I second longde's reply above. I haven't seen anything from Reverend Wright that sounds racist to me. On the contrary, when I listen to Rev. Wright speak, he seems to be someone deeply interested in bridging racial divides.

I certainly don't think Obama is a racist, which is what you're trying to say as well.

As for my problem really being with libertarianism, it's both. One can be libertarian without being racist, and one can be racist without being libertarian, but the self-identified American white supremacists really adore libertarianism and Ron Paul.

Why? Because instituting libertarianism would legalize racial discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination (both gender and orientation). Depending on the type of libertarianism, they might even get slavery back via indentured servitude.

So smart racists get really, really solidly behind libertarianism. Even smarter racists pretend not to be racist, they're just libertarians...who just happen to believe the Civil Rights Act is an unconscionable exercise of state power, and oh yeah, used to have this newsletter they published saying all kinds of racist crap.

Ooops.

It's actually Ron Paul who helped me realize that the true lineage of libertarianism can be traced right back to the South's self-serving claims that fighting for slavery was actually a fight for freedom. Basically everything having to do with State's Rights, property rights, right to contract, all that crap was used to justify slavery.

It was used again to defend Jim Crow, separate but equal, opposition to the Civil Rights Act, etc.

IMO, any legal or moral framework which can justify that rogue's gallery of policies should just be discarded, not whitewashed, spun, and resold to people as some bright vision of the future.

>> ^quantumushroom:

@NetRunner and others, I question your collective "concern" over this non-issue, which is comical considering Dr. Paul has no chance of wining the nomination (or does he)?
I don't know if you voted for Chicago Jesus, but if the facts that he spent 20 years in the Church of Hate Whitey under the tutelage of the deranged Jeremiah Wright, got married in said church and also gave it 20Gs doesn't bother you, then your problem with Dr. Paul isn't "racism", it's libertarianism.

I'd say that rape and abortion are important topics in their own right, but there's certainly some truth to what you're saying.

The thing is, as a general rule, I get trolled by Paul supporters, not vice versa. I've been posting here for over 5 years now, and almost all of it has been political videos. I'm an unapologetic liberal. I campaigned for Obama in 2008, both online and offline, and will be doing so again this year.

Can you imagine how many people have come at me with the "Paul is the only choice" crap over the years? I think if I asked siftbot to count, his head would explode.

I'm glad you're starting to reconsider supporting him. I'm sorry if it took the connection with white supremacists thing to do it. I'd have rather just pointed out that his policies are bad, or that he can't deliver what he's promising, but most Paul supporters don't seem to even hear conventional arguments like that anymore.

Lately it seems I'm being trolled by Paul supporters who get hostile with me just because I refuse to accept that Ron Paul is our lord and savior as an article of faith. I've seen Paul and his followers go from being generally respectful towards liberals, to saying we're evil monsters, and repeating all the bullshit lies coming out of the general Republican wurlitzer.

I figure if Paulites are going to tell the worst lies they can about me, the least I can do is tell them the ugly truth about what it is they believe in.

I always try to steer the comment threads on the videos towards fruitful conversations, and away from some tit for tat trading of insults. These are inflammatory accusations, but they also happen to be true ones, and ones worth discussing in detail. Turns out, all this stuff is utterly consistent with Paul's core philosophy, which is really the issue I want to raise with people. It isn't that Paul is a flawed vessel for his philosophy, it's that the philosophy itself is poison.

In reply to this comment by artician:
At some point you must know you're just trolling to generate hate for a guy you don't believe in. I don't necessarily believe in him as much as I used to either, but this is silly, and is the exact same childish game that has brought political discourse to the level of the grade-school special-needs-mentality that's pandered around by the mainstream media.

>> ^NetRunner:

Sure [...]


"So to unpack that, you think Sam Seder is spreading a baseless accusation, and that I deserve to be scolded for repeating it by posting the video. My response was to ask why you were directing your ire at me personally, while giving you the additional details you ostensibly wanted."

Glad you cleared that up (and there's your first—and very telling—misinterpretation).

I was making no judgment of Sam Seder's accusation, nor did I ever call it baseless; I think it remains to be seen whether or not it has merit. I was, however, making a judgment of the *presentation* of his accusation. When you accuse someone of something as serious as racism, it's best to present, along with your claim, the facts that back up your claim. Sam Seder did not do this. In reposting his video without any additional information, you did not do this. That, to me, is worthy of criticism; it suggests a certain kind of opportunism which I find unhelpful on lots of levels.


I responded to the "lack of detail" comment by providing a link which includes the actual e-mail that Anonymous found.

Yes, and I noticed a number of glaring inaccuracies and biases after the first few sentences, which I made aware to you in my next post. I suggested that the post was amateurish and, at a minimum, certainly not fact-checked. I've been waiting to find more reputable news sources reporting on this issue and as yet have found none. One of the reasons, I assume, is that they're looking to confirm some of these accusations, the confirmation of sources being a foundation of trusted journalism.


IMPORTANT: NetRunner, you're doing it again. "Disparage the poster"? "Attacking the messenger"? Suggesting that I called you "dishonest" and "slanderous"? I never accused you of dishonesty, nor did I accuse you of slander, nor have I "attacked" you. And I certainly don't think my comments were disparaging.


It's hard to deal with people saying nasty things about your hero, but this whole strategy of attacking the messenger doesn't change anything.

Who said Ron Paul is my "hero"? I certainly haven't. This from one of my replies to dystopianfuturetoday:

"Ron Paul doesn't have me in some trance-like state of manipulation. I didn't vote for him in the last election, and I don't plan to vote for him this time around. There are *lots* of things about his platform that I outright disagree with, and there are a handful of things that I disagree with so fundamentally (his positions on abortion, climate change, evolution, his religiosity, among others) that I often question why I even bother keeping up with his politics. (The reason: because there are lots of his positions that I *do* agree with, in particular positions that no one else seems even to address.) But this whole racism thing really just peeves me. I mean, for magical Christ's sake, if he's a racist, and if he's in cahoots with white supremacists and Neo-Nazis, then I, more than anyone else, want to read some credible, vetted news stories on the matter, so I can put the issue to bed once and for all. But instead, I keep seeing videos like this one which purport, rather dramatically, so "expose" him in all his shameful glory ... only to be disappointed by the content of the video."

Hardly sounds like hero-worship to me.


Have you read the e-mail yet? Do you have an opinion on the evidence Anonymous uncovered?

I read some of them. In short, I'm skeptical when I see attribution tags like "Here Are Some Emails From Kelso Regarding Racists Working For Ron Paul’s Campaign" and "Here Is An Email From Someone In Ron Paul’s Campaign To Kelso." Who are these supposed campaign workers? How are they connected to Ron Paul? Are they low-level campaigners who work independently of him? Are they his trusted advisors? All of these things matter in the interpretation of this situation. As of now, I've seen no articles that provide enough context to the e-mails, or enough detail about the senders and recipients of the e-mails, to make a judgment one way or the other.

This is a terrible argument. Back in the day, anti-Communist stances went hand-in-hand with the KKK and racism. But we don't think that an anti-communist stance is a terrible thing.

One thing doesn't cause the other to be bad. There are a lot of white supremacists out there who enjoy burgers, but that doesn't mean burgers are racist.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

'State's rights' and white supremacy go hand and hand.

For clarification's sake, and for future reference, which part of my posts are you considering a "personal attack"? Was it this: "Great video, @NetRunner"? (Surely that's not an inappropriate level of sarcasm.) Or my explanation of why I take issue with your posting of an uninformative video (which many other people took issue with) under the title you chose to give it? Or something from another of my posts? Or maybe my use of a Ron Paul quote to call you, humorously, "overly sensitive"?

Sorry, but I don't see anything there that could be construed as a "personal attack." Please don't accuse me of something like that without adequate reason for doing so.>> ^NetRunner:

@aurens Your first problem was that you leveled a personal attack against me for posting a video you didn't like. I didn't make the video, and even the title comes from YouTube.
Your point about the video lacking details was legitimate, but the implicit accusation of dishonesty on my part wasn't. I did provide you with a link to more info so you'd have the sources that back this up, and hopefully get you to cool off a bit.
Your response? Repeating the personal attack, and dismissing the link.
I get it, it's hard when people say nasty things about your personal hero. But you really ought to think long and hard about what's going on with Ron Paul and white supremacists. Lashing out at the messengers doesn't make the problem go away, it's just a way of digging in and refusing to look at what's really bothering you.

>> ^Kreegath:

I'm curious, how many other candidates have received campaign contributions from white supremacists? Are they the only group of supremacists that has any impact with their contribution? Does their contribution even mean anything, other than that they're now poorer? Because if most or even all the candidates have, at some point, gotten money from one or more supremacists, wouldn't it be a moot point to specifically attack Paul on that issue?
I'm not trying to be clever or passively aggressively making jabs at you, I'm not from the US so I don't really know how the politics of election work there, hence the many questions.
It does seem strange, however, that simply receiving money from someone would somehow implicate you in any way as siding with their views. It kind of feels more like conjecture and gossip instead of politics, and what I would focus on to discredit him instead, if it'd been an election in my country, would be on what Paul actually says about his views. For instance that clip of him saying he doesn't believe in the theory of evolution, which is a statement he would certainly have to expand on before becoming viable for an electoral position of any capacity.


inclined to agree.
I get the feeling it would be fairly easy to link Obama with the Black Panthers or some other less mainstream group rather easily.

and it would seem that Libertarianism vs. any other "ism" going right now is the most favorable to white supremacists. ... So, just because the white supremacists likes ron paul doesn't necessarily mean ron paul likes them.

plus he "should" be smarter than political suicide.

still, all things considered, i wouldn't vote for him because he's a bible-thumping idiot.
but i would vote for him just to see what happens. lol!

@aurens Your first problem was that you leveled a personal attack against me for posting a video you didn't like. I didn't make the video, and even the title comes from YouTube.

Your point about the video lacking details was legitimate, but the implicit accusation of dishonesty on my part wasn't. I did provide you with a link to more info so you'd have the sources that back this up, and hopefully get you to cool off a bit.

Your response? Repeating the personal attack, and dismissing the link.

I get it, it's hard when people say nasty things about your personal hero. But you really ought to think long and hard about what's going on with Ron Paul and white supremacists. Lashing out at the messengers doesn't make the problem go away, it's just a way of digging in and refusing to look at what's really bothering you.

Yikes. As Ron Paul said to Rick Santorum a few weeks ago: I think you're a little "overly sensitive!"

I haven't "lashed out" at anyone, and I certainly haven't demanded information of anyone. (Where are those accusations coming from?) I called you out for posting an uninformative video (uninformative in the sense that, in an attempt to share a story about Anonymous' "exposure" of Ron Paul, you put up a one-minute clip of Sam Seder making generalized statements without any specific evidence—and note that other people in this comments section share my opinion on this), and I took issue with @dystopianfuturetoday's overly simplified discussion of states' rights.

The issue of states' rights is obviously something of a complicated one (this part of my response if for @Boise_Lib, too). I'm aware of the historical weight of the term, but I'm also aware that there's no inherent link between states' rights and racism. There are lots of people on the Sift who care about states' rights and who appreciate our federal system of government, one that allots certain rights to the federal government and certain rights to the states, and yet I've never seen ONE comment on the Sift that showed any sort of overt racism. (I haven't been around as long as many of you, so it's possible that there have been some; it's just that I've never personally seen one.) That should be a good example, in and of itself, of the fact that states' rights, for many people, do NOT go hand in hand with white supremacy. For dystopianfuturetoday to make that suggestion in the context of a Sift discussion on the issue *is* insulting to many of us.

And for the record, @dystopianfuturetoday, Ron Paul doesn't have me in some trance-like state of manipulation. I didn't vote for him in the last election, and I don't plan to vote for him this time around. There are *lots* of things about his platform that I outright disagree with, and there are a handful of things that I disagree with so fundamentally (his positions on abortion, climate change, evolution, his religiosity, among others) that I often question why I even bother keeping up with his politics. (The reason: because there are lots of his positions that I *do* agree with, in particular positions that no one else seems even to address.) But this whole racism thing really just peeves me. I mean, for magical Christ's sake, if he's a racist, and if he's in cahoots with white supremacists and Neo-Nazis, then I, more than anyone else, want to read some credible, vetted news stories on the matter, so I can put the issue to bed once and for all. But instead, I keep seeing videos like this one which purport, rather dramatically, so "expose" him in all his shameful glory ... only to be disappointed by the content of the video.

I suppose that frustration at being continually disappointed by these racist "exposures" is all wrapped up in my original reaction to the video (and its title). In any event, though, I'm interested to see how this new issue plays out. As I said in my second post, I want to know the truth about his relationship to these white supremacists; if it's damning, then let's see some good journalism exposing it as such.>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^aurens:
(And sorry if I came off as combative; it wasn't my intention.)
Yes, yes, you've been the model of poise and restraint. You've lashed out at me, Sam Seder, the site who's reported on this, and have demanded some sort of full investigative report be delivered to you, because you refuse to even try to answer your own questions with your own research.
Never mind that the link I gave you included a link to the full document dump of the e-mail recovered by Anonymous, you think it's "amateurish" because you didn't understand what they were talking about, or didn't like their tone, or some BS like that.
Now you're trying to castigate DFT for not contributing to "the conversation"? Dude, you've been doing your best to make sure there won't be anything like a sane and rational conversation on this video from your very first comment.
Take some deep breaths. Go google "Ron Paul anonymous american third position" and read some links until you have an idea of what's going on. Then come back when you're ready to have a measured conversation about the topic.

I'm curious, how many other candidates have received campaign contributions from white supremacists? Are they the only group of supremacists that has any impact with their contribution? Does their contribution even mean anything, other than that they're now poorer? Because if most or even all the candidates have, at some point, gotten money from one or more supremacists, wouldn't it be a moot point to specifically attack Paul on that issue?

I'm not trying to be clever or passively aggressively making jabs at you, I'm not from the US so I don't really know how the politics of election work there, hence the many questions.
It does seem strange, however, that simply receiving money from someone would somehow implicate you in any way as siding with their views. It kind of feels more like conjecture and gossip instead of politics, and what I would focus on to discredit him instead, if it'd been an election in my country, would be on what Paul actually says about his views. For instance that clip of him saying he doesn't believe in the theory of evolution, which is a statement he would certainly have to expand on before becoming viable for an electoral position of any capacity.

@aurens, One of the main techniques Ron Paul uses to manipulate people like you is by telling you that his definition of liberty is the ONLY definition, and that his interpretation of the constitution is the ONLY interpretation. By doing this, he leads you to believe that you are heroically fighting for liberty and the constitution, when in reality you are actually fighting for a very partisan and fringy set of far right political beliefs.

I find this fundamentally dishonest, whether you are aware you are doing it or not. I was mocking you, yes, but don't assume humor can't be 'part of the conversation' too.

Without using delusional 'constitution liberty, blah blah blah' type rhetoric, tell me why federal civil rights protections should be ended. Become part of the conversation.

Important point---> The constitution is like the Bible; people can use it to justify just about anything they want it to. This is fine, but when you use the circular reasoning that 'my candidate's subjective interpretation of the constitution is the ONLY interpretation of the constitution, therefore I am right and you are wrong by default', people like me might mockingly call you out on your self deception.

And, @artician, don't give me that condescending and assumptive 'you might learn something' bullshit. I've studied and discussed Ron Paul and libertarianism intensively over the last few years. The more I learn, the less I like it, which probably explains why Paul's support is wider than it is deep. I doubt you have anything more to teach be, as I seem to know more about the movement than you do, but if you have a new talking point, feel free to recite it for me. Ron Paul is a joke. If you are interested in learning about your candidate, here are some study materials: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/of1yc/why_ron_paul_is_possibly_the_worst_presidential/

As far as 'racism' goes, how many excuses are Ron Paul supporters going to come up with before they come to terms with the fact that this guy, if not racist himself, has certainly used racism for profit and political advancement?

The facts (off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more)
-RP ran a number of racist newsletter for many years.
-RP changed his position on the letters from 'the quotes were taken out of context' to 'I didn't write them.
-Many members of his staff have attested that he signed off on these letters.
-He has been photographed with many white supremacists.
-He has received campaign contributions from big names in white supremacist circles, which he kept.
-He has appeared on white supremacist talk radio shows.
-He speaks for the John Birch society.
-He was against the civil rights act.
-Anonymous found heavy organizational ties between RP and white supremacists.
-He uses the same states rights rhetoric as white supremacists.

How much smoke do you need to inhale before you pull the fire alarm?

Enough hero worship already. Try Occam's Razor instead.

I'm calling you out because you posted an uninformative video with a spurious and sensationalistic title. (See @Grimm's comment above.) If Ron Paul is inappropriately connected to white supremacists, then by all means: expose him! This video certainly doesn't do the trick.>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^aurens:
Man, great video @NetRunner. That Sam Seder fellow really describes those "numerous connections" in convincing detail.

I'm not sure why you're calling me out. More details are available on teh internets if you want them.
For example, there's this: http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-
mccalla/anonymous-reveals-close-ties-between-ron-paul-and-neo-nazis/

>> ^longde:

I agree the guy isn't racist. He just has a callous, almost criminal disregard for his latino constituents. I don't know how that's better than him being a racist.

I find it rather fascinating how shy people have gotten about using the word racist.

What does one have to say or do these days to "be a racist?"

Does one have to be a full-on white supremacist?

IMO, a "callous, almost criminal disregard for latino constituents" is what racism is usually about. You don't have to go that last mile and actively hate minorities to be a racist; treating minorities like they're not real human beings is good enough to qualify you for the label.

It only makes it worse if someone's response to being told that what they said was insensitive is to launch into a tirade about how oppressed they are by the PC police. It makes me think they're mostly pissed off that they bit back the racial slurs they wanted to use in the first place, and still got crap anyways.

Add in the fuller context (he's being interviewed about the police being investigated for using racial profiling!) and it's hard for me not to call him much worse than "racist."

I'd be horrified if I ever said something like what this guy did, and would get very contrite very quickly in response to the "don't you think that's insensitive?" question, especially in a situation like that.

>> ^renatojj:

I think we're arguing semantics, what you consider rights of a woman is what I think libertarians would call an entitlement. Not all libertarians are pro-choice, e.g., Ron Paul. Abortion is not a clear-cut issue, there's the right to life involved too. When does life begin and right to life should protect the unborn? etc. Ron Paul doesn't think the federal government should legislate it because it's too controversial (and outside federal jurisdiction anyway).
If every state bans abortion, wouldn't that be the same as banning it at the federal level? I don't think you have an issue with states rights, but with the scenario where all 50 states approve legislation you don't want and it's a reasonable concern. However, wouldn't that be less likely to happen?

Given that libertarians are all about private property rights, what could be more private property than your own body? I get that some people don't like abortion. Fine, don't have one. But to say that "Not all libertarians are pro-choice"; isn't "pro-choice" (i.e. the freedom to make the decision yourself, not to have government interfere) a core libertarian principle?

As to the right to life of the unborn.... there's really no good answer here. An abortion is never a cause for celebration, it's always done as the lesser of two evils. I would say that the right to life of the mother trumps that of the unborn in all cases (i.e. where the mothers life is in danger) and that it should take place as early as possible.

>> ^renatojj:
Look at the NDAA that Obama signed for this year, everyone in America is subject to indefinite detention now. Great. If it were only approved in New York, a lot less people would be subject to this injustice and you could at least avoid it by just staying the hell out of there (besides, such law would likely be overruled for violating the 4th Amendment).

You get no argument from me here, the NDAA is a terrible law. I would actually use it to argue against the right of states to enact laws such as this, as the freedoms it violates should be universal (or constitutional I guess). To turn your argument around. why should only the people in New York have to suffer under it?

>> ^renatojj:
Ok, maybe you can be a christian and believe in evolution. Then I can argue Obama is probably not a very good christian, which doesn't bother me, but means he lacks integrity in his faith, right? He's probably religious for appearance's sake, because America would never vote for a non-christian President. Show me a bible that explains how man evolved from the apes and we're good

It's hard for me to defend this position as I'm an atheist too. All religious people, including Ron Paul, cherry-pick which parts of their holy book to adhere to in their day to day lives. I don't see Ron Paul arguing for the banning of pork or shellfish, yet they are clearly stated to be abominations in the bible. If he can work his way around that, why can't he accept evolution?


>> ^renatojj:
I agree businesses can do evil, but they're more directly accountable for their actions than elected representatives, they seem to have more to lose, and more direct incentives to do good. Besides, the power of businesses is purely financial, whereas governments have money and armies. Give governments less powers over the economy, and businesses will be less likely to lobby and seek leverage from government. That's libertarianism is a nutshell



>> ^renatojj:
The interviewer suggested Ron Paul reject the money to make a statement against the white supremacists, and Ron Paul said, (paraphrasing), "Yes, I disavow that organization and what they stand for, there's my statement". No tacit approval, I don't think he needs to give them money to make his point. Actually, if you think about it, it would be disingenuous of him to give them money after openly declaring that he disavows them, don't you agree?
I admire Ron Paul for his backbone and common sense on this issue, for not bending to social pressure, if he wants to make a statement, he opens his mouth and does it. Giving money back not only contradicts his statement, it's also weak to conform to other people's somewhat self-indulging and irrational expectations. I mean, who in their right mind would give money to white supremacists?

Fair enough.

>> ^renatojj:
I'd like to understand you not wanting to protect certain freedoms. Which one (or more) of these restrictions do you approve of:
a) a business open to the public can't ask someone to leave its property
b) a business open to the public can't select which customers to serve
c) a business open to the public can do both of the above, but not based on certain criteria

Easy C. I'm all for discrimination based on actions or abilities. I disagree with affirmative action (I feel it is patronising to minorities).

Now could this be used by a business to discriminate against an ethnic group on an individual basis? I guess so, but at least it makes it clear that the spirit of the law does not allow this.

>> ^renatojj:
Ron Paul sees the government and the Fed as major oppressors of our freedoms, based on their laws. Freedoms are usually taken away by force, and libertarians will argue that businesses can't take away our freedoms because they can't use force (unless they're criminals), we're not entitled to anything they can give us, and they can't break contracts. I think that's a major source of confusion in a society where, unfortunately, the lines between governments and corporations are blurred

@ChaosEngine I agree with you it wouldn't be nice to see smaller communities abused by state laws, but that's what the constitution is for, it protects individuals from government abuse, both state and federal.

I think we're arguing semantics, what you consider rights of a woman is what I think libertarians would call an entitlement. Not all libertarians are pro-choice, e.g., Ron Paul. Abortion is not a clear-cut issue, there's the right to life involved too. When does life begin and right to life should protect the unborn? etc. Ron Paul doesn't think the federal government should legislate it because it's too controversial (and outside federal jurisdiction anyway).

If every state bans abortion, wouldn't that be the same as banning it at the federal level? I don't think you have an issue with states rights, but with the scenario where all 50 states approve legislation you don't want and it's a reasonable concern. However, wouldn't that be less likely to happen?

Look at the NDAA that Obama signed for this year, everyone in America is subject to indefinite detention now. Great. If it were only approved in New York, a lot less people would be subject to this injustice and you could at least avoid it by just staying the hell out of there (besides, such law would likely be overruled for violating the 4th Amendment).

Ok, maybe you can be a christian and believe in evolution. Then I can argue Obama is probably not a very good christian, which doesn't bother me, but means he lacks integrity in his faith, right? He's probably religious for appearance's sake, because America would never vote for a non-christian President. Show me a bible that explains how man evolved from the apes and we're good

I agree businesses can do evil, but they're more directly accountable for their actions than elected representatives, they seem to have more to lose, and more direct incentives to do good. Besides, the power of businesses is purely financial, whereas governments have money and armies. Give governments less powers over the economy, and businesses will be less likely to lobby and seek leverage from government. That's libertarianism is a nutshell

The interviewer suggested Ron Paul reject the money to make a statement against the white supremacists, and Ron Paul said, (paraphrasing), "Yes, I disavow that organization and what they stand for, there's my statement". No tacit approval, I don't think he needs to give them money to make his point. Actually, if you think about it, it would be disingenuous of him to give them money after openly declaring that he disavows them, don't you agree?

I admire Ron Paul for his backbone and common sense on this issue, for not bending to social pressure, if he wants to make a statement, he opens his mouth and does it. Giving money back not only contradicts his statement, it's also weak to conform to other people's somewhat self-indulging and irrational expectations. I mean, who in their right mind would give money to white supremacists?

I'd like to understand you not wanting to protect certain freedoms. Which one (or more) of these restrictions do you approve of:

a) a business open to the public can't ask someone to leave its property

b) a business open to the public can't select which customers to serve

c) a business open to the public can do both of the above, but not based on certain criteria

Ron Paul sees the government and the Fed as major oppressors of our freedoms, based on their laws. Freedoms are usually taken away by force, and libertarians will argue that businesses can't take away our freedoms because they can't use force (unless they're criminals), we're not entitled to anything they can give us, and they can't break contracts. I think that's a major source of confusion in a society where, unfortunately, the lines between governments and corporations are blurred

Thanks man, same can be said about you, I also really appreciate your civility and open-mindedness. My experience so far is that it's easier to talk Ron Paul with liberals than with neocons lol

>> ^renatojj:

@ChaosEngine, I think it's the opposite. Allowing different sets of rules for smaller communities rather than enforcing them on a larger scale is what counters the inherent injustice of democracy. It gives people more options as to which rules they want to live by and it reduces the potential for damage to society caused by bad rules voted into effect by majorities.

I have no problem with smaller communities deciding local issues. But certain things are universal and allowing states to decide them is simply wrong. If you were a minority in the south in the 60s, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't think it was a good idea to "let the states decide".

>> ^renatojj:
I'm pro-choice on abortion myself, but I'm also pro-choice on communities choosing their own sets of rules. As sure as you are about pro-choice, there are many people as convinced about being pro-life. Who's right? Let freedom sort it out. Btw, abortion is a fundamental human right? Never heard that before, I've heard that life is a fundamental right, but let's not argue. Like I said, I'm pro-choice too but not cool with imposing my pro-choiceness on others.

Allowing a woman to control her reproductive cycle and to have access to safe medical procedures is absolutely a fundamental human right.

I'm not imposing anything on anyone. FWIW, on a personal level, I hate the idea of abortion as contraception. However, that is not my decision to make, I don't have to carry a child to term and then deal with the consequences. I find it ironic that I have to convince a libertarian that creating a law controlling what a woman does to her own body is a bad thing.

>> ^renatojj:
Also, I'd tell the woman to buy a bus ticket to another state where she can perform her abortion, is that too much to ask? And she can use her compelling story to convince her own community to change their pro-life laws.


And what if every state bans it? What about the case where a woman dies in a hospital because a doctor can't perform a surgery that saves the life of the mother over the child? Should she get out of the operating room and get on a bus then?

>> ^renatojj:

I think it takes a lot of critical thinking to challenge the Fed, endorse austrian economics, adopt libertarianism, and dispute our foreign policy. C'mon, what you call lack of critical thinking, is mostly just you disagreeing with his opinions on controversial issues and his christian faith.
Look, I'm an atheist and I believe in evolution. My critical thinking saved me from being a christian. However, if I were still a religious person, I'd value the integrity of my christian ideology, and I'd probably reject evolution too (or maybe try to find a way to fit evolution into the whole Adam & Eve story, idk). I value that integrity in Ron Paul.

The "Christian" excuse doesn't cut it. It is not a "get out of jail free" card that allows you to suspend your faculties. Obama is a christian and he accepts evolution. Hell, Huntsman is a mormon and he doesn't have a problem with it. How would you feel if he said he didn't believe in gravity?

>> ^renatojj:
I'm not sure about global warming, many people aren't, it's controversial, and it's not always just science, the arguments for or against it can be very ideologically/financially motivated. I haven't made my mind about it, but my personal opinion right now is that humanity is probably influencing the climate, but the effort to reverse this change would probably be too oppressive, costly, or not worth any possible benefit.

I'm not going to get into an AGW debate here. I will simply say that I have yet to meet a global warming skeptic who actually understands the science. Hell, I don't understand the science, but I tend to believe the people who actually researched it over the oil companies.

>> ^renatojj:
Liberals see big businesses and corporations as the biggest and most threatening agents of evil in society, while libertarians think that description applies mostly to governments and to corporations that conspire with governments. The motivation, whether profit oriented or not, is not as important as the means by which evil is accomplished.
Don't get me wrong, governments need limits on their powers too. There must be balance, but given the choice I would rather the power reside with the elected representatives than the private sector.

>> ^renatojj:
Ron Paul's answer to keeping the money from the white supremacists was, (I'm paraphrasing from an interview) "if I gave them their money back, then I'm the one supporting their cause, I'd be giving them money so they can do bad things I don't agree with. If I keep the money instead, I can use it to do good things, like supporting my campaign". You're just pushing it when you say he's being disingenuous, the money was donated with no strings attached.

It's not really about the money. In the grand scheme of things $500 is nothing and I'm pretty sure RP can live without it. It's the principle of the thing. Keeping the money sends a message (rightly or wrongly) of tacit approval. If he doesn't want to give them back the money, fine, give it to an anti-hate charity or something. Anything to make the point that you do not agree with these weak and frightened bigots.

>> ^renatojj:
Look, segregation and racism are very touchy subjects that can very easily be misinterpreted. All I'd say is this: if someone speaks in favor of the freedom to discriminate, that doesn't imply an endorsement of bigotry or of the narrow-mindedness of those with questionable criteria. Paul agrees with Civil Rights as it applies to governments, public institutions, public spaces and schools, etc., but thinks it's wrong to apply these same principles to private businesses.
What happens if you walk into a lesbian bar? Chances are you'll be denied service or kicked out for being a man. How dare they discriminate against your gender?? I don't like racism as much as the next guy, but you can't outlaw an idea, and you can't legislate people's motivations.

Nope, but you can outlaw actions. As for your lesbian bar example, I would say they are just as wrong for kicking me out for being a man as I would be for kicking them out for being a lesbian.

The freedom to put up a "no blacks, jews or irish" sign is not a freedom I want to protect.

>> ^renatojj:
Ron Paul wants to be president so that he can show us that it's not the role of the president to decide these many things we think a president should decide, he's not "the decider", he's not our tribal leader, this is supposed to be a free society with rule of law, not a dictatorship. He wants to be president to protect our freedoms.

Thing is, he wants to do the opposite of protecting freedom. Protecting freedom is an active position. RP wants government to get out of the way. Historically, that never works out for the little guy.

edit: btw, props to you for defending your position rationally and eloquently. Nice to be able to debate this without name-calling or screaming matches, and if I've said anything you take as ad hominem, that was not my intention.