Replies

Just because credible geneticists tell you that race is an illusion does not mean that eugenicists will not pick and choose genetic "ideas" in order to further their cause. The only reasons for allowing the corporate discrimation of people based on their genes stems from racist and eugencially derived ideas.

Don't give me that "he just wants everyone to be free to do whatever they want" crap. In order for that to be true he'd have to be an advocate of true anarchy, where your "freedom" allows you to infringe on the rights of others without intervention. You have the freedom to think whatever you want about other races or people with different genes than you, but you shouldn't have the right to deny them employment or insurance based on those prejudices, regardless of how "fact based" the genetic discrimination is.

What we have here is yet another ronpaulogist who wishes to excuse his racism by saying that we all have common ancestors so it's not really racism, it's just genetic profiling. Frankly I don't give a damn whether it's eugenics or racism, they're both forms of discrimination based on the things you were born with, and they often go hand in hand. Paul himself has made some pretty outrageous racist statements that he later denied making, he has a history with this garbage so it's not "unreasonable" to attribute his lone dissenting vote to his extremist racist agenda.

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal"

"order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

Ron Paul on carjacking - it's the "hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos."

He claims he didn't write those things. So instead of being a racist he claims he just surrounds himself with racists. Similarly Obama has claimed he "never saw the survey" that clearly stated his real position on gun control. We know Obama definately lied about that because his handwriting was on the survey on one of the pages. Unfortunately, we can't know the same about Paul for sure, but it seems damn incompetent of him to be allowing his staffers to publish things in his name sight unseen multiple times without even getting the name of the writer. Frankly, I don't believe his claim that he had no idea what was being published, and since he can't even name a name he's complicit in covering for the racist behind it, whether it's him or not. He's stormfront's favorite politician and refuses to return the money he's received from racists like them. You have to ask yourself, what do they know that we don't, or rather, what are they willing to believe about him that we aren't? It's no different than the issue of Hamas supporting Obama. If you have an issue with Obama because of the latter, you ought to have an issue with Paul because of the former. Personally, I have issues with both of them for both reasons.

You have the freedom to think whatever you want about other races or people with different genes than you, but you shouldn't have the right to deny them employment or insurance based on those prejudices, regardless of how "fact based" the genetic discrimination is.

Why not?

Isn't the "employment" owned by the employer, and the insurance owned by the insurer?

Do you believe people have a "right" to employment or a "right" to insurance?

Brevity is the soul of wit. Welcome to FR