You can add a "per se" to the end of that sentence you quoted if it makes you feel better.

Hmm. That doesn't really bother me. I think Paul's low-enough profile that he can say those sort of things without it seeming like it has the imprimatur of "the government" which is the only place where this would bother me.

Maybe this is worse than I currently believe though; I'm open to being convinced and will have to give it some more thought.

Well, it's a historical fact that such signs existed, so it can't be that absurd devoid of context. But this is not so Ron Paul 2012-related, so I'm not going to press the point.

MW: "Blah blah blah IMF head... your reaction, sir?"
RP: "I think it's a bit ironic because the IMF is not my friend, the IMF is a threat to us because now that we have a financial crisis here and the dollar is threatened, others - besides myself (I would like to a sound American currency) - but others want to go to a fiat world currency, they want to use the IMF. And I think... these are the kind of people running the IMF and we want to turn world finances and the control of our money supply to them? So I think it's uh... interesting that we have that kind of an individual and I think that should awaken everybody to the fact that they ought to look into the IMF and find out why we shouldn't be sacrificing our sovereignty to an organization like that and individuals like he is."

Exact quote, transcribed by yours truly.

It's kind of Bush League. I doubt very much Paul wants to be judged based on the sexual histories of fellow republicans or congressmen.

It's not related to what we were talking about either, so probably a good idea to not press whatever point you think you have. Here's a recap:

(notice how this represents a change of topic.)
And this is where you come in with post 522 and for some reason double-quote me as if TQA was asking me about a totally different post I made a few pages ago.

Fair enough. That context is less kind to Paul, as I agree that it doesn't make sense to impugn the people at the IMF for the sins of their leader.

ALawPoker: You've got to be kidding me. You wrote "imagine a sandwich shop and there's a sign in the window that says 'black people can't eat here'...It's absurd." and then argued that overt discrimination was good, and not just in 2011 USA. I'm pretty comfortable standing by my original criticism. (You realize such signs existed, right?)

I'll try to make this my last word on the topic, but apparently I'm easily provoked into a reply this evening.

I don't want to get too deep into this whole racist restaurant issue, but I am pretty sure they would exist explicitly if permitted by law to do so again. A friend of mine (Indian girl, the presumed terrorist kind, not the Pocahontas kind) was denied service in a fast food restaurant in Kentucky last year so, yeah, it's real and it's not a part of the long forgotten past.

This video is a couple years old but I just found it and really liked it.. a good video for friends/family to take in RP's foreign policy message:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuKBD...layer_embedded

+1

Your original "criticism" (the out of context quote) didn't make sense because yes, of course I realize those signs existed, and if TQA quoted my "imagine a sandwich shop post" and asked if I was talking about 2011 USA then I would have responded yes (because of course I was!). What else could I have possibly been talking about in that post?

But then the conversation changed, and hence his question, but you were too busy fishing for a "gotcha" moment.

I don't see the disconnect between "I think it's absurd to expect anyone would try to open a racist shop" and "it's just as well to let them". I can think that nobody would try to make a million story skyscraper, and also that you should let them if they did try. Am I missing something?

It was just a coincidence that they were both there when I opened the thread. There were two claims:

1. It's "absurd" to think people would post racist signs if they could.
2. The racism is good for them. (And that has "Nothing to do with USA 2011".)

My criticism ("hypothetical is the new reality") applies to both. I'm not "fishing for a 'gotcha'" here. I think they are independently wrong. If I had quoted just one, or just the other, I would have made the same criticism.

*

Anyway, I'm going to be a good citizen and not post further on this topic here. It's a distraction from the thread, and the back-and-forth makes it seem like I was gunning for you, which I wasn't, and I'm still not. Even though Denny's lost that lawsuit in the 90's, and mosdef's friend still gets hassled.

Indeed.

link?



I don't think you're gunning for me, it just doesn't seem like you're paying much attention to what you're replying to.

This. Paul is a quixotic speaker of the truth and common sense. It's a damn shame. Oh well, I'll gladly volunteer my time and money to RP and hope for a miracle.

I also find the discussion and a number of posts itt on CRA to be disingenous and ignorant of current reality at best. Society has come a long way on race since the sixties. The funny things that white liberals refuse to acknowledge is that there was considerable segregation in the North for a long time and that currently African Americans are voting with their feet and leaving the supposedly racially enlightened places in the North for the better opportunities that await them here in the South while living with us 'backwoods racist rednecks'.

If people want to start a CRA / state of racism thread, I think it would be good, but I agree its off topic here.

Hey guise,

Everyone thinks their guy doesn't win because everyone else is stoopid. And many self-proclaimed RP supporters are really, really stoopid racist teabagging losers. Basically, the 'if only everyone else were as smart as me' line is super-lame.

I guess this strat boils down to:

They know that there is no way they can beat both Obama and Paul so they might as well give up and help Paul beat Obama.

No more like transition happens multiple dimensionally and ALaw refuses to accept that and continues to advocate and unworkable unobtainable all or nothing approach.

Insert barrage of every facepalm.jpg on the Internet HERE:

"! Ron Paul for President" = "all or nothing approach"?

you're not projecting, are you, sir?

No the reality is Ron Paul is not racist. The union employee types have no argument so they need to label him. He wants to allow you to spend your own money. The public union sector workers can't comprehend.

I think Ron Paul has the best chance. Taking a quick look at the political history of the world down through the ages it seeems there have been more powerful world leaders who have subscribed to Libertarianism than have to any other Political Philosophy. I could be wrong though.

RP most likely wins GOP nomination, then gets crushed by Obama political machine.

/"freedom movement", gg

But blowback's a bitch, and then they're like "oh.... ****" and from there it's a full blown race for Illuminati microchip society vs. Utopia, and we pull it out.

gg

i'm inclined to think the most powerful and overwhelming majority of world leaders throughout history have been much closer to authoritarianism, although i'd be interested to see some sort of analysis of this

when economic freedom is embraced, i'm inclined to think it is the most successful, and is sometimes coupled with libertarian ideals, or sometimes (recent china) with authoritarianism