Support NeoGAF

[FlashFlooder]

Is this always with nefarious intent?

If you think about it, it almost always comes at the expense of some other group, and often the majority.

 

[Violater]

If you think about it, it almost always comes at the expense of some other group, and often the majority.

I would love to see a working model of his ideas.

 

[Lucario]

/raises hand

http://newsone.com/444922/opinion-ron-paul-is-a-white-supremacist/

 

[FlashFlooder]

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.

Coding and construction are one thing, and should be regulated because, as you pointed out, lack of regulations could destroy or pollute someone else's property.

The gallons per flush issue, which is what he's referring to, could be resolved without government interference. Of course, given the choice, people are going to choose more efficient models. I just think in this case (and lots of others in which the fed. govt meddles), the problem would take care of itself as technology evolves and becomes more accessible and affordable to everyone.

http://newsone.com/444922/opinion-ron-paul-is-a-white-supremacist/

heh, it says opinion right in the URL.

 

[Red Blaster]

The cognitive dissonance shown by Paul supporters is astounding

*multiple examples of Paul being a racist cunt*

"nope hes not a real racist"

 

[CHEEZMO™]

heh, it says opinion right in the URL.

How about you read it? Or do you not like hearing other peoples' opinions?

 

[FlashFlooder]

I would love to see a working model of his ideas.

I don't know whether his ideal form of government would work or not, but it certainly wouldn't hurt if the current trend of bigger government and spending were swayed back in that direction even if only a little bit.

 

[metalslimer]

The cognitive dissonance shown by Paul supporters is astounding

*multiple examples of Paul being a racist cunt*

"nope hes not a real racist"

Or homophobia.

It's funny, I agree with him on a lot of issues, but like someone says the issues I disagree with him on are so big I could never ever think abotu supporting his philosophy.

 

[Omegasquash]

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.

While accepting support from racist organizations? And supporting individuals rights to be racist? And made comments that go right up next to the edge of being racist?

I respect your belief and won't attempt to change it aside from saying "Occam's Razor."

 

[besada]

And you've also got nearly 3 decades worth of said public service to look at and draw conclusions from.

What public service? He was paid as a Congressman, yet never successfully passed a piece of his legislation. As far as I can tell, he's mostly sucked at the government teat for three decades while having barely any effect on the country.

 

[pigeon]

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.

I admire your willingness to honestly say that your beliefs have no basis in fact.

 

[FlashFlooder]

What public service? He was paid as a Congressman, yet never successfully passed a piece of his legislation. As far as I can tell, he's mostly sucked at the government teat for three decades while having barely any effect on the country.

Ah, this old argument. So, more legislation is automatically better? This is just such a simple way of thinking.

To say he's sucked at the government teat just proves you don't know what you're talking about. Here's a guy who not only turned down, but spoke out against government pensions calling them "taxpayer robbery".

riiiiight.

 

[Red Blaster]

It's a good thing Ron Paul never sponsored a bill like the We The People Act which would remove supreme court jurisdiction in first amendment rights cases. And the fact Paul voted for the Darfur Disinvestment Act shows that he's an empathetic person because he knows that government contracts to businesses fueling African genocide is wrong.

 

[Violater]

We are not a virtuous and moral race of human beings so I find most of his arguments inapplicable.

 

[FlashFlooder]

It's a good thing Ron Paul never sponsored a bill like the We The People Act which would remove supreme court jurisdiction in first amendment rights cases. And the fact Paul voted for the Darfur Disinvestment Act shows that he's an empathetic person because he knows that government contracts to businesses fueling African genocide is wrong.

Now you're talking. If you're gonna criticize the guy, let's talk about actual policy. Not just pointing fingers and calling him racist.

extra points for the excellent use of sarcasm!

 

[besada]

Ah, this old argument. So, more legislation is automatically better? This is just such a simple way of thinking.

To say he's sucked at the government teat just proves you don't know what you're talking about. Here's a guy who not only turned down, but spoke out against government pensions calling them "taxpayer robbery".

riiiiight.

The salary for a Congressman is $174k annually. He's been sucking off that particular teat for quite some time.

 

[FlashFlooder]

The salary for a Congressman is $174k annually. He's been sucking off that particular teat for quite some time.

I know you're deliberately being obtuse, but the term you're using implies abusing / taking advantage of something. He actually does the opposite.

 

[Christine]

Ah, this old argument. So, more legislation is automatically better? This is just such a simple way of thinking.

I'll go along with the idea that stalling or preventing bad legislation is also a valuable contribution to the process. Did Mr. Paul accomplish anything notable in this regard?

The only other thing that would represent productive work on the part of a representative is service in support of his constituency, but you've apparently defined that as a special interest.

 

[besada]

I know you're deliberately being obtuse, but the term you're using implies abusing / taking advantage of something. He actually does the opposite.

No, a guy who gets paid to legislate and never manages to pass, or get rid of, a law is just sucking up space on the legislature. Paul's had virtually no effect, but he's pocketed more government money than any of us ever will.

 

[FlashFlooder]

I'll go along with the idea that stalling or preventing bad legislation is also a valuable contribution to the process. Did Mr. Paul accomplish anything notable in this regard?

The only other thing that would represent productive work on the part of a representative is service in support of his constituency, but you've apparently defined that as a special interest.

Stalling and trying to prevent legislation is basically all he did during his tenure. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any legislation he was able to single-handedly strike down since that's not the way it works. So I suspect he is going to fail your accomplishment metric, as I'm assuming you are defining it.

To your 2nd point, that's wasn't MY definition of special interest. It's THE definition. And apparently his constituency was pretty pleased with his performance, he did get re-elected quite a few times.

 

[Violater]

Lololol liberty and peace and end of hate and warefare.
Love for EVERYONE!!
sigh....
I need some of what he is smoking.
In fact we need to get the whole world on it.

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

every political test I've taken online i come out as a libertarian, I don't even really follow politics lol.

 

[timetokill]

The cognitive dissonance shown by Paul supporters is astounding

*multiple examples of Paul being a racist cunt*

"nope hes not a real racist"

The cognitive dissonance shown by Obama supporters is similar. Someone posted a hilarious video on it recently. I'm not a Paul supporter but let's not pretend people aren't people.

I gotta say, I really miss Gaborn. Now you guys can build all the silly "libertarian" strawmen you want and knock them down in a big echo chamber with nobody to oppose you. It's just not as interesting

 

[Violater]

And apparently his constituency was pretty pleased with his performance, he did get re-elected quite a few times.

(R) Ron Paul Texas, might have a little to do with that.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

The cognitive dissonance shown by Obama supporters is similar. Someone posted a hilarious video on it recently. I'm not a Paul supporter but let's not pretend people aren't people.

I gotta say, I really miss Gaborn. Now you guys can build all the silly "libertarian" strawmen you want and knock them down in a big echo chamber with nobody to oppose you. It's just not as interesting

Gaborn didn't like Ron Paul.

 

[FlashFlooder]

(R) Ron Paul Texas, might have a little to do with that.

He's hardly a textbook Republican. C'mon.

 

[Omegasquash]

The cognitive dissonance shown by Obama supporters is similar. Someone posted a hilarious video on it recently. I'm not a Paul supporter but let's not pretend people aren't people.

I gotta say, I really miss Gaborn. Now you guys can build all the silly "libertarian" strawmen you want and knock them down in a big echo chamber with nobody to oppose you. It's just not as interesting

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

 

[The Technomancer]

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.

See, I just kind of disagree with what he says there, or rather, I disagree with the idea that liberty has intrinsic value. I mean, its important, but this:

the principle that protects all personal, social, and economic decisions necessary for maximum prosperity and the best chance for peace

doesn't jive with me, I think that there is a need for authority to perserve personal, social, and economic freedom. In fact, in those areas increased "liberty" actually seems to create a system that then destroys liberty. Its not a stable system.

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

damn neogaf despises this guy

probably means hes doing something right, if the OT is anything like the gaming forum lol.

 

[Stet]

"An honest politician would be nice for a change" is such a bad idea for a voting strategy. That's why Rob Ford was elected in Toronto.

A competent politician who stretches the truth on occasion is always better than an honest buffoon with lunatic ideals.

 

[Red Blaster]

The cognitive dissonance shown by Obama supporters is similar. Someone posted a hilarious video on it recently. I'm not a Paul supporter but let's not pretend people aren't people.

I gotta say, I really miss Gaborn. Now you guys can build all the silly "libertarian" strawmen you want and knock them down in a big echo chamber with nobody to oppose you. It's just not as interesting

I don't care about people in some video

i'm talking about people in this very thread who claim Ron Paul isn't a racist in the face of overwhelming evidence against them

 

[Stinkles]

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?

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

 

[CHEEZMO™]

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

He may have several deep-running ties to a number of Neo-Nazi and White supremacist organizations, but he just doesn't seem like he could be racist, y'know?

 

[JzeroT1437]

let me buy double bubble with this stick of gold.

hope you have correct change.

 

[Christine]

Stalling and trying to prevent legislation is basically all he did during his tenure. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any legislation he was able to single-handedly strike down since that's not the way it works. So I suspect he is going to fail your accomplishment metric, as I'm assuming you are defining it.

I never asked for anything he was able to single-handedly strike down, which makes your assumption concerning my metric for accomplishment a classic example of a straw man.

I'd simply like you to make an affirmative case that he had any effect as a legislator. This shouldn't be difficult in the slightest if, you know, he actually had one. I don't know much about his record so this is a genuine question--for all I know you could be able to point to a bunch of shit that supports the efficacy of his opposition to certain policies or legislation.

If you need some ideas, any of the following would be relevant:

• Notable delay on specific bills
• Notable input on debate surrounding specific bills
• Removal of specific portions of a given bill
• Addition of safeguards to limit expansion of gov't power w/r/t specific bills

And no, none of these need to be things he accomplished "single-handedly". Participation in a coalition that accomplished any of the above would be more than sufficient. But there does have to have been some form of accomplishment or effect.

Accusing your interlocutors of 'thinking simply' while failing to make any case for Mr. Paul's record doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't actually do anything. However, if I had to evaluate his service on the basis of your statements, yeah, I'd have to say that it sounds like he was pretty useless as a public servant and that his career was one that provided no meaningful benefit to the American people.

To your 2nd point, that's wasn't MY definition of special interest. It's THE definition. And apparently his constituency was pretty pleased with his performance, he did get re-elected quite a few times.

So that's the case you want to make? Ron Paul, he didn't do much except pander to Special Interests?

 

[Hari Seldon]

He may have several deep-running ties to a number of Neo-Nazi and White supremacist organizations, but he just doesn't seem like he could be racist, y'know?

Like I said before, I'll take someone who was in the god damn KKK but actively supports ending racist policies over someone with a perfectly PC record who wants to continue racist policies. I mean, it is not like the Dems didn't have an Exalted Cyclops serving in the senate only 2 years ago.

 

[FyreWulff]

Coding and construction are one thing, and should be regulated because, as you pointed out, lack of regulations could destroy or pollute someone else's property.

The gallons per flush issue, which is what he's referring to, could be resolved without government interference. Of course, given the choice, people are going to choose more efficient models. I just think in this case (and lots of others in which the fed. govt meddles), the problem would take care of itself as technology evolves and becomes more accessible and affordable to everyone.

We don't even need the federal government to enact change. If California decides on something, it pretty much applies to all other states automatically due to the size of it's market. I have stickers on variant appliances that say "Satifies _____ law of California", and one on my water heater that says "Satifies the requirements of New York State Law _____" and "Meets California Guideline ____". The manufacturers aren't going to make 50 different appliances so it just meets the baseline government standards of the biggest states.

 

[Seanspeed]

No, a guy who gets paid to legislate and never manages to pass, or get rid of, a law is just sucking up space on the legislature. Paul's had virtually no effect, but he's pocketed more government money than any of us ever will.

So basically, you just want him to be like everybody else and conform to a specific party's standard? Cuz thats how laws get passed.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Like I said before, I'll take someone who was in the god damn KKK but actively supports ending racist policies over someone with a perfectly PC record who wants to continue racist policies. I mean, it is not like the Dems didn't have an Exalted Cyclops serving in the senate only 2 years ago.

The man opposed the Civil Rights Act. He called the end of Apartheid "the destruction of civilization". As I said before, it looks like he knows all about racist policies. He doesn't care about racist policies being in place unless it's by the Federal government. If he had his way and Mississippi ended up putting Jim Crow laws back in place he would be fine with it.

He's a states rights activist, not a Libertarian!

 

[pigeon]

Gaborn didn't like Ron Paul.

Why would he? Gaborn was a libertarian. Ron Paul was a guy who claimed to be a libertarian while supporting bans on abortions and gay marriage -- in other words, he was really just a typical Republican. If anything, I admire him for being able to convince so many people he was a man of principle.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I don't care if Ron Paul supports the Darfur Divestment Act. He is the kind of person that would sit by and LET genocide occur.

Asked if he would have supported intervention in Rwanda, Paul said:

I don't think it's part of our Constitution that we should go around the world trying to solve every problem. And I think that it's very difficult to help people who really need it. Even in Libya today, the chances of really helping the people is unknown.

But too often when you take money or even food and give it to these factions when they are fighting and at war, they become weapons of war. One faction will get it and use it against the other. And very rarely does it help the people.

So I don't think it's constitutional. I don't think it accomplishes what it's supposed to. And that the Founders were, I think, rather shrewd in giving us advice. Stay out of entangling alliances, stay out of the internal affairs of other nations.

But there's every reason to help people and we are a generous nation. When people really suffer, whether there's an earthquake or any type of tragedy, the American people are quite willing to help.

All he does is defer to his own vision of what "the founders" would have wanted and say "it's not my problem" to make himself feel better.

 

[FlashFlooder]

I never asked for anything he was able to single-handedly strike down, which makes your assumption concerning my metric for accomplishment a classic example of a straw man.

I'd simply like you to make an affirmative case that he had any effect as a legislator. This shouldn't be difficult in the slightest if, you know, he actually had one. I don't know much about his record so this is a genuine question--for all I know you could be able to point to a bunch of shit that supports the efficacy of his opposition to certain policies or legislation.

If you need some ideas, any of the following would be relevant:

• Notable delay on specific bills
• Notable input on debate surrounding specific bills
• Removal of specific portions of a given bill
• Addition of safeguards to limit expansion of gov't power w/r/t specific bills

And no, none of these need to be things he accomplished "single-handedly". Participation in a coalition that accomplished any of the above would be more than sufficient. But there does have to have been some form of accomplishment or effect.

Accusing your interlocutors of 'thinking simply' while failing to make any case for Mr. Paul's record doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't actually do anything. However, if I had to evaluate his service on the basis of your statements, yeah, I'd have to say that it sounds like he was pretty useless as a public servant and that his career was one that provided no meaningful benefit to the American people.



So that's the case you want to make? Ron Paul, he didn't do much except pander to Special Interests?

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. 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

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

 

[Red Blaster]

Ron Paul literally thinks equal protection is unconstitutional

not a racist!

I don't care if Ron Paul supports the Darfur Divestment Act. He is the kind of person that would sit by and LET genocide occur.




All he does is defer to his own vision of what "the founders" would have wanted and say "it's not my problem" to make himself feel better.

Spoiler

Paul doesn't support the Darfur Divestment Act, literally the lone dissenter in all of Congress. After all, free enterprise supersedes black people getting murdered for it.

 

[besada]

So basically, you just want him to be like everybody else and conform to a specific party's standard? Cuz thats how laws get passed.

I'd like him to do the job he's paid for, which is to legislate. In 2012 he missed more than 90% of the votes in the House, but still pocketed 100% of his salary. You're okay with that?

 

[War Peaceman]

No, a guy who gets paid to legislate and never manages to pass, or get rid of, a law is just sucking up space on the legislature. Paul's had virtually no effect, but he's pocketed more government money than any of us ever will.

I am no Ron Paul fan. Not even in the slightest.

However, was it is his job to legislate, or was it to represent his constituents' interests? I think it is a bit more complex than you are depcicting him as. EDIT: Missing so many votes is reprehensible. Although I know on the UK's parliamentary statistics, attendance does not equate to voting.

Also, this speech is absolutely atrocious. I don't mean in terms of ideology (though that too), but in terms of technique, flow and use of rhetoric. Really awful.

 

[NoirVisage]

This dude is out it, like in the head, pretty clearly racist in my opinion, just smart about the things he says..I don't know how to read Ron Paul supporters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhqUk28OwHs

This is possibly the greatest thing i've seen in my life!

 

[FlashFlooder]

I'd like him to do the job he's paid for, which is to legislate. In 2012 he missed more than 90% of the votes in the House, but still pocketed 100% of his salary. You're okay with that?

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

 

[zaxon]

The man opposed the Civil Rights Act.

"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.""

He called the end of Apartheid "the destruction of civilization".

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]

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.

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.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

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

I'm sure he had no connection with decades of newsletters under his name written in his office and signed off by him.