Quotes from Ron Paul's newsletter.

[Lonestar]

Actually, Congress hasn't voted "war" in Iraq and Afghanistan. They've authorized force, which is a very important distinction that Ronulans like to make. Phrases like "Congress is shirking it's Constitutional duty to avoid responsibility" are used. You and I both know that "declare war" and "authorize force" is a bullshit distinction, but the Ronulans don't.

Now, the President has authorized the use of military force without Congressional approval since, oh, George Washington, but the Ronulans often 'forget'(ignore) this, concentrating instead on "since WW2 we've never declared war, and this happened after the establishment of the National Security State and we joined the UN. COINCIDENCE?".

[Panzersharkcat]

Because they have typically been for things like cattle rustlers and other minor things like that.

[Simon_Jester]

Actually, Congress hasn't voted "war" in Iraq and Afghanistan. They've authorized force, which is a very important distinction that Ronulans like to make. Phrases like "Congress is shirking it's Constitutional duty to avoid responsibility" are used. You and I both know that "declare war" and "authorize force" is a bullshit distinction, but the Ronulans don't.

I kind of sympathize with that, because I think there's a big hole in American foreign policy: we don't take a lot of other countries seriously. Their interests are viewed as irrelevant, and we expect them to sacrifice things important to them in exchange for things that aren't very important to us. Diplomacy starts to look more like bullying,

The US isn't the only, or the first, country to do this. But it's a bad habit, because it means we keep making small, annoying enemies- we've already collected about half a dozen. And it's almost impossible to bury the hatchet with them, because we keep blundering around and stomping their toes flat without even noticing that we've done it.

Not formally declaring war is a symptom of this sloppiness. You "authorize force" to deal with a pack of bandits, you don't declare war on them, because you don't need to enter a real state of war to beat them. The fact that Congress always "authorizes force" instead of declaring war suggests a certain smug confidence in the ease with which the opposition is going to get brushed aside. And that we don't need the burdensome responsibilities a "state of war" would put on civil society in order to win. Which ties into the whole not taking people seriously thing, and to the fact that we keep getting sucked into long, drawn-out wars that don't achieve what we want and don't have a clear exit strategy or endpoint.

Ron Paul can go screw himself, but I don't like ignoring the forms when it comes to warfare. Customs like formal declarations of war evolved for a reason, and shrugging them off helps us get lazy and stupid about the decision to fight and prosecute wars.

Simon, it's clear that you aren't even bothering to read my posts and that you are prejudicial of the social sciences. Give one good reaso why I should continue to beat my head against the infinite density of your fuckerhood.

If not continuing would mean you go away and don't come back, then go ahead- don't bother yourself on my account.

[Jim Raynor]

One of the major points behind our system of government is to limit what any one person can do. If a judge lets his beliefs affect his judgement, you have a jury to act as a check, and the option of appeal if that fails. If a president does it, you have judges and congress to keep an eye on it.

Of course, in the last decade, we've gotten used to despotism and tyranny, but even so, it's been checked to some degree. (In part thanks to Ron Paul!)


Let's look at some racist actions:

1) "I'm gonna exterminate a bunch of people!" Ron Paul has been consistently against that.

Saying that a racist (or even a hypothetical NEO NAZI, as stated in your own post) president would be reigned in from starting a holocaust is the most simplistic, irrelevant thing you could possibly say to in defense of this outrageous idea. OF COURSE he's not going to singlehandedly start killing a bunch of people. That's ridiculous and not the point. We thankfully know that in real life an idiot like this would have no chance of actually being elected.

2) "I'm going to actively discriminate against a bunch of people!" Ron Paul is against this (see his arguments on things like the death penalty, the war on drugs, and others), and even if he were for it, Congress would probably act as a check.

3) "I'm going to enable discrimination and look the other way." This is the most he's done in some places... and even so, none of it has gained traction in Congress; the check seems to actually work.

So your answer to everything is that Congress or some other part of the system would fix it. The threat of racism in America is not so much overt as it is subtle. You think a racist or hypothetical Neo Nazi president is going to push very hard for legislation or changes that would protect minorities, especially if his wacky perception tells him it's a threat to the white race (excuse me, "traditional American values")? You think he'll be as restrained with the use of military force if the leaders of some country full of brown people had a dispute with the US? You think he'll be as careful about avoiding escalation if something does happen? We have a pretty recent example of a president pushing hard to drive this country into a war, and succeeding at it.

Hell, you think a racist/Nazi president would be taken seriously at all on the world stage? He's not going to have the moral high ground to criticize, if some foreign dictator starts violently suppressing some protestors. You think some other important countries, for example China, would find it encouraging if America actually elected an actual Neo Nazi? This kind of crap would be the PERFECT propaganda for any nation that disagrees with America's POV. You see the signs being held up during real-life protests in places Pakistan, where the stars on the US flag are replaced with swatstikas? In your hypothetical scenario, people like that would pretty much be RIGHT. You've just handed Al Qaeda or anyone else a great recruiting tool.

You know, if you want to say you like Ron Paul and think he'd be a good president, just say it. You don't need to say completely insane things like how you'd be perfectly fine with voting for a Nazi. You've gone way too far with this. So either you have no idea how things work, or you're just being ridiculously over the top with how you make your points.

EDIT: And what does the election of a Neo Nazi say about the American people? It would now be acceptable for someone like that to serve in the highest position of power. The norms of what is and isn't completely batshit crazy would be shifted. Great precedent you've set for the future.

[Jim Raynor]

You said something completely clownish, ridiculous, and over the top about how you'd willingly vote for a Nazi candidate. Just say it was hyperbole and you didn't really mean it. That's what I assumed you were doing, giving you the benefit of the doubt though it's starting to look like you don't deserve it.

Ron Paul, or hypothetical Neo Nazi candidate, does not have a record as President of the United States. We have evidence that he's either a crazy racist, or someone who is so shamefully dishonest and immoral that he'll fan the flames of hatred against certain American citizens for political gain. That does not speak well for him, or how he'd conduct himself as president. Again, giving the benefit of the doubt, I asked in my first post if anyone had determined what his exact involvement in these despicable newsletters was. So far no one has produced a good reason why he'd let this vile crap be published for years and years with his name on it.

BTW, it's relatively easy for Ron Paul to talk big vote "No" on any new piece of regulation, as one of literally hundreds of Congressmen. Actually running the country as president is another matter. Ron Paul is a bunch of big talk. You say Congress will rein him in and stop him from doing a lot of things, and I AGREE with that. He talks like an idealist, not like someone with a practical understanding of how to actually get things done. Another attitude which doesn't suggest he'd do a very good job.

You say it's just an "ad hominem" to bring up someone's attitudes and reputation when talking about their potential job performance, but it's not. Appearances matter, because other people will react to you differently based on what you've said and done before. A Neo Nazi President would be a national embarassment and a complete diplomatic liability.

[Jim Raynor]

You said something completely clownish, ridiculous, and over the top about how you'd willingly vote for a Nazi candidate.

As long as his policy lined up with mine.

That's the important part from Shep's original post that you keep cutting off.

This was dealt with by multiple people throughout multiple posts: "As long as the publically stated policies of an apparently vile and dishonest man who doesn't have to actually deal with being the President yet line up with you."

This hypothetical Nazi is credibly fighting to reform racist institutions, to prevent wars, and to ensure civil liberties.

Big talk. BTW, someone can SAY they're doing something to "ensure liberty" or "reform racism," but that's not necessarily how they think, or what they'd do.

We have evidence that he's either a crazy racist, or someone who is so shamefully dishonest and immoral that he'll fan the flames of hatred against certain American citizens for political gain.

Christ, who doesn't do that? Barack Obama literally blew a certain American citizen to bits for political gain, for crying out loud.

Yeah, he blew up an American citizen openly acting as a mouth piece for terrorists. He targeted a specific individual without going through due process for practical and arguable reasons, reflecting a thought process that falls within the realm of normal. Not exactly the same thing as publishing a newsletter trying to stir up racism against entire ethnic groups of people within the country.

But, consider this: do you think LBJ was a good president? He pandered to his racist friends (or was racist himself) to get power... and then used that power to strongarm the Civil Rights Act and Great Society through the country.

I don't know much about LBJ so I'm not going to pretend that I do (also, we've come a long way from the racism of a half century ago). Doesn't change anything about your outrageously extreme (and now repeated) statements about how you'd vote for an out-and-out NEO NAZI. THAT'S what I took the most exception to. I've wasted my time arguing against some pretty wacky things before, but this just takes the cake. I'll let others waste their time on you now.

[eyl]

Not formally declaring war is a symptom of this sloppiness. You "authorize force" to deal with a pack of bandits, you don't declare war on them, because you don't need to enter a real state of war to beat them. The fact that Congress always "authorizes force" instead of declaring war suggests a certain smug confidence in the ease with which the opposition is going to get brushed aside. And that we don't need the burdensome responsibilities a "state of war" would put on civil society in order to win. Which ties into the whole not taking people seriously thing, and to the fact that we keep getting sucked into long, drawn-out wars that don't achieve what we want and don't have a clear exit strategy or endpoint.

Ron Paul can go screw himself, but I don't like ignoring the forms when it comes to warfare. Customs like formal declarations of war evolved for a reason, and shrugging them off helps us get lazy and stupid about the decision to fight and prosecute wars.

Isn't this something of a global trend, though? How many wars over the last half-century have been preceded by a formal declaration if war?

[Simon_Jester]

Honestly, yes it is a global trend, and I don't like it because it's led to a proliferation of small wars, proxy wars, artificially stirred-up guerilla wars, and so on. So much of the Third World has become a battleground because the nations of the Third World are not taken seriously as nations by the developed world, or even by each other as often as not.

The idea that there are clearly delineated states of war and peace, that a nation is either not actively attacking another nation or is bending serious energy and resources to defeating it... I think that helps to keep the small wars from burning out of control and sweeping large chunks of the world into chaos. The idea of national sovereignty and the custom of nonintervention in a foreign country's internal political affairs grew out of a very large war and the desire to avert it. And I don't think it's safe to abandon those concepts out of expediency and the love of empire.

[Simon_Jester]

Interestingly, I've read [citation needed] that one of the things that led to the decline of the war declaration is a desire not to push other countries around.

They declare "we're in a state of war until X or unless Y", and that's a kind of threat too, and they thought that discouraging such declarations would be a nice thing...

If so, that's a bitter irony, because it doesn't seem to have worked. All that happened was that we blurred the definitions of "war," and of what we could be at war with, until they became meaningless.

If Congress was still in the habit of issuing formal declarations of war, it would be a little more difficult for us to have our wars sprawl out across the globe, with no boundaries in time and space to tell us where the war zone stop and the peace zone begins, or when the war can end. And the farcical nature of having the entire might of the US armed forces brought to bear against a handful of guerillas in a cave in Yemen or Somalia would crop up more often, because we'd actually have to formally approach and deal with the governments of those states in an above-board way if we wanted to blow up terrorists.

When you declare war on Germany and Sweden is neutral, you don't bomb Sweden. When you "authorize the use of force" on North Vietnam and Laos is neutral... suddenly, bombing Laos seems no worse than bombing Vietnam in the minds of policy-makers. And the authorization to use force is inherently more vague, which gives them more legal cover for attacking a neutral country.

[NecronLord]

But since your attempts at insult either rely on a vendetta of some sort (and certainly no member of the august moderating staff would behave so badly) or else conflating my opinions and positions with those of Destructionator, which is the very same mental defect I was castigating. Regardless, since I now know it's OK, I do believe I'll post streams of insults at you should I catch you correcting people.

This is a little inappropriate. Mayabird is a member of the moderating staff, but that doesn't have anything to do with posts in this thread. Please refrain.

[Winston Blake]

That is not what I am saying. That is not it, not it at all. Instead, what I'm saying is that treating racism as a phenomenon of Other is bad in and of itself. It renders people incapable of really examining their beliefs because, to expand on H. L. Mencken, if only sons (and daughters) of bitches are racist, and nobody likes to think of themselves as sons (or daughters) of bitches, then nobody is going to consider themselves racist, even if they think that black people are
genetically inferior.

Are you sure you've even read anything by Mencken? This is a horrible bastardization of anything resembling his beliefs.

Furthermore, your logic is essentially a golden mean fallacy, or something approximating it. It just comes down to saying everybody is racist, so we can't discuss it at all.

First let me say I don't know anything about 'H.L. Mencken' and I don't want to get sucked into some big discussion. I just want to say that Bakustra's point here is basically coherent, despite being obscured by a 'literati' writing style and resulting in a wrong conclusion.

As I see it, Bakustra is saying that if people assert that 'racism is bad' too strongly, then that idea is easily corrupted into the idea that 'only bad people are racists'. So asserting that racism is bad can, in fact, help enable racism in the long term. This makes sense to me, and it's apparent when seemingly normal people say sentences of the form 'I'm not [bigoted] but [bigoted statement]'.

The key problem here is that Bakustra seems to think the solution is to somehow teach or train people to not assert that racism is bad in the first place. This has caused others to say that this helps enable racism anyway, because it makes it difficult to discuss or rebuke. This has caused Bakustra to reiterate the point, causing others to repeat themselves, etc.

My view is that the best solution is to break the 'corruption' link. The problem is fundamentally caused by people being foolish, so it's best solved by making them not foolish. People simply need to know that saying 'X is bad' does *not* imply that 'only bad people are X'. This would ideally be accompanied by simple examples. It would then be 'safe' to strongly assert that racism is bad without creating the social effect that Bakustra seems to be worried about.

It would probably be easier than training an entire population to restrain themselves from calling bigotry a bad thing.

[Simon_Jester]

First let me say I don't know anything about 'H.L. Mencken' and I don't want to get sucked into some big discussion. I just want to say that Bakustra's point here is basically coherent, despite being obscured by a 'literati' writing style and resulting in a wrong conclusion.

As I see it, Bakustra is saying that if people assert that 'racism is bad' too strongly, then that idea is easily corrupted into the idea that 'only bad people are racists'. So asserting that racism is bad can, in fact, help enable racism in the long term. This makes sense to me, and it's apparent when seemingly normal people say sentences of the form 'I'm not [bigoted] but [bigoted statement]'.

Theoretically, maybe, but... seriously, what's the alternative and what's the point? Calling racism bad may somehow make people go "I'm not a racist, but [racism]." But not calling racism bad will make people go "Damn straight, I'm a racist!" How is that better?

I mean, I comprehend the words he said, I just don't see how there's an intelligent, meaningful conclusion coming from them. "Let's make a bigger problem to get rid of a smaller problem" isn't intelligent, and a Fully Generic Argument against 'otherizing' groups of people, which can apply to anything we ever do or express any disapproval of, isn't meaningful.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

I think Bakustra was arguing against the statements like "Ron Paul is a racist, therefore he cannot be allowed in office because racists are terrible people who do terrible things." This sort of behavior is a very specific form of otherising because it puts racism as something only evil people demonstrate. It also, to pull something from Destructionator, pushes away a lot of candidates on a binary "if yes, then never vote" factor. The example he's brought up works here: LBJ may or may not have been a racist, personally, and the evidence implies he was, but his policies brought about greater strides to racial minorities than there had been in generations. To tie the two together, it ends up with a simplistic way to compare candidates; instead of analysing their likely policies and weighing them against the alternatives, you simply go down the list and if you don't like someone you can check off the racist box and move on, and you'd probably not be as likely to check that box on someone you already liked.

[Simon_Jester]

But that's a silly thing to make a big dramatic argument about, because everyone who's criticizing Ron Paul for racism is also criticizing him for other things. Like conspiracy theories, like disastrously stupid policy ideas, like having a long career of being a gadfly with little real responsibility, like having lost the plot politically so badly that his supporters' best argument is that he could not do the things he would like to do if elected.

The racism is just the icing on the cake.

[bobalot]

"Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day."

[General Brock]

That's it? That's the only argument against Ron Paul? He might be as racist as a lot of white Republican guys of his generation were? (And likely still are...)

Or he's into conspiracy theories that as far as a populist cared to look, have come true?

Mostly based on 20 year old newsletters?

Its still about the economy and whether or not he can fix it, when it comes down to it.

I may be out of my depth and out of touch but I's swear some of the Paul detractors are living in a different dimensional political morality context, like Shrub was competent or never happened and Obama really is the real thing.

[Alphawolf55]

And he can't fix the economy, not even close.

Unless getting rid of the EPA, getting rid of Capital Gains and Estate Tax and a whole slew of other programs is suppose to "fix" things.

[General Brock]

Well, can the other guys fix it?

Or is it so unfixable its come so that the old guy with the big monkey-wrench looks good?

Keeping in mind, what took more than one presidency to undermine will likely take more than one to restore.

A critical mass of folks are seeing end of the road, and its either straight off the edge or turn hard.

Worrying about what Paul may or may not have wrote 20 years ago when politicians can't be held to what they said and promised in the last election or even 5 minutes ago unless its to dig the hole deeper really makes no sense.

[Simon_Jester]

That's it? That's the only argument against Ron Paul? He might be as racist as a lot of white Republican guys of his generation were? (And likely still are...) Or he's into conspiracy theories that as far as a populist cared to look, have come true? Mostly based on 20 year old newsletters? Its still about the economy and whether or not he can fix it, when it comes down to it. I may be out of my depth and out of touch but I's swear some of the Paul detractors are living in a different dimensional political morality context, like Shrub was competent or never happened and Obama really is the real thing.

But that's a silly thing to make a big dramatic argument about, because everyone who's criticizing Ron Paul for racism is also criticizing him for other things. Like conspiracy theories, like disastrously stupid policy ideas, like having a long career of being a gadfly with little real responsibility, like having lost the plot politically so badly that his supporters' best argument is that he could not do the things he would like to do if elected.

The racism is just the icing on the cake.

(emphasis added)

So yeah. I already mentioned that.

Well, can the other guys fix it?

Or is it so unfixable its come so that the old guy with the big monkey-wrench looks good?

He wants to smash the wrong bits. We're in a car headed for the cliff and he thinks this is the time to disable the airbag.

Putting Ron Paul in charge is a terrible idea. If I may go hyperbolic, we'd do better to have something inert, a head of lettuce, in charge. Because a head of lettuce wouldn't go looking for essential safety mechanisms so it can break them in a time of disaster.

If Ron Paul wanted to smash Wall Street and start over I'd be more willing to go along. Because if we're going to smash the machine, we should smash the machine that's broken, not the one that isn't. The EPA and the Department of Education aren't broken, not that way. The financial sector is.

Worrying about what Paul may or may not have wrote 20 years ago when politicians can't be held to what they said and promised in the last election or even 5 minutes ago unless its to dig the hole deeper really makes no sense.

If Paul is a man of his word, he will do the terrible things he promises to do right now, or break his presidency trying. Which is a net loss for us- we'd be better off with that head of lettuce.

If Paul is not a man of his word, he's no better than any other damn liar we've had in office for the past forty years, and there's no reason to vote for him at all- and he still comes out looking worse than his competitors. Because where most of the damn liars are associating with financiers, he's associating with Ku Klux Klan apologists. That speaks poorly for his brains; at least all the other damn liars have the sense to whore themselves out to the highest bidder.

[Darth Wong]

Well, can the other guys fix it?

Or is it so unfixable its come so that the old guy with the big monkey-wrench looks good?

Keeping in mind, what took more than one presidency to undermine will likely take more than one to restore.

Precisely; you cannot undo decades of military-industrial rot and plutocracy with a massive overnight change. Such a change would only cause chaos and suffering (especially when that change actually enhances the plutocracy by giving rich people free reign to run things as they please).

A critical mass of folks are seeing end of the road, and its either straight off the edge or turn hard.

Worrying about what Paul may or may not have wrote 20 years ago when politicians can't be held to what they said and promised in the last election or even 5 minutes ago unless its to dig the hole deeper really makes no sense.

It's not irrelevant, because of the way he's responded. He is denying responsibility for something he signed his name to for a decade. How the fuck can anyone elect a president who thinks he can't be held responsible for the things he signs? If he's telling the truth, he's a huge idiot who doesn't understand the first thing about law or the meaning of his signature. If he's lying, then he's a wild-eyed crazy conspiracy theory racist nutjob who's just pretending to be a genial nice old man. Either way, it's a valid concern.

And by the way, you're lying when you say that this is the only criticism people can come up with for Ron Paul. This is just one of the many criticisms which people can come up with for this nutjob and his idiot followers.

[Darth Wong]

You don't need to say completely insane things like how you'd be perfectly fine with voting for a Nazi.

One with whom I agree on matters of policy. That's what matters. It's like the ad hominem fallacy - just because an asshole is saying something doesn't mean he's wrong, doubly so when there's a system of checks and balances on it. (Unless the system itself is racist, as is evidentally the case with the criminal justice system, which is why it needs some work.)

It's not an ad-hominem fallacy to question a person who is promoting himself as a leader, you stupid asshole. We're not talking about a debate where the debaters are irrelevant to the subject. In this case, one of the debaters is the subject. He is saying "I am asking you to entrust me with power for the next four years, based on the promises I'm making, which are in turn based upon my personal credibility".

[Darth Wong]

Learn how to read, you worthless piece of shit. I didn't say it is a fallacy.

Yeah, you just said it's "like" an ad-hominem fallacy, except that it's not. At all. You're a fucking imbecile.

[Alphawolf55]

Well, can the other guys fix it?

Or is it so unfixable its come so that the old guy with the big monkey-wrench looks good?

Keeping in mind, what took more than one presidency to undermine will likely take more than one to restore.

A critical mass of folks are seeing end of the road, and its either straight off the edge or turn hard.

Worrying about what Paul may or may not have wrote 20 years ago when politicians can't be held to what they said and promised in the last election or even 5 minutes ago unless its to dig the hole deeper really makes no sense.

Fix it outright? No Get us in a closer direction? Yes. Also I'm not worrying about what Paul said 20 years ago, I'm worrying about what Paul says now and nothing he talks about will help the economy at all.

He's not proposing ways to drastically decrease the cost of health care, he's not proposing trillions of dollars of infrastructure spending that needs to be done, he's not talking about using ultra low Treasury note rates to help lower debt burden on the lower and middle class, he's not proposing massive retraining programs. he's not proposing massive energy and mass transit funding to get us off oil and he's not proposing larger taxes on capital gains and high incomes to help pay for this stuff.

[bobalot]

I like how people claim that the racist newsletters he happily sold under his name for a decade is the only criticism of Ron Paul (Even more disturbing is how they downplay such assholedom anyway).

Let me sum up what Ron Paul believes (or says):

Ron Paul:

• does not believe the First Amendment applies to states, and that they should be able to discriminate based on sexual preference, gender, race or religion if the local populace agrees
• does not believe in church-state separation
• claims he would not let his religious beliefs influence his public policy. But he has twice introduced "The Sanctity of Life Act" which federalizes abortion as murder and says, "life begins at conception" which is clearly based on his evangelical christian ideology.
• rejects the theory of evolution as being valid.
• also does not accept global climate change.
• wants to get rid of the EPA. There would be no federal oversight of pollution and environmental protection.
• wants to sell off National Parks, Wildlife refuges, National Forests, Nature preserves, etc. The Grand Canyon would be privately owned.
• wants to get rid of the Dept of Education. No more student loans or grants. No improved educational opportunities for non-rich people. No standards for equal-educational-access enforced. No national educational standards set.
• wants to get rid of the Dept of Agriculture. No more national standards for food safety or regulation of pesticides. RP claims the DOA is "unconstitutional."
• does not support the Civil Rights Act
• defines life as starting at conception
• wants to abolish FEMA
• deny federal funding to any org "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" (Note: He specifically targets homosexuals here, denying federal funding to others is not mentioned)
• hired former head of anti-Gay Group to be Iowa State Director of the campaign
• was the sole vote against divesting US Gov investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal regime of Sudan
• was also the ONLY vote against a ban on Lead in childrens' toys.
• believes that the Left is waging a "war" on religion and Christmas
• believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States
• believes that the International Baccalaureate program is UN indoctrination program.
• introduced a bill that would stop the Federal Government from removing tax-exempt status for segregated schools
• claimed on a religious radio station that he actually saw evil abortion doctors yank a fully developed and functional baby out of a woman and throw it away to die. When pressed for more details by the religious host, he couldn't actually provide any.
• in New World Order conspiracy theories

That list does not include his insane economic policies which including abolishing the central Bank, going back to the gold standard, withdrawing from the WTO, allowing multiple currencies, massive deregulation of the economy, removal of safety nets, etc.

[General Brock]

....

It's not irrelevant, because of the way he's responded. He is denying responsibility for something he signed his name to for a decade. How the fuck can anyone elect a president who thinks he can't be held responsible for the things he signs? If he's telling the truth, he's a huge idiot who doesn't understand the first thing about law or the meaning of his signature. If he's lying, then he's a wild-eyed crazy conspiracy theory racist nutjob who's just pretending to be a genial nice old man. Either way, it's a valid concern.

And by the way, you're lying when you say that this is the only criticism people can come up with for Ron Paul. This is just one of the many criticisms which people can come up with for this nutjob and his idiot followers.

I did not intend to lie outright, and those statements were posed as questions as they seemed more to exploit the emotions of race than address racism. Since that is a rhetorical deception, while milder than the boldfaced lie, it is still a form of lying. I apologize and recognize and will adhere to the higher standard implied as best I can, trying to be more precise in the future.

I've read a summary of Paul's responses to the racist newsletter from here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/ ... 8page%29/2

As well, working through some of the letters and responses.

It appears Ron Paul both accepted and rejected responsibility in classic politicianspeak. He's a Republican politician from an era when racist opinions were more broadly and openly held. I never expected any better and am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's not able or willing to roll back decades of civil rights advances, but rather try and restore them for everybody which by default would include non-whites regardless of how he regards them personally.

After a certain point, the enlightened morality sometimes dismissed as 'political correctness' can't be used as a shroud to cover some very anti-humanitarian activities that look rather racist.

Ron Paul's main point is that he would end the wars. Which one can't help but notice, are being waged against brown people. The snare drum has rattled against the yellow people as well, whether against China's rising power or to exploit North Korea's ongoing implosion in the name of human rights. One wonders how much of America's, and Britain and France's, aggressive activities on the African continent are ultimately directed at keeping black countries down as perpetual sources of cheap raw materials for the developed world.

Can't really call racism, as that is realpolitik as usual, but can't deny its absence either.

That this is signed off on by a black man in the White House really makes no difference to me, since that man also promised to end the wars and lied, then signed questionable documents he did not author, and possibly did not even truly read , far more powerful than any newsletter, into law.

Sure, I'm a nutjob. An informed one. Or misinformed, depending on you point of view. Race is just one more neocon tool of division, a real threat as a feint can be a threat but not as great as the main attack.