http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1062483 GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul yesterday defended his efforts in Congress to bring home money to his Texas district, despite his trumpeting against pork-barrel spending. “I’ve never voted for an earmark in my life,” the Texas congressman said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” about reports that he has requested hundreds of millions of dollars for special projects. He likened it to a tax credit: “I put them in because I represent people who are asking for some of their money back. I’m against the tax system, but I take all my tax credits. I want to get their money back for the people.” The 10-term congressman and longshot GOP candidate added that though he has requested special projects known as earmarks, he ultimately ends up voting against them. Paul is known in Congress as “Dr. No.” For Texas, he has sought money for water projects, a nursing program, to expand a hospital cancer center and to promote Texas shrimp.
http://www.kcrg.com/explorepolitics/?feed=bim&id=12837897 Taking his turn with Tim Russert on the Sunday’s, “Meet the Press,” Texas Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul, defended his desire to eliminate the income tax, his belief that American foreign policy needs a major overhaul and why he is the real conservative in the race. Running on a promise to eliminate the income tax, Paul referred to the country’s ability to run itself without the tax prior to 1913 when it was first enacted. He told Russert that while excise and service taxes could make up lost revenue, the real task was to cut spending—primarily on defense. Declaring he would pull out troops stationed all over the world, Paul cited the billions that could be saved by ending American presence as a police force around the world. “We can defend this country without troops in Germany, troops in Japan, how can they help our national defense, it doesn’t make any sense to me, troops in Korea? Since I’ve been in high school?” Paul told Russert.
Funny How The Press Isn't Talking About The Stormfront Incident..... http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071227/OPINION01/712270315/-1/LOCAL17 It is disheartening to see that most news stories about the Republican presidential candidates ignore the accomplishments of the Ron Paul campaign. He has raised record amounts of money, including a remarkable $6 million in one day -- not from big corporate donations but from private citizens, which proves that many people believe in and support his platform. Yet most TV news reports, particularly the recent ones about the GOP race being wide open, won't even mention his name or show his campaign signs, thus ignoring the fact that he has consistently finished at or near the top in many post-debate and independent Internet polls. It's a shame that the media would rather report on a slip-up or controversy inside the camps of McCain, Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani than the growing momentum of the candidate who is the only true conservative in the race. Rep. Paul deserves better consideration. Mark St. Amand McCordsville
Re: Funny How The Press Isn't Talking About The Stormfront Incident..... Is Fred Thompson still running? I thought his Kill Terrorists Secure the borders Punch hippies platform was kind've empty.
Re: Funny How The Press Isn't Talking About The Stormfront Incident..... Agreed. I think we've had more substantive (if also combative) debate about Paul's actualy positions than I've seen on any newscast. They just don't want to hear it. EDIT: Whether or not he's the "only true conservative" I'll leave to others.
Nah, I don't think memorization was necessary. But a quick skim might have been worthwhile if only because smartass jokes about someone not answering a question are usually funnier if...you know...they didn't answer the question. In your first question, which characteristic is immutable? Your second question isn't relevant as there's a competing safety concern (the fire code) that rationalizes what you call the discriminatory behavior. Laws discriminate all the time based on various criteria. The question to ask is whether the reason for the discrimination is one society finds acceptable or not. I'm not sure what you mean by racism degenerating into a trump card to win a discussion. We're talking about whether or not laws prohibiting racial discrimination are good or bad; constitutional or unconstitutional within the context of Ron Paul's support or opposition to such laws. Maybe this was another part of the thread you didn't memorize.....but Ron Paul has said that the Civil Rights Act...or parts of it....is unconstitutional. Thus, this discussion. What's stopping you?
Re: Funny How The Press Isn't Talking About The Stormfront Incident..... Fill the tank on the red pickup... "a strong third at 16%..."
Re: Funny How The Press Isn't Talking About The Stormfront Incident..... Doesn't Paul consistently finish behind McCain, Huckabee, Giuliani, and Romney in polls, and usually behind Thompson, too? How much ink should a 6th place no-hoper get???
Re: Funny How The Press Isn't Talking About The Stormfront Incident..... Fred Thomspon, "I guess I kinda-sorta wanna be president."
A kid sleeping in the same bed as his parents would be a fire concern? Or sleeping on the floor on a sleeping bag for the night? Is that really a fire concern? The question I was asking is how much harm is caused by the various ones. After all, the implication seems to be because of the harm caused by racism that certain laws are needed. If other things are causing just as much if not more harm, than why aren't there laws preventing them? Because some guy without shoes is a health hazard? Really? Or why is that a motel owner could refuse to rent a room to a non-married couple but can't refuse to do it if they're "of color"? Does more harm actually happen because of the skin color? What if my religion doesn't allow me to marry? What if I have more than one wife and the motel owner denies me. What if the motel owner is black and doesn't rent rooms to Indians? Or doesn't rent rooms to hispanics? Or what if the motel owner is Mexican and won't rent rooms t This is the issue I have with this racism stuff. You and others wave it around like it's a trump card. Why would I say that? Because you refuse to get into quantifying the amount of harm. It's like with hate crime laws. Is it any worse that I killed someone because they were black instead of because they cut me off on the road, I wrote down their plates and 3 weeks later beat them to death with a wrench outside their house? Which is worse? How much worse is one than the other? Furthermore, why this implication that without these laws we would degenerate into a bunch of racist twats all over again? We can debate how things may have been until we're blue in the face. But I fail to see how in 2007 in America that removing these laws would cause things to fall apart. How many businesses would stop hiring blacks? How many lunch counters would ban blacks from sitting at the counter? How many public transit systems would start forcing blacks to sit on the back of the bus? I'd ask questions about public schools but it doesn't seem like these laws have done any good in helping Hispanic students at Denver North get the same education as whities at Smokey Hills. I definitely don't see how that's going to fall apart.
I think I can clarify this. It's illegal for white people to refuse to rent to black people, but it's legal for black people to refuse to rent rooms to white people. Civil rights laws only recognize black people and white people, and only prevent white racism against black people. I just put it on the Internet, therefore, it's now true. I'll bet this is going to suck. Wow. You sound like you suck as a human being. I love intelligent discussions of legal theory. Hey, here's one. What's the difference between killing someone in a legally declared war, and flying a plane into the World Trade Center? I dunno, but I can ask the guy I was just dragging behind my pickup. "I don't think businesses would pollute any more. Let's repeal environmental laws." "People still hold up liquor stores. Let's remove laws against armed robbery."
In real life, what happened in the old Soviet bloc wrt ethnic strife and anti-Semitism and all that when the (relatively) egalitarian, iron hand of the Communist Party withered away?
That's not the same thing. It wasn't simply the removal of certain laws, it was the sudden end of an entire form of government. Society lost its bearings, and ethnoreligious nationalism filled the void.
I'm bewildered by these discussions of how much "harm" racism really is because it seems like anyone whose taken 8th grade history should know the answer to the question. How can these be serious questions?
Racism causes huge harm. I don't think anyone seriously doesn't think that. But other things (not to equate them with racism) cause harm as well. I don't think because something causes "harm" is enough to make it illegal. It depends what the "harm" is, and the situation at hand.
Sorry to hear you've joined the war-mongering anti-freedom side. I guess at least McCain won't torture the people he kills or locks in jail for criticizing him.
I stated that Brown took down the first Jim Crow laws, which you corrected, by citing a few earlier cases that did so. Fair enough, but my comment that the rest of the Jim Crow Laws could have been taken down with judgements from the same ruling. In other words, you now had desegregated schools...and you could apply the same judgement to libraries, parks, voting, busses, etc. When I mentioned that the rest of the Jim Crow laws could be taken down, I was not implying private property laws at all. That was your assumption, and it was misguided. Jim Crow Laws, which I am sure you can figure out pretty well, were a system of laws that enforced a segregated public. Private property laws were not Jim Crow laws at all...any person could legally allow both blacks and whites into their home or business even before the civil rights act. There were no Jim Crow Laws that applied to private property, because there were no laws that forced you to segregate your own property... at least to my knowledge. Correct me if I am wrong. As far as the Chimp study...it applies directly to you. You said, in the example of rape...that you would accept increased rape as a consequence for a specific punishment. For the sole reason that rape deserves punishment. The chimp study applies because it shows that humans consistently choose to stand up for their morals or rights, even if it results in worse consequences. Chimps take a more rational approach, because they quickly learn how to pick their battles or modify their behavior, in order to preserve their best interests. If a specific legislation actually increases the instances of behavior that it is meant to punish, you are purposely making things worse for yourself in the name of morals. If you understand that so well, like you claim to do, then you can at least admit as much. I wont agree with you at all, but I can at least accept it on the grounds that you are human. The simple fact that violent crime against blacks decreased for 60 years and increased during the 60s and 70s shows that something happened. Yet, people here are so quick to attribute the good results to the legislation and the bad results to just simple facts of life. I agree that it could be that way...but I am in no way going to accept it at face value. Until the evidence can conclusively prove that it was legislation that caused the benefits, and not the thousands of other variables, then I won't accept it. Also, until that happens, I will refuse to accept the legislation as a reason to take away someone's property rights.