Ron Paul pulls into second in Iowa

[Don Vito Corleone]

Excellent tripe. It's pretty easy to see that blurb from him being put in a website he doesn't manage, or really read. If my employer told me to put a blurb saying Happy Holidays from XXXX in a company newsletter, I would, and he wouldn't know what else I wrote if he didn't read it.

This is some awfully weak apologism. These were newsletters published under Ron Paul's name as "Ron Paul's Freedom Report," "Ron Paul Political Report," and "The Ron Paul Survival Report," and contain a lot of really hateful and bigoted statements, over the course of an extended period of time. These were released after he had served a term in the US House of Representatives, and he personally made a lot of money off of the newsletters.

If Paul honestly didn't know who was writing them or what they contained, he shouldn't have released them under his moniker. For him to claim he had no idea what was going on with them makes him look like, at best, a weasel, and at worst, a liar and a bigot. If Gingrich, Romney, or President Obama had published statements like this under their own name, they'd be torn from neck to nuts over it.

These newsletters put Rand Paul's critical comments about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in a whole new light for me . . .

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

The reason they weren't covered a lot, and they did come out last election, is because it's all bullshit taht was shot down years ago, I mean seriously, this crap is coming from Rabidmongoose, and CanofWorms, two of the biggest fruitcakes on this forum.

Your attacking the source does nothing to defuse this. I only learned about them by researching them myself. None of this has been, or could have been "shot down" - all that happened is that Paul denied that he wrote the newsletters or harbors racist views. (Notably, however, he did not deny them when interviewed in 1996, instead defending the comments in them and saying only that they needed to be quoted in their entirety rather than taken out of context.) The only reason the newsletters have not engendered more coverage, in my view, is that Paul has never been anything more than a fringe candidate. If he somehow managed to be nominated (which would never happen), he'd be absolutely destroyed in a general election contest by these newsletters.

At this point I really think much less of Paul and feel he doesn't deserve the polite deference I've accorded him thus far. He is clearly not a person to be trusted.

 

[RabidMongoose]

These newsletters put Rand Paul's critical comments about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in a whole new light for me . . .

Not to mention Ron Paul's absolute hatred of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Too bad he spread his hatred to his own children.

 

[guyver01]

If my employer told me to put a blurb saying Happy Holidays from XXXX in a company newsletter, I would, and he wouldn't know what else I wrote if he didn't read it.

if your employer told you to put something on the company website, and they didn't proofread it and verify copy... they DESERVE whatever happens to them.

 

[Chainspell]

if your employer told you to put something on the company website, and they didn't proofread it and verify copy... they DESERVE whatever happens to them.

Yes but does it make it true?

But you'll never see it my way anyway so have fun believing what you believe.

-Sent from my phone.

 

[guyver01]

Yes but does it make it true?

if you are authorized to publish on their website, you are acting as their spokesperson.

so.. yes... it reflects THEM.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Yes but does it make it true?

A single instance, perhaps not. Repeated, consistent publications, however...

 

[frostedflakes]

Not to mention Ron Paul's absolute hatred of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Too bad he spread his hatred to his own children.

You're kind of distorting the facts here. AFAIK neither Ron nor his son "hate" the Civil Rights Act, they agree with the overwhelming majority of it, which deals with abolishing the Jim Crow laws and discriminatory policies enforced by state and local governments. Their only contention is with Title II, which forbids businesses from discriminating against customers and is antithetical to private property rights.

Implying Ron Paul is a racist because he supports private property rights is like implying he's a junkie because he supports drug legalization. You can disagree with an action but still support the right of people to practice it. He just doesn't believe the state has any more right to step in and stop people from discriminating against customers than they have to stop people from doing drugs or any number of other activities.

 

[guyver01]

AFAIK neither Ron nor his son "hate" the Civil Rights Act, they agree with the overwhelming majority of it, which deals with abolishing the Jim Crow laws and discriminatory policies enforced by state and local governments. Their only contention is with Title II, which forbids businesses from discriminating against customers and is antithetical to private property rights..

Ron Paul told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on May 16 2011, that he would not have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the landmark piece of legislation that outlawed major forms of discrimination against blacks and women.

Paul said he objected to the Civil Rights Act because of its infringement on private property rights.

He was also the only congressman to vote against a bill hailing the 40th anniversary of the law’s passage in 2004

 

[Paul98]

Ron Paul could be in first place in all the polls by like 20% and they would still discount him because "he can't win". This is some media bias at it's worse, half the time they pretend like he isn't even there. I am sick of it, if he ends up loosing that's cool but I want to see better coverage. People should be ashamed of what we are getting now.

Edit: heck if they started covering him and some of his crazy ideas then he might actually drop off the polls so they wouldn't need to cover him anymore.

Really we need to look at what will go through and could become law and policy rather than the fringe ideas that will never make it anywhere.

 

[SilthDraeth]

Ron Paul told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on May 16 2011, that he would not have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the landmark piece of legislation that outlawed major forms of discrimination against blacks and women.

Paul said he objected to the Civil Rights Act because of its infringement on private property rights.

He was also the only congressman to vote against a bill hailing the 40th anniversary of the law’s passage in 2004

So you quoted the above guy to say the same thing that he said. I am guessing then you are in agreement with him then.

 

[guyver01]

So you quoted the above guy to say the same thing that he said. I am guessing then you are in agreement with him then.

i am agreeing with the fact that he says he wouldn't have voted for the law because he believes business owners have a right to be racist.

that in and of itself... is racist.

allowing racism and segregation is condoning it.

 

[frostedflakes]

Ron Paul told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on May 16 2011, that he would not have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the landmark piece of legislation that outlawed major forms of discrimination against blacks and women.

Paul said he objected to the Civil Rights Act because of its infringement on private property rights.

He was also the only congressman to vote against a bill hailing the 40th anniversary of the law’s passage in 2004

And he explained why he would vote against it, because it infringed on private property rights. He also went on to add that he would not have voted against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws and other forms of government-sanctioned discrimination.

Paul is too contrarian for his own good, sometimes I wonder if he just does stuff like this to get people riled up. Here's his speech on HR 676, nothing as shocking or appalling as the headline ("Ron Paul votes against bill honoring 1964 Civil Rights Act") would imply.

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

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

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

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

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

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

i am agreeing with the fact that he says he wouldn't have voted for the law because he believes business owners have a right to be racist.

that in and of itself... is racist.

allowing racism and segregation is condoning it.

Is allowing people to do drugs condoning it? Is allowing women to have abortions condoning it? Come on now.

 

[guyver01]

Is allowing people to do drugs condoning it?

yes it is.

if i know someone is doing illegal drugs... i will do eveything in my power to stop them... including "narking" on them.

Is allowing women to have abortions condoning it?

abortions are not immoral.

 

[RabidMongoose]

You're kind of distorting the facts here. AFAIK neither Ron nor his son "hate" the Civil Rights Act, they agree with the overwhelming majority of it, which deals with abolishing the Jim Crow laws and discriminatory policies enforced by state and local governments. Their only contention is with Title II, which forbids businesses from discriminating against customers and is antithetical to private property rights.

Implying Ron Paul is a racist because he supports private property rights is like implying he's a junkie because he supports drug legalization. You can disagree with an action but still support the right of people to practice it. He just doesn't believe the state has any more right to step in and stop people from discriminating against customers than they have to stop people from doing drugs or any number of other activities.

Ron Paul is a racist because he's made racist statements. Seems pretty logical that he'll take up an ideology that is against the most important portion of the Civil Rights Act.

Also, Ron Paul's problem was with the federal government, he would have been fine with the states discriminating against certain customers or preventing such activity. Note that Ron Paul does not believe that the bill of rights applies to the states.

 

[frostedflakes]

yes it is.

if i know someone is doing illegal drugs... i will do eveything in my power to stop them... including "narking" on them.



abortions are not immoral.

That's utter nonsense. Cigarettes are legal and smoking is hardly condoned, smokers are probably one of the most vilified groups out there today, they've become social pariahs. You can certainly make a substance legal but strongly discourage its use, treat users like victims with a medical condition that needs treatment instead of criminals, etc. And ironically enough pot is illegal but probably far more socially accepted than smoking. But getting kind of OT here.

And never claimed that abortion was immoral. But most people (even those who support it) would not encourage it and see it as a fail safe in the event that contraception wasn't used or failed or whatever. Again, point was making it legal does not encourage it, it's not like since Roe v. Wade women are going out and getting pregnant just for the thrill of getting an abortion.

 

[Chainspell]

if you are authorized to publish on their website, you are acting as their spokesperson.

so.. yes... it reflects THEM.

Like i said I'm not gonna change your mind. But me you and everybody who reads this knows that it doesn't make it automatically true. Believe what you want and leave me alone.

-Sent from my phone.

 

[guyver01]

Believe what you want and leave me alone.

you replied to my post. i didn't reply to you.

so you leave me alone.

 

[Chainspell]

you replied to my post. i didn't reply to you.

so you leave me alone.

Agreed

-Sent from my phone.

 

[BansheeX]

Moreover, considering that Ron Paul believes in an economic theory that doesn't believe in empirical data, it's safe to say that his economic policies would be a disaster since he's so far removed from reality.

Are you really this stupid? You're going to sit here and deny the creation of the middle class under a system with no income tax and a gold standard, where non-union auto workers in the 20s made 2oz of gold a week and kept all of it, where the highest GDP growth ever occured, where America was the world largest creditor, manufacturing the cheapest goods with the highest wages because we had the most tools and incentives? Keep driving off a cliff with your welfarist warfarist candidates.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Ron who?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Are you really this stupid? You're going to sit here and deny the creation of the middle class under a system with no income tax and a gold standard, where non-union auto workers in the 20s made 2oz of gold a week and kept all of it, where the highest GDP growth ever occured, where America was the world largest creditor, manufacturing the cheapest goods with the highest wages because we had the most tools and incentives? Keep driving off a cliff with your welfarist warfarist candidates.

That says nothing that Ron Paul's economic theory is the reason for any GDP growth. Moreover, your entire post was irrelevant to my main point that Ron Paul's economic theory does not believe in empirical data. That is fact. The school of economics that he believes in does not believe in mathematics, the scientific method, or empirical data (e.g., the real world). He is divorced from reality.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Ron who?

A vile racist old man.

 

[mafia]

Stopping foreign aid. Sounds very appealing to the ignorant masses. It completely ignores how fragile a lot of international relationships are. If you don't think what happens elsewhere can have some huge dire consequences in the future here, you're pretty naive. i.e. Pakistan.

You support giving money to countries who have hubbed terrorists, like Osama bin laden? Whats the deal with Iran? Building up the war propaganda again, lots of WMDs, just like Iraq had? Yes lets fight another trillion dollar war, oh wait, we don't have any money, we'll just keep borrowing it from China, our biggest banker. What about Israel? The most powerful and technologically advanced middle eastern nation needs our support? They have over 300 nukes, and we think they are afraid of Iran? What a waste of money. We would have more respect from countries if we just GTFO their business. Why don't middle eastern countries hate Switzerland or Sweden or Germany? Because they stay out of their business. Plus, if we keep supporting Israel, most Arab countries will hate us even more.

Elimination of capital gains taxes. That would simply accelerate the concentration of wealth into the hands of the rich. History shows it's not a good thing when the vast, vast majority of wealth is controlled by just a few. People think it's bad now? This would be nothing.

Less taxes = better for everyone.

Much of his foreign policy, while saving money, puts us at much greater risk internationally.

Greater risk for what? War? Who the hell even compares to our military power? Getting out of our wars, closing our bases overseas, makes us safer. Focusing on National Defense and not on nation building makes us safer. If we keep bombing countries in the Middle East, they will pertain us even more negatively. How would you feel if China invaded Mexico, or Russia started building missles in Cuba? (Oh that did happen, and we almost had WW3). See what I'm saying? You're missing the point. .

My responses in bold.

 

[schneiderguy]

A vile racist old man.