Something Everyone Who Aligns With The Left or Right Should Read

EastcoastAR5

EastcoastAR5

Active member
http://www.etherzone.com/2004/tuma122004.shtml                                                                                           I really think everyone should read this. Im not saying I am one or the other, but it really is worth the read. I can garentee most of you will be truly shocked.

 
Wow, I really like that article. I figured out bush was a bit liberal a while ago, but this really intrigues me. Bookmarked in my folders for the future, thank you!

 
I LOVE the self-delusion available to you people sometimes. It's just brilliant. "Fuck, Bush is unpopular and seems to have screwed everything up after we just spent 7 years blindly following him under the mantra "dissent is treason". How can we deal with this?" "I KNOW! Let's tell everyone he's a LIBERAL!"

Just gold.
 
I agree that Bush is definately not liberal either. 'Not conservative' definately doesn't mean someone is liberal.

Deep down we all know he's a fascist.
 
Comon Man. He is A NEO CONSERVATIVE! No one is trying to condem his actions by say "oh its because he is a liberal" He is a fucking retard first and a Neo Conservative second! Yes the article say's hes a liberal, but in essence, it is just saying his actions are very liberal. I.E going to war! This article is just showing how people see george bush/dick as the poster boys for conservatism when that is completely wrong. War is the least conservative thing one could do, but ask 99% of the public and they will disagree! Neo Cons are the devil. Not liberals and Not true conservatives. 

 
But if true conservatives aren't evil and Ron Paul is the only true conservative politician and Ron Paul is a racist with ties to white supremacy, does that mean white supremacists aren't evil?

I QUESTION YOUR BASIC ASSUMPTIONS.
 
My point is that if a racist like Paul is your representative, you have no leg to stand on when it comes to moral claims.
 
Oh-My-God, you people amaze me. The fact that anybody would label war it as a liberal concept is simply the dumbest fucking thing imaginable. War transcends ideology. Do yourself a favor and pick up a history book.
 
Oooh...

Well I haven't seen any evidence that ANY of the candidates are white supremacists. Just because the North American Man/Boy Love Association endorses a candidate doesn't mean he has sex with little boys. I don't think either of these groups has a candidate that is going to push their core objectives. At least I hope not...
 
If he is a racist, why do many, many black people support Ron Paul?

Heres one for example

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWbh4Cpy8pc

Seriously, prove to me that Ron Paul HIMSELF has done anything even REMOTELY racist in his entire life. Please find somewhere on Pauls agenda that will do something even remotely close to racism in his presidency, I dare you.

As far as the donation argument, Every person in this country has the right to donate to whatever candidate they feel will run the country best. One of the biggest turn ons to just about every American, is Ron Pauls striving for Smaller government. Pretty much everyone can agree with that, black/white/young/poor/rich/democrat/republican/independent whatever you may be. That is the beauty of America. Ron Paul is uniting all people, in a peaceful way.

Dude, are you seriously getting paranoid that Ron Paul will start shipping people off to Antarctica if their skin is the wrong color? Talk about your moonbat conspracy theory right there. The man was a doctor and gave FREE medical care to people who could not afford it. He delivered over 4000 babied, I bet you alot of those were black or dark skin. Trying to frame him as a racist is a completely false accusation and many of Ron Pauls detractors are trying to use this racist card alot. Its to bad that you are in CANADA and do not know the real story behind everything. I know of many people in Canada that support Ron Paul, probably more than any other candidate.
 
I completely agree. this is the single dumbest article i have read yet. The term "conservative" has completely changed in meaning these days. There are necessary steps to take for a country to survive. those steps supersede the need to adhere to the 5 arbitrary rules the article suggests. Bush still follows, quite closely, what a conservative is defined as today.

It's true conservatives value American sovereignty over all else, but in order to have American sovereignty, the nation must survive and survive prosperously. That, sometimes, requires preemptive wars. Conservatives lobbied against going into world war ii because the war relatively did not concern us. Under the monroe doctrine, it was correct for us to resort to isolationism, until, of course, the caniving japs sneak attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Then everyone agreed to world war ii for the most part.

Economically speaking, Bush is vastly misunderstood. Analyzing a nation's debt based on absolute figures alone is a fool's errand. One must only interpret debt as a percentage of a nation's GDP. Currently, the national deficit is drastically reducing in percentage of GDP and, if continuing on Bush's fiscal plan, the United States will see a budgetary surplus in 2012 (for the first time in over a decade). Bush spends, but reduces the percentage spent in relation to GDP. Also it is his administration that is trying to reform Social Security and reduce spending under Health and Human Services.

Lastly, arguably the single most important aspect of a conservative is traditional values. Bush has traditional values. enough said.

True Bush has his conservative caveats but almost all do. True, the patriot act is the shittiest piece of legislation ever passed, but at the core, Bush still remains conservative. The definition must be altered. We live in a drastically different world than the early 1800's when Monroe wrote his outdated doctrine. We have internet, television, jet aircraft, and open discussion boards such as newschoolers.com. Isolation is impossible. Moreover, globalization, along with a cut in taxes, is becoming woven into the fabric of conservatism in the 21st century.

In short, this entire article is a useless argument of semantics.

 
Some of Ron Paul's articles and speeches make it pretty obvious. In 1992 he wrote abou African-American "racial terrorism" in Los Angeles: "our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists and they can be identified by the color of their skin."

Also in 1992: "complex embezzling" is "100% white and Asian;" and young black male muggers are "unbelievably fleet-footed."

The best quote, on Washington D.C., from an article about an Urban Race War: "I think we can safely assume that 95% of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

That kind of thing, and speaking to supremacist groups, appearing on their radio shows, and so forth... keeping a little bit of strategic distance so people can't straight up brand him tantamount to a KKK member. But you do the math.
 
Why dont you pick up a dictionary some time. All I stated was that a TRUE conservative would be the last person to go to war. This is true and you cannot argues this. Look at any war in the past...On the other hand a liberal (The Other Extreme) by Default would technically be the one more apt to go to war. This is also true. So before your pea sized brain immediately jumps to conclusions, think again.
 
Meh, you have your opinion but I do not agree with it at all.

When Bush ran for president, he campaigned on a humble foriegn policy, no nation building, etc. Now look what he has done, completely the opposite. 9/11 was not a world ending event, yes, it was a bad deal, but it is not an event that should change how the world works. The dollar bill is just about useless now. Inflation is probably the biggest problem we have in the economy right now. You cannot ignore it. Everyone is trying to sell their house and get out of mortgages, I've seen the evidence of it. I seriously do not think a single thing that Bush in 7 years has helped our society one bit. I could care less how great he made our military and how many times he saluted the flag and said "Mission Accomplished" He still declared an illegal 'war' and basically could care less about the constitution. I do not admire a man who has no integrity and does not stand by the rules set forth by the founding fathers of this country.
 
I never knew about this...thanks for sharing, I will have to look into that. I am certain most politicians are some what racist. I know for a fact HillDog Clinton hates Jewish people. My parents were friends with her security gaurd (he worked for her during B Clintons time in office) and he heard her saying racist things all the time about jews...
 
Seriously, come up with actual links that RON PAUL specifically said all of those things himself. Just because you heard it on the internet, does not make it true.

I need a link to the actual article with the author and at a legit site, not some shitty blog.

Honestly though, I call bullshit on the whole deal because I know there are regularly Ron Paul detractors who grasp onto a few quotes that were "ghostwritten" by some unknown author and somehow got associated with Ron Paul.
 
Apparently Paul has written a fair amount of anti-semitic stuff too, but I have no details on that. But even policy wise... how do you support a guy who thinks paper money is unconstitutional, wants to abolish the CIA and FBI, and says things like "I favor ending government involvement in education"? That's just crazy talk.
 
All of those quotes are from a magazine called the Ron Paul Political Report, the one about Washington DC was the one he says was ghostwritten for him. Sure Ron. That's how to disavow something you wish you hadn't written. Blame it on someone else. Except that doesn't work, it's like a politician blaming his speechwriter. Once you pay someone to write something for you and put your name on it, you own it.
 
They don't exactly have a great track record, lol.

But yea, removing the Dept. of Education seems a bit much. Yea, our schools suck, but so does every private school I've ever seen. Poor people need to at least learn how to read..

But from what I understand he's not so much against paper money as he is a fiat currency controlled by the Fed. There are other ways to do that.

FBI...meh..I guess we need something to give murderers to think about. But get them out of this "War on Drugs" and go after real criminals. "It's not a War on Drugs, it's a War on Personal Freedom. Please remember that at all times. Thank you." lol
 
Paper money that is not worth anything is unconstitutional. The Feds regularly inject billions into the economy. They print money out of thin air, thus the value goes down, its not that complicated. Have you looked at the value of gold lately? Its at like $850 oz, it used to be a few years ago at like $300 oz. The dollar has lost a shit load of value.

I highly doubt that Ron Paul could ever get rid of the CIA or FBI, but its the point that matters. Why even have them if they cooudntt stop 9/11? He is just making the point that they are very inefficient and they need to focus on intelligence more. Their communications were horrible and was one reason 9/11 went through.

Government involvement in education is horrible. Heard of "No child left behind?" Yep a complete failure. Governmental schools are horrible, I should know, I went to them until college. The private schools and all university/colleges produce so much better education and are better organized and funded than gov schools.

People from all over the world, strive to come to America's Private Colleges to get a degree because we have the best schools and they are all private for the most part. I think that makes a good point.
 
Typical. I'd expect as much from you.

Why is it that in damn near every thread I have to tell people that dictionaries are not the end all method of defining complex concepts (Newsflash: Political ideology is a complex concept!). The reason you damn people keep pulling the "dictionary card" is because you haven't actually given any thought or study into the very ideas you keep trumpeting about.

And furthermore, there is something to be said about distinguishing political ideology from it's root label. Your problem is that you can distinguish the two. I guess you could try and back your way into rationalizing that you were actually talking about liberal (a concept derived from Greek and Latin that means "free" or "liberate") and not liberalism (the actual ideology). Unfortunately for you, that argument simply doesn't work because it is inconsistent with the other side of your example when you use terms like "neo conservative". Again, the concept of "conservatism" (ideology) is different form "conservative" which is a much more ambiguous term. However, neoconservatism is an ideology so clearly you can't be referring to the "free" liberal because it makes no sense. So what they fuck are you actually talking about?

Before your pea sized brain starts to act like it knows its shit, I'd suggest you do some learning. You're out of your league buddy.
 
One more time, copying and pasting articles to make your point for you = instant delete. The reason there are no links is that these articles were published not online but in a magazine in 1992 and before, when there wasn't a whole lot of internet going around. I don't have a hard copy to scan. but it doesn't matter, because Ron admitted all of this in an interview in 2001, which was also when he made the claim about the ghostwriting of that particular article. When your candidate admits the whole thing himself, you don't really need substantiation...
 
Alright JD, from wikipedia, do not delete this, read it. God forbid you would have to read more than one paragraph. I copy and paste this stuff so i can inform you. Its called information.

1996 campaign controversy

Further information: Texas's 14th Congressional district

In 1996, Paul was re-elected to Congress after a tougher battle than

he had faced in the 1970s. Since the Republicans had taken over both

houses of Congress in the 1994 election, Paul entered the race hopeful that his Constitutionalist goals of shrinking government size would have more influence,[34] but he quickly concluded "there was no sincere effort" toward his goals.[14] The Republican National Committee focused instead on encouraging Democrats to switch parties, as Paul's primary opponent, incumbent Greg Laughlin, had done in 1995. The party threw its full weight behind Laughlin, including support from House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Governor George W. Bush, and the National Rifle Association.

Paul responded by running newspaper ads quoting Gingrich's harsh

criticisms of Laughlin's Democratic voting record 14 months earlier.[39] Paul won the primary with support from baseball pitcher, constituent, and friend Nolan Ryan (who served as honorary campaign chair and made ad appearances) and tax activist Steve Forbes.[10][33]

Paul's Democratic opponent in the fall election, trial lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, lost in a close margin, despite assistance from the AFL-CIO.

Paul's large contributor base outraised Morris two-to-one, giving the

third-highest amount of individual contributions received by any House

member (behind Gingrich and Bob Dornan).[51] It became the third time Paul had been elected to Congress as a non-incumbent.[10]

Morris ran numerous attacks, including publicizing issues of the Ron Paul Survival Report (published by Paul since 1985) that included derogatory comments concerning race and other politicians.[52][53]

Alluding to a 1992 study finding that "of black men in Washington ...

about 85 percent are arrested at some point in their lives",[54][55]

the newsletter proposed assuming that "95% of the black males in

Washington DC are semi-criminal or entirely criminal", and stated that

"the criminals who terrorize our cities ... largely are" young black

males and "black men commit [crimes] all out of proportion to their

numbers".[56][57]

In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by a ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said newsletter remarks referring to U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan

(calling her a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist") were "the

saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she

was a delightful lady."[58]

The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's

confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman

and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely

like this."[33] In 2007, with the quotes resurfacing, the New York Times Magazine concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own."[10]

Now, who do you believe? JD, who is from Canada? Or Ron Paul himself?
 
Lol

But seriously, one thing about taking something someone supposedly said 15 years ago is that it is almost certainly taken out of context. So there was a study saying that black men get locked up more often than white men? I believe it. Does acknowledging something that is an unfortunate fact in issues regarding race make me a racist?

BTW, here is a link where the topic seems to have been addressed somewhat thoroughly...I need to look into it myself.

http://piqued.brianfrantz.com/?p=17
 
In response to finding actual moments where Ron Paul faultered:

Houston Chronicle, 1996:

Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.

Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."

... n the same 1992 edition ... [Paul wrote], "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

Paul also asserted that "complex embezzling" is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.

"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" he wrote.

Or in the Austin Chronicle:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue9/pols.paul.side.html

There's a few gems there, like: "we are told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

Or:

24 May 1996

CongressDaily/A.M. English

Copyright (c) 1996 National Journal Inc.

A 1992 political newsletter by former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, included portrayals of African-Americans as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about political issues, the Houston Chronicle reported Thursday. Paul, a former Libertarian Party presidential candidate who defeated Democratic-turned-Republican Rep. Greg Laughlin in the March primary, in November will face Democratic attorney Charles (Lefty) Morris, whose campaign is distributing Paul's writings.

Under the headline "Terrorist Update," Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and wrote, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." About blacks in Washington, D.C., Paul wrote, "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Paul said Wednesday that his comments came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time," and that he opposes racism.

In later newsletters, Paul wrote that lobbying groups who seek special favors are evil, and that "by far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government."

or another

Texas

Newsletter by Paul attacked

Associated Press

329 words

24 May 1996

San Antonio Express-News English

(Copyright 1996)

A 1992 newsletter by Republican congressional candidate Ron Paul highlighted portrayals of blacks as criminally inclined and lacking sense about top political issues.

Reporting on gang crime in Los Angeles, Paul commented: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Paul, a Surfside obstetrician who won the GOP nomination in the 14th District runoff by defeating incumbent Rep. Greg Laughlin, said Wednesday he opposed racism.

He said his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."

Paul's Democratic opponent, Charles "Lefty" Morris, said many of Paul's views were "out there on the fringe" and that this fall voters would judge his commentaries.

Morris' campaign distributed selected writings by Paul this week.

Paul, a former congressman and one-time Libertarian presidential nominee, said allegations about his writings amounted to name-calling by the Democrats.

He said he'd produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers.

Writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, Paul commented about black men in the nation's capital.

Citing statistics from a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia, Paul 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," Paul said this week. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report.

He also wrote: "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered "as decent people."
 
Ron Paul is not racist. He tries to take issues as he sees them and not skirt around the issue. People have been trying to blast him for complaining about a black kid who mugged him on the street! I guess when you are down to your last resort you just call the politician rasict.

PS, I just watched a black man on CNN supporting Ron Paul and saying he is the only presidential candidate who knows his history.
 
no offense, but youre kind of dumb. Saying that 9/11 isnt a world changing event is an insult to all those who suffered on those days. 9/11 is the single largest and most inhumane rogue terrorist attack the world has ever seen. And it was done unto arguably the most powerful and righteous country in the world by criminals no less not claiming representation from any other country. It was, concisely, unprecedented. How could you say it isnt a world/policy changing event???

Also you obviously have absolutely no idea how the economy works. Our economy is in a high point in the economic cycle right now. Inflation and the decrease in value of the dollar bill is good for the economy right now. anyone with the slightest knowledge of economics knows why. im going to wait for you to ask me how a decreasing dollar can be beneficial to the US economy till i explain to you why, and ultimately own you.

In the past 7 years, due to intelligent accounting bush has raised our living standards, helped increase GDP, enormously strengthened our military, and has attempted to impose democracy in regions otherwise desperate for it. He did all this with minimal spending; in fact our deficit is going down and as a percent of GDP, is very below the 40 year average and very below what it was during the Clinton administration.
 
The problem is, you say these things with absolutely no proof whatsoever.

9/11 was not the largest attack this world has ever seen. That is complete bullshit. 9/11 was just proof that our CIA/FBI are complete failures as well as our defense system. Apparently 19 cavemen with boxcutters are smart enough to infiltrate any kind of defense we have. Seriously, WTF?

Remember the Atom Bomb on Hiroshima? Yea, I would say that was a bigger attack than 9/11.

I would say Pearl Harbor is bigger than 9/11. The list goes on if we want to look to history.

Seriously dude, 9/11 was not a specific country attacking the US. It was 19 thugs unaffiliated with any country at all.

 
Yes you should. Do you work? Care about taxes? Care what happens to other people around you whatsoever?

It can help you determine your idea of what you want by the time you're 18...you need to know what you want or else come election time and you can vote you won't know who to vote for, or who has your ideas.
 
I'm sorry, I just had to take a moment to...

1178902558329.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top