Ron Paul: Is He a Racist?

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.

If I may ask, is anyone relevant to you in the current pool of candidates (even Obama)? Is there someone not running that you would like to see run? Or do you believe that voting is useless since it's predetermined who will run the country?

Actually that question is put to anyone in this thread. I would like to see who believes in who, or who believes in nobody.

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American

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.

If I may ask, is anyone relevant to you in the current pool of candidates (even Obama)? Is there someone not running that you would like to see run? Or do you believe that voting is useless since it's predetermined who will run the country?

Actually that question is put to anyone in this thread. I would like to see who believes in who, or who believes in nobody.

/TOA

Since you asked, I will be absolutely honest, I oppose voting, I view it as the majority backed by the threat of violence from the State imposing their views on the minority. Since I believe no man has the right to tell me how I should live my life, I must not attempt to tell anyone else how to live their lives.

That being said, I will vote for Dr. Paul should he recieve the nomination as he as shown me at least over the course of decades that his goal is not to rule over the people, but reduce government to something that I at least can live with even if I don't support it.

Ok this whole conversation started over whether Ron Paul was a racist or not, after giving it some thought over night, I have come to a couple of conclusions. First, no, I do not believe him to be racist, however his public image has been damaged by articles that were published under his name, by his associates. That being said, his following, sort of like the TPM, does have a racist element that allows the far left and the main stream media to somewhat paint the broader movement with the same brush. Fair, probably not, but since when has politics been fair?

Then this conversation has somewhat turned into a discussion of state's rights. To be perfectly honest, state and local governments scare the hell out of me at times. The laws that they pass, affect me more quickly and touch me harder. Think dry counties for example. I am going to try to lay out a hypothetical situation to try and make my point, not pointing fingers at anyone, just trying show a potential worse case scenario.

State A has a small minority population, fiscally and socially conservative government. This legislature drafts and passes a bill, and the governor signs it, forcing all minorities to live in certain section of the state. In addition, they cannot use any public facilities, are forced to register with the local police, and are basically limited to what they can do and where they can go. A couple of posters have said, well they can just move out of state, and yes this is a possibility, however economic issues may prevent this. This issue gets taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, and they deny to hear arguments due to it being a state issue, or they issue a ruling that says the state or local government has every right to do it under Federal Law. I know this sounds like a pretty far out scenario, however it is already happening in our government now with sex offenders. Please note, I am not defending sex offenders, just trying to take it one step further. In some states convicted felons are forced to register with the local police once they are released from prison or probation, and the Supreme Court has backed these state and local regulations. Keep in mind, these people have served their time, and "Paid their debt to society". Just something to think about, what if these policies were extended to minorities or homosexuals.

Originally posted by The Old American

If I may ask, is anyone relevant to you in the current pool of candidates (even Obama)? Is there someone not running that you would like to see run? Or do you believe that voting is useless since it's predetermined who will run the country?

Actually that question is put to anyone in this thread. I would like to see who believes in who, or who believes in nobody.

/TOA

I am not sure any of the current or potential candidates are truly viable, off the top of my head, I would like to see Colin Powell throw his hat in the ring, or possibly Condaleza Rice. Other than that I am not sure, would have to do some more investigation.

I will be voting for President Obama for a second time. He is the 1st president in a long time that I feel actually has power within the country. I think Clinton and GH Bush had some power but not enough. While I do not believe in war, I am not so naive to think we can just up and end the mess we have been dragged into long before Obama took office. I think that while many in the government, most especially the military industrial complex, would love to see us in perpetual war, I believe Obama has a plan or is at least laying the ground work to get us out. His actions may seem to contradict that, but I think of it like a hydra with the hydra being all the officials and corporate/banker dirt bags who have paid for their luxuries in blood. Cut off one head and 5 more appear.

There are definitely things I would like to see him do or do differently, for example I would love to see him stand up to Monsanto and other biotech evil-doers. I would love to see him get a law passed that made it illegal to attatch items to bills that have nothing to do with said bill. I would love to see him get rid of lobbyists like he wanted to do before he took office. I support his health care bill, however a majority of americans don't and I think he needs to listen to what americans are saying and talk about what he can change about it and make it more what the people want.

I believe he has been honest, when he was campaigning he talked about fixing a lot what was broken in our government and he talked about it being a very long road and that he may not be able to do it in four years. I think he is doing a lot to accomplish this, to be honest I think he has Congress spinning on it's head (not a bad thing IMO). I believe also that his budget could work if it got passed. I don't think it was realistic by any stretch of the imagination that people expected him to charge into office and we'd be living in utopia 2 years later. You cannot call your house clean if all you have done is hid the mess by relocating it to an unused room. I think the mess that he found was more like squallor complete with rats and termites eating away at the structure.

I'll end this before it turns into a novel lol.

I'll take a stab at this, but first I think its important to state for the record my personal political view point

Anarcho-capitalism advocates simply abolishing the state so that private-sector entities will be free to promulgate, enforce and adjudicate legal codes. Minarchism calls for a "minimal" or Night watchman state.[3] In a minarchy, the only justifiable government institutions are armies, police, courts and legislatures, for the purposes of protecting citizens from external attack, from local crime, to determine innocence or guilt, and to determine the proper application of property rights in new areas. In an anarcho-capitalist society, these functions would be provided by competing private firms.

en.wikipedia.org...

If you look at my avatar, you will see it is the flag of anarcho-capitalism and since this is a thread about Dr. Paul my personal opinion is that he is fact an minarchist involved in a political system that has but two parties.

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
Ok this whole conversation started over whether Ron Paul was a racist or not, after giving it some thought over night, I have come to a couple of conclusions. First, no, I do not believe him to be racist, however his public image has been damaged by articles that were published under his name, by his associates. That being said, his following, sort of like the TPM, does have a racist element that allows the far left and the main stream media to somewhat paint the broader movement with the same brush. Fair, probably not, but since when has politics been fair?

It may be fair to say that some who clam to be followers of Dr. Paul are racist, however, I do not believe that someone who actually believes in the natural laws, those of individual Life, Liberty and Property are intellectually dishonest enough to "hate" a person based upon the color of ones skin.

I do however think is rather sad that the idea of racism is considered a crime. Stupid, immoral, unintelligent and harmful to society yes, a crime no. Legally a crime requires two elements one is intent to cause harm or damage another's life or property and the other is the actual act of causing harm or damage to another's life or property. It is in all respects a vice.

Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property.

Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.

Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property.

In vices, the very essence of crime --- that is, the design to injure the person or property of another --- is wanting.

It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another. But no one ever practises a vice with any such criminal intent. He practises his vice for his own happiness solely, and not from any malice toward others.

Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property; no such things as the right of one man to the control of his own person and property, and the corresponding and coequal rights of another man to the control of his own person and property.

For a government to declare a vice to be a crime, and to punish it as such, is an attempt to falsify the very nature of things. It is as absurd as it would be to declare truth to be falsehood, or falsehood truth.

Vices are not crimes

Then this conversation has somewhat turned into a discussion of state's rights. To be perfectly honest, state and local governments scare the hell out of me at times. The laws that they pass, affect me more quickly and touch me harder. Think dry counties for example. I am going to try to lay out a hypothetical situation to try and make my point, not pointing fingers at anyone, just trying show a potential worse case scenario.

Yes, its dishearting that the mere mention of states rights as it relates to the Constitution elicits racist rhetoric

State A has a small minority population, fiscally and socially conservative government. This legislature drafts and passes a bill, and the governor signs it, forcing all minorities to live in certain section of the state. In addition, they cannot use any public facilities, are forced to register with the local police, and are basically limited to what they can do and where they can go. A couple of posters have said, well they can just move out of state, and yes this is a possibility, however economic issues may prevent this. This issue gets taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, and they deny to hear arguments due to it being a state issue, or they issue a ruling that says the state or local government has every right to do it under Federal Law. I know this sounds like a pretty far out scenario, however it is already happening in our government now with sex offenders. Please note, I am not defending sex offenders, just trying to take it one step further. In some states convicted felons are forced to register with the local police once they are released from prison or probation, and the Supreme Court has backed these state and local regulations. Keep in mind, these people have served their time, and "Paid their debt to society". Just something to think about, what if these policies were extended to minorities or homosexuals.

Looking at this scenario each step is in stark opposition to natural law.

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and is thus universal.[1] As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (meaning "man-made law", not "good law"; cf. posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.[2] In natural law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to the natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be invoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale)[citation needed]

Although natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct in that natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature, while common law is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation.[3] Natural law theories have, however, exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[4] and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and Emmerich de Vattel. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The essence of Declarationism is that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by NuroSlam


Although starkly in opposition to natural law, throughout history, it has happened over and over again. Power and greed overcome natural law in the minds of some people.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by technical difficulties

 

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

For the same reasons why the state should have the right to infringe upon the rights of the taxpayer: None.

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

You can reduce both.

I'd like to see the Federal Reserve and Big Banks give back to the People everything they've stolen from them and every Generation before them. Every Single President has been pre elected and every single president is Blood Related to one another and to Royalty.Now that i think about it, didn't Aleister Crowley Father Barbara Bush and now celebrities are wearing his face on T-Shirts. This is the condition of the World right now,hmm no one can see the insanity of what they're playing out.. It's your Life they're playing with, so far they've made a Royal Mess of America.

To read the essays in the Ron Paul letter on the LA Race Riots:
www.dailykos.com...
www.nizkor.org...

Thinking back to those times, I can see the context in which these are written, I also dont take affront to "racist" ramblings b/c it seems like a rather bland telling of what took place. I lived in LA and NYC in the 80s and 90s & w/o a doubt, they were both racially charged environments. as the big cities were then... I grew up in the Upstate NY vicinity of the "Tawana Brawley" lie ( Rev Sharpton, et al) which turned the neighborhood on end, resulted in the suicide of one of the men charged, the marital breakup of the ADA, and NEVER was an apology heard uttered by the liars.... I was in NYC when the "wilding" group was charged w attacking that white investment banker female.. I was driving out of NYC for good, when I heard a news reporter say something about a govt leader's suggestion that anyone arrested and put in a jail cell w/o a bed be given $125 for each nite of this discomfort (1991)
I understand the writer's points about the pandering of the media and govt to the blacks.. all while the supposed "black leaders" were continually inciting hatred and riot.. the BEST THING about Obama's presidency (YES WE CAN!) is that he shut that faction up... with the exception perhaps of the Rev Wright. I hear the same hateful rhetoric on the Rosebud (SD) reservation against the "white man" and believe me, I so do NOT support racism. I find it ironic, however, that these "leaders" in their vitriol and rhetoric, keep themselves impt and the ones they wish to "lead" down w that very same rhetoric.. telling them over & over again how they have no chance in the white man's world & constantly reminding them of the affronts against them and their forefathers...

reply to post by The Old American


Here is an interesting website about Ron Paul....you want to know what he stands for...what he believes and why he believes it....please take some time and study what he has said...recently and in the past.


www.ronpaularchive.com...

Originally posted by Heartisblack
Who knows ? In the end every president is the same.
We'll be in the same boat we started in

edit on 11-6-2011 by Heartisblack because: (no reason given)

not true

our good reps usually end up at the wrong end of a "lone gunman" though

I know this is in poor form (necroing a thread), but in light of the recent attacks on Dr. Paul and the letters that he supposedly wrote, I think it's necessary to present again the research that was done on the subject.

/TOA

Raw footage shows Ron Paul DIDN'T storm out of CNN interview over racist newsletters... the interview was simply done

www.dailymail.co.uk... o=feeds-newsxml