Ron Paul: Is He a Racist?

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by BubbaJoe

 

So, you are blaming Texas, for what your state is teaching your kids.
And the federal government allows this?
How absurd.

Actually, yes. California and Texas more or less set what the publishers put in textbooks. Both states have textbook approval boards (which are unelected, by the by) who decide which textbooks presented are and are not acceptable to include in the state's curriculum. Since these are very large markets, the publishers tend to just write what they think the Texan and Californian boards want to see in the books.

Check out James W. Loewen's "Lies My Teacher Told Me" for a pretty detailed analysis on how this system skews curriculum nationwide.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Thank you for the actual book name, I couldn't remember it.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

So Ron Paul is crazy....how so?

As for the textbooks, you missed my point. Texas was being blamed for an apparent lack of education in another state, but somehow we expect the federal government to come to the rescue.
Solve your problems locally, the federal government is a corporation. As wrong as any state has ever been, the federal government is MUCH worse.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by BubbaJoe

 

So, you are blaming Texas, for what your state is teaching your kids.
And the federal government allows this?
How absurd.

Actually, yes. California and Texas more or less set what the publishers put in textbooks. Both states have textbook approval boards (which are unelected, by the by) who decide which textbooks presented are and are not acceptable to include in the state's curriculum. Since these are very large markets, the publishers tend to just write what they think the Texan and Californian boards want to see in the books.

Check out James W. Loewen's "Lies My Teacher Told Me" for a pretty detailed analysis on how this system skews curriculum nationwide.

Fox is correct. Actually I think Texas books lead the nation in distribution and leadership of what content is included. And it's bad. There is a lot of revisionist ideas in there (my son is school-age, and his Social Studies textbook wasn't too bad, but it was skewed a bit in some ways). America hasn't always gotten it right, and that is just as much a part of our nation's history as the cool stuff. Glossing over slavery, omitting Andrew Jackson's Indian slaughter, and leaving out completely the fact that Thomas Jefferson owned over 600 slaves in his lifetime are cheapening the facts of history.

I'll put in a plug for the above mentioned book, too. It's worth everyone's time reading it.

/TOA

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by The Old American

 

Is Ron Paul racist?

I don't think so. As far as I can tell he's just a generic sort of crazy.

However, some of his sycophants most definitely are. Not that that's different from any other politician, of course.

His sycophants are what? Crazy or racist?

While I'm not a sycophant, I do believe he is our best shot at prosperity. I'm not a racist myself, but I know that he has a following of them. They somehow have an idea that his ideas parallel theirs, while his are actually humanist.

As for crazy? The voices say I'm not. I don't know about him. But it's a crazy I can deal with.

/TOA

reply to post by Stewie


Somehow show me, how the states can accomplish everything the fed has managed to accomplish over the last 150 years, can you imagine WWII or even WWI with only state militia's, lets not talk about interstate highways, if you have traveled this country at all, you know the state roads differ from state to state, and there are some I would just rather not drive through. Add to the fed, the Quasi government agencies, like the TVA, think about how many people they supply power too. Or imagine paperwork to travel from state to state, or tarriffs on goods from state to state, I live on the border of two states, and have lived in one, and worked in the other, several times in my life, imagine a border crossing everyday, twice a day. The fed serves a purpose, it is just our desire to limit it.

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

So Ron Paul is crazy....how so?

As has been covered elsewhere in the thread, he doesn't recognize the need for minority protections; what's more ludicrous is that he thinks "the market" (i.e., Invisible Hand Fairies) will sort everything out. He favors a blanket "smaller government" which, as with the vast majority of other conservatives, consists of eradicating all government responsibility to the welfare of its people. While he thumps his chest about "state's rights" he only does so in instances where the federal government is protecting a group that a particular state wants to strip rights from.

He has some admirable positions, but this does not make him any less of a libertarian demogogue.

As for the textbooks, you missed my point. Texas was being blamed for an apparent lack of education in another state, but somehow we expect the federal government to come to the rescue.
Solve your problems locally, the federal government is a corporation. As wrong as any state has ever been, the federal government is MUCH worse.

No it's not. The government is not a corporation (though a corporation is, and they are Mr. Paul's best friends) and the federal government is, generally speaking, not worse than state governments.

I don't care if he is.

you have the whole senate selling themselves out and you ask this question seriously op, you kidding me or yourself
have you ever once read the constitution and the bill of rights for the first time in any history of known history of man wow wake up america is not a dream and it is not given, cause the next item on the board is authortarian or totalitarian,. nothing like the constitution


but hey a constitution for the citizens might piss you off, and if it does go to cambodia, or half the world and then ask that question after a year
sure you will be happy to know that a bill of rights for the citizens of a country shall make you a arm chair recipient

Originally posted by The Old American
. It suggests, with evidence to back it up, that the racist articles were actually written by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard, two close friends of Dr. Paul (Rothbard died in 1995).

As the saying goes, birds of a feather flock together. Wasn't this also the case with Wright and Obama?

No, he's not a racist. Let's move on.

reply to post by The Old American


sigh. Only a matter of time I guess until the inevitable ad hominem attacks begin to attemp to discredit Ron Paul once again from the fraudulent election.

reply to post by The Old American


Just to back up the indisputable fact that Ron paul IS NOT A RACIST.. He was born in Pennsylvania and now leads Texas. Texas is %40 African American, %40 Hispanic American and the rest is labeled as mixed. Oh, I get it now.. He is the strongest candidate vs Obama and the race card is already being pulled? These are sad sad sad times to live in AMERICA!!

Originally posted by The Old American
Mayflies have a better memory. Here, I'll answer your question one more time:

"His "notion" is that there should not be any governmental enforcement of racial segregation of businesses because the people will self-govern, just like I said 6 posts up from yours. As far as marriage, it should be a state matter.

I am well aware of Ron Pauls position on private businesses in the civil rights act, that was not what I was addressing. I made it clear in my previous post, you obviously decided to ignore it. I am talking about discrimminatory laws in all settings.

The people will, again, self-govern. California put it up to a vote of the people. The people said no. They self-governed. Maybe if they vote again, they will vote yes.

Here Ill make it simple for you. Texas decided that they were going to impose law based on racial segregation and a law against interracial marriage. 51% of the population supported this measure. You agree that the Texas government is within constitutional grounds?

YES or NO? Pick either of the two, simple. You believe marriage and segregation are states issue, right, then it would be a YES to my question above wouldn't it?? Address hypothetical scenario I posed to you.

Ron Paul's entire stance on the Civil Rights Act was about businesses. His stance on marriage is that it should be a state issue.

So you believe that Ron Paul agrees that states could imploy laws against interracial marriages? YES or NO?

Simple. I am already well aware that the answer will be YES, but I want it to come from your post. YES or NO?

reply to post by The Old American


reply to post by The Old American


It is appauling how the word "racism" has rapidly evolved into an epithet that systematically ensures individuals and specific groups are censored from debating and discussing important social and political matters that directly or indirectly address the issue of race in American society. Democratic societies have historically depended upon the free exchange of compeating ideas. When a democracy ceases to allow the public to discuss important matters without fear of repurcussions, that particular society has been deprived of an essential aspect of its freedom (i.e. the ability of citizens to collectively determine the shape of their society and its future development). I realize that the issue of race, is controversial, however, I additionally realize that few political decisions of historical significance have occurred that were devoid of an extremely controversial issue.

Since the mid-twentieth century, the American society has dramatically altered its traditional beliefs about the significance that race plays within society. While our national intelligensia and media have praised and lauded the changes, many Americans are beginning that the legacy of the American Civil Rights movement has progressed far beyond the acquisition of equal economic opportunities for American Blacks. The legislative legacy of the American Civil Rights movement is dispossing the majority of Americans who are European descent of their ability to control and determine the future of the nation that their ancestors established and built.

In the 1960s, Whites (Americans of European origin) accounted for approximately slightly less than 90% of the populace. However, after the Johnson Administration passed the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1964 to bring American immigration policy in conformity with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 thus abolishing the quota system that had been maintained by the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 passed by the Eisenhower Administration nearly more than a decade earlier. This immigration policy of supporting non-European immigration from the Third World has resulted in millions of men and women who historically and culturally have no connection with either the United States or the traditions of Western Civilization to flood into our nation. Consequently, we shouldn't be suprised by the fact that White Americans are rapidly approaching a point where they will cease to be a demographic minority, and thus be dispossed of the ability to decide the future of the United States. It should be patently clear that growing amount of immigrants who are coming into the United States both legally and illegally are not adopting American culture and are forging their own cultural enclaves within the country.

White Americans have not mobolized en mass to politically combat the dispossession of their country by a growing myriad of non-Western ethnic groups, because they have been forced into a submissive state radical egalitarians (i.e. liberals) who use "racist" as an epithet to label heretical individuals due to the refussal to laud multiculturalism and diversity as cultural values (i.e. the ideological orthodoxy of cultural suicide) for merely insenuating that certain laws that are leading this great nation to disasterous consequences should be dramatically reformed and reconsidered.

While I do not support Ron Paul as a political candidate, I emphatically support his First Amendment right to disuss subjects that are ignorantly considered taboo by cultural philistines (i.e. liberals) and conservatives who have yet to free themselves of the shackles of political correctness. If you doubt that race is not an important issue, I beg you to listen to talk-radio; the amount of "double talk" that occurs in our society is astounding. The racial dimensions of contemporary problems are hidden underneath a complex lexicon of socially acceptable terms and words. I think that is high time that we had a open and honest discussion about race in the United States, I think that if the average person knew the depth of the discontent that many people have toward the current direction of American society it would absolutely 'blow their mind.'

In conclusion, who cares if Dr. Paul is a "rascist?" Dismissing someone's political views because they are brave enough to discuss race is absurd, irrational, and contrary to the cornerstone of democratic society - free speach. If he in fact has certain racialist views, he should be allowed to discuss those views openly, and let each member of the public decide for themselves whether they support or condemn those views on an individual basis.

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by laiguana
White southern men are naturally more inclined to be racist. It's just a common fact...
Ron Paul probably does harbor some of these sentiments, because some of them are true, but I wouldn't say that he's an out right racist.

Really? What a fascinating observation. Are you, perhaps, a white Southern man and thus personally afflicted? Or is this something you read on the innernets?

I, actually being a white Southern man, oddly aren't afflicted with that natural inclination for some reason. Maybe I have a mutant gene or something. I wonder if science can clone it and inoculate all of the other rednecks!

/TOA

I am a White Southerner, additionally, I have had the privilege of being educated at a top-tier university and graduate school. White Southerners, are not backwards, and they are not ignorant; if anything we are better informed about the realities of life in a multiracial nation than many people who live elsewhere in the United States. Consequently, because there are significant differences between members of various races that become quite pronounced when they are artificially forced to live in close proximity with one another, we have developed a consciousness and solidarity toward members of our own race that does not exist in the same degree in other parts of the country. Southerners are racial realist at heart. We more than any other segment of the American populace understand that all multicultural and ethnically diverse nations, are built on pillars of sand that will inevitably collapse in massive blood shed and collective misery for all, because Americans are naive to think that people with absolutely no cultural or historical ties with one another can look past the most definative aspects of an individual and group identity to function as a people with a commonly shared destiny.

The problem with the United States, is that we are a nation, but we are not a people. Ethnically homogenious societies such as Korea (where I currently reside) have a harmonious culture that is the exact opposite of the moral and demographic cess pool that the West is quickly becoming due to the prevailance of its own irrational and abstract ideals (radical egalitarianism). Why can't I obtain Korean citizenship? The answer, is simple, I'm not Korean, and I will never magically become Korean. Asians find our cultural sensativity about race to be absurd, no one in their right mind in South Korea, Japan, China, or Singapore is bemoaning the lack of cultural diversity and desire to import millions of unskilled foreigners from the third world into their country (with the notable exception of Westerners like myself who manage corporate operations in Southeast Asia for a certain financial institution). Southerners aren't going to proverbially follow the rest of lemmings off of the cliff.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by The Old American
Mayflies have a better memory. Here, I'll answer your question one more time:

"His "notion" is that there should not be any governmental enforcement of racial segregation of businesses because the people will self-govern, just like I said 6 posts up from yours. As far as marriage, it should be a state matter.

I am well aware of Ron Pauls position on private businesses in the civil rights act, that was not what I was addressing. I made it clear in my previous post, you obviously decided to ignore it. I am talking about discrimminatory laws in all settings.

The people will, again, self-govern. California put it up to a vote of the people. The people said no. They self-governed. Maybe if they vote again, they will vote yes.

Here Ill make it simple for you. Texas decided that they were going to impose law based on racial segregation and a law against interracial marriage. 51% of the population supported this measure. You agree that the Texas government is within constitutional grounds?

YES or NO? Pick either of the two, simple. You believe marriage and segregation are states issue, right, then it would be a YES to my question above wouldn't it?? Address hypothetical scenario I posed to you.

Ron Paul's entire stance on the Civil Rights Act was about businesses. His stance on marriage is that it should be a state issue.

So you believe that Ron Paul agrees that states could imploy laws against interracial marriages? YES or NO?

Simple. I am already well aware that the answer will be YES, but I want it to come from your post. YES or NO?

edit on 12-6-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)

To answer your questions SG:
Can the state impose inter-racial marriage laws? No. Marriage is not the purview of the state or federal govt. That is the choice of the individual. Dr. Paul (who I think is the best candidate so far) is wrong on this. The same could be said if the states or feds would want to impose a law that says all marriages must be inter-racial.

Can the state make discriminatory laws involving public land? Yes. That would be akin to committing economic suicide in today's world, but they should have that right.

I understand what RP is saying about the '64 Civil Rights Act, BUT, his problem is that he is looking at it from a historical perspective instead of an actual perspective. At the time of the act, the culture of America was accepting toward segregation. In today's world we are much more intolerant toward that form of racism. IOW RP was looking at the '64 CRA from the perspective of 2011. Parts of the CRA should be repealed and the rights of the business owners reinstated.

reply to post by The Old American


This should not even be debated. If you don't believe Ron Paul himself, then you don't deserve the freedoms you 'think' you have.

Originally posted by MrWendal
I wish you luck and applaud your efforts to cut this off before it really gets started, but some people believe anything. If they truly believe that Ron Paul is a racist based on the fact that he thinks people should be responsible for themselves instead of asking for hand outs from Government, than they deserve to be stupid. I just hope come election day they stay stupid and stay home.

You do realize that being out of touch with the black experience and insensitive to it's impact is tantamount to racism right?

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

I am well aware of Ron Pauls position on private businesses in the civil rights act, that was not what I was addressing. I made it clear in my previous post, you obviously decided to ignore it. I am talking about discrimminatory laws in all settings.

Since Dr. Paul's public stance on the segregation issue is in reference to businesses, and only businesses, I can only answer to that. I won't put words in his mouth about personal issues. I can make an educated guess from that, due to his years of public service, saying he would be against it in public places. But it would be an assumption from the existing facts. Not fact itself.

Here Ill make it simple for you. Texas decided that they were going to impose law based on racial segregation and a law against interracial marriage. 51% of the population supported this measure. You agree that the Texas government is within constitutional grounds?


YES or NO? Pick either of the two, simple. You believe marriage and segregation are states issue, right, then it would be a YES to my question above wouldn't it?? Address hypothetical scenario I posed to you.

Not currently, no, they would not be within Constitutional grounds. Right now there is a Civil Rights Act that would prevent it.

I know you want me to answer your hypothetical situation, but if you knew me personally you would know I don't live in a hypothetical world. I live in the real one. You will, of course, think I'm just dodging it because I'm a racist, or a homophobe, or a Martian, but that's something I'm just going to have to live with. Hypothetical questions waste my time.

So you believe that Ron Paul agrees that states could imploy laws against interracial marriages? YES or NO?

Simple. I am already well aware that the answer will be YES, but I want it to come from your post. YES or NO?

When Dr. Paul says "it should be a state issue" he means laws governed by the state, voted in by the people of that state. A bill against interracial marriage or for segregation would be written by state legislators, put to a vote of the people, and then either fail or be written into law. That's what I believe Ron Paul agrees to. I have answered your question for the third time. Three is all you get.

/TOA