Skip to main content

The New Republic

According to Angry White Man, an articulate attempt at a very cheap smear by The New Republic (Motto: Sticking it to the truth for quite some time), Dr. Ron Paul is, or at least was, a racist.

America's political tone of voice, especially concerning issues of race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation changed dramatically over the last thirty years.

If anything, Paul was writing to the libertarian mind in the parlance of the time. The libertarians of the 70's and 80's were not pursuing speech sensitivity training, but rather constitutional government. They wanted to prevent expensive illegal wars, fascism, and usury; not poor adjective selection.

The Paul we see now is the same Paul as back then. But like any reasonable man, he has evolved to meet the logical sensibilities his position has demanded of him, while avoiding the political and philosophical nonsense of today. The rhetoric is actually quite tedious and often counter-productive, encouraging silly articles like James Kirchick's recent smear.

Nothing about Dr. Ron Paul even insinuates that he has a bit of racism in his character. He has faithfully served a diverse population, and has been respectful in his rhetoric while keeping a constitutional and kind philosophy towards government and personal behavior.

More than I can say about this man
or this man
or this man
or this man.

What we have in Ron Paul is a self-motivated man who changes for the better.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Very cool post, Chris. If you keep this up, you'll definitely develop a readership. I'm following Ron Paul as well. I saw an old video of him being interviewed back in the 80s by Howard Phillips of the Constitution party, the dad of Doug Phillips of Vision Forum. He sounded just the same back then as he does now.
January 8, 2008 at 8:46 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dark Horse of the Apocalypse

Here I am, my second blog entry. What I have to say, I am not sure, I have so much to say but nothing to talk about. I watched I Am Legend the other day; in spite of video-game type CGI, the film was pretty decent. I cannot say it was memorable, as far as an apocalyptic film goes, it rose just above mediocre. Children of Men is far more entertaining, deep, and plot driven. If one were to spend two hours, the latter would be better time spent, especially considering the production quality. Speaking of the apocalypse, the presidential race is heating up quickly. Apparently, Mike Huckabee has something to offer as a presidential candidate. I did not know the GOP is so interested in perpetuating the Bush foreign policy that they are willing to support a pseudo-clone of the current commander-in-chief our nation so dearly admires. Ron Paul receives little-to-no attention from the media compared to other candidates but he has the money and grass roots attention (including a priva...
Post a Comment
Read more

Bye Bye Mr. Stinky

I was a special education teacher. Matter of fact, I taught Special Education for four-and-a-half years. I taught some non-verbal kiddos how to read, increased the diversity in their diets, taught them games and social skills, and–what I am most proud of–I helped kids out of diapers, who were well past the time to meet that milestone… And let me tell you, that is not always an easy task. It is always a rewarding task. Find the carrot By carrot, I mean the motivation for doing something that is not preferred; for example, if you want to buy a beer, but you have no money, you might help a friend move. Moving is a total garbage activity, but he may pay you and buy you beer; if you know how to negotiate, you will get an unhealthy amount of pizza too. BAM! You had no money; now you have pizza, beer, and money, because you leveraged your time and effort. Potty training is no different. The kiddos usually don't know how to leverage their time and resources to get what t...
Post a Comment
Read more

What matters in online dialogue about religion?

As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I can't claim I know each person's destiny. Many christians (protestants mainly) would claim they do know this because they have particularly keen insight into what the Bible says or the hearts of their fellow man. Humans have such a short amount of time to understand the experience they are having on this earth; I believe (and this is me here, not any sect or church) that an atheist may believe in God if said atheist were to meet God. And, if said atheist was not always introduced to a God who's followers killed members of other faiths, burned books, pissed on corpses, insulted homosexuals, or violated the religious sensibilities others. Because of this, God would not reject or judge said atheist, but rather, reward the person for having a heart toward truth and kindness: the source of which is the creator of all things! perhaps the atheist is reserving his heart for Christ, remaining chaste, but the people presenting Jesus to him have d...
Post a Comment
Read more