• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Ron Paul pulls into second in Iowa

Page 24 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Chainspell said:
Ooh it isn't? You can remain ignorant your whole life. Don't expect me to save you.

-Sent from my phone.
Click to expand...

First is right. The person who makes a claim is the one required to support said claim if it is challenged. It is not the responsibility of someone else to support the claim of the person who made the claim.

I could claim humans live on Earth and not need to support the claim unless it is challenged. I could easily support it, and would if someone challenged it. Though I would most likely mock them as well (seriously, someone does not think humans live on Earth?)

But to reiterate, the person who makes a claim is the one required to support said claim.
 
cybrsage said:
First is right. The person who makes a claim is the one required to support said claim if it is challenged. It is not the responsibility of someone else to support the claim of the person who made the claim.

I could claim humans live on Earth and not need to support the claim unless it is challenged. I could easily support it, and would if someone challenged it. Though I would most likely mock them as well (seriously, someone does not think humans live on Earth?)

But to reiterate, the person who makes a claim is the one required to support said claim.
Click to expand...

Nope not going down that path. If he wishes to remain ignorant let him be. He stated that the ideas that Ron Paul is putting forward never existed... which means he doesn't know what Ron Paul's ideas are.

If he's not gonna do his research and then blab about what he doesn't know, I'm not going down that path.

-Sent from my phone.
 
But you know there was someone in this thread that was a Ron Paul hater who couldn't stand his ideas.

He typed so manyyy paragraphs in this thread. Arguing about why Ron Paul is a racist. Now... I haven't seen him post in awhile. So in the end what did it matter?

After everything you said and done in this thread. Did it make a difference? Is there a point to all this?

Well, i know what my target is.

-Sent from my phone.
 
Chainspell said:
Nope not going down that path. If he wishes to remain ignorant let him be. He stated that the ideas that Ron Paul is putting forward never existed... which means he doesn't know what Ron Paul's ideas are.

If he's not gonna do his research and then blab about what he doesn't know, I'm not going down that path.

-Sent from my phone.
Click to expand...

Which ideas of Ron Pauls's have existed? Be specific. "freedom/liberty/rights" isn't an acceptable answer because it's broad and non-specific. And to be clear I never said those ideas never existed. I just know the way Ron Paul THINKS they existed never actually occurred in reality. E.g. The notion that state's rights need to be restored to some previous level where they worked well despite a huge body of evidence (100 +yrs) showing Exactly the opposite (e.g. Jim Crow laws ddn't hurt businesses that implemented them, yet Paul says it couldn't happen again if we gave state's those right s back).
 
Last edited:
If RP supporters actually knew what RP stands for and believes, they would run like rats from a sinking ship.
BTW... where the hell is Ross Perot when u need him? 😀
 
First said:
Which ideas of Ron Pauls's have existed? Be specific. "freedom/liberty/rights" isn't an acceptable answer because it's broad and non-specific. And to be clear I never said those ideas never existed. I just know the way Ron Paul THINKS they existed never actually occurred in reality. E.g. The notion that state's rights need to be restored to some previous level where they worked well despite a huge body of evidence (100 +yrs) showing Exactly the opposite (e.g. Jim Crow laws ddn't hurt businesses that implemented them, yet Paul says it couldn't happen again if we gave state's those right s back).
Click to expand...

Honest question for you. Which state/states do you think would not enact their own civil rights acts if the federal act was repealed?

Edit: This seems to be one of your bigger sticking points, and it by and large would be a token gesture towards state's rights.
 
sportage said:
If RP supporters actually knew what RP stands for and believes, they would run like rats from a sinking ship.
BTW... where the hell is Ross Perot when u need him? 😀
Click to expand...

Oh so the youtube of Ron Paul supporters vs any other candidate is all just a lie?

Too lazy to find the link right now, but one of the non paul supporters when asked who he would vote for started at a quick "Hilton!" and then backed down to, well I won't really know until closer to election day. Paul supporters were able to bring specific points about what they liked about him.
 
momeNt said:
Oh so the youtube of Ron Paul supporters vs any other candidate is all just a lie?

Too lazy to find the link right now, but one of the non paul supporters when asked who he would vote for started at a quick "Hilton!" and then backed down to, well I won't really know until closer to election day. Paul supporters were able to bring specific points about what they liked about him.
Click to expand...

hey you mean these?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zsr0UpVjoE

vs Ron Paul Supporters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xoqY6CpgpSE#t=80s

amazes me...
 
Last edited:
momeNt said:
Honest question for you. Which state/states do you think would not enact their own civil rights acts if the federal act was repealed?

Edit: This seems to be one of your bigger sticking points, and it by and large would be a token gesture towards state's rights.
Click to expand...

Southern states mostly, and they would attract the worst of the worst racists, semi-racists, etc. as they would be under no federal obligation to do otherwise; hell we've seen state attempts at amendments that entirely contradicts federal laws on abortion and interracial marriage. Those are laws already on the books. Yet you don't think if the laws weren't on the books we wouldn't have state abuse the way we have with gay marriage rights violations? (which Paul supports btw, the hypocrite that he is). Allowing states the right to institute civil rights laws and overturning the 1964 Civil Rights Act because it regulates the type of people private businesses can accept based on color/creed/etc. ignores a massive and large body of evidence showing it hasn't worked, ever, in American history, and why Chainspell consistently wimps out of addressing the issue. It would allow racists the freedom to breed and pass on their prejudice just like in previous generations in the name of freedom, liberty and of course "state's rights", a well known meme of the South during the Civil War.
 
Chainspell said:
hey you mean these?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zsr0UpVjoE

vs Ron Paul Supporters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xoqY6CpgpSE#t=80s

amazes me...
Click to expand...

I agree that Paul supporters are, as a whole, more engaged in the political process (and knowledgeable about his platform) than supporters of other candidates. That is laudable. I take issue with what I see as a certain cultishness in people's love for Paul, and I disagree with him and his supporters on a number of critical policy areas, but I will give credit where credit's due. I do wish the Paul peeps had a greater willingness to acknowledge the reality of his weaknesses, however.
 
Don Vito Corleone said:
I agree that Paul supporters are, as a whole, more engaged in the political process (and knowledgeable about his platform) than supporters of other candidates. That is laudable. I take issue with what I see as a certain cultishness in people's love for Paul, and I disagree with him and his supporters on a number of critical policy areas, but I will give credit where credit's due. I do wish the Paul peeps had a greater willingness to acknowledge the reality of his weaknesses, however.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true. Many Ron Paul supporters have no idea about Ron Paul's actual platform. They hear him talk about civil liberties and the Constitution and think that Ron Paul is then for civil liberties and the Constitution, when he is actually anything but for those things. People actually think that this crazy old racist fool is actually for individual rights.
 
First said:
Allowing states the right to institute civil rights laws and overturning the 1964 Civil Rights Act because it regulates the type of people private businesses can accept based on color/creed/etc. ignores a massive and large body of evidence showing it hasn't worked, ever, in American history, and why Chainspell consistently wimps out of addressing the issue. It would allow racists the freedom to breed and pass on their prejudice just like in previous generations in the name of freedom, liberty and of course "state's rights", a well known meme of the South during the Civil War.
Click to expand...

This, in a nutshell. "He's not racist, he just wants to promote racism, err, I mean, if the civil rights act were abolished, then people would get along better, just like in the gold ol' days!" 99 years of history (end of Civil War until the Civil Rights Act) contradicts that part of his platform.
 
Oh look, he posted again and he still dodged responding to that. When you use something current in Ron Paul's platform and demonstrate soundly why it's a racist policy, they just twiddle their thumbs and whistle.
 
DrPizza said:
Oh look, he posted again and he still dodged responding to that. When you use something current in Ron Paul's platform and demonstrate soundly why it's a racist policy, they just twiddle their thumbs and whistle.
Click to expand...

Yes you're right... I agree 100% i don't want to try and explain. For what? Pointless...

-Sent from my phone.
 
Reading the quotes on his Wikipedia page I have a hard time caring even if he still endorsed them. So he's an old racist. Do people think that he's going to get Jim Crow going again? Maybe if there's another Katrina he'll let minorities die again?
 
RabidMongoose said:
I don't think that's true. Many Ron Paul supporters have no idea about Ron Paul's actual platform. They hear him talk about civil liberties and the Constitution and think that Ron Paul is then for civil liberties and the Constitution, when he is actually anything but for those things. People actually think that this crazy old racist fool is actually for individual rights.
Click to expand...

No, morons like you that misrepresent and lie are the ones that have no idea about his platform. Every post you make confirms that you are a clueless fool.
 
Chainspell said:
Yes you're right... I agree 100% i don't want to try and explain. For what? Pointless...

-Sent from my phone.
Click to expand...

I'm not the kind of Ron Paul supporter that tries too hard to convince other people.

I put it out there, now it's up to you to understand it. Let's just say that if you don't get it, then you won't get it no matter how i try.

-Sent from my phone.
 
Last edited:
HamburgerBoy said:
Reading the quotes on his Wikipedia page I have a hard time caring even if he still endorsed them. So he's an old racist. Do people think that he's going to get Jim Crow going again? Maybe if there's another Katrina he'll let minorities die again?
Click to expand...

This is a good point thinking about it for a moment, but then he has not done like for example Sen Byrd did, which is admit that he was a young idealist and has learned more aspects of his positions. Ron Paul runs on being a strong idealist. I do not see any change nor him showing he can adapt. Just denial and scapegoating of his staffmembers he had on for over a decade. Not very presidential. If he came out with it would be a negative for him as many in the south do not mind a racist. That is a pandering move and will not unite people behind him.

IF he was like: "I had this old PoV and I realized I had not thought it through, but now that I have, I realize more sides of it then most and why people think this way, regardless of how incorrect."

He would _maybe_ get a vote from me (doubtful as I disagree strongly with his economic views) but it would be a start.

The "Do you think he will bring Jim Crow back?" Is hyperbole on your part, so I will pass on that one.
 
Last edited:
Chainspell said:
Yes you're right... I agree 100% i don't want to try and explain. For what? Pointless...

-Sent from my phone.
Click to expand...

Let's see if I can sum up your ability to discuss this.
"Ron Paul is a racist."
"Is Not"
"Is too"
"Is not"
"Is too"
"Is not and you can't prove it."
"Here's proof."
"I'm not going to explain it. Ron Paul is the awesomest person ever, you just don't get it. <stomps feet> And I want an oompa loompa right now!"
 
DrPizza said:
Let's see if I can sum up your ability to discuss this.
"Ron Paul is a racist."
"Is Not"
"Is too"
"Is not"
"Is too"
"Is not and you can't prove it."
"Here's proof."
"I'm not going to explain it. Ron Paul is the awesomest person ever, you just don't get it. <stomps feet> And I want an oompa loompa right now!"
Click to expand...

Yeah that sums that up nicely. Thank you.

-Sent from my phone.
 
So, you're admitting that he's a racist? That's a start. Gee, where shall we move on to next? The idiotic economic ideas? Or the idiotic foreign policies?
 
One thing that crossed my mind.

every Ron Paul supporter has been on the other side. We've seen and believed in things that contradict with what Ron Paul is saying.

I wonder, have any of you been on and believed on Ron Paul's side of the issue?

We have. we've been on both sides.







-Sent from my phone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top