IMO, at least, that’s not “cutting fat”. That’s deciding that the federal government is going to get out of a lot of the “businesses” in which it currently operates, and is more like cutting off limbs and removing internal organs.
It’s extremely clear, as several others have noted, that he was very clearly saying that the TSA employees “don’t look American to me” because they’re minorities.
No reasonable person could think otherwise.
Anyone who claims that Paul was trying to say anything else is either not telling the truth or they completely lack in basic reading comprehension skills.
You’re completely misrepresenting what Paul said.
He’s making it clear that the TSA employees, who are disproportionately minority “don’t look American” to him.
Now anyone who tries to claim that it’s not racist to claim that brown-skinned Americans “don’t look American” is either A)lying, B)racist themselves or C)completely ignorant of what constitutes racism or D)impervious to reason and logic.
Now you’re misrepresenting what you asked for.
You asked for links to prove his comments regarding the TSA employees were genuine and specifically said that doing so “would also change my thinking.”
You didn’t say it “might” change your mind but that it would.
Now, if you still refuse to believe that Ron Paul is a racist after being provided links to him making blatantly racist statements then there is utterly no point in continuing this conversation with you so I won’t.
The guideline in debates here is to keep personal commentary to a minimum. So if this discussion continues, please don’t post any more comments about mweb’s honesty or reasonability.
I wasn’t making comments about Mweb, I was making comments about people who insist that it’s not racist to say that people like me don’t “look American.”
I also made it clear that I’m not continuing the discussion with him.
I also don’t see how my comments could be considered more personal than his “it’s not my fault you’re too dumb to understand Paul’s point”(paraphrase).
Anyway I don’t see what’s wrong with my comment.
Am I also not allowed to say that anyone who claims that it’s not racist to claim blacks are stupid is either lying, racist, or impervious to logic because many posters on this site believe that?
I’m quite confident that law enforcement spends more money enforcing drug laws and dealing with drug dealing related crime than it would the increases in crime due to he potential increase of drug use. I don’t know why there would be many more crimes in order to get money for drugs considering they have to pay for it now.
Then there’s greatly reduced number of people who would need to be jailed.
And there’s the money earned from taxes on drugs.
As far as the last part. I don’t think the laws are all that racist, but I think their effects are mostly negative to inner city minorities. White people are the primary buyers of drugs, but the inner cities are wrecked in part due to the drug game. The violence that comes from it along with the allure of getting into the drug game rather than going to school or working a mediocre job are two of the main reasons why imo.
But I certainly understand the hesitance by most to legalize drugs, especially ones beyond marijuana.
Yes, I meant debt. My apologies.
Brown-skinned people were living here in 1776. How much more American can you get?
We were living here long before 1776.
So were the white folks.
Not denying that. Merely pointing out that we were here before 1776.
Nevertheless, Paul thinks that we “don’t look American” and some think that it’s absurd for people to consider such statements racist.
I was just pointing out that he has a specific plan that goes beyondf waste fraud and abuse, welfare queens and cutting costs associated with enforcing environmental regulations.
Is there another cite for this? I did a small amount of googling and didn’t find any collaboration from any other sites that weren’t parroting Salon. This seems like fairly explosive comment by Paul that, if true, is damning and I’m surprised it’s not reported elsewhere. I did a search for the exact text so maybe Salon was paraphrasing?
I believe he made those comments to Salon for that article, so you wouldn’t find them anywhere that didn’t source them to Salon. It’s not hurting his campaign because, as you can already see, his supporters don’t care or will concoct a reason to excuse them.
But wouldn’t you expect the more liberal media sites to pick up on this and report it? Certainly they wouldn’t gloss over it, would they? I’m not saying it’s impossible that Paul made that quote but there’s a lot of dirt in politics and I’d prefer to see it collaborated. There are plenty of semi-reputable sites that say Obama is not a US citizen and we know how true that is.
With all due respect, what you’re saying is illogical and sets a ridiculous standard.
Salon is a well-known, reliable source. Paul said this to a Salon reporter who was interviewing him.
Obviously, because he said this during an interview with Salon any report on it will be traced back to the article.
In order for it to be false two things would have to be true.
A)Salon would have decided to manufacture a quote of Ron Paul that would easily be proven false leading to a libel suit that would put them out of business.
B)Paul has the most incompetent staff of all time. His campaign is followed around by people who videotape all of his interviews. A well-known site has put out of a quote of him making a disgustingly racist comment and not only have they for some inexplicable reason not put out a statement denying it as would any other staff, but despite having staff-members videotape every interview he does they haven’t produce the video of the interview to prove Salon guilty of libel.
Sorry, but it is completely unreasonable and illogical to entertain the notion that the quote is false.
I’d say there’s actually a greater chance that OJ Simpson didn’t murder his wife but was the victim of a massive conspiracy.
I’m sure when you examine the facts you’ll conclude that we should assume the quote is correct unless some pretty compelling evidence is produced demonstrating just how incompetent Paul’s staff is and how malicious Salon is.
No, this is simply more evidence that the media has been largely giving Paul a pass compared to the other candidates.
You’ll notice that until this year the media has largely ignored his racist newsletters.
Also it’s strong evidence that the conservative myth of “the liberal mainstream media” is at best overblown if not false.
The standard I’m resistant to is thinking every accusation on the internet must be true, especially one that conveniently fits my political view. If I gave you some derogatory quote from Obama on Fox news and you saw no collaborative evidence of that quote you would be (rightly) suspicious.
You think Obama tracks down every mis-attributed quote? I doubt Paul does either. Maybe the Salon blogger/reporter made it up, maybe he paraphrased or took it out of context, maybe it’s entirely true. Until I see collaborative evidence I’m sceptical.
As we’ve seen with the birther nonsense and the Barry-is-a-commie rhetoric the media is willing to push an agenda. The liberal media does it like the conservative media.
I will add that if Paul really did say that then it’s a black mark.
Or maybe it’s evidence that there really isn’t much there. I don’t hear Fox going on about Rev. Wright any more (admittedly I don’t read/watch Fox much), perhaps because it has little bearing on Obama.
I am no Paul apologist–I think he would be a disastrous president and he’s a borderline conspiracy theorist–but I’m not going to believe every accusation just because his politics differ from mine.
I will add that if Paul really did say that then it’s a black mark against him.
It’s not an accusation, it’s a quote from an interview in an article that’s not even terribly anti-Paul.
Obviously, Ron Paul’s followers and his apologists will either ignore it or refuse to believe it because they’ve proven completely impervious to reason.
I’m sorry but you’re dodging the context. Obama and Paul both have all their interview recorded and yes, if some reporter for Fox News manufactured a quote then they would come down on it hard, particularly when it’s an interview conducted while his aides were present.
And yes, if some reporter deliberately misquoted something that either Paul or Obama said in an interview that was observed by their aides and was recorded then yes, the aides would be all over it like white on rice.
If you don’t believe that then all I can say is you’ve never been involved in a political campaign.
Did you actually read the article?
This makes no sense because the article was hardly all that anti-Paul and there’s no reason to think the reporter was an ideologue out to destroy him. Also, Paul’s aides were present during the interview. Beyond that Salon is vastly more respectable and trustworthy than Fox News.
To make a better analogy, yes, if a reporter for say The National Review conducted an interview with Obama while Obama’s aides were present and the reporter quoted him as saying something questionable and the White House didn’t deny it then yes, I’d assume it was true.
To do otherwise would be extremely illogical and would make every reasonable person believe I was an apologist.
Since the Salon reporter was the only one present with Paul and his aides you’re asking for the impossible.
Essentially you’re saying that you won’t believe that OJ is guilty of murdering his wife unless someone produces a videotape of the murder.
In fact, I find the idea that OJ was an innocent man framed vastly more plausible than the idea that Paul’s staff is completely incompetent and he’s been framed by an evil salon reporter.
Suspicion would be justified because Fox News consistently gets its facts wrong and consistently presents information out of context. Salon does not have the same execrable track record.
I wouldn’t trust Worker’s World Daily either, but if a far-left outlet practiced serious journalism, I would give it a look. Similarly, I take David Frum, Bruce Bartlett and The Volkh Conspiracy seriously, because although they are very conservative, they take care to get their facts straight to my knowledge. If they didn’t, I would wander away: ditto for a lefty such as eg the late Christopher Hitchens (IMHO, in the last case: I can’t substantiate my dubiousness).
One can have an opinion and still present the facts with care and fairness. And I am man enough to read somebody I disagree with without fainting-- and I daresay most women have the ovaries to do the same. Complaints about bias are simply whines from those with sensitive dispositions.
Or he could produce a audio recording. I’d give it more credence if at least one other major news organization followed up on it but until then I view it with a sceptical eye. I refuse to base judgement on unsubstantiated hear-say. I can believe that Paul said it but without more proof it’s just a rumour to me. Calling my position moronic or idiotic will not make one difference to me.
Fair enough.
I’ll take you at your word. I’ll assume you don’t trust any interviews published in the New York Times unless the reporter showed an audio recording of the interview and also had representatives from other media organizations present during the recording to verify it happened.