Thread: USPO Tea Party inconsistency on Ron Paul

url

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

the most common reasons fer the Tea Party folk on USPO have fer abandonin' Dr. Paul be thar newfound and extreme sense 'o compassion fer black americans. i've found this empathy fer black folk in our country heartenin', but also astonishin' in its sudden fervor. head on o'er to this part 'o the forums, Abortion, Civil Rights and other Social Issues, and find me one thread started by any 'o these swabbys that contains outrage and passion fer the plight 'o black americans.

you won't.

*shrugs*

Bwahahaha. Whatever you do, don't ask them how they feel about Dr. Paul's response to these incessant attacks. Why they openly support laws which clearly discriminate against blacks and other minorities themselves.

Originally Posted by dblack

url

ahoy Dblack,

lol.

aye.

- MeadHallPirate

I don't think that I've necessarily been silent on the matter of Ron Paul but I haven't participated in all of the 1000 threads on the subject.

There are aspects of Paul's platform that I like but he is not my choice for the GOP nomination due to his foreign policy stances. Right now I'm supporting Gingrich...whom I am also not 100% in agreement with but either Paul or Gingrich would be a better choice than Romney.

I simply will not vote for Romney. He is, in my opinion, the primary reason that there is a Tea Party. Guys like him and McCain are a fucking disaster for Conservatives.

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

Bwahahaha. Whatever you do, don't ask them how they feel about Dr. Paul's response to these incessant attacks. Why they openly support laws which clearly discriminate against blacks and other minorities themselves.

ahoy Formaldehyde,

imma just hopin' fer any response at all from the USPO Tea Partiers and them who be sympathetic to thar cause.

if i had scribed a thread titled, "Tea Partiers are racists", imma sure the response woulda been so robust that the USPO server woulda been shut down.

yet i ask what i think be a reasonable question, and i feel like im in a deserted, cavernous space.

*cups his hands to mouth*

hello!!!!....llo....llo.....llo....llo......

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

the most common reasons fer the Tea Party folk on USPO have fer abandonin' Dr. Paul be thar newfound and extreme sense 'o compassion fer black americans. i've found this empathy fer black folk in our country heartenin', but also astonishin' in its sudden fervor. head on o'er to this part 'o the forums, Abortion, Civil Rights and other Social Issues, and find me one thread started by any 'o these swabbys that contains outrage and passion fer the plight 'o black americans.

you won't.

I think that you will find those of us who support the Tea Party don't spend a whole lot of time considering race as the pertinent factor in any particular discussion of ideology. In fact, I don't see any Tea Party folks on this forum bringing up race on much of any issue. We might respond to posts that beg the question of race but rarely if ever do one of us instigate that discussion.

Originally Posted by lutherf

I think that you will find those of us who support the Tea Party don't spend a whole lot of time considering race as the pertinent factor in any particular discussion of ideology. In fact, I don't see any Tea Party folks on this forum bringing up race on much of any issue. We might respond to posts that beg the question of race but rarely if ever do one of us instigate that discussion.

ahoy Luthef,

Oreo, one 'o the most outspoken 'o the Tea Party folks on USPO, has...in great volume, in fact. Jviehe, who also has written in defense 'o the Tea Party has also found a newfound love fer civil rights and the black american.

i don't ask ye to speak fer them, of course, imma just makin' an observation.

- MeadHallPirate

The Tea Partiers are a mixed bag. From what I saw, the libertarian-leaning conservatives who started the movement quickly became a minority. Once the party proper recognized it as a nice way to stoke the anti-Obama fires, it was 'mainstreamed' and the libertarian influence was overrun by more traditional Republicans. Social conservatives, anti-tax folks, and even a fair number of neo-cons looking to distance themselves from Bush embarrassment are now the majority of the Tea Party movement.

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

Bwahahaha. Whatever you do, don't ask them how they feel about Dr. Paul's response to these incessant attacks. Why they openly support laws which clearly discriminate against blacks and other minorities themselves.

Very few people were raised to fear blacks the way you were. Projecting your fears onto others is not productive.

ahoy Lutherf,

thank ye fer droppin' anchor in me thread.

Originally Posted by lutherf

I don't think that I've necessarily been silent on the matter of Ron Paul but I haven't participated in all of the 1000 threads on the subject.

There are aspects of Paul's platform that I like...

to speak in specifics, could ye briefly lay out what ye like about Dr. Paul's platform, and how important those issues which ye agree with Dr. Paul on are to ye?

....but he is not my choice for the GOP nomination due to his foreign policy stances.

here be Dr. Paul on foreign policy and spendin';

As many frustrated Americans who have joined the Tea Party realize, we cannot stand against big government at home while supporting it abroad.

We cannot talk about fiscal responsibility while spending trillions on occupying and bullying the rest of the world. We cannot talk about the budget deficit and spiraling domestic spending without looking at the costs of maintaining an American empire of more than 700 military bases in more than 120 foreign countries. We cannot pat ourselves on the back for cutting a few thousand dollars from a nature preserve or an inner-city swimming pool at home while turning a blind eye to a Pentagon budget that nearly equals those of the rest of the world combined.

Our foreign policy is based on an illusion: that we are actually paying for it. What we are doing is borrowing and printing money to maintain our presence overseas.

A return to the traditional U.S. foreign policy of active private engagement but government noninterventionism is the only alternative that can restore our moral and fiscal health.

A Tea Party Foreign Policy - By Ron Paul | Foreign Policy

Right now I'm supporting Gingrich...whom I am also not 100% in agreement with but either Paul or Gingrich would be a better choice than Romney.

imma not "100% in agreement" with any politician, or person fer that matter. that seems like an unreasonable metric to apply when pickin' our representatives in government.

I simply will not vote for Romney. He is, in my opinion, the primary reason that there is a Tea Party. Guys like him and McCain are a fucking disaster for Conservatives.

avast ye, Lutherf. the Tea Party was actually created in a response to TARP, not Mitt Romney. Mr. Gingrich supported the TARP program.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Very few people were raised to fear blacks the way you were. Projecting your fears onto others is not productive.

In the case of my father, it wasn't productive at all. In fact, it had just the opposite effect.

Unfortunately, that isn't true with many Southerners today. They still live that legacy of hatred which their fathers and grandfathers promoted, even though they are now typically closet racists instead of being open about it. Take those who support our clearly discriminatory laws and use dog whistles like states' rights to hide their hatred and rampant xenophobia, for instance.

Personally, I think it would be far better if they were still open about it instead of cowardly hiding their true feelings.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Lutherf,

thank ye fer droppin' anchor in me thread.

to speak in specifics, could ye briefly lay out what ye like about Dr. Paul's platform, and how important those issues which ye agree with Dr. Paul on are to ye?

For the sake of convenience I'll just C&P from my replies to another thread posted elsewhere -

My primary problem with Ron Paul is the foreign policy end of things. I firmly believe that our military relationships with allies are a necessary and appropriate first line of defense when it comes to national security. I don't want to see bases in Europe and the Pacific shut down. I want to see a stronger relationship with Israel and with Japan. Don't get me wrong. I think we screwed the pooch in Afghanistan and got into doing things there that we didn't need to be involved in but I also see how we were in a tough situation from a strategic standpoint. There is no way we could have run ops in Afghanistan (on the scale that was necessary) from Pakistan and running those ops from India would have necessitated a level of agreement from Pakistan that we never would have got plus doing so would have generated serious issues with China.

One other thing....and this is a big one for me...Paul spoke against the tactics used to take down Awlaki. If he is really the proponent for using Letters of Marque in the pursuit of terrorists that he professes to be then this shouldn't have been an issue. A terrorist is a terrorist whether born in the US or not. If their apprehension is to be conducted on US soil then it's an FBI matter but when overseas it's a military one. His admonition of this kind of action gives me pause to think about what his response would be in another 9/11 type situation.

Paul is probably the leading proponent of a smaller federal government and stronger state governments. I agree wholeheartedly with him about that but that's not enough for me to advocate for his election to the office of President.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

avast ye, Lutherf. the Tea Party was actually created in a response to TARP, not Mitt Romney. Mr. Gingrich supported the TARP program.

- MeadHallPirate

I'm not suggesting that Romney himself was the primary reason for the development of the Tea Party but it was big government Republicans like him and McCain that allowed TARP to go through the way it did. If there is one single factor that most unifies the Tea Party it is the idea that there is already too much reliance on and therefore power with the Federal government. Beyond that the Libertarians, Social Conservatives and Fiscal Conservatives all have different agendas.

My problem with Ron Paul is that contrary to his own belief, the Constitution does allow we the people through our representatives to tax and spend on things we can't do alone.

You can't call yourself a strict constructionist of the Constitution if you ignore the parts that are inconvenient to your own ideology.

The great inconsistency I see from the baggers, who are really mostly just big "C" conservative gov't advocates who want to tell us how to lead our private lives while they stand for dismantling Medicare and giving seniors vouchers to spend on the free market, is that they say gov't sucks, gov't can't do anything, so elect us and we'll create jobs!!!

Makes no sense. Gov't can't do anything right, that's my ideology, so give me the reigns of power and I'll be the one to rain jobs on everyone by giving everything to my 5 friends in the hopes that one day they trickle-down the money on you. Totally unprecedented thinking, totally stupid.

Ron Paul sure is persuasive and everything he says about the Fed is correct, but his views on domestic and foreign policy apart from that are childishly black and white.

An individual doesn't win a war. An individual doesn't build the highways or maintain infrastructure.

Finding a private-public balance is the key, meanwhile you've got people who hate gov't who desperately keep running in the direction of gov't employment. That's the big hypocrisy.

You want the gov't to be smaller, than fire yourself, Dr. Paul.