This would be true if the federal government first used the Civil Rights Act to push the Interstate Commerce law to justify its actions.  The way you phrased it, it made it seem like had they not developed the justification for its right to enforce Civil Rights, there would not be the justification now used to go after things like medical marijuana.  Your beef it seems is really with the rationale behind the Interstate Commerce justification, and that is a whole other ball of wax.

I'm sorry but I am always going to assume anyone who advocates state rights over the federal government to the extent Paul does, who uses the rhetoric that government is the problem, and generally promote libertarian ideological points is someone who sees the individual as prime source of sovereignty.  Right now it politically expedient to push power down from the federal to the state level.  But as Peter pointed out there is really no clear justification on a number of issues why the state government has any more right to restrict the behavior of individuals than does the federal government. 

On the wiki site it states Paul "asserts private property rights in relation to environmental protection and pollution prevention."  This alone indicates to me the underlying nature of Paul's position.  Private rights trumps the common good, or even the rights of other individuals downstream so to speak.  Go read my blog about get-off-my-damn-property politics, and then get back to me. 

You can talk all you want about what position he took there or some words of speech here, but he is, if anything, a private rights proponent, and thus a very very dangerous person to have in a position of power.

But here's another one: "He is also opposed to federal government influenza inoculation programs."  What possible legitimate justification can one have to claim the federal government shouldn't get involved in order to ensure the whole country has equal access to this care. Of course if one doesn't see such things as priorities, one would feel differently, that is until the illnesses from those other areas starting jumping boundaries and borders. 

So while he believes the states should decide whether to regulate or deregulate drugs, there is nothing stopping one country within the state wanting to regulate or deregulate drugs?  Why should the state have the authority to tell the people of the county what drugs they want to use?  You speak of slippery slopes from attempts to redress wrongs committed, but seem to be unwilling to acknowledge there are slippery slopes in every matter.  It is really just a case of which slope one wants to flirt with.

He would be supportive of the state's right to discriminate.

That's what Paul's We The People bill states, as far as I can see.

If a state wants to be a "sun down" state, that's okey dokey by Paul.

There really is no reason to remove an issue from the federal sphere and place it in the state's sphere unless you prefer what the states--at least in a number of cases--are going to say.

Even though KG thinks I haven't listened to Paul or read what he's said--despite the fact that he's been saying basically the same thing for a long, long, long time and says so every chance he gets--he's against abortion. Period.

Roe stands in the way of outlawing abortion. Get rid of Roe, and you have a shot at outlawing it at least in a good number of states.

In terms of what I think...and this is just me...I don't see why certain issues should be decided at the state level. We are one country. We really aren't a collection of sovereign entities which, every year, renew our decision some centuries ago to join together. That issue was decided during the Civil War, as I understand it.

There is no good reason why a person's marriage should be kosher in one state and not in another. There is no good reason why a woman who decides to have an abortion should have to travel thousands of miles to find a state where she can get what she wants. In that sense, it's pretty clear that moving these decisions to the states is really a prelude to eventually banning these things altogether.

Exactly right.

how Paul has opened this heretofore unsuspected vein of tolerance for intolerance in erstwhile liberals.

to this extent at least Paul has served a valuable role, even if it was not intentional.  We obviously we need to be having this dialogue within the liberal "camp." One would have not considered this a pressing need before, at least from my view.  Kind of like how I was surprised to discover the Civil War was still a hotly debated issue in some circles (not to open that can of worms here).

At the same time, when I step back and think about it, I shouldn't be too surprised.  I have believed for some time now that there has been a strong libertarian thread running through the American collective consciousness.  Its influence on people's perspectives has and will continue to have positive impact on politics and society (from my perspective of what is positive), but it definitely has its dark side.  The urge to strike a blow for freedom and liberty can take one down some less than admirable paths.

I don't ignore it.

What he ignores are the existing power imbalances among people and groups of people. (Or he blames them on government actions...government creates the problem it tries to solve.)

For example, he ignores the millions of dollars corporations have to influence elections, regulations, laws--not to mention our environment.

He simply stipulates that GE is an "individual actor" on the stage much as I am an individual actor. Two equals. Therefore, we shouldn't restrain GE in any way or try to balance things out.

Minorities are just as powerful as majorities using the same reasoning.

I think you are correct that accusations of racism likely accumulate as a net plus on the right, just as accusations of socialism likely accumulate as a net plus on the left. I'm not sure that means they view being a true racist positively any more than support for social security or a public health care option means one views true socialism positively.

Particularly in the instance of Ron Paul - where there is a lot of genuine mischaracterization behind many of the attacks - it totally feeds in to the narrative of dishonest persecution leveled at conservatives by those who can't or don't want to debate the message. Which is a major theme pounded home in their messaging. Same thing with how many Republicans believe Cain was the victim of an unfair media smear - they don't necessarily really support sexual harassment deep down inside.

Yes, I have taken the time to think objectively about our demographic shift. I've had conversations with my father who doesn't understand why I'm not worried about it. I found it racist of my father to be worried about it. (As Peter says elsewhere, I also make the distinction between racist acts and racist people, not that it matters too much. It's the actions we need to worry about.) When you talk about highly Catholic Hispanics and abortion, is that they're Hispanic that's the issue or that they're highly Catholic? Assuming you'd say "highly Catholic", is that really the problem or that the "highly Catholic" people (regardless of race) tend to vote pro-life?

No, it's not wrong to wonder about demographic trends, or to get ahead of them. It is troubling to worry about "the disappearing white majority", and even more so when one complains that it will lead to increased dependency on welfare (demonstrating ignorance at best) and wonders why we can't have white schools or neighborhoods.

I can't believe you're actually defending (indirectly) those thoughts.

You are giving the Rush Limbaugh defense. Rush didn't initiate the "Magic Negro" line, but he used the line for his purposes. Ron Paul didn't initiate the "welfare check" line, but used it for fund raising. There are a plethora of words and phrases that can be used, when you state something either put it in context or make a correction.

If Ron Paul has no problem with Stormfront then he should make the statement clearly. Obama had to address issues with Jeremiah Wright and people clinging to their guns, Ron Paul has to deal with his issues as well. Paul is campaigning to be President of the United States, if he can't stand this heat, he will cower before Congress and foreign powers. Barack Obama had to produce a birth certificate, for goodness sake.

Paul is asking women to give up reproductive rights, citizens to give up any hope of single payer and students to give up educational grants in the hope that Paul will bring home the troops. Paul's veracity is a major issue given what is at risk of being sacrificed.

It's interesting that you find so much offense directed at Whites as a group, but don't consider that Blacks as a group might be offended by the welfare check line being used in Paul's publication.

Thank you for the reminder. In the context, I read the comment as stereotyping and frankly deplorable but not racist. I do see your point, and I can see why you feel that it's racist, but I don't regard a white person referring to ignorant white guys as equivalent to your example.

As for the warning against you, it was on Quinn's recommendation that we barred people from public accusations of racism against other bloggers after the ugly Civil War blog some time ago. I think it was a sensible recommendation, we have used it in the past to moderate other such accusations, and I stand by it.

For what it's worth, I enjoy discussions with you and value your participation at dagblog, which I find intelligent and unconventional. I would strongly prefer not to moderate any of your comments, and I certainly wouldn't want to suspend you.