What nonsense. Does Ron Paul actually think No Muslims Allowed signs wouldn't pop up all over the country if it were not illegal?

>> ^Solid_Muldoon:

What nonsense. Does Ron Paul actually think No Muslims Allowed signs wouldn't pop up all over the country if it were not illegal?


no...

Now that Ron Paul has gone mainstream, he's no longer able to hide behind his popular foreign policy views. He has already flip flopped on border fences (he now supports them), DADT (he now opposes) and evolution (he now supports).

He has had a long and troubled history with race. He was against the civil rights act, he was the only senator that voted against recognizing Brown vs the Board of Education (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll176.xml), he accepted campaign donations from a white supremacist and did not give the money back (http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Ron-Paul-keeps-500-from-white-supremacist-aide-1805505.php), his official newsletter had a number of racist statements - which he initially said were taken out of context before he changed his story and blamed the quotes on an editor - he never ran a retraction, he called Abraham Lincoln a tyrant and he suggested the North should have paid the South for the slaves instead of going to war.

Getting national media attention comes at the cost of more scrutiny and criticism. The libertarian movement is all growed up.

Like Matthews in this interview, I don't think it is necessary to get into those questionable incidents to that speak to Paul's motives. His policies in this area speak for themselves, and can't stand the light of day.

It is so striking how this man, who is so clear and succinct on matters of foreign policy and even some domestic issues (like drug laws in the beginning of the clip), can lapse into an indecipherable mess when confronted by his own positions on civil rights.

And I think that those particular views on civil rights have a huge following. Clearly it didn't hurt his son to have them.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Now that Ron Paul has gone mainstream, he's no longer able to hide behind his popular foreign policy views. He has already flip flopped on border fences (he now supports them), DADT (he now opposes) and evolution (he now supports).
He has had a long and troubled history with race. He was against the civil rights act, he was the only senator that voted against recognizing Brown vs the Board of Education (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll176.xml), he accepted campaign donations from a white supremacist and did not give the money back (http://www.chron.com/news/politics/articl
e/Ron-Paul-keeps-500-from-white-supremacist-aide-1805505.php), his official newsletter had a number of racist statements - which he initially said were taken out of context before he changed his story and blamed the quotes on an editor - he never ran a retraction, he called Abraham Lincoln a tyrant and he suggested the North should have paid the South for the slaves instead of going to war.
Getting national media attention comes at the cost of more scrutiny and criticism. The libertarian movement is all growed up.

The man is a creationist, in a developed nation in the 21st century, with full access to information, AND he's a doctor, so he should know a thing or two about basic biology.

That alone would be enough for me.

Couldn't watch the whole thing as it devolved into a shouting match.

So, you're not going to vote for Ron Paul due to FUD?

Are you really afraid of America repealing special treatment to specific groups? Then you don't understand human nature.

Sure, affirmative action did some good, but did it do more good than bad? Do you have the facts to prove it? Are you sure that the animosity that non-minorities felt didn't do more damage than simply letting nature take its course?

Social change comes from social elements, not the government. A person feels much more pressure from their peers than from laws. Ever see someone speeding in their car? But what about that 55 MPH sign? Yet, even though there's no distinct laws against it, most people won't cut in orderly lines... why is that? Because people relate to people

We never needed to tip the scales, we only needed to balance them, and special treatment for one group over another is NOT balance, and balance is what Ron Paul wants.

As for businesses not allowing a certain group or groups to buy from them, and people putting up signs of "none of your kind here"... who cares? Let the racists be ignorant and racist, they're only hurting themselves, not the people they hate. The government should only step in when there's an extreme problem, and there is NOT an extreme problem in the United States AS A WHOLE. Note what I said there... "AS A WHOLE". Why did I say it that way? Because he's talking about FEDERAL laws. We do NOT need more federal overhead in terms of laws, bureaus, committees, etc, when it comes to enforcement of fairness. Let that occur on the state level, if it's needed at all. Could it cause certain states to become more racist? Sure, but that would only hurt that state more in the long run.

You know what happens when you push a group to do what they don't want to do? Extremism. Push against racist groups and it only makes them more hateful.

Educate and care for the people, then love will overcome the fear. But in Ron Paul's world, do it at the state level, that's all.

No, the reason I'm not going to vote for Ron Paul is because of his specific position on a specific piece of legislation and policy.

Special (negative) treatment for certain groups is what I don't want. I'm not even talking about affirmative action (where did that come from?), I'm talking about the civil rights act of 64.

"Social change comes from social elements, not the government. A person feels much more pressure from their peers than from laws."

As one example out of many, go to Mississippi, talk to anyone black over the age of 60 about life before the late 1960s. Then ask them if federal enforcement of civil rights helped at all.

As for businesses not allowing a certain group or groups to buy from them, and people putting up signs of "none of your kind here"... who cares?

You don't care because you don't think you will be turned away from buying goods or services. Not your problem.

Let that occur on the state level, if it's needed at all. Could it cause certain states to become more racist? Sure, but that would only hurt that state more in the long run.

I'm sure any brown citizen in Arizona strongly disagrees. Again, you don't care because you don't think you'll ever be affected negatively.

>> ^EMPIRE:

The man is a creationist, in a developed nation in the 21st century, with full access to information, AND he's a doctor, so he should know a thing or two about basic biology.
That alone would be enough for me.


Me too.

But in this argument, I actually agree with Paul, and I think Matthews is playing a cheap gotcha-game with him.

Lets ask, what is this law really good for?

So, storeowners etc cannot discriminate, well, at least not officially, they cannot put up signs with "no blacks" and things like that, and they cant deny people entrance based on skincolor, well, thats all well and good, but they could still stand in they own store and shout "I hate black people" as much as they want.. or they could give looks, poor service, etc all sorts of "expression of freedoms". Most stores dont do these things.. why? well, because its not socially acceptable anymore, right? For all I know, there might still be some who do, and that would suck, but its not like you could outlaw these things. What needs to change, and I still do think change is needed, is what we deem to be socially acceptable and so forth. Racism, unfortunately, wont dissappear over night, its a long, hard battle, and just like the battle against drugs, making laws against it is probably not an effective weapon.

To those who are enraged by Ron Paul's ideas on property rights, do you think that a black restaurant owner in Kentucky should be forced by law to allow a KKK meeting in his establishment? Would it be racist if he didn't want them there?

I just really love how the interviewer keeps on putting words in Ron Paul's mouth. I love the media......What a bunch of jerks. RON PAUL 2012!!! Save the country!!!

>> ^Batskinner:

To those who are enraged by Ron Paul's ideas on property rights, do you think that a black restaurant owner in Kentucky should be forced by law to allow a KKK meeting in his establishment? Would it be racist if he didn't want them there?


You misunderstand the law. The KKK is not a skin-color. Likewise, said restaurant owner is not forced to allow an al-qaeda meeting to take place in his establishment.

>> ^wax66:

Let the racists be ignorant and racist, they're only hurting themselves, not the people they hate.

That comment belies your understanding of history.

To all the personal property fanatics, people used to be considered property. Should we go back there?

I would personally vote for Paul because everyone else is a worse choice.

That's good assuming there, Lou!

So you're saying the US government is going to specially treat certain groups poorly because Ron Paul would be in office? FAIL.

go to Mississippi, talk to anyone black over the age of 60 about life before the late 1960s. Then ask them if federal enforcement of civil rights helped at all.

The civil rights act helped primarily because it prevented the public institutions run by the local, state, and federal government from discriminating. We definitely have a problem when the government treats people unequally. And yes, I'm sure that there were some private institutions that did more than inconvenience minorities before the 1960s because they discriminated, but guess what? That's not applicable today. If Taco Bell says no more white people allowed, the white people will go next door! Barely even an inconvenience.

You don't care because you don't think you will be turned away from buying goods or services. Not your problem.

This is where you show that you're just trolling and not actually serious. If you were serious, you wouldn't make an ass out of yourself by ass-uming.

>> ^longde:

No, the reason I'm not going to vote for Ron Paul is because of his specific position on a specific piece of legislation and policy.
Special (negative) treatment for certain groups is what I don't want. I'm not even talking about affirmative action (where did that come from?), I'm talking about the civil rights act of 64.
"Social change comes from social elements, not the government. A person feels much more pressure from their peers than from laws."
As one example out of many, go to Mississippi, talk to anyone black over the age of 60 about life before the late 1960s. Then ask them if federal enforcement of civil rights helped at all.
As for businesses not allowing a certain group or groups to buy from them, and people putting up signs of "none of your kind here"... who cares?
You don't care because you don't think you will be turned away from buying goods or services. Not your problem.
Let that occur on the state level, if it's needed at all. Could it cause certain states to become more racist? Sure, but that would only hurt that state more in the long run.
I'm sure any brown citizen in Arizona strongly disagrees. Again, you don't care because you don't think you'll ever be affected negatively.


I'm sure any brown citizen in Arizona strongly disagrees. Again, you don't care because you don't think you'll ever be affected negatively.

Again, we're talking about government legislation. Silly laws get passed all the time. In this case it has surely hurt Arizona already, and will continue to hurt them. I'd say 'let them be dumb', but in this case we don't really need to, as I doubt their law is constitutional.

Apples and oranges. What I'm talking about is freedom of speech. I can say all day long that I hate such-and-such group, and if I own a private business I would even be able to say that such-and-such group can't come in. But does that REALLY hurt them?

I'm not saying we should allow ANYONE to do ANYTHING by force or by the removal of anyone's right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Don't be silly. That's just bad logic.
>> ^bmacs27:

>> ^wax66:
Let the racists be ignorant and racist, they're only hurting themselves, not the people they hate.
That comment belies your understanding of history.
To all the personal property fanatics, people used to be considered property. Should we go back there?

Ultimately Matthews is just trying to get RP to slip him a negative soundbite that they can turn around and splash non-contextually throughout the media. Paul defends his position well, and if you ever paid attention to Paul's past comments on the same topic, his stance is basically summed up as: Do whatever you want, but bring no harm to another. He argues for the utmost freedom for any individual, and sees governments binding of personal beliefs to be overstepping boundaries.

We needed the Federal government to force the social change for civil rights on the people, but society has progressed since then that being openly racist in most of the US today does make you look like a complete ass. I really doubt we would see a flourishing of "whites-only havens" opening across the nation like Matthew suggests.

I wish Paul wouldn't have gotten stuck with this reputation, because I'm in no way prejudiced against anyone, and even I can see what his point is. It's the same as his heroin remark - just because you repeal laws for something most people look down upon by and large, doesn't mean most people are going to run out and do it immediately afterward. All it does it open the way for those few who insist on having racism/drugs/etc in their lives to do so freely. The moment those motivations cause them to harm another, they're guilty as they would be under most legislation anyway (harassment, violence, etc).

Do what ever you want, just bring no harm to another!

RP easily won this, CM is just being absurd.

"But in this argument, I actually agree with Paul, and I think Matthews is playing a cheap gotcha-game with him."
"Ultimately Matthews is just trying to get RP to slip him a negative soundbite that they can turn around and splash non-contextually throughout the media."

Matthews is not playing a gotcha game here. He is asking direct questions or posing clear hypotheticals to Paul. The reason they seem like gotcha questions is because truthful answers to those questions would polarize Paul's voting base. And would be totally abhorrent to voters like me who are otherwise receptive to Paul's message.

"So you're saying the US government is going to specially treat certain groups poorly because Ron Paul would be in office?"

No, I'm saying that Ron Paul would push to abolish laws like the 64 Civil Rights Act if he were president or begin to lean government in that direction. Am I wrong here?

"Again, we're talking about government legislation. Silly laws get passed all the time. In this case it has surely hurt Arizona already, and will continue to hurt them. I'd say 'let them be dumb', but in this case we don't really need to, as I doubt their law is constitutional."

You're willing to let Arizona stew in their mess because it doesn't affect you. If you were a latino in Arizona, you'd feel differently.

"I'm sure that there were some private institutions that did more than inconvenience minorities before the 1960s because they discriminated, but guess what? That's not applicable today. If Taco Bell says no more white people allowed, the white people will go next door! Barely even an inconvenience."


I, as you may infer, am not white. I find it is futile to argue with many white people about overt discrimination, because they have never encountered it. Also to the credit of many households and parents, many white kids don't grow up around overt racists. As a result, they only see discrimination as an intellectual problem.

I have only seen two instances where previously disagreeing white people start to appreciate my point of view:

1) Experience direct discrimination in a non-white majority country: I live in China, and have visited Japan, Asian Pacific countries and African countries for business and pleasure. I often travel with friends and colleagues, many of whom are white westerners. I can tell you that often when white people are denied doing something very ordinary, like visiting a restaurant, solely because they are white (or rather non-Chinese, non-Japanese, etc), a usual response is them completely losing their minds. At that moment, when they are directly denied entry into a private establishment for something incidental as their race, they feel the humiliation and the anger associated with the experience. After such a personal experience, a productive conversation can happen about discrimination in the States. There still may not be agreement, but at least the discussion will have more depth than "Save the Country!!!".

2) Experience an openly American racist culture firsthand. A white buddy of mine would have sworn on a stack of bibles that the attitudes that are behind discrimination are past us all---until she visited her cousins in Louisiana. She later recounted to me that she was in shock at the free use of the word "nigger", and the half-joking fantasies about shooting and killing 'coons', among other things. I think she gets it now; at least she understands why I would not want to let these people out of the proverbial asylum by repealing the 64 Act, or its derivatives.

Ron Paul won if you weren't paying attention and don't understand the issue.>> ^deathcow:

RP easily won this, CM is just being absurd.

Oh I'm paying attention and i understand the issue, so I guess that leaves the other option that you are simply wrong.

Nope, I simply have higher standards for winning an argument. >> ^deathcow:

Oh I'm paying attention and i understand the issue, so I guess that leaves the other option that you are simply wrong.

Like most libertarians RP has a completely incoherent understanding of human nature. He seems to think there is this magical line between laisse-faire live and let live and self interest. People do let others do what they want so long as it doesnt affect them. Unfortunately they think that offence means harm so they take measures to address this perceived harm.

>> ^longde:


You're willing to let Arizona stew in their mess because it doesn't affect you. If you were a latino in Arizona, you'd feel differently.

Again, you're ass-uming. I never said I'd be willing to let Arizona stew in its own mess. In fact, I'd be willing to take action against Arizona, especially if I was a resident. If I was a Latino in Arizona, I'd feel no differently, I'd STILL be willing to take action against the law. The beauty of America is that we CAN do that. In addition, if you re-read what I said, I said we don't need to ('let them be dumb'), which MEANS that we fight against it. If it's against federal law, the law will get invalidated!


Not to mention the fact that I not only grew up in a predominantly Latino area (there was a small handful of Caucasians at my school), but I LOOK Latino myself, and have been mistaken for one many times.

But go ahead and keep ass-uming.

Take a deeper look at RP's economic plan. It's a tax and deregulatory giveaway to the corporations who have been raping our democracy over the last few decades. His liberal foreign policy ideas are admirable, but by giving more power to the corporations that took us to war, he'd be effectively canceling this out. Obama is easily the lesser evil here, not Paul. Paul is not even the best Republican. Google Jon Hunstman. >> ^deathcow:

I would personally vote for Paul because everyone else is a worse choice.

Reread what you wrote. You said: I'd say 'let them be dumb', not: I'd be willing to take action against Arizona.

Sincerely, I guess I am assuming you are white (which you admit you are) because I don't know why any American minority who is really subject to discrimination by private businesses would support repeal of laws that protect from said discrimination. It would seem to profoundly go against your self interest. From my experience, white Americans are less sensitive and less aware of such discrimination.

So, are you saying you have experienced overt discrimination by a private business based on your perceived race/ethnicity? If so, can you explain why you would support Ron Paul's position that would repeal laws that outlaw private businesses from discriminating against racial, ethnic, religious and other protected groups?

>> ^wax66:

>> ^longde:

You're willing to let Arizona stew in their mess because it doesn't affect you. If you were a latino in Arizona, you'd feel differently.

Again, you're ass-uming. I never said I'd be willing to let Arizona stew in its own mess. In fact, I'd be willing to take action against Arizona, especially if I was a resident. If I was a Latino in Arizona, I'd feel no differently, I'd STILL be willing to take action against the law. The beauty of America is that we CAN do that. In addition, if you re-read what I said, I said we don't need to ('let them be dumb'), which MEANS that we fight against it. If it's against federal law, the law will get invalidated!

Not to mention the fact that I not only grew up in a predominantly Latino area (there was a small handful of Caucasians at my school), but I LOOK Latino myself, and have been mistaken for one many times.
But go ahead and keep ass-uming.

Another problem with Paul is his inability to understand that his concept of liberty is far from subjective and far from universal. He believes in a type of liberty called 'negative liberty', which is defined as freedom from laws and regulation. The big flaw in negative liberty it gives powerful people the liberty to take away the liberty of less powerful people.

Positive liberty, by contrast, is a liberty of empowerment, a liberty based on working together to solve problems. Liberty from sickness and disease through science and medicine. Liberty from oppression through labor laws and civil liberties. Liberty from ignorance through education. I could go on... but I've got to go right now.

The history of the human race is an arc from negative liberty to positive liberty. Let's not regress. I have no interest in going back to the stone age.

id still vote for paul over all the others because i feel like he can give an honest answer without checking against potential alienations in his brain, and he doesnt do the fake-smile im-your-friend bullshit.

im still going to vote for Obama because he is still the most qualified to run the country at this time

>> ^wax66:

Apples and oranges. What I'm talking about is freedom of speech. I can say all day long that I hate such-and-such group, and if I own a private business I would even be able to say that such-and-such group can't come in. But does that REALLY hurt them?

If "such and such a group" is a group without elective membership (e.g. a race), and the practice is common amongst those that control the means of private production (e.g. Southerners post civil war), then yes, it does hurt them.

Further, it isn't at all beyond the realm of reason to think such a confluence of circumstances could (in fact is likely to) exist again. Ron Paul's assertion that Chris Matthews was concerned about his racism was a red herring. Ron Paul's bigotry is not at issue. Saying "I don't consider myself a bigot and thus minorities are safe without these protections," is bad logic.

>> ^bmacs27:
Saying "I don't consider myself a bigot and thus minorities are safe without these protections," is bad logic.


QFT. I don't eat meat, so I'm pretty sure all those cows on their way to the slaughterhouse will be just fine.

I was going to rant something about christian white america but then i remembered, they are in the minority and still ruling about everything.. Scared shitless.

Goverment should regulate corporations (they have no morality since they are NOT nor ever will be, humanbeings) and grant total freedom on humanity. Instead, the trend seems to be, no regulation on non-consciencus big money and no rights for humans.

Recent example of what happens when private companies are allowed to discriminate:

Countrywide Agrees To $335 Million Settlement Over Discriminatory Subprime Loans

In the largest residential fair lending settlement reached in the Justice Department’s history, Bank of America has agreed to provide a $335 million fund to compensate victims of what one top DOJ official called “discrimination with a smile.” DOJ alleged that Countrywide, before it was owned by Bank of America, engaged in a “widespread pattern or practice of discrimination against qualified African-American and Hispanic borrowers” in their mortgage lending practices from 2004 through 2008.

The complaint, filed in the Central District of California on Wednesday, alleges that African-American and Hispanic borrowers “were more than twice as likely to be placed in subprime loans than non-Hispanic White wholesale borrowers who had similar credit qualifications.” Subprime loans carry higher interest rates.

Attorney General Eric Holder stressed at a press conference that the over 200,000 African-American and Hispanic borrowers named in the suit were qualified for the loans.