Comments on: Ron Paul still courting racist right?

By: admin

admin — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 07:39:33 +0000

The Ron Paul racism FAQ: http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2007/12/faq-ron-paul-and-his-racist-newsletter.html

By: admin

admin — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 23:42:17 +0000

And of course, this doesn’t even begin to touch Paul’s weird belief that the north started the civil war.

By: admin

admin — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 23:12:37 +0000

Fluffy - you’re misinterpreting me. Ideally, the CRA would not tread on property rights or freedom of association, and I don’t think it’s necessarily unreasonable for Paul to suggest that those aspects of the CRA should be removed. But the aspects of the CRA that DO NOT tread on property rights or freedom of association (repealing laws that discriminate against women or minorities) should be retained. Given the choice between a CRA that violates property rights or no CRA at all, I would have to choose one that violates property rights. Paul says he would rather not have a CRA bill in this case. This is, in my view, unacceptable because it puts property rights ahead of the rights of people who were institutionally discriminated against. I might find it more forgivable if Paul weren’t willing to compromise elsewhere (on abortion for instance), if he were consistent about always throwing the baby out with the bathwater. He’s unwilling to compromise here, where it’s much more needed.

It’s my view that the job of the federal government is not to so much to pass laws so much as it is to determine what sorts of laws cannot be passed (at any level of government).

“But when you gleefully and casually discard the rights of those with unpopular views when they get in the way of your pet cause, donâ€™t complain to me when George Bush throws away parts of the Constitution and various human rights when they get in the way of HIS pet causes.”

This argument makes absolutely no sense, even if I were to make the case that property rights or free association weren’t valid concerns (which I don’t).

By: Fluffy

Fluffy — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 22:30:39 +0000

The Civil Rights Act violates every property owner’s and employer’s right of free association. Your buddy Joe acknowledges that; he just doesn’t care. To him the utilitarian issue of ending segregation is important enough that the right of free association and the right of private property don’t matter.

And that’s fine. But when you gleefully and casually discard the rights of those with unpopular views when they get in the way of your pet cause, don’t complain to me when George Bush throws away parts of the Constitution and various human rights when they get in the way of HIS pet causes. I just don’t want to hear it. You have your definition of a compelling state interest, and Bush has his.