Mr. Ambien Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 You both should look at his economic platform and figure out exactly why I'm asserting that under him, racial discrimination would flourish. It's his fundamental views on how business would operate under a Ron Paul administration. It would take the country back into the Jim Crow Era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gretzky's Mullet Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Well let's see, spending a bottomless pit of money which Democrats in the US do isn't working for them. Spending a bottomless pit of money which Republicans (read: the neoconservatives in charge) do, so, yeah, Libertarianism sounds great. I want to see how, in your all-knowing criticism of fiscal conservatism what your plan would be to get the US budget balanced from 15 trillion dollars of reckless spending both major US parties have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Ron Paul is a bigot and would allow businesses to practice discrimination if he has his way. He is not a leader for 'all' Americans. Think about that before you laud him, Ron Paul supporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gretzky's Mullet Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 lol.. Where does it say it builds an electrified fence? You're obviously confusing this for Herman Cain's statements on a fence. This one authorizes partial funding for fencing, however, Ron Paul's support for this bill comes from placing more people at the borders to detect illegal immigrants from crossing and putting more vehicle barriers there to make more difficult cartel crossing, which is the primary concern behind border security. It's not a bill that simply goes "we hate Mexicans keep them out", it's an appropriations bill. Ron Paul in his foreign policy outright points to isolationism and diplomatic relations much like the Americans did with Russia to prevent MAD. A xenophobe would advocate the fear/uneducated reaction which is wanting to bomb the **** out of them, i.e. the George W. Bush approach. Obviously you are unable to tell the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Obviously you are unable to formulate an intelligent argument without personal insults. And you're picking gnat crap out of pepper. Ron Paul wants the foreigners out, for no reason other than that they are from somewhere else. That falls just fine under the definition of a xenophobe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoreanHockeyFan Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 For Ron Paul, even with his radical libertarian views, he's the lesser evil. As for his fiscal policies, he sees them from a different perspective. It's not implemented because the banks or himself will benefit from them (they will, but that's not why he's going to allow them), it's because it's in line with his libertarian views. Ron Paul seems to be the most genuine candidate out there for the republicans. And I'd rather have an honest (to some extent) politician with a coherent agenda rather than some idiot who doesn't know anything about Libya (a.k.a Herman Cain), or some dunce who doesn't even know what the five government agencies are (a.k.a Rick Perry), and to top it all off, their collective ignorance towards climate change, oh and one last thing, their reckless spending on trying to be the police force around the world (Team America, **** yeah!). Ron Paul will be the only one who will provide some challenge for Obama. But then again, I'm sure there are a lot of idiots down south who would vote for the likes of Perry, Cain, Bachmann, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gretzky's Mullet Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 If true, that would totally contradict his purported libertarian principles. Libertarians believe in a free earth with unimpeded movement for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Yea, he should probably just hire some one from goldman sachs and let them deal with it. So let me get this straight...you support OWS (i've read many of your posts in that thread) , while you support an economical platform that simply empowers the bankers.... (obama) I'm confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Uh, from a business perspective, it wouldn't make sense to discriminate against potential customers. Another business would market to them and make money. It also wouldn't make sense today in a world economy to overlook hiring people with the credentials for a job which is why H1-B visas in the US are so common. There's no law stating companies HAVE to import brown coloured people from India, but they do because they both have the skills to compete with the average Americans and require much more favourable labour costs to a business. Obviously you have no understanding of how business operates nor about how racism would be debilitating to business. Utter nonsense. Mitt Romney might, his accumulation of finance sector political contribution funds lately (i.e. Sachs, Lynch, banks, etc.) is becoming somewhat scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 There is a big huge difference between allowing bigotry and being a bigot. Libertarians themselves are not assholes. They just defend the right to be one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Two things. Cut the ridiculous defence budget, and raise upper class taxes. Ron Paul would certainly do the first (for which I will give him credit), and certainly not the second. Obama would do both, if he wasn't having to deal with a House full of hawkish Republicons and Constitutionalist numbskulls. Debt reduction requires a two pronged approach. Cutting spending and raising taxes. Obama has acknowledged this, as soon as anyone from the GOP does as well everyone will be better off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 People who aid racists are no better. People who create and perpetuate an atmosphere of discrimination are not better than the bigots who avail themselves of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Who said anything about aiding or creating? It's just letting people's free will run their course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navyblue Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 You're confused because you're interjecting a Red Herring into a conversation about Ron Paul. Obama, OWS, Goldman Sachs or your My Little Pony underoos, have no bearing on what I asserted about Ron Paul. If you want to discuss Obama or OWS or Wall Street there are other threads in which we could do so. Since Ron Paul is a republican candidate, I was keeping the discussion around him. If you don't think racial discrimination would flourish in a Ron Paul libertarian business climate then perhaps you haven't critically thought about what his platform and views would actually lead to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Right....by allowing bigotry. And to answer your question.....you did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 'Allowing', not 'aiding' nor 'creating'. Now if he were to give racist bigoted companies stimulus money, that would be different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Does allowing an environment to flourish whereby bigotry is allowed to openly be expressed and practice, not giving 'aid' to bigoted people to express their bigotry? Does allowing an environment where bigotry was once not allowed to be expressed by business practices, not 'create' and new environment where bigotry is newly allowed to be expressed by certain business practices? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 If removing the clutches that were previously in place count as 'aiding'. You can call him a bigot if he actively partakes in or encourages the practice. Otherwise, you can only accuse him of being indifferent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 So is that a yes to both questions then? Please try to answer this one with a 'yes' or a detailed reason as to why not whereby the logic of my intimating questions can be answered with a 'no'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Situation Posted December 10, 2011 Author Share Posted December 10, 2011 Two things. Cut the ridiculous defence budget, and raise upper class taxes. Ron Paul would certainly do the first (for which I will give him credit), and certainly not the second. Obama would do both, if he wasn't having to deal with a House full of hawkish Republicons and Constitutionalist numbskulls. Debt reduction requires a two pronged approach. Cutting spending and raising taxes. Obama has acknowledged this, as soon as anyone from the GOP does as well everyone will be better off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.