RP Spammers Unite to Win North Carolina County Strawpoll

[Damocles]

Nice words. But dreaming has to be followed up with action. If your quoting MLK, he understood this. MLK and others fought for civil rights laws, which the libertarian crowd fought against.

The first step is to remove inherent racism in the system, rather than perpetuate a continued form of racism, there are ways we can get the aid to those who need it without basing it on pigmentation.

It appears he is following what he preaches with action. That the goal is the same while the path be different, means nothing to you. Instead of attempting understanding you seek to twist the words to appear as gross as possible as he speaks of a direction which can, in the end, help to end racism. All because you want only your view to be perpetuated as the solution.

 

[Damocles]

Oh God. Did Paul really blame liberals for racism?

What a putz.

Where? She used your "translation" to get that POV.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

Oh God. Did Paul really blame liberals for racism?

What a putz.

I really take offense to this process of asking a question and then coming to such a dismissive answer before even investigating the content of the question.

I think that's at the heart of this issue.

 

[DigitalDave]

Let me blame racism on liberals, and exploit it on top of feeling it.

No, he is saying in order to eliminate racism, we need to recognize that the antidote is individualism, not collectivism. So are you saying that liberals preach collectivism, and we should group everyone under specific categories by the color of their skin?

 

[Cypress]

The first step is to remove inherent racism in the system, rather than perpetuate a continued form of racism, there are ways we can get the aid to those who need it without basing it on pigmentation.

It appears he is following what he preaches with action. That the goal is the same while the path be different, means nothing to you. Instead of understanding you seek to twist the words to appear as gross as possible as he speaks of a direction which can, in the end, help to end racism.

Its a cop out. Its not intended to really address the problem we have to day. Its really intended as a defense of "limited government" libertarianism. They don't want government getting involved in civil rights. So, they're coping out by proclaming that we all just need to stop being prejudiced.

That doesn't work. At least not for the foreseeable future. People can and will have the rights denied in this country, because of gender or skin pigment, regardless of whether people like Ron Paul are proclaiming that we should just all get along.

I mean, I guess we could stand on the street corner and preach that humans shouldn't commit criminal acts. But, that doesn't address or actually solve the problem of crime.

 

[Damocles]

Its a cop out. Its not intended to really address the problem we have to day. Its really intended as a defense of "limited government" libertarianism. They don't want government getting involved in civil rights. So, they're coping out by proclaming that we all just need to stop being prejudiced.

That doesn't work. At least not for the foreseeable future. People can and will have the rights denied in this country, because of gender or skin pigment, regardless of whether people like Ron Paul are proclaiming that we should just all get along.

I mean, I guess we could stand on the street corner and preach that humans shouldn't commit criminal acts. But, that doesn't address or actually solve the problem of crime.

It isn't all just "get along", the proposed changes would be to the system, not to remove it. He proposes programs that would work on impoverished rather than pigmentation. The idea being that as long as we continue to focus on pigmentation as a separating factor, even in government, we perpetuate the problem even in an attempt to solve it. He proposes making it a state responsibility, that we can consider... well, libertarian.

As I said, your statements make it clear you seek no understanding, only to attempt to dismiss it without allowing understanding.

Your mind was decided long ago and then closed on this subject so that no other solution can even be considered.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

People can and will have the rights denied in this country, because of gender or skin pigment, regardless of whether people like Ron Paul are proclaiming that we should just all get along.

I mean, I guess we could stand on the street corner and preach that humans shouldn't commit criminal acts. But, that doesn't address or actually solve the problem of crime.

I agree with you, but that does not make Ron Paul a racist.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Religion and spirituality are not the same thing.

Didn't say they were, just that they're both rubbish.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Well, I'm just wondering, did you write the book of love? And do you have faith in God above?

 

[Cancel7]

No, he is saying in order to eliminate racism, we need to recognize that the antidote is individualism, not collectivism. So are you saying that liberals preach collectivism, and we should group everyone under specific categories by the color of their skin?

No, I am saying that that is exactly how radical righties and radical libertarians view liberalism.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Its a cop out. Its not intended to really address the problem we have to day. Its really intended as a defense of "limited government" libertarianism. They don't want government getting involved in civil rights. So, they're coping out by proclaming that we all just need to stop being prejudiced.

That doesn't work. At least not for the foreseeable future. People can and will have the rights denied in this country, because of gender or skin pigment, regardless of whether people like Ron Paul are proclaiming that we should just all get along.

I mean, I guess we could stand on the street corner and preach that humans shouldn't commit criminal acts. But, that doesn't address or actually solve the problem of crime.

And what do you propose?

What magical government solution will make the meanies go away?

 

[Cancel7]

The first step is to remove inherent racism in the system, rather than perpetuate a continued form of racism, there are ways we can get the aid to those who need it without basing it on pigmentation.

It appears he is following what he preaches with action. That the goal is the same while the path be different, means nothing to you. Instead of attempting understanding you seek to twist the words to appear as gross as possible as he speaks of a direction which can, in the end, help to end racism. All because you want only your view to be perpetuated as the solution.

So I may assume he advocats class based AA, rather than race based AA?

 

[Cancel7]

Well, you're more than welcome to find them compelling, but legitimate media sources have confirmed that they are not Ron Paul's words and they are untrue accounts of his views.

...I'm just trying to understand here, why would you ignore the insurmountable evidence provided from his campaign that Ron Paul is egalitarian and not bigoted and jump on a few scraps that have no legitimacy like the newsletter story?

Would people like Dennis Kucinich associate with Ron Paul if he was a racist? Wouldn't they know about that kind of stuff for certain being that they are much closer to him than we are?

Why would somebody like Ron Paul say in New Hampshire that Dennis Kucinich (the guy for reparations) would make a great Democratic Nominee if racism was part of his worldview?

I think there's too much evidence of Ron Paul's decency to cast him in with other bigoted movements.

What "insurmountable evidence"? The fact that he excuses his appearances on and in bigoted forums as "it doesn't mean I agree with them about everything"?

You are making up phrases to describe evidence, that I have in no way agreed to.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

To be honest, I haven't heard Ron Paul say anything about Affirmative Action during the course of this campaign.

Kinda makes me think he figures Iraq, protecting our civil liberties and the Constitution are more important issues to be solving right now.

 

[Cypress]

And what do you propose?

What magical government solution will make the meanies go away?

Shhh. The adults are talking now.

 

[Cancel7]

To be honest, I haven't heard Ron Paul say anything about Affirmative Action during the course of this campaign.

Kinda makes me think he figures Iraq, protecting our civil liberties and the Constitution are more important issues to be solving right now.

He proposes programs that would work on impoverished rather than pigmentation. The idea being that as long as we continue to focus on pigmentation as a separating factor, even in government, we perpetuate the problem even in an attempt to solve it.

So then this statement made my Damo is inoperative, and he proposes shit?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Shhh. The adults are talking now.

OK?

 

[Cypress]

I agree with you, but that does not make Ron Paul a racist.

I can't say. I haven't read the stuff BAC posted.

I think I can say, IMO, that Ron Paul is part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

Being a slave to "limited government" ideology, limits one's ability to either proactively, or adequatly enforce and/or strenghthen civil rights laws.

Its the civil rights equivalent of the "Let the free markets decide" ideology of the libertarians when it comes to economics.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

You know why I hate these Ron Paul threads?

Because it all boils down to a bunch of people screaming at each other:

Pro-Pauler:

"Oh yeah?! Well he (BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH)"

Anti-Pauler:

"What?! Well (something else, usually completely or only partially relevant)"

Pro-Pauler:

"HUGH?! HOW (State the other is a racist or somethign)"

Anti-Pauler:

"WHATH?!?!?!"




It gets rather tiring.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

What "insurmountable evidence"? The fact that he excuses his appearances on and in bigoted forums as "it doesn't mean I agree with them about everything"?

You are making up phrases to describe evidence, that I have in no way agreed to.

There you go again. No, it would be that he doesn't have to agree with them at all to appear on their program.

As Ron Paul said the other day--most of the major networks cheerled the War in Iraq. Does that mean he shouldn't go on television to speak out against the war?

Alan Colmes has racists and conspiracy nuts on his talk show, and he's a Democrat. He also had Ron Paul on his talk show. He also does a television show with Sean Hannity, who doesn't share his views.

Do people really need to agree with each other to appear in various media outlets? You make it seem as if he agrees with any of their bigoted views at all when that's simply not the case.

YouTube Ron Paul for cryin' out loud. The man you're describing is not the man people all over the country are coming to respect for his honesty and integrity.