Ron Paul And The Liberty Of Bullies

Ron PaulPaul Rosenberg writes in Al Jazeera:

On January 12, a great blow was struck against freedom, if you subscribe to the philosophy of Ron Paul. The Ohio Civil Rights Commission voted 4-0 to uphold its earlier finding that a Cincinnati landlord, Jamie Hein, had discriminated against a ten-year-old biracial girl by posting a “White Only” sign in June 2011, aimed at keeping her out of a swimming pool. According to Paul’s worldview, this was a grave and terrible blow to the white landlord’s liberty. The girl’s white father, however, sees things a bit differently.

“My initial reaction to seeing the sign was of shock, disgust and outrage,” the girl’s father, Michael Gunn, said in brief comments the day the final decision was announced. The family quickly moved away, in order to protect their daughter from exposure to such humiliating bigotry – but they also filed the lawsuit.

According to Ron Paul’s view of “liberty”, they were right to move, but wrong to sue. Both Ron Paul and his son, Rand, oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act, because it outlaws private acts of discrimination. This is an “infringement of liberty”, they argue. And they’re right: just like laws against murder, it infringes the liberty of bullies. And that’s precisely what justice is: the triumph of right over might.

The same logic also applies to the Civil War. It resulted in the abolition of slavery – infringing the liberty of hundreds of thousands of slaveholders. And Ron Paul thinks that was wrong, too.

In June 2004, the House of Representatives voted to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Paul was a lone voice in opposition. On the House floor, he said:

I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

One is tempted to ask, how, exactly, Ron Paul thinks we made such progress, if not in large measure because of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and other similar legislations? But that would only distract attention from the truly odious and absurd central claim that the act diminished individual liberty. Who, but a die-hard racist, thinks that way? Only one who thinks of die-hard racists’ “rights” first, and the rights of everyone else a distant second, if at all

Read more here.

160 Comments on "Ron Paul And The Liberty Of Bullies"

  1. Matt Smith | Jan 25, 2012 at 9:43 am |

    Well, good propagandists always mix the truth into their lies.  Ron Paul does *not* support the “rights of slave holders” as slavery is antithetical to his philosophy.  Otherwise, the article seems correct… he supports nonviolent tolerance of bigots since hearts and minds are what matters.  Of course the Civil Rights Act would never have been passed if the majority of hearts and minds had not already been won, and there is good evidence that it was this leading effect, not the Civil Rights Act, that led to most of the positive outcomes in the Civil Rights Era.

  2. Another hit piece….  Round and round we go.  Another over simplification designed to rattle emotional cages and prevent logical discourse.  Here is what Dr. Paul actually said regarding the civil rights act. Oh and for the record Cynthia Tucker is a sell out. 

     “The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society. Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.”

    http://www.dailypaul.com/205834/a-response-to-cynthia-tucker-s-anti-paul-propaganda-piece

    • Butter Knife | Jan 25, 2012 at 1:40 pm |

      Yeah, how dare that evil Federal Government outlaw overtly discriminatory hiring practices and prevent public space from being forcefully segregated. Boo fucking hoo. Life would be so much better if we could just choose not to hire brown people or do business with them.

    • DeepCough | Jan 25, 2012 at 1:53 pm |

      The reason why Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed was due to the Jim Crow laws that deprived people of their 14th Amendment right based on skin color. If it’s okay to put up a “Whites Only” sign according to Ron Paul–not because he’s racist, but because he believes in property rights–then I reserve the right to post a sign that says “No Conservatives Allowed.”

      • John Brown | Jan 25, 2012 at 2:28 pm |

        Because conservatives equate with discrimination against people of color? The two are hardly on par with each other. Ron Paul and all of his followers are either naive, clueless privileged white people or at worst racist dirtbags. Wake up people.

        • DeepCough | Jan 25, 2012 at 3:01 pm |

          The attraction of racists like Neo-Nazis to Ron Paul is less intentional and more unfortunately incidental.

          • DeepCough | Jan 25, 2012 at 6:35 pm |

            “The attraction of racists like Neo-Nazis to Ron Paul is less intentional and more unfortunately incidental.”

            What the fuck part of that did you not goddamn understand? And I already saw that video, and I applaud the things Ron Paul says, too, but that’s not gonna get him the Presidency, not by a long shot, since Paul is not a MAINSTREAM Republican. The fact that Paul is not a theocrat, neocon, or a fascist, unlike his contemporaries, is why the modern GOP will not nominate him: the modern GOP wants another Reagan, and Ron Paul is anything but a Reaganite, especially when he has criticized the Holy Administration of The Gipper throughout the debates. And even if Ron Paul did sit in the Oval Office, you think he himself will be able to solve everything? Or anything for that matter? Paultards sure love the rhetoric of the Constitution, but if any of these people actually read it, then they wouldn’t put all their eggs in one basket like the rest of the nation has been doing with presidential candidates and general elections for the past fucking century!

          • Jin The Ninja | Jan 25, 2012 at 6:46 pm |

            “The attraction of racists like Neo-Nazis to Ron Paul is less intentional and more unfortunately incidental.”

            Not intentional!? It`s a big f*cking warning sign of things to come. too bad the cult of st. paul fails to see the obvious implication in camron’s own statement.

          • DeepCough | Jan 25, 2012 at 7:28 pm |

            Jin, I try not to be a raging asshole all the time unlike our friend Camron here, okay?

          • Jin The Ninja | Jan 25, 2012 at 7:39 pm |

            sorry i didn’t mean to imply that- i apologise for the rage-post/ it wasn’t directed at you.

          • oh no, please don’t say things on a chat room you can’t say in person, how very bold and clever!

          • Jin The Ninja | Jan 26, 2012 at 5:20 pm |

            more bold and clever than you know;)

          • Hoosiergirl | Jan 26, 2012 at 3:49 am |

            Exactly!  I respect him for being the only candidate to rail against the NDAA, ludicrous war on terror and drugs, and simply that he has the courage to say and vote his convictions- but it’s obvious to anyone who knows his history that he is a racist homophobe. His coalition of supporters fascinates me though – potheads, military veterans, far right and left extremists. The problem is we have no other parties to represent these voices. He reminds me of my crazy old grandpa whom I dearly loved – always ranting and raving about how vile the Nixon administration was. Grandpa was smart enough to know the government was filled with thieving liars but ignorant enough to be a racist. At least he taught me to think for myself, always question authority, and never be fooled into thinking politicians are doing what is best for the people.

        • “all of his followers are either naive, clueless, privileged white people or at worst racist dirtbags.”  Is that why Dr. Paul is favored by more and more black people?  

          Here, it took 5 seconds to disprove your nonsensical spew.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tgjs58i7qeg  

          • Jin The Ninja | Jan 25, 2012 at 7:36 pm |

            “more and more black people” does not signify quantity.

            you have disproved nothing.

          • chinagreenelvis | Jan 26, 2012 at 12:25 am |

            He has disproved the claim that “all” of Ron Paul’s supporters are white. If one black person supports Ron Paul, that claim is proven false. The video was not intended as support for the idea that “more and more black people” are supporting him, but as evidence that John Brown’s statement was absolutely not true.

          • Jin The Ninja | Jan 26, 2012 at 12:34 am |

            99% of RP supporters ARE white. the demographics of the country are not 99% `white`so majority rule by `white` people is not a democracy.

            amendment: there is a reason RP has so few ethnic supporters, most of us don`t actively seek to enact racist policies against ourselves.

          • chinagreenelvis | Jan 26, 2012 at 6:18 am |

            Sorry, where is the information that can be used to back up your claim that 99% of Ron Paul supporters are white?

          • Jin The Ninja | Jan 26, 2012 at 7:40 am |

            based on the fact 89% of the republican base is white.

            there is no way ethnic people would support repeal of the 1964 civil rights act.

            http://www.gallup.com/poll/118937/republican-base-heavily-white-conservative-religious.aspx

          • Seriously as ‘Deep Cough’ pointed out, and I will quote, “…since Paul is not a MAINSTREAM Republican. The fact that Paul is not a
            theocrat, neocon, or a fascist, unlike his contemporaries, is why the
            modern GOP will not nominate him: the modern GOP wants another Reagan,
            and Ron Paul is anything but a Reaganite, especially when he has
            criticized the Holy Administration of The Gipper throughout the debates.”

            Why would you still try to marginalize his supporters by the ethnic base of the Republican party? I am no Republican and I am not “white” but I totally support him, not ignorantly or naively by any means. In fact I set out 2yrs ago to debunk him and have become a supporter. I figure that’s why his supporters are labeled as a “cult” or w/e stupid shit. We are supporters because we actually BELIEVE in the message because we are very informed and in the know.

            So I thought I would share this video w/you, I hope you watch it, maybe it will end some of this stupid rhetoric. I know I have posted 2 other vids to you before on this matter and judging by the continuation of your racial slander towards R.Paul you obviously ignored what I was trying to get you to investigate.

             I don’t think I could have said it better than Mobb Deep to be honest. I wish all of you would hear that message.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fyRVa4lzRo&list=LLK4p3F3IZ-W3opG1dGORkVA&index=1&feature=plpp_video

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 2, 2012 at 8:41 pm |

            Ron Paul is a republican. point blank. he is knowingly defined by his major party status. Repeal of Civil Rights, and lack of Protection for Women’s Health and Body Autonymy. You aren’t informed. You are ahistorical. “Racial Slander”? exactly where did i “racially slander” RP? I have mentioned many times, that I appreciate some of his more libertarian policies (as i am left-libertarian myself), But i do not abide by many of his other positions RE: civil rights, women’s rights, capitalism, labour rights and the environment. I would certainly as a libertarian-socialist never hold any stock in mainstream politics, because that would be entirely hypocritical as my politics are radical. A mainstream candidate cannot or would not be allowed to radically alter the system. If you are a PoC, which i am also, we will have to agree to disagree on this matter, because from my holistic viewpoint, RP would inflict massive damage on race relations- relegating them back to the 1700s.
            MY opinion certainly, but equally as defined as yours, which offered no citations. I apologise if i do not remember you at any time linking me any other videos. But i do not apologise for my criticism historical or ongoing of RP. As long as Disinfo posts articles RE: RP- i will write my thoughts in the appropriate contexts.

          •  Of course I would never say you don’t have the right to express your view points, and to agree to disagree is the best outcome of any, the point was R Paul isn’t a racist and that he has a strong black following.

            And I, as a woman, have a problem w/abortions being the definitive for protecting a woman’s health and body. Abortions are by no means the end all to achieving that goal, and again he wants states to make the decisions there, not the Federal Gov.. I see no problem w/that. Not everyone agrees w/abortions and no one should have their view squashed b/c of someone else’s, I think you as a Libertarian Socialist can appreciate that.
            I again fail to see why you insist he would damage race relations, and this is what drove me to comment in the first place. If you disagree w/his policies than fine, no problem, but to say he would hurt race relations is off base by a lot. Did you in fact watch this video? I suppose everyone in the video is ahistorical as me?

          •  And why in the hell are we typing into a freaking funnel?!

          • Tina_hillenburg | Jan 26, 2012 at 3:10 am |

            More and more black people are are both voting and running for office as Republicans also, but  about 95% still vote Democrat. LOL

          • chinagreenelvis | Jan 26, 2012 at 6:18 am |

            Are you sure that percentage is accurate?

        • Can’t ya just give Hate a chance?

        • Shayne Oneill | Jan 25, 2012 at 11:46 pm |

          I think you missed the sarcasm in his post bro. He’s agreeing with you.

      • Ron Paul would support your right to do so.  Ya get it yet??

        • Jin The Ninja | Jan 25, 2012 at 6:34 pm |

          “Ya” – No. i do not.

        • DeepCough | Jan 25, 2012 at 7:17 pm |

          Oh, good, because I have another sign:

          “No Camron Wiltshires Allowed.”

          • That is fine, you limit your ability to generate capital. Or you limit other things in your immediate control. I don’t see anything wrong with it.  It is your choice.  Or, you could not limit yourself at all and if it were a free country that is the way it would work but it’s not a free country.

            Don’t know why you get mad about it. Whatever.  I would cater to those that I wanted to because it’s my business. If I fail I fail why would you care.    Go to Louisiana, you will see segregation, no signs needed.  Some places I was not safe, those were places I should stay out of. Their loss, I’ll spend my money elsewhere where they like my kind.

            See how that works.

          • HoboDeiter | Jan 26, 2012 at 9:12 am |

            What if every business around me participates in this discrimination and I am unable to move? 

            See how that works

          • DeepCough | Jan 26, 2012 at 11:51 am |

            It’s called spite, friend. If would like to better understand it,
            just take a few step back from your computer and

            FUCK YOUR OWN FACE!

          • Whoa!  You are sounding like a “Raging Asshole” brominsky!  Take it down a notch eh!  

          • EyeoftheAxis | Jan 26, 2012 at 1:27 pm |

            Freedom to get my ass kicked by a bunch of rednecks or go some place else if I don’t like it… I get it now. All I need is an avoid segregated area app for my phone. So who do you want me to vote for again?

          • Good one!  I’d like to see the sign when you make it, post an image for a homey!

      • Raicho732 | Jan 25, 2012 at 11:05 pm |

        thats exactly right.  

      • agreed. it’s you God (or natural) given right to do with your property as you see fit, regardless of someone else’s butthurt.

        • God or natural?  How do you know that if it’s not one it’s necessarily the other?

    • Mr Willow | Jan 25, 2012 at 5:07 pm |

      Another hit piece….

      That’s a pretty interesting assertion from a guy who’s been posting so many pro-Paul propaganda pieces lately, and who’s fought tooth and nail against any sort of legitimate criticism of his policies—specifically how he stands on the environment, and his lack of concern  for the power structure of the country. 

      In case that latter point needs to be spelled out: Corporations’ influence over public policy (rather than government strangulation of business) makes it impossible for any good to be done on behalf of the people; Corporate America owns everything—food distribution, healthcare services, the way in which our economy fluctuates (private banks), every shred of media, and, oh yeah, our fucking representatives!! 

      Instead of challenging the corporate masters of the nation, his opinion on the matter is: Give Them More Power! He wants to deregulate every single sector of our ‘economy’, which is wholly controlled by Corporate America, all in the pursuit of some mythical ‘free market’ that cannot exist without supervision of an outside party because the Market only cares about money, and sooner or later the people who maintain the Market, who make it so the Market can function, the people making the products to sell on the Market, are going to become so incredibly traumatized by the Market that they will turn on the owners of the Market—who care nothing for the whimsical ideas of ‘safety’ or ‘equality’ or ‘respect’ or even ‘life’ when they’re still raking in obscene profits—and actively tear down the Market, because the Market only exists to enrich narcissistic sociopaths, not for the cultivation of any society worth living in. 

      And this ‘logic’ shows in that spiel you quoted from him. Who is his main concern? The property owner. Those that do not own property are not worth having their freedom from bigotry upheld. If you don’t own property, well, then, tough luck, I guess. And then we’re back to feudalism. I wonder how easy it is to become a vassal? About as easy as selling your soul to GE. 

      For the record, for the hundredth time, Ron Paul would do wonders to stifle the police state. He wouldn’t, and I just realised this, bring an end to war. He would bring the troops home, this is true, but the troops coming home would find the economy in the tank (and possibly worse off without a bailout, because of his policies toward the ‘power the federal government is supposed to have’, and an abolition of the FED (which is how the financial institutions were bailed out in the first place) the banks would simply collapse because he would make no effort to seize the banks, to nationalise them, because that’s a ‘breach of property rights’. So, with the economy in shambles, the (presumably former) soldiers need to find work. Where’s that? Oh, why, Haliburton, Academi (formerly Blackwater), Lockeed Martin, and all the rest of the private military will be the only ones still in business because apparently there’s always someone who needs a bullet to the head. Who will give them marching orders now? Well, Ron Paul doesn’t think ceaseless global war is good (which is commendable), so maybe the oil companies? Exxon, BP, any of them. And who has oil? Well, the Middle-East. 

      And would Ron Paul stop them from sending soldiers back to the same hell-hole they just left? Maybe, but in all likelihood he’ll say, “It’s the free-market in action, and it don’t need no gub’ment interference!!” 

      Yet all the Paul supporters sit around and high-five eachother saying, “Yeah, legal Mary Jane!” I pray to the gods that he makes coke legal, because I’ll need the overdose before his first term is over.

      • Paul Robert | Jan 25, 2012 at 5:37 pm |

        At least this guy puts some effort into his negative Ron Paul comment. I wish I wasn’t at work, otherwise I would constructively disagree. Damn boss keeps walking by my office. Maybe if the 1964 Civil Rights Act didn’t exist, this douche wouldn’t be my boss. 

        Cheers!

        • Jin The Ninja | Jan 25, 2012 at 6:29 pm |

          Seriously?

        • sonicbphuct | Feb 10, 2012 at 3:55 am |

           yeah – get busy wage slave. you’re boss has property – are you questioning his right to possess it, or just envious of his “having” and you being the “have-not”?

          btw, it’s been 2 weeks now – do you not constructively disagree anymore?

      • DeepCough | Jan 25, 2012 at 6:18 pm |

        Mr. Willow:

        I hereby cede my title as Vicious Rebutter to you…..for now.

      • Jin The Ninja | Jan 25, 2012 at 7:33 pm |

        the implications of a wholly privatised mercernary army, governed by CEOS and corporate boards, who fight resource wars abroad, are so outrageous and so enormous- that was a satori moment you had. in fact this has happened before. Rupert’s Land, British East Indies, Dutch West Indies, India, Indonesia, Belgian Congo, Ivory Coast, China/Port of Shanghai, Guatemala….the list IS endless.

      • “Corporations’ influence over public policy (rather than government
        strangulation of business) makes it impossible for any good to be done
        on behalf of the people;…”

        Actually,  the corporations work through the government and vice versa because a government is merely the franchise of the elite – the US government has never been anything but that since the beginning in its infancy with rich lines of family to the current corporations (and corporations are merely the housing of the moneyed elite).  When you say “market” it mean monopolies,  of either the product or the distribution. 

        The above about the government just being a franchise of the moneyed elite should have been recognized by the people when Madison,  the so-called father of the Constitution said that the chief duty of the government is to protect the moneyed and propertied from those who were disenfranchised in the 10th Federalist Paper.  However,  by the framers having accepted the Bill Of Rights (after rejecting it out of hand to the man after its first introduction,  until they realized the Constitution would not be ratified without it),  and allowing a farce called representation to exist (made useless by electoral) people just rolled over to their own eventual demise.

        What you say about Paul is correct,  and I agree with you in the main (see my earlier post) – I just do not have the blinders on about this not being the course from the beginning,  as if the government were to be anything more than merely a franchise of the elite (that it became corrupted,  and the rest of the nonsense).  It grew from infancy to adulthood,  but it was always the same character.  They abandoned the advertised purpose of the revolution immediately (it was merely show),  and Shay in his rebellion was absolutely correct.  The Declaration was meant to inflame the masses (propaganda) to do the bidding of another elite rather than those across the pond,  it turned from revolution to imperialism instantly (first domestic as a settler state against the indigenous population and then expanding from there to its current global course).  The “founders” were large land holders as well as slave holders,  and their myriad behind them which enriched themselves in bonds for pennies on the dollar.

        So what does all of this mean?  You see what this has developed to – and even though there has been a dance at times,  where the people through rising up have gotten what they wanted by threat and fear it has and always will rapidly recede,  and revert to such a degree as it is today and even worse if left to its course,  the gap between the rich and the poor greater than it was even during the robber baron days.  It has to be dismantled,  you cannot turn a leopard into a lion (this is not saying that the resources cannot be commandeered by the people),  and that word which everyone avoids – revolution is the only remedy.  Unfortunately power never willingly concedes anything and never steps down,  it must be taken down and in doing so we will help the rest of the world rid itself of a pariah with global tentacles.  As an aside,  all Paul would do is aggravate and expand this beast by high sounding words of “freedom”  and truly “free market” which would spawn private tyrannies even worse than the present (if you can conceive of such a thing).

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1T8xgHdMEM

      • “That’s a pretty interesting assertion from a guy who’s been posting so many pro-Paul propaganda pieces lately, and who’s fought tooth and nail against any sort of legitimate criticism of his policies—specifically how he stands on the environment, and his lack of concern  for the power structure of the country. ”

        Sorry but hit pieces, easily refuted ones at that, do not constitute “legitimate criticism” in my mind.  I was simply cleaning up after the author of this post.
        So you’re making up words and putting them into Dr. Pauls mouth is “legitimate criticism” in your mind? No wonder you have such a skewed perspective of me.  Well whatever you like, it’s a free’ish country.

        • Mr Willow | Jan 26, 2012 at 6:44 pm |

          My reference to legitimate criticism was one made in regard to the comments made here on Disinfo. 

          I have replied to you personally, on more than one occasion, presenting concern over his economic policies. Specifically, his will to further deregulate private industry to the point that no regulation exists—in so doing degrading workplace conditions to the levels experienced in the 20s and 30s, where men were dying in factories by falling into the machinery (the death being swept under the rug and their families uncompensated) and child labour was employed extensively; allowing a further destruction and contamination of the natural environment via industrial waste, deforestation, fracking; and deeming the pursuit of alternative energy worthless because there still stand mountains with their peaks, water supplies not tainted by chemicals, and air still fit to breathe— his wish to make property owners the authority of any given situation in regard to liberty or freedom—disregarding the fact that the only individual with any liberty, freedom, or rights (worth respecting) in the equation would be the owners of property—thereby handing the country wholesale over to Corporate America, which owns the majority of the nation’s property (physical and intellectual), his wish to do away, ultimately, with ‘socialist’ programs such as public healthcare and education—making them the privilege of those with enough money to afford it, so society assumes a stratum similar to the Middle-Ages, with the wealthy, educated men exercising authority over the poor, illiterate, and dying. 

          Basically, he follows the Golden Rule—as in, “He who has the Gold makes the Rules”—believes in Property Rights—as in, “Only those who own Property should have Rights”—and stands firmly with the TParty crowd in terms of ‘individual freedom’—as in, “Don’t tread on me by restricting my ability to tread upon others.” 

          None of these very glaring concerns are ever considered, from what I have seen, by Paul supporters, nor are they discussed, and I have the comments myself that sit without acknowledgment from Paul supporters, or completely ignored, without any debate beyond “But he’s going to end the tyranny the government has been waging against us with the Police State. He’s going to get rid of the Patriot Act and NDAA. He’s going to end the War on Terror and the War on Drugs.” And that charcterisation is being incredibly generous considering half the comments I see on here are composed of little more than “HES THE ONLY ONE WHO MAKES SENSE!!! HIS DETRACTORS ARE ALL PART OF A CONSPIRACY TO UNDERMINE LIBERTY!!! IF YOU DISAGREE YOU HATE FREEDOM!!!!! RON PAUL 2012!!!!!!!!!!!”

          As I have said, once again, his stances on the continual encroachment of fascist-esque policy being pumped out of Washington are commendable and worthy of praise, but it won’t matter if he hands Washington over to private industry for the very reasons I have described. 

          The free-market is simply the exchange of Governmental Tyranny for the Tyranny of Industrial Dictatorship.

      •  lately, and who’s fought tooth and nail against any sort of legitimate criticism of his policies—specifically how he stands on the environment, and his lack of concern  for the power structure of the country. ”

        Sorry but hit pieces, easily refuted ones at that, do not constitute “legitimate criticism” in my mind.  I was simply cleaning up after the author of this post.
        So you’re making up words and putting them into Dr. Pauls mouth is “legitimate criticism” in your mind? No wonder you have such a skewed perspective of me.  Well whatever you like, it’s a free’ish country.

      • You sir are wrong, Corporation have a right to due business, they do not have a right to commit illegal fraudlent acts. He never said that regulations should not be in place to ensrue illegal activites don’t happen, What he said was when government gets in the way, they cause more harm than get with the over regulations. This over regulation everntually creates corpratisim or fascism. Which is now what we have in this country. Laws will be inplace that will punish illegal acts, but the government just muddies the water to the point that no other business can grow up to challeng the hugh comglomarates. Less government, strict adherence to law, and allowance for true capatilims to take place creates fertile ground for economic growth

        • Mr Willow | Jan 31, 2012 at 12:44 am |

          but the government just muddies the water to the point that no other business can grow up to challeng the hugh comglomarates.

          I was with you (though incredulous) up until this. 

          Noöne can challenge the huge conglomerates because they have been allowed to buy up all their competitors. And they have been allowed to do this because of deregulation. 

          And corporatism has occurred because of corporate lobbying, which has been done in the interest of further deregulation and increasing corporate power (usually including more tax breaks and tax subsidies). The lobbyists have been the ones writing legislation for the past couple of decades, to further their own interests.

    • Just like Truth and Goodness do not always overlap,

      Being Free and being Right does not either.

      Do we want ultimate freedom, or ultimate correctness (hint: we’ve never had the latter; but the former scares people)

      • Josh Allen | Jan 25, 2012 at 5:42 pm |

        Not “ultimate freedom”, individual liberty! The difference is this: Ultimate freedom would lead to feudalism. Individual liberty is where my freedom ends and yours begins. Understand? 

        Maybe its the people that don’t understand Ron Paul’s concepts, and not the other way around. 

    • Jin The Ninja | Jan 25, 2012 at 7:42 pm |

      “Another hit piece”

      or a legitmate news article from a legitimate news source with a legitimate critique, rather than a right-wing blog subverting information for their own goals ?

      strangely enough, “hit piece” was exactly how rethugs used to refer to any article written on sarah palin.

      and we all know what a joke she is/was.

    • Jinotegano | Jan 26, 2012 at 9:01 am |

      I’ve been a victim of corporate discrimination, and I’ve had felonies committed against me by both the AT&T, Federal Judge Craig B Shaffer as well as the law firm of Sherman & Howard and Gregson & Pixler, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Dept. of Justice, the Colorado Courts, Denver District Attorneys office, the Colorado Attorney Grievance Committee, and the list goes on. all covering up for AT&T who fired me while I was on a ‘corporate approved medical leave of action’ and then forged my name to leave papers to cover up their crime.  I was ordered by Judge Shaffer to not pursue the forgery case against the manager (Tom Cotton, Craig, Colorado)who forged my name or caused my name to be forged and presented it to the EEOC.
       I suppose, (“The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the
      rights of private property owners to use their property as they please
      and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all
      parties.”),  these mutually agreeable parties are protected from their felonies by your way of thinking seeing as how there are several of them and only one of me, they have the money, and I’m just the unlucky victim of their crimes.
      |Laws without teeth protect the criminals and double the injury to the victim being as “use their property as they please
      and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all
      parties.” would be a defensible position in court they all agreed to screw me therefore I got screwed. 
      Wake up an smell the coffee, you cannot allow money and the legal system to intermix without control (laws) or the rich will (and have) screw the little guy every time.  Why do you think there are so many people in prison in the USA, cause the USA really is more criminally infested than other countries? You can’t turn the real criminals loose on society with winks and handshakes and expect that they will treat people right.
      I paid for Social Security all my life and now I’m retied and have a contract with the US  government to pay my support in my declining years.  Ron Paul would declare that contract (Social Security) illegal and take my income from me….How would I live? There aren’t enough garbage cans for all of us to eat out of and the police run us out of the parks after 10pm. And what about the people with mental health issues or downs syndrome? They can fend for themselves right?  Or the guy who lives down the street  you know the one that’s not exactly the brightest bulb on the tree, let’s throw him to the wolves also because a vocational school     (community paid) would not be funded due to the elimination of several taxes(which ,at this time, are  going into the pockets of the crooked).
      I could go on but you should have a direction to point your wondering in now and if you’re half as smart as you appear to be in the above posting you should be able to see where all of Ron Paul’s ideas are not as great as they at first appear to be.
      Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying there’s a better choice, but I ,myself, do not intend to vote for the lesser of two (or three, or four) evils.  IMHO they’re all a bunch of lazy overpaid assholes trying to get rich by doing nothing(good) for anyone.  Give my Thomas Paine over these guys any day.

  3. mannyfurious | Jan 25, 2012 at 12:08 pm |

    The behavior of the landlord is abhorrent. Worse than that really. So abhorrent I can’t even think of a proper word for it. 

    However… at least everyone now knows the landlord’s a bigot and can choose to either give this bigot their money to live there or choose to live somewhere else. This is the same concept that applies to, say, restaurants. As a minority, I guess I assume that there’s always a chance that the racist owner or chef of some restaurant I’m patronizing can be spitting in my food, or worse. But if that person is allowed to openly be a bigot, I know to avoid his restaurant, and he gets neither my money nor the money of those who find his bigotry reprehensible. 

    There’s rarely a cut-and-dry answer for these kinds of topics. It’s easy to get emotional and want to punish someone like the landlord in this article, but we must not lose sight of what is most important while doing so. Unpopular and even “wrong” viewpoints cannot be censured when it comes to one’s privacy and right’s as a citizen. The problem is what is considered acceptable by a given society is always changing and is arbitrary. As someone who often agrees with a socialist viewpoint, I see a lot of this kind of thing happening to those who are openly socialist. They get censured just as well, because their viewpoints are not considered acceptable by a large segment of the population.

    And I say this as someone who’s not all that impressed by Ron Paul. 

    • Actually, it is pretty clear cut: it’s against the law. The restaurant owner has the privilege of free speech. He can fill his restaurant with racist propaganda and let everyone know how he feels and this will probably insure that most of his clientele are fellow racist, but he can’t actually refuse to serve someone because of their race because that would be infringing on the liberties of a protected class of people.

      • mannyfurious | Jan 25, 2012 at 6:52 pm |

        The law isn’t infallible. And it’s private property. He can refuse to let anyone  into his house. Why is business any different. And if all of his clientele end up being bigots, then they’ve just outed themselves and others can react accordingly. 

        All these laws do is keep racism institutionalized and discrete, which in some ways is more dangerous than open racism. At least one can confront open racism. Discrete racism is lurking in the shadows, away from the eyes of those who can do something about and/or those who can become victimized by it. 

        • Totally calling bullshit on that. Open racism is only going to lead to more open and institutionalized racism. To think otherwise is just naive.

          If you run a business that it open to the public then you take advantage of a public infrastructure that we all contribute to and thus have to play by the rules of that public arena.

          • mannyfurious | Jan 26, 2012 at 1:21 pm |

            Call bullshit on it all you want. But if racism is out in the open its much more easier to confront. I don’t even know how this is debatable. 

            Most of the racial problems we’re dealing with today is because so many people are in denial about how perpetual racism still is. The reason for this is because every racist is forced to conceal his racism from others. But this does not affect the racists’ behaviors when no one is looking. A lot of evil shit goes down when no one is looking. And when it comes to matters of race, no one is looking….

            Furthermore, any private business open to the public is allowed to serve who want and not serve who they want. “No shoes, no shirt, no service” is a from of discrimination. 

          • Most of the racial problems we’re dealing with today are the results of poverty. You can’t just declare a people equal and codify it into law and expect them to miraculously normalize with the rest of society. I would argue that most of the mechanisms that people point to as institutionalized racism would be more rightly identified as mechanism designed to keep poor people in their place–it just happens to capture a lot of minorities in it’s embrace.

            The racist of the civil rights era are all dieing off. I grew up in the south and all of my grandparents were openly racist. My parents and their siblings were moderately racist–usually just falling for the Fox News type arguments about race. Among my peers racism was pretty rare. Kids today seem either oblivious or have white-guilt issues.

            Maybe you live in some alternate universe where racism still thrives, or maybe you’re one of those reverse-racism nuts, but what I’ve seen in the last 30 years of being aware of such things is a steady decline in racism and a constant struggle to ferret out the more subtle aspects of racism.

          • I think the fact that people are calling Ron Paul a racist totally illustrates my point too. Paul’s libertarian BS is definitely an attack on poor people but I don’t think it’s racially motivated, it’s just going to hurt minorities more because they are disproportionately poorer.

          • If racism is out in the open, it’ll do much more damage to minority children.

          • mannyfurious | Jan 26, 2012 at 1:21 pm |

            Call bullshit on it all you want. But if racism is out in the open its much more easier to confront. I don’t even know how this is debatable. 

            Most of the racial problems we’re dealing with today is because so many people are in denial about how perpetual racism still is. The reason for this is because every racist is forced to conceal his racism from others. But this does not affect the racists’ behaviors when no one is looking. A lot of evil shit goes down when no one is looking. And when it comes to matters of race, no one is looking….

            Furthermore, any private business open to the public is allowed to serve who want and not serve who they want. “No shoes, no shirt, no service” is a from of discrimination. 

    • hoosiergirl | Jan 26, 2012 at 4:27 am |

      You forget that blacks in the south didn’t have a choice to simply boycott the businesses of bigots during the days of MLK. The rights of bigots to discriminate were systemic, institutionalized, and brutally enforced by the police state owned by the bigots. They had to be brave enough to be willing to be beaten and killed simply for DEMANDING they were human and that they had the right as human beings to live, eat, vote, and go to school just like their bullies.

      • mannyfurious | Jan 26, 2012 at 1:18 pm |

        How did I forget this? We’re not living six decades ago in the south. The Civil Rights movement did a lot of good things, including changing the laws in the south that promoted institutionalized racism. Protecting one’s rights to property and to speech is hardly going to send this country back to its apartheid past.

        Again, reacting emotionally only gets one so far. Read what I wrote and think about it, instead of blindly reacting to it.

      • mannyfurious | Jan 26, 2012 at 1:18 pm |

        How did I forget this? We’re not living six decades ago in the south. The Civil Rights movement did a lot of good things, including changing the laws in the south that promoted institutionalized racism. Protecting one’s rights to property and to speech is hardly going to send this country back to its apartheid past.

        Again, reacting emotionally only gets one so far. Read what I wrote and think about it, instead of blindly reacting to it.

  4. First of all, I LIVE in Cincinnati, and there was no mention AT ALL of a little girl or any one particular person, when this happened. According to the news story, the ignorant woman was concerned about the hair products of ALL the black people, that used the pool, making the water cloudy… (She then said it was an antique sign- SURE!)… But we are NOT stupid. This woman hurt herself and I’d be surprised if she is successful as a landlord. Nothing wrong letting people destroy THEMSELVES by showing their ass. But guess what- I had a landlord of 9 years that was an elderly gay man. Not only did he proposition my boyfriend and the young guys that lived downstairs, but he constantly harassed and bullied me. NINE years. I wonder what would have happened if I had taken him to court? My revenge? Living there for 9 years, in spite of him (and getting rid of the boyfriend he loved). Bottom line- take care of yourselves, people! 

    • HoboDeiter | Jan 25, 2012 at 1:50 pm |

      You should have taken him to court if he was harassing you, it’s your own fault for not doing so when the law is on your side. But I guess we should all just learn to put-up with shitty situations  like you did instead of trying to fix them.

  5. Liam_McGonagle | Jan 25, 2012 at 12:19 pm |

    Great practical example.  Paul’s full of abstract theories that completely fall apart upon contact with reality.

    I really enjoy the ‘voting with your dollars’ joke, though.  This at the same time that the Paulites are whining about being outspent by establishment whores like Gingrich and Romney.

    “We need to continue the struggle for the Paulite Paradise?”  Don’t bother, deary:  you’re already there.

    • YaBooSucksToYouFascists | Jan 25, 2012 at 2:38 pm |

      Fantastic points.  I say support Obama, his full-on war paradise is my cup of tea.  I’d rather have than than this hypothetical example that might occur if Ron Paul were to go back in time and remove the Civil Rights Act.  Ron Paul is risky guys!  He might time travel and force us to live with racist landlords!  I mean that’s what your saying, I’m not making anything up or putting words in your mouth, no, not like this article at all.

    • AbstractRealities | Jan 25, 2012 at 3:34 pm |

      “Paul’s full of abstract theories that completely fall apart upon contact with reality…” I will take his “abstract” theories any day over the political “realities” of the current war criminal sitting in the oval office…

      Dismantling the Patriot Act? Check. Stripping the NDAA of language which authorizes the indefinite detention of American citizens? Check. Bringing home ALL of the troops, asap? Check. Ending the war on drugs and pardoning ALL inmates whose only “crimes” were non-violent drug offenses? Check and check. Ah yes, by the way: that last one – freeing the inmates – would subsequently make Paul one of the greatest heroes of civil liberties since Lincoln freed the slaves. Me thinks the disproportionate numbers of minorities who have been jailed for said offenses being freed ought to quash any ignorant comments about Paul’s supposed racism (not that you said he was a racist, but so many others have…)   

      • BOOYAH!  Well said Abstract.  Sorry you will most likely not convince the terminal trolls here.  It doesn’t matter how much sense Ron Paul makes, they will skew his words regardless.  Great post, summarizes exactly why Dr. Paul is anything but racist. 

    • Hadrian999 | Jan 25, 2012 at 7:32 pm |

      Don’t even bother, talking about ron paul is like talking religion, his cult refuses to acknowledge the real world effects that his philosophy would have and they refuse to accept the fact that the office of the presidency doesn’t have the power to enact any of the helpful things he wants. in the end if he actually did bring home the troops and end the war industry gravy train he would die peacefully in his sleep of an induced heart attack

      • Liam_McGonagle | Jan 26, 2012 at 12:27 pm |

        Very apt simile.  Couldn’t agree more.

        As you may recall, I’ve been on both sides of that discussion, so I do see some merit in engagement.  Not to the wacky, helplessly sad level that the Kool Aid drinkers ‘appear’ to, but it is worthwhile to think that maybe 1 in every 10,000 will actually stop and reconsider their position, if only to try to polish it up and make it more robust.

        I do get the feeling that most of the frenetic, directionless character of the responses is a desparate attempt to convnince themselves of their own position, so in a way it’s a really encouraging sign.  They may be nearing their fatigue point.  Those smart enough to get tired of repeating the same old talking points verbatim, anyhow.

        So my general policy is to throw out a couple of observations, scan the responses for anything that looks like it could be salvaged into a coherent argument, but I certainly am NOT spending a lot of time on it.  That would be like doing your kids’ homework for them.

      • Liam_McGonagle | Jan 26, 2012 at 12:27 pm |

        Very apt simile.  Couldn’t agree more.

        As you may recall, I’ve been on both sides of that discussion, so I do see some merit in engagement.  Not to the wacky, helplessly sad level that the Kool Aid drinkers ‘appear’ to, but it is worthwhile to think that maybe 1 in every 10,000 will actually stop and reconsider their position, if only to try to polish it up and make it more robust.

        I do get the feeling that most of the frenetic, directionless character of the responses is a desparate attempt to convnince themselves of their own position, so in a way it’s a really encouraging sign.  They may be nearing their fatigue point.  Those smart enough to get tired of repeating the same old talking points verbatim, anyhow.

        So my general policy is to throw out a couple of observations, scan the responses for anything that looks like it could be salvaged into a coherent argument, but I certainly am NOT spending a lot of time on it.  That would be like doing your kids’ homework for them.

  6. According to this logic, Christian Zionists must be forced by government decree to read the Koran at church if Muslims feel their civil rights are violated and Muslims must accept JC as their savior…cuz dats powitacally cowect.

    Disinformation is so hard up for hits, they know that ignoring Ron is not in their best interest.

    As long as you keep talking and thinking of Ron Paul, thats what’s important, gives us a reason to actually visit this site…albeit, for comic relief only.

    Next up, Ron Paul only wants whites to shoot up marijuana. Lets see if they can make it stick.

    Don’t shoot till you see the whites of their lies.

  7. chinagreenelvis | Jan 25, 2012 at 12:56 pm |

    Not all that surprising when you consider the source of the article is Al Jazeera.

    • Jin The Ninja | Jan 25, 2012 at 6:38 pm |

      Al Jaz, has proven to be far better than any other corporate-led US-backed media in recent memory at actually fulfilling journalistic duty of providing free information and then dissecting it through the lens of history or economics. Any suggestions or just more complaints?

      • chinagreenelvis | Jan 26, 2012 at 12:07 am |

        If this article is an example of Al Jazeera’s journalistic integrity, it’s no wonder Disinfo.com has no problem repeating the information.

        • Jin The Ninja | Jan 26, 2012 at 12:33 am |

          Since you hate this site so much, why even visit it!?

          • chinagreenelvis | Jan 26, 2012 at 6:21 am |

            Do you still rape children?

          • chinagreenelvis | Jan 26, 2012 at 6:22 am |

            Have you stopped raping children yet? Answer “yes” or “no.”

          • Jin The Ninja | Jan 26, 2012 at 8:11 am |

            the only people who use extreme sexual violence and domination as some kind of attention seeking subversive statement, are those that would practice it themselves.

          • chinagreenelvis | Jan 26, 2012 at 3:52 pm |

            You’re an idiot.

            It’s a loaded question, the kind you can’t answer directly. Kind of like “If you hate this website so much, why do you come here?” is also a loaded question that assumes an untrue premise.

            I’m sorry that you seem so focused on the “raping children part,” but that is quite irrelevant.

          • Jin The Ninja | Jan 26, 2012 at 3:57 pm |

            not really. it`s relevant in that you could have chosen any topic, any meme, yet you focused on spamming my comment with something vile and abhorrent. trying to bully and dominate me. you`re totally vile. and you do for the record always complain about disinfo- so my question wasn`t loaded, it was an honest reaction to your continued unmitigated criticisms of this site.

          • chinagreenelvis | Jan 26, 2012 at 5:55 pm |

            You’re the one who’s focusing on the abhorrent. And now the victim card? Pathetic.

            Your question is loaded: It assumes that I hate this website. You may as well ask someone who criticizes the President, “If you hate America so much, why do you live there?”

            If you want a longer answer, I enjoy reading many of the articles posted on Disinfo. Most of them are utter garbage.  Hence, I equate Disinfo with a general lack of journalistic integrity.

            By asking someone, “Why do you even come here,” you aren’t winning any arguments, but merely starting a fight that isn’t worth it. I suggest you find a new strategy.

          • Jin The Ninja | Jan 26, 2012 at 7:32 pm |

            Coming from the person who critises Al Jaz for their integrity, your comment holds very little weight. this site compiles articles from OTHER sources, no one here pretends to be a journo.

            `merely starting a fight isn`t worth it“

            actually Elvis, it was you who descended to name calling, and sexually subversive antagonisms, not me.

          • Jin The Ninja | Jan 26, 2012 at 7:35 pm |

            “focusing on the abhorrent”

            you spammed my comments 4 times with that antagonist vile shill.

            “Playing the victim card”

            Interesting play on language, using domination and rape as a charge, then becoming upset when i explore the implications. Again, you are obsessed with the idea of sexual violence, you should really stop and get some help.

          • Jin The Ninja | Jan 26, 2012 at 7:32 am |

            i got it the first time, i just think it`s pretty sick that your mind went to that place. extremely sick.

  8. if you are stupid enough to believe this article, in the way it is written, slanted, creepy, disgusting, inaccurate and non-contextual, then YOU DESERVE TO HAVE NEWT GINGRICH AS YOUR NEXT PRESIDENT.

    • DeepCough | Jan 25, 2012 at 1:55 pm |

      Everyone knows that Obama is going to win again, because the GOP can’t even fucking decide who their Conservative Messiah should be (and don’t think for a second that Ron Paul will get nominated).

  9. Mitch_trec | Jan 25, 2012 at 1:23 pm |

    fuck you disinfo, you definitely live up to your name.

  10. robcypher | Jan 25, 2012 at 2:05 pm |

    Gotta love how Ron Paul cultists will do their damnedest to stick up for bigots but leave sick poor people to depend on their own devices. What a bunch of anti-human creeps. 

    • Amazingly Stupid People | Jan 25, 2012 at 3:47 pm |

      +1 for dumbest comment on the web. Next!

    • You are trolling with discredited disinfo talking points.  uld 

      • Jin The Ninja | Jan 25, 2012 at 6:39 pm |

        “Discredited Disinfo Talking points”

        if that is the case, why do you post articles here at all- if you don’t want to hear what reader’s of this site have to say?

        masturbatory ill logic.

        nice.

        • chinagreenelvis | Jan 26, 2012 at 12:16 am |

          Do you still rape children? Answer with a simple “yes” or “no.”

        • here let me clear that up for you, disinformation talking points, not referring to the web-site.   “the readers” oh the “Monolithic” group that only thinks like you? Those “readers”.  Your statement makes no sense obviously.  I appreciate the opinions of those who actually are attempting to share information and not just spread nonsensical propaganda as though it is gospel.  

          I appreciate differing perspectives when the effort is made to be courteous and thoughtful and not overly dogmatic or to lace arguments with over emotional trip wires.  I think we call folks like that trolls..
          Hmmm,  yes…

  11. Let’s pretend he was talking about the right to free speech, and not property rights:
    “On January 12, a great blow was struck against freedom, if you subscribe to the philosophy of Ron Paul. The Ohio Civil Rights Commission voted 4-0 to uphold its earlier finding that a Cincinnati AUTHOR, Jamie Hein, had discriminated against a ten-year-old biracial girl by WRITING AND PUBLISHING A “Whites Are Superior” PAMPHLET in June 2011, aimed at keeping her SELF-ESTEEM LOW. According to Paul’s worldview, this was a grave and terrible blow to the white landlord’s liberty.”
    In this situation, couldn’t you defend the author’s freedom of speech without endorsing the racist content of the pamphlet?

    The ACLU thinks so: they represented the KKK in court because they saw that the klansmen’s 1st amendment rights were being infringed.  They defended the KKK’s freedom to say and publish whatever they want, regardless of how deplorable the ACLU lawyers found the KKK’s writings.  Obviously it’s possible to defend a person’s right to exercise freedom without necessarily approving of every way in which that freedom will be used.  The author is saying that if Ron Paul supports strict private property rights, then he must support every possible use of these private property rights, including the banning of racial minorities from pools.  This is equivalent to saying that if you support strict freedom of speech rights, you support every kind of speech, including racist and bigoted books, for instance.  This is clearly not so.  This is such a simple distinction and yet it is constantly ignored.  Notice there were no quotes from Ron Paul in this article, and if the author had bothered to get a comment from him, he would’ve risked getting the kind of nuanced, thoughtful and explicitly anti-racist answer that Paul always gives to these types of questions.

    • AbstractRealities | Jan 25, 2012 at 3:39 pm |

      Excellent comment!!! Kudos 🙂

    • Amazingly Stupid People | Jan 25, 2012 at 3:43 pm |

      But look at all the retards that fall for this..  America is just to stupid to succeed anymore. 🙁

    • Ben you make entirely too much sense for the dingleberries on this board.  Thanks for setting the record straight.  

      • Jin The Ninja | Jan 25, 2012 at 6:41 pm |

        “Dingleberries on this board”

        yes, camron continue being sophomoric, stifling debate and discussion. that will inevitably cause a massive influx of paulites, who will in turn co-op the site. Which, is what i assume, you want.

    • In a situation where freedom is legalized, as Paul says, not only is the writing free, but everyone else is free to never do business with people who write them. In this sense, its almost like Paul wants to force freedom on people.

      Now that I think about it, people may very well be afraid of this kind of real freedom of choice rather than the “do i want Cocoa Puffs, or Choco Puffs” supermarket choice illusion. I’m pretty damned white, but I’d be boycotting anyone with the “no colored” signs. Frankly its important to be able to see who believes this kind of stuff is okay, and the only way you can lift the veil is to make their bigotry legal. This does NOT mean socially acceptable. I feel really bad for people that believe the only form of social responsibility is solely whether or not something is legal. I’m perfectly okay with things being considered wrong, without creating draconian laws that destroy people’s lives when they are done.

      People are just too afraid to look away from the dancing shadows on the cave wall

    • The author was not calling Ron Paul a racist.  He was talking about Ron Paul’s world views.  Hew was talking about his policies that would in fact support racist beliefs in America.  Beliefs like blacks cannot eat at the same table with whites.  His policies would have children back to work like China.  Doesn’t mean he supports it, just mean that we would allow only the states to do something about it.  The states gave us Jim Crow Laws everybody.

  12. Yep- Ron Paul is just a fresh coat of makeup on the same old Confederate whore.

  13. Only those who face no systemic discrimination believe that Civil Rights legislation somehow set back liberty.  Only white people–and primarily males–hold the belief that situations did not improve.  He is looking at his own privilege, which diminished a bit, rather than the rights of the average American, which took an up-tick.   The lack of perspective is stunning.

    http://www.realherosjourney.com/TAGR

    • To say that some or most individuals will benefit if certain property rights are violated is not the point. One can simply show that some or most individuals will be harmed by the same token. Individual rights are key to principled libertarian political philosophy, which is why Ron talks about racism being anti-libertarian due to the collectivist mindset racism entails.

  14. Twistedhairball | Jan 25, 2012 at 2:36 pm |

    Fuck you disinfo – Emotive shit.

  15. Pure disinformation. The reason Ron Paul did not support the Civil Rights Act was because of affirmative action, which is in itself racist and discriminatory, and has denied many qualified people from getting jobs simply because they weren’t the right right skin color. Paul believes in individual liberty, which is as far from racism as you can get. Liberty applies to EVERYONE. 

    • DeepCough | Jan 25, 2012 at 3:04 pm |

      As I pointed out already, because of Jim Crow laws, which said if you were black, you’re not allowed to do anything, we now must have policies like Affirmative Action, which say, “Oh, you’re black, well, that’s darned okay!” One act of ridiculum deserves another.

  16. Wow, Ron Paul is so much smarter than people realize. It’s a shame his genius is twisted as racism. He’s probably the least racist candidate out there. I’m even going to go so far and say Ron Paul is less racist against black people than Obama is. At lease Ron Paul will defend the personal liberty of all minorities, unlike Obama who wants to kill them or put them in an internment camp. I see a lot of idiots here that may disagree though. No matter, they’ll get what they deserve.   

  17. FactCheck | Jan 25, 2012 at 3:39 pm |

    Fact: Ron Paul is less racist than Barack Obama.

  18. Who cares if Rosenberg is biased, ignorant, or lying – it appeals to the my prejudice against old white men who advocate equal rights everyone. I don’t need to be tolerant or understanding of the relationship between liberty and property rights. Anyone who thinks people can live free or achieve anything without legislation is dumb. MLK would have agreed with me and been my friend, not Ron’s.

    • Mr Willow | Jan 25, 2012 at 11:36 pm |

      I don’t need to be tolerant or understanding of the relationship between liberty and property rights.

      The only people that have liberty in the relationship—or liberty worth respecting—are the owners of property. That’s all there is to understand.

  19. Wow, quite a stir this piece of garbage has made.  I believe a business should be allowed to run it any way they see fit, period.  If it fails because of it then so be it, if it thrives, don’t get jealous and make them run it “your” way.  Which is exactly what happens.  For instance, no smoking in public businesses, bars and such.  If you want to allow your customers to smoke in your place that is your choice. If you chose not to and make your business non smoking that is your choice.  Live or die by your choice, patrons are not forced to enter your business.  The govt getting involved is wrong.

    Discrimination is wrong no matter which way it is going, affirmative action is discrimination. If your house is on fire who do you want to come put it out and pull your children from your house.  The ones that scored highest or the ones that the govt said YOU have to hire because of their skin color or gender?
    I don’t know about some of you but I would like the most qualified to come save my kids and I, not the ones who scored lower and were given extra points for color of skin.

    Ron Paul will not be able to save America due to the structure of the system but he will be able to right some wrongs and there are many.

  20. RonPaul2012 | Jan 25, 2012 at 4:13 pm |

    The hater’s comments will stay at the bottom where they belong. 🙂  Ron Paul 2012!

  21. I would be the wrong party to say that any candidate for the presidency is good – I think the whole system should be routed.  However,  I would not argue with Paul in regard to his civil rights issues,  even though they are suspect (in both reality and historically) – lets not have the “context argument” which is at best fallacious.  I would argue with Paul in regard to his perceptions of reality,  on broader based systemic economic analysis – and current living realities under the capitalistic system (even historically). 

    I might as well post what I have said elsewhere to the Paul acolytes –

    “I wonder how many who champion the Constitution really understand the
    nature of the document, or the peoples initial first gut reaction to
    it? The Constitution is an elite document meant to preserve the
    “rights and function” of a moneyed elite. That is the reason why it was
    rejected by the people, and that is why the addendum of the Bill Of
    Rights was rejected out of hand by the authors of the Constitution when
    it was submitted by the States. For that matter representation is a
    farce which was a compromise which masquerades as a panacea for the
    ignorant people who accept its terms. So, essentially, all Ron Paul is
    doing is opening the floodgates to private tyrannies with his
    Constitutional blather.”

    (above posted here)

    “I find it interesting that people think they can split domestic issues from foreign policy, as if the two are not hand in glove. But what else is to be expected with the propagandist corporate media function today, which is a mass of lies and selective silence? Yet you deal with the marriage of foreign and domestic every day, don’t you Mr. Weiss – in the sense of the interest of the Lobby, and there are broader economic interests which are not dealt with too much here?

    It is also interesting that we have this base of Paul supporters who can be described as “young” that seem to have very little understanding in regard to US historical moorings, it is like they have the same reverent and faith void of fact of what the USA is supposed to be as the far right “patriotic” crowd, they have bought the proverbial Brooklyn Bridge from the academic institutions. It is amazing listening to them talk about some fantasy market that does not exist (and never did), or
    pine for a past which never was. I suppose Paul might serve the same function among Republicans that Dennis Kucinich does with the democrats, since he cannot win he just brings the disillusioned mass of followers into the fold of the status quo in the end.”

    http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/is-paul-a-precursor-of-a-more-presentable-candidate-in-2016.html

    (in regard to Ron Paul’s desirability on foreign issues isolated from domestic issues,  a classic untenable dichotomy)

    The man lives in a philosophical dream world (or is cynically deceptive) which does not even approach reality (that is,  prefabricated reality),  which would put us back to the days of the country’s undesirable beginnings at best.  He keeps harking to what never existed historically or presently,  in regard to the “racist” issues,  perhaps he should read the deliberations in Washington and elsewhere in official documents,  or right after the civil war by “officials” – both north and south were abominable (or read the original state by state constitutions which spoke of “dejure white citizens.”  The entire racist element is nothing but  a way to divide and conquer the people (as well as gender,  religion,  etc.),  everything reduces down to class economic distinctions and preservation of the status quo (oligarchy,  what all latent polyarchies eventual go too).  His views of “private property” are ridiculous,  and hark back to some biblical tenet which is nothing but a fabrication from a supposed deity (male dominant) which is meant to preserve a propertied tiny class (“thou shalt not steal”).  Peoples mental faculties are so twisted by this garbage that they cannot objectively or critically consider what has been done to them.

    Some just cannot get out of this current mindset of representation which is a joke,  thinking they can use a defunct system to elect some would-be savior,  this stuff never seems to end.  All Paul is,  to be frank,  is another untenable choice in a system which was never designed to make the will of the people paramount.

  22. Sealbreaker | Jan 25, 2012 at 5:14 pm |

    It should never be the governments place to determine who thinks what. It IS the job of the government to provide a way for citizens to ensure that they have a way to live life in peace. The Civil War had more to do with economics than Black Slavery (the article is written by someone who does not know history very well), and The Civil Rights act of 1964, while the idea is sound, the fine-print was not conducive to maintaining liberty for everyone, and i think that’s what is being said by Ron Paul.

    You need to realize that when something passes as law, it becomes law and it takes more to remove it than to simply rewrite it before it is passed. It is obviously arguable what the details of the Act should have / could have been. The fact is that there are many groups of people in this country who hate other groups or individuals (some of who are posting in this very comment section). Should a law be made against your opinion? Should you not have the right to have your opinion? “But this isn’t about opinion; it’s about equal rights to have employment, etc.!!!” So, you want to work a place where the people who work there don’t like you for whatever reason? Oh, right!, let’s outlaw their opinion. See how this doesn’t work anyway? This is what was faced long ago in certain parts of the country. It was only the change in peoples sight that changed things, and now, in the long run, we are left with a bunch of laws that are now used to push people around in ways that should not be. Racism may not go away today or tomorrow, but you will never eliminate it by making laws. And violent thoughts will not help the case; only understanding and time.

    • I realize that Civil War historical revisionism has become a cottage industry in some parts of the country, but the Confederate States’ Articles of Secession cannot make it any more plainly clear that slavery was the entire cause of their departure. 

      Nor is outlawing “opinions” comparable to outlawing discrimination in employment for reasons as unamerican as racial prejudice. Just as your right to throw a punch ends where my chin begins, so does your right to hold your fellow job-qualified citizens in low esteem for insubstantial reasons end at their right to earn a living.

      • Sealbreaker | Jan 27, 2012 at 3:57 pm |

        Slavery was a source of cheap labor. Without it, they would have had to change their economic structure. They didn’t want to, nor (at the time) was it illegal to do what they were doing. Suddenly, people from a distant area are trying to tell you what you need to do? … Sure, slavery was a reason, but not for the reason of slavery itself. It was not a “white devil” out to hate blacks because they were black. It was because of economic reasoning.

        The ability to be racially prejudice is an ability that everyone has the right to have. I do not condone it, personally, but IT IS NOT MY RIGHT TO IMPOSE MY BELIEFS ON OTHERS. Most would disagree with this — until they are threatened by it.

    • No, the author was correct.  Even though the civil war was fought to save the union coming from the north and to keep the slaves coming from the south, the end of the civil war also abolished slavery.  The author was correct.  I think it is you who needs a history lesson.

  23. >Paul Rosenberg
    >Rosenberg
    >berg

    on private property, everyone should be able to do as they wish.
    just like a business cannot force a citizen to buy their products/services, the same way a citizen cannot force a business to sell to him.

    • Are you saying the author is a Jew, and that has something to do with the validity of his argument?

  24. This place is total Ron Paul meltdown central.

  25. The bill certainly enhanced the liberty of blacks able to enjoy previously off-limits schools, restaurants, hotels, and modes of transportation.  None of this impacts the rights of Ron Paul, so he sees only that white males lost a little power.  

    http://www.realherosjourney.com/TAGR

  26. Wrong, what Ron Paul said was that the 14 amendment was correct to allow for civil liberties of anyone living in this country and don this planet. We he said was wrong was when the federal government makes an individual owner of an establishment, which does not take federal grants or monies have a right to serve or permit in their establishment who every they want. The people then will decide rather or nto they will patronage an establishment which discriminates against any individuals. People that continue to frequent these establishments are the ones supporting the owners view. People now a days would not go along with discrimination which means that the owner would be out of business. His summation based on the constitution and a person’s right to civil liberties, right to life, and right to happiness is spot on. I agree with his summation and I am a black man. This articel is crap

    • For a black man you sound like you are clueless.  Do you really think that America has changed from its racial beliefs?  I still get white people who refuse to take a drink from me.  This is reality and until racism is abolished, you will not see the kind of change you claim will happen.  The north might support your view, but the south is a different story.  The author was correct.  Did you know David Duke endorsed Ron Paul?  What he is basically saying is that Ron Paul’s plan would take away what support the minorities have and give strength to the white society.  He didn’t state it the way I did but if you read why he is endorsing him you will get what I am saying.  Hey Walter, stop listening to Ron Christie and start listening to Al Sharpton.

  27. Ronpaulite2012 | Feb 3, 2012 at 5:51 am |

    Rosenburg, you are a race-baiter and you should get your facts straight!

Comments are closed.