Support NeoGAF

[FlashFlooder]

Oh, yeah?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=44370856&postcount=372

It should be pretty clear by now how Ron Paul supporters (and this guy, apparently, who is not a Ron Paul supporter but does have some sort of vested interest in arguing that he's not a huge racist!) maintain their firm conviction that Ron Paul is not a racist -- they just avoid reading anything that might show otherwise. This is probably also the technique they use to support his fiscal policies.

If you're referring to me, I don't have any vested interest. Someone asked if anyone honestly believed Paul wasn't a racist, and I identified myself as one of those people. YOU are the one trying to 'prove' to me that he is.

 

[besada]

how much do candidates typically give back of their salary, since the vast majority of them are also in office while they run?

I think the question you should be asking is how many legislators who disdain taking government money blow off their legislative responsibilities and still stuff their pockets with taxpayer cash. You can't simultaneously hold up Ron Paul as a man of unique character and then use the excuse that everyone's doing it.

 

[NoirVisage]

The mental gymnastics required to ignore Ron Paul's 90% toxic shit are incredible.

hmmm..you don't say..

"MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews pressed Paul during a TV appearance on whether he would have voted against the '64 law, a landmark piece of legislation that took strides toward ending segregation.

"Yeah, but I wouldn't vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws," Paul said. He explained that he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act "because of the property rights element, not because they got rid of the Jim Crow laws.""



This was from one of those newsletters, written by someone else, which he has disavowed any connection with.

I'm not a Ron Paul supporter at all, but a lot of these arguments against him are pretty intellectually dishonest.

 

[pigeon]

If you're referring to me, I don't have any vested interest. Someone asked if anyone honestly believed Paul wasn't a racist, and I identified myself as one of those people. YOU are the one trying to 'prove' to me that he is.

I was obviously referring to the guy I was responding to, although your posts have indeed made it pretty clear that you would, in fact, rather ignore all evidence presented as to Ron Paul being a racist than admit the possibility that he is and has always been one.

 

[grimshawish]

I don't mind him. Hes barmy but hes no hypocrite like the rest of those on the US right.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Under his byline in both The Ron Paul Investment Letter and the Ron Paul Political Report:

I’ve been told not to talk, but these stooges don’t scare me. Threats or no threats, I’ve laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove–perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress’s Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica.

If you're referring to me, I don't have any vested interest. Someone asked if anyone honestly believed Paul wasn't a racist, and I identified myself as one of those people. YOU are the one trying to 'prove' to me that he is.

You know you could just look at that article that explores Paul's connections to White supremacist groups.

 

[timetokill]

Gaborn didn't like Ron Paul.

I never said he did. Ron Paul also wasn't a libertarian but people don't let that stop them using him as a proxy for some good ol'-fashioned libertarian strawman bashing! You would frequently find Gaborn in a thread like this debating libertarian policies with people, though.

Funny that you use the word strawman immediately after using a strawman. (Edit: Pretty sure it is, anyway).

I didn't, and it wasn't.

 

[Hellsing321]

How did we get 5 pages without anyone posting the sad picture of Ron Paul alone in his campaign office?

 

[Christine]

I'm not going to change anyone's mind about Ron Paul (and it's not what I came here to do), so I'm not going to spend time digging through his record just to make a point.

But to say he didn't accomplish anything during his tenure is ridiculous.

Well, that certainly raises the question of what you did come here to do. Regardless, I didn't say that Paul hadn't accomplished anything, only that (thus far) you had not made any case in support of a record of accomplishment.

Here's a recent example of a bill he authored and got passed:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/federal-reserve-audit-bill_n_1702879.html

Thank you. I don't know why you didn't just post this in response to #411 in the first place. If you want to support Paul's career, you've got to talk about him, not criticisms of the ideological stances you're assuming on the part of his detractors.

Also, his constituency didn't have to lobby to get his consideration so I feel like you're kinda reaching with your second argument.

"Kinda" reaching? I'm sorry, I should have made it more obvious--for that sidebar, I'm splitting semantic hairs for the sake of taking the piss.

I'd certainly hope that his constituency would automatically have his consideration, but to be extremely pedantic, they did have to lobby in order for him to actually know what they want.

 

[3rdman]

How did we get 5 pages without anyone posting the sad picture of Ron Paul alone in his campaign office?

Goodbye! Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!

 

[zaxon]

Oh, yeah?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=44370856&postcount=372

It should be pretty clear by now how Ron Paul supporters (and this guy, apparently, who is not a Ron Paul supporter but does have some sort of vested interest in arguing that he's not a huge racist!) maintain their firm conviction that Ron Paul is not a racist -- they just avoid reading anything that might show otherwise. This is probably also the technique they use to support his fiscal policies.

Quotes taken out of context are not very substantive. I can just as easily say that on 11:37 AM you posted the following to the internet:

I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

It would be ridiculous to judge you on that without knowing why you posted it, so you don't really have an argument about those quotes unless you find the context. (As far as I know, that quote was made to mock the absurdity of a federal study and was not actually calling 95 percent of blacks criminals.)

And again, I'm not a Paul supporter and never have been. My "vested interest" is in honesty in political debates, and a lot of these criticisms don't strike me as being very honest. You can make very substantive critiques of Paul based on his actual ideology, which is often utopian nonsense, so why cherry pick things out of context to appeal to an emotional response?