Re: POLITICS ZMAG: RON PAUL IS NOT YOUR SAVIOR

December 27, 2007

Connie-

> Wanita that makes it sound as if the FDA can be trusted now. I don't

> think it can be.

Of course it can't, but it's quite revealing that the FDA used to be

much more trustworthy... until its funding switched over, by and

large, to " user fees " paid by the very pharmaceutical companies it's

supposed to be regulating.

-

Exactly! Goes back at least to when Rummy was a Searle executive and got

Nutrasweet pushed through on questionable trials. Whatever happened to

government agencies, politicians for the people and people like you and me

working for the citizenry's inherent rights? Running or manipulating any human

service like a business is going to produce nothing but a dangerous farce.

Wanita

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Search.

http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

December 27, 2007

Chris-

> Not sure what to make it as to whether he is personally a bigot, but I

> don't think so.

Why on earth not?

-

December 27, 2007

On 12/26/07, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> He wants to do away with the IRS entirely and eliminate the income

> tax, moving to a severely regressive consumption-based tax system.

Ron says he opposes a consumption-based tax system, which would

be very punishing to the poor and middle class:

> He wants to return to the gold standard.

By the way, I'm not positive exactly what 's stance on this is,

but in an interview he said he wasn't necessarily a gold standard man

per se but he supports a commodity-backed currency.

Chris

December 27, 2007

On 12/26/07, <oz4caster@...> wrote:

> since he is currently seeking the republican nomination, it

> would be foolish for him to say now that he would run as an

> independent if he didn't get the nomination. But just because he has

> no intention at present doesn't mean he can't change his mind if he

> doesn't get the nomination.

That's true, but being so adamant about it now would severely hurt his

chances as an independent.

> > Is he likely to get the nomination? Not terribly likely. But does

> > he have a chance? Absolutely. You can't predict a need for a

> > miraculous finish when the race hasn't started yet.

> I thought you believed in miracles Chris?

I guess you'd have to define " miracle " more precisely before I answer

that, but what I said was that we have no idea if he needs a miracle

finish, because the race doesn't start for another week.

Chris

December 27, 2007

On 12/26/07, <oz4caster@...> wrote:

> --- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> > I don't think this analysis is quite fair in its methodology. You

> > assume that next-to-nothing is substantially better than nothing,

> > when global warming and peak oil are both issues that are pretty

> > much, if the theories are correct, disasters without drastic action.

> the theory of human cause for global warming is poorly

> supported by the evidence at best and is a hugely misguided fraud and

> hoax at worst. So, it would probably be a huge waste of resources to

> try and reduce human CO2 emissions - an effort that would not likely

> have any significant impact on global warming.

I don't have time to get into this now, but I've found realclimate.org

to be a valuable source of information on the issue. They've refuted

most of the arguments from the anti-global warming camp that I've

seen. Maybe when I have some more time we can debate it in the

future. I'm not 100% convinced about it, but I find it much more

likely that it is an issue worth concern than that it is not, and no

one really knows the consequences, but they probably range from

serious and worth concern to disasterous, with a wide range of

unknown.

Chris

December 27, 2007

-

> , I'm glad to see your sense of humor returning

In the bitter, sardonic sense, at least. <g>

> On global warming, I'm not sure there's anything anyone can do, since

> water vapor is by far the most dominant greenhouse gas, not CO2. The

> human contribution to greenhouse gases may be as little as 0.3%,

> hardly a big impact.

> http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

What said.

Also, though, there are two obvious flaws with the argument on that

page, even if we were to stipulate the accuracy of the aggregate

percentages presented. First, in a delicately-balanced system, a

marginal increase in one or more values can have profound effects by

shifting or destabilizing equilibrium. And second, the argument

assumes that the atmosphere is homogenous in its makeup and effects --

essentially like a pane of glass rather than the complex many-layered

system it is. It's essential to account for the composition and

interactions of all the different layers of the atmosphere, including

ones in which water vapor isn't so prevalent.

A very quick search turned up this page, which at least somewhat

addresses the issue; if I had more time, I could probably find an even

better and more directly relevant article.

<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argumen\

t/#more-455

>

-

December 27, 2007

On 12/27/07, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> > Not sure what to make it as to whether he is personally a bigot, but I

> > don't think so.

> Why on earth not?

Primarily because I don't believe he wrote them. I'm not willing to

rush to judgment on the issue for a few reasons. First, the quotes

given lack context and in some cases contain elipses and I'd like to

see the full quotes. Second, I find it plausible and even likely that

didn't write them. If a reputable publication (NYT) without a

corresponding political agenda concluded from an apparently scientific

analysis that he was not likely to be the author, then I think that is

evidence that needs to be considered. Third, I do not believe that

what was written is ideologically consonant with everything else Ron

writes. It could be because he didn't write them, or it could be

his evolution over 25 years, I don't know. But it isn't the Ron

I know from his writings and speeches.

============

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html

December 24, 2002

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views

humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists

believe that all individual who share superficial physical

characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in

terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality,

the advocates of so-called " diversity " actually perpetuate racism.

Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views

individuals only as members of racial groups.

==============

Chris

December 27, 2007

-

> I don't know what you mean by " the powerful " but under a

> administration corporations as we have come to know them would cease

> to exist, because their political influence, which is where they draw

> a good chunk of their power, would be dramatically reduced.

Ron also wants to terminate all anti-trust laws, meaning

corporations, while deprived of some of the levers of government power

they've managed to coopt of late, would nonetheless be able to grow

dramatically more powerful in other ways.

> His political position is that this is not a concern of the Feds. The

> only way you would have to worry about Ron 's personal position on

> abortion is if he became a representative in your state.

Your first statement isn't really true, or at least it's not the whole

truth; he's made it very clear that he's ideologically opposed to

abortion on more than just the grounds that he believes it's not the

province of the federal government. And your second statement simply

isn't accurate at all. If Ron got his way on abortion, abortion

would be illegal and/or inaccessible in a lot more than one state.

> What they see is that by having a President who devolves many if not

> most issues to the state, they can work in an environment where they

> have a far greater chance of implementing their particular agenda.

> Have you ever worked in electoral politics? Even in the good old boy

> state I grew up in (land) it was much easier to effect change at

> the state level than to try to do it at a national level. The only way

> that could conceivably change is if we amended the constitution to

> once again allow for the election of senators by state legislators.

> The likelihood of that is about the same as Kucinich winning the

> democratic nomination.

Hold on... you're saying that if we changed things so that the public

didn't elect US senators themselves, but instead the state legislators

did, that the public would have MORE power over the workings of the

federal government?

Are you serious?

-

December 27, 2007

A few notes on the article:

>'s vision for the harsh privatization of everything from

education to social

>security would only yield monopolies that don't work for everyday people, much

>like our current healthcare system.

Ron does not call for the privitization of education. He calls

for the elimination fo the unconstitutional role of the federal

government in education. For elementary and secondary education, a

few years ago the federal government was providing 3% of the funding

and 85% of the regulations. Obviously funding education at this level

is just an excuse for the federal government to get its hands into

controlling education, not to provide meaningful support.

supports giving young people who have not paid into the system a

chance to get out of the Social Security system and I'm sure has in

mind the eventual phasing out of SS. He had this to say on Meet the

Press:

=================

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgTqSu-ZVFM & feature=related

For instance, Social Security. I've never voted to spend one penny of

Social Security money. So I'm the one that has saved it. Now if I

save the money in these military operations overseas, I say take that

money and I say this constantly, don't turn *anybody* on the street.

The people we have conditioned, yes technically we shouldn't have it

and it would be nice to get rid of them [the programs], but I would

say take care of the people that are dependent on us. Let them, and

the only way you can do that is cut spending, if we don't they're all

going to be out on the street. Cuz right now, Social Security

beneficiaries are getting 2% raises, the cost of living is going up

10% -- a dollar crisis is going to wipe them all out, that's my point.

==================

> We should remember that when writing about the First Amendment of the

> Constitution (which clearly states that " government will make no law

respecting

> an establishment of religion " ), Jefferson coined the term " separation

of

> Church and State " .

Jefferson coined the term, but it doesn't appear in the First Ammendment.

Jefferson coined the term in a letter to New England Baptists assuring

them of his sympathy toward their cause in desiring to exercise their

religion freely and ended the presidential missive with a prayer -- so

obviously he didn't support the complete divorce of church and state

that some advocate today by writing this letter.

Here's a useful article on the origins of the phrase:

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2006 & month=10

>His religious conservatism seems to inform his views on topics as

elementary as

>evolution when it comes to education. When asked if he would encourage

>presenting so-called facts to contradict the theory of evolution in

schools, he

>answered yes.

Really. I'd like to see the quote where he was asked if " so-called

facts " should be used in education. I'm going to guess that the

question called them " facts. " Obviously, any education system worth

its salt will present critical facts that are inconvenient to the

dominant hypotheses. Quite obviously, if they are " so-called facts, "

implying that they are not actual facts, they should not be used. I

really doubt Ron would disagree.

>This " alternative view " on the theory of evolution means teaching the

concept of

>intelligent design– a pseudoscience which real scientists dismiss as another

>attempt to once again introduce creationism into public classrooms.

Well no, it does not at all. It means teaching criticisms of dominant

theories and promoting critical thinking instead of unquestioning

adherence to simplistic propgandistic presentations of conventional

wisdom.

>No thank you. Intelligent design may have its place in church, on the

street or at

>home, but in terms of science, it doesn't propose any hypotheses which can be

>tested through experiment; it's simply not science.

Universal common descent cannot be tested through experiment. Give me a break.

> A staunch pro-lifer who writes books on the topic in his spare time, he thinks

> States should decide the matter (read: allow states to overturn decisions like

Roe

> v. Wade to allow new laws to protect the rights of what the Christian right

> calls " unborn people " ).

States can't overturn court decisions last I knew.

I forgot to keep the quote about isolationism, but Ron is not an

isolationist. His views essentially approximate the views of Bastiat,

that if goods do not cross borders, soliders will. He never, ever

speaks about isolationism, but promotes trade and friendship with

other countries. He sounds distinctly different than, say, Pat

Buchanan on the issue, who is an isolationist.

Chris

December 27, 2007

while i too approach the site byran references with some caution due to it's

coal mining link, i think it worthwhile to ponder global warming's

champion's links as well: http://tinyurl.com/gfgbf and

http://tinyurl.com/2ov4g8

we only need to think of ancel keys to see how a similar cascade near 'n

dear to us happened without apparent malicious intent:

http://tinyurl.com/29lytv

this site seems to make some solid points: http://tinyurl.com/28rz74

while this all has obviously drifted from native nutrition it's not a

stretch to examine the climate as our predecessors adapted to a varying

climate with no real input until possibly recently. nature is amazingly

resilient and powerful and while i'm all for living in harmony with her that

does demand an appreciation for just how little we really know (when we go

from dire fears of an impending ice age in the 70s to that of global warming

in a scant 20 years methinks we may not wholly understand much about what we

exclaim 'n proclaim so fervently).

oliver...

On Dec 27, 2007 9:58 AM, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> -

>

> > , I'm glad to see your sense of humor returning

>

> In the bitter, sardonic sense, at least. <g>

>

> > On global warming, I'm not sure there's anything anyone can do, since

> > water vapor is by far the most dominant greenhouse gas, not CO2. The

> > human contribution to greenhouse gases may be as little as 0.3%,

> > hardly a big impact.

> > http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

>

> What said.

>

> Also, though, there are two obvious flaws with the argument on that

> page, even if we were to stipulate the accuracy of the aggregate

> percentages presented. First, in a delicately-balanced system, a

> marginal increase in one or more values can have profound effects by

> shifting or destabilizing equilibrium. And second, the argument

> assumes that the atmosphere is homogenous in its makeup and effects --

> essentially like a pane of glass rather than the complex many-layered

> system it is. It's essential to account for the composition and

> interactions of all the different layers of the atmosphere, including

> ones in which water vapor isn't so prevalent.

>

> A very quick search turned up this page, which at least somewhat

> addresses the issue; if I had more time, I could probably find an even

> better and more directly relevant article. <

>

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument\

/#more-455

> >

>

> -

>

December 27, 2007

Except that Ron has already stated that he's not interested in

running as an Independent. I believe that Ron 's hardest fight

will be the Republican nomination. If he wins that, I believe the

election is practically a done deal. Contrary to the some of the

statements I've read, I know quite a few politically-informed

progressives who would vote for Ron over any of the

pseudo-Democratic candidates that are currently running.

Ken

> > I agree with your assessment.

>

> I wouldn't be surprised if Ron ends up running as an independent,

> since he doesn't appear likely to get the Republican nomination, short

> of a miraculous finish.

>

> That would throw an interesting twist into the final vote and might

> even force the other candidates to modify their stances a bit.

>

December 27, 2007

The fact that Ron is an obstetrician is enough to prevent me from

voting for him. The practice of medicalized childbirth in this country

is more accurately called birth-rape. Practice episiotomy = no vote

from me. If he has a platform against the practice, amongst other

horrors of his profession such as the lithomy position and 30% c-section

rate, I am unaware of it.

Desh

December 28, 2007

On 12/25/07, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> > > But if then it is a living document, and you¹re in favor of

> > > amending it when the rights of people are at stake, then the real issue

isn¹t

> > > whether something is strictly consitutional or not it¹s whether it¹s the

right

> > > thing to do or not. I¹m not impressed by his constitutionalist stance.

> > Sure, if you don't believe in the rule of law.

> That¹s a cliché, like being for freedom, or democracy...one can establish

> a rule of law that is quite unjust slavery, nazi germany, one can go on

> and on. While this isn¹t a religious argument per se, one does have to be

> able to appeal to a higher standard, unless one believes that only THIS rule

of

> law, here and now, is the one worth upholding so ferociously.

I don't think it's quite the same. When someone says they are for

" freedom " or " democracy " they are using an abstraction without a very

unambiguous and concrete meaning. Someone favoring the " rule of law "

doesn't favor *any* law, but the one that exists in its appropriate

jurisdiction.

Granted, there are laws that are so unjust that they need to be broken

or changed, but there is still value in allowing the rule of law to

reign in all cases that are not extraordinary exceptions.

To take a lighter example, I think most speed limits are too low, and

so do lots of other people, which is why half of people, give or take,

drive at a speed meaningfully faster than them, usually at a level

that feels personally safe and comfortable to them. And if any of us

get stopped and ticketed, we might grumble about it, but for the most

part we don't question the right of the officer to give us a ticket

according to the law, because it's the law. We'd much rather live in

a system where we are submitted to the rule of some really annoying

laws than one in which people voluntarily chose which laws to obey and

this was accepted at large without there being any consequences.

Because while I might find the speed limit 5 or 10 mph too low,

someone else might find it annoying that one must stop at red lights

if one does not see another car coming, or that you can turn right but

not left at red lights, or that you cannot drive backwards down a road

as long as you obey the speed limit. Because although these aren't

the opinions of most people, one only has to meet one of them in an

intersection to get into a life-threatening accident.

So, with the constitution, the basic process of ammending it that is

built into it does not seem to me to have any massive injustice

associated with it. It is simply designed to be very difficult to

change it, but for it to be perfectly changeable if there is anything

remotely approaching a consensus about the issue in the country (of

course the required level of agreement is much less than an actual

consensus). So there is a lawful way to change it and an unlawful way

to change it.

The alternative to lawfully changing it is to simply ignore at the

whims of the legislature, or for that matter the executive in many

cases. Everyone has a different idea of what is just and good and

necessary, so naturally for ever violation of the constitution you

agree with there is going to be another you vehemently disagree with

-- like wire tapping the citizenry or secret military tribunals or

undeclared wars that kills tens of thousands (or millions?) of foreign

civilians, etc.

Chris

December 28, 2007

>> >

>> > On 12/25/07, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...

>> > <mailto:implode7%40comcast.net> > wrote:

>> >

>>>>> >>>> But if then it is a living document, and you¹re in favor of

>>>>> >>>> amending it when the rights of people are at stake, then the real

>>>>> issue

>>>>> >>>> isn¹t

>>>>> >>>> whether something is strictly consitutional or not it¹s whether

>>>>> it¹s the

>>>>> >>>> right

>>>>> >>>> thing to do or not. I¹m not impressed by his constitutionalist

>>>>> stance.

>> >

>>>> >>> Sure, if you don't believe in the rule of law.

>> >

>>> >> That¹s a cliché, like being for freedom, or democracy...one can establish

>>> >> a rule of law that is quite unjust slavery, nazi germany, one can go

on

>>> >> and on. While this isn¹t a religious argument per se, one does have to

be

>>> >> able to appeal to a higher standard, unless one believes that only THIS

>>> rule

>>> >> of

>>> >> law, here and now, is the one worth upholding so ferociously.

>> >

>> > I don't think it's quite the same. When someone says they are for

>> > " freedom " or " democracy " they are using an abstraction without a very

>> > unambiguous and concrete meaning. Someone favoring the " rule of law "

>> > doesn't favor *any* law, but the one that exists in its appropriate

>> > jurisdiction.

>

> Do you ever stop?

>

> For one, I didn¹t claim that they were EXACTLY the same....

>

> But there are certainly strong similarities. Being for Œthe rule of law¹ is

> not generally something that someone comes out against, because it IS somewhat

> of an abstraction, and is a phrase that is heavily propagandized. ³I am

> AGAINST the rule of law² - sounds rather bizarre. I don¹t believe I¹ve ever

> heard someone come out against it. It is thrown out as a clincher proving

> that someone is being irrational because he is against this Œrule of law¹

> which every sane person believes in.

>

> The problem is that, as I think you¹re maybe getting at, people are generally

> for laws that they believe in, not ones that they believe are horribly unjust,

> and so what they are really for is justice, or some higher principle.

>> >

>> > Granted, there are laws that are so unjust that they need to be broken

>> > or changed, but there is still value in allowing the rule of law to

>> > reign in all cases that are not extraordinary exceptions.

>

> Given that no one has said ŒI am against the rule of law¹ I¹m not sure of the

> relevance. Very, very obviously, no one has said that no laws should be

> obeyed. I¹ll stop reading here.

>> >

>> > To take a lighter example, I think most speed limits are too low, and

>> > so do lots of other people, which is why half of people, give or take,

>> > drive at a speed meaningfully faster than them, usually at a level

>> > that feels personally safe and comfortable to them. And if any of us

>> > get stopped and ticketed, we might grumble about it, but for the most

>> > part we don't question the right of the officer to give us a ticket

>> > according to the law, because it's the law. We'd much rather live in

>> > a system where we are submitted to the rule of some really annoying

>> > laws than one in which people voluntarily chose which laws to obey and

>> > this was accepted at large without there being any consequences.

>> > Because while I might find the speed limit 5 or 10 mph too low,

>> > someone else might find it annoying that one must stop at red lights

>> > if one does not see another car coming, or that you can turn right but

>> > not left at red lights, or that you cannot drive backwards down a road

>> > as long as you obey the speed limit. Because although these aren't

>> > the opinions of most people, one only has to meet one of them in an

>> > intersection to get into a life-threatening accident.

>> >

>> > So, with the constitution, the basic process of ammending it that is

>> > built into it does not seem to me to have any massive injustice

>> > associated with it. It is simply designed to be very difficult to

>> > change it, but for it to be perfectly changeable if there is anything

>> > remotely approaching a consensus about the issue in the country (of

>> > course the required level of agreement is much less than an actual

>> > consensus). So there is a lawful way to change it and an unlawful way

>> > to change it.

>> >

>> > The alternative to lawfully changing it is to simply ignore at the

>> > whims of the legislature, or for that matter the executive in many

>> > cases. Everyone has a different idea of what is just and good and

>> > necessary, so naturally for ever violation of the constitution you

>> > agree with there is going to be another you vehemently disagree with

>> > -- like wire tapping the citizenry or secret military tribunals or

>> > undeclared wars that kills tens of thousands (or millions?) of foreign

>> > civilians, etc.

>> >

>> > Chris

December 28, 2007

On 12/28/07, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> > Do you ever stop?

Sure; I didn't realize you wanted me to.

Chris

December 28, 2007

Chris-

> Primarily because I don't believe he wrote them. I'm not willing to

> rush to judgment on the issue for a few reasons. First, the quotes

> given lack context and in some cases contain elipses and I'd like to

> see the full quotes. Second, I find it plausible and even likely that

> didn't write them. If a reputable publication (NYT) without a

> corresponding political agenda concluded from an apparently scientific

> analysis that he was not likely to be the author, then I think that is

> evidence that needs to be considered. Third, I do not believe that

> what was written is ideologically consonant with everything else Ron

> writes. It could be because he didn't write them, or it could be

> his evolution over 25 years, I don't know. But it isn't the Ron

> I know from his writings and speeches.

Even if you didn't write him, how do you explain his refusal to

disavow them -- or have I missed something and he actually has? The

defense I've seen of this refusal (something to the effect of " it went

out under his masthead so he has to stick by it because he's an

honorable man even though he didn't write it and doesn't believe it)

is impossibly labored and utterly unconvincing.

> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html

>

> December 24, 2002

>

> Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views

> humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists

> believe that all individual who share superficial physical

> characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in

> terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality,

> the advocates of so-called " diversity " actually perpetuate racism.

> Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views

> individuals only as members of racial groups.

This argument holds some merit as long as it's considered strictly by

itself, but I believe it's quite revealing that many libertarians

making this argument specifically seek to enable people to

discriminate against people based on their group membership, whether

real or imagined and to gut or eliminate laws, regulations and

programs which prevent this. (Examples include renting to blacks,

selling a home to a gay couple, etc. etc. etc.) Just one example from

the Ron oeuvre:

<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:HR03863:@@@D & summ2=m &

>

I'd also be curious to hear how you think the Iranian Student

Expulsion Act fits with this philosophy.

<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.5842:

>

-

December 28, 2007

,

> Even if you didn't write him, how do you explain his refusal to

> disavow them -- or have I missed something and he actually has? The

> defense I've seen of this refusal (something to the effect of " it went

> out under his masthead so he has to stick by it because he's an

> honorable man even though he didn't write it and doesn't believe it)

> is impossibly labored and utterly unconvincing.

I don't know, and I've yet to see anything on this that provided

sufficient information to come to a genuine conclusion. Moreover, it

has all been on anti-Ron sites, which are clearly unreliable.

For example, you posted information that he supports a constitutional

flag-burning, when the exact opposite is the case.

Although genuine evidence that Ron is a racist would be the best

argument I've seen for voting against him, that's a pretty serious

charge that demands a rather hefty weight of evidence. Shouldn't

there be some indication of this other than quotes that were probably

not written by him 25 years ago? Even so, if he was a racist 25 years

ago, does that necessarily mean he is a racist now? If he was a

completely abominable person 25 years ago, but has a record in the

intervening time up until now of being an extraordinarily principled

person, I would give greater weight to the latter.

That said, I didn't read any explanation that corresponds to the one

you give above. What I read was that he didn't say anything about it

in the campaign because his campaign managers told him not to because

it was too confusing. This sounds pretty reasonable to me -- you are

utterly unconvinced about this excuse even when he gave it to a news

reporter that asked him when he was not involved in any campaign and

had the least reason to distance himself from it (if I understand the

historical context correctly), so no doubt it would be even less

convincing to many people during a campaign.

========

> > http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html

> >

> > December 24, 2002

> >

> > Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views

> > humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists

> > believe that all individual who share superficial physical

> > characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in

> > terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality,

> > the advocates of so-called " diversity " actually perpetuate racism.

> > Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views

> > individuals only as members of racial groups.

==========

> This argument holds some merit as long as it's considered strictly by

> itself, but I believe it's quite revealing that many libertarians

> making this argument specifically seek to enable people to

> discriminate against people based on their group membership, whether

> real or imagined and to gut or eliminate laws, regulations and

> programs which prevent this.

I don't think it makes a difference once you understand the

libertarian objection to anti-discrimination laws.

If you go back to the actual meaning of the word " discrimination, "

before it took on the connotation of racism, sexism and various other

" isms " in the latter part of the last century, discrimination was a

virtue -- it means to distinguish between things. The ability to tell

the difference between good and evil, for example, is discrimination.

Without the right to discrimination -- in this general sense -- there

is no right to property at all. The very meaning of property rights

is that you have a right to do one thing with the property and not

another -- i.e. to discriminate. To drive your car to the movies and

not to school is to discriminate between movies and school, and it is

what defines whether you own the car or not. If it is my car, you

have no right to decide where it goes -- i.e., to discriminate between

its use to go one place and its use to go another.

Anti-discrimination laws rule out a specific type of discrimination.

I wholeheartedly believe in the virtue of integration, but forced

integration has two problems. From a libertarian perspective, it has

the problem of making a gross invasion of property rights.

I don't care that much about libertarian ideology, but there is a

second question of social impact. I think the issue is debatable, but

i think it is at least arguable that the effect of forced integration

is net negative, increasing racial tensions, and doing very little to

effect actual integration. This is backed up by most people I've

talked to who lived through the forced busing days, and my experience

in observing voluntary culturally forced segregation, takling to

people who have lived in areas where racism is deeply rooted, and so

on.

That said, I'm open to observing a good debate on the subject and my

mind isn't totally made up.

> (Examples include renting to blacks,

> selling a home to a gay couple, etc. etc. etc.) Just one example from

> the Ron oeuvre:

> <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:HR03863:@@@D & summ2=m &

Well based on the very brief description provided, I'd support this

for a number of reasons: first, I would support anything that

prohibited the tax code from becoming more complex, because I think a

complex tax code is one of the most asinine and wasteful economic

policies a country could possibly institute; second, I find the idea

that private schools should not be able to discriminate incredibly

scary. Does this mean that Catholic schools should be forced to admit

Orthodox, Protestants, Muslims and Jews? Should they be forced to

admit to professorships people who espouse atheism or homosexuality or

other belief systems and lifestyles that that particular church

adamantly opposes? It seems to me that the right of a private school

to discriminate against people is essnetial to the existence of any

meaningful element of freedom of association.

> I'd also be curious to hear how you think the Iranian Student

> Expulsion Act fits with this philosophy.

> <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.5842:

I don't know what the particular basis of this is, but it isn't

racist, because it discriminates on the basis of citizneship, not

race. Moreover, given the time it was introduced (1979) it would seem

to have something to do with national security issues. I suppose if

there were a text of his speech in introudcing the bill it would be

helpful for determining his motivations. These are all listed on

lewrockwell.com, but I think they only go back 8 years like LRC itself

does.

Chris

December 28, 2007

Chris-

> I don't know, and I've yet to see anything on this that provided

> sufficient information to come to a genuine conclusion. Moreover, it

> has all been on anti-Ron sites, which are clearly unreliable.

Actually, I've gleaned some of this from pro-Ron sites. I

wouldn't characterize any defense he or his supporters might make

solely from opposition sources.

For example: <http://thestressblog.com/2007/05/22/ron-paul-is-not-a-racist/

>

The highlights:

>> He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the

>> publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S.

>> congressman and one presidential race, had never uttered

>> anything remotely like this.

>>

>> When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, “I could

>> never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really

>> written by me. It wasn’t my language at all. Other people help me

>> with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara

>> Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together

>> and actually she was a delightful lady.” says that item ended

>> up there because “we wanted to do something on affirmative action,

>> and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never

>> personalize anything.”

>>

>> His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand:

>> “They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for

>> them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it

>> doesn’t come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that’s

>> too confusing. ‘It appeared in your letter and your name was on

>> that letter and therefore you have to live with it.’” It is a

>> measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his

>> contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our

>> interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in

>> retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told

>> the truth at the time.

Now, it seems to me that if something goes out in your personal

newsletter which is inflammatory AND which doesn't at all reflect your

views, the believable (indeed, HUMAN) response is to write a

correction or an apology or at the very least to admit at some point

that the info in the newsletter was bogus. " Too confusing " just

doesn't ring true... unless the person saying it is a moron. To me,

" too confusing " sounds like a lame-ass attempt to avoid responsibility

for saying something in the past that truly reflected his views, if

only at the time.

> For example, you posted information that he supports a constitutional

> flag-burning, when the exact opposite is the case.

How do you explain this, then?

<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HJ00080:@@@D & summ2=m &

>

And this? <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HJ00082:@@@D & summ2=m &

>

> That said, I didn't read any explanation that corresponds to the one

> you give above. What I read was that he didn't say anything about it

> in the campaign because his campaign managers told him not to because

> it was too confusing. This sounds pretty reasonable to me -- you are

> utterly unconvinced about this excuse even when he gave it to a news

> reporter that asked him when he was not involved in any campaign and

> had the least reason to distance himself from it (if I understand the

> historical context correctly), so no doubt it would be even less

> convincing to many people during a campaign.

The " least reason to distance himself from it " ? Wouldn't finding it

morally abominable be adequate reason... if in fact he didn't agree

with the sentiments expressed in his own newsletter? I know if

someone posted something here on this list under my name that I found

morally objectionable I'd set the record straight pronto.

> I don't think it makes a difference once you understand the

> libertarian objection to anti-discrimination laws.

I understand the general idea that people should be free to enter into

any kind of contract they'd like and do business -- or not do business

-- with whomever they want, but I also find it revealing that many so-

called non-racist libertarians preferentially seek to demolish

protections against racism and other forms of bigotry. In a world

literally drowning with affronts to civil liberties of all kinds, why

do so many of them focus on allowing racists to be racist in commerce

and in government?

> If you go back to the actual meaning of the word " discrimination, "

> before it took on the connotation of racism, sexism and various other

> " isms " in the latter part of the last century, discrimination was a

> virtue -- it means to distinguish between things. The ability to tell

> the difference between good and evil, for example, is discrimination.

>

> Without the right to discrimination -- in this general sense -- there

> is no right to property at all. The very meaning of property rights

> is that you have a right to do one thing with the property and not

> another -- i.e. to discriminate. To drive your car to the movies and

> not to school is to discriminate between movies and school, and it is

> what defines whether you own the car or not. If it is my car, you

> have no right to decide where it goes -- i.e., to discriminate between

> its use to go one place and its use to go another.

Words evolve; this point, frankly, strikes me as being essentially

irrelevant. I'm sure we all know we're discussing racism, not

discrimination between, say, fine wines and rotgut.

> I don't care that much about libertarian ideology, but there is a

> second question of social impact. I think the issue is debatable, but

> i think it is at least arguable that the effect of forced integration

> is net negative, increasing racial tensions, and doing very little to

> effect actual integration.

I think there's a heck of a large practical difference between what

I'd call forced integration -- things like bussing -- and anti-racist

measures like preventing landlords from refusing to rent to ni**ers

and queers and commies. People still tend to congregate according to

their own preferences; nobody's talking about mandating that landlords

rent a certain portion of their apartments to minorities, for

example. So again, I think this is a straw man argument against the

sort of passive anti-racist measures I'm talking about. I think there

are good arguments to be made against bussing and affirmative action

(though there are also good arguments in favor of them) but they're

fundamentally different from simple, passive protections against

racist conduct.

To put it another way, I don't buy the idea that a market is free when

certain people aren't allowed to participate in it.

> > (Examples include renting to blacks,

> > selling a home to a gay couple, etc. etc. etc.) Just one example

> from

> > the Ron oeuvre:

> > <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:HR03863:@@@D & summ2=m &

>

> Well based on the very brief description provided, I'd support this

> for a number of reasons: first, I would support anything that

> prohibited the tax code from becoming more complex, because I think a

> complex tax code is one of the most asinine and wasteful economic

> policies a country could possibly institute; second, I find the idea

> that private schools should not be able to discriminate incredibly

> scary. Does this mean that Catholic schools should be forced to admit

> Orthodox, Protestants, Muslims and Jews? Should they be forced to

> admit to professorships people who espouse atheism or homosexuality or

> other belief systems and lifestyles that that particular church

> adamantly opposes? It seems to me that the right of a private school

> to discriminate against people is essnetial to the existence of any

> meaningful element of freedom of association.

I think you missed the relevant part of the bill, which is that the

schools in question are _tax-exempt_. IOW, in exchange for being non-

discriminatory, certain schools are granted tax exemption. The

general idea is used for all kinds of different aims, such as

requiring hospitals to treat sick and injured people who can't pay

upfront.

To echo my earlier point about priorities, I find it very significant

that in the vasty realm of the tax code, THIS is what Ron chose

to focus on: allowing tax-exempt schools to enact racist and otherwise

bigoted policies.

As to the question of whether Catholic schools should be forced to

admit non-Catholics or anti-Catholics, I believe their tax exempt

status must come form their religious nature, though I don't actually

know for sure.

-

December 28, 2007

On 12/28/07, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> > I don't know, and I've yet to see anything on this that provided

> > sufficient information to come to a genuine conclusion. Moreover, it

> > has all been on anti-Ron sites, which are clearly unreliable.

> Actually, I've gleaned some of this from pro-Ron sites. I

> wouldn't characterize any defense he or his supporters might make

> solely from opposition sources.

> For example: <http://thestressblog.com/2007/05/22/ron-paul-is-not-a-racist/

[snip]

Fair enough. I hadn't seen this site before. The article posted at

the top was on an anti- site that Gene had linked too, though this

site has another article at the bottom citing a number of sources who

work at the original publication providing further support that Ron

had nothing to do with the comments and often had very little to

do with the newsletter itself, which was published from an office

sixty miles away from his.

> Now, it seems to me that if something goes out in your personal

> newsletter which is inflammatory AND which doesn't at all reflect your

> views, the believable (indeed, HUMAN) response is to write a

> correction or an apology or at the very least to admit at some point

> that the info in the newsletter was bogus. " Too confusing " just

> doesn't ring true... unless the person saying it is a moron. To me,

> " too confusing " sounds like a lame-ass attempt to avoid responsibility

> for saying something in the past that truly reflected his views, if

> only at the time.

I agree it is lame, which I already said before, but as far as I am

concerned, this is essentially just digging dirt.

It seems to me that he handled the situation with ineptitude, but

there is a huge abyss between handling something ineptly 25 years ago

and being a racist now.

> > For example, you posted information that he supports a constitutional

> > flag-burning, when the exact opposite is the case.

>

> How do you explain this, then?

> <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HJ00080:@@@D & summ2=m &

> And this?

> <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HJ00082:@@@D & summ2=m &

Did you miss my other post? He proposed this ammendment to highlight

the unconstitutionality of the process by which Congress was already

trying to ban flag-burning, and then gave a speech against his own

proposed amendment -- just like he did when he introduced a bill to

wage war against Iraq and spoke out against his own bill, saying that

he opposed the war, but if Congress supported it they should at least

do it constitutionally.

Here is the speech:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul99.html

> > That said, I didn't read any explanation that corresponds to the one

> > you give above. What I read was that he didn't say anything about it

> > in the campaign because his campaign managers told him not to because

> > it was too confusing. This sounds pretty reasonable to me -- you are

> > utterly unconvinced about this excuse even when he gave it to a news

> > reporter that asked him when he was not involved in any campaign and

> > had the least reason to distance himself from it (if I understand the

> > historical context correctly), so no doubt it would be even less

> > convincing to many people during a campaign.

> The " least reason to distance himself from it " ? Wouldn't finding it

> morally abominable be adequate reason...

I meant from a strategic point of view, which seemed most relevant

since you are taking the cynical point of view about his beliefs and

motivations.

> if in fact he didn't agree

> with the sentiments expressed in his own newsletter? I know if

> someone posted something here on this list under my name that I found

> morally objectionable I'd set the record straight pronto.

I don't doubt it, but if somehow you totally screwed it up and 25

years later someone was claiming you believed x and you had 36,000

posts on groups that could be searched by keyword and everything

that turned up on the issue after the incident indicated you didn't

believed the opposite I'd be more inclined to take your viewpoint from

what I knew you wrote than what someone else wrote in your name 25

years prior even if you mishandled it with total ineptitude.

> > I don't think it makes a difference once you understand the

> > libertarian objection to anti-discrimination laws.

> I understand the general idea that people should be free to enter into

> any kind of contract they'd like and do business -- or not do business

> -- with whomever they want, but I also find it revealing that many so-

> called non-racist libertarians preferentially seek to demolish

> protections against racism and other forms of bigotry. In a world

> literally drowning with affronts to civil liberties of all kinds, why

> do so many of them focus on allowing racists to be racist in commerce

> and in government?

I thought the issue here is whether Ron is a bigot.

I have no idea what other libertarians do on this issue and as far as

I know there aren't any members of the House or Senate who are members

of the Libertarian Party and I'm not sure there are any others who

identify themselves as little-l libertarians in the tradition of

Austrian economics like does, so I'm not sure exactly where you

are drawing your generalization from.

Either way, in what sense is Ron disproportionately concerned

with allowing racism? That seems kind of strange. There have got to

be hundreds upon hundreds of articles about and by Ron here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/

Including at least dozens if not hundreds of articles by Ron himself here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

How many of them concern themselves with this issue? Versus, how many

concern themselves with opposing war, imperialism, the death penalty,

taxes, the Federal Reserve, degeneration of civil liberties,

government hypocricy, even opposing isolationism? It seems to me from

scanning through these that the majority of his articles since the

Iraq war started or at least a substantial plurality are in opposition

to war. And of course he condemns racism in them.

So I would say, if Ron is a bigot, can you find anything bigoted

in this massive amount of information he has authentically written

over the last decade?

> Words evolve; this point, frankly, strikes me as being essentially

> irrelevant. I'm sure we all know we're discussing racism, not

> discrimination between, say, fine wines and rotgut.

I don't think it is irrelevant, because my point is that

discrimination by race is just a subcateogry of discrimination. The

fundamental point about property ownership is that you choose what to

do with your own property, regardless of whether it is virtuous or

vile. If that isn't your choice, it isn't your property in any real

sense of the word.

> > I don't care that much about libertarian ideology, but there is a

> > second question of social impact. I think the issue is debatable, but

> > i think it is at least arguable that the effect of forced integration

> > is net negative, increasing racial tensions, and doing very little to

> > effect actual integration.

> I think there's a heck of a large practical difference between what

> I'd call forced integration -- things like bussing -- and anti-racist

> measures like preventing landlords from refusing to rent to ni**ers

> and queers and commies. People still tend to congregate according to

> their own preferences; nobody's talking about mandating that landlords

> rent a certain portion of their apartments to minorities, for

> example. So again, I think this is a straw man argument against the

> sort of passive anti-racist measures I'm talking about. I think there

> are good arguments to be made against bussing and affirmative action

> (though there are also good arguments in favor of them) but they're

> fundamentally different from simple, passive protections against

> racist conduct.

Fair enough, but at the very least we should be able to agree that

even if passive anti-racist measures are harmless, someone can oppose

them on grounds of property rights without being a bigot.

> To put it another way, I don't buy the idea that a market is free when

> certain people aren't allowed to participate in it.

Well, whether a market is " free " is sort of a semantic issue that you

could go either way on. It's like debating whether we have a " free "

will. Clearly we aren't all free to participate in widget market if

some of us have widgets to sell and some of us don't. The point is

more about private property, and whether you have the right to dispose

with your property as you wish providing you are not physically

intruding on someone else's person or property (the libertarian

position) or whether you have any variety of other limits placed on

what you can do with your property for various other reasons (the

non-libertarian position).

> I think you missed the relevant part of the bill, which is that the

> schools in question are _tax-exempt_. IOW, in exchange for being non-

> discriminatory, certain schools are granted tax exemption. The

> general idea is used for all kinds of different aims, such as

> requiring hospitals to treat sick and injured people who can't pay

> upfront.

So the effect of the bill is to stop the revocation of that tax-exempt

status. It looks like it was part of a larger package he introduced

the next year (number 38 in the following link) that did much more:

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:3FNX6GGB0mMJ:4-ch.net/politics/kareha.pl/11\

77980399/l50+%22Proposed+Revenue+Procedure+on+Private+Tax-Exempt+Schools%22 & hl=e\

n & ct=clnk & cd=8 & gl=us & ie=UTF-8

> To echo my earlier point about priorities, I find it very significant

> that in the vasty realm of the tax code, THIS is what Ron chose

> to focus on: allowing tax-exempt schools to enact racist and otherwise

> bigoted policies.

No, I think in the vast realm of what Ron has done, THIS is what

you are choosing to focus on. If you look at the link above, and

specifically number 38 where this same proposal surfaces, it is within

the context of a large package of issues that includes eliminating the

DOE and giving all kinds of tax benefits to working families and so

on.

Chris

December 28, 2007

>> > .

>> >

>> > I don't think it is irrelevant, because my point is that

>> > discrimination by race is just a subcateogry of discrimination. The

>> > fundamental point about property ownership is that you choose what to

>> > do with your own property, regardless of whether it is virtuous or

>> > vile. If that isn't your choice, it isn't your property in any real

>> > sense of the word.

>> >

>

> You will go to any lengths at all to defend the extremes of libertarianism.

>

> I can own a baseball bat, but I cannot hit someone over the head with it. It

> is still my baseball bat. If I am not allowed to restrict the sale of my

> property to Œwhites only¹, you would claim that it isn¹t my property in ANY

> real sense of the word. That¹s absolutely disgusting. At some point, if you

> don¹t admit that absolute property rights aren¹t as important as some other

> rights, then you are strongly part of the problem.

>

>>>> >>> I don't care that much about libertarian ideology, but there is a

>>>> >>> second question of social impact. I think the issue is debatable, but

>>>> >>> i think it is at least arguable that the effect of forced integration

>>>> >>> is net negative, increasing racial tensions, and doing very little to

>>>> >>> effect actual integration.

>> >

>>> >> I think there's a heck of a large practical difference between what

>>> >> I'd call forced integration -- things like bussing -- and anti-racist

>>> >> measures like preventing landlords from refusing to rent to ni**ers

>>> >> and queers and commies. People still tend to congregate according to

>>> >> their own preferences; nobody's talking about mandating that landlords

>>> >> rent a certain portion of their apartments to minorities, for

>>> >> example. So again, I think this is a straw man argument against the

>>> >> sort of passive anti-racist measures I'm talking about. I think there

>>> >> are good arguments to be made against bussing and affirmative action

>>> >> (though there are also good arguments in favor of them) but they're

>>> >> fundamentally different from simple, passive protections against

>>> >> racist conduct.

>> >

>> > Fair enough, but at the very least we should be able to agree that

>> > even if passive anti-racist measures are harmless, someone can oppose

>> > them on grounds of property rights without being a bigot.

>

> Being a bigot is not something objective in the sense that it can be measured.

> It is something that we judge. And I am quite comfortable with the label

> Œbigot¹ for someone who believes that personal property rights, and other

> kinds of rights supercede the basic human rights of people to be treated

> equally, especially when history has weighted the playing field against them.

> I¹m very comfortable with that label. People aren¹t so disingenuous as to

> believe that this kind of behavior has no effect they have decided what

> their priorities are.

>

December 28, 2007

On 12/28/07, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> You will go to any lengths at all to defend the extremes of libertarianism.

The position isn't bigoted. I'll defend it as not bigoted because it isn't.

> I can own a baseball bat, but I cannot hit someone over the head with it.

> It is still my baseball bat.

Right. And the libertarian position uses as its presmise the

non-agression principle, which holds that initiation of physical

intrusion into another person's self or property is injustice. So

hitting someone over the head with a baseball bat violates the

principle.

> If I am not allowed to restrict the sale of my property to Œwhites only¹, you

> would claim that it isn¹t my property in ANY

> real sense of the word.

I may have accidentally said or implied that, but I should have said

something more like, it is one's property insofar as and in proportion

to the extent that one can choose how to dispose of it. But, when you

start setting arbitrary rules about what can and cannot be done, the

right to dispose with it essentially becomes a privilege granted by

the state, rather than an inherent right of the person, which is how

the libertarian views it.

> That¹s absolutely disgusting. At some point, if

> you don¹t admit that absolute property rights aren¹t as important as some

> other rights, then you are strongly part of the problem.

In what sense does someone have a right to use someone else's things?

I don't have a " right " to buy bread at the grocery store, for example,

even though I might depend on that for my livelihood to some extent.

Of course, I believe everyone should have the right to live and

acquire the basic means of survival and prosperity and to acquire

property, whether it be held individually or communally.

It's my understanding that the black community was essentially booming

economically and culturally prior to the passage of forced integration

and anti-discrimination policies the middle of last century. I'm not

very knowledegable in the area but I've seen some compelling arguments

that these things did more harm than good. I'd rather observe a

discussion on this than participate in one, though, since I know so

little. Perhaps has some useful comments, as he has discussed

this to some degree in the past if I recall correctly.

Chris

December 28, 2007

>

>> you

>> real sense of the word.

>

> I may have accidentally said or implied that, but I should have said

> something more like, it is one's property insofar as and in proportion

> to the extent that one can choose how to dispose of it.

And how one actually uses it while it is yours isn't part of this equation

at all?!

> But, when you

> start setting arbitrary rules about what can and cannot be done, the

> right to dispose with it essentially becomes a privilege granted by

> the state, rather than an inherent right of the person, which is how

> the libertarian views it.

These rules aren't arbitrary. This is my point. There is the inherent right

of a person not to be discriminated against because of race, sexual

preference, sex, religion, etc, and there is the right to dispose of one's

property. YOU are choosing which has priority for you. I don't care what

'the libertarian' says. I'm talking to you. This is YOUR priority. And I am

comfortable with calling that bigoted. You say, I don't consider your right

as a black person to buy this home as important as this racist pig's right

not to sell it to you because you're black. You're not racist in the

aggressive sense of the person selling his home, but there is something

deeply ethically flawed in your position.

>

>> other rights, then you are strongly part of the problem.

>

> In what sense does someone have a right to use someone else's things?

> I don't have a " right " to buy bread at the grocery store, for example,

> even though I might depend on that for my livelihood to some extent.

Huh? Why don't you have the right to buy bread at the grocery store? If you

don't, can every grocery store ban you from buying food there?

>

> Of course, I believe everyone should have the right to live and

> acquire the basic means of survival and prosperity and to acquire

> property, whether it be held individually or communally.

Unless, of course, say this conflicts with someone else's property rights,

or the property rights of the community in general. NO BLACKS ALLOWED.

>

> It's my understanding that the black community was essentially booming

> economically and culturally prior to the passage of forced integration

> and anti-discrimination policies the middle of last century.

I have rarely heard such trash from someone who claims himself to be

educated and thoughtful.

> I'm not

> very knowledegable in the area but I've seen some compelling arguments

> that these things did more harm than good. I'd rather observe a

> discussion on this than participate in one, though, since I know so

> little. Perhaps has some useful comments, as he has discussed

> this to some degree in the past if I recall correctly.

Absolutely disgusted....

>

> Chris

>

December 29, 2007

, I've been following this discussion with much fascination. I'm

probably going to get slammed for what I'm saying, but it has to be

said. I am not a racist, biggot or anything else. I believe God

created all of us, every race, equal. I agree there have been many

wrongs done over the years, BUT...the pendulum has swung too far. Now

blacks and Hispanics feel " entitled " to all kinds of special perks.

Many don't feel they have to do anything to earn priveleges, that they

deserve it because their ancestors were wronged. I am against a

government that provides special protections to ANYBODY. I am disabled

and was trying to find a job. I called my local employment agency

asking if there were any programs to assist the disabled in finding

employment. I was told I could get help IF I WAS HISPANIC!!! This is

wrong, plain wrong. Where I live, you can do anything if you are black

or hispanic...the police won't respond. They are afraid of being sued

for being prejudiced. If you are a white resident where I live, you

are written up and fined for your grass being an 1/8 of an inch too

long, a little mildew on your siding, etc etc, while your black next

door neighbor's house is covered in mildew and the grass looks like a

wild field. I could go on and on. I am not against these people,

please please please understand me. I am against a system that fosters

feelings of " entitlement " to anybody. If you want to go to college,

work at it, learn. There are lots of poor white people too. What's

wrong with simply earning your way, applying laws and rules equally TO

ALL, black, white, hispanic, male, female etc etc? We have gone too

far the other way. It is time to take all these special protections

away and let everyone fend for themselves. If there is prejudice or

bigotry involved, let the law handle it. I am white, I have been

discriminated against because I am white many many times recently.

This is as wrong as discrimination against any other races.

Patty

....but I also find it revealing that many so-

called non-racist libertarians preferentially seek to demolish

protections against racism and other forms of bigotry. In a world

literally drowning with affronts to civil liberties of all kinds, why

do so many of them focus on allowing racists to be racist in commerce

and in government?

December 29, 2007

Amen Patty. I agree with you. I have been in the mortgage industry for 27

years and I have and do employ quite a few Hispanic people here in Tampa.

Some of these people are Cuban, some Peruvian and even had a Brazilian work

for me and who has stayed in touch with me for several years since starting

her own company. Why I say this is I obviously am not prejudiced against

the Spanish population but I see it every day in my business what Patty is

talking about. I will also tell you that most of the Hispanics who come here

work under the table and either don't file taxes or report a very very small

percentage of what they make. So not only do they get the perks they are not

helping to pay for those perks either. I worked with a girl from Jamaica in

the early 80's and her and her brother came here legally with a green card.

Her father was actually fairly well off and wanted his children out of the

country because of some political stuff going on. Anyhow, they came here

and her brother got his complete college education paid for by our

government and I can guarantee you that I could not have gotten that for any

of my kids. Not only that, she did nothing but complain about our country.

I used to tease her and tell her when she went home I was putting a sign on

her back " DON'T RETURN " . It got really old even though I really liked the

girl. Anyhow, here in Tampa, everything is directed for and towards the

Hispanics. Special housing programs, all kinds of things. I don't care if

they get these perks but not even the blacks around here get the perks the

Hispanics gets. It has certainly turned full circle and we are now the real

minorities. Every phone call I make to any company here has a voice

recording to press 1 for English and 2 for Spanish. Everyone try's to be

politically correct now a days but I know for a fact this pisses 90% of us

off! We are just afraid to say something because we will be ridiculed. The

reason I know this is I get on a weekly basis some kind of email about this.

So we feel better when we send those emails out that we don't like what's

happening but we really do not have the guts to speak up about it. Our

country is an English speaking country and I guarantee if you went to Mexico

or Brazil or Peru you would not have those options when you call your local

phone company or grocery or bank, etc. You would learn Spanish or

Portuguese (Brazil speaks Portuguese) or you would not be able to talk to

anyone. PERIOD! They would not treat you like you were special and most

likely would not do anything to help you. Only in our country do these

things happen. I believe this could be changed but we as 'the people " need

to speak up or nothing will change. We have seen how we can change the laws

when we speak up about raw milk, etc. (even though it is an ongoing process)

so we can do the same with this. Having been very involved here in Florida

with the legislature in regards to the mortgage industry, I have seen it

work. But someone has to be bold enough to stand up and say " ENOUGH " and

not keep ignoring the problem. I congratulate Patty for speaking up and if

more of us did we might see this change. Again, it has nothing to do with

being prejudice but rather what is right and what is wrong. As long as

people are allowed to us the " Prejudice " or " discrimination " line then

this will continue. I had a loan officer (he was white) who had a customer

(who was black) that bought a home from US Homes and for some reason or

another when the house got built he could not afford it. US HOMES contract

is a " cash " contract and does not allow for financing like most contracts

here in Florida do. Anyhow, my LO used the discrimination card with US Homes

and got them to build him a new house but smaller that he could afford and

got him out of the other contract which saved this customer his $15000 down

payment. Guess what, it worked! So the discrimination card is a mighty tool

to be played in our country.

Anyhow, I have said enough and I am not prejudiced either but I do see some

things that need to be changed!

Allyn

_____

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of Patty

Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 10:14 AM

Subject: Re: POLITICS ZMAG: RON PAUL IS NOT YOUR SAVIOR