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: 9
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by BubbaJoe
 

So let me get this right.
According to you, whites have been trampling the rights of blacks since before this country was founded, right?
That IS pretty "black and white", I must say.
Read some real history, and you will find that POWERFUL people have been trampling on the POWERLESS since before this country was founded, black OR white, and it continues to this day. The lust for power knows no race.



Sorry Stewie, I didn't intend to be quite so "Black & White" as I may have come across, was just trying to make a point on the post I was commenting on. I am a student of history, and know I should speak in broader terms. And you are correct, it has been happening since long before the recorded history of the world. After all, we are nothing more than animals in the end.




posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by civilchallenger

Originally posted by GreenFurnNW
He may be racist, but Ron Paul is the only man that can save the United States. If he doesn't become president, it will be a matter of time till the USA will fall to the ground.


Libertarians cannot be racist. Impossible.


Well, I don't know if I'd go that far. Ron Paul is pro-life, but as a libertarian (small "l") he doesn't stand in the way of abortion. A Libertarian can have racism as a personal philosophy, but still understand that other races have the same rights as everyone else. It's just less likely that a Libertarian will be a racist.

/TOA



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

nd let’s not forget the words of liberal icon Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood… We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population….


Black and Right

Check out the history of the Democratic and Republican parties when it comes to the Blacks. The actual history reads much different from what some have been led to believe. But, the real question is, where did all of this admirable legislation go wrong? I believe that when you create a class dependent on affirmative action, which we have done, you create a class DEPENDENT and not independent.
No race should have the stigma of affirmative action coloring their career. Feel good stuff that gets people elected has not done Blacks any real good.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
"Racism" = ad hominem, in the original, purest definition of the logical fallacy. The whole point of calling somebody a racist is to be able to apply a label to them that causes the reader to shut off their critical thinking faculties and automatically assume everything that person says is wrong.

Any everybody can be proved a racist. Check this out: We Are More Racist Than We Think

Abraham Lincoln: "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."

Does this mean everything Abraham Lincoln ever said should be discarded? Or perhaps just the racist bits?

Etc, etc. Let's all drop the racism crap already.


edit on 12-6-2011 by NewlyAwakened because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
TOA, I do understand the point you are trying to make, but I believe you to be examining this issue, using the Constitution as a blindfold.


No more than you use the Civil Rights Act as one. Which one, the Constitution or the Civil Rights Act causes more consternation by its detractors? The Constitution is not a blindfold, it's a wall, blocking the Federal government from imposing their will on our rights.The Civil Rights Act is the blindfold here, and a badge of entitlement for most.

/TOA


Maybe a wrong turn of phrase on my part. Here is my thought. Not enough people in the USA embraced the concept of all men are created equal, as laid out in our constitution. There were enough people in the country that felt changes needed to be made, thus the CRA of 1964 was passed and signed into law. Human nature is to treat those that are different from you with suspicion, I believe the CRA forced some to look past this suspicion, and be forced to know others as an equal man/woman. Unfortunately with others, it increased the suspicion, thus leading to the "Race Card" that everyone is so quick to play today. There are no easy answers, and while I hoped President Obama could unite the country, I don't think he has done a good job of even to begin trying. I am at a point in my thinking, where Mr. Paul may get the Republican nod, however I don't believe he can pull enough independents to beat the current president.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by The Old American
 

I have a question.
What destroyed the black families in the U.S?
Look at any statistics you want and you will find that before the Civil rights act, there were many more black families than there are today. Real families, not grandma raising the kids.
So, whodunit?



I'm not sure why you're posing this question to me, but I'll sure as heck tell what I think about it!

Moronic drug laws is the largest factor, followed by the "justice system" incarcerating people for long sentences for non-violent crimes. The justice system inordinately works against blacks.

Scenario: A white man and a black man are both hauled in for pot possession. First offense for both. The white man will get a fine, the black man will get prison time. Yeah, that's equal.

/TOA



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 

I asked you because I knew I would get a fair response. Or at least, I suspected I would.
I agree btw. I have a friend (Judge) residing and presiding in East Texas, though he was from Austin. He told me about a case where three guys, one Black, one Mexican, and one White were caught transporting drugs from Mexico.
Black guy got like twenty, White guy got probation, and the Mexican got deported.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by BubbaJoe

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
TOA, I do understand the point you are trying to make, but I believe you to be examining this issue, using the Constitution as a blindfold.


No more than you use the Civil Rights Act as one. Which one, the Constitution or the Civil Rights Act causes more consternation by its detractors? The Constitution is not a blindfold, it's a wall, blocking the Federal government from imposing their will on our rights.The Civil Rights Act is the blindfold here, and a badge of entitlement for most.

/TOA


Maybe a wrong turn of phrase on my part. Here is my thought. Not enough people in the USA embraced the concept of all men are created equal, as laid out in our constitution. There were enough people in the country that felt changes needed to be made, thus the CRA of 1964 was passed and signed into law. Human nature is to treat those that are different from you with suspicion, I believe the CRA forced some to look past this suspicion, and be forced to know others as an equal man/woman. Unfortunately with others, it increased the suspicion, thus leading to the "Race Card" that everyone is so quick to play today. There are no easy answers, and while I hoped President Obama could unite the country, I don't think he has done a good job of even to begin trying. I am at a point in my thinking, where Mr. Paul may get the Republican nod, however I don't believe he can pull enough independents to beat the current president.


Fair enough!

My personal problem with the CRA is that it attempts to enforce moral behavior. It's yet another law telling us how to act, how to talk to people, how to treat people. Tell me, if I were to walk up to you and smack you in the face, you'd pound me into paste, right? Do you need a law or rule book to tell you that what I did requires a response from you?

This is why I think the Civil Rights Act, or at least portions of it, were unnecessary. I would go so far as to say that even the 13th Amendment wasn't really necessary in the long run (I can't WAIT for someone to jump down my throat for that statement! :lol
. The general public was already working to stamp out slavery way before the Amendment came into being. Sure, it hastened the end of slavery, but it wasn't the Alpha and Omega that people think it was. Slavery probably would've lasted less than 50 more years before it died a quiet death. Probably less than 30.

The CRA was likely the same way. The issues of inequality were already dying of attrition, not to mention the striking down of the Jim Crow laws. The CRA just helped it along a bit. But in doing so, it created other problems that wouldn't have come up if the CRA hadn't come into being. Did we really need something to replace the Crow laws?

/TOA



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


On this particular issue, I fully agree with both you and TOA, one of the things that the Obama administration has done right is to try and end the disparate sentencing between powder and crack coc aine. Powdered coc aine being used by mostly whites, whereas crack was being made and sold cheaply in the inner cities.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by BubbaJoe


Racists, especially honest ones, will say things like:
"Black people are inferior to white people".
"I don't like black people."
etc.

They will do things like:
Be rude or mean to black people.
Avoid black people.

Ron Paul does none of that stuff. But none the less you are going to say he is a racist despite showing zero signs of racism? All because he used to be friends with one person who turned out to be a racist? Ron Paul must know hundreds of people. I think by statistics quite a few of them are bound to be racists.


I am an independent, so follow both sides fairly close. Conservatives seem to be under the impression that they now hold a massive majority, which from every poll I have seen, is not the case. There are areas where they hold a majority, but an equal number of areas have a liberal majority. Right now, for me, I do not see any of the republican candidates as electable, they all have serious flaws. Where conservatives get confused, while a majority of folks may be fiscally conservative, there are many that are socially liberal, and that is where your Mr. Paul loses out.

Except that Ron Paul polls better against Obama than any other candidate.


None of this can be attributed to me any where in this thread, I personally think prostitution, along with marijuana, should be legal, controlled, and taxed. As far as I am concerned, I have always felt Ron Paul to be somewhere out there on the fringe, so have not followed his career, I do not live in Texas. The only things I catch about him, are the things that hits different media sites I read. As I said in an earlier post, there seems to be a strong lack of coverage of him, so there fore I must not be the only to believe him to be unelectable.

The founding principles of the US are now "out there on the fringe" because we the US is now a mix of socialism and fascism... it no longer a capitalist country with a weak central government. If you are not "out there on the fringe" with him supporting a decentralized government, then you support America continuing to go down the tubes because that is what is killing the middle class. These "fringe issues" are now at the forefront because America is falling apart over them.


Please somewhere, show me a link where he champions civil rights, he himself has said he would not have voted for the civil rights act, due to it discriminating against whites. I do believe I have a great grasp on reality, he has supported some very off the wall legislation, his kid wants to repeal the CRA, and he wants to hand everything back to the people who have created the problems in the first place. In my post that you quoted, I was CIVILLY responding back to the OP, and just sharing my opinion. Even in that post, I said that Dr. Paul has some good ideas, but after dealing with someone who is blinded by reality, I find myself wanting to fight Dr. Paul's name even being on the ballot, if these are the types of people he attracts as followers.

I refer you to my previous post on this thread showing how he champions civil rights issues. Obama spits on civil rights, hates freedom of speech on the internet, and has zero interest in actually restoring any pieces of the constitution. Ron Paul champions the issues and is on the bleeding edge of the modern civil rights movement.


I am thinking the greatest issue for the economically downtrodden minorities at this moment is probably a 25% unemployment rate among black men.

You're probably right that is the most important issue. Ron Paul being the person who has studied economics the most probably of any high-ranking US government official is therefore in the best position to understand and solve those issues. Ron Paul has been talking about the weakening dollar and how it destroys economies for years and even decades since 1971 when the issue came to the forefront.
edit on 12-6-2011 by civilchallenger because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-6-2011 by civilchallenger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by Kali74

*snip*

Aside from the topic at hand, may I say I enjoy sparring with you? For some reason you never make me yell at my computer screen.


Well, first I don't believe he would try to repeal it. It's become one of those "too big to fail" things.. Repealing it would have too many repercussions. I wouldn't support repealing it myself for that reason. I don't think it's needed today, but repealing it would be too much of a headache to bother with.

But let me ask you two questions:

Do you think the Civil Rights Act really stopped people from hiring based on race, sex, or religion?

and

Do you honestly think I, a white, Southern male, could walk into a black-owned shop in Harlem, ask for an application, turn in a resume and reasonably expect a call back for an interview?

I've been involved in the hiring process many, many times. I can assure you that, while my title at the time didn't allow me to make the final offer, I was the interviewer and made suggestions to the manager on who was or wasn't more or less qualified than another candidate.

Most candidates were white males, probably a good 98%. Guess who picked the candidates? But he would never pick anyone that wasn't a white male (until HR told him to), even if I informed him that a particular non-white and/or non-male was the most qualified. Needless to say, he got fired. It felt good.


This happens every day in every city of every state. The Civil Rights Act didn't so much help individuals as it hurt business by forcing them to hire people that, frankly, aren't necessarily worth hiring.

/TOA


I'm truly flattered, thank-you. I genuinely smiled reading that and the same goes for you, it is easy to see that you are a person that truly cares about the words you type.

I don't think he could repeal it either, and to be fair it was Rand Paul that said he thinks it should be repealed...Ron said he wouldn't have voted for it. However, I have issue with the fact that he said it all and combined with these newsletters it is not painting a pretty picture for me. I have to wonder about the reason behind him making this statement.

I think anyone can be surprised when they cross a perceived social line. It's possible that as a southern white man for you to be hired in Harlem. Does racism exist there? Sure it does, but that does not mean everyone there is racist.

Ideally my choice would be blind interviews, but that is not realistic. This isn't a strong argument however, sometimes I look at the Civil Rights Act and Equal Opportunity as exposure therapy lol, and that because of them many people learned that differences don't have to be a bad thing. This country in my opinion is better off for having them. So yes, I do think in the long run it helped stop hiring/not hiring based on race, religion and creed and will continue to do so.


edit on 12-6-2011 by Kali74 because: not sure what went wrong there but you get the idea lol



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by The Old American
 

I asked you because I knew I would get a fair response. Or at least, I suspected I would.
I agree btw. I have a friend (Judge) residing and presiding in East Texas, though he was from Austin. He told me about a case where three guys, one Black, one Mexican, and one White were caught transporting drugs from Mexico.
Black guy got like twenty, White guy got probation, and the Mexican got deported.



Yee haw. Southern justice for you. I've lived in East Texas all my life, and I see that kind of behavior every day. It's sickening.

/TOa



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by BubbaJoe

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
TOA, I do understand the point you are trying to make, but I believe you to be examining this issue, using the Constitution as a blindfold.


No more than you use the Civil Rights Act as one. Which one, the Constitution or the Civil Rights Act causes more consternation by its detractors? The Constitution is not a blindfold, it's a wall, blocking the Federal government from imposing their will on our rights.The Civil Rights Act is the blindfold here, and a badge of entitlement for most.

/TOA


Maybe a wrong turn of phrase on my part. Here is my thought. Not enough people in the USA embraced the concept of all men are created equal, as laid out in our constitution. There were enough people in the country that felt changes needed to be made, thus the CRA of 1964 was passed and signed into law. Human nature is to treat those that are different from you with suspicion, I believe the CRA forced some to look past this suspicion, and be forced to know others as an equal man/woman. Unfortunately with others, it increased the suspicion, thus leading to the "Race Card" that everyone is so quick to play today. There are no easy answers, and while I hoped President Obama could unite the country, I don't think he has done a good job of even to begin trying. I am at a point in my thinking, where Mr. Paul may get the Republican nod, however I don't believe he can pull enough independents to beat the current president.


Fair enough!

My personal problem with the CRA is that it attempts to enforce moral behavior. It's yet another law telling us how to act, how to talk to people, how to treat people. Tell me, if I were to walk up to you and smack you in the face, you'd pound me into paste, right? Do you need a law or rule book to tell you that what I did requires a response from you?


No I don't. However, there are going to be people laughing at two old guys duking it out in the middle of the street.


This is why I think the Civil Rights Act, or at least portions of it, were unnecessary. I would go so far as to say that even the 13th Amendment wasn't really necessary in the long run (I can't WAIT for someone to jump down my throat for that statement! :lol
. The general public was already working to stamp out slavery way before the Amendment came into being. Sure, it hastened the end of slavery, but it wasn't the Alpha and Omega that people think it was. Slavery probably would've lasted less than 50 more years before it died a quiet death. Probably less than 30.


I haven't read the entire CRA, and am not sure of all its provisions, so you may very well be correct in that parts of it need to be changed. Yeah the 13th may have not been needed, as you are correct, but by that point in our history enough division was going on, that something drastic needed to be done. Even our founding father's realized that slavery was a dying issue, and even at that point was not allowed in parts of the original 13 states. Parts of my family have been in this country since 1621, and I have seen the documents in which slaves were freed, or transferred, and these came from good Quaker families in the late 1600's. Later the Quakers became one of the leading voices for abolition. And I agree with your estimates on the time frame.


The CRA was likely the same way. The issues of inequality were already dying of attrition, not to mention the striking down of the Jim Crow laws. The CRA just helped it along a bit. But in doing so, it created other problems that wouldn't have come up if the CRA hadn't come into being. Did we really need something to replace the Crow laws?

/TOA


Here again, I think the supporters of the CRA wanted something to take a big step. The Crow laws had not been stricken down long before, and Brown v. Board of Education, I believe was in 1954, so maybe something big was needed. Having said that, I lived in FL for 6 years, and at least in the rural/agricultural areas of the state, racism and discrimination are alive and well, and I left the state in 2007. So I do believe that something needs to be in place, just not sure we need affirmative action and some of the other things that have followed the CRA. I could say it should only be applied in certain areas, but that would be too like the carpetbaggers following the War between the States.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


One of my long-standing views is "you can't like everyone". Not everyone likes Ron Paul. Some think he's too old, some (like me, actually) think he's too dry, some think he's too...whatever. The point of my posting this thread is to point out inconsistencies in the evidence of his racial ideas. For some, the inconsistencies are enough. For others, they're not

That's OK, as long everyone actually takes the time to weigh all of the facts. Dismissing, or accepting, him out of hand is short-sighted. I wanted to give him a fair shake on ATS, as the members of this site are rabid about him, both for and against!

/TOA



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
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



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
As milton friedman said on his talk on government intervention: it was government laws that enforced segregation!
Starts @ 6:25
www.youtube.com...

The rest is about the FDA.



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

Originally posted by civilchallenger

Originally posted by BubbaJoe


Racists, especially honest ones, will say things like:
"Black people are inferior to white people".
"I don't like black people."
etc.

They will do things like:
Be rude or mean to black people.
Avoid black people.

Ron Paul does none of that stuff. But none the less you are going to say he is a racist despite showing zero signs of racism? All because he used to be friends with one person who turned out to be a racist? Ron Paul must know hundreds of people. I think by statistics quite a few of them are bound to be racists.


As I have pointed out in other posts, there are more subtle forms of racism.



I am an independent, so follow both sides fairly close. Conservatives seem to be under the impression that they now hold a massive majority, which from every poll I have seen, is not the case. There are areas where they hold a majority, but an equal number of areas have a liberal majority. Right now, for me, I do not see any of the republican candidates as electable, they all have serious flaws. Where conservatives get confused, while a majority of folks may be fiscally conservative, there are many that are socially liberal, and that is where your Mr. Paul loses out.

Except that Ron Paul polls better against Obama than any other candidate.[quote]


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




None of this can be attributed to me any where in this thread, I personally think prostitution, along with marijuana, should be legal, controlled, and taxed. As far as I am concerned, I have always felt Ron Paul to be somewhere out there on the fringe, so have not followed his career, I do not live in Texas. The only things I catch about him, are the things that hits different media sites I read. As I said in an earlier post, there seems to be a strong lack of coverage of him, so there fore I must not be the only to believe him to be unelectable.

The founding principles of the US are now "out there on the fringe" because we the US is now a mix of socialism and fascism... it no longer a capitalist country with a weak central government. If you are not "out there on the fringe" with him supporting a decentralized government, then you support America continuing to go down the tubes because that is what is killing the middle class. These "fringe issues" are now at the forefront because America is falling apart over them.


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.




Please somewhere, show me a link where he champions civil rights, he himself has said he would not have voted for the civil rights act, due to it discriminating against whites. I do believe I have a great grasp on reality, he has supported some very off the wall legislation, his kid wants to repeal the CRA, and he wants to hand everything back to the people who have created the problems in the first place. In my post that you quoted, I was CIVILLY responding back to the OP, and just sharing my opinion. Even in that post, I said that Dr. Paul has some good ideas, but after dealing with someone who is blinded by reality, I find myself wanting to fight Dr. Paul's name even being on the ballot, if these are the types of people he attracts as followers.

I refer you to my previous post on this thread showing how he champions civil rights issues. Obama spits on civil rights, hates freedom of speech on the internet, and has zero interest in actually restoring any pieces of the constitution. Ron Paul champions the issues and is on the bleeding edge of the modern civil rights movement.


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.





I am thinking the greatest issue for the economically downtrodden minorities at this moment is probably a 25% unemployment rate among black men.

You're probably right that is the most important issue. Ron Paul being the person who has studied economics the most probably of any high-ranking US government official is therefore in the best position to understand and solve those issues. Ron Paul has been talking about the weakening dollar and how it destroys economies for years and even decades since 1971 when the issue came to the forefront.
edit on 12-6-2011 by civilchallenger because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-6-2011 by civilchallenger because: (no reason given)


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.
edit on 6/12/2011 by BubbaJoe because: to fix my mistakes



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
reply to post by Kali74
 


That's OK, as long everyone actually takes the time to weigh all of the facts. Dismissing, or accepting, him out of hand is short-sighted.

/TOA


This my friend is what it all comes down too, there are 1000 sources out there, and they all need to be considered.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Im actually kind of sad this thread even exists



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Skerrako
 


its sad that those who scream RACIST the loudest are usually the racists.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join