Rep. Ron Paul for Prez

[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.

[iella]

Originally Posted by SeanL

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.

Um, maybe you missed this above: "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."

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by iella

Um, maybe you missed this above: "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."

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.