Oh come on. The poll was for the republican primaries - it should be expected to attract primarily republican respondents. The questions were loaded: "Given the list of candidates below, which would you vote for - the republican candidate, or Obama." And that's without touching on the fact that with a sample size of 2,462, a difference of 2% is not statistically significant in fact, it's less than the standard error of the survey. If I remember my maths right, there's something like a 70% probability of the margin being less than 2%. According to the original survey, of the 51% of people that would vote for Ron Paul over Obama, >80% of them are Conservative, Republican, and Tea Party supporters. I mean remind me again who got in when the Polls all said that Kerry would beat Bush?
I just can't stop laughing at this bigotry.... Why would a White Supremacist support Ron Paul? Oh yeah because of those newsletters? Not because his message is about Freedom. That is exactly proving the point that Ron makes: "Freedom brings us together". Everyone would have the freedom to do many of the things that are regulated by government. That is why anyone can 'endorse' Ron Paul.. His message of Freedom is inclusive- hence various 'fringes' that you might consider 'nutjobs' support him. Because his message is about INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, not a 'collective right'. When it comes to politics it seems everyone here turns into a bigot. I hate this two party system because even 'intelligent' people are shown to be absolute idiots. Keep playing football with your country.. Pick a side, and WOOOT WOOOT!!!!.
I'd rather have MMP any day, as irritating as it may be at times. What is the US system anyway? First past the post? How British.
Because he openly supports their desire to pursue racial discrimination and segregation without any government constraints, to the point of opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That he may not be personally racist or agree with their ideas makes no difference. Whether he's an actual racist, or simply a useful idiot who'd empower racism in the name of Libertarian ideology, those who oppose racism are necessarily opposed to Paul's policies, and those who endorse racism are generally pleased by his policies. It really is that simple.
We call it "winner take all" over here, which somehow sounds less "British" to my ear. Isn't that "post" in "first past the post" a cricket reference or something?
Actually it makes world of a difference. If you believe people have the right to eat at any restaurant they want- that doesn't mean he's for obesity because people might choose to eat fatty foods. Yes people might do stupid things with their freedom that doesn't mean you endorse their stupidity. He doesn't support 'racial discrimination'- he supports property rights. People have the right to do with their property what they want. Now what they choose to do with it is their problem. If you support gay rights, then you must be gay? No. And the only reason I would support gay rights is not because I believe it is right, it is because I have no right to tell others how to live THEIR life. If I want to hate Nazi's I have the right to do so. If I want to hate whites I have the right to do so. You can't 'make' me like people. Freedom of Choice. I should have the right to choose who I want to mingle with, who I want to make as friends.
See, you're doing it, appealing to emotion. Dr. Paul is not going to turn the USA into a "Libertarian State". And that's not his goal either. Not that this matters, the POTUS is not a dictator. Right now it seems we're living in a Banktocracy and it isn't working out for most Americans and most Americans actually want real change. If we elect Obama again, it will be more of the same. Hire more Goldies and ask them how to run the country. Give more power over to the Fed. Paul advocates liquidating the debt. Once we do that then we can begin to fund SOME of the progressive ideals that have been proven to work cutting out the ones that didn't. If not, then it won't really matter who you elect because most of our earning will be going towards paying the debt. I know this may seem shocking but you can't squeeze ANY MORE productivity out of Americans families. Not unless you want to start putting children to work. As it stands families are downsized, both people are working around the clock and weekends, holidays are limited to 2 weeks a year and people are still sinking. If you want GWB Jr / Obama then vote Obama if not then vote Ron Paul 2012. It's that simple.
I can't find any information about the etymology of the phrase, but I always understood it to be a horse racing reference :shrugs:
Where did I mention Ron Paul? I didn't. My comments were directed at the Libertarian philosophy which Ron Paul happens to advocate and represent. There is no emotion here, just fact. As I said before you cannot have a state and a true Libertarian state. The best you can do is something similar to that which existed during the industrial revolution. Did not Paul advocate letting uninsured people die? And did not his supporters cheer in response? We are living in a plutocracy. It remains to be seen what another Obama term will bring to the nation. But in Obama's first term he had the guts to take on the most powerful special interests in Washington - the healthcare industry (PPCA) and the financial industry (Dodds-Frank) So if he should get a second term and a Democratic congress I would expect more change. At the momment there are more important things than the US debt - specifically the economy. Obama and congress need to focus not on the immediate debt problem but rather economic growth. The problem we face is really quite simple. We need some good old fashioned wealth distribution. Wealth has become to concentrated. We have not seen such extreme concentration of wealth since the last Great Depression. We need to get wealth in the hands of the middle class. The middle classs spends the money which creates opportunities and more wealth. The middle class has been squeezed and will continue to get squeezed unless and until we see some wealth redistribution. That means higher taxes on the wealthy. And that is not what Paul is advocating. In fact it is the exact opposite of what Paul is advocating. The middle class needs a bigger slice of the pie and they are not getting it. They have a better chance of getting it under a Democrat than they do a Republican. And that is the bottom line.
Only to the question of whether Paul is personally racist, and not to the relevant question (i.e., "will Paul's policies hinder or advance racism?"). It's interesting that you'd select that particular example, as the Civil Rights Act that Paul opposes was (is) crucial in allowing people to exercise exactly the right to eat at any restaurant they want - and not just that subset which allows people of their particular race to eat there. Do you believe that people have the right to eat at any restaurant they want? If so, then why are you advocating legislative changes that would prevent millions of people from eating at the restaurants of their choice, on the basis of their race? Do you think that businesses have a right to discriminate on the basis of race? The point was exactly that whether Paul personally endorses the stupidity is beside the point - the question is whether his policies advance or impede said stupidity. If you care about stupidity being impeded, then his policies suck. "Property rights" in the exact sense of the right to discriminate in hiring and other business interactions based on race, that is. Not if what they want to do infringes on the rights of others. For example, the basic right of everyone not to face race-based discrimination in employment or provision of services. No? To the extent that it remains strictly their problem, I agree. But people who want to discriminate on the basis of race are making it a problem for other people. If you misread my post this badly - literally, taking it to mean the exact opposite of what it says - then you must have poor reading comprehension. Then why are you supporting the repeal of legislation that restricts people from telling others how to live THEIR lives? I.e., preventing people of the "wrong" race from getting a job, or enjoying a lunch, etc. And nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents anyone from doing that. What it does, is prevent them from discriminating on the basis of race (and a few other criteria) in hiring and provision of goods and services. The thing is that businesses aren't strictly "private" property in the way that, say, your house is. You don't have to allow black people into your home, if you don't want to. But if you're going to run a business - and so, utilize public spaces like roads and sidewalks, and myriad public services besides - then you're going to have to respect everyone else's rights to participate in that facet of our public life, without discrimination on the basis of race, gender, etc. This simple dichotomy of "private property" misleads when taken to such extremes. There is nothing particularly "private" about, say, the major employer in a small town deciding he isn't going to hire black people. That isn't a decision with effect confined strictly to that one person - it strongly effects the entire town. You may have the right to personally harbor racist views, but you do not have the right to impose that on the larger community through racist business practices. Someone wiser than myself once noted the following about Libertarians: what makes them unique isn't that they value freedom and liberty. Everyone values those things. What makes Libertarians unique is that they don't really appreciate what those things mean, nor how they relate to anything else.
LOL Maybe it's time to install Democracy 0.2 beta lol. Heh. Democracy 2: Revenge of the People. >_> Or something.
His policy neither hinders nor advances racism. Its neutral. He allows people to choose if they want to be racist or not. Its a neutral position. Except I was referring from the point of view that people have the right to 'choose' from any and all restaurants- yet restaurants (run by people) also have a choice to serve whom they want. No, I believe they have the right to choose from the choices available to them, if a business is open to them then they can choose it, if not then they can't. All social and business interactions should be VOLUNTARY- and they have the RIGHT to make those voluntary choices. The Business has the right to do things the way they want on PRIVATE property. If they want to discriminate and lose business then that is their choice. They do neither. Since they are neutral. They are pro-Freedom. I don't want the government to tell me I can't sky dive because its 'dangerous'. It may be stupidity on my part, but I as an individual should have the right to be stupid or smart. Yep. 'services' are not rights... So although I agree with your first sentence that no one has the right to infringe upon rights of others your example isn't about rights. They may create a 'problem' but they are exercising their right and do not infringe on the rights of other people. Free speech creates 'problems' for other people too. Exposing government's corruption creates 'problems' too- but its their right. You're not the only one reading this forum.. That example was for others. Who's supporting a repeal? Ron Paul isn't for repealing the Civil Rights Act. He simply said that the bill went a little too far by infringing upon private property rights. He was for getting rid of all governmental instituted racism. But he's not going to be repealing that bill. Goods and services aren't rights- they are services being provided by someone- that person has the choice to serve whom he wants. He's not a slave. Everyone is paying for the roads together, the business has done its part by paying taxes to utilize that space. No individual should be forced to provide service without his will. That rich 'private entity' has the right to take all its wealth and leave the country even though that wealth leaving the country affects the whole town even more. Yet it is its right. No one is imposing that 'you' become a racist.
The obvious Then never let us hear from you the adage about the triumph of evil and good men doing nothing.
That is a little too broad. Many of the times 'evil' is taking away peoples rights. I'm not for that Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I agree with you that while peoples' rights are important it is imo important to avoid extremism at all cost.
(Insert Title Here) Heaven forbid the American people lose the right to arbitrarily strip one another of their rights.
