Question for Paul fans: is ALL support welcome?
- Thread starter cnorman18
- Start date
applesanity
New member
I dunno, the Marshall Plan bailed out many European countries after WWII, and also accomplished two ulterior motives which I'm comfortable with - stopping those Communist parties in Italy, Greece, etc., and forming NATO.
cnorman said:
Why?
Any foreign aid that makes countries more interdependent economically makes them less likely to engage in conflict. I love that our economy is becoming so tied up with China's, they would be literally committing suicide(due to massive starvation) if they started a conflict with us these days.
Foreign aid that is educational and economic in nature really does work, look at Japan after WWII for the best example in history. Can anyone imagine Japan starting a war with us or europe these days?
Foreign aid doesn't have to be govt to govt either. In fact I think foreign aid works best when it is private sector to private sector.
Foreign aid that is educational and economic in nature really does work, look at Japan after WWII for the best example in history. Can anyone imagine Japan starting a war with us or europe these days?
Foreign aid doesn't have to be govt to govt either. In fact I think foreign aid works best when it is private sector to private sector.
alex45ACP
Alex45ACP:
I suspect you're right on the aid-to-Israel issue. That makes four positions of Paul's that bigots would agree with, NONE of which are themselves indications of bigotry.
Not even the Israel issue. If Paul advocated cutting off aid to Israel ONLY, that would be a bad sign; but be never has.
I don't think I have committed any logical fallacies at all.
Fallacy of composition: That would be true if I had ever said, "Some of Paul's followers are bigots, therefore they all are." But I never said that. On the contrary; I said, and quite explicitly, that "I certainly do not believe that most, or even many, of Dr. Paul's fans are bigots." the question from the beginning has been (at least to me, who asked it) "Given that Paul and his fans are NOT bigots, what would account for bigots being attracted to his program?" and we have finally begun to make some progress on answering that.
Fallacy of association: that would be true if I had ever said, "Bigots like Paul's policy of (x), therefore it must be wrong." But again, I've never said that. I've consistently argued against Paul's policies because I think them unwise, not on account of who may or may not support them. On this thread, I have not argued against any of his policies at all.
Fallacy of generalization: Again, that would be true if I had ever said, "Some of Paul's followers are bigots, therefore they all are." But I never said that. To repeat: the question from the beginning has been, "Given that Paul and his fans are NOT bigots, what would account for bigots being attracted to his program?"
I would say that most of the Paul fans who have responded on this thread have committed the fallacy of "Jumping to a conclusion." I've been asking, from my initial post, the above question--a perfectly logical and reasonable one, and one that turns out to have a rational answer; but it's been consistently, and explicitly, interpreted as an attempt to "smear" Dr. Paul and/or his followers as bigots.
Assuming that a legitimate question is, ipso facto, an attack might also be described as the logical fallacy of "not paying attention," or perhaps even "paranoia".
Now that we're actually finding answers to that question, and now that it is clear, or ought to be, that I have NOT been trying to "smear" ANYONE, it occurs to me that a fair-minded and intellectually honest person might find an apology to be in order; but never mind. If we can just continue now with a discussion that is rational and on point, that will be enough.
Alex45ACP:
I suspect you're right on the aid-to-Israel issue. That makes four positions of Paul's that bigots would agree with, NONE of which are themselves indications of bigotry.
Not even the Israel issue. If Paul advocated cutting off aid to Israel ONLY, that would be a bad sign; but be never has.
I don't think I have committed any logical fallacies at all.
Fallacy of composition: That would be true if I had ever said, "Some of Paul's followers are bigots, therefore they all are." But I never said that. On the contrary; I said, and quite explicitly, that "I certainly do not believe that most, or even many, of Dr. Paul's fans are bigots." the question from the beginning has been (at least to me, who asked it) "Given that Paul and his fans are NOT bigots, what would account for bigots being attracted to his program?" and we have finally begun to make some progress on answering that.
Fallacy of association: that would be true if I had ever said, "Bigots like Paul's policy of (x), therefore it must be wrong." But again, I've never said that. I've consistently argued against Paul's policies because I think them unwise, not on account of who may or may not support them. On this thread, I have not argued against any of his policies at all.
Fallacy of generalization: Again, that would be true if I had ever said, "Some of Paul's followers are bigots, therefore they all are." But I never said that. To repeat: the question from the beginning has been, "Given that Paul and his fans are NOT bigots, what would account for bigots being attracted to his program?"
I would say that most of the Paul fans who have responded on this thread have committed the fallacy of "Jumping to a conclusion." I've been asking, from my initial post, the above question--a perfectly logical and reasonable one, and one that turns out to have a rational answer; but it's been consistently, and explicitly, interpreted as an attempt to "smear" Dr. Paul and/or his followers as bigots.
Assuming that a legitimate question is, ipso facto, an attack might also be described as the logical fallacy of "not paying attention," or perhaps even "paranoia".
Now that we're actually finding answers to that question, and now that it is clear, or ought to be, that I have NOT been trying to "smear" ANYONE, it occurs to me that a fair-minded and intellectually honest person might find an apology to be in order; but never mind. If we can just continue now with a discussion that is rational and on point, that will be enough.
Unregistered
Moderator
If your question was sincere, I'll apologize, though I really don't understand how you didn't know the answer, unless you know nothing about Ron Paul's views on government. Its all about less federal governement, and less foreign intervention.
Groups that support those things, whether they are good or bad, are going to support candidates who also support those things. Why is that hard to understand?
Groups that support those things, whether they are good or bad, are going to support candidates who also support those things. Why is that hard to understand?
publius
Now that we're beginning to see how this works, I would admit that the anti-gun analogy was unfair and not applicable. In retrospect, it now seems to imply that Paul was somehow secretly supporting racism itself, and that was never my intention. In my defense, I would say that I was struggling to think of an analogous phenomenon, and chose a poor one--and repeat, once again, that I have said from the beginning that "I certainly do not believe that most, or even many, of Dr. Paul's fans are bigots; on the contrary, by and large they seem to be normal, patriotic Americans who are drawn to him by his devotion to the Constitution and his emphatically pro-American and libertarian views."
Anyway, the analogy was flawed and not helpful, and the inference that I suspected Paul of secretly supporting racism was legitimate. Though that was not my intended point, I apologize.
Your other remarks I frankly disagree with. I don't think that a vague generalization that "bigots want freedom like anyone else" is particularly helpful. An examination of how certain specific positions (most of them unique to Paul) might appeal to bigots, though, is. Further, I don't see how a reference to hatred of "the Fed and Jewish bankers" speaks to anything OTHER than bigotry.
Your apparent suggestion that I should have figured all of this out myself and never brought it up in the first place is defensible, I suppose--but only if you also apply it to every question ever asked on this forum. As I understand it, a "forum" is a place where people bring up issues and questions, and we work TOGETHER to find answers and reach conclusions, or at least share ideas and learn from each other. If I were an omniscient genius and just wanted to figure out the truth all by myself and post my pontifications without any need of responses, I'd be writing editorials for the New York Times.
I do understand the suspicion on the part of Paul supporters that this thread was an attack; but I think that has more to do with the preset assumptions of those supporters than with anything I said. I think my initial post was about as specific and clear as it gets, and now that the question I asked us finally being addressed, I would hope that someone would agree that asking the question, and finding some answers to it, is actually helpful.
There are logical, specific reasons that racists and anti-Semites are attracted to Ron Paul's campaign, and they do not in any way indicate that either Paul or his followers are bigots. Isn't it a good thing to know what they are?
Sorry, but I don't think it's wise to ignore a problem like this, and I think it's a little peculiar, once progress is actually being made, to object that it was all so easy to see in the first place. If these issues were such obvious reasons from the get-go, why did it take us forty-some posts to get here? Yes, I should have been brilliantly insightful and analytical and posted these issues as possible reasons in the first post on this thread; mea culpa. But then, anyone else could also have been a genius and posted them in the second. Instead, we spent the better part of an entire day wrangling over a perceived "smear". Somehow, considering my initial post, I don't think that's my fault.
Finally, to answer your and another poster's remark about wildalaska's comment: I 'distanced myself" from those remarks before he made them, and in any case, IIRC, he phrased those comments as a question, not a statement: "IF"--repeat, "IF" Ron Paul is a creature of the extremist Right and an enabler of hatred, etc., he'd want to know. Well, so would I; so would anyone. But I'd already addressed that assumption from the very beginning, and I saw no need to do so again.
Now that we're beginning to see how this works, I would admit that the anti-gun analogy was unfair and not applicable. In retrospect, it now seems to imply that Paul was somehow secretly supporting racism itself, and that was never my intention. In my defense, I would say that I was struggling to think of an analogous phenomenon, and chose a poor one--and repeat, once again, that I have said from the beginning that "I certainly do not believe that most, or even many, of Dr. Paul's fans are bigots; on the contrary, by and large they seem to be normal, patriotic Americans who are drawn to him by his devotion to the Constitution and his emphatically pro-American and libertarian views."
Anyway, the analogy was flawed and not helpful, and the inference that I suspected Paul of secretly supporting racism was legitimate. Though that was not my intended point, I apologize.
Your other remarks I frankly disagree with. I don't think that a vague generalization that "bigots want freedom like anyone else" is particularly helpful. An examination of how certain specific positions (most of them unique to Paul) might appeal to bigots, though, is. Further, I don't see how a reference to hatred of "the Fed and Jewish bankers" speaks to anything OTHER than bigotry.
Your apparent suggestion that I should have figured all of this out myself and never brought it up in the first place is defensible, I suppose--but only if you also apply it to every question ever asked on this forum. As I understand it, a "forum" is a place where people bring up issues and questions, and we work TOGETHER to find answers and reach conclusions, or at least share ideas and learn from each other. If I were an omniscient genius and just wanted to figure out the truth all by myself and post my pontifications without any need of responses, I'd be writing editorials for the New York Times.
I do understand the suspicion on the part of Paul supporters that this thread was an attack; but I think that has more to do with the preset assumptions of those supporters than with anything I said. I think my initial post was about as specific and clear as it gets, and now that the question I asked us finally being addressed, I would hope that someone would agree that asking the question, and finding some answers to it, is actually helpful.
There are logical, specific reasons that racists and anti-Semites are attracted to Ron Paul's campaign, and they do not in any way indicate that either Paul or his followers are bigots. Isn't it a good thing to know what they are?
Sorry, but I don't think it's wise to ignore a problem like this, and I think it's a little peculiar, once progress is actually being made, to object that it was all so easy to see in the first place. If these issues were such obvious reasons from the get-go, why did it take us forty-some posts to get here? Yes, I should have been brilliantly insightful and analytical and posted these issues as possible reasons in the first post on this thread; mea culpa. But then, anyone else could also have been a genius and posted them in the second. Instead, we spent the better part of an entire day wrangling over a perceived "smear". Somehow, considering my initial post, I don't think that's my fault.
Finally, to answer your and another poster's remark about wildalaska's comment: I 'distanced myself" from those remarks before he made them, and in any case, IIRC, he phrased those comments as a question, not a statement: "IF"--repeat, "IF" Ron Paul is a creature of the extremist Right and an enabler of hatred, etc., he'd want to know. Well, so would I; so would anyone. But I'd already addressed that assumption from the very beginning, and I saw no need to do so again.
Don't forget we should get rid of all Wagner's music because Hitler liked it...
There are whack jobs on every issue and they will line up behind some candidate when the Presidential election comes around.
Nazis like Paul because he would cut off aid to Isreal, of course he would also cut off aid to just about everyone else as well. People have used his writings in their newsletters, that does not mean he writes for them.
I do think there is a perception problem that Paul has because of many of the nuts who follow him. When I see a Paul sticker next to a "9/11 was an Inside Job" sticker on the same car you can't help but NOT want to be around them.
There are whack jobs on every issue and they will line up behind some candidate when the Presidential election comes around.
Nazis like Paul because he would cut off aid to Isreal, of course he would also cut off aid to just about everyone else as well. People have used his writings in their newsletters, that does not mean he writes for them.
I do think there is a perception problem that Paul has because of many of the nuts who follow him. When I see a Paul sticker next to a "9/11 was an Inside Job" sticker on the same car you can't help but NOT want to be around them.
unregistered
What, in the name of all that's holy, could I do beyond what I have already done to prove that my question was "sincere"???
If you're still suspicious at THIS point in the conversation, I doubt very much that I can help you with that.
As for your other comments, read my last post.
What, in the name of all that's holy, could I do beyond what I have already done to prove that my question was "sincere"???
If you're still suspicious at THIS point in the conversation, I doubt very much that I can help you with that.
As for your other comments, read my last post.
cnorman said:
I think you don't see it because it has two parts and you see one.
How is hating the Fed bigoted? I'm not a big fan of the Fed. Is that bigotry?
These people don't like the Fed, and don't like Jewish bankers, or anyone else who is Jewish, it seems. They found a politician who doesn't like the Fed, and supported him. That speaks to why they supported him, and it was the part with NOTHING to do with bigotry, just policy.
cnorman said:
I'm glad you now understand that many of us feel that Paul distanced himself from these hateful supporters before they became supporters. "IF"--repeat, "IF" Rudy Giuliani actually supports gun control because the Brady Bunch has pictures of him engaged in unnatural sex acts with sheep, I'd want to know, and so would anyone.
Unregistered
Moderator
None I guess. But seriously, don't you see the small government connection?
I think some of the misunderstanding on this thread may be generated by the title, which has a bit of the "so when did you stop beating your wife" quality to it. Do I welcome the support of the Klan for my candidate?
Yeah, sure, with open arms!
What kind of question is that? Insulting.publius
Let's just take another look at the entire article where I was supposed to find a legitimate and rational argument about opposition to the Fed, shall we?
"...Democrats and Republicans are like Tweedledee and Tweedledumb, both are controlled by the evil, subhuman Jews, and both are jockeying for their own personal elitist power to control the continuation of The Evil Empire, of which George W. Bush is the current, totally obedient puppet "leader" selected by the elite globalists: the master globalist Jew bankers, industrial military industry and corporate leaders, and self-“Chosen” media spokespeople and opinion-makers. All of them promote the emerging “Jew World Order.” Like them, most Democrats & Republican are Israel-firsters. They don't seem to have much of a choice due to the kike control of the media, the Israeli Lobby and the contributions of the organized Israel-firster groups, which are kike Zionists and now increasingly Christian Zionists, who disagree on many things, but are both Israel-firsters over and above what's best for the United States.... Most people do not realize that the Federal Reserve is NOT a governmental organization.... It is a PRIVATE company, owned by about 300 or so PRIVATE international globalist families, all of them –you guessed it!- JEWS! THESE kike vermin control the BANK of the USA and their books are CLOSED to all except some of their members.... My second choice would be Democrat Dennis Kucinich out of Ohio, but he is a distant second choice, still too beholden to the Jews, among other degenerate racial minority groups. At any rate, watch the Judaized US media try to silence Ron Paul and put him down the "memory hole". However, they will give lots of FREE and complimentary news coverage, FREE publicity, to the candidates THEY prefer, and yes, they are all Zionist Israel-firsters, including Clinton and Barack. Forget about neocon “JEW-LI-ANI” from Jew York City-- he was alledgedly [sic] in on the inside job of 911 - his run for the US presidency is alledgedly [sic] part of his reward from the 911 mastermind Neocon traitors, a group that really SHOULD be “gassed to death in ovens”!.... So if you... wish to save this country from the evil machinations of Jew bankers, please consider voting for Ron Paul in 2008!"
Now: Was this "legitimate" opposition to the Fed, as expressed here, based on economic, political or even Libertarian or Constitutional concerns? The only reason for it that I can see is that the Fed is, quote, "a PRIVATE company, owned by about 300 or so PRIVATE international globalist families, all of them –you guessed it!- JEWS! THESE kike vermin control the BANK of the USA..."
Does this look like anything within a hundred light-years of rational political discourse to you? Was I really expected, when reading this mountain of stinking excrement, to find this one mustard seed of viciously-expressed comment and understand it from a sane and rational perspective that is entirely different from the one explicitly--and offensively--stated?
Somehow, "Give me a break" doesn't seem sufficient...
Let's just take another look at the entire article where I was supposed to find a legitimate and rational argument about opposition to the Fed, shall we?
"...Democrats and Republicans are like Tweedledee and Tweedledumb, both are controlled by the evil, subhuman Jews, and both are jockeying for their own personal elitist power to control the continuation of The Evil Empire, of which George W. Bush is the current, totally obedient puppet "leader" selected by the elite globalists: the master globalist Jew bankers, industrial military industry and corporate leaders, and self-“Chosen” media spokespeople and opinion-makers. All of them promote the emerging “Jew World Order.” Like them, most Democrats & Republican are Israel-firsters. They don't seem to have much of a choice due to the kike control of the media, the Israeli Lobby and the contributions of the organized Israel-firster groups, which are kike Zionists and now increasingly Christian Zionists, who disagree on many things, but are both Israel-firsters over and above what's best for the United States.... Most people do not realize that the Federal Reserve is NOT a governmental organization.... It is a PRIVATE company, owned by about 300 or so PRIVATE international globalist families, all of them –you guessed it!- JEWS! THESE kike vermin control the BANK of the USA and their books are CLOSED to all except some of their members.... My second choice would be Democrat Dennis Kucinich out of Ohio, but he is a distant second choice, still too beholden to the Jews, among other degenerate racial minority groups. At any rate, watch the Judaized US media try to silence Ron Paul and put him down the "memory hole". However, they will give lots of FREE and complimentary news coverage, FREE publicity, to the candidates THEY prefer, and yes, they are all Zionist Israel-firsters, including Clinton and Barack. Forget about neocon “JEW-LI-ANI” from Jew York City-- he was alledgedly [sic] in on the inside job of 911 - his run for the US presidency is alledgedly [sic] part of his reward from the 911 mastermind Neocon traitors, a group that really SHOULD be “gassed to death in ovens”!.... So if you... wish to save this country from the evil machinations of Jew bankers, please consider voting for Ron Paul in 2008!"
Now: Was this "legitimate" opposition to the Fed, as expressed here, based on economic, political or even Libertarian or Constitutional concerns? The only reason for it that I can see is that the Fed is, quote, "a PRIVATE company, owned by about 300 or so PRIVATE international globalist families, all of them –you guessed it!- JEWS! THESE kike vermin control the BANK of the USA..."
Does this look like anything within a hundred light-years of rational political discourse to you? Was I really expected, when reading this mountain of stinking excrement, to find this one mustard seed of viciously-expressed comment and understand it from a sane and rational perspective that is entirely different from the one explicitly--and offensively--stated?
Somehow, "Give me a break" doesn't seem sufficient...
cnorman,
Unregistered and I seem to have the same question.
How do you study these people for years without realizing that among their weird and hateful views are other views, such as wanting less government, and those views lead them directly to Ron Paul, the only major party candidate for people who really want less government? Seriously, it did not occur to you to look closely and see if they have some common ground with Ron Paul on the issue of smaller government, and that might explain their support?
Whether or not they have crazy reasoning is not at issue. Is there opposition to the Fed legitimate in its basis? I don't think so. But I still maintain that it isn't so very hard to figure out that opposition to the Fed (or foreign aid, or any of the other things already mentioned) might lead someone to support Ron Paul.
Unregistered and I seem to have the same question.
How do you study these people for years without realizing that among their weird and hateful views are other views, such as wanting less government, and those views lead them directly to Ron Paul, the only major party candidate for people who really want less government? Seriously, it did not occur to you to look closely and see if they have some common ground with Ron Paul on the issue of smaller government, and that might explain their support?
Whether or not they have crazy reasoning is not at issue. Is there opposition to the Fed legitimate in its basis? I don't think so. But I still maintain that it isn't so very hard to figure out that opposition to the Fed (or foreign aid, or any of the other things already mentioned) might lead someone to support Ron Paul.
publius42, again
After that last travesty, now--50-some posts into the discussion--you're objecting to the title of this thread?!?
You choke on that gnat, while swallowing a decaying dead camel in professing to find a rational comment in a viciously bigoted article filled with literally nothing but sheer hatred?
We were, for a while, actually dealing with the question I asked and finding some good and useful answers; but you still seem to be entirely focused on finding SOME way to discredit this whole discussion and, it would appear, me personally.
What's next? Oh, I know: my posts tend to be very long. Why not being THAT up as a criticism?
Can we get back to the actual QUESTION now? Or do you have a few more rocks to throw?
After that last travesty, now--50-some posts into the discussion--you're objecting to the title of this thread?!?
You choke on that gnat, while swallowing a decaying dead camel in professing to find a rational comment in a viciously bigoted article filled with literally nothing but sheer hatred?
We were, for a while, actually dealing with the question I asked and finding some good and useful answers; but you still seem to be entirely focused on finding SOME way to discredit this whole discussion and, it would appear, me personally.
What's next? Oh, I know: my posts tend to be very long. Why not being THAT up as a criticism?
Can we get back to the actual QUESTION now? Or do you have a few more rocks to throw?
Unregistered
Moderator
Rocks were thrown when the question was asked.
You do realize that when Paul inevitably loses the nomination, these same groups will shift their support to whatever Republican gets the nomination, dont you? Whatever candidate the Republicans end up with will get more of the racist, bigot vote than the democrats. This has traditionally happened, and somehow I don't recall anyone ever making an issue out of it until now, nor do I recall any candidate ever making a statement against their support..
You do realize that when Paul inevitably loses the nomination, these same groups will shift their support to whatever Republican gets the nomination, dont you? Whatever candidate the Republicans end up with will get more of the racist, bigot vote than the democrats. This has traditionally happened, and somehow I don't recall anyone ever making an issue out of it until now, nor do I recall any candidate ever making a statement against their support..
I never claimed to find a rational comment in there. What I said was:
I have helpfully bolded the important part. Their rational reason for supporting Ron Paul, to the extent they are rational at all, is because of shared policy opinions. That doesn't mean their reasons for opposing the Fed are rational, it just means that a rational person might conclude that someone who hates the Fed (for whatever demented OR rational reason) might support Ron Paul.
I have helpfully bolded the important part. Their rational reason for supporting Ron Paul, to the extent they are rational at all, is because of shared policy opinions. That doesn't mean their reasons for opposing the Fed are rational, it just means that a rational person might conclude that someone who hates the Fed (for whatever demented OR rational reason) might support Ron Paul.
still trying?
A brutally frank answer to your question: No, I haven't seen a lot of talk about "small government" on bigoted websites. They spend virtually all of their time and space complaining about how the "niggers, kikes and spics" are taking it over. These people are not, by and large, deep thinkers.
Be it noted that I haven't seen talk about how fine it would be if Ron Paul curbed the FBI, or ended "affirmative action" or allowed greater freedom of expression of their hateful ideas, either. Those are theories about why they support Paul that we have come up with right here; I've seen no thinking that detailed or, to put it bluntly, that intelligent, in those venues. I HAVE seen mention of the cutoff of aid to Israel (they don't seem to be aware that Paul intends to cut off aid to anyone else), but it's generally conflated with concerns about ending the alleged Jewish control of our government generally and phrased as something like "getting the kike parasites off our backs and out of our pockets."
You still seem to be maintaining that one can find rational political analysis and meaningful ideas among hate-obsessed lunatics. I'll ask again, since I can't quite believe it to be true: Do you really think the ideas and language of cretins like Wendy Campbell ought to be an acceptable part of our political dialogue in this country? Compared to her, an anti-gunner talking about "automatic assault rifles" looks like a paragon of rationality and honest dialogue. Why would I, in particular, want to have a serious conversation with someone who openly calls me "subhuman vermin"?
A brutally frank answer to your question: No, I haven't seen a lot of talk about "small government" on bigoted websites. They spend virtually all of their time and space complaining about how the "niggers, kikes and spics" are taking it over. These people are not, by and large, deep thinkers.
Be it noted that I haven't seen talk about how fine it would be if Ron Paul curbed the FBI, or ended "affirmative action" or allowed greater freedom of expression of their hateful ideas, either. Those are theories about why they support Paul that we have come up with right here; I've seen no thinking that detailed or, to put it bluntly, that intelligent, in those venues. I HAVE seen mention of the cutoff of aid to Israel (they don't seem to be aware that Paul intends to cut off aid to anyone else), but it's generally conflated with concerns about ending the alleged Jewish control of our government generally and phrased as something like "getting the kike parasites off our backs and out of our pockets."
You still seem to be maintaining that one can find rational political analysis and meaningful ideas among hate-obsessed lunatics. I'll ask again, since I can't quite believe it to be true: Do you really think the ideas and language of cretins like Wendy Campbell ought to be an acceptable part of our political dialogue in this country? Compared to her, an anti-gunner talking about "automatic assault rifles" looks like a paragon of rationality and honest dialogue. Why would I, in particular, want to have a serious conversation with someone who openly calls me "subhuman vermin"?