Support NeoGAF

[Hari Seldon]

Yeah, there are no practical applications of evolutionary processes. It doesn't impact on the pharmaceutical industry, the biotech industries, or informed discussion of biodiversity. Good point.

Obviously "belief in evolution" in this context is in regards to human evolution through natural selection. What are the applications other than specialized research for this theory*?

*Obviously allowing for the exception that some evil genius is holding experiments where humans are being held like lab rats and being forced to evolve gills in order to clean out deep sea oil rigs. Admittedly a career in evil geniusry would require a belief in human evolution through natural selection.

 

[FlashFlooder]

Oh, so he couches his anti-science ideas behind a statement of individual liberty? That's even worse.

No, his individual liberty stance just happens to be anti-science in this case. The important distinction here is that he's not ANTI-vaccine.

I personally believe in vaccines and will immunize my children. However, I do not think the Federal gov. should have the authority to force them on me, or anyone else.

 

[Hari Seldon]

He doesn't believe in vaccines either. Would you take your family to a racist doctor who doesn't believe vaccines work? Good for you.

Does he not "believe in vaccines" or does he not "believe people should be forced vaccines by the government"? Big difference.

 

[marrec]

No, his individual liberty stance just happens to be anti-science in this case. The important distinction here is that he's not ANTI-vaccine.

Being against the federal regulation of vaccines is Anti-Science.

 

[V_Arnold]

Does he not "believe in vaccines" or does he not "believe people should be forced vaccines by the government"? Big difference.

It is very easy to shut one's mind down upon seeing those words, and from there on, it is basically the same for the reader. Sad, but this is how it is with GAF and Ron Paul.

 

[Kusagari]

I think it is because she shames them for voting for people who create kill lists, puts black skinned people in jail disproportionately for victim-less crimes, and conducts endless wars for less of a justifiable cause than a Roman consul killing people simply for a parade.

I mean really who is the racist? The people who perpetuate the racist drug war or someone who may have private beliefs (he is an old man) but advocates ending racist policies?

Ron Paul has no problem with racist policies on a state level.

 

[Deified Data]

I mean really who is the racist? The people who perpetuate the racist drug war or someone who may have private beliefs (he is an old man) but advocates ending racist policies?

They aren't really private beliefs when they're published in a newsletter. Whether the racist sentiment in his old "survival report" were straight from him or written by someone else, they passed under his nose first. Whatever the case, he saw what was about to be published and said "I'm okay with that".

There are tons of sane political figures who oppose the drug war. Ron Paul isn't special in that regard.

 

[FlashFlooder]

Being against the federal regulation of vaccines is Anti-Science.

No, it's anti-government.

They aren't really private beliefs when they're published in a newsletter. Whether the racist sentiment in his old "survival report" were straight from him or written by someone else, they passed under his nose first. Whatever the case, he saw what was about to be published and said "I'm okay with that".

You're stating this as if it were a fact, and it's not. He has denied that he approved those newsletters and disowned their contents. That's all anyone knows.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

Ron Paul has no problem with racist policies on a state level.

And that's the thing about Ron Paul. It's that practically anything flies as long as it isn't the big bad fed'rul gubmint doing it. States want to be racist assholes? GOOD TO GO.

 

[Red Blaster]

it's okay guys, a man who accepted donations from stormfront.org and has had a campaign director with links to the KKK isn't *really* racist

 

[marrec]

No, it's anti-government.

That as well yes.

One of the big problems with the entire Paulian idea of government is this idea that EVERYTHING the government does is bad. This is not the case. Federal mandates involving vaccines are unequivicably good things that have eradicated entire diseases from the American populace. To say 'well, the government shouldn't mandate these vaccines' is about as anti-science as you can get.

 

[Omegasquash]

Like others have said, he's a human broken clock with a really annoying bonger that goes off every half hour.

Well, now. If it weren't for my dislike of Ron Paul (and the small happiness that his departure provides), I wouldn't have been introduced to my new favorite word.

 

[Hari Seldon]

They aren't really private beliefs when they're published in a newsletter. Whether the racist sentiment in his old "survival report" were straight from him or written by someone else, they passed under his nose first. Whatever the case, he saw what was about to be published and said "I'm okay with that".

I dunno, maybe I'm fucking stupid. But the choice is obvious between:

Person A: Has said racist shit in the past. But spent 30 years advocating ending racist policies.

Person B: Never said anything racist. Supports racist policies.

 

[FlashFlooder]

And that's the thing about Ron Paul. It's that practically anything flies as long as it isn't the big bad fed'rul gubmint doing it. States want to be racist assholes? GOOD TO GO.

He is a federal representative, so restricting the federal government is all that's in his power.
You can't blame him for the theoretical inadequacies of state gov. reps.

 

[GaimeGuy]

wrong, he's a politican who doesn't think vaccines should federally mandated. There's a big difference.

Great. Fuck herd immunity, let's bring back measles, mumps, rubella, polio, and whooping cough.

His position is dangeorus.

 

[Evlar]

Herd immunity is the concept everyone is grasping for. Paul evidently doesn't take it seriously.

 

[Deified Data]

You're stating this as if it were a fact, and it's not. He has denied that he approved those newsletters and disowned their contents. That's all anyone knows.

It's fact that they were published under his name, and that he directly benefited from them. We can argue about who wrote them, why, and if Paul knew about it or not, but it all comes back to him. It's his newsletter and he's responsible for the contents.

God forbid a politician denies something from his past damaging to his reputation

I dunno, maybe I'm fucking stupid. But the choice is obvious between:

Person A: Has said racist shit in the past. But spent 30 years advocating ending racist policies.

Person B: Never said anything racist. Supports racist policies.

I agree - Paul is more liberal than the vast majority of people in Washington, Democrats included.

At the end of the day, I'd rather just side with the guy who has no links to racism in his past and advocates for an end to the drug war.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

He is a federal representative, so restricting the federal government is all that's in his power.
You can't blame him for the theoretical inadequacies of state gov. reps.

Sure, but that's why he needs to view his job with a little more nuance than federal govt. = BAD, state govt. = GOOD. Because it's not theoretical. It happened.

 

[Kusagari]

He is a federal representative, so restricting the federal government is all that's in his power.
You can't blame him for the theoretical inadequacies of state gov. reps.

Go ahead and keep supporting the disgusting human being who would do nothing if gay people were being arrested for having oral sex in the country he's the president of.

 

[FlashFlooder]

It's fact that they were published under his name, and that he directly benefited from them. We can argue about who wrote them, why, and if Paul knew about it or not, but it all comes back to him. It's his newsletter and he's responsible for the contents.

the difference being that he may NOT have said "yea, I'm okay with that".

 

[pigeon]

You're stating this as if it were a fact, and it's not. He has denied that he approved those newsletters and disowned their contents. That's all anyone knows.

All anyone who desperately wants to love Ron Paul knows, maybe.

Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
He also wrote that black teenagers can be "unbelievably fleet of foot."
An official with the NAACP in Texas said the comments were racist and offensive.
Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas' 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context.
"It's typical political demagoguery," he said. "If people are interested in my character . . . come and talk to my neighbors."...
Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. A phone call to the newsletter's toll-free number was answered by his campaign staff.
Dr. Paul also said he did not know how his newsletter came to be ! included in a directory by the Heritage Front, a neo-Nazi group based in Canada. The newsletter was listed on the Internet under the directory's heading "Racialists and Freedom Fighters."...
Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation....
In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.
"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.
He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.
Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: `Given the inefficiencies of what DC 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."
"These aren't my figures," Dr. Paul said Tuesday. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report.

http://www.criticalreactor.com/ronpaul/newsletters/1996_Dallas_Morning_News.html

 

[CHEEZMO™]

I dunno, maybe I'm fucking stupid. But the choice is obvious between:

Person A: Has said racist shit in the past. But spent 30 years advocating ending racist policies.

Person B: Never said anything racist. Supports racist policies.

I'm sure the man who referred to the end of fucking Apartheid as "the destruction of civilization" knows all about racist policies.

 

[djtiesto]

You know I sorta like/hate Ron Paul. Fact is I actually agree with him on probably 90% of his stances. But the 10% I disagree with him on I find his views completely abhorrent.

But I do have to poke fun at this:


His second question. Ron Paul: Asking the important questions.

Yup, I like his stances on a number of things, like personal freedom and the drug war, but some of his views are just so ridiculous and will never work in society. If the Republican party were smart and want to continue being relevant, they'd actually latch onto the good stuff of Paul while massively watering-down or outright culling the crazy.

 

[Hari Seldon]

I'm sure the man who referred to the end of fucking Apartheid as "the destruction of civilization" knows all about racist policies.

It seems like gaf is more worried about some theoretical racist bogeyman than actual racist policies that are destroying generations of black skinned people that exist in reality right now and are supported by the vast majority of federal politicians due to corruption or gross incompetence or actual racism.

 

[Deified Data]

the difference being that he may NOT have said "yea, I'm okay with that".

A refusal to peruse and edit something being published in his name for questionable content is an unspoken acknowledgement that he's A-OK with whatever is contained therein. If he weren't, he would have checked first. It's not as though he didn't know about the newsletter, period. He knew it existed and, best case scenario, didn't care that his surrogates were stirring racist mischief in its pages.

I don't hate Ron Paul like most of GAF. My dislike of him is strongly tempered by being an ex-libertarian myself - he's a man of conviction and principle, whether you agree with those principles or not. But there's no excusing these newsletter shenannigans. Either he's a racist and a homophobe or he doesn't mind other people being racist and homophobic in his name. It's one or the other.

He's an old man and an old-fashioned libertarian. His retirement is overdue.

It seems like gaf is more worried about some theoretical racist bogeyman than actual racist policies that are destroying generations of black skinned people that exist in reality right now and are supported by the vast majority of federal politicians due to corruption or gross incompetence or actual racism.

We're worried about both. You know who makes a better spokesman for ending racist policies? Someone who's never published a racist, paranoid newsletter.

 

[greycolumbus]

Shine on you crazy diamond.

 

[pigeon]

It seems like gaf is more worried about some theoretical racist bogeyman than actual racist policies that are destroying generations of black skinned people that exist in reality right now and are supported by the vast majority of federal politicians due to corruption or gross incompetence or actual racism.

Oh, yeah. You know GAF, just full of staunch supporters of the war on drugs.

 

[codhand]

Ron Paul is retiring from the House after this year. This is his farewell speech.

 

[FlashFlooder]

Yup, I like his stances on a number of things, like personal freedom and the drug war, but some of his views are just so ridiculous and will never work in society.

I very much agree with this, but I would add that even some of his "crazy" ideas raise valid points and questions everyone should be asking themselves about the role of government.

That's what I mean when I say he always elevated the discussion. It's refreshing, whether or not I agree with his stance on any one particular issue, to hear a politician who doesn't mince words or constantly speak in generalities.

A refusal to peruse and edit something being published in his name for questionable content is an unspoken acknowledgement that he's A-OK with whatever is contained therein. If he weren't, he would have checked first. It's not as though he didn't know about the newsletter, period. He knew it existed and, best case scenario, didn't care that his surrogates were stirring racist mischief in its pages.

I don't hate Ron Paul like most of GAF. My dislike of him is strongly tempered by being an ex-libertarian myself - he's a man of conviction and principle, whether you agree with those principles or not. But there's no excusing these newsletter shenannigans. Either he's a racist and a homophobe or he doesn't mind other people being racist and homophobic in his name. It's one or the other.

He's an old man and an old-fashioned libertarian. His retirement is overdue.

Fair enough. I don't think he should get a pass for the newsletters either, but I also don't think he's a racist like everyone here seems to think. Just my opinion.

 

[Hari Seldon]

We're worried about both. You know who makes a better spokesman for ending racist policies? Someone who's never published a racist, paranoid newsletter.

Yeah I agree for sure. But there are not many politicians advocating for the end of the drug war so we are kind of stuck with who we have.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

What someone said earlier about him not being a libertarian but a states' rights activist is bang on. He doesn't care about peoples' freedom. If a state wanted to outlaw drugs and alcohol and have homosexuals arrested and Black people reduced to second class status due to Jim Crow-esque laws (he opposes the Civil Rights Act, afterall) then he'd be perfectly okay with that.

 

[GaimeGuy]

It seems like gaf is more worried about some theoretical racist bogeyman than actual racist policies that are destroying generations of black skinned people that exist in reality right now and are supported by the vast majority of federal politicians due to corruption or gross incompetence or actual racism.

THe problem is that Ron Paul thinks it's perfectly fine for Alabama to institute racist policies and segregation, and it's perfectly fine for New York ot institute policies meant to promote equality, but that it's wrong for the federal government to do one or the other.

He cares more about his (rather extreme) view of how the system works than actually helping people through policy. Black people in the south have to deal with 2nd rate facilities because of institutional racism by their local communities? He couldn't care less

Hundreds of thousands of people are murdered in african genocides? It doesn't matter.

He's completely lacking in empathy

 

[ivysaur12]

What someone said earlier about him not being a libertarian but a states' rights activist is bang on. He doesn't care about peoples' freedom. If a state wanted to outlaw drugs and alcohol and have homosexuals arrested and Black people reduced to second class status due to Jim Crow-esque laws (he opposes the Civil Rights Act, afterall) then he'd be perfectly okay with that.

He's a tenther, as a friend of mine calls them.

 

[Red Blaster]

It seems like gaf is more worried about some theoretical racist bogeyman than actual racist policies that are destroying generations of black skinned people that exist in reality right now and are supported by the vast majority of federal politicians due to corruption or gross incompetence or actual racism.

someone claiming they wouldn't get rid of Jim Crow laws doesn't support racist policies

got it

 

[greycolumbus]

Ron Paul is retiring from the House after this year. This is his farewell speech.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

It seems like gaf is more worried about some theoretical racist bogeyman than actual racist policies that are destroying generations of black skinned people that exist in reality right now and are supported by the vast majority of federal politicians due to corruption or gross incompetence or actual racism.

How is it a theoretical boogeyman? Is it only because he never had the power to enact his beliefs? Because if that's the case then I'm not sure why you're calling it theoretical, these are things he says he believes in.

 

[Hari Seldon]

THe problem is that Ron Paul thinks it's perfectly fine for Alabama to institute racist policies and segregation, and it's perfectly fine for New York ot institute policies meant to promote equality, but that it's wrong for the federal government to do one or the other.

He cares more about his (rather extreme) view of how the system works than actually helping people through policy. Black people in the south have to deal with 2nd rate facilities because of institutional racism by their local communities? He couldn't care less

Hundreds of thousands of people are murdered in african genocides? It doesn't matter.

He's completely lacking in empathy

Yeah I agree with you on the first part. However I happen to lean heavily to this myself. Having 40 states eliminate the drug war but having 10 stick with it is better than what we have now. Although I do agree that some federal civil rights laws are needed in order to prevent ultra extremism.

But on the African point Ron Paul is 100% right. We had an extremely interventionalist government and hundreds of thousands were murdered in Africa anyway. But in addition, hundreds of thousands were murdered in the middle east. The best policy is to be isolationist as a rule and only break it under extreme circumstances, extreme enough that the incompetent Congress would actually be able to authorize it.

 

[Omegasquash]

Are there really people out there that don't think he's a racist?

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Yeah I agree with you on the first part. However I happen to lean heavily to this myself. Having 40 states eliminate the drug war but having 10 stick with it is better than what we have now. Although I do agree that some federal civil rights laws are needed in order to prevent ultra extremism.

But on the African point Ron Paul is 100% right. We had an extremely interventionalist government and hundreds of thousands were murdered in Africa anyway. But in addition, hundreds of thousands were murdered in the middle east. The best policy is to be isolationist as a rule and only break it under extreme circumstances, extreme enough that the incompetent Congress would actually be able to authorize it.

So you're against the civil rights movement and for jim crow laws and other laws to treat blacks as second class citizens? Would that be better than it is now? No one is dying either since you're now harping about people dying in another part of the world. I'm not sure how you could make posts that pretty much summed up to "LOL GAF" earlier and then try to ignore all the crazy shit which you conveniently left out of your post that others have brought up. I'm confused.

 

[Violater]

Are there really people out there that don't think he's a racist?

I'm sitting here listening to him speak and it does not sound like his ideas speak to the good of everyone.

Additionally I wish he would define the broadly used term "Special Interests"

 

[FyreWulff]

Damn gubmint regulating the commodes. My 'merkin doodies only deserve the most gallonest flushes when I'm done abdicating the throne.

 

[FlashFlooder]

Additionally I wish he would define the broadly used term "Special Interests"

Special Interests - an interest group that tries to influence legislators or bureaucrats to act in their favor, typically through lobbying

Damn gubmint regulating the commodes. My 'merkin doodies only deserve the most gallonest flushes when I'm done abdicating the throne.

that's funny, but it does bother me that my tax money is wasted on things like these.

Are there really people out there that don't think he's a racist?

/raises hand

 

[140.85]

I still think he's a little wacko and lacks balance in his positions but I enjoyed listening to this. He makes some good points.

“I’ve thought a lot about why those of us who believe in liberty as a solution, have done so poorly in convincing others of its benefits. If liberty is what we claim it is, the principle that protects all personal, social, and economic decisions necessary for maximum prosperity and the best chance for peace, it should be an easy sell. Yet history has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of authoritarians, which are rarely, if ever, fulfilled. Should we have authoritarianism, or liberty?”

Here, here. A voice in the wilderness...

Farewell dude.

 

[Htown]

He raises a few good points though

Very few.

 

[Omegasquash]

/raises hand

Why?

I'm sitting here listening to him speak and it does not sound like his ideas speak to the good of everyone.

Additionally I wish he would define the broadly used term "Special Interests"

I do not believe his ideas are for the good of everyone, either. He talks about our government supporting the poor and the rich...what does he think smaller government oversight would do? NOT support the rich?

 

[FyreWulff]

that's funny, but it does bother me that my tax money is wasted on things like these.

Wasted on what, exactly? The more gallons a toilet uses, the more gallons of water your city has to treat. Lower water usage toilets work the same, use less water, and use less of your tax dollars treating the used water. Everybody wins.

It's also a bit important since if you don't enforce proper coding and construction of toilets, someone skimping can end up releasing deadly sewer gas straight into the house.

 

[Violater]

Special Interests - an interest group that tries to influence legislators or bureaucrats to act in their favor, typically through lobbying

Is this always with nefarious intent?

 

[Jackben]

Silly man but strangely popular with internet youth. Hopefully he enjoys retirement and we won't have to hear from misguided individuals about Ron Paul revolution in the poli-gaf threads ever again.

 

[FlashFlooder]

Why?

He just doesn't strike me as the type of person who would be racist.

Additionally, as someone else already pointed out, he consistently frames the debate about the drug was around the racial implications. Now, he's certainly not the only anti-drug war politician out there but he's the only one I'm aware of who sees this and consistently calls out the drug war for being unfair to minorities.

 

[JDSN]

He should have done that about the same time he retired from medicine.