Not exactly, they recognize the right of others to be racist.
That doesn’t make someone a racist. Wrong, sure, but not racist.
Last I checked, even the most liberal Democrats don’t propose that racism be outlawed. What’s illegal under civil rights laws is discrimination based on race. You can believe whatever you want; acting on it is another matter.
I didn’t say it did. mweb was libertarians are not “philosophically” racist because they think the law should treat everyone the same way. I was pointing out that you can take that viewpoint for racist reasons.
And links for the other stuff you mention?
As far as the TSA thing, I don’t think that’s some awful thing when given the context of the irony he was pointing out.
You can take it for racist reasons, sure. So he may or may not have taken his stance for racist reasons. I lean towards not, but am not totally confident of that position.
I just wish there was a candidate that’s a milder form of Ron Paul without the racism issues because I think the general ideas of the foreign policy, cutting spending and taxes, stopping the war on drugs, focusing more on personal responsibility, and limiting the powers of government are what this nations needs.
The TSA hires more minorities than most businesses in the public sector. You can notice this. That’s fine. But to say that the employees don’t look American is messed up. They’re wearing a TSA uniform, so they sure don’t look un-American because of their outfit.
What’s left to make them look un-American?
With all due respect and this isn’t intended as an insult or an insinuation that you’re a racist, but if you genuinely don’t think it’s racist to claim that black people “don’t look American” then you are beyond reason and impervious to logic.
You asked for an already provided link, said you’d change your mind on Paul if the quote was genuine, and have now, quite predictably not changed your mind.
I’m not going to continue this conversation because it’s pretty clear at this point you’ll handwave away anything so continuing this discussion would be pointless.
If you wish to think it’s not racist or even “awful” to claim that people who like me “don’t look American”, fine, but don’t expect people who look like me to want to debate the issue with you.
No, they believe people have the right to discriminate on the basis of race.
Similarly, many such as Ron Paul, object to the federal government persecuting people but have no problem with idea of state governments persecuting people.
For example Paul has explicitly defended the rights of state governments to criminalize homosexuality.
What about Gary Johnson or Buddy Roemer? I don’t know much about them, but I don’t think either is drawing much support from the racist crowd.
For anyone who refuses to believe that Paul believes State governments have the right to restrict the private sexual behavior of its residents:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html
Well if he was running for governor of Maryland, and supported laws of this nature, I wouldn’t vote for him. But he is running for president where he would not have the chance to limit gay rights.
:dubious: Remember DADT? Federal.
And the Defense of Marriage Act. Or are we relying on Paul’s promise that he wouldn’t support legislating personal morality that way (unless the issue is abortion)?
In addition to what others have pointed out, he’s in charge of a number of federal agencies responsible for handling discrimination against minorities and gays.
He’s made it clear that he’s an ardent opponent of the Civil Rights laws that ended Jim Crow and an enthusiastic supporter of the idea that states can discriminate against people he calls “queers”.
Obviously, there’s no reason to believe that he wouldn’t cause such agencies to go slow since he believes that businesses have the right to discriminate against both minorities and gays and supports the right of local government to persecute gays.
Nor have we the slightest reason to believe that he’d have the Justice Department step in if states step over the line.
After all, he’s the guy who claimed:
Additionally he’d almost certainly try and put Justices in the Federal Courts and on the Supreme Court who share his asinine, bigoted beliefs.
David Frum, former speechwriter for GWBush, writes:
Ron Paul’s supporters ask that their candidate not be judged by his associates. Or by the people he chose to employ. Or by the newsletters he published. Or by the book he wrote. Or by the way he earned the largest part of his living when out of office in the 1990s. Or by his purchase of the mailing list of the Holocaust-denying Liberty Lobby. …
And here I thought that libertarianism was a doctrine of personal responsibility?
May Ron Paul at least be judged by the words he has spoken with his own mouth within the current campaign? The supporters say “no” again. …
Andrew [Sullivan] deploys what might be called the ontological defense of Ron Paul, as follows:
- Ron Paul is a libertarian.
- Libertarians espouse individualism.
- Racism is a form of anti-individualism.
- Therefore Ron Paul cannot be a racist.
That is a demonstration of what might be called the deductive method of reasoning. But there’s another way to study reality: induction.
Like this:
- Ron Paul has again and again exploited bigotry, paranoia, and hate as fundraising devices.
- Ron Paul is a libertarian.
- So yes, I guess it is possible for a libertarian to do that.
… http://www.frumforum.com/ron-pauls-personal-responsibility
What Frum doesn’t get is that modern conservatives are into personal responsibility only insofar as it applies to others. Talking about Ron Paul’s “Philosophy” as something that trumps his fundraising appeals and dog-whistling to white supremacists and bigots is just silly. It’s like saying Lew Rockwell can’t be a racist, because the Austrian School believes in freedom and Lew Rockwell is President of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
C’mon people. You gotta remember that tyranny is only tyranny if the federal government does something. The states can ban abortion, criminalize whatever behavior they want and sanction whatever discrimination they see fit. If you’re unlucky enough to live in such a state you can just pick up and move somewhere else. If there’s no place to go or reasons you can’t move, tough luck. What’s more important, your personal welfare and happiness, or libertarian doctrine?
I don’t know Jack, your argument is looking mighty… non-American to me.
Is it maybe looking… a little over-tanned?
Here’s a ringing endorsement of Ron Paul from an off-the-wall antivaxer posting on another site (dealing largely with antivaccination views and medical quackery):
*"How about that Ron Paul you make fun of making it in the important top three after all in the Iowa caucus? Now he will be heard & truth can’t help but come out on this man who will save our nation & help us take back what’s ours including the health & well being of our children.
He’s old all right but being & doctor, not like the quacks who couldn’t care less about us that this site represents & uses to fool good & unsuspecting people who should be doing their own research instead of beLIEving the bull here parroted so he’s healthier than any of the other candidates who are all puppets.*"
So there you go, Vote Ron!
Or we’ll drool all over you.
His general ideas on foreign policy are stupid but probably better than our current militaristic stance. Cut what spending? Cut taxes, seriously? OK the war on drugs has gotten out of hand, we should legalize pot make most other drugs at least prescription based.
Add to taht the fact that its almost impossible to get a federal job unless you are a citizen, especially a job in DHS.
To be fair, Ron paul isn’t very racist for an 80 year old white guy from Texas.
Umm I think thats what people mean when they say “racist”
Abortion is more than a moral issue. It is not hard to see it as a rights issue for the child.