Freedomain Radio

Nate, the dude is apparently lamenting the fact that the gendarmes of DC haven't locked up 95% of a certain racial group.  That's not offensive to you?

this is mere interpretation without reference to facts: it does not at all follow from Ron Paul's remarks

I agree that I may have crossed a line there, for emotional impact.  Please consider that comment redacted.  Here's a better way of getting my point across...

well, I hereby pardon you

If such a huge majority of a certain racial group in a certain geographical area are being rounded up and put in cages, I find it very difficult to see that as a failure in the police system for not imprisoning enough of these scary, benighted people.  Rather, I see it as a complete failure of the local society and culture, including the welfare and criminal justice systems.

i completely agree with this and suspect Ron Paul would agree as well

The fact is that Ron Paul (if this quote is genuine) directs his attention to the government "solution," in that it may not be severe enough. 

he doesnt say that, he doesnt demand more people being rounded up and put in cages, at least not in this quote. the only thing he says is that because the DC police are so incompetent not more than 85 percent of blacks are registred as criminals or semi-criminals. This co,pletely leaves open the possiblity that he thinks the welfare system and the war on drugs are primairily to blame for this situation, and not that more of these people should be rounded up.

 This will obviously do nothing to help those people who are most harmed by the failures of the local society.  It will intensify their suffering.

yes, I agree and again I suspect Ron Paul would too

This, coupled with Paul's Mexican fence fetish, gives me a strong hunch that the man is a bigoted racist.  (Where's his call for a fence along the Canadian border?  Can't bad guys cross that one just as easily?)

well, since you may have misinterpreted Paul's remarks (as I tried to explain above) this may detract from your conviction that Paul is a bigoted racist. I dont know what Paul's reasons are for wanting to put an end to illegal immigration and I suspect it has a lot to do with the welfare system in place (that is then available to the second-generation of illegal immigrants). I live in Europe and to me it seems pretty clear that my country's decades-long lax immigration policy (coupled with the generous welfare system) has proven disastrous for nearly everybody. In an ancap society things would of course be wholly different.

Greg wrote:

Whether or not this quote is true, you can't deny Paul's irrational fascination with Mexicans, which to me, is more than enough evidence to condemn him as racist. 

a racist is somebody who thinks people of a certain race are inferior because of that race. Can you explain how this follows from what you wrote above?

...and, those two words, Rod: "severe" and "solution". They immediately reminded me of another time, when another entire race of people were talked about in terms of a "solution". But, maybe that's taking the point too far...

Yes, it is taking the point too far, in a rather sick way, if you dont mind me saying

a racist is somebody who thinks people of a certain race are inferior because of that race. Can you explain how this follows from what you wrote above?

The fact that he isn't advocating a wall on the Canadian border. 

Conrad:

I dont know what Paul's reasons are for wanting to put an end to illegal immigration and I suspect it has a lot to do with the welfare system in place (that is then available to the second-generation of illegal immigrants). I live in Europe and to me it seems pretty clear that my country's decades-long lax immigration policy (coupled with the generous welfare system) has proven disastrous for nearly everybody. In an ancap society things would of course be wholly different.

I've only seen Paul use the argument that we must secure our borders from marauding terrorists.  But he only seems to know of one border: the Mexican one.

Nathan McKaskle:

a racist is somebody who thinks people of a certain race are inferior because of that race. Can you explain how this follows from what you wrote above?

The fact that he isn't advocating a wall on the Canadian border. 

and you dont think that poverty and the existence or non-existence of a welfare state have something to do with this?

is he also trying to prevent Mexican-Canadians from getting in?

btw, you havent answered a question I asked you earlier yet...

Nathan McKaskle:

The fact that he isn't advocating a wall on the Canadian border. 

But the Canadians aren't willfully breaking the law!  The rule of law Nathan, come on... think of the children!

Does anyone know to what degree (if any) his stance on immigration has helped him maintain his seat in Texas?

Charlie:

Nathan McKaskle:

The fact that he isn't advocating a wall on the Canadian border. 

But the Canadians aren't willfully breaking the law!  The rule of law Nathan, come on... think of the children!

Does anyone know to what degree (if any) his stance on immigration has helped him maintain his seat in Texas?

Of course, "the law"! I forgot the law was above reason or morality.

He's in district 14 right near where I live but not close enough to vote - as if I vote.  I'm sure immigration has been the primary reason why he maintained his seat.
 

How would ron paul pay for the border fence?

hippy:

How would ron paul pay for the border fence?

ha! well, I think in this case there would be more than enough voluntary donations

but I take it he would see this as falling under the protection services or something that the constitution authorizes the federal government to provide

hippy:

How would ron paul pay for the border fence?

I'm sure every American will give him the money to show their appreciation for being freed. 

hippy:

How would ron paul pay for the border fence?

Violence of course. Armed robbery of innocent citizens.  Something he claims to be against.

Conrad:

...and, those two words, Rod: "severe" and "solution". They immediately reminded me of another time, when another entire race of people were talked about in terms of a "solution". But, maybe that's taking the point too far...

Yes, it is taking the point too far, in a rather sick way, if you dont mind me saying

I don't, considering the border fence idea - think Berlin. 

Nathan McKaskle:

Conrad:

...and, those two words, Rod: "severe" and "solution". They immediately reminded me of another time, when another entire race of people were talked about in terms of a "solution". But, maybe that's taking the point too far...

Yes, it is taking the point too far, in a rather sick way, if you dont mind me saying

I don't, considering the border fence idea - think Berlin. 

you cannot be serious

Hitler killed 6 million Jews. Let me repeat that: Hitler KILLED 6 million Jews. 

Conrad:

but I take it he would see this as falling under the protection services or something that the constitution authorizes the federal government to provide

That's probably covered in the "general welfare" clause... along with taxation, war, deficit financing, regulation, mercantilism, the welfare state, public education, the minimum wage, and all the other things that are meant to protect us.

Charlie:

Conrad:

but I take it he would see this as falling under the protection services or something that the constitution authorizes the federal government to provide

That's probably covered in the "general welfare" clause... along with taxation, war, deficit financing, regulation, mercantilism, the welfare state, public education, the minimum wage, and all the other things that are meant to protect us.

i dont think Ron Paul would try to put it under that clause though, more national defense or something. (to be sure, to me the constitution is no more than an irrelevant piece of paper, so I wouldnt support Paul's appeal to its authority)