Ron Paul: Is He a Racist?

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Neo doesn't appear to understand this, I wonder if you're capable of understanding my point?

Are you capable of understanding when someone respects your opinion and beliefs?

I respect your right to hold a belief and speak that belief. But I won't necessarly respect your belief. If you agree with the idea that states have the right to legalize racial segregation laws and anti-interracial marriage laws, you'll get no respect from me. None.

If that is where you stand TOA, to me you're just another supporter of fascism, regardless of whether it's at the state level or the federal level.

Originally posted by neo96
at least i understand when you start making posters the topic of the thread

you have no arguement and last time i checked is paul a racist is the topic not posters.

Oh I believe this links directly with whether Ron Paul is a racist or not, and that includes his supporters. Whether they support the right of states to implement racial laws or not, I believe it's very relevant.

NM. You're not worth it.

/TOA

reply to post by Southern Guardian


whats relevant is acting like the government pushing your own morality onto others.

that is the essence of fascism to control the thoughts and beleiefs of others and trampling them out til they no longer exist.

stop for one second to actually listen to what others have been saying instead of forcing an agenda down their throats because you know whats best and they dont.

make a really good politican there.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Actually, I think you are refusing to look at the long held stance Dr Paul has had

Culturally, the American people are not racist. The few who are are irrelevant because racists are generally ostracized by civil society. What is true is that despite whatever laws the government wants to pass or has passed, American apartheid is still very much alive in the United States. Black and other minority groups remain spatially and geographically isolated and, as most sociologists would agree, hyper-segregated from the rest of US society. Hyper-segregation is a term to describe how black and minority groups are segregated -- not just spatially, but culturally, economically, politically, and socially -- from the dominant society. And don't forget, that it's the American government that created laws that segregated and discriminated against people and what Ron Paul understands is that their laws to end their mistakes did not curtail the problem. It was the American people, not the beloved nation state that ended segregation. It wasn't casting votes that ended it, it was the will of black, white and women revolutionaries that took to the streets and demanded government end their racists and discriminatory ways. It was the people that ended it. Not the government.
Ron Paul gets this and so other critical thinkers like Chomsky and Zinn, et al. They, Chomsky, Paul, et al, advocate the end of government interference, whether it's creating racist laws or laws to ameliorate racist laws, because the American people can handle it from here. The government can go home.

Whatever you think about Ron Paul
So very consistant with personal liberties.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

You are so missing the point, Dr Paul is on the national stage, he is speaking from the prospective of the federal government and as such it is a states rights issue from his point of view. That in no way suggests in any manner that he supports such horrible ideas. Now if you look at state constitutions there is no right granted to the state to discriminate, what is granted is the power to protect the individual rights, again of life, liberty and property. You are so blinded by the idea that the STATE knows best that you are more then willing to give up your rights.

Originally posted by BubbaJoe

Originally posted by The Old American

BTW: I will admit that this does show that Dr. Paul could be guilty of trust, I suppose. What a horrible thing to be guilty of.

/TOA

edit on 11-6-2011 by The Old American because: (no reason given)

While I am not quick to label anyone a racist, we all have our personal likes and dislikes, and there is all sorts and levels of "ism's". Dr. Paul did allow these newsletters to be published under his name, by close associates. I have to assume, because I do not have the facts in front of me, that he read them, and allowed them to be published. So therefore, at the very least, he is not only guilty of trust, but guilty at the very least by association, and if he truly allowed them to be published under his name, after review, then he is guilty as charged.

I supported Obama in 2008, I am sorely disappointed in his performance to date, however, there is no one who has announced their candidacy on the Republican side of the ticket, that I feel represents any sort of mainstream electability. Ron Paul has some great ideas, but I do not believe him to be electable.

edit on 6/11/2011 by BubbaJoe because: fixed a spelling errot

So just curious does this mean you will not vote for him? And if not then why not, and would you vote for crooked politician #1 or crooked politician # 2 instead?

reply to post by NuroSlam


I've posted just about the same views as that fella (good article, BTW...thanks). The people and communities will self-regulate and self-govern. But people on the left, as well as the right, as evidenced by ample history, don't believe that people are smart enough to govern themselves even a little bit. Among other fascist ideals, government exists to regulate behavior in their eyes.

Perform an experiment: put an ant and a drop of honey in a petri dish. Your goal is to get the ant to the honey. Is your intervention required for this? No, it's not. The ant will make all haste to the honey. And it's an ant! With a few exceptions (I'mgoingtobeniceI'mgoingtobenice ) an ant is several orders of magnitude less in intelligence than a human.

Now, put a person in a business district. All stores are the same chain selling the same items. The only difference is the people running them are individuals doing as they see fit. Tell the potential customer to keep going to different stores until they are pleased with everything about that store and willing to buy something there. Store one has items outrageously priced. The person leaves. At the next store the owner says, "I don't serve your kind here!" The person leaves. The third store is reasonably priced and the person is treated with respect and dignity. Sold!

The real world will work like this if given a chance. But agendas get in the way and the Fascist government won't let that happen because individuals couldn't possibly be able to make decisions for themselves without government help.

/TOA

reply to post by NuroSlam


Nuro, I don't know where Ron Paul stands on the matter of states rights when it comes to racial segregation and anti-interracial marriage laws. He's just simply never commented on it, rather he's stuck to advocating against requiring private businesses to accept and tolerate all. I've stated this in my previous posts, that I don't know where Ron Paul stands on the issue, and there is no evidence that he has made a comment for or against the rights of states to decide on that matter specifically.

I loved that link you posted, very well said, but the writer of that blog is not Ron Paul. The writer assumes this is where Ron Paul stands, we don't know. You believe that in this day age nobody in their right mind would support the rights of states for implementing such laws, but libertarians leave room wide open for states to just such things.

During the 60's many libertarians, particularly those under the Republican party, who advocated against the civil rights bill not merely because of the property rights issue, but because they believed that the issue of racial segregation and other racial laws weres state issues. They had absolutely no issue with states continuing their oppresives law on american citizens on the basis of race, they had absolutely no issue with it. Ron Paul, well I don't know where he stands, but there are some things that the state should not be left to decide, neither should the federal government. Some rights must be preserved universally, no state or federal government should decide over it. That includes the right of americans citizens to be treated together, equally, under the constitution, regardless of race.

Originally posted by NuroSlam
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

You are so missing the point, Dr Paul is on the national stage, he is speaking from the prospective of the federal government and as such it is a states rights issue from his point of view. That in no way suggests in any manner that he supports such horrible ideas.

Whether Ron Paul believes racial segregation is "horrible" or not is irrelevant to me, he loses the argument in my opinion the minute he decides to insist to the rest of us that those laws are legitimate nevertheless. When somebody says that racial segregation should be a states issue, (but they believe it's a horrible idea nevertheless), they are saying to the rest of us that states have the right to pass such laws and the right to enforce them over american citizens. Now I find it rather hypocritical for people to insist that they in no way support such laws, but they support the rights of states to establish such laws. Either you are against states being allowed to establish such laws or not, there's not middle ground on the issue.

In my view, states do not have the right to establish racial segregation, anti-interracial marriage laws and other racial discrimminatory laws within their borders. The constitution protects our rights and liberty as american citizens, not by race. Do you disagree with me on this comment?

Now if you look at state constitutions there is no right granted to the state to discriminate, what is granted is the power to protect the individual rights,

Have you seen the state constitution of Alabama?

You are so blinded by the idea that the STATE knows best that you are more then willing to give up your rights.

When did I say the state knows what's best for me? Strawman? I don't believe the STATE knows more what's best for me than the federal government does. I'm more concerned about actions.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

as opposed to fascism on the federal level.

dont like a state we can move unlike fascism on the federal level and were all screwed.

You can also move to another country if you don't like federal facism, using your own logic. So why should the state (who is funded by the taxpayer), have the right to infringe upon the rights of the taxpayer?

reply to post by technical difficulties


why should the government have the right to infringe upon the rights of the taxpayer?

its a whole lost easier to move to another state than leave this country

too many people have missed the point you cant stop federal fascism and the case as well you cant stop state fascism.

sure you can whine about it but it wont change anything.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


If, he has stated for 30 years on the national stage the individuals rights are supremo why do YOU think it would be different at the state or local level?

Originally posted by NuroSlam
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

If, he has stated for 30 years on the national stage the individuals rights are supremo why do YOU think it would be different at the state or local level?

Because Ron Paul, according to many others here, believes that the issue of marriage and segregation are states issues. So if texas was to implement a segregation law, Ron Paul would, according to some members here, support that states right. So how do you respond to this? Ron Paul talks about individual liberty, but he'd support the right of the Texan government (for example) to create a new law segregating american citizens by race. Hypocritical, right?

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by NuroSlam
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

If, he has stated for 30 years on the national stage the individuals rights are supremo why do YOU think it would be different at the state or local level?

Because Ron Paul, according to many others here, believes that the issue of marriage and segregation are states issues. So if texas was to implement a segregation law, Ron Paul would, according to some members here, support that states right. So how do you respond to this? Ron Paul talks about individual liberty, but he'd support the right of the Texan government (for example) to create a new law segregating american citizens by race. Hypocritical, right?

edit on 13-6-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)

according to others, why not according to Ron Paul. Do I really need to remind you what opinions are like?

Dr. Paul is attempting to work within the framework of the Constitution, and as such, there is no enumerated power granted to the Federal Government to interfere in the lives of the citizens as long as the actions of the citizens do not infringe on others. As such, as per the Constitution it becomes a States issue. That in no way shows any type of endorsement of these actions.

He is working to wake up the "American" people, and I say that loosely, due to the fact that, in the end, every person on earth has the right to, here it comes, once again, Life, Liberty and Property. By showing the people on the national stage the inherent danger, the greed, and the illegitimacy of the fictious notion of of the "STATE", once the tyranny of the Federal Government is brought to its knees, then it is up to the people of each State to do the same.

30 years of writings and congressional voting proves this is the case, that it is the individual rights of, oh no, once again, Life Liberty and Property that are sacrosanct. You refuse to even acknowledge this. Your only purpose it seems is to attack his ideas on a Federal level as if he's playing lip service to the idea of real and honest individual liberty and freedom. I'm sorry, but he, much like Harry Browne have been fighting this war with statists for decades. This is not about what the States may or may not do, its about stopping the Federal Government from doing what its doing. Once the Federal Government is stopped, the States trampling of individual rights will crumble under the weight of the free man.

Originally posted by NuroSlam
according to others, why not according to Ron Paul. Do I really need to remind you what opinions are like?

We don't know where Ron Paul would stand on this issue. Members here have stated what they believe or suspect where Ron Paul stands on the matter, but there are no references from Ron Paul himself.

Ron Paul believes marriage is a matter of the state. What about interracial marriage? If interracial marriage was made illegal, would Ron Paul naturally support that states right to enforce such a law over it's citizens? Ron Paul talks about "states rights", but leaves no limitations to those "rights" of states. Are you to suggest that Ron Paul would not believe that states are within their rights to pass such laws?

Dr. Paul is attempting to work within the framework of the Constitution,

Barry Goldwater, another libertarian, believed that states were well within their constitutional rights to enforce racial segregation laws.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by NuroSlam
according to others, why not according to Ron Paul. Do I really need to remind you what opinions are like?

We don't know where Ron Paul would stand on this issue. Members here have stated what they believe or suspect where Ron Paul stands on the matter, but there are no references from Ron Paul himself.

Without a doubt I know where he stands, he stands for the INDIVIDUALS RIGHT TO LIFE LIBERTY AND PROPERTY

Ron Paul believes marriage is a matter of the state. What about interracial marriage? If interracial marriage was made illegal, would Ron Paul naturally support that states right to enforce such a law over it's citizens? Ron Paul talks about "states rights", but leaves no limitations to those "rights" of states. Are you to suggest that Ron Paul would not believe that states are within their rights to pass such laws?

Dr. Paul is attempting to work within the framework of the Constitution,

As I am not a libertarian nor is Dr Paul, its a non issue what Goldwater thought,

Barry Goldwater, another libertarian, believed that states were well within their constitutional rights to enforce racial segregation laws.

Since you simply refuse to acknowledge the fact that for 30 PLUS YEARS Dr. Paul has on every single issue sided with INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, continue to support the STATE, and since you support the STATE you are an enemy of the INDIVIDUAL.

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by BubbaJoe

Originally posted by The Old American

BTW: I will admit that this does show that Dr. Paul could be guilty of trust, I suppose. What a horrible thing to be guilty of.

/TOA

edit on 11-6-2011 by The Old American because: (no reason given)

While I am not quick to label anyone a racist, we all have our personal likes and dislikes, and there is all sorts and levels of "ism's". Dr. Paul did allow these newsletters to be published under his name, by close associates. I have to assume, because I do not have the facts in front of me, that he read them, and allowed them to be published. So therefore, at the very least, he is not only guilty of trust, but guilty at the very least by association, and if he truly allowed them to be published under his name, after review, then he is guilty as charged.

I supported Obama in 2008, I am sorely disappointed in his performance to date, however, there is no one who has announced their candidacy on the Republican side of the ticket, that I feel represents any sort of mainstream electability. Ron Paul has some great ideas, but I do not believe him to be electable.

edit on 6/11/2011 by BubbaJoe because: fixed a spelling errot

So just curious does this mean you will not vote for him? And if not then why not, and would you vote for crooked politician #1 or crooked politician # 2 instead?

I honestly don't know, I do not have to make that decision until November of 2012, if he even gets the republican nomination. If he does, this gives me months to research and decide who I think will turn the nation around. Unfortunately, Dr. Paul is a career politician, so it starts out with a bad taste in my mouth. On the good side, he is a career politician, lots of history for me to research and make a decision.

Ron Paul: Is He a Racist?

naw just irrelevant.

he is so loved by some of you people, it makes me puke.


rasist? why not, it don't matter, like him.

Originally posted by fooks
Ron Paul: Is He a Racist?

naw just irrelevant.

he is so loved by some of you people, it makes me puke.


rasist? why not, it don't matter, like him.

I agree, personal freedom and liberty are irrelevant.