Rep. Ron Paul for Prez

[alexamenos]

a fitting eulogy for Dr. Paul's candidacy......from Time Online, no less.

Why Ron Paul Scares the GOP
Thursday, Mar. 20, 2008 By MICHAEL GRUNWALD

There used to be an organization for people who believed in a truly limited government — limited taxes, limited spending, limited interference in individual lives and limited intervention in foreign affairs. That organization was known as the Republican Party. But the only one of those beliefs that still motivates the G.O.P. establishment is limited taxes. In 2008, people who still hold all of them joined the Ron Paul Revolution.

But now the revolution is ebbing. Congressman Paul's new campaign finance report shows that he's raised nearly $35 million, including more than any other Republican candidate in the fourth quarter of 2007, and he's inspired remarkable passion among the kind of diehards who hold up campaign signs on highway overpasses and post irate comments on obscure blogs. But the presidency isn't decided on YouTube or Technorati. Paul didn't win any Republican primaries, and he recently conceded that "victory in the conventional sense is not available."

Of course, nothing in Paul's world is ever done in the conventional sense, so he has refused to drop out of the race and endorse the presumptive G.O.P. nominee, Senator John McCain. Instead he argues that all Republicans should have "the right to vote for someone that stands for traditional Republican principles." And he's got a point.

The real significance of the Paul campaign is not the ubiquitous bumper stickers and lawn signs or the online fund-raising records ($6 million in one day, plus another $4 million, hilariously, on Guy Fawkes Day) but the mirror Paul held up to the modern Republican Party. When his fellow candidates denounced big government, Paul was there to remind them that President Bush and the G.O.P. Congress had shattered spending records and exploded the deficit. When they hailed freedom, Paul asked why they all supported the Patriot Act and other expansions of executive power. And when they called themselves conservatives, Paul asked what was so conservative about sending thousands of young Americans to try to transform the Middle East.

rest of article here --> link

[alexamenos]

All things considered, his campaign wasn't a complete waste of time.

Ron Paul’s Economic Theories Winning GOP Converts
Congressman's Clout Grows Within GOP Minority, Among Some Dems
By David Weigel 5/5/09 6:00 AM

From time to time, a few members of Congress—as many as 10, sometimes fewer—gather with Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) to eat lunch and hear from an author or expert whose opinion he thinks is worth promoting. They grab something to eat off of a deli plate. They take notes. They loosen up and ask questions.

“It’s not all that easy for the other members to get here,” Paul said in an interview with TWI, sitting just outside of his office before heading back to Texas for a few days. “It’s just that there’s so much competition. Once they get here and they get going, they all seem to enjoy it.”

A funny thing has started happening to Paul since his long-shot presidential campaign ended quietly in the summer of 2008. More Republicans have started listening to him. There are the media requests from Fox Business Channel and talk radio, where he’s given airtime to inveigh on sound money and macroeconomics. There is HR 1207 , the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, a bill that would launch an audit of the Federal Reserve System, and which has attracted 112 co-sponsors. When Paul introduced the Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act just two years ago, no other members of Congress signed on...

ct'd....

[dude1394]

Never is imo.

[alexamenos]

Earlier (4 years earlier, actually....) I said:

Originally Posted by alexamenos

...if anything comes of the Paul phenomena, it will be a regeneration of ideas which have long been floating in the air out there, that are largely ignored in the mainstream political discourse today, and yet at various times in our history have been front and center.

Looking at some exit poll data I notice that Paul polls extremely well amongst the 40-ish and younger set, whereas Mitt Dole McRomney is mostly carried along by the 40-ish+ crowd.

As the saying goes, the future belongs to those who show up.

I don't give Paul any more of shot this time around than last, and if anything I'm less interested in Paul now than before, but I remain quite happy to see him making an impact that may redound for decades.
---------------------------------

Strategy wise -- I think Paul is blowing it a bit by being too adamant about not running as a 3rd party.

The only 'appeal' (such as it is) of Mitt Dole McRomney seems to be that he is the most likely to beat Obama. If Paul were to run as a 3rd party, I think you could forget about any chance for a McRomney win in the general election.

Point being, Paul effectively has veto power over the one thing that makes McRomney attractive to conservatives. A Paul threat to run as a 3rd party candidate is a very effective attack on McRomney's #1 selling point. This threat of a 3rd party candidacy is potentially negotiating leverage which could earn him some valuable concessions from the GOP Powers-That-Be, such as:

1) a speaker's slot in the convention;
2) a 1-on-1 debate with McRomney;
3) real input into the GOP platform;
4) etc....

But Paul is being super adamant that he won't run as a 3rd party, that it's completely safe for the party establishment to get behind Mitt Dole McRomney....

...mistake, imho.

[iella]

The problem with Dr. Paul being open to the possibility of running 3rd party is that the Republican establishment will just marginalize him (not that they don't try to already). He's already constantly accused of not being a "real" Republican, and they would pounce on the chance to discredit him and accuse him of undermining the party.

In reality, Ron Paul is MORE electable than Romney. He does very well amongst independents and Democrats, which is much more than Romney can say. If Dr. Paul were to have the support of the Republican establishment, I think he would almost be guaranteed a victory.

I agree with you on the "impact that may rebound for decades." I only hope that my generation will not change its mind about small federal government and non-interventionism when we're the ones in power...

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by iella

The problem with Dr. Paul being open to the possibility of running 3rd party is that the Republican establishment will just marginalize him (not that they don't try to already). He's already constantly accused of not being a "real" Republican, and they would pounce on the chance to discredit him and accuse him of undermining the party.

In reality, Ron Paul is MORE electable than Romney. He does very well amongst independents and Democrats, which is much more than Romney can say. If Dr. Paul were to have the support of the Republican establishment, I think he would almost be guaranteed a victory.

I agree with you on the "impact that may rebound for decades." I only hope that my generation will not change its mind about small federal government and non-interventionism when we're the ones in power...

I agree with everything you say here. (And as an aside...if Obama could hand-pick a [serious] candidate to run against...wouldn't it be Romney?)

I suspect that the big challenge to Ron Paul, though, is what shape he leaves things in for his son. Don't you know that if Paul ran third-party and Romney lost--no matter if things are related or not--the GOP powers-that-be would ostracize Rand Paul in a big way.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

...if Obama could hand-pick a [serious] candidate to run against...wouldn't it be Romney?)

Yes. Especially considering that his top ten contributors right now are practically a Who's Who of Wall Street...how will the Obama administration ever make use of his close ties Wall Street?

If you look at the exit poll data I linked, Romney's chief appeal is that he "can beat Obama", an ironic thing inasmuch as he'll probably make Bob Dole look like a good choice for the GOP in '96.

I suspect that the big challenge to Ron Paul, though, is what shape he leaves things in for his son. Don't you know that if Paul ran third-party and Romney lost--no matter if things are related or not--the GOP powers-that-be would ostracize Rand Paul in a big way.

Yeah, probably the number one reason he's staying extra GOP friendly. I hope it's not the case, but it probably is.

If it is the case, then the good Dr. Paul is concerning himself too much with "how can I be accepted by the GOP Establishment?"

But just to be clear, I'm not saying that Paul should run as a 3rd party, I'm saying he should maintain the threat. Given the weakness of McRomney I think the GOP would be very open conceding things to Paul* to keep him from following through on the threat.

If, instead of making some concessions to Paul, the GOP responded by marginalizing Paul further, that would increase the possibility that Paul would run as a 3rd and diminish their prospects for a win in '12. If there is one thing upon which the Republican Party can be relied, it's that they'll concede anything to remain in power.

*for all I know they may have already made these concessions, and that may be why Paul is being adament about not running as a 3rd...probably not the case, but possibly.

[CanadianMavsFan]

Just reporting in from Canada to say I'm a big fan of Ron Paul. His realistic outlook when it comes to foreign policy is some of the most admirable stuff I've ever heard in American politics or politics in general. The United States has doomed itself in the same way the British and many other Empires did by attempting to police the world and not focusing on problems at home. The media attempts to push Israeli interests and in turn American intervention in the Middle East. Ron Paul is literally the ONLY politician on either side to say that he intends to leave Israel to fend for itself.

All that being said, as people have mentioned before, if you don't play the game in politics, that is if you tell the absolute truth, you have a small chance of winning.

[Mavericks Rockets Fan]

Even though Paul is unlikely to win the nomination, he will still be successful in the sense that many of his economic ideas have become mainstream Republican orthodoxy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwVxec6uesA

This is quite the change from 4 years ago. And his great popularity among 18-29 year olds shows that his libertarian ideas are the future of the Republican party and will plant the seeds for like-minded candidates (e.x: Rand Paul in 2016) to succeed down the road...

[SeanL]

How can you support someone who is against the Civil Rights Act and panders to racist groups?

[iella]

Originally Posted by SeanL

How can you support someone who is against the Civil Rights Act and panders to racist groups?

Because if you listen to him talk, you'll realize he's the only one out of the white guys on the stage who ISN'T racist. He stated his support for the repeal of the Jim Crow laws (government forcing segregation) but also objected to the laws that required private property and business owners to behave in one way or another (government forcing desegregation, essentially). (source)

Paul said he objected to the Civil Rights Act because of its infringement on private property rights. He said that while he would favor repealing Jim Crow laws, the United States "would be better off" without government intruding on and policing personal lives.

In other words, a truly color-blind government wouldn't force anybody to do ANYTHING one way or the other. Forced segregation is just as racist in nature as Affirmative Action. One may seem racist and the other standing up for minorities' rights, but in reality, the basis of BOTH is that we are forcing people, businesses, and government entities to treat people one way or another on the basis of their race or ethnicity. Why, then, is one okay while the other is not? Dr. Paul demonstrates his ideological consistency in pointing out that both are unconstitutional intrusions of government on the rights of private citizens.

One of the consequences of liberty is that you have to coexist with people who don't share your views. At one point in time, people in this country fought and died to preserve the right to think differently (or even incorrectly). Your right to think and behave in a way that pleases you doesn't end when your opinions are, in the opinion of the majority, wrong.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by iella

Because if you listen to him talk, you'll realize he's the only one out of the white guys on the stage who ISN'T racist. He stated his support for the repeal of the Jim Crow laws (government forcing segregation) but also objected to the laws that required private property and business owners to behave in one way or another (government forcing desegregation, essentially). (source)



In other words, a truly color-blind government wouldn't force anybody to do ANYTHING one way or the other. Forced segregation is just as racist in nature as Affirmative Action. One may seem racist and the other standing up for minorities' rights, but in reality, the basis of BOTH is that we are forcing people, businesses, and government entities to treat people one way or another on the basis of their race or ethnicity. Why, then, is one okay while the other is not? Dr. Paul demonstrates his ideological consistency in pointing out that both are unconstitutional intrusions of government on the rights of private citizens.

One of the consequences of liberty is that you have to coexist with people who don't share your views. At one point in time, people in this country fought and died to preserve the right to think differently (or even incorrectly). Your right to think and behave in a way that pleases you doesn't end when your opinions are, in the opinion of the majority, wrong.

Never said he was racist, but he does pander to racists (see newsletters and refusal to reject the support of white supremacist groups). Furthermore, point is the policies he supports - extreme state's rights conservatism (not libertarianism) - logical conclusion would be the oppression of millions of Americans. While he is against the Jim Crow laws PERSONALLY, he would do nothing as President to bring an end to said oppression (as evidenced by his opposition to the Civil Rights Act). That is how screwed up his policies are and why his political positions are not based in reality.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Never said he was racist, but he does pander to racists (see newsletters and refusal to reject the support of white supremacist groups). Furthermore, point is the policies he supports - extreme state's rights conservatism (not libertarianism) - logical conclusion would be the oppression of millions of Americans. While he is against the Jim Crow laws PERSONALLY, he would do nothing as President to bring an end to said oppression (as evidenced by his opposition to the Civil Rights Act). That is how screwed up his policies are and why his political positions are not based in reality.

Firstly, Ron Paul would have abolished the Jim Crow laws. Period.

Again, he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act as a whole, which included the repeal of freedom of association. That does not mean, he wouldn't have fought for repeal of the Jim Crow laws.

Secondly, more black people are locked up in prison today, than were slaves before the cival war. A huge part of that goes back to the war on drugs, which es will abolish, as well.

Thirdly, calling Ron Paul anything else than a Libertarian is just plain stupid.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Arne

Firstly, Ron Paul would have abolished the Jim Crow laws. Period.

Again, he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act as a whole, which included the repeal of freedom of association. That does not mean, he wouldn't have fought for repeal of the Jim Crow laws.

Secondly, more black people are locked up in prison today, than were slaves before the cival war. A huge part of that goes back to the war on drugs, which es will abolish, as well.

Thirdly, calling Ron Paul anything else than a Libertarian is just plain stupid.

I have never seen anywhere where Ron Paul said the federal government should have gotten involved with the Civil Rights movement, as in overriding the racist laws of the southern states. Frankly it seems you just made that up, but maybe you can prove otherwise.

Secondly, no, Paul is not a libertarian. He is an extreme states' rights conservative. For example, Paul is against the Texas v. Lawrence decision, which struck down Texas sodomy laws. A libertarian would support that decision since it protects an individual's right to have sex with another consenting adult. But Paul is not a libertarian, he is a states' rights conservative. He is against that decision because he believes it interferes with states' rights. Maybe you need to do a little more research on what this person you spend so much time defending actually believes.

Fact of the matter is he does pander to racists. Maybe he doesn't believe in white supremacy, but he does pander to the white supremacists.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/us...agewanted=3&hp

And of course he there were all those racist comments in his news letters.

[xrobx]

Originally Posted by SeanL

How can you support someone who is against the Civil Rights Act and panders to racist groups?

The vast majority of people, other than those wackos that post on Stormfront, don't support him. That's why he's running in 4th in a 4 man race. Don't worry yourself, America has rejected Ron Paul and his nutty ideas once again. Not sure why the old man hasn't packed up and went home yet, but it's only a matter of time.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by xrobx

The vast majority of people, other than those wackos that post on Stormfront, don't support him. That's why he's running in 4th in a 4 man race. Don't worry yourself, America has rejected Ron Paul and his nutty ideas once again. Not sure why the old man hasn't packed up and went home yet, but it's only a matter of time.

In favor of what? The same plastic, dunderheaded two-party regime hellbent on war, debt, and government expansion that's been plaguing the White House for decades? At this point we'd be better off with Carrot Top in there.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

In favor of what? The same plastic, dunderheaded two-party regime hellbent on war, debt, and government expansion that's been plaguing the White House for decades? At this point we'd be better off with Carrot Top in there.

I support candidates who don't think you can get AIDS by seating on the same toilet seat as a gay person.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by SeanL

I support candidates who don't think you can get AIDS by seating on the same toilet seat as a gay person.

And I support candidates who don't believe in bloodletting and transmutation. It's well documented what some of these other kooks believe, you know. Somebody once said it somewhere.

[iella]

The ideological principle is: The government exists to PROTECT rights. This includes rights to associate and do business with whomever you please, for whatever reason you choose. It does NOT include the government (federal or state) FORCING you to not do business with someone whom you want to do business (for ANY reason).

I find nothing extreme about this.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by iella

The ideological principle is: The government exists to PROTECT rights. This includes rights to associate and do business with whomever you please, for whatever reason you choose. It does NOT include the government (federal or state) FORCING you to not do business with someone whom you want to do business (for ANY reason).

I find nothing extreme about this.

The whole reason behind the CRA is because even if you repeal Jim Crow laws you could still have de facto segregation. If the entire community of white people in a state or locality decides limits what black people do, where they can go, and where they can eat then there is a de facto Jim Crow.

Furthermore, The fact that you find nothing extreme about supporting the right of businesses to treat black people like crap is telling.

Does it not also disturb you that Paul won't disavow the support of white supremacists? I notice that you are avoiding that topic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/us...agewanted=3&hp

[iella]

Originally Posted by SeanL

You are not getting it. He is also against sodomy laws. But he was against the Lawrence v. Texas decision. He wants to get rid of these laws on the state level, but not on the federal level.

Moreover, it is bizarre that he prioritizes property rights over the civil rights of black people. You can say he is not racist. Fine. But the civil rights of black people are clearly not a high priority of his, at least not higher than the right of businesses to discriminate against black people.

I'm not familiar with the case that you mention. I do think the federal government should step in and strike down state laws that restrict freedom - so yes, I think Dr. Paul is wrong in his opposition to the Supreme Court's decision in this case (again, just based on your statements, not my own familiarity with the case). Regardless, Dr. Paul HAS clearly stated his opposition to the Jim Crow laws and would have supported their repeal (though not supported the Civil Rights Act as a whole).

On the flip side, Dr. Paul is very much in favor of states' rights to legalize and tax marijuana. If a state does not restrict its citizens' freedom, why should the federal government be allowed to step in and restrict liberty? Part of Dr. Paul's appeal is that no other major candidate has even come close to paying lip service to this position.

I object to your statement that "he prioritizes property rights over the civil rights of black people." Specifically, why should he care about the civil rights "of black people"? What about the civil rights of Latino people? What about the civil rights of women? The point is, discussing the rights or non-rights of specific groups is inherently discriminatory. We don't have rights because we belong to particularly minority groups, and the protection of our rights isn't dependent on being a particular ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion. etc. EVERYONE has the same rights. No one person's rights take precedence over another, and the government's responsibility is to allow people the freedom to behave and associate in the way that they see fit.

Again, this means that you are going to run into a lot of backward idiots. It means that if a restaurant chooses to not serve people of a particular skin color, they have that right. You also have every right to not patronize that restaurant, start a campaign against it, raise awareness, and challenge other people to not give that restaurant their business. However, this is VERY different than the government stepping in and saying, "You MUST serve any customer that wishes to eat at your establishment, and we will penalize you if you do not." One scenario is MORE free - the other scenario is less free.

Originally Posted by SeanL

The whole reason behind the CRA is because even if you repeal Jim Crow laws you could still have de facto segregation. If the entire community of white people in a state or locality decides limits what black people do, where they can go, and where they can eat then there is a de facto Jim Crow.

Furthermore, The fact that you find nothing extreme about supporting the right of businesses to treat black people like crap is telling.

Does it not also disturb you that Paul won't disavow the support of white supremacists? I notice that you are avoiding that topic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/us...agewanted=3&hp

"The fact that you find nothing extreme about supporting the right of businesses to treat black people like crap is telling." This is a straight up straw man attack. I consider the treatment of people based on their skin color (or religion, or sexual orientation, or...) to be extremely racist, hateful, outrageously offensive, and backward. However, I don't think you can legislate color-blindness. I don't think Civil Rights Act really made those business owners any more tolerant. If anything, it just created bitterness, resentment, and more hatred.

It doesn't disturb me that Dr. Paul doesn't disavow the support of white supremacists. Freedom is popular, and again, protecting ALL rights means that you are also protecting the rights of people to feel, think, and in some cases, act in ways that society has deemed offensive. Dr. Paul recognizes that even the people with whom he disagrees find his message of liberty to be attractive, and he chooses not to alienate them. His campaign is fighting for their rights (though not for their beliefs), so why should he disavow them?

You know what DOES disturb me? How other political candidates don't disavow the support of bankers, CEOs, and corporations that have profited tremendously from figuratively raping and pillaging the public. Other candidates basically get into bed with people who are interested only in their own gain. These politicians speak at their events, schmooze with their lobbyists, and go through great efforts to pass favorable legislation. Is this not more disturbing than acknowledging that there are some crazy people who like freedom?

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by iella

I'm not familiar with the case that you mention. I do think the federal government should step in and strike down state laws that restrict freedom - so yes, I think Dr. Paul is wrong in his opposition to the Supreme Court's decision in this case (again, just based on your statements, not my own familiarity with the case). Regardless, Dr. Paul HAS clearly stated his opposition to the Jim Crow laws and would have supported their repeal (though not supported the Civil Rights Act as a whole).

On the flip side, Dr. Paul is very much in favor of states' rights to legalize and tax marijuana. If a state does not restrict its citizens' freedom, why should the federal government be allowed to step in and restrict liberty? Part of Dr. Paul's appeal is that no other major candidate has even come close to paying lip service to this position.

I object to your statement that "he prioritizes property rights over the civil rights of black people." Specifically, why should he care about the civil rights "of black people"? What about the civil rights of Latino people? What about the civil rights of women? The point is, discussing the rights or non-rights of specific groups is inherently discriminatory. We don't have rights because we belong to particularly minority groups, and the protection of our rights isn't dependent on being a particular ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion. etc. EVERYONE has the same rights. No one person's rights take precedence over another, and the government's responsibility is to allow people the freedom to behave and associate in the way that they see fit.

Again, this means that you are going to run into a lot of backward idiots. It means that if a restaurant chooses to not serve people of a particular skin color, they have that right. You also have every right to not patronize that restaurant, start a campaign against it, raise awareness, and challenge other people to not give that restaurant their business. However, this is VERY different than the government stepping in and saying, "You MUST serve any customer that wishes to eat at your establishment, and we will penalize you if you do not." One scenario is MORE free - the other scenario is less free.



"The fact that you find nothing extreme about supporting the right of businesses to treat black people like crap is telling." This is a straight up straw man attack. I consider the treatment of people based on their skin color (or religion, or sexual orientation, or...) to be extremely racist, hateful, outrageously offensive, and backward. However, I don't think you can legislate color-blindness. I don't think Civil Rights Act really made those business owners any more tolerant. If anything, it just created bitterness, resentment, and more hatred.

It doesn't disturb me that Dr. Paul doesn't disavow the support of white supremacists. Freedom is popular, and again, protecting ALL rights means that you are also protecting the rights of people to feel, think, and in some cases, act in ways that society has deemed offensive. Dr. Paul recognizes that even the people with whom he disagrees find his message of liberty to be attractive, and he chooses not to alienate them. His campaign is fighting for their rights (though not for their beliefs), so why should he disavow them?

You know what DOES disturb me? How other political candidates don't disavow the support of bankers, CEOs, and corporations that have profited tremendously from figuratively raping and pillaging the public. Other candidates basically get into bed with people who are interested only in their own gain. These politicians speak at their events, schmooze with their lobbyists, and go through great efforts to pass favorable legislation. Is this not more disturbing than acknowledging that there are some crazy people who like freedom?

1. We live in a country where businesses can't do whatever they want. For example, a business can't operate purely on the barter system. If someone offers to pay with U.S. currency the business person is obligated to accept that payment under penalty.

Likewise, we have rules against businesses discriminating against people of all races and religions, whether you are white, straight, latino, gay, black, Jew, Muslim, Christian etc. Hence, if you want to run a business in this country you can't be bigoted towards your patrons, and I don't think that is asking a lot. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that the government can't make rules to regulate businesses. In fact, the Constitution explicitly gives broad authority to the government to regulate interstate commerce whether you like it or not.

2. I think you are having trouble understanding what I am saying. I'm not saying that Paul is a racist. I am saying that minority rights (or majority rights for that matter) are not a concern of his. He prioritizes the right of business to treat minorities like crap over the concern for their civil rights. It doesn't mean he is a racist, nor does it mean he doesn't have sympathy for the plight of certain minorities, but it does mean the civil rights of minorities is just not that important to him.

3. Obama disavowed the support of Reverend Wright, and the types of people that Paul refuses to disavow have said and done far worse things than saying "god damn America." All politicians pander, but most politicians don't pander to hate groups. It is disgusting that Paul feels the need to do so.

4. The point I am making with Lawrence v. Texas is not that he is a homophobe. It is that he is an extreme state's rights conservative, whereas liberterians value the right of the individual over any government (state or federal). In that instance he is favoring the state over the individual, which is antithetical to what real libertarians believe.

5. Finally, it is bizarre you are so angry at bankers, yet you are supporting a candidate that wants to create an environment where bankers can do whatever they please. Seems a bit hypocritical

[iella]

Originally Posted by SeanL

1. We live in a country where businesses can't do whatever they want. For example, a business can't operate purely on the barter system. If someone offers to pay with U.S. currency the business person is obligated to accept that payment under penalty.

Likewise, we have rules against businesses discriminating against people of all races and religions, whether you are white, straight, latino, gay, black, Jew, Muslim, Christian etc. Hence, if you want to run a business in this country you can't be bigoted towards your patrons, and I don't think that is asking a lot. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that the government can't make rules to regulate businesses. In fact, the Constitution explicitly gives broad authority to the government to regulate interstate commerce whether you like it or not.

I recognize that these rules are in place. In fact, I recognize that these rules, in general, encourage people to behave in a civil manner and live harmoniously with each other. However, I am of the belief (and you are free to disagree, of course) that government regulation of businesses tends to hurt small businesses, which is often the exact opposite of the stated intent.

Speaking in a general sense first, large businesses with plentiful resources can hire lawyers, bribe regulators, find loopholes that allow them to circumvent the spirit of the law, or even absorb the penalties of outright breaking the law. More regulation doesn't make these businesses change. Rather than trying to legislate people and businesses into civility and modern, enlightened thinking, individuals ought to spend their energy raising awareness for causes that they support. The loudest incentive in business is almost always the money.

For example, the environmental movement has existed since before you or I were born. The government been passing laws and setting aside land to support that movement. However, it wasn't until more recently that being "green" became trendy, and as a result, people started spending their money to support environmentally friendly businesses, products, and causes. Public awareness to the environmental movement made businesses realize that it's profitable to be (or at least appear to be) environmentally friendly. Before this, not many people cared. The government can't create regulations and penalties fast enough to keep up with all the ways a company find to dump toxic waste, but public awareness can keep those things in check and encourage "good" behavior.

Going back to the main example - if a business decided to stop serving people of a certain ethnicity, what would happen (assuming no laws existed that prevented this)? There would be a public uproar, people would call for a boycott of the restaurant, and anyone who dined there would probably be accused of being racist themselves. Would the business suffer? I would hope so, and if it suffered enough, they would change their policy or go out of business. What if it was a fantastic restaurant that was patronized by wealthy people with unabashed racist sympathies? They probably wouldn't change their policy.

In the latter case, what would happen if the government stepped in (as it does) and forced them to serve people of that ethnicity? Would they serve those people? Yes. Would they be less racist? No. So what have we accomplished? All we did is pretend that the problem doesn't exist. If someone wanted to exclude me from an establishment based on the color of my skin or my gender or my sexual orientation or my religion, would I really be comfortable patronizing that place anyway? In general, I would be more than happy to say, "Screw you" and find a place that wants my dollars more than they want to hate on me.

You said, "Hence, if you want to run a business in this country you can't be bigoted towards your patrons, and I don't think that is asking a lot." I would argue that no one running a business could be called "intelligent" for being bigoted toward their own patrons (or potential patrons), but why shouldn't they be free to be stupid businessmen? Also, "asking a lot" is subjective. You and I don't think it's asking a lot because of how we were raised, but to some, it may in fact be asking a lot.

Emphasizing to people that discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, gender, religion, etc. is prohibited ultimately just causes everyone to constantly be thinking about the fact that people might do this. It means that white kids think they're rejected from colleges because they're white, and it means that black students get disciplined for being unruly think it's happening because schools hate black people. It puts a chip on everyone's shoulder. Rather than trying to legislate enlightenment, we who consider ourselves to be more enlightened ought to be spreading the message and spending our money in a way that reflects our beliefs.

More recently, protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation has become the popular rallying cry. A few years from now, it will be something else. The problem with creating these "protected classes" is that we're ultimately still categorizing people and assigning rights based on the categories to which they belong. Every time a new way of categorizing people comes up, we'll need to pass more laws to make sure that you're not allowed to discriminate against people of that particular category.

It's more efficient (and less discriminatory) to say, "We are all equal. Everyone has fundamental, inalienable rights." You don't need to say "black people and white people and gay people and straight people and religious people and atheists," because we ALL fall under the category of "Everyone." And what are those fundamental rights? Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms... obviously, you can see where I'm going with this. If someone's fundamental rights are violated, they ought to be protected, and the violator ought to be punished or otherwise discouraged. But the linchpin question here is, what constitutes a fundamental right? I don't think "the right to force someone to do business with me" is all that fundamental.

If that's what we're disagreeing on, then no amount of discussion on the surrounding issues will ever bring our points of view into alignment.

2. I think you are having trouble understanding what I am saying. I'm not saying that Paul is a racist. I am saying that minority rights (or majority rights for that matter) are not a concern of his. He prioritizes the right of business to treat minorities like crap over the concern for their civil rights. It doesn't mean he is a racist, nor does it mean he doesn't have sympathy for the plight of certain minorities, but it does mean the civil rights of minorities is just not that important to him.

I agree. Every politician has their pet causes. Dr. Paul thinks that the pendulum has swung too far one way, and would like it to start swinging back the other way. Somehow, a lot of people interpret this as being racist.

3. Obama disavowed the support of Reverend Wright, and the types of people that Paul refuses to disavow have said and done far worse things than saying "god damn America." All politicians pander, but most politicians don't pander to hate groups. It is disgusting that Paul feels the need to do so.

Did Obama's disavowal of Rev. Wright's support mean, "Please don't vote for me, and if you are a follower of Rev. Wright, don't vote for me either"? If anything, the pandering was in Obama folding to the pressure of those who objected to Rev. Wright. The disavowal is symbolic, meaningless, and used purely for political purposes. Dr. Paul doesn't see the need, and I don't see why that's "disgusting."

4. The point I am making with Lawrence v. Texas is not that he is a homophobe. It is that he is an extreme state's rights conservative, whereas liberterians value the right of the individual over any government (state or federal). In that instance he is favoring the state over the individual, which is antithetical to what real libertarians believe.

I agree that Dr. Paul is often wrongly categorized as a libertarian, and I agree that he is wrong in this case (again, as I understand it based on your descriptions). Individual rights ought to be the most protected. I don't agree with 100% of his positions, but I agree more with him than I agree with other politicians. I think his positions, while very idealistic and perhaps ultimately counterproductive if brought to complete fruition, would move the country back from the brink on which we currently find ourselves (over regulated, overtaxed, overly politically correct, overly involved internationally where we have no business being involved, overly in debt).

I have no delusions of grandeur. Dr. Paul is not going to be nominated, much less elected. I do wish that people would think more thoroughly about his positions and why/if they disagree with the ideological underpinnings of his positions rather than just dismissing the platform as ludicrous based on what positions are popular today. I'm fighting a philosophical and ideological battle here, not a political one.

5. Finally, it is bizarre you are so angry at bankers, yet you are supporting a candidate that wants to create an environment where bankers can do whatever they please. Seems a bit hypocritical

I'm not angry at bankers as much as I'm disappointed with politicians who pass legislation to help out their banker golf buddies/political contributors. I expect bankers (and businessmen in general) to do whatever they can to get ahead and end up on top - isn't that what we're all doing? I also expect the government to keep the playing field level-ish by not passing legislation that quashes competition or artificially props up certain institutions over others.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by iella

The ideological principle is: The government exists to PROTECT rights. This includes rights to associate and do business with whomever you please, for whatever reason you choose. It does NOT include the government (federal or state) FORCING you to not do business with someone whom you want to do business (for ANY reason).

I find nothing extreme about this.

that is a pretty damned weak definition of "PROTECT rights"...

what you are saying is that the government exists to protect rights..except in instances wheresomebody else doesn't want to observe others rights, in which case the government exsts to protect THEIR right to ignore other's rights... right?


the purpose of government is to protect lunch counter owners from uppity coloured folk protesting the fact that those lunch counters refuse to serve them.... really?

[iella]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

that is a pretty damned weak definition of "PROTECT rights"...

what you are saying is that the government exists to protect rights..except in instances where somebody else doesn't want to observe others rights, in which case the government exists to protect THEIR right to ignore other's rights... right?

the purpose of government is to protect lunch counter owners from uppity coloured folk protesting the fact that those lunch counters refuse to serve them.... really?

The Bill of Rights lays out a lot of rights that are protected under law. Nowhere is there a "Right to eat at whatever restaurant I want." The federal government exists to protect those rights that are specifically defined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Do other rights exist? Yes, that's why the 9th Amendment is there. But again, I don't see "Right to eat at whatever restaurant I want" to be one of those fundamental, inalienable rights.

The Constitution was put into place to protect citizens from an overreaching federal government, not to give the government purchase to "protect" us from each other by regulating how we think and behave. Disputes between people or groups of people can and ought to be mostly regulated at the state or even (preferably) local level.

Obviously, this is a conservative interpretation. We can agree to disagree.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by iella

The Bill of Rights lays out a lot of rights that are protected under law. Nowhere is there a "Right to eat at whatever restaurant I want." The federal government exists to protect those rights that are specifically defined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Do other rights exist? Yes, that's why the 9th Amendment is there. But again, I don't see "Right to eat at whatever restaurant I want" to be one of those fundamental, inalienable rights.

You seem to be confused on how the constitution works. Specific rights aren't enumerated in the constitution. It is up to the Supreme court to determine who is a federally protected class under the constitution. Furthermore, the constitution does specifically say the federal government can regulate business as much as it feels like under the interstate commerce clause. Hate to burst your bubble.

Originally Posted by iella

The Constitution was put into place to protect citizens from an overreaching federal government, not to give the government purchase to "protect" us from each other by regulating how we think and behave. Disputes between people or groups of people can and ought to be mostly regulated at the state or even (preferably) local level.

Actually the constitution was put in place to give the federal government more power. Prior to the creation of the constitution there were the Articles of the Confederation. The federal government was extremely weak and the U.S. almost became a failed state. That is the whole reasoning behind the creation of the Constitution: to strengthen the federal government. And you want to bring us back to the dark ages when the U.S. was on the brink of disaster.

Originally Posted by iella

Obviously, this is a conservative interpretation. We can agree to disagree.

It has nothing to do with a conservative or liberal interpretation. It has to do with historical fact and historical fantasy. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by SeanL

You seem to be confused on how the constitution works. Specific rights aren't enumerated in the constitution.

Seriously?

You mean specific rights like freedom of speech, or the press, or the right to peacably assemble, or petition the government for redress of grievances, etc., etc...

Are these the sort of specific rights which aren't enumerated in the constitution? Because they are quite specifically enumerated in the constitution.

I think it'd be slightly more plausible to say that the enumeration of specific rights within the constitution does not negate other rights not enumerated in the constitution, or per the 9th:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That's not too hard to understand, is it?

But of course the next question is "oh yeah, sez who?" and that, imo, is plainly addressed in the 10th:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The answer to the aforementioned question, "oh yeah, sez who?" is "the States respectively, or to the people"...it damn sure doesn't say "The Supremes on High."

So when the Supremes on High step in to the States and start enumerating unenumerated rights, what they're doing is what the old folks used to call "usurpation".

Usurpation: illegal seizure and occupation of a throne.

It's a full-on power play, a territorial pissing match over who gets to be the king with the United States stepping across a very clearly delineated boundary.

Personally, I'm a little partial (not committed, much less devoted...just partial) to some old school liberal superstitions, "self-government" being on of those kinds of thing. I'm also a bit of a fan of the principle of subsidiarity, and my guess is the dead white guys that wrote the constitution were quite familiar with the concept if not the exact same phrase.

Moreover, or maybe as a subset of subsidiarity, I think it's good to have what I like to call a "separation of powers", not just functionally, but geographically as well. In this I mean that it's wise to have political subdivisions that are not...well...merely geographical subdivisions of the super power.

Anyhoo...I think if you take a regard for self-government and mix in a little principle of subsidiarity, then you get an argument for State's having...let's call it a "right"....to tell the United States to go away from time to time.

Mix in the fact that Constitution unequivocally states that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states and you have a pretty fair case for the constitutionality of "State's Rights."

(And i haven't even mentioned yet that we could bring back Jim Crow laws if only we had State's Rights!)

But I digress.

We all know that the "rule of law" is situational, and that political power comes out of the business end of a gun. Any question of "State's Rights" was effectively put to rest by 1865.

[iella]

Originally Posted by SeanL

You seem to be confused on how the constitution works. Specific rights aren't enumerated in the constitution. It is up to the Supreme court to determine who is a federally protected class under the constitution. Furthermore, the constitution does specifically say the federal government can regulate business as much as it feels like under the interstate commerce clause. Hate to burst your bubble.

Specific rights ARE enumerated in the Bill of Rights and other amendments. The idea of a "federally protected class" didn't even really come into play until 1964 with the Civil Rights Act.

This is the text of Section I of the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (source)

Nowhere is there a propensity to categorize based on race or anything else that is now considered "federally protected." This statement is actually much broader and more powerful than it would have been if the text stated, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States on the basis of color, ethnicity, or religion." There is absolutely no reason for these provisions to be included since every person of every color, ethnicity, and religion belong equally under "citizens of the United States" (assuming they are, of course).

People of certain color, ethnicity, and religion are already protected because they fall under "everyone." Why was there a need to define "federally protected classes"? If states were enacting laws that endangered the life, liberty, and property of ANYONE, the original text of the 14th Amendment should have been enough for the federal government to step in and strike those laws down. The Lawrence vs. Texas case you cited is a perfect example of this.

I still think the issue we're primarily disagreeing on is the matter of which rights ought to be protected by the federal government. I'm sticking by my statement that the "right to eat at any restaurant you choose" should not be federally protected.

Also, the interstate commerce cause is used to justify all kinds of abuses of power by the federal government. The fact that the precedent exists doesn't mean it's correct. Last year, Congress was thinking about forcing a change in the college football bowl system under the auspices of the commerce clause. It's gotten a little ridiculous.

Consider also the example of a mom-and-pop restaurant that sources all ingredients and other materials locally. How do they fall under the jurisdiction of the commerce clause? Shouldn't they be subject to the business laws of their state and not to the federal government?

Actually the constitution was put in place to give the federal government more power. Prior to the creation of the constitution there were the Articles of the Confederation. The federal government was extremely weak and the U.S. almost became a failed state. That is the whole reasoning behind the creation of the Constitution: to strengthen the federal government. And you want to bring us back to the dark ages when the U.S. was on the brink of disaster.

The Constitution was put into place to DEFINE the power of the federal government. Defining something can either make something stronger where it was once weak (as in the case of the Articles of Confederation), or it can weaken something that has become too strong (as I believe it should be used now). It's a big jump to go from "the Articles of Confederation are too weak, we need a stronger federal government" to "the Constitution gives the federal government the right to step in wherever and whenever it wants to enact whatever laws they see fit." If the latter were the case, why did we bother to fight and die to separate ourselves from the British monarchy in the first place?

I also find your claim that I "want to bring us back to the dark ages when the U.S. was on the brink of disaster" to be rather incendiary hyperbole. I am not proposing a return to the Articles of Confederation. I am, in fact, quite fond of the Constitution as it currently stands. You claim that a more limited federal government would bring us to the brink of disaster. I would counter that our current bloated, debt-ridden, politically deadlocked federal government, as well as our public culture of entitlement and state-dependence, IS currently bringing our country toward economic, political, and international disaster. We can discuss these things without straw man attacks.

It has nothing to do with a conservative or liberal interpretation. It has to do with historical fact and historical fantasy. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

If you read the actual text of the Constitution, how much of what the federal government does today is explicitly spelled out? A lot of the federal government's current power is derived from interpretations of things like the commerce clause. So yes, it is absolutely a matter of interpretation.

[alexamenos]

Funny....as I'm reading this I'm sitting in a fairly nice restaurant.

I'd guess 99.9% of the patrons are white, but at least my waiter is black.

Thank goodness for desegregation.

[ribosoma]

If I actually believed that there was a political solution to the problems of the world and that the process of voting wasn't a mass ritual of collective servitude, I would be far more concerned with Paul's connections to the Rockefeller-funded Council for National Policy and the John Birch Society than a spurious connection to a pathetic fringe group of marginalized, frustrated white supremacists.

When I think of a true Libertarian, I think of Thomas Paine and the Quakers, not some used-up, frail politician who plays the political game while doing his best to convince his followers otherwise. Or a guy who accuses "Washington insiders" of taking corporate money while receiving millions of dollars from big pharma, big banks, big insurance, big alcohol, and Wall Street over the course of his career. So now we have the lesser of three evils, as opposed to two. Whoop-de-frickin' doo.

[iella]

Originally Posted by ribosoma

Or a guy who accuses "Washington insiders" of taking corporate money while receiving millions of dollars from big pharma, big banks, big insurance, big alcohol, and Wall Street over the course of his career. So now we have the lesser of three evils, as opposed to two. Whoop-de-frickin' doo.

I can has source? Genuinely curious. I agree that he plays politics while claiming not to, but everything I've ever read indicates he doesn't take money from lobbyists.

[ribosoma]

Originally Posted by iella

I can has source? Genuinely curious. I agree that he plays politics while claiming not to, but everything I've ever read indicates he doesn't take money from lobbyists.

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2011/Q...C00495820.html

[iella]

Originally Posted by ribosoma

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2011/Q...C00495820.html

I'm not sure I understand. Based on a scan through the list, it looks like Dr. Paul gets a lot of contributions from... people who are self employed or in the military? Definitely don't see how this proves your point that he has been "receiving millions of dollars from big pharma, big banks, big insurance, big alcohol, and Wall Street."

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by ribosoma

If I actually believed that there was a political solution to the problems of the world and that the process of voting wasn't a mass ritual of collective servitude, I would be far more concerned with Paul's connections to the Rockefeller-funded Council for National Policy and the John Birch Society than a spurious connection to a pathetic fringe group of marginalized, frustrated white supremacists.

When I think of a true Libertarian, I think of Thomas Paine and the Quakers, not some used-up, frail politician who plays the political game while doing his best to convince his followers otherwise. Or a guy who accuses "Washington insiders" of taking corporate money while receiving millions of dollars from big pharma, big banks, big insurance, big alcohol, and Wall Street over the course of his career. So now we have the lesser of three evils, as opposed to two. Whoop-de-frickin' doo.

Thomas Paine on Social Security:
"It is painful to see old age working itself to death, in what are called civilised countries, for daily bread... pay to every such person of the age of fifty years ... the sum of six pounds per annum out of the surplus taxes, and ten pounds per annum during life after the age of sixty... This support, as already remarked, is not of the nature of a charity but of a right."

He also had a lot of forward thinking ideas that some here today would label as being socialist. I just love the historical revisionism on this board where Thomas Paine - one of the biggest advocates for the poor and needy - was a Libertarian. LOL.

[CadBane]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Thomas Paine on Social Security:
"It is painful to see old age working itself to death, in what are called civilised countries, for daily bread... pay to every such person of the age of fifty years ... the sum of six pounds per annum out of the surplus taxes, and ten pounds per annum during life after the age of sixty... This support, as already remarked, is not of the nature of a charity but of a right."

He also had a lot of forward thinking ideas that some here today would label as being socialist. I just love the historical revisionism on this board where Thomas Paine - one of the biggest advocates for the poor and needy - was a Libertarian. LOL.

So Libertarians are inherently not forward thinking or advocates of the needy?

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by CadBane

So Libertarians are inherently not forward thinking or advocates of the needy?

Usually they recommend 1800's style economics (laissez faire capitalism), and a good portion of their prescriptions is to get rid of social programs for the poor. So yes.

[CadBane]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Usually they recommend 1800's style economics (laissez faire capitalism), and a good portion of their prescriptions is to get rid of social programs for the poor. So yes.

That's horribly false logic. Not that you care.

The economic policies and alleviation of government involvement are in order to help the poor, long-term.

[ribosoma]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Thomas Paine on Social Security:
"It is painful to see old age working itself to death, in what are called civilised countries, for daily bread... pay to every such person of the age of fifty years ... the sum of six pounds per annum out of the surplus taxes, and ten pounds per annum during life after the age of sixty... This support, as already remarked, is not of the nature of a charity but of a right."

He also had a lot of forward thinking ideas that some here today would label as being socialist. I just love the historical revisionism on this board where Thomas Paine - one of the biggest advocates for the poor and needy - was a Libertarian. LOL.

I find it both ironic and tragic that you are pressing about someone marginalizing people based on race, yet you seem to see fit to do it ad nauseum in just about every post you toss out.

The modern political term 'Libertarian' is a far cry from what a Libertarian used to be. I would think that someone as clever as you seem to think you are would know that, but I guess not.

All I really read from you is a cascade of strawmen and rhetoric that seems geared for a feedback loop of confrontation... and, not surprisingly, that's what you're getting.

I don't affiliate myself with any political party, whatsoever, but I'm sure that that won't stop you from forming an opinion about my motives for posting what I did. You're playing the part of the 5-year-old who complains about getting stung by bees after he just bashed their hive in triumphantly.

But hey, what do I know. Clearly you seem to think this approach is working for you, so have at it.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by ribosoma

I find it both ironic and tragic that you are pressing about someone marginalizing people based on race, yet you seem to see fit to do it ad nauseum in just about every post you toss out.

When have I marginalized someone because of their race on this thread?

[ribosoma]

Originally Posted by SeanL

When have I marginalized someone because of their race on this thread?

You have marginalized people who have views that differ from yours. Pot, meet kettle. You lumped me in with other people even though you completely misunderstood my post. Marginalizing someone because of race is no different than marginalizing someone because of their political views. In other words, you're a hypocrite, which, thankfully for you, is not a marginal position these days.