war, right to the Ayatollah’s revolution... Totally leaving our Carter. Like I said - clown.
As a believer in the value of the late Shah as a major ally, I personally disagreed with the brief comment vis-a-vis Iran, in the second debate, myself. But to draw the sweeping conclusion that you do from a truncated comment, in a 30 second response, is absurd. If you cannot disagree with someone, without calling him a "clown," serious discussion with you is going to be difficult--and yet your very "handle," "Government Is The Problem," suggests that you should be joining us, as a Paul supporter.
I have read them all. Jefferson - you mean the guy who made war on the Barbary Pirates? Jefferson wasn’t a Federalist after 1790, btw. He favored diffusion of power - he was more aligned with the philosophy of the ‘anti-Federalists.’
Jefferson responded to acts of Piracy by the Barbary Pirates--and responded far more effectively than the present President to the acts of international criminality by al Quaeda. He did not over-dramatise, and by so doing give the enemy greater credibility. He did what needed to be done, sending the appropriate force for the job at hand. And he reported back to Congress, accordingly.
Dr. Paul's focus on going after bin Laden, via Letters of marque and reprisal was appropriate, and might have proven more effective--as for example, the bounty we did put on him--had it not been coupled with a calculated insult to the Islamic World, by a claimed right to experiment with other peoples cultures--an absolutely foolish approach, which actually gave the criminal element, attacking us, a measure of credibility in the circles that have since sheltered them!
Dr. Paul does not oppose destroying our actual enemies. He wants to do so in the most effective way, and that can only be determined by a full analysis of many factors that others refuse to look at.
William Flax
That said, I am aware that I probably stepped over the line in that last little flurry. I am grateful not to have been banished to the realms of outer darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth.
I do thank you, the admins, for insisting that scurrilous things said about ANYONE not be permitted without documentation that they are true.
I have said and will say again that I really could care less if Ron Paul gets the nomination, and do not expect him to do so. I support him because I think that anyone who demands that we PAY ATTENTION to the constitution is a steadying influence in the run-up to the election in general. I think it would be great if he won, but that is not why I am supporting him.
The hysterical reactions by some freepers is to me living proof of the NEED for someone like Ron Paul to be in the running. We need someone to save conservatism from morphing into something totally foreign, and ugly.
Back when Bush was running against Gore, I pointed out that they were both socialists - only Gore would fast-track us to the end while Bush would take the scenic route. I believe that is what has happened and is now happening.
I would love to see Ron Paul elected President. Sadly, I doubt it will happen. Too many people find fault with what he is “reported” to have said or done. Still, if we can keep him in the race for a few more months those who do stand a chance of winning the nomination will have to change their stance in an attempt to win over his supporters. If that happens he will have provided us a valuable service.
In the meantime, if you’re one of those who likes politics as usual, keep flaming Paul without giving real reasons why your man is better. If you’re really lucky you can get Dr. Paul tossed out of the race before he has a chance to make an impression. Wouldn’t that be special?
If I recall my history, Jefferson went after the state sponsors of them thar Barbary Pirates (taking on the smallest as an example to the bigger ones). Now you expand on the analogy (or don't - I won't hold my breath).
How in the world can anyone look at Osama Bin Ladin,… CIA trained and funded in the 1980’s and not lend credibility to the “blowback” line of reasoning regarding the ME..
They probably knew his anti-imperial motives pretty well, his tendency to violence, his desire to rid the Middle East of first-world influences. Just like they knew Saddam was a thug when the USA armed him to fight Iran.
At some point Muslims probably realized the US was helping them play "let's you and him fight." Then again, some seem to have no qualms about killing their religious fellows (Muslims killing Muslims.)
And along with Saddam, helping/using them to thwart the Soviet expansion was deemed the most prudent course at the time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.