Ron Paul Zombies, Racism, and Rights

Some people just don’t get it.  No offense to the intelligent Ron Paul supporters.  I know you’re out there.  We disagree, but you have brains.  Sweet tasty brains.  But some Ron Paul supporters don’t.  They just keep bringing up the same tired arguments and clinging to them like fundamentalist Christians holding onto Creationism and praying scary things like scientific thought and the 21st century don’t find them hiding under the covers.

I’m going to tackle some really idiotic arguments.  The first comes from commenter Johnathan:

To fitness, Ron Paul is the only candidate who has ever provided an answer to end racism. He does not support gay rights, or civil rights; however, he is an avid defender of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. If all individual rights are given to every man, woman, and child, there is no longer a need for gay rights, minority rights, etc. Civil rights were initially given to minorities and women because there was a need to change the racism and bigotry that were denying people their rights. Continuing to give “special” rights to certain people after that is reverse racism and is unfair and unconstitutional. Minorities and Women are given their liberties and rights because they are individuals and Americans, not because they are a minority or a woman.

This is some first rate bullshit.  Let’s take it apart piece by piece:

Civil rights were initially given to minorities and women because there was a need to change the racism and bigotry that were denying people their rights. Continuing to give “special” rights to certain people after that is reverse racism and is unfair and unconstitutional.

In what fantasy world have issues of racism and bigotry been solved?  Even if we are assured that Jena didn’t happen.  If we look past the religious right’s efforts to ban abortion.  We come face to face with Gay rights, and the unholy mission taken up by the Republican party to keep homosexuals from ever enjoying equality under the law.

 he is an avid defender of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

This leads into the next point.  Michael D brings up an argument I’ve seen again and again (and seen trashed quite thoroughly):

How is the federal government leaving a state issue up to the state opposing it in the slightest ?

This is where it is clear Ron Paul is not an avid defender of individual rights.  Any politician who attacks the legal foundation of our rights at the federal level to leave up to the states is weakening the legal foundation for one of our rights.  Add in that for many issues, such as reproductive choice, attacking a right at the federal level is certain to involve its abolition at the state level in several states.  This is not defending rights.  It is destroying rights.

Ron Paul is not the shining defender of rights and individuals.  He is a politician who would weaken human and civil rights.

Advertisements

12 Responses

  1. You’ve completely sidestepped the topic. Since you are on the topic – you’ve decided that the woman’s “right” are more important than a baby’s rights. Ron Paul says those rights are equal.

    Ron Paul says gay right and heterosexual rights are equal and either should be recognized.

    Racism and bigotry have not been solved. It’s not the government’s job to change people opinions. It’s the government’s role to insure people don’t violate laws based on those opinions.

  2. Fitness you shouldn’t inhale, it compromises your ability of deductive reasoning. You’ve not see this trashed quite thoroughly, you’ve seen feeble attempts at discounting the interpretation of what the constitution actually says. The reason the “argument” (statement of fact) has been seen so many times by you is because it is the way it is. To downplay the significance of the interpretation is to trash the constitution and cry “this is a democracy”, when in fact it is not. It is, however, a constitutional republic and that is why the oath is administered referring to the constitution and not democracy or states rights or what ever you feel like calling it to prove your point. You are and have been wrong on this and it would do you well to rethink your tired approach of side stepping the real intent of the conversation.

  3. And where is Ron Paul’s supposed “attack on the legal foundation of our rights” as you put it? Bold statement with no backing….

  4. Chad,
    Ok, take that argument and flip mine inside out. So you are concerned about the rights of fetus Americans. If abortion laws are up to the states, then won’t some fetus’s lack rights as a result? In other words, he’s actively reducing rights for fetus’s too.

    Look, its just ducky that Ron Paul says gay rights and heterosexual rights are equal. But those are empty words when he supports Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and is against Gay Marriage.

    That is a very different argument from the one I critiqued, but it is a common one, and just a fallacious. Hate crime laws, laws protecting the right to vote, or ensuring equal rights, are not laws against opinions. They are laws that protect the rights of individuals.

    Besides, your argument is a little troublesome logically. After all, if I decide opinon X is wrong, and pass a law against it, aren’t I fulfilling the government’s role of ensuring “people don’t violate laws based on those opinions”?

    Michael D,
    Long comment, but where’s the argument? All you seemed to have said is “You’re wrong, yay constitution!”.

    I’ve put his “attack on the legal foundation of our rights” right in front of you. I’ll repeat it again:

    By attacking the federal government’s role in protecting rights, he is deliberately working towards a US where some of our rights will no longer apply in some states. This is weakening the protection of those rights.

  5. Do you want me to type it slower so you get it? Because you still don’t get it.
    “By attacking the federal government’s role in protecting rights, he is deliberately working towards a US where some of our rights will no longer apply in some states. This is weakening the protection of those rights.”
    Say it a hundred times and it’s still incorrect. The Federal government has no role in states rights unless it’s unconstitutional. What’s so hard to figure out?

  6. Michael D,
    You’ve tried to change the issue. I am saying by removing rights protected at the federal level, he is weakening the level of protection enjoyed by those in states that then decide not to pick up the slack (or worse, actively move to restrict rights further). You have not addressed this argument.

    All you have done is repeat the misconception that the federal government is powerless to protect rights. It patently is not. The federal government can pass laws. Those laws can protect rights. You are wrong.

  7. We live in 2007, how in the world would a state government get away with restricting rights on any group of people? The media and press would be all over that in a heartbeat. The state government answers more directly to the constituency it represents. It’s the federal government you have to watch out for. The federal government was more affective in taking away our rights with the Patriot Act, yet you still want them to control our rights? I do agree with you on one point, the federal government is not powerless. It is too powerful and is becoming an unchecked force. When you strengthen the state governments, it keeps the federal government more in check. Nowadays, the corrupted federal government is doing whatever it pleases and answering to no one.

  8. Jonathan,

    We live in 2007, how in the world would a state government get away with restricting rights on any group of people?

    They do all the time. Check out reproductive rights in California vs South Dakota, or gay rights in Massachusetts vs Alabama.

    The state government answers more directly to the constituency it represents. It’s the federal government you have to watch out for.

    This is a common myth, by means of severity. Yes, in theory the state government is more responsive, but practically, it is still damn indifferent to the concerns of citizens. Frankly I think a better dictum is “Its government you should watch out for”. From local on up!

    I do think we need to weaken the federal government in some regards, just not uniformly. They should have less power to restrict rights, but retain the power (or be granted the power as applicable) to uphold rights.

  9. Abortion is not a clear topic, because some people believe that life begins at conception, and that fetus has the right to live, and others believe in the rights of the mother. Either way you go, someone’s rights are being denied to some extent. You can’t put a federal precedent on this because of its complicated nature.
    I personally do not support gay marriage, because marriage is signified through a religious ceremony. I do support civil unions for anyone so they can obtain tax relief and satisfaction for a lifelong, committed relationship. Ron Paul, being a Christian, believes this as well.
    “Frankly I think a better dictum is “Its government you should watch out for”. From local on up!”
    That statement you made supports what Dr. Paul is trying to advocate. The government is overstepping its boundaries in every way that it can. He merely wants to cut government as much as possible, which is exactly what the founders had in mind. He believes that government has two roles: That of protecting the individual liberties guaranteed by the constitution, and to provide defense from any attack of another nation or enemy. What is wrong with that message?

  10. Jonathan,

    Either way you go, someone’s rights are being denied to some extent.

    Exactly!

    You can’t put a federal precedent on this because of its complicated nature.

    Oh Noes! Misunderstanding!

    That’s not, at all, a reason to keep from passing a law at the federal level. What’s to stop us from employing that logic at the state level, and saying it should only be done “town by town”?

    I do support civil unions for anyone so they can obtain tax relief and satisfaction for a lifelong, committed relationship.

    If civil unions were, legally exactly the same as marriages, that would make sense. As it is, they are not, and its just bigotry.

    That statement you made supports what Dr. Paul is trying to advocate.

    That is how Paul wants himself to be perceived.

    which is exactly what the founders had in mind.

    That is patently false. They envisioned a government where there was always a check to power. Safeguards, if you will. Not an empty federal government.

    He believes that government has two roles: That of protecting the individual liberties guaranteed by the constitution, and to provide defense from any attack of another nation or enemy. What is wrong with that message?

    It doesn’t encompass everything a government should do. Also? That isn’t his belief. Not if he keeps attacking rights at the federal level.

  11. “That’s not, at all, a reason to keep from passing a law at the federal level. What’s to stop us from employing that logic at the state level, and saying it should only be done “town by town”?”

    Ummmm the constitution?????

  12. How do I get that cool highlight on quotes??

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: