Ron Paul, 2012

You will never fully eliminate racism. 1. There will always be morons. 2. Everyone has some subconsciouss prejudice. You can keep it from manifesting itself but it will always remain

Which is why we need Civil Rights laws. thanks for finally understanding.

You walked right into that one nzm

edited 21st May '11 4:28:24 PM by Alichains

So Rand Paul is wrong?

Fair enough.

No. People will always have flaws and you cannot make them perfect by force.

I don't know Rand Paul and don't care about him.

Are you even trying anymore. Their there to compensate for people's imperfection. Now your just going into some weird form of the Perfect World Fallacy.

Seriously, take some time off, your just digging yourself into a hole.

edited 21st May '11 4:32:34 PM by Alichains

No, I believe in individual's right to be stupid. Freedom is not only for the clever ones (although the stupid ones will loose big time because of their stupidity)

And take others down with them. That's nice and all, but that's not a very compelling argument.

No, your argument is just no. You might want to take a break and formulate your arguments

edited 21st May '11 4:36:03 PM by Alichains

That's the sad part about the relationship with people - they affect the others. If you want people not to hurt others you should create anti-[[Jerkass]] law, a law that makes all love mutual and a law that makes everyone like each other. And a way to enforce them.

NOW who's straw manning? Honestly, just give it up. You're borderline trolling at this point.

edited 21st May '11 4:37:10 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Slippery Slope? Hi Slippery Slope! I haven't seen you in ages!

You definitely sound like your out of an argument. You should cool off.

edited 21st May '11 4:39:31 PM by Alichains

It just looks like we see freedom the different way. I'm not trolling, I just believe people should decide for themselves even if those decisions are wrong. You want to protect the minorities more than you want people to decide for themselves. I understand it but disagree with it. I believe people will solve the problems without the govermental intervention, you think govermental intervention is needed. Different values, different ideas, that's all

I'm not against people deciding for themselves. I'm against large portions of a society being denied that right because of the opinions of a majority.

And how is that libertarianism-related? Libertarianism is not fascism.

It would be fascism if it were the Government screwing them over. There doesn't need to be Government enforcement for large portions of the population being screwed.

edited 21st May '11 4:47:18 PM by Alichains

You assume that heavy regulation is the only thing that keeps all hell from breaking loose and everybody getting screwed. I disagree with you on this. We can repeat ad infinitum because there is no way of proving it other than proving it empirically

edited 21st May '11 4:47:58 PM by nzm1536

I think the flaw in your reasoning is your premise is that people are simply deciding for themselves. They aren't. They are making decisions for others.

That is what those laws control.

And you should care about Rand Paul, because he made the same argument, also he's Ron Paul's son, so he's at least tangentially on topic.

From what I know, Rand Paul and Ron Paul have different views. Rand Paul seems to be much more theoconservative. Also, again, the majority isn't racist so most of blacks won't have problems with finding job because of race. Yes, there are some black people screwed and some racist whites. Affirmative action allows for the inverse thing, with whites not employed because of the company needing to fill minority quota (there was an interesting court case about such thing a few years ago; forggoten the name but I think you can find it in wikipedia's reverse discrimination article). Both are wrong, there is no perfect choice

I'm sure father and son do disagree, but hey, you're making an argument that he also did, so maybe you should care.

And if you mean the New Haven fire department case, that was a case of a city deciding that they were AFRAID of a lawsuit that would allege their testing procedures were discriminatory, not the result of any actual laws or regulations.

Kind of a different situation.

And they STILL got sued, so I guess it didn't save them any trouble.

edited 21st May '11 5:01:00 PM by blueharp

Whatever, I might agree on some things with Rand Paul but from what I know about the Tea Parties, I don't like them and don't want to be associated with them. I don't disagree with everything they say, that would be stupid.

The majority is racist ergo blacks don't have problems with employment? Right-because the majority of people are employers.

Now, granted-if the majority of people are not racist or, as is the only thing known from the presidential election, are less racist than so racist as to be willing to vote in Mc Cain as opposed to a black guy-black men and women have LESS problems with racism than they could potentially have, but that does not allow us to conclude, for example, that the majority of employers are non-discriminatory. Likewise, it does not mean that discrimination is not highly segregated-for instance, here in Georgia. You know: the red states. Your argument boils down to "Well, if that area still has a lot of racism compared to the rest of the states, black people shouldn't live there." Which is an endorsement of segregation.

I'm familiar with "voluntary segregation." I've lived in Detroit, and I've lived in Georgia. Anti-discrimination laws will never kill the us versus them mentality. But it's a good start, not somehow infringing upon essential freedoms.

I think Ron Paul has the same problem. I wonder what he'll do about it. Will he embrace the tide to get on the primary, and have to deal with that in the general, or what? And what about open primary states, will people try a poison pill approach?

yes I will make this thread go back on topic!

Eh, I only watch Rachel Maddow and PBS, but seems to be that despite that he won big money wise in that one debate, Paul really doesn't have a chance.

I dunno, there's no anointed one this year. I think he'll at least get more delegates than he did the years before.

Entirely possible. But my money's on Pawlenty.

I think Bachman will win.

I'm not joking.