If Ron Paul isn't Electable, Just Who the Hell is?

[dank69]

Ok.. this just says you don't know what you are talking about in regards to Paul.

First, I'm not voting for Ron, so don't flip on me.

Second, Paul wants to put the constitution and bill of rights first. He says this time and time again. All laws start here. All government works within the bounds of these two documents.

Third, he only wants states to choose laws outside the scope of the constitution. He's never said a state should be able to make a law that violates the constitution. He just wants the states to have final say in all matters that exist OUTSIDE the bounds of the constitution.

Does this make sense?

For instance, he doesn't want the Federal government to legalize marijuana. He's never said this. What he says is that since the Constitution doesn't say whether or not pot should be legal, it should be up to the states to decide. Basically, since pot isn't mentioned in either two documents, whether or not pot should be legal has NOTHING to do with the federal government. It shouldn't be any of the Fed's business if California wants legal medical pot, or wants to legalize it outright. California should only have to see that the law they pass doesn't violate the constitution or bill of rights.

Sexual and racial discrimination is not prohibited by the original Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

 

[xj0hnx]

I thought he was a strict practitioner of constitutionalism until I read more about his actual voting record.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/profiles/tp/6-Rights-Lost-Under-Ron-Paul.htm



The fact that he would support such terrible legislation in the first place shows that he's not any different from any other candidate as far as his stance on civil rights; he thinks you shouldn't have any if you're doing something he doesn't like. In his zealousness to stick it to the homosexuals it seems he would also effectively neuter the 4th amendment.

It has nothing to do with "sticking it to homosexuals" because at the same time if a state wants to fully legalize gay marriage and/or abortions, the Federal Government couldn't stop them.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Sexual and racial discrimination is not prohibited by the original Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

SO MUCH stuff is not prohibited.. what's your point? It's up to the states to decide.

The states are individual countries that federated to share a military. Fed should stick to that.

 

[TechBoyJK]

It has nothing to do with "sticking it to homosexuals" because at the same time if a state wants to fully legalize gay marriage and/or abortions, the Federal Government couldn't stop them.

Every politician has their own views on whats right and wrong.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Sexual and racial discrimination is not prohibited by the original Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

This is about whether the Federal government has the right to legislate morality. At least thats how I see it in a Libertarian viewpoint and I think thats where Paul was heading with this as well. My guess is Ron Paul was trying to keep the Federal governments power restricted as intended by the Constitution. Legislating morality doesn't make it go away it only puts the sexism/racism behind a door.

 

[dank69]

SO MUCH stuff is not prohibited.. what's your point? It's up to the states to decide.

The states are individual countries that federated to share a military. Fed should stick to that.

That's just it. We have evolved to realize that no state should be able to make laws that discriminate based on sex/race. These things should be a part of the constitution and have been added with amendments. Ron Paul does not agree with these new amendments.

I am all for states rights within reason, but there are some things that should not be left up to the states. Ron Paul believes that a business should have the right to refuse service to black people. That is so fucked up in this day and age. Most Paul supporters don't realize that Paul holds this belief. They just hear 'states rights' and think 'hey, that sounds good!' Even more fucked up are the supporters that do think like Paul does, like A420 for example.

 

[dank69]

This is about whether the Federal government has the right to legislate morality. At least thats how I see it in a Libertarian viewpoint and I think thats where Paul was heading with this as well. My guess is Ron Paul was trying to keep the Federal governments power restricted as intended by the Constitution. Legislating morality doesn't make it go away it only puts it behind a door.

Legislating against sex/race descrimination is not legislating morality. If you truly believe that you are one fucked up person. You might as well say legislating against assault is legislating morality.

 

[TechBoyJK]

That's just it. We have evolved to realize that no state should be able to make laws that discriminate based on sex/race. These things should be a part of the constitution and have been added with amendments. Ron Paul does not agree with these new amendments.

I am all for states rights within reason, but there are some things that should not be left up to the states. Ron Paul believes that a business should have the right to refuse service to black people. That is so fucked up in this day and age. Most Paul supporters don't realize that Paul holds this belief. They just hear 'states rights' and think 'hey, that sounds good!' Even more fucked up are the supporters that do think like Paul does, like A420 for example.

I don't think there should be laws that descriminate, but I don't think it should be illegal to descriminate. For instance.. No way in hell should there be a law that says white people can drive 65 and black people 60. THat's messed up. However, I think that if I setup a private business, I should be able to refuse service to anybody I want. If I'm having a private party in my backyard, can anybody in the neighborhood show up and invite themselves in? No.

It doesn't make it 'right' but I don't think anybody is entitled to anything 'private'. Can I go into hooters and demand a job waiting tables and scream descimination because I wasn't hired? They have a clientele they are servicing. They should be allowed to make business decisions that cater to their clientele. If you don't like the business, don't go in there.

A publically funded, state funded, city funded, community funded business/project is another matter. But if I own the bar, I should be able to stand out front and say 'i don't want you coming in here' for whatever reason.

 

[xj0hnx]

Ron Paul believes that a business should have the right to refuse service to black people. ...

Most Paul supporters don't realize that Paul holds this belief. They just hear 'states rights' and think 'hey, that sounds good!' Even more fucked up are the supporters that do think like Paul does, like A420 for example.

That's not true. He doesn't say that, he says the Federal Government shouldn't have the power to force a business to serve black people if it they don't want to, and there is a difference.

 

[TechBoyJK]

That's not true. He doesn't say that, he says the Federal Government shouldn't have the power to force a business to serve black people if it they don't want to, and there is a difference.

This.

Paul would never agree with a law that says white people can drive 65MPH on federal highway and black people only 60MPH.

He would agree with allowing a private business owner to refuse service to anybody for whatever reason simply because it's 'private'.

 

[dank69]

I don't think there should be laws that descriminate, but I don't think it should be illegal to descriminate. For instance.. No way in hell should there be a law that says white people can drive 65 and black people 60. THat's messed up. However, I think that if I setup a private business, I should be able to refuse service to anybody I want. If I'm having a private party in my backyard, can anybody in the neighborhood show up and invite themselves in? No.

It doesn't make it 'right' but I don't think anybody is entitled to anything 'private'. Can I go into hooters and demand a job waiting tables and scream descimination because I wasn't hired? They have a clientele they are servicing. They should be allowed to make business decisions that cater to their clientele. If you don't like the business, don't go in there.

A publically funded, state funded, city funded, community funded business/project is another matter. But if I own the bar, I should be able to stand out front and say 'i don't want you coming in here' for whatever reason.

A private party is your own property or space that you paid for to use for a private function. A bar is an establishment built on land zoned for public commercial use.

 

[dank69]

That's not true. He doesn't say that, he says the Federal Government shouldn't have the power to force a business to serve black people if it they don't want to, and there is a difference.

I dare you to try to explain the difference.

 

[sandorski]

Ron Paul isn't unelectable because he might be "Racist", although what has appeared in his past Newsletters will be damning regardless of his explanations. What makes him unelectable are his positions. Every Liberal/Conservative can find RP policies that they agree with 100%, but they can also find policies that they disagree with 100%. This just makes him too radical for any widespread support as the only way to accept such divergent policy is to completely accept that starting from scratch is the only solution.

Very few are willing to go there, especially when, despite the problems, the US is still at or near the top of so many of the Demographic measurements used to measure Success. Despite the trending downwards, all encompassing change is just unnecessary, at this time anyway.

 

[momeNt]

I dare you to try to explain the difference.

There isn't a difference, it's whether or not a person should have the freedom to segregate when operating a business. You're still perfectly free to not allow certain races into your house for a dinner party, but can't refuse them service in a place of business.

The discussion is more about whether we as a nation think that that freedom is worth the harm that can potentially come with it.

 

[momeNt]

A private party is your own property or space that you paid for to use for a private function. A bar is an establishment built on land zoned for public commercial use.

If that definition were actually true then there would be no need for a civil rights act forcing businesses to serve all customers equally, it would be enforceable under zoning regulations that the land is held by the owner under the obligation to serve the public indiscriminately.

 

[dank69]

There isn't a difference, it's whether or not a person should have the freedom to segregate when operating a business. You're still perfectly free to not allow certain races into your house for a dinner party, but can't refuse them service in a place of business.

The discussion is more about whether we as a nation think that that freedom is worth the harm that can potentially come with it.

You realize of course that it would be possible for an entire town to refuse service to black people, in effect making it prohibitive for black people to even live in said town?

Oh, you're black? No oil delivery for you!

 

[IonusX]

This.

incorrect they rose to the occassion of their own free will.. they were not chosen because of their republican views.. why does that misconception always get hauled out.

 

[IonusX]

Ron Paul isn't unelectable because he might be "Racist", although what has appeared in his past Newsletters will be damning regardless of his explanations. What makes him unelectable are his positions. Every Liberal/Conservative can find RP policies that they agree with 100%, but they can also find policies that they disagree with 100%. This just makes him too radical for any widespread support as the only way to accept such divergent policy is to completely accept that starting from scratch is the only solution.

Very few are willing to go there, especially when, despite the problems, the US is still at or near the top of so many of the Demographic measurements used to measure Success. Despite the trending downwards, all encompassing change is just unnecessary, at this time anyway.

the racist documents werent written or signed by him.. furthermore their 20+ years old..
hes explained this a few 1000 times and everytime it means ---- all

 

[momeNt]

You realize of course that it would be possible for an entire town to refuse service to black people, in effect making it prohibitive for black people to even live in said town?

Oh, you're black? No oil delivery for you!

Yes.

Probably wasn't a good town to live in before a civil rights act could potentially be repealed though. Unless we really believe that laws curb behavior. Blacks probably didn't feel welcome in this hypothetical town that was chomping at the bit to refuse them any and every service essential to living in said town.

 

[CanOWorms]

the racist documents werent written or signed by him.. furthermore their 20+ years old..
hes explained this a few 1000 times and everytime it means ---- all

His explanations are lacking and do not absolve him of the controversy. His racist rants define him.

 

[sandorski]

the racist documents werent written or signed by him.. furthermore their 20+ years old..
hes explained this a few 1000 times and everytime it means ---- all

Like I said, it's still damning, but his biggest problems are not really related to that.

 

[RabidMongoose]

This is not very specific. I still do not understand how, exactly, Paul is supposed to be acting against the amendment. Can you explain?

I googled for the guy's own writing about that amendment and found this from 2004. It sounds like unconditional support.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul165.html

He only supports it against the federal government. He thinks that the Bill of Rights should not apply against the states.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Ok.. this just says you don't know what you are talking about in regards to Paul.

First, I'm not voting for Ron, so don't flip on me.

Second, Paul wants to put the constitution and bill of rights first. He says this time and time again. All laws start here. All government works within the bounds of these two documents.

If Ron Paul supports the Constitution, then why does he want to change so much of it? And if he supports the Bill of Rights, then why does not believe that it applies to the states?

Again, you need to learn more about Ron Paul and the Constitution and Supreme Court jurisprudence to really understand Ron Paul's entire motive.

Third, he only wants states to choose laws outside the scope of the constitution. He's never said a state should be able to make a law that violates the constitution. He just wants the states to have final say in all matters that exist OUTSIDE the bounds of the constitution.

Does this make sense?

Ron Paul wants to tear the Constitution into pieces so that the racist laws that he wants are not violating the Constitution. Right now the Bill of Rights are mostly incorporated against the states. That is through the 14th Amendment. Ron Paul does not believe in the incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states and wants to get rid of the 14th Amendment. He's insane.

You really have a lot of Ron Paul reading to do. Don't feel bad, most people, even Paulbots, have no idea how utterly anti-civil rights Ron Paul really is.

 

[Darwin333]

That says nothing about Obama writing or releasing a racist newsletter under his name for years and years.

Sorry, but if you release a racist newsletter for years, then you're not electable in the US. That might get you far in some European countries, but it makes you incapable of being elected for national office in the US.

Pretty sure the United States Congress is a "national office" hence the "United States" part in front of it.

 

[xj0hnx]

Pretty sure the United States Congress is a "national office" hence the "United States" part in front of it.

Shhh, he's in rant mode, truth and reality are meaningless there.