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 OutKast Searcher
Ron Paul continually says that he thinks business should have the "right" to refuse service to someone based on the color of the skin.
He goes on to say that he doesn't personally agree with it and that he is positive the market would regulate it
Just by seeing the racism here on ATS, even with the T&C, I think anyone who thinks there would not be "white only" clubs that pop up around the nation over night is delusional. And if you don't think those clubs would be packed...then you are also delusional.
This one issue alone is enough for me to not support Ron Paul...and yet there are so many more issues just like this one where his extremism forces him into illogical positions.
And there would be "blacks only" stores, just like there was under segregation. One thing that such practices PREVENTED was total monopolies--can't have total monopolies when you won't offer EVERYONE the same goods. Yes, it's a moral shame to throw someone out of your store for something as minor as the color their skin was. But we get this really idealized set of blinders on when we think that NO GOOD can come of evil, you're living the Christian's game.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Just by seeing the racism here on ATS, even with the T&C, I think anyone who thinks there would not be "white only" clubs that pop up around the nation over night is delusional. And if you don't think those clubs would be packed...then you are also delusional.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
The direction of our country veers left and right from center, but by virture of our Constitution and our Democratic process, it never goes too far in either direction. Right now, we are almost split. We are extremely left leaning in social programs and overall spending, and over-legislating, but we are extremely right leaning in the Patriot Act and war-spending and over-taxing of the middle class.
Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
And there would be "blacks only" stores, just like there was under segregation. One thing that such practices PREVENTED was total monopolies--can't have total monopolies when you won't offer EVERYONE the same goods. Yes, it's a moral shame to throw someone out of your store for something as minor as the color their skin was. But we get this really idealized set of blinders on when we think that NO GOOD can come of evil, you're living the Christian's game.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Just by seeing the racism here on ATS, even with the T&C, I think anyone who thinks there would not be "white only" clubs that pop up around the nation over night is delusional. And if you don't think those clubs would be packed...then you are also delusional.
I think this goes even further: we have territories. Puerto Rico basically has far more of the rights a state is supposed to have, and they keep voting down statehood because they want their freedoms. If we want to look at how that is working for them, all we have to do is read about what's been going on there.
Originally posted by filosophia
What's stopping the federal government from having total freedom(tyranny?) The only difference is that we could at least have the option of 50 different totalitarian states as opposed to just one.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by illuminatislave
Your right, "we" meant "our government."
But, I disagree about the left-lean and social programs. I think the government his headed down a road where only the two extremes will exist. The Extreme Left attempting to get everyone dependent on some type of government assistance. They are already 60% of the way there!!! And the Extreme Right attempting to erode all of our Liberties and Privacies and have some legislation make all of our decisions on our behalf.
I don't think anything is "going away" unless we elect Ron Paul. Any of the other candidates on the table are going to enact even more legislation, and erode the Middle Class even further, and restrict even more liberties, but replace them with even more government assistance.
I iddn't disagree with that one bit. My statement still stands.
Originally posted by illuminatislave
Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
And there would be "blacks only" stores, just like there was under segregation. One thing that such practices PREVENTED was total monopolies--can't have total monopolies when you won't offer EVERYONE the same goods. Yes, it's a moral shame to throw someone out of your store for something as minor as the color their skin was. But we get this really idealized set of blinders on when we think that NO GOOD can come of evil, you're living the Christian's game.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Just by seeing the racism here on ATS, even with the T&C, I think anyone who thinks there would not be "white only" clubs that pop up around the nation over night is delusional. And if you don't think those clubs would be packed...then you are also delusional.
'Blacks only" stores. Jesus christ.
I can't believe that some people would be perfectly fine living in a regressed society where you can't stop for a beer at a bar because your skin color is a shade too dark. That's not only madness, but it's childish ignorance.
But after seeing some of the garbage that gets written on this forum, I'm not shocked. Lots of people probably want Paul to become president just so that something like that would happen.
I for one would not want to be anywhere where I can't hang out with my friends of different ethnicities. Or I wouldn't want to be told I have to leave because the woman I'm taking out to dinner is a different skin color than what is allowed inside of the restaurant.
Total idiocy.edit on 25-8-2011 by illuminatislave because: (no reason given)
For all that people still talk about poor backwards Cajun country, we're one of the few states (if any) that has no property tax for propery under certain values, being the one you live on. It was 70,000 at one time, but I think we sent in some legislature to move it to 100,000 or 150,000. When you owe taxes on the land that you own, you're renting from the government. (Can they seize your land if you dont' pay? )
Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by Maslo
That would be quite frightening because although our government might be known for some corruption many of the States Legislative bodies have mastered it, and there is no recourse for a small batch of corrupt politicians running your town except move. Right now they can pretty much charge whatever they want for property tax. Some of these municipalities are raking in bundles but the money is not going to improvements, bridges or roads. It is going in somebody in State government's pocket. Somebody promising he or she will get them those contracts and meanwhile we all know by the time it comes to hold them accountable, the work won't be done, someone else will have taken their job and they will have gotten out of politics.
Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by illuminatislave
Care to name one right of yours that has been stripped away with the Patriot Act?
People often throw this statement out and they haven't even read the legislation.
Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by illuminatislave
Care to name one right of yours that has been stripped away with the Patriot Act?
People often throw this statement out and they haven't even read the legislation.
Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by illuminatislave
Care to name one right of yours that has been stripped away with the Patriot Act?
People often throw this statement out and they haven't even read the legislation.
Only the Federal Government and not the States, it has been held obliquely, is limited by the clause. 1688 The issue that has always excited critical attention is the authority in which the clause places the power to determine whether the circumstances warrant suspension of the privilege of the Writ. 1689 The clause itself does not specify, and while most of the clauses of 9 are directed at Congress not all of them are. 1690 At the Convention, the first proposal of a suspending authority expressly vested ''in the legislature'' the suspending power, 1691 but the author of this proposal did not retain this language when the matter was taken up, 1692 the present language then being adopted. 1693 Nevertheless, Congress' power to suspend was assumed in early commentary 1694 and stated in dictum by the Court. 1695 President Lincoln suspended the privilege on his own motion in the early Civil War period, 1696 but this met with such opposition 1697 that he sought and received congressional authorization. 1698 Three other suspensions were subsequently ordered on the basis of more or less express authorizations from Congress. 1699