Forum

profile |  register |  members |  groups |  faq |  search  login

Debate about Ron Paul ---ver II

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> Media Lens Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
joe emersberger



Joined: 24 Jan 2004
Posts: 513
Location: Windsor, Onatrio, Canada

Post Post subject: Debate about Ron Paul ---ver II Reply with quote

More debate about Ron Paul below

Poll: Ron Paul vs. Barack Obama election would be tight race

Posted by gabriele on January 31, 2012, 5:55 pm


Yet, the British media - with rare exceptions - doesn't bother to inform us about this guy's ideas and policies. Why?

g.

Poll: Ron Paul vs. Barack Obama election would be tight race

Read more: http://m.digitaljournal.com/article/318764#ixzz1l3kFK29o

Re: Poll: Ron Paul vs. Barack Obama election would be tight race
Posted by emersberger on January 31, 2012, 8:54 pm, in reply to "Poll: Ron Paul vs. Barack Obama election would be tight race"


--Previous Message--
: Yet, the British media - with rare exceptions
: - doesn't bother to inform us about this
: guy's ideas and policies. Why?
:

Some of Ron Paul's best rhetoric - captured here - still includes him recalling proudly his vote to bomb Afghanistan to "go after" Bin Laden - an utterly depraved reason for bombing a country on the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lP04NnGa4gA#t=0s

And yes he got booed for invoking the Golden Rule but then applauded for saying end the wars to "save money".

UPDATE Feb 7/2012 -not part of original thread
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2012/02/07/if-ron-paul-was-president-today

While Israel is threatening to bomb Iran very soon, here is Ron Paul affirming Israel's supposed right to bomb Iran. Remind me again why some segments of the left are lining up to hype this guy as "anti-war"?
Joe

*****

EXCERPT:

VAN SUSTEREN: What would you do about Iran and their quest for a nuclear weapon, anything at all?

PAUL: I'd quit trying to overthrow their government. We've been doing that since 1953, and they don't like us for it. And I think what we should do is let Israel deal with it. They have hundreds of nuclear missiles. They took care of Iraq's nuclear power plant back in the '80s. I defended them for it.

But to restrain Israel and take over their sovereignty by giving them money, then they can't defend their borders and they can't develop their peace treaties -- so we're really hurting Israel inadvertently, of course, by doing this.

But even Israel, the head of the Mossad, said even if Iran gets a nuclear missile, it's not an existential threat to Israel. And there's a lot of discussion going on in Israel. This idea that we have to automatically go to war and start a war against Iran -- it's crazy!

VAN SUSTEREN: All right...

PAUL: I mean, this is foolish.


Another update
Ron Paul says that Israel must be free to name Jerusalem as its capital.

"The real issue here is not what America wants, but what does Israel want," Paul told evangelical leaders, according to a transcript of the meeting obtained by Business Insider. "If Israel wants their capital to be Jerusalem, then the United States should honor that."

"How would we like it if some other nation said 'We decided to recognize New York City as your capital instead, so we will build our embassy there?'" he added.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-would-move-us-israel-embassy-to-capital-jerusalem-2012-4#ixzz1wyPc5eG7

By that logic, Iran should be free to name Tel Aviv as its capital. Paul goes to the extreme of those who completely disregard the existence of the Palestinains. This and his support for Israeli aggression (see above) shows how serioulsy to take his claim that he woud cut off Israel's US funding.


However, he wouldn't have any platform for his best rhetoric if he didn't also say things like this - that uninsured people should be left to die.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PepQF7G-It0&feature=player_embedded#t=0s

He then goes on to state that he practised medice in the 1960's and uninsured people weren't "dying in the streets" or something to that effect. Of course he neglected to mention that unions (which fiercely opposes) were vastly stronger at that time and inequality at among its lowest levels in US history.

I've also explained (and debated) on this board other reasons why his best rhetoric is fraudulent

http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3276


The real Ron Paul
Posted by gabriele on January 31, 2012, 9:12 pm, in reply to "Re: Poll: Ron Paul vs. Barack Obama election would be tight race"

Ron Paul - The War in Afghanistan
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Texas/Ron_Paul/Views/The_War_in_Afghanistan/

Ron Paul - The War in Iraq
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Texas/Ron_Paul/Views/The_War_in_Iraq/

Ron Paul - Iran
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Texas/Ron_Paul/Views/Iran/

Ron Paul - Syria
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Texas/Ron_Paul/views/Syria/

Ron Paul - Israel
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Texas/Ron_Paul/Views/Israel/

Ron Paul - Homeland Security
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/house/Texas/Ron_Paul/views/Homeland_Security

Ron Paul - Illegal Drugs
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Texas/Ron_Paul/Views/Illegal_Drugs/

Don't forget unions

Posted by emersberger on February 1, 2012, 12:38 am, in reply to "The real Ron Paul "

No surprise that a guy who thinks that the cops were right to drag black people out of privte businesses who refused to serve them

[this link shows that
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26sprb4Vi44
- not part of original thread since I had already posted and discussed it on the board - numerous times in fact]


would also want to give owners even more power to fire union organizers.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/12481/ron_paul_would_allow_open_season_on_union_organizers/

"Several times between 2001 and 2009, Ron Paul sponsored the Truth in Employment Act,
legislation that would amend the National Labor Relations Act to allow employers to fire pro-union workers (sometimes called “salts”) who join a workplace with the intent of unionizing it... "

And Global Climate Change

Posted by emersberger on February 1, 2012, 1:00 am, in reply to "Don't forget unions"

Here he is saying that human made Global Climate Change is a hoax (About 7 minutes in to this very lengthy, and also very friendly, interview on FOX News)

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-11-04/ron-paul-on-fox-business-its-business-as-usual-in-washington/

Ron Paul calls global warming “the greatest hoax I think has been around for many, many years”.

This stance is, of course, a death sentence for billions of people (and quite possibly all of us) but when people can whitewash his vote to bomb Afghanistan, his massive proposed military budget, fanatical support for bolstering private tyrannies - then I can't expect much from certain, hopefully very small, quarters of the left.

Hopey-Chaney Mark2 - as Rhs puts it - except that RP's boosters will very likely be spared the embarrassment and the lesson of an RP presidency.


climate change hoaxers smear Paul (nm)

Posted by ajohnstone on February 1, 2012, 1:40 am, in reply to "And Global Climate Change"


union shills smear Paul (nm)

Posted by ajohnstone on February 1, 2012, 1:36 am, in reply to "Don't forget unions"


Don't forget Syria and Iran (nm)
Posted by gabriele on February 1, 2012, 8:36 am, in reply to "Don't forget unions"

And would target the children of illegal immigrants to the USA

Posted by emersberger on February 1, 2012, 3:36 am, in reply to "Poll: Ron Paul vs. Barack Obama election would be tight race"


by abolishing birthright citizenship. Apparently he used to argue this required a constitutional amendment but not leans towards having the states just ignore the 14th amendment through convenient "interpretations". Bottom line - children of "illegals" in the USA- overwhelmingly desperately poor people from Latin America - will lose what limited legal protection their children born in the USA could have - even further impeding their access to health care and other basic services. Nice policy for anyone in favor building a permananet underclass, utterly vicious for anyone with an ounce of coomon sense or empathy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Kp9azelYt3g#t=0s

Re: Sorry, all considered, I can't see how Obama is better...

Posted by emersberger on February 1, 2012, 12:25 pm, in reply to "Sorry, all considered, I can't see how Obama is better..."


Your position is that if you don't say Obama in power woud be worse than RP, you must therefore support Obama? Don't see a problem with that?

This question might seem silly at this point given your relentless posting about him, but do you support RP?

And again, even if I believed (and I don't) that RP in power would be better than Obama in power, the horrible positions he takes more than justify dismay at people making a hero out of him - and engaging in outright denialism about how terrible he is. A lesser evil is still an evil - i.e. not a Good, not a hero.


Re: Sorry, all considered, I can't see how Obama is better...

Posted by gabriele on February 1, 2012, 12:29 pm, in reply to "Re: Sorry, all considered, I can't see how Obama is better..."

Again, ask that question to those progssives who still support Obama.

g.

PS and btw, I agree with Derek, you have become a troll on this issue

Re: Sorry, all considered, I can't see how Obama is better...

Posted by emersberger on February 1, 2012, 12:52 pm, in reply to "Re: Sorry, all considered, I can't see how Obama is better..."

--Previous Message--
: Again, ask that question to those progssives
: who still support Obama.
:
: g.
:
: PS and btw, I agree with Derek, you have
: become a troll on this issue
:

Derek says that policies that directly target the children of illegal immigrants - as RP does - are not vicious. Do you agree with that too? To me it perfcetly illustrates the path people go on when they jump on the RP bandwagon.

Also, would it be "trolling" to relentlessly post apologetics for Obama on this board - and then lash out at people who challenge it?


Re: Sorry, all considered, I can't see how Obama is better...

Posted by gabriele on February 1, 2012, 12:57 pm, in reply to "Re: Sorry, all considered, I can't see how Obama is better..."


First question. I know Derek on this board enough to believe you are misrepsenting his views. Sadly, I'm not surprised.

Second question. You have already been challenged many times to post on here the equivalent of Paul's records and policies, coming from Obama. I can't blame you if you couldn't meet that challenge.

g.

Re: Sorry, all considered, I can't see how Obama is better...

Posted by emersberger on February 1, 2012, 1:06 pm, in reply to "Re: Sorry, all considered, I can't see how Obama is better..."
--Previous Message--

: First question. I know Derek on this board
: enough to believe you are misrepsenting his
: views. Sadly, I'm not surprised.
:

Sadly I'm not. He said RP's immigration polices were "stupid" and "not nice" (as if targetting immigrant children in a way that could kill then was rude) but not "vicious".

: Second question. You have already been
: challenged many times to post on here the
: equivalent of Paul's records and policies,
: coming from Obama. I can't blame you if you
: couldn't meet that challenge.
:
My email to Swanson, archived in the forum,

http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3276&sid=9dbd595fc2601eb21fdbc5ead71f00d6

explains why I think RP would be EVEN worse than Obama. Where his rhetoric is better, I think he is clearly fraudulent, which leaves us only with where he is clearly worse. I think that answers your 'challenge" though not in a way you agree with.

Re: Sorry, all considered, I can't see how Obama is better...

Posted by gabriele on February 1, 2012, 1:12 pm, in reply to "Re: Sorry, all considered, I can't see how Obama is better..."


I see you still can't grasp the difference between facts and opinions, Joe.

Going to play with my cats now, enough on this thread

g.

Re: Sorry, all considered, I can't see how Obama is better...

Posted by emersberger on February 1, 2012, 1:34 pm, in reply to "Re: Sorry, all considered, I can't see how Obama is better..."

--Previous Message--
: I see you still can't grasp the difference
: between facts and opinions, Joe.
:
I guess not. Is that like the difference between not answering a question the way Gabriele wants and not answering at all? You seem to struggle with that one.

Re: Sorry, all considered, I can't see how Obama is better...

Posted by gabriele on February 1, 2012, 1:41 pm, in reply to "Re: Sorry, all considered, I can't see how Obama is better..."


The challenge was about you posting the equivalent of Paul's records and policies, coming from Obama. You have been challanged many times but you never could meet that challenge.

Your reply was about what you think of RP...

No seriously now...

bye bye

g.

Re: Sorry, all considered, I can't see how Obama is better...

Posted by dereklane on February 1, 2012, 1:03 pm, in reply to "Re: Sorry, all considered, I can't see how Obama is better..."


"Derek says that policies that directly target the children of illegal immigrants - as RP does - are not vicious. "

Do I? Where? Please link to it, and then read what I actually wrote.

...actually, I've done you a favour and tracked it down myself. Maybe you can start paraphrasing (making up) stuff I said in a week or so, but it hasn't yet fallen off the board. Here it is:
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1326982821.html

thanks,
Derek

Re: Sorry, all considered, I can't see how Obama is better...

Posted by emersberger on February 1, 2012, 1:21 pm, in reply to "Re: Sorry, all considered, I can't see how Obama is better..."


http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1326958193.html

in response to kennyg who listed RP’s immigration policeis

“Anyway, in answer to your question, no they are not racist policies.”
Then in reply to me
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1326991205.html

“They're not vicious, and me saying it is not inexplicable and offensive, quite frankly. Vicious would be saying that non white cultured people born in the US *now* would have to leave if he got in. Interestingly, this exact thing has been happening in the UK. Probably also in the US.”

I'd be nice if retracted you these outrageous remarks, but you appear to have dug in your heals.

Re: Sorry, all considered, I can't see how Obama is better...

Posted by dereklane on February 1, 2012, 3:53 pm, in reply to "Re: Sorry, all considered, I can't see how Obama is better..."


This is real trolling Joe.

Here's my full statement, which you neglected to quote:

"Anyway, in answer to your question, no they are not racist policies. They are stupid policies (like in the UK, the immigrant workforce tends to do all the shit jobs noone else wants but are necessary). They are policies that would negatively affect hundreds of thousands of people. They are not racist policies. "

...and ...
"They're not vicious, and me saying it is not inexplicable and offensive, quite frankly. Vicious would be saying that non white cultured people born in the US *now* would have to leave if he got in. Interestingly, this exact thing has been happening in the UK. Probably also in the US.

They are, to put it correctly (rather than hyperbolically) not nice policies. I wouldn't vote for policies like that. I don't vote at all. My preferred system is not libertarian, its anarchy. "


This post was a response to your response to the one I posted earlier.

You're trying to frame me as someone I am not. Its a little weak, a little nasty, quite surprising.

I'll leave you with it.

Derek


Last edited by joe emersberger on Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:17 am; edited 10 times in total
Wed Feb 01, 2012 9:49 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dereklane



Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 248
Location: UK

Post Post subject: backstory Reply with quote

Re: Obama-mania

Posted by dereklane [User Info] on January 18, 2012, 7:09 pm, in reply to "Re: Obama-mania"

""Ron Paul would have voted against 1964 Civil Righst Act"

That's ridiculous. Would have is not what I'm looking for, and its not what you need to offer to convince people your position is the only right one to have. We need facts, not thought crimes.

Re Afghanistan, I know - I read that elsewhere. This is one reason why I don't think he is amazing. Unfortunately, Afghanistan has already been invaded, people already killed. That can't be changed now. But who is saying right now pretty clearly that we don't need more imperialism, but less amongst potential presidential candidates?

That is a pretty big thing to turn your gaze away from if the goal is to stop imperialist thinking in the US.

cheers,

###############################

Re: Obama-mania

Posted by gabriele [User Info] [Email User] on January 18, 2012, 5:27 pm, in reply to "Re: Obama-mania"

I agree Deerek.

When I first started to look into this Ron Paul guy, the first thing striking me was the contrast between his image portrayed in the media and what people like Nader and Kucinich were saying about him. So I started to read and watch some material on the Internet. The gap between the corporate media image and the real Paul kept getting bigger and bigger.

Keep in mind, I started to look at him with lots of prejudices. He's a right wing Republican and on many things his ideas are very distant from mine.

I still think - as so many times I've written on this board - whoever gets into the White House will be a war criminal, being the system what it is. I wrote this so many times, yet people keep calling me a shill because I find many Paul's ideas very interesting and above all the influence of his presidential campaign revolutionary in this one-ideology consensus forced upon us by the corporate media.

But for people in love with ideologies, good is always with us and evil always with them and whoever questions this assumption is a betrayer.

Anyway, I'm still waiting for Joe to expand a bit on this post of mine

http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1326895105.html

g.

######################################

Re: Obama-mania

Posted by dereklane [User Info] on January 18, 2012, 7:16 pm, in reply to "Re: Obama-mania"

"I find many Paul's ideas very interesting and above all the influence of his presidential campaign revolutionary in this one-ideology consensus forced upon us by the corporate media. "

Yep, I did similiar things with Ahmadinejad post all the hoo-hah on that leader. Same thing - the more you read, the more you find that beneath all the hype is some intelligence, some good ideas, and a far more nuanced character than the media would have us believe. I found myself agreeing with more than 60-70% of what he has said too (and disagreeing pretty strongly with the remainder). People, leaders included, aren't *all* cardboard cutouts of the villain with the cat (no offense intended!). They often are in western countries, because leaders are most often mythical creatures there - designed faces rather than real personalities. When you find one that is obviously a little bit independent, the effect can be startling. I honestly think a lot of campaigners and activists don't know what to do when they stumble across such individuals, so they *react* first.

Noone is in love with this bloke. But, he is saying some important things. If the clamour for righteousness died down just a little, perhaps more people would hear, and ponder some of them.

cheers,

########################################

Re: Obama-mania

Posted by kennyg [User Info] on January 18, 2012, 5:32 pm, in reply to "Re: Obama-mania"



: I asked Joe for some more specific examples
: of RP's racist thinking and policies, but
: I'm not yet convinced they exist.

The BNP’s policy is to:

- Deport all the two million plus who are here illegally;
- Deport all those who commit crimes and whose original nationality was not British;
- Review all recent grants of residence or citizenship to ensure they are still appropriate;
- Offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently;
- Stop all new immigration except for exceptional cases;
Reject all asylum seekers who passed safe countries on their way to Britain.

Ron Paul’s six point plan puts a stop to illegal immigration:

1.Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
2.Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
3.No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
4.No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
5.End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
6.Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
The facts on the ground are being created right now. Every day that passes makes it more difficult to reverse the damage that has already been done.

Derek are you seriously saying you don't think these policies are racist or did you not think they were important enough to look at?

##########################

Re: Obama-mania

Posted by justin [User Info] [Email User] on January 19, 2012, 7:27 am, in reply to "Re: Obama-mania"

What's racist or even controversial about RP's immigration proposals:

"1.Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
2.Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
3.No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
4.No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
5.End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
6.Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods."

These rules - or very similar ones - are already in force in every European country.

Are you arguing for open, unregulated borders everywhere?

##################################

Re: Obama-mania

Posted by dereklane [User Info] on January 19, 2012, 7:29 am, in reply to "Re: Obama-mania"

Not sure what BNP policies have to do with this issue. Are you attempted to conflate the two?

"4.No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services. "

What welfare? I asked this already. Not you or Joe responded to that. US welfare is near non existent. People are living under bridges when they lose their jobs.

Anyway, in answer to your question, no they are not racist policies. They are stupid policies (like in the UK, the immigrant workforce tends to do all the shit jobs noone else wants but are necessary). They are policies that would negatively affect hundreds of thousands of people. They are not racist policies.

Australia already does this, but I didn't hear an outcry on this board about it. So does the UK (I'm a member of a group that homes asylum seekers stuck in limbo here, with no recourse to public funds, and who, otherwise, live under bridges). I suspect that the majority of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers in the US are already living rough, or working for cash. People are good, the govt is not.

You can't compare without showing the situation as it stands right now. None of the stuff in the list you provided is new for any candidate (or president). This is an election platform. Ugly, but not racist.

BTW, I know what racism is. I'm Australian. It and the US are soul partners in that respect. But, the US *now*, not some future US with a change of govt (which merely will be also).

cheers,

###################################

Re: Obama-mania

Posted by emersberger [User Info] [Email User] on January 19, 2012, 12:58 pm, in reply to "Re: Obama-mania"

:
: What welfare? I asked this already. Not you
: or Joe responded to that. US welfare is near
: non existent. People are living under
: bridges when they lose their jobs.
:
Derek, see

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
Budget
FY 2013 $Billions as % of Military
Military 697000
Medicaid 276000 40
SCHIP 9000 1
Food Stamps 80000 11
Child Nutrician 21000 3 *****

Ron Paul
Proposed Budget
FY 2013 $Billions as % of Military %Cut
Military 501000 28
Medicaid 181000 26 34
SCHIP 5000 1 44
Food Stamps 30000 4 63
Child Nutrician 14000 2 33


The first group of numbers shows that Medicaid, chid health insurance (SCHIP), food stamps, and child nutitian are (combined roughly 55% of military spending.

That isn't "nothing" unless you beieve the military budget is "nothing". Medicaid's buget is presently 40% of the military's, SCHIP's is 1%, Food stamps is 11%, Child Nutrician is 3%.


Social programs in the USA are scandalously inadequate. That is why the USA has an above average child mortality rate for a rich country - one that all by itself accounts for roughly 10,000 needless deaths every year. However, the USA's child mortality rate remains drastically lower than very poor or even middle income coutries. A welfare state clearly exists in the USA and it is functioning even if at very poor levels for a rich country.

The savagery that RP represents is shown in the cuts he proposes. Just looking at his first year in office which is shown above, he proposes 28% cut to military funding (shown as both baseline and off budget funding) compared to 34% for Medicaid, 44% to SCHIP, 63% to Food Stamps, 33% to Child Nutrician.

I posted this link numerous times. Have you ever looked a it?

: Anyway, in answer to your question, no they
: are not racist policies.

Calling for policies that viciously target non whites (and single out non-white infants in particular) is not racist? I guess I shoudln't be surprised given how you dismissed the significant of his voting for the bombing of Afghanistan - and his denunciation of the 1964 Civil Righst Act. White leftists sometimes have as much or more difficulty seeing racism than everyone else.


###################################

Re: Obama-mania

Posted by dereklane [User Info] on January 19, 2012, 2:20 pm, in reply to "Re: Obama-mania"

"Calling for policies that viciously target non whites (and single out non-white infants in particular) is not racist? I guess I shoudln't be surprised given how you dismissed the significant of his voting for the bombing of Afghanistan - and his denunciation of the 1964 Civil Righst Act. White leftists sometimes have as much or more difficulty seeing racism than everyone else. "

Firstly, how do you know I am a 'white leftist'? Pretty sure you've not seen me, and you evidently haven't paid a great deal of attention to my philosophy. Don't make assumptions, Joe.

The policies don't 'viciously target non-white, but immigrants. That's different. I'm against existent immigration policies in just about every wealthy country I can think of, because one the one hand, we are destroying the welfare of poorer nations, and on the other saying you can't come *here* even though we killed your prospects there.

RPs *policies* in this respect are coherent.

Now, onto the substance. I already pointed out the inherent flaws in bringing up RPs policies with respect to part 4, because that is *already* the case in the US, and probably every other western nation.

If you are an illegal immigrant, you get no legal protection, either welfare or healthcare. Only for the fact that churches continue to help do these people even survive. So far as I am aware, RP is not proposing to shut down institutions that help such people survive.

"1.Physically secure our borders"

This is also already an active part of US federal policy, and always has been. As it is here, and even more onerously, in Australia. But I can't remember anyone but me complaining about the fact that the AU govt was actively shooting and sinking refugee boats trying to reach Oz (and killing all on board). Perhaps an aside, but if this is a key issue, it does make me wonder why you've never been as vocal on that.

"2.Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials
must track visa holders and deport anyone
who overstays their visa or otherwise
violates U.S. law."

Is this also not already the case? Does the US currently have a policy that says visa rules are not enforced, or that people who overstay or violate US law are exempt from deportation?

"Legal immigrants from all
countries should face the same rules and
waiting periods. "

Seems more fair than unfair to me. In Oz, if you're from a target friendly country, you get a long stay visa *a lot* easier than if you are from, say, Africa or India. That is, UK citizens welcome (Oz likes white people who speak english), everyone else, not so much. I would suggest that similiar visa rules apply in the US currently, which is unfair.

"5.End birthright citizenship. As long as
illegal immigrants know their children born
here will be citizens, the incentive to
enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong."

Probably true, but not at all a nice policy. But, again, same rules have already been 'strengthened' both here and in Oz. I don't like that policy, but there are worse out there. If its applied across the board, it means that the Beckhams would be equally able to gain citizenship for themselves and their children as a poor Hispanic family, which appears to be the proposal.

Bad news if you really want to get to the US, but more generically xenophobic than racist. No outsiders means noone in who doesn't have an American accent, essentially, not specifically *white* people (like Australian policies).

Now, on your figures; yes I read them. Didn't understand them. That's why I asked for clarification, and I'm pretty sure I was clear on why in my request.

It is interesting stuff. I disagree completely that the 28-35% cut in military spending is irrelevant. I would say it is more important than anything else. If you believe he'll do it, you can be reasonably certain he'll also make the cuts to the miniscule welfare costs, as they are. *And* vice versa.

SO either its a good thing for a bad thing, or its none of it at all. Or, maybe he'll do one and not the other. WHo knows? Not really my argument (never was, and never will be, no matter how much you wish it was to cement your argument).

One more time, to reiterate for the thousandth time;

The words he is saying, the ideas he is sharing (as a conservative) on imperialism, are ground breaking in the msm. People deserve to hear that. Its important, and, with post (and pre) election activism, might well save millions of lives, if we all stop bickering and start using the tools laying about the place for good.

One more thought though; these are the budget cuts. Have you read the budget expenditures? Perhaps they make sense of the welfare cuts? If he's spending the difference on expensive wine for his cellar, that might not be so nice. But, perhaps he's calculating the incisive tax cuts to the poor, and other aspects Gabriele's posted which offset the cuts to welfare?

I'm not a tory, so I don't think this way, nor, I suspect, do you. But you can't leave that stuff out the equation in order to make a simple win. People are not stupid, and tend to question (these days) what is not said as much as what is.

From what I've read, his perspective is that federal should as much as possible keep out of the affairs of individuals. As such, his position on welfare is that it is a state concern, not a federal one. That's doesn't mean no welfare, it *might* mean no easy way for states to ignore the volumes of their own poor. The more there are, the poorer the state treasuries or the more agitated their streets become. So perhaps more of an impetus to get states working for their people.

I think the idea is a flawed one, but your coverage of his plans in that regard seems flawed too, for what you've left out. Hopefully, this redresses some of that.

cheers,

######################################

Re: Obama-mania

Posted by emersberger [User Info] [Email User] on January 19, 2012, 3:58 pm, in reply to "Re: Obama-mania"

:
: The policies don't 'viciously target
: non-white, but immigrants.

Immigrants that overhwhelmingly target non-whites. Come on Derek. Use Google a bit. But glad you acknowledge his policies are vicious (though you persist in describing some as "not nice" which is inexplicable and offensive quite frankly). You're still denying the obvious about their racism. That coudl be an expamle of White denial on your part or privleged non -white denial. I don't really care which. And yes - compared to the vast majority of people risking their lives to cross the US border to live below the poverty line in the USA, anyone with time to debate on a messageboard is quite privledged.

: Now, on your figures; yes I read them.
: Didn't understand them.

This isn't rocket science. You shoud at least desist from making saying that welfare state polices in the USA do not exist so we can all yawn at the prospect of them being slashed.

That's why I asked
: for clarification, and I'm pretty sure I was
: clear on why in my request.
:
: It is interesting stuff. I disagree
: completely that the 28-35% cut in military
: spending is irrelevant.

You cannot get rid of wars without getting rid of the war budget. That should be obvious. It should be obvious that a war budget that dwarfs any other on earth - as RP has explictly bragged his would - is not for "defence". RP's proposed budget is not even small relatiev to other hopelessly bloated US military budgets. In fact it is large even by that standard.

:
: One more thought though; these are the
: budget cuts. Have you read the budget
: expenditures?

I just posted them Derek.

Perhaps they make sense of the
: welfare cuts? If he's spending the
: difference on expensive wine for his cellar,
: that might not be so nice. But, perhaps he's
: calculating the incisive tax cuts to the
: poor, and other aspects Gabriele's posted
: which offset the cuts to welfare?
:
Again, look at the numbers in the link I posted. He is paying for tax cuts and for paying down debt - overwhelmingly held by the wealthy. The bulk of the governnet's tax revenue (in all coutries) comes from the wealthy, not the poor. The more unequal the country, the more this is the case. Hence, polls show tha it is the welthy who prioritize "tax relief".

You can find this out easy enough by reerching online.

############################################

Re: Obama-mania

Posted by dereklane [User Info] on January 19, 2012, 4:40 pm, in reply to "Re: Obama-mania"

"Immigrants that overhwhelmingly target non-whites. "

What does that mean?

"But glad you acknowledge his policies are vicious (though you persist in describing some as "not nice" which is inexplicable and offensive quite frankly)."

They're not vicious, and me saying it is not inexplicable and offensive, quite frankly. Vicious would be saying that non white cultured people born in the US *now* would have to leave if he got in. Interestingly, this exact thing has been happening in the UK. Probably also in the US.

They are, to put it correctly (rather than hyperbolically) not nice policies. I wouldn't vote for policies like that. I don't vote at all. My preferred system is not libertarian, its anarchy.

As I said though, there are worse. Sending immigrants home to be tortured and killed is worse. Oops! Obama's already doing that! So is Cameron.

"You shoud at least desist from making saying that welfare state polices in the USA do not exist so we can all yawn at the prospect of them being slashed."

I didn't say it, I asked it. You ignored the question, someone else answered. Now I have 2 sides to that question.

"This isn't rocket science. "

No - rocket science I'm more interested in and more willing to trawl through.

"You cannot get rid of wars without getting rid of the war budget. That should be obvious. "

It is obvious. However, we were (I believe) discussing the military budget, which covers massive chunks of internal costs in the US as well as imperialism, plus client state bases, and even the odd *actual* humanitarian mission (food drops). Its not *obvious* that they are combined. He has said they are not, and shouldn't be, which is more than Obama ever said, or Bush, or Clinton.

*That* is important (in fact, it is the most important thing - it is *my* argument).

Let's reiterate (for the thousandth and first time):
####################################
If a mainstream voice in the mainstream media is saying non-mainstream things, we need to show its good to listen to those ideas, because they are good ideas, rather than declaring the messenger to be evil and the message destroyed without a glance.

I'm happy to take any good such voices can offer in the hope it might help the peace movement. You seem too principled for that.
###################################
"I just posted them Derek. "

I meant an explanation of how a cut in one place translates to good thing elsewhere. I covered some of that in the following paragraph, but I'm guessing you may simply be looking for material to prove me wrong at this point.

"overwhelmingly held by the wealthy"

...and passed to the poor. Did you read about his ideas for increasing the affordability of homes for poor people? I'd take a stab in the dark that idea is one that might make or break many American families if it came through.

"That coudl be an expamle of White denial on your part or privleged non -white denial. I don't really care which."

You obviously do, a bit, or you wouldn't have mentioned it. Privileged? I doubt it, but I've still got a home - just - (and mostly have been, barring the odd car, bench or caravan). I'm also an immigrant to the UK here, and, for various reasons, am keenly aware of the *current* and ongoing plight of immigrants from certain nations within both the UK and AUstralia. Its not a rosy picture. I shouldn't need to explain this to you, but it seems you're on the warpath to explain the villianish behaviour of us antagonists here with simple memes that make some sense to you.

What I am saying is, none of that immigration stuff is new (which you glossed over, interestingly). Some of it makes sense from a republican perspective, some of its unpleasant. Most of it is already in force to greater or lesser extents. It is not *racist*. Racist behaviour is far more repellant and specific. If you're not sure, read up on the raft of Australian legislation specifically concerning Aborigines (or, indeed, in your own country - Canada, which has similiar issues though not the extent of Australia, I think). Or read the stories about the detention centres there in Oz for immigrant children, or the drownings of refugees. That is stuff reserved explicitly for brown skinned people in Oz. They are indicators of a profoundly racist government and elite power structure. RP's ideas are Obama's on immigration, and they're not racist, but they are nationalist (not pleasant, but also not racist). People, however, have the power to change those ideas. A president, and his/her choices need not be static.

The ideas that such a candidate might throw into the mainstream, however, could be invaluable (with or without presidency) if enough activists stopped being so petty about taking good ideas and running with them.

cheers

#######################################

Re: Obama-mania

Posted by dereklane [User Info] on January 19, 2012, 9:55 pm, in reply to "Re: Obama-mania"

BTW, one more thing on your 'white denial' charge, laughable as it is. From memory, you read, *and* commented around Gabriele's post that interestingly showed some pretty big support for RP from ethnic and poor communities in the US.

I wonder, do you dismiss them also as stupid, shills for power, perhaps white denialists? Like with the issue of easy denigration of religious folk, I'm struggling to find the positives in telling everyone who doesn't agree with you that they're stupid.

Much of what's been coming in you posts recently have sounded a lot like slurs, but not necessarily based on anything more than the fact you can't get your head around the fact some people are listening to RP and saying 'this man is speaking some sense on foreign policy - let's tell people about it'.

Don't know why that's a sin, but it tends to make your argument look petty to ignore all that (or downplay it) in favour of denigrating his election campaign relating to the US (too often still in a hyperbolic way that doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. There are smelly bits, but the man is far from the evil incarnate that you're casting him as, which has the effect of making me question *everything* you're saying on the subject.).

As Walter's pointed out, if stopping war is a priority (and it damn well should be) then publicising sane anti-war rhetoric from any source if it is sensible and reasonable should be a priority, NOT just if the speaker fits the bill in your definition as a good person.

That's a hugely different point to the one you keep attempting to push on those of us saying listen to RP (you're telling us why you think he would be a bad president, and, astonishingly, Obama a better one!). And then you tell us we are 'shilling' for him. I don't shill for anyone. Not even for me (you should see my cv).

As always, if the ideas are good, I'll share them. I'll go on doing that Joe.

Its a shame how this discussion has gone - one issue can undo so much good work in terms of perceptions. Hope we can meet on other issues without ill will, but to be honest, once the insults start to come it exposes an undercurrent of feeling not easily fixed. That, I believe, is one of the biggest obstacles to effective activism in the west. Petty arguments and splintering denominations of thinking. We just can't seem to focus without criticising those we have most in common with to the point of exclusion.

I hope Iran (and other places) fare well under your grand plan (hide the ideas till the speakers are vetted by good folk like yourself).

Maybe I'm hopelessly off the mark on that, but what I see is, if you tell people their ideas are stupid, you don't make them see things your way, you instead, you tend to polarise their position. That goes, obviously both on this mb, and outside it.

I'll leave it with you - may not be about before next week.

Maybe time for a cup of tea and a biscuit?

cheers,

#####################################

Re: Obama-mania

Posted by emersberger [User Info] [Email User] on January 20, 2012, 4:52 am, in reply to "Re: Obama-mania"



--Previous Message--
: BTW, one more thing on your 'white denial'
: charge, laughable as it is. From memory, you
: read, *and* commented around Gabriele's post
: that interestingly showed some pretty big
: support for RP from ethnic and poor
: communities in the US.
:
: I wonder, do you dismiss them also as
: stupid, shills for power, perhaps white
: denialists?

NO. About 30% of the popultion believe WMD had been discovered in Iraq about a year or so after the war. Stupiodity? No One poll showed most Republicans belived Bush backed the Kyto accords. Stupid? No.

People often do stupid things, myelf included of course, for numerous reasons. However, there are very few people on earth I would ever call stupid - even people some have been singled out as nototious for it - like Bush and Sara Palin.

:
: Much of what's been coming in you posts
: recently have sounded a lot like slurs, but
: not necessarily based on anything more than
: the fact you can't get your head around the
: fact some people are listening to RP and
: saying 'this man is speaking some sense on
: foreign policy - let's tell people about
: it'.
:
That's coz you disagree with me. If I express amazement that leftists backed the No Fly Zone on Libya do you see me as "slurring" them? Do you take Gabriele to task for his relentless mcoking and disparagement of leftists who took that stance? Why woudln't that strike you as insulting?

You'll notic I haven't taken him to task for that either. How coudl I? I was also dismayed at how many leftists took a stance that was stupid - and suggested some level of racism and imperial brainwashing. Are you insulted by that conclusion of mine? Should leftists who oppoded to the no fly zone have held back in their critics of what they regarded as an outrageous position?

########################################

Re: Obama-mania

Posted by dereklane [User Info] on January 20, 2012, 7:51 am, in reply to "Re: Obama-mania"

calling someone's thoughts stupid is liberal lingo for calling the person stupid. In the street, a drunk brawl begins with name calling, Bob calls Tom a fool. In the boardroom, the insult is that Tom's idea is crazy. Both mean the same thing; the differences are that the brawl is more honest, even though its also more violent.

You need to find ways of discussing a subject with people who disagree with you without resorting to using insulting words (or hyperbole) at all, or any contextual equivalent.

Concentrate on your arguments, rather than the thinking behind them. 'My argument is sensible' is a lot less aggressive and off putting than 'your argument is nonsensical'. As soon as you give time to such attitudes, you start to believe them, and respect is lost.

It might be time to find out what it is we both do agree on again.

Here is what I think that is.
1) US elections are a farce, and will be until there are radical changes from without the system
2) Anti-war voices are important, and need to be heard from all sources
3) People need hope *and* action combined

Yes? No?

cheers,

#########################################

Re: Obama-mania

Posted by emersberger [User Info] [Email User] on January 20, 2012, 4:28 am, in reply to "Re: Obama-mania"



--Previous Message--
: "Immigrants that overhwhelmingly target
: non-whites. "
:
: What does that mean?
:
Fair enough. Very bad typos there made the sentnce incoherent.
Immigrants - epecially illegal imigrants in the USA - are mostly Mexicans who are not regarded as "white" in the USA.

l'll leave it there. We're not going get anywhere.


: "But glad you acknowledge his policies
: are vicious (though you persist in
: describing some as "not nice"
: which is inexplicable and offensive quite
: frankly)."
:
: They're not vicious,

The polices speak for themslebves and the "newness" is rrelevant to that.


###########################################

Re: Obama-mania

Posted by dereklane [User Info] on January 20, 2012, 7:59 am, in reply to "Re: Obama-mania"

The important points of his. rhetoric on immigration is that he seems to think currently that immigration is unfairly weighted in favour of certain groups over other. His solution is to shut down borders a lot tighter, and make it equally difficult for everyone (example I made of the Beckhams vs Mexicans). Same unfair laws exist here in the UK, and in Oz (and probably in Canada, which is also a white-loving country in terms of their immigration policies).

I'm not in favour of shutting borders down at all, but many people are (left, right, middle). I think it skirts the real issues to do it.

However, if you *are* going to do it, doing it fairly, egalitarian-style, makes the most sense. Certainly, Mexicans will miss out more than most (since the US is an eighth built on Mexican land), which makes it seem racist. But most Americans in the US seem to think Texas is and always has been the US anyway, so I doubt that notion strikes many as overtly racist.

Calling it a racist policy is premature, for the above reasons, and the earlier point I made (they already attempt border control in exactly the style RP talks about so it is not a new policy, but a continuation or a promise of strengthening policies the opposition has 'failed' at; the reason its part of his campaign is that it is a vote winner in the US, probably, like here, in the poorer parts of the country, because of the relentless propaganda against immigrants in the msm).

cheers,

###########################################
Wed Feb 01, 2012 10:57 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
joe emersberger



Joined: 24 Jan 2004
Posts: 513
Location: Windsor, Onatrio, Canada

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9i7bzyKUBoU

in video (see link above) Webster Tarpley argues that Ron Paul's presidential campaign is mainly about positioning his son, Rand, within the Republican party. He explains how Paul's campaign helped Romney get the Republican nomination.

He also argues that the right wing libertarian movement in the USA has the effect of drawing away people who would otherwise engage in useful activity (i.e opposing austerity rather than buying into an dpropagating many of its key assumptions).

The guy Tarpley debates is this video seems like a great exmaple of what Tarpely alludes to. Leftists, or potential leftists, are are generally repulsed by elitism - the whole idea that the elite support us, that markets distribute wealth fairly but that taxation "steals" it away from the deserving.

However if you mix those obnoxious right wing ideas with some anti-war rhetoric (however fraudulent) plus some notions about "decentralization" and about abolishing "coercion", then you can get some people to be taken in who otherwise would never be.
Tue Jun 05, 2012 3:32 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> Media Lens Forum All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group
    printer friendly
eXTReMe Tracker