Ron Paul: Being AGAINST Racism is un-American

But he retracted his statement. So now it doesn't exist.

Stop quoting him out of context.

Free market über alles!

Socialist arrested at JFK: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/nyregion/imf-head-is-arrested-and-accused-of-sexual-attack.html?_r=1

Now can we please abolish the IMF for once and all? The IMF is responsible for all of the unrest in the Atab countires by forcing those countires to privatize their banks. Not to mention that they hired Paul Wolfowitz, who then gave a job to his girlfriend.

Privatisation Aided Egypt Revolt, Army Says

Anger at Egypt’s privatisation programme, involving the transfer of billions of dollars worth of public assets to private hands, aided the Egyptian revolution that elbowed the Western-backed Hosni Mubarak out of office in February, a top army general said.

Prodded by the Washington-based trio -- United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) -- Egypt under Mubarak adopted an aggressive programme to sell public companies to both local and foreign investors since early in 1990.

http://www.globalissues.org/news/2011/04/08/9211

Ron Paul is not racist. He's been boxed into a corner by the liberal media over his libertarian philosophy. And unlike phony politicians on both sides. He's libertarian to the core, believing in individual liberty and property rights and does not like to see the government encroaching on these.

He's not racist, but it's more important to him to be hands-off when it comes to racism, than to be a force for greater good including ending racism. He's not racist, but he's not helpful.

He's not racist. As a matter of fact, he had a colored cook when he was growing up, and she was practically a member of the family.

Riversider: Ron Paul is libertarian to his core...except on social issues. It's not just race, where I agree that there's an argument to be made for consistency in a hobgobliny sort of way, but also on issues like abortion and gay marriage, where there's not.

So, sure, he's a big tough libertarian as long as there's money involved.

He's not racist, but it's more important to him to be hands-off when it comes to racism, than to be a force for greater good including ending racism. He's not racist...

I agree with this. I also think in this case Ron Paul is wrong. Free market will not protect the rights of minorities to shop where they wish, when they wish. But more to the point, he's being baited here, by Chris Mathews, MSNBC and the liberal media/establishment. He's not campaigning on ending the civil rights act.

But if we universally agree that equality and opportunity are important to America, doesn't it reflect a severe character flaw that Ron Paul has zero interest in protecting it? And it's not even like it is a contemporary question - e.g. we aren't deciding today to integrate the military or give women rights to vote as if it is a new topic. This is an old topic, with the current rights accepted today by society to the point that it's taken for granted as the way it is and the way it should be. But this guy makes it a contemporary topic, whether he asked the question first or it was asked of him by Matthews - and he didn't say that back then he would have voted against it but in hindsight he would have been wrong.

You can believe he's racist or not, but do you guus realize how idiotic it sounds to say he's not racist because he had a minority doing the chores in his house? Wtf? As long as "they" stay in their "place", right?

Ah yes, the oldest excuse in the book... "I'm not racist, my best friend/neighbor/babysitter/doctor/parent's friend/coworker/etc. is (insert minority here)".

e.g. we aren't deciding today to integrate the military or give women rights to vote as if it is a new topic... and people haven't gotten used to it.

>but do you guus realize how idiotic it sounds to say he's not racist because he had a minority doing the chores in his house?

Yes

Riversider: Ron Paul is libertarian to his core...except on social issues. It's not just race, where I agree that there's an argument to be made for consistency in a hobgobliny sort of way, but also on issues like abortion and gay marriage, where there's not.

So, sure, he's a big tough libertarian as long as there's money involved.
-------------
Wrong. He's stated any association that's voluntary should be permitted. He's against a constitutional ban on gay-marriage. He's also questions the Federal Government's involvement in marriage and views it as more religious issue, which if governed should be governed by the States.

Ron Paul may be a bit naive here on the benefits of Government protecting civil liberties, but he's not naive on how it goes about it. Much of the policing or detection is based on statistical sampling and averages, which may work in some instances, but probably does not in others, and opens the door to unofficial quotas. The civil rights act had all the right end results in mind, but it in the process made government much more intrusive.

Isn't there someone better than Ron Paul for you to defend?

We should keep him around , if for no other reason, than to keep Bernanke honest.

And to make Jerry Brown look sane and grounded.

to prove the left is intolerant of opposing views.

to prove the left is intolerant of intolerable views.

>to prove the left is intolerant of opposing views.

Like the Civil Rights Act?
Aren't there some "opposing views" that aren't worth keeping?

Alan you are mixing up Rand and Ron. RON JUST said this, and did NOT retract it.

And Ron HAS voted many times for Federal laws restricting abortion and gay rights.

Maybe his view of abortion rights extends to or is focused on the the subjects of the abortion.

Oh sorry ... Libertarians all look the same to me.

"Wrong. He's stated any association that's voluntary should be permitted. He's against a constitutional ban on gay-marriage. He's also questions the Federal Government's involvement in marriage and views it as more religious issue, which if governed should be governed by the States."

---

While it's true that he's not in support of a constitutional amendment, he's in favor of laws that prevent the federal government from recognizing same sex marriages in states where it is legal. He's in favor of DOMA, which overrides the full faith and credit clause in the constitution with regards to marriage. You might say that he's a strong proponent of states' rights on the issue, but a libertarian he's not.

Oh sorry ... Libertarians and Slave Rightists all look the same to me.

What jordyn said.

What alanhart said.

That too.