The Great Debate in My House Concerning Ron Paul
Lately, my son and I have been going at it about Ron Paul and whether he is qualified enough to become President of the United States. He plans on voting for Ron Paul because he is pissed off at Obama for signing into law the National Defense Authorization Act which would allow the military greater authority to detain and interrogate U.S. citizens and non-citizens and deny them legal rights protected by the Constitution. As a young, Black male, he is appalled at President Obama’s actions and told me that I better watch what I write on my blog because the government is going to come after me. He is so pissed off that he has stated that he is not voting for Obama under any circumstances and believes that Congressman Paul is going to win the Republican nomination and will beat President Obama later on this year.
As for me, I would not vote for Ron Paul for any government office because I do not trust that this old white man will have my best interests at heart as an African American, working-class female of childbearing age since he believes that a zygote has as much rights as I do. As a woman who experienced an ectopic pregnancy nine years ago, the rights of a cell that would not have survived under any circumstances would have taken precedence over mine and I would have died.
A part of me, a large part, is extremely proud of my son for keeping up with current political events since a certain segment of his generation is only concerned with the consumption of expensive goods and services and for that, he gets a big thumbs up. But I am also quite offended as a feminist, who believes in equality for all, not just heterosexuals and white men and I am saddened that he cannot understand how dangerous it would be for women if a candidate like Paul is elected to the highest office in America.
He would attempt to legislate morality into law by trying to ban abortion, stripping women of their basic right to control their own bodies. Women with little resources would have to resort to getting back alley abortions, which is a mind blogging thought in 2012. But as a rich White male, Ron Paul does not have to worry about this problem. He can afford to send his female family members to an abortionist in another country but other women do not have that option. So once again the poorest of the poor will be the ones to suffer the most, while the rich will always have choices. If any of his granddaughters came home pregnant after a wild night of clubbing, does anyone think that we would see a little First Family love child toddling around the White House?
It’s funny to me how a person that is supposedly so anti-government is a member of Congress and running for President of the United States. That should let people know from Jump Street what a shyster Ron Paul is but in the words of Malcolm X: “A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything.”
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Desnee Flakes
zumalicious
Rachel Kramer Bussel
Rebecca Sarwate
Tea Scrolls
Margaret Feike
Salon.com
Comments
rated.
I've posted yesterday and today on some of the other aspects of The Package. One of the scariest, which I have a link to, is his connections to the Reconstructionists........their views on women make the abortion question almost minor.
However, the position of president is not all that powerful - first, as it is vis-a-vis congress, which is the body that produces legislation, but also vis-a-vis the military/industrial complex.
Would the following statement make me a racist? Barrack Obama doesn’t have my best interest at heart because he is black.
If there is one thing I hate, it’s blacks that accuse others of racism when they’re equally racist.
Glenn Greenwald's column from two days ago was on the topic of Ron Paul and it gave a crystal-clear description of the reasoning that should take place before supporting a candidate. Here is his example of that reasoning, as could be applied to an Obama supporter:
Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.
Greenwald calls this the classic lesser-of-two-evils rationale, and that we really need to apply that process to all the candidates, then form a conclusion.
Ron Paul does not advocate for more government restrictions on civil liberties, he is in favor of the exact opposite. His view on abortion is one the least understood it seems.
Yes, he wants the government out of abortion altogether. He wants to leave it up to the lowest level of government possible, or even to the individual themselves.
No one in the race, on either side of the political aisle is more in favor of protecting your civil liberties than Ron Paul, and doing the due diligence of research bears that out.
I always find it difficult to understand a complete turn around and decide not to support a candidate because one particular issue, or in this case one piece of legislation. There are many more issues and concerns at stake. And besides didn't Obama have significant reservations about signing law?
There are possibly three other things at work here:
1. Your son might perceive the RepuKKKelican's as winners, and he wants to belong there. (which is why poor white trash votes Repukes, they don't wanna be lumped with "the blacks"). Bob Herbert: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/opinion/09herbert.html
2. Young sons have tendency to against their mothers, no matter what.
3. if he's under 22, latest brain research tells us his frontal lobes aren't fully developed, which controls responsibility and overview.
If a black mother can't convince her son that RP is a load of BS, we're in dire straights.
RP preaches against govt treating us as groups, but doesn't mind groups getting together outside govt. This is hypocritical, since the collectivity is the same, but it's the rich who profit from that.
Do we really want lots of separate "state-countries" where some of them disregard basic law such as the Civil-rights act? Do we really want to cross a state line and have contraception illegal? Do we really want water pollution and air pollution spilling over from one state boarder to another because all inter-state regulation is undone? That's what Ron Paul is really for. He thinks everything can be worked out with only property rights and no other rights.
The Civil Rights Act is an attempt by government to legislate morality, something which this author agrees you cannot do to further any movement's ends.
You cannot legislate rights, they are inherent with our humanity. The Civil Rights Act is perceived as giving African-Americans an equal platform, when in fact it has furthered government interference into the private lives of everyone across the board, in particular property owners.
Does anyone truly believe any business today that hung a "Whites Only" sign in its window would thrive? Does anyone truly believe such blatant racism would bring customers through the door in droves? I think it's obvious any business that had separate washrooms, or fountains, or other areas for different races would be met with such scorn from the general populace that it would lose business and be forced into bankruptcy.
And that is moral, and that is just. The customers deciding for themselves what is right, not the government implementing its version of forced morality.
We are people, and we evolve. Our attitudes evolve as we further ourselves in human experience in the face of growing diversity. We cannot force this growth by government mandate, it is growth done by organic means, and it is an inevitable consequence of being human on a finite planet.
The Civil Rights Act unfairly gets painted as being the panacea, and that devalues the grassroot efforts of African-American activists, and the efforts of those who've fought for equality as an ideal in our minds.
The Civil Rights Act tramples freedom, and our reliance upon it shows that when push comes to shove some among us have lost faith in ourselves as organizers, idealists, and activists.
1. Painting all of the GOP as KKK is narrow-minded. How can Ron Paul be deemed racist when he advocates ending the wars (where minorities are the most harmed), ending the war on drugs (a.k.a. the war on visible minorities), and pardoning all non-violent drug offenders (2/3rds of which are disproportionately African-American)?
"RP preaches against govt treating us as groups, but doesn't mind groups getting together outside govt. This is hypocritical, since the collectivity is the same, but it's the rich who profit from that."
I believe you've mixed up your message here. Ron Paul believes we retain our rights as individuals, not groups. The people who comprise the Occupy movement are each people who deserve to be heard, and collectively they speak to increase their power. But the police (a.k.a. the government) that cracks down on them, beats them, pepper sprays them is not committing atrocity against ONE group, they are trampling an individual's civil rights a THOUSAND times over.
You speak as though you would be powerless in the face of states rights. If any state were stupid enough, and backward enough to implement a policy like banning abortion or banning gay marriage then you vote with your feet. Isn't this better than a federal mandate? What happens if we end up with President Santorum (I think I just threw up a bit in my mouth)?
With President Santorum the ENTIRE nation winds up under the thumb of pro-lifers, and legislators of morality. And if not Santorum this time, some other zealot in another presidential election down the road. 2004 taught us never to underestimate the collective stupidity of a nation.
Would you rather have abortion and gay rights on the federal books, or allow the lunatic fringe only to rule over its own section of the great landscape? It's the difference between moving to California to escape the idiocy, or moving to another nation entirely. Which of those sounds better to you?
You'll never get rid of people trying to separate you from your civil rights, Ron Paul's idea is to make the playground for those despots smaller. Why you are against that is beyond me.
First, it's true Ron Paul is personally pro-life. However, that doesn't mean he will ban abortion. You see, Ron Paul is a strict Constitutionalist - and there is no authority in the Constitution for the Federal government to get involved with abortion.
So Ron Paul believes abortion is a matter to be left to the individual States to decide on, not the Federal government (nor the President).
There is a second part to Ron Paul's abortion stance - but you will soon see this is a non-issue. Ron Paul has said he supports a Human Life Amendment (to the Constitution) that defines life as beginning at conception. But to amend the Constitution, the amendment must first pass both the House and the Senate with a super-majority (67%). It must then be ratified by a super-super majority (75%) of the States. So the chances of the Human Life Amendment succeeding (in this day and age, when most people are pro-choice) are practically zero - thus making it a non-issue.
So effectively, under a Ron Paul presidency, abortion would be a State-level issue that the Federal government has no involvement in. Abortion would NOT be banned at the Federal level.
Even if (in the worst case scenario) your state were to ban abortion and enforce the ban (which is very unlikely in itself - again, these days most people in most states are pro-choice), you would still be able to get an abortion in a neighboring state.
But I think there is a bigger picture here. The biggest problems our nation faces today, are not about abortion. They are the endless unnecessary wars, the economy and monetary system, the erosion of our civil liberties (right to due process, right to privacy, etc).
We need someone who is serious about solving these problems. Obama has let me down (continuing the wars and the bailouts, and the latest betrayal being the signing of the NDAA).
And that's why I support Ron Paul, despite my disagreements with him on the abortion issue. Because this election is not about abortion - much bigger and more important issues are at stake for this country.
As for your statement on "it’s funny to me how a person that is supposedly so anti-government is a member of Congress and running for President of the United States" - it's not entirely accurate to say Ron Paul is anti-government. Ron Paul wants government to stick to its proper role - and that is to protect freedom, i.e. protect people from force or fraud. And his consistent voting record over 30+ years reflects that.
(It just so happens that Ron Paul believes fetuses are people, so he wants to protect them from force too - but I've explained why this is a non-issue.)
I invite you to reconsider Ron Paul. This article does a good job at summarizing his pros and cons -
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/
If you have other concerns regarding Ron Paul's positions, and are open to discussing them, I'd be happy to discuss them with you.
The young voters who support Dr. Paul do their research -- don't believe me?
Start an argument with one of them.
My guess is that mommy dearest had a little knee-jerk tantrum -- you obviously haven't checked the facts on Ron Paul's positions (Hint - he isn't for the eliminating abortions).
That Greenwald quote by Snippy is not a quote from Ron Paul (Greenwald counts on skim-readers ) It is a little piece of fabricated straw-man logic that Greeny-weeny made up all by his lonesome.
There's lots of real info about Ron Paul's positions -- his webpage, many videos on youtube -- Love him or hate him, Dr. Paul hangs it out there like no one (and I mean no one) else will.
Here's one video to get you started -- it may even hit home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4
If you want to believe he is racist keep reading the MSM. But in all of his years of campaigning, he has never said anything racist.
as a Doctor he treated many poor Black and Mexican women at his own expense and didn't take medicare money.
Also, check out why he's against the war on Drugs -- you may be surprised by what he has been saying for the past 30 years.
You better get your facts straight, Mommy, before you take on your son.
Greenwald is not the author I was thinking of -- he's actually pretty fair.
(okay so I was guilty of skim reading )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3EADdr-5AY
(Tip: the title is a hook).
Respectfully, I'd like to clear up the misunderstandings here.
Racism is a problem - we agree on that. Consider the issue of "how to best solve racism?" Is it by government regulation?
Ron Paul believes government regulation is not a good way, nor is it necessary (today).
For example, lots of men/women only date within their race. That's a form of racism. But should we have laws that say "you MUST date people from other races"... or, "if a person from a minority race asks you for a date, you cannot refuse them"? Clearly that violates your freedom to choose who you date.
The same principle applies to businesses. Because just like dating is a consensual relationship between 2 people (both people having the right to say no), business is a voluntary transaction between 2 parties (both of which should have the right to say no).
But what about racist businesses who, say, refuse to serve African Americans? How to solve that problem? Ron Paul believes government intervention is unnecessary (especially in this day and age), because the free market solves that problem.
You see, a business that refuses to serve African Americans, loses business and drives African American customers to their competitors. Furthermore, other customers will find their racism repulsive, and boycott the racist business. So their racism severely hurts their business - that's their punishment. No government intervention needed. This takes care of the racism problem, without compromising freedom.
Or think about it this way - if the Civil Rights Act were repealed today, how many businesses would ban African Americans? I say, very few - and the few that do would find it hard to compete (as explained above), and soon go out of business. This takes care of the racism problem, without compromising freedom.
Many people hear that Ron Paul is against the Civil Rights Act, and they misinterpret that as "Ron Paul wants racism and racial segregation" - that's a common misunderstanding of Ron Paul's position. I hope I've cleared up that misunderstanding here.
And they don't want state's rights. Because many things left to the states means not enough "collective" to support things like SS, Obamacare etc. They have a need to force people into their collection.
Brian - it is easy to understand Obama's supposed turn around. It was not a turn around. It was a lie in the first place. On this issue he could not tell the truth. The only truth for for him to say was "until I know all what other presidents know I cannot answer".
Obama never held an office that gave him a clue about what most of us also have no clue. He was not a CIA director, or a VP or Sec of Defense or State or along term senator in the know. He said what it took to get elected. Very simple. That is why he is such an abysmal failure. He promised things well beyond his control. And the things he could control, like not hiring tax cheat Geitner and other crooks, he decided not to. Couldn't even keep a simple promise of ethical and transparent administration.
Paul is the only person I have seen in a long time that might keep that promise. Maybe he will send the FBI and IRS after most of congress and put them in jail. Which is exactly where most of them belong. Plenty of them on both sides guilty as charged.
Liberals/progressives and libertarians actually have a lot in common - we just tend to misunderstand each other. For example, we generally agree on what the problems are - we just sometimes disagree on how to best solve them.
And I can certainly see why liberals/progressives tend to misunderstand libertarians - because libertarian positions can be quite counter-intuitive.
For example, libertarians are against racism (like most people), yet we tend to be against the Civil Rights Act. And most people tend to think (mistakenly) that if we're against the Civil Rights Act, that means we must be racists who want racial segregation. (Which is, of course, not true - as I explained in my previous post above. But who would've thought that racism can now be better solved by getting rid of government intervention?)
I think to bridge that gap, we libertarians must be patient in explaining our counter-intuitive positions, instead of lashing out at liberals/progressives for "not understanding". When they start to see how many problems can be better solved with less government spending and less government intervention (as opposed to more), many do end up sharing our points of view.
Russell Grout - I'm not so sure about your view that NDAA will be contested in court. Even the Patriot Act hasn't been contested in court yet.
Anyway I've liked Ron Paul since his 2008 campaign, but too bad he didn't get the nomination that time. So I supported Obama against McCain. I was hopeful about Obama, but time and time again (not just by signing the NDAA) he's proven by his actions that he's not much different from Bush - he's just better at selling his actions to the public. This time I'll be supporting Ron Paul or Gary Johnson (if Ron Paul doesn't get the GOP nomination).
The President of the United States is African-American. If that doesn't show you that times have changed, what will?
I understand that you think any racist business owner would put a "Whites Only" sign in the window, but I think otherwise. We are not in the 60s anymore. Any business owner interested in profit would not engage in blatant racism for fear of losing potential customers. Racist or not, money speaks loudest.
It's very hard not to laugh when we get quotes like this one above from people who believe that Ron Paul is a libertarian. Ron is a fraud and a poser, period (like most libertarians in the US). A real libertarian doesn’t pick and choose issues where the government (whether it is federal, state or local jurisdictions) should not take “control” over people’s lives. The quote above shows exactly why he’s just another politician pandering to the religious right.
As for turning abortion over to the states (I am pro-choice BTW):
Think about it, abortion is legal because of one Supreme Court decision. This right is sitting on a precarious perch.
It would only take one SC decision to end it -- that's why the neo-cons want to pack the Supreme Court with right wingers.
By leaving it up to the states, it gets spread out and is much harder to defeat. Plus it can be written into state constitutions.
States can even choose to allow counties to determine if they allow it (much like dry counties today). That would solve the accessibility issue.
This would also neutralize it as a national polarizing issue that now dominates our national elections at the cost of addressing other issues.
Also, few (if any states) would outlaw it -- the majority of Americans are pro-choice (yes, even among Republicans).
It's not a perfect solution, but if the SC ever strikes it down, you'll wish it was up to the states.
That said, we live in an imperfect world where not all our beliefs can align perfectly. Ron Paul has a personal belief that "life begins at conception" - but at the same time, he also believes in following the Constitution. More importantly, Ron Paul believes that as President, he has no right to violate the Constitution for his personal beliefs. That's how he arrived at his stance on the abortion issue being left to the states.
Personally, I appreciate the fact that Ron Paul puts the Constitution first, above his own personal beliefs.
Libertarians believe in protecting life and liberty. Ron Paul happens to believe that "life begins at conception", so he believes we have to protect a fetus's life and liberty as well. Like I said, I don't agree with Ron Paul's personal belief on this issue. But Ron Paul's stance does not contradict his libertarianism, given his personal beliefs.
But even if you believe that a libertarian would not leave abortion up to the states - well, the Constitution does not give the Federal government any authority to rule on abortion (whether to legalize it, or ban it). So again, Ron Paul is putting the Constitution above his personal libertarian beliefs - as he should.
As for your claim that Ron Paul is "just another politician pandering to the religious right" - no, because Ron Paul has actually lost votes from the religious right, due to his refusal to violate the Constitution for his personal pro-life beliefs.
And as I emphasized in my previous post - this election is not about abortion. Most people in most states are pro-choice, so anti-abortion laws will not pass. So Ron Paul's abortion stance is a non-issue. There are much more important issues at stake in this elections - e.g. our foreign policy and endless wars, civil liberties, economic issues and monetary policy, etc. Let's not lose sight of the bigger picture.
The issue I discussed above is not what’s at stake in the forthcoming elections, but whether or not Ron Paul is a libertarian. And, he’s not. I used your quote above as an example. I could expand on that subject as well as take all his personal and professional views, beliefs or actions one-by-one and show why he’s not a libertarian. People I know who true libertarians think he’s a poser. It’s very easy to make the case.
LibertyX writes ”Personally, I appreciate the fact that Ron Paul puts the Constitution first, above his own personal beliefs.”
How can he put the Constitution first when he doesn’t even understand it?”
You should read the article titled “The Constitution and the Libertarian Myth” which was written by… a libertarian! Unfortunately, the article seems to be no longer available on-line. I was glad to see that there are still some libertarians who truly understand the mean of libertarianism.
In this regards, it looks like I’ll need to write another article where a foreigner needs to explain how certain issues work for the American audience.
What’s more telling is that as a fake libertarian, Ron Paul couldn’t even save one of his own. Thus, we don’t expect him to save all of us.
Self-projecting I see. That's okay. It's very common among people who are ignorant.
Besides a humorous statement that suggests your piddling political mind can take me on, you write this:
"The young voters who support Dr. Paul do their research -- don't believe me?
Start an argument with one of them."
From what I see here, you're not worthy of an argument with yourself, though that's your only hope of finding the inadequate adversary you'd require. You are a small pile of nothing and haven't made an intelligent comment yet. I'll have to wait to see the results of your "research" before I crush them.
Liberty X and McNationalist are the only ones offering up enough examples of flawed thinking to be worthy of correction.
Let's applaud Paul's view of foreign entanglements and his stance on civil liberties. Let's also point out he's not necessarily a racist, but is a racist enabler. He's not a corporatist tool, he's just a corporatist enabler.
The Constitution is based on liberal social contract philosophy. It is antithetical to libertarian "philosophy" (such as it is), so one cannot be a libertarian supporter of the Constitution. There were exactly zero libertarians among the Founders and exactly zero libertarian provisions in the Constitution. The laissez faire, social Darwinism, government-as-evil ideas that devolved into libertarianism weren't represented in America until the latter 1830s.
Rather than deconstructing some of the claims McNat or X make, it's easier to simply point out the truth that the Constitution opposes libertarian philosophy and vice-versa. Anyone claiming a Ron Paul total fealty to the Constitution must ignore that great truth along with admitting they know little about the Constitution, and accept the whack-a-doodle interpretations Ron Paul adheres to. Libertarians, at best, simply want the Constitution to be "more libertarian" than it is.
Kanuk is right when he says libertarianism makes no distinction between which government entity applies "coercion." The "States Rights" libertarian is a philosophical joke.
Libertarianism has been around in one form or another for well over 150 years. During that time many nations have been formed or reformed and had the opportunity to embrace libertarianism as their system. None have. That's probably because, as a system of liberty, libertarianism is a bad joke. It's also because, as a system of governing, libertarianism isn't designed to work and doesn't.
All libertarianism is is a deceptively named excuse for the rule of plutocrats and oligarchs, which is why the likes of the Koch brothers support it and why it almost exclusively attracts pimple-faced kids who don't want a political philosophy that requires critical thinking. Besides, it's closer to a religion, relying on articles of faith, than a political philosophy.
If you support our Liberal Constitution and believe in the bold statement of Liberalism that is the Declaration of Independence you are a Liberal, by definition, not a libertarian. There's no wiggle room out of that simple and profound truth.
So, rather than trying to cram libertarianism into a system that rejects it, you should simply argue that we abandon the Constitution in favor of the one or two paragraphs of libertarian principles that could replace it. The Libertarian Constitutionalist canard is a flaming hypocrisy and an easy target for anyone who has a grip on reality.
Point taken.
Who cares about libertarian purity? As a progressive, I am willing to accept Ron Paul's flaws as a candidate for the "greater good". He is the only candidate who has acted as a progressive during his time in the House, and he is the only candidate speaking about the issues that matter right now.
As we speak the Hawks are pacing the hallways of the Pentagon looking for ways to make war against the Iranians.
The War Machine has captured America, too many people making billions off perpetual war.
You've got to give a little to get a little. There is no perfect candidate, and Obama is certainly not a true progressive. Maybe Ron Paul isn't either, but the fact he's willing to put an end to the military industrial complex, the welfare for banksters, and end the federal reserve system is more than enough for me.
Would I like to see universal health care, and more funding for education, more help for the homeless, and funding for renewable energy R&D? Absolutely. But let's take the huge victories where we can get them.
Given the choice would you rather have Obamacare or an end to the War Machine?
I for one am fine with putting fixing health care off for one term, if it means changing the world in a fundamental way, i.e. ending the pursuit of empire.
(Sorry, just had to do that.)
Okay, we get it -- everybody is stupid and feeble minded...
...and then you wrote this:
"The Constitution is based on liberal social contract philosophy."
Really? I don't remember seeing Karl Marx's signature on the bottom.
Then you blathered on and agreed with that pee-spot droplet of relevance -- Kanuk. (that was funny -- as in: ha, ha funny)
So, okay, let's assume you're right about everything (like you have) and now we can put aside all other "stupid" political philosophies -- what's your plan supreme-knowledge-man?
Tell us why the Federal Government should run everything -- is that what you want?
It's fun to be against everything -- what are you for?
(Now be careful Paul - you'll have to defend your position--which can hurt a fragile ego.)
"Liberal" and "Libertarianism" are not political systems nor are the forms of government-- they are life philosophies.
A Liberal, at his best, is a person that excepts and embraces other people's differences (I've yet to meet one).
A Libertarian, at his best, does not necessarily accept or embrace differences, but believes that everyone has the right to live their own lives according to their own beliefs and values.
Libertarians are not against laws (those are called anarchists) . They believe that laws should exist to protect the rights of the individual.
By the simple fact that we are the "United States"--each State with its own constitution and legislature (have you noticed those thingies Paul?) , it is obvious that our government is designed to accommodate regional differences...
...Whaaaa? But, that sounds like Libertarianism!
Ahhhhhhhh!
Paul! -- run--RUN! Run to Canada, you can move in with Kanuk
(His Mom has some room in the basement and there's fresh pizza bites in the oven.)
Perhaps we should have passed the document around since its original ratification so that all these well-known political figures and despots sign it. This way would have been the only way to support the idea that the Constitution is not a libertarian manuscript.
It’s not too late though! We can start with sending it to Kim Jong-un.
Can it get any dumber than this?
I'm gonna borrow someone else's words, cos he says it way better than I ever could. and you quoted me on something i did not put very well.
"By equating the Civil Rights Act, which expanded American civil liberty, with the Patriot Act, which reduced it, on the grounds that both are federal laws with sanctions, Ron Paul displays the moral idiocy of someone who declares that a person who pushes a little old lady out of the path of a bus is just as bad as a person who pushes a little old lady into the path of a bus, because both are equally guilty of pushing little old ladies around.
(...)
"Should we be impressed if Paul says that as a personal matter he would oppose such things, while defending their legality? It is hard to see any daylight between an overt racist and someone who claims to oppose racism or anti-semitism, but also denounces the only effective ways to put a stop to them—that is, civil rights laws. If you argue that private racism is bad but anti-racist laws are worse, and if you have no problem with the state’s coercive power when it enforces racism but object to coercive state power only in the service of anti-racism, then you cannot complain when others draw their own conclusions about your motives (even if, unlike Ron Paul, you did not publish white supremacist newsletters for years under your own name)."
http://politics.salon.com/2012/01/03/race_liberty_and_ron_paul/
Ron Paul says good things about societal unfairness towards black people regarding the War on Drugs, prisons, the military etc.
It's a shame he cannot seem to extent his famed consistency towards Affirmative Action or other stuff that really helps black people.
He just doesn't seem to get that the starting point for blacks is not a few yards back, but waaaaaaay out of the stadium all together and .... on one leg at that. Did I mention the extra weights?
When you see your white college friends jobhopping like mad, while you can't even get a serious job interview, you know the game is rigged against you. African-Americans want a fair shake, nothing more,
Oh wait!!! it seems we already live in the lap of luxury here in the Lower Ninth, in Detroit, in Compton, South Central and other inner cities. Oops. Sorry bout that. We don't need jobs! We can live on food stamps!!!
Political Compass>
Ron Paul is not a libertarian. Glad to see that real libertarians also believe that Ron Paul is a poser.
Additional info about the link above can be found here.
TheSteelGeneral: Good comment!
Hey Spumey, can you check whether Homer Simpson, a model you’re aspiring to surpass, also signed the Constitution? We need to make sure the document is legit.
Political Compass
Ron Paul is not a libertarian. Glad to see that real libertarians also believe that Ron Paul is a poser.
Additional info about the link above can be found here.
TheSteelGeneral: Good comment!
Hey Spumey, can you check whether Homer Simpson, a model you’re aspiring to surpass, also signed the Constitution? We need to make sure the document is legit.