Show 215

Please feel free to discuss Dan's shows.

Moderators: Loki, exposno1, Parrot, Quasigriz, NickDupree, nmoore63, robroydude, Spinny Spamkiller

Re: Show 215

Postby Runicmadhamster » Sun Jan 01, 2012 11:54 pm

NickDupree wrote:On Tuesday (in 2 days) they're holding the Iowa caucuses, and all this Ron Paul stuff will be decided one way or the other, Paul will either move forward or be voted off the island. I know I'm ready. The past few days on the DCF I'm feeling stampeded by the anti-Paul horde, then skull-raped by ravenous, blind, and drooling pro-Paul zombies who won't concede a single flaw in their Messiah. Anybody else ready for this pain to come to a close? Elect Ron Paul the Republican nominee...or don't...just make it stop. Make it stop.


It will end when the election is decided, if he doesn't get the nomination then he will just go 3rd party or independent.
User avatar
Runicmadhamster
Satrap
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Show 215

Postby Dr. Strangelove » Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:05 am

Image


mruhuuhuhuh Ron Paul mruhhuhuha
“If the human race is to survive, then for all but a very brief period of its history, the word ship will mean space ship.” –Arthur C. Clarke
User avatar
Dr. Strangelove
Archon
 
Posts: 36586
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: Show 215

Postby Dr. Strangelove » Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:08 am

Runicmadhamster wrote:
NickDupree wrote:On Tuesday (in 2 days) they're holding the Iowa caucuses, and all this Ron Paul stuff will be decided one way or the other, Paul will either move forward or be voted off the island. I know I'm ready. The past few days on the DCF I'm feeling stampeded by the anti-Paul horde, then skull-raped by ravenous, blind, and drooling pro-Paul zombies who won't concede a single flaw in their Messiah. Anybody else ready for this pain to come to a close? Elect Ron Paul the Republican nominee...or don't...just make it stop. Make it stop.


It will end when the election is decided, if he doesn't get the nomination then he will just go 3rd party or independent.



He is almost certain to pull a Joe Lieberman act. I like the fact that this other guy beat him to the libertarian party. But I do see a pretty big split happening between the actual libertarians and the Ron Paul/Reason.com/Alex Jones set.
“If the human race is to survive, then for all but a very brief period of its history, the word ship will mean space ship.” –Arthur C. Clarke
User avatar
Dr. Strangelove
Archon
 
Posts: 36586
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: Show 215

Postby waaaghboss » Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:30 am

StCapps wrote:
Runicmadhamster wrote:
StCapps wrote:That's the thing though all of Ron Paul's political monsters that need slaying either do not line up passing an anti-civil rights bill or they aren't shared by enough of congress or the senate to pass it. The political monsters of the status quo that need slaying either can't be used for that issue or they can't be used by Ron Paul himself without doing a political 180. The risk is not really worth worrying about so take a chill pill.


Dont underestimate humanity, its a dangerous action that can lead to disaster. For a start a candidates political monster can be stretched, warped, enlarged, shrunk and completely changed in order to fill a political justification. For example here in NZ during the cold war the then current government twisted the other main party (left) into demonic commissars who wanted to spread Communism and eat puppies, in truth the labour party wasn't Communist at all and was slowly becoming less socialist. You also see the warping of political monsters during the Indian wars where American politicians would make the native Americans out to be spawn of satin on order to achieve political gain (although that example may be null because of the very different times they lived in). What is key to remember is that 180 turns in humans political view points are not impossible, absolute power corrupts and the American presidents have absolute power, no one is immune to the corrupting influence of the power of the US presidents, even Ron Paul. But thankfully he probably doesn't even know NZ exists so i need no worry, or take a chill pill.
Ron Paul has an over three decade long voting record that says he doesn't do many political 180s and compared to other politicians in this regard he is as good as it gets by a significant margin regardless of whether you agree with him or not.


This may sound trite, but isnt there that quote that Dan keeps mentioning "when the facts change, I change my mind"? Paul stubbornly plowing ahead in his libertarian worldview despite changing circumstances for 30 years might not be a sign of intelligence.
waaaghboss
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 2:54 pm

Re: Show 215

Postby StCapps » Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:49 am

waaaghboss wrote:This may sound trite, but isnt there that quote that Dan keeps mentioning "when the facts change, I change my mind"? Paul stubbornly plowing ahead in his libertarian worldview despite changing circumstances for 30 years might not be a sign of intelligence.
Sure it usually a good saying to go by but in the case of Ron Paul I don't view this to be the case. The current circumstances have only made his worldview more relevant if anything and he has changed his mind on issues such as capital punishment. So he does change his mind for the better when he feels the situation warrants it.
*yip*
User avatar
StCapps
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 7329
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:46 am
Location: Hamilton, Ontario

Re: Show 215

Postby wise_owl » Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:00 am

Given the structure of the US political machine things will pass congress that the president doesn't overtly disapprove of. That means, among other things, that we can be reasonably sure the things paul WON'T Veto will be things that align with her personal views, and his personal and political views stand in opposition to the rights of women and minorities. It's quite clear he doens't stand in opposition to institutional and systemic opression. It's a common failing in Libertarian philosophy, one of it's principal holes, that it has no solutions to racism and sexism other than to suggest they will just 'go away' on their own.

So what I am saying is that even if Paul is say, indifferent in political terms to restriction abortion at a federal level, there are tonnes of people who aren't, and Paul wouldn't stand in their way.

I personally just think is politically naive to believe that just 'bringing up the conversation' will have wide-standing effects that will undo the present social-political order in the US.
User avatar
wise_owl
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:30 pm

Re: Show 215

Postby Rahsaan022 » Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:19 am

>>>
Well like I said I'm cool with any states and localities that wanted to force integration, I'm just not cool with federal government doing it because it violates the 10th amendment. I don't like the property rights violation either but I'd be willing to make that sacrifice if forced integration proved to be the more effective system. The states and localities that adopted it may or may not have flourished and that would influence greater or reduced adoption in other states and localities depending on the result. That would accomplish the same thing slowly over time without violating the constitution if the result was indeed as overwhelming positive as you believe it to be.
>>>

I'm kind of at a loss b/c it sounds to me like we're saying the same thing.

The CRA64...
1) removed the laws that endorsed/ encouraged/ enforced racist action and
2) forced private property owners to sell to everyone

I do not mean this passive-aggressive or in a disdainful manner:
I just don't understand how laws limiting the right to murder and rape on one's property don't require explaining and are considered to make us freer, but laws against racist practices on one's property are not considered to make us freer, and do require explaining.

Does racism not count as a *direct* impediment to freedom b/c it doesn't directly (adversely) affect white people? 1960's America was a racist America, it was systemic, not sporadic like today. Is it b/c black Americans aren't real Americans (a 1960's America isn't "cannibalizing" itself, blacks don't matter anyway!)? I mean, it's hard to quantify freedom, but does the degree of racism-inflicted freedom-impairment exerted on 10 % of the 1960's population not far outweigh the freedom-impairment exerted on 100 % of the population by requiring them to (gasp!) serve everyone equally? We're talking *all* of the fundamental pursuits of happiness, having a job, getting an education, finding romance, being (relatively) free from racially motivated assault, having a fair trial, being able to walk down the street.

I think that oftentimes the experience of racism from the perspective of a minority is under-appreciated. Let's (grossly) simplify the numbers. Blacks are 10 % of the population, whites we'll say 85 %. If 10 % of blacks hate whites, a white person who interacts w/ 100 people a day meets one racist black. In 1960 he's probably the janitor. If you're black and run into 100 people you may see 8 or 9 people who are racist. He's likely your boss, teacher, even a passerby... but every one of them has some degree of societally sanctioned power over you in 1960.

So I want to ask about the alternatives you suggest. There are always other ways to do things, but I'm interested in how they would work, the mechanism, and how the projected consequences weigh against the outcomes we presently have.

1) Removing laws that force segregated commerce will cause/ allow/ encourage integration.
(Firstly am I correct in interpreting that while you're repealing laws that encourage racist practices, you're not making the continuation those of racist practices illegal or punishable in any way on a federal level?) I think the above statement is a huge logical leap. In practice, people, not laws, are racist. No law called anyone a "n*gger," tied a noose, or threw a rock. People did. And those people then wrote laws. Laws do provide an excuse, a justification, they define the path of least resistance, and they do feed into racism, I recognize all of that. But racist actions stem from the racist feelings that live in the heart. They come from malignant interpretations of our past experiences. And they come from other people. The implication that removing an endorsement of racism from the letter of the law provides some motivation for people who are used to being racist... who like it, who get off on it, who think they're actually making their children better prepared by teaching it... to stop doing so doesn't seem plausible to me logically, nor is it compatible w/ my historical reading (admittedly, probably meager relative to the people here) or personal experience. So let's talk consequences, not ideas: while I recognize it is possible, why do you think it is *likely*?

2) The states can adopt a forced integration system and decide for themselves.
They *could* have. But it's ridiculous for either of us to say all the states would uniformly go one way or the other, so what if half, or any sustainable minority of them did not? What would we do then to relieve the plight of this freedom-impaired 1960's group of Americans? What could be done to encourage/ force that minority of states to adopt forced integration laws, should it be demonstrated they work faster? How do you come to the conclusion that it would it be better for those people then and subsequently better for us now if we decided to take this sit, wait, and evaluate strategy? It seems to me that the integral of freedom over all Americans would be smaller in this alternative b/c the increase in freedom occurs later w/ more people.

As an endnote, let's not downplay the fact that for a significant number of Americans, the average day in the life of America was a nightmare compared to how things are today. It's wildly offensive to people who lived in those times and are still here. On the whole, things for blacks today are NOTHING like they used to be though still far from perfect. So yes, the result *was* overwhelmingly positive. Incomplete, but positive.

- Thanks
Rahsaan022
New Member
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 1:23 pm

Re: Show 215

Postby StCapps » Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:21 am

wise_owl wrote:Given the structure of the US political machine things will pass congress that the president doesn't overtly disapprove of. That means, among other things, that we can be reasonably sure the things paul WON'T Veto will be things that align with her personal views, and his personal and political views stand in opposition to the rights of women and minorities. It's quite clear he doens't stand in opposition to institutional and systemic opression. It's a common failing in Libertarian philosophy, one of it's principal holes, that it has no solutions to racism and sexism other than to suggest they will just 'go away' on their own.

So what I am saying is that even if Paul is say, indifferent in political terms to restriction abortion at a federal level, there are tonnes of people who aren't, and Paul wouldn't stand in their way.

I personally just think is politically naive to believe that just 'bringing up the conversation' will have wide-standing effects that will undo the present social-political order in the US.
Yes Paul would stand in there way because he's not about to expand the federal governments jurisdiction just because he doesn't adamantly disagree with position of pro-lifers. His personal views don't stand in opposition to the rights of women and minorities you are being ridiculous. Just because you disagree with his position doesn't mean only side of the argument is for protecting minority and women's rights you god damn troll.
*yip*
User avatar
StCapps
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 7329
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:46 am
Location: Hamilton, Ontario

Re: Show 215

Postby StCapps » Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:44 am

Rahsaan022 wrote:I'm kind of at a loss b/c it sounds to me like we're saying the same thing.

The CRA64...
1) removed the laws that endorsed/ encouraged/ enforced racist action and
2) forced private property owners to sell to everyone
We are saying the same thing now you are catching on.

Rahsaan022 wrote:I do not mean this passive-aggressive or in a disdainful manner:
I just don't understand how laws limiting the right to murder and rape on one's property don't require explaining and are considered to make us freer, but laws against racist practices on one's property are not considered to make us freer, and do require explaining.

Does racism not count as a *direct* impediment to freedom b/c it doesn't directly (adversely) affect white people? 1960's America was a racist America, it was systemic, not sporadic like today. Is it b/c black Americans aren't real Americans (a 1960's America isn't "cannibalizing" itself, blacks don't matter anyway!)? I mean, it's hard to quantify freedom, but does the degree of racism-inflicted freedom-impairment exerted on 10 % of the 1960's population not far outweigh the freedom-impairment exerted on 100 % of the population by requiring them to (gasp!) serve everyone equally? We're talking *all* of the fundamental pursuits of happiness, having a job, getting an education, finding romance, being (relatively) free from racially motivated assault, having a fair trial, being able to walk down the street.
There are already laws against assault we don't need specific laws for racially motivated assaults. That is political correctness gone wild. It is not more of a crime to assault someone because of racism than to assault someone because they looked at you the wrong way. Sorry but that is just retarded.

As for the right to a fair trial and being able to walk down the street there is nothing about using commerce clause forcing people to sell their property that enhances these rights and other parts of the CRA that I am all for already do this.

Rahsaan022 wrote:I think that oftentimes the experience of racism from the perspective of a minority is under-appreciated. Let's (grossly) simplify the numbers. Blacks are 10 % of the population, whites we'll say 85 %. If 10 % of blacks hate whites, a white person who interacts w/ 100 people a day meets one racist black. In 1960 he's probably the janitor. If you're black and run into 100 people you may see 8 or 9 people who are racist. He's likely your boss, teacher, even a passerby... but every one of them has some degree of societally sanctioned power over you in 1960.

So I want to ask about the alternatives you suggest. There are always other ways to do things, but I'm interested in how they would work, the mechanism, and how the projected consequences weigh against the outcomes we presently have.
I have already told you the mechanism but I can't accurately speculate if it would have worked better or worse because there are far too many variables.

Rahsaan022 wrote:1) Removing laws that force segregated commerce will cause/ allow/ encourage integration.
(Firstly am I correct in interpreting that while you're repealing laws that encourage racist practices, you're not making the continuation those of racist practices illegal or punishable in any way on a federal level?) I think the above statement is a huge logical leap. In practice, people, not laws, are racist. No law called anyone a "n*gger," tied a noose, or threw a rock. People did. And those people then wrote laws. Laws do provide an excuse, a justification, they define the path of least resistance, and they do feed into racism, I recognize all of that. But racist actions stem from the racist feelings that live in the heart. They come from malignant interpretations of our past experiences. And they come from other people. The implication that removing an endorsement of racism from the letter of the law provides some motivation for people who are used to being racist... who like it, who get off on it, who think they're actually making their children better prepared by teaching it... to stop doing so doesn't seem plausible to me logically, nor is it compatible w/ my historical reading (admittedly, probably meager relative to the people here) or personal experience. So let's talk consequences, not ideas: while I recognize it is possible, why do you think it is *likely*?
You are not correct by interpreting my position of not allowing the federal government to step in and rule future racist state government laws unconstitutional. My whole point is that the Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional and deserved to struck down at the federal level. So why all of sudden would I say that if you call those laws something different it would all of sudden be okay to have those kind of laws at the state level or local level again?

Also your line about incentivizing racism if you don't have a federal law to do cover it holds no water. It's just an assumption that has no basis in logic.

Rahsaan022 wrote:2) The states can adopt a forced integration system and decide for themselves.
They *could* have. But it's ridiculous for either of us to say all the states would uniformly go one way or the other, so what if half, or any sustainable minority of them did not? What would we do then to relieve the plight of this freedom-impaired 1960's group of Americans? What could be done to encourage/ force that minority of states to adopt forced integration laws, should it be demonstrated they work faster? How do you come to the conclusion that it would it be better for those people then and subsequently better for us now if we decided to take this sit, wait, and evaluate strategy? It seems to me that the integral of freedom over all Americans would be smaller in this alternative b/c the increase in freedom occurs later w/ more people.

As an endnote, let's not downplay the fact that for a significant number of Americans, the average day in the life of America was a nightmare compared to how things are today. It's wildly offensive to people who lived in those times and are still here. On the whole, things for blacks today are NOTHING like they used to be though still far from perfect. So yes, the result *was* overwhelmingly positive. Incomplete, but positive.

- Thanks
I believe we should have seen which worked better and choosen the better option of the two. If forced integration worked faster and achieved better results than states attempting voluntary integration than states would be wise adopt the system that worked better. Also localities are free to implement forced integration as well and big cities in the south likely would have gone forced integration quicker than southern states thus influencing the state they are located in to move in that direction as well.
*yip*
User avatar
StCapps
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 7329
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:46 am
Location: Hamilton, Ontario

Re: Show 215

Postby miliucc » Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:04 am

WCMeyer wrote:
Runicmadhamster wrote:
WCMeyer wrote:This is sort of besides the point, but: I'm listening to the show with a pair of Bose headphones, and I can't hear a leaf blower.


Yeah neither could i


I think that maybe Dan was recording with a really hot mic.



I didn't hear the leafblower either. If I had my choice, I'd prefer more shows, even if they sound somewhat unscripted and imperfect. (i.e. Don't let perfectionism hold you up.

Either way, you guys are doing a great job. Keep 'em coming!
User avatar
miliucc
New Member
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 2:22 am

Re: Show 215

Postby Rahsaan022 » Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:20 am

>>>
There are already laws against assault we don't need specific laws for racially motivated assaults. That is political correctness gone wild. It is not more of a crime to assault someone because of racism than to assault someone because they looked at you the wrong way. Sorry but that is just retarded.
>>>

Instead of listing reasons why it's categorically "retarded," what of looking for precedent. There are graduated punishments and definitions for differing degrees of assault, theft, many other things we have a law for. So what makes the motivation behind violence any different? I know you're aware that our laws reflect our values: Self defense is different from murder. Torture is different from assault. So it's not "retarded" to say some assaults are more abhorrent than others nor is it retarded for our laws to reflect that. You may choose not to prioritize that particular value personally but that does not affect the fact that racism exists and is a tool by which one group of Americans systematically exploited another. How can you deem the particular idea of "race-oriented laws" as retarded if they reflect the means by which people direct their criminality? B/c you're not the direct victim? B/c race shouldn't matter? If you've not had to experience it yourself, history proves it does matter and has mattered very much, "should" is bullshit.

>>>
I mean, it's hard to quantify freedom, but does the degree of racism-inflicted freedom-impairment exerted on 10 % of the 1960's population not far outweigh the freedom-impairment exerted on 100 % of the population by requiring them to (gasp!) serve everyone equally? We're talking *all* of the fundamental pursuits of happiness...
>> As for the right to a fair trial and being able to walk down the street there is nothing about using commerce clause forcing people to sell their property that enhances these rights and other parts of the CRA that I am all for already do this.
>>>

Perhaps I should have been clearer. I tried in that paragraph to get you to pseudo-quantify freedom. Do you not see 1960's systemic racism as directly freedom-inhibiting, given that 10 % of the population had diminished access to those rights? And do you see the 1960's America, teeming w/ racism as less free than say a 1975 or 1980 America where those freedoms are more accessible but everyone has been subjected to the cruel oppression of the federal mandate? Those freedoms do not relate directly to commerce, but they do relate directly to racially motivated discriminatory behavior and the priority placed on excising (or at least stigmatizing) it in all of its forms as exemplified by the inclusion of the federal mandate.

>>>
My whole point is that the Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional and deserved to struck down at the federal level. So why all of sudden would I say that if you call those laws something different it would all of sudden be okay to have those kind of laws at the state level or local level again?
>>>

I understand that. What I'm getting at is that getting rid of the laws that encourage racist practices does not get rid of the racist practices. You do not really believe that people take part in racist behavior simply b/c it is legal, people are not machines running the law-program. We both know people's actions are dictated by their own motivations, b/c they like or are used to racism, b/c it's normal and makes sense to them. So how will you change this behavior or stem its spread beyond simply erasing the law?

And you'll have to do better than "Oh, it's in their best interests." It's been in people's best interests to not be racist and just get along since the world began. And "one group will like it so everyone will like it" is not acceptable either (didn't work pre-Civil War). See next.

>>>
I believe we should have seen which worked better and choosen the better option of the two. If forced integration worked faster and achieved better results than states attempting voluntary integration than states would be wise adopt the system that worked better.
>>>

Yeah no shit "Would be wise." This is what I was just saying, who cares? "Would be wise" is a less strong motivator of some people's actions than their love of exclusion, as history has demonstrated. You ignore that people since before the Civil war "would have been wise" to integrate and offer equal rights and freedoms to everyone. Some did, others did not b/c they value racism and exclusion more than integration and fairness. So again, what do you think should happen to those people who may decide they do not want to integrate despite the fact that it would be wise?
Rahsaan022
New Member
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 1:23 pm

Re: Show 215

Postby StCapps » Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:32 pm

Rahsaan022 wrote:>>>
There are already laws against assault we don't need specific laws for racially motivated assaults. That is political correctness gone wild. It is not more of a crime to assault someone because of racism than to assault someone because they looked at you the wrong way. Sorry but that is just retarded.
>>>

Instead of listing reasons why it's categorically "retarded," what of looking for precedent. There are graduated punishments and definitions for differing degrees of assault, theft, many other things we have a law for. So what makes the motivation behind violence any different? I know you're aware that our laws reflect our values: Self defense is different from murder. Torture is different from assault. So it's not "retarded" to say some assaults are more abhorrent than others nor is it retarded for our laws to reflect that. You may choose not to prioritize that particular value personally but that does not affect the fact that racism exists and is a tool by which one group of Americans systematically exploited another. How can you deem the particular idea of "race-oriented laws" as retarded if they reflect the means by which people direct their criminality? B/c you're not the direct victim? B/c race shouldn't matter? If you've not had to experience it yourself, history proves it does matter and has mattered very much, "should" is bullshit.

>>>
I mean, it's hard to quantify freedom, but does the degree of racism-inflicted freedom-impairment exerted on 10 % of the 1960's population not far outweigh the freedom-impairment exerted on 100 % of the population by requiring them to (gasp!) serve everyone equally? We're talking *all* of the fundamental pursuits of happiness...
>> As for the right to a fair trial and being able to walk down the street there is nothing about using commerce clause forcing people to sell their property that enhances these rights and other parts of the CRA that I am all for already do this.
>>>

Perhaps I should have been clearer. I tried in that paragraph to get you to pseudo-quantify freedom. Do you not see 1960's systemic racism as directly freedom-inhibiting, given that 10 % of the population had diminished access to those rights? And do you see the 1960's America, teeming w/ racism as less free than say a 1975 or 1980 America where those freedoms are more accessible but everyone has been subjected to the cruel oppression of the federal mandate? Those freedoms do not relate directly to commerce, but they do relate directly to racially motivated discriminatory behavior and the priority placed on excising (or at least stigmatizing) it in all of its forms as exemplified by the inclusion of the federal mandate.

>>>
My whole point is that the Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional and deserved to struck down at the federal level. So why all of sudden would I say that if you call those laws something different it would all of sudden be okay to have those kind of laws at the state level or local level again?
>>>

I understand that. What I'm getting at is that getting rid of the laws that encourage racist practices does not get rid of the racist practices. You do not really believe that people take part in racist behavior simply b/c it is legal, people are not machines running the law-program. We both know people's actions are dictated by their own motivations, b/c they like or are used to racism, b/c it's normal and makes sense to them. So how will you change this behavior or stem its spread beyond simply erasing the law?

And you'll have to do better than "Oh, it's in their best interests." It's been in people's best interests to not be racist and just get along since the world began. And "one group will like it so everyone will like it" is not acceptable either (didn't work pre-Civil War). See next.

>>>
I believe we should have seen which worked better and choosen the better option of the two. If forced integration worked faster and achieved better results than states attempting voluntary integration than states would be wise adopt the system that worked better.
>>>

Yeah no shit "Would be wise." This is what I was just saying, who cares? "Would be wise" is a less strong motivator of some people's actions than their love of exclusion, as history has demonstrated. You ignore that people since before the Civil war "would have been wise" to integrate and offer equal rights and freedoms to everyone. Some did, others did not b/c they value racism and exclusion more than integration and fairness. So again, what do you think should happen to those people who may decide they do not want to integrate despite the fact that it would be wise?
These small pockets that de facto segregate rather than de jure segregate would still be heavily socially ostracized by the rest of the country. I'm not saying getting rid of racist laws solves the racism problem but that doesn't mean federal mandates do either. One solution is more effective at helping reduce the racist problem than the other and that option also happens to not violate the constitution. It's okay that you think using both would be synergistic but I think that repealing the Jim Crow laws and extending 14th and 15th amendment rights to African Americans was a sufficient leap forward to helping reduce the problem without shitting all over the 10th amendment. You can feel free to disagree if you want and I can certainly see the merits of your side of the argument.

Race motivated assaults should not carry a larger punishment because it does not help deter racism and promotes inequality under the law in the name of protecting minorities when they are already fully protect under non-racial specific assault laws from being assaulted for any reason. It's just over the political correctness that upside isn't worth the side effects imo. If the states want to implement these laws any way they are free to do so but to turn around and give part of that jurisdiction to the federal government would simply be a ridiculous violation of the 10th amendment.
*yip*
User avatar
StCapps
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 7329
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:46 am
Location: Hamilton, Ontario

Re: Show 215

Postby wise_owl » Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:46 pm

StCapps wrote:
wise_owl wrote:Given the structure of the US political machine things will pass congress that the president doesn't overtly disapprove of. That means, among other things, that we can be reasonably sure the things paul WON'T Veto will be things that align with her personal views, and his personal and political views stand in opposition to the rights of women and minorities. It's quite clear he doens't stand in opposition to institutional and systemic opression. It's a common failing in Libertarian philosophy, one of it's principal holes, that it has no solutions to racism and sexism other than to suggest they will just 'go away' on their own.

So what I am saying is that even if Paul is say, indifferent in political terms to restriction abortion at a federal level, there are tonnes of people who aren't, and Paul wouldn't stand in their way.

I personally just think is politically naive to believe that just 'bringing up the conversation' will have wide-standing effects that will undo the present social-political order in the US.
Yes Paul would stand in there way because he's not about to expand the federal governments jurisdiction just because he doesn't adamantly disagree with position of pro-lifers. His personal views don't stand in opposition to the rights of women and minorities you are being ridiculous. Just because you disagree with his position doesn't mean only side of the argument is for protecting minority and women's rights you god damn troll.


To be blunt; Yes they do. He believes the right of Homosexuals to be married should be subject to the arbitration of the states. One can look at his own web-site with his views regarding Abortion rights Link Here

He believes the capacity of an individual to have protection from discrimination in the workplace or within their community should be the purview of the powerful within their respective states.

None of that puts him in opposition to the oppression of women, visible minorities, or Homosexuals, and it pretty squarely aligns him with those who support such oppression. There is plenty written about this, but for example, his views on Racism are absurd. This article adresses one example of how the issue isn't whether Ron Paul would burn a cross on a lawn, but that his underlying political philosophy objects to the notion of protecting people from oppression unless that oppression is directed by the Federal government.

It's fascinating to me that you honestly want people to stand aside and not adress these issues. I'm sorry that you feel a candidate who believes that slave owners should have been paid to free their slaves, that women who suffer sexual harassment should just find new jobs, that their is no right to privacy, that women should be institutionally shackled by the womb, that states should be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals in law, etc. That you want us to pretend these aren't serious issues. Maybe for you they aren't. Maybe for you that Ron Paul will oppose the Patriot Act in some symbolic gesture, bring back the troops, and will try and use his authority to restore Habeus Corpus is the be all/end all. To a great many people it isn't though. It's not trolling to suggest that Ron Paul's positions are in support of oppression and in opposition to freedom, it's just an opinion you don't agree with.
User avatar
wise_owl
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:30 pm

Re: Show 215

Postby Runicmadhamster » Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:47 pm

StCapps wrote:Just because you disagree with his position doesn't mean only side of the argument is for protecting minority and women's rights you god damn troll.


There you go again firing off your troll gun when the accused is trying to raise a grievance against Ron Paul.



wise_owl wrote:It's fascinating to me that you honestly want people to stand aside and not adress these issues. I'm sorry that you feel a candidate who believes that slave owners should have been paid to free their slaves, that women who suffer sexual harassment should just find new jobs, that their is no right to privacy, that women should be institutionally shackled by the womb, that states should be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals in law, etc. That you want us to pretend these aren't serious issues. Maybe for you they aren't. Maybe for you that Ron Paul will oppose the Patriot Act in some symbolic gesture, bring back the troops, and will try and use his authority to restore Habeus Corpus is the be all/end all. To a great many people it isn't though. It's not trolling to suggest that Ron Paul's positions are in support of oppression and in opposition to freedom, it's just an opinion you don't agree with.


I agree with all the paragraphs of your post but this one in particular sounded familiar, the arch troll StCapps will only seem to admit Ron Paul having a fault if said fault is huge glaring and undeniable, on all other issues he will try band nit pick the hell out of tour grievance, trying to make it seem way less than it really is, according to him a person can still maintain a Pro (or netutal) stance on homosexuality whilst hiring a rabid homophobe to the position of state director. Its ridiculous, and i am pleased i don't have to live in a country where some one like Ron Paul is running and has such a rabid cult of personality type following
User avatar
Runicmadhamster
Satrap
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Show 215

Postby AverageJoe » Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:30 pm

NickDupree wrote:On Tuesday (in 2 days) they're holding the Iowa caucuses, and all this Ron Paul stuff will be decided one way or the other, Paul will either move forward or be voted off the island. I know I'm ready. The past few days on the DCF I'm feeling stampeded by the anti-Paul horde, then skull-raped by ravenous, blind, and drooling pro-Paul zombies who won't concede a single flaw in their Messiah. Anybody else ready for this pain to come to a close? Elect Ron Paul the Republican nominee...or don't...just make it stop. Make it stop.



This scenario reminds me of the 2008 election cycle in these forums.
Misinformed. Ignorant. Perpetually Mad.
That's the new American way.

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires. -Susan B. Anthony

"I'm too old to be governed by the fear of dumb people" -Charlie Skinner

My Political Compass
User avatar
AverageJoe
Satrap
 
Posts: 4062
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:16 am
Location: I'm right here

PreviousNext

Return to Discuss the Common Sense Show

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: carlisimo, coyo7e and 2 guests