Paul disagrees with much of mainstream Republicans in terms of the war, and also on social conservative issue.
You seem oblivious to the fact that the term "RINO" is one used by extremists to tar exactly the "mainstream Republicans" who they disagree with. Because they aren't sufficiently orthodox, as Paul is.
But, yeah, for any given Republican, you can find some other Republican that will call him a RINO. But this is the first time I've seen a Republican apply the term to their favored candidate, as a mark of pride.
If he is so 'far right' as you claim, then he would not support recognition of same-sex marriage anywhere at all. In fact he would have supported the Marriage Amendment (which he opposed)making it illegal for same-sex marriage to occur in the USA if he was a 'darling' of 'far-right'.
Far right comes in many flavors, and the fact that Paul doesn't go in for the gay-bashing stuff doesn't move him to the left in any meaningful way.
The point is that he runs as a Republican because he can't run as a third party candidate and be successful.
That's the exact same reason that everyone who wants to be successful runs as a D or R.
Most politicians don't even consider third parties because they also don't agree with them.
Sounds like a difference, until you note that the razor for what a "politician" agrees with is nothing other than what will get him elected, by definition.
He doesn't support racist legislation.
Overturning the Civil Rights Act would be "racist legislation," on its face.
A racist legislation would in fact legislate a racist policy itself. For example a racist policy would be: Blacks can't go to church on Sunday.
Or, it might be sneakier, and simply empower racism indirectly without mentioning such specifically. This being a more effective, durable way to advance racism in the post-Civil-Rights era.
The policy he supports is: You have personal freedom to choose whom you interact with.
And by taking that bit of ideology to the extreme of allowing businesses to racially discriminate in hiring and provision of service, he has ventured into open support of racism.
There is quite a difference between the two. Being so emotionally charged and overprotected of those abused before you can't seem to detach yourself from being sympathetic to Blacks and thus you don't understand the policy of Freedom for ALL.
Being such a myopic, self-absorbed adolescent, you can't seem to detach yourself from simplistic ideology and thus you don't understand what the actual implications of this stuff would be for the actual freedom currently enjoyed by all.
This would mean that Blacks can choose to refuse service to KKK members if they wanted.
They already can. "KKK member" is not a race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender or disability, and so the Civil Rights Act does absolutely nothing to prohibit anyone from discriminating against Klan members. Do you know what the Civil Rights Act that you propose overturning actually says, and what activities is actually prohibits?
It's funny how you avoided the actual parallel implication, that blacks can choose to refuse service to
whites.
A racist policy would specifically single out a group and give them more or less advantage through governmental power.
It's interesting that you include the "specifically" qualifier. This grants you license to remain oblivious to more subtle, insidious forms of racist legislation (this being essentially all of such, in modern times), and so support such in the name of FREEDOM.
Such as Jim Crow laws- these are what can be called racist policies. I hope you see the difference between Jim Crow laws and laws that protect everyone's rights individually (no group is singled out) and ff you can't see the difference I have nothing more to add.
I see the difference. I just also recognize that legislation can still be actually racist in the real world, even without being so explicit in the legislation. You are speaking from an ideological insistence that such is impossible, and this is inane.
What is racist is when you discriminate against the individual.
Good lord, what a syntactic train-wreck. The phrase "discriminate against the individual" is meaningless, and there is no apparent connection to "racism" under any reading of that sentence I can come up with.
Who is there to protect their right?
Other than the US government?
Since groups are made up of individuals, protecting the individual is the best 'anti-racist' anti-discriminatory legislation you could pass.
So, let me get this straight - you want to repeal the legislation that ended Jim Crow and segregation, and have managed to climb so far up your own ass that you're claiming this is the best anti-discrimination measure available?
Libertarians disagree with Paul on issues too.
Libertarians being the myopic, absolutist adolescents that they are, I've found that any two of them will disagree about something or another. This is to be expected with an ideology that's all emotive attachment to vague ideals, and zero attention to what these actually mean in practice. None of which is any obstacle to the ability of the right to exploit the cultivated sentiment for its own specific policy stances (bring back Jim Crow - because FREEDOM!), but you will hopefully eventually notice that every mainstream political movement shares the same ideals. The differences are all in what they imply in the real world, and how they can be best approached. This conceit that only Libertarians value freedom and liberty, and that others are working for something else, is just that.
If such is the case then there should be no Libertarian who disagrees with Ron Paul.
That's preposterous. See above.
People CAN think independently.
Indeed. You should try it some time.
This is the problem: If someone criticizes Obama, they must be racist.
I haven't noticed a problem with that. Plenty of the criticism towards Obama comes from the Left, and also from minorities. It's only when racists criticize Obama that this comes up. Of course, there are a lot of racists, and almost none of them are willing to own up to their racism, so this point comes up frequently.
If you've got an example of someone who isn't racist being tarred as such simply for criticizing Obama, I'd love to see it.
If someone criticizes Israel they must be anti-Semites.
Again, haven't seen that invoked inappropriately, at least around here. Got an example?
There is no reason to believe people can not think.
There's plenty of reason to believe that most people aren't very good at it, though.
So again and again you are just imposing of labeling techniques on everything. The policy is racist.
Funny how you instantiate your own criticism - instead of dealing with the actual reasoned arguments about why a policy is racist, you label it as an expression of some political phenomenon that isn't worth answering. The irony being that said phenomenon happens to be "uncritical labelling to avoid substantial engagement."
Anyway, this is getting really tiresome. I recommend that you develop a sense of shame, as this will help you avoid embarassing yourself so egregiously in the future.
