NationStates Jolt Archive

The Iowa Crime of '07

by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

As I wrote on Wednesday, the misnamed Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance (ICA) have chosen to exclude Ron Paul from their candidates’ forum on June 30.

There is more to report.

I’ve received emails from people telling me that the folks at the ICA insist that they had nothing to do with excluding Dr. Paul, and that the blame rests with Ed Failor of Iowans for Tax Relief. (Ed’s not too popular with a lot of people these days, apparently.)

Now I have no doubt that there may be some decent people at the ICA, and that they may really believe what they are saying. But that organization cannot possibly be believed when it innocently claims it has nothing against Ron Paul.

The ICA has a page on its site that lists all the announced candidates for president. Here is the link.

Until yesterday, when I pointed it out on the LRC blog and embarrassed them a bit, there was no Ron Paul.

Now look at the list again. Ever heard of Hugh Cort? John Cox? Mark Klein? The people at the ICA evidently have, since there they are on the list. But they apparently hadn't heard of Ron Paul until just yesterday.

Actually, though, they did know who Ron Paul was. They even used to have him on their list, as this Google cache shows. But then he disappeared.

They also used to have a link to Paul’s YouTube site, along with those of the other candidates, at the bottom of the page, but that’s also been suppressed. So if they thought they could claim that deleting the link to Ron Paul’s campaign site was some kind of innocent mistake, that isn’t going to work.

Heck, they even include a list of "potential" candidates. That list includes Al Sharpton.

So Al Sharpton merits inclusion, but Ron Paul does not. There is the faith of the apostles, according to the Iowa Christian Alliance.

Now let’s return to my other favorite Iowa organization, the Iowans (Allegedly) for Tax Relief. Its executive vice president, Ed Failor, wasn’t happy about my LRC article on Wednesday. Not happy at all.

In fact, he called me on Wednesday and insisted that I correct something I’d said – that by replacing Jim Gilmore with Duncan Hunter at the last minute (a fact I discovered by comparing press releases from earlier this month), Iowans for Tax Relief implicitly revealed that the reason they were excluding Ron Paul – that the event had supposedly been organized months ago and was now cast in stone – was bogus, and a lie.

Here is the earth-shattering change Failor wanted me to make. Hunter, he said, had been one of the original invitees – man, these guys are just great at picking out the credible candidates, aren’t they? – but failed to respond by the deadline. So when Gilmore dropped out, they went back to Hunter, who accepted.

But if they really wanted "credible" candidates, why would they do such a thing? By now even the zombie population can see that Ron Paul is far more credible than Hunter by any measure. The comparison is almost laughable. And since Hunter had his chance to participate but elected not to respond, why not give Paul a chance, since his initial exclusion – on the ludicrous grounds that he was not a "credible" candidate – has subsequently been shown to be a gross misjudgment? Paul seems particularly "credible" given that he came in second behind Fred Thompson in a straw poll that Iowans for Tax Relief itself co-sponsored!

Meanwhile, with Failor’s technicality off his chest, he had absolutely nothing to say about 99 percent of what I wrote: he never denied his support for the execrable George Pataki (what non-hack ever supported Pataki for anything, much less for president?), his support for Pataki’s spending increases, or his donations to the McCain campaign, for which Failor is a senior advisor.

The humorless Failor appeared on Jan Mickelson’s radio program later that day in order to justify his organization’s exclusion of Dr. Paul; Ron Paul campaign manager Kent Snyder also appeared. You can listen to it here.

My favorite part is Failor’s claim that other non-credible candidates weren’t invited, either, so Ron Paul hasn’t been treated unfairly. And which candidates would those be? Why, Hugh Cort, John Cox, and Mark Klein, of course!

You cannot make this stuff up.

The "Rudy McRomney" moniker is meant to suggest that the establishment’s favorite Republican candidates are indistinguishable from each other, and that they collectively represent the same inoffensive commitment to nothing that characterizes the entire political mainstream. As surely as the sun will rise tomorrow, electing one of these men means absolutely nothing will change. Of that you can be certain.

And that’s just the way Ed Failor, Rudy McRomney supporter, evidently likes it. No Ron Paul revolution for him. Who needs a revolution when you can vote for John McCain and get a slightly more maniacal status quo?

This is the man who sits in judgment of Ron Paul?

And no, Ed, I don’t buy your phony explanation. Neither does anyone with an IQ over 75.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods73.html

So apparently, since Ron Paul makes the most sense when it comes to the collection of idiots we call our Presidential candidates, they decided to keep Ron Paul out of the spotlight, on purpose. Well I am not going to let them do that, I am going to fight this, and whether or not you are for Ron Paul, you should fight this too because every Presidential Candidates deserve to be heard so that the people can make an informed choice!

Here's (http://www.iowachristian.com/contacts.htm) the contact information for the ICA.

Also, for the Iowans for Tax Relief:
E-Mail: itr@taxrelief.org
Phone: 563-288-3600 or 877-913-3600
Fax: 563-264-2413
2610 Park Avenue, Muscatine, Iowa 52761

Let them know that this is an affront to our Democratic process!

Bitches.

Poor poor, racist, sexist Ron Paul. My heart bleeds for him. I suppose that next time maybe he won't want to leave it to the states to decide the issue?

Forgive me for not feeling a whit of pity for the man who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


A Good Look at the Doctor from Texas (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740)

I would imagine the fundies who have taken over the GOP and supplanted the tradition libertarianism with their social authoritarianism just don't want any real conservative opinions displayed (of which Paul is the only candidate who espouses them). I think it's also counter productive that the GOP are trying to sideline Paul, mainly because he would be a very good counter to Democratic candidates, because he supports withdrawal from Iraq and changing the military/industrial complex interventionist policy (as all the democrats do) that means the debate would switch from Iraq/international sillyness to economic policy, in which Pauls tax reform would be very popular. So even putting aside the antidemocratic nature of the GOP candidates all supporting the chest-beating quasi-fascist militarism foreign policy, it's also a bad move because it will allow the democratic candidate to focus in terms of black and white (eg gop=war, dems=peace).

If the Republican/GOP doesn't give Ron Paul the nod, then they deserve to lose in '08.

I would imagine the fundies who have taken over the GOP and supplanted the tradition libertarianism with their social authoritarianism just don't want any real conservative opinions displayed (of which Paul is the only candidate who espouses them). I think it's also counter productive that the GOP are trying to sideline Paul, mainly because he would be a very good counter to Democratic candidates, because he supports withdrawal from Iraq and changing the military/industrial complex interventionist policy (as all the democrats do) that means the debate would switch from Iraq/international sillyness to economic policy, in which Pauls tax reform would be very popular. So even putting aside the antidemocratic nature of the GOP candidates all supporting the chest-beating quasi-fascist militarism foreign policy, it's also a bad move because it will allow the democratic candidate to focus in terms of black and white (eg gop=war, dems=peace).

Poor poor, racist, sexist Ron Paul. My heart bleeds for him. I suppose that next time maybe he won't want to leave it to the states to decide the issue?

Forgive me for not feeling a whit of pity for the man who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


A Good Look at the Doctor from Texas (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740)

Do you know why he voted against it? No? Then keep your mouth shut.

Poor poor, racist, sexist Ron Paul. My heart bleeds for him. I suppose that next time maybe he won't want to leave it to the states to decide the issue?

Forgive me for not feeling a whit of pity for the man who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


A Good Look at the Doctor from Texas (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740)

Actually he never voted on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he didn't assume office until 1979.

Clicky! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul)

I keep on saying this over, and over, and over, and over, if you want to know where a candidate stand on the issues, the only reliable source there is, is his voting records!

Ron Paul's voting record. (http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm)

Try again.

Do you know why he voted against it? No? Then keep your mouth shut.

I know why he says he voted against it, and I know that he also essentially called all African Americans terrorists. So, no, I won't keep my mouth shut.

Or more likely, since as far as I know he is the lowest polling runner for the Republicans right now, they cut him out to save space and time at the debate. Your source is hardly an objective reporter, one need only look at the first paragraph to see that.

I know why he says he voted against it, and I know that he also essentially called all African Americans terrorists. So, no, I won't keep my mouth shut.

Ron Paul votes against all laws which grant more power to the federal government.

And I have yet to see credible evidence that Paul said such a thing.

I know why he says he voted against it, and I know that he also essentially called all African Americans terrorists. So, no, I won't keep my mouth shut.

Ok, do you have a source for this, because once again, Ron Paul did not assume any kind of office until 1979, so how did he vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Actually he never voted on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he didn't assume office until 1979.

Clicky! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul)

I keep on saying this over, and over, and over, and over, if you want to know where a candidate stand on the issues, the only reliable source there is, is his voting records!

Ron Paul's voting record. (http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm)

Try again.

On this particular issue you are, for the most part, correct.

He only voted against the resolution celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. My bad.

Ok, do you have a source for this, because once again, Ron Paul did not assume any kind of office until 1979, so how did he vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Read the correction below and the link I gave regarding his racist, sexist, and bigoted background.

Edit: For housekeeping's sake:

Ron Paul votes against all laws which grant more power to the federal government.

And I have yet to see credible evidence that Paul said such a thing.

So read the blasted link I posted. Not that difficult.

The man is an obvious nutjob. Extremists of all colours need to be kept out of politics and I applaud these Iowans on their decision.

On this particular issue you are, for the most part, correct.

He only voted against the resolution celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. My bad.

Then how come the website that shows what he voted on, doesn't show that?

Strike two.

The man is an obvious nutjob. Extremists of all colours need to be kept out of politics and I applaud these Iowans on their decision.

So being pro-liberty and pro-limited government = "extremist?"

The man is an obvious nutjob. Extremists of all colours need to be kept out of politics and I applaud these Iowans on their decision.

Just go away....go away and let the grown up talk. People like you are the reason that sensible and sane people like Ron Paul are kept out in the cold while the real extremist like Romney (who supports Gitmo BTW) are being given more air time than they deserve.

Then how come the website that shows what he voted on, doesn't show that?

Strike two.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll304.xml

He only voted against the resolution celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. My bad.

What did this resolution entail exactly?

Then every GOP candidate should be excluded.

There does seem to be a certain dearth of moderates in the GOP's pack, when Rudy Bush-clone McCorruption is the most centrist of the lot, it's a sad, sad day for the "Big Tent" Party.

The man is an obvious nutjob. Extremists of all colours need to be kept out of politics and I applaud these Iowans on their decision.

Then every GOP candidate should be excluded.

What did this resolution entail exactly?


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:2:./temp/~c108eP5rYy::

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:2:./temp/~c108eP5rYy::

Did this resolution involve spending any of the taxpayers' money? If yes, then there's your answer. If not, then I'm at a loss.

Did this resolution involve spending any of the taxpayers' money? If yes, then there's your answer. If not, then I'm at a loss.

Or maybe he thought it was pointless and that Congress had better things to take care of than this.

Or maybe he thought it was pointless and that Congress had better things to take care of than this.

You have a point. Congress had (and has) many far more pressing matters to attend to than patting itself on the back.

Did this resolution involve spending any of the taxpayers' money? If yes, then there's your answer. If not, then I'm at a loss.

No, it didn't. Resolutions don't spend money unless they are very specific joint resolutions.

Oh, noes....

... Ron Who?

Oh, I just recalled I don't really care to know who. Ah, well.

Or maybe he thought it was pointless and that Congress had better things to take care of than this.

Uh, uh. He rose to protest the resolution on the ground that he felt that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been innapropriate and that it "diminished civil liberties".

IE a racist Klansman wannabe whining 'cuz the Feds wouldn't let him have Jim Crow no more.

No, it didn't. Resolutions don't spend money unless they are very specific joint resolutions.

Then he must've thought that Congress had far more pressing matters to attend to rather than patting itself on the back.

Uh, uh. He rose to protest the resolution on the ground that he felt that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been innapropriate and that it "diminished civil liberties".

IE a racist Klansman wannabe whining 'cuz the Feds wouldn't let him have Jim Crow no more.

Or maybe he thought that The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave government more power than what was prescribed in the Constitution.

You cannot convince me that a man who voted:

# Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Jul 2006)
# Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
# Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
# Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
# Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
# Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)


to be a racist, it's just not possible.

Uh, uh. He rose to protest the resolution on the ground that he felt that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been innapropriate and that it "diminished civil liberties".

What did he say? Give me an exact quote.

What did he say? Give me an exact quote.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

Typical, really, of the closet racists in the Republican party, especially in the context of his other remarks, which can be found in the blog diary attatched to my first post.

meh. They'll annoint Guiliani to be their nominee, whereby ensuring the total victory of Hillary Clinton in 2008.

# Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Jul 2006)
# Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
# Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
# Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
# Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
# Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)

Excepting the last of those, none of those has a thing to do with racism. The last of them is just posturing, TBH, and a non-issue created by Conservatives.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

Typical, really, of the closet racists in the Republican party, especially in the context of his other remarks, which can be found in the blog diary attatched to my first post.

Let's look at your own link (emphasis added by me):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

As I figured, you took his words completely out of context.

Let's look at your own link (emphasis added by me):



As I figured, you took his words completely out of context.

I read them. Unlike you, I also read the exalted doctor's less savory comments as well, like the one where he accused African Americans of having "insane" politics and of being terrorists. He can spin his racism however he likes, it's still just spin.

Let's look at your own link (emphasis added by me):



As I figured, you took his words completely out of context.

Also note that Ron Paul never said that he was against intergration, he was just against FORCED integration. Huge difference there.

I read them. Unlike you, I also read the exalted doctor's less savory comments as well, like the one where he accused African Americans of having "insane" politics and of being terrorists. He can spin his racism however he likes, it's still just spin.

Your source, is a blog, and what makes you think blogs, which can be written by any idiot (go check bloggers.com if you don't believe me) to be a reputable source?

Also note that Ron Paul never said that he was against intergration, he was just against FORCED integration. Huge difference there.

There was never going to be integration without forced integration. This was a case of social injustice that had to be fixed. Do you support another century of Jim Crow laws? 2 more?

I read them. Unlike you, I also read the exalted doctor's less savory comments as well, like the one where he accused African Americans of having "insane" politics and of being terrorists. He can spin his racism however he likes, it's still just spin.

From Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Response_to_newsletter_remarks_on_race)

A 1996 article in the Houston Chronicle[105] alleges that Ron Paul made comments in a 1992 edition of the Ron Paul Survival Report (a newsletter published since 1985), including commentary on race and disparaging remarks about fellow congressperson Barbara Jordan.[106]

In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in the newsletter under his name, but explained that they did not represent his views and that they were written by a ghostwriter. He further stated that he felt some moral responsibility for the words that had been attributed to him, despite the fact that they did not represent his way of thinking:

"They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them...I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'"[107][11]

He further stated:

"I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady... we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."[11]

Texas Monthly wrote in 2001, "What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this." They state that it would have been easier for him to deny the accusations at the time, because the controversy would have destroyed most politicians.[11]

Your source, is a blog, and what makes you think blogs, which can be written by any idiot (go check bloggers.com if you don't believe me) to be a reputable source?

He cites his sources, which is more than I can say for some posters here on NSG.

There was never going to be integration without forced integration. This was a case of social injustice that had to be fixed. Do you support another century of Jim Crow laws? 2 more?

Forced integration? Whatever happened to "freedom of association? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association)"

Forced integration and forced segregation are both equally guilty of violating this principle.

From Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Response_to_newsletter_remarks_on_race)

3 year gap in there before he bothers to apologise. Hmm... Gee, real... reliable apology, that.

REad the whole series, though, and you can get all sorts of other gems about him. It's a real treat to know that your candidate is a favorite of the Neo-Nazi movement in the US, eh?

There was never going to be integration without forced integration. This was a case of social injustice that had to be fixed. Do you support another century of Jim Crow laws? 2 more?

No, but I also don't support government telling private businesses how to run their business and who to hire. I also don't believe in forcing people (who clearly hated one another, KKK and the Black Panthers) to 'play nice' because it 'feels so good'.

Look at our society today, we still have racism, we still have cities that are divided by race (if you don't believe me, just go to any city in the USA and note where the white lives, and where the black lives) and we still have racist, it's just now it's either toned down, convert, or both. It may have died down some, but we still don't live in a color blind society.

3 year gap in there before he bothers to apologise. Hmm... Gee, real... reliable apology, that.

Maybe the contents of the ghost-written letter didn't become widely known until then? Or he was never asked to explain it until then?

Forced integration? Whatever happened to "freedom of association? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association)"

Forced integration and forced segregation are both equally guilty of violating this principle.

So you do support continued Jim Crow laws and unbreakable de facto segregation, then?

No, but I also don't support government telling private businesses how to run their business and who to hire. I also don't believe in forcing people (who clearly hated one another, KKK and the Black Panthers) to 'play nice' because it 'feels so good'.

Look at our society today, we still have racism, we still have cities that are divided by race (if you don't believe me, just go to any city in the USA and note where the white lives, and where the black lives) and we still have racist, it's just now it's either toned down, convert, or both. It may have died down some, but we still don't live in a color blind society.

And Ron Paul would rather that we return to the era of Jim Crow and complete racial inequality! A true step foward towards a color-blind society!

Maybe the contents of the ghost-written letter didn't become widely known until then? Or he was never asked to explain it until then?

There's a 3 year gap between the report in a major Texan Newspaper, and his response. Not even counting the 2 years in between the actual publication.

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called 'diversity' actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist."

Source (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst041607.htm)

He cites his sources, which is more than I can say for some posters here on NSG.

Hmm, an obvious biased blog, basically degrading any Conservative/Republican candidates, you don't think that his sources may be biased as well don't you?

So you do support continued Jim Crow laws and unbreakable de facto segregation, then?

Jim Crow laws = forced segregration. I oppose all laws which infringe upon freedom of association.

Do you support "de-segregating" Chinatown?

Source (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst041607.htm)

Yes. Like I said, traditional rhetoric from closet racists in the GOP. We hear that a lot from them, while they ignore the plight of the Urban African American population, and advocate for a return of racist institutions in the US. I'm sure Trent Lott and John Cornyn have also mouthed such platitudes.

And Ron Paul would rather that we return to the era of Jim Crow and complete racial inequality! A true step foward towards a color-blind society!

No, Ron Paul believes adults should be allowed to associate (or disassociate) with whomever they choose to.

Hmm, an obvious biased blog, basically degrading any Conservative/Republican candidates, you don't think that his sources may be biased as well don't you?

Cute that you don't bother to chase any of his sources to actually, y'know, make a point, you just make an basis-less insinuation.

Yes. Like I said, traditional rhetoric from closet racists in the GOP. We hear that a lot from them, while they ignore the plight of the Urban African American population, and advocate for a return of racist institutions in the US. I'm sure Trent Lott and John Cornyn have also mouthed such platitudes.

So far, the only source I have seen suggesting Paul is racist is an obscure article that was more likely than not ghostwritten. Looks more like a smear attempt against Paul to me.

And Ron Paul would rather that we returnto the era of Jim Crow and complete racial inequality! A true step foward towards a color-blind society!

Or maybe, he would rather preserve such rights as "Freedom of Association" and let society change on it's own instead of having government force the change upon the population, which does give the government too much power. Face it, the sheer fact that we still have segregation (just not state sponsored segregation) is evidence that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 failed.

No, Ron Paul believes adults should be allowed to associate (or disassociate) with whomever they choose to.

So when a racial group is kept from attaining political, social, or economic equality because a larger racial group essentially conspires to keep them from attaining these things, we should celebrate? Maybe we should just freely celebrate the freedom to disassociate black children from white children in our schools, too?

Or maybe, he would rather preserve such rights as "Freedom of Association" and let society change on it's own instead of having government force the change upon the population, which does give the government too much power. Face it, the sheer fact that we still have segregation (just not state sponsored segregation) is evidence that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 failed.

I think it's cute when people who were born long after the civil rights movement pretend to understand the difference between now and then. Keep it up!

Jim Crow laws = forced segregration. I oppose all laws which infringe upon freedom of association.

Do you support "de-segregating" Chinatown?

QFT!

Any law that forces changes upon the populace should be illegal, whether it's Jim Crow or Civil Rights Act of 1964, and I know that Ron Paul would feel the same way.

So far, the only source I have seen suggesting Paul is racist is an obscure article that was more likely than not ghostwritten. Looks more like a smear attempt against Paul to me.

So read the whole 4 diary series. It provides a lot of information about his ties to racist groups.

Cute that you don't bother to chase any of his sources to actually, y'know, make a point, you just make an basis-less insinuation.

Eh I stopped reading after he mentioned New World Order, please, do better than a blog.

I think it's cute when people who were born long after the civil rights movement pretend to understand the difference between now and then. Keep it up!

I took several Civil Rights class in my time as undergrad, trust me things has changed, but what hasn't changed is that cities are still segregated, even after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the only difference is that it's not state sponsored segregation.

Eh I stopped reading after he mentioned New World Order, please, do better than a blog.

Hey, he, at least, cites his work. Besides which, citizen media isn't too different than Lew Rockwell, and you cited that.

I took several Civil Rights class in my time as undergrad, trust me things has changed, but what hasn't changed is that cities are still segregated, even after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the only difference is that it's not state sponsored segregation.

Oooooooh! You took a class! Good job! Because, you know, that's exactly the same as having lived then. I'll stick to those people who I know who lived then.

Eh, I don't have much else to say. Cat got my tongue. You kids have fun, though. ;)

KSP, it was fun debating with you. :)

KSP, it was fun debating with you. :)

Likewise.

Hey, he, at least, cites his work. Besides which, citizen media isn't too different than Lew Rockwell, and you cited that.

Ok, first article that he cites, is written by a known White Supremists, yea that's a valid source for him to cite.

July 30, 1993 by Dan Gannon, a notorious white supremacist and Holocaust denier, and archived by the Nizkor Project, an anti-revisionism organization that was active in cataloging hate speech on the early public Internet. You can read Nizkor's copy of the article here, and see a reposted version on Google Groups here. Some relevant passages from the article (emphasis mine):

For all we know these are Dan Gannon words, not Ron Paul.

Second source is titled "Newsletter excerpts offer ammunition to Paul's opponent" Yea, you don't think that he may be biased against Ron Paul?

I'm not going to go over all four parts, but I can pretty much bet all four parts are like this.

Poor poor, racist, sexist Ron Paul. My heart bleeds for him. I suppose that next time maybe he won't want to leave it to the states to decide the issue?

Forgive me for not feeling a whit of pity for the man who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


A Good Look at the Doctor from Texas (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740)

I'd vote agaisnt that too, try again.

Eh I stopped reading after he mentioned New World Order, please, do better than a blog.

Oh, and on the subject of the New World Order conspiracy theory:

Ron himself appears to buy in, which is why it was mentioned (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/22/104728/153)

And other good stuff:

Voted against reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/votes/?votenum=374&chamber=H&congress=1092&tally=1)

Or maybe he thought that The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave government more power than what was prescribed in the Constitution.

You cannot convince me that a man who voted:

# Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Jul 2006)
# Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
# Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
# Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
# Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
# Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)


to be a racist, it's just not possible.

Then he must've thought that Congress had far more pressing matters to attend to rather than patting itself on the back.

You have a point. Congress had (and has) many far more pressing matters to attend to than patting itself on the back.

Let's look at your own link (emphasis added by me):



As I figured, you took his words completely out of context.

Don't throw your backs out carrying water for the guy or anything. Frankly, I think it's shitty to leave him out of the debates as well--I want the Republican party to have the full spectrum of their candidates out there for the public to see, including the racist jackholes like Paul.

So far, the only source I have seen suggesting Paul is racist is an obscure article that was more likely than not ghostwritten. Looks more like a smear attempt against Paul to me.

Quit fucking lying. I posted a 1996 article from the Houston Chronicle that dealt with Paul's newsletter in the last thread to discuss this. It was the first time Paul's racist past had been discussed, and you denied it then too, both you and Wilgrove. Look--support the guy if you want to based on his political stances on economics or whatever, but don't even try to play this "libruls are makin shit up about him" game. Paul is either a racist, or an incompetent who allowed racists to write stuff under his name. Either way, he's not fit to be President of the US.

Ron Paul votes against all laws which grant more power to the federal government.

So he's an even bigger crackpot than I thought.

So he's an even bigger crackpot than I thought.

Hehehehehe that's hilarious. I assume you think Thomas Jefferson was a crackpot too?

Hehehehehe that's hilarious. I assume you think Thomas Jefferson was a crackpot too?
I see you have temporal delusions because Jefferson died nearly 200 years ago. If Jefferson was alive today, he'd be a fucking crackpot too if he was espousing the same ideas. Modern federalists are trying to put the chicken back in the egg.

I see you have temporal delusions because Jefferson died nearly 200 years ago.

So?

So?
Do you assert nothing has changed in 200 years?

Do you assert nothing has changed in 200 years?

I assert that the basic principles of human nature, on which any sane political outlook is based, have not changed.

However, you are correct in the sense that in some ways, we no longer have need of some of the government institutions that existed in 1812. We could safely close down USPS, for instance.

I assert that the basic principles of human nature, on which any sane political outlook is based, have not changed.

However, you are correct in the sense that in some ways, we no longer have need of some of the government institutions that existed in 1812. We could safely close down USPS, for instance.

So we still assert that slavery is a good thing? That political power should only be held by white landowning men? Those were believed to be basic principles of human nature at the time, after all. No--I suspect Jefferson, learned man as he was, would have a greatly modified view of the world were he alive today.

So we still assert that slavery is a good thing? That political power should only be held by white landowning men? Those were believed to be basic principles of human nature at the time, after all. No--I suspect Jefferson, learned man as he was, would have a greatly modified view of the world were he alive today.

You do know that Jefferson considered slavery to be a sing for which America would, he believed, be punished by God? (I'm quoting from memory, I do not remember the exact quote, it's in one of the biographies of his I read).

But my point remains:

Simply being OLD does not invalidate an idea. Want to invalidate an idea, attack it on it's merits, not it's age.

I assert that the basic principles of human nature, on which any sane political outlook is based, have not changed.
OK, so let's tear up 200 years of political change. Then do what? Pretend each state can and should take care of itself? Ok, does Article 4 Section 1 still apply? Guess not, we can barely get that applied now even with a strong federal government. So, first order of business - Amendment to strike from record that part of the Constitution.

And based on your statement, I guess you assert that there is only a single correct form of government and that is whatever you are proposing? Why have a strong state government? They don't know wtf is going on in different parts of the state. Alabama has a law where all parts of the state have to vote on certain laws that would only apply to a specific county, and more often than not the vote passes where the law will apply but fail on the ballot in the rest of the state, therefore not passing. So let's do away with state government and bring it down to county. But there are separate, powerful cities in counties. In our county, the biggest city has its own government that implements laws that override county laws. So let's bring it down to city governance.... How long until the modern federalist doctrine either becomes hypocritical or turns to anarchy?

However, you are correct in the sense that in some ways, we no longer have need of some of the government institutions that existed in 1812.
I was suggesting no such thing.

So, your argument is that because federalism cannot be applied with 100% consistency, it is wrong?

On this argument, are not all political ideas wrong?

Simply being OLD does not invalidate an idea. Want to invalidate an idea, attack it on it's merits, not it's age.
Its merits change with age because of new laws & acts, new judicial rulings, and advances in technology.

So, your argument is that because federalism cannot be applied with 100% consistency, it is wrong?
Then why apply it at all? Why change from our current government back to a weak federal government because you believe it's a good idea? Foolish and hypocritical.

OK, so let's tear up 200 years of political change. Then do what? Pretend each state can and should take care of itself? Ok, does Article 4 Section 1 still apply? Guess not, we can barely get that applied now even with a strong federal government. So, first order of business - Amendment to strike from record that part of the Constitution.

And based on your statement, I guess you assert that there is only a single correct form of government and that is whatever you are proposing? Why have a strong state government? They don't know wtf is going on in different parts of the state. Alabama has a law where all parts of the state have to vote on certain laws that would only apply to a specific county, and more often than not the vote passes where the law will apply but fail on the ballot in the rest of the state, therefore not passing. So let's do away with state government and bring it down to county. But there are separate, powerful cities in counties. In our county, the biggest city has its own government that implements laws that override county laws. So let's bring it down to city governance.... How long until the modern federalist doctrine either becomes hypocritical or turns to anarchy?


Why must you assume that anarchy is inherently evil?

Then why apply it at all? Why change from our current government back to a weak federal government because you believe it's a good idea? Foolish and hypocritical.

Do you now claim that anybody that follows an iea which cannot be applied with 100% consistency is an idiot or a hypocrite? On this argument, are all socialists, communists, welfare-statists, feminists and pacifists idiots and hypocrite?

But for your question as to what I would do:



I would repeal the 16th Amendment or add another one that'd prohibit discriminatory income taxes, make Senators appointed by states.

I would repeal the Controlled Substances Act and devolve drug laws and food regulations to the states.

I would privatize the USPS and AMTRAK.

I would repeal all provisions of the various Civil Rights Acts that pertain to regulations on private business. As such, I would close EEOC.

I would destroy the FCC, returning to the pre-FCC 'private people own airwaves' standard, regulated by the states.

I would utterly destroy all Federal government regulations binding on free speech, education, and other distribution of ideas. Let the states handle it.

I would end US involvement in Colombia.

I would build a farking fence on the farking border.

I would gradually privatize Social Security.

Eh I stopped reading after he mentioned New World Order

on the grounds that only crazy conspiracy nuts get all hung up on nwo bullshit?

Why is it that the lefties call Ron Paul a racist? You have an entire party that calls for Nuclear extermination of Iran in the GOP debate and the only person who does not agree with it you call a racist. Could you tell my why Ron Paul is a racist and those who call for the extermination of Iran are not racist? Can you tell me why Hillary Clinton and most Democrats who supported the Iraq massacre and the continued Israeli genocide in Palestine not racist but Ron Paul is? Please could some one explain this to me.

Why is it that the lefties call Ron Paul a racist? You have an entire party that calls for Nuclear extermination of Iran in the GOP debate and the only person who does not agree with it you call a racist. Could you tell my why Ron Paul is a racist and those who call for the extermination of Iran are not racist? Can you tell me why Hillary Clinton and most Democrats who supported the Iraq massacre and the continued Israeli genocide in Palestine not racist but Ron Paul is? Please could some one explain this to me.

Dude, check the links. He calls all black people criminals and stupid. That's pretty damn racist. He's against the Voting Rights Act. He's called racist becuase he's a damn racist.

Incidentally, I'm not a leftie.

Dude, check the links. He calls all black people criminals and stupid. That's pretty damn racist. He's against the Voting Rights Act. He's called racist becuase he's a damn racist.

Incidentally, I'm not a leftie.

The blog states that the only evidence of that article that he could find was on a White Supremists website, and the ghost writing incident. How are you not getting that? The guy who posted it on the website could've easily changed the wording to fit their racist view. I'm sorry but blog boy is going to have to do better than newspaper articles that's been refuted by Ron Paul himself and articles found on White Supremists websites.

Quit fucking lying. I posted a 1996 article from the Houston Chronicle that dealt with Paul's newsletter in the last thread to discuss this. It was the first time Paul's racist past had been discussed, and you denied it then too, both you and Wilgrove. Look--support the guy if you want to based on his political stances on economics or whatever, but don't even try to play this "libruls are makin shit up about him" game. Paul is either a racist, or an incompetent who allowed racists to write stuff under his name. Either way, he's not fit to be President of the US.

At least Ron Paul took responsibility for what the ghost writer had written rather than spin it like other Democrats and Republicans would.

I think it's cute when people who were born long after the civil rights movement pretend to understand the difference between now and then. Keep it up!

So I guess taking history classes is pointless because if you didn't actually live through it, you can't talk about it. I find that cute myself.

Oh, and on the subject of the New World Order conspiracy theory:

Ron himself appears to buy in, which is why it was mentioned (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/22/104728/153)

Once again, find a better source than a blog, a blog that I've already shown to be biased and gets it source from second and third hand accounts, and we all know how accurate those are. :rolleyes:


And other good stuff:

Voted against reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/votes/?votenum=374&chamber=H&congress=1092&tally=1)

After awhile, a law becomes expired, to a point where it has no affect on today's society. As with this bill, a bill which was needed back in 1965, but isn't needed today (however we may need better ballots for the people in Florida) since today we do have watchdogs Organization to make sure that everyone get a chance to vote, and any violation of the 15th amendment would make nation wide news, and that is without government getting involved.

After awhile, a law becomes expired, to a point where it has no affect on today's society. As with this bill, a bill which was needed back in 1965, but isn't needed today (however we may need better ballots for the people in Florida) since today we do have watchdogs Organization to make sure that everyone get a chance to vote, and any violation of the 15th amendment would make nation wide news, and that is without government getting involved.
Do you even know what is in the Voting Rights Act?

What the fuck is a religious group doing being invloved in a candidates' debate anyway? Church + State = Bad Idea.

Well, Ron Paul has no problem with it so it can't be a bad idea!

Do you even know what is in the Voting Rights Act?

Yes.

Iowa Christian Alliance (ICA)

What the fuck is a religious group doing being invloved in a candidates' debate anyway? Church + State = Bad Idea.

Well, Ron Paul has no problem with it so it can't be a bad idea!

Yea....umm...what?

Wow, I haven't seen a political thread this amusing since everyone called upon Bush and Cheney to be impeached, sewn into a sack and tossed into the Potomac! While this will probably be my only post here, I must point out a few things if only because some of you guys need a perspective check.

On the Resolution to celebrate the 1965 Civil Rights Act... I agree with the position that letting Congress pat itself on the back for a job most of those legislators weren't even around for is pointless and takes time away from more important issues (which in this day in age include illegal immigration, tainted products coming from China and the war in Iraq).

On the alleged article: I'm sorry, but accepting a blog's views, regardless of sources, is IMHO looking for trouble. You're accepting the face value of someone who can effectively remain anonymous to an extent and can therefore say whatever they want without any repercussions, unlike a network journalist who can lose ratings and get canned for telling us that the Moon is indeed made of cheese when it is infact not made of cheese. Sure, modern news outlets suck ass, but if you can read between the lines and commentary, you can get a fairly decent idea of whats happening.

On stating that only people who experienced it can know what truly happened: You are absolutely correct and absolutely incorrect. Being a meteorology student, I turn my attention to a book published in 2003 called The Forgotten Storm by Wallace Akin which is about the Tri-State tornado of 1925. While he interviewed numerous people and gathered all of their accounts, he notes that their accounts are skewed by what they BELIEVED happened rather than what probably did. For example, many people stated that they saw your traditional tornado funnel because thats what they believed they saw (when in actuality, the half-mile wide funnel was probably less funnel shaped and more stovepipe or "wedge"-shaped during most of its travels). This brings a stunning idea to this thread: Just because you were there doesn't necessarily mean you know what actually happened. Sure, their stories can't be discredited off the bat, but neither can they be entirely believed if the evidence doesn't support it. Sure, you do have a point by stating that you have to be there to experience it, but even experiencing it doesn't mean you understand it. Also, taking a class doesn't necessarily make you an expert in it, but it certainly provides the necessary tools to begin to understand what happened when you weren't in fact there. Otherwise, we couldn't teach World History without a time machine!

On Federalism: IMO, the United States was founded as a Republic, whose sole purposes in life were outlined by the Preamble of the Constitution and the remainder of the document. The ONLY way to change that document is to amend the constitution. Amendments have worked on numerous occasions to benefit society by changing according to socetial needs (such as the freeing of the Slaves, providing for a clear chain of succession of the Presidency in the event the Cold War turned hot, etc.) Amendments have also been detrimental to society and have caused great harm, such as the prohibition amendment (which caused high crime rates and societial issues) which was thankfully repealed by a nation that understood what was going on finally. However, there has been an increasingly alarming amount of power seizure by the government for purposes it was never intended to have (which the people or States were given by the nature of the 10th amendment) and without amending the constitution and asking the States and its own citizens what their opinion is through the necessary conventions and votes. Sure, the states have shown themselves to be sometimes behind the times, but IMO thats the point! To allow states to be able to see whats going on at a state level and to be able to allow for societal progress or regression without afflicting the entire nation. Sure, the United States is the sum of its parts, but if we are to allow one state to govern the rest, then we lose the freedom to determine the courses our own states should follow.

On the ICA being involved, I have no problem with them being involved. It isn't a matter of the state to allow candidates to gather in a forum to discuss issues if its hosted by a Christian group, a Muslim group, a Jewish group, a Buddhist group, Scientologists, aliens from outer space, what have you because it is for the purpose of discussing ideas and such important to the people associated with the group hosting the forum. Its their right as taxpaying citizens to organize and assemble and to ask for Presidential candidates to show up, and for Presidential candidates to refuse if they don't want to show up.

# Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)

I don't see how that is either racist or non-racist.

The blog states that the only evidence of that article that he could find was on a White Supremists website, and the ghost writing incident. How are you not getting that? The guy who posted it on the website could've easily changed the wording to fit their racist view. I'm sorry but blog boy is going to have to do better than newspaper articles that's been refuted by Ron Paul himself and articles found on White Supremists websites.

At least Ron Paul took responsibility for what the ghost writer had written rather than spin it like other Democrats and Republicans would.

Oh fucking spare me. He's taken responsibility for nothing. He's tried to explain it away just like any other politician would when caught in a similar situation, as are you. You're trying to act like Paul using a ghost writer to say some heinous things somehow absolves him of any responsibility when in fact it makes his responsibility that much greater--he paid for the fucking content, for fuck's sake. You can't play this "his opponents are out to get him" when the fact is that he courted these people for support and money back when he was a nobody.

Support him if you want, support his crackpot ideas about isolationism and that the market can solve all your problems if you want to, but don't lie about the guy's previous views. Don't put him up on a pedestal and make him into something he isn't--he's a politician, nothing more, nothing less.

Yes.

Prove it. Show us why not reauthorizing it would be a good idea, complete with specifics. Discuss how the racial situation in the places where judges still have to approve voting districts to prevent dilution of racial minorities voting power has changed enough so that states can be trusted to handle it on their own. Go ahead--give it a run, smart guy.

Paul, as a right-wing libertarian, would be at best marginally (but only marginally) better than a neocon or a fundie.

Paul, as a right-wing libertarian, would be at best marginally (but only marginally) better than a neocon or a fundie.

That's like saying it's better to be anally raped with a hot bayonet than it is to be earfucked by Zombie John Holmes.

That's like saying it's better to be anally raped with a hot bayonet than it is to be earfucked by Zombie John Holmes.

Good point.

Support him if you want, support his crackpot ideas about isolationism and that the market can solve all your problems if you want to, but don't lie about the guy's previous views. Don't put him up on a pedestal and make him into something he isn't--he's a politician, nothing more, nothing less.

You know something, I'd rather have a politician who is willing to stray from the mainstream rather than take the views everyone else has in order to win an election. Also, I'm not saying the man isn't a racist, but under what definition is he? Does he cross the street to avoid a group of young males of minority backgrounds after the sun sets? Does he burn crosses in people's yard? Does he lynch minorities?

Abraham Lincoln could in fact have been considered a racist in his earlier political career.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa082800b.htm

Does that mean that Abraham Lincoln should never of held the Office of President of the United States? Sure, Lincoln changed his opinions, but supposedly in this thread, that doesn't matter! He was a racist, therefore he is a racist, and therefore shouldn't be allowed to be seen or heard and DEFINATELY should never be allowed to run for office!

You're not going to find a squeaky-clean candidate, but there are worse things out there than some silly article the man denies outright anyway. I'd rather have a man in office who doesn't sound like the other clones rather than have another mainstream clone who can't run the country without wiping their ass with the Constitution because its convenient.

That's like saying it's better to be anally raped with a hot bayonet than it is to be earfucked by Zombie John Holmes.

I think there should be volunteers to test them and verify which is worse. I hereby withdraw from consideration. :)

You know something, I'd rather have a politician who is willing to stray from the mainstream rather than take the views everyone else has in order to win an election. Also, I'm not saying the man isn't a racist, but under what definition is he? Does he cross the street to avoid a group of young males of minority backgrounds after the sun sets? Does he burn crosses in people's yard? Does he lynch minorities?

Abraham Lincoln could in fact have been considered a racist in his earlier political career.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa082800b.htm

Does that mean that Abraham Lincoln should never of held the Office of President of the United States? Sure, Lincoln changed his opinions, but supposedly in this thread, that doesn't matter! He was a racist, therefore he is a racist, and therefore shouldn't be allowed to be seen or heard and DEFINATELY should never be allowed to run for office!

You're not going to find a squeaky-clean candidate, but there are worse things out there than some silly article the man denies outright anyway. I'd rather have a man in office who doesn't sound like the other clones rather than have another mainstream clone who can't run the country without wiping their ass with the Constitution because its convenient.
If we were living in 1860, Ron Paul might well be considered an enlightened individual--but this is 2007, and standards have decidedly changed in the intervening years. Lincoln was an enlightened man of his time, and I think it's fair to presume that a person who is ahead of his or her time would maintain that attitude no matter what time he or she lived in, as it's a mindset rather than an ideology. Same with Jefferson--if he lived today, I daresay he'd have a different point of view on federalism than he did in the 18th century.

But we're not judging Paul by 1860 standards--we're not even judging him by 1960 standards. We're judging him by his actions over the last 15 years, which is relevant since he is running for President now, and by those measures, he is not an enlightened man, especially on matters of race.

You seem to be laboring under the idea that different is necessarily better--it isn't. Sure, there's something to be said about a politician who says stuff outside the mainstream, but that doesn't make him better by default. It just makes him different.

Well, at least my presidential candidate doesn't flip-flop for convenience and says what I want to hear just so I'll vote for them over the other clones. Enjoy your severe disappointment.

Democracy inaction - woo!

Well, at least my presidential candidate doesn't flip-flop for convenience and says what I want to hear just so I'll vote for them over the other clones. Enjoy your severe disappointment.

Sure he does--he's not an open racist anymore, is he? He was meeting with white supremacist groups when it was beneficial for him to do so, but he doesn't anymore. How is that not a flipflop, at least in the inane way the term is used?

Once again, find a better source than a blog, a blog that I've already shown to be biased and gets it source from second and third hand accounts, and we all know how accurate those are. :rolleyes:

He sources his fucking info. You have yet to find a single rational or reasonable reason to dispute his information, all you have done is temporize. Blogs are the future of citizen media, and ignoring work with heavy citation and research because it comes from a blog is as stupid as ignoring the guy running down the street on fire shouting, "Fire."

Sure, he has an opinion, but that doesn't change the evidence he presents.

After awhile, a law becomes expired, to a point where it has no affect on today's society. As with this bill, a bill which was needed back in 1965, but isn't needed today (however we may need better ballots for the people in Florida) since today we do have watchdogs Organization to make sure that everyone get a chance to vote, and any violation of the 15th amendment would make nation wide news, and that is without government getting involved.

Could you be more of a partisan hack if you tried? There are still attempts to supress voters because of their race to this day. Voting to take away the only substantive protection offered to voters is voting for a return to institutionalized racism.

Why is it that every time I see this guy's name I think of Ron Jeremy (http://girlspoke.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/ron%20jeremy.jpg)?

Yea....umm...what?

Ron Paul isn't in favor of the Separation of Church and State guy. He co-sponsored the School Prayer amendment and voted to keep "Under God" in the pledge. It's all in those records, somewhere.

If we were living in 1860, Ron Paul might well be considered an enlightened individual--but this is 2007, and standards have decidedly changed in the intervening years. Lincoln was an enlightened man of his time, and I think it's fair to presume that a person who is ahead of his or her time would maintain that attitude no matter what time he or she lived in, as it's a mindset rather than an ideology. Same with Jefferson--if he lived today, I daresay he'd have a different point of view on federalism than he did in the 18th century.

But we're not judging Paul by 1860 standards--we're not even judging him by 1960 standards. We're judging him by his actions over the last 15 years, which is relevant since he is running for President now, and by those measures, he is not an enlightened man, especially on matters of race.

You seem to be laboring under the idea that different is necessarily better--it isn't. Sure, there's something to be said about a politician who says stuff outside the mainstream, but that doesn't make him better by default. It just makes him different.Enlightened like the other politicians calling for a nuclear strike on Iran is that your idea of enlightened?

Well, at least my presidential candidate doesn't flip-flop for convenience and says what I want to hear just so I'll vote for them over the other clones. Enjoy your severe disappointment.

That is the stupidest, most absurd, and most immature rebuttal ever seriously used that I have seen.

Enlightened like the other politicians calling for a nuclear strike on Iran is that your idea of enlightened?
That's the second.

So you are saying the Republicans were not calling for a nuclear strike on Iran in the GOP debate?

I keep on saying this over, and over, and over, and over, if you want to know where a candidate stand on the issues, the only reliable source there is, is his voting records!

Ron Paul's voting record. (http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm)

Thanks Wilgrove. We don't always agree on the issues however I want to thank you for giving me another candidate to look at. I perused the link and although I don't agree with him on some issues I agree with him on many.

Hell, on the issues I'm the only person I agree with 100% so maybe I should run...nah ain't gona happen. :D

So you are saying the Republicans were not calling for a nuclear strike on Iran in the GOP debate?

No, I believe what he's saying is that Ron Paul isn't as enlightened as some are making him out to be. Nazz never said he supported a pro-war candidate, or even that he supported any Republican candidate at all. He didn't specifically say who he supports, nor is it anyone's business unless he chooses to tell us. You really should learn to pay attention to every word that someone says, rather than just hearing a few words and jumping to a conclusion. You'll look less foolish that way.

Oooooooh! You took a class! Good job! Because, you know, that's exactly the same as having lived then. I'll stick to those people who I know who lived then.

Like me? We still live in a segregated society, but the difference is now the segregation is voluntary. Before the civil rights movement, segregation was not voluntary, as blacks couldn't live in some areas.

In 1963, I walked into a liquor store with a white sailor and a black marine. There were two doors and we walked into one. The counter was toward the back of the store and there was a rope that ran from the front of the store to the counter. It' didn't take long to figure out the sailor and I were on the wrong side of the rope.

The three of us went to a restaurant for lunch. The sailor and I were told we could come in and eat but the N..... would have to go to the kitchen door in the back. I said, "No Marine has to go to the back door." We left.

Yes, things have gotten much better since the 60's but segregation and racism still exist and probably will continue as long as the human race is around. :)

No, I believe what he's saying is that Ron Paul isn't as enlightened as some are making him out to be. Nazz never said he supported a pro-war candidate, or even that he supported any Republican candidate at all. He didn't specifically say who he supports, nor is it anyone's business unless he chooses to tell us. You really should learn to pay attention to every word that someone says, rather than just hearing a few words and jumping to a conclusion. You'll look less foolish that way.

I think it's fair to say I'd write in a vote for a wilted tomato plant before I'd vote for any of the Republicans currently running for President--even if they were running for King of the Chlamydia Festival.

I think it's fair to say I'd write in a vote for a wilted tomato plant before I'd vote for any of the Republicans currently running for President--even if they were running for King of the Chlamydia Festival.
I think you're looking for the yellow dog.

And if Ron Paul can continue to espouse political ideals of the late 19th century, I applaud him.

Sure he does--he's not an open racist anymore, is he? He was meeting with white supremacist groups when it was beneficial for him to do so, but he doesn't anymore. How is that not a flipflop, at least in the inane way the term is used?

So, are you saying people who change their mind are flipflopers? As people grow and mature, as they become educated they should, can, and do re-evaluate their positions on many things. I've re-evaluated some of my political philosophy, I'm still re-evaluating my stance on the death penalty. I've done a complete revision of my religious philosophy. Does that make me a flipfloper or a person who is still growing and maturing? None of us are the same person we were 5, 10, 20, or even 50 years ago, and in many cases that is good.

I think it's fair to say I'd write in a vote for a wilted tomato plant before I'd vote for any of the Republicans currently running for President--even if they were running for King of the Chlamydia Festival.

But, only if that "wilted tomato" were a Democrat. Nazz, the reason you would not vote for a Republican is no Republican embraces the tenants of the Democratic Party. You have indicated in other threads that you would vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate no matter who he/she is because the party is the most important. I can't see that. I would rather "waste" my vote on someone whose stances I mostly agreed with than vote for a person I mostly disagreed with just because he/she was a "member of the party."

I think you're looking for the yellow dog.

And if Ron Paul can continue to espouse political ideals of the late 19th century, I applaud him.

Fortunately, in this case, I don't need to. I'll gladly vote for anyone who's currently likely to win the Democratic nomination. And the late 19th century's political ideals sucked by today's standards--I'll take universal suffrage and an end to the ownership of other humans, thank you all the same.

So, are you saying people who change their mind are flipflopers? As people grow and mature, as they become educated they should, can, and do re-evaluate their positions on many things. I've re-evaluated some of my political philosophy, I'm still re-evaluating my stance on the death penalty. I've done a complete revision of my religious philosophy. Does that make me a flipfloper or a person who is still growing and maturing? None of us are the same person we were 5, 10, 20, or even 50 years ago, and in many cases that is good.

Look back at what you quoted, look up the word inane, and then you'll understand why I used it in such a way. I'd much rather vote for a politician who is willing to change his or her mind when faced with new facts--look at what "sticking to your guns" has gotten us with this president. The term flipflopper is a stupid one, but it's your side which turned it into a pejorative term--live by the stupid term, die by it, I say.

Look back at what you quoted, look up the word inane, and then you'll understand why I used it in such a way. I'd much rather vote for a politician who is willing to change his or her mind when faced with new facts--look at what "sticking to your guns" has gotten us with this president. The term flipflopper is a stupid one, but it's your side which turned it into a pejorative term--live by the stupid term, die by it, I say.

If by "your side" you mean Republican, I'm no longer one of those.

If by "your side" you mean Republican, I'm no longer one of those.

Fair enough, but you were when the charge was being leveled against John Kerry, and I don't remember you being so understanding back then.

Ron Paul is one of the most interesting Republican candidates to listen to because his views are so different from many of the other candidates.

He also seems to have a pretty good following and hasn't been polling poorly, so I don't see any reason to exclude him from any debates.

Also these attempts to call Ron Paul a racist seem like BS to me. He's a libertarian who wants to limit government authority, not a raving lunatic that wants to reinstate Jim Crow.

Fair enough, but you were when the charge was being leveled against John Kerry, and I don't remember you being so understanding back then.

OK, you win that round. Chocolate chip or Oatmeal with raisins? :fluffle:

SNIP...hasn't been polling poorly,...SNIP

:confused:

Republican Polls

Newsweek
6/21/2007
Rudy Giuliani 27%
Fred Thompson 19%
John McCain 15%
Mitt Romney 12%
Mike Huckabee 4%
Tommy Thompson 2%
Sam Brownback 2%
Ron Paul 2%
Tom Tancredo 1%
Unsure 8%
Other 1%
None of these 5%
Michael Bloomberg
2%http://www.presidentpolls2008.com/

2% isn't exactly good. Shouldn't keep him out of the debate though.

Wow, I just realized Fred Thompson has jumped way up there, Julie is leading, and McCain has slipped. This will be an interesting race.

Now, where is that Independent I'm looking for?

Like me? We still live in a segregated society, but the difference is now the segregation is voluntary. Before the civil rights movement, segregation was not voluntary, as blacks couldn't live in some areas.

In 1963, I walked into a liquor store with a white sailor and a black marine. There were two doors and we walked into one. The counter was toward the back of the store and there was a rope that ran from the front of the store to the counter. It' didn't take long to figure out the sailor and I were on the wrong side of the rope.

The three of us went to a restaurant for lunch. The sailor and I were told we could come in and eat but the N..... would have to go to the kitchen door in the back. I said, "No Marine has to go to the back door." We left.

Yes, things have gotten much better since the 60's but segregation and racism still exist and probably will continue as long as the human race is around. :)

Yes, things have greatly improved due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and similar actions.

Thanks for illustrating why it is asinine (if not evil) for Ron Paul and his followers to oppose desegregation laws.

He also seems to have a pretty good following and hasn't been polling poorly, so I don't see any reason to exclude him from any debates.

Going by what polls? Those on "RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT!" sites?

Boo hoo :rolleyes:

Actually he never voted on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he didn't assume office until 1979.

Clicky! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul)

I keep on saying this over, and over, and over, and over, if you want to know where a candidate stand on the issues, the only reliable source there is, is his voting records!

Ron Paul's voting record. (http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm)

Try again.

So being pro-liberty and pro-limited government = "extremist?"

Or maybe he thought that The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave government more power than what was prescribed in the Constitution.

You cannot convince me that a man who voted:

# Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Jul 2006)
# Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
# Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
# Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
# Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
# Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)


to be a racist, it's just not possible.

Let's look at some points for Ron Paul's voting record according to your own source.

Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)

At this point, I got bored.

Tell me how all the votes above, particularly the bolded ones, are consistent with increasing liberty and limiting government power (let alone are a good idea).

Look back at what you quoted, look up the word inane, and then you'll understand why I used it in such a way. I'd much rather vote for a politician who is willing to change his or her mind when faced with new facts--look at what "sticking to your guns" has gotten us with this president. The term flipflopper is a stupid one, but it's your side which turned it into a pejorative term--live by the stupid term, die by it, I say.

Speaking of flip-floppers, I love how the defense of Ron Paul keeps changing.

First he didn't oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964, then he did only because the resolution was a waste of time, then -- faced with evidence that Ron Paul substantively opposed the CRA -- (and only then) was it defended on the merits (which is either wicked or stupid).

On the racial comments in his newsletter, the responses vary from attacking the source, to claiming Ron Paul wasn't responsible, and (I love this) saying he should be endorsed for taking responsibility.

Speaking of flip-floppers, I love how the defense of Ron Paul keeps changing.

First he didn't oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964, then he did only because the resolution was a waste of time, then -- faced with evidence that Ron Paul substantively opposed the CRA -- (and only then) was it defended on the merits (which is either wicked or stupid).

On the racial comments in his newsletter, the responses vary from attacking the source, to claiming Ron Paul wasn't responsible, and (I love this) saying he should be endorsed for taking responsibility.

Sure looks to me like Paul is another "all hat, no cattle" Texan.

He's not bad for a republican.

Narrow minds abound... and if you've had the Kool Aid, there's really no point in arguing.

Regardless of whether Ron Paul is less than perfect, I see nobody on the R or D side I'd prefer to him. While I don't support everything he believes, he's a lot more an advocate for freedom than anyone else with a shot at the job.

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view.php?id=67084

He's not bad for a republican.

That's like saying melanoma isn't bad for a cancer.

True! very true!

I'm planning to vote for Hillary whether Ron Paul gets in the polls or not, though.

Jim Crow laws = forced segregration. I oppose all laws which infringe upon freedom of association.

Do you support "de-segregating" Chinatown?
Depends.
Is Chinatown a ghetto?
Is Chinatown the only place where Asians are permitted to live?
If Asians desired to move out of Chinatown, would they be allowed?
If an Asian left Chinatown, would they be in danger of being attacked, beaten and lynched just for being in a non-Asian suburb or talking to a non-Asian?
Are non-Asians permitted to move into Chinatown?
Are non-Asians legally permitted to discriminate against inhabitants of Chinatown - eg. refusing to hire them because of where they live. Even to the point of refusing to serve them because of where they live?

No?

thought not.

mmmm...mighty tasty strawman you just made.

I took several Civil Rights class in my time as undergrad
How cute.
Next you'll be claiming that you have many friends who are of the coloured race and so that surely definitely proves you're not a racialist.

True! very true!

I'm planning to vote for Hillary whether Ron Paul gets in the polls or not, though.

But what if Obama gets the nod and not Hillary, write in vote?

How cute.
Next you'll be claiming that you have many friends who are of the coloured race and so that surely definitely proves you're not a racialist.

Personally I couldn't give two shits what your color is, you could be purple with green dots for all I care, if I think your cool, and I like you, then yea you're my friend.

How cute.
Next you'll be claiming that you have many friends who are of the coloured race and so that surely definitely proves you're not a racialist.

Somehow he didn't learn about the CRA in civil rights class.

Somehow he didn't learn about the CRA in civil rights class.

I did give him a writing assignment a while back asking him to show us his wealth of knowledge on the Civil Rights Act, but he hasn't deigned to provide it yet.

Geez, you blokes are still fighting over whether he is /isn't a racist? :p

Why not just agree to disagree, eh? :D

Pfft. While I agree with a lot of his statements, his "solutions" merely increase the problem.


Though it IS nice to see an ACTUAL CONSERVATIVE again instead of a Neo-con.

Actually he never voted on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he didn't assume office until 1979.

Clicky! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul)

I keep on saying this over, and over, and over, and over, if you want to know where a candidate stand on the issues, the only reliable source there is, is his voting records!

Ron Paul's voting record. (http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm)

Try again.
Wow... What an awesome site! Does it have Canadian politicians? Let me check...
EDIT: Hmm... doesn't look like it. Anyone know a Canadian equivalent?