Hmmmm. I've been mulling over this "Ron Paul is a racist" bit for a couple of hours and I still haven't made up my mind.
As is probably pretty obvious, I spend a lot of time reading the far left press. (No, not The New Republic.) And to the extent that RP is mentioned there, accusations of his racism usually boil down to his anti-immigrant policies and his opposition to the Civil Rights Act. These quotes that Sanakht is throwing around, however, are something entirely different.
I don't know. I find it hard to believe that if RP was such a virulent racist that, say, Alexander Cockburn at Counterpunch or the Socialist Worker of the International Socialist Organization would silently let it slide.
Of course, it's no skin off my nose--I'm not voting for him (or anyone else, for that matter).
----
Ironically, though, it seems to me that one of RP's proposals would do more to ameliorate the condition of the black population than anything coming out of any other candidate's mouth: the decriminalization of illegal drugs. Last I checked, 1 out of every 3 black males between the ages of 18 and 35 (or something like that) are somehow caught up in the correctional system, whether it be in jail, on parole or on probation. And the majority of them are there for b@~&$!@+ (in my, admittedly, chemical-addled opinion) drug-related offenses. Add to that the racial imbalances in sentencing for drug offenses that have been well-documented since at least 1983 when Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five sang about them in "White Lines".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing i will add on the racism topic is that I have felt for years that white people have been oblivious to the idea that there is more than one type of racism. It isn't all white hoods, gang beatings and lynchings, and that the more subtle ways are by far the more dangerous. Still, I am not sure rp is racist. I am sure that I wouldn't be okay with him repealing civil rights laws and the like.
Still, I am not sure rp is racist. I am sure that I wouldn't be okay with him repealing civil rights laws and the like.
Yeah go to Google and type in any candidate plus rascist. Apparently either they all are rascist or the interwebs has a tendency to take things out of context and/or blow them out of proportion. As far as the civil rights laws, That is one subject (of a couple), that I disagree with Dr. Paul on. I understand where he is coming from (a personal property viewpoint), but I heartily believe that those laws were definitely needed. Article about it here
All politicalliness aside, my dad taught me three things:
Never eat at a place called 'Joe's'
Never play cards with a man called 'Doc'
and Never trust a man with two first names... :)
]
I think it's very fitting given that he has allowed people to write racist articles IN HIS NAME and never spoke out about it until it became a political liability....
He's called Martin Luther King a pro-commie philanderer and labled MLK Day as Hate Whitey Day. He's also gone on the record and blamed african-americans for rioting after league championships. Especially NBA and NFL. Here's his...
That's pretty volatile stuff. I was going to ask for sources but it's all over the net.
Wow. Just wow.
Still, I am not sure rp is racist. I am sure that I wouldn't be okay with him repealing civil rights laws and the like.Yeah go to Google and type in any candidate plus rascist. Apparently either they all are rascist or the interwebs has a tendency to take things out of context and/or blow them out of proportion. As far as the civil rights laws, That is one subject (of a couple), that I disagree with Dr. Paul on. I understand where he is coming from (a personal property viewpoint), but I heartily believe that those laws were definitely needed. Article about it here
still, your thoughts on his comments?
Well, I don't know if this is Sanakht's source, but most of the items he talks about are here.
And they're pretty ghastly stuff, no question about that.
I just don't know if I trust the source.
EDIT: Hold on...there we go.
Is it hypocrasy to hold certain values and yet not vote that way because they (should) have nothing to do with running a government?
It is, when said values are a big part of your running platform. I would love for all American politicians to keep their religion out of their campaigns (as well as their policies), but I don't see that happening anytime soon. In that regard I'm actually happy that they DO disclose it, then rational people can decide which one is the least loony. ;-)
And the disconnect I see is being trapped into binary thinking coupled with the erroneous assumption that I am in any way shape or form a libertarian.
I never said you were, I said the "general Libertarian you" - meaning anyone who calls themselves a Libertarian.
Ron Paul is personally opposed to abortion, but wants to delegate the authority to ban or allow abortions to the state governments. He has said this repeatedly in a number of speeches.
Gay marriage is apparently a hot topic, even for his campaign. However, he has said several times in interviews and debates that the government has no business in marriage anyway, and that the government should not decide who can marry who, or what the nature of that marriage should be like. He has also said to a person who asked him about Gay marriage, "They have freedom of contract, and they can call it whatever they want." He said in the 2008 campaign that it should be a matter determined by the states.As for Evolution or Creationist, you might look up earlier in this thread at the arguments already posted there. The fact that he personally does not believe in Evolution is often held against him, though it is well known that he has never attempted to force this belief either through law or policy, on others. I do not think he has yet answered what he believes in as an alternative, and he does not believe that the question is relative to presidential candidacy.
I do not personally believe the question is relative to presidential candidacy either, but there are schools of thought that believe that it is.
And those "schools of thought" would be, as Ambrosia Slaad already pointed out earlier in the thread, those who fear for the future of the educations system, where such things are indeed very, very important issues where it's pertinent to know which side a candidate comes down on.
As Jeff MacDonald also mentions above, it's worrying that RP holds certain (questionable IMO) views and says that he won't enforce those views on a federal level, but he has no problem with states enforcing them (a lot of views that invade privacy or deny certain "rights" to parts of the population - again seemingly a place where religion trumps his Libertarianism).Like I said above, I think it's a cop-out of magnitude.
Stuff about racism from Ron Paul
Yeah, wow, that's some pretty damning stuff there. I'd like to see any of his supporters defend that (and more in-depth than TheWhiteKnife's non-defense).
Yeah go to Google and type in any candidate plus rascist. Apparently either they all are rascist or the interwebs has a tendency to take things out of context and/or blow them out of proportion.
Just because other candidates might hold racist views (true or false?), that doesn't excuse any other candidate, e.g. RP, from holding these views too.
It's the "yeah, but those guys are worse than me/him/her!" excuse and it doesn't fly.
|
Oh, the Racist Newsletter? Pah, yeah, there were three of those.
He didn't write them. Didn't endorse them, and didn't know about them.
And what's more, I heard that when he did there was a reshuffling of editors and publishers, not to mention a few heads rolling. Mostly, though it was kept quiet, and that may not have been the correct thing to do politically.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gT3I_W0kKM
This is what happens when you're in the political life, then out of it for a while, then back in it. The stuff that happened during the interim under your name comes back to haunt you. :(
Oh, the Racist Newsletter? Pah, yeah, there were three of those.
He didn't write them. Didn't endorse them, and didn't know about them.
And what's more, I heard that when he did there was a reshuffling of editors and publishers, not to mention a few heads rolling. Mostly, though it was kept quiet, and that may not have been the correct thing to do politically.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gT3I_W0kKM
This is what happens when you're in the political life, then out of it for a while, then back in it. The stuff that happened during the interim under your name comes back to haunt you. :(
not buying it. He seems too sweaty and unsure of how these things got into a publication with his name on it, and that just doesn't fly by me.
The sad truth is that right-wing populism, from Andrew Jackson to Tom Watson to the Tea Party, is often interpenetrated with racist yahoos.
As for him seeming "sweaty and unsure," well, RP isn't a very suave and photogenic guy by the standards of today's politics. Not to mention that being accused of bigotry on national television is (I'd assume) a pretty unnerving experience.
I'd also guess that he probably knows exactly who wrote them and whose responsibility it was including them. That is, assuming he didn't do it. And, unpolitic as it might be, I understand his refusal to name names. I don't rat out my members, either, even when they do indefensible shiznit.
Anyway, he's right about the Gulf Wars and the War on Drugs and the racial politics of that.
I'm done with this until either White Knife comes up with a better defense or Bitter Thorn weighs in.
On the other hand, nobody has any thoughts on the article about the deficit I posted above?
The sad truth is that right-wing populism, from Andrew Jackson to Tom Watson to the Tea Party, is often interpenetrated with racist yahoos.
As for him seeming "sweaty and unsure," well, RP isn't a very suave and photogenic guy by the standards of today's politics. Not to mention that being accused of bigotry on national television is (I'd assume) a pretty unnerving experience.
I'd also guess that he probably knows exactly who wrote them and whose responsibility it was including them. That is, assuming he didn't do it. And, unpolitic as it might be, I understand his refusal to name names. I don't rat out my members, either, even when they do indefensible shiznit.
Anyway, he's right about the Gulf Wars and the War on Drugs and the racial politics of that.
I'm done with this until either White Knife comes up with a better defense or Bitter Thorn weighs in.
On the other hand, nobody has any thoughts on the article about the deficit I posted above?
I find it sad that 3 idiotic quotes from a news letter he didn't write that are plainly completely at odds with everything RP has written and said for decades are enough to justify these personal attacks.
I find it sad that otherwise intelligent folks choose to ignore thousands of pages of books and written position explanations as well as hundreds and hundreds of hours of video and decades of policy consistency.
RP has been one of the most consistent voices in congress for decades. I don't see how some folks seem to be willing to accept that 3 statements that he repudiates somehow reveal who he really is, but those other decades of consistency are some kind of ruse.
He is probably covering for someone, but I can accept his choice not to through someone under the bus.
I also agree with your observations about counterpunch. Many of RP's political opponents have noted their respect for his integrity even when they are on opposite sides of an issue.
Also I found the counterpunch article fascinating. I think printing money to pay our debts is profoundly harmful, but that is effectively what we are doing now anyway.
|
|
The sad truth is that right-wing populism, from Andrew Jackson to Tom Watson to the Tea Party, is often interpenetrated with racist yahoos.
As for him seeming "sweaty and unsure," well, RP isn't a very suave and photogenic guy by the standards of today's politics. Not to mention that being accused of bigotry on national television is (I'd assume) a pretty unnerving experience.
I'd also guess that he probably knows exactly who wrote them and whose responsibility it was including them. That is, assuming he didn't do it. And, unpolitic as it might be, I understand his refusal to name names. I don't rat out my members, either, even when they do indefensible shiznit.
Anyway, he's right about the Gulf Wars and the War on Drugs and the racial politics of that.
I'm done with this until either White Knife comes up with a better defense or Bitter Thorn weighs in.
On the other hand, nobody has any thoughts on the article about the deficit I posted above?
I find it sad that 3 idiotic quotes from a news letter he didn't write that are plainly completely at odds with everything RP has written and said for decades are enough to justify these personal attacks.
I find it sad that otherwise intelligent folks choose to ignore thousands of pages of books and written position explanations as well as hundreds and hundreds of hours of video and decades of policy consistency.
RP has been one of the most consistent voices in congress for decades. I don't see how some folks seem to be willing to accept that 3 statements that he repudiates somehow reveal who he really is, but those other decades of consistency are some kind of ruse.
He is probably covering for someone, but I can accept his choice not to through someone under the bus.
I also agree with your observations about counterpunch. Many of RP's political opponents have noted their respect for his integrity even when they are on opposite sides of an issue.
Also I found the counterpunch article fascinating. I...
Thank you. I knew someone, besides me, would be able to post a reasonable defense. I'm a small fish, trying to swim in the big fish pond. I don't know why I keep coming back to this thread, but it just feels important, even though I'm not the best argument presenter, and am more likely to run away crying (or otherwise become too hypersensitive), despite my attempts to present logical arguments.
In unrelated news, what do you think of ron paul's new site? I think it looks pretty good. :) The campaign is doing an excellent job.
Thank you. I knew someone, besides me, would be able to post a reasonable defense. I'm a small fish, trying to swim in the big fish pond. I don't know why I keep coming back to this thread, but it just feels important, even though I'm not the best argument presenter, and am more likely to run away crying (or otherwise become too hypersensitive), despite my attempts to present logical arguments.
In unrelated news, what do you think of ron paul's new site? I think it looks pretty good. :) The campaign is doing an excellent job.
I think your posts are just fine, but I identify with your frustration. I would much rather talk to people in person. I wish I were a much better writer.
I do wish some of the more articulate libertarian leaning writers would jump in, but they rarely post in the political threads anymore.
It can be exhausting beating one's head on the wall, but I still try.
Imagine how I feel!
Imagine how I feel!
LOL! :)
still, your thoughts on his comments?
If they are indeed his comments at all, then I find them highly repugnant and it would definitely keep me from voting for him.
Just because other candidates might hold racist views (true or false?), that doesn't excuse any other candidate, e.g. RP, from holding these views too.
It's the "yeah, but those guys are worse than me/him/her!" excuse and it doesn't fly.
I agree, but not the point that I was trying to make. The point I was driving at, is that if you are going to believe that isolated, unproven incidents damn one person, then surely isolated, unproven incidents must damn them all. I prefer to look at the entire body of person's work to guage them, as BT stated far more eloquently than I. It's why I didnt believe the whole Barack Obama church thing in 08. I cant remember the pastor's name, but you know who Im talking about. (as an aside, I voted BO over McCain in 08. I liked his message then-closing Gitmo, prosecuting torturers, withdrawing from Afghanistan within 90 days, believing that raising the debt ceiling is a "failure of leadership". I think its why Im so disappointed in him today.)
I just want to make it clear, I DO NOT think that Ron Paul is the best candidate for POTUS. I just think that he is the best candidate running with the best chance to win.
Bt, i am sure if you had a newsletter with your name on it and someone put something in it like what was said in rps, you would be able to put forth a better defense than he did. Long story short, his name is on this publication. He should know what's in it at the VERY least. If these comments were not ones he endorsed, he should say so publically, and follow up with a transparent process of firings and naming of names. Otherwise you are screwing the pooch.
Bt, i am sure if you had a newsletter with your name on it and someone put something in it like what was said in rps, you would be able to put forth a better defense than he did. Long story short, his name is on this publication. He should know what's in it at the VERY least. If these comments were not ones he endorsed, he should say so publically, and follow up with a transparent process of firings and naming of names. Otherwise you are screwing the pooch.
I'm inclined to agree from a personal standpoint, but I'm pretty anal. That doesn't make it OK for something this stupid to be published under the name of a US congressman, but I think it must be weighed against decades of consistent writing and speeches. I strongly suspect he is covering for someone close to him, but I just don't think he is a racist. I've only met him briefly, but I could not campaign for him if I thought he was a racist. I'm personally convinced that he doesn't judge people by the color of their skin. He may have handled this poorly, but that hardly makes him a racist.
You have known me a fairly long time on line. I know I'm taking a personal risk here, but I don't think I've ever said anything even vaguely racist. I believe our choices define us not our skin, age, or plumbing.
His ideas may be out of the mainstream, but I don't believe for a minute that he thinks less of anyone because of the color of their skin.
|
|
I am not going to present an argument here. I'm not the best at argument, so I'm just going to present what is being called "a comprehensive discourse"
Unrelated to the above two videos, a supporter, discussing some of the African American issues brought up by the Ron Paul Campaign (2008, but not much different from 2012).
What Really Divides Us (Ron Paul, Dec. 2002)
Government and Racism (Ron Paul, Apr. 2007)
Patriotism (Ron Paul, May. 2007)
I found what I could about Ron Paul's stances on racial difference, and it does seem to me that he is more in favor of equal treatment, rather than the progressive notions of reparations and affirmative action.
|
|
A few more...
Ron Paul on the Civil Rights Act (July 3, 2004)
Texas Straight Talk, 10 September 2001
Conflicts at the UN Conference on Racism
Most liberty-minded Americans already know that the United Nations seeks to impose global government on all of us in the future, but now the organization is attempting to rewrite the past as well. Its recent week-long “World Conference against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance” demonstrates just how broadly the UN views its own authority. Even though the stated goals of the conference–to map out an international strategy to combat racism and right the wrongs of the past–might seem laughably far-fetched, it’s unsettling to think that the conference might be setting a precedent for more UN expansion and more phony international laws.
The idea that certain countries should pay reparations to compensate for the ills of slavery and colonialism cannot be taken seriously. First, it’s clearly impossible to determine exactly who was harmed and who benefitted from past actions, with so many generations having passed since the times in question. The vast majority of Americans for example, have no connection whatsoever to slave owners. Furthermore, who decides what wrongs are corrected? If we go back 100 or 200 years, why not 500 years? Once reparations lawsuits are allowed, the potential liabilities are endless. The only real beneficiaries of the reparations furor are the UN and the trial lawyers.
Of course a serious rift developed at the conference between the Israelis and the Palestinians over a proposed condemnation of Israel’s recent attacks on Arab settlers. Once again the United States was caught in the middle of this ancient conflict, both sides of which we already militarize with billions in foreign aid. If the UN really is so effective at promoting peace, why are some of its own member nations at war with one another? The Arab/Israeli conflict is a clear example of how global government not only fails to resolve localized conflicts, but instead makes them worse by angering one side.
These kinds of disagreements will intensify as UN power grows, and winners and losers in regional conflicts are increasingly decided by globalist bureaucrats. Whenever the UN chooses a victor in a dispute, the defeated nation understandably feels resentment. This animosity naturally is directed at the United States, as we are seen as the greatest world power in the UN. So our involvement in the UN does not create a perception that we are neutral. On the contrary, our involvement in the UN forces us to choose sides in every hostility. We should never kid ourselves that the United States is seen as a peacemaker by the rest of the world simply because we conduct wars sanctioned by the UN.
I hope the highly publicized infighting at this latest conference will demonstrate how truly political the UN really is. Like all political organizations, the UN exists to serve the interests of certain parties at the expense of others. It is no more impartial or altruistic than the governments and people it now wants to condemn for the sins of the past. In fact, it acts precisely as the colonial powers did–by constantly expanding its global governance and waging war to conquer nations that resist its authority. The UN’s plans for control over every nation on earth make the imperialists of past centuries pale in comparison.
More than anything, the UN is anti-American. It’s happy to take our tax dollars and send our young people to fight undeclared wars under foreign command, but it does not respect our Constitution or our national sovereignty. More and more Americans now understand that the UN is not an instrument for creating world peace, but rather an emerging global government with an agenda of its own. This agenda truly is incompatible with the freedoms earned and enjoyed by millions of Americans.
Texas Straight Talk, 12 July 2004
None of Your Business!
You may not have heard of the American Community Survey, but you will. The national census, which historically is taken every ten years, has expanded to quench the federal bureaucracy’s ever-growing thirst to govern every aspect of American life. The new survey, unlike the traditional census, is taken each and every year at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. And it’s not brief. It contains 24 pages of intrusive questions concerning matters that simply are none of the government’s business, including your job, your income, your physical and emotional heath, your family status, your dwelling, and your intimate personal habits.
The questions are both ludicrous and insulting. The survey asks, for instance, how many bathrooms you have in your house, how many miles you drive to work, how many days you were sick last year, and whether you have trouble getting up stairs. It goes on and on, mixing inane questions with highly detailed inquiries about your financial affairs. One can only imagine the countless malevolent ways our federal bureaucrats could use this information. At the very least the survey will be used to dole out pork, which is reason enough to oppose it.
Keep in mind the survey is not voluntary, nor is the Census Bureau asking politely. Americans are legally obligated to answer, and can be fined up to $1,000 per question if they refuse!
I introduced an amendment last week that would have eliminated funds for this intrusive survey in a spending bill, explaining on the House floor that perhaps the American people don’t appreciate being threatened by Big Brother. The amendment was met by either indifference or hostility, as most members of Congress either don’t care about or actively support government snooping into the private affairs of citizens.
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.
The census also represents a form of corporate welfare, since the personal data collected on hundred of millions of Americans can be sold to private businesses. Surely business enjoys having such extensive information available from one source, but it’s hardly the duty of taxpayers to subsidize the cost of market research.
At least the national census has its origins in the Constitution, which is more than one can say about the vast majority of programs funded by Congress. Still, Article I makes it clear that the census should be taken every ten years for the sole purpose of congressional redistricting (and apportionment of taxes, prior to the disastrous 16th amendment). This means a simple count of the number of people living in a given area, so that numerically equal congressional districts can be maintained. The founders never authorized the federal government to continuously survey the American people.
More importantly, they never envisioned a nation where the people would roll over and submit to every government demand. The American Community Survey is patently offensive to all Americans who still embody that fundamental American virtue, namely a healthy mistrust of government. The information demanded in the new survey is none of the government’s business, and the American people should insist that Congress reject it now before it becomes entrenched.
I think someone who is the greatest defender of personal rights and liberties and the rights of the individual
The disconnect is that not everyone looks at RP's record and comes to that conclusion.
Specifically, I don't.
|
|
I think someone who is the greatest defender of personal rights and liberties and the rights of the individualThe disconnect is that not everyone looks at RP's record and comes to that conclusion.
Specifically, I don't.
That's interesting. Most of the people I show Ron Paul's books to come to the opposite conclusion from yourself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bt, i am sure if you had a newsletter with your name on it and someone put something in it like what was said in rps, you would be able to put forth a better defense than he did. Long story short, his name is on this publication. He should know what's in it at the VERY least. If these comments were not ones he endorsed, he should say so publically, and follow up with a transparent process of firings and naming of names. Otherwise you are screwing the pooch.I'm inclined to agree from a personal standpoint, but I'm pretty anal. That doesn't make it OK for something this stupid to be published under the name of a US congressman, but I think it must be weighed against decades of consistent writing and speeches. I strongly suspect he is covering for someone close to him, but I just don't think he is a racist. I've only met him briefly, but I could not campaign for him if I thought he was a racist. I'm personally convinced that he doesn't judge people by the color of their skin. He may have handled this poorly, but that hardly makes him a racist.
You have known me a fairly long time on line. I know I'm taking a personal risk here, but I don't think I've ever said anything even vaguely racist. I believe our choices define us not our skin, age, or plumbing.
His ideas may be out of the mainstream, but I don't believe for a minute that he thinks less of anyone because of the color of their skin.
BT, first let me put your mind at ease. I have known you for a long time online, and I do NOT think you racist in any way, shape or form. Our political views differ for a certainty, but NOTHING you have said, nor your endorsement of Ron Paul, makes me think you a racist. I'd need some serious evidence to the contrary to make me even begin to amend my high opinion of you.
That said, I think he's(Ron Paul, not you) screwed the pooch here. He should have handled this much, much differently.
A few more...
Ron Paul on the Civil Rights Act (July 3, 2004)
** spoiler omitted **...
If anything, RP may be blind to the fact that there is more than one type of racism. I wonder where he stands on blockbusting and redlining practices.
Bt, i am sure if you had a newsletter with your name on it and someone put something in it like what was said in rps, you would be able to put forth a better defense than he did. Long story short, his name is on this publication. He should know what's in it at the VERY least. If these comments were not ones he endorsed, he should say so publically, and follow up with a transparent process of firings and naming of names. Otherwise you are screwing the pooch.I'm inclined to agree from a personal standpoint, but I'm pretty anal. That doesn't make it OK for something this stupid to be published under the name of a US congressman, but I think it must be weighed against decades of consistent writing and speeches. I strongly suspect he is covering for someone close to him, but I just don't think he is a racist. I've only met him briefly, but I could not campaign for him if I thought he was a racist. I'm personally convinced that he doesn't judge people by the color of their skin. He may have handled this poorly, but that hardly makes him a racist.
You have known me a fairly long time on line. I know I'm taking a personal risk here, but I don't think I've ever said anything even vaguely racist. I believe our choices define us not our skin, age, or plumbing.
His ideas may be out of the mainstream, but I don't believe for a minute that he thinks less of anyone because of the color of their skin.
BT, first let me put your mind at ease. I have known you for a long time online, and I do NOT think you racist in any way, shape or form. Our political views differ for a certainty, but NOTHING you have said, nor your endorsement of Ron Paul, makes me think you a racist. I'd need some serious evidence to the contrary to make me even begin to amend my high opinion of you.
That said, I think he's(Ron Paul, not you) screwed the pooch here. He should have handled this much, much differently.
I'm thankful that you think well of me in this regard. I know I am taking a risk by investing my personal credibility in my endorsement.
I'm going to enter the realm of personal speculation, but my sense is that RP is protecting someone close to him by not throwing anyone else under the bus here. It would be easy to have some staffer take one for the team and put this to bed, but he has not. I may be off base, but I think someone close to him dropped the ball, and he is covering for them.
I'm sure there were much smoother ways to handle this, and this may be one of the problems of being an issue driven ideologue rather than part of a political machine. I'm not inclined to give politicians the benefit of the the doubt, but I honestly think that this is basically a political misstep rather than a failing of character or intellect.
My 2 CP. I'm largely guessing.
That's interesting. Most of the people I show Ron Paul's books to come to the opposite conclusion from yourself.
Guessing: Most of those people aren't women.
I also don't think advocating for "the state should be able to take freedom X away from you, but I don't think the federal government should" wins any "greatest ever" awards.
I mean, you like his politics and more power to you -- my point really is, to call anyone great in terms of being a defender of freedom requires that you have a definition of freedom that's similar to theirs. That definition is subjective, not objective.
This guy made some amazing comments thank you.
Guessing: Most of those people aren't women. ...
I sure see a lot of women marching for him and listening to him speak.
So far, listening to the man going over newsletter snippets and responses and the like, I'm concluding RP is naive at best on race matters.
So far, listening to the man going over newsletter snippets and responses and the like, I'm concluding RP is naive at best on race matters.
I would agree. That's a far cry, however, from what we were talking about yesterday (or was it the day before?--damn drugs!), which was the point I was trying to make.
|
|
Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb here (and probably be labeled a racist) and say I also oppose the Civil Rights Act. I think it is an attempt on the part of the federal government to force people how to think. And I don't think the government should be permitted to do that, it reaks of the legislation of morality, thought-policing, and that frightens me.
Racial issues are a social matter, (unless I too am naive about racial matters), and best resolved in the social sphere, not in the political one. So, I would disagree with any law that says "Such and such shall not discriminate against such and such." Primarily because discrimination is a thought or belief system, not a behavior, and there is no way to determine whether certain actions are based on discrimination. (We can assume, hope, or believe that certain actions are based on discrimination, but we cannot legally know.)
(The same goes for hate speech, actually. We can assume, hope, or believe that certain speech are based on hatred, but we cannot legally know.)
When we attempt to legislate philosophical possibilities, we run into problems. Only actions can be legislated, not beliefs.
Now, it may be possible (and indeed more welcome) for social environments to be legislated in a different manner without relying on thoughts or perceptions. "Businesses shall treat all persons equally." would be significantly better than "Businesses shall not discriminate." As at least in the one legislation, actions are specifically limited to certain behaviors. Now, of course, there were several laws that insisted that "Separate, but Equal" was the way to go, but as any student of logic will tell you, "Separate is inherently inequal."
Of course, "Businesses shall treat all persons equally." may not be feasible for economic reasons. Would a coal manufacturing plant be more likely to sell coal to an industry that will purchase more coal later or to a woman that comes in off the street. (for example). If the business can make more money selling coal almost exclusively to the industry that uses it, it would be more economically viable to do so. Each business must determine if certain actions are profitable or not profitable for it (and its share holders), and act accordingly.
|
|
Oh, the Racist Newsletter? Pah, yeah, there were three of those.
He didn't write them. Didn't endorse them, and didn't know about them.
And what's more, I heard that when he did there was a reshuffling of editors and publishers, not to mention a few heads rolling. Mostly, though it was kept quiet, and that may not have been the correct thing to do politically.Um. Here's the BS flag flying full and proud. In the 96 election, not only did he defend them, he also admitted writing them. It was his democratic challenger who brought them up and forced him to explain them.
When he rejoined the Republican party, he admitted knowing about them but then changed his story and said that they were ghost-written.
Then when they came up a third time in 08, he said he didn't know about them. Three different stories about the same thing. Sorry, but I'm calling him a liar as well.
Interesting, thats the first time I've heard Dr. Paul called a liar. Are we certain he was talking about the same articles?
Now, of course, there were several laws that insisted that "Separate, but Equal" was the way to go, but as any student of logic will tell you, "Separate is inherently inequal."
This is off-topic, but I just wanted to point out that our country is so scared of "Separate, but ...", that we outlaw situations that would be "Separate, but Superior". Studies have shown that girls and boys both do better on average in Mathematics classes when they are in single-gender classes. Yet, it is usually illegal for a public school to offer single-gender classes, even as an option beside mixed-gender classes.
|
|
Now, of course, there were several laws that insisted that "Separate, but Equal" was the way to go, but as any student of logic will tell you, "Separate is inherently inequal."This is off-topic, but I just wanted to point out that our country is so scared of "Separate, but ...", that we outlaw situations that would be "Separate, but Superior". Studies have shown that girls and boys both do better on average in Mathematics classes when they are in single-gender classes. Yet, it is usually illegal for a public school to offer single-gender classes, even as an option beside mixed-gender classes.
Shhhhhhhhhh!!!!! You can't say that. The CIA are watching.
Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb here (and probably be labeled a racist) and say I also oppose the Civil Rights Act. I think it is an attempt on the part of the federal government to force people how to think. And I don't think the government should be permitted to do that, it reaks of the legislation of morality, thought-policing, and that frightens me.
I'm not going to label you racist. I will agree that you are naive, as you suggest. The Civil Rights Act does not force people how to think. It legislates behavior not thought. You can still legally be a racist, there are certain areas in the public sphere where you are not allowed to act on it.
Racial issues are a social matter, (unless I too am naive about racial matters), and best resolved in the social sphere, not in the political one. So, I would disagree with any law that says "Such and such shall not discriminate against such and such." Primarily because discrimination is a thought or belief system, not a behavior, and there is no way to determine whether certain actions are based on discrimination. (We can assume, hope, or believe that certain actions are based on discrimination, but we cannot legally know.)
And this is where you get to the naive part. The only reason you think you can't know that actions are based on discrimination is because it is now illegal and therefore people and businesses try to hide it. Before these laws it was blatant: What other interpretation can "No blacks, no dogs, no Irish" have? Segregated schools, restaurants, busses, etc.
Also, it doesn't matter why you discriminate. In much of the Jim Crow South, it actually made economic sense to discriminate. Since blacks were poorer than whites, and many whites were racist, if you treated blacks equally you would lose the racist business and gain little. The Civil Rights Act applied whether you discriminated because you hated blacks or because you thought it made economic sense.(The same goes for hate speech, actually. We can assume, hope, or believe that certain speech are based on hatred, but we cannot legally know.)
When we attempt to legislate philosophical possibilities, we run into problems. Only actions can be legislated, not beliefs.
Now, it may be possible (and indeed more welcome) for social environments to be legislated in a different manner without relying on thoughts or perceptions. "Businesses shall treat all persons equally." would be significantly better than "Businesses shall not discriminate." As at least in the one legislation, actions are specifically limited to certain behaviors. Now, of course, there were several laws that insisted that "Separate, but Equal" was the way to go, but as any student of logic will tell you, "Separate is inherently inequal."
Of course, "Businesses shall treat all persons equally." may not be feasible for economic reasons. Would a coal manufacturing plant be more likely to sell coal to an industry that will purchase more coal later or to a woman that comes in off the street. (for example). If the business can make more money...
But isn't that essentially what the Civil Rights Act did? It doesn't say, "You must be nice to black people". It says "prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin." (That's actually paraphrased and based on one part of a long complex law, but that seems to me to be the gist)
Isn't that what you want? What is the difference between "shall treat all persons equally" and "shall not discriminate"?|
|
I am not the best thinker, sometimes, though I try.
It feels to me, like discrimination is a certain thought-based behavior, while treating people equally is just a behavior without any type of thought behind it (at least no specific philosophical thought).
I mean, treating people equally seems to be what Ron Paul has consistently said we should do.
I'm gonna have to tag team someone else for a response, I'm brain-numb at the moment.
I will remark on the "No blacks, no dogs, no Irish." statement though. I wonder how many businesses placed these signs at the insistence of their customers? (obviously not the blacks and Irish). I can see how a business would not want to lose a loyal customer base if the customers are the ones that have racial superiority complexes, rather than the management.
So, in certain instances, if I change my belief about the word "discrimination" which does not indicate mental seperation of racial (or other social types), and is in fact a behavior.
Discrimination shall be defined as a different treatment of someone based on race, gender, ethnicity, etc. Then I can see certain instances where discrimination might be a good thing.
Is racial profiling a type of discrimination? But what if it is more effective in matters of security or economic empowerment. There are cultural differences between different ethnicities that allow for different behaviors in social environments. Understanding these different behaviors and being able to respond to them is not (I hope) discrimination. But based on the new understanding of discrimination, perhaps it is.
Stardust I think you are confusing discrimination with prejudice. I believe, and I could be wrong, that discrimination is tied with action while prejudice might or might not be.
|
|
Perhaps a live example would be more effective in getting my point or question across.
I work in a retail establishment where a number of Afghani and Pakistani Americans shop pretty regularly. I had no problem with this originally, but over time, I began to notice certain behaviors and social mentalities that rather irked me. I also began to feel a certain amount of negativity from them over time. I am willing (eager in fact) to mark this up to cultural differences, but I still feel intimidated and a little frightened when I see them. Have I become, albeit unwillingly, a racist? And what should I do to reverse this trend?
|
|
I am not the best thinker, sometimes, though I try.
It feels to me, like discrimination is a certain thought-based behavior, while treating people equally is just a behavior without any type of thought behind it (at least no specific philosophical thought).
I mean, treating people equally seems to be what Ron Paul has consistently said we should do.
I'm gonna have to tag team someone else for a response, I'm brain-numb at the moment.
You also have to consider possible differences between common and legal uses of words.
As for Ron Paul, while he may consistently say we should treat people equally, he also has consistently argued/voted that the federal government should not enforce that in any circumstances, except possibly it's own behavior.
You can argue that such a position is Constitutionally sound, it's also clearly harmful to minorities, since historically states have been willing to abuse them. Without federal intervention, Jim Crow laws would have lasted much longer. Many states still have laws banning abortion on the books, which would come back into effect if Roe vs Wade is reversed.
I don't have a problem with that. My mother remembers a time when women had to go to different states to get abortions. Its very similar (although larger in effect) to when people go to different counties to purchase liquor. Or when young people go to Mexico or Canada to drink alcohol. Or when individuals might go to different states for prostitutes or pornography. I'm not saying that any of these behaviors are bad, by the way. I believe in the freedom of exchange, but I also believe in the rights of States to legislate what types of exchanges are permitted in their States due to the social desires of their constituents.
It is far easier for me to be politically active in a state or local government, though, than to constantly harass Washington for social and political changes. Interstate political groups would also be able to move from state to state and petition for changes.
|
|
Perhaps a live example would be more effective in getting my point or question across.
I work in a retail establishment where a number of Afghani and Pakistani Americans shop pretty regularly. I had no problem with this originally, but over time, I began to notice certain behaviors and social mentalities that rather irked me. I also began to feel a certain amount of negativity from them over time. I am willing (eager in fact) to mark this up to cultural differences, but I still feel intimidated and a little frightened when I see them. Have I become, albeit unwillingly, a racist? And what should I do to reverse this trend?
Little bit, yeah, maybe, but as you're human, you can't avoid that. If you're not actually treating these customers worse because of their ethnicity, I don't see a problem. That's kind of Moredrel's point, too. The law doesn't care if you're a bit weirded out, it cares when you act on tha by charing more/not providing srevices because of their ehnicity.
EDIT: This response is brought to you from the UK where a lot of what's being discussed is not relevant.