Why I'm Voting for Ron Paul in 08

Remove all ads!

Yup, it's completely within their powers. But since refusing someone, based on race, is bad publicity, they wouldn't. Also, companies that refuse people for their color don't even deserve competent employees, colored or otherwise.

To address your point on quotas, forcing race/sex quotas on companies leads to unnecessary (and therefor, even more evil) racism and sexism, because it prevents competent people from being hired because they were *insert favorite color* and *insert favorite gender* and the company still had to meet their orange pangender quota.

Or perhaps just against foreign hands in the American government?

 

But he didn't question it; he plainly stated that they're a lobby "of the bad sort", which leads me to question the rationale behind the statement. And conclude that it's the same rationale behind "blacks are fleet-footed".

In fact, just take a look at a bunch of quotes from his newsletter. Big wordy article about it here if you're that interested.

By the way, Morgoth, I'm not to have an argument with you about racial quotas or whatever, since it's a derail from the thread. Like I said to Drew, if you're really interested in a debate, feel free to PM me and I'd be happy to accomodate you.

 

Of course there is an Isareli lobby. Heck, you could find a lobby for just about anything under the sun. However, Clixby was clearly pointing out that Paul thinks the lobby is of the bad sort. The other point where I disagree with you is you imply that the reason the US supports Israel is largely, if not exclusively, because of the Israeli lobby. The reasons for US support are numerous, but a good place to start the list would be to look at the reasons Israeli became a country in the first place (and the support it had for the US at the time of its creation).

Having said that, I do agree with your last point - questioning US support for Israel does NOT make one an anti-semite.

 

I glossed over the first and second article, reading snippets here and there and checking the sources, (the articles are incredibly biased, see next paragraph.) Pull quotes are inherently flawed since they purposely take things out of context. For the worst quotes there are no sources, and the quotes I've seen, with sources, are spot on.

Can you see how the fact that Nazi-twin-pop-stars (what?? lol) attended the same radio-show at a separate occasion makes Dr. Paul unsuitable for presidency? I don't, but the fact that the editor finds it necessary to mention this link says a lot about the maturity and neutrality (and honesty) of the site and the author.

 

I suppose you "glossed over" this statement near the top of the first article, then:

"I might add, on a personal note, that as a libertarian with significant sympathy for Paul’s platform, I initially viewed claims of his past history of racism skeptically. But the evidence is so overwhelming that the defense of Paul is now, itself, indefensible."

Regardless of the political agendas of the authors, it's pretty much indisputable that Ron Paul wrote clearly racist newsletters.

 

Re-edit - After looking at the link, I depise his comments about blacks not being "decent folks" because they don't agree with his politcal perspective.

I don't think his comments speak too well of him. And frankly I'm surprised by them.

 

That may be exactly why Ron Paul condemns the Israeli lobby in Washington. The US has supported Israel to the outrage of many Islamic groups. In some audio interviews I was given links for a few months back, that was one of 6 main reasons for 9/11. These comments may not necessarily be anti-Semite, but a practical theory of National defence, in line with his "Mind your own business" foreign policy...

 

No, I don't think his justification is as logical as that.

 

Not exactly. You don't need to be a criminal to get arrested, do you? People get arrested for lots of things without being charged. They are also often arrested for what would be considered minor offenses like failure to pay a parking or traffic ticket. Those numbers could just as easily be interpreted as an indicator of racial profiling (which is even today all too common) coupled with overly harsh punishment for minor offenses or racial disparities in sentencing (which, again, is all too common even today). Would you call a man arrested for failure to pay a few parking tickets or a man arrested -but ultimately not charged with a crime- a criminal? I wouldn't.

Especially considering that men like you, me, or pretty much any liberal, would also not be decent folks.

 

Of course, all of this is becoming rather irrelevant, as Ron Paul is still an extreme long shot for the Presidency. One of the pundits that I saw on CNN last night said Paul did "better than expected" in the New Hampshire primary. That may be true, but he still only managed 8% if the vote, he finished 5th, behind Giuliani, who didn't even campaign in that state. So Pual's 15 minutes look like they are almost up. A couple more weeks and he will drop out of the race, and be no more influential that average Joe Public Racist in the US.

 

The way the Ron Paul supporters have corrupted Youtube and the ranking system is reason enough for me to not consider him worthy of the Presidency. I am only slightly kidding about this.

 

I find it delicious that Ron Paul got 8% in the state which would have been most likely to vote for him.

 

I would argue that the state most likely to vote for him is actually Texas...considering that's where he's from.

 

Well, the state which has the closest political views to him, then. :I

 

That doesn't always matter that much imo. Wasn't G.W. Bush originally from Connecticut?

 

But would any of the fifty states admit to anything like that now?

 

GW was their governor. People tend to be loyal to the folks they've been electing and re-electing for years. GW likely got a much larger bump than Ron Paul will get, though, since GW was the governor of all of Texas and Ron Paul only represents a single district.