Just because Blacks vote overwhelmingly Democrat in presidential elections doesn’t mean that Blacks are overwhelmingly liberal. It means that Blacks don’t trust the Republicans, with good reason imho. I would even venture that as a demographic, Blacks are more socially conservative than Whites on many key issues. So it would make sense that conservative African-Americans would look twice at a candidate who shares their views but is something of an outsider in the Republican party.
Reading about Paul, it is funny to see how different it is now to say “oh, it was 20 years” with regard to racial insensitivity than, say, if it was the seventiess. Not just stupid and unacceptable but polically stupid. The man is a crank and a relic.
Weren’t you in the other thread complaining about how unfair it is that universities discriminate against Asians?
If you think institutions have a basic right to discriminate against people, then your previous cries ring hollow.
Surely if you are right and universities are discriminating against Asians, the hand of the free market will eventually present solutions to this problem and people needn’t be so upset. Why should anyone be upset? If an Asian can’t go to Harvard, Yale, or Princeton, they can just wait for someone to open up an “Asians R Us” University and all will be alright in the world.
I take it you concede our argument as you have passed over it now three times: there was a segregation problem in the 1960s and passing laws to prohibit it was the right thing to do. The economic theory of discrimination was tested – and it failed. Libertarian absolutism is a washed-up philosophy, one that is only believed by the naive and those whose dispositions permits them to turn away from uncomfortable facts, lest their worldview be shattered. Thank you. We are in agreement.
Because the law is constitutional -backed by the 14th amendment- and we have a zero tolerance policy for bigots, except insofar as speech is concerned. If it’s a public restaurant and they ban people of your skin color or if the kitchen is filthy, there will be legal recourse. Only libertarians of faith believe that reputation is sufficient to fix such issues, for empirical reality and frankly common sense refutes them.
A libertarian-leaning stance is a separate matter: that is worthy of debate.
You are probably on to something here. Racism will not be the same as it was half a century ago, but it will still be around, and display itself in probably different ways.
Unless you happen to believe that there is no more racism in the US. Is that what you are driving at?
If you wanted immediate results, yes. Over time, it definitely would have worked.
Really? “Zero tolerance policy”? Let’s say I refuse to patronize a restaurant that is run by some particular ethnicity - is that “not tolerated” by law? Should I be forced to eat there?
“Empirical reality” 50 years ago, maybe. Certainly not today.
Of course there is, and there will always be. The level of it is much less than it was, and will become less in the future. The “zero tolerance” laws that the other poster was referring to did not reduce that racism, they just reduced the visibility of it. In fact, IMO, the reduction in the amount of racism was and is being slowed down, considerably, by those laws’ existence. You may pooh-pooh the notion, but quite a bit of racial resentment is fueled by laws that discriminate based on color of skin.
Me: “…there was a segregation problem in the 1960s and passing laws to prohibit it was the right thing to do.”
Ookay.
100 years of hard evidence isn’t long enough for you? Really? I daresay that if that overwhelming empirical evidence doesn’t convince you, nothing will.
Terr provides us with an excellent display of the modern conservative mentality. Not only are they fact resistant they lack the cojones to admit it. What empirical evidence would overcome a modern conservatives feelings? Would 200 years do it? 500? For if you take away the facts, only sensitive feelings remain.
Er, what? There’s no parallel. There’s a very bright line distinguishing consumer from business.
Really. I assume you weren’t referring to my public health reference. But say you are correct insofar as segregation law is concerned. In that instance, the law has no effect and does no harm, except to those of sensitive and peculiar disposition. It’s only bigots who should have a material objection.
I’ve heard this argument before. Conservatives claim to object to anti-discrimination legislation because it leads to a generalized resentment. They are silent on the particulars, and don’t say whether they are the ones doing the resenting. They just say it materializes. Somewhere.
On the substance of course, Terr is wrong. I would say that there are rather fewer lynchings than there used to be. Empirically. And over time it has been harder and harder to get away with explicit bigotry. Politicians need to dog whistle and conservatives complain about so-called political correctness.
If in return for greatly reduced discrimination in hiring, housing, education etc. we have to put up with some bigots muttering angrily to themselves, so be it. Marinate in those hateful feelings all you want. Manifest them against others and you’ll suffer the societal consequences.
Why not go 1000 years ago? You would find quite a bit of bigotry there too.
Did you say “consumer” or “business” in the post I was replying to? You claimed that we need “zero tolerance for bigots”. I guess it’s time to start backpedaling.
Of course. The plaintive cry of a liberal: “I will take just a bit more of your freedom away. There is no harm.”
Whatever makes you feel better. Just close your eyes to reality.
These are perceptions that drive Ron Paul supporters insane. I am certain that you have no idea who Ron Paul is … or his policy stances. Your “against civil rights” says it all. In fact, as a charter member of this fine board, “fighting ignorance” I am appalled by your lack of knowledge regarding Dr. Paul. I suggest that the “young male” knows a lot more about this subject than most. And, as a 67 yr. old Viet Vet I suggest you go see some of “TMOT” Ron Paul videos. They are not very long and this TMOT man knows and talks the Truth. Try ‘TMOT explains the Mainstream Media Smear Campaign over Ron Paul’s “Racism”’ >> TMOT explains the Mainstream Media Smear Campaign over Ron Paul's "Racism" - YouTube <<
or Ron Paul is a racist >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlaPMI7IoKk <<
Btw, this is my very first post here. And now … sitting here trying to exit with the perceived thought that I’m supposed to reveal my race (?). Of course, TMOT would say “I am Not African American!” as I might say “I am Not European American!”
If you re-read my posts, you’ll see I’m very familiar with Ron Paul, his long-time associate and former staffer Lew Rockwell, their association with the Von Mises Institute (which Rockwell heads) and its views on the Civil War, and also I have quoted another former Paul staffer who wrote that Paul is “clueless” about African American and Hispanic culture and is “personally uncomfortable” around gay people.
Welcome to the boards, but it is a very unconvincing argument to say that we don’t know the real Ron Paul when several posters here have provided detailed evidence on why they think Ron Paul is out of touch on matters of race.
Are saying that Harvard et al. are NOT being unfair in their admissions policies? Why not just tell us what your point was by opening that thread, because it sure seemed like you were taking a not-so-dispassionate stand against discrimination.
That’s a bit strong. I’d say they have an uncanny ability to filter out objectionable characteristics of their candidate, generally by suggesting that he’d be too ineffective to get the bad things done, while miraculously retaining the power to accomplish good things.
What really puzzles me are the people who seem incapable of countering critics aside from demanding that they view a bunch of videos (this also applies to supporters of wingding philosophies in areas other than politics).
I don’t like discrimination. Yet I would stand by Harvard’s right to discriminate. What I am very much against is their blatant discrimination while pretending and declaring that they don’t do it.
Out of curiosity, what would you do if you were running for office and a known racist and neo-Nazi contributed to your campaign? Would you keep the fund as Ron Paul did, or return them as he was urged to do?
I would never ever run for office. Partly because of the scramble for campaign contributions.
Politicians often adopt the “the end justifies the means” policies when running. Just look at Obama’s ranting against SuperPACs then adopting them wholeheartedly.