Ron Paul: Racist? Liar? Or Both? Please discuss., page 3

He doesn’t want to go back to the Jim Crow laws and he couldn’t if he did. There are unfair practices still in place that need fixing. There should not be a single mention of race or sex in a system of blind justice. That should be a libertarian, republican, and democrat philosophy. He’s against affirmative action, so should anyone who seeks a racially unbiased environment, it creates resentment among people prone to racism and lets face it, it‘s not fair. Make a “whites only” or “blacks only” store, have fun barely paying the bills, if you can at all.

If you look at everything that he’s done in a government position, and everything we know that he has said and written, nothing points to racism. The only thing that does, are newsletters that had “several” contributors that he called “small-minded”.

If you read and listen to what he has to say on the subject, it is not racist and it is his opinion as it relates to politics. Just go there and read what he is trying to stand for and promote in a official capacity. It’s not possible to be as smart as he is and racist at the same time, it’s just too “small minded”

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than 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.

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 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. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.
www.ronpaul2008.com...

reply to post by Areal51

---

I figured you would probably offer some sort of rebuttal to my above post. Have we a concession that Dr. Paul is not racist? Should the debate continue, or has it been decided?

I waited, but it's been a couple of days and no response, so... if there's still something to discuss, then let's discuss it.

If not, then answer your own question. Racist? Liar? Both? Neither? <-- Should have added the fourth choice in the OP - if you were only asking and not accusing, that is.

I don't think I need to restate my position.

reply to post by captainplanet

---

I didn't say or imply that Ron Paul wants to return to the Jim Crow days. What I said was that civil rights laws were enacted to override previously existing laws which did, in fact, discriminate on the grounds of race and sex. Then there was the matter of institutionalized racism and discrimination, the Civil Rights Acts addressed that as well. The Civil Rights Acts are not about Black people, they are not about White people, they are not about women, they are about EVERYBODY. ALL PERSONS. The Acts reaffirm Constitutional rights. They do not take them away. They are not intended to provide leeway to favoritism. The US Constitution is what was used to pass each and every Civil Rights Act. So the talk that the Civil Rights Acts are unconstitutional is false, since every act had to be passed either by Congress and/or upheld by the Supreme Court on Constitutional grounds. Every act doesn't necessarily have to face the Supreme Court, sometimes Congress understands the Constitution very well. The Civil Rights Acts ensures that no state in the nation will be able to enact legislation that would discriminate on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, ethnicity, and religious preference. So bearing this in mind, the history of the US, and the actions of men who have greatly influenced its course, it should be clear the necessity for the existence of laws that reaffirms and continues to protect individual liberty on Constitutional grounds. It should be clear that the Constitution needs to be buttressed with new laws as the US continually undergoes change.

reply to post by The Axeman

---

Axeman, my reply to captainplanet is for you as well. So is what follows.

The Civil Rights Acts are mainly misunderstood by many because of the catalysts that led to the enactment of those laws. Many folks when they hear the term "civil rights", they think "Black people" or "minorities". Which is not the best way to perceive the question of civil rights. The best way is to think on the question of civil rights is "all people". That's because every Civil Right Act, those laws, refers to all people regardless of the catalysts that led to their being enacted. And, so, for those whom the law previously favored it was NOT punishment when new laws were passed; the new laws applied to everybody. Unlike the impression that you and others have, any of the Civil Rights Acts that are in force do not cater solely to any one group of people. You are flat out wrong in that assessment. And it would be to your benefit to gain a full understanding the Civil Rights Acts.

Affirmative action and the Civil Rights Acts are NOT the same thing. That is the next thing that needs to be understood. The Civil Rights Acts have been, however, used to justify affirmative action. Because the Civil Rights Acts exist they serve as evidence and proof of previously existing racist and other types of discriminatory laws, practices and institutions; from top to bottom, through and through our nation, it existed. And so the question of how to open up avenues previously closed to those who were discriminated against was asked. Affirmative action was the answer because it provided access today. That is to say, immediately. It wasn't policy that would defer on a promise of access tomorrow. It was for all minorities, not just Blacks, but it was to be beneficial for all people. At any rate, Blacks were systematically excluded from society. Therefore, the reasonable thing to do was to systematically re-introduce them to society. To simply wipe the books of old and unfair legislation would not have been enough because the damage to the psyches of all persons concerned, and the fabric and infrastructure of our country was done. The need for Blacks to begin working again, to become property owners again, to become voters again, to have access to social services, healthcare, insurance, legal services and the courts again was critical! And the need had to be addressed promptly. Affirmative action accomplished that.

Though affirmative action is seen as punishment by some, it is not. Why would it be? Affirmative action is not synonymous with "Since you hated on Blacks and other minorities for so long, your punishment is that you now have to work alongside them, work with them, educate them, learn with them, be educated by them, earn with them, live with them, care for them, be cared by them, defend them and have them defend you. That's your penance, to suffer with them and for them for all the rest of your days." That is only how some have interpreted affirmative action. It's also been interpreted as legalized favoritism, which is also false. And those inculcated attitudes and sentiments is the direct result of slavery, legalized and institutionalized racism and discrimination that preceded the Civil Rights Acts and affirmative action. White America hates carrying the burden of guilt that its ancestors have bestowed upon it. They hate it so much that the very laws and policies that were designed to correct previous transgressions against Blacks and other minorities are both an eyesore and thorn in the side reminding them of the part of their history that was not so stellar. They would prefer to bypass the guilt and contrition part of the process if at all possible. Regardless of this, affirmative action is about correction, not compensation, and definitely not punishment.

You talk about demographics. How about the demographic of the freed slaves and their descendants? Without the Civil Rights Acts and affirmative action, what would have prompted government, the legal industry, the banking industry, the insurance industry, the healthcare industry, the real estate industry, business and education to provide access to Blacks? How would freed slaves and their descendants have built and contributed anything. They didn't even get the 40 acres and mule that they were at one time promised.

[continued in following post]

reply to post by The Axeman

---

To me, the question of Ron Paul is honesty and prudence. Whether he is a racist or not hinges on whether he is being honest or not. His lack of prudence is clear. He has admitted to being publisher of the newsletters in question. He has also admitted to being busy with other things that supposedly prevented him from exercising any editorial oversight over the newsletters. That's a major failure of prudence, in my opinion.

To me, the whole thing plays out like plausible deniability. But I've covered that already. He's not obligated to divulge names, you're right about that. Maybe he's protecting old friends, I can respect that. Maybe he really didn't write the ariticles. But for all he has said in his defense, it misses the mark of believability for me.

reply to post by Areal51

---

It can undergo change. He's not fighting to undo civil rights progress, he wants to take it to the next level.

About Ron Paul and the Civil Rights Act, he was voting against HR.676 when he talked about it, which was a national health care system, on the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act.

Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

www.lewrockwell.com...

They were trying to present HR.676 as a Civil Rights issue, like affirmative action.

I can’t make you believe his intentions are good, but he always explains himself when questioned and he seems genuine in words and actions to me.

He did bring up a good point about being the only one to speak out against the disproportionate number of black people in the criminal justice system and in the war on drugs, and he has more support from black voters then his competition. He didn't just make that stuff up for CNN, he's been talking about it for years.

The RealClearPolitics Insider Advantage Poll from early October also indicated that Dr. Paul was the leading Republican candidate among Black voters in key primary state, New Hampshire.

“Dr. Paul is the candidate who brings Americans together,” said Paul campaign manager Lew Moore. “His unifying message of freedom, peace, and prosperity is drawing supporters of all backgrounds back into the Republican party.”

www.ronpaul2008.com...

Individual liberty is not contradictory to the views of black voters in NH. I think it’s really down to whether or not you believe him now, because he promotes the ultimate in equality.

reply to post by captainplanet

---

Ron Paul says many good and important things. I certainly agree with him on the issue of the disproportionate number of Blacks in the criminal justice system. And it is notable that he says, "I would pardon all Blacks, all Whites, everybody who is convicted for non-violent drug acts and drug crimes." That is quite notable, indeed. He issues it in rhetorical form, as a question of what other candidates would say or do, but it's notable that he would even say that given how profitable drug crime is. If he were elected President and did actually hold his promise and issue those pardons, then that really would be something.

I disagree with Ron Paul on the issue of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is true that some companies were forced by a judge's orders to initiate quotas in their hiring process. However, it is not true that each and every corporation in the land is subject to having implement quotas in their hiring process. That's rhetorical hogwash. It's spin, blurring the distinction between the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and affirmative action, and quotas. Ron Paul and other opponents of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and affirmative action and quotas use that tactic all the time.

Quotas are illegal in the United States, except on rare occasions when judges order them to correct blatant discrimation [sic]. Affirmative action works by setting flexible goals -- which are based on the percentage of qualified minorities and women in the region. A company that searches in good faith but fails to find qualified minorities or women is not penalized for their failure.

Affirmative action is not a quota system, which would be illegal in the United States. The only exception is when a judge orders a quota on a company that has been found guilty of extreme or blatant discrimination in employment.

Source

Affirmative Action Plans are based upon actual percentages of how many employees are underrepresented minorities, women, and people with disabilities a company currently employs. There are no separate race or sex based plans because race and sex are combined within a plan.

There are no quotas in any plans unless they are court ordered which is very rare. A court order would only create a quota if there is indisputable evidence that the employer intended to discriminate or has shown a pattern if discrimination over a period of years. Since nationally there is a lack of qualified employees, it is imperative that employers take those affirmative actions to create an applicant pool. Who the eventual selection is is still up to the hiring official and yes they can select white males if there are minority candidates who are less qualified.

Source

In the passage you quoted Ron Paul says, "Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife." That's his opinion. My opinion is that he is addressing the guilt that White Americans experience that's associated with historical racism and discrimination in America. He's also making civil rights laws and affirmative action Black only subjects when they are not. What about women, for example? They are beneficiaries of civil rights laws and affirmative action as well. So that's more rhetoric on the part of Ron Paul. White Americans knowing that they are being forced to undertake measures that correct those past injustices don't feel very good about it. But some don't blink an eye about it. They think that it's the right thing to do. Some are glad that such laws and policies exist because they realize that they, too, are the beneficiaries of civil rights laws and affirmative action policies that only seem on the surface to exclude them.

If Ron Paul thinks that the hiring of qualified Black people doesn't encourage or contribute to racial harmony, then he must be blind and in denial. He makes the distinction based on "racial quotas", but if a company has hired the right person for the job, and that person performs well, then where does the dissension come from? Probably, other White employees who realize that there are Black Americans that can do the job as well they do, and do it better. White Americans who lose out on promotions to a Black Americans. Thinking ignorantly that "racial quotas" have something to do with it. The realization that being White isn't everything, no more White privilege, and that being Black doesn't really matter when the company is laying it on the line and chooses the absolute best men and women available to see things through. The dissension probably comes from some or all of that. Other scenarios exist, for sure, but the bottom line is that it is weak rhetoric and a weak argument to blame laws and policy that are designed to benefit all persons, that helps to correct past egregious laws, policies, practices, and mistakes. There are plenty of other reasons, legitimate reasons, to address the problems that Ron Paul cites, in the quote that you used. He should look into those. First place he should look is into the hearts and minds of men and women.







[edit on 12-1-2008 by Areal51]

reply to post by Areal51

---

I can deal with a difference of opinion, but quotas do exists and I think they are wrong, if well intended. It doesn’t allow employers to judge anything but what’s on paper, and if that’s all that matters then why do they even have interviews? You can’t prove whether your discriminating on character or competence or something wrong, so you say someone under a quota can hire a more qualified person that doesn’t fit their quota requirements but it’s not true. If an employer is cited for having bias based on race, sex, or belief I would rather see him be sued for discrimination and/or lose his job then make them hire a certain amount of a certain group of people.

That’s why it’s about individual liberty, you could accomplish the same goals without putting people in groups through better implementing the idea of individual rights. You can’t force policies involving race, sex, or beliefs on companies if you want a color-blind, sex-blind, or belief-blind society.

Affirmative action isn’t exactly at the top of his hit list either, so I wouldn’t spend to much energy worrying about it. It probably wont go anywhere, but someday it will have to if we want to end the group mentality.

If he were elected President and did actually hold his promise and issue those pardons, then that really would be something.

He would do great things for this country and civil rights if he were elected.

[edit]
cited, not sighted

[edit on 12-1-2008 by captainplanet]

Originally posted by spacedoubt
If YOU, as an ATS member accidentally left yourself logged in, and another person started posting racially tainted garbage all over the boards under your name, would it be correct to assume that YOU were a racist?

Space, I strongly disagree with your scenario as being comparable.

What you suggest is something posted as a one time thing, a left
open browser and somebody says stuff you don't agree with. I do believe
that would be possible. But the point is this:

These sentiments and beliefs were expelled through the newsletters
over a period of 10 years (1986-1996). Somebody hijacking his
newsletter for that long period of time without somebody being
fired or brought charges upon for forging his name to the newsletters
is quite jovial. It's the time aspect of the newsletter hijacking I have
a problem with. If RP has a newsletter for over 10 years and continually
post those types of comments over the entire period (which is what
happened in this case) then it is safe to say that RP DID approve of
what was said and did nothing about it.

The "did nothing about it" part is what I got a problem with.
So in summary, how can somebody hijack his newsletters
for 10 years without his knowledge is purely preposterous
and that makes RP a liar when he claims he didn't knew about it.

So now, not only has RP shown he is a racist but a liar as well.
And that is just what I'm getting from Washington right now
with our current administration.

So I don't think change is possible if I'm already hearing lies
now and the new kid on the block who wants to be in Washington
is doing the same thing Washington is doing already.

As his own signature on the newsletters is perfect proof he was responsible
for it's content.




Just my opinion

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Where is the original document?
the Actual newsletter?
I've been looking for an original source..Can't seem to find it.

Excerpts from Ron Paul Newsletters

Bill which would require drug testing welfare recipients pulled after amended to include legislators
  Posted 14 days ago with 35 member flags

Russian cops mistake nationalist rally for gay pride parade
  Posted 19 days ago with 4 member flags

Republicans in Arizona plan to nearly wipe out public unions
  Posted 11 days ago with 4 member flags

Tennessee threatens suit against man building boat with his son.
  Posted 2 days ago with 4 member flags

LA County OKs $1,000 Fine For Throwing Football, Frisbee On Beaches
  Posted 2 days ago with 2 member flags

The CULT of Ron Paul
  Posted 15 days ago with 1 member flags

Brave David Cameron tells the Euro-Globalists where to get off YET AGAIN!!!
  Posted 12 days ago with 1 member flags

Rwanda deports Canadian Double-Parking Suspect
  Posted 18 days ago with 0 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: