Aiming for delegates instead of the popular vote, Ron Paul "wins" Iowa, Minnesota and maybe Washingt - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Spooter;35737881]ATTENTION MATTK50 RON PAUL IS LYING ABOUT AND/OR HEAVILY DOWNPLAYING HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE RACIST CONTENT OF THE NEWSLETTERS PUBLISHED DIRECTLY UNDER HIS NAME IN 1996 HE DID NOT DENY WRITING THE NEWSLETTERS AND SEEMED PERFECTLY KNOWING OF THEIR RACIST CONTENTS HE ONLY BEGAN DENYING KNOWLEDGE OR AUTHORSHIP ONCE HE WAS RUNNING FOR POSITIONS ON THE NATIONAL SCALE THIS MEANS THAT HE IS NO MORE HONEST THAN ANY OTHER POLITICIAN AND THAT IS WHY I POST IT[/QUOTE] Seriously Spooter? Whether you are factually correct or not, a copy-pasted comment that you post in every Ron Paul thread is incredibly stupid and annoying. It doesn't help the credibility of your claim at all.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;35738021]Seriously Spooter? Whether you are factually correct or not, a copy-pasted comment that you post in every Ron Paul thread is incredibly stupid and annoying. It doesn't help the credibility of your claim at all.[/QUOTE] The claim's credibility doesn't need help. It's pretty much a fact. To be honest I didn't need to post it earlier as no one had yet mentioned Ron Paul's dubious honesty, but I was left with no choice this time by Mattk50. People are too quick to forget what he did, so if it hasn't been mentioned I try and point it out.

The newspaper thing makes sense in context of libertarian philosophy. Paul ran a newspaper, a contributor- not Paul- wrote an article that contained racism. It's not out of the question that, from a libertarian perspective, the article should be run without speech censorship. That's a very libertarian quality. That's a very journalistic quality. That makes total sense in context. The entire issue with the article is stupid and moot in my opinion, because it has [I]about nothing to do with anything concerning Ron Paul's policies and politics other than affirming that his support for unfettered speech extends to racist speech[/I]. This affirms his position and integrity as a libertarian. I don't know how come neither side really realizes this.

[QUOTE=Spooter;35738191]The claim's credibility doesn't need help. It's pretty much a fact. To be honest I didn't need to post it earlier as no one had yet mentioned Ron Paul's dubious honesty, but I was left with no choice this time by Mattk50. People are too quick to forget what he did, so if it hasn't been mentioned I try and point it out.[/QUOTE] It's borderline spam. No one's talking about that and not a whole lot of people care that much anymore. It would be relevant if other people were talking about Ron Paul on racial issues, but it's unneeded in a discussion about every other political belief that Ron Paul holds. I mean, it's like if I came into every thread about Obama saying "OBAMA HAD A CRAZY PASTOR WHO SAID A BUNCH OF POTENTIALLY RACIST STUFF!" It has little to nothing to do with the thread. The accuracy of the statement has no bearing on how annoying the statement is.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];35738368']The newspaper thing makes sense in context of libertarian philosophy. Paul ran a newspaper, a contributor- not Paul- wrote an article that contained racism. It's not out of the question that, from a libertarian perspective, the article should be run without speech censorship. That's a very libertarian quality. That's a very journalistic quality. That makes total sense in context. The entire issue with the article is stupid and moot in my opinion, because it has [I]about nothing to do with anything concerning Ron Paul's policies and politics other than affirming that his support for unfettered speech extends to racist speech[/I]. This affirms his position and integrity as a libertarian. I don't know how come neither side really realizes this.[/QUOTE] It is still to this day (to my knowledge at least) up in the air who wrote the articles for sure. However, in 1996 Paul was interviewed by the Dallas Morning Star, who [U]credited him as the author of the newletters.[/U] During this election [URL="http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/perry-watch/headlines/20111222-ron-paul-faces-new-scrutiny-about-racist-statements-in-newsletters-from-decades-ago.ece"]they ran an article[/URL] while Paul was being called out on them by CNN and the like. [QUOTE=Dallas Morning News]In a 1996 interview with The News, Paul did not deny that he wrote the articles, which went to between 7,000 and 8,000 subscribers. In 2001, he told Texas Monthly that[B] he wished he had said[/B] he didn’t write them.[/QUOTE] While I can't say with certainty whether or not Paul wrote the articles. I definitely can't say whether or not he's racist. There's not enough proof for either accusation. But there is sufficient evidence in my book to say that Paul, during this election, has frequently either plain lied about or heftily sugar-coated his involvement. If you're talking about modern journalists, that is a very journalistic quality. It's not moot, because it has something to do with the frequent claim that Paul is more honest than the average politician, when the evidence says otherwise. [QUOTE=yawmwen;35738377]It's borderline spam. No one's talking about that and not a whole lot of people care that much anymore. It would be relevant if other people were talking about Ron Paul on racial issues, but it's unneeded in a discussion about every other political belief that Ron Paul holds. I mean, it's like if I came into every thread about Obama saying "OBAMA HAD A CRAZY PASTOR WHO SAID A BUNCH OF POTENTIALLY RACIST STUFF!" It has little to nothing to do with the thread. The accuracy of the statement has no bearing on how annoying the statement is.[/QUOTE] It is relevant when someone like MattK50 cites him as being an honest Joe. It's not about the race issue for me, it's the idea that Paul is some kind of modern Honest Abe that I'm trying to dispel. But you're right, before Matt's post it was irrelvant to the discussion and unless someone mention's his "honesty" I really should refrain from reposting it.

Mitt Romney is going to win, everyone has known this for ages.

ignoring all the "laugh harder" shitposting: Dude's got a point. If Romney (or Santorum if he decides to start running again) win the nomination, they'll just spew the usual Republican party rhetoric ("Fix terrorism! Fix* economy! No to gays!") and get largely ignored. If Ron Paul wins though, he'll start giving views on almost every relevant political topic under the sun. Though most of his views will just be vile spew, there will be the odd little spark of good in it ("Corporations need to be regulated more! Legalize marijuana!"), and Obama will have to actually come up with a view on all those issues Paul brings up. Most of [b]Obama[/b]'s views aren't retarded. I've always said he's done near-equal parts of good and bad (and he has) but his heart's in the right place, and there's a couple reasons a 50/50 split on good and bad isn't too big a deal: - He may have tried to do more good but Congress won't let him (there's always the executive order but there's also a reason the POTUS doesn't like using that much) - A whole lot of his bad (maybe ALL!) can be easily reversed if done before ~2030. [highlight]HEY YOU DUMB CUNTS - IF YOU THINK THIS IS A POST SUPPORTING RON PAUL, YOU'RE WRONG. READ IT AGAIN.[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Spooter;35738488]It is still to this day (to my knowledge at least) up in the air who wrote the articles for sure. However, in 1996 Paul was interviewed by the Dallas Morning Star, who [U]credited him as the author of the newletters.[/U] During this election [URL="http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/perry-watch/headlines/20111222-ron-paul-faces-new-scrutiny-about-racist-statements-in-newsletters-from-decades-ago.ece"]they ran an article[/URL] while Paul was being called out on them by CNN and the like. While I can't say with certainty whether or not Paul wrote the articles. I definitely can't say whether or not he's racist. There's not enough proof for either accusation. But there is sufficient evidence in my book to say that Paul, during this election, has frequently either plain lied about or heftily sugar-coated his involvement. If you're talking about modern journalists, that is a very journalistic quality. It's not moot, because it has something to do with the frequent claim that Paul is more honest than the average politician, when the evidence says otherwise.[/QUOTE] That "he wished he had said" thing implies to me that he didn't write them. And I tend to believe that, because many of the articles were ghost written. I have my issues with Paul's honesty, but I don't believe that Paul is racist. And that statement on journalists is a stereotype, and an incorrect one at that, by the way. [editline]27th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=lavacano;35738558]ignoring all the "laugh harder" shitposting: Dude's got a point. If Romney (or Santorum if he decides to start running again) win the nomination, they'll just spew the usual Republican party rhetoric ("Fix terrorism! Fix* economy! No to gays!") and get largely ignored. If Ron Paul wins though, he'll start giving views on almost every relevant political topic under the sun. Though most of his views will just be vile spew, there will be the odd little spark of good in it ("[B]Corporations[/B] need to be regulated more! Legalize marijuana!"), and Obama will have to actually come up with a view on all those issues Paul brings up. Most of Obama's views aren't retarded. I've always said he's done near-equal parts of good and bad (and he has) but his heart's in the right place, and there's a couple reasons a 50/50 split on good and bad isn't too big a deal: - He may have tried to do more good but Congress won't let him (there's always the executive order but there's also a reason the POTUS doesn't like using that much) - A whole lot [B]of his bad (maybe ALL!) can be easily reversed if done before ~2030[/B].[/QUOTE] -That's the opposite of Ron Paul's position. -Noooooo- Paul, being a radical, could do absolutely irreversible damage to the political and economic system as a whole. If he fucked up and fucked up good, you may never see it fixed. This is why radicals are dangerous (speaking as a radical). You're not just changing policy, you're changing systems.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];35738601']-That's the opposite of Ron Paul's position. [/quote] I must have misread something somewhere then. [quote] -Noooooo- Paul, being a radical, could do absolutely irreversible damage to the political and economic system as a whole. If he fucked up and fucked up good, you may never see it fixed. This is why radicals are dangerous (speaking as a radical). You're not just changing policy, you're changing systems.[/QUOTE] Even if we still had Bad Reading I'm not sure if I would have given you that rating. You missed the part where I switched the context to be about Obama not Paul, but I can't tell if that was just you reading it badly or me wording it badly.

[QUOTE=lavacano;35738718]I must have misread something somewhere then. Even if we still had Bad Reading I'm not sure if I would have given you that rating. You missed the part where I switched the context to be about Obama not Paul, but I can't tell if that was just you reading it badly or me wording it badly.[/QUOTE] That was definitely on my part.

[QUOTE=lavacano;35738558]("Corporations need to be regulated more! Legalize marijuana!" [/QUOTE] these are not actually views ron paul holds [editline]28th April 2012[/editline] [quote]- A whole lot of his bad (maybe ALL!) can be easily reversed if done before ~2030.[/quote] this is fucking terrible reasoning wtf even if it were true "you'll only have to endure like 20 years of shit before things get reasonable again! ron paul 2012!!"

Austerity does not always have to be the answer. Vote for someone who will cut the Budget in a responsible way!

Can hoodoo456 Jeep-Eep ThePinkPanzer Lazor explain why the Federal Reserve is working out for us just fine? Probably not, because it isn't.

[QUOTE=Funcoot;35741460]Can hoodoo456 Jeep-Eep ThePinkPanzer Lazor explain why the Federal Reserve is working out for us just fine? Probably not, because it isn't.[/QUOTE] Can you explain why it's bad? not disagreeing, just saying.

[QUOTE=Funcoot;35741460]Can hoodoo456 Jeep-Eep ThePinkPanzer Lazor explain why the Federal Reserve is working out for us just fine? Probably not, because it isn't.[/QUOTE] In the impossible event that Ron Paul becomes president and he tries to shut down the Federal Reserve, I'm fairly certain that the house will overrule his decision as most of them are fairly corrupt and backed by lots of corporations/businesses. Basically if Ron Paul did become president, he'd get nothing done.

[QUOTE=Funcoot;35741460]Can hoodoo456 Jeep-Eep ThePinkPanzer Lazor explain why the Federal Reserve is working out for us just fine? Probably not, because it isn't.[/QUOTE] Because, whatever it's current problems, it's better than what it was like before it was around. [url]http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve#Ignoring_Lessons_from_the_US_Free_Banking_Era_.281837_to_1864.29[/url] [url]http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve#Ignoring_the_original_Great_Depression_.281873.E2.80.9379_or_96.29[/url] There are reasons why these exist. Learn them.

[QUOTE=Spooter;35735202]Hey, look. A Ron Paul thread. I feel like a lot of the bile that Paul gets is kinda unwarranted at this point, even though I don't like him. However this still needs to be reposted.[/QUOTE] The bile against Ron Paul is pretty warranted. The guy fails on the economy with the untested Austrian economics and failed gold standard, fails on the military with isolationism, fails on the rights of women and minorities by even giving thought that states should be allowed to decide whether or not discrimination is okay, and the guy is an absolute hypocrite when it comes to state's rights. He wants no regulations on the businesses that would poison and exploit us and destroy our ecosystem for profit. But he wants to legalize weed, so the college kids love him. One thing I will say about Ron Paul is that he actually believes what he says. His policies are batshit insane, but he is real enough that he follows his core morals rather than the tune of corporate overlords.

[QUOTE=BloodYScar;35727543]Too bad that he wont make it this time, and will probably die until next time. Either by natural causes [B]or by... force[/B].[/QUOTE] Look at it this way: if nobody gives enough of a shit to vote for him, who is going to give enough of a shit to [I]kill[/I] him?

[QUOTE=Lazor;35740960]this is fucking terrible reasoning wtf even if it were true "you'll only have to endure like 20 years of shit before things get reasonable again! ron paul 2012!!"[/QUOTE] holy shit I must have worded it wrong I said [b]OBAMA[/b]. NOT PAUL.