MSNBC - Ron Paul To Chris Matthews:"Saying I'm For Property Rights Therefore I Am A Racist Is A Gi

reply to post by Runaway1977

I watched the entire interview a bit ago as it was rerun on television and Paul's justificiation confused me. This claim that the free market would prevent people from running racist business seems to ignore the history of the United States. As Chris points out, it happened before and no one seemed to care how green the money black people had was. What was the difference between then and now other than the laws Paul wants to take back?

I am not trying to be confrontational. I have no real opinion of Paul as of yet but as I watched it, I felt like we were going in circles. He said the civil rights act is not needed because of the success of the civil rights act. That confused me.

Please read my whole post so you can see why Private Property Rights are so important. To some one sitting in an apartment they may seem useless, until he finds he can no longer buy food or walk the streets without fear and then it is too late.

This is why the return to "racism" dog will no longer run:

Back in the sixties and seventies the whole population viewed blacks and women as second class citizens. We (I am a female) accepted it as just and right that a WHITE MAN had the RIGHT to higher pay and we did not have the right to step out of our roles. I had a knock down drag out fight (and lost) over whether I could compete as a long distance runner in Junior High, whether I could take shop instead of home EC, and whether I could become a Chem Engineer instead of a Chemist.

Since then we have had two generations of kids raised with "Equal Rights" The old guard has mostly died off, black and women own their own businesses.

Do you really think I or most others would actually BUY from a racist these days??? I think a racist is more likely to end up bankrupt before he has a chance to even start his business! Either that or a non racist will open next to him and steal his business.

So yeah we as a society gained, however we also lost big time. We have lost our freedom of speech and we have lost our freedom to living without the intrusion of others on our private property. We lost our freedom from government spying. This is the classic PTB trick of candy wrapping the poison pill. We had to give up freedom to correct "racism" or so they led us to believe.

A classic example of the loss of our property rights thanks to the "Sixties" is Monsanto:

Monsanto vs. Percy Schmeiser

...judge dealt a crushing blow to Farmers' Rights by ruling that Percy Schmeiser, a third generation Saskatchewan farmer, must pay Monsanto thousands of dollars for violating the corporation's monopoly patent on genetically engineered (GE) canola seed....

Percy Schmeiser did not buy Monsanto's patented seed, nor did he obtain the seed illegally. Pollen from genetically engineered canola seeds blew onto his land from neighboring farms. (Percy Schmeiser's neighbors and an estimated 40% of farmers in Western Canada grow GE canola). Monsanto's GE canola genes invaded Schmeiser's farm without his consent. Shortly thereafter, Monsanto's "gene police" invaded his farm and took seed samples without his permission. Percy Schmeiser was a victim of genetic pollution from GE crops--but the court says he must now pay Monsanto US$10,000 for licensing fees and up to US$75,000 in profits from his 1998 crop.... www.ghorganics.com...

This is happening here in the USA too.

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant...

In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment's protections do not apply when the searched party lacks a "reasonable expectation of privacy".

en.wikipedia.org...

This means someone can not break into your home to get evidence BUT they can trsspass onto your property open your shed or car door and take samples, photos or anything else and it is allowed as evidence in court. No search warrant needed. It is also the underlying basis for searching people walking down the street with out need of warrant because on a public street the searched party lacks a "reasonable expectation of privacy!!!

Once those "private property rights" were taken with away out a peep, many of the rest of our rights followed.

An American example:

....The seed cleaner is the man who makes sustainable agriculture possible.

So, Monsanto is picking off seed cleaners now across the Midwest, in Missouri,
greenbio.checkbiotech.org...

...now in Illinois where they are going after Steve Hixon.
www.cbsnews.com...

Shortly after someone broke into Mr. Hixon's office and he found his account book on his truck seat where he would never have left it, evrey one of his remotely located and very scattered customers had three men (described as goons with "no necks") arrived at each farm, going out onto it without permission..... Mr. Hixon and state police who were called in, believe a GPS tracking device may have been put on Mr. Hixon's equipment. All of his customers being sued and are being intensely pressured to settle, with the men coming back again and again and with daily calls and letters. It appears they are being a choice between being sued or settling out of court or testifying against him that he encouraged them to clean GE-seeds.... www.opednews.com...

Dan Glickman, former Secretary of Agriculture

“One of my biggest concerns is what biotechnology has in store for family farmers”, said Dan Glickman, former Secretary of Agriculture under Bill Clinton, in his well-known speech on 13 July 1999, causing a good deal of irritation to his colleagues in the US Department of Trade. “We’re already seeing a heated argument over who owns what. Companies are suing companies over patent rights even as they merge. Farmers have been pitted against their neighbors in efforts to protect corporate intellectual property rights….. Contracts with farmers need to be fair and not result in a system that reduces farmers to mere serfs on the land.” [1]

The former Secretary of Agriculture was referring to Monsanto’s policy of protecting its GM technology through patents that ensure the company has total control not just over its seeds but also over the farmers who use them. When Monsanto’s researchers invented the “genetic cassette” which allowed the creation of RoundUp-resistant crops, the firm filed a patent in the US that gives it a monopoly on production of the technology until 2014. The company also introduced its “Technology Use Agreement” (TUA), a usage clause that allows it to dictate to farmers. The clause requires the payment of a “technology tax”, collected via specified seed merchants to whom the farmers must sell their crops, and also, importantly, an agreement not to save seed for use the following year. Added to this is a clause compelling “clients” to use only Monsanto’s RoundUp, and not any of the many generic alternatives on the market, after the expiry of its patent in the year 2000.

The “Enserfment” of Farmers by Monsanto

It’s essential to understand how this patenting system for biotech and its unprecedented clauses are fundamental to Monsanto’s control of the agricultural sector. The Technology Use Agreement is one in which Monsanto has all the rights, giving it control over the farmers, and hence Dan Glickman’s reference to “serfs on the land”. To illustrate this power, one only has to look a little closer at the agreement, in which one of the clauses specifies that: “If Monsanto reasonably believes that a grower has planted saved seed containing a Monsanto genetic trait, Monsanto will request invoices or otherwise confirm that fields in question have been planted with newly purchased seed. If this information is not provided within 30 days, Monsanto may inspect and test all of the grower’s fields to determine if saved cottonseed has been planted.” [2] But behind these politically correct phrases a much more aggressive reality is hidden, which has made Monsanto very unpopular among its own clients....

Witch hunt in the American countryside

...In November 2004, the Center for Food Safety in Washington published a report titled “Monsanto vs US Farmers”, a very well-researched document which confirmed the existence of what are known in North America as the “gene police”, effectively provided by the Pinkerton agency in the US and the Robinson agency in Canada. [6] It also revealed that since 1998, Monsanto had been carrying out a veritable witch hunt across the American prairies, leading to “Thousands of investigations, nearly 100 lawsuits and numerous bankruptcies”. [7]

..... Mendelson added that “no farmer is safe from Monsanto’s brutal investigations and implacable legal actions: some farmers have been accused after their fields were contaminated by pollen or GM seed from a neighbour’s field; or when “volunteer seed” left over from a previous crop had germinated in the following year, in the middle of a non-GM crop; some of them had never signed up to a contract for the technology at all. In all of these cases, because of the way in which the law on the patents is applied, all the farmers were considered to be technically responsible”.


....When Monsanto’s agents investigate possible offenders, they use bullying methods which are not at all appreciated by farmers, for example they come onto the farmers’ own land to threaten them or station agents outside the farmers’ homes, sometimes for several days at a time, as described by Percy Schmeiser (see the article above – Canada - The case of Schmeiser v Monsanto). These snooping agents don’t hesitate to impersonate official agricultural bodies in order to take samples of suspect crops, and if they can’t get away with that, they sneak onto the farmers’ private property illegally. People who are victims of genetic pollution therefore find themselves harassed by “Monsanto’s militia” who threaten them with hugely expensive legal action.... www.combat-monsanto.co.uk...

reply to post by ThichHeaded

Also RP wasn't talking about race when he was mentioning that stuff he was talking about property rights as I stated above.. If i owned a business and wanted to put a sign up stating that no black people or Chinese people or Mexicans cant come into my shop I am able to do this because of my property rights that I have.. I can put no people with shaved heads, or no people who where green tights or someone who has writes with their right hand cant enter my store.. This is property rights.. not racism....

How about the signs you see that say no shoes, no service???

If I had glass and china in my business or something someone could stub a toe on I would certainly put that sign up... Come to thing of it I do have a no shoes no services policy...

To me it is a safety issue. I also have a no dogs policy.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Why does it seem Ron Paul (even if he's an agent) and Noam Chomsky are the few people that really get it?

Ron told us straight up the reality of the situation. Pretty much state-enforced laws just control the problem and keep it from spreading and infecting other people with its broken idealogy.

You cannot rely on state authority to force you into being a better person. The state's sole purpose is to defend the private property of the public and to enforce laws created by the public. PERIOD.

Problem is if The United States of America is a racist society, authoritarian laws only put a band-aid on the disease. They are still racist but they have to put a damper on it or be imprisoned. Even after all the civil rights laws the US is still a racist society.

There is no such thing as a magic state enforced law that can make a person not hate another human being.

It doesn't exist. There is no magic bully vaccine. There is only education and learning meekness and judging people based on what they have actually done and do to others. Not on "birthright".

The way you destroy racism is with education. Educate people on the fallacies of hating another human for no reason other than to vend emotional insecurity. Give them lessons of tyrannical dictators and monarchs that abused their positions to oppress the powerless.

Originally posted by rcanem
This almost funny, everyone screaming that the government should do this or that, they can't just take away the laws what will we ever do? Ron Paul isn't saying that the laws shouldn't be there but that it is the State government not the federal government that should be the one to regulate such things. He is giving the power back to the local governments and getting the federal government back on the right track. We don't need somone in Washington D.C. deciding what we need in Sometown, USA. we need the local government to take care of local people. If one state passes a law that another finds it doesn't like or need then they don't have to ratify it or pass the same law. What may work in one part of the country may actually be detrimental to another. Let the local governments decide what is best, they are the ones that have the most to loose if they fail to to please the people of that region. So technically Ron Paul is restoring the power to the people.
end of rant.

EXACTLY. This distinction is promptly ignored in favor of fear that we will have no laws. With such a large geographical area we have, a centralized government will never run efficiently. I always think of the USSR as an example of a nation eventually having to decentralize in order to survive.

Look at what some of the southern states are doing. I don't agree with much of it. I would absolutely hate it if their politicians were able to tell my state how to deal with those same issues. They would hate it if my state told them what to do, as well. Yet that happens to all of our states!

Basically what people fail to realize is that RP's stance is that, on a federal level, we shouldn't be governed. On a state level? What ever the heck they want! One state could be the strict unregulated capitalist heaven they want to be and another state could become the regulated socialist heaven they want to be. A two party system deciding the fate of most of the people in the North American continent is just unrealistic.

Wow Mathews! You skated some very thin ice there and didn't fall through. Next time Ron should flip the coin and express that property rights would allow African American people the same...."No Whites Allowed". Thats how simple this is and is clearly not racism. Japanese restaraunts can refuse service to North Koreans and so on and so on. Maybe the result of such laws would end in an individuals racist tendencies to be publicized but that may be a good thing also. At least you know what your dealing with. Don't want my Kung Pao Chicken being cooked by a Chinese person that dispises white people.

Maybe that sign at the laundromat "Whites Only" was referring to the clothes for that washing machine.

I am a proud liberal.
I really -really- dislike Chris Matthews interviewing style. I used to watch him and he never lets people talk if given a chance. I seriously cannot understand how he is still on the air.
shove him into doing some documentrys or whatever if there is some pact with the devil and requires airtime...but get him off of interviewing people...gah

I am for some of Paul's stands. the property rights thing, the legalization of freedom and let the states regulate...there should be consequences for things of course, Chris did make up a good argument on how some heroin addicted parents could go on like that forever, so there needs to be measures put in place to protect any children from class A drug addictions...otherwise, ya...let the people choose their path to happiness.

I love how Chris twists everything Dr. Paul says out of context in an effort to try to make him look like some kind of drug loving, racist miscreant...
Any monkey with half a brain knows exactly what he's getting at when talking about personal freedoms.
Chris Matthews makes me throw up a little in my mouth every time he opens his.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Chris did make up a good argument on how some heroin addicted parents could go on like that forever, so there needs to be measures put in place to protect any children from class A drug addictions...otherwise, ya...let the people choose their path to happiness.

But that doesn't make sense
Who says that just because heroin is illegal it's impossible to obtain?

It's illegal now, a mother can still get heroin today
There's plenty of single mothers in the ghettos that are heroin and crack addicts, in fact they are full of them
they get thrown in jail if caught, thrown in a cage and when they get out they need a fix even more then when they went in

Anytime a product is made illegal a black market is created
So who cares if something is illegal, it's still obtainable

But if it's decriminalized though, then there would be more rehab facilities available to anyone and they won't fear checking in either since it's not illegal anymore

Less people will be in jail, less money to the prison industrial complex and regular injections of sanity into society

Chris Matthews had it right at 6:30 in the video where he said the laws are racist. Didn't he completely argue Ron Paul's point right there.

Loved his response "If a liberatarian is all about Liberty, then what we have now is Totalitarianism".

Great Job, Dr Paul.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
This is truly US Political Madness, either at it's finest or at it's worst I can't decide
I've seen MSNBC use the racist card way too often

I had posted a thread a while ago about someone on MSNBC saying "Some call Obama a socialist, socialist has become the new codeword for the N word"

Unbelievable, too much demagoguery on MSNBC

Chris is going to have a hard time sitting down on this one
And I disagree with his last statement "This is hardball it's what we do"
No it's not what you do, it's what you do to conservatives not with liberals that you want in office

I'm not trying to bring partisanship in this amazing message, but MSNBC is MSNBC

No it's not the "N" word; he is just plainly a socialist!
His policies all are about more governmental control and public reliance on government.
Socialism is about "Distribution of wealth, based on ones contribution to society", no personal property as government owns it all.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


It's people like you who make the news one big joke. If people stopped watching the news due to what it has become, then maybe the news stations would take things more seriously.

If you want the political circus to end, you can't enjoy it and spread it around so everyone else can too.

This is part of how people get their priorities confused. The news is not supposed to be entertaining! Get it straight in your heads people! The more you come to see the news as entertaining, the "boring news" will get less attention and slip right past you, and it will probably be 10x more influential and important that this trash you're spreading about here!

Ron Paul is incredible! Watching him speak gives me joy and a little hope. Also, watching him destroy every news anchor he comes in contact with just NEVER gets old!

Originally posted by nvprose1

are the drug Reps for these companies paying for doctors, or asserting some other kind of influence to them so they will prescribe these new drug to patients...?

I don't know that they are paying doctors, but I can relate one interesting story from Big Pharma...
I was going to college, and my side job was setting up AV equipment for presentations. One of the biggest clients were the Pharma companies, and here is why...
Whenever Pharma comes out with a new drug, they sponsor these high-priced dinners at local 4-star restaraunts, by invitation only, of course... They invite all the influential local doctors, wine and dine them with a good meal and some scotch or good sherry, and make them watch a slideshow or video presentation on this new drug coming out. Free samples of the drug were given out, and the docs all mingled and cavorted the rest of the evening.
I personally would set up at least 3 of these per week, and I wasn't the only one doing them...
So, next time you're wondering why that wonder drug you take costs $200 per month, now you know...

Chris did get a "Thrill up his leg" when he heard Obama speak during the elections.

I guess Ron Paul don't give him the same thrill....

Originally posted by Cuervo
When Chris Mathews mentioned that laundromat with the "whites only" sign on it... did you think that might have just been a sign talking about laundry?

When it comes to laundry, color separation is important.

That is EXACTLY what I thought. Ever been to a laundramat? Such a sign is not unusual.

reply to post by Cuervo


Lol! I didn't really think about that dude, now I'm ROFLing as I think about it

I love Ron Paul's stances on most everything, especially the freedoms he wants to give back. If the voting took place today, I'd be 90% confident in voting for him. The remaining ten percent being due to the fact that he said the raid (faux-raid?) on Osama bin Laden was unnecessary. That's only the second thing Obama did that I supported (the other being when he ordered the kills on the Somali pirates.)

Not to get off topic, but, it's funny I only like Obama when he's ordering the "bad guys" dead haha

I am voting Ron Paul!