Originally posted by SouthernBelle82
So don't insult me with your holier than thou bull#. It doesn't work on me. Leave it in your ass where it belongs.

Take it as you will, and since you asked the question...

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82So than tell me who could vote before the Civil Rights act of 1964? I'll be waiting to hear this one.

Answer,

The 15th Amendment Ratified in 1870 -

"1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

The 19th Amendment Ratified in 1920 -

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

The civil rights act you speak of was in response to court rulings that smeared the intent of the 15th amendment in some states

So I guess the answer to your question is, everyone had the right to vote.

Gee I guess you slept through the 110th Congress.

Originally posted by turbokid

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82
I already addressed your FEMA sarcasm with someone else's so I won't do that again. And what do you do when there's no money in your state? What if you're Rhode Island and half of your state gets whipped out by a hurricane and it's worse than Katrina? And what if those states can't do anything to help you cause of their own problems or no more money? I guess you're #ed. Oh and it isn't up to Paul either if he was president. It'd be up to Congress. He can veto it but they can always over ride it. Oh well I guess you didn't think that one through.

So if it isnt up to him why are you so worried that he will get rid of it?

This thread has completely de-railed. All because of one person with an anti-Ron agenda.

Why does this continue to happen? This is a candidate who is attracting alot of support for a REASON. I do not see Ron Paul supporters attacking other candidates rarely, if ever, yet because he is such a great candidate and is attracting so much attention, you have people from all factions slandering him.

For starters take a look at Western Europe. They're more socialist than capitalist and than come back and feed me the same lines.

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82
I have looked at Ron Paul's voting record hun. As a socialist it scares the # out of me. He will undue so much progress this country has made. I guess you'd like to go back to the Colonial period huh?

Progress? Progress..... I'm astonished that a person like you would be shocked that businesses are leaving our country. Let me help you.

You are not entitled to anything. I do not owe you one single dime of the fruits of my labor. It is mine, it belongs to me. You would have us all paying your way through life, you would try to force a company to stay, out of some obscene patriotic duty to a nation that steals from them through enormous amounts of regulation. How does it feel, all the progress you socialists have made in the last 50 years, doing pretty well arn't you? You've managed to force out our manufacturing jobs. You've also managed to bankrupt virtually every facet of national, state and county government there is. You've managed to turn our education system into one of the worlds worst, producing students that couldn't tell you what the word axiom meant, or find the state they live in on a map.

Yes you have made great progress. Please keep it up. With any luck every single industry will leave our country, and leave people like you to fend for themselves. Then what will you do? Work at Mcdonald's, so you can buy your lunch at Burger King? What a convoluted mess. What would you do without the big government nanny state. It has been my experience that most socialists are incapable of taking care of themselves. It seems logical, after all if you could why would you need any of the federal handouts you ask for?

But that is the great hypocritical nature of socialism. Supporters of it always claim it is to help those in need. That it will balance the scales. Socialists need poor people, they need a class of people to keep at the bottom, it's the only way you'd ever get votes. If everyone was successful, no one would need the things you talk about. In short, you depend on the poor, you need the poor, most ironically, you need the poor to stay poor. Sad.

[edit on 18-12-2007 by aravoth]

You attack me enough times though. I'm not allowed to talk unless I agree with you. Huh I guess more of that so-called "liberty" you all preach about right? I guess you only want to hear from people who agree with you. You're not going to get a libertarian government that way hun.

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
This thread has completely de-railed. All because of one person with an anti-Ron agenda.

Why does this continue to happen? This is a candidate who is attracting alot of support for a REASON. I do not see Ron Paul supporters attacking other candidates rarely, if ever, yet because he is such a great candidate and is attracting so much attention, you have people from all factions slandering him.

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
I advise all RP supporters to discuss the 'revolution' over xmas dinner with their family, friends, colleagues over the coming weeks and at whatever party, lunch, dinner, function comes up. Every person needs to tell at least 11 people.

I "advise" this as well, along with showing your support. I have already gotten three signs supporting Rons campaign, one in our yard and two for the major traffic areas.

REVOLUTION!

Right and that's why we needed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and why MLK jr and Rosa Parks did their protesting because it was working so swell!!

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82
So don't insult me with your holier than thou bull#. It doesn't work on me. Leave it in your ass where it belongs.

Take it as you will, and since you asked the question...

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82So than tell me who could vote before the Civil Rights act of 1964? I'll be waiting to hear this one.

Answer,

The 15th Amendment Ratified in 1870 -

"1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

The 19th Amendment Ratified in 1920 -

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

The civil rights act you speak of was in response to court rulings that smeared the intent of the 15th amendment in some states

So I guess the answer to your question is, everyone had the right to vote.

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82
For starters take a look at Western Europe. They're more socialist than capitalist and than come back and feed me the same lines.

I know full well the conditions of western Europe, I was stationed there for over 2 years. I have seen plenty of "undesirables" in some of the districts surrounding the major tourists attractions you never got away from.

But I bet they have better education, health care and their people aren't so sick etc. Oh and do your research on Venezuela before and after Chavez became president. Before Chavez the poor people had no chance at all to improve their lives. Now even adults can get their high school diploma to get a job and there's an ambulance who can take people to the hospital and they don't have to pay a dime. Oh the horror of people taking care of each other and being treated as equals!!

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82
For starters take a look at Western Europe. They're more socialist than capitalist and than come back and feed me the same lines.

I know full well the conditions of western Europe, I was stationed there for over 2 years. I have seen plenty of "undesirables" in some of the districts surrounding the major tourists attractions you never got away from.

Mr. Ron Paul needs to be a little more "punctual" in my opinion. Yesterday, he was scheduled to be on 98.3 WOW FM on a local (and by local, I mean "most" of Iowa) radio station in Des Moines, Iowa. I was on my way to work and hoping to hear the interview before I had to be at my workstation. I don't know if he ever showed up or not, but I do know he was really late.

I've heard other examples of Ron Paul turning down opportunities to get himself more exposure on other radio programs; some of these are nationally syndicated. He could really make himself stand out if he would take advantage of doing the Conservative talk radio circuit (he's turned down invitations to do so), since many such as the likes of HELLary Clinton would never even dream about it (considering many of these hosts ask "real" questions, not the approved "rehearsed" lines of bull)!

[edit on 18-12-2007 by CreeWolf]

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82
But I bet they have better education, health care and their people aren't so sick etc. Oh and do your research on Venezuela before and after Chavez became president. Before Chavez the poor people had no chance at all to improve their lives. Now even adults can get their high school diploma to get a job and there's an ambulance who can take people to the hospital and they don't have to pay a dime. Oh the horror of people taking care of each other and being treated as equals!!

I see, Chavez, they guy who nationalized a private company. The one that looted from his major producer. The one that shut down a news station. The horror indeed. The people will pay for it. They are paying for it. It sounds as if you are in the wrong nation. Clearly you are not able to fend for yourself. Might I suggest a move to a country more to your liking? Cuba is said to have wonderful beaches, and all expanses paid. And a health care system so great that even Micheal Moore had to come back to the United States for his doctor appointment because he was humbled at the sight of the mighty ship of state.

I would enjoy continuing this pointless debate with an elitist like yourself, however Since I have responded to you too many times, and taken the bait you threw in the water, I must now end this discussion. As well intentioned as my comments are, they serve to feed your royal trollness a little more than you can chew, thus guaranteeing you will be around here for some time. And that, is something I do not want. Therefore, good day.

[edit on 18-12-2007 by aravoth]

[edit on 18-12-2007 by aravoth]

Wow for people who like to be arrogant and boastfull you're ignorant here. Chavez doesn't own any of the money hun. The government does. The oil profits is how he pays for these national programs from education to health care. And you obviously missed the point of Michael Moore's movie. He didn't just talk about Cuba either but France, Britian and Canada. Why don't you talk about them? Oh the horror! Oh and France is another good socialist country to look to. Look at how well their people do. I guess you don't want to be better than what we are but want to go back to the Colonial days.

Originally posted by aravoth

I see, Chavez, they guy who nationalized a private company. The one that looted from his major producer. The one that shut down a news station. The horror indeed. The people will pay for it. They are paying for it. It sounds as if you are in the wrong nation. Clearly you are not able to fend for yourself. Might I suggest a move to a country more to your liking? Cuba is said to have wonderful beaches, and all expanses paid. And a health care system so great that even Micheal Moore had to come back to the United States for his doctor appointment because he was humbled at the sight of the might ship of state.