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.
Originally posted by The Old American
Originally posted by the owlbear
Is that why you are trying to get the message out about the infallible Ron Paul? Do you want to be the head lemming to the polls that day to vote for him or just be in the middle?
I wasn't aware that Ron Paul was infallible. In fact, the article I posted points out that he makes mistakes. Nobody but an unthinking moron can believe that every one of his ideas is rote and that he can immediately make a Utopia the day he steps into office.
But lumping me in with the people that will vote again for Obama because he's willing to hand them the fruits of your labor is trolling. I have a written history on this site of supporting freedom, liberty, and rights of all American citizens, even those like you who apparently ascribe to the thought that anyone who desires those things is a lemming.
But thanks for your comments anyway.
/TOA
Originally posted by The Old American
Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Originally posted by the owlbear
Is that why you are trying to get the message out about the infallible Ron Paul? Do you want to be the head lemming to the polls that day to vote for him or just be in the middle?
Or, a shill in the mix since Dr. Paul probably wants this to go away.
Or, just an ordinary citizen wanting to "clear this up" when Dr. Paul couldn't do it himself.
Oh crap, the secret is out!
/TOA
Originally posted by filosophia
The fact that the establishment calls Ron Paul a racist just shows they have zero counter-arguments to any of Paul's claims and thus zero credibility. The racism lie worked in 2008, combined with media blackout, so when it comes to Ron Paul it is obvious what the media would rather have: total silence as opposed to demonizing him by name. You notice how the media never tires of talking about anything Sarah Palin does or doesn't do, but barely a mention of Ron Paul, and when he is mentioned it's, oh he must be racist because he's for American civil liberties.
The dinosaur media will soon be extinct, there is no way they can prop up their credibility any longer.
Originally posted by MrWendal
I wish you luck and applaud your efforts to cut this off before it really gets started, but some people believe anything. If they truly believe that Ron Paul is a racist based on the fact that he thinks people should be responsible for themselves instead of asking for hand outs from Government, than they deserve to be stupid. I just hope come election day they stay stupid and stay home.
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by The Old American
How does Ron Paul feel about states rights interms of racial segregation and marriage?
Can the state of Texas establish their own form of racial segregation?
Can Kentucky ban interracial couples from getting married?
He just needs to clarify his position here, and then I'll clarify whether he is a racist or not.
Originally posted by neo96
last time i checked interracial marriages in kentucky wasnt a problem
i was married to someone who wasnt my race in kenticky and not a word was said.
Originally posted by neo96
last time i checked interracial marriages in kentucky wasnt a problem
Originally posted by DeepThoughtCriminal
First of all, "racist" is an adjective, not a noun. Saying that someone is "a" racist is superfluous.
Putting my grammatical Nazism aside, from what I know of Ron Paul he is not prejudiced in any way. Accusing someone of racism, especially a political figure, is a fast-tracked way to splinter their reputation in the eyes of the populace.
How does Ron Paul feel about states rights interms of racial segregation and marriage?
Ron Paul announced yesterday that he would have voted against the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that he would voted against state laws requiring segregation of the races. Consistent with his libertarian principles, Paul elevates property rights to a preferred position under the Constitution. Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul stirred a controversy yesterday. According to Michael O'Brien of The Hill, Paul says he would have opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In an interview with Chris Mathews of MSNBC, Paul disclosed that he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which ended racial discrimination in private businesses.
Under that law businesses that are open to the public may not discriminate against their customers on the basis of race, and businesses whatever their nature may not engage in employment discrimination.
Paul claims and no doubt believes that this does not make him a "racist" and he is quick to claim victimhood if anyone criticizes his position – "You are calling me a racist!" is his ready response to those who disagree with him. He maintains that he is not in favor of racial discrimination – he is instead merely in favor of property rights.
He believes that under the Constitution the government may not interfere with the way that a person or a corporation operates its business even if it is engaging in acts of racial discrimination.
Just about a year after his son Rand Paul stepped in it when he told Rachel Maddow he was opposed to provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) told Chris Matthews Friday he wouldn't have voted for the law in the first place had he been in Congress at the time.