I was a bit saddened to see Howard go, but he did leave quite an impressive enough legacy after 12 years in the office.  Tax reform, trade expansion, debt elimination, budget surpluses and Reserve Bank independence were all big victories.  The result?  Strong GDP growth and competitve real income increases.  Not bad at all.  Sure he can't take all the credit.  Labor floated the currency, cut tariffs and promoted financial market deregulation that helped fuel Aussie growth.  Aussies are fortunate to see free market principles being promoted by both sides of the political spectrum.  If only the European economies could be so lucky!

But Rudd seems like a safe bet.  While his party is a bit too chummy with the unions and the obssession with Kyoto seems a distraction, I think Rudd will workout just fine.

"Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin."

- Ron Paul

"Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

- Ron Paul

"If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

- Ron Paul

Whatever Ron Paul said about taking the money from a white supremacist is immaterial. It was merely an exchange of funds from one racist to another, in the hopes of creating more racism via the government.  But yeah I'm sure he's a sweet and good-hearted man.  Lot of evidence to that effect.

 are you illiterate? Because it is obvious that you didn't read what you posted at all. 

 Let me take you on a trip through what I bolded since you dont understand very well. 

 1. The general pubic believes that most major criminal activity (bombings, bank robberies, etc) is terrorism now a days. The overall belief is that any one of a colored skin that commits the act is a terrorist. Thats the general thought threw out the US. He was not singling out African Americans. He stated that there are more African Americans that understand the world and has a good amount of knowledge then just the "5%" that are college graduates.

2. He dissed our piss poor justice system. He was being sarcastic.

3. This is what upper-middle class whites are taught by their parents. We are told that African Americans that live in the projects will mug you at a moment's notice. This is what some are taught at a young age even though generally it isn't true. The last sentence stated the blatantly obvious. Ya, African Americans commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries. What he was getting at is that yep they do that, but so does other races. 

Please stop, read, and understand what your posting about before you post. Thank You.  

Not exactly sure what Ron is trying to say in that first one.  ssj12's interpretation is as good as any I suppose.  I interpretted it as a warning that blacks should not rely on whites to correct black social problems.  I interpretted the second part as commentary on the ridiculousness of forgoing profiling when screening for terrorists.

The second quote seems more of a rebuke of identity politics and monolithic voting.

As far as the third quote is concerned, if Ron Paul is a racist, he has company...

"There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery - then to look around and see somebody white and feel relieved." - Jesse Jackson

That's the sad thing about this.  People can't even have an honest conversation about race issues.  Loaded charges of racism short-circuit any kind of meaningful conversation.  Deguello's post is a great example of that.

Q.
F.
T.

You "Ron Paul is a white supremacist" people really need to come up with better material, because a $500 donation and a few quotes taken completely out of context only show that you're not able to discuss social problems at his level.

N-Syte, can I correctly presume, due to your silence on the subject, that you have no objection to the assertions I made in my second most recent post, nor any answer to the question raised in same?

Oh yeah. He wrote all that stuff in his own newsletter in the 90's. Sorry, forgot to give the context. So no he wasn't talking about Islamic terrorists. He was talking about Black people.

Face it, he doesn't have a chance in hell. IF he wins the primary, which he won't, the American voting populace simply isn't going to ignore this kinda shit. If the newsmedia are getting their panties in a bunch over Obama's middle name and Hilary Clinton's LAUGH, they certainly will be frothing at the mouth for a man who accepts campaign contributions from Neo Nazis and White Supremacists, especially when he says shit like this:

"Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.""

He's hanged by his own words from a million years ago. It's nice that he wants to follow pats of the Constitution, but maybe he shouldn't have been a racist beforehand.

Dennis Kucinich or Alan Keyes will get elected before Ron Paul will.

@Final-Fan

You can presume nothing! Actually, I apologize. I lost track of the multiple threads. Glad to hear you enjoy the exchange though.

I do not believe tax increases are fiscally responsible if underlying spending is not. How can you justify taking money from others to fund what should not be spent in the first place and call it responsible? If one of us must pay for it, let it be you, not me.

It is inherently irresponsible to raise taxes, as Clinton did when he promised not to (and he did not get the “read my lips” treatment), if spending can be cut. You would not manage your own finances that way yet you applaud it when done by the government.

Generally tax reductions are followed by increased tax revenue. It happened under both Reagan and Bush. (I would not be surprised if that is NOT included in text books!) The ’93 tax increase is a good reason why Clinton rightfully got his clock cleaned in ‘94. And what a mandate it was! From welfare reform to budget battles, Clinton was wise to get out of the way of that freight train. Even the notorious government shutdowns were a nice touch (I secretly wish they would happen on a more regular basis). The Republicans were so successful in achieving their initiatives, they had little to run on later (Dick Morris' triangulation strategy, etc). I really don’t want to look at the last 7 years. What a great opportunity lost. Somehow the Reagan torch was extinguished with the advent of “compassionate conservativeism”. I believe that was the primary reason for the party's meltdown. Oh well.

As far as a correlation between spending and tax revenues is concerned, I should have been clearer. Yes, spending always increases. Many programs have built in escalators. Inflation alone would ensure spending rises in absolute dollars. My poorly worded point was to say that politicians often assume tax increases translate into greater revenues (hopefully I don’t need to explain why this is a dubious assumption). Because of anticipated revenue gains, there is little incentive to reduce the rate of spending growth. Au contraire, some might feel it is opportunity to increase spending for their pet projects. If cutting spending is impossible, then better to be in a debtor position to create the incentive to slow the growth in government. It is under those conditions when you hear Democrats complain about Republican attempts to reduce the rate of growth in a program (it usually sounds something like this: “it was supposed to grow by 10%, but they want to cap the growth at 7%. that’s a spending cut, damn you!!!”)

I hate debt as much as you do, but what I hate even more is government involvement in society. I wonder if you have any real sense for how bad US debt levels are on a relative basis. Have you looked at Europe lately? And they have already happily taken your advice on increasing taxes!

If you want to reduce debt, then we are on the same page. Support politicians who would cut spending (alas, they are a dying breed). However, my suspicion is that people who claim tax increases are fiscally responsible in the name of managing debt are the same people who are sympathetic to the government's spending tendencies. They focus on the tax side of the equation to hide their support for big government, lest they be called “tax and spenders”. You apparently don’t fall in this category given your rebuke of out of control spending. If that is really the case, you should devote more of your time to attacking big government types (dems and reps alike, there are plenty to go around) and less time defending tax increases.