The Paul File

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ron Paul is among the least RINO Republicans serving in office today, in fact. Guys like Romney are RINOs - Paul is a darling of the hard-right crowd, the guys who invented the term RINO in the first place.

Under that exception, there are no "real" Republicans or Democrats in office in the USA, and probably never have been.

Well, then, it seems that the set of policies that you agree with, has shifted rather dramatically since 2008. To the point where your voting behavior in 2008 has no real bearing on your current affiliations. Which are openly Republican.

If you aren't a Republican, than the people calling you a racist aren't "the other side."

It is a common canard that in political debate you should get brownie points for your reasons for supporting specific policies, rather than simply be evaluated and labelled on your policy positions as such. This being why you want us to refrain from labelling Paul as a racist, as he putatively supports racist legislation for reasons other than personal racism.

Those are both perfectly fair, accurate descriptions of the policy positions of the respective factions, as far as I can tell.

A person who supports Ron Paul because of his policies, is necessarily a libertarian. Because his policies are avowedly, ideologically libertarian. You're invoking a distinction without a difference.

Especially considering the thousands of words of stock Libertarian ideology that you've so energetically regurgitated in this very thread. You are not going to fool anybody by claiming to be anything other than an energetic, committed Libertarian ideologue.

It is also a sad truth that many people in this country buy into the "free-thinking outsider" campaign rhetoric of Rs and Ds, and so vote for them thinking they're going to get anything other than the usual party agenda. Ironically, many of these people are aware (and sharply critical) of the party duopoly. It seems that they do not understand the dimensions of its power and durability.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Republican in name only. Paul disagrees with much of mainstream Republicans in terms of the war, and also on social conservative issue. If he is so 'far right' as you claim, then he would not support recognition of same-sex marriage anywhere at all. In fact he would have supported the Marriage Amendment (which he opposed)making it illegal for same-sex marriage to occur in the USA if he was a 'darling' of 'far-right'. Then again I can't expect you to think outside of labels.

Some are hard party lined some are not. The point is that he runs as a Republican because he can't run as a third party candidate and be successful. Most politicians don't even consider third parties because they also don't agree with them.

I only supported Obama because of the war, that he would bring the troops home. On all other policies I disagreed with both parties mainstream position. The point being I was not a racist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

They label me one, and thus become the other side.

He doesn't support racist legislation. A racist legislation would in fact legislate a racist policy itself. For example a racist policy would be: Blacks can't go to church on Sunday.

The policy he supports is: You have personal freedom to choose whom you interact with.

There is quite a difference between the two. Being so emotionally charged and overprotected of those abused before you can't seem to detach yourself from being sympathetic to Blacks and thus you don't understand the policy of Freedom for ALL. This would mean that Blacks can choose to refuse service to KKK members if they wanted. This policy isn't racist. This is freedom to choose whom you associate with.

A racist policy would specifically single out a group and give them more or less advantage through governmental power. Such as Jim Crow laws- these are what can be called racist policies. I hope you see the difference between Jim Crow laws and laws that protect everyone's rights individually (no group is singled out) and ff you can't see the difference I have nothing more to add.

Ron Paul sees rights belong to individuals not groups. Individuals are the smallest minority, and he protects their rights to choose. What is racist is when you discriminate against the individual. Who is there to protect their right? Since groups are made up of individuals, protecting the individual is the best 'anti-racist' anti-discriminatory legislation you could pass.

No they are not.

Libertarians disagree with Paul on issues too. That is why I try to stay away from labels.

If such is the case then there should be no Libertarian who disagrees with Ron Paul.

People CAN think independently.

This is the problem: If someone criticizes Obama, they must be racist. If someone criticizes Israel they must be anti-Semites. Leave the labels aside.

There is no reason to believe people can not think.

So again and again you are just imposing of labeling techniques on everything. The policy is racist. The person is this. He is a liar. No one is 'free-thinking'... Give it a break.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think its due to the lack of Congress having any interest in the laws. They 'nitpick' when its politically advantageous, and they never care about it when it doesn't matter to them.

This is why the Constitution is meaningless today, as they don't follow anything. They set their own rules and let it happen.

 

You seem oblivious to the fact that the term "RINO" is one used by extremists to tar exactly the "mainstream Republicans" who they disagree with. Because they aren't sufficiently orthodox, as Paul is.

But, yeah, for any given Republican, you can find some other Republican that will call him a RINO. But this is the first time I've seen a Republican apply the term to their favored candidate, as a mark of pride.

Far right comes in many flavors, and the fact that Paul doesn't go in for the gay-bashing stuff doesn't move him to the left in any meaningful way.

That's the exact same reason that everyone who wants to be successful runs as a D or R.

Sounds like a difference, until you note that the razor for what a "politician" agrees with is nothing other than what will get him elected, by definition.

Overturning the Civil Rights Act would be "racist legislation," on its face.

Or, it might be sneakier, and simply empower racism indirectly without mentioning such specifically. This being a more effective, durable way to advance racism in the post-Civil-Rights era.

And by taking that bit of ideology to the extreme of allowing businesses to racially discriminate in hiring and provision of service, he has ventured into open support of racism.

Being such a myopic, self-absorbed adolescent, you can't seem to detach yourself from simplistic ideology and thus you don't understand what the actual implications of this stuff would be for the actual freedom currently enjoyed by all.

They already can. "KKK member" is not a race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender or disability, and so the Civil Rights Act does absolutely nothing to prohibit anyone from discriminating against Klan members. Do you know what the Civil Rights Act that you propose overturning actually says, and what activities is actually prohibits?

It's funny how you avoided the actual parallel implication, that blacks can choose to refuse service to whites.

It's interesting that you include the "specifically" qualifier. This grants you license to remain oblivious to more subtle, insidious forms of racist legislation (this being essentially all of such, in modern times), and so support such in the name of FREEDOM.

I see the difference. I just also recognize that legislation can still be actually racist in the real world, even without being so explicit in the legislation. You are speaking from an ideological insistence that such is impossible, and this is inane.

Good lord, what a syntactic train-wreck. The phrase "discriminate against the individual" is meaningless, and there is no apparent connection to "racism" under any reading of that sentence I can come up with.

Other than the US government?

So, let me get this straight - you want to repeal the legislation that ended Jim Crow and segregation, and have managed to climb so far up your own ass that you're claiming this is the best anti-discrimination measure available?

Libertarians being the myopic, absolutist adolescents that they are, I've found that any two of them will disagree about something or another. This is to be expected with an ideology that's all emotive attachment to vague ideals, and zero attention to what these actually mean in practice. None of which is any obstacle to the ability of the right to exploit the cultivated sentiment for its own specific policy stances (bring back Jim Crow - because FREEDOM!), but you will hopefully eventually notice that every mainstream political movement shares the same ideals. The differences are all in what they imply in the real world, and how they can be best approached. This conceit that only Libertarians value freedom and liberty, and that others are working for something else, is just that.

That's preposterous. See above.

Indeed. You should try it some time.

I haven't noticed a problem with that. Plenty of the criticism towards Obama comes from the Left, and also from minorities. It's only when racists criticize Obama that this comes up. Of course, there are a lot of racists, and almost none of them are willing to own up to their racism, so this point comes up frequently.

If you've got an example of someone who isn't racist being tarred as such simply for criticizing Obama, I'd love to see it.

Again, haven't seen that invoked inappropriately, at least around here. Got an example?

There's plenty of reason to believe that most people aren't very good at it, though.

Funny how you instantiate your own criticism - instead of dealing with the actual reasoned arguments about why a policy is racist, you label it as an expression of some political phenomenon that isn't worth answering. The irony being that said phenomenon happens to be "uncritical labelling to avoid substantial engagement."

Anyway, this is getting really tiresome. I recommend that you develop a sense of shame, as this will help you avoid embarassing yourself so egregiously in the future.

 

4a1? Can't find that.

But anyhow no. But they don't need to as the time-limit kicks in automatically under 4b.

I don't know, but this was never cited as a reason for engagement it was to take part in the UN Resolution you talked about if we are to accept the President's own words. Secondly this still would not free the President from obtaining congressional approval within the time allotted by WPA. Again any 'specific authority' would require a legislation specifically dealing with that situation. This is essentially what the WPA does. It allows the President to act under 'defense' prior to getting approval, but then later on he must still obtain it. There is no exception noted.

 

Doesn't that amount to Congressional approval, then? If Congress doesn't view an executive action as impinging on the division of powers, at least not to the point of exercising their Constitutional prerogative towards such, then in what sense can we say that said division has actually been breached?

Is your complaint simply that they didn't make such approval explicit? Seems like a nitpick, to me.

And if you have such a dim view of Congress, why are you demanding that they be empowered at the expense of the Executive? What would that get us?

 

@quad-

I'm not going to argue with you. As I said I have nothing more to add whether you agree or not.

Secondly you are asking me stupid questions such as me wanting to repeal legislation that removes Jim Crow Laws.You are stuck on the Civil Rights Act. There is no reason to 'repeal' it. Ron never advocated to repeal it. So you can go on and on in your imaginary situations if you want. He would perhaps AMEND it on the property rights issue. Any notion of repealing the Civil Rights Act is your own concoction or be brave enough to present evidence that he is in favor of repealing it. Or that he would re-institute the Jim Crow laws. Under a Ron Paul Presidency Jim Crow laws could not exist because they are unconstitutional to begin with according to him.

I have no reason to argue with a person who doesn't even understand his position but keeps repeating something he is not in favor of doing. Also you don't know there is a process of 'amending' available, so keep repeating the word 'repeal' doesn't really bother me.

 

Which you are openly advocating.

Isn't that the topic?

That isn't what you've been arguing here.

You're just pushing cheap political semantics - whether you repeal it, or amend it to say something other than what it says, the effect is the same.

Sure there is - you want to get rid of the law that prevents, say, movie theaters from having segregated bathrooms and drinking fountains. You are energetically arguing that such a prohibition is an unacceptable trampling of individual freedom. That you don't want to be held accountable to what that actually implies, while understandable, is no excuse.

 

Whether the Congress wants to follow its laws is irrelevant to me. What I'm arguing is that this IS the law. 'non-action' is not considered statutory authorization. Statutory authorization = law. Not what Congress doesn't do..

They voted down authorization when it came up. This is not 'nitpicking'. War is a serious issue, I'm glad its not because you just need to protect a President who is perhaps of your liking.

Congress failed America with Bush, and they are failing America with Obama. I'm not concerned over their nitpicking. I'm arguing the case from my wanting to adhere to law not Congress's. I'm not part of Congress

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It would keep us away from a dictatorship at least. And if the President does abuse power, I know that there is a possibility that Americans would levy a case against them in Supreme Court. At least then the PEOPLE have a case against them. If it was lawful for the President, then we couldn't even argue in court.

I would rather have that power given to Congress for these reasons than to legitimize and get closer to a dictatorship or Kingship.

Everything isn't about Obama here. Its about what American policy is regarding war, which to me is a much more important issue than Obama.

 

@quad

Jim Crow Laws FORCED segregation BY the government.. Ron does not support that. Give me evidence that I am in support or 'advocating' government forcing businesses to segregate.

And you skipped over the question again. Provide us with evidence that Ron is for repealing the CRA.

People choosing to segregate their business is not the same as people being forced to segregate by the government (JCL). So I don't think you know what Jim Crow Laws are.

If you don't see the distinction good for you. And stop making up stuff that I don't advocate. Jim Crow laws are enforced by GOVERNMENT that FORCES businesses, whether they want to or not, to segregate. Show some evidence that I advocate business who don't want to segregate to be forced by government to do so (which is what JCL would do). If you can't, then for god sake stop wasting my time.

And if I can make it any simpler:
JCL didn't allow people to segregate. It FORCED people to segregate.

Show me evidence of advocating government forcing people to segregate, even if they didn't want to. Forget about everything else.

You are deliberately lying, and I think you know it.

 

Jim Crow was an interlocking complex of both legal and informal ("private") arrangements that ensured segregation. Constitutional challenges did away with most of the legal part, but not the informal part. It took the Civil Rights Act to do that. Up until that point, you still had segregated hotels, restaurants, offices, etc.

Right, he just supports getting rid on the law that prevent it. Which is a distinction without any respectable difference - it's more of a cop-out refusal to own up to his own position.

For about the 20th time: whether it's "repeal" or the "amending" of the law, the effect is the same (legal prohibitions to discrimination are removed).

Stop trying to hang the whole argument on this silly semantic distraction. Both you and Paul are emphatica and clear that legal barriers on "private" discrimination should be removed, one way or the other.

Good for you. Since you know so much about the Jim Crow Laws, I presume that you've read the following sentence from the Wikipedia page on such:

"Generally, the remaining Jim Crow laws were overruled by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965."

And, again, Jim Crow was more than the system of racist laws - it was also an interlocking system of less formalized restrictions, practices and attitudes, which the Civil Rights Act was necessary to break.

Your problem is that you keep trying to waste everyone's time by ducking away with hollow or irrelevant disctinctions. You can own up to your position any time you want, or you can continue this frustrating exercise in cheap excuse-making for racism.

 

I'm unclear on how empowering Congress over the Executive makes any difference in terms of "dictatorship." Presidents at least have term limits.

 

In light of heavy editing:

Jim Crow also enabled segregation by private individuals. Ron does support that.

Give me evidence that I ever said you were.

This distraction has been asked and answered repeatedly now. Get over it. You're in the middle of arguing that major provisions of the Civil Rights Act need to go away. Whether you want to call that "repeal" or "amend" or "bacon cheeseburger" doesn't matter, and it's disrespectful for you to keep haranguing me on this basis.

And I - again - think that this tactic of limiting the definition of "Jim Crow" strictly to those laws which imposed segregation - and ignoring the larger social and political system that comprised it - is a cheap, dishonest rhetorical tactic that you are using to attempt to obfuscate and avoid the point, and generally score cheap debate points. It isn't fooling anyone.

Most of the time being wasted here is spent on tracking the endless sequence of evasions and subject-changes you throw up to avoid dealing with the actual points. So spare us your crocodile tears about wasted time, and just own up to your position.

You'd like that, wouldn't you? That I just drop the actual point, and instead focus on this distraction of narrowly intepretting "Jim Crow."

Except I'm not nearly stupid or gullible enough to go in for that. Get some self-respect, man - it's embarassing to watch you cling to these inane pretenses to avoid dealing honestly with what you're advocating.

Well, if it were deliberate, then by definition I'd have to know it, wouldn't I?

But, no: you're the bullshit artist here, and you aren't fooling anybody.

 

'informal' etc bullshit doesn't really matter. Only Laws matter to me. You were arguing I'm in favor of advocating such 'policy' (LAW). If constitutional challenges to JCL removed the legal discrimination, then really nothing can bring them back, not even the repeal of CRA

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You are avoiding the question of providing evidence that I support re-instituting Jim Crow Laws WHICH by the way includes the legal aspect. You know you are deliberately lying. Now you're switching the debate to some 'interlocking' nonsense.

And I'll save you the trouble because I see what you trying to get at. So now I'll declare myself a racist, according to your understanding.

Here goes.

I believe government can not force anyone to segregate or to be racist. I believe all public relationship with government must be of equality and equity where NOTHING can be used to discriminate. (So I'm not in favor of JCL)

I believe people have the right to be what they want to be. They have the right to be nice or mean. They have a right to be generous or stingy. They have a right to be stupid or smart. If they want to be racist, then they can be. Not because I endorse racism or whatever they are, but because I believe everyone has individual right to be the person they want to be.

The only condition is that your exercise of your rights can not directly take away another's right. Rights of all individuals must be respected.

Everyone, irrespective of their race or whatever, every INDIVIDUAL has the same rights without discrimination. All of them can be what they want to be in their life privately or publicly. As long as the rights of others are not abused.

If this means I am a racist, even though I have no problems with Blacks or any race because I recognize they all have the same right and I don't discriminate in their treatment, THEN yes I am.

Under my definition a racist is one who himself personally discriminates against others, which I don't. So I don't believe I am racist. I don't care what your definition is.

PS: I hope no further discussion is needed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Giving the President power to take a nation to war with whomever he wants, without the consent of people in my view is dangerous and is a power I believe belongs to Kings and dictators.

The fact they are term-limited does not mean anything as they can use those powers in their term if they wanted to. Which is still dangerous.

If you believe 1 person having the power of War is reasonable then I disagree with you. A proper check to such a power is the Congress. And this precisely why I believe the Constitution was written as such.

 

Yeah, we know. That's how you can convince yourself that your open advocacy of racism, isn't actually racist. Because racism is only a problem when the government does it, apparently.

Except it took the CRA to remove all of the legal discrimination.

It's real simple: you want to get rid of the law which prevents hotels, restaurants, businesses, etc. from being segregated. You have openly, energetically advocated this. You say it is of the utmost importance that the FREEDOM of business owners to racially discriminate be upheld, regardless of the resulting racial oppression and marginalization of minorities. This is a racist position, and amounts to resurrecting big chunks of the Jim Crow era. This is the law that prevents segregated lunch counters, bathrooms, and various other symbols of the Jim Crow era.

The definition of "racist" is someone who believes that people of one (or more) races are inherently inferior to people of one (or more) other races. I hope that is not controversial.

The reason that you are demonstrably racist, is that you value the (PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL) freedom to oppress minorities, over the right of everyone to be treated as an individual and not be discriminated against because of their race, gender, religion, etc. Your commitment to the individual apparently stops right where the state ends, and instead becomes perverted into a justification for allowing organized interests (like corporations) to discriminate, exactly by getting rid of the laws that currently mandate that they relate to individuals as such.

 

Could you provide some cases.

Wouldn't the President have to recognize that to be the case first, which then would be noted as part of the justification. If he never used it as a justification, how does the Congress, Court, or the People know that it was to protect Americans?

WPA recognizes that the President can act to protect Americans without approval initially. I would need to get those cases you are referring and what is IIRC?

Secondly WPA still is the law of the land- it does not challenge the President's authority to protect US civilians, but it also creates regulatory legislation that guides and defines that power into some procedures the President must take. This regulation of the President needing approval within 60 days is backed by Article 1 Section 8 Clause 18:

"Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

So although President has the power to go to war and protect US citizens, which the WPA does not deny him as it allows the President to go to war under such conditions, the WPA simply requires him to obtain approval in due time- which the Congress can legally set according to the above clause as it has the power to regulate the 'carrying into execution the foregoing power'... of 'any Department or Officer thereof'. Such a law is thus a 'regulatory' law which Congress can write.