Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message
locked post

The Daily Caller Calls On Rand Paul To Throw His Dad Under The Bus

Posted on 10/10/14 at 1:06 pm
Posted by trackfan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2010
19691 posts
Posted on 10/10/14 at 1:06 pm
They are actually comparing Ron Paul to Jean-Marie Le Pen. As far as I know, Ron has never said anything remotely similar to the bigoted things Le Pen has said. opefully, Rand won't heed their advice because I would lose respect for him if he did. It's alright for him to publicly disagree with his Dad, but he should never denounce him, unless he calls for reinstituting slavery or something similar, and shouldn't disown his Dad unless he commits some type of dastardly crime.

LINK /
Posted by HempHead
Big Sky Country
Member since Mar 2011
55448 posts
Posted on 10/10/14 at 1:16 pm to
I would withdraw what little support I have for Rand if he shitropes his father.
Posted by HailHailtoMichigan!
Mission Viejo, CA
Member since Mar 2012
69294 posts
Posted on 10/10/14 at 1:21 pm to
Ron Paul is a southern fire eater, who believes the civil war was wrong.
Posted by trackfan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2010
19691 posts
Posted on 10/10/14 at 1:27 pm to
quote:

I would withdraw what little support I have for Rand if he shitropes his father.

Liz Cheney tried to make political hay by throwing her sister under the bus, but it didn't work out to well for her.
Posted by kingbob
Sorrento, LA
Member since Nov 2010
67079 posts
Posted on 10/10/14 at 1:32 pm to
quote:

Ron Paul is a southern fire eater, who believes the civil war was wrong.


I think we can all agree that 600,000 deaths is wrong. What we may not all agree with Ron Paul on is his stance that slavery would have been abolished inside of 20 years without a bloody war.
Posted by trackfan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2010
19691 posts
Posted on 10/10/14 at 1:37 pm to
quote:

I think we can all agree that 600,000 deaths is wrong. What we may not all agree with Ron Paul on is his stance that slavery would have been abolished inside of 20 years without a bloody war.

I thought his position was that slavery could have been eliminated peacefully with a buy-back program, which would have cost the country a lot less than the Civil War did.
Posted by Vols&Shaft83
Throbbing Member
Member since Dec 2012
69908 posts
Posted on 10/10/14 at 1:40 pm to
quote:

I thought his position was that slavery could have been eliminated peacefully with a buy-back program, which would have cost the country a lot less than the Civil War did.



That's exactly what his position was, but HailHailtoMichigan is having a retard day.
Posted by kingbob
Sorrento, LA
Member since Nov 2010
67079 posts
Posted on 10/10/14 at 1:42 pm to
quote:

I thought his position was that slavery could have been eliminated peacefully with a buy-back program, which would have cost the country a lot less than the Civil War did.


It's a two part-er
1. Slavery would have eliminated itself as mechanization reduced the demand for agricultural labor in the south, making chattel slavery unnecessary. Slavery dies out inside of 20 years.
2. Buy back program could have been instituted instead which would have ended it inside of 5 years and cost much less than the Civil War.

Posted by deltaland
Member since Mar 2011
90589 posts
Posted on 10/10/14 at 2:25 pm to
And Ron is correct in both stances. I'm not sure why a politician would touch that issue though because it has no bearing on politics today and nothing good can come from saying anything other than "slavery was wrong and it's good that the union won and kept the country together"
Posted by kingbob
Sorrento, LA
Member since Nov 2010
67079 posts
Posted on 10/10/14 at 2:36 pm to
quote:

And Ron is correct in both stances. I'm not sure why a politician would touch that issue though because it has no bearing on politics today and nothing good can come from saying anything other than "slavery was wrong and it's good that the union won and kept the country together"


He addresses it because he's often asked by media members due to it being an easy "gotcha" moment. It's a sensible stance, but it requires a lot of critical thinking to get to it and sounds REAAAAAALLLLY bad if you hear about it out of context, just like his opposition to the Civil Rights Act.

Doesn't that sound awful? He hates the Civil Rights Act! He must be racist and hate black people! Or maybe he likes much of the law, but just opposes the part which inhibits businesses from refusing service to anyone and hiring/firing as they please. Maybe he just thinks that people should be allowed to do as they please and that the market will separate the good ideas from the bad. See, it's an abstract idea that kinda makes sense after one thinks about it beyond the superficial.
Posted by trackfan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2010
19691 posts
Posted on 10/10/14 at 2:55 pm to
quote:

It's a two part-er
1. Slavery would have eliminated itself as mechanization reduced the demand for agricultural labor in the south, making chattel slavery unnecessary. Slavery dies out inside of 20 years.
2. Buy back program could have been instituted instead which would have ended it inside of 5 years and cost much less than the Civil War.

I can go along with delay in the payments, but not delay in the emancipation. Bureaucracy is not a sufficient reason to counsel patience and delay to people who are enslaved.
Posted by SpidermanTUba
my house
Member since May 2004
36128 posts
Posted on 10/10/14 at 3:36 pm to
Posted by trackfan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2010
19691 posts
Posted on 10/10/14 at 4:06 pm to
I agree with him when he says that the language isn't the type of language that he uses, because there's no instance of him ever speaking like this in all his years in politics, and it's hard to believe that he could have been that careful with his language for that many years. However, I do wish Ron Paul would talk candidly about the newsletter rather just say he doesn't want to talk about it every time someone brings it up. What's his relationship to the writers? When did he become aware of what was being written? What did he do about it when he found out?

EDIT: As for how Rand fits into all of this, I give him the same slack that I gave to Obama over Jeremiah Wright, a man who said some irresponsible things about AIDS. If I disowned every close friend or relative who had ever expressed controversial politic views or made non-PC statements, not only would I be a hypocrite, but I wouldn't have many friends or relatives left.
This post was edited on 10/10/14 at 4:17 pm
Posted by kingbob
Sorrento, LA
Member since Nov 2010
67079 posts
Posted on 10/10/14 at 4:10 pm to
quote:

I can go along with delay in the payments, but not delay in the emancipation. Bureaucracy is not a sufficient reason to counsel patience and delay to people who are enslaved.


Hmm...4 years to end slavery at the cost of over 600,000 lives and an astronimical cost in funds used in the war effort, destruction of infrastructure, and lost productivity, or an extra year (at most) of beaurocracy with zero lives lost and a much reduced financial burden. I think I'd take the latter, wouldn't you?
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram