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: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
I think Ron Paul should abolish the federal government, but I don't expect him to run on that platform. Therefore, I will not hold it against him because he doesn't make THAT his platform.
This is politics we are talking about. Ron Paul is working within the system, he didn't create the system.
It seems Ron Paul is held to a much higher standard than any of US...like the guy that dates your daughter...you just KNOW where he is coming from don't you?
But then, he turns out to be a decent fellow. Maybe even UNLIKE YOU?

Jesus Christ himself couldn't catch a break with some people, but we know how that turned out.




posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
Quite the opposite, padawan! His "notion" is that there should not be any governmental enforcement of racial segregation of businesses


I was clearly not talking about private businesses and property in my previous post, I was talking about racial segregation enforced by the state in public settings. Do states have the right to do this?


As far as marriage, it should be a state matter.


So to clarify, you do believe that states can impose anti-interracial marriage laws, and you have absolutely no problem with this? You have no issue' with state governments dictating who you can and could not marry based on race?
edit on 11-6-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by The Old American
Quite the opposite, padawan! His "notion" is that there should not be any governmental enforcement of racial segregation of businesses


I was clearly not talking about private businesses and property in my previous post, I was talking about racial segregation enforced by the state in public settings. Do states have the right to do this?


As far as marriage, it should be a state matter.


So to clarify, you do believe that states can impose anti-interracial marriage laws, and you have absolutely no problem with this? You have no issue' with state governments dictating who you can and could not marry based on race?
edit on 11-6-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



Very good points, SG

I often wonder how RP's veiws translate to things like this...



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
What difference does it make if a "STATE" government passes a law that makes interracial marriage illegal while the federal government ignores the law and kills innocent people?
Which is the greater evil?
Do any of us have any power at all to control the federal government? Hell NO.
But, if a state tries some # like that, we can do something about it.
All of this nonsense, while federal agencies trample on our rights DAILY, and SG wants to talk about interracial marriage?
WTF!
We are borrowing trillions from private agencies to fund private corporations to sicken and kill people around the world....
but somehow Ron Paul wants "states rights" and that is evil.
What a crock of #.

edit on 11-6-2011 by Stewie because: spelling



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
I think Ron Paul should abolish the federal government, but I don't expect him to run on that platform. Therefore, I will not hold it against him because he doesn't make THAT his platform.
This is politics we are talking about. Ron Paul is working within the system, he didn't create the system.
It seems Ron Paul is held to a much higher standard than any of US...like the guy that dates your daughter...you just KNOW where he is coming from don't you?
But then, he turns out to be a decent fellow. Maybe even UNLIKE YOU?

Jesus Christ himself couldn't catch a break with some people, but we know how that turned out.


AHEM...this is what I was talking about. Old American guy...



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   
look at the medicinal pot issue in Cali
the state says yea
the feds say nay
guess who gets swat teamed
opposing obamas money grabbing insurance writin health care bill was racist

so we know the term "racism" as it is aplied here
is all about stifeling proper debate of the pertinant issues
by special interests
that have huge wads of cash at stake ( or their minions who don't haha)
nothing more.
edit on 11-6-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
When it comes down to giving the power back to the states, I am not sure why people think states will all of a sudden make illogical decisions. I.E. interracial marriages.

I, personally, would rather have my fellow neighbors/residents decide how we will rule the courts in our state compared to a federal government that is miles and miles away and doesn't know my name or my situation. Where is the logic in that?

If the power was returned to the states, harmony would start returning to our lives because we could fix our problems at the root of the system.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
What difference does it make if a "STATE" government passes a law that makes interracial marriage illegal while the federal government ignores the law and kills innocent people?
Which is the greater evil?


Never made excuses for the actions of the federal government and this has nothing to do with the OP or my previous posts. We're not discuss the federal government, we are discussing Ron Pauls views of racism and the idea of states having the right to impose racist laws.


But, if a state tries some # like that, we can do something about it.


Like what? If Texas passes a law restoring racial segregation and anti-interracial laws, and the majority of the population supported it, would that make it right and constitutional? Why is it tha you and old american are so reluctant to be clear on your stances on these issues? What's wrong? Make a clear stand.


but somehow Ron Paul wants "states rights" and that is evil.


I did not justify all these actions from the federal government, you're making a stawman argument and you are derailing discussion here. If Ron Paul, you and his other supporters agree with the idea that states have the RIGHT to impose invasive and racist laws on it's citizens, such as PUBLIC racial segregation and anti-interracial marriage laws, then yes, you are a racist and so is Ron Paul, and the constitution means absolutely nothing when it comes to your personal beliefs. Is this you Stewie? Am I wrong here? Do you agree that states have these rights to impose such laws on their citizens? Make up your mind.
edit on 11-6-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Skerrako
 

Yes you are right my friend it is all about social class. Unfortunately the country is being divided more and more, and those of us in the middle are being left with less and less.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

Do you really believe the federal government or the supreme court is concerned with constitutional obligations? If the states can't be trusted with upholding the rights of the people, whom do you trust SG? You seem to prefer federal oversight, or the wisdom of the "supreme court", because you don't trust the states, right?
You are looking back on past transgressions of certain southern states, but you dare not cast a look at the present state of affairs?
Where is this God that is going to protect the people from the evil "states" that would put them in prison for marrying someone not of their own race? Lyndon Johnson? Is that your hero?
There is nothing inherently good about federal oversight of state government.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by imnotanother
When it comes down to giving the power back to the states, I am not sure why people think states will all of a sudden make illogical decisions. I.E. interracial marriages.


It's not about whether these laws are illogical or hypothetical, it's about philosophy and how far states can go just as those of the federal government. Regardless of whether it is illogical, if a state like Texas imposed racial segregation or anti-interracial marriage laws, hypothetically speaking, do they have that RIGHT as states and do they have constitutional grounds?

I'm not concerned about the federal government at this point.
I'm not concerned about how "unlikely" such a law is nowadays.

The thing concerned about is where folks stand on such laws and the ability of states governments to make those decisions. Do they have that right Imnotanother? Do states have the right to employ such laws over their own citizens? Libertarians like Goldwater were by the least honest about where they stood on these issues, they did not hide their views and feelings away, why are Paulers and the OP so reluctant to be upfront? It's a hypothetical question posed, what is so hard about answering it? Simple. Do the states have constitutional grounds for imposing such laws over their citizens?


I, personally, would rather have my fellow neighbors/residents decide how we will rule the courts in our state compared to a federal government that is miles and miles away and doesn't know my name or my situation. Where is the logic in that?


The logic? So if the majority of citizens in Texas decided it was A-ok to impose discrimminatory laws in public settings, that's racial segregation and anti-interracial marriage laws, you agree with this? This is sound logic for you? This is constitutional?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

Do you really believe the federal government or the supreme court is concerned with constitutional obligations? If the states can't be trusted with upholding the rights of the people, whom do you trust SG? You seem to prefer federal oversight, or the wisdom of the "supreme court", because you don't trust the states, right?
You are looking back on past transgressions of certain southern states, but you dare not cast a look at the present state of affairs?
Where is this God that is going to protect the people from the evil "states" that would put them in prison for marrying someone not of their own race? Lyndon Johnson? Is that your hero?
There is nothing inherently good about federal oversight of state government.



Federal oversight was established for a reason. Our founders did it, yeah Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and all of them other guys. Apparently they didn't think the states were all of that either.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
You are honestly unbelievable. You cannot bring yourself to reply to my questions. It is so simple and yet you are so reluctant. What is wrong? Are you afraid that you will be called a racist if you were upfront about where you stood on the issue?

Do YOU support the right of states to impose racial segregation and anti-interracial marriage laws? Do YOU Stewie?


Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

Do you really believe the federal government or the supreme court is concerned with constitutional obligations?


My questions are only concerned with the rights of states to impose certain laws. Strawman.


If the states can't be trusted with upholding the rights of the people, whom do you trust SG?


Still doesn't answer my post.


You seem to prefer federal oversight,


More strawman.


or the wisdom of the "supreme court", because you don't trust the states, right?


More Strawman, but I'll answer this question. I trust the ability of the states just as much as I trust the Federal Government and the courts.


You are looking back on past transgressions of certain southern states, but you dare not cast a look at the present state of affairs?


More strawman.

Just address my posts, thanks, and then I will be happy to discuss corruption in our federal government.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Being a student of history, I do not trust the states to make educational decisions. Recently the Texas Educational Commission (Or whatever it is called) wants to remove mentions of slavery, accomplishments by hispanics, and several other things from there text books. How does this affect me in MO, TX is one of the largest buyers of text books in the country, so therefore my kids are required to learn what kids in TX do. My children are 1/4 hispanic, they need to know that their culture contributed to their environment.

If the States cannot be trusted to make simple educational decisions, why in the hell would I let them make any other decision for me?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by BubbaJoe
 

So, you are blaming Texas, for what your state is teaching your kids.
And the federal government allows this?
How absurd.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by The Old American
Quite the opposite, padawan! His "notion" is that there should not be any governmental enforcement of racial segregation of businesses


I was clearly not talking about private businesses and property in my previous post, I was talking about racial segregation enforced by the state in public settings. Do states have the right to do this?


As far as marriage, it should be a state matter.


So to clarify, you do believe that states can impose anti-interracial marriage laws, and you have absolutely no problem with this? You have no issue' with state governments dictating who you can and could not marry based on race?
edit on 11-6-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)


Wow, you're a dodgy one.

"Is it cold outside?"
"Yes."
"But, is it cold outside?"
"I said 'yes'."
"Ahh ok. So what's it like outside?"

Mayflies have a better memory. Here, I'll answer your question one more time:

"His "notion" is that there should not be any governmental enforcement of racial segregation of businesses because the people will self-govern, just like I said 6 posts up from yours. As far as marriage, it should be a state matter. The people will, again, self-govern. California put it up to a vote of the people. The people said no. They self-governed. Maybe if they vote again, they will vote yes. They will self-govern."

Ron Paul's entire stance on the Civil Rights Act was about businesses. His stance on marriage is that it should be a state issue.

But since you want to know my stance on it, here ya go. Try to hold back your disappointment:

I believe that government should not tell businesses who they can or can't do business with. If a business wants to only sell to blacks, or whites, or Asians, or to people that wear Raybans, they should be able to. It will fail, and they will go out of business. Unless they grow brains and realize that doing business like that is dumb.

Marriage should be a state issue. In other words, the Federal government should have zero say in who marries whom. If the people of Texas decide that only white, female, 600 lb, mastodons can marry, then that's what the people voted for and that is law. Which would be dumb. So, the people of Texas that think that white, female, 700 lb mastodons should have the same rights (which is what I believe because all mastodons need companionship) will either try to have the law changed, or move to a mastodon-friendly state. When all of the mastodons move out of Texas, and there are no more mastodons, then there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Awaiting your question of "So how cold is it?"

/TOA



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


It is a simple matter of economics, there are more kids in TX than in MO, so therefore the new text books that are available to buy at a reasonable price are the ones that meet the TX requirements. Lots of info on the web about these arguments, I am not going to rehash them here. Yes it is the feds problem, because we do not live within our states any more, it is at least a country wide issue if not an international issue. I myself have lived in 8 different states, in 4 different regions of this country, we need to be able to compete based on education.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

Your questions are unbelievably stupid, SG. And slanted to get a response that you are seeking, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Do you support the right of the federal government to allow the TSA to grope and/or scan all passengers?
Do you support the right of the federal government to allow Hillary Clinton to go around the world handing out millions of dollars of our tax money?
Do you support the right of Obama to authorize the attack on sovereign nations?
Do you feel like the federal government is responsive to the needs of the average citizen?
These aren't straw men arguments, because if you have a better solution to state sovereignty, what is it?

To answer your question, NO, I don't support any government, state or otherwise, that limit the freedoms of people to live their life. I don't think Ron Paul does either.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


I understand what you are saying, and yes folks should have the right of refusal. However that being said, I, as a white male, have never been refused service anywhere. Be it a white, black, hispanic, or asian owned business, I have not been refused or made uncomfortable in any of these establishments. On the other hand, being a white male, with friends of all races, have seen my friends pushed aside, ignored, and mistreated inside white owned businesses. Under your proposal, this is perfectably acceptable behaviour, and that I do feel to be racist. I live in the suburbs, but drive through the urban core of my city twice a day, no one has ever refused to do business with me, although a few have suggested I stop somewhere else for my own safety. The establishments that have told me that, I thank them, and continue to patronize, it isn't the owners, it is the neighborhoods.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


Is Ron Paul racist?

I don't think so. As far as I can tell he's just a generic sort of crazy.

However, some of his sycophants most definitely are. Not that that's different from any other politician, of course.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join