It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in


posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:22 PM
Ron you can have your cake and eat it too because that was badass!!!

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:28 PM
reply to post by dragonseeker

You have the laws that protect you as a citizen. Also, if the powers were in the hands of the states, as a Californian, you would live in a pretty modernized and PC society. I can't imagine them not having their own version of the 1964 act. Probably something a bit better, actually.

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:28 PM

Originally posted by dragonseeker

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Ron Ripped Chris a new one and i'll say something else
Ron made a good point, he said that he can't come into his office because of property rights he can be on T.V.
Speaking of morality, Chris is lucky to have property rights and so does MSNBC and Fox News
There should be no right wing news or left-wing news, there should be only news

But the Govt. has no right to walk into MSNBC's or Fox News's head office and say you need to be more unbiased.
And that sends a very strong message as well and property rights may be allowing Chris to keep his job.

But this demagoguery is ridiculous
It is nice though, to have someone running for president to not want to participate in all this smoke and mirrors

Ron definitely evolved since interviews during 2008, he's even better at handling such interviews lol

He RIPPED Chris A New One!!!

Well, I do have concerns about his stance on the civil rights act as a black man..some laws are important, because people will do as much as they can get away with. if there were no legal/social penalty for being racist..0.o..but, that aside, he has a real chance, and it's because he DOES have a fire in him I didn't see last time. crazier things have happened..
edit on 14-5-2011 by dragonseeker because: (no reason given)


I think Ron Paul is a subtle racist.
Does that mean he's a bad person? No.. it could just mean he has bad judgement.. but he is definitely racist.

Look at all the "subtle things he does".

"Leaving things up to the states".
People in the south can already see what's coming if this man is elected.

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:32 PM
reply to post by alyoshablue

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.

What I find hysterical is the fact that the liberals are so scared he will repeal laws and restore the Constitution. He is running for President NOT KING he CAN NOT repeal laws without Congress.

So What could he as president actually do???

1. Grant pardons to all who are in prison for being Addicts (not the drug pushers)

2. Appoint heads to the FDA, USDA, EPA who will clean out the dead wood/corporate good old boys and perhaps get them working as they should, instead of as barriers to small business. Congress however can curtail and constrain a president's authority to fire commissioners of regulatory agencies and certain inferior executive officers. (Government/Corporate Revolving Door)

3. Get rid of a bunch of E.O.s that have been accumulating for decades

4. Purpose a reasonable budget.

5. Veto bills

6. Perhaps the best thing he can do is as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, get us the heck out of wars we have no business being in.

I would suggest to liberals that instead of looking at Ron Paul as some kind of boogeyman you start looking at what he actually CAN do and if that is what you want.

By the way here is a list of a few E.O.s

...First is from Executive Orders in place dating back to 1939 which Clinton has grouped together under one order, EO #12919 released on June 6, 1994. The following EOs all fall under EO#12919:

10995--Federal seizure of all communications media in the US;
10997--Federal seizure of all electric power, fuels, minerals, public and private;
10998--Federal seizure of all food supplies and resources, public and private and all farms and equipment;
10999--Federal seizure of all means of transportation, including cars, trucks, or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports and water ways;
11000--Federal seizure of American people for work forces under federal supervision, including the splitting up of families if the government so desires;
11001--Federal seizure of all health, education and welfare facilities, both public and private;
11002--Empowers the Postmaster General to register every single person in the US
11003--Federal seizure of all airports and aircraft;
11004--Federal seizure of all housing and finances and authority to establish forced relocation. Authority to designate areas to be abandoned as "unsafe," establish new locations for populations, relocate communities, build new housing with public funds;
11005--Seizure of all railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, both public and private;
11051--Provides FEMA complete authorization to put above orders into effect in times of increased international tension of economic or financial crisis (FEMA will be in control incase of "National Emergency").

These EOs are not aimed at anti-hoarding but rather at seizure or confiscation of items and facilities "to provide a state of readiness in these resource areas with respect to all conditions of national emergency, including attack upon the United States." You'll find most 'seizure' legislation ends with this phrase. These Executive Orders don't define what specifically constitutes a national emergency and maybe this is as it should be. The specifics on hoarding are left up to the individual states.

What Is FEMA's Role?

EO #11051 is interesting; it authorizes FEMA near-total power in times of crisis. There's been lots of discussion on the Internet regarding the excessive control FEMA has been granted and it was pointedly commented upon in July's world premiere movie release of the "X-Files".

FEMA was created by President Carter under Executive Order #12148. Its legal authorization is Title 42, United States Code 5121 (42 USC Sec. 5121) called the "Stafford Act." During activation of Executive Orders, FEMA answers only to the National Security Council which answers only to the President. Once these powers are invoked, not even Congress can intervene or countermand them for six months.

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:34 PM
Why do people give a damn about "following the constitution"

FFS it states that a black person is 3/5th a person.

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:45 PM

Originally posted by DuceizBack
Why do people give a damn about "following the constitution"

FFS it states that a black person is 3/5th a person.

Although I know what you are saying, I am going to give you another series of questions.

~ If the US Constitution never existed, would we be having this conversation?

~ If the US Constitution never existed, what would hold those in charge responsible for their actions?

~ If the US Constitution never existed, would freedom in this country still exist?

~ Do you think freedom is free without claiming it as free?

When it comes to fixing amendments, we can always hold a constitutional convention. Like we did during the Civil Rights movement.
edit on 14-5-2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:47 PM
reply to post by crimvelvet

You are quite right, crimvelvet - I alluded to that the other day, in another post. Granted, what you listed that he can do (in your post), is some powerful, fundamental stuff - a cleansing of sorts. Nothing would happen over night.

Realistically, if he were to be elected, it would only be after a long, drawn out slam fest in the MSM, and it could be possible that he would be the end of some sort of malice. No matter what, it does seem like this general notion of corruption, evil, NWO BS, has some steam behind it and I don't see it being stopped by electing one good intentioned man. A prime example of that would be Kennedy.

Nonetheless, I am going to vote for him, as I like his simple logic and see its realistic application and I dislike bankers.

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:49 PM
reply to post by DuceizBack

"Leaving things up to the states". People in the south can already see what's coming if this man is elected.

I lived in NY then SC then came the Civil rights Act. I then lived in MA and then in NC. I really saw more "racism" in good old politically correct MA, home of the foremost Marxist scholars in the world, than I ever have in NC.

Besides the Civil rights Act is not going to get repealed the President does not have the authority!

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:55 PM
Ron Pauls ideas are exactly what your constitution stands for. I wish we had that in Europe. Democracy is bogus, it doesn't exist and it cannot. If the government wants to make a change they'll do it anyway.

This man is extraordinarily smart. I would definitely vote for him.

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:58 PM
reply to post by DuceizBack

Why do people give a damn about "following the constitution"

You would prefer we live under a King or Dictator???

That is really the long and the short of it. There are two types of governments and the Constitution gives us a government that is a rule of law government.

This is the information that is no longer taught because TPTB have controlled our schools for a hundred years or so.

Rule of Law vs. Rule of Men

Scott Ritsema | May 26 2005

All of the governments that mankind has instituted in the history of the world can be divided into two categories. Any and every state can be categorized into either rule of law governments or rule of men governments. History has proven that any nation founded upon the shifting sands of the whim of men will always degenerate into oligarchy and tyranny. However, a nation of virtuous, educated people, which is founded upon and holds to the bedrock of a rule of law system will maintain prosperity and freedom despite the natural occurrences and challenges of history. This elementary yet strikingly relevant dichotomy is misunderstood by many Americans. And, this misunderstanding is one of the many reasons why our nation has been mistakenly led away from a rule of law system toward something that was not intended by our Founding Fathers.

First, it is important to define the two systems. A governmental system ruled by men is any system in which fallen man directs the course of the nation. This includes not only dictatorships and oligarchies where one man or a select few call all of the shots, but also democracies where majority opinion rules without any restraints or protections for minority opinion and individual liberty. According to our Founding Fathers, democracies were as dangerous as any form of government. Benjamin Franklin defined democracy as “three wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch,” and explained that true liberty is “a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” In sum, any rule of man system, whether mob rule or rule by the elites, is destined for failure. Liberty and property will not be protected under such systems, and the nation will ultimately suffer under tyranny.

A rule of law system is quite the opposite. In a rule of law system, the nation possesses a set of guidelines usually in a constitution, which sets the terms for governing. Only according to those blueprints for governing, then, can any men write and execute additional laws. The constitution is the law of the land, and everything else must be measured up against it. A constitutional republic is such a form of government. The constitution is written to assign tasks to the various branches of government and to assure the God-granted liberty and property rights of every citizen. Then, representatives of the people govern according to the constitutional limits of power with a constant concern for individual liberty and constitutional integrity....

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 07:07 PM
Just wanted to add..whether it's chris matthews or the others, I think they're scared of him this time. Did you hear the tone of george stephanopolous when RP announced? I mean, just angry..and it's because he's not the only one now. all those tea partiers will rally to him...palin is out..gingrich is a joke..romney couldn't sell a used car at this even the GOP'ers who hate his guts will back him, because he's their only chance. I do fear for his safety, though, if he becomes a serious threat. a RP presidency will # with a lot of paydays, and, as the kennedy family will tell ya, that will get you killed.

He better not ask about aliens either.

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 07:10 PM

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by dragonseeker

You have the laws that protect you as a citizen. Also, if the powers were in the hands of the states, as a Californian, you would live in a pretty modernized and PC society. I can't imagine them not having their own version of the 1964 act. Probably something a bit better, actually.

california is a bit different. after 17 years here in L.A.(from east coast), I can tell you that the vast majority of the racism I've experienced has come from the hispanic community, not whites. as long as illegal immigration is an issue, racism of that variety will remain, and get worse..not a PC thing to say, but it's as true as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 07:16 PM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

So far Ron Paul has my vote and I sent twice as much money to his campain than I have ever sent to any other canidate! God or if you believe so mother earth make it so.

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 08:11 PM
Honestly this is the only candidate that we have left, if we are ever to stop the regime that has taken over and restore the personal freedom and liberty that this nation once had.

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 08:26 PM
The chance of Ron Paul ever getting into office is slim to none. Do we all believe that all the folks in current positions would let that happen? I dont think so. Good luck Ron!! I would vote for you, if my vote actually counts!

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:20 PM

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
No it's not what you do, it's what you do to conservatives not with liberals that you want in office

You do know that Ron Paul is a Republican don't you

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:36 PM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

R.P. ripped that drooling neo-lib a new one!!!


posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:02 PM

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.

His following is a bit larger than that of ATS
He'll do just fine.

If he receives the nomination, you know the big ol state of Texas will be his. All the traditional red states will be his, and then it will come down to convincing a couple typical blues. I like his chances.

If you would vote for him, or would like to see him as your next POTUS, spread the word to all you know. That's how he'll win this thing.

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:13 PM
I supported Ron Paul last election and will support him this time around, as well. I like the fact that Ron has become a bit more assertive.

I have trouble sometimes when I try to quote specific passages from other posts, so I'll just comment here to whom it may concern or anybody remotely interested:

Herman Cain previously worked for the Federal Reserve--he would not get my vote under any circumstances.

A lot of people are not aware that Ron Paul introduced legislation in 2001 and 2007 calling for Letters of Marque and Reprisal against those responsible for 9/11. It is both a moral and Constitutional action. He is glad Osama is gone--just not the way it was done. (Not that I necessarily believe Osama just died--his death has been announced numerous times in the past--I wonder if we'll ever know the truth):

Ron Paul is not racist. Nelson Linder, NAACP, says Paul is not racist. Paul voted no to giving Rosa Parks the Congressional Gold Medal because Congress has no right to use taxpayer's money for that. He did however, suggest that Congress themselves buy her the Medal and offered the first $100 towards same. Not one Congress person took him up on his offer...yet the rest of them have no problem spending other people's money (taxpayer money). Actually, Rosa Parks is one of Ron Paul's heros (heroines). Ron Paul has frequently commented on the injustice of the War on Drugs and the resultant mass imprisonment of young black citizens.

Ron Paul on Rosa Parks:

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:27 PM

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by jiggerj

And to add to your point, why would anyone want to discriminate? They'd most certainly lose money. What if it's a store run by a white person who just happens to get a large amount of muslim customers? If he puts up a sign that says "No Muslims", they're going to take their money elsewhere. If every white owner in that town does the same thing, then they take their dollars elsewhere.

Substitute "white" and "muslim" for any other race/ethnicity and hopefully, you'll be able to see my point.

I think some of the small government folks would be happy under anarchy. That is total freedom from any system of oppression, etc.

Your eyes do not see and your ears will not listen.

Ron Paul is advocating a return to CONSTITUTIONALISM! What is the Constitution? A treaty that binds the 13 Original Independent States together, and in the present era binds 50 Independent and Sovereign nations together to form the United States of America.

Meaning a lot of the stuff from drugs, prostitution and discrimination will go back to the States. States handle State matters and the Federal( ) Government would handle Federal matters as prescribed by the Constitution.

And if memory serves me correctly, every state has law's against discrimination anyway.
Meaning no Anarchy.

Only an absolute sociopathic control freak(as sociopaths feel more comfortable in totalitarian societies) could be against Ron Paul and Constitutionalism. Let California do what is best for them and let Texas do what is best for them. Most normal people are sick and tired of Texans trying to force their brand of "Conservatism" and Californian's trying to shove their brand of what ever Marxist stupidity is the new rage down everyone else's throats.

Constitutionalism in a nut shell: What is right for you may or may not be right for me, and what is right for me may or may not be right for you.

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in