A young male African American FB friend is apparently supporting Ron Paul. Is this common?

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Terr

I would never ever run for office.

That isn't the question. I'm attempting to plumb the depths of your conviction that you stand by people's right to be racist. If you were an adviser to Ron Paul and the situation came to light where a notorious racist and neo-Nazi contributed $500 to his campaign, what would you advise him to do? Nobody disputes that racists have the right to make campaign contributions. The question is the degree to which one may wish to benefit from their exercise of their rights.

I wouldn't have to think for a second: I would return the money.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

That isn't the question. I'm attempting to plumb the depths of your conviction that you stand by people's right to be racist.

If I ran for office, in order to promote my ideas and be elected, I would feel obliged to take contributions from everyone regardless of their views. But I wouldn't run for office.

I wouldn't have to think for a second: I would return the money.

If you do, you kinda acknowledge that when people contribute to you you're supposed to give them some quid pro quo. Because if there is no quid pro quo, then the source of the contribution is immaterial.

[Ravenman]

One could argue that the only reason why a neo-Nazi would contribute to Paul's campaign is that the contributor sees value in a candidate that would like to roll back the Civil Rights Act and defend people's right to be racist. Is that a quid pro quo?

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

One could argue that the only reason why a neo-Nazi would contribute to Paul's campaign is that the contributor sees value in a candidate that would like to roll back the Civil Rights Act and defend people's right to be racist. Is that a quid pro quo?

Let's see - Qaddafi endorsed Obama and called him his brother (or son - whatever). Does that reflect badly on Obama?

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Terr

Let's see - Qaddafi endorsed Obama and called him his brother (or son - whatever). Does that reflect badly on Obama?

Let me make sure I'm doing my SAT analogies portion correctly. You are saying,

Ron Paul : keeping campaign contributions from neo-Nazis despite political pressure :: Barack Obama : helping NATO drop bombs on Libya after Qaddafi endorses him

Something doesn't seem quite right about that attempt at equating the two situations... Can anyone else put their finger on what seems slightly off about that?

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Let me make sure I'm doing my SAT analogies portion correctly. You are saying,

Ron Paul : keeping campaign contributions from neo-Nazis despite political pressure :: Barack Obama : helping NATO drop bombs on Libya after Qaddafi endorses him

Something doesn't seem quite right about that attempt at equating the two situations... Can anyone else put their finger on what seems slightly off about that?

You forgot: Ron Paul: keeping the campaign contributions while not once initiating or voting for any racist legislation

And yes. Either the personalities that endorse your candidacy reflect badly on you or they don't. You seem to cherrypick.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Terr

You forgot: Ron Paul: keeping the campaign contributions while not once initiating or voting for any racist legislation

Aside from having positions that bigots also share on issues like opposition to parts of the Civil Rights Act, opposing Martin Luther King Day, awarding Rosa Parks a Congressional Gold Medal, opposing same-sex marriage, proposing to prohibit courts from ruling on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, seeking the overturn of Lawrence v. Texas, opposing the Voting Rights Act, wants to stop emergency medical care for illegal aliens...

Of course, I still think Paul is not a racist. I'm confident he has fine, non-racist reasons for those positions, every single one of them. But bigots would certainly have bigoted reasons for taking similar positions, and Paul is happy to have their support, even if he does not subscribe to their reasoning.

Compare that to Obama who was helping NATO bomb Libya when Qaddafi sent a letter saying he hoped Obama gets re-elected, and oh yeah, PLEASE STOP BOMBING ME!!! To which Obama offers no reply, and keeps on assisting NATO in bombing Qaddafi's armies. I would tend to think that bombing someone as one peculiar form of rejecting their entreaties -- perhaps you disagree?

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Aside from having positions that bigots also share on issues like opposition to parts of the Civil Rights Act

Just because bigots hold some of your opinions doesn't mean those opinions racist. Hitler liked puppies.

Of course, I still think Paul is not a racist. I'm confident he has fine, non-racist reasons for those positions, every single one of them. But bigots would certainly have bigoted reasons for taking similar positions, and Paul is happy to have their support, even if he does not subscribe to their reasoning.

Paul is happy to have their support, and money, without providing any quid pro quo. What's the problem?

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Terr

Just because bigots hold some of your opinions doesn't mean those opinions racist. Hitler liked puppies.

Fondness for puppies isn't a substantive issue with impacts on millions of people.

Paul is happy to have their support, and money, without providing any quid pro quo. What's the problem?

I believe that their support and money should be rejected, and that Paul is substantively wrong on all the aforementioned issues. He should not take money from racists and vote against civil rights legislation. If he did one and not the other, it wouldn't be worth a comment. The fact he does both leads me to believe, as I have stated several times, that he is simply out of touch and fundamentally doesn't understand the issue of race in this country.

[Jackmannii]

Originally Posted by Terr

Paul is happy to have their support, and money, without providing any quid pro quo. What's the problem?

Your faith in Paul not providing any quid pro quo is touching, but not demonstrably reality-based.

Arguably far more important than the tangible benefit Paul gets from accepting donations from racists, is the benefit inherent in not rejecting them.

If Paul were to disavow any support from racists, explicitly reject their views, declare that he does not want such people associating with his campaign and return their donations, they'd likely be upset enough to not only stop sending him money but decide not to turn out to vote for him.

Right now they can preen themselves on the belief that Paul shares a substantial portion of their bigoted views but doesn't want to tip off the electorate at large (not that I think Paul is anywhere close to being a Stormfronter, but he's benefiting by not calling them out).

If Obama was to accept money from any comparably repellent group and do a similar dance to get around offending them, he'd be equally culpable. Except that he has not done so.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

I believe that their support and money should be rejected

you have yet to provide a rationale for doing so.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Jackmannii

Your faith in Paul not providing any quid pro quo is touching, but not demonstrably reality-based.

And yet you cannot show any quid pro quo.

Arguably far more important than the tangible benefit Paul gets from accepting donations from racists, is the benefit inherent in not rejecting them.

If Paul were to disavow any support from racists, explicitly reject their views, declare that he does not want such people associating with his campaign and return their donations, they'd likely be upset enough to not only stop sending him money but decide not to turn out to vote for him.

Right now they can preen themselves on the belief that Paul shares a substantial portion of their bigoted views but doesn't want to tip off the electorate at large (not that I think Paul is anywhere close to being a Stormfronter, but he's benefiting by not calling them out).

Ok. I accept your explanation of the Paul's electoral arithmetic calculations. Can you tell me what's wrong with it?

If Obama was to accept money from any comparably repellent group and do a similar dance to get around offending them, he'd be equally culpable. Except that he has not done so.

Obama (in Reverend Wright's case) has done the same electoral arithmetic and figured that he'd lose more votes by keeping mum than he'd gain. If he the calc had gone the other way, he'd be quiet to this day about it.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Terr

You forgot: Ron Paul: keeping the campaign contributions while not once initiating or voting for any racist legislation.

Well that's the point. Ron Paul's agenda and the agenda of racists overlap. Furthermore, Ron Paul actively courted bigoted support during the 1990s: he and Lew called them "Paleo-Libertarians".

As an aside, I find some of your responses slippery and evasive. You make claims about what would happen in the absence of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 which are refuted by history. When this is pointed out, you claim that bigotry existed 1000 years ago. True. But off the point. That's an evasive stance and is bad practice in a board devoted to fighting ignorance.

Continuing, I point out that if you believe that anti-discrimination laws have no contemporary effect, then their existence surely does no harm. You reply: "The plaintive cry of a liberal: "I will take just a bit more of your freedom away. There is no harm."" But taking away the freedom to do something that you have no desire or intention of doing amounts to nothing. Really. Laws only take away freedom to the extent that they stop somebody from doing something.

In fact, I do think 1960s Civil Rights legislation has a continuing effect, one that restricts the behavior of bigots. It also has some effects that are arguable and legitimate topics of debate but so far they haven't been addressed in this thread. Instead we're back to arguing with market fundamentalism.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Terr

you have yet to provide a rationale for doing so.

If I owned a business, I wouldn't serve known neo-Nazis. If I were a candidate, I would reject their support (yeah, like they'd give me their support). I have no interest in being associated or implicated with the likes of them whatsoever, so I would tell them to take a hike.

Perhaps other people are comfortable with the idea of being associated with neo-Nazis. However, I reject categorically their philosophy, their association, and their money.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Jackmannii

If Obama was to accept money from any comparably repellent group and do a similar dance to get around offending them, he'd be equally culpable. Except that he has not done so.

He certainly accepts endorsements.


http://www.wnd.com/2008/03/59326/
Malik Zulu Shabazz, NBPP national chairman, who has given scores of speeches condemning “white men” and Jews, confirmed his organization’s endorsement of Obama in an interview with WND today.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/10/03...thers-in-2007/
New photographs obtained exclusively by BigGovernment.com reveal that Barack Obama appeared and marched with members of the New Black Panther Party as he campaigned for president in Selma, Alabama in March 2007.
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/files...nbpp-obama.jpg

http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feat...t-obama-061308
Why White Supremacists Support Barack Obama

Tom Metzger - White Aryan Resistance
"Obama, according to his book, Dreams Of My Father, is a racist and I have no problem with black racists."

Erich Gliebe - Chairman, National Alliance
"Obama might be a better candidate for our cause because he’s racially conscious."
...
Perhaps the best thing for the white race is to have a black president. My only problem with Obama is perhaps he’s not black enough."

[grude]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

If I owned a business, I wouldn't serve known neo-Nazis. If I were a candidate, I would reject their support (yeah, like they'd give me their support). I have no interest in being associated or implicated with the likes of them whatsoever, so I would tell them to take a hike.

Perhaps other people are comfortable with the idea of being associated with neo-Nazis. However, I reject categorically their philosophy, their association, and their money.

And you have just demonstrated Ron Pauls's whole point, let the market decide

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Continuing, I point out that if you believe that anti-discrimination laws have no contemporary effect, then their existence surely does no harm. You reply: "The plaintive cry of a liberal: "I will take just a bit more of your freedom away. There is no harm."" But taking away the freedom to do something that you have no desire or intention of doing amounts to nothing. Really. Laws only take away freedom to the extent that they stop somebody from doing something.

The reasoning of "if you are not hiding anything, why are you objecting to them searching your house?".

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

If I owned a business, I wouldn't serve known neo-Nazis. If I were a candidate, I would reject their support (yeah, like they'd give me their support). I have no interest in being associated or implicated with the likes of them whatsoever, so I would tell them to take a hike.

I don't think getting unsolicited "support" from anyone is "being associated or implicated with".

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Terr

I don't think getting unsolicited "support" from anyone is "being associated or implicated with".

Do we know which Paul employee wrote those racist articles? Did Paul fire that guy?

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Do we know which Paul employee wrote those racist articles? Did Paul fire that guy?

I have no idea. Why don't you find out and tell me.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Terr

I have no idea. Why don't you find out and tell me.

The point is that Paul clearly did associate with a rather odious racist who wrote articles in Paul's name, and Paul seems to have protected his bigoted employee from any culpability for those intolerant articles. So his associations seem to go beyond passively receiving checks from bigots; he employed a bigot for the better part of a decade and has never explained what he did to the true author.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

The point is that Paul clearly did associate with a rather odious racist who wrote articles in Paul's name, and Paul seems to have protected his bigoted employee from any culpability for those intolerant articles. So his associations seem to go beyond passively receiving checks from bigots; he employed a bigot for the better part of a decade and has never explained what he did to the true author.

1. Cite?

2. Are you sure he "wrote articles in Paul's name"? That is, it was Paul's name listed as the author?

3. In the past I had a couple of employees that were bigots. I had a few colleagues that were bigots. I have a couple family members that are bigots. I am sure so do/did you. Should these "associations" reflect badly on us?

You stated that you don't think Paul is a racist. Cool. What's your problem with him then? He's not a racist. That's good enough for me.

Oh and as I showed above Obama clearly did associate with a rather odious racist (Shabazz). I cannot find anything indicating he at some point publicly repudiated Shabazz. Can you?

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Terr

The reasoning of "if you are not hiding anything, why are you objecting to them searching your house?".

Um, because a) inconvenience, b) you have strangers combing through your roommate's pron collection, c) any other sort of legal albeit embarrassing items, d) disruption, or e) possibilities that you don't want to even have to game out? This didn't occur to you? Really? Don't you think your arguments are a str--r-r-e-e-e-etch?

ETA: "2. Are you sure he "wrote articles in Paul's name"? That is, it was Paul's name listed as the author?"
Yeah, we are. It's the Ron Paul newsletter.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

ETA: "2. Are you sure he "wrote articles in Paul's name"? That is, it was Paul's name listed as the author?"
Yeah, we are. It's the Ron Paul newsletter.

I see. So Paul's name was not listed as the author then. Gotcha.

[Jackmannii]

Originally Posted by Terr

I see. So Paul's name was not listed as the author then. Gotcha.

So subscribers were supposed to assume all along that the Ron Paul newsletter was not authored by Ron Paul? Or that bigotry in Ron Paul's fundraising letter was not actually expressed by Ron Paul? Gotcha.

Regarding this tu quoque nonsense with Obama - at least he felt obliged to repudiate statements made by his pastor, Reverend Wright.

""I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies," Obama wrote. "I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue."

Contrast that statement with remarks made by Ron Paul when pressed on his racist support.

"The white supremacists, survivalists and anti-Zionists who have rallied behind his candidacy have not exactly been warmly welcomed. “I wouldn’t be happy with that,” Mr. Paul said in an interview Friday when asked about getting help from volunteers with anti-Jewish or antiblack views.

But he did not disavow their support. “If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what I do or say — it has nothing to do with endorsing what they say,” said Mr. Paul"

His "repudiation" of bigots seems just a trifle lukewarm, wouldn't you say? Plus he's keeping their money.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Terr

1. Cite?

2. Are you sure he "wrote articles in Paul's name"? That is, it was Paul's name listed as the author?

Link. As said before, these articles were published in the Ron Paul Report and the Ron Paul Investment Letter as though he wrote them.

3. In the past I had a couple of employees that were bigots. I had a few colleagues that were bigots. I have a couple family members that are bigots. I am sure so do/did you. Should these "associations" reflect badly on us?

No, I am not aware of working or being friends with any bigots, so far as I know. Actually, I knew at least one older guy who definitely had a racist past, but had repudiated it, and he often stated what a mistake it was to have held those views. There is a difference between having bigots as coworkers (a case not really under anyone's control) and being a politician and being able to choose who you associate with. I will also say it is surprising how many bigots you have known! Since I don't know the full circumstances of the case, and keeping in mind this is a good-natured debate, I will not even consider the question of how that reflects on yourself. You can make that determination for yourself, and I will not comment on it in this forum.

You stated that you don't think Paul is a racist. Cool. What's your problem with him then? He's not a racist. That's good enough for me.

He's an out-of-touch politician with fanatical support that has demonstrably terrible ideas that would set this country back a hundred years. Other than that, I have no problem with him.

Oh and as I showed above Obama clearly did associate with a rather odious racist (Shabazz). I cannot find anything indicating he at some point publicly repudiated Shabazz. Can you?

I see that the furor is primarily about one photo taken in 2007 in Selma, Alabama in which Shabazz and Obama were photographed sharing the same stage. It turns out Hillary Clinton was at the same event, so already I'm a little skeptical that this is just a right-wing blogosphere tempest in a teapot.

Then it turns out that Shabazz has repudiated Obama because Obama is not a radical racist:

Barack Obama represents the ideology of the white man, he represents the CIA sabotage set-up lies on an African leader and bomb that man like he’s George Bush. His wife should leave the n***a tonight and his beautiful daughters should walk out on bamboozling, buck-dancing tom.

That's sufficient evidence for me to conclude that Shabazz and Obama are not on the same page.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

He's an out-of-touch politician with fanatical support that has demonstrably terrible ideas that would set this country back a hundred years. Other than that, I have no problem with him.

So you don't think he's a racist but you keep bringing up the racist angle. Why?

I see that the furor is primarily about one photo taken in 2007 in Selma, Alabama in which Shabazz and Obama were photographed sharing the same stage. It turns out Hillary Clinton was at the same event, so already I'm a little skeptical that this is just a right-wing blogosphere tempest in a teapot.

Then it turns out that Shabazz has repudiated Obama because Obama is not a radical racist: That's sufficient evidence for me to conclude that Shabazz and Obama are not on the same page.

Shabazz endorsed Obama in 2008. Just because he reversed himself later doesn't take away the earlier endorsement and the benefits Obama received from it. I also gave you links to other "odious racists" endorsing Obama and Obama not repudiating them.

You seem to have a double standard. In both cases the politician is endorsed and supported by an "odious racist", does not repudiate the support and the endorsement, but in one case you give him a pass and in the other case you condemn him.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Terr

Shabazz endorsed Obama in 2008. Just because he reversed himself later doesn't take away the earlier endorsement and the benefits Obama received from it. I also gave you links to other "odious racists" endorsing Obama and Obama not repudiating them.

You seem to have a double standard. In both cases the politician is endorsed and supported by an "odious racist", does not repudiate the support and the endorsement, but in one case you give him a pass and in the other case you condemn him.

In the case of Shabazz, it seems that nobody even knew about this until the fall of 2011. I wouldn't be surprised if nobody even knew who the heck was on the stage with Obama at the time. It seems unreasonable to demand a repudiation for something that happened 5 years ago that was just recently discovered. In the case of Paul, everyone knew about the contribution. It wasn't a case of damning someone for silence, the Paul campaign said, "We are NOT returning the money.

And in the case of Tom Metzger, let's get real here. Racist endorses black man for president, and you think the black man needs to comment on such a ludicrous event?

Again, I'm criticizing someone not for the absence of comment, for for the substance of the comment they did give.

[Jackmannii]

Originally Posted by Terr

You seem to have a double standard. In both cases the politician is endorsed and supported by an "odious racist", does not repudiate the support and the endorsement, but in one case you give him a pass and in the other case you condemn him.

Besides the false equivalence you keep promoting, you might consider that in Paul's case he has many other undesirable attitudes and policies (some of which have been touched on here). Profiting from racist associations (and engaging in implausible deniability on his own past statements) is the rancid icing on the cake.

If in 2008 it had surfaced that Obama had issued newsletters with revoltingly racist comments, refused to accept responsibility for them and was taking cash from the New Black Panther Party and similar types, I would not have voted for him (actually it is highly unlikely I will vote for him in 2012 for obviously different reasons).

Even if you think Obama is as bad as Paul from a racist perspective (and I don't think you believe that), there are other Republicans who don't have Paul's bad history on this score, don't fantasize about reliving the good old days of 1850 (at least, not to the same extent) and who are more deserving of support.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

In the case of Shabazz, it seems that nobody even knew about this until the fall of 2011.

More excuses. Obama knew about it. Shabazz endorsed Obama's candidacy right on Obama's web site.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Jackmannii

Besides the false equivalence you keep promoting, you might consider that in Paul's case he has many other undesirable attitudes and policies (some of which have been touched on here). Profiting from racist associations (and engaging in implausible deniability on his own past statements) is the rancid icing on the cake.

If in 2008 it had surfaced that Obama had issued newsletters with revoltingly racist comments, refused to accept responsibility for them and was taking cash from the New Black Panther Party and similar types, I would not have voted for him (actually it is highly unlikely I will vote for him in 2012 for obviously different reasons).

Even if you think Obama is as bad as Paul from a racist perspective (and I don't think you believe that), there are other Republicans who don't have Paul's bad history on this score, don't fantasize about reliving the good old days of 1850 (at least, not to the same extent) and who are more deserving of support.

Yes, Obama is just as "bad as Paul from a racist perspective", in that neither of them are racist.

And I don't support Paul's candidacy. Or Obama's. Or any other candidate's.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Terr

More excuses.

Right. Valid, pertinent excuses that highlight a real difference between the two situations, but excuses none the less.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Miller

Right. Valid, pertinent excuses that highlight a real difference between the two situations, but excuses none the less.

Since Obama knew about it, "nobody knew about it" is a falsehood.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Terr

Since Obama knew about it, "nobody knew about it" is a falsehood.

Wait, I see now that the New Black Panther Party's endorsement was removed from Obama's campaign website: cite.

So.... anything else to talk about?

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Wait, I see now that the New Black Panther Party's endorsement was removed from Obama's campaign website: cite.

And yet Obama didn't repudiate the endorsement.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Terr

And yet Obama didn't repudiate the endorsement.

Ha!

ETA: Hold on a second -- do you believe that Obama has conclusively proven himself to be an American citizen? Because if you're slicing hairs this finely, then maybe you think a "certificate of live birth" isn't the same as a "birth certificate."

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Ha!

ETA: Hold on a second -- do you believe that Obama has conclusively proven himself to be an American citizen? Because if you're slicing hairs this finely, then maybe you think a "certificate of live birth" isn't the same as a "birth certificate."

Non-sequitur.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Terr

Non-sequitur.

Was 9/11 an inside job, too?

[Paul JJ]

Its amusing the lengths people go to make Ron Paul out be "crazy." In fact, everything he says is absolutely right. I sometimes wonder where I would be today if i never heard of Ron Paul, Austrian economics, and libertarianism. But first, a quick background. My parents came to the US to escape their war-torn nation. I have inherited their hatred for war and all its promoters and supporters. I came across Paul when he was speaking out against intervention in Iraq and completely agreed with him on the stupidity of it all. He was also talking about the housing bubble. As i looked more into it, I started to realize I completely agreed with Austrian economics as a whole. After a few years, I finally put my money where my mouth is, so to speak, and sold my home and bought gold bullion. I also got a lease on an apartment that would soon prove to be a bargain. Needless to say, my investments have paid off stupendously. Gold has more than quintupled since then. I also have silver bullion, along with stocks in gold mining and silver mining companies, if anyone is curious about my portfolio.

The fact is, the US dollar is losing its reserve currency status. Iran is just one of many future oil producers who will sell their oil in other currencies, including gold. the current global financial system has only been around since 1971. The US has been exporting its inflation to foreign dollar holders, but that will come to an end. gold and silver will be once again recognized as money.

Libertarianism itself can be summed up in just four things, individual liberty, voluntary association, voluntary contacts, and property rights. Ron Paul is a constitutional libertarian. His stance on abortion and gay marriage is simple: the federal government has no constitutional authority to prohibit or legalize either of them. It sounds counter-intuitive, but he supports the states that legalized gay marriage as well as the states that havent. Hes personally against government being involved in marriage altogether, as marriage licenses were created to prevent interracial marriages. It wouldnt matter if someone is married or single, or has children or no children, because all individuals would face the same federal income tax. Theres no need for marriage to confer tax benefits since there would be no income tax under a Paul adminstration.

The same goes for abortion. The Sancitity of Life Act someone brought up would use the constitutional authority of Congress to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction on the matter of abortion. Before Roe vs Wade, 20 states had already legalized abortion. The fact of the matter is, even if Roe vs Wade is overturned, most states would legalize it, assuming there are still laws on the books that prohibit it. And Ron Paul even said in his book that abortion and morality go hand in hand. And that even if it was banned in one state, the doctors would just ignore it and continue to perform them, just like they did in the 70's. And before long, women's organizations would descend on the state legislature and quickly get it overturned. But even still, Roe vs Wade should be overturned, if only on principle of states rights.

Lastly, someone talked about the Civil Rights Act. This is unconstitutional because it violates property rights. People have the right to exclude others from their home, their car, and their business. It does not matter what the reason is. The same applies to employees. People have the right to hire whoever they want. The whole idea of "diversity hires" hurts productivity, as unqualified women and people of color are hired to avoid lawsuits. And outside of police officers who dont like people who drive nice cars, I have never been discriminated against. If anything, I was discriminated against by other black Americans while I was growing up, for not being a descendant of slaves, and instead being an actual African who was born in America.

I support Ron Paul simply because he is the best candidate. No one comes close. I met him back during his last election run, and do not for one second believe him to be a racist. But more to the point, even if he WAS, it would be irrelevant. He is a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and will scale back the federal government to where it constitutionally should be. The willful ignorance of the US Constitution is dangerous. Because without following the rule of law, the country will devolve into the same totalitarian state my parents fled.

With all that being said, I have no false hope of a Paul presidency. The blatant election fraud in Iowa dispelled me of all that. I have come to terms with Romney winning the primary, then losing to Obama in election, despite his growing unpopularity. It will be entirely because Romney is a flip-flopper, and the entire election will be a redux of 2004, a la John Kerry. But Ron Paul's legacy will live on. The libertarian base of the GOP has double and even tripled in every state. This trend will continue, and the youth will help take over the GOP from within. The neocons and social conservatives will either fall in line or be shoved out of the party, possibly even running over to the Democrats(it wouldnt be the first time politicians shuffle between both parties). and it will be...satisfying, to say the least.

Also, theres no need for anyone to reply to this comment. I have no intention of posting any further. Just the title compelled me to reply why this black man supports Ron Paul. I will be writing his name in the general election, as I see no difference between Romney or Obama.

[WillFarnaby]

Did Obama receive any money from Black supremacists? If so, would he be compelled to return it in light of his support of policies like Affirmative Action, which benefit those groups?

[kenobi 65]

Originally Posted by Paul JJ

Libertarianism itself can be summed up in just four things, individual liberty, voluntary association, voluntary contacts, and property rights. Ron Paul is a constitutional libertarian. His stance on abortion and gay marriage is simple: the federal government has no constitutional authority to prohibit or legalize either of them. It sounds counter-intuitive, but he supports the states that legalized gay marriage as well as the states that havent. Hes personally against government being involved in marriage altogether, as marriage licenses were created to prevent interracial marriages. It wouldnt matter if someone is married or single, or has children or no children, because all individuals would face the same federal income tax. Theres no need for marriage to confer tax benefits since there would be no income tax under a Paul adminstration.

Libertarianism also apparently does not believe in apostrophes.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

Did Obama receive any money from Black supremacists? If so, would he be compelled to return it in light of his support of policies like Affirmative Action, which benefit those groups?

I just checked, and there are no records of Malik Shabazz contributing funds to any Federal candidate in 2008, 2010, or 2012.

But, if the shoe was on the other foot WRT campaign contributions from an owner of a well-known racist website, I'm willing to bet you that the Obama campaign would return the funds.

[Jackmannii]

Originally Posted by Paul JJ

Its amusing the lengths people go to make Ron Paul out be "crazy."

Seriously! All you have to do is quote his platform.

Libertarianism itself can be summed up in just four things, individual liberty, voluntary association, voluntary contacts, and property rights.

Actually it can be summed up in just one sentence: "I don't wanna and you can't make me."

The fact of the matter is, even if Roe vs Wade is overturned, most states would legalize it

Lastly, someone talked about the Civil Rights Act. This is unconstitutional because it violates property rights. People have the right to exclude others from their home, their car, and their business. It does not matter what the reason is. The same applies to employees. People have the right to hire whoever they want.

The Paul campaign should put this statement on placards and march through black neighborhoods (why am I reminded of the start of one of the "Diehard" movies?).

Also, theres no need for anyone to reply to this comment.

Yeah, it's self-refuting, but it was useful reinforcement of the delusional nature of Paul supporters' beliefs.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Paul JJ

Its amusing the lengths people go to make Ron Paul out be "crazy."

Well Congressman Paul wants to do away with the Federal Reserve. Every country in the world today has a central bank (or in a few cases shares one across multiple countries). The US tried free banking in the 1800s and it was a period of neither price nor output stability: depressions were a recurring problem. When pushed, Ron Paul supporters refer to a guy out of Oakland who claims we actually have high inflation, but won't release his methodology.

This attachment to wacky but superficially plausible ideas in the face of hard experience causes outsiders to question Ron Paul's stability. As for his supporters:

In fact, everything he says is absolutely right. I sometimes wonder where I would be today if i never heard of Ron Paul, Austrian economics, and libertarianism.

...and when we read things like this, many perceive a whiff of fanaticism. Eric Hoffer discussed a personality type that reflects such views in his 1951 classic The True Believer.


I'm not sure what the antidote to Ron Paul is. But I'll venture that if you're interested in economics, you might familiarize yourself with an introductory economics textbook: old editions are available at reasonable prices.

The neocons and social conservatives will either fall in line or be shoved out of the party, possibly even running over to the Democrats(it wouldnt be the first time politicians shuffle between both parties). and it will be...satisfying, to say the least.

I daresay fiscally responsible libertarians have more in common with the Democratic party than do the anti-contraceptive brigade or the neocons. The Democratic Party has a conservative, moderate and liberal wing. The national Republican Party of DC shared all three wings during the 1960s: now they only have crazy conservatives and conservatives who fear being primaried by crazies.

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

I just checked, and there are no records of Malik Shabazz contributing funds to any Federal candidate in 2008, 2010, or 2012.

But, if the shoe was on the other foot WRT campaign contributions from an owner of a well-known racist website, I'm willing to bet you that the Obama campaign would return the funds.

Yeah slick politicians do things like that. Mitt Romney would have done the same thing. Hooray for the left-wing Mitt Romney. Obama is the better man for taking GE money and bowing to their interests? Lol no wonder the progressives are in shambles trying to defend this guy.

[septimus]

Originally Posted by IceQube

Paul is an ardent libertarian. Paul opposed the Civil Rights Act on the grounds that it expanded the federal government's power excessively. The Civil Rights Act forced businesses, among other entities, to integrate racial minorities, and Paul believes that businesses should not be forced to desegregate. Instead, this power should be left to the business owner - if the boss wants to allow minorities in his restaurant, fine. If the boss doesn't - well ... it's his prerogative, not the fed's....

Again, Paul isn't specifically anti-civil rights, but his ardent libertarian views do sometimes put him at odds with civil rights.

Paul is in favor of civil rights because he supports the right of restaurants to serve blacks if the restaurant owner wants to. Is that a fair summary?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Paul JJ

The same goes for abortion. The Sancitity of Life Act someone brought up would use the constitutional authority of Congress to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction on the matter of abortion.

<snip>

The willful ignorance of the US Constitution is dangerous.

No kidding.

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

No kidding.

Congress doesn't have the authority to set the jurisdiction of federal courts?

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

Yeah slick politicians do things like that. Mitt Romney would have done the same thing. Hooray for the left-wing Mitt Romney. Obama is the better man for taking GE money and bowing to their interests? Lol no wonder the progressives are in shambles trying to defend this guy.

It isn't often that a post on this message board leaves with with absolutely nothing to say. This was very nearly one of those rare occasions.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

Congress doesn't have the authority to set the jurisdiction of federal courts?

How strong is one's the dedication to the Constitution if that person is so afraid that the courts will actually apply the Constitution to a controversy, therefore the courts should not be allowed to hear such cases? How different is that from "we had to burn the village in order to save it?"