On January 02 2012 12:46 Saryph wrote: Ron Paul has said repeatedly in interviews that he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act. He feels that it is not the role of the government to tell a business to whom it can or cannot deny service. Its a very similar view to how he feels abortion should be illegal, as the Constitution doesn't talk about abortion in the original document, and as such the federal courts/government has no say.
Note that I'm not accusing him of being a racist, I don't know him on a level to make a decision on that, I don't think any of us do. However, I'm not confident enough in people as a whole to not discriminate against each other if given the opportunity to do so. Society as a whole is a lot better on this subject than almost 50 years ago when the Civil Rights Act was originally passed, but a quick look at towns across the country making it illegal to build a mosque in their communities makes you realize we still have a lot of progress to make.
I think you misunderstand his stance on the Civil Rights act:
"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife." from http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/
You can understand his stance and still find it ignorant and reprehensible.
On January 02 2012 12:46 Saryph wrote: Ron Paul has said repeatedly in interviews that he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act. He feels that it is not the role of the government to tell a business to whom it can or cannot deny service. Its a very similar view to how he feels abortion should be illegal, as the Constitution doesn't talk about abortion in the original document, and as such the federal courts/government has no say.
Note that I'm not accusing him of being a racist, I don't know him on a level to make a decision on that, I don't think any of us do. However, I'm not confident enough in people as a whole to not discriminate against each other if given the opportunity to do so. Society as a whole is a lot better on this subject than almost 50 years ago when the Civil Rights Act was originally passed, but a quick look at towns across the country making it illegal to build a mosque in their communities makes you realize we still have a lot of progress to make.
I think you misunderstand his stance on the Civil Rights act:
"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife." from http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/
You can understand his stance and still find it ignorant and reprehensible.
On January 02 2012 12:46 Saryph wrote: Ron Paul has said repeatedly in interviews that he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act. He feels that it is not the role of the government to tell a business to whom it can or cannot deny service. Its a very similar view to how he feels abortion should be illegal, as the Constitution doesn't talk about abortion in the original document, and as such the federal courts/government has no say.
Note that I'm not accusing him of being a racist, I don't know him on a level to make a decision on that, I don't think any of us do. However, I'm not confident enough in people as a whole to not discriminate against each other if given the opportunity to do so. Society as a whole is a lot better on this subject than almost 50 years ago when the Civil Rights Act was originally passed, but a quick look at towns across the country making it illegal to build a mosque in their communities makes you realize we still have a lot of progress to make.
I think you misunderstand his stance on the Civil Rights act:
"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife." from http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/
You can understand his stance and still find it ignorant and reprehensible.
Which would mean you dont really understand it.
Nah could bee he is just evil some people are you know.
On January 02 2012 12:46 Saryph wrote: Ron Paul has said repeatedly in interviews that he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act. He feels that it is not the role of the government to tell a business to whom it can or cannot deny service. Its a very similar view to how he feels abortion should be illegal, as the Constitution doesn't talk about abortion in the original document, and as such the federal courts/government has no say.
Note that I'm not accusing him of being a racist, I don't know him on a level to make a decision on that, I don't think any of us do. However, I'm not confident enough in people as a whole to not discriminate against each other if given the opportunity to do so. Society as a whole is a lot better on this subject than almost 50 years ago when the Civil Rights Act was originally passed, but a quick look at towns across the country making it illegal to build a mosque in their communities makes you realize we still have a lot of progress to make.
I think you misunderstand his stance on the Civil Rights act:
"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife." from http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/
You can understand his stance and still find it ignorant and reprehensible.
Again...I don't think you understand him very much like the people that accuse him of racism and what not. You need to dig deeper and read more on what he writes in his books. He is for peoples liberties but not in a sense of "groups" and "forcing" people to do things. MLK was one of Ron Paul's heroes in the sense that he stood up for what was wrong in this country. He fought for peoples freedoms but to list people in groups and not individuals is just wrong.
P.S. Ron Paul tries to make the same exact point as Morgan Freeman in this vid:
On January 02 2012 14:04 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @aksfjh What's wrong with closing all foreign bases? Explain to me why we need imperialism and bomb countries in the name of democracy?
Because it's not imperialism... Certainly, some of the involvement in the Middle East is to ensure the stability of oil, something the entire world enjoys without even having to go to the U.S. as middlemen. Otherwise, the military bases in other parts of the world act as a stabilizing factor. Many countries do not have to (or want to) maintain a standing army with the U.S. around the corner providing the basic military needs of specific regions. This eases tensions in those areas, silently diverting wars we would otherwise see blossom. Japan immediately comes to mind in this way. This doesn't necessarily mean I personally like having such a strong military presence abroad, but I do understand that we have responsibilities and promises we cannot ignore.
Also, if you really think the facade of "spreading democracy" is the real reason the U.S. has forces abroad, then you need to look deeper into the past 60 years of foreign policy.
On January 02 2012 14:04 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @aksfjh What's wrong with closing all foreign bases? Explain to me why we need imperialism and bomb countries in the name of democracy?
Because it's not imperialism... Certainly, some of the involvement in the Middle East is to ensure the stability of oil, something the entire world enjoys without even having to go to the U.S. as middlemen. Otherwise, the military bases in other parts of the world act as a stabilizing factor. Many countries do not have to (or want to) maintain a standing army with the U.S. around the corner providing the basic military needs of specific regions. This eases tensions in those areas, silently diverting wars we would otherwise see blossom. Japan immediately comes to mind in this way. This doesn't necessarily mean I personally like having such a strong military presence abroad, but I do understand that we have responsibilities and promises we cannot ignore.
Also, if you really think the facade of "spreading democracy" is the real reason the U.S. has forces abroad, then you need to look deeper into the past 60 years of foreign policy.
Imperialism, as defined by Dictionary of Human Geography, is "the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination." Imperialism, as described by that work is primarily a Western undertaking that employs "expansionist, merchantilist policies
On January 02 2012 14:04 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @aksfjh What's wrong with closing all foreign bases? Explain to me why we need imperialism and bomb countries in the name of democracy?
Because it's not imperialism... Certainly, some of the involvement in the Middle East is to ensure the stability of oil, something the entire world enjoys without even having to go to the U.S. as middlemen. Otherwise, the military bases in other parts of the world act as a stabilizing factor. Many countries do not have to (or want to) maintain a standing army with the U.S. around the corner providing the basic military needs of specific regions. This eases tensions in those areas, silently diverting wars we would otherwise see blossom. Japan immediately comes to mind in this way. This doesn't necessarily mean I personally like having such a strong military presence abroad, but I do understand that we have responsibilities and promises we cannot ignore.
Also, if you really think the facade of "spreading democracy" is the real reason the U.S. has forces abroad, then you need to look deeper into the past 60 years of foreign policy.
Imperialism, as defined by Dictionary of Human Geography, is "the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination." Imperialism, as described by that work is primarily a Western undertaking that employs "expansionist, merchantilist policies
Now that you know what Imperialism means. Do you still agree that we need to be all over the world in 130 countries with 742 military bases?
Definitions hardly ever change someone's mind. You have to make an actual argument.
His point more broadly is that some form of what you would call 'imperialism' is neccessary for the world to function, and actually benefits the US. You can obviously debate certain parts of that policy (such as the Iraq invasion), but to think that it is possible to pull back all your troops without direct consequences for international trade and international security arrangements is naive.
Almost as naive as thinking that more free market will lead to a more equal distribution of wealth, but let's not even go there.
On January 02 2012 14:04 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @aksfjh What's wrong with closing all foreign bases? Explain to me why we need imperialism and bomb countries in the name of democracy?
Because it's not imperialism... Certainly, some of the involvement in the Middle East is to ensure the stability of oil, something the entire world enjoys without even having to go to the U.S. as middlemen. Otherwise, the military bases in other parts of the world act as a stabilizing factor. Many countries do not have to (or want to) maintain a standing army with the U.S. around the corner providing the basic military needs of specific regions. This eases tensions in those areas, silently diverting wars we would otherwise see blossom. Japan immediately comes to mind in this way. This doesn't necessarily mean I personally like having such a strong military presence abroad, but I do understand that we have responsibilities and promises we cannot ignore.
Also, if you really think the facade of "spreading democracy" is the real reason the U.S. has forces abroad, then you need to look deeper into the past 60 years of foreign policy.
Imperialism, as defined by Dictionary of Human Geography, is "the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination." Imperialism, as described by that work is primarily a Western undertaking that employs "expansionist, merchantilist policies
Now that you know what Imperialism means. Do you still agree that we need to be all over the world in 130 countries with 742 military bases?
Definitions hardly ever change someone's mind. You have to make an actual argument.
His point more broadly is that some form of what you would call 'imperialism' is neccessary for the world to function, and actually benefits the US. You can obviously debate certain parts of that policy (such as the Iraq invasion), but to think that it is possible to pull back all your troops without direct consequences for international trade and international security arrangements is naive.
Almost as naive as thinking that more free market will lead to a more equal distribution of wealth, but let's not even go there.
Why would I care about making arguments when the definition still stands as fact. We invade other countries and that is what we call "imperialism". I could care less if he's in denial about that fact but, I live in the real world where we are in 130 countries with over 700 military bases. Also, I'm pretty sure some of those regions can defend themselves like Australia....Why the fuck did we send 2,000 soldiers over there? I think you are being a bit too paranoid about us leaving those countries and chaos to spread as soon as we leave. I also see you taking up Krugman talking points which is pretty sad really because the recent Economics Prize winner agree's with Ron Paul :
I think it's more Naive to think that we can borrow more money and spend it....while making less.
On January 03 2012 00:20 shaftofpleasure wrote: Is there really a big chance that Ron Paul will be the candidate for the Republicans?
i dont know the actual chance that he has, but its a helluva lot higher than what the media is giving him...honestly i think it will be paul, gingrich, or romney...hoping its paul...i want ron paul to win in the interest of seeing just how much of a difference one honest guy in office can make...sadly with the blatant corruption in congress i dont believe that ron paul would be capable of doing enough to get america out of its rut in 4-8 years :/
On January 03 2012 00:20 shaftofpleasure wrote: Is there really a big chance that Ron Paul will be the candidate for the Republicans?
No. Ron Paul's foreign policy will alienate too much of the republican base, regardless of whether they like his domestic policies. Romney is going to take the nomination. He's less than perfect, but he's proven himself to be more acceptable than any of the other candidates .
On January 03 2012 00:20 shaftofpleasure wrote: Is there really a big chance that Ron Paul will be the candidate for the Republicans?
He will gain a lot of the violent revolution and internet kids, but he will lose a lot of the conservative base.
For example, my father is 66, and has voted for a republican president every election since he was able to vote. He is also someone who generally finds all politicians corrupt, untrustworthy, etc etc. However, he told me if Ron Paul was running against Obama that it would be the first time he would skip voting for president in his life.
A lot of people don't like the ideas of Ron Paul and the way he would weaken the country, isolationism wouldn't help this country at all.
(And don't deny he is one, he wants to leave NATO, the UN, close oversea military bases, cut foreign aid, and weaken our military.)
On January 02 2012 09:50 IMBAtv-BaZooKa wrote: Anyone who wouldn't vote for Ron Paul is either ignorant, or doesn't deserve to be an American.
Exactly the type of rational and well thought discussion I was looking for when I came to this thread. CLEARLY you're just a better American than I am lol.
On January 02 2012 16:18 ryanAnger wrote: I think what really needs to happen is emulation of the Swiss economy/gov't in our own country. That would be amazing.
You do know that that would mean real and wild democracy? Like, if the majority of people don't like Islam, then they can ban the building of further minarets? like this
Edit: originally came here to laugh at actually how pathetic most of the candidates are. Like really, I laugh my ass of, because it's one thing that a shitty noone cares country has dumb presidents, but if someone wants to be the president of the US.... please don't be this uninformed about the world.
On January 02 2012 14:04 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @aksfjh What's wrong with closing all foreign bases? Explain to me why we need imperialism and bomb countries in the name of democracy?
Because it's not imperialism... Certainly, some of the involvement in the Middle East is to ensure the stability of oil, something the entire world enjoys without even having to go to the U.S. as middlemen. Otherwise, the military bases in other parts of the world act as a stabilizing factor. Many countries do not have to (or want to) maintain a standing army with the U.S. around the corner providing the basic military needs of specific regions. This eases tensions in those areas, silently diverting wars we would otherwise see blossom. Japan immediately comes to mind in this way. This doesn't necessarily mean I personally like having such a strong military presence abroad, but I do understand that we have responsibilities and promises we cannot ignore.
Also, if you really think the facade of "spreading democracy" is the real reason the U.S. has forces abroad, then you need to look deeper into the past 60 years of foreign policy.
The thing is, though, it's not our job to provide military support to other nations, and more often than not, the nationals of whatever country we are occupying start to hate us. The gov'ts of those countries might be grateful, but the people hate us. That's pretty much worldwide. It is that hatred that manifests into acts of terrorism against our country. As far as responsibilities and promises go: it is our responsibility to take care of our own citizens before others, and we are spending far too much money overseas for it to be considered responsible at all, in my opinion.
On January 03 2012 01:52 QuXn wrote: i hope more people will watch this and pass it on...his foreign policy is perfectly in line with the constitution!
His foreign policy perfectly matches a document written in the late 1700s? Well, there's no way that could be anything other than perfectly suited for the modern world...
Could one of you (neo?)conservatives please explain to me why you think that Ron Paul's "isolationist" policies would be bad for the country? Aren't the wars worse for the country? Aren't there plenty of nations in Europe and elsewhere with fairly neutral foreign policy who are doing just fine?
They keep repeating that his foreign policy is terrible and I never once hear anyone explain why, except perhaps suggesting that Iran is going to start world war 3 or something... They've been in Afghanistan and Iraq for years now and I don't see a single benefit yet. The region is still violent and unstable.
I don't expect Paul to win the nomination, but if he could carry just one state I would be hopeful for the future. Here's to hoping the enthusiastic Paul supporters make a better showing in Iowa than the "meh Romney could probably win" voters.
On January 03 2012 01:52 QuXn wrote: i hope more people will watch this and pass it on...his foreign policy is perfectly in line with the constitution!
His foreign policy perfectly matches a document written in the late 1700s? Well, there's no way that could be anything other than perfectly suited for the modern world...
Being the policemen of the world sounds better suited for the modern world then. Right?
EPT
