Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
Re: For all of you who refuse to vote because Ron Paul has no chance... [Re: zappaisgod]
    #7976497 - 02/04/08 03:53 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Go read the thread. Or not.




Yes, go read the thread. In it exists a very substantiated, credible article by reason magazine, in which it is presented quite clearly that Ron Paul did not write these statements. Also in the thread is quite a few words that can be directly attributed to him that clearly express his views on individualism, exposing racism for what it is, demonstrating it isn't something he himself engages in, not to mention personal relationships with NAACP chapter presidents and black professors who endorse him.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: For all of you who refuse to vote because Ron Paul has no chance... [Re: fireworks_god]
    #7976856 - 02/04/08 08:30 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

It doesn't matter if Paul wrote the statments or not. Let's give him the benefit of a doubt and assume he didn't. What does that tell us?

It tells us that he allowed this trash to be disseminated under his name, for his supposed political benefit, for years and years. It also tells us that when challenged on it, he didn't immediately take ownership of the mess, apologize for the trash, repudiate the message, identify its authors and dissociate himself from them, instead he defended their writings by claiming those who exposed it were "taking it out of context".

Today he claims that he doesn't want to have to address all this because he did so years ago and doesn't feel he should have to again. That's bullshit. A review of the public record makes it clear he did nothing of the kind years ago. All he did was whine the stuff was taken out of context. Furthermore, he claims today that he didn't know the stuff was in those newsletters, and that he doesn't know who wrote them. Given his past (1996) statements about it all being "taken out of context", it is clear he DID know what was in them, so he's lying about that. His claim not to know who wrote the stuff is also clearly a lie, seeing as how it was almost certainly Lew Rockwell, one of his closest supporters even to this day.

But let's assume he really is too stupid to have figured out who wrote that stuff. That would make him too incompetent to be put in charge of a freaking Dairy Queen shut down for the winter months, let alone the United States.




Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: For all of you who refuse to vote because Ron Paul has no chance... [Re: Phred]
    #7976917 - 02/04/08 08:58 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Furthermore, he claims today that he didn't know the stuff was in those newsletters, and that he doesn't know who wrote them. Given his past (1996) statements about it all being "taken out of context", it is clear he DID know what was in them, so he's lying about that.




?

I presumed that when this issue came up again and he stated he wasn't aware of the content that he was speaking of at the time it was written. You think when questioned recently he meant that he still has no idea of what was in those newsletters? Do you have any quotes or something supporting this interpretation?

I don't see why he'd make a demonstrably false claim like that.


But yeah, he's lying, he knows who wrote it... who cares.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: For all of you who refuse to vote because Ron Paul has no chance... [Re: johnm214]
    #7976997 - 02/04/08 09:25 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

I presumed that when this issue came up again and he stated he wasn't aware of the content that he was speaking of at the time it was written.




With Ron Paul -- especially when he's pinned to the wall on something -- it isn't always easy to tell exactly what he's trying to say. He seems to sputter and speak semi-coherently for a while till he gets his bearings. I refer to his comments on one of the seemingly infinite number of Ron Paul videos that was posted here. Unfortunately, the Shroomery's search engine can't do a search of the content of videos, and I can't for the life of me remember which of the seven hundred and forty two Ron Paul threads this video appeared in. Maybe someone else will chime in with a link to it.

At any rate, the point is that when confronted with this stuff back in 1996, his first reaction wasn't to say "I didn't know that awful stuff was in my newsletter," his reaction was to say, "You misinterpreted the stuff that was in my newsletter," i.e. "took it out of context". How can he claim people are taking it out of context if he doesn't know what it is that's being taken out of context?

Again, he claims that he "did penance" for this stuff way back in the day, which is why he seems so exasperated to have to do it all over again now. But the fact of the matter is that he never did penance for it. He tried to brush it off as a "taking out of context" by his political opponents, and after he won re-election, the matter eventually faded from public consciousness.

He's handling this newsletter thing every bit as dishonestly as he handles his earmarks scam. Maybe no one has managed to find a film clip of him uttering racist or homophobic comments, but there is certainly no shortage of them in many newsletters that went out over his name over the course of years, and brought him hundreds of thousands of dollars. He has the obligation to either own up to those written words as his own or to finally thoroughly and specifically repudiate both the words and their author. He has done neither.




Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOneMoreRobot3021
Male


Registered: 06/06/03
Posts: 61,024
Loc: the sky
Re: For all of you who refuse to vote because Ron Paul has no chance... [Re: Phred]
    #7977011 - 02/04/08 09:30 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:

But let's assume he really is too stupid to have figured out who wrote that stuff. That would make him too incompetent to be put in charge of a freaking Dairy Queen shut down for the winter months, let alone the United States.
Phred




This is exactly what it is about this issue that turned me off from Ron Paul completely.


--------------------
Acid doesn't give you truths; it builds machines that push the envelope of perception. Whatever revelations came to me then have dissolved like skywriting. All I really know is that those few years saddled me with a faith in the redemptive potential of the imagination which, however flat, stale and unprofitable the world seems to me now, I cannot for the life of me shake.

-Erik Davis


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: For all of you who refuse to vote because Ron Paul has no chance... [Re: OneMoreRobot3021]
    #7977058 - 02/04/08 09:52 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Phred, when confronted with the stuff back in the day, presumably he did his reasearch (if you buy that he didn't already know what was in teh letters) and and then responded.


When asked this time around he stated that, among other things, he wasn't even aware of what was in the letters.

So what's the big deal? Again, if you interpret his later answer to mean he wasn't aware of what was in the letters at the time they were written, this makes sense. And of course he now knows what was in them.

so what's the problem? I really think this part of it is a non issue


and yeah, I'm not arguing his answer was truthful, just that it was logically consistant (1st go around: taken out of context; second go around: I wasn't eve familiar with the contents). You can defend something you weren't aware of at the time it was created under your authority without being logically inconsistant.


and onelessforeskin... this was a turn off for me too, but I'll still vote for him in the primary. Its like this is one of the few times he gives a bullshit politician answer rather than the truthful answer (either yes, I tacitly accepted these written under my name, which was a mistake in retrospect; or I wrote these and have since changed my outlook such that I wouldn't have used that language and those examples).

I don't agree w/ phred and others that his earmark behavior is inconsistent or immoral. I'm for simplifying the tax code and removing all/ most all the deductions/exemptions but I still claim every single one I can. I look up and proactively search for items I can deduct from my tax bill. Similar situation to paul, who is against the expenditure of the funds, but seeks to allocate them to his district anyways should/when the bill passes.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMadtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers
 User Gallery


Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,287
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 5 months, 23 days
Re: For all of you who refuse to vote because Ron Paul has no chance... [Re: johnm214]
    #7977067 - 02/04/08 09:55 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

He said for 10 years that he had no idea who wrote them, when it was quite clear that it was one of his closest advisors.

A person who is still his advisor to THIS day, that wrote that MLK Jr was a baby-raper, and then published it under Ron Paul's name.

And no, the two statements are in no way logically consistent.

You'd have to be a Ron Paul supporter to think they were...


--------------------
After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action.  If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it.  - Ernest Hemingway

If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it.  In the law courts, in business, in government.  There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent.    -Cormac MacCarthy

He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.  - Aeschylus


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: For all of you who refuse to vote because Ron Paul has no chance... [Re: Plok]
    #7977264 - 02/04/08 10:59 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

For those of you who like Paul's platform, but not him personally or won't vote for him because you prefer to vote for someone with a better shot at winning, please look into these people running on Paul's platform for other seats.

Maybe we can help one of them get into the WH on Paul's platform in 2012 or 2016.



For Congress:

B.J. Lawson (North Carolina’s 4th District)
www.lawsonforcongress.com/

Theodore Terbolizard(love the name)(California's 4th Congressional District)
www.terbocongress.org/

Jim Guest for Missouri’s 5th District US Congress (Incumbent)
http://jimguest.com/

Dean Santoro for Florida’s 21st District US Congress
www.SantoroForCongress.org

Jim Forsythe, New Hampshire,
http://www.jimforsythe.com/

Brent Sanders for Louisiana’s 5th District US Congress
www.JoinSanders.com

Linda Goldthorpe For Representative in Congress, Michigan District 1
http://lindagoldthorpe.com

Collins Bailey
http://www.baileyforuscongress.com/


Jason Thompson Georgia, 7th Congressional
www.votejasonthompson.us

Jeff Flake Arizona 6th congressional district ( in office)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Flake

Dr. Hargadon Maryland’s 7th Congressional District
http://www.hargadonforuscongress.com
--------------------------------------

For Senate:

Dr. Murray Sabrin, New Jersey
http://www.murraysabrin.com/

-----------------------------



For Governor:

Barry Hess, Arizona
http://hessforgovernor.com/

T. Lee Horne III for Governor of Louisiana
http://governor.ws/

----------------------------------------

State Level:
Tony Kosub, Texas House in district 122, north central San Antonio.
http://www.taxpayersfortony.com

Danielle Davenport For Florida State House
http://www.myspace.com/danidavenport


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: For all of you who refuse to vote because Ron Paul has no chance... [Re: johnm214]
    #7977361 - 02/04/08 11:25 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Phred, when confronted with the stuff back in the day, presumably he did his reasearch (if you buy that he didn't already know what was in teh letters) and and then responded.


When asked this time around he stated that, among other things, he wasn't even aware of what was in the letters.

So what's the big deal? Again, if you interpret his later answer to mean he wasn't aware of what was in the letters at the time they were written, this makes sense. And of course he now knows what was in them.

so what's the problem? I really think this part of it is a non issue




Look, I don't know what I can do to make you see reason here other than to repeat myself:

If he really didn't know what was in them (back in 1996) how on earth can he attempt to defend what was in them by claiming the quotes were "taken out of context"? The only way one can determine if a quote is in context or not is by reading the freaking articles, duh!

So what was his course of action after he read the articles in order to see if they had been misquoted or taken out of context? Did he say, "Oh my gosh, I had no idea this awful stuff was in there! I would never have allowed it to be published had I known about it. I disavow any prior knowledge, I repudiate these comments, I have fired the people responsible for this vile trash and refuse to associate with them further" ? No, he didn't say that. He instead attempted to spin the comments as not really that bad... they were merely "taken out of context".

That is a fucking bullshit response from Paul no matter how you try to tell us otherwise. It's an "either-or" situation -- Paul can't have it both ways. He couldn't then (1996) and he can't now. This is further proof of his incompetence to lead a country -- his apparently sincere belief that people are stupid enough to buy this lame "explanation".

Quote:

and yeah, I'm not arguing his answer was truthful, just that it was logically consistant (1st go around: taken out of context; second go around: I wasn't eve familiar with the contents)




LOL! Look who's talking about logical consistency! If you really believe this, no wonder you are on Paul's side with this. Dude, try to step out of your skin and read what you just wrote with someone else's eye. You've got it completely backwards! You can logically first say you didn't know what was written, then if the rubes don't buy it then say that what was written was taken out of context, but not the other way around!

Quote:

I don't agree w/ phred and others that his earmark behavior is inconsistent or immoral.




I can understand now why you don't, if your above block quote was an example of what you consider to be logical thinking. My argument re his earmarks scam is only convincing to people who grasp the rules of logic.

Quote:

I'm for simplifying the tax code and removing all/ most all the deductions/exemptions but I still claim every single one I can. I look up and proactively search for items I can deduct from my tax bill.




Completely not analogous to what Paul does with earmarks. Not even close.

Quote:

Similar situation to paul, who is against the expenditure of the funds, but seeks to allocate them to his district anyways should/when the bill passes.




Not even close to the same thing. Do you not understand that if the requirements for the coming year for department XYZ is determined by the bureaucrats of department XYZ to be $50 billion, they submit their request to Congress, and Congress passes the bill, then $50 billion is approved? But if Ron Paul throws in another billion in earmarks in addition to what department XYZ requested, and Congress passes the bill, then $51 billion is approved. No matter which way you slice it, more tax dollars are gonna be spent because Paul slipped in his extras than if he hadn't.




Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineVisionary Tools
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/23/07
Posts: 7,953
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
Re: For all of you who refuse to vote because Ron Paul has no chance... [Re: zappaisgod]
    #7977489 - 02/04/08 12:10 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
He has been exposed as a racist, anti-semitic homophobe who will hopefully be turned out of Congress as soon as they can come up with somebody to run against him. He's going to have a shitload of money for his campaign, though. Too bad.




Ahh! So he's got your vote then.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMadtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers
 User Gallery


Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,287
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 5 months, 23 days
Re: For all of you who refuse to vote because Ron Paul has no chance... [Re: Phred]
    #7977524 - 02/04/08 12:27 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:


If he really didn't know what was in them (back in 1996) how on earth can he attempt to defend what was in them by claiming the quotes were "taken out of context"? The only way one can determine if a quote is in context or not is by reading the freaking articles, duh!

So what was his course of action after he read the articles in order to see if they had been misquoted or taken out of context? Did he say, "Oh my gosh, I had no idea this awful stuff was in there! I would never have allowed it to be published had I known about it. I disavow any prior knowledge, I repudiate these comments, I have fired the people responsible for this vile trash and refuse to associate with them further" ? No, he didn't say that. He instead attempted to spin the comments as not really that bad... they were merely "taken out of context".

Phred




That is the crux of the matter there...


--------------------
After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action.  If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it.  - Ernest Hemingway

If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it.  In the law courts, in business, in government.  There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent.    -Cormac MacCarthy

He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.  - Aeschylus


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: For all of you who refuse to vote because Ron Paul has no chance... [Re: Plok]
    #7977790 - 02/04/08 02:00 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Here's a new press release from RP HQ. Looks like he did very well on delegates in that Maine Republican caucus, picking up more then McCain did there, and though the press didn't report it, he did very well with Pledged delegates in Louisiana also. The LA GOP said they will report the results after super Tuesday. Gives you an idea of just how well he did there since they don't want the super Tuesday voters to know about it.

Don't bail on him yet RP supporters thinking you are wasting your vote. He can in the least do some serious damage and create some serious upsets with your votes. Lets keep the neocons jumping and sweating and looking like the corrupted rats they are hiding information from voters.

If you like his platform more then the others, send that message to the GOP, media and America with your vote for him tomorrow on Super Tuesday.

The Republicans started with 11 candidates and are now down to 4 and Paul remains, picking up delegates, with the highest Q4 fund raising numbers and is still raising tall cash. Already raised over another $5 Mill in the first 5 weeks of Q1. Fox news even called him the Top Dog in fundraising for Q4.

http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_paul_2008/2008/02/ron-paul-beats.html

For your entertainment, a new Paul supporter video. It's pretty funny in a NJ guy way. The part where he yells at his mom to order more bumper stickers is the best.



--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: For all of you who refuse to vote because Ron Paul has no chance... [Re: Phred]
    #7978242 - 02/04/08 04:03 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

you don't seem to understand how I presume he was responding at different times re: the racist letters:


time 1: newsletter written

time 2: confronted about racist comments

time 3: confronted about racist comments during 08 primaries

---

he said in one of his first responses at time 2 that the comments were taken out of context

he said in his response at time 3 that he had no idea what was being written at time 1, not that he didn't know of the comments at time 2, which I believe is what you're saying. Now maybe this isn't what he meant, but its what I've interpreted his comments to mean, and tried to convey to you. I don't think I did a very good job though.

so if you accept the above their is not an impossibility. he just offered a justification at time 2 (context) and plead ignorance at time 3. His first justification (at time 2) wasn't inconsistent with him later claiming he wasn't aware of the writings at the time they were written (time 1). get it?

If I'm unaware of what my child did at school, and say as much to the teacher who calls me to complain, that doesn't logically preclude me from later defending my son, who was following my instructions which got him into trouble, once I come to understand the situation. Just cuz I wasn't aware of the trouble at the time it happened doesn't mean I can't defend it later when I do become so aware.

----

Quote:


So what was his course of action after he read the articles in order to see if they had been misquoted or taken out of context? Did he say, "Oh my gosh, I had no idea this awful stuff was in there! I would never have allowed it to be published had I known about it. I disavow any prior knowledge, I repudiate these comments, I have fired the people responsible for this vile trash and refuse to associate with them further" ? No, he didn't say that. He instead attempted to spin the comments as not really that bad... they were merely "taken out of context".




as I believe I've said before, I agree, but this wasn't the point I was making (that his response was truthful or a valid defense)

----
Quote:

LOL! Look who's talking about logical consistency! If you really believe this, no wonder you are on Paul's side with this. Dude, try to step out of your skin and read what you just wrote with someone else's eye. You've got it completely backwards! You can logically first say you didn't know what was written, then if the rubes don't buy it then say that what was written was taken out of context, but not the other way around!





Him claiming at a later time that he wasn't aware of what was written in the letters when they were written, or distributed, doesn't mean he couldn't have been able to defend the positions in those letters, as he did when he was first questioned about them. He didn't say when questioned this time around that he was unaware of the positions taken at the time of the "first" or "second" questioning, only that he wasn't aware of them when they were written.

When he defended them by his context defense this was after they were written, and thus he still could have been ignorant of the letters' content at the time they were written. I would presume when he made his defense of the context of the letters he would have educated himself on their content irregardless of his prior knowledge, and I'm not aware of any statement that would have precluded this possibility (again, presuming he's telling the truth).


----
Quote:



Completely not analogous to what Paul does with earmarks. Not even close.




how is this loose analogy not even close?


----
Quote:

o you not understand that if the requirements for the coming year for department XYZ is determined by the bureaucrats of department XYZ to be $50 billion, they submit their request to Congress, and Congress passes the bill, then $50 billion is approved? But if Ron Paul throws in another billion in earmarks in addition to what department XYZ requested, and Congress passes the bill, then $51 billion is approved. No matter which way you slice it, more tax dollars are gonna be spent because Paul slipped in his extras than if he hadn't.





Well, it doesn't really matter in a sense. By inserting the earmark he is participating in the spending of the money, even if he votes against it, so this is a valid criticism on that pure level.


But I'm not sure that an average earmark neccesarily increases the allocation for a specific department or agency. I thought generally that the generall allocation figure was derived and then the committee members placed their projects in prior to the vote and then moving to the floor. But I suppose this doesn't make much sense as their would have to be an incredibly loose budget for this to be possible.

One thing I'd like to know is the proportion of hard or soft earmarks, those that are binding versus those that are not, and whether different procedures are followed for each- though this is probably committee dependent.


If you or anyone else has better information, i.e. that as a matter of course the addition of an earmark is accompanied by additional funding to the department carrying it out, I'd be interested in seeing it. But I guess this information is probably hard to come by since I'd imagine these things are done in committees where its hard to figure out what really is going on.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: For all of you who refuse to vote because Ron Paul has no chance... [Re: johnm214]
    #7978296 - 02/04/08 04:13 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:


I can understand now why you don't, if your above block quote was an example of what you consider to be logical thinking. My argument re his earmarks scam is only convincing to people who grasp the rules of logic.





:thebird:


----\


here's a video of him on blitzer denying responsibility for the letters


closest he said to anything supporting your (phred)'s position was: "some of those things I wouldn't have recognized"

maybe I missed something though, was kinda skimming through






Edited by johnm214 (02/04/08 04:28 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: For all of you who refuse to vote because Ron Paul has no chance... [Re: Phred]
    #7983812 - 02/05/08 06:31 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

so after this namecalling and rant about me being unable to understand your position, you simply bow out when I address your position?

Look, maybe I'm wrong, and he did contradict himself, but I don't see it, and I'm the only one who's put forth any evidence on the topic. If he didn't know about it at the time the letter was written, what's this got to do w/ him later defending it, and later still claiming he didn't know about it? I don't believe his claim he didn't know about the quotes precluded him from knowing about some of them at the time he previously defended them.


what say you


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: For all of you who refuse to vote because Ron Paul has no chance... [Re: johnm214]
    #7986059 - 02/06/08 09:54 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

so after this namecalling...




I called you no names.

Quote:

... and rant ...




I made no rant.

Quote:

...about me being unable to understand your position...




About you being unable to think logically. It has nothing to do with my "position" and everything to do with logical analysis.

Quote:

...you simply bow out when I address your position?




What, I'm not allowed to be away from The Shroomery for more than a few hours at a time? Patience, grasshopper, patience!

The point is, almost everything Paul has ever said about the newsletters is dishonest -- from the time when Lefty Morris brought them up in 1995-1996 until Wolf Blitzer's unbelievable softball tonguebathing of Paul on camera, where he allowed Paul to give the longest uninterrupted (and completely side-stepping) answers ever seen on that show.

Unfortunately, I have been unable to find a transcript of that rambling rant of Paul's, but if you forward to around 09:37, this is what Paul claims about the remarks broadcast in the segment prior to Paul's interview--

"...and like I say I've never read that before; if you asked me to dig up a copy of that, I wouldn't have the vaguest idea... that's how unimportant it was to me. But obviously it is important and it needs to be ironed out. In many ways ... ah... Wolf I think I should thank you for bringing it about so I could clarify this and make sure everybody knew where I stood on this position..."

Earlier in the interview he claims he still doesn't know he wrote the stuff, which means he is either lying today or he was lying back in 2001 when he told Texas Monthly it was Barbara Jordan who wrote the stuff Lefty Morris had pounced on. In fact, in a 1996 article in the Dallas Morning News, Ron Paul said he wrote the columns.

As for him claiming he had been taking "moral responsibility" for the newsletter comments for over a decade, that too is horseshit. The only thing remotely like an admission of moral responsibility for them was in that Texas Monthly interview in October of 2001. Nothing on record anywhere before then, nothing after then either.

Quote:

Look, maybe I'm wrong, and he did contradict himself, but I don't see it, and I'm the only one who's put forth any evidence on the topic.




Okay. My mistake has been in assuming that someone who has jumped in as strongly and authoritatively on a subject as you have has also bothered to do a bit of research the subject under discussion. If the extent of your research is limited to a YouTube clip and pronouncements from Ron Paul's campaign, it is no wonder you are behind the curve.

Go here, read the article, then check all the embedded links in the article.

www.conservativeblogger.com/archives/2008/01/is_the_ron_paul_revolution_clo.php

And before anyone gets their knickers in a knot about this link being to a conservative website, they should be aware the embedded links are from such diverse sources as Reason Magazine (a stone Libertarian publication and the staunchest possible supporters of Ron Paul) as well as the New Republic (the furthest thing from a Republican puppet publication as it possible to get with the possible exception of the New York Times).

And finally, your attempts to excuse his "taken out of context" line.

I just don't see how I can make you see how this works without repeating myself yet again. You seem to have a giant blind spot on this point that I honestly don't know how to overcome. I'm sure everyone else who has read this far into the thread understands what I am saying, so if after this last attempt you still don't get it, I'll just leave it --

In order to truthfully say "Those comments were taken out of context... they don't mean what you are representing them to mean," one must first read the article in which the comments were made. There is no other way to determine whether the comments were even accurately quoted, much less correctly represented in context.

Therefore, when Paul's first reaction to the comments in his newsletter is to claim they were taken out of context, this is an implicit admission that he has read them. If he hadn't yet read them at the time he claimed they were taken out of context, then he is being dishonest -- an honest man cannot claim something he has never read has been taken out of context, simply because that man has no information on the context.

So -- when the "taken out of context" ploy sinks like a lead balloon (since it is painfully obvious to anyone who reads them that the comments weren't taken out of context at all) it is too late to credibly claim "Well, I never read those comments". Yeah, you can say you never read them before they were brought to your attention by Lefty Morris or whoever, but you can't say you never read them before you claimed they were taken out of context. It's an either-or situation. You can't have it both ways.

Do you not see that?

In any case, this is all beside the point. Paul never had the slightest chance of becoming the Republican Party's presidential candidate. Now that the Super Tuesday results are available for all to see perhaps we can once again have a forum where less than 30% of the threads are Ron Paul threads.




Phred


--------------------


Edited by Phred (02/09/08 01:51 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: For all of you who refuse to vote because Ron Paul has no chance... [Re: Phred]
    #7990262 - 02/07/08 02:02 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Okay. My mistake has been in assuming that someone who has jumped in as strongly and authoritatively on a subject as you have has also bothered to do a bit of research the subject under discussion. If the extent of your research is limited to a YouTube clip and pronouncements from Ron Paul's campaign, it is no wonder you are behind the curve.

Go here, read the article, then check all the embedded links in the article.
*edit -- LOL! I see you managed to work yourself up into such a hissy fit (because you couldn't grasp the logic of the "taken out of context" bit) that you just couldn't restrain yourself from giving me a bad rating.

Dude, that is SO lame. I've always wondered who this guy was. Now I know.






yeah, well no, I hadn't looked up the issue in depth. I was just repsonding to what was said on this thread, and what I've read of it on my own. Reason being, I don't really care, as Paul is clearly lying as to what he did and didn't know.

I just don't see how him claiming a context defense (which is bullshit anyways) and then later claiming not to have recognized some of the content, isn't inconsistant.

I'll read your links et cet and reply, if you or anyone else is still interested.

And yeah, the rating was for your conceited attitude, though I shouldn't have accused you of bailing on your comments so soon. My mistake.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: For all of you who refuse to vote because Ron Paul has no chance... [Re: johnm214]
    #7990691 - 02/07/08 07:31 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

I just don't see how him claiming a context defense (which is bullshit anyways) and then later claiming not to have recognized some of the content, isn't inconsistant.




I know you don't see it! That's what is so funny (not really the right word for it, but let's stick with it for now) about you claiming I think myself superior to anyone who doesn't grasp my incredibly advanced reasoning skills or whatever. The thing of it is, I am not using any specially advanced reasoning skills here! Every other reader of the thread has grasped the very basic, very simple logic of it -- you can try out the "I didn't know what was in there" defense before you use the "it was taken out of context" defense, but not the other way around.

As I say, you have some giant blind spot about this that I honestly do not know how to get around.

Also, you are the one who provided the Wolf Blitzer clip -- the clip in which Paul claims "..and like I say I've never read that before; if you asked me to dig up a copy of that, I wouldn't have the vaguest idea... "

Note the verb tense of the above. Paul is not saying that way back in the day when he was first informed of it, he had never read the stuff, that he wouldn't have had the vaguest idea," he is using the present tense -- "and like I say, I've (I have) never read the stuff, if you asked me to dig up a copy of that I wouldn't (would not) have the vaguest idea..."

By the rules of everyday english, he's claiming that as of the time Blitzer is interviewing him, he still hasn't read the stuff, that he wouldn't have the vaguest idea if you read it to him that it had ever appeared in his newsletter.

There are some other hilarious gems in there too -- such as his claim that 67 per cent of black men are in prison, or that he can't possibly be a racist because he keeps getting re-elected (as if no racist politician has ever been elected) or that he can't possibly be a racist because he calls himself a Libertarian (ignoring the fact that whoever put that stuff in the newsletters also called himself a Libertarian)... but there's no point detailing it all, since it is now abundantly clear to even the most die-hard Ronulan that Ron Paul will not (cannot, in actual fact -- do the math) be the Republican presidential candidate in 2008.



Phred


--------------------


Edited by Phred (02/09/08 01:53 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: For all of you who refuse to vote because Ron Paul has no chance... [Re: Phred]
    #7990741 - 02/07/08 08:08 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

As I say, you have some giant blind spot about this that I honestly do not know how to get around. If that blind spot leads you to give me a bad rating... well... that will be of interest of other members who might choose to enter into discussion with you in future, I'm sure.

Also, you are the one who provided the Wolf Blitzer clip -- the clip in which Paul claims "..and like I say I've never read that before; if you asked me to dig up a copy of that, I wouldn't have the vaguest idea... "

Note the verb tense of the above. Paul is not saying that way back in the day when he was first informed of it, he had never read the stuff, that he wouldn't have had the vaguest idea," he is using the present tense -- "and like I say, I've (I have) never read the stuff, if you asked me to dig up a copy of that I wouldn't (would not) have the vaguest idea..."




Hmm, I must have missed that before. This is what I was thinking of when arguing he didn't contradict himself:

"some of the things you just read, I wouldn't have recognized them"

but yeah, your quote I caught at the end of the Blitzer clip in which he says he hadn't heard that stuff before (that was mentioned on the program_. I don't know specifically what he was confronted w/ in the past, but I presume some of those snippets (on the Blitzer clip) are the same things he was blasted w/ before.

So it appears you're probably correct. I hadn't recalled him saying that all of the snippetts he was confronted with on blitzer were new to him.

Either way, like I said before, I'm almost positive he's lying anyways. Of course he either knows or could know who wrote for him at the time that was published, and I doubt that person's views were so different from his own.

A better tactic for him would just be to recognize that he had a writer who wrote those things in the past, and he was wrong for not repudiating those views earlier and catching them before they went out. he could also have said he knows who wrote them, but won't reveal the name to avoid focusing shame on that individual.

But yeah, I suspect Paul didn't disagree w/ those views, even if he didn't write the damn thing, but I really don't care anyways. He won't win, and a vote for him is symbolic of a vote to take this country in a direction more consistant w/ a libertarian philosophy: less centralized government, more economic and personal freedoms, and less interference w/ the world vis avis iraq. Of all the press coverage I've read about the Paul contingent of supporters, none has concluded that there is a signifigant racial component to his support- even those articles mentioning the stormfront founder's donation.


As for the rating, I'll change it, but it wasn't a reflection of your views on this subject. When it comes down to it I agree with your thesis that Paul is lying in regards to this, and I think he likely supported those views he's being blasted for (if he wasn't in fac tthe author). I was just pissed at what I feel was you being too arrogant in your reply, claiming you know why I don't agree w/ you, and that its because I don't grasp logic.


Still haven't had a chance to check out your sources though. I'll try and find if the earlier controversy focused on the same writings, which I'm sure it did.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSoY
I am the LizardKing
 User Gallery


Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 774
Loc: Everywhere
Re: For all of you who refuse to vote because Ron Paul has no chance... [Re: johnm214]
    #7990845 - 02/07/08 09:05 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Oh My God.

Look at irrelevant drivel we are discussing, while ignoring all the issues of actual importance to this country.

Who the fuck cares if someone is racist when our economy is crumbling and we are nonchalantly bounding towards even more corporate fascism and less personal liberties.

Over here McCain is talking about staying in Iraq for 100 years and bombing Iran, on the other side Hillary is advertising the invasive nanny state, but what are the voters discussing? Not ideas on policy or philosophy of the role of government, but rather whether or not a man is a racist for something that he didn't even say. Jesus fucking Christ. America is doomed.


--------------------

"The choiceless truth of who you are is revealed to be permanently here permeating everything. Not a thing and not separate from anything."--Gaganji
"Yesterday is but today's memory and tomorrow is today's dream."
"My karma ran over my dogma!"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Ralph Nader to Debate Ron Paul Ancalagon 717 5 08/01/04 10:56 AM
by Tao
* Republicans vote to incarcerate the sick & dying Swami 1,063 18 07/10/04 07:33 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Questions for those who vote for or support Republicans
( 1 2 all )
Autonomous 1,830 23 03/08/04 12:34 PM
by afoaf
* Sounds as if they think minorities are too stupid to vote.
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
luvdemshrooms 6,594 94 09/18/03 08:37 PM
by afoaf
* Why I'm not voting for Kerry...
( 1 2 all )
retread 3,656 25 08/24/04 05:40 AM
by Dexter_Sinister
* Interesting (but long) article on electronic voting. luvdemshrooms 791 0 10/15/03 03:44 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Israeli Cabinet votes to Expel Arafat in Theory
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
SquattingMarmot 5,223 92 09/17/03 01:07 PM
by shakta
* Vote Republican if you make over $250,000 a year
( 1 2 all )
carbonhoots 3,482 38 02/03/04 11:18 PM
by Snobrdr311

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
2,631 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.038 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.