It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 5
128
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
The one and only reason this man wants all the power of becoming the POTUS is to redistribute it back to the people. He would by far be the best POTUS this country has ever known




posted on May, 14 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 

Saying you are for property rights OVER civil rights and the rights of people not only makes you a racist ... it renders you inhuman and not the least bit worth of even a modicum of respect.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
ron paul gets my vote.
i unfortunately didnt know of him until '08 and immediately was like "oh snap....".

what Paul talks about is common sense. every choice has a consequence....and those making the choices are RESPONSIBLE for their choice AND consequence. nature, in itself is indifferent. if a duck walks up to an alligator, it done so by choice. the consequence of that choice leads to one of 2 outcomes....either the 'gator gets hungry and decides to eat the duck, or it ignores the duck for it's not interested.

leaving the people their natural right to choose how their lives go, should be left up to you and I. but understand we have to own up to our choices.

do what you will people, so long as you do not harm others and you should not have negative consequences to deal with.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
As far as property rights go...when I vacationing in Ocean City, MD there was one boardwalk shop that had a sign saying "American Owned". It didn't really bother me, since it seems most of the other shops may or may not have been owned by non-citizens. Like most everyone else, I bought where it was cheapest...most of it comes from the same place anyway.
edit on 14-5-2011 by savagemoron because: after thought



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Is it just me or has since MSNBC was sold to ComCast developed a more punitive tone? I read a few people saying they have been playing the race card more as of recently but to me this is the least of what they've been doing. They've been pushing their leftest extremism way to much. I used to watch it for a few breaking news updates but now I cant handle the constant rhetoric being spilled now that the 2012 elections are in full swing..
edit on 14-5-2011 by Fester1882 because: rhetoric instead of rederic as pointed out by another user, was typing on phone sorry...



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by UcDat
 


Sure, he'll get votes from ATSers but they won't be enough votes to actually elect him.

THIS is why Ron Paul has not been taken seriously by the general population. THIS is what will kill his campaign, especially since he'd be running against Obama of all the people. Easy picking for his opponents.

I'm just trying to be realistic here. I want to vote for Ron but cannot over something like this.
That would be because the sword is a Obama fanatic and im guessing a feminist which through out history has been shunned so they pander to obama or any democrat in hopes to further their bias agenda.
edit on 14-5-2011 by pcrobotwolf because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by savagemoron
 


I would assume people putting "American Owned" on their business is more to entice people to shop there knowing the profits eventually roll back into the American economy, rather than to a foreign country. Not so much "don't shop at the other guys shop! He's a dirty *insert race here*! THEY TOOK OUR JOBSSS!"



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted 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.


Did laws prevent businesses from running racist businesses in the distant past? Neither the free market nor laws prevented people from running a racist business in the distant past. *ONLY* after people's philosophy changed and people's views on the acceptability of slavery changed, did blatantly racist businesses cease to exist.

It was not laws that changed the system. It was a shift in philosophy that reduced the racism and slavery problem. Once you set about to solve something, you can sometimes do so peacefully in the marketplace using ethical shopping, as a very valid and very effective alternative to using police power to violate property rights.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Here's some insight for you. Chris Mathews was helping Ron Paul, not hurting him.
I think they want Ron Paul to get the Republican nomination because he is the only one that can even give Obama a run for his money.
But in the end, they feel they will get that 1 or 2 percent over for an Obama win, which is what they want.
When was the last time you seen these guys give this much attention to RP? never........
Did you here Chris a few times? He said he thought RP was great and that he like what he stood for.

See, depending upon your perspective, you hear certain things in a long conversation.

The other part of this, would be he was bring up pure crap to Ron Paul to get him ready for all the BS.
Lots of people don't get Freedom. Mathews was playing the dip$hit from that angle so that what Ron Paul said would appeal to a broader audience.

And S & F of course. These are the conversations that must be had in order to have an RP get something done.
edit on 14-5-2011 by j2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
It's good to see Dr. Paul pushing back against these marxist windbags like Matthews. He is polite and respectful waaay too much, and he needs to continue putting his foot down when idiots try to spin the hell out of his beliefs and make him look bad.

Why would someone put "whites only" on their front door in this day and age?? WHITES wouldn't even walk in if they did that. He is such a moron.

We all know better. I don't know that I'd be too upset of Chris Matthews had a brain aneurysm.



edit on 14-5-2011 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fester1882 but now I cant handle the constant redericicbeing spilled now that the 2012 elections are in full swing..


not being a grammer nazi, but the word is RHETORIC...just helping another human! ...but yes, comcast does own MSNBC and new channels are more like what you see in "Starship Troopers" and "RoboCop" than they've ever been before.

i honestly look at internet sources more than TV news anymore.
and ATS for me, shocked me with how fast news hit here, than TV so now, since becoming a member, see whats hitting here, then wait days for news channels to catch up.

great job ATS members!



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by readytorevolt
 


What a joke. In a society, you can't be selfish and not take care of the less fortunate. "Back to the people". You mean we get all the ooil profits? He's gonna give it back to the American Indians? Get a clue and a grip. You want anarchy and mob rule with the genocide of the poor and less fortunate ... elect this clown.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Exactly. I'm pro-property rights, but if I see a store that says something like "No blacks" or any other race/religion/culture, I wouldn't shop there. If I'm going to had over my hard earned money to someone, I want them to be ethical and moral.

Right now, it's not illegal to donate to the American Nazi Party, but, you would catch me doing it, because I don't agree with their stances.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Dephyle
 

Yea...at first I was filled with pride of being able buy from an American, with the naive thought that equals buying American. I later had that thought as well, just a ploy to get more customers.


yes...I was guilty of getting caught up in "post 9-11" patriotism.

edit on 14-5-2011 by savagemoron because: no good reason



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Scytherius
 

Your obviously one of the people that feels people don't need their personal liberties and want government to hold your hand throughout your life. As far as I'm concerned, government needs to stay the heck out of my life and let me live it as I see fit, who are they to tell me how to live? Am I a criminal because I drink raw milk? Your government says yes, its unsafe for you and we have to protect you from yourself. BS milk doesn't get any healthier then raw. Am I a criminal because shop at the local farmers market? We don't need all the regulation and government hand holding. The federal government needs to be limited to what the Constitution says and that's it! Nothing more than that. All other questions of law fall to the state, and people have more power when dealing at the state level. I am looking forward to Ron Paul's win in 2012 so we can live free again.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
I totally agree with those who are saying that Matthews helped Paul more than he hurt him with this interview.

The fact is, here we got a nice little preview of that the anti-Paul attack machine is going to look like during this election cycle. The moment the question about heroin was asked during the Fox News debate, I KNEW it was going to become a talking point. But that's ok, because it opens up the opportunity for Ron Paul to appeal to that place inside all of us that demands the respect the we as adults and individuals deserve.

I also knew that when Rand Paul was going through his campaign, the issue of Property Rights was going to shift to Ron Paul if he were to run. And of course, it did. And again, Paul handled the question with honesty and clarity.

What we have here is a perfect example of how Ron Paul differs from most political figures. He doesn't dodge the tough questions. His values are sound and he cannot be shaken.

Ron Paul Gives Chris Matthews a Lesson in Liberty While Matthews Gives Us a Preview of Anti-Paul Demagoguery



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Am voting for this Ron Paul. And if these elitists dont pull one of their dirty cards, I believe he will be president. But again he is going against very powerful forces



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


I was thinking the exact same thing. I was hoping Ron Paul joked about it too!

I'm Canadian, but if I could vote I would vote RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT!



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Whether you agree with Ron Paul on all his positions or not, I firmly believe that if we don't vote for him, then we will keep on getting what we keep on getting. Both parties have shown us that no matter what they say before an election, ultimately, it is TPTB's agenda that will be followed. Why, because they are at a critical place where they need to transfer all publicly owned assets to privately owned assets (in effort to pay off public debt) - not to mention, furthering the banker-state debt/slave paradigm.

So, if you want the same, then do the same. Escape the left/right paradigm.

Thanks for posting, OP.
edit on 14-5-2011 by alyoshablue because: Had to add that last bit about the bankers.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted 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.


The people themselves are quite different now. There is TV and mass media which helps to spread news and culture very quickly and nobody has owned a slave in America as long as anyone reading this has been alive. There are racists and morons in this country but do you really think racism would make a roaring comeback if those laws were taken away? It's like a jack for your car; you only need it to get the car rolling again.



new topics

top topics



 
128
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join