[quote]orion wrote:
True, they are perfectly compatible as long as they stay in a private area.
Not so much when the state is used to discriminate between races which is something I believe that Paul would definitely not do. [/quote]
So, completely irrelevant to the issue of whether Paul is a racist or not.
Thanks.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
True, they are perfectly compatible as long as they stay in a private area.
Not so much when the state is used to discriminate between races which is something I believe that Paul would definitely not do. [/quote]
So, completely irrelevant to the issue of whether Paul is a racist or not.
Thanks.
[/quote]
Not really, what is irrelevant is whether Paul is a racist or not because what he undoubtedly is a libertarian.
I would rather have someone in power who is a clear cut racist that does not act on it using the state than someone who is a pristine angel race wise and makes all kinds of decisions based on race.
This whole letter business reeks of Rockwell, the copying of the conservative mail campaigns that lead to Reagan, the pandering to useful idiots…
[quote]orion wrote:
[
Not really, what is irrelevant is whether Paul is a racist or not because what he undoubtedly is a libertarian.
I would rather have someone in power who is a clear cut racist that does not act on it using the state than someone who is a pristine angel race wise and makes all kinds of decisions based on race. [/quote]
I see - so what you’re saying is that if Paul is a racist, that fact is irrelevant to your support of him (and other libertarians’ support for him).
Got it. Ridiculous, but I got it.
“Reeks of Rockwell”? Rockwell is a bad guy? I thought Rockwell was the truth-spittin’ paragon of “real” libertarianism? You no longer on that bandwagon?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[
Not really, what is irrelevant is whether Paul is a racist or not because what he undoubtedly is a libertarian.
I would rather have someone in power who is a clear cut racist that does not act on it using the state than someone who is a pristine angel race wise and makes all kinds of decisions based on race. [/quote]
I see - so what you’re saying is that if Paul is a racist, that fact is irrelevant to your support of him (and other libertarians’ support for him).
Got it. Ridiculous, but I got it.
“Reeks of Rockwell”? Rockwell is a bad guy? I thought Rockwell was the truth-spittin’ paragon of “real” libertarianism? You no longer on that bandwagon?
[/quote]
Well he is, but he is also a bit too clever and enthusiastic for his own good.
To visualize this:
Paul integrity > intelligence
Rockwell integrity < intelligence
[quote]orion wrote:
Well he is, but he is also a bit too clever and enthusiastic for his own good.
To visualize this:
Paul integrity > intelligence
Rockwell integrity < intelligence[/quote]
Paul wouldn’t need much integrity nor would Rockwell need much intelligence for either of those statements to be true, but I digress.
But here is the problem - Paul knew about the newsletters, etc. going out under his name. Again, even if Paul isn’t a racist, he was happy to pander to racist elements for political reasons.
That’s not an example of “high integrity” - in fact, it’s the opposite. If Paul had this “integirty” that you herald, he’d have owned up to what is quite obvious. He doesn’t.
Libertarians believe that liberty belongs to everyone regardless of race so how is race even an issue.
It’s not.
The airheads have nothing else to talk about.
"Let’s be perfectly clear: the federal government has no business regulating speech in any way. Furthermore, government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combating bigotry in our society. Bigotry at its essence is a sin of the heart, and we can’t change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations.
In fact it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. Government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government “benevolence” crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility between us."
Yeah, what a racist!
"Still, the left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, always implying of course that southern states are full of bigoted rednecks who would oppress minorities if not for the watchful eye of Washington. They ignore, however, the incredible divisiveness created by their collectivist big-government policies.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual 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 intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups."
What a racist!
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
The racism accusation doesn’t hold water.[/quote]
Ok, so tell us why.
[/quote]
Because being a libertarian racist means that your actions won’t actually harm the people in question. If I’m a libertarian and I fucking hate red heads, they are no worse off than if I simply didn’t exist. The non-aggression axiom harmonizes to such an extent that even blind hatred like that doesn’t actually matter.
As a side benefit a libertarian society would actually force racists to pay the penalty for the shitty views, so it’s a win win.
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
The racism accusation doesn’t hold water.[/quote]
Ok, so tell us why.
[/quote]
Because being a libertarian racist means that your actions won’t actually harm the people in question. If I’m a libertarian and I fucking hate red heads, they are no worse off than if I simply didn’t exist. The non-aggression axiom harmonizes to such an extent that even blind hatred like that doesn’t actually matter.
As a side benefit a libertarian society would actually force racists to pay the penalty for the shitty views, so it’s a win win.[/quote]
What on earth does any of that utter nonsense have to do with Ron Paul being a racist? Perhaps you could explain why he was happy for his newsletter, bearing his name to print racist material for more than a decade? You know, like saying black children should be tried as adults and so forth.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]jawara wrote:
I havent had time to go over all the links that were posted but I think the racism accusation is pretty weak.[/quote]
How can you know if the accusations are weak if you haven’t bothered to look at the evidence supporting them?
[quote]1. Libertarianism is based on the government protecting the peoples individual rights. Racism would be government supporting the rights of only "certain"people. Ron Paul is a Libertarian.
2.If a business doesn’t want to sell something to me because I’m black i think they have the right to do so. I’ll go buy someplace else and in the meantime I’ll tell all my friends, family, co-workers and even make a YouTube video. Besides, if someone is dumb enough to run a business like that they deserve to loose customers. ( I was talking about the Civil Rights act article, sorry about that). [/quote]
No, that isn’t the definition of racism, and there is nothing incompatible about racism and libertarianism, despite that awkward explanationyou attempted. You’ve made that point yourself in the point you made in #2 above. In a libertarian regime, an unapologetic racist would/should be able to deny use of his property to races he hates. So, someone could clearly be a rabid racist and a libertarian - you clearly support someone’s free-born right to be a racist and exercise that racism through their private property. [/quote]
I said I didn’t have a chance to go over ALL the links. I did look at the first one.
I didnt give a definition of racism. Racism is the belief that one race is better than another, and if a person feels that way they should be allowed too. It’s their own life that they are screwing up. If someone whats to deny someone the use of THEIR OWN personal property for any reason that should be their right. I’ve denied giving money to homeless people both black and white because I didnt want too, because it’s MY MONEY. And since Libertarianism is based on individual rights, I don’t have too. Thats one reason why I don’t think Ron Paul is a racist.
[quote]jawara wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]jawara wrote:
I havent had time to go over all the links that were posted but I think the racism accusation is pretty weak.[/quote]
How can you know if the accusations are weak if you haven’t bothered to look at the evidence supporting them?
[quote]1. Libertarianism is based on the government protecting the peoples individual rights. Racism would be government supporting the rights of only "certain"people. Ron Paul is a Libertarian.
2.If a business doesn’t want to sell something to me because I’m black i think they have the right to do so. I’ll go buy someplace else and in the meantime I’ll tell all my friends, family, co-workers and even make a YouTube video. Besides, if someone is dumb enough to run a business like that they deserve to loose customers. ( I was talking about the Civil Rights act article, sorry about that). [/quote]
No, that isn’t the definition of racism, and there is nothing incompatible about racism and libertarianism, despite that awkward explanationyou attempted. You’ve made that point yourself in the point you made in #2 above. In a libertarian regime, an unapologetic racist would/should be able to deny use of his property to races he hates. So, someone could clearly be a rabid racist and a libertarian - you clearly support someone’s free-born right to be a racist and exercise that racism through their private property. [/quote]
I said I didn’t have a chance to go over ALL the links. I did look at the first one.
I didnt give a definition of racism. Racism is the belief that one race is better than another, and if a person feels that way they should be allowed too. It’s their own life that they are screwing up. If someone whats to deny someone the use of THEIR OWN personal property for any reason that should be their right. I’ve denied giving money to homeless people both black and white because I didnt want too, because it’s MY MONEY. And since Libertarianism is based on individual rights, I don’t have too. Thats one reason why I don’t think Ron Paul is a racist.
[/quote]
You’re coming out with the same crap as the other poster. What does YOUR opinion about libertarianism have to do with Ron Paul being a racist or not?
If he is not racist, then he was unable and unwilling to defend his own private (intellectual) property, since he let racists pamphleeters use his name to spread their bullshit.
I won’t trust someone who collectivized his own name to restore individual rights and private property in a whole country.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
The racism accusation doesn’t hold water.[/quote]
Ok, so tell us why.
[/quote]
Because being a libertarian racist means that your actions won’t actually harm the people in question. If I’m a libertarian and I fucking hate red heads, they are no worse off than if I simply didn’t exist. The non-aggression axiom harmonizes to such an extent that even blind hatred like that doesn’t actually matter.
As a side benefit a libertarian society would actually force racists to pay the penalty for the shitty views, so it’s a win win.[/quote]
What on earth does any of that utter nonsense have to do with Ron Paul being a racist? Perhaps you could explain why he was happy for his newsletter, bearing his name to print racist material for more than a decade? You know, like saying black children should be tried as adults and so forth.[/quote]
It has everything to do with it. You being too stupid to realize it is of no consequence to me.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What on earth does any of that utter nonsense have to do with Ron Paul being a racist? Perhaps you could explain why he was happy for his newsletter, bearing his name to print racist material for more than a decade? You know, like saying black children should be tried as adults and so forth.[/quote]
Precisely.
This libertarian dodge that “it’s irrelevant” isn’t answering the question. The usual brochure blather of “well, in a libertarian utopia, racists would…” is avoiding teh question.
Is he or isn’t he? And if he isn’t, fine - but why was he pandering for the votes of racists?
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
Because being a libertarian racist means that your actions won’t actually harm the people in question. If I’m a libertarian and I fucking hate red heads, they are no worse off than if I simply didn’t exist. The non-aggression axiom harmonizes to such an extent that even blind hatred like that doesn’t actually matter.
As a side benefit a libertarian society would actually force racists to pay the penalty for the shitty views, so it’s a win win.[/quote]
Doesn’t matter. I am not interested in whether Paul’s actions “harm people” in a “libertarian utopia”. Step one is simply answering the question: is he a racist, based on a survey of the evidence? And if he isn’t, why was he directly courting the votes of these elements?
Don’t give me the pre-programmed libertarian life-like talking points. Just answer the question.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
one of two things is true. Either:
Paul is racist, or
Paul was more than happy to pander to crude racist elements for political gain.
Even if his most loyal moonbats insist that #1 isn’t true, #2 isn’t better. [/quote]
I have yet to see anyone adequately explain (or defend or whatever) this.
Personally, despite anything else that person may believe, I could never support RP because of the above.
I agree with Ron Paul’s economics, but he has too many flaws for me to support enthusiastically. The religion, the notion that state governments have any more rights than the Federal government, and the foreign policy of appeasement all make me doubt that he would properly represent the philosophy of individual rights. He lost me when he said that it would be cool to let Iran have a nuclear weapon. I might vote for him as the best alternative to Obama, but I’m not a “Paul-ite” anymore.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
one of two things is true. Either:
Paul is racist, or
Paul was more than happy to pander to crude racist elements for political gain.
Even if his most loyal moonbats insist that #1 isn’t true, #2 isn’t better. [/quote]
It’s a red herring used by liberals to distract people from the intellectual debate about the proper role of government.
I have yet to see anyone adequately explain (or defend or whatever) this.
Personally, despite anything else that person may believe, I could never support RP because of the above.
[/quote]
[quote]belligerent wrote:
It’s a red herring used by liberals to distract people from the intellectual debate about the proper role of government.[/quote]
No, it isn’t - it’s an independent question hoping to get an accurate accounting of a man’s character.
Can you answer it? Seems like when we cut past the smokescreen and direct questions about Paul’s unseemly connections get raised, the thread goes awfully quiet.