You can get mad about those statements, but they are damned true. Look at the numbers yourself and tell me they are false. People get so mad about "racist" comments, even though the statistics clearly prove them to be true. Get over the ignorance, stop lying to yourself. Fact is minorities in general are responsible for an amount of crime that far exceeds their "fair share". Come on, you're supposed to be a trader...traders look at things as they are, not what they want them to be or pretend for them to be. I am not racist, but I am not going to distort facts and pretend they don't exist in order to potentiate some kinder gentler lie about how everyone is equal no matter what and it's wrong to profile. Everyone is CREATED equal, but it all changes once decisions come into play. For example: All this talk about traders having statistical edges, but yet you think that doesn't apply in anything but trading? Are you feeling faint? When I go running at night through Pensacola I always carry my knife, because the statistics indicate a large majority of poverty level citizens as well as a higher crime rate....now I am not going to pretend that those numbers don't exist just because it might hurt someone's feelings that I am "profiling". Being dead for no reason other than $5 in my pocket would hurt my feelings, to be frank. If I were running through Nantucket or something I would change my viewpoint because it is a low crime rate with very low poverty (if any), but all I have is statistics.....being adequately prepared in a social environment is my "edge" when I go for a run. I am not going to get shot or stabbed over $5 that I don't even have on me so some crack head can get his fix, just because I don't want to believe statistics because that would be "racist". Jesus H Christ. Please. Profiling and categorizing is a trait to survival, whether its people, markets, animals, food, whatever. Deal with it. Don't lie to yourself, it's pathetic.
Ron Paul on racism: âRacism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individualsâ¦.. â¦..By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so called diversity actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racistâ¦.. â¦..We should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.â ----Congressman Ron Paul, April 18, 2007 Taken from Ron Paul's Wikipedia entry: Newsletter article controversy An article in a 1992 edition of Paul's Ron Paul Survival Report (a newsletter that he had published from 1985) contained disparaging comments concerning race and Paul's political opponents.[47] According to the Atlanta Progressive News, the newsletter accused President Bill Clinton of fathering illegitimate children and using cocaine, and called Representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist." The article said that government should lower the legal age for prosecuting youths as adults, saying: "black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." The newsletter also said, "only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions," "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be," and, "95 percent of the black males in Washington, D.C. are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."[48] In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but that they were written by a ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said the derogatory remarks about Congresswoman Jordan were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."[49] He stated that he took moral responsibility for comments with which he disagreed being published under his name. Texas Monthly explained, "What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."[36] END WIKI QUOTE
I must have hit a sore spot. Ron Paul's economic policy is in the right direction, but his social policies are a step backwards. To just promote one side and not the other, gives a biased view of this candidate. If his social leanings were more moderate, I would definitely vote for him.
They use that word to make him sound bad. The Framers said that America should travel and do business with other countries and have good relationships, but to NOT GET INVOLVED IN OTHER NATIONS' MILITARY AFFAIRS. PERIOD. Check back to WWII and notice how the Germans were already trapped in Russia's winter long before the US had to get involved and " help out". Also take a look at what may have caused the Pearl Harbor bombing. Go ahead, I'll wait. Look up who the Flying Tigers were, as well as some of the embargoes we placed on Japan. We were looking for a fight, and we got one, and we kicked major ass...but the point is, we had no reason to ever get involved with WWII, or WWI for that matter. Check up on history, real history, not common opinion. Ron Paul wants us to be neutral and use the military to PROTECT THE COUNTRY, the way the CONSTITUTION DICTATES IT SHOULD BE. Believe me, if we wanted to use the military properly to protect our country, terrorists wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting in...however, since they are all over the place doing other people's work for them, we keep on having the same problems. Educate yourself.
You seem to have the terms "freedom" and "psychosis" somewhat confused. I'm not saying Paul has all the right answers, but he is way closer than most of the others. Don't be afraid of freedom.....Your government does not know what is best for you and me. Your government is not looking out for you and me.
All I'm saying is that I am somewhat leery of Ron Paul's individual social views. Even though he is the only candidate who gets the financial aspect of what's going on, is that enough for me to look past his other views? I don't know.
I know it's only my $.02, but YES... it should be enough! The other candidates represent only bad things for America... more government up everybody's ass, socialism, financial spendthrift... "GOVERNMENT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PEOPLE", no matter how you slice it... makes me wanna PUKE!