Ron Paul will visit Detroit and Dearborn

[oladub]

Ron Paul will be at the venue "Town Hall about "Solving Detroit's Crises"

Little Rock Baptist Church 8801 Woodward Avenue Detroit, 48202 Monday, February 27, 2012 at 11:00 AM [[ET)

Other Ron Paul Michigan primary campaign stops-

February 25, 2012 - Ron Paul at Central Michigan University Rally Dr. Paul will speak at the CMU Plachta Auditorium, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Michigan on Saturday, February 25th at 6:00 pm Eastern. February 26, 2012 - Ron Paul at Rally for Freedom and Jobs in Michigan Dr. Paul will speak at The Pinnacle Center in metro Grand Rapids, Michigan on Sunday, February 26th at 4:00 pm Eastern. February 27, 2012 - Ron Paul at Michigan State University Rally Dr. Paul will speak at Michigan State University – MSU Auditorium, 149 Auditorium, East Lansing, Michigan on Monday, February 27th at 4:00 pm Eastern. To RSVP to the Michigan State University Rally February 27, 2012 -Ron Paul at Dearborn’s Ford Community and Performing Arts Center | Dr. Ron Paul will speak at Dearborn’s Ford Community and Performing Arts Center – Michael A. Guido Theater, 15801 Michigan Avenue, Dearborn, MI 48126 on Monday, February 27th at 7:00 pm Eastern.

[j to the jeremy]

I thought he was scared of non-white people?

[BrushStart]

I thought he was scared of non-white people?

You're thinking of the wrong guy.

[Detroitnerd]

“Dude said, ‘Have some brewskis,’ and I’m freakin’, ‘Those are AWESOME! More like it!’”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igQlb...feature=relmfu

[j to the jeremy]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electio...-Paul-has-said

A December 1989 newsletter quoted by James Kirchick in the New Republic predicted "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.' "

I hope he's ready for some Q&A

[Zacha341]

I've voted for Ron Paul in the past, as I've agreed with some of his positions and policies, especially with respect to governmental expansion and a few other areas. I once voted a protest vote for his candidacy when I could not hold my nose and vote for the dem or repub 'offerings'.

I will not be voting for him again. He's referenced, championed and endorsed in the white supremacist circles too consistently to be just a one-off thing. He's authored and edited their publications in the past [[withstanding his denials to the contrary). For sure he has a 'google-problem' as his name and comments come up in some very questionable, and extreme web sites.

You're thinking of the wrong guy.

[EastsideAl]

Interesting choice by Ron Paul though. At least it makes him look like he's willing to engage with the fact that a significant percentage of Michigan's population is African-American, which is more than I can say for the rest of the Republican field.

Republicans seem to regularly and openly treat and portray African-American organizations, even long-standing mainstream ones like the NAACP, as pariahs that will somehow infect them with some sort of dark virus should they even deign to appear at one of their events.

This may mean though that he will be [[rightly) called to answer some difficult questions about his past statements and affiliations. Much the same way he has been by Jews and especially Jewish Republicans.

[Scottathew]

I thought he was scared of non-white people?

No, that's just the rest of the GOP.

I like Ron Paul and agree with quite a bit of his stances. However, some of his policies are just too extreme.

Ron Paul would get the government out of the business of charity and wealth redistribution. He would also get us out of the business of policing the world.

The reason why I voted for Obama, and most likely will vote for him again pending who is nominated, is that Obama promised and delivered on a policy of less war and less US involvement in affairs around the world. Ron Paul would also deliver on this promise.

[Detroitnerd]

He's no Strom Thurmond...

[JBMcB]

In other words, ten years ago he disavowed the contents of the letters and said he did not support those passages.

Then, four years ago, he said the same thing.

Now, he's saying the same thing.

So what's the point of bringing it back up? Is there anything more recent than 1989 showing his supposedly innate racism?

Paul wants to reform the judicial system, as he sees it's overly harsh prosecution of drug laws inherently racist. How has Obama's reform of the judicial system been going?

[noise]

"We quadrupled the TSA, you know, and hired more people who look more suspicious to me than most Americans who are getting checked... Most of them are, well, you know, they just don’t look very American to me."

Ron Paul in 2007.

None of that would matter if he strips away personal freedoms in the name of defending individual liberties. This guy is a nutjob.

[JBMcB]

"We quadrupled the TSA, you know, and hired more people who look more suspicious to me than most Americans who are getting checked... Most of them are, well, you know, they just don’t look very American to me."

I've seen that quote floating around for a while. Where is it from? I can't find the primary source.

I can understand the desire for Ron Paul to be racist. It's a good excuse to avoid voting for someone who is *actually* anti-war, anti-drug war, anti-TSA, etc...

You know, all the things Obama *SHOULD* be, but he's hitched his wagon to the corporatist bandwagon like everyone else. Hold your nose and vote for Obama again, knowing that, as he persecutes more illegal wars, throws more people in jail over the dumb drug war, and installs TSA checkpoints on every cross-state mass transit waypoint [[it's on it's way for Amtrak) I mean, at least he's not a racist, right?

[noise]

I've seen that quote floating around for a while. Where is it from? I can't find the primary source.

I can understand the desire for Ron Paul to be racist. It's a good excuse to avoid voting for someone who is *actually* anti-war, anti-drug war, anti-TSA, etc...

You know, all the things Obama *SHOULD* be, but he's hitched his wagon to the corporatist bandwagon like everyone else. Hold your nose and vote for Obama again, knowing that, as he persecutes more illegal wars, throws more people in jail over the dumb drug war, and installs TSA checkpoints on every cross-state mass transit waypoint [[it's on it's way for Amtrak) I mean, at least he's not a racist, right?

As I recall, it was a reporter from Salon that picked that one up.

In fairness, his racism is only one of his problems as far as I'm concerned. He's talked about repealing the Civil Rights Act. He's pro-life. He doesn't believe in evolution. He would disband the EPA. He's against a minimum wage. No more OSHA.

Overall, even when there's a slightly redeeming quality, it's for entirely the wrong reasons.

[oladub]

As I recall, it was a reporter from Salon that picked that one up.

In fairness, his racism is only one of his problems as far as I'm concerned. He's talked about repealing the Civil Rights Act. He's pro-life. He doesn't believe in evolution. He would disband the EPA. He's against a minimum wage. No more OSHA.

Overall, even when there's a slightly redeeming quality, it's for entirely the wrong reasons.

I think that the originator of the 1989 newsletter scandal was James Kirchik a writer for the neocon leaning publication The New Republic. This week's articles, as found in the New Republic, include a call to militarily intervene in Syria and support of Newt. It's insult articles this week are aimed at Santorum and Romney. The New Republic's Ron Paul newsletter article was launched two days before the NH primary in 2008. I believe that the intent was to undermine Ron Paul because the New Republic's greater concern is that Ron Paul doesn't support funding certain factions in Israel or going to war for Israel since that is a major plank in the New Republic agenda.

Ron Paul never talked about "repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964". He objected to a couple of provisions and was, of course, criticized for his honesty and being less than perfectly PC. James Lidner is not a Ron Paul voter but made the following comments to weigh against James Kirchick's twenty year old allegations:

"“Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he’s a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform,”“I’ve read Ron Paul’s whole philosophy, I also understand what he’s saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him,” “If you scare the folks that have the money, they’re going to attack you and they’re going to take it out of context,” -James Lidner NAACP President

The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul a campaign ad

Ron Paul is pro-life. He is an OB after all. However, he believes related political decision must be made at the state rather than federal level as dictated by the 10th Amendment. He would get rid of a number of federal agencies or at least some of their functions for the same reason. Every State, for instance, has it's own DOE so why do we need to blow $120B/year to fodder a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington for who are duplicating or interfering with what state DOE's are doing?

I don't mean to suggest not considering the 20 year old newsletter story but I would add it to the above list of NAFTA, wars, police state, and other here and now considerations in this primary and go down the list putting a weight on each one and see where you come up.

You can always vote for Obama in the general election to reward him for blacks losing their homes and jobs in higher percentages than whites and for blacks being given longer sentences under the war on drugs than whites under the Obama administration or for supporting all the things on the above list. What is at stake here though is using your vote to send as many anti-neocon delegates as possible to the Republican national convention. If you want to see fireworks at that convention, vote for Ron Paul in the primary.

[noise]

I think that the originator of the 1989 newsletter scandal was James Kirchik a writer for the neocon leaning publication The New Republic. This week's articles, as found in the New Republic, include a call to militarily intervene in Syria and support of Newt. It's insult articles this week are aimed at Santorum and Romney. The New Republic's Ron Paul newsletter article was launched two days before the NH primary in 2008. I believe that the intent was to undermine Ron Paul because the New Republic's greater concern is that Ron Paul doesn't support funding certain factions in Israel or going to war for Israel since that is a major plank in the New Republic agenda.

Ron Paul never talked about "repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964". He objected to a couple of provisions and was, of course, criticized for his honesty and being less than perfectly PC. James Lidner is not a Ron Paul voter but made the following comments to weigh against James Kirchick's twenty year old allegations:

"“Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he’s a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform,”“I’ve read Ron Paul’s whole philosophy, I also understand what he’s saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him,” “If you scare the folks that have the money, they’re going to attack you and they’re going to take it out of context,” -James Lidner NAACP President

The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul a campaign ad

Ron Paul is pro-life. He is an OB after all. However, he believes related political decision must be made at the state rather than federal level as dictated by the 10th Amendment. He would get rid of a number of federal agencies or at least some of their functions for the same reason. Every State, for instance, has it's own DOE so why do we need to blow $120B/year to fodder a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington for who are duplicating or interfering with what state DOE's are doing?

I don't mean to suggest not considering the 20 year old newsletter story but I would add it to the above list of NAFTA, wars, police state, and other here and now considerations in this primary and go down the list putting a weight on each one and see where you come up.

You can always vote for Obama in the general election to reward him for blacks losing their homes and jobs in higher percentages than whites and for blacks being given longer sentences under the war on drugs than whites under the Obama administration or for supporting all the things on the above list. What is at stake here though is using your vote to send as many anti-neocon delegates as possible to the Republican national convention. If you want to see fireworks at that convention, vote for Ron Paul in the primary.

I was referring to the TSA comment.

You're right about the Civil Rights Act. He only voted against recognizing & honoring it and instead provided his own ideas for why it should not have been enacted.

This changes nearly none of my previous post and it doesn't help his case at all.

[Hypestyles]

we'll see if he confronts his racist-literature problem head-on or not..

[Dexlin]

His [[obvious) racism seems like a sideshow, to me [[I'm black, BTW). What I find more damning about Paul is that he seems to not recognize the reality of how society works in a highly advanced modern world of billions of peoples. You'd have to go back very close to the dawn of civilization to have his worldview work. Either that, or his ideas could only work in very small populations like an Amish village. You're not going to run a nation of 310 million people with computers, and satellites and railroads and freeways and complex waterworks and, well, the list goes on...on a Ron Paul worldview. Sorry.

Yeah, he's ridiculously consistent and when he's on he's on, but it's like a broken clock being correct twice a day. The other twenty-two hours of the day, he's crazy as f%ck, excuse my French. He is simultaneously both the most sensible and the most insane major Republican candidate, and, well, that should tell you something.

[BrushStart]

His [[obvious) racism seems like a sideshow, to me [[I'm black, BTW). What I find more damning about Paul is that he seems to not recognize the reality of how society works in a highly advanced modern world of billions of peoples. You'd have to go back very close to the dawn of civilization to have his worldview work. Either that, or his ideas could only work in very small populations like an Amish village. You're not going to run a nation of 310 million people with computers, and satellites and railroads and freeways and complex waterworks and, well, the list goes on...on a Ron Paul worldview. Sorry.

Yeah, he's ridiculously consistent and when he's on he's on, but it's like a broken clock being correct twice a day. The other twenty-two hours of the day, he's crazy as f%ck, excuse my French. He is simultaneously both the most sensible and the most insane major Republican candidate, and, well, that should tell you something.

So, what is the reality of how a "highly advanced modern society with billions of peoples" works? I guess if you disagree with Ron Paul, you think it should work something like it does today:

1. The economy should be controlled by a bunch of global elites with unlimited borrowing power on the backs of working Americans, and the people's representatives in Congress have ZERO control over the elite's piggy bank, the Federal Reserve.

2. A foreign policy that is planned and executed by defense contractors and oil companies that results in war and death for no other reason than to line the pockets of the elites.

3. A financial system that is rigged to make global elites richer at the cost of American home values and retirement accounts. Not to forget destroying the value of every dollar the people have saved during their lifetimes.

4. Fear mongering and war propaganda to convince the public that the entire world hates them for their freedom, while ironically, the government takes those very freedoms away in leaps and bounds.

5. A nontransparent government that is controlled by elites and lobbyists whose ultimate plan for the nation is unknown to us.

6. A rigged 2-party system that consistently forces the same lying politicians down our throats who will protect the establishment and keep the people stupid and dependent while stripping away our Constitution and the American dream.

Remember, that it is the people that give the government its power to govern. This is a Republic!

[oladub]

I posted this on the non-Detroit side. One respondent pointed out that President Obama did reverse his position of support on SOPA/PIPA although that was after Google and other websites revolted. However, President Obama did sign onto A.C.T.A. which many say is worse than SOPA/PIPA in terms of potentially eroding internet freedom as we know it. The good news, for anyone not voting for Ron Paul, is that if he doesn't get enough delegates to at least erode the influence on neocons in his own Party, any of of the other candidates will assure the status quo support and enhancement of everything on that list for another four years.

[Detroit Stylin]

I posted this on the non-Detroit side. One respondent pointed out that President Obama did reverse his position of support on SOPA/PIPA although that was after Google and other websites revolted. However, President Obama did sign onto A.C.T.A. which many say is worse than SOPA/PIPA in terms of potentially eroding internet freedom as we know it. The good news, for anyone not voting for Ron Paul, is that if he doesn't get enough delegates to at least erode the influence on neocons in his own Party, any of of the other candidates will assure the status quo support and enhancement of everything on that list for another four years.

And clearly you didnt get this from some unbiased site like "Vote for Ron The South Was Right" Paul correct...

[13074Glenfield]

And clearly you didnt get this from some unbiased site like "Vote for Ron The South Was Right" Paul correct...

I'm no Ron Paul supporter... far from it... but there's no such thing as an unbiased site.

[BrushStart]

Puzzle me this: Why would Ron Paul make a campaign stop in Highland Park, Michigan, which is 93% black and a place he absolutely no chance at winning?

Answer: Ron Paul is not a racist.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Puzzle me this: Why would Ron Paul make a campaign stop in Highland Park, Michigan, which is 93% black and a place he absolutely no chance at winning?

Answer: Ron Paul is not a racist.

"That's what they all say."

[antongast]

Puzzle me this: Why would Ron Paul make a campaign stop in Highland Park, Michigan, which is 93% black and a place he absolutely no chance at winning?

Answer: Ron Paul is not a racist.

Ron Paul may or may not be personally bigoted against racial minorities [[and the location of one of his campaign stops is hardly conclusive evidence one way or the other), but that question is missing the whole point. The real issue with him is that his policies would create a world in which racial minorities are substantially worse off, and in which the range of opportunities available to them is substantially curtailed.

If you're interested, here is an excellent, on-point analysis of Paul's worldview and its real-world implications, written by an economics Ph.D student at U of M.

An ideal libertarian society would leave the vast majority of people feeling profoundly constrained in many ways. This is because the freedom of the individual can be curtailed not only by the government, but by a large variety of intermediate powers like work bosses, neighborhood associations, self-organized ethnic movements, organized religions, tough violent men, or social conventions. In a society such as ours, where the government maintains a nominal monopoly on the use of physical violence, there is plenty of room for people to be oppressed by such intermediate powers, whom I call "local bullies."

The modern American libertarian ideology does not deal with the issue of local bullies. In the world envisioned by Nozick, Hayek, Rand, and other foundational thinkers of the movement, there are only two levels to society - the government [[the "big bully") and the individual. If your freedom is not being taken away by the biggest bully that exists, your freedom is not being taken away at all.

...

Not surprisingly, this gigantic loophole has made modern American libertarianism the favorite philosophy of a vast array of local bullies, who want to keep the big bully [[government) off their backs so they can bully to their hearts' content. The curtailment of government legitimacy, in the name of "liberty," allows abusive bosses to abuse workers, racists to curtail opportunities for minorities, polluters to pollute without cost, religious groups to make religious minorities feel excluded, etc. In theory, libertarianism is about the freedom of the individual, but in practice it is often about the freedom of local bullies to bully. It's a "don't tattle to the teacher" ideology.

[BrushStart]

Ron Paul may or may not be personally bigoted against racial minorities [[and the location of one of his campaign stops is hardly conclusive evidence one way or the other), but that question is missing the whole point. The real issue with him is that his policies would create a world in which racial minorities are substantially worse off, and in which the range of opportunities available to them is substantially curtailed.

Look, I've been supporting Ron Paul for quite a long time. I've vetted him thoroughly through examining hundreds of writings and speeches dating back several decades. Not once have I found any evidence that Ron Paul is a racist. There are plenty of allegations by his detractors, but their attacks are phony and baseless. If Paul were a racist, I would dropped him a long time ago.

The fact that Paul made a campaign stop in the heart of Detroit's inner city, with a population of overwhelming democrat African Americans is a strong sign that the man is not a racist. How many other national politicians have actually gone into the city's neighborhoods? They don't. They stay downtown. Paul is a man who believes in individuals. He is by far the most color-blind politician in America. But, he is not politically correct, which makes him a target for those who desire to keep the racial divide alive, the bigots bigoted, and all of the people suppressed, controlled, and dependent.

If you're interested, here is an excellent, on-point analysis of Paul's worldview and its real-world implications, written by an economics Ph.D student at U of M.

This is definitely the first time I've heard the "freedom to be a bully" argument. What a load of crap! People will be bullies under any system, including our current form of government. Right now, the bullies are the corporate cronies, i.e. insurance companies, defense contractors, bankers, and lobbyists. All Paul wants to do is make sure that the "bullies" cannot get in bed with government and force their fist down your throat using the law.

Honestly, what is the alternative? Make the government protect you from Jehovah's Witness? I know they can be pushy, but give me a break... And, how would you propose the government protect you? They would have to restrain someone else and take away their liberty to make you happy. The problem you don't see is that whenever the government picks a side, someone gets screwed. Sometimes that person is you; sometimes it's somebody else. Either way it is a form of control and it is wrong. Government should stay out of our lives except to protect us from harm.

I don't know of any "local bullies" who support Ron Paul so that they can bully the "little guy." Virtually all of Paul's supporters are the little guy. This is because they don't have the financial leverage to control politicians and policies the way that the true bullies do all day long. I don't need protection from local bullies, I need protection from the oppressive plutocracy that is literally running this country into the ground. Those guilty are Republican and Democrat alike. Barack Obama is no different than George W. Bush. There's been no change. We were lied to and now only have the illusion of making a choice. Romney = Obama. Neither one gives a shit about you. -George Carlin.

If you're so afraid of what you describe as local bullies, let me give you some advice:

1. Your work boss is an abusive jerk? Quit, form a union, or go on strike. Libertarians have no problems with unions unless they are forced membership, which is wrong. You should be free to do as you like, which includes the freedom to form associations, assemble, and protest, i.e. form a union. Ron Paul would protect those rights.

2. Your neighborhood association is restrictive about landscaping? Don't join it. Government can't protect you from being a fool. If you buy a house in a subdivision, read the damn covenants.

3. The pesky Catholics won't stop asking you to convert? Tell them to piss off! It's not the government's job to police all the religions and play babysitter.