Is Paul Racist? You Be the Judge

Discussion in 'Race Relations/Racism' started by Gunny, Jan 15, 2008.

  1. AllieBaba
    Offline

    AllieBaba BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    33,778
    Thanks Received:
    3,648
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +3,664
    There's a conspiracy amongst the automobile manufacturers to make their cars ugly so they won't sell? Really?

    What do you think would happen if we pulled out of the Middle East and focused on soy and corn biofuels? Would birds flit around us, the sun shine every day and there be an organic chicken in every pot?
     
  2. watermark
    Offline

    watermark Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2007
    Messages:
    160
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +7
    Ron Paul is not a racist.
     
  3. eots
    Offline

    eots no fly list

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    28,995
    Thanks Received:
    2,035
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    IN TH HEARTS AND MINDS OF FREE MEN
    Ratings:
    +2,614
    TRANSLATION (from double think to English)

    I AM AWARE THIS SOURCE IS NOT CREDIBLE AND BIASED BUT IT SLANDERS RON PAUL WHO THOSE TINFOIL GUYS SUPPORT SO I WILL PROPAGATE IT ANYWAYS
     
  4. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    First, our entire civilization is petroleum based. So, even if you get away from oil as fuel (gasoline, kerosene, diesel, etc) and oil as energy (oil fired power grid) we will still need oil for Heating, for manufacturing, and lubrication.

    An immediate answer is to drill off the shelf and in anwar. We do this while building our refineries back up to snuff and building nuclear power plants. It could be a massive public works project. Employing gazillions.

    The reason alternate fuels don't work is that they are not as efficient in either a production or economic way.
     
  5. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    39,691
    Thanks Received:
    5,715
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +25,973
    There are plenty of ways to circumvent an absolute need for petroleum. Hemp has been proven to be an equally effective source, if not better, for many of the same uses that petroleum offers.

    I agree with you on the Nuclear issue. We put nuclear power to use more in weapons than we do in energy, which is ridiculous.

    There's also no reason why cities like Chicago, for example, couldn't almost completely depend on wind for energy.

    The problem is, the Feds have states handcuffed in these regards, because they are held hostage to funding if they don't conform to federal standards.

    While you make the argument that alternate energy sources aren't as efficient, I disagree, and say that the effort to MOVE towards them has been extraordinarily unsatisfactory.
     
  6. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    39,691
    Thanks Received:
    5,715
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +25,973
    You can call it a conspiracy if you want. I'll still continue to question why we see so few alternate energy cars on the road when just about everyone in this country complains about gas prices.

    I'd ask you to show me even ONE of the one's that are in production that even REMOTELY look like something average citizens at large, especially the male population, would want to be caught dead in.

    Why don't alternate energy cars get built to look as cool as the biggest selling vehicles?

    You don't at least WONDER?
     
  7. eots
    Offline

    eots no fly list

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    28,995
    Thanks Received:
    2,035
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    IN TH HEARTS AND MINDS OF FREE MEN
    Ratings:
    +2,614
    Ron Paul and the Empire, Part II

    Lew Rockwell.com | January 17, 2008
    Steven LaTulippe

    Well, the hammer has finally struck.

    Several months ago, I wrote a column in which I described the strategy the establishment would use to attack Ron Paul's candidacy:

    The first step is already in play. The establishment will start by simply ignoring him, by using its power in the mainstream media and their influence over campaign donors. If possible, they will find ways of excluding him from the debates.

    This strategy is already failing. The internet and talk radio are outside the elite's direct control and are being used effectively by Rep. Paul to "get the message out." (And mark my words, sooner or later the oligarchy will come for the internet. This medium has been a royal pain in their derriere from day one.)



    If this strategy fizzles, the establishment will move on to ridicule and fear mongering. Ron's ideas will be grotesquely distorted in establishment media "hit pieces." They'll say he wants to permit heroin use in public schools, or that he wants old people to die in the streets without their social security checks, or that he wants to allow greedy industrialists to dump toxic waste into our drinking water.

    The next arrow in the oligarchy's quiver will be scandal ? real or fabricated. Usually, this takes the form of pictures, billing records, etc. involving financial or sexual hi-jinks. For folks with the right motivation and abilities, it would be child's play to implicate him in some sort of phony ethical, moral, or financial skullduggery (e.g., doctored pictures, sordid media accounts from "eyewitnesses," etc.)

    Since the first two tactics met with limited success, they predictably moved on to the third (scandal) in the form of a scurrilous article in The New Republic. In that screed, James Kirchick accused Rep. Paul of authoring a series of articles that insulted blacks, gays, and a myriad of other "groups."

    Ron responded quickly. In a Reason interview, he noted that he did not write the articles in question and did not edit them. To his credit, he did take moral responsibility for inadequately policing the content of a newsletter associated with his name.

    What is particularly nauseating about this hit-piece is the host of glaring double standards it represents.

    James Kirchick is a prototypical neocon and a supporter of Rudy Giuliani's candidacy for president. Rudy has been, from the start, a staunch supporter of Bush's "War on Terror," including the invasion of Iraq.

    That invasion was conceived long before 9/11 and has taken the lives of somewhere between five hundred thousand and a million Iraqi civilians. Nearly four thousand American soldiers have been killed and tens of thousands more are physically and/or emotionally crippled. Our nation's reputation has been soiled, perhaps irrevocably.

    As has been exhaustively documented, that war was launched in a fog of lies, propaganda, and fabricated intelligence.

    So now, five years into the war, we are forced to endure an attack by these same neocons, who are accusing the one viable antiwar candidate of...what?

    Even if Ron Paul wrote every word in every one of those articles, how does that compare to the death and destruction the neocons have rained down on Iraq? It takes unimaginable chutzpah, nearly pathological gall, to stand amid mounds of smoking corpses and accuse Rep. Paul of cultural insensitivity.

    Has America become so politically egocentric, so utterly consumed with its own cultural fetishes, that we could tolerate watching those who perpetrated the Iraq atrocity (or who supported it) smear a decent man for inadequately supervising a newsletter?

    If Ron Paul's candidacy is now tainted for (allegedly) slandering people of color, what should be the political punishment for Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and others who supported mass death and dismemberment of a third world country?

    Even though I anticipated this sort of thing, it is infuriating to watch it unfold before my eyes.

    Are we to be spared nothing?

    In a very fundamental way, there are really only two candidates running for president this year: Ron Paul, and all the others.

    This is because there are really only two issues at stake.

    The first issue is our out-of-control foreign policy. America is embroiled in shooting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We spend more on our military than nearly the rest of the world combined. We have troops stationed in over a hundred foreign countries. Manic interventionism has stretched our military to the breaking point, and has ruined our nation's reputation.

    The second issue is our impending economic implosion. Our government, which has shed the last vestiges of constitutional restraint, has made a myriad of promises that it cannot keep. Our outstanding obligations to fund social security, government health care programs, and everything else under the sun are rapidly bankrupting our nation. To maintain these Ponzi schemes, the Fed is debasing our currency and igniting an ugly bout of hyperinflation.

    Our predicament is severe and profound. We must immediately begin to shed our overseas obligations and put our domestic house in order. Otherwise, we will find ourselves reenacting the collapse of the Soviet Union right here at home.

    Ron Paul is the only candidate who is willing to address these issues. He is the only one who is willing to speak frankly with the American people about our predicament and the painful actions which must be taken to prevent a real catastrophe.

    And rather than offering solutions, Obama, McCain, Clinton and Romney, (and the other political hacks running for president) are not even willing to talk honestly about the problems.

    As I noted in the previous article, the reason for this is simple: The establishment benefits from the status quo and would be disempowered by Ron Paul's proposed solutions.

    Specifically, as I noted in that previous article, Ron Paul is running on three ideas:

    The federal government must function within the strict guidelines of the Constitution.
    America should deconstruct its empire, withdraw our troops from around the world and reestablish a foreign policy based on noninterventionism.
    America should abolish the Federal Reserve Bank, eliminate fiat currency and return to hard money.
    This is not a political agenda. This is not a party platform. It is a revolution. The entire ruling oligarchy would be swept away if these ideas were ever implemented. Every sentence, every word, every jot and tittle of this agenda is unacceptable, repellent and hateful to America's ruling elite.

    So let us all be forewarned. If Ron Paul's candidacy should rise to serious contention, that New Republic hit piece will be mild compared to whatever comes next.

    The rulers of the universe will not go quietly.
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/latulippe82.html
     
  8. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    Possibly. I only know what I've picked up from personal experience. Basically fiscal reality will alwys trump idealistic slogans any day
     
  9. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,755
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,786
    I have NO problem with becoming independent of Arab oil.

    We have YET to bomb and invade a country and take their oil, so that comment is nonapplicable.

    What plenty of ways are you suggesting there are to move away from oil dependency? I have yet to see a viable one.
     
  10. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    39,691
    Thanks Received:
    5,715
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +25,973
    Hemp isn't in use because of that little provision of illegality of the marijuana plant.

    It would be extremely cost efficient. It's grown naturally. It can replace fossil fuels, petrochemicals, synthetic textiles, cotton, the need to cut down trees to make paper, and much more.

    It's one of the oldest industries on the planet.

    Check this site out for starters:

    http://www.votehemp.com/
     

Share This Page