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.

 

Ron Paul: Is He a Racist?

page: 10
15
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
I haven't looked in the last couple of days, but haven't seen a poll where Dr. Paul could actually beat the President.


A tied vote is hardly "completely unelectable".
Source: www.thenewamerican.com...


They are at the forefront because of the Koch brothers and their ilk. They want a free market economy, with 0 regulation, so they can continue to make billions no matter what harm they cause. If the fiscal conservatives would focus on fiscal issues, and put all of their perceived social ills on the back burner, they might have a chance. However, most that I have heard speak want to mix it with god, WTH does fiscally conservatism have to do with the Pro-Life movement, or gay marriage? This is where they lose the independents, leave god out of the equation.

Regulations are a big corporations best friend. Regulations are used by large corporations to crowd out the smaller ones with laws that require all kinds of big expenses and big investments. Savannah Last Biscuit in Savannah Georgia is a gleaming example. Your glorious regulations require a $10,000 ventilation system for each restaurant in the area. Last Biscuit's solution was to blatantly ignore the regulation because its just a single mother trying to support her family... she doesn't have the $10,000 investment, so ignored it and did business any way without one. Her employee was at one point arrested, but then released so the police could avoid being the laughingstock of the court system.

In the US even with zero regulations, we still have the civil court system. That system allows anyone who has been damaged by any corporation to seek restitution for the damages done. So if there is a problem its a court system that is not easy enough to use. Go ahead and name one regulation that cannot be better solved in the court system. One example.

You claim that Paul's record shows he is unfriendly to homosexuals but his vote of NO to the marriage being defined as one man and one woman clearly shows a position of neutrality at the federal level. He also does not believe abortion should be regulated at the federal level. Another position that liberals and independents should be able to accept. At the local level I could understand if you held that against him, but at the federal level his plan is to delegate it to the states, as should happen with any highly controversial issue that states do NOT agree over.


We lost more freedoms under George W. Bush than we have under President Obama. Unfortunately, the President has extended the BS. I have not heard of the hatred of free speech on the internet, last article I saw indicated that the WH supported net neutrality. On a side note, if you are doing nothing wrong, why does the Patriot act bother you, if you don't like the TSA don't fly, you have a choice, make it according to your beliefs. One thing I did notice in your list of Dr. Paul's legislation and votes, is that he doesn't like homosexuals, and while I am not one, I don't want anyone but the wife and I in my bedroom, but this is a topic for a whole nother conversation.

Obama wants a huge volume of internet laws and regulations to make sure your speech is highly regulated. Run a web search for "obama internet regulations" and see for your self. As for net neutrality, that is an internet regulation so using that as an example of how Obama is against internet regulations doesn't work.

The Patriot Act bothers me because it destroys the separation of branches of power. The whole purpose is to destroy the powers of the judicial branch and delegate them to the executive branch. Why would you be for that? Like Rand Paul said so well... if someone is a criminal then a judge will have no problem issuing a search warrant. The only people who support the patriot act believe that the executive branch should act as king of the country and get away with murder without any check or balance. You actually seem to trust our government to work for the good of the people. Fine... but don't expect anybody else to put such a foolish trust in government. We need a strong system of checks and balances, and there is abundant historical reasoning for that.

Since you have nothing to hide, then you won't mind if I put a camera in your living room, right? The point being that people who value their privacy do not want the patriot act. I value my privacy, so realize that the patriot act is bad (in addition to being a gross violation of the US constitution).


Wow, does he walk on water too?

He's an honest member of congress with several areas of expertise, so naturally I'm going to put him on a very pedestal. So that combination does seem downright mystical to me. I won't be singing worship songs to him, but clearly he has set the bar extremely high. Lobbyists don't even bother to visit him for a good reason... they won't be changing his mind and Paul is likely to know just as much or more about the issue they were hired for.




posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by The Old American
 


Honestly, though I'm sure not to your desired effect, your posts ALWAYS make me think and double check what I think I know. This OP is no different and for that I will finally give you a flag and star


Hah! 1st a star and flag from Kali, next...THE WORLD!



/TOA



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by civilchallenger
 


Star for you!!

Some people just don't get it. They want to hand over their entire paycheck, and have their entire lives run by the government.

This country is going down the crapper fast!



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by The Old American
True, he should've been more vigilant and proof-read everything that went into it, but I have trouble keeping up with my 13 year old. I can't imagine trying to keep up with a newsletter read by hundreds of thousands of people, on top of the duties of being a Congressman.


He personally didn't have to keep up with them. If this wasn't his stance on this issue, his aides should have brought this to his attention and he should have refutted it immediately. He didn't. Perhaps he thought it would just get buried, perhaps he thought it might help him with certain groups of people, OR perhaps he agreed with it. We will never know.


You missed the most obvious alternative: Perhaps they did not bring it to his attention. However, as we all know from the OP, when it was brought to his attention he firmly and unequivocably refuted it.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by deesul69
 


this country has been in the crapper for decades

and the sewer lines are clogged up from all the crap

and its time american called in roto rooter

to fix it.

and thats paul.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by BubbaJoe

I haven't looked in the last couple of days, but haven't seen a poll where Dr. Paul could actually beat the President.


Realistically, it will be an uphill battle. For some reason, people support Obama. I have my own ideas about that, but they aren't relevant to this thread so I'll keep them to myself.



They are at the forefront because of the Koch brothers and their ilk. They want a free market economy, with 0 regulation, so they can continue to make billions no matter what harm they cause. If the fiscal conservatives would focus on fiscal issues, and put all of their perceived social ills on the back burner, they might have a chance. However, most that I have heard speak want to mix it with god, WTH does fiscally conservatism have to do with the Pro-Life movement, or gay marriage? This is where they lose the independents, leave god out of the equation.


Running on a platform of only fiscal responsibility won't get one very far. The average person on the street thinks they know "we're broke", but when it comes to fixing it, their eyes glaze over. Talk about personal issues, like abortion, or Social Security, and then you've got their attention.

As far as religion, it has its place and that place in one's heart and mind. Politics is not the place.



We lost more freedoms under George W. Bush than we have under President Obama. Unfortunately, the President has extended the BS. I have not heard of the hatred of free speech on the internet, last article I saw indicated that the WH supported net neutrality.


If someone walked up at the end of our fight out on the street and saw that I somehow got the upper hand and was beating you to death with your left leg, and I said, "I'm tired, you take over," shouldn't he try to help you out, instead of continuing the beat down?

This is what Obama is doing. Yes, Bush started it. But Obama is just as culpable for perpetuating it. I can agree that Obama has signed some good legislation, but continuing the Federal government's war on its people and their freedom and rights, and the people of other nations, overwhelmingly trumps his good deeds (to me, anyway).



On a side note, if you are doing nothing wrong, why does the Patriot act bother you, if you don't like the TSA don't fly, you have a choice, make it according to your beliefs.


You really believe this? Suppose a LEO came to your house one night and said, "I want to search your house. If you're doing nothing wrong, you should have no problem letting me in, right, sir?" Would you let them in? The 4th and 5th Amendments are there for a good reason. The TSA, under the umbrella of DHS, violates them about a hundred times a minute. The other alphabet soup agencies join in the fun ever other minute.



Wow, does he walk on water too? First he is a civil rights champion, and now the most knowledgeble on economics, in addition to being a medical doctor, and congressman. Next you are going to tell me he heeled a dog, cured a ham, and made a blind man lame. I believe Dr. Paul to be a fine and educated human being, however, I do believe he has faults, and I will follow no one blindly


Now you're just being silly. Of COURSE he walks on water! Sheesh.

Don't follow him blindly. Do some research. Check his website. Look at his voting record. Make an informed decision. If, after you have done that you still don't think he's the right person for the job, at least you'll have done your due diligence.


/TOA



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by civilchallenger

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
I haven't looked in the last couple of days, but haven't seen a poll where Dr. Paul could actually beat the President.


A tied vote is hardly "completely unelectable".
Source: www.thenewamerican.com...


Also from the article you referenced.
In a hypothetical match-up between Paul and Obama, Obama beats Paul by only seven percentage points (52 to 45 percent).

Not a real close race, Obama only beat McCain by 4%.

Another from the same article.

This is not the first time Paul has performed well against Obama in opinion polls. A 2010 Rasmussen poll found that Paul and Obama were virtually tied in a hypothetical election, Obama at 42 percent and Paul at 41 percent.

Rasmussen is a favorite of Limbaugh, and usually favors conservatives by 3 - 5 points, so not a good source, in addition the poll is over a year old.

If you want to see the real data, go someplace like this:
Source: www.realclearpolitics.com...

As you can see from that poll, Dr. Paul is only number 4 on the list, with less than half of Romney's percentage.




They are at the forefront because of the Koch brothers and their ilk. They want a free market economy, with 0 regulation, so they can continue to make billions no matter what harm they cause. If the fiscal conservatives would focus on fiscal issues, and put all of their perceived social ills on the back burner, they might have a chance. However, most that I have heard speak want to mix it with god, WTH does fiscally conservatism have to do with the Pro-Life movement, or gay marriage? This is where they lose the independents, leave god out of the equation.

Regulations are a big corporations best friend. Regulations are used by large corporations to crowd out the smaller ones with laws that require all kinds of big expenses and big investments. Savannah Last Biscuit in Savannah Georgia is a gleaming example. Your glorious regulations require a $10,000 ventilation system for each restaurant in the area. Last Biscuit's solution was to blatantly ignore the regulation because its just a single mother trying to support her family... she doesn't have the $10,000 investment, so ignored it and did business any way without one. Her employee was at one point arrested, but then released so the police could avoid being the laughingstock of the court system.

In the US even with zero regulations, we still have the civil court system. That system allows anyone who has been damaged by any corporation to seek restitution for the damages done. So if there is a problem its a court system that is not easy enough to use. Go ahead and name one regulation that cannot be better solved in the court system. One example.


and the civil court system does me what good, when with lack of regulations, there is nothing to find them guilty of, not to mention, that if the corporation can own my congressman, what keeps them from owning my judge. If we pulled all of the EPA, OSHA, Workman's Comp requirements, etc etc, how much money would the corps save? While we are at it, lets ban unions and minimum wage laws. That would make your corporate masters ecstatic.



You claim that Paul's record shows he is unfriendly to homosexuals but his vote of NO to the marriage being defined as one man and one woman clearly shows a position of neutrality at the federal level. He also does not believe abortion should be regulated at the federal level. Another position that liberals and independents should be able to accept. At the local level I could understand if you held that against him, but at the federal level his plan is to delegate it to the states, as should happen with any highly controversial issue that states do NOT agree over.


From your own list of posts:
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
No need for Marriage Amendment; DOMA is enough. (Sep 2007)
Don’t ask, don’t tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007)
Voted NO on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes. (Apr 2009)
Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)

Also from your own post, doesn't seem like he wants any constitutional amendments.
Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)

But thank you for the link, gives me some real insight to his past votes. It is nice to be able to pick and choose to support your agenda.




We lost more freedoms under George W. Bush than we have under President Obama. Unfortunately, the President has extended the BS. I have not heard of the hatred of free speech on the internet, last article I saw indicated that the WH supported net neutrality. On a side note, if you are doing nothing wrong, why does the Patriot act bother you, if you don't like the TSA don't fly, you have a choice, make it according to your beliefs. One thing I did notice in your list of Dr. Paul's legislation and votes, is that he doesn't like homosexuals, and while I am not one, I don't want anyone but the wife and I in my bedroom, but this is a topic for a whole nother conversation.

Obama wants a huge volume of internet laws and regulations to make sure your speech is highly regulated. Run a web search for "obama internet regulations" and see for your self. As for net neutrality, that is an internet regulation so using that as an example of how Obama is against internet regulations doesn't work.


I did the search as you asked me too, I got foxnews, infowars, and a whole bunch of far right wing "We hate the president" blogs, please come back to me with a legitimate source.


The Patriot Act bothers me because it destroys the separation of branches of power. The whole purpose is to destroy the powers of the judicial branch and delegate them to the executive branch. Why would you be for that? Like Rand Paul said so well... if someone is a criminal then a judge will have no problem issuing a search warrant. The only people who support the patriot act believe that the executive branch should act as king of the country and get away with murder without any check or balance. You actually seem to trust our government to work for the good of the people. Fine... but don't expect anybody else to put such a foolish trust in government. We need a strong system of checks and balances, and there is abundant historical reasoning for that.

Since you have nothing to hide, then you won't mind if I put a camera in your living room, right? The point being that people who value their privacy do not want the patriot act. I value my privacy, so realize that the patriot act is bad (in addition to being a gross violation of the US constitution).


Obama didn't institute the Patriot Act, that was courtesy of Bush and Cheney, who you seem to admire. Yes our current President extended the act, but I do not recall him expanding it, blame this one on your republican buddies.




Wow, does he walk on water too?

He's an honest member of congress with several areas of expertise, so naturally I'm going to put him on a very pedestal. So that combination does seem downright mystical to me. I won't be singing worship songs to him, but clearly he has set the bar extremely high. Lobbyists don't even bother to visit him for a good reason... they won't be changing his mind and Paul is likely to know just as much or more about the issue they were hired for.


When I find the article telling me that he has taken nothing from lobbyists, no cash, no gifts, no corporate contributions, etc, etc, I might take it seriously into account. At this point, for me, he is another neo-con, that supports corporations over individuals, and therefore in my mind is not electable.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by BubbaJoe

I haven't looked in the last couple of days, but haven't seen a poll where Dr. Paul could actually beat the President.


Realistically, it will be an uphill battle. For some reason, people support Obama. I have my own ideas about that, but they aren't relevant to this thread so I'll keep them to myself.


I have my own ideas as well, and we might surprise each other, and actually both be thinking the same thing, and yes for Dr. Paul, it is an uphill battle. According to the latest polls at RCP, Dr. Paul is #4 on the republican list. For me this sucks, Romney is number 1, and I feel that he is a flake, Palin is 2nd, and I feel that she is bat crap insane, Guilianni is 3rd, and I just don't get that one, and Dr. Paul is 4th on the list via the average. If things hold to these poll numbers, I am going to forced to vote between a guy that has seriously disappointed me and my expectations, and I guy I wouldn't trust to walk my dog.




They are at the forefront because of the Koch brothers and their ilk. They want a free market economy, with 0 regulation, so they can continue to make billions no matter what harm they cause. If the fiscal conservatives would focus on fiscal issues, and put all of their perceived social ills on the back burner, they might have a chance. However, most that I have heard speak want to mix it with god, WTH does fiscally conservatism have to do with the Pro-Life movement, or gay marriage? This is where they lose the independents, leave god out of the equation.


Running on a platform of only fiscal responsibility won't get one very far. The average person on the street thinks they know "we're broke", but when it comes to fixing it, their eyes glaze over. Talk about personal issues, like abortion, or Social Security, and then you've got their attention.

As far as religion, it has its place and that place in one's heart and mind. Politics is not the place.


Yeah fiscal conservatism is just not sexy enough to get elected, the republicans respond to the god call, so these guys are going to play it for all it's worth. While Dr. Paul and I don't totally agree on the abortion issue, I might be more libertarian than he, that is something that is a personal decision, no level of government should be involved.




We lost more freedoms under George W. Bush than we have under President Obama. Unfortunately, the President has extended the BS. I have not heard of the hatred of free speech on the internet, last article I saw indicated that the WH supported net neutrality.


If someone walked up at the end of our fight out on the street and saw that I somehow got the upper hand and was beating you to death with your left leg, and I said, "I'm tired, you take over," shouldn't he try to help you out, instead of continuing the beat down?

This is what Obama is doing. Yes, Bush started it. But Obama is just as culpable for perpetuating it. I can agree that Obama has signed some good legislation, but continuing the Federal government's war on its people and their freedom and rights, and the people of other nations, overwhelmingly trumps his good deeds (to me, anyway).


I have no problem agreeing with you on this issue, not that being beat to death with my leg has any effect on my comments. This is one my strong areas of disappointments with the current President.




On a side note, if you are doing nothing wrong, why does the Patriot act bother you, if you don't like the TSA don't fly, you have a choice, make it according to your beliefs.


You really believe this? Suppose a LEO came to your house one night and said, "I want to search your house. If you're doing nothing wrong, you should have no problem letting me in, right, sir?" Would you let them in? The 4th and 5th Amendments are there for a good reason. The TSA, under the umbrella of DHS, violates them about a hundred times a minute. The other alphabet soup agencies join in the fun ever other minute.


In all honesty, I do not really believe this, and would not allow the LEO into my home without a valid warrant. However, I would be polite and professional about it. Again, both the DHS and TSA were created by the Bush administration, and I think they have over stepped their bounds. However, if someone does slip though, and we have a successful high jacking, or terrorist incident in this country, the ones that have been screaming the loudest about the pat downs will be the first to demonize our current president for being lax on security. As far as monitoring my cell phone, seeing what library books I check out, or what I do on the internet, I don't have a lot of problem with those, after my time in the military, I have always figured that stuff was being monitored anyway. I have pretty much figured out that big brother has been watching for a long time.




Wow, does he walk on water too? First he is a civil rights champion, and now the most knowledgeble on economics, in addition to being a medical doctor, and congressman. Next you are going to tell me he heeled a dog, cured a ham, and made a blind man lame. I believe Dr. Paul to be a fine and educated human being, however, I do believe he has faults, and I will follow no one blindly


Now you're just being silly. Of COURSE he walks on water! Sheesh.

Don't follow him blindly. Do some research. Check his website. Look at his voting record. Make an informed decision. If, after you have done that you still don't think he's the right person for the job, at least you'll have done your due diligence.


/TOA


Much to my wife's annoyance I do too much due diligence on most things that I do. I am a Taurus, I work for two CPA's, and perform audits where one of my responsibilities is to ensure due diligence on real estate transactions, so that part I do understand.

I am sure in my heart, that Dr. Paul is probably the best that the repubs could offer in this election cycle, I just don't feel that he can do it. I am not saying that to demean him, I just think that those right of middle, are too fractured to actually take the sitting President.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
Not currently, no,


So you believe that any anti-interracial marriage laws or racial segregation laws (in public settings) are unconstitutional. Thankyou for that response, I do not believe you are a racist.


I know you want me to answer your hypothetical situation, but if you knew me personally you would know I don't live in a hypothetical world.


Doesnt matter if it's hypothetical, it's a valid scenario that I posed to you interms of your belief. If you have a clear stance about your ideological beliefs, it should not be hard at all to simply apply them to various scenarios. Now concerning martians and aliens, don't know what that has to do with the topic of discussion, that would be way off topic.




When Dr. Paul says "it should be a state issue" he means laws governed by the state, voted in by the people of that state. A bill against interracial marriage or for segregation would be written by state legislators, put to a vote of the people, and then either fail or be written into law. That's what I believe Ron Paul agrees to.


You're telling me that Ron Paul agrees that bills against interracial marriage and for segregation would be a states issue, so it would justified for states to establish and enforce those laws? If that's the case then I would have to say that Ron Paul is a racist, regardless of whether he's just discussing "rights". Laws that enforce over individuals americans as to whom they can marry who who they associate with in public settings are invasive, they are clearly unconstitutional, and Ron Paul in my opinion would clearly be a hypocrite with his talk of "liberty" because clearly he wouldn't mind fascism at the state level. As to whether you agree with Ron Paul if he took that stance, well that would contradict your previous standing on the matter.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


There's not a thing wrong with the fact that you're going to believe one way and I'm going to believe another about him. I'm certainly not going to go off on you for not believing what I believe. I am glad that you don't believe me to be a racist, though. It would cause me no end of consternation if I wasn't clear on that.

/TOA



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


as opposed to fascism on the federal level.

dont like a state we can move unlike fascism on the federal level and were all screwed.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Way to easy


From your own list of posts:
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

The vote was to oppose the federal funding of adoption be it same sex or opposite sex


No need for Marriage Amendment; DOMA is enough. (Sep 2007)

Dr Paul does not support Federal "oversite" of Marriage be it same or opposite sex


Don’t ask, don’t tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007)

In his own words



Voted NO on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes. (Apr 2009)

A crime of violence is already handled in the courts, its pointless to create a separate class of crime based on orientation, battery is battery, assault is assault, murder is murder


Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)

Dr Paul voted aginest this because of the RAVE Act amendment attached to the bill by then Sen. Joe Biden. The RAVE Act had nothing to do with the amber alert


Also from your own post, doesn't seem like he wants any constitutional amendments.
Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)

Both for the same issue and relates to his votes on same sex marriage, the federal government has no business regulating peoples personal lives unless the persons peronal life interferes in the anothers life, liberty or property



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by NuroSlam
 


Nuro, I was trying to make a point here, no government, federal, state, or local, has the right to tell me who I can fall in love with. This is one of the areas where I feel that the libertarians have an issue, many of their followers will not support gay marriage. Outside of the IRS, and some med related issues, marriage is a religious issue. The IRS, and med community need to get out of the marriage issue, and allow it to go back to being a religious issue. I support civil unions, if you want to be "married", find a church that will do it.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


as opposed to fascism on the federal level.


I yes I see.

Fascism at the federal level? Bad?
Facism at the state level? Good!

I get ya, I already knew your position from my previous post addressed to you.


dont like a state we can move


There it is again. Fascism under a state government, A-OK.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


no man not ok but the little people cant stop fascism at either the state or federal levels

and where did i say it was good?

what i said is: federal theres no way to get out of it

state you can go elsewhere less stupid.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


There's not a thing wrong with the fact that you're going to believe one way and I'm going to believe another about him.


We don't know where Ron Paul stands on the issue of racial segregation and interracial marriage, he has not commented specifically on states holding the right at that extent. What I do know is that racial segregation goes against the value of liberty and freedom, regardless of whether it is at the federal or state level. You are either for liberty freedom or not. Fascism at the state level does not make any less fascist. Neo doesn't appear to understand this, I wonder if you're capable of understanding my point?


I'm certainly not going to go off on you for not believing what I believe. I am glad that you don't believe me to be a racist, though. It would cause me no end of consternation if I wasn't clear on that.


Well you said that states don't have the constitutional grounds to establish anti-interracial marriage laws and racial segregation, so I don't believe you to be a racist. Anybody who argues that it's "liberty" and "freedom" for a state to establish racial segregation over it's own citizens is a complete hypocrite.

Fascism remains the same, regardless of whether it is on the state level or a federal level.
edit on 12-6-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


no man not ok but the little people cant stop fascism at either the state or federal levels

and where did i say it was good?

what i said is: federal theres no way to get out of it

state you can go elsewhere less stupid.


Fascism should not be accepted at any level. Making an excuse that a person could just simply "leave a state" does not excuse to rationalize those states for stripping fundamental rights away from it's citizens. Some Southern states still found slavery acceptable during the 19th century, did this make them any less fascist and more justified in keeping it legal? No. Was it the right of confederate states to enslave american citizens the way they did? No. Simply saying that "blacks could have escaped those states to other states anyway" doesn't make it acceptable at all.

Fascism needs to be dealt with at all levels, state and federal. No single state can strip those fundamental freedoms from you. You have the freedom regardless of race to marry whom you want, to associate with whom you want, to move freely in public in your own state without being harassed by the state or federal government. It's your right and no government, whether it be federal or state, has the constitutional grounds to do such a thing.

It honestly boggles my mind that so called libertarians are more than happy with state governments infringing on other people's right, but they want to complain about the fascism of the federak government. But you know, "people can just move from state to state so it's acceptable".
edit on 12-6-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Neo doesn't appear to understand this, I wonder if you're capable of understanding my point?


Are you capable of understanding when someone respects your opinion and beliefs? Obviously not, since I said as much and you decided to be snarky about it.

WTF, seriously? I tell you that there's nothing wrong with the fact that we have different views and that's OK by me, and you come back with an insult? Is there no civility in you? Are you so effing soulless that you can't deal with someone even trying to be respectful? Is your world so hateful to you, that in order to get any happiness you have to insult someone?

Wow, that'll teach me to be respectful of someone's opinion.

/TOA



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
reply to post by NuroSlam
 


Nuro, I was trying to make a point here, no government, federal, state, or local, has the right to tell me who I can fall in love with.

"We" as in the collective known as "libertarian" I do believe this


This is one of the areas where I feel that the libertarians have an issue, many of their followers will not support gay marriage.

Not supporting gay marriage is one thing, its a personal issue be it religious, biological or otherwise. The idea of libertarianism is the individuals rights to life, liberty and property, anyone who claims to be a libertarian supporting or not support has an obligation to defend those rights for others if they wish them for themselves.


Outside of the IRS, and some med related issues, marriage is a religious issue. The IRS, and med community need to get out of the marriage issue, and allow it to go back to being a religious issue. I support civil unions, if you want to be "married", find a church that will do it.

I couldn't agree more other then to say from a legal standpoint it is a civil union, especially for those of us who are in fact atheist and as such for all to be equal in the eyes of the rule of civil law, only the civil union matters. Marriage is at least to me, is an affirmation of faith and has no place in the realm of law. Take for exapmle Slavador Dali, he was both married and joined in a civil union with his mate.


Dalí and Gala, having lived together since 1929, were married in 1934 in a civil ceremony. They later remarried in a Catholic ceremony in 1958.


Salvador Dali



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
at least i understand when you start making posters the topic of the thread

you have no arguement and last time i checked is paul a racist is the topic not posters.

ad homenim attacks are nothing but deflections
edit on 12-6-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
15
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join