Ron Paul is right about the economy and the drug war. He's wrong about foreign policy, and social issues. The problem is, with a conservative Senate and House, he will have strong support for his social views, but little support for his non-statist economic and drug views. Also, as the President, he largely controls foreign policy even if the Senate and House are against him. I predict, if elected, Ron Paul would be able to fulfill everything bad that he believes in and none of the good things.
On January 16 2012 07:58 OsoVega wrote: Ron Paul is right about the economy and the drug war. He's wrong about foreign policy, and social issues. The problem is, with a conservative Senate and House, he will have strong support for his social views, but little support for his non-statist economic and drug views. Also, as the President, he largely controls foreign policy even if the Senate and House are against him. I predict, if elected, Ron Paul would be able to fulfill everything bad that he believes in and none of the good things.
Actually, Paul would likely get a lot of support from republicans in the house and senate for his economic policies. Ron Paul's economic views are fairly closely aligned with those of the tea party, and there's a significant base of republican politicians who wouldn't think twice about supporting a lot of Paul's proposed policies.
On January 16 2012 07:13 bOneSeven wrote: Listen about the racist thing in general, I don't mind if people are white power or communists or whatever . If I walk near a store where it says " no black people allowed in " , I'll simply say ... Wow , what a terrible mindset , I would never buy anything from that so I won't support their business because they are really messed up . But saying to make it illegal to have that mindset ? What's up with that ?
The US was the first country ever founded on Enlightenment principles, principles which were new and progressive to Europe at the time and which were eschewed by a small group of intellectuals. Basically, the US Constitution is one of the most important documents in human history for that reason -- it was the first real government document to codify Enlightenment principles into law.
Anyway, Tocqueville and Mill (and Nietzsche to an extent) famously wrote about a concept they termed the "tyranny of the majority." The basic idea is that it is the government's duty to protect the minority from the wishes of the majority, regardless of the prevailing attitudes, because they saw oppression of any form as wrong.
Laws banning discrimination are simply a natural progression of these ideals. As people became more and more tolerant of other races, they saw the need to further cement protections of this nature. You have to remember when discrimination was outlawed (mostly by the courts), the prevailing attitudes in the US (and in most other developed countries) was not tolerant in the slightest. The fact that courts mandated anti-discriminatory policies is what changed public attitude. So when you say you wouldn't support their business, you only feel that way because you grew up in a society where discrimination was not commonplace (because of these laws). We feel the way we do about these things because laws were passed that forced us to treat other people equally.
On January 16 2012 07:13 bOneSeven wrote: ... I'm a bit racist , in the example that I rather like white girls than black girls but still
Haha, that isn't racism. I'm not homophobic because I don't find men attractive nor am I ageist because I don't want to enter a relationship with a senior citizen.
well that was a rather useful reply ... 2 bad there are a rather small amount like that in this thread...
On January 16 2012 07:58 OsoVega wrote: Ron Paul is right about the economy and the drug war. He's wrong about foreign policy, and social issues. The problem is, with a conservative Senate and House, he will have strong support for his social views, but little support for his non-statist economic and drug views. Also, as the President, he largely controls foreign policy even if the Senate and House are against him. I predict, if elected, Ron Paul would be able to fulfill everything bad that he believes in and none of the good things.
Funny, Rick Santorum said the exact same thing. "Ron Paul would be able to fulfill everything bad that he believes in and none of the good things."
On January 16 2012 07:13 bOneSeven wrote: Listen about the racist thing in general, I don't mind if people are white power or communists or whatever . If I walk near a store where it says " no black people allowed in " , I'll simply say ... Wow , what a terrible mindset , I would never buy anything from that so I won't support their business because they are really messed up . But saying to make it illegal to have that mindset ? What's up with that ?
The US was the first country ever founded on Enlightenment principles, principles which were new and progressive to Europe at the time and which were eschewed by a small group of intellectuals. Basically, the US Constitution is one of the most important documents in human history for that reason -- it was the first real government document to codify Enlightenment principles into law.
Anyway, Tocqueville and Mill (and Nietzsche to an extent) famously wrote about a concept they termed the "tyranny of the majority." The basic idea is that it is the government's duty to protect the minority from the wishes of the majority, regardless of the prevailing attitudes, because they saw oppression of any form as wrong.
Laws banning discrimination are simply a natural progression of these ideals. As people became more and more tolerant of other races, they saw the need to further cement protections of this nature. You have to remember when discrimination was outlawed (mostly by the courts), the prevailing attitudes in the US (and in most other developed countries) was not tolerant in the slightest. The fact that courts mandated anti-discriminatory policies is what changed public attitude. So when you say you wouldn't support their business, you only feel that way because you grew up in a society where discrimination was not commonplace (because of these laws). We feel the way we do about these things because laws were passed that forced us to treat other people equally.
On January 16 2012 07:13 bOneSeven wrote: ... I'm a bit racist , in the example that I rather like white girls than black girls but still
Haha, that isn't racism. I'm not homophobic because I don't find men attractive nor am I ageist because I don't want to enter a relationship with a senior citizen.
well that was a rather useful reply ... 2 bad there are a rather small amount like that in this thread...
The problem with that approach is that it makes reshaping a culture in the ideas of the state a permissible and necessary thing. If anti-discrimination laws are the only reason society doesn't discriminate, then the state is effectively in charge of 'public morals' (ie if its not illegal, its moral/wise/ and good)
This means that everything that is unwise/not the best/or wrong should be illegal. (ie the state should punish people who are jerks, should not allow people to do things that are regarded as stupid, etc.)
This is basically the reason Socrates was executed, totalitarian democracy. It also makes the laws of the nation (particularly things like the Constitution) equivalent to a holy text... and that is a BAD BAD BAD idea. [partially since it was definitely not approved as such]
On January 16 2012 07:58 OsoVega wrote: Ron Paul is right about the economy and the drug war. He's wrong about foreign policy, and social issues. The problem is, with a conservative Senate and House, he will have strong support for his social views, but little support for his non-statist economic and drug views. Also, as the President, he largely controls foreign policy even if the Senate and House are against him. I predict, if elected, Ron Paul would be able to fulfill everything bad that he believes in and none of the good things.
Funny, Rick Santorum said the exact same thing.
There are a decent number who agree but draw the exact opposite conclusion:
It certainly would take a lot of good domestic progressive policies from Obama (which we haven't been seeing much of so far) to outweigh the numerous murders we are committing across the world right now. Wonder how much damage Paul could actually do in other matters, though. Hard to say.
On January 16 2012 07:13 bOneSeven wrote: Listen about the racist thing in general, I don't mind if people are white power or communists or whatever . If I walk near a store where it says " no black people allowed in " , I'll simply say ... Wow , what a terrible mindset , I would never buy anything from that so I won't support their business because they are really messed up . But saying to make it illegal to have that mindset ? What's up with that ?
The US was the first country ever founded on Enlightenment principles, principles which were new and progressive to Europe at the time and which were eschewed by a small group of intellectuals. Basically, the US Constitution is one of the most important documents in human history for that reason -- it was the first real government document to codify Enlightenment principles into law.
Anyway, Tocqueville and Mill (and Nietzsche to an extent) famously wrote about a concept they termed the "tyranny of the majority." The basic idea is that it is the government's duty to protect the minority from the wishes of the majority, regardless of the prevailing attitudes, because they saw oppression of any form as wrong.
Laws banning discrimination are simply a natural progression of these ideals. As people became more and more tolerant of other races, they saw the need to further cement protections of this nature. You have to remember when discrimination was outlawed (mostly by the courts), the prevailing attitudes in the US (and in most other developed countries) was not tolerant in the slightest. The fact that courts mandated anti-discriminatory policies is what changed public attitude. So when you say you wouldn't support their business, you only feel that way because you grew up in a society where discrimination was not commonplace (because of these laws). We feel the way we do about these things because laws were passed that forced us to treat other people equally.
On January 16 2012 07:13 bOneSeven wrote: ... I'm a bit racist , in the example that I rather like white girls than black girls but still
Haha, that isn't racism. I'm not homophobic because I don't find men attractive nor am I ageist because I don't want to enter a relationship with a senior citizen.
well that was a rather useful reply ... 2 bad there are a rather small amount like that in this thread...
The problem with that approach is that it makes reshaping a culture in the ideas of the state a permissible and necessary thing. If anti-discrimination laws are the only reason society doesn't discriminate, then the state is effectively in charge of 'public morals' (ie if its not illegal, its moral/wise/ and good)
This means that everything that is unwise/not the best/or wrong should be illegal. (ie the state should punish people who are jerks, should not allow people to do things that are regarded as stupid, etc.)
This is basically the reason Socrates was executed, totalitarian democracy. It also makes the laws of the nation (particularly things like the Constitution) equivalent to a holy text... and that is a BAD BAD BAD idea. [partially since it was definitely not approved as such]
Well I wasn't arguing for the necessity of any such laws today, but they were definitely the catalyst for the broad societal change that took place. Today, if a store openly banned blacks from entering, you can bet your ass people would stop going there and the place would be out of business in a heartbeat. However, this is only the case because in the past, stores were all forced to open their doors so now society considers it unthinkable (and immoral) to reinstate racist policies.
Similar concepts have taken place throughout history. Look at pretty much any example of a majority oppressing a minority and you'll see a parallel.
On January 16 2012 07:58 OsoVega wrote: Ron Paul is right about the economy and the drug war. He's wrong about foreign policy, and social issues. The problem is, with a conservative Senate and House, he will have strong support for his social views, but little support for his non-statist economic and drug views. Also, as the President, he largely controls foreign policy even if the Senate and House are against him. I predict, if elected, Ron Paul would be able to fulfill everything bad that he believes in and none of the good things.
Funny, Rick Santorum said the exact same thing.
There are a decent number who agree but draw the exact opposite conclusion:
It certainly would take a lot of good domestic progressive policies from Obama (which we haven't been seeing much of so far) to outweigh the numerous murders we are committing across the world right now. Wonder how much damage Paul could actually do in other matters, though. Hard to say.
A Paul presidency would simply be beholden to Congress. If he was the president over a Republican legislature, only his "conservative" policies would pass. The same goes the other way.
He wouldn't really be a president so much as a facilitator for whichever party controls Congress. They would just ignore everything else he says.
On January 16 2012 07:58 OsoVega wrote: Ron Paul is right about the economy and the drug war. He's wrong about foreign policy, and social issues. The problem is, with a conservative Senate and House, he will have strong support for his social views, but little support for his non-statist economic and drug views. Also, as the President, he largely controls foreign policy even if the Senate and House are against him. I predict, if elected, Ron Paul would be able to fulfill everything bad that he believes in and none of the good things.
I have been saying this exact same thing to all my friends for ages and it never sinks in. This is the problem with the media scapegoating the president for every political folly. People today really think that the president of the country has the same power as the president of a company and the senate, like a board, only steps in when things get way out of hand.
On January 16 2012 07:58 OsoVega wrote: Ron Paul is right about the economy and the drug war. He's wrong about foreign policy, and social issues. The problem is, with a conservative Senate and House, he will have strong support for his social views, but little support for his non-statist economic and drug views. Also, as the President, he largely controls foreign policy even if the Senate and House are against him. I predict, if elected, Ron Paul would be able to fulfill everything bad that he believes in and none of the good things.
Funny, Rick Santorum said the exact same thing.
There are a decent number who agree but draw the exact opposite conclusion:
It certainly would take a lot of good domestic progressive policies from Obama (which we haven't been seeing much of so far) to outweigh the numerous murders we are committing across the world right now. Wonder how much damage Paul could actually do in other matters, though. Hard to say.
A Paul presidency would simply be beholden to Congress. If he was the president over a Republican legislature, only his "conservative" policies would pass. The same goes the other way.
He wouldn't really be a president so much as a facilitator for whichever party controls Congress. They would just ignore everything else he says.
This is true to an extent, but you fail to note two important points. First, far more than any other president in history, Paul would be willing to use vetoes. This will require a non-partisan consensus to overrule him. Such a consensus likely doesn't exist for some of the more troubling, anti-liberty pieces of conservative legislation. Second, as noted by OsoVega and the article I cited, the president has far more discretion when it comes to international matters than domestic ones. I mean, Obama went completely around the traditional congressional paths in Libya.
On January 12 2012 21:05 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @mcc Glad you liked those videos but, as you can see it's from a FOX AFFILIATE. Not the original fox that misinforms people when it comes to REAL journalism.
As can be seen in my post I disliked parts of those videos even before I found out they are from Fox, for reasons mentioned in that post. I did not base my view of the videos on their origin, but in their content, The origin just makes me doubt those videos' credibility somewhat more than before.
So, you still think Ron Paul is a racist? I think it was more negligent IMO.
I did not say he is racist. I said either he is racist or he supports racists, by that I mean pandering to them, using their votes, in general not really opposing them).
EDIT:The possibility of just stupidity and negligence is there, but the chance of that seem high only if we just went by the newsletters.
mcc I want you to explain this then???
Exhibit A: Vociferously Supports an Anti-Racist Agenda
"Libertarianism is the enemy of all racism, because racism is a collectivist idea that you put people in categories. You say, well blacks belong here, and whites here, and women here and we don't see people in forms..or gays. You don't have rights because your gays, or women or minorities, you have rights because you’re an individual. So we see people strictly as individuals. We get these individuals in a natural way. So it's exactly opposite of all collectivism and it's absolutely anti-racism because we don't see it in those terms. "
-Ron Paul on Bill Moyers Journal, January 4, 2008
Exhibit B: Ferociously Insists that Courts and The Death Penalty are Racist
“That’s a pretty good question. Because people, somebody asked me yesterday, "When was the last time you ever changed your opinion? And I said well, it's been a while since I've had a major change of opinion, but I try to understand and study and figure out how things work you know and become better at economics and all.
But on that issue (the death penalty), I did have a change of opinion. And I stated this in the debates last go around, they asked…they asked a similar question, ‘when did you change your opinion last?’ And uh, and it, that was just not overnight, but I, my position now is, that since I'm a federal official and I would be a U.S. president, is I do not believe in the federal death penalty and in my book “Liberty Defined”, I explain in it more detail , but basically I make the argument for, uh, against the death penalty but I would not come and say the federal government and the federal courts should tell the states they can't have the death penalty anymore. I don’t go that far.
But no, I just don't think the uh ..with the scientific evidence now- **I think I read an article yesterday on the death penalty, and 68 percent of the time they make mistakes. And it’s so racist, too. I think more than half the people getting the death penalty are poor blacks. This is the one place, the one remnant of racism in our country is in the court system, enforcing the drug laws and enforcing the death penalty. I don’t even know, but I wonder how many of those, how many have been executed? Over 200, I wonder how many were minorities? You know, if you're rich, you usually don't meet the death penalty.”**
-Ron Paul, Interview with the Concord Monitor Editorial Board, August 18, 2011
Exhibit C: Stubbornly Refuses to Deny That Government Legalized Racism is Cruel and Unjust
“No form of political organization, therefore, is immune to cruel abuses like the Jim Crow laws, whereby government sets out to legislate on how groups of human beings are allowed to interact with one another.
Peaceful civil disobedience to unjust laws, which I support with every fiber of my being, can sometimes be necessary at any level of government. It falls upon the people, in the last resort, to stand against injustice no matter where it occurs.
In the long run, the only way racism can be overcome is through the philosophy of individualism, which I have promoted throughout my life. Our rights come to us not because we belong to some group, but our rights come to us as individuals. And it is as individuals that we should judge one another.
Racism is a particularly odious form of collectivism whereby individuals are treated not on their merits but on the basis of group identity. Nothing in my political philosophy, which is the exact opposite of the racial totalitarianism of the twentieth century, gives aid or comfort to such thinking. To the contrary, my philosophy of individualism is the most radical intellectual challenge to racism ever posed.
Government exacerbates racial thinking and undermines individualism because its very existence encourages people to organize along racial lines in order to lobby for benefits for their group. That lobbying, in turn, creates animosity and suspicion among all groups, each of which believes that it is getting less of its fair share than the others.
Instead, we should quit thinking in terms of race—yes, in 2008 it is still necessary to say that we should Stop thinking in terms of race—and recognize that freedom and prosperity benefit all Americans.”
-Ron Paul, ‘The Revolution: A Manifesto”, 2008 (http://books.google.com/books/about/The_revolution.html?id=MuATfqcjS5QC)
Exhibit D: Refuses to Deny that Courts Discriminate Against Minorities
“But in order to attract Latino votes, I think, you know, too long this country has always put people in groups. They penalize people because they’re in groups, and then they reward people because they’re in groups.
But following up on what Newt was saying, we need a healthy economy, we wouldn’t be talking about this. We need to see everybody as an individual. And to me, seeing everybody as an individual means their liberties are protected as individuals and they’re treated that way and they’re never penalized that way.
So if you have a free and prosperous society, all of a sudden this group mentality melts away. As long as there’s no abuse — one place where there’s still a lot of discrimination in this country is in our court systems. And I think the minorities come up with a short hand in our court system."
-Ron Paul, CNN Western Republican Debate, October 18, 2011
Exhibit E: Refuses to Back the Unfair Punishment of Minorities
"A system designed to protect individual liberty will have no punishments for any group and no privileges.
Today, I think inner-city folks and minorities are punished unfairly in the war on drugs.
For instance, Blacks make up 14% of those who use drugs, yet 36 percent of those arrested are Blacks and it ends up that 63% of those who finally end up in prison are Blacks. This has to change.
We don’t have to have more courts and more prisons. We need to repeal the whole war on drugs. It isn’t working. We have already spent over $400 billion since the early 1970s, and it is wasted money. Prohibition didn’t work. Prohibition on drugs doesn’t work. So we need to come to our senses. And, absolutely, it’s a disease. We don’t treat alcoholics like this. This is a disease, and we should orient ourselves to this. That is one way you could have equal justice under the law."
-Ron Paul, 2007 GOP Presidential Forum at Morgan State University, September 27, 2007
Exhibit F: Vehemently Insists that Drug Wars Harms Blacks and Other Minorities Disproportionately
“…the federal war on drugs has wrought disproportionate harm on minority communities.
Allowing for states’ rights here would surely be an improvement, for the states could certainly do a better and more sensible job than the federal government has been doing if they were free to decide the issue for themselves. And although people studying my record will discover how consistent I have been over the years, they will uncover one major shift: in recent years I have dropped my support for the federal death penalty.
It is a dangerous power for the federal government to have, and it is exercised in a discriminatory way: if you are poor and black, you are much more likely to receive this punishment.
We should not think in terms of whites, blacks, Hispanics, and other such groups. That kind of thinking only divides us. The only us-versus-them thinking in which we might indulge is the people—all the people— versus the government, which loots and lies to us all, threatens our liberties, and shreds our Constitution.
That’s not a white or black issue. That’s an American issue, and it’s one on which Americans of all races can unite in a spirit of goodwill. That may be why polls in 2007 found ours the most popular Republican campaign among black voters.”
Exhibit G: Openly Admits That Skin Color should be Irrelevant in Society. That Racism is a Sin.
“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.
Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern liberalism, however, well-intentioned, is a byproduct of the same collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims.
Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees- while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality.
This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.”
-Ron Paul, “What Really Divides Us”, December 23, 2002
Exhibit G: Despises Political and Media Code Words for Racism.
“Worst of all, the left has gotten away with using “extreme” as a code word for “racist.” The exceedingly thin “evidence” given for the racism allegation is that Ashcroft once voted against the nomination of a federal judge who happened to be black. Never mind that more than 50 other Senators voted with Ashcroft; the left is all to eager to assure us that the only conceivable rationale is that Ashcroft is a racist. This type of smearing, aided and abetted by a complicit media, is at the heart of the left’s efforts to demonize conservatives who dare oppose their unconstitutional agenda.”
– Ron Paul, “The Ashcroft Controversy Exposes Disdain for Conservative Principles”, January 22, 2001
Exhibit H: Hates Racist Government Stereotyping of Wants and Needs
“One of the worst aspects of the census is its focus on classifying people by race. When government tells us it wants information to help any given group, it assumes every individual who shares certain physical characteristics has the same interests, or wants the same things from government. This is an inherently racist and offensive assumption. The census, like so many federal policies and programs, inflames racism by encouraging Americans to see themselves as members of racial groups fighting each other for a share of the federal pie.”
Exhibit I: Hates Racist and Xenophobic Government Profiling
“We can think back no further than July of 1996, when a plane carrying several hundred people suddenly and mysteriously crashed off the coast of Long Island. Within days, Congress had passed emergency legislation calling for costly new security measures, including a controversial “screening” method which calls for airlines to arbitrarily detain passengers just because the person meets certain criteria which border on racist and xenophobic.”
-Ron Paul, “Emotion Should Never Dictate Policy”, January 12, 1998
Exhibit K and L: Despises Racist Laws that Intend to Harm What others Called “Cheap Colored Labor”
“The racist effects of Davis-Bacon are no mere coincidence. In fact, many original supporters of Davis-Bacon, such as Representative Clayton Allgood, bragged about supporting Davis-Bacon as a means of keeping cheap colored labor out of the construction industry.”
“The racist effects of Davis-Bacon are no mere coincidence. In fact, many original supporters of Davis-Bacon, such as Representative Clayton Allgood, bragged about supporting Davis-Bacon as a means of keeping `cheap colored labor’ out of the construction industry.”
-Ron Paul, “Introducing the Davis-Bacon Repeal Act”, February 11, 1999, Before the House of Representatives
Exhibit M: Hates Foreign Aid to African Dictators Who Turn Aid into a “Power to Impoverish” their People
African poverty is rooted in government corruption, corruption that actually is fostered by western aid. We should ask ourselves a simple question: Why is private capital so scarce in Africa? The obvious answer is that many African nations are ruled by terrible men who pursue disastrous economic policies. As a result, American aid simply enriches dictators, distorts economies, and props up bad governments. We could send Africa $1 trillion, and the continent still would remain mired in poverty simply because so many of its nations reject property rights, free markets, and the rule of law. As commentator Joseph Potts explains, western money enables dictators like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe to gain and hold power without the support of his nation’s people. African rulers learn to manipulate foreign governments and obtain an independent source of income, which makes them far richer and more powerful than any of their political rivals. Once comfortably in power, and much to the horror of the western governments that funded them, African dictators find their subjects quite helpless and dependent. Potts describes this process as giving African politicians the “power to impoverish.”
-Ron Paul, “What Should Americans do for Africa?”, July 11, 2005, Before the House of Representatives
Exhibit O: Insists on Congratulating our First African-American President. MLK “Would be Proud”
“With the election behind us, our country turns hopeful eyes to the future. I have a few hopes of my own. I congratulate our first African-American president-elect. Martin Luther King, Jr. certainly would be proud to see this day. We are stronger for embracing diversity, and I am hopeful that we can continue working through the tensions and wrongs of the past and become a more just and colorblind society. I hope this new administration will help bring us together, and not further divide us. I have always found that freedom is the best way to break down barriers. A free society emphasizes the importance of individuals, and not because they are part of a certain group. That’s the only way equal justice can be achieved.”
Exhibit P: "Despises Racial and Ethnic Stereotyping by Self Serving Politicians"
“After 200 years, the constitutional protection of the right of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is virtually gone. Today’s current terminology describing rights reflects this sad change. It is commonplace for politicians and those desiring special privileges to refer to: black rights, Hispanic rights, handicap rights, employee rights, student rights, minority rights, women’s rights, gay rights, children’s rights, student rights, Asian-American rights, Jewish rights, AIDS victims’ rights, poverty rights, homeless rights, etc. Unless all the terms are dropped & we recognize that only an individual has rights, the solution to the mess in which we find ourselves will not be found. The longer we lack of definition of rights, the worse the economic and social problems will be.”
-Ron Paul, “Freedom Under Siege”, by Ron Paul, p. 14-15 Dec 31, 1987
[/QUOTE] First a lot of those quotes have nothing to do with being against racism. You could have saved a lot of space. Also I did not say that he is necessarily racist, I said he might just support racism and I even specified that I do not mean ideologically (as that would make him basically a racist), but in practice. And as we know people lie and are duplicitous. Why exempt Ron Paul from that observation when his words are somewhat at odds with his actions.[/QUOTE
"He might be" You're calling him one by saying that. Is English your 2nd language or something?
@zalz Keep spreading more propaganda son. I have a lot of links proving his innocence but, you people who keep watching the TV keep believing the lie.
@OsoVega Why do you keep saying Ron Paul's foreign policy is bad? is it because he doesn't want to send foreign aid to your precious Israel?
On January 16 2012 07:58 OsoVega wrote: Ron Paul is right about the economy and the drug war. He's wrong about foreign policy, and social issues. The problem is, with a conservative Senate and House, he will have strong support for his social views, but little support for his non-statist economic and drug views. Also, as the President, he largely controls foreign policy even if the Senate and House are against him. I predict, if elected, Ron Paul would be able to fulfill everything bad that he believes in and none of the good things.
Funny, Rick Santorum said the exact same thing.
There are a decent number who agree but draw the exact opposite conclusion:
It certainly would take a lot of good domestic progressive policies from Obama (which we haven't been seeing much of so far) to outweigh the numerous murders we are committing across the world right now. Wonder how much damage Paul could actually do in other matters, though. Hard to say.
A Paul presidency would simply be beholden to Congress. If he was the president over a Republican legislature, only his "conservative" policies would pass. The same goes the other way.
He wouldn't really be a president so much as a facilitator for whichever party controls Congress. They would just ignore everything else he says.
This is true to an extent, but you fail to note two important points. First, far more than any other president in history, Paul would be willing to use vetoes. This will require a non-partisan consensus to overrule him. Such a consensus likely doesn't exist for some of the more troubling, anti-liberty pieces of conservative legislation. Second, as noted by OsoVega and the article I cited, the president has far more discretion when it comes to international matters than domestic ones. I mean, Obama went completely around the traditional congressional paths in Libya.
He would have some discretion as president yes, but he could never enact any policy change (which is really what matters seeing as it's the thing that will have long-term effects). And his veto power wouldn't go against anything I said. If the GOP controls Congress, they would pass a bill Paul agrees with and he would sign it. In other words, they'd just shove everything they wanted through and it would all become law so long as Paul agrees. The same applies to a Democratic-controlled Congress.
Consensus always exists within the parties when the party leaders want it to -- especially with Republicans.
On January 12 2012 21:05 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @mcc Glad you liked those videos but, as you can see it's from a FOX AFFILIATE. Not the original fox that misinforms people when it comes to REAL journalism.
As can be seen in my post I disliked parts of those videos even before I found out they are from Fox, for reasons mentioned in that post. I did not base my view of the videos on their origin, but in their content, The origin just makes me doubt those videos' credibility somewhat more than before.
So, you still think Ron Paul is a racist? I think it was more negligent IMO.
I did not say he is racist. I said either he is racist or he supports racists, by that I mean pandering to them, using their votes, in general not really opposing them).
EDIT:The possibility of just stupidity and negligence is there, but the chance of that seem high only if we just went by the newsletters.
mcc I want you to explain this then???
Exhibit A: Vociferously Supports an Anti-Racist Agenda
"Libertarianism is the enemy of all racism, because racism is a collectivist idea that you put people in categories. You say, well blacks belong here, and whites here, and women here and we don't see people in forms..or gays. You don't have rights because your gays, or women or minorities, you have rights because you’re an individual. So we see people strictly as individuals. We get these individuals in a natural way. So it's exactly opposite of all collectivism and it's absolutely anti-racism because we don't see it in those terms. "
Exhibit B: Ferociously Insists that Courts and The Death Penalty are Racist
“That’s a pretty good question. Because people, somebody asked me yesterday, "When was the last time you ever changed your opinion? And I said well, it's been a while since I've had a major change of opinion, but I try to understand and study and figure out how things work you know and become better at economics and all.
But on that issue (the death penalty), I did have a change of opinion. And I stated this in the debates last go around, they asked…they asked a similar question, ‘when did you change your opinion last?’ And uh, and it, that was just not overnight, but I, my position now is, that since I'm a federal official and I would be a U.S. president, is I do not believe in the federal death penalty and in my book “Liberty Defined”, I explain in it more detail , but basically I make the argument for, uh, against the death penalty but I would not come and say the federal government and the federal courts should tell the states they can't have the death penalty anymore. I don’t go that far.
But no, I just don't think the uh ..with the scientific evidence now- **I think I read an article yesterday on the death penalty, and 68 percent of the time they make mistakes. And it’s so racist, too. I think more than half the people getting the death penalty are poor blacks. This is the one place, the one remnant of racism in our country is in the court system, enforcing the drug laws and enforcing the death penalty. I don’t even know, but I wonder how many of those, how many have been executed? Over 200, I wonder how many were minorities? You know, if you're rich, you usually don't meet the death penalty.”**
-Ron Paul, Interview with the Concord Monitor Editorial Board, August 18, 2011
Exhibit C: Stubbornly Refuses to Deny That Government Legalized Racism is Cruel and Unjust
“No form of political organization, therefore, is immune to cruel abuses like the Jim Crow laws, whereby government sets out to legislate on how groups of human beings are allowed to interact with one another.
Peaceful civil disobedience to unjust laws, which I support with every fiber of my being, can sometimes be necessary at any level of government. It falls upon the people, in the last resort, to stand against injustice no matter where it occurs.
In the long run, the only way racism can be overcome is through the philosophy of individualism, which I have promoted throughout my life. Our rights come to us not because we belong to some group, but our rights come to us as individuals. And it is as individuals that we should judge one another.
Racism is a particularly odious form of collectivism whereby individuals are treated not on their merits but on the basis of group identity. Nothing in my political philosophy, which is the exact opposite of the racial totalitarianism of the twentieth century, gives aid or comfort to such thinking. To the contrary, my philosophy of individualism is the most radical intellectual challenge to racism ever posed.
Government exacerbates racial thinking and undermines individualism because its very existence encourages people to organize along racial lines in order to lobby for benefits for their group. That lobbying, in turn, creates animosity and suspicion among all groups, each of which believes that it is getting less of its fair share than the others.
Instead, we should quit thinking in terms of race—yes, in 2008 it is still necessary to say that we should Stop thinking in terms of race—and recognize that freedom and prosperity benefit all Americans.”
-Ron Paul, ‘The Revolution: A Manifesto”, 2008 (http://books.google.com/books/about/The_revolution.html?id=MuATfqcjS5QC)
Exhibit D: Refuses to Deny that Courts Discriminate Against Minorities
“But in order to attract Latino votes, I think, you know, too long this country has always put people in groups. They penalize people because they’re in groups, and then they reward people because they’re in groups.
But following up on what Newt was saying, we need a healthy economy, we wouldn’t be talking about this. We need to see everybody as an individual. And to me, seeing everybody as an individual means their liberties are protected as individuals and they’re treated that way and they’re never penalized that way.
So if you have a free and prosperous society, all of a sudden this group mentality melts away. As long as there’s no abuse — one place where there’s still a lot of discrimination in this country is in our court systems. And I think the minorities come up with a short hand in our court system."
-Ron Paul, CNN Western Republican Debate, October 18, 2011
Exhibit E: Refuses to Back the Unfair Punishment of Minorities
"A system designed to protect individual liberty will have no punishments for any group and no privileges.
Today, I think inner-city folks and minorities are punished unfairly in the war on drugs.
For instance, Blacks make up 14% of those who use drugs, yet 36 percent of those arrested are Blacks and it ends up that 63% of those who finally end up in prison are Blacks. This has to change.
We don’t have to have more courts and more prisons. We need to repeal the whole war on drugs. It isn’t working. We have already spent over $400 billion since the early 1970s, and it is wasted money. Prohibition didn’t work. Prohibition on drugs doesn’t work. So we need to come to our senses. And, absolutely, it’s a disease. We don’t treat alcoholics like this. This is a disease, and we should orient ourselves to this. That is one way you could have equal justice under the law."
-Ron Paul, 2007 GOP Presidential Forum at Morgan State University, September 27, 2007
Exhibit F: Vehemently Insists that Drug Wars Harms Blacks and Other Minorities Disproportionately
“…the federal war on drugs has wrought disproportionate harm on minority communities.
Allowing for states’ rights here would surely be an improvement, for the states could certainly do a better and more sensible job than the federal government has been doing if they were free to decide the issue for themselves. And although people studying my record will discover how consistent I have been over the years, they will uncover one major shift: in recent years I have dropped my support for the federal death penalty.
It is a dangerous power for the federal government to have, and it is exercised in a discriminatory way: if you are poor and black, you are much more likely to receive this punishment.
We should not think in terms of whites, blacks, Hispanics, and other such groups. That kind of thinking only divides us. The only us-versus-them thinking in which we might indulge is the people—all the people— versus the government, which loots and lies to us all, threatens our liberties, and shreds our Constitution.
That’s not a white or black issue. That’s an American issue, and it’s one on which Americans of all races can unite in a spirit of goodwill. That may be why polls in 2007 found ours the most popular Republican campaign among black voters.”
Exhibit G: Openly Admits That Skin Color should be Irrelevant in Society. That Racism is a Sin.
“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.
Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern liberalism, however, well-intentioned, is a byproduct of the same collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims.
Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees- while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality.
This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.”
-Ron Paul, “What Really Divides Us”, December 23, 2002
Exhibit G: Despises Political and Media Code Words for Racism.
“Worst of all, the left has gotten away with using “extreme” as a code word for “racist.” The exceedingly thin “evidence” given for the racism allegation is that Ashcroft once voted against the nomination of a federal judge who happened to be black. Never mind that more than 50 other Senators voted with Ashcroft; the left is all to eager to assure us that the only conceivable rationale is that Ashcroft is a racist. This type of smearing, aided and abetted by a complicit media, is at the heart of the left’s efforts to demonize conservatives who dare oppose their unconstitutional agenda.”
– Ron Paul, “The Ashcroft Controversy Exposes Disdain for Conservative Principles”, January 22, 2001
Exhibit H: Hates Racist Government Stereotyping of Wants and Needs
“One of the worst aspects of the census is its focus on classifying people by race. When government tells us it wants information to help any given group, it assumes every individual who shares certain physical characteristics has the same interests, or wants the same things from government. This is an inherently racist and offensive assumption. The census, like so many federal policies and programs, inflames racism by encouraging Americans to see themselves as members of racial groups fighting each other for a share of the federal pie.”
Exhibit I: Hates Racist and Xenophobic Government Profiling
“We can think back no further than July of 1996, when a plane carrying several hundred people suddenly and mysteriously crashed off the coast of Long Island. Within days, Congress had passed emergency legislation calling for costly new security measures, including a controversial “screening” method which calls for airlines to arbitrarily detain passengers just because the person meets certain criteria which border on racist and xenophobic.”
-Ron Paul, “Emotion Should Never Dictate Policy”, January 12, 1998
Exhibit K and L: Despises Racist Laws that Intend to Harm What others Called “Cheap Colored Labor”
“The racist effects of Davis-Bacon are no mere coincidence. In fact, many original supporters of Davis-Bacon, such as Representative Clayton Allgood, bragged about supporting Davis-Bacon as a means of keeping cheap colored labor out of the construction industry.”
“The racist effects of Davis-Bacon are no mere coincidence. In fact, many original supporters of Davis-Bacon, such as Representative Clayton Allgood, bragged about supporting Davis-Bacon as a means of keeping `cheap colored labor’ out of the construction industry.”
-Ron Paul, “Introducing the Davis-Bacon Repeal Act”, February 11, 1999, Before the House of Representatives
Exhibit M: Hates Foreign Aid to African Dictators Who Turn Aid into a “Power to Impoverish” their People
African poverty is rooted in government corruption, corruption that actually is fostered by western aid. We should ask ourselves a simple question: Why is private capital so scarce in Africa? The obvious answer is that many African nations are ruled by terrible men who pursue disastrous economic policies. As a result, American aid simply enriches dictators, distorts economies, and props up bad governments. We could send Africa $1 trillion, and the continent still would remain mired in poverty simply because so many of its nations reject property rights, free markets, and the rule of law. As commentator Joseph Potts explains, western money enables dictators like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe to gain and hold power without the support of his nation’s people. African rulers learn to manipulate foreign governments and obtain an independent source of income, which makes them far richer and more powerful than any of their political rivals. Once comfortably in power, and much to the horror of the western governments that funded them, African dictators find their subjects quite helpless and dependent. Potts describes this process as giving African politicians the “power to impoverish.”
-Ron Paul, “What Should Americans do for Africa?”, July 11, 2005, Before the House of Representatives
Exhibit O: Insists on Congratulating our First African-American President. MLK “Would be Proud”
“With the election behind us, our country turns hopeful eyes to the future. I have a few hopes of my own. I congratulate our first African-American president-elect. Martin Luther King, Jr. certainly would be proud to see this day. We are stronger for embracing diversity, and I am hopeful that we can continue working through the tensions and wrongs of the past and become a more just and colorblind society. I hope this new administration will help bring us together, and not further divide us. I have always found that freedom is the best way to break down barriers. A free society emphasizes the importance of individuals, and not because they are part of a certain group. That’s the only way equal justice can be achieved.”
Exhibit P: "Despises Racial and Ethnic Stereotyping by Self Serving Politicians"
“After 200 years, the constitutional protection of the right of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is virtually gone. Today’s current terminology describing rights reflects this sad change. It is commonplace for politicians and those desiring special privileges to refer to: black rights, Hispanic rights, handicap rights, employee rights, student rights, minority rights, women’s rights, gay rights, children’s rights, student rights, Asian-American rights, Jewish rights, AIDS victims’ rights, poverty rights, homeless rights, etc. Unless all the terms are dropped & we recognize that only an individual has rights, the solution to the mess in which we find ourselves will not be found. The longer we lack of definition of rights, the worse the economic and social problems will be.”
-Ron Paul, “Freedom Under Siege”, by Ron Paul, p. 14-15 Dec 31, 1987
First a lot of those quotes have nothing to do with being against racism. You could have saved a lot of space. Also I did not say that he is necessarily racist, I said he might just support racism and I even specified that I do not mean ideologically (as that would make him basically a racist), but in practice. And as we know people lie and are duplicitous. Why exempt Ron Paul from that observation when his words are somewhat at odds with his actions.
"He might be" You're calling him one by saying that. Is English your 2nd language or something?
@zalz Keep spreading more propaganda son. I have a lot of links proving his innocence but, you people who keep watching the TV keep believing the lie.
@OsoVega Why do you keep saying Ron Paul's foreign policy is bad? is it because he doesn't want to send foreign aid to your precious Israel?
On January 16 2012 07:58 OsoVega wrote: Ron Paul is right about the economy and the drug war. He's wrong about foreign policy, and social issues. The problem is, with a conservative Senate and House, he will have strong support for his social views, but little support for his non-statist economic and drug views. Also, as the President, he largely controls foreign policy even if the Senate and House are against him. I predict, if elected, Ron Paul would be able to fulfill everything bad that he believes in and none of the good things.
I have been saying this exact same thing to all my friends for ages and it never sinks in. This is the problem with the media scapegoating the president for every political folly. People today really think that the president of the country has the same power as the president of a company and the senate, like a board, only steps in when things get way out of hand.
What exactly is Ron Paul wrong about when it comes to social issues?
As far as foreign policy, I haven't really heard him say anything too extreme, to be honest. While I'm against isolationism, I really don't think the military is a good way to do things typically. Anyone have anything that actually shows he's isolationist? I've only seen things that say he's against policing the world and such.
On January 16 2012 07:58 OsoVega wrote: Ron Paul is right about the economy and the drug war. He's wrong about foreign policy, and social issues. The problem is, with a conservative Senate and House, he will have strong support for his social views, but little support for his non-statist economic and drug views. Also, as the President, he largely controls foreign policy even if the Senate and House are against him. I predict, if elected, Ron Paul would be able to fulfill everything bad that he believes in and none of the good things.
Funny, Rick Santorum said the exact same thing.
There are a decent number who agree but draw the exact opposite conclusion:
It certainly would take a lot of good domestic progressive policies from Obama (which we haven't been seeing much of so far) to outweigh the numerous murders we are committing across the world right now. Wonder how much damage Paul could actually do in other matters, though. Hard to say.
A Paul presidency would simply be beholden to Congress. If he was the president over a Republican legislature, only his "conservative" policies would pass. The same goes the other way.
He wouldn't really be a president so much as a facilitator for whichever party controls Congress. They would just ignore everything else he says.
This is true to an extent, but you fail to note two important points. First, far more than any other president in history, Paul would be willing to use vetoes. This will require a non-partisan consensus to overrule him. Such a consensus likely doesn't exist for some of the more troubling, anti-liberty pieces of conservative legislation. Second, as noted by OsoVega and the article I cited, the president has far more discretion when it comes to international matters than domestic ones. I mean, Obama went completely around the traditional congressional paths in Libya.
He would have some discretion as president yes, but he could never enact any policy change (which is really what matters seeing as it's the thing that will have long-term effects). And his veto power wouldn't go against anything I said. If the GOP controls Congress, they would pass a bill Paul agrees with and he would sign it. In other words, they'd just shove everything they wanted through and it would all become law so long as Paul agrees. The same applies to a Democratic-controlled Congress.
Consensus always exists within the parties when the party leaders want it to -- especially with Republicans.
What types of bills are you talking about? If crazy enough I'm sure the democrats would have enough to filibuster.
And maybe the foreign policy changes wouldn't be permanent, but it might be worth settling for a significantly reduced foreign military presence and no war with Iran. These could have lasting effects on future presidencies with or without it being made explicit.
On January 16 2012 07:58 OsoVega wrote: Ron Paul is right about the economy and the drug war. He's wrong about foreign policy, and social issues. The problem is, with a conservative Senate and House, he will have strong support for his social views, but little support for his non-statist economic and drug views. Also, as the President, he largely controls foreign policy even if the Senate and House are against him. I predict, if elected, Ron Paul would be able to fulfill everything bad that he believes in and none of the good things.
Funny, Rick Santorum said the exact same thing.
There are a decent number who agree but draw the exact opposite conclusion:
It certainly would take a lot of good domestic progressive policies from Obama (which we haven't been seeing much of so far) to outweigh the numerous murders we are committing across the world right now. Wonder how much damage Paul could actually do in other matters, though. Hard to say.
A Paul presidency would simply be beholden to Congress. If he was the president over a Republican legislature, only his "conservative" policies would pass. The same goes the other way.
He wouldn't really be a president so much as a facilitator for whichever party controls Congress. They would just ignore everything else he says.
This is true to an extent, but you fail to note two important points. First, far more than any other president in history, Paul would be willing to use vetoes. This will require a non-partisan consensus to overrule him. Such a consensus likely doesn't exist for some of the more troubling, anti-liberty pieces of conservative legislation. Second, as noted by OsoVega and the article I cited, the president has far more discretion when it comes to international matters than domestic ones. I mean, Obama went completely around the traditional congressional paths in Libya.
He would have some discretion as president yes, but he could never enact any policy change (which is really what matters seeing as it's the thing that will have long-term effects). And his veto power wouldn't go against anything I said. If the GOP controls Congress, they would pass a bill Paul agrees with and he would sign it. In other words, they'd just shove everything they wanted through and it would all become law so long as Paul agrees. The same applies to a Democratic-controlled Congress.
Consensus always exists within the parties when the party leaders want it to -- especially with Republicans.
What types of bills are you talking about? If crazy enough I'm sure the democrats would have enough to filibuster.
And maybe the foreign policy changes wouldn't be permanent, but it might be worth settling for a significantly reduced foreign military presence and no war with Iran. These could have lasting effects on future presidencies with or without it being made explicit.
I never said the bills would be crazy, I'm just saying RP would be completely beholden to whoever controls Congress. RP stands for a lot of things -- half of them the Dems would support and half the GOP would support. Realistically if Paul won, he'd only be able to pass half of his bills then.
Of course this has the effect of whoever winning Congress winning the presidency. RP, while largely independent of both parties, would just end up being a puppet (through no fault of his own). That's just how politics works.
It's unfortunate, but we all know it's largely the truth. Ron Paul doesn't have a party of people who share his views, he has two parties that each share part of his views.
So retarded. Ron Paul just finished giving a big speech because he got an endorsement from Senator Tom Davis of SC. Nothing about it on any news website right now.
On January 16 2012 07:58 OsoVega wrote: Ron Paul is right about the economy and the drug war. He's wrong about foreign policy, and social issues. The problem is, with a conservative Senate and House, he will have strong support for his social views, but little support for his non-statist economic and drug views. Also, as the President, he largely controls foreign policy even if the Senate and House are against him. I predict, if elected, Ron Paul would be able to fulfill everything bad that he believes in and none of the good things.
Funny, Rick Santorum said the exact same thing.
There are a decent number who agree but draw the exact opposite conclusion:
It certainly would take a lot of good domestic progressive policies from Obama (which we haven't been seeing much of so far) to outweigh the numerous murders we are committing across the world right now. Wonder how much damage Paul could actually do in other matters, though. Hard to say.
A Paul presidency would simply be beholden to Congress. If he was the president over a Republican legislature, only his "conservative" policies would pass. The same goes the other way.
He wouldn't really be a president so much as a facilitator for whichever party controls Congress. They would just ignore everything else he says.
This is true to an extent, but you fail to note two important points. First, far more than any other president in history, Paul would be willing to use vetoes. This will require a non-partisan consensus to overrule him. Such a consensus likely doesn't exist for some of the more troubling, anti-liberty pieces of conservative legislation. Second, as noted by OsoVega and the article I cited, the president has far more discretion when it comes to international matters than domestic ones. I mean, Obama went completely around the traditional congressional paths in Libya.
He would have some discretion as president yes, but he could never enact any policy change (which is really what matters seeing as it's the thing that will have long-term effects). And his veto power wouldn't go against anything I said. If the GOP controls Congress, they would pass a bill Paul agrees with and he would sign it. In other words, they'd just shove everything they wanted through and it would all become law so long as Paul agrees. The same applies to a Democratic-controlled Congress.
Consensus always exists within the parties when the party leaders want it to -- especially with Republicans.
What types of bills are you talking about? If crazy enough I'm sure the democrats would have enough to filibuster.
And maybe the foreign policy changes wouldn't be permanent, but it might be worth settling for a significantly reduced foreign military presence and no war with Iran. These could have lasting effects on future presidencies with or without it being made explicit.
I never said the bills would be crazy, I'm just saying RP would be completely beholden to whoever controls Congress. RP stands for a lot of things -- half of them the Dems would support and half the GOP would support. Realistically if Paul won, he'd only be able to pass half of his bills then.
Of course this has the effect of whoever winning Congress winning the presidency. RP, while largely independent of both parties, would just end up being a puppet (through no fault of his own). That's just how politics works.
I think you're vastly underestimating how much of an effect the president can have.
EPT
"Ron Paul would be able to fulfill everything bad that he believes in and none of the good things."
