Ron Paul pulls into second in Iowa

[CanOWorms]

Well, I can play this game too. He's not against the federal government, he believes in limited federal government via states rights - not state authoritarianism.

More poignantly and directed at your assumption of - "because he believes that the states should be able to oppress you if the majority wills it"; if the majority in the Congress (be it Republican or Democrat) wills it (passes a bill/law), is that not federal authoritarianism?

No, because there are parts of the Constitution, for example the 14th Amendment, that prevent that. Not surprisingly, Paul hates the 14th Amendment. The very Amendment that is partly responsible for brining out an era of more egalitarianism in American society.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Well, I can play this game too. He's not against the federal government, he believes in limited federal government via states rights - not state authoritarianism.

More poignantly and directed at your assumption of - "because he believes that the states should be able to oppress you if the majority wills it"; if the majority in the Congress (be it Republican or Democrat) wills it (passes a bill/law), is that not federal authoritarianism?

No, not if it violates, say, some portions of the Constitution that Ron Paul does not want to also have applied to the states.

Ron Paul supports a far more authoritative state that is not constrained by many rights currently enjoyed by people under the Constitution. Basically, Paul believes in a very limited federal government, but a far less limited state government that has even more power against individuals than the federal government today.

 

[smokeyjoe]

No, because there are parts of the Constitution, for example the 14th Amendment, that prevent that. Not surprisingly, Paul hates the 14th Amendment. The very Amendment that is partly responsible for brining out an era of more egalitarianism in American society.

How does the 14th Amendment prevent a majority Congress from passing a bill that affects every "United States citizen"?

 

[Nemesis 1]

All I know is that it was under his name. Thus, he either wrote it or very likely knew of it and approved of it. Or maybe he's so incompetent that he allowed a racist newsletter to be published under his own name from his own organization for years and the moron had no idea about it for years, yet he still defended them once word came out.

Why would he even defend that crap if he didn't write them or at least supported the horrible stuff said in them?

Also, considering some of his statements since that time, I think it's very likely that he at least approved of the Ron Paul Newsletter or whatever it was called.

And his candidacy at the national level would be destroyed by one single ad bringing his racist history up.

So which one do you think it is:
1. Paul wrote those racist newsletters or approved of them.
2. Paul isn't a racist, but distributed them to get the support of racists.
3. He's so incompetent that he allowed this newsletter under his own name to be published for years and then for some reason he decided to defend them later.

Please choose.

It always comes down to liberals or minorities playing the race card . Always. Its been used so much that its now working the other way.

 

[Nemesis 1]

No, because there are parts of the Constitution, for example the 14th Amendment, that prevent that. Not surprisingly, Paul hates the 14th Amendment. The very Amendment that is partly responsible for brining out an era of more egalitarianism in American society.

You shouldn't address that which you can't comprehend.

 

[CanOWorms]

How does the 14th Amendment prevent a majority Congress from passing a bill that affects every "United States citizen"?

Sorry, I was thinking of one of the obstacles to his state authoritarianism and oppression of minority groups.

 

[frostedflakes]

This is like the "I'm not a racist I have black friends, but..."

Sorry, that doesn't work.

I have to ask you then...if Paul isn't a racist then why did he defend the newsletters?

What do you think about the racist statements Paul has made after the newsletters, for example his statement about people not looking very American to him? What does that mean? Seems pretty much in line with a racist person who published racist newsletters.

Look, I'm not going to convince you that the Ron Paul Newsletter that was defended by Ron Paul was written or approved by Ron Paul. Apparently you think that he had no idea about his own newsletter and had no idea what he was doing when he defended the racist remarks in his racist newsletter. That's fine, whatever, you're probably not of the demographic that was put down by Ron Paul so you're more likely to be fine with his racist attitude.

I think that libertarians can do a lot better than some vile racist old man, but apparently it's pretty difficult for them.

Political expediency. At the time I guess they thought it was easier to try to sweep them under the rug than fully explain them. I don't really understand the logic behind it, but that's the explanation if it is to be believed. Here's a good summary of a lot of the relevant facts and info if you're interested.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article2435-the-newsletters-faq-ver-12.html

8. WHY didn't Paul originally deny authorship?

8.1 "His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. "It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it."' It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time." (8)

But who knows, I don't claim to know what is going on inside Paul's head. Maybe he is a racist and is just really good at keeping it a secret (except for those handful of newsletters published a couple decades ago where he slipped up, but that's not too bad, only a few slip-ups during a 30 year political career is pretty impressive). I just think if you look at his record, there's far, far more to support that he isn't a racist than the few things (such as the newsletters, questionable associations, etc.) supporting that he is.

I mean if you disagree with his policies I can understand that and can respect your difference of opinion. But the racism smears are just ridiculous and unfounded IMO.

 

[CanOWorms]

It always comes down to liberals or minorities playing the race card . Always. Its been used so much that its now working the other way.

When it comes to Ron Paul's sordid past, the race card is appropriately played.

 

[guyver01]

How does the 14th Amendment prevent a majority Congress from passing a bill that affects every "United States citizen"?

If congress passes a bill that says "Every United States Citizen shall report to detention camps effective immediately" ... this would violate the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment.

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.

 

[Nemesis 1]

When it comes to Ron Paul's sordid past, the race card is appropriately played.

Says a man who would hang a man without due process.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

If congress passes a bill that says "Every United States Citizen shall report to detention camps effective immediately" ... this would violate the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment.

Didn't help the japs who got interned during WW2, did it?

Your constitution only protects you until it doesnt.

 

[smokeyjoe]

Sorry, I was thinking of one of the obstacles to his state authoritarianism and oppression of minority groups.

So then you would agree that a majority Congress = federal authoritarianism? Whereas we are all "United State citizens" living in a federal zone under the United States jurisdiction and subject to It's laws?

We can move from state to state if we don't like the laws.. but moving out of the country is a little more difficult and burdensome.

edit: typo

 

[Nemesis 1]

But who knows, I don't claim to know what is going on inside Paul's head. Maybe he is a racist and is just really good at keeping it a secret (except for those handful of newsletters published a couple decades ago where he slipped up, but that's not too bad, only a few slip-ups during a 30 year political career is pretty impressive). I just think if you look at his record, there's far, far more to support that he isn't a racist than the few things (such as the newsletters, questionable associations, etc.) supporting that he is.

Yep I don't know whats going on in obamas head here . Is he bowing or going for dick .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY

 

[guyver01]

Did n'thelp the japs who got interned during WW2, did it?

that was a presidential executive order. NOT a congressional law.

and all they had to do was prove their loyalty to the USA

U.S. Supreme Court in 1944 in Korematsu v. the United States, the court upheld the constitutionality of the camps due to "military necessity." But that same year, the court ruled in Ex parte Endo that those who'd proven their loyalty to the United States couldn't be detained.

and the fact you called 'em 'japs' ... and not 'americans' ... proves the point.

 

[CanOWorms]

Says a man who would hang a man without due process.

I'm not asking for governmental action against him. I'm asking for citizens to unite and denounce him for his racism.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Your 20x more racist than paul is .

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

that was a presidential executive order. NOT a congressional law.

and all they had to do was prove their loyalty to the USA

U.S. Supreme Court in 1944 in Korematsu v. the United States, the court upheld the constitutionality of the camps due to "military necessity." But that same year, the court ruled in Ex parte Endo that those who'd proven their loyalty to the United States couldn't be detained.

and the fact you called 'em 'japs' ... and not 'americans' ... proves the point.

So, the its fine for the government to lock up anyone who isnt deemed 'loyal'?

 

[CanOWorms]

Your 20x more racist than paul is .

But I don't have my own racist newsletter!

 

[guyver01]

So, the its fine for the government to lock up anyone who isnt deemed 'loyal'?

the US Constitutional protection is for US Citizens. If you're not loyal to the US , you deserve none of her protection.

Thus why it's ok to kill those terrorist pukes. if you refuse to support the US, you can't "hide behind her laws"

 

[smokeyjoe]

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!

What a waste of calories it is to type on this forum.. instead of debating over silly things like who is more racist, I suggest you read the laws that have been enacted that are taking away all of our liberties. And not only read them, but understand them. It takes critical thinking and logic, but you might be surprised at what they actually convey/say/mean.

This is not directed towards anyone in this thread.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

the US Constitutional protection is for US Citizens. If you're not loyal to the US , you deserve none of her protection.

Thus why it's ok to kill those terrorist pukes. if you refuse to support the US, you can't "hide behind her laws"

62% of the japs interned were American citizens.

 

[smokeyjoe]

the US Constitutional protection is for US Citizens. If you're not loyal to the US , you deserve none of her protection.

Thus why it's ok to kill those terrorist pukes. if you refuse to support the US, you can't "hide behind her laws"

Research the definition of "United States citizen" before you throw it out there.. seriously.

This is only meant as an informational, not inflammatory, post.

 

[Spikesoldier]

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!

What a waste of calories it is to type on this forum.. instead of debating over silly things like who is more racist, I suggest you read the laws that have been enacted that are taking away all of our liberties. And not only read them, but understand them. It takes critical thinking and logic, but you might be surprised at what they actually convey/say/mean.

This is not directed towards anyone in this thread.

americans are too lazy to do that. they get off by eating up some bullshit talking points from their favorite MSM channel or partisan nutjob circle-jerk website. then they parrot these fallacies and pretend they r smrt. [sic]

 

[RabidMongoose]

Political expediency. At the time I guess they thought it was easier to try to sweep them under the rug than fully explain them. I don't really understand the logic behind it, but that's the explanation if it is to be believed. Here's a good summary of a lot of the relevant facts and info if you're interested.

It's more politically expedient and right to denounce racism instead of defending it. Defending racist drivel is not politically expedient unless you are pandering to fellow racists.

But who knows, I don't claim to know what is going on inside Paul's head. Maybe he is a racist and is just really good at keeping it a secret (except for those handful of newsletters published a couple decades ago where he slipped up, but that's not too bad, only a few slip-ups during a 30 year political career is pretty impressive). I just think if you look at his record, there's far, far more to support that he isn't a racist than the few things (such as the newsletters, questionable associations, etc.) supporting that he is.

Don't forget his defending of newsletters later and his follow up racist statements about how FAA officials don't 'look American' to him.

I mean if you disagree with his policies I can understand that and can respect your difference of opinion. But the racism smears are just ridiculous and unfounded IMO.

I disagree with his policies as well as his racism. If anyone else released racist newsletters under their own name for years, then defended those racist newsletters, then made racist comments about people who apparently don't 'look American' to him, and so forth, then I think that most people would logically conclude that such a person is almost certainly a racist. I understand that you like his political positions, but you can follow another libertarian who doesn't have such a complicated racist background.

 

[smokeyjoe]

americans are too lazy to do that. they get off by eating up some bullshit talking points from their favorite MSM channel or partisan nutjob circle-jerk website. then they parrot these fallacies and pretend they r smrt. [sic]

Is it just Americans? I think Europeans are too lazy as well.. it's globalization!