Skip to main content

I don't even know where to begin here this morning.  I've been lurking here for years now, reading Dkos and I even commented a bit during 2008.  I love this place, but I'm mainly invisible here.  This is my first (and I suspect only for a long time) diary, but I've been having this bizarro back and forth with Ron Paul supporters and came here to vent.

I figured folks here would be a touch more supportive.  Um, follow me over the thingamabob?  (And sorry, but I'm sure to most readers this thing is going to be one ugly holy-wall-of-text-Batman! kind of thing as I try to describe what all happened this AM...)

This all got started when I was browsing HuffPo and saw some crap about someone deciding that while they were all for Obama in 2008, they're now totally behind that super awesome libertarian wonderful amazing guy Ron Paul.

Here's a link in case someone wants to be both brave and have a clue as to what I'm talking about.

I admittedly skimmed most of the article but I did catch such highlights as the author crying when Obama won, and then the flip to Mr. Paul being the only option.  Wow.  "Ok, from Obama to Ron Paul huh", I thought.  My mind boggled at the idea.

Moving on, I decided to check out the comments thinking that surely the HuffPo readers would be all over this nonsense.  Nope.  And then I read the comment that really started me down this rabbit hole of craziness.  Someone posted something to the effect that if only people had used the google in 2008, they'd have known Obama wasn't what he claimed to be.  I both laughed and then stopped cold.  "Wait a second", I thought.  "Isn't the same thing true of Ron Paul the Super Racist?"

See, I stupidly assumed that anyone with a brain knew Ron Paul was not just a casual racist, not just a closet racist - but a full blown, over the top, Civil Rights Act denying, loved by Stormfront Super Racist.  I mean, does no one google these days?

So, I went to reply to the "haha! silly no-googler!" comment.  I get logged in (what a pain) and I can't find this comment anymore.  Now admittedly, it's past midnight and I have been known to be stupid at times, but I can't for the life of me find this comment that caught my attention.  So, I made my fatal mistake.  I go to reddit (which I otherwise spend as much time whiling away my life as I do here).

I find the HuffPo link has been submitted, and I jump in.  I state that I had intended to comment at HuffPo, but no luck, yada yada yada.  Then I go on to say how I find this "no one googled Obama" comment funny since a simple google of Saint Ron Paul turns up his ties to racism.  I submit my comment and then I realize I'm dead.  

I've posted in the libertarian subreddit.  Shit.  These people live for one thing - Saint Ron the :awesome: Paul.  It takes very little time before I'm in the thick of things.  Firstly, I'm obviously a brain dead liberal with no critical thinking skills since I've brought up the TOTALLY debunked racism thing.  I obviously can't attack his ideas, so I'm attacking the man.  Yikes!  These folks play rough.  For users here in the reddit know - I'm being downvoted.  Why?  Well I said Ron wasn't a saint.

Things begin to pick up steam.  Paul fans tag in and out taking shots at me (the only person not enamored with Ron the Super Racist Paul).  I get linked a video of Ron Paul saying he's not a racist - therefore he is OBVIOUSLY not a racist since he said he wasn't a racist.  Someone points out how the Ron Paul Super Racist newsletter is claimed by Paul to have been written by someone else.  I counter by saying that he has both claimed it to be him, and not claimed it to be him.  Which is it?  Downvote!

Next up is the guy quoting me saying my post was drivel so he didn't read it.  Hmm.  Didn't read it, but it's obviously crap?  Downvote!  (I'm just laughing now at my own stupidity really.  Walking into the lion's den and all that...)

I (stupidly obviously) bring up his stance on the Civil Rights Act.  Downvote.  He wouldn't have voted for it not because he's a racist, but because he's so constitutionally pure he would tolerate racism because we live in fantasy land where racists would be driven out of business.  At least I think that's the point someone was trying to make...

Next up is a HUGE wall of Ron the Saint Paul quotes where he says how he's totally not a racist, he just thinks people should have the right to discriminate if they choose.  This is followed by my personal favorite - someone mocking me since I've been presented with ACTUAL quotes and FACTS.  A fact being that since Ron Paul says the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional, then it totally is - because RON PAUL said so.

Things now devolve into me making very little sense (though in my tired and caffeine fueled state I like to think I made no sense - with panache!) trying to argue law with what I suspect are stealth Supreme Court legal ninjas - aka, wikipedia armchair internet lawyers.

My point is this - wtf?! is up with Ron Paul supporters!?  Here are the reasons why he's NOT a racist according to the flock:

He says he isn't (with video!)

He totally didn't write the Ron Paul Super Racist newsletter (except when he claimed he did) - but he does get a gentle finger wagging (are you kidding me?!) for allowing it to have his name on it

He supports discrimination because we live in fantasy land where racists are driven out of business (this is TOTALLY gonna happen in the South - you know it right?) because racism is bad

Oh, and the reason why he supports this discrimination is because he, Ron Paul legal genius, says it's unconstitutional - therefore it is - because he said so

My comments about his bizarro ties to Stormfront and money received/not given back and his love of the goodness that is the John Birch Society are left unaddressed.  Obviously because he's not a racist - because he says so.

Look, if you, dear reader, have made it this far I thank you.  This is likely the crappiest diary you'll read (ok, skim - ok open then close because it's a wall of text...) today.  But I feel a bit better for having written it all out.  This discussion is likely easily found for the redditors here (and yes, I kind of fell off in my refuting abilities towards the end), so anyone inclined to see some of this craziness can do so themselves.

TL;DR - Ron Paul supporters are nuts, and r/libertarian is possibly also known as r/batshitinsane

Edited to add: I have read many a diary so I should know what I'm doing in theory... But I apologize if this is all kinds of screwed up, or my tags are out of whack.  It's late, I'm tired, and I admit I've perhaps embellished things a tick for what I hope is a somewhat humorous read.  But again - do not mess with Ron the Saint Paul!

6:13 AM PT: Um, wow!  You folks have made my morning by honoring me with the rec list.  I really should go to sleep now that I've been debating this for 6 hours or something... But thanks a ton!

10:47 AM PT: Just a fun little update here.  Because I am so totally going to bed now that it's nearly 2 PM...  Over at reddit, I've now accrued the equivalent of about 60-ish HRs for daring to speak ill of Saint Ron of Paul.  Never mind the fact I've typed oh, 5k+ words I'd say?  It's not like I'm posting "your stoopid!" or some other nonsense.  I tried to reply to all the haters.  Man do they hate!  And not a single f*** was given.  Thanks all, fun times.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (189+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    artr2, jiffykeen, MartyM, rimstalker, skohayes, dot farmer, cassandracarolina, Otteray Scribe, Actbriniel, OleHippieChick, commonmass, dmhlt 66, DWG, DerAmi, ask, MadRuth, Kimball Cross, Emerson, JFinNe, devtob, coppercelt, divitius, vintage dem, Tyler R, oxfdblue, polecat, not4morewars, Horace Boothroyd III, AaronBa, mikeconwell, lostinamerica, Huron, qannabbos, marleycat, oak park progressive, mayim, ohmyheck, Son of a Cat, GenXangster, ubertar, Miggles, whoknu, flurdman, salmo, maxcat06, CA Nana, on the cusp, googie, Purple Priestess, Matt Esler, Floande, jiffypop, J M F, boadicea, anagram, Jean Sloan, Front Toward Enemy, virginwoolf, twigg, Josiah Bartlett, stellaluna, banjolele, lordcopper, Nina Katarina, gchaucer2, skip945, Matilda, TheLizardKing, zerelda, TooFolkGR, AnnieR, ColoTim, Its a New Day, Scioto, DAO, Lost Left Coaster, rmabelis, jfromga, NJpeach, Man from Wasichustan, Little Lulu, yellow cosmic seed, kefauver, webgenie, Geriw, pixxer, poe, confitesprit, Vacationland, Preston S, metal prophet, KJG52, Black Max, satanicpanic, AZ Independent, Debby, Zooey Glass, p gorden lippy, Wee Mama, Catte Nappe, amk for obama, marathon, bythesea, mkfarkus, woodtick, stevenwag, lineatus, Mayfly, vidanto, HansNot, Sark Svemes, blue armadillo, HGM MA, Timothy J, Orinoco, benheeha, BillyZoom, Seamus D, tommymet, MKinTN, ChemBob, Unit Zero, xanthippe2, Sychotic1, stunzeed, manoffire, EclecticCrafter, AustinCynic, tiponeill, ssmt, Snud, rlharry, annieli, eeff, tytalus, LA rupert, alasmoses, lurxst, tardis10, Ann T Bush, Hill Jill, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, MA Liberal, Xapulin, kevinpdx, thomask, GeorgeXVIII, Sylv, Joieau, KMc, Senor Unoball, dawnspantry, begone, Mnemosyne, Chaddiwicker, GAladybug, Lujane, SuWho, Isara, karlpk, tin woodswoman, mookins, Sun Tzu, corvaire, Marihilda, Isaacsdad, icemilkcoffee, satrap, stlsophos, Shakludanto, Shadowmage36, Seneca Doane, Statusquomustgo, atdnext, happymisanthropy, TexDem, GrannyOPhilly, majcmb1, ipsos, Sandino, skrekk, dotsright, greycat, JayC, BachFan, Ellid, Neuroptimalian, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, libnewsie
    Hidden by:
  •  great diary - thanks (31+ / 0-)

    I knew Ron Paul supporters were kooks but learned some new info.

    GOP 2012 campaign ad - "Tax the working poor!"

    by MartyM on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 03:40:50 AM PDT

  •  I don't think you should have been surprised.. (36+ / 0-)

    that Ron Paul supporters would say harsh and irrational things to you in his defense. If one of them had said something reasonable, now THAT would be surprising.

    •  I'll say reasonable things in his defense. (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mookins, 123man, renbear, tacet, dot farmer, Elmar

      Ron Paul was against the Iraq War.

      Ron Paul called out Rick Santorum for his lazy historical perspective on Iran in the presidential debates.

      Ron Paul has called for greater transparency at the Federal Reserve.

      Ron Paul is a mix of 50% reasonable truth and 50% pure crazy as a bedbug.

      Would we be better off back on the gold standard?  fuck no.
      Would we be better off without Civil rights legislation?  fuck no.

      I would never vote for him, but he is absolutely my second choice after Obama of all of these announced candidates.

      -7.75 -4.67

      "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

      There are no Christians in foxholes.

      by Odysseus on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:16:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Unfortunately, he's at the bottom for me (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus, dot farmer

        YMMV, of course, but Paul's stance on reproductive rights puts him right out of the ballpark for me.  

        •  I'm sorry to butt in late (0+ / 0-)

          but if you're an "issue" voter, then you're not really helping the big picture.  Nothing changes in this country whether you have a D or an R in the oval office.  They're all part of the same machine that's running the world.  All this dog and pony show where they endlessly bicker but end up at the same conclusion of helping the rich at the expense of the middle class and poor; and funding our military industrial complex with money borrowed from China.  

          These social "issues" they're always bickering over are designed to divide and conquer Americans.  Yes, we have disagreements.  So let's constantly argue and choose sides while they steal all our money and funnel it to the top.  Go ahead and argue.  Do you think the fat cats - Democrats and Republicans - really care as they waltz around the world in their private jets and plan their next target to loot via finance and/or war?

          I think our country would be much better off if people took off their partisan glasses and look for a candidate who best represents what we want to be as a nation.  I thought Obama was that guy in 08.  But knowing where Obama stands - and don't you ever forget where he stands.  He stands strong with the corporations and not the people - Obama has lost my vote.  But if Ron Paul were to get the Republican nomination, I will definitely consider him.  And I say that as a proud liberal and and an ethnic minority.

          Don't listen to rumors.  Listen to what he has to say.  He's been saying the same thing for over 20 years now.  

          Personally, I've been digging up on him a lot because I can't help liking what I hear every time he speaks.  The first thing he said he'd do as President is to get us out of every country in the world starting with Iraq and Afghanistan.  I mean, that's just..

          The stuff about property rights is tied to personal liberty.  I had my own reservations at first but when I listened to his reasoning, it made sense.  It all comes back to our freedom.  Right now, we're not free.  We live in a police state!  Some of us are aware, some of us are not.  But we do live in a police state where the government can fuck you up at any given time.  And it's getting more frightening by the day.

          He's against abortion but he simply believes the federal government shouldn't have to tell you what you can or cannot do with your own body.  He'll leave it up to the states but that makes me think that he'd never use abortion as a litmus test.  In fact, he'd do the opposite.  And let's not even get into gay rights.  He thinks we should all just be free to live the way we wish to live whether we're gay, straight, prostitutes or drug addicts.  Now that's some fresh shit right there.

          He also wants to gut our monetary system and go back to gold and silver.  He wants first and foremost because the current system is designed to rob the middle class and hurt the poor the most.  Now that is some beautiful shit right there.

          He's a Republican.  But if you listen to him, he is truly a progressive-minded individual who'd rather put his trust in the people and not the system that is crumbling down.

          Obama is really pissing me off.

          by That Korean Guy on Sun Sep 04, 2011 at 10:57:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Ron Paul supporters (64+ / 0-)

    are a "unique" bunch of people, aren't they?
    The next time you decide to wade into their midst (though I wouldn't recommend it, bad for your health), you might remind the Paulbots that Paul isn't a Libertarian, he's a registered Republican. That drives them NUTS.
    Good luck.

    You will never know what it’s like to work on a farm until your hands are raw, just so people can have fresh marijuana. Jack Handey

    by skohayes on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 03:43:52 AM PDT

    •  This almost makes me want to wade back into the... (22+ / 0-)

      ...fray, but I'm about astounded out.  The one point that seemed to really resonate with them is that he's not a racist, because he says so - therefore he isn't.

      Look, in addition to his racism (which is completely not racist of course) I think he's a loon.  I got started simply because I was shocked people would turn from supporting the President to this guy who is a racist - kind of the anti-Obama I guess.  It made no sense to me.

      I stupidly thought I was making a witty post about how it's kind of bizarro to go from the first non-lily-white president in our nation's history to the Super Racist no one will admit is a racist - and make this point by saying that Obama is living up to his past and google would have told someone this.  

      I dunno, to me, the google-fu cuts both ways.

      •  They only SAID they supported the Prez (26+ / 0-)

        and now they support RP? Sounds like trolltown to me.
        Besides, huffpo's a sewer anymore.

        Poor white people, the super-rich really appreciate your support!
        They'll reciprocate any decade now, just hang in there....

        by OleHippieChick on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 04:01:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  When you walk into the asylum (13+ / 0-)

        it can be difficult to remember that the "madness" that surrounds you is not your own.

        Every comment you read, every reply you make, measure them first against the bullet points you keep in your head.

        If you do that then you walk straight and tall, and treat the "downvotes" as recommends.

        The more you get, the better you are doing.

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        by twigg on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 06:39:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't know how well I maintained... (6+ / 0-)

          ...consistency.  For a while I kept hitting a post timer (I was new to that subreddit) and that screwed me up.  Now, people are just squashing anything I said because hey, I'm pissing in their cornflakes.  I called them out on it, and yeah, I'm chuckling.  Screw'em, I've got karma to burn like crazy lol.

          But yes, at this point, I'm rooting to see my numbers tick lower, lower, lower...

          •  Pissing in their Cornflakes (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AnnieR, commonmass, Mnemosyne

            has it's merits.

            There comes a point where you are just trolling them, which also has it's merits but can be a painful process.

            You will not persuade those folk that you have anything to say that has any merit.

            fuggedaboutem .... In the end we will simply out-vote them.

            I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
            but I fear we will remain Democrats.

            by twigg on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 06:53:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you could make some hay on anti-corporate lines... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              twigg, Timothy J, commonmass

              Why does the government subsidize XYZZY corp?

              Corporate ownership of the middle, etc.

              But other than that, I fully expect you to be (metaphorically) tarred, feathered, and run out on a rail.

              Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
              I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
              -Spike Milligan

              by polecat on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 06:55:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It can actually hurt! (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                polecat, vidanto, commonmass

                It's eye-opening, to understand that there are people out there who consider you to be utterly worthless.

                You need a strong will and a strong stomach. I did my bit years ago and won't repeat the exercise.

                As I said ... teh crazies? meh! Either we will out-vote them or out-live them.

                I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                by twigg on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 06:59:03 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  I got into an argument with someone (16+ / 0-)

        Over Ron Paul's stance on reproductive rights.  I pointed out the obvious and blatant hypocrisy of someone being a libertarian for everyone except women of reproductive age, and was told that no, it's different because Ron Paul was an obstetrician and had seen aborted/premature babies gasping for breathing, so it totes wasn't hypocrisy.

        I finally told the other person that I didn't much care of Ron Paul was the second coming of Jesus himself, or if I agreed with him (which I don't) on every other issue.  Forcing women between the ages of 12 and 50 into second class status is a deal breaker for me.  

        I don't think he got it.  Then again, women really aren't people, at least when it comes to the poor little dears versus their precious, precious baybeeeez.

        •  He simply sees that the other living human (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          also has rights.

          It doesn't seem to be so anti-woman as pro respecting both individual's rights.

          Of course as I've often noted its much easier to ignore the philosophically difficult argument of others and assign simple motivations to them like "mean" or "doesn't think X are people" or whatever else distraction one wishes to use.

          •  This is a prime example of what I'm talking about (17+ / 0-)

            The legal and political rights of a woman are trumped by the non-existent legal and political rights of an embryo.

            Not only hypocritical, but frankly insulting to women, and a blatant example of sophistry on the part of Paul and his supporters.  

            •  How is it insulting to women? (0+ / 0-)

              You see it as trumping the rights I don't see any evidence of that at all.  Its a case where the rights conflict but I see you taking the position that one living human's rights should always trump anothers.  What is the morality behind that?

              Your language is entirely dismissive of the rights of the other human - why must you engage in dehumanization to make your argument?

              •  I think in fairness, you two disagree with... (9+ / 0-)

       human is being used here.  This is a huge point of contention between the sides in abortion.  Me?  I'm a guy.  I don't get a vote since I'm not about to get pregnant.  When I do, I'll climb a mountain and tell the world my decision.  Until then, I default to the "it's a woman's right" camp.

                Hint: If as a man I were ever to get pregnant, I'd still be pro-choice.

                •  Thank you (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Zooey Glass, xomnow

                  I appreciate it.

                •  I am personally pro-life as I believe in the (0+ / 0-)

                  protection of the rights of all living humans - including the smallest minority that literally has no voice.

                  So far this means maintaining an abstinent lifestyle because the fathers have no legal say in protecting the rights of their children in this society.

                  •  You are anti choice. (5+ / 0-)


                    Fuddle Duddle--- Pierre Trudeau.... Canadian politics at......A Creative Revolution

                    by pale cold on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:04:31 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yes the choice to commit murder is not (0+ / 0-)

                      a choice that we as a society decided someone gets to have because it infringes on the right of another.

                      Just like people shouldn't have the choice to violate any rights of others without consequences.

                      I don't find your attempt at an insult to be insulting in the least.

                  •  I'd be more comfortable (6+ / 0-)

                    with the idea of "pro-life" if that category also included societal support for, among other things, sex education for children (yes, teenagers are still children in our society), sex education for adults (to teach men that it is not OK to force your woman of the moment to have sex, AKA rape), universal availability of morning-after contraception for women so violated, removal of all government subsidies to companies that manufacture and sell so-called "performance enhancing" drugs, and after-birth care for the unfortunate children who are born as a result of rape, incest, and even stupidity, whose birth mothers are unable to care for them.

                    Just a few ideas for starters.

                    Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson

                    by Mnemosyne on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:16:36 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I can totally get behind most of this. (0+ / 0-)

                      The people who seek to punish others for living a life they would not choose for themselves in all walks of life need to stop thinking like that or at least stop voting to use governmental force as their proxy club on others.

                  •  Being "personally" pro-life (10+ / 0-)

                    is great.  If that's your choice, that's fine and dandy.  Where we run into a problem is where you make MY choice for me and demand that I obey your personal feeling on medical matters that are MY right to make according to my personal medical situation as discussed between ME and my doctor.

                    Rand Paul, and those that follow him are not privy to my medical details, nor should they be.  Therefore they have absolutely no right whatsoever to butt into my privacy in that matter.  Further, whenever Rand Paulians argue their pro-life viewpoint, they do so from some odd perspective that abortions are always being handed out willy-nilly to  women who casually decide they just don't feel like having a baby right now.  There is never any discussion of any corresponding medical issues that may necessitate an abortion, never any discussion of conditions fatal to the mother, the fetus, or's ridiculous, and juvenile the way that issue gets handled by libertarians.

                    And to Paulians, it's always a baby.  It's never " a collection of 200 cells"...even a day old zygote is a "baby", or some entity with as many rights as a full grown and functioning human being.  Why is that?

                    •  I think this sums things up nicely. (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Clues, xomnow, factbased

                      Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything. -Harry S. Truman / -8.00, -6.77

                      by Shadowmage36 on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:59:54 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  It is a collection of cells and a baby. (0+ / 0-)

                      Just as we are a collection of cells and an adult.

                      In politics people use the wording which moves people emotionally.  Baby moves people emotionally towards and trying to dehumanize an individual by referring to something more clinical emotionally removes people.

                      Both sides of the debate use that tactic but you're only castigating one side.  Bias is everywhere.

                      •  If you'd like to consider a blastula a baby (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        that's fine, however, I don't and you need to allow me my personal rights to not consider this to be a baby, or an entity having sufficient rights to negate the rights of the person happening to contain one of these.  (Particularly if containing one of these blastula causes the person to die.)

                  •  No, you're not (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Jean Sloan, Zooey Glass

                    You're anti-abortion.  That's all, unless you evince a concern for the rights of women to self-determination and autonomy that has been completely absent from your posts.

                    •  I don't see having a mutual respect for the rights (0+ / 0-)

                      of all living humans is somehow detrimental to women.  I don't see how being pro-life in all things (anti war, anti death penalty) translates into some kind of attack on any group of people.

                      Could you please explain your thinking so I can better understand your position?

              •  Again, prime example of what I'm talking about (9+ / 0-)

                I said that this was about the legal and political rights of women to self-determination and autonomy when it came to when, whether, and how to bear children.  Fetuses have no legal or political rights under the law.  You may not like this and may not agree with it, but that's the current state of American law, and any attempts to subordinate the rights of otherwise legally competent American citizens in favor of embryos are, at heart, deeply discriminatory toward the majority of the population.

                In short:

                Either a woman of childbearing age has the same rights to self-determination and autonomy as a man, or she is a second class citizen who is subordinate to an entity with no legal or political rights.  And since Ron Paul clearly and explicitly supports the latter view, I cannot and will not support him politically.   Period.

                •  The law is not fixed (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  I believe that this is an area that should be open to democratic debate, even if it opens up the possibility of the wrong side winning.

                •  False dichotomy. (0+ / 0-)

                  You present two possible sides when more exist.

                  It has nothing to do with man versus woman - I really don't know why you keep repeating that.

                  What it has to do is with equal rights.  The right of the mother and the right of the child.  Since they are occasionally in conflict there must be some protections put in place by a society that has determined that rights are precious and inherent in the human condition.

                  Saying this is just about men and women is to say that all children are male or at least all children that may be aborted are male.  Its human right v human right - sex has really nothing to do with it except biologically setting the host of the conflict.

          •  Really? (16+ / 0-)
            He simply sees that the other living human also has rights.

            For the purposes of the law, an unviable (< 22 week) fetus is not a "living human" or an individual with rights. Paul and his ilk want to redefine this at the expense of the living mother's right to privacy.

            He's either a strict Constitutionalist or not; there aren't exceptions to his philosophy because he's delivered umpteen babies. He's a racist old goldbug loon who seems to be able to justify a whole bunch of questionable views, votes, and actions.

            •  I had made a similar constitutional argument... (11+ / 0-)

              ...that while quite facile hammered home (I think at least) this idea that it seems his followers defend his flip-floppy stance on just what is constitutional.

              I mentioned his wanting to do away with the EPA/IRA/FEMA/whatever else he thinks is unconstitutional.  Someone comes back with "well, of course they're unconstitutional!"  I think maybe it was the Dept of Education...

              The point someone was making was that if it's not specifically in the constitution, then it must be unconstitutional or a states' rights thing (10th amendment stuff yeah?).  So, I ask, shit-eating grin as I type: "Well, how about the Air Force?"  Reply comes back as expected that constitution says to defend the US...

              I reply "well, I see armies, and I see navy - no air force listed."  I then say that if the unmentioned air force is implied in the constitution, then how about the IRS since the original document tasked Congress with taxation and the 16th amendment specifically allows for taxing income.  Seems to me the IRS logically follows as the device that ensures the 16th gets followed.

              Point to supporter was this: you can't have it both ways.  If the air force is ok, so is the IRS.  If the IRS isn't ok, then we need to get on to getting rid of the air force.

              •  Air Force is unconstitutional. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                so are all the other agencies noted.

                I wouldn't be against an amendment allowing the air force since its akin to an aerial navy it seems in line with the general defense of borders and of naval vessels the founders had in mind.

                I agree with your point though - too many people are hypocrites or blinded by their own desires to have consistent positions.  Its true in every political philosophy you can find.  This is why we need more discussions not less (preferably at a nice bar).

                •  I can't say I agree - but... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  ...I thank you for not trying to tell me one is ok while the other isn't.  Because the logic I was being hit with made my head spin (over there I mean).  

                •  It's not just the Air Force (4+ / 0-)

                  if you're going to run with "founders had in mind." It's the whole kit and caboodle. No standing armies or navy or anything else resembling a permanent class of warriors. No Pentagon, no Joint Chiefs, no NORAD, no permanent bases, no "foreign entanglements." No Military-Industrial complex producing mass armaments and machinery for war on the public dime. Hell, the government isn't even supposed to have any arms, those are to be provided by each individual during his brief stint in the militia, which lasts only so long as the particular skirmish for which he's called to duty.

                  Obviously things have changed quite a bit since the 18th century. And no, there are not more than a handful of voting citizens in 2011 who want to regress the nation back to 1787.

                  •  In all fairness... (0+ / 0-)

           does specifically say armies, and a navy.  I looked that up earlier this morning when I got into the air force thing.  I was pretty sure army and navy were covered, but there is no specific mention of most of what you talk about.

                    And I agree in spirit with what you're saying.  You can't be strict constitutionalist on the things you don't like, but allow all the stuff you do in.  It's one way, or the other.

                    •  There was no standing army (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      and the "founders" were very much against standing armies. Per the Navy, that would have required government ships of war, and while there were a couple of those outfitted for the purpose during the original conflict, the crews were volunteers just like the infantries were. Militia musters, from among the citizens who plied waves for a living. The Navy has always been volunteer, even when the army wasn't.

                      It took awhile to establish actual standing army type military departments. Something that became essentially necessary when the new country found itself facing invasions, rebellions and longstanding feuds over territory for expansion every few years (or, in the case of the struggle against the continent's natives, constant over generations). This establishment was fought politically at the time by appeal to the founders and their distaste for standing armies and foreign entanglements. They did not intend for us to be a world empire fighting endless wars of conquest and/or resource aggression. Nor for us to commit the vast majority of our national wealth to that end.

                      I'll believe that Paul-tards are philosophically consistent when they make a big deal out of eliminating the military and the MIC machinery of constant warfare. By not spending a trillion dollars a year on the machinery of constant warfare, everybody could enjoy huge tax cuts and greater liberty, actual civil rights no longer subsumed by the security state.

                      All my life I've been told about some scary boogeyman 'other' who wants what I have and will take it if I don't learn to live comfortably with forever-war and the Damocles Sword of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head every moment of my life. I decided that was all total bunk back in the 6th grade, during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Drop it or stay the fuck out of my life. Felt that way about it ever since.

                      If the Libertarian Party were to eschew perpetual war and the machinery of perpetual war as #1 rights and liberty stripping problem with this country, I might be looking at them with a lot more interest.

                      •  And Paul himself said that he would use the (0+ / 0-)

                        saved money from cutting the military to shore up the social system promises that have already been made.

                        Sure his goal is to get rid of them but its through a slowly phased in opt-out system.  Hes repeatedly said that it isn't fair to screw over the people who already paid in and he is absolutely correct.

                  •  Yes and I agree with all of this except (0+ / 0-)

                    there are laws instructing the Federal Government to make the militia regular so equipping the militia could be seen as necessary and proper given their functions in Article I Section VIII.

            •  That isn't true. (0+ / 0-)

              The law is extremely conflicted about the granting of legal personhood to the not yet born.  In criminal cases the killing of a human in the womb of a pregnant woman due to an assault or murder attempt or sometimes crimes inducing stress causing a miscarriage are in many states an additional charge of murder.   Additionally current abortion law in many states has differing statues protecting the right to life of the other human.

              Of course I never found it interesting or useful to discuss law except in an academic sense.  We should be discussing if the law should or should not treat all living humans with equitable protection of their rights.  That is the fundamental difference in the argument between the two camps so I've always hated it when people cloud the issue.

              •  Wrong (5+ / 0-)

                Fetuses cannot vote, hold property, file tax returns, be counted as dependents for tax purposes or legal purposes, serve in the military, engage in business transactions, buy or sell, receive an education, or participate in any way in public or political discourse.   State laws concerning murder of a fetus do not obviate this.

                If you don't like abortion on moral grounds, that's one thing.  But using criminal law in an attempt to strip women of their civil and political rights is sickening.

                •  Neither can dogs (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  We have animal rights groups.  We have laws concerning murder of animals.

                  There are more choices than a fetus has the moral value of a post-birth human being and a fetus has the moral value of a toenail clipping.  It is a valid topic for our political discourse as where a fetus lies between those two points.

                •  I like what you pick and choose. (0+ / 0-)

                  Minors can't vote, hold property, file taxes, serve in the military, engage in any contract let alone only business ones...

                  State laws regarding murder correctly identify the willful killing of a living human.  So you are not correct when you say that the rights of that living human are entirely ignored by law.

                  Of course you do realize you are taking an authoritarian stance by trying to appeal to law to justify a moral position?  By definition you are saying that if X is the law then X is moral.  This type of thinking surrenders thought and personal responsibility to those making the laws.

                  This is just a philosophical note but its a very very dangerous trap to fall into and is a logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

              •  Plus (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                xomnow, Clues, happy camper, tacet, skohayes

                How do you protect women from prosecution for miscarriages if fetuses are granted status as human?  A great many fetuses miscarry.  I can see this coming in several states, seems like there have been a couple already somewhere.  Georgia?

                A fetus may have the potential to be a person, but it is not a person.

                •  Around one third of fertilized eggs don't implant (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  xomnow, happy camper, tacet, skohayes

                  Ron Paul knows this unless he slept through that part of medical school.  That's yet another reason to reject his position:  he knows perfectly well that medically, pregnancy doesn't begin at conception.  It begins at implantation, several days later.  He's deliberately misrepresenting medical fact to support his religious beliefs.

                  •  A fetus (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Ellid, skohayes

                    doesn't become a human until it can survive alone outside the womb with little intervention.  Until then no matter what they want to call it, it is not a human.

                    •  So what species is it up until that point (0+ / 0-)

                      and what heretofore unknown biological process causes it to change species.  Why is this biological process only present in whatever species that the the fetus is.

                      Also when you say fetus do you mean any fetus, pig fetus, chicken fetus, dingo fetus or do you mean a human fetus which by definition is actually human.

                      The amount of irrationality in your post is extremely detrimental to your defense of your position.

                •  This is a good point regarding enforcement. (0+ / 0-)

                  I would say that a just system would not punish the innocent so while abortions outside of specific cases should be illegal it would be the doctor performing punished with no charges for the woman in order to prevent a uterus police force from forming.

                  We don't have rights because we fit some subjective standard of "is a person" we have rights because we are living homo sapiens and a living human fetus is exactly that.

                  We've seen historically what happens when rights are allowed to be denied to living humans because some people didn't feel those humans were "people" according to their personal standards.

              •  asdf (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Ellid, happy camper, skohayes

                Embryos are absolutely not people and have absolutely no rights.  United States / English common law has never recognized fetuses as having rights of any kind, although I realize that considerable effort is being exerted to change that.

                Politics is the art of changing what's possible.

                by happymisanthropy on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:21:27 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Completely antithetical to Libertarians (8+ / 0-)

            putting the government between a woman and her doctor, regardless of what procedure the doctor will perform.
            Paul only pretends to be Libertarian, but his major donors are Republicans, he endorses republican mantras, and supports republican bills in the House.
            And your "philosophically difficult" argument is based on a false premise, since the only rights being violated are those of the woman.

            You will never know what it’s like to work on a farm until your hands are raw, just so people can have fresh marijuana. Jack Handey

            by skohayes on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:49:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  libertarians believe the only just function (0+ / 0-)

              of government is the protection of the rights of the citizens.

              it is only antithetical if the libertarian in question doesn't believe that some living humans have rights due to their age.

              So it COULD be antithetical to some libertarians.

              •  Hmm... (7+ / 0-)

                I have to admit, I'm having a hard time squaring your first sentence with the idea that we should then not have a Civil Rights Act...

                Should not all citizens have the same rights?  Or is the right to equal access not as important as the right of someone to discriminate?

                •  Not according to Ron Paul (5+ / 0-)

                  According to him, the rights of adult women should be subordinate to the rights of fetuses.  If that isn't blatant discrimination on the grounds of age and gender, I don't know what is.

                  •  Not only women (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    Paul believes that the Americans with Disabilities Act is unconstitutional as well.
                    He thinks mobility and other handicap issues should be handled by the free market. That worked out so well before the ADA, didn't it?

                    You will never know what it’s like to work on a farm until your hands are raw, just so people can have fresh marijuana. Jack Handey

                    by skohayes on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 03:44:31 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Oh certainly not only should we have all the same (0+ / 0-)

                  rights but we do.  Rights are inherent in all living human beings simply by the state of our being.  They are not created nor destroyed by government but pre-exist the concept of government.  You'll notice nothing in the Constitution grants rights - it simply restricts government from interfering in already existing ones of the people.  The DOI is even more clear on this issue.

                  The problem is getting the law tuned so that it protects everyone's rights while not causing anyone else's rights to be infringed.  Add to the mix there will always be moral busybodies of one stripe or another that want to control others and will always try to get the law to do it for them and we have quite an exciting political life to live.

                  One doesn't have the right to mandate that another person enter into contract with them (say to exchange goods or services) as that would require infringing on the others right of contract.  Such a contradiction cannot logically exist which is why nothing can be a right if it necessarily requires infringing on the rights of another during its undertaking.

                  So according to the philosophy its always going to be a moral and legal error to mandate that others contract with people.  Just the same it is always immoral and unlawful to force people to not engage in a contract with others (ie laws that mandated restaurants have white and black counters or certain people have to sit in the back of a bus).

                  Remember that kind of discrimination was enforced by law on right of association and property but we found those laws immoral precisely for the reasoning some find these current laws moral.

                  •  I'm not sure that is possible (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    xomnow, Elmar

                    You say the problem is tuning the law so that it protects everyone's rights without infringing on the rights of others.  I would say that government exists to deal with inevitable clashes of rights.  For example, I might propose that taxation is a violation of some abstract property right, but is justified because it is necessary for the creation of government as a mechanism for protecting more important rights to life and liberty.

                    This is where I differ from libertarians.  I place the right to property much lower in the hierarchy of rights whereas libertarians place property at the apex, even going so far as to frame individual liberty in terms of the body as property.

                    •  I came up with the idea that at some... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...point we have to choose sides.  Which is the more important right?  Right A or right B?  Because sometimes two rights can not be co-equal if they have directly opposing principles.  It would be irresistible force and immovable object.  The universe would end!

                    •  Recced for convo. (0+ / 0-)

                      These are issues we should be discussing day to day because this is talking about the real foundation of our nation.

                      What are we willing to personally sacrifice in order to establish a government that protects our rights?  How far can we go in forcing others to give up what we are willing to sacrifice without infringing on their rights?

                      There is certainly a lot of room for new ideas to make our government better in a lot of areas like this and every time we do we remove the pushback felt by people who feel too encroached by government.

                  •  You contradict yourself (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    Since you seem to regard women of childbearing age as not possessing the rights of autonomy and self-determination as non-fertile women and all men.


                    •  Not at all. (0+ / 0-)

                      Any human has the same rights as any other human.

                      Why do you believe I am contradicting myself?  You state my regard but I don't see it as logically following.

                      A woman has no right to commit murder just as no one else has the right to commit murder.

                      The only case in which I can see that rights conflict in the abortion debate is when the woman was raped.  In this case she could not consent to accepting the risk of pregnancy and so it would be a violation of her rights to continue to house the child yet the child being innocent of the affair it would be a violation of their right to life.

                      In this case since the first principle of justice would be to cause no rights to be violated - the law itself is forced to take no opinion because in either case it would be using force to violate the rights of one or the other.

                •  I don't believe I ever said that. (0+ / 0-)

                  I said that there are portions of it which infringe on the rights of others.

                  An Act is usually a series of laws and it is possible to disagree with some of those laws and not others.

          •  ABORTION IS A MEDICAL PROCEDURE (13+ / 0-)

            Repeat after me:  Abortion is a medical procedure.  Abortion is a medical procedure.  Abortion is a medical procedure.

            Why is this so important?

            Because it's TRUE.

            Abortion isn't murder.  Abortion isn't depriving a fetus of life.  A fetus isn't a living being.  It's a predecessor to a living being, and when it becomes an actual living being is it endowed with human rights, but only then.

            Murder is murder.  Abortion is a medical procedure.  The two don't meet somewhere in the middle.  There isn't overlap there, and it's high time we stop giving any weight to people who want their own unorthodox opinions--opinions which have no connection to reality--to carry some sort of force of law.

            Ron Paul wants to depriving women of access to medical care.  Ron Paul wants to put the government between women and their doctors.  That's not libertarian.  That's not small government.  That's creepy, offensive, and wrong.

            •  I'll point out that repeating a statement (0+ / 0-)

              neither makes it fact nor makes it the only relevant fact.

              Abortion is a medical procedure.  If the living human does possess human rights it is also murder.

              Ron Paul wants to remove the ability to legislate abortion out of the hands of the Federal government.  The effects of doing so are what you wish to argue against but he does not seek to lord his personal position over the entire nation.  He simply wishes to give the power to for self-rule back to the states where the 10th amendment says it belongs.

              •  Read Ron Paul's own website. (9+ / 0-)

                Read Ron Paul's own website for his position on abortion:

                Ron Paul's position on abortion

                There is scant mention of states' rights, except to prevent the federal government from overruling state-base anti-abortion legislation.

                But there is a lot of this medically-inaccurate nonsense:

                "Dr. Paul’s experience in science and medicine only reinforced his belief that life begins at conception..."

                And a lot of this:

                "Ron Paul consistently put his beliefs into practice and saved lives by helping women seek options other than abortion, including adoption..."

                And some of this:

                "as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress..."


                "immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade..."


                "defining life as beginning at conception..."

                So when you said that Ron Paul doesn't wish to lord his (medically inaccurate) opinion over us, what exactly did you mean by that?

                •  And the PRESIDENT can "repeal" a court ruling how? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  xomnow, skohayes

                  Not only is he deliberately misrepresenting medical facts, he's displaying his ignorance of the relationship between the Supreme Court and the rest of government.  He's either stupid or being untruthful.

                  Shame on him.

              •  Wow. (5+ / 0-)

                And the power of the states, as we have seen lately is to subjugate half the population into forced incubation even in cases of rape, incest or health of the Women.
                (Many are also of the belief that birth control is equal to abortion)
                They are also using draconian laws to try to investigate women for miscarriages and stillbirths. And laying charges.
                They will cover this topic instead of anything else, like jobs and healthcare.
                Nice racket for the anti choicers, nicer racket for the hard core misogynists who want to keep the power no matter what.

                Essentially a fetus is parasitic in the most technical of terms.
                It depends on the "host" for it's very existence. It gets all sustenance and takes what it needs from the "host".  

                Now, if you believe that trumps a full blown thinking human with a brain and the ability to survive on their own, and that the "host" has no right to decide whether they want to sustain and deliver (BTW, that is yet another massive life risk for women. Just giving birth?) then you do appear to be contravening yourself.

                Where I live (Canada) we have no abortion law. There are medical guidelines and after the second trimester it is statistically used only for the viability and health of the fetus, or health of the mother.
                Until then, it is between a woman and her doctor.

                 We have sex education in our schools, and we also have universal medicare.
                 Abortion numbers keep dropping despite all of that. :)

                Fuddle Duddle--- Pierre Trudeau.... Canadian politics at......A Creative Revolution

                by pale cold on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:47:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Biological speaking a parasite is always (0+ / 0-)

                  classified as a being a different species than the host.

                  Such statements are emotional not rational.

                  Lets stick to the rational which includes biological fact not some sort of wish to demonize the natural process of mammalian reproduction.

              •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                pale cold

                Cancerous tumors are just as "human" and "alive" as an embryo is.

                If the living human does possess human rights it is also murder.

                They don't.  They never have.  End of discussion.

                Politics is the art of changing what's possible.

                by happymisanthropy on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:24:38 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Except the "other living human" (6+ / 0-)

            is a pile of cells without a functioning nervous system prior to 20 weeks or so, and is co-inhabiting a body and potentially jeopardizing it. Now, if the woman who is leasing space to this other "individual" wants to assume that risk and incubate the potential serial killer/burger flipper/messiah, that's her prerogative. But if she doesn't, the little guy has to go solo in the world. Which, for a libertarian, means survival of the fittest, baby! Sink or swim fetus-man!

            •  Which neither changes that it is alive and human. (0+ / 0-)

              Which as far as I can tell are the exactly qualifiers for having "human rights".

              •  So is a cell. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                pale cold, happymisanthropy, tacet

                Does cancer have rights? Or by "human" do you mean viable human? Or sentient human?

              •  Parasitic trespasser (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                pale cold

                is how a libertarian would define a fetus, I'd think. That fetus needs to vacate the sovereign property of the woman if she so chooses. Also, that fetus needs to provide its own nourishment and oxygen in the marketplace or perish. Correct?

              •  That's not so cut and dry - sorry. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                This is one of those areas where we can have a completely legitimate debate.  But I think, in all fairness, you're perhaps as staunchly set that a collection of cells MUST be a human when others disagree.  Kind of like how I think Ron's racist, and you don't.  I'd almost say you're taking the side so strongly suited to your belief that you can't imagine someone could disagree.

                See, I get how some people don't think he's racist.  I'm not sure you're willing to admit that others don't see cells as a human.

                •  Well it is a human. I mean what other species (0+ / 0-)

                  is it?

                  That is the thing there isn't any biological wiggle room.  People can state they don't believe it is a "person" but then we cross over into it being acceptable to dehumanize any living human into a category where they no longer have rights.

          •  A fetus is an individual? (8+ / 0-)

            Life begins, then, at conception?

            Just pointing out the bullshit assumptions that you'd have to start with to think that you just made a valid point.

            •  Which is medically inaccurate (4+ / 0-)

              As Ron Paul, being a doctor, knows full well.  A fertilized egg is nothing more than a fertilized egg unless and until it implants in a woman's uterus, which doesn't happen at least 1/3 of the time.  And even if it implants, another quarter of fertilized eggs are expelled before the thirteenth weekly of pregnancy in what doctors refer to as a spontaneous abortion.

            •  Yes it does begin at conception. (0+ / 0-)

              or more specifically the second the rna has copied a new and distinct dna code.

              Exactly how is it bullshit?

              Life does not ever come from something that isn't alive so no human could become alive if the ovum at conception were not alive.

              Spontaneous creation was discarded long ago.

              What you seek to say is that the fetus has not achieved what you personally hold as the threshold for "personhood".  That is an entirely different argument than trying to argue against the biological fact that a fetus is alive.

              •  It may be alive, but is a fertilized ovum a human? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Zooey Glass, happy camper

                I argue that it is not.  It is not a human in my opinion, and thus I don't think it's entitled to the same rights as a human.

                For me, what does it take for science to recognize "hey, that's a human!"  I don't think scientists consider a fertilized ovum to be, at that moment, a human being.

                •  Again I'll ask (0+ / 0-)

                  What species is it if not human?

                  Rationally speaking its the only option.  It may not be a comfortable though but getting into the details of positions is rarely a comfortable experience because positions will change as more information is considered.  And no one likes admitting - especially in front of others that their previous position contained some flaws.

                  However if we don't constantly revise our positions when we encounter new information we have simply stopped growing in our human experience.  We have calcified and have become conservative - preferring the status quo to all else.

              •  Well in a Paulian society (6+ / 0-)

                You have you have your own rights to believe that, and I have my own rights to not believe it.  In the same way that the free market would be allowed to handle the problems of racial discrimination and corporate pollution, to be consistent you must also let it handle women's medical rights.  If the market decrees that people don't want abortions, then there will be no clinics.  Problem solved, right?

                And just to mention - I also have my own property rights, and there is no property right more fundamental than ownership of one's own body.

              •  No, that's medicine. And law. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                happy camper, skohayes

                Medically, there is no pregnancy and no possibility of eventual independence until after the egg implants.  That doesn't happen immediately, as Ron Paul well knows.  Legally, an embryo or a fetus is not a citizen.  

          •  Fetal-Americans thank Dr. Paul for his support. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            As the Reich Wing is fond of reminding us, non-citizens don't have rights.  When do you become a citizen?  Does the Constitution say anything about that?  Oh, wait, it does...

            Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

            Rights of the unborn?  That's a pretty radical statement right there.

            -7.75 -4.67

            "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

            There are no Christians in foxholes.

            by Odysseus on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 12:03:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Funny thing is, if a poor starving person was (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          xomnow, satanicpanic, Ellid

          gasping his last breath dying of hunger and disease, the libertarian would think it's all good and fine. It's just the glorious free market weeding out the unfit.

          •  Not at all. (0+ / 0-)

            There is a large difference between not wanting property forced from the individual and not being charitable personally.

            I don't know why such an explicit deception is made to ignore this.

            Is the only good in your eyes born out of the use of governmental force?  Is a man not fed or housed if it happens through a private soup kitchen or shelter?

        •  all republican candidates are pro-forced-birth, is (0+ / 0-)

          he worse than the others?  Do you think he'd do more than any other republican president to repeal Roe v. Wade?

      •  I have ONE question for you. (0+ / 0-)

        What has Obama done for the black population other than the highest unemployment rate in the country, and I believe, in history?

        Obama is really pissing me off.

        by That Korean Guy on Sun Sep 04, 2011 at 11:01:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  P4VLbots :: LaRouchies (11+ / 0-)

      Melrose Place :: Beverly Hills 90210

      Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

      by zonk on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 06:23:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They are a just a bunch of delusional (4+ / 0-)

      pot smokers who truly believe that  a man who calls himself a REpublican would EVER legalize Pot...


      They do not care about anything else....

    •  I always use the "he's not a real libertarian" (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pale cold, satanicpanic, skohayes

      "he's a Republican" line. It really can drive them nuts.  They always say something like he couldn't be elected as a libertarian crap. Then I throw out the sellout or he's a fake line. Drives them nuts!

      "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

      by Texas Lefty on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:02:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But that's empirically true. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        satanicpanic, Ellid, Elmar
        They always say something like he couldn't be elected as a libertarian crap.

        Ron Paul ran for president as a Libertarian.

        Paul criticized Ronald Reagan as a failure and cited large deficits as exhibit A.[25] On the ballot in 46 states and the District of Columbia,[35] Paul scored third in the popular vote with 432,179 votes (0.5%),

        Ron Paul is clearly getting more support as a Republican than as a Libertarian.  He is far closer to winning elections as a major party candidate.

        -7.75 -4.67

        "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

        There are no Christians in foxholes.

        by Odysseus on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:30:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Wide-eyed true believers (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ellid, skohayes

      I have been both a fundamentalist christian and a libertarians at the more screwed up junctures of my life, so you gotta believe me when I tell you- they are both cut from the same cloth.  They are both driven to seek easy answers for complex questions.

      Remember the TV commercial with the big red "easy button"? That's what libertarians live for.

      •  I don't find libertarian answers "easy" at all. (0+ / 0-)

        It is in fact much easier to say "let the government do it because that will fix it" than it is to investigate how markets or individuals operate.

        Maybe you were just looking for simple answers but the political philosophy (of almost every major political philosophy) is rich and detailed.

        •  "Free market will fix it" (0+ / 0-)

          is not rich and detailed. It's like the cargo cult. A mythical belief system.

          Also- you notice that this is largely a democratic website. Democrats are not ideologues. Some things democrats prefer to have the government do, while other things democrats are content to let the market do. That's why being a democrat is not easy. It requires thinking and judgement, and above all- looking at facts and forming and changing conclusions based on facts.

          In all my years as a libertarian I have never seen anyone change their philosophy. It's a static belief system unaffected by facts.

  •  Ron Paul has the worst supporters (22+ / 0-)

    I think I can get along with some of the people who support a candidate Michele Bachmann.  Paulitards are uniformly unbearable and provide me with a reason for wanting to own a gun to protect myself.

  •  Well, I can't say as I am surprised that Paul (17+ / 0-)

    supporters think like this. However, some supporters of all candidates think like this. Can you imagine the response one might have gotten on the Daily Kos if you suggested in 2008 that Obama's record is clear: he is not a progressive, he is classically moderate and process-driven? You'd be right, of course, but you'd have a lot of pie on your face and more donuts than you could ever eat (which is why I have a deep freezer, but I digress).

    What I find really funny is that people who were gung-ho for Obama in '08 would be attracted to Ron Paul. That sounds like total trollery to me, and whoever wrote that may not being totally honest regarding having supported Obama. Of course, Obama got lots of low information voters which, I am fairly certain, won't be voting for him again (my prediction: he's re-elected).

    Thanks for the diary. Keep writing.

    Capitalism may be our enemy, but it is also our teacher. --V.I. Lenin

    by commonmass on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 04:10:16 AM PDT

  •  He isn't a racist. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The newsletters have long ago been debunked

    But lets pretend that they weren't.

    We have over 30 years of legislation, writing, and speaking and thousands of data points showing he is not racist and his fundamental ideology of individualism is absolutely diametrically opposed to regarding individuals as members of a collective.

    Yet for some reason its suddenly rational to believe one (1) as in singular data point that is an outlier over the others?

    And the reason it is ok to go against this massive amount of conflicting data is...

    "I want an easy way to dismiss Ron Paul"
    "I want to call everyone with an R a racist."
    "I don't want to think about what he says so now I call him this and I don't have to pay attention."

    If you want to not like Ron Paul that is fine but for rationality's sake due it for policy issues or something that at least is concrete and supported by the data.  The only thing attacks like this do are make Democrats look entirely reactionary, ill-informed, and fond of screaming racist at the drop of the hat.  None of which is good for the cause.

    •  Paulite, I presume? (22+ / 0-)

      sorry, anyone who willingly associates with Storm Front is a racist.  Its one of the most virulent white supremacist organizations in the world.

      We have no desire to offend you -- unless you are a twit!

      by ScrewySquirrel on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 05:08:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You know you are stretching the phrase (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MPociask, Timothy J

        "willingly associates with" to its breaking point.

        •  I'll actually give you some credit here... (22+ / 0-)

 that I couldn't find credible evidence he was flocking to them as compared to them flocking to him.  Certainly Ron Paul isn't in charge of who likes him in that sense.

          However, when confronted with the fact that money had been donated to his campaign from Stormfront members - he decided to keep the money.  Now that's questionable in the extreme.  From what I read, the donation was $500.  Not like he couldn't easily give that money back.  Had he done so - wow, that WOULD have been a point against racism.  He didn't.  He kept the money.  Why?  Some sort of principle?  He may not be courting the Stormfront members, but he'll gladly take their campaign donations?

          I don't even know where to mention the posing with Stormfront creator picture.  Is that a bad thing or did he just pose with some random guys at some photo op thing?  I guess, I'm saying he may very well have had no clue he was happily smiling with such an evil human being.  

          I'm guessing though that he knows NOW he posed for such a picture - and it seems to me if he wasn't a racist he'd have moved really damned fast to say "hey, he was some guy, at this event - had I known he was a vile racist I'd have told him to bug off."  I mean, if he's such a non-racist, wouldn't it be expected that he'd say something like "I did not knowingly pose with a vile racist for a snapshot"?

          Maybe the picture is totally random and innocent.  But had it been me, a candidate running for office, I'd disavow that REAL fast.

          •  Im reccing this because you're absolutely (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            xomnow, Timothy J

            open to discussion which is awesome.

            I think I addressed your positions in a later post, though please tell me if you don't feel I did.

            As for the picture I don't know anyone in public office that wouldn't pose for a picture when asked by someone who recognized them and asked for it.  I don't have the faces of well known racists memorized and I don't think most people do.

            •  A point/counterpoint diary between you two (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Timothy J, ipsos

              could be quite interesting.  Especially with some editing.

              HTML side-by-side bits, let the reader decide...

              Just a thought.  Would be educational, too.

              Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
              I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
              -Spike Milligan

              by polecat on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 06:57:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Nope, you did, and I may have replied even... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Elmar, Deep Texan, vidanto

              ...but I'm not sure. (I keep saying this, but this is way, way past my bedtime since the sun is now well shining)

              On that picture - I agree with you (and I think I even admitted that it is possibly totally innocent).  I don't expect any politician to have the racist mailing list with faces cemented in his or her brain.  I do think though that he has to be aware that he did pose with a neo nazi (after the fact, yes) and that he should have repudiated it.  I'd even totally give him a pass had he done so.  Something like "wow, I had no idea that guy was a racist bastard! I totally reject his positions!"

              It's a no-brainer to me to do something like that.  His silence is what gives me pause.

              Better, or perhaps more bluntly put.  People accuse Paul of actively courting such elements as Stormfront.  I've not been able to dig up such a direct link.  But his lack of push back on the photo makes me wonder (and I admit this is wholly my personal opinion here) if he isn't trying to play cute.  I'm not a racist!  (Come here and take a pic with me and hey, got another $500?)

              •  Well if I was him what could I do really (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                xomnow, Timothy J

                that would convince people?  Look at the replies in this thread - and psychologically most people are just going to believe what they want to be true regardless of anything else.

                So why bother?

                Anyway good convo but go to bed!  I need to gear up and get into my work anyway.

              •  But couldn't both of those situations just (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                go on forever. It's not like Stormfront is even an actual membership based political movement. It's a website. Do you expect him to somehow identify every person who has ever posted there, and then put them on a list, and then consult that list whenever he gets a donation or request for a photo, and then hold a press conference "pushing back" every time someone slips through the cracks. I dunno.

                He says he's not a racist. He's never taken any affirmative actions that indicate that he's a racist. The "guilt by association" game is sometimes valid, but I dunno, he's a national figure, and one who appeals to a lot of people outside of the political mainstream.

                Is it really that hard to just say, "hey, he believes a form of individualism that I think goes against everything I believe in, and that I would think any Obama supporter would believe in," and then explain why. Just finding a couple of people who have been associated with him who are racists, and that's the end of it, I think is sort of a cop out on an actual political discussion.

                •  Yup that kind of examination would be a lot (0+ / 0-)

                  more grounded than the blanket racist labeling.

                •  Tried and true methods are the best. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  But couldn't both of those situations just (1+ / 0-)
                  go on forever. It's not like Stormfront is even an actual membership based political movement. It's a website. Do you expect him to somehow identify every person who has ever posted there, and then put them on a list, and then consult that list whenever he gets a donation or request for a photo, and then hold a press conference "pushing back" every time someone slips through the cracks. I dunno.

                  The standard response to credible allegations against a campaign donor is to give that money to charity.

                  You can debate how strong the evidence is, but assuming the evidence is strong, Paul has not done what consensus says he should.

                  -7.75 -4.67

                  "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

                  There are no Christians in foxholes.

                  by Odysseus on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:37:07 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Where does that end though? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    If the donation is illegal or improper, then yes. Of if it's someone who's a known person that you don't want to associate with, then yes. But someone who has posted at a website? I don't think I've ever seen that standard evoked in any other situation.

                    •  Why would he want to associate with... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      ...a known racist?  It isn't quite so innocent as "random guy who once posted there one time makes donation."  It was a donation from a "I post all over Stormfront because I completely agree with what they espouse" kind of guy.  Ie, a known racist.  

                      You know why he posts all over it and totally agrees with what Stormfront espouses?  Because he's the creator/owner - a guy named Don Black from (christ, near me?!) West Palm, FL.

                      So, it's not some random one time drive by let-me-see-if-I-agree-with-these-neo-nazis guy - it's I am Stormfront guy.  He also took a pic with Don and Don's kid.  Ok, maybe he doesn't know Don from a hole in the wall - but like with the donation, when he learned of it, did he say "damn, yuck, these people are sick and I don't agree at all with them"?  No.  He didn't disavow them at all.

                      Actually - maybe you're right - maybe he has no problem at all associating with Don Black and Stormfront.

    •  HE IS a RACIST (20+ / 0-)

      1) The letters (no matter what he was in his name)
      2) Statements he himself made
      2) Connections to Stormfront etc
      3) He opposes the Civil Rights Act

      How in any stretch of the imagination do those three things not add up to racist?

      I am sorry but I staunchly disagree with your defense

      •  No he isn't. (0+ / 0-)

        We've gone over all of these before.

        He doesn't "oppose the Civil Rights Act" he opposes portions of it which violate individual rights.  He does not oppose the idea that governmental agencies cannot discriminate in fact its pretty fundamental to his entire ideology.

        •  Do you understand why some people think he is? (9+ / 0-)

          Why is a private actor different once that actor becomes large?

          Should AT&T be allowed to discriminate?  What about Exxon Mobile?  (Two very big actors.)

          Are corporations people?

          Do you understand the cumulative effect of discrimination?

          Do you know what it was like in this country prior to the Civil Rights Act?

          How do you feel about school integration?  ("Separate but equal" really isn't equal.)

          Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
          I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
          -Spike Milligan

          by polecat on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:00:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, and on that school front... (5+ / 0-)

            ...aren't we seeing the Koch brothers work to undue integration?  That effort in Raleigh (or was it Winston-Salem)?  OK, that has nothing to do directly with Paul.  But the point I think you're trying to make is we have evidence that some (maybe not Paul) are working to undue all the advances society has made and the efforts are being cloaked in this guise of individual freedom/liberty and constitutionality.  

          •  Oh yes I can see why some people think he is. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Timothy J, Odysseus

            Its quite often the case that people stop investigating anything when they find information they agree with and a position they like.

            I can also see why people who take un-nuanced positions in politics could see that because they have a very black and white "X legislation is good and it was supported to do Y" view so if you are against X you disagree with Y...very basic understanding.

            Corporations are not legal people and they never should have been recognized as such (and in fact it was a clerical error that caused it).  I sometimes don't even think governments should grant corporate charters at all.

            Yes I do but I also believe that the harm in too little freedom is greater than the harm of too much.

            Yes sadly I do.  My father lived through it and has some very "interesting" stories from the time.

            Integration - more the merrier.  Forced integration - I dislike the use of force to compel people to act the way some other group believes they should act (so long as no rights are violated).  I mean that would basically be agreeing to every religious fundamentalist out there in their desire to legislate their morality on me.  I can't do that.

            •  My elementary school was firebombed over (5+ / 0-)

              integration.  Some people in my suburb were extremely upset about allowing their kids to mix with other kids.

              We aren't talking about a hypothetical.  This happened in the 70's.  There are some rabidly racist people out there.  Why enable them?

              Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
              I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
              -Spike Milligan

              by polecat on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:43:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't wish to enable any racist (0+ / 0-)

                or racist activity.  I want violent fire-bombers prosecuted regardless of their motivations.

                I think exposure to multiple kinds of cultures and lifestyles at an early age breeds understanding, acceptance, patience, and curiosity.  All very good traits.  

                Do I think I should get to force people to expose their children to things because I think it would have what I believe are good results?  No I know I shouldn't because I would be arguing people get to do that to me and my children.

                Live, let live.

                •  Separate but equal ISN'T. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  xomnow, Odysseus, pale cold

                  Those getting the short end of the stick really get the short end of the stick.  That isn't fair, either.

                  Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
                  I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
                  -Spike Milligan

                  by polecat on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:47:12 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  This point of view (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  xomnow, Elmar

                  is philosophically sound from the baseline of individual liberty, in that it recognizes the practical impossibility for government (or its institutions) to control the minds and hearts of individuals.

                  But I disagree that government institutions should not require equality among all citizens it deals with as a matter of policy. What that requirement of non-discrimination promotes are the very traits you have labeled "good." And which are recognized to BE "good" by the laws that impose the requirement of non-discrimination.

                  So if you are applying to a government agency for any good or service that government agency offers, you must make your petition within the boundaries of the non-discrimination requirements of that agency. You can't insist that you get preferential treatment because you are white and other applicants aren't. You cannot get government money to build and run a clinic exclusively serving white people. You cannot win a government contract to supply food to any government/military facility or operation that will only serve white people. You cannot receive government support for your charter school that only allows white students to enroll.

                  What you do with your own money on your own time is your own business. But if what you do falls under the umbrella of government regulation, you are not allowed to discriminate. What's unfair or unconstitutional about that?

                •  Again, the argument is all from one perspective (0+ / 0-)
                  Do I think I should get to force people to expose their children to things because I think it would have what I believe are good results?  No I know I shouldn't because I would be arguing people get to do that to me and my children.

                  Our society is hugely varied, and the world is a very big place.  The situation exists that you and your children must live, somehow, in this society...yet you consider all these other people, who are not like you, to be an OPTION for you...that you should be able to choose to not have to see them, not interact with them, keep your children separate from them.

                  But they are US.  Your argument says that large portions of our society should be made to stay away from you so that you can shield your children from them.  That's ridiculous.  Other people have just as much right as you do to be where they are, live where they live, and be a part of our society.  It is not a basic right of a citizen here to be able to tell all the other citizens that they have to stay away....look at all the "rights" being trampled in order to afford you your right to be a hermit.

                  It's one of the most selfish arguments I've ever heard, and it seems to be a backbone of libertarian thought.  The public sphere is PUBLIC, and belongs to everyone.  You don't get to control the public sphere to that degree unless you go buy your own country.

                  •  I think your vastly inferring additional (0+ / 0-)

                    positions onto my position than I've ever stated.

                    There is nothing using force on other people from government.  Simply that government should not use force in the private lives of others.  This includes the right to associate or not with whom one wishes, who one gets to sleep with and marry, what they consume privately, and on and on.

                    •  I don't think I'm inferring additional positions (0+ / 0-)

                      based on your comments.  The context was about enforced integration of schools and you stated that you believe you have the right to control "things" your children are exposed to.

                      You don't have the right to control who gets to participate in the public sphere of our society.  Inside your privately owned home, you can control anything as much as you like, but once you step out the door, you don't get to start excluding people you don't like, as long as they aren't breaking any laws.

                      Schools are not

                      the private lives of others.
                      who one gets to sleep with and marry, what they consume privately, and on and on.

                      This was never in dispute, and the idea that the government is going to force you to sleep with or marry someone is a bit nuts.  However this..

                      This includes the right to associate or not with whom one wishes,

                      in private.  Not in public.

            •  The basic libertarian dilemma (6+ / 0-)

              Is that "greater freedom for the individual" is a convenient way of saying "I'm going to externalize my costs onto you".  Got a plastics factory and feel like poisoning your neighbor's water supply?  Well, that's not very nice, but it's your neighbor's fault for living where he does.  Fvckin' a$$hole shouldn't be raising food next to a plastics factory.

              The most deluded libertarians have an infinite, almost religious belief that whatever system the free market creates is inherently moral.  Non-deluded Libertarians don't really have much of a moral system - it's more amoral than immoral.  It's "I'm getting mine, and if things don't work out for you, well that's interesting."

              Libertarian social ethics, paraphrased by Mel Brooks: "If I cut my finger, it's a tragedy.  If you fall into an open sewer and drown, it's comedy."

              “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

              by ivorybill on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:22:54 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  This doesn't hold because in the libertarian (0+ / 0-)

                framework the private property rights of the person whose land is harmed would cause legal action both criminal and civil against the one causing the harm.

                You're simply looking at one side of the argument from their philosophy and ignoring the other.

                That isn't a very fair critique and if such were used against your position I am sure you would be the first to protest.

                •  How exactly does that work (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  pale cold, ivorybill, satanicpanic

                  once you get rid of the EPA?  Is each individual citizen responsible for tracking down these companies and prosecuting them (if they're not already dead from the results of the pollution)?

                  •  Court systems still exist if the EPA is gone. (0+ / 0-)

                    And the EPA actually legally shelters polluters from lawsuits.  The system is setup so regulation is designed by the big firms, passed to their legislatures on committees that they donate to and then protections are enacted for following the established regulations.

                    •  Court systems do NOT work in this context (0+ / 0-)

                      in any practical way whatsoever.  Granted, the EPA gets pulled one way and the other due to politics, but the argument that any imperfect yet useful entity should be destroyed is not logical at all, unless you're in favor of anarchy.

                      Your idea is that we should replace an entity that is able to coordinate efforts on a large scale, using the necessary amounts of money and focus to do it, with "some guy" who finds his water polluted and must ferret out why that is happening, when he's not busy working 40 hours/week, and providing for his family (and using his own personal budget to do that).  If "some guy" DOES manage to find out the source, he must then fight some big corporation through the legal system, also using his own money to do that, and ....

                      then a miracle occurs and he gets justice.

                      I find that laughable.

                      •  I suggest removing the protections that industries (0+ / 0-)

                        have created for themselves using taxpayer money.

                        I suggest having the monitoring agency by the body of 360 million individuals instead of a few thousand.

                        I suggest using the impartial court system instead of the legislative system plagued by the puppet strings of re-election campaigning.

                        Are there positives and negatives to both?  Yes.  Do I believe the positives of one system outweigh the other?  Yes.

                        I'd point out that in the current system that person would have the same difficulty finding time to do whatever only when he eventually goes to court the EPA couldn't insulate the company from legal action.

                •  Respectfully (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  xomnow, Clues, tacet, Zooey Glass

                  Yea, that works if the harm is obvious and immediate and I take you to court.  But actual externalized costs are much more complicated.  Many externalized costs are minor to specific individuals but major to populations.  Assuming climate change is real (and it is), is it reasonable for a farmer in Oklahoma to sue a coal-fired power plant operator in Illinois for the 0.003% cost increase he suffers when his cotton crop fails due to high temperatures and drought?  Or... PCBs cause cancer.  If the non-hodgkins lymphoma rate doubles within a decade of gutting the EPA, and I get the disease, can I prove that it is due to the Hewlett Packard plant down the street?  No.  Not every case is Love Canal.  But if the cancer rate doubles, and there's good evidence that it is due to PCBs, and our society is hamstrung on reasonable regulation, then where are we?    

                  Another example.  Who is harmed if DDT causes the population collapse of endangered species?  Is a bald eagle my private property?  Can I sue over that?  What if cattle ranchers graze BLM land to the point of desertification.  Can I sue over that?  If that rancher shoots wolves, can I shoot the rancher?  I mean, I don't own the wolves.  I don't have much recourse other than shooting the rancher, do I?  

                  Ron Paul and others like him distill everything down to private property, as if property rights trump all other values in a society.  It's a debate about when and how individual rights, including property rights, impinge on others rights.  Not everything can be turned into a tort action in the courts.  Not every cost of an individual action can be subjected to individual accountability.  This is why reasonable regulation and governance exists, and the Libertarianism of Ron Paul is far from reasonable.

                  “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

                  by ivorybill on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:13:05 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Ron Paul (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Ron Paul is a racist and a coward.
        The fact that he's to afraid to just say what he really feels about other people that aren't of his "complexion."  

    •  Oh really....are you sure about that cause this (19+ / 0-)

      writer seems to disagree...

      Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.

      But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul’s name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.

      read the whole article

      •  I am as sure as one can be without having (0+ / 0-)

        been the person in question.

        The writing styles are vastly different for one and Paul has already stated it was a mistake lending his name to a publication that he did not review before publication.

        That is a realistic and honest critique of Paul and because it is realistic and honest it would carry much more weight to be used against his supporters.  Of course it isn't used because it doesn't fuel that emotional fire some people seem to require in order to oppose people politically so why be reasonable?

        •  I was waiting for this one... (8+ / 0-)

          ...with glee.  "The writing styles are vastly different..."  Can you provide proof of this?  I've seen this one all over the place, that it's obvious it wasn't Paul since the writing styles are different.  Can you give an example of something that is Ron Paul's writing style so we can compare the two?

          As that link I posted asks me to do: What do you mean by Ron Paul's language?

          See, Ron said it's not his style.  Well, what IS his style?

          Actually, what I linked there will pretty much refute what you have said in his defense - point by point.

          •  No I can't because I don't have a link to the (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            analysis performed by a professional analyst that I read back in 2007 when I learned about this whole spiel.

            I can say that the professional opinion was enough for me because they made salient points regarding how their methodology operates and it was plausible.

            If you want to know Ron's style and get a feel for it listen to him speak or read the weekly releases on his congressional site.  I see a vast difference in persona and style there compared to those newsletters and I think you will to.

            •  Wont hold up in court then... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Deep Texan, vidanto

              dismissed as bullshite!

              •  This isn't a court of law. Its a court of public (0+ / 0-)

                opinion.  If I came to this as law I would spend days researching the evidence and have it carefully entered and documented.  I would also likely hire multiple experts in the field to corroborate the initial findings.

                •  This has been done ad nauseum (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Deep Texan, vidanto

                  If Paul is clean as a whistle on this as you claim....why hasn't HE done so?

                •  Indeed (7+ / 0-)
                  a CNN senior political analyst. "I must say I don't think there's an excuse in politics to have something go out under your name and say, 'Oh by the way, I didn't write that.'"

                  Paul, who is not considered a front-runner, has become an Internet phenomenon in the current race, raising tens of millions of dollars from a devoted online base, many of them young people drawn to his libertarian straight talk. See where the money is coming from

                  The controversial newsletters include rants against the Israeli lobby, gays, AIDS victims and Martin Luther King Jr. -- described as a "pro-Communist philanderer." One newsletter, from June 1992, right after the LA riots, says "order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

                  Another says, "The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day -- are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."

                  These were written IN HIS NAME and he just doesn't have to take responsibility for that in your eyes? You want to vote for a man that allows others to write in his name and he never takes a look to see what is being written?

                  Smells like a sell out to me...

                  •  This is a solid argument in my eyes (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    happymisanthropy, Ellid

                    I've read a great refutation to the "he didn't write it" line that I even linked somewhere in these comments.  I'm not willing to just accept that he didn't write them because he says so.

                    But ok, maybe he didn't write them.  Is it plausible to think he really had no idea, and that this writer DIDN'T think this was something Ron Paul (and his readers) wouldn't like to read?

                    For such a non-racist, he seems to have many many many many a tie to racist things.  The excuse seems to be that it's not his fault, he had no hand in it, and that it's all just trumped up nonsense.  Well, ok, how many racist newsletters have come out under any of the other candidates' names?

                    And this isn't necessarily germane, but I'm going to throw it out there.  Imagine any democrat trying to pull the same line about racism, or anything the right didn't like.  Would it fly?  I sure don't think so.

                  •  All you're doing is quoting from the same (0+ / 0-)

                    source material that is in question.

                    It doesn't reinforce either side of the debate regarding who wrote them.

                    If he didn't write them it doesn't matter how many times horrible things were said.

                    If he did write them it doesn't matter how few times horrible tings were said.

                    Your focus is on information that is immaterial to the main contested point.

                    •  The main contested point being... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      ...whether he is racist?  For me, this whole newsletter thing calls into question: is he racist?  If not, then what does it say about his judgment?  

                      This side point I've tried to make is that if I were to accept that he's not a racist, then why in god's green earth did he allow his name to be used under the banner of racist screeds?  See, the resulting new question for me also calls into question his fitness to be president.  So, he's not a racist, he just had really terrible judgment over a period of 5+ years?  Ok, then he's still not my guy.

                      •  I don't JUST object to his racism (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        I also object to his poor judgment if he isn't....

                        Not a single shred of evidence that he is NOT a racist but him saying so....but in light of all the evidence to the contrary presented just here this morning.....WE are the ill-informed ones! We just don't know Ron Paul like HE does....

                      •  The main contested point is (0+ / 0-)

                        "did he write them"?

                        If he did then the case is closed and we all agree there is evidence he is.

                        If he didn't then the case is closed and we all agree there there isn't any evidence he is.

                        So continually quoting from the source that we don't know who wrote really doesn't add ammunition to either side.

                        •  I'm sorry, I don't agree with point 2 (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          being that if he didn't write them then there is no evidence he is a racist.  It doesn't necessarily follow that just because he didn't write them, that he didn't knowingly allow them to be written as if they were from his own hand and espousing his own beliefs.

                          We have only his word that he didn't know a thing about it.  Is that the most logical explanation?  I'm not saying it might not in fact be the case (I don't know, I suspect it isn't, but I have no proof to be sure), but him knowing nothing about it is the least likely possibility.

                          I think it really stretches credulity to think this went on for 5 years, under his name and he knew absolutely nothing about it.

                        •  Are you seriously supporting a candidate (0+ / 0-)

                          that would say he wasn't aware of this when it was occuring?

                          Are you saying that the writer USED Ron Paul's name on racist. homophobic, anti-semite screed and he didn't sue their asses know as a OBGYN?

                          •  I am not supporting anyone in this thread. (0+ / 0-)

                            I am simply offering counter positions to statements made which were base assertions being taken as fact.

                            I don't know what being an OBGYN has to do with suing people?

                          •  Reputation you a doctor (0+ / 0-)

                            treating patients having your name connected to such racist homophobic and antisemetic crap against your will could be seen as detrimental to your practice....not to mention having the resources TO BE ABLE TO SUE someone for such a thing.

                            The fact that you couldn't see that explains alot about why in the face of all this evidence you still support this asshole. The ability to dot connect is a very important skill in life......

                          •  Again you're stating your assumption as fact (0+ / 0-)

                            and this time in direct contradiction of my statement.  

                            You aren't interested in discussion as you've already closed your mind.

                            That would be true of almost any profession and presumes a predilection for lawsuits as a way of settling differences.  

                            The only connection I can see exists in your mind and then you go on to try to make an ad hominem for me not instantly seeing and agreeing with how your mind forms connections.

                            I don't believe this type of persuasive writing is going to gain a lot of traction with others.  

                          •  So.... (0+ / 0-)

                            let me get this straight then.....even if he accepted donations from al Queda....or the Nazi Party....or NAMBLA for that matter...means absolutely nothing to you...there would be no dot connection at all right?

                            as long as he makes statements about the Fed and promises to legalize pot...your's still on board!

                            i think it is YOU who needs to have your mind opened.

                          •  To answer your questions: (0+ / 0-)

                            1. Yes indeed.

                            2. No.  My position is not nearly so simple.

                          •  Let me draw you a pretty picture (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            perhaps this will help you...

                            Dot 1.....anti-semtic, homophobic, racist screeds written in your name....never did anything about it.....CHECK!

                            Dot 2 Publicly claim to oppose Civil Rights Legislation and Roe V Wade....CHECK!

                            Dot 3....accepted money from a White Supremacist group that vociferously hates Gays, Jews and Blacks...Never returned said money.....CHECK!

                            as noted i have perfectly valid evidence to support my belief as pointed out by the above facts....

                            Where are yours to dispute them....other than "He said so"?

                          •  Talk about being simple. (0+ / 0-)

                            1. A lie on its face.  He pulled the use of his name and admitted bad judgement in not reviewing things published using it.

                            2. Partial lie.  Publicly claimed to oppose parts of it, and I don't agree with Roe V Wade either (and currently neither do Roe or Wade).

                            3. Yup.

                            I've stated the facts (and linked to them) against each of your positions.  I've provided reasoning as to why your assumption of intentions is just that - an assumption and why said assumptions are contradicted by both philosophy and action over a 30 year period.

                            If you find believing what is more comfortable to your emotions better than believing what is shown by a preponderance of evidence from action then that is your choice.  It isn't at all a rational choice but you are completely free to behave as irrationally as you like.

                    •  not the same....two different links... (0+ / 0-)

                      please compare and contrast at your leisure

                  •  My link for that didnt it is (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
            •  Pics or it didn't happen (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              satanicpanic, happymisanthropy

              You know how it goes.

              As far as we can all tell, Ron Paul is a virulent racist who hides under cloak of "let people do what they want".

              You're the one coming in with "Oh but I've read a professional assessment of blah blah," but why should anyone believe you that such a thing exists at all?  Especially when all signs still point to Ron Paul being a virulent racist?

              Who should we believe, you or our own lying eyes?

              •  No one has to believe me but I've provided other (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                points that counter the blanket assertion that he is a racist.

                I've done my due diligence enough to convince me.  I met my own burden of proof.

                You can take what I post and perform your own due diligence to your own level of satisfaction and I encourage such.

                What I cannot stand is the base repetition of a claim that is contested by so many people that aren't aware of the counter evidence because they never bothered to research past the point of hearing something they wanted to believe.

                •  I'll throw up the refutation again... (0+ / 0-)

         a counter to your points.  Not to say "nananana!" but just to show that there are in fact ways to refute many of the points you've made.


                  I'll back you on doing research, and not just taking anyone's word for it (LeVar taught me that!).  Wise words there.

                  I also join you in the spirit that baseless repetition of anything does no one any good.

        •  I you even know who Ayn Rand is? (0+ / 0-)
    •  Debunked in what way? (21+ / 0-)

      First, unlike the debate I still seem to be getting drawn into elsewhere, I appreciate the fact you didn't go full-hate on me.  You worded things in a completely appropriate way (even though I'm about to disagree with you).

      So, debunked how?  Debunked that he claims they were ghost-written?  That he didn't know what was being written under his name?  Let's say both are true - then it's all ok?

      I'm not willing to conceded that he didn't write them simply because he says (since 2001) that he didn't write them.  He didn't deny writing them in 1996.  The claim is now that the whole denying them in 1996 thing would be too confusing for the voters since the newsletter had his name on it.  Well, which is it?  He claims to have written them in 1996 - he claims not to have written them in 2001 and beyond.

      Also, why if he didn't write them were they written as if he had?  The writer speaks in the first person - once using references to his (his here meaning Ron Paul - perhaps not necessarily the writer) 1988 campaign.  This bit is written in first person.  At the end of the same newsletter, he (the writer) ends by wishing his readers a happy holiday - again in the first person (and here most specifically AS Ron Paul).  

      So, if he didn't write them, then why did the writer choose to write as if Ron Paul was writing them?  Why did the ghost-writer choose to write such racist things in the name of Paul, using first person, referring to Ron Paul's 1988 presidential run?  Because what he was writing was so anathema to what the real Ron Paul believes?  See, I find this to be stretching credibility to the max.  Either Paul wrote it (and is a racist) or the writer was a racist (and sure seemed to think Paul and his readers were as well).

      Now, let's deal with 1996 vs 2001.  He's either lying in 1996, or he's lying in 2001.  Either way, Ron Paul is lying.  So, he's possibly not a racist (at least as far as the newsletter content is concerned) but he is definitely lying.  This too is not a good thing.

      You mention 30 years of legislation, writing (well, the non-racist writing then I guess you mean) and speaking as numerous data points, but then seem to imply (correct me if I'm wrong) that we should take ALL of his newsletters as a single data point.  Um, sorry, to me they are MANY data points.

      Also, while Ron Paul wants to say that his legislation is pure and worthy - it strangely seems to line up with what racists want: ie, do away with affirmative action, do away with Civil Rights.  Just because he applauded Rosa Parks doesn't change the fact he believes businesses should be allowed to discriminate because discrimination will lead to no discrimination.  Yes that's a crappy sentence - but it's what he said!  I hate a block of speech quoted at me.  Discrimination should be allowed because the choice to discriminate will lead to no discrimination.  That makes no sense!  And to me, smacks of racism.

      I don't need this as an easy way to dismiss Ron Paul.  But to deny it is like saying Rick Perry is staunchly anti-secessionist.  That's silly.

      I don't want to call everyone with an R racist.  But it sure does seem like a lot of R's are either closet racists (in this super strict constitutional guise) or are out and out racists.  And believe me, I have no doubt there are a metric ton of racist Ds running about as well.  But can you compare the two in terms of numbers... I sure don't think so.  And I'll say I dislike ANYONE who is a racist.

      As for disliking Paul on policy issues... Well, I think this whole "discrimination should be allowed since discrimination will lead to no discrimination" thing is both a terrible policy idea AND racist.

      Lastly - once again - the Stormfront ties (campaign money received and kept after learning it came from racists) and John Birch Society ties (I mean, we admit they're a bunch of closeted racists right?) go unchallenged.  So, it's not just one newsletter causing the flap.  He has taken, and continues to take stances that while he says are not racist - at a barest minimum have racist ties.

      Phew... I said lastly but I'm going to end with this: just because Ron Paul thinks Rosa Parks was aok, and says he's not a racist, doesn't necessarily make it so.

      •  What you should be asking in return is (9+ / 0-)

        assuming Perry (or Bachmann) is the (clearly insane) nominee, Mr/Ms Paul Supporter, who are you going to vote for in 2012?  Barack Obama or a complete nutjob?

        Followup question: Do you think the T-party has come completely off the rails, or will you continue to enable them?

        Ron Paul still thinks we should be on a hard currency.  INSTANT DEFLATION.  The people that believe in his positions IMHO appear to be unredeemable.

        Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
        I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
        -Spike Milligan

        by polecat on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 05:36:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul (8+ / 0-)

          for President, I might vote for him if he was my only choice for Representative.  His ideas that are worthwhile work in a group of 400 where they can be muted with reality.  But as President his whacked out ideas would be a HUGE problem.  I will give him one thing, he is consistent.

          Think of Rand Paul as an unpolished version of his father.  Ron has had 40 years to polish up his persona where Rand is just the raw product.  If you ask Rand a deep question on his philosophy (the civil rights issue) his voice gets shrill and he immediately becomes a broken record repeating over and over the talking point.  Rand gets lost in the rabbit hole right away when pressed because he is just a mouthpiece.  If you ask Ron the same question, he has practiced his answer over the years and can hold up his end for a while with semi logical defense, but if pressed hard (and I have heard it) he gets kind of shrill and resorts to repeating his talking point over and over.  This is the method of those who can't support their views with real logic.  

          Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world--and never will. Mark Twain

          by whoknu on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 06:18:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well lets see. (0+ / 0-)

          Pro war anti 1st and 4th amendment incumbent who has gone against many campaign promises or someone who is anti war pro 1st and 4th amendments anti war on drugs and who has been consistent in these for 30 years of elected office even in detriment to his career?

          I think you're lying to yourself if you don't believe that there are some very good reasons to seriously examine this comparison at least in the primary situation.

          To me the Blue Republican movement makes a very very strong argument for voting for Paul in the primary.

          I think we should be on hard currency.  First of all I don't believe that instant deflation would happen (I don't believe he supports anything other than competing currencies to start - ie a slow migration based on consumer choice) and I don't believe that some degree of deflation wouldn't be good due to the inflationary policies causing mal-investment in the first place.  (Totally different topic btw).

          The Tea Party I think was quickly co-opted by establishment GOP wanks.  There are likely some lonely groups and members who honestly just want to talk about the their tax burden but I think they got wrapped up in the flag waving crazy distraction party that is our modern political circus.

          •  You're advocating DEFLATION? (0+ / 0-)

            Do you know anything about economics?

            That's what put the word "Great" into the Great Depression.

            Do you prefer a barter economy?

            Nixon brought us OFF of the gold standard.  We were bimetallic for the panic of 1893 and that one lasted a good while, too.

            The Tea Party is a manufactured construct of some very rich corporate •ssholes.  The people that carry water for it are SO working against their own interests it isn't remotely funny.

            Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
            I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
            -Spike Milligan

            by polecat on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:15:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I work with economists (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              NONE of them, not ONE, regards going back on the gold standard with anything but horror.  It would destroy the global economy unless we somehow raised the price of gold to approximately 10 times what it is today.

              •  And had a steadily increasing amount of it... (0+ / 0-)

                That expanding money supply had a lot to do with the success of a hard currency in the past.

                Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
                I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
                -Spike Milligan

                by polecat on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 01:20:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Well kind of. (0+ / 0-)

                The price of gold wouldn't rise at all - its value is always going to be determined by the market.  The issue is that the value of the dollar would be forced to reflect what it should actually command (which is very little).

                Of course almost no one is really arguing for a pure gold standard, the phrase is used by most to refer to a mixed metals or a general commodity currency position.

            •  A good deal in fact I collect rare publications (0+ / 0-)

              on the subject (albeit mostly reprints at this point in my life though I would love an original of Capital and Interest).

              The Brenton Woods was a failure from its inception - Hazlit correctly predicted that when it was adopted.  The failure of the agreement (which wasn't a real standard anyway) is no critique of a commodity currency.

              I would agree that most of the Tea Party has become something manufactured - it most certainly did not start off that way.

      •  Ok thanks for the discussion...this is how we (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MPociask, Pilkington, satanicpanic, xomnow

        should do things on here every time and in every way.

        First of all in order to believe he penned them we would have to believe:

        1. He is extremely inconsistent in his philosophy.  Being racist is a fundamental collectivist activity.  Judging anyone's entire character by their membership in a group based on a condition they have no control over is completely antithetical to the individualism that both libertarianism and the entire philosophy is rights is based on.  

        We would need to believe that over 30 years of consistent voting based on individualist beliefs and speaking and writing - almost always in detriment to his political career (ie being opposed in the primary by his own state party funded opponent more than once) are actually the error and that this lone newsletter for a brief period was the truth.

        2.  We have him speaking on it while admitting an error in judgment.  Politicians almost never take the blame for errors they made.  Others involved have corroborated the story.  Now of course this by itself would be highly questionable but we need to view it in the totality of the circumstance.  The lack of due diligence is actually a greater damaging aspect than that of racism.

        3. He would have to be capable of adopting an entirely different writing voice, persona, and style - which he then never shows capable of doing every again in writing or speeches.  

        4. We would have to believe an entire rift caused in the libertarian community was made just to cover up Ron Paul's racism.  The community has blamed prolific writer Lew Rockwell for being the author in an attempt at what he mistakenly believed at the time was some slick political maneuvering to make racists vote against their philosophy.   This has caused a huge amount of infighting between camps and has really hampered their collective efforts.

        5. We have the statements of Ron's friend and the former head of the Austin NAACP speaking on Ron's behalf and calling the claims of racism absolutely false.  That seems a pretty good standard for refutation of the man's personal character.

        I think by far the biggest are 1 and 3.  A man so willing to stick to his philosophy that he often harms himself politically by voting against his party in no way could just for a short period of time flop on such a fundamental issue perspective.  It also takes the most utterly gifted individuals to master different writing voices and styles - something Ron Paul being an academic is not at all likely to have even tried.

        As for writing some newsletters - I am sure he did write some for that publication in the early days.  It seems very easy to understand someone giving permission to use their name on a newsletter - making some writings to be published in it and then slowly being distracted by life and forgetting about or not checking up on it.  He is human and as a human I've let things like this slip through the cracks in my own life - promises made and things I know I should do that I never quite get around to doing.  In this I am a big fan of the saying "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence."

        This is incomparable to Rick Perry's statements on video as anyone could put words on paper with a typewriter and call it the "Elmar Times" so to speak.

        I still see you saying that "super strict constitutionalism" is a form of racism.  I don't understand that at all because adherence to the limits of the Constitution on government is precisely what we called for during the Bush years of expansive Executive power isn't it?  So its racist to appeal to the idea of obeying the highest law in the land...sometimes - but only when it is in line with what I want?

        A wee bit opportunist don't you think?  Personally I like having the collection of power checked against itself, reportable and responsible to the people, and limited in how that power can be wielded against the people.  Call me a weirdo but that is just me.  That first ten amendments - yes please and more thank you.

        I don't know any JBS people (or if I do I don't know I do) so I can't really make claims on them as I am not one to speak without seeing evidence.  

        As for stormfront.  Let me ask you if any racist out there wanted to decrease the amount of money they had and increase the amount of money you had and you knew you would use their own money to fund the opposition of their own policies...would you not take money from idiot racists to fight their beliefs?  Seriously that is like the definition of a win-win situation.

        Additionally your claiming guilt by association.  I am sure Obama had campaign contributions from drunk drivers.  Does that mean Obama is a drunk driver?  You see how one does not logically follow the other?

        Terrible policy - sure there is room for discussion and delving into issues, consequences, and even a flirt with human nature itself.  That would be a communication between people where progress and understanding can be made.  Saying it is also purely racist because they oppose using force to infringe on the rights of private property and association is assigning motivation without knowing them.  Its nothing more than assumption stated as fact and totally shuts down conversation while antagonizing people by setting off their defense mechanisms.

        Remember this is a war of minds and we can't change minds if we slam the doors leading to them.  We can't win by yelling at people and calling them names.  We have to do it by showing people why our beliefs are superior and the only way to do that is through discourse.  Yes its slow, yes it is quite often frustrating and yes there will be people out there who only want to yell at us and call us names...but if we want to win we MUST take the higher road.

        •  He believes in individualism only for men (7+ / 0-)

          A woman who wants to control her own body and decide how and when and if she's to bear children is out of luck according to Rep. Paul.  It's hypocritical and misogynist, and the reason that I would not vote for Ron Paul at any time, in any place, for any reason.

          •  No it isn't. (0+ / 0-)

            I've posted already that he simply views it as a conflict of rights between the rights of the living human mother and the rights of the living human child.

            Its a philosophical position that you disagree with so you are assigning a motivation to the person who holds that position so you can dislike them and attack them.

            You are better than that because you are a human being and capable of caring about people who disagree with you and stopping to think about situation in depth and from multiple angles.  This is why we have a mind, this is why we have emotions - to use them to come closer to mutual understanding not to divide us and make us all little angry groups clawing at each other.

            •  Yes and repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Anonyman, Odysseus

              Whatever Ron Paul believes about fetuses does not make his beliefs either accurate, true, or representative of the world.

              From where we all sit, Ron Paul believes in having the government interfere with women's access to medical care.  When Ron Paul opposes abortion, that's precisely what he's doing:  blocking women from accessing medical care.

              He's not "preserving life" or any other nonsense, no matter what he may claim.  Get this?  People can claim a wide variety of reasons or motivations for whatever they do, but at the end of the day Ron Paul wants to block women's access to medical care.  No two ways around it.

            •  A fetus (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ellid, Anonyman, Odysseus

              that cannot exist outside of the womb is not a baby. A fetus has no rights under the law.

              Yet, Paul comes down on the side of the fetus, every time. The rights of the mother are not part of his equation.

              Libertarianism sounds good on paper, but when Yogi Berra said

              In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
              he might as well have been talking about libertarianism.

              "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

              by happy camper on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:37:51 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I've never come across any definition (0+ / 0-)

                of the word "baby" that includes its viability outside of the womb.  Could you please cite one for me instead of simply posting your opinion as definitive fact?

                A fetus has several rights under the law, check with different state laws as I've already mentioned in this thread.

                The rights of the mother are clearly part of the equation.  Understand that if one takes his premises that the willful act to end the life of another living human that does not consent is murder.  You would be stating that the mother has the right to murder their child.

                You can see how that view would contain a massive contradiction from the grounding premise that all living humans have the right to life?

                You're approaching this entirely from your own viewpoint but that doesn't really help anyone to understand someone else's positions.  We must look at it from their viewpoint in order to understand.  Once we understand can we discuss fruitfully.

                •  Wrong again, old sport (0+ / 0-)

                  Fetuses have NO legal rights.  NONE.  They cannot inherit, they cannot own property, they cannot be counted as dependents for tax purposes, they cannot vote, they cannot enter into contracts, receive an education, engage in commerce, obtain passports, or anything else.  Some states count the death of a fetus as a crime or as upping the penalties for a crime committed against the woman carrying the fetus, but the fetus itself has no legal standing to bring suit.  

                  Fetuses are not persons or citizens under the law.  They never have been.  Your attempt to make it seem that they do flies in the face of common law and common sense.

            •  Philosophical positions (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              on the relative "personhood" of a mere embryo or non-viable fetus have no rightful place in law. Especially where they come into direct conflict with the pre-existing rights of an independent citizen. The argument is too easily demolished with the simple fact that any cancer cell contains a full complement of human DNA, and no reasonable person would argue that a tumor has rights superior to the person in which the tumor is growing.

              In order to pull off the premise that a woman's physical body can be subjugated by law to a parasitical growth, you would have to establish by law the lack of a right to bodily integrity for all females across the board. Including female fetuses. Which means that women could abort at will, as all embryos start out female. I don't see how this would accomplish the forced subjugation of women's bodies that this philosophy demands.

              And I sure as hell don't seen how this philosophy could in any way be made to jibe with the political philosophy known as "libertarianism."

              •  Distributive fallacy. (0+ / 0-)

                Third time its been brought up in this thread.

                Not a parasite either (second time).

                Not actually the woman's body biologically either.  Different organ systems, dna, often blood type, reacts separately to stimuli...

          •  My main point of contention with this (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            xomnow, Joieau

            and btw, I do believe he is a racist - you can sugar coat his opposition to the civil rights act all you want, but to deny certain population of people justice on the basis of the color of their skin simply because you believe an individual has the right to be a bigot... well that makes you a bigot too!

            But that's not even the worse of it, radical individualism is an antithesis to progressive political discourse. His brand of individualism is based and celebrates obscene social divisions and stratification based on economics.. A type of social Darwinism.

            I would say he is the most radical republican of them all!

            "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." Richard Dawkins

            by HGM MA on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:24:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thats certainly a position I've seen before (0+ / 0-)

              but I don't think libertarianism celebrates social division - it might create social division but that is different than assigning a motivation to the outcome.

              It would be like saying the motivation of the women in the prohibition movement was to increase the power of the mob.  Clearly it wasn't their motivation yet it was certainly the outcome.

              No, saying someone has the right to be be a bigot is actually the exact literary opposite of being a bigot.

              I take it you don't agree with this thought "I stand against what you say but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it."?

        •  Great comment (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Elmar, Odysseus

          I'm not a Paulite, but that was the best defense of him that I've ever read (well, I haven't read that many!). But still, nicely done. If we as a nation could have all political discussions at that level of discourse, we might actually get somewhere in solving our problems and improving our lives.

        •  I'm not sure this is true: (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Odysseus, happymisanthropy
          Being racist is a fundamental collectivist activity.  Judging anyone's entire character by their membership in a group based on a condition they have no control over is completely antithetical to the individualism that both libertarianism and the entire philosophy is rights is based on.

          Racial hatred does not require membership in a collectivity.  It only requires hatred and suspicion of someone who is quite different.  Libertarians can and do embrace exclusion of foreigners or outsiders who threaten resources they perceive to be theirs.  

          “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

          by ivorybill on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:31:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Racism requires examing people based on (0+ / 0-)

            group membership. It requires assigning qualities to an individual based on no more data than what group they are in based on a condition they have no say in.

            Its fundamentally collectivist.  "Brown - in this bucket, blue in this one, green in this one.  No I don't need to know anything about you personally - your part of X group so you have Y traits" - collective thinking defined.

            Now can any given libertarian be inconsistent in their views - absolutely.

            Applying this to Ron Paul which almost everyone regardless of their view of him says is one of the most philosophically consistent people in politics...not likely to be inconsistent in application of the philosophy.

            •  Everyone categorizes (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              all the time.  Sometimes, particularly with a man like Ron Paul, the category is binary:  Us versus Them.  

              We quadrupled the TSA, you know, and hired more people who look more suspicious to me than most Americans who are getting checked. Most of them, they just don't look very American to me. If I'd have been looking, they look suspicious.… I mean, a lot of them can't even speak English, hardly. Not that I'm accusing them of anything, but it's sort of ironic.


              In terms of racism, I can't get past his opposition to the Civil Rights Act.  He can say that his opposition is based on property rights, but you have to be wilfully ignorant to dismiss the legacy of Jim Crow and the fact that black people never got that 40 acres and a mule that they were owed at the end of the Civil War.  If Ron Paul supported an inheritance tax, to level the playing field a little by taxing unearned inheritance, then I could understand his absolutism on private property more.  But when you have a community that has 1/20th of the inherited wealth, and that disparity is due to racism and institutional lack of opportunity, it seems churlish to oppose the Civil Rights Act on private property grounds.  That is such a huge gap in vision and understanding that it frankly doesn't matter if he's a racist or not.  Anyone from Texas who would take that position deserves to have someone occupy his property and take it from him by force.

              Ron Paul's got nothing on Blind Willie Johnson, who lived in his Congressional District, and wrote perhaps the most soulful piece of music in American history.  Google Dark is the Night Cold is the Ground and listen to some lyrical philosophy that has a lot more meaning than anything Ron Paul's ever said.

              “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

              by ivorybill on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:50:27 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The author of the cited article actually agrees (0+ / 0-)

                that there is a philosophical defense of the position but then goes on to only explain their personal reasons for disagreeing.

                Well that is all in good for that person but the article actually reinforces that it isn't a racist position by the author's own admission.

                I am not saying who "has something" on someone else or not.  I am pointing out that a philosophical disagreement can exist outside the scope of "racism".

          •  not sure? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            it's flat out bullshit.  "I can't be racist because what I believe is the opposite of racism."  Nonsense.

            Politics is the art of changing what's possible.

            by happymisanthropy on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:44:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Once in a while you get to see (4+ / 0-)

      inside the Komono.  This was one of those times.

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      -Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 05:32:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Debunked? Not at all. Time to dust off this (7+ / 0-)

      little gem:

      Ron Paul Hates You

      You can't just say they were debunked when clearly the paper trail shows the opposite.  That is up there with global warming denial and other anti-science kookery.

      Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

      by Miggles on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 06:06:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wikipedia: (10+ / 0-)

      The problem with Ron Paul is his stance on social issues.  
      There is plenty more there, once you get to "Political Positions" about half-way down the page. Wiki factoids:

      Paul terms himself "strongly pro-life",[188] "an unshakable foe of abortion",[189] and believes regulation or ban[190] on medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level".[191][192] He says his years as an obstetrician led him to believe life begins at conception;[193] his abortion-related legislation, like the Sanctity of Life Act, is intended to negate Roe v. Wade and to get "the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters."[194] Paul also believes that the notion of the separation of church and state is currently misused by the court system: "In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous 'separation of church and state' metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty."[195]
        He opposes federal regulation of the death penalty[191] (although he opposes capital punishment),[196] of education,[197] and of marriage, and endorses revising the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy to concern mainly disruptive sexual behavior (whether heterosexual or homosexual).[198] As a free-market environmentalist, he asserts private property rights in relation to environmental protection and pollution prevention
      Paul was critical of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,arguing that it sanctioned federal interference in the labor market and did not improve race relations. He once remarked: "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".

      There is much, much more.  On far too many issues, he is way too conservative. You cannot hide it, though people try.

      Truth - that most inconvenient guest and always late to the party. ItsSimpleSimon

      by ohmyheck on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 06:10:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Alright policy talk! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I do believe that the Civil Rights Act has failed to achieve its goals.  Sad thing that.  Although I don't believe you can use force to change people's minds so I don't think parts of it were a very good idea though I can see how people may have thought so at the time.

        •  Ok, I faced this one a couple of hours ago... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ...and I'm not sure I can disagree that it hasn't failed to meet the goals set for it.  But I'm not sure it then logically follows that its a terrible thing.  See, I think things would be far more terrible if it didn't exist.  Is it perfect.  Probably not (I'm not a legal expert to know every in and out written into it).  But you know what else isn't perfect?  This world we live in.

          One of the themes I've noticed is this idea that we shouldn't need the Civil Rights Act.  I completely agree!  We shouldn't, if we lived in a perfect world where everyone treated everyone equally because hey, we're all people!  Unfortunately, we're not yet living in that world.

          I will say this - the last spatter of debate I've had at reddit has been along these lines and things have become much more civil.  It's very much this idea that pro-Paul people think we're not far from such a perfect world, and I think we have a long, long, long way to go.  And until we're there - I think we most definitely need the Civil Rights Act whether it works well, is perfect, or not.  It's better than the alternative in my eyes.

        •  you are way off base with this (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Civil Rights Act has failed to achieve its goals

          so far off the reservation you are in bum fuck egypt!

        •  Okay, that's just nuts (7+ / 0-)

          Before the Civil Rights Act, conditions were absolutely worse for women and racial minorities. Since then, there have been huge, marked improvements, using the Civil Rights Act's various provisions as a legal means. How is that failing to achieve its goals? Please enlighten me. I'm not saying everything is dandy, racially, since 1964, far from it. But we've made huge strides as a country in the direction of racial equality and the Civil Rights Act is an important part of that. Also, please fill me in on how you or your hero Ron Paul would have done things differently and achieved a better result. Hint': if you talk to me about the magic of the free market, I am going to mock you.

          •  I agree but I never said that they were not (0+ / 0-)

            worse or even bad than they were in the period after.

            The point is did the Civil Rights Act cause things to get better or was it merely a sign of the underlying change already taking place that resulted in both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 taking place and the improvements?

            Law does not become law without first a social change to compel the law to exist.

            While the Civil Rights Act and improving civil rights were correlated that does not mean they are causal.

            So let me get this straight - if I bring up something in opposition to your argument you're going to make fun of me.  Really?  You actually put that in print?   Amazing.

            I can't say how Ron Paul would have done things differently and no one can perfectly predict changing the past.  Of course I defend someone (anyone) against illogical attacks and they are my hero...I suppose that is not the worst worst thing said about me in this thread.  I guess I should be proud to have someone say that a staunch anti-war, anti-drug war individual is a Hero of mine.  

            Would a hero of yours not be anti-war and anti-drug war?

            •  The Civil Rights act, as any schoolchild knows (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Otherwise we would still have "Help Wanted - Male" and "No Irish/blacks/Chinese/women need apply" advertisements in the papers, quotas on how many blacks, Jews, Asians, and women would be accepted at certain colleges and graduate schools, and restricted neighborhoods that did allow Jewish or black residents.  The ONLY reason that these conditions have changed is because of federal civil rights legislation giving members of protected classes the right to sue for redress.

              •  That is a logical fallacy. (0+ / 0-)

                You make a declarative "everybody knows" without citation.  Not to mention its fundamentally impossible to perfectly extrapolate the future by an assumed change in the past.

                History actually shows that they were changing while the Civil Rights movement was going on - logically speaking if attitudes were not changing then there wouldn't have been a Civil Rights movement in the first place.

                •  There was pressure... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  ...from the civil rights movement, but that is what made the Civil Rights Act possible. It's true that some businesses voluntarily integrated, but the vast majority simply applied the free market philosophy that you so admire and concluded that it was in their best interest to continue to be racist. Public polling from before 1964 indicates that white people, particularly in the south, held deeply racist views and weren't going to change. That rate of change sped up markedly after the government put the weight of the law behind the civil rights movement. You are engaging in an abuse of history by stating otherwise.

    •  Yes, he is racist (8+ / 0-)

      Any national politician who has had to deal with the kind of controverst that Ron Paul gets before breakfast has only ONE response if he is to avoid the tag "racist".

      He has to loudly disavow any and every comment attributed to him.

      He has to affirm his support for the Civil Rights Act.

      He has to acknowledge that racism is alive and well, and recognise his own privilege.

      If he doesn't do that then he simply enables racism.

      All the rest is just weasel words.


      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      by twigg on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 06:45:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He's anti-abortion (6+ / 0-)

      That right there kills any interest I would ever have in supporting him.  Libertarianism that applies to everyone except women of childbearing age is not libertarianism.

      •  and he still sports that R after his name.... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ellid, Deep Texan, Larin, happymisanthropy

        so he is NOT a matter what he says..

        •  There exist pro-life libertarians. (0+ / 0-)

          I believe your assigning the positions of the political party to the philosophy.

          •  No, I'm assigning a specific position to Ron Paul (0+ / 0-)

            He is anti-abortion, which is a political position that would reduce women of childbearing age to a lesser legal status than pre-pubescent or post-menopausal women, or all men.  Given that libertarianism is supposedly based on individual rights and freedoms, Paul's position is hypocritical, discriminatory, and not libertarian at all.  

            If he wants to ban abortion based on his religion, that's one thing.  But taking the right to bodily autonomy away from women is not compatible with his espoused political philosophy.

            •  Not at all. (0+ / 0-)

              You continue to make assumptions and assert consequences that are not certain.

              Lets try this from another position.

              Take some time and clear your mind and imagine that you believe that any living human has rights.  Now try to work backwards through this using biological fact only.  A living human fetus is living and human by definition.  Therefore it has rights.  Therefore it has the right to life.  Therefore it is a moral wrong to willingly end that life without that living human's consent...

              Thus the recognition of one individual's rights does not diminish the rights held by any other individual.  To say otherwise is to say that those who believe gay marriage harms straight marriage have a logical claim.

              •  Why, thank you for being so condescending (0+ / 0-)

                What next, patting me on the head and telling me to go away and be a good little dear while I make you a sandwich?

                And what part of "Ron Paul's position would adversely impact women's rights to bodily autonomy and self-determination" do YOU not understand?  

                •  I am not being condescending... (0+ / 0-)

                  I am trying to get you to take off the glasses of your own bias and change your point of view to try to understand that your constant assigning of motivations to others who disagree with you is extremely egocentric and short sighted.

                  What I don't understand is how you arrived at that conclusion.  You know  You're missing your work.

              •  Also, this makes no sense (0+ / 0-)

                "Thus the recognition of one individual's rights does not diminish the rights held by any other individual.  To say otherwise is to say that those who believe gay marriage harms straight marriage have a logical claim."

                You would elevate the non-existent legal and political rights of an embryo, which have never been codified in American law, over those of an adult citizen.  Comparing this is to equal marriage is vile.

                •  Do you decide your morality by what is law (0+ / 0-)

                  or do you judge law by what is moral?

                  If its the first your an authoritarian whose morality is dictated by politicians on high.

                  If its the second you need to recognize your own statement is contrary to your belief.

                  Rights are not created by law - they are pre-existing.  The only thing that would change is that the law would recognize these pre-existing rights.  

                  I agree its vile to say that the recognition of rights by one group is equivalent to removing rights to another - which is why I fight against those who seek to restrict gay marriage and why I disagree with your conclusion (the one that didn't show any work).

    •  Sorry, But He is a Racist. (3+ / 0-)

      His excuse for the newsletters is textbook lame:

      "I didn't write those, my newsletter editor did!"

      Yeah, that's the ticket! So, he didn't review the letters before they went out to be published? How many had to be written before he finally "took a stand?"

      Only Paul supporters like yourself buy that bs.

      Remember when DKOS was a Democratic site focused on getting Democrats elected?

      by kefauver on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:32:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He opposes civil rights laws (4+ / 0-)

      Whether or not he claims to not be racist is irrelevant. That makes him constructively racist.

    •  Nonsense (4+ / 0-)

      He can make exceptions to his ideology when it comes to abortion but not pre 1965 blacks?  There's a word for these people- Republicans.  Ron Paul just happens to call himself a Republican.  

      You could invent some fantastical argument about why he's selectively applying his ideology here (one that would, oddly enough, be the one his supporters make that would, oddly, enough, paint him in the best possible light) or you could just accept that the man is racist.  I'm going with the latter.  

      Ayn Rand’s philosophy... reduces itself to: "I’m on board; pull up the lifeline."- Roger Ebert

      by satanicpanic on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:44:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He isn't making an exception in his ideology. (0+ / 0-)

        it depends on when one believes that human life occurs for support of the defense of rights.

        There is nothing inconsistent given his premises.

        •  This is what happens when you (0+ / 0-)

          tie yourself into pretzels trying to make it sound like someone who could easily be identified by a fairly popular title- conservative- is instead something novel- libertarian.  You have to shoehorn a bunch of even more contradictory ideas into what is already contradictory.  So Ron Paul would leave it up to the states?  Wait, but he's the guy who supports freedom! wherever possible.  Why stop there?  Those fetuses could have their rights taken away by the states.  Would he be OK leaving property rights up to the states?  Hmm, I doubt it.      

          Instead of inventing new rights like- the right to be born you could just admit that Ron Paul is a Republican with a few additional cranky ideas.    

          Ayn Rand’s philosophy... reduces itself to: "I’m on board; pull up the lifeline."- Roger Ebert

          by satanicpanic on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:03:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  He supports the Rule of Law (0+ / 0-)

            and while he might wish for something the system people have consented for their government has not granted him authority or power to do such.

            You're really trying to attack the guy for not being an authoritarian.

        •  Nope, it's whether you regard women as citizens (0+ / 0-)

          who are equal to men.  Ron Paul clearly doesn't, or he wouldn't insist that the government control what a woman does with her uterus.  

          •  She can do what she wishes with her uterus (0+ / 0-)

            but her ability to swing her uterus ends when it affects the life of another living human.

            You seem to have a hard time understanding this and stopping making wild claims that have been shown to be false several times previously in this thread.

            Once again - repetition of a claim does not cause a change in reality to make that claim true.

  •  Pick your fights wisely or as my wise (11+ / 0-)

    old daddy used to say "Never get into a pi**ing contest with a skunk."  This was the best advice he ever gave me.

  •  Discrimmination. (0+ / 0-)

    He doesn't "support" it.  He just doesn't think it should be outlawed by private actors.

    The same way someone saying the drug war is bad is not "supporting shooting heroin into one's eyeballs" but simply stating that it is infringing on the rights of people.

    People have the right to be an asshole - and that includes associating with whom they want and not associating with whom they want for whatever reasons they want.

    This includes letting who they want into their property and yes even if it is a store.

    People have to stop reading motivation into the positions of others - especially if they can never be bothered to research that other's declared motivations.  

    •  See my post above (10+ / 0-)

      Racist, Homophobe and antisemite to boot!

      You need to do better research about who you support

    •  Ok, but he supports one's right to discriminate... (16+ / 0-) ways that go beyond being an asshole or as an expression of free speech.  What if the service being provided is one that is only available in one place/space/time and is necessary for, oh, I dunno, continued existence.  Should hospitals be allowed to discriminate?  It seems to me if you follow his noble people should be allowed to be assholes line of thought that you end up with any business being able to do anything it wants.  This is a good thing?

      •  These are very very good attacks and questions (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        xomnow, Pilkington

        on the policy.  This is what we need to do much more of.  Make people think.

        I would rec this comment 40 times if I could.

        I think that is a powerful question right there and a great intro into getting people to think about the issue:

        "Should hospitals be allowed to discriminate?"

        That is the basis for a great night with good conversation right there.

        Do I think hospitals should be able to discriminate personally?  Not if they get a drop of public money or support.  I don't think many doctors would work there if they did but I guess I can't imagine it totally being out the realm of possibility as life is stranger than fiction.  I think the hospital would go out of business pretty quickly but Barnum was right that a fool and their money are soon parted.

        •  I think I envisioned an admittedly... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan, satanicpanic

          ...hypothetical scenario where someone is somewhere and the only medical provider is a totally private institution.  No public funds whatsoever.  Is this reasonable?  Probably not.  But what if - what if this person who needs medical attention right then and there is turned away for whatever reason (and ok, we'll call it race)?  Is this ok?  Me personally - hell no.  

          Look, I'm probably just rambling now, but it seems to me that taking the private property/business argument too seriously takes us down a road where totally for-profit medical facilities just laugh as someone dies in their parking lot due to skin color, or name, or whatever (maybe they're orange with pink polka dots).  Should they have this right?  It feels to me that some would try to argue that they do - and that the market in its wholesome goodness will auto-correct this problem.  I guess I don't trust businesses all that much.

          •  I would find the action in that scenario (0+ / 0-)

            morally reprehensible.

            However I find that universally telling the government it is acceptable to infringe on the right of free association and property of everyone to try to overcome the extremely rare and isolated incidents that may happen to be a worse cure than the disease.

            Well if you believe they are totally for-profit then why would they want to limit their customer base?  The market would force them to have the widest customer base possible to attract the most paying clients.

            Of course there still exist charitable hospitals and organizations the problem there is making sure enough people donate to them.  Usually charitable donations rise 3% with every 10% increase in personal income.  So it seems the best way to encourage charitable usage (which tends to be more efficient that through programs requiring force) is to have a good economy.

            •  Property is a government-granted right (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              xomnow, Odysseus, satanicpanic, tacet

              Imagine:  no government.  What's property without government?  Is it what you can defend?  What you say is yours?

              Property is a right that emerges from the existence of our state and our society.  As such, it's pretty much up to us--the people who comprise this state and this society--to define the terms and conditions laid on "property".

              If we as a people say "racism is bad and we'll make you stop" then hey, guess what, that's not the government infringing, that's the decision of the people not to allow something as awful as racism to exist in the public sphere.

              Sorry, but the whole "property rights are sacred" and "individual freedom is primary" nonsense is tired, sad, and a little bit sickening.  Followers of Ron Paul and Ayn Rand alike live in this weird fantasy world where we're all lone rangers and one-off supermen, which bears absolutely no resemblance to the real world where we live in community and do things all the time that affect one another and as a consequence need to adjust our behaviors to suit our friends, family, community, city, state, country, world, etc.  It's called humanity.  We're all a part of it.

      •  Doesn't have to be (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        a survival service to count. How about public accommodation? Is it okay to make travelers on the highways bunk down with the livestock if they happen to be 'outsiders' to the preferred customer base? Sort of reminds me of this very sort of incident painstakingly recorded in a history written a couple of millennia ago that described a newborn king placed in a hay trough because his parents were travelers by circumstance when he made his debut...

        •  Well it turned out ok for that historical couple. (0+ / 0-)

          Of course that was because of occupancy not discrimination but oh well.

          Makes a great opportunity to set up a business that doesn't discriminate that will get 100% of the rejected clients and likely a share of other clients doesn't it?  Make money and put a racist or a X-ist our of business.  

    •  Disgusting. This illustrates the fundamental (23+ / 0-)

      concept of society that Paul and his racist supporters do not understand.  Businesses are part of the social compact of our society.  They benefit from the taxes everyone pays so that the roads stay paved and 911 calls get answered.  Why should a business that benefits from taxes paid by African Americans be allowed to discriminate against them?  Businesses that wish to engage in open bigotry have no place in a 21st century economy, and I am glad that the Civil Rights Act explicitly outlaws such discrimination.

      Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

      by Miggles on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 06:28:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Holy Crap this is amazing! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I am loving this line of argument and it's going in the hopper of ammunition.  Well said!

      •  Well this would be much better without calling (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        all supporters of a political candidate racist.

        That gets us absolutely nowhere and really distracts from the rest which is the meat of a real argument.

        Of course would we want to encourage the law funneling money into the hands of racist business owners?

        No.  But that is exactly what this law does by forcing business owners to mask their racism.

        Do we get a bigger positive result than negative and should policy be judged on outcome or intent or outcome or rights?  Now we get into political philosophy.

        Maybe I am alone in liking to get to the philosophical reasoning people take positions but I think it is really the most interesting part of the whole thing.

        •  Sorry, but people who support racist (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          satanicpanic, Deep Texan, Larin, Ellid

          candidates and defend those racist positions over and over agian deserve to be called that.  And remember we are talking about a candidate who wants to dismantle possibly the greatest legislative achievement of the 20th century: the Civil Rights Act.

          Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

          by Miggles on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:22:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Did I do that? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan, Miggles, satanicpanic

          I'm fuzzy here - have we moved into the realm of me or someone else saying that all of Paul's followers are racist?  I personally think Paul is.  His supporters... Some likely are, I suspect many are taken with some idealized form of what he says.  And yeah, I think some kids like this decriminalized pot thing.

          Are you saying that without the Civil Rights Act we'd know who the racists are more easily?  I think the point about the taxes was that they'd still be benefiting from the money AND get to be racist all at the same time.  Now, they're still racist, but they can't act so easily on it.  I prefer that honestly, until we have no more racists.

          You're not alone in wanting to get at the philosophical heart of things.  It's why I've not retreated from the field at reddit just yet.

          •  Well I don't think we will ever get rid of (0+ / 0-)

            all racists.  So then at what level of reduced racism are we willing to allow people's rights to association and property return.  And fundamentally are we a society willing to infringe on the rights of others whenever we feel there is "really good reason" to?  Are rights convenience or moral absolutes that it is always wrong to infringe on - if its the latter than there will be eventually a "really good" reason in the minds of others to infringe on our rights - any of them.  Hell we already have it with the Patriot Act.  I don't believe that its a road we ever should have taken a step down.

            •  Being allowed to commit racist acts has nothing to (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              xomnow, satanicpanic

              do with protecting people's rights of association or property rights.  This is just a warped interpretation of the law that bigots and sociopaths are trying to hide behind.  If a racist shopkeeper doesn't want to sell a snack to a black kid, then he needs to get out of the shopkeeping business.  And finally, HELLO?  This issue was settled almost 50 years ago.  The fact that Ron Paul supporters are trying to turn back the clock on this is simply scary.

              Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

              by Miggles on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:48:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So people shouldn't be allowed to say (0+ / 0-)

                "I don't want to associate with that person because they are (insert reasoning)"?

                Or they shouldn't be allowed to act on it.

                How can you support the idea of the right to associate while saying government should be able to force people to associate?

                Why does a racist shopkeeper have to get out of the business - because you don't like how they are running it?  

                Whose rights is the shopkeeper infringing on by not entering into a contract they don't want to enter into?  By not associating themselves with someone they don't wish to?  By not letting someone on their property they don't wish to?

                I can't see any violation of the rights of another in any of this so where does government get the moral authority to intercede?

            •  Yes but... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Miggles, satanicpanic

              ...while I understand the slippery slope argument you're making here, I can't help but feel that equality is a right, and that discrimination ISN'T a right.  Or, I choose equality as the FUNDAMENTAL right and one's choice of who to sell to coming a far distant second.  I value a person's humanity more than a value someone's right to racism if you will.

              I mean, on some level, aren't things fundamental that take precedent over less fundamental things?  I'd say the right to life (and whoa - not even getting into the fetus/person thing here) is far more important than the right to discriminate.

              So for me, equality trumps discrimination.  Does that make any sense?

              •  Bingo! (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                satanicpanic, Ellid
                discrimination ISN'T a right

                Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

                by Miggles on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:11:21 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  In private life it most certainly is. (0+ / 0-)

                  Discriminate means simply to detect a difference.

                  When you choose strawberry over peach ice cream you are discriminating.

                  People get to make choices based on differences in all aspects of their private lives including association.  If I don't want to hang out with heavy metal music fans I get to not hang out with them.  Why does someone who doesn't want to hang out with people based on their race not get to do the same thing?

                  You've just expanded this discussion outside of discrimination in business but to the extremely personal level as well.

                  This makes your position open to a great deal more attacks.

        •  Masking racism (6+ / 0-)

          At some level this is what this is all about.  In order to have a functioning society, there must be rules and laws about the ways we are allowed to behave in regard to the people around us.  You can't be totally free to treat other people badly, or society doesn't function.

          In this respect, you can't and shouldn't legislate what someone thinks about others, but you can and absolutely should legislate how they are required to act towards others.

          These Paulian arguments many times fail to take into account the rights of the persons being acted UPON, while pushing to the extremes the rights of the person doing the acting.  For example, in his environmental arguments he claims that property rights should allow a business to foul the air or the water...but he fails to handle the problem that these businesses do not live in a plexiglass bubble.  They foul the air and the water belonging to their neighbors, and there is no thought given to THEIR property rights, or even their basic right to exist.

          It's the same situation with allowing businesses to refuse to serve segments of the population.  If your town can't support 2 hardware stores, 2 grocery stores, 2 pharmacies, 2 hospitals, etc...and these businesses are owned by racists, then you are effectively blocking a portion of the population from living there.  That is not America, and it's not American, and it's an unworkable way to build a society.

          •  Agree. This is the crowning failure of (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Clues, xomnow, satanicpanic, Ellid

            libertarianism because it can let anyone shit all over the environment, and no one else would be able to do anything about it until it was too late.

            Imagine if you lived in Ron Paul Utopia and your farm was 200 miles downstream from some polluting factory.  Your crops  and kids would be dying, but not only would you not be able to go after the factory, you wouldn't even know that it was the factory's fault because there would be no such thing as environmental monitoring or any other "wasteful" government program/regulation.  It really is not difficult to see how unrealistic all of Ron Paul's philosophies are, yet his diehard supporters are just kind of tone deaf to this.  Go figure...

            Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

            by Miggles on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:18:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  VERY Well put sir (or madam)! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
    •  No. Absolutely wrong on the merits and logic. (13+ / 0-)

      This is what irks me about "libertarians:" They live in a childish fantasy world in which people are supposed to be some kind of hyper-rational actors who always follow logical market rules and the market will, eventually, solve all the world's problems.

      Horse shit.

      People who open a store to the public DO NOT have the right to discriminate against segments of the public. And Ron Paul is an idiot for suggesting otherwise.

      The "libertarian" idea here is that racist businesses will fail because they don't serve black people, or gays, or (name your group) and so black people or gays (or whomever) will just go and open competing businesses where right-thinking folks can shop. Tell that to the people of Rosewood, Florida. Oh right, there are no people of Rosewood, Florida, they were either murdered or driven out and left homeless when their town was burned to the ground by racists. Tell John DeLorean, or Preston Tucker how easy it is to start a business when the powers that be want you gone. Tell that to people who have tried to open businesses in towns where the mafia or the Klan has ties to the police. Tell that to people in towns where certain shop owners have relatives in the local government.

      The idea that business exists in a vacuum where people act rationally and with good intentions is cute, but childishly and pathologically unrealistic.

      "That's why we hate the government!" cry the libertarians.

      Which is just another libertarian idiocy.

      Humans living in any group larger than one individual WILL have government. The choice is NOT between government and no government, it is between good government and bad government.

      The idea that we can get rid of the federal government and all our problems will be solved is pathetic and frankly insane. Yet, that's the basis of the "States' Rights" rhetoric (A Ron Paul hobby horse): That it is better to have "local" government over a distant, federal government. How local? If someone in Paducah, Kentucky doesn't like what the government folks in Frankfort decree, is he shit out of luck because under the doctrine of "States' Rights" the "State" can impose whatever laws they like? Or is there a "County Rights" movement to follow on the heels of the dissolution of the federal government? And after that a "Towns' Rights" movement?, followed by an "Intersection of Fifth and Main Rights" movement?, followed by a "My house Rights" movement? and, ultimately a "Grandpa in the kitchen vs. Me in the living room rights" movement?

      "States' Rights" is nothing but code for, "We didn't get our way federally, so we're going to buy the state government and impose our ideology that way." And if that fails we'll secede (á la Ricky Perry). Or whatever.

      Traditionally, "States' Rights" has been a way to keep racist laws on the books or to impose racist government when it is illegal by either state or federal law. Lately, it has been a way to deny rights to other groups such as gays, muslims, and women.

      And is it any surprise that when any state chooses a legal path disliked by the "States' Rights" con men -- marriage equality, for example -- the very same anti-federal government con men start frothing and ranting about a "Constitutional Amendment" to ban whatever they don't like everywhere in the United States or impose their ideology FEDERALLY? Not to mention their lunatic penchant for trying to pass "unchangeable" laws: Laws that, they appear to think or imagine, could never be changed by a future congress or government. How idiotic is that?

      But this is getting long enough to be its own diary so, I'll close by suggesting that the modern libertarian movement is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the GOP or other right-wing neo-fascists and Ron Paul, if he could even get a space on the ticket (ha, ha) would govern as one of them as his States' Rights and anti-abortion stances prove. Whether he is a crypto racist or not.

      Ron Paul is as bad for America as any other GOP scum sucker.

      •  Fifth and Main Rights = comedy gold! (5+ / 0-)

        A long comment yes but a great one.  I think Elmar will likely respond, and appreciate your contribution here.

        You nailed some great points that I've been trying to express (the whole enabling of discrimination means less discrimination because discrimination is bad thing) in a far more elegant way.

      •  I prefer not to live in a fantasy word where well (0+ / 0-)

        established philosophies get turned into "code words" for whatever the listener can most imagine the speaker to mean.

        Most people tend to be rational actors over the long term concerning how they view the best way to secure their future happiness.  So I fail to see how this is either childish or not reflective of reality.

        Also no one but anarchists support "getting rid of the Federal government" so that is simply a strawman.

        The rest is merely an assortment of other logical fallacies.

        •  Libertarianism dies on the transaction costs. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          satanicpanic, Clues, Ellid

          There is no way that I can possibly learn enough to make "rational decisions" in everything that I do.

          At best, and what most people clearly do, is a "sufficiency" test.  "Do I know anything that would make this action bad?"

          The stock market is a perfect example of this.  Enron was clearly a criminal enterprise for years before they failed.  Remind me again how "perfect information" about their criminal activities was disseminated to every customer and stock market participant?  Because I'm quite sure that Governor Grey Davis and the California Attorney General would have been real interested in that at the time.

          -7.75 -4.67

          "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

          There are no Christians in foxholes.

          by Odysseus on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:58:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They would reply that it is a good thing (0+ / 0-)

            that services exist currently to do that for you such as consumer reports.  You can outsource your due diligence for a very small amount.  Also the access to the internet allows research to be done quickly and with a rapidly growing market on the fly and portable as well.

            It wasn't and such information was correctly addressed by the fraud charges and the destruction of the company.  This served as a reminder of the consequences of such fraud to every other business.

            Fraud in contract is already illegal and protection against and prosecution of fraud  falls under the libertarian definition of a just action of government.

        •  well, (0+ / 0-)

          since states do not have rights, I have a hard time understanding how "states' rights" and "well-established philosophy" can be used in the same sentence.

          Politics is the art of changing what's possible.

          by happymisanthropy on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:00:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  States rights is a phrase (0+ / 0-)

            with a common understanding.  One could reference wikipedia if they are confused.

            Yes in rights philosophy individuals only have rights, other entities can have, power, authority, and responsibility but not rights.

          •  States' rights (0+ / 0-)

            means that certain individuals believe that States (State governments) have or should have the right to veto federal law, including the constitution if they choose to do so "locally."

            It began as code to oppose federal anti-segregation laws and became the hobby horse of the conservative movement which finds that in certain conservative-leaning, low-population states, conservative ideology gets a better showing at the ballot box than liberal ideology. So they want "States' Rights" because that's where their ideas can win.

            Of course the very same people and organizations, in high-population, left-leaning states, love to talk up "constitutional amendments" to prevent locally passed state laws -- like marriage equality -- they disagree with.

            This is standard conservative hypocrisy: Where their ideas can win locally, they are all for local control (i.e. "states' rights). Where their ideas lose locally, they want federal control if they can get it. It's all about the ideology and consistency is as common as hens' teeth.

        •  I'd love to have you point out (0+ / 0-)

          the "logical fallacies." I haven't shot down silly libertarian "logic" in a long time.

          As to the "established philosophy" of States' Rights there are few people who do not understand that it began as and remains a code for conservative dogma to suppress basic human rights that began with racist opposition to anti-segregation law and has grown to embrace the oppression of gays, muslims, women's reproductive rights and other basic American morality opposed by the lunatic right wing.

          As to the rational actors hoo-hah, I'll simply refer to Odysseus' excellent comment, below.

          Just to add, following your reply to his post, the idea that Consumer Reports and "the internet" suffice as information resources is delightfully twee, if pathetically obtuse.

          One can find "information" on the internet to support just about any action. The marketers and manipulators long ago learned that posting something to the net is an easy way to rope in the suckers. It takes more than access to the internet to make an informed consumer.

    •  His rights end where my uterus begins n't (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xomnow, Deep Texan, satanicpanic, Odysseus
    •  Some would say..... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan

      being an racist asshole is a right.....

      Ron Paul certainly proves that...

      BTW ever heard the saying "you are judged by the company you keep"? It's kind of an old adage....

      He associates (does't disassociate) himself with racists like Stormfront.

      As a woman I am offended by the very idea that someone could just decide not to let women in their store....when that store benefits from my tax dollars too!

      I take it you are a young white male....which means you cannot relate to the kind of discrimination we are discussing and "think" you can empathize with how difficult other's in this world have it. Let me ask you sir.....Ever been pregnant? No?!?!?
      As a man can you ever understand how it feels to be pregnant....even a little bit?

      Than you cannot understand what it is like to be a Black or Latino or Gay or a woman (etc) discriminated against either.....

      •  Exactly how does he "associate" with them? (0+ / 0-)

        I once got mailed a request to join some organization I found was racist.  Am I now associated with them?  If so for how long after I received that mailer will I be?

        I think more and more people are seeing what kind of sloppy thinking this is and how we really should hold ourselves to a much higher standard.

        I am a human being.  As such I understand what it is like to be a human being and I don't subdivide the human experience into race, class, sex or any other pointless subdivisions that encourage humanity to fight amongst itself.

        You seem to see people as members of little tiny groups to classify them - I see people as people.

        Give me a real argument and I'll engage you.  Continue to throw crap and I'll keep calling you on it.

        •  OK, but that newsletter is a bit more than... (0+ / 0-)

 email invite isn't it?  Or, had you spent 5years on their mailing list, and then decided "hey, racism is bad" then sure, you get off the hook - but not right away and just because you say you're reformed.

          Now, fair play, I can feel your counter.  That Ron Paul's actions have shown him to in fact not be a racist.  I accept that you'll make this comeback (or, I suspect you will) but I don't accept that he's Ivory Pure because he's not out calling people racist names.  He's too smart for that.  And as someone pointed out in what I think is a fantastic point - how pure is he if while not being racist, his ideology promotes racism?

          I don't think it's fair to claim he has absolutely zero ties to racism.  Nor is all of this far far far away in the past.  Many things from 08 have ties to racism.  He's not far enough away from them for me to give him the all clear.

          •  Sure but he has admitted culpability in (0+ / 0-)

            failing to keep an eye out on something he lent his name to.

            That is a huge issue that should be brought up - not this over-hyped racist thing.  One is pointing out something that is an airtight problem - the other is mandating that others believe one's own assumption of motivation and the past.

            Which is an easier message to convey to others - something that an individual admitted to doing wrong or getting them to believe something depending on many subjective assumptions of the speaker?

            Thus which is a more effective attack against Paul?

        •  accepting and not returning donations from (0+ / 0-)

          Stormfront my dear!

          How would you feel if he knowingly accepted donations from Al Queda?

    •  This is a cowardly dodge (0+ / 0-)

      The government has the right to regulate commerce, plain and simple. It's Constitutional and there's 70+ years of Supreme Court precedent that says so. So, he's talking out of his ass when he says its unconstitutional. When you support policies that benefit racists, that makes you racist, even if you believe your philosophy is totally race neutral. You don't have to wear a white hood to be a racist.

      •  Heh - I got hit with how all the court... (0+ / 0-)

        ...rulings are totally wrong, and Paul is totally right at reddit.  I said basically that Civil Rights Act was constitutional and things devolved into the armchair ninja lawyer wikipedia action with folks calling up cases from 1946 or something as if we all know every court case.

        My point was that the courts have held things he claims are unconstitutional to in fact be constitutional.  Him saying they're not isn't changing the fact our system behaves as if they are.  Of course, I agree with this ruling...

        I pointed out Citizen's United (I obviously don't like that one) but said: as much as I may not like it, the Court has ruled it's aok.  Therefore, me saying it's unconstitutional (I'm sure many here agree) doesn't change the fact that it is, currently, constitutional.

        •  I think they refer... (0+ / 0-)

 the Constitution In Exile movement, which is an extreme judicial philosophy that I don't think even Scalia fully believes in. They think the US Constitution has been "in exile" since 1937 or 1938, after a series of cases that basically said the Court was going to pretty much let the government have a free hand in terms of regulation and protections of citizens. The far right has hated this for more than 70 years. Reversing this line of cases has been their ultimate goal.

    •  and in our new era of privatization (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Odysseus, happymisanthropy

      how do black children go to school?  Or how do "unwanted groups of people" access public transportation?  Or get a fair shake in our prison system?

      No.  We have opened the doors to corporate ownership of EVERYTHING in this country, and now you want to open the doors to complete corporate freedom and discrimination.  Look where the end of THAT road lies.

      No way, No how, No where will this be allowed to happen in this country.

  •  I'd skip huff po (6+ / 0-)

    "Slip now and you'll fall the rest of your life" Derek Hersey 1957-1993

    by ban nock on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 05:14:41 AM PDT

    •  Huff Po has gotten much worse (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Since Arianna sold it off to AOL. But their editorial stances have always been dodgy. Their religion editors have always given short shrift to atheists and anyone who doesn't agree that religion is a universal good. They have always had the stance that liberals must be compelled to be nicer than conservatives. I don't know if that's just the editorial supposition that if conservatives are required to be polite, there simply won't be any conservative posters, or whether it is a true bias against liberals. But just try to write a personal response, no matter how polite, to a conservative making an ad hominem attack and you'll never see the light of day. On Huff Po, conservatives can personally insult liberals 'til the cows come home. Liberals must remain above the fray and be ever so polite, impersonal and non-specific.

      It's sort of a microcosm of the media at large and the Obama administration.

  •  As soon as I find I'm dealing with a Paulite, (16+ / 0-)

    I generally just walk away. There is no reasonable discussion to be had, so I don't waste my time and energy. Their ability to project a wall of ignorance is incredible to behold.

    I am content to let them labor furiously on a cause that is eternally lost, for they will never win an election, but they will always siphon votes from the GOP.

    •  Yes, the Paul aficionados are so loyal that they (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Purple Priestess, Ellid, satanicpanic

      seem to forget that their numbers are microscopic!  The best they can hope to do is rig a few sparsely attended presidential caucuses in 2012 because the one thing you can count on Paul supporters to do is show up.  Ron Paul can't crack 15% even in the Republican field.  That means that nationwide he is maybe in the 5% range max.

      Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

      by Miggles on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 06:15:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  My 20-something neighbor is a Paulite. (6+ / 0-)

      He is gay and a Libertarian.  HA!  Libertarians hate gays!  It is impossible to have a rational conversation with him, because he is unable to go from a to b to c.  His sad little mind gets all befuddled, because he cannot keep his nonsensical talking points straight.

      Who could???  It is nonsense.

      Truth - that most inconvenient guest and always late to the party. ItsSimpleSimon

      by ohmyheck on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 06:16:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have a gay libertarian friend, is your neighbor (0+ / 0-)

        a latino as well?

        BTW I used to think like you did but libertarians don't hate gays at all.  Libertarians are individualists - they hate individuals if they hate at all, the idea of hating people because of grouping (or liking them because of it) runs against their thought process.

        •  Right, they don't hate gays (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          satanicpanic, Ellid, ohmyheck

          But they hate any law that could possibly protect gay people because it might take away "individual rights." Why is that whenever individual rights are invoked, it's always to harm working class people, minorities, or the environment?

          •  Going to have to expand on this (0+ / 0-)

            since I don't know what it is your exactly referring to.

            Individual rights as states rights were invoked to fight against the Fugitive Slave Act I'll point out as well against the Federal government prosecuting medical marijuana users in states that it was legal in.

            Its not nearly so lopsided as people seem to assume.

            •  Reason #1 I am not a libertarian is priorities (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Whenever it comes down to it, it seems to me that most libertarians would rather shift the economic burden from the rich to the poor and all of a sudden, sensible policies like drug legalization fall by the wayside. I can't support that. I'm not trading away 97% of what I believe in.

        •  Wrong (0+ / 0-)

          Unless you've suddenly decided that women can be individualists as well as men, you are not correct.

    •  I feel the same way about Fox News watchers (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KJG52, Deep Texan, satanicpanic

      When I find they get their information from Fox I know they are living in an alternate reality and no facts can enter their pin heads.

      Walk away cause you just can't fix stupid.

      A - American L - Legislators E - Exemplifiying C - Corruption

      by Jean Sloan on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 06:41:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A well rounded person will get their information (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        from multiple sources including at least one with which they regularly disagree.

        Single news source people on any end of the political spectrum scare the every loving crap out of me.

        •  If by that you mean I keep an eye... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ...on Fox to know what the crazies are up to - you're damned right I do!

          Your point is valid in that we should look at a spectrum of things.  Maybe I'm patting myself on the back too much, but I have looked at a TON of information regarding Paul.  My personal conclusion is that he's fishy - he's racist.  You don't agree, and I think we two have proven that doesn't mean we're reduced to screaming "booger face" at each other.

          •  Exactly. Two people can examine the same (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            evidence and arrive at different conclusion all the time.  It doesn't mean we cannot act civilly towards each other in the discussion.  Obviously we weight the evidence differently and have a higher or lower value for what weight of evidence must be met in order to arrive at a conclusion.

  •  Stephanie Miller said on CNN that Ron Paul (5+ / 0-)

    wasn't electable or something like that, and they came after her.  

  •  Unfortunately, you're going to have to continue (8+ / 0-)

    this series on the activities and prospects of Ron Paul (and possibly the exploits of Paul the lesser).

    Good diary! T&R'd

    Sorry you stuck your noise into /r/insanity.

    But I put it to you that the Bachmann-mania is probably worse.

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    -Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 05:31:25 AM PDT

    •  stumbling into r/insanity was an honest mistake... (8+ / 0-)

      ...and I had no idea I'd be going at this for hours now.  Latest developments now include how affirmative action is totally hating on some seriously oppressed white folks, every minority kid totally goes to college for free (did I miss this news item?) and that being for discrimination is completely different than being for discrimination.  

      That last one has my head ready to explode.  I'm just not following how being for the enabling of discrimination means you are actually against discrimination.  

  •  Since racism is an emotional position (6+ / 0-)

    trying to use logic to discuss issues with them is fruitless.

    In short they are willfully ignorant.

    Don't sweat an inability on their part to see your side it would emotionally wound them to admit you were right.

    Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.

    by Horace Boothroyd III on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 05:35:28 AM PDT

  •  I am not going to get into (11+ / 0-)

    Ron is a racists or not. The fact that he is the Bishop of the Church of Ayn Rand is more than enough for me to know he is unsuited to lead anything let alone the US.

    In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

    by jsfox on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 05:38:28 AM PDT

    •  I wouldn't call him a Randroid (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      he seems more like a solid minarchist libertarian where his minarchism lines up with the Constitution or at least close enough for his sake.

      If you talk to a Randroid they would yell at Ron Paul for volunteering his medical time for poor people.  Looney stuff like that since they don't even believe in a hand up.

  •  Paul isn't a libertarian (9+ / 0-)

    he is for prayer in schools, against evolution, and against abortion.

  •  My own gripe about a Ron Paul supporter. (7+ / 0-)

    I was annoyed yesterday about a Ron Paul supporter who sent me an Amazon book order with Ron Paul promotional material stuffed inside. I think it's out of line to use your mailing address for an order to send political propaganda.  Then I realized that the CD that was supposed to be with this music book was missing, not surprising when the seller is ethically challenged. So I complained to him and will complain to Amazon as well when/if I get my CD. Maybe the missing CD was unintentional, but the Paul material was meant to be there. I will never understand how so much malicious behavior and lying and cheating, at every level, by the right wing is seen as okay by Republicans.

  •  My mother is an idiot. I hope she wasn't (7+ / 0-)

    on there harassing you over Ron Paul. She gets into epic internet fights, defending Lisa Marie Presley from the lady with the long curly hair who appeared in Michael Jackson's "The Way You Make Me Feel" video. I have no idea how my mother started some shit with Tatiana, the video girl, but that's how batshit she is over what she thinks and believes.

    She is obsessed with Alex Jones and truther shit. She has always been one of those light skinned black people that resent and despise darker skinned blacks and she takes full advantage of light skinned privilege while claiming that every dark skinned person that has ever had a problem with her nasty colorist remarks is probably just jealous of her. Nasty.

    She's more than happy to ignorantly carry water for white supremacists because her whole position on racism is quite warped. She will claim black pride when it's beneficial to her but not to defend blacks in general.

    She also likes/loves Ron Paul. I laughed so hard at that. We fell out big time because I said that Ron Paul had a little popularity with the youth because he was a libertarian that wished to legalize drugs but otherwise, he was somebody who believed that the free market would take care of itself concerning Jim Crow. LOL And yes, I used "batshit insane Ron Paul" to describe him.

    Did I mention that my mother hardly calls me and probably pretends that I don't exist most of the time? People like her don't like it when smarter people are around debunking their bullshit.

    "Warm smell of Moulitsas rising up in the air..." -seanwright

    by GenXangster on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 06:09:27 AM PDT

  •  He resonates with a younger demographic. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I've seen it first hand more than four years ago in Portland, Oregon. More and more younger voters are disenchanted with the idea of four more years of Rope-a-dope.
    Dismiss this dark horse at your peril.  Accusing him of racism sounds to me like race baiting.
    The fact is he's intelligent, cunning, and for better or worse really does want to effect change in a libertarian world view.
    I know when I see more and more sweat beads break out here about Ron and more and more whacked out diaries about what a racist the man is - people are getting nervous about Obama's staying power into 2012.


    by Aeolos on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 06:09:34 AM PDT

    •  I'm not sure calling it race baiting here... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Purple Priestess, satanicpanic all that valid.  Well, I guess I mean that to just sweep this race issue under the rug is again like saying Rick Perry never made a pro-secessionist comment.  To me, that's a fundamental flaw with a man who wants to be president - the idea that secession might just be ok.

      Same for Ron Paul.  Look, I didn't intend this to be my stake on Ron Paul's racism alone.  I started this innocently enough by being stupid and reading some crap at HuffPo.  What made me laugh was this idea that some how people have been fooled by Obama when google would have revealed the truth.  Is not the same true of Ron Paul?  Forgetting racism, I think he's just batshit insane.  But this racism thing isn't some tiny little not-very-noticeable minor glitch.  It's kind of a big thing if you google the Ron Paul.

      Lastly, I had no intention for this to have anything to do with Obama's chances in 2012.  I simply meant to point out I thought the defenses I'd been reading (and having thrown in my face) by Paul's supporters were nuts.

      •  Interesting that your diary brings up racism (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        apparent in Ron Paul's positions but doesn't discuss his positions.  Only your joust with his "bots" on Huffpost.

        Many people in 2012, young and old, will decline the race card because of his position on the Civil Rights Act. He certainly wouldn't have any progressive credibility for sure but that doesn't make someone a racist. Use some political common sense here. It's akin to accusing those pushing to restrict federal abortion funding of being "sexists". Silly.


        by Aeolos on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 06:32:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I hadn't intended to discuss his positions... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Black Max, Deep Texan, Odysseus

          ...just recount the experience I had.  (Bots were on reddit)  I mentioned racism as it relates to Ron Paul in that if you google Ron Paul (remember, originally this stemmed from someone claiming no one bothered to look into Obama's past in 2008) you will likely find information suggesting he is a racist.  I personally think that seems really quite likely.

          And I'm sorry, but I think those who are pushing to restrict federal funds for abortion ARE sexist.  It's all about hating women.

          •  It's not 'quite likely,' it's documented fact. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Deep Texan, Anonyman

            And those who oppose abortion do so to punish women for having sex outside of marriage as sanctified by a church they approve of. You're right on both counts.

            This is no class warfare, this is class genocide. The middle and lower classes are being decimated. -- @sunshineejc

            by Black Max on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:32:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Its hardly documented fact. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Its an assumption on the motivations of others.

              It may be a very popular one to hold, it may be the opinion everyone around you had, it may be a very emotionally comforting one, it may be true for some people.

              None of these make it fact for all.

              •  Conversely, just because he says it isn't so... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Black Max

                ...doesn't mean it isn't.  Holy crap!  That's like a triple negative and I'm not sure I even know what that means!

                I have tried really hard to state my belief as an opinion - one that I've come to after looking at multiple sources.  I'm not sure anyone can claim to know what the facts are, except Ron himself, but he as a source isn't objective.

              •  Yo, Elmer (0+ / 0-)

                Check your previous comment. I posted a link to a raft of information documenting Paul's racism, far-right conspiracy theories, and more. As for my thoughts on abortion, granted that's more opinion than fact, but I believe it to be true based on 30+ years of dealing with assholes from the anti-abortion side. When they talk freely, they readily admit that their biggest problem with abortion is it "lets women get away with having sex without having to pay for it."

                Now, stop playing Counselor Troi and go do some reading.

                This is no class warfare, this is class genocide. The middle and lower classes are being decimated. -- @sunshineejc

                by Black Max on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 03:15:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I am back to the thread now. (0+ / 0-)

                  I'll look through the links

                  1. He received a campaign donation.  (See my comment about Obama getting donations from drunk drivers does not mean Obama is also a drunk driver). Nothing new.

                  2. Talks about the newsletters - we've been discussing this already.  Nothing new.

                  3.  The Opinion piece is a quite frankly a mish-mash of ad hominem attacks and guilt by association.  The first point is 5 paragraphs about JBS and more so what some individual members of JBS think and then tries to link Paul to JBS and to the thoughts of those JBS members.  Well Obama had a beer with a policeman and that policeman has arrested criminals before therefore...  To make matters worse it then talks about the "Rally for the Republic" and says he was a key figure there - of course he was as his campaign organized it.  All it says about it is that conspiracy stuff was handed out - yes by the vendors who paid to have tables.  Oh the horror private vendors handing out material that the blog author doesn't like obviously means the speaker believes in everything on the vendor's pamphlets.  Then it talks about the newsletter - see number 2 above.  It then goes on to talk about both JBS and newsletters as if its actually a third point.  Nothing new.

                  4. All about the newsletters.  Yawn.  Nothing new.

                  5. The donation again.  Nothing new.

                  6. (This entire link is an attempt at guilt by association) As I said if we take the entire Obama supporter group and pick out the worst beliefs of those in that group can we then apply those beliefs to Obama?  In our dialectic quest we must apply the same standard to all comers so by this standard Obama is assuredly a horrible person.  Nothing new.

                  7.  The photograph.  Of course as I pointed out and many have already agreed with - in order for this to be seen as supporting the belief of those he is photographed with one would require to expect every politician to know the beliefs and faces of every person in order to be able to reject having a picture being taken with someone while on the campaign trail.  We've decided this is not a rational standard to hold people to.  Nothing new.

                  8. Photograph again - see 7 above.  Nothing new.

                  You can post as many things which refer to the same issues that keep getting brought up but that isn't a new data point.  It is simply repeating the same data over and over and over again.  Repetition does not make reality.

                  You are free to continue to post new links but until they actually contain new information expect the refutations to refer to this post.

                  •  Look! Tree leaves are green! (0+ / 0-)

                    Here's documentation. Here's a botanist to discuss the issue. Here's photographs. Here's a leaf for you to study.

                    "Yawn, nothing new here. Repetition does not make it real. I alone know the truth and you plebians know nothing except what I tell you. Ron Paul is a god among men. When he says racist comments, the fact of his godhood renders them sacred, inviolate, and not racist at all. Stop boring me with your common chatter. There is but one Ron and I am his representative among liberals. Bow unto the Ron. And those tree leaves are actually a lovely shade of fuchsia."

                    Sorry, Elmer, am I boring you?

                    This is no class warfare, this is class genocide. The middle and lower classes are being decimated. -- @sunshineejc

                    by Black Max on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 12:10:20 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Final snicker before I go do something (0+ / 0-)


                    "I am back to the thread now." Oooh, because I was waiting for hours on end for you to return and impart wisdom. Glad I can stop counting my toes over and over and Read Your Post. Thank You, Oh Dispenser of Paulish Wisdom!


                    This is no class warfare, this is class genocide. The middle and lower classes are being decimated. -- @sunshineejc

                    by Black Max on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 12:11:48 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Is that your minority report? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            I mentioned racism as it relates to Ron Paul in that if you google Ron will likely find information suggesting he is a racist.  I personally think that seems really quite likely.

            Not exactly an endorsement of the foundations of your argument.

            "Quite likely"? He's quite likely to be suggested as a racist on scores of google hits.  So he must be...?


            by Aeolos on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:43:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Is it because I'm sleepy? (0+ / 0-)

              I'm not following you.  Did you read my setup to this?   How I explained that the comment that caused this all to happen was someone saying that if only people had googed Obama...

              Well, if only people google Ron Paul.  One of the things you will find, is that some people think he has a race problem.

              Thus, I read a comment at HuffPo.  It said "haha google Senator Obama."  My initial thought was "um, google Ron Paul maybe?  Read about racism maybe?  Pot.  Kettle.  Black.  Maybe?"

              Thus began my journey of talking to humorless people who will defend Ron Paul from all accusations of... anything... because of free markets!  Yeah!

              So, to rehash what I typed that you quoted.

              1.  Google Ron Paul
              2.  Possibly find scores of hits that relate to Ron Paul and racism
              3.  ????
              4.   Profit!

              The next part is this:  After possibly finding google results that discuss both Ron Paul and racism, one might decide that it is quite likely he is a racist.  I happen to be such a one.

              Ah, I see the problem.  You are reading my words as this: it is possible a google search will turn up results about Ron Paul as a racist AND I think it's quite likely you will find such results.  

              When I in fact mean this: it is possible that when googling Ron Paul, you might see results that suggest he is a racist.  I personally believe it quite likely that Ron Paul is a racist.

              So, I see, I wasn't very clear in that block you quoted.  I mean that I personally think it quite likely Ron Paul is a racist.  I think this after having googled him.

              •  I have a suggestion: (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Google "Ron Paul + Racism".
                Then get back to us from what you found.
                Post it.  Edit your diary. Link. Make your case.

                If this is all about how the "Paulbots" think and argue and how to recreate the same logic in a case for Ron Paul = Racist then why waste time here posting this exercise?

                To exhibit the same twisted and false proofs?  In the negative or double negative?  As an excuse to throw around an accusation of "racist"?

                Sleepy or not you got me all turned around wondering what the hell this whole thread is trying to prove.

                NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                by Aeolos on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 12:31:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  See PM and previous reply above... (0+ / 0-)

                  I certainly can edit and throw in a ton of links but my diary is already on the silly long side.  However, I'm not above doing it if folks think it will make my side of this tale more credible.

        •  Yes, the Supposed Groundswell of Support (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Black Max, Deep Texan

          that fueled Ron Paul presidential bid in 2008.

          I am always entertained by libertarian wishful self-promotion, where they have to name their website "Reason" to convince themselves that they are reasonable, where they keep telling themselves that Ron Paul is "resonating" with young voters, as evidenced by his 1% support, and where any criticism of Ron Paul is therefore evidence that everyone is scared of the big bad libertarian machine, because the fact that there are more cat diaries than anti-Ron Paul diaries on dailykos is proof that St Ron Paul the rock star will steamroll into the White House.

          NeoCons' view on torture: if it's good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for anyone!

          by clone12 on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:04:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't see any position you attack (0+ / 0-)

            that is actually one presented by your opposition.

            It must be nice knocking down the ideas you've picked because they are easy to knock down.

            •  I'm Not Bothering With Ron Paul's "Positions" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              pale cold

              I just point that many libertarians, including you, are pathologically fixated on unconvincing self-promotion.

              You see, Einstein didn't have brag about how smart he is, all he had to do was write a pathbreaking paper and everyone knows he's smart.

              Libertarians, on the other hand, have to brag about how "reasonable" and "objective" they are, to the point of naming their think tank "Reason" and their ideology, or an offshoot therof, "objectivism". Yes, calling yourself "reason" is proof that you have it. Just like how the Soviets have "truth" because they named their paper "Pravda".

              When you libertarians become a little more sophisticated than a 19th century snake oil saleman, maybe I'll take you guys more seriously.

              So by all means, brag about how young people are flocking to the awesome Ron Paul libertarian message machine, because having a few hundred fan boys showing up to a Ron Paul rally is proof that his 1% national support will magically go up to 55% a month from now.

              NeoCons' view on torture: if it's good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for anyone!

              by clone12 on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:12:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I've read more claims on this site to "pragmatic" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                "realists" than I care to cite.
                This is a site dedicated to flogging its "reality based" creds.
                To a horrible farce when it comes to enabling the three dimensional chess excuses. And the Very Serious Adult meme.

                You've made your own strawmen and are accusing others of being libertarian if they don't buy the "racist" card in explaining away Ron Paul. Fine.  But you're up the wrong tree.

                NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                by Aeolos on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 12:15:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  If you support abortion restrictions... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ...then you are a sexist. You are making it harder for women to make choices about their own bodies. There is no other explanation.

          •  If you support abortion restrictions (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            through Federally established laws like Obama supports you are hardly a sexist.
            A vast majority of American believe in abortion restrictions as far as tax payer monies are concerned. That is a fact.  Are they "sexist".  Again this is silly to even go there.


            by Aeolos on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 12:21:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  You also have to remember that (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        xomnow, Larin

        one of the most common "false faces" presented by RWNJ posters is the "I used to support Obama but now..." crap. It's a damn lie. They teach it to one another as part of their "stealth" campaign of giving the impression that their extremism and insanity is actually a majority opinion. It's far more widespread and intrusive than most people realize.

        This is no class warfare, this is class genocide. The middle and lower classes are being decimated. -- @sunshineejc

        by Black Max on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:34:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Rewind 30 years, replace with Lyndon LaRouche (5+ / 0-)

      and you've got little more than reruns...

      Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

      by zonk on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 06:21:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Only he belongs to a major party. (0+ / 0-)

        Has a track record and cache with a much larger demographic. And will not hesitate to go toe-to-toe in measured tones with Obama.
        The man can talk with as much conviction and candor as any politician I've seen.  Dangerous.


        by Aeolos on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 06:36:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  He can't answer the question (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Black Max, satanicpanic

          how he would get anything done with most of his own party disagreeing with him, never mind the Democrats.

          As I've pointed out many times, even Paul's allegedly antiwar stances don't hold water. He wants to get the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan so he can deploy them in Mexico.

          Really Paul isn't that different than...Pat Buchanan.

          •  Not in Mexico. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            On the border.

            Large difference and the only reason you ignore it is...?

            You can disagree with that as policy but you're inventing something to attack.

            So many strawmen, I don't think we are in Kansas anymore.

          •  Who says a libertarian wants to get anything done? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Odysseus, Elmar

            You are projecting what you think an agenda should be for a president without donning the cap of your opponent. All things being equal I'd say that Obama is in an even worse predicament going into an election year - anything done-wise.

            If this message has traction and gains a big enough narrative in the coming year, we could be in for a load of trouble.  And I'd put money down that his party would go along with a "shrink the size of government" agenda - even if it meant a smaller military presence around the globe.  Certainly many progressive would welcome less intervention and war as a trade off with the inability of the Obama administration to effect any real change in the status quo with two years of all branches of government in their control.  Not to mention more war under Obama and the unending Iraq and Afganistan conflicts raging out of control again.
            The Economy and War Without End is the fate of the current president.  Ron Paul is just the convenient possible replacement that a lot think could do no worse than Obama.


            by Aeolos on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:17:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe he resonates with young, white males (6+ / 0-)

      who just got finished reading one of Ayn Rand's books.  But tell me where he is resonating with the 80% of the young.  Ron Paul clearly has ideas that resonate with the selfish, not the young.

      Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

      by Miggles on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 06:32:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There we go again. White males. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Hmm. Doesn't matter to me about the "selfish".  That means nothing politically speaking.  Politics is all about self interest.

        No, this is going to be a larger cresting of Ron Paul's wave of four years ago. It won't have anything to do with the Civil Rights Act.  The economy stu...


        by Aeolos on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 06:40:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ha ha. If Paul'ites see themselves as part of (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan, happy camper

          a cresting wave, then they are more self deluding than I had thought.  Aside from Ron Paul's racist baggage we haven't even touched on the disastrous 19th century style economic policies that he advocates: gold standard, no federal reserve, 100% economic isolation, etc.  A whole other diary could be filled with that kookery!

          Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

          by Miggles on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:37:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Self delusion was a term here used by many (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            on the fledgling tea party movement.  Much derision and dismissive arrogance without a realistic appreciation of the political threat.
            Then Scott Brown. Then 2010 and much hatred and vitriol of being swamped by an agenda overtaking the current administration's political prospects. Misunderstanding how the mantle of change and reform was appropriated off the progressive moment onto the new charge of the tea partiers.

            That's what happens when you assume.  You make an ass of U and Me with "kookery" and "racism". A clueless and bubble induced myopia.

            Fact is that you will see more and more of these diaries as the election draws near and Ron Paul becomes the nominee and this site freaks out - "who could've predicted" and "how the hell can anyone take this guy seriously!" and "NADER!" and the usual vacuous mystification that there are is a vast potential energy to the libertarian cause post Obama.


            by Aeolos on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:45:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  But while the Tea Party dominates the GOP, (0+ / 0-)

              it is not a strong movement electorally.  They don't even garner 20% of the support of the public as a whole.  And the public doesn't agree with any of their policies.  Look at all the real tea party candidates that lost in 2010, especially in the Senate.  So using the Tea Party to project Ron Paul's trajectory is meaningless.  He won't be the nominee of the GOP.  He is too crazy, even for them.

              And no, the Ron Paul wave is not going to cause this site to be inundated by lots of pro Ron Paul diaries next year.  If such diaries show up, I'll be there to counter them.  If need be, I'll do my part to HR them into oblivion, as this is a site for Democratic candidates and principles.  Turning back the clock on so many good, progressive things because you happen to agree with Ron Paul's stance on wars or drug policy is sheer kookery.

              Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

              by Miggles on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:03:25 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're using the term "crazy". (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                You're missing the point because most everyone in the blogging left circles missed the tea party phenomenon.  It was "astroturfed" etc.
                No, the tea party movement was developing even before 2007-08 election cycle.
                There is a groundswell and always has been for a third way out of this mess of Democrat/Republican neoliberal project go awry.

                That's what is expressed by the younger demographic.  The Tea party only appropriated the latent energy for a run at opposition to Obama.  The energy is out there and it isn't buying the idea that we need to adhere to any of the two parties.

                Only Paul has that one fatal flaw: He is a republican.

                NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                by Aeolos on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:40:31 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not sure I think clueless is fair here. (0+ / 0-)

              Again, patting myself on the back - this isn't something I randomly pulled out of my backside, this racism thing.  I've spent hours reading back and forth, back and forth.  

              You may disagree with my assessment, but I don't think it's fair to call someone who has taken time to read more than "oh, someone says he's racist, he must be" or "someone says he isn't so he must not be" as clueless.  I've made my determination.  I very well could be totally wrong, and I like to think I'm intellectually honest enough to admit it.  But - I'm not bringing this up because I think I need to shoot down the kooky old fart with the crazy ideas.  I brought this up because I was astounded (because I'm slow you see) at the reaction I was getting elsewhere.

              Admittedly, I have not shoved 16 links into my diary.  I could have, but the diary wasn't intended to be "Ron Paul - RACIST ASSCLOWN."  It was "Wow, Ron Paul followers are hard core!"

              Lastly, while you may disagree with me, is it not humorous that the number one rebuttal I had thrown at me on reddit was "He can't be racist because he says he's not! (here, look at a video!)"?  That would be like me saying I am totally god's gift to women because I say so.  Disagree?  You're wrong!  I said I am!

              I mean this as snark of course lol.  Only my fiancee thinks I'm pretty snazzy.

              •  When you apply the explosive term (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                "racist" you better be prepared.
                Someone else above used "kookery" which is fine but useless.

                If this comes down to political sympathies that is one thing. If the guy comes out point blank and says the Civil Rights Act shouldn't be law - I think that's straightfoward enough to understand he's not sympathetic to the Civil Rights movement. A big demerit.
                But an honest demerit.  No dog whistling in that.
                And if people can't determine what this guy stands for up front on domestic issues from very clear statements then who's to blame?  Ron Paul?
                No one needs to drag charges of racism into play here.
                If you believe it is racist not to support Federal law and the Civil Rights Act maybe you should examine your definition of racism.
                But by demanding that it fit within the parameter of the very explosive term you might actually drive your argument against Paul even further away from being acceptable as a critique.

                Just make a case that the candidate is not sympathetic to the Civil Rights movement.  He is anything but a progressive on that score. And he's dangerous not a kook.

                NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                by Aeolos on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:35:13 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm not sure you've followed all my concerns... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...such as this newsletter that at a minimum was published under his name and for 5+ years contained racist screed after racist screed.  There is debate as to whether it was written by him, or written by someone else.  There is in fact no discrete evidence to support either claim definitively.  This more than anything else says to me he is either directly a racist, directly knew of and approved racism written with the intent to convince the reader it was written by him, or he was completely clueless for years that racism was being spewed in his name.

                  I deem the latter to be nearly completely unlikely, and options 1 and 2 point towards racism.  There is no definitive evidence that tells us one way or the other.  He wants one to believe he was clueless.  Because he says so.  Nevermind the fact at times the newsletter was written with the explicit intent to at a minimum appear to be from the hand of Ron Paul.  I ask this: if he didn't write it, why did the writer think it would be something both he and his readers would support?

                  Additionally, there is the Stormfront donation.  He took $500 from a member.  When confronted with this information, he refused to return the donation and denounce the group.  This makes no sense.  You're caught with a donation from neo nazis.  What do you do?  You keep it, and say nothing else.  Now, do I think he should have known it was from someone in Stormfront?  Maybe not.  But when he's told "hey, you got money from a neo nazi" I don't think the response is "ok, I'm keeping it."

                  Lastly we have his ties to the John Birch Society, that known bastion of liberalism and tolerance.  He was the keynote speaker for their 50th anniversary and he told them he thought they were doing a damned super fine job.  Is this directly racist?  No.  Is it telling closeted racists he thinks they're doing a great job?  Yep.  I mean, wasn't the JBS excommunicated from the republican party in days past - because they were right wing lunatic racists?

                  Forget the smiling picture with the Stormfront founder and his son.  That could be innocent - except he's not come out saying "you know, I learned I took a smiling happy photo with a super racist neo nazi - had I known, boy, I'd have said no."  Nope, he has done nothing to disavow these connections which suggests  to me that he is either sympathetic to some degree to their aims, or, he simply wants their support.  Either way, for me, this isn't something good.

                  So, you see, this is far far far from being simply about his stance on the Civil Rights Act.  Which you think is very principled and I say is veiled racism at best.  Someone here said: if it enables racism, how not-racist can it be?

                  •  Ron Paul may well have and still be an ardently (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    opposed to the Civil Rights movement.
                    Make that case. Don't insult the readers intelligence by claim this guy to be a "racist". He is not.
                    You may feel it to be "veiled racism" but the majority of voting Americans would call the accusation baseless and politically charged. The Race Card.
                    The last thing the Obama Campaign needs.

                    Ron Paul is not a progressive. He is not sympathetic to what I or almost all of us believe here.  That does not = "racist".  You hurt your own argument against his supporters.

                    NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                    by Aeolos on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 12:39:46 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Newsletters? Stormfront? JBS? (0+ / 0-)

                      Are you not seeing those other three elements I consider to be more important than his stance on Civil Rights?

                      The newsletter is the most troubling to me.

                      •  The only one of those with any bearing (0+ / 0-)

                        are the newsletters.

                        Stormfront - oh wow some people like Paul who believe X therefore he believes X.  That isn't logical at all and makes anyone who puts it forward come off as someone who should be ignored because they aren't going to have coherent statements about anything.

                        JBS - same thing as stormfront.  Its all a bunch of guilt by association and a really thin association at that.

                        There is more historical data for calling Lincoln a racist than Ron Paul.

          •  If you really want to get into economics (0+ / 0-)

            I would love to have an entire Austrian v neoclassical economic theory debate.

            I already have well documented sources for citation.

      •  Actually when we (kucinich rallies) teamed up with (0+ / 0-)

        Paul rallies I saw most represented were Anglo, Indian, and Chinese with a few African but not many.

        I never new there were so many Indian libertarians.  Can anyone explain why there might be?

        •  The demographics simply don't bear this out. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan, satanicpanic

          The YouTube videos of RP rallies don't bear this out.  What are you trying to do - claim that his rallies were as diverse as an Obama rally???

          Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

          by Miggles on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:30:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Simply stating information based on (0+ / 0-)

            direct observation of reality.

            Their representation was much higher than the statically expectation given the representation in the community.

            All I am looking for is some reasons why this may be.  I don't know much about traditional Indian culture so I am looking to expand my knowledge.

          •  when facing evidence you can't accept, deny it (0+ / 0-)

            That's India Indian, right?  could be their personal reaction to socialism in India.

            Ron Paul's message resonates with a lot of confused, angry people.  Confusion and anger occur in every demographic.

            Global warming is the inconvenient truth, nuclear power is the inconvenient alternative.

            by eigenlambda on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:02:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What have I denied? Ron Paul supporter (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              satanicpanic, Ellid

              demographics are overwhelmingly white to the tune of 95-98% just like the rest of the GOP.  Just because one person at one rally saw someone of Indian or Native American decent does not make a demographic trend.  Finally, given that we are talking Ron Paul rallies, the law of small numbers and other side effects of small sample size come into play.

              Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

              by Miggles on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:08:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  yeah India Indian I've only met (0+ / 0-)

              two Native Americans who were Paul supporters.  I can't say if that is close to statistical representation or not.

    •  Race-baiting? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Oh groan.  Racism by him and his supporters is hiding in plain sight.

      And I take issue with the idea that he's intelligent.  Having listened to him on several occasions I can say the man is a fool.  If he genuinely believes the stuff he says (the free market would have ended racism, we need to go back to gold), he's somewhere between Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum on the dumbass meter.  

      Ayn Rand’s philosophy... reduces itself to: "I’m on board; pull up the lifeline."- Roger Ebert

      by satanicpanic on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:59:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  While Obama's cautious centrism.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ....and the Republicans' reckless pro-corporate policies have left many people, particularly young people, looking for answers, the notion that RON FUCKING PAUL is the answer is laughable. Yes, he has a few good positions (drug war, foreign policy), but he holds views that are ludicrous and would destroy the economy even worse than it is now. Even if he could completely disprove the racism, homophobia, and sexism charges against him there is no way in hell I would ever vote for him. He is profoundly ignorant about how our Constitution works, how the economy works, and how to best protect the environment. He'd be a disaster.

  •  Paul Has the John Birchers, While the 1,000x More (5+ / 0-)

    numerous fundies go to the Palins, Bachmanns and Perries who will actually get anywhere.

    They all, like the Chicago School economists and Neocons, teach that massive lying is essential to get the people to do what they must in order to bring democracy to a close.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 06:10:18 AM PDT

  •  I was unfortunate enough (6+ / 0-)

    to live near Ron Paul's district in the 20+ years I was stuck in Houston due to my job.  He comes off as this wiser old uncle who, if you had only asked, would have told you that wars were wrong, silly children!!  Just don't ask him about the other little skeletons in his past.
    This is not to besmirch the man (or maybe it is), but ask yourself, how does he keep on getting elected in the middle of Klan country year after year after year?  I'm quite sure it isn't his pacifism or his economic theories.
    Sorry, Aeolos, he may "resonate" with a younger demographic, but how are they on history?  The racism angle isn't just to drive Dems back to Obama; the history is real, only every time someone finds something put out under his name some years ago, he claims to know nothing about it.  Interesting that I remember his championing the very things he now seems to either "forget" or claim that an overzealous aide wrote.

    No one man can terrorize a whole nation unless we are all his accomplices...Edward R. Murrow

    by maxcat06 on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 06:25:30 AM PDT

    •  Actually for over 4 decades Pa in the "T" was (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Black Max

      Klan country and the state had the highest per capita and total Klan membership of any state in the Union.

      In middle Pa you still get some places you might not want to be alone...or at all really.

      •  That's a complete non sequitor (nt) (0+ / 0-)
        •  I just like to point out that the idea that Texas (0+ / 0-)

          is the definitive Klan bastion is really wrong.  Its common enough that I think it needs to be mentioned as a non sequitor (never tried to use this as a rebuttal against other positions of yours).

          I currently reside in Pa and people may think that the Northeast somehow gets a pass on racist history but it most certainly does not and should not.

          •  You keep referring to Pennsylvania (0+ / 0-)

            Despite that state's utter irrelevance to where Ron Paul lives and what Congressional district he represents.

            Also, the abbreviation is "PA," not "Pa."  What's next, leaving the terminal "h" off of "Pittsburgh"?

            •  You're talking postal abbreviations only (0+ / 0-)

              It seems however that since you cannot maintain the defense of your positions in the main area of our dispute you've decided to nit-pick every post you can.

              I don't "keep" referring to it.  I referred to it once which then sparked this sub-discussion.

  •  Yeah... um... Ron Paul (5+ / 0-)

    I agree with him on one thing; legalization of pot. But most Liberals and Libertarians agree on that. But after that... Ron Paul is teh crazee. But, really, he says he's not a racist so, gosh, golly, gee Batman... why don't we just take his word for it? The same reason I don't take his kid's word for it. Little Paul had to learn it somewhere, yeah? Anyone who names his kid after the Mother of Objectivism has a screw loose, if you ask me.

    You were very brave to wade into that well of insane..... Especially in your condition ;)

    In vain to search for order, In vain to search for truth. But these things can still be given - Meteor Blades has shown me proof

    by Purple Priestess on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 06:26:02 AM PDT

  •  I work with a Ron Paul supporter (6+ / 0-)

    This man is the biggest bigot, anti-semite I have ever encountered. I have learned over the years dealing with this idiot that Libertarians have a true hatred of government.

    They think the government should exist for 3 reasons only. 1) Build/Maintain Roads 2) Deliver the mail 3) Keep the Queen of England off our shore. Any thing else is outside the purview of the federal government. (Whaaa?)

    The fact that you are being attacked is exactly the way these idiots handle things.  Hell, one of your attackers is probably my co-worker!

    You can't fix stupid and these morons are stuck on stupid...just like their venerable leader.

    Let the games begin...

    A - American L - Legislators E - Exemplifiying C - Corruption

    by Jean Sloan on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 06:35:33 AM PDT

  •  HuffPo's been infiltrated with reichwingers... (5+ / 0-)

    ...for a while now.  When ZsaZsa started complaining about Obama awhile back, it turned on a bunch of Drudgesuckers and they decided they'd focus on that place and give it a real right-wing presence.  It's a concentrated-effort thing, and, unfortunately, it's paid off for them.

    And all a Ron Paul supporter is is a Republican who likes weed.   Fuck 'em.

    "Glenn Beck ends up looking like a fat, stupid child. His face should be wearing a chef's hat on the side of a box of eclairs. " - Doug Stanhope

    by Front Toward Enemy on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 06:36:12 AM PDT

  •  Racists sure do get angry and defensive when (5+ / 0-)

    anyone calls them racists.  LOL!  And who the f HRd this diary?  Damn.  I knew this site was infested with these creeps.  It's been really stinky in here since 2008.

    OBAMA/BIDEN AND DEMOCRATIC MAJORITIES IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS IN 2012 and f'k racists, most especially Super Racist Ron F'ng Paul!!!

    Best. President. Ever.

    by Little Lulu on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:17:17 AM PDT

  •  Careful, there are a Few Paul Supporters Here. (3+ / 0-)

    More than you would think for a slef-proclaimed Democratic blog. You might hurt their fee-fees.

    Remember when DKOS was a Democratic site focused on getting Democrats elected?

    by kefauver on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:18:25 AM PDT

  •  Read every word. Thanks for the view (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Black Max, xomnow, satanicpanic

    of the asylum. Now we don't have to go there ourselves. What a pathetic creature Paul is. I can't fathom what sorts of people actually believe him.

    "...I think a good chunk of the Republican caucus is either stupid, crazy, ignorant or craven cowards..."
    Bruce Bartlett on Hardball, transcribed by SharksBreath, 27 July 2011

    by pixxer on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:20:23 AM PDT

  •  Not to mention that Ron Paul's economic.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kefauver, Deep Texan, satanicpanic

    ....ideas are totally ludicrous and I can't imagine why any intelligent person would embrace that, unless they're heavily invested in gold. Guess what, 19th century economics DON'T WORK. I think that's the power of the Ron Paul cult.

    •  Well personally I've read the Austrian school (0+ / 0-)

      theories from Bohm-Bawerk on forward and they really do amount to a devastating critique of modern economic modelling.  Their business cycle theory is pretty much entirely predictive of America's macroeconomic history since WWII and is pretty much why I've been so successful in my investing in the last 7 or so years.

      From my experience its the school to follow if you actually want to build for the future.  Of course past performance is no assurance for future performance so it may very well be wrong but if it is it is at least less wrong than current theories we use.

      •  Utter and total nonsense (0+ / 0-)

        I work for an economics firm.  I asked one of my co-workers, who has a doctorate from NYU and has been a professional economist for over twenty years, about "Austrian Economics."

        When he'd stopped laughing, he told me it was the biggest bullshit he'd ever seen in his life, and about as valid as the phlogistonal theory of matter.  

        Then he laughed again.


        •  Well that is all good I suppose (0+ / 0-)

          However the Austrian school both predicted the housing bubble and crash and the fall of Brenton Woods and I've made money during and after the cash by following its fundamental tenets.  Ask your professional economist friend if he is seeing annualized returns of 25% on his investments since 2000.

          So aside from him dismissing and launching an ad hominem attack he had no actual professional critique of any positions of the school?

          Somehow you believed this lack of evidence to be enough to meet your standard of proof?

          Your post is very informative but not in the way I believe you meant it to be.

          •  *chuckles* (0+ / 0-)

            He could buy and sell you ten times over.  

            Also, please explain how an intellectual school can be the subject of an "ad hominem attack."  Unless of course you've redefined the meaning of the term?

            •  Total assets aren't related. (0+ / 0-)

              Using one school of economic understanding I've made considerable returns.  If hes used another school's premises and received worse returns it would not bode well for that schools ability to predict market interaction on a macro scale.

              He called the school "bullshit" which is an attack without support in fact its an attack that can't be supported.  If you would rather take my statement to mean its a distributed ad hominem attack on all adherents of the school to please your pedantic nature - by all means consider it such.

              •  Fascinating (0+ / 0-)

                Not only are you misusing "ad hominem" and overusing "pedantry" and its variations, your spelling, grammar, and syntax have deteriorated significantly over the course of this thread.  

                •  If you would care to discuss the positions (0+ / 0-)

                  which are the meat of the discussion at any time I will welcome it.  Currently the only thing you're doing is trying to distract and insult (and doing so quite poorly).

  •  Even on (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kefauver, Deep Texan, satanicpanic

    Ron Paul supporting diaries were banned. Not that it takes much for them to ban anything out of their little thought box, but still.

    He's always had a religious like following that isn't worth paying attention to. They are maybe 3-4% of the electorate.

    •  Kossacks make up what % of the electorate? (0+ / 0-)

      I'm glad that Ron Paul is in the Republican mix. I am glad that Ron Paul is hammering the wars and the occupations, the growing police/surveillance state, the secrecy and the corruption at the FED and the Treasury, the pathetic War on Drugs...... the list goes on and on.

      Ron Paul will not be elected President of the U.S. The time we spend discussing Paul's views will give those views an airing out. That's a good thing. And, I believe, is all he is trying to accomplish. Ron Paul does not believe that he can be elected President. He has said so more than once.  

  •  Hehe... just like FARK libertarians :) (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    satanicpanic, happy camper

    Can't argue with the insane :)

    "Look at this; I'm a coward too; You don't need to hide, my friend; For I'm just like you" - Monster/Sprite (Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites - Skrillex)

    by AZ Independent on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:28:13 AM PDT

  •  There's very little difference between (6+ / 0-)

    Ron Paul supporters and the common ruck of racist, militia-loving teabaggers. He is a racist, he is a John Birch supporter, he is a maniac whose "big ideas" involve repealing over a century's worth of progress, he's a conspiracy there any wonder so many of the right revere him? What kils me is that because he's so anti-government spending that he opposes military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, some credulous idiots on the left have adopted him. Blech.

    This is no class warfare, this is class genocide. The middle and lower classes are being decimated. -- @sunshineejc

    by Black Max on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:29:03 AM PDT

    •  Unsupported claims and ad hominem attacks (0+ / 0-)

      This is really sub-par for what should be the standard for a liberal discussion board.

      •  Here's a link to a wealth of information (0+ / 0-)

        right here. I don't make ad hominem attacks and unsupported claims, unless it is to insult uninformed Kossacks who fire off attacks without any ammunition. Have fun having your illusions destroyed.

        This is no class warfare, this is class genocide. The middle and lower classes are being decimated. -- @sunshineejc

        by Black Max on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 03:12:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Whatever you are, liberal is not it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Black Max

        No "liberal" would give a Bircher manque like Paul a moment's consideration.

        •  I always considered a defining charactersistic (0+ / 0-)

          of the liberal mind to be one that is open and intellectually focused.

          Obviously you disagree.

          •  Based on your posts here (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Black Max

            I see nothing but a fanatical devotion to Ron Paul, an economic school that no professional has taken seriously since prior to World War II, and a whole lot of right wing talking points.

            "By their fruits ye shall know them."

            •  Of course that is what you see. (0+ / 0-)

              That is rather the point of confirmation bias isn't it?  That you see what it is you wish to see due to your use of circular reasoning.

              (Indulging your pedantic nature)
              I am a professional and I take it seriously.
              Perhaps you meant to refer to an investment professional in which case I refute your categorical statement with Peter Schiff.

              •  Peter Schiff is not an economist (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Black Max


                •  Hee hee hee. Welcome to the wonderful world (0+ / 0-)

                  of the Paul devotee. The smart ones have lists of logical fallacies which they try to use correctly, but end up just tossing them around like a teenager throwing pepperonis on a pizza. "Ellid, my ignorant liberal friend, you are indulging in the basest form of circumlocution and placing yourself in the Prisoner's Dilemma by your tautological equivocation. It is obvious you rely on your converse fallacies to make your verbose and unsupported statements. You ignore the fact that The Paul has denied writing what he wrote, saying what he said, or giving speeches that he gave to the racist JBS that is not really racist because Paul says it is not racist, so there."

                  Now you've been well and truly refuted. Hie thyself to Landover Baptist Church and get yourself rebuked just to put a period on all of this.

                  This is no class warfare, this is class genocide. The middle and lower classes are being decimated. -- @sunshineejc

                  by Black Max on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 12:20:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Ron Paul is a Republican, a South Texas wingnut... (3+ / 0-)

    and not a strict Libertarian, although he is willing to cloak his racism with "free market" arguments that make as much sense as his opposition to the Fed. Ron Paul couldn't get elected dog catcher outside of Texas, except perhaps in Kentucky, and is no threat to either Party's presidential candidates. His supporters are a collection of "anti-government" wingnuts championing the right to be absurdly asocial, greedy and selfish at the expense of every neighbor they have.

    Libertarianism is bunk, falls apart at the seams when even lightly subject to scrutiny and is wholly without merit as a "philosophy" or a political position. Arguing with Libertarians is like masturbating with sandpaper inevitably rough, painful and unsatisfying, ultimately never achieving a desired outcome.

    "Intelligence is quickness in seeing things as they are..." George Santayana

    by KJG52 on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:36:48 AM PDT

    •  He's a Confederate (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KJG52, satanicpanic

      disguised as a "libertarian".

      He's opposed to the Federal government but if the State government wants to imprison you, that's hunky-dory.

      John McCain is deeply disappointed that Barack Obama has failed to follow through on John McCain's campaign promises.

      by tiponeill on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:30:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  we've had ppl here who claim he (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    isn't racist.  even when pointed to his comments regarding civil rights they continue to deny the racist element.

  •  Scary. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xomnow, satanicpanic

    A very enjoyable read though, please do post more. It's always heartening to see a fellow Kossack take the plunge into warfare with those crazies. Keep it up.

  •  I've noticed that many who fancy themselves cool (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    cerebral types operating solely on logic are, in fact, very emotional about their opinions. This seems to be especially true of right-wingers.

    Want a prosperous, pleasant country? Try social justice. Social justice works and it is cost efficient.

    by Mayfly on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:57:44 AM PDT

  •  Ron Paul and racism (9+ / 0-)

    I get the impression that Ron's Paul politics when it comes to racism are considerably more complex than both his die-hard supporters and detractors like to admit. It's relatively easy to pigeonhole him as a classic American racist stereotype, and just as easy to categorically deny the allegation.

    Is Ron Paul an ideological racist who merely masks his true feelings about minorities to appeal to a wider audience? Or is it just that his fervent belief in economic and political libertarianism coincidentally leads to conditions where ideological racism thrives? That is, I'm more than willing to accept that Ron Paul doesn't actually mean for his policies to negatively impact blacks, women, the poor, and the dispossessed. But that doesn't mean that they don't do just that. And that's the crucial thing that this "is he/isn't he" racism debate fails to capture. What matters is the probably outcome of his policies in the real world, not what he wants those outcomes to be.

    To some extent, I can forgive political idealism being overtaken by real world limitations. But the thing is, Ron Paul is not a revolutionary thinker. His ideas, while they may not be in favor at the moment, are not untried, and there's a great deal of past experience from which we can anticipate the likely result of his policies becoming law. And they, almost without exception, disadvantage minority groups of all stripes while simultaneously serving the interests of those who would seek to do harm to those same groups.

    Idealism is fine, even necessary, in politics, but it needs to be tempered with realism. Ron Paul (and his supporters) have a disturbing tendency to fault reality whenever it fails to live up to their expectations. Not only is that not a helpful or productive reaction, it inevitably leads him to dig in his heels and refuse to compromise.

    Which makes him arguably the most dangerous person running for the Republican nomination. He's a reasonably smart man, and, certainly, his personal beliefs may be nowhere near as odious as someone like Bachmann or Perry. As a starting point for debate, his positions have much to recommend them. But since he seems incapable of moderating his stances, and seems deliberately blind to their flaws and limitations, he presents himself as an inflexible ideologue. And an inflexible ideologue running for POTUS with the public support of the Stormfront nuts is a terrifying prospect.

    •  Exceedingly well said! (0+ / 0-)

      This is a great comment - you went beyond where I started and captured a great aspect here that I think was beginning to be touched on.

      Your point that his policy ideas, whether driven by racism or not lend themselves to actually fulfilling racism I think is one that is spot on.  At the end of the day, the effect is likely the same whether he wants it that way or not.  

    •  I agree until the last paragraph (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clues, Odysseus

      Inflexible people are only dangerous if they are in a position to actually be President.  Paul isn't, and he knows that.  He has made the perfectly sound decision that he can maximize visibility for his ideas if he's inflexible about them, rather than watering them down, still not getting the nomination, and being left as irrelevant as John McCain or Bob Dole (or Kerry or Gore).  He's absolutely doing the right thing based not only on the substance of his ideology (if he compromised he'd lose all of his distinctiveness) but also on his situation (if you can't win, at least try to get your ideas out there).

      Let us resolutely study and implement the resolutions of the 46th Convention of the Democratic Party!

      by Rich in PA on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:16:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Precisely my point. (0+ / 0-)

      Argue effects - do not attempt to argue motivation for it is the weakest argument there is.

  •  There was no reason for this to happen (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, Elmar

    If Obama had a mildly progressive agenda, you wouldn't be reading about this level of dissatisfaction.
    Obama had a shot at peace and justice, but didn't take it. Why shouldn't people be pissed off?
    In the end you can say to people no longer supporting Obama, "Look, See, You're a fucking idiot" but it wont get their vote.

    "How I hate those who are dedicated to producing conformity." William S Burroughs

    by shmuelman on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:58:21 AM PDT

  •  Awesome job for a first diary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    satanicpanic, xomnow, Elmar

    Tipped and rec'd. I do think that if you actually want to engage with and persuade people (as opposed to just "winning" an argument), then it'd be better to address the substance as opposed to ad hominem.

  •  Libertarianism makes you stupid. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  I deal with them online all the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GOPGO2H3LL, tiponeill

    time.  The most condescending bunch of tools anywhere.  The biggest irony is how they say "we're gonna win, his ideas are taking off, he won that Iowa straw poll..."  The people live in a bigger fantasy world than FOX watchers.  Yeah, right, the guy is a lost cause, he ain't winning anything.  

    Just imagine a debate between Paul and Obama- old, boring guy vs tall, confident man.  Haven't we seen this before?  Where do I remember a debate like this happening?

    BUT NO, the ageless wisdom of Austrian economics and principled stances against anti-discrimination laws will carry the day!  HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Ayn Rand’s philosophy... reduces itself to: "I’m on board; pull up the lifeline."- Roger Ebert

    by satanicpanic on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:07:03 AM PDT

  •  Ron Paul supporters are a mixed bag (0+ / 0-)

    If you support everyone's freedom to do everything, certainly you're going to get a wide range of supporters.  Many of them just look away from Paul's historical coziness with racists, but they're making the same strategic calculation that, for instance, sane but wealthy people make in supporting Republicans and liberals who hate imperialism made (and, perhaps, will make again) in supporting Obama.  Especially when you consider that the ways in which the government can combat racism are very circumscribed even in a progressive conception of things, I think the Penn Jilettes and other socially liberal Paulites can rationalize their support for him pretty easily.  

    Let us resolutely study and implement the resolutions of the 46th Convention of the Democratic Party!

    by Rich in PA on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:11:35 AM PDT

  •  Fuck Ron Paul (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and his dumbass kid.


    by GOPGO2H3LL on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:12:40 AM PDT

  •  While I loath Pauls economics He is no racist (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rich in PA, Elmar

    He may have been in the past but I am sufficiently convinced by an hour long video I saw  after the Iowa straw poll that he is not a racist.  I am a socialist and cannot come to terms with his economic model nor his view on choice when int comes to woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy. I believe people attitudes on race can change even if poblicly and policy minded and Paul in that interview which was the most enlightening thing I have ever seen him do was very convincing.. I will post a link to the video when I find it in a moment. But I think the diarist and people who slander Mr. Paul are not being fair. several different places but 22 minuets or so..

    I really think we need to be fair minded and not stoop to calling someone a racist when there is not sufficient cause in his current thought and emotional processes. In the video he casually tells how he would not do X because its racist and thinks it goes against the liberty of others.

    "Proud member of the Socialist Party USA so I do not have to eat Satan sandwiches or wraps."

    by hangingchad on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:13:17 AM PDT

    •  That's pretty much my thinking. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      He's wrong on so much, but he won't shout you down or disrespect you and I have to like that.  And he makes, to my mind, the best anti-abortion case a secular politician has ever was at CPAC a few years ago and I imagine it's still on Youtube.  He didn't move me but he didn't bring the crazy.

      Let us resolutely study and implement the resolutions of the 46th Convention of the Democratic Party!

      by Rich in PA on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:33:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I believe in choice because govenemen is arbitrary (0+ / 0-)

        When government tells us X must be done to reproductive rights then it can cut both ways.. soon we could see the government  in the life argument telling non Christians they can only have 1 child or only girl children. Or even selecting if the party or judiciary in power feels that only Non Christians should be allowed to have babies..  Its just nonsense to let the government to infringe on the choice of the host of the pregnancy. Choice should trump any government decision here. Yes the living creature in the womb does not have a choice because while it is alive it is not fully human till when? No one really knows.  In fact I do not really care. what I do care about is the arbitrary nature of government using authoritarian means to force a choice on an unwilling participant. Yes I sound like a libertarian and I am but I am of the socialist variety. Ron Paul fails here.. he is advocating in his pro life case that it is ok for Government to act via force to infringe on the liberty of another. Even if that choice is a bad one. Makes me think he is inconstant in his libertarianism.

        "Proud member of the Socialist Party USA so I do not have to eat Satan sandwiches or wraps."

        by hangingchad on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:45:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's because he's not a true libertarian (0+ / 0-)

          He's a reactionary who doesn't give a damn about anyone but his fellow Christian conservatives.  

          As for you being a Socialist...I find it hard to believe that a Socialist would have anything to do with a Republican of any sort.  But that's just my native paranoia kicking in.

  •  No Public Education (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, tacet

    Historically our succesful blending of immigration was because of our great public education.  Every success in math, science and humanties was due to our great public education.  Ron Paul does not believe in public education but prefers private schools.  Ron Paul does not believe in public health or social security or the dignity of women to handle their own health issues.  C'mon folks no matter how much you love his strong economic ideas we have all been children at one time, and we will all grow old and dependent on a skilled and smart populace.  If your not your brother's keeper, then who are you?

  •  Always kudos for first diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    satanicpanic, Anonyman

    Additional kudos for taking on the Ronpaulistas.  He was my congress asshat about two or three redistrictings ago.  Me not happy.

    All is unfair in war.  Keep pounding a mudhole in them.

  •  Ron Paul has made at least one appearance (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    at the John Birch Society that I know of. He is a Libertarian and apparently many Libertarian views appear to be racist because they unfairly target the poor.

    In any case, Ron Paul's views on race do not send me into a panic. We have Constitutional law in place to protect the country from any changes backwards. Who believes that Ron Paul (if President!) would attempt to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

    I am attracted to Ron Paul because he recognizes that the greatest harm to our country is coming from 1. the wars and occupations, 2. the corrupt FED,  3. an unfair tax code, and 4. the growing un-constitutional, police/surveillance state.

    •  He was the keynote speaker for their... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      robertlewiws, satanicpanic, Odysseus

      ...50th anniversary.  He touted JBS as a "great patriotic organization..." and pretty much says he thinks they're pretty good stuff.  He is apparently not a member.  And fair play there.  

      For me, it reminds me of Palin's ties to that Alaska secessionist party thing (that had my blood pumping in '08 that it wasn't a bigger deal) where she spoke of what a great job they were doing and all that jazz.

      Paul seems to agree with their NWO conspiracy theories as well.  Now, I think it's a fair question to ask: how strong are his ties?  JBS isn't exactly a haven of racial equality and love for the minorities, but I'm not explicitly stating this fact alone must mean he's a racist.  I do think it means he has ties to an organization that I consider to be... less than friendly to minorities.  For me, it's a minor aspect of the web of associations that says - he's not Ivory Pure when it comes to race.

    •  I oppose Ron Paul (0+ / 0-)

      His stance would return us to the days when women shoved knitting needles and coat hangers up their vaginas in an attempt to abort, or douched with bleach.   NEVER AGAIN.

  •  I do not think he is a racist. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rich in PA, Elmar

    I agree with Paul here.

    I think we need to give him the benefit of the doubt. I think people charging him with racism are unfair. I am against Pauls policies but refuse to stoop to this.

    "Proud member of the Socialist Party USA so I do not have to eat Satan sandwiches or wraps."

    by hangingchad on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:30:55 AM PDT

    •  I'm being unfair by pointing out his... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      satanicpanic, pale cold

      ...many associations with racism?  The newsletter (which Elmar and I have been back and forth over) is pretty damning stuff for me.  He either wrote it, allowed it to be written in his name, or (in my eyes least likely) he had no idea.  Him having no idea doesn't wash with me, but it does make me then question his competency.

      You have the JBS tie, which I said just above isn't alone damning, but doesn't help the cause.  His stance on Civil Rights rings hollow to me.  His steadfast refusal to return money from neo nazis AFTER being made aware it came from Stormfront is extremely questionable in my view.  Why staunchly refuse to give back $500 after being told it was from racists - not just kind of racists, but straight up neo nazis?  It's a no brainer to give it back.

      I've simply stated my opinion that I think he's a racist.  It seems like there is a lot of explanation about how it only seems he's a racist.

      •  Someone in my FB feed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Was saying how he thought we needed a Ron Paul! Straight talking!

        So I sent him links. Just the ones that were straight up Paul. Without editorializing.

        He quickly changed his mind. :) Aw sh*t. Was the response I recall.

        My point being, I think many who say they are supporting Paul have only heard the soundbites, and have not actually delved into the swampland of his ideology.
        The ones that you encountered online, are pretty hardcore will defend and deny all the badstuff no matter what. Thet exist everywhere, for just about every ideology.
        And often enough they will be the dreaded single issue voters.
        As are most Republicans.

        Fuddle Duddle--- Pierre Trudeau.... Canadian politics at......A Creative Revolution

        by pale cold on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:20:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  View this hour long meat of paul.. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          People who claim he is a racist are unfair.. 15 years or so ago is a LONG time.. peoples views change.. It is completely disgusting to say x is this or that based on 15 years ago. Here is the meat of Paul. I may not and do not agree with his economic model but niehter do I find him a racist or evil like I do Buchanin, and that other evil radio guy... and yes his followers include conspircy theorists and some racists but I have known Dem aracist too. I am just saying.. Even if 15 years he wrote that stuff which I doubt he definatly does not feel that way now. People change show compassion.

          "Proud member of the Socialist Party USA so I do not have to eat Satan sandwiches or wraps."

          by hangingchad on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 03:33:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  If I was a canadate and stormfront gave me mone (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I would keep it for the good. Why return it so they can buy beer and possibly hurt someone... I think you all do an injustice to our cause by not arguing about POLICY.. It is material what he did 15 years ago..  

        "Proud member of the Socialist Party USA so I do not have to eat Satan sandwiches or wraps."

        by hangingchad on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 03:35:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If I were a candidate and Storm Front gave me $ (0+ / 0-)

          I'd promptly and publicly donate the funds to either the NAACP, Amnesty International, or Mass Equality.  I'd then instruct my campaign finance chair to destroy any future funds from Storm Front or similar organizations.

          •  Thats cool too but I would still use them.. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            unless I had a huge war chest.

            "Proud member of the Socialist Party USA so I do not have to eat Satan sandwiches or wraps."

            by hangingchad on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:53:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'd get more publicity and donations (0+ / 0-)

              From donating them to a cause Storm Front hated than I would from using them.

              Also, I'd be able to sleep at night.  


              •  I would sleep well eithe rway.. I think it depends (0+ / 0-)

                On the frame. I will do anything to make america great again even take money and use it for you from Assholes and the
                ignorant.. But your view is cool too.. I just think I end up with more money in the end.. But thats all theoretical.. I am just saying you cannot paint a broad brush of racism on Pauls acceptance of money.. Heck if a racist wanted to vote for me as a socialist and person who would ignore race and do want is the best for everyone.. including nationalize the banks and all medical care.. I would take anyone vote. :)

                "Proud member of the Socialist Party USA so I do not have to eat Satan sandwiches or wraps."

                by hangingchad on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 04:10:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Loved your style. Please more diaries to come. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I had a dyed in the wool Chicago Democrat just tell me he was looking at voting for Ron Paul.  I didn't use the racist issue, I used the crazy issue like doing away with our currency, and others.  I hope he will at least look into this guy more and hopefully find out how extreme and odious he is.  One thing I thought about my acquaintance that I hadn't before, he just doesn't pay much attention.

  •  Here is why libertarianism fails: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    justintime, satanicpanic, Odysseus

    Money = Power. The more money an individual has, the more power, because money can buy people's loyalty, buy arms, buy influence of law-making and law-application (via donating to judges, prosecutors, etc), and buy opportunity (by being less affected by market forces, therefore able to capitalize on others' weakness). In other words, too much money in the hands of a few individuals defeats democracy. No matter who gets elected, they can be bought post-election and therefore help enact the agenda of the rich.

    Therefore, in order to limit the damage that can be caused by rational actors with disproportionate power, thereby destroying the commons, their money must be highly taxed and redistributed to the commons in order to diffuse this power gradient, which, in the end, has an anti-rights effect for the majority.

    Tax the rich before they attack you.

  •  Yeah, Ron Paul supports are pretty much (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    satanicpanic, Anonyman, Ellid

    clueless to his many stances. There is an old saying that a Libertarian is just a Republican who wants to smoke dope and get laid. Maybe so.
    But what is worse is their complete embrace of the no government thing. I mean, WTF?
    Ron Paul thinks we don't need FEMA. Tell that to Vermont. And how is that any different from Republicans who also want to end FEMA and the EPA and a host of other government regulatory offices?
    Paul is also anti-abortion. Sure, get government out of your life unless you're female, then it's OK. I had a Paul supporter tell me he was totally NOT against abortion, but thought it should be decided by states. Well, sorry, that won't work. Is a woman supposed to go halfway across country to get an needed abortion (or even an elective one)?
    My experience recently was on the Dr. Mercola web site. Mercola is all for freedom to choose your supplements, as am I. [Note: I do believe that supplements should be tested, but you should be able to buy vitamin C or an herbal supplement if you want to.]
    Unfortunately, Mercola has posted at least two web "diaries" about his support for Paul. Jump into the comments and, like what happened to you, you're toast.
    There are some (very few) ideas of Paul many can agree with - like ending the wars and legalizing drugs. But he's pretty extreme with the anti-government thing.

    A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by MA Liberal on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:55:30 AM PDT

  •  calling people racist ends the conversation (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xomnow, satanicpanic

    and they're not racist, they're just stupid.

    They think that without the Civil Rights Act, market forces would have solved the lunch counters problem, which was a defining symbol of Jim Crow.  And they're partly right that the Civil Rights Act wasn't what broke Jim Crow: what broke the terrorism was the activism of MLK, with the understanding that white Americans were unwilling to kill more than symbolic numbers of black Americans, and short of genocide it is hard to suppress a population rising up and demanding its rights.  They would be beaten, and jailed, and they would sing songs in jail, and then Jim Crow was out of options.  Even so, I wonder how that problem would be dealt with today.  Probably, with systematic torture and free weapons for black youth courtesy of the CIA.

    The Civil Rights Act was in a sense Congress's rubber stamp on what had already happened.  Even so, market forces aren't going to integrate a whites only club if there are enough people who want a whites only club.  Market forces don't put strip clubs out of business in a world with plenty of people who would't be caught dead in one.  The Civil Rights Act was about ensuring that MLK's victory wasn't just temporary, that the next 20 years wouldn't continue separate but equal which would inexorably return to Jim Crow.

    The stupid in Ron Paul supporters is their belief that any problem can be solved with less regulation.  It belies a total lack of understanding of our institutions.  Far from a conservatives, they're the most radical anarchists around.

    Some people want whites-only lunch counters?  Let them!  Banksters screwing everyone else over while selling each other garbage?  Let them!  They just accidentally the economy?  Leave it alone!

    They're also largely goldbugs, a retarded theory that's been discredited over and over but refuses to die.  Simply put, there's more to money than the green pieces of paper circulation, or the sum total of everyone's savings and checking accounts.  We also need to consider the loans that people make to each other, since in effect they increase the supply of money.  There's nothing magical about money either, it's a commodity that is traded for other things; still, due to well documented aspects of human behavior, it is better for everyone if the supply of money increases at approximately the same speed but a little faster than the supply of everything else.  The midwest was kind of stagnant in the late 19th century, new silver mines were discovered, with more money flying around business was booming, and William Jennings Bryan said "You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold".

    The core beliefs of Ron Paul supporters are anarchism and crackpot economics.  Tear them up there and they will be defeated.  Calling them racist just makes them more self-righteous.

    Global warming is the inconvenient truth, nuclear power is the inconvenient alternative.

    by eigenlambda on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:56:55 AM PDT

  •  I long ago learned (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xomnow, satanicpanic

    It is useless to argue with the wind.

    I also understand the irresistible urge to do so at times.

    Inspiration is hard to come by. You have to take it where you find it. --- Bob Dylan.

    by figbash on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:17:20 AM PDT

  •  All Ron Paul arguments in a nutshell (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    icemilkcoffee, satanicpanic

    X is a government program. Therefore, total and complete enslavement of the human race neccesarily follows X.

    Y is a person who supports / doesn't completely oppose program X. Therefore, Y is an active supporter of the socialist slavery agenda.

    Oh yeah, you can't forget the uber-intellectualist snobbery that unfaillibly accompanies this anti-intellectual bullshit.

  •  Here Is How You Answer The Assorted Nuts: (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    justintime, xomnow, satanicpanic, Ellid

    "The Civil Rights Act is unconstituitonal." Are you (or Ron Paul) a Supreme Court justice? No? Then you (nor Ron Paul) can say what IS or ISN'T unconstitutional - only Supreme Court justices can do that. Until the Civil Rights Act is DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THE SUPREME COURT, the Civil Rights Act REMAINS CONSTITUTIONAL.   I can't believe we are still having to explain things like this to people in the 21st century. Libertarian = Anarchist.

  •  The answer is simple: (0+ / 0-)

    Ron Paul (a.k.a."A") is living proof that German mad scientists (B) could successfully quasi-clone their beloved Fuhrer (C), and his synapse-less minions (D) are living proof that the aforementioned mad scientists (again, B) could also successfully quasi-slone the fecal matter of a common house fly (E)---which should successfully prove the physiological, philosophical, political, and ethnic similarities between A, B, C, D, and E.

    I count even the single grain of sand to be a higher life-form than the likes of Sarah Palin and her odious ilk.

    by Liberal Panzer on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:36:40 AM PDT

  •  So why did you click on HuffPo? (0+ / 0-)

    Don't you know there's a boycott?

    (Next: so I walked into this Klan rally wearing my yarmulke and... guess what?)

    WOID: a journal of visual language

    by WOIDgang on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:37:07 AM PDT

    •  Didn't know that no. (0+ / 0-)

      I visit a lot of places to try to figure out what people are thinking.  I often think HuffPo is silly at best.  "OMG! IPhone 5 maybe?  No?  We don't know!  We think so!"

      However, sometimes I find something interesting to read there.  This caught my eye and well here we all are.

  •  A similarity between libertarians and progressives (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    They are both drawn to losers who never get anything accomplished.  The important thing is that these delusional losers never, ever 'compromised' their integrity. Never mind that they could spend 2 decades in the House without ever authoring a bill that passed.

    As soon as a libertarian or progressive politician starts to get somewhere with real world compromises... guess what- the purists flee! They all know in their hearts that their ideologies are the absolute correct answer for every societal problem, and that if allowed to be unleashed in its pure, undiluted form, will cure every ill in America in an instant. That is why they lose heart when their policies are implemented in baby steps, and the results are not immediately discernable, as is often the case in the real world.  That is too unsatisfying for the religious fundamentalist libertarians and progressives.  Gosh- a healthcare reform that will continue to take years of tinkering to perfect? Who needs that? That's like eating bran flakes and oatmeal.  A gradually tightening CAFE standard to reduce oil consumption? It's hard  to get the fiery revolutionaries behind that when we really want to nationalize all oil companies tomorrow!

  •  With RP supporters, I like to bring up his (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clues, tacet, Ellid

    authorship of the "Marriage Protection Act" as well as his vocal support of DOMA......both of which serve to deny due process and equal protection to gays, and gays alone.   The MPA is also unique in that it tried to restrict the authority of a separate branch of government.  

    Going into the nitty gritty legal details of RP's views on same sex marriage reveals his underlying lack of understanding of the constitution, and his basic lack of support for civil rights and individual well as his Christofascism.   It drives RP supporters off the deep end.   It also reveals his willingness to sacrifice other peoples civil rights on the altar of his ideology, and proves that he's more concerned with that ideology than what actually happens in the real world.  For RP to say that "marriage should be a church, not a government function" is a statement in direct conflict with reality.....and RP doesn't propose any legislation to actualize his fantasy utopia, much less address the real issue of current inequality.

    It isn't necessary or productive to paint RP with the racism of his supporters at StormFront - his statements and legislative acts prove that he's not a supporter of civil rights for minorities.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site