Please cite the source of this quote so we can see the full context of the statement.
"Why do we need the federal government? There's no Cold War and no Communist threat. Many other nations are breaking into smaller and smaller pieces. The centralization of power in Washington occurred in a different time. Why not think about getting rid of the federal government, returning to the system of our Founders, and breaking up the United States into smaller government units?"
What other "context" is needed?
It's not surprising since Ron Paul's main campaign issue is the Constitution and regardless of their other views and discrepancies, the Constitution is their mainstay as well.
I am aware of the activities of the White Nationalist Movement--as I have told you before, Jews are not excluded from their bigoted aims and I would not support Ron Paul if I felt he advocated their views.
If you believe that there is nothing wrong with a candidate who is running for POTUS to participate and associate in events with vile hate groups and people because he agrees with some things they advocate, then that belief belongs to you, but I'm quite sure it is not a belief shared by most Americans, most certainly not by me. Nor is a sign of intelligence by any candidate that would do so. Paul shares a lot more beliefs with these people than just the Constitution.
Taken into context, his participation with these groups, his outrageously racist newsletters (plural), and his voting record of being against civil rights in every form .. stop pretending that it is outrageous for anyone to question his position on race or believe that he lied when he denied HIS words in the newsletters which he previously STOOD BY and CLAIMED THE WORDS WERE HIS, in fact, so did his SPOKESMAN who claimed ignorantly claimed the comments were similar to those of Jesse Jackson.
He stood by HIS words ...
"This is not the first time Paul has veered into potentially insensitive territory. In 1992, a copy of his newsletter, the Ron Paul Survival Report, criticized the judicial system in Washington, D.C., before adding, "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Under a section headlined "Terrorist Update," the following sentence ran, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
These quotations became an issue during Paul's 1996 campaign for Congress. During the campaign, he declined to distance himself from the statements. But in a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly, he said he had never written or approved those words for his own newsletter. He said he failed to disavow the words during the campaign on the advice of his political advisors. "They just weren't my words," he tells me. "They got in because I wasn't always there. I didn't have total control. And I would be on vacations and things got in there that shouldn't have been."
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/index1.html
He declined to distance himself from some of the worst shit I have ever read .. but
FIVE YEARS LATER in the midst of a campaign he says they weren't his words .. he was on vacation .. and you believe that bullshit.
He claimed that they were his "tongue in-cheek academic writings ...
"Because of the incredibly politically incorrect content, Morris asked Paul to release all past copies of the Ron Paul Survival Report to the media, going back to the newsletter's origin in 1986. Paul promised to do so, but never did. Individual copies, however, can be requested from his surfside home, at 409/233-5854. As to why he wouldn't release his entire body of work to the media, Paul says voters may not understand his "tongue-in-cheek, academic" writings.
http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue9/pols.paul.side.html
An example of his tongue in-cheek academic writings ...
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?people/g/gannon.dan/1992/gannon.0793
Taken from the Ron Paul Political Report, 1120 NASA Blvd., Suite 104, Houston, TX 77058 for $50 per year. Call 1-800-766-7285.
Let me just put it out there for you...If you think Bush is better than Ron Paul...a close friend and political ally to Dennis Kucinich...you're not a liberal.
Let me put it to you, you wouldn't know a liberal if one bit you in the ass. You support Paul who believes the individual is the most important than the well-being of America. You support a man who wants to eliminate Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security which means you not only don't give a damn about minorities, you also don't give a damn about the elderly. Should the elderly just pull themselves up by their bootstraps or depend on "charity?"
The point about Bush that you disingenuously keep "missing" is that even that asshole doesn't advocate getting rid of all hard fought for safety nets in America. Paul makes Bush look like Humanitarian of the Century.
No, you don't. Otherwise you would use persuasion for what you thought was important rather than distraction to try to keep the Ron Paul candidacy in the background despite the important distinctions he is making in the Republican Primary...distinctions that could protect YOUR RIGHTS.
I doubt if you've been as involved in politics as much as I have. Doubt it real seriously. I've worked for the US Congress, written legislation, organized groups on issues, appeared in several documentaries as an expert witness, and my work against paperless electronic voting led that effort in Georgia .. this among other grassroots and political work in communications, organizing, and research that I've done most of my adult life. You are in no position to lecture me about doing what is politically important.
Ron Paul is not protecting my rights nor is he standing up for them. What makes you believe that you can discern who I believe is a better candidate than I can for myself. From whence does such power eminate? What is it about you that makes you believe you have such wisdom and power?
In case you missed it I'm black. Your candidate is against the Civil Rights Act and thought it didn't work. The Civil Rights Act is one of the most important, bi-partisan, and successful pieces of legislation in American history. It ended Jim Crow laws almost overnight. It was never intended to end all problems of race, but it set this nation on a different course that is evident today.
His is the ONLY person in Congress who stood against the resolution honoring the CRA .. which passed 414-1. He is also the ONLY person in congress to stand against the resolution honoring Rosa Parks .. which passed 424-1.
Don't tell me about who protects my rights.
I also do not support HR 1146, but I understand and appreciate the spirit and the philosophical consistency behind Ron Paul's support of it. And I even agree with some of his arguments for why he does not prefer our involvement in the UN and NATO and consider them legitimate concerns.
The point about HR 1146 is that Paul introduces it, and re-introduces it, and re-introduces it in every session of congress he's been in .. and it goes nowhere. It never gets to debate or committee. In fact, it never gets out of introduction. It is indicative of his legislative record where he has gotten little of his own legislation passed. He does not understand nor appreciate coalition building.
He relishes his moniker of Dr. No more than he relishes actually getting things done.
Well, what would the black and hispanic Ron Paul supporters say? Are they race traitors for appreciating the message in a way you can't? Frankly, many of my views are derived from the troubles I feel are inequitably forced on minority groups by our government, so I'm naturally offended by this notion. The smallest minority is the individual.
Black and hispanic Paul supporters are either one of two things .. ignorant of the facts, or just plain stupid. Because Powell, Gonzalez, and Rice were part of the Bush Administration does not indicate that it would be an intelligent thing for blacks and hispanics to do.
Last month, on a black talk radio show in Atlanta, I debated 2 people from the Paul campaign in Georgia. One of them happened to be black. By the time the debate was over the call-in audience was tearing his ass to shreds .. at least what ass was left from my ripping into him. The host of the show had to ask the audience to give him a break because he had been beaten down speechless. He was ignorant of Paul's background and associations. A hispanic caller said he was trying to stop payment on a check he's sent to Paul and said he felt stupid for ever doing so.
Ignorant or stupid.
So, what's your beef? Do you want a strong Bill of Rights that is respected or do you not wish to recognize it because it doesn't meet your immediate vision for what government ought to make society do? What sacrifices will you be making to our liberties in ignoring the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
My "beef" is that the solution to modern problems are not found 200 years in the past. I believe in a living Constitution that adapts to the issues faced in an entirely different world than when the Constitution was written. Simply because something is not "constitutional" doesn't mean that it isn't good for America. There are NO, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA sacrifices required to make law and policy for a modern society that does not ask the Constitution if it's alright to do so. Privacy, marriage, civil rights, and social safety nets are just a few issues facing modern society that are not in the Constitution.
Strick adherence to the Constitution is like strict adherence to the bible. Only a fool would attempt it. I'm not 3/5ths of a man and you can't rape a woman simply because she doesn't scream out in the city.
And I believe in a modern society that respects its Constitution and has enough sense of justice to amend the Constitution when they want to change the contract between the government and the people.
Who said anything about not respecting the Constitution? You can respect it and respect the environment and context in which it was written, and understand that it serves as a guideline for the American model but it is not the only authority in a democratic society.
