Still winless, Paul supporters press on

[SirNitram]

I can't believe I still have to hammer this home in some people. Debating. Rule. 5. If you make a claim, BACK IT UP. That means claims of racial motivations or racism need to be BACKED UP. Do it or don't post.

I made no such claim. What I was insinuating was not that Obama was racist but that he was just as bad as a racist. If you want the CIA to stop shooting Hellfire missiles at civilians in Asia, the "racist" Ron Paul is a better bet than the "non-racist" Obama.

Not you, Destructionator the terminally retarded.

I won't bother with the political debate because I am here in my role as a moderator.

[Bakustra]

You do understand that he is using the sociological definition of racism, where if a policy disproportionately affects people based on race, then it's racist? Because in that context, your demand is nonsensical and irrelevant.

[madd0ct0r]

well, the policy of drone strikes directly affects people based on the area they live in.
I'm pretty sure if I was wandering around the mountins with 8 of my whitest friends, all dressed up in the cold and carrying the rpgs for the ceremonial goat expoding session i might find my day becoming terminally shorter too.

He IS killing brown people, dosen't mean the the skin colour is the cause.

[Akhlut]

well, the policy of drone strikes directly affects people based on the area they live in.
I'm pretty sure if I was wandering around the mountins with 8 of my whitest friends, all dressed up in the cold and carrying the rpgs for the ceremonial goat expoding session i might find my day becoming terminally shorter too.

He IS killing brown people, dosen't mean the the skin colour is the cause.

That doesn't make it NOT racist, though. If the policies disproportionately affect some races more than others, then it is racist, regardless of motivations.

FYI, over one quarter of US foreign aid is targetted in places that we're directly responsible for fucking up, or places we're using in our process of fucking other people up.

And? It's still better than NOT giving.

While some of the foreign aid is doing good work like delivering food and fighting disease, the truth is much of it would be unnecessary if we started promoting peace instead of war, and that's not even going into the practical problems that sometimes come up and our ulterior motives.

That doesn't make it wrong or any less of a humanitarian disaster if we stopped giving it, though.

We need Dennis Kucinich back in Washington! Peace and genuine, honest compassion is the solution. I'd love to have my peace and my aid too.

The Greens or Socialist Workers would be preferable; none of the taint associated with the Democratic Party.

But, this is a Ron Paul thread, so let's ask this question: does giving out a few condoms in one country justify mass murder in another?

No, but not going to war in one country doesn't justify mass murder in another, either.

The first and most important step in preventing atrocities is to refuse to take part in them, even if it will be difficult for you. That's real courage.

Ergo, voting for Obama is superior to voting for Ron Paul, because it is a vote to prevent a much worse atrocity from occurring, even though it is difficult for people.

That, or voting for the Greens or Socialist Workers.

In the short term, the numbers game might say less are killed by going with Barack Obama, but what about the long term consequences of telling yourself that it is OK to destroy as long as you rebuild?[/quote]

[Akhlut]

And? It's still better than NOT giving.

My point there is there would be less need to give if we'd stop fucking up these countries in the first place, or didn't want to use them to further increase our global hegemony.

Doesn't change the fact that the US has been on imperialist adventures for over 150 years; those places we fucked up still need our help; I think it is very much a moral obligation to assist those that one has harmed in the past, so it would be a moral failing for the US to not supply aid to those nations which it has harmed in the past.

Ergo, voting for Obama is superior to voting for Ron Paul, because it is a vote to prevent a much worse atrocity from occurring, even though it is difficult for people.

It'd be better yet to vote for Ron Paul to put your voice on the record against foreign adventures, and then double your private charity action to make up for the lack of government aid (private charity already accounts for about half of the medicine and developing country help).

With some organization, you can use private donations to make up for reduced government programs. You can't do the same when it comes to CIA operations.

Ron Paul is also associated with a lot of other problems, such as wanting to dismantle the EPA, OSHA, and dozens of other parts of the American government which work to protect American citizens. Simply because he happens to not be a warmonger is not really a good reason to obliterate America's national forests, allow corporations to sell poisoned food without issue (can you afford the expertise to see what food gave you salmonella and if that is a problem due to a bad batch or simply you forgetting that you touched some raw chicken before making a salad?), or letting the arsenic released by mining operations get into your drinking water? Ron Paul's antiwar stance, while admirable, is not a large enough single issue to vote for him. If you want to really register your voice as being antiwar, but pro-aid and pro-not-crippling-Americans, you'd be much better off voting Green/Socialists.

[Simon_Jester]

Doesn't change the fact that the US has been on imperialist adventures for over 150 years; those places we fucked up still need our help; I think it is very much a moral obligation to assist those that one has harmed in the past, so it would be a moral failing for the US to not supply aid to those nations which it has harmed in the past.

For that matter, there are other places that were fucked up by other, entirely different nations, for whose actions we are not responsible. Abandoning them as part of a "never help or hurt anyone" policy would hardly be doing them a favor. How would you like it if you were a subsistence farmer coping with droughts in Destitutionstan, and someone stopped helping you with food-and-medicine money because they had fucked over some other person on another continent and they now figure it's better if they just don't get involved?

That sounds like a very strange thing to do- sort of a 'drama queen' behavior pattern writ large: "No, I can't help you with this, it's not you, it's me... every time I do anything it's all WRONG!" Which is very annoying to hear from someone you want to, say, help you move. And almost intolerable to hear from someone whose help you were really counting on.

It's much more adult and logical to be able to say "I will help you with this, but not hurt that other guy by doing something else," and actually make a reasoned effort to do good and not harm.