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 a racist.

page: 10
28
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


Ah it is hypocritical for a white guy to have a racist associate, but not for a black guy ...

And I am the hypocrite.

you might want to look that word up before throwing it around.

And while your add it, why don't you save your bs for those who are actually using this as a political point, not the guy stating that it is largely irrelevant.




posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
A good amount of members here are from StormFront. I'm sure they don't care.


The days of getting the White only vote and winning are long gone.

He better find a way to relate to some minority groups, Asians, Latinos, African Americans,
or

he can stay in the south, and in the farmlands I'm sure that will help.


Though before anybody really knew about this story about 85% of voters, didn't care for the man anyway.

edit on 21-12-2011 by StarPeace because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-12-2011 by StarPeace because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-12-2011 by StarPeace because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


Didn't Obama cut off contact with Rev.Wright years ago? Does he still talk to Rev.Wright?

Regardless, this topic is not about Rev.Wright. It's about Ron Paul and the OP was asking a question that could have been answered without smarmy comments and holier-than-thou rantings from wanna-be moderators.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
One more reason not to vote for this swine.

None of the Paul-ites can say a thing about this and to undo forced segregation of the schools will take us back.

Oh, still pulling things out of your rear, I see? You have more storage in there than I expected.

Hmmm:

Public School Civil Rights Act of 1984 - Eliminates inferior Federal court jurisdiction to issue any order requiring the assignment or transportation of students to public schools on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

So let's see, Paul issues a bill to prevent Federal Courts (not state, county, or any others, for clarity) from forcing students to go to a certain public school based on race - and you're calling HIM racist? I think you've once again misunderstood something...which I can't really say surprises me.


A leopard can never change his spots.

As you prove quite adequately...a further look into things and deeper thoughts would be appreciated.


What's next, Coloured Toilets? Coloured Resturants? Coloured housing? Coloured schools?

Cowtailing with white supremacists is a no no and an automatic non starter for consideration for POTUS, I was actually considering endorsing him for the 12 GOP Nod but after seeing this he is done.

Can you let me know when Paul has ever advocated any action against the '64 CRA or campaigned on anything remotely near these lines? It's utterly ignorant - knowing Paul's position on private property rights, this comes up as a "gotcha" question no more significant than Paul's opinions on how a sports team might be doing.

As to "cowtailing with white supremacists", would you care to substantiate that? Ron Paul also has no idea who I am, but he's taken a picture with me before. What if I have unsavory opinions? Does that implicate Paul in my views? Of course not. Same with the SINGLE $500 DONATION ISSUE everyone like to harp on because there simply is no more noteworthy dirt to sling at the guy - why even bother giving it back when it can instead be put to better use?

Paul repudiates racism on a fairly regular basis as an ugly form of collectivism and advocates treating all people as individuals and based on the content of their character, instead of assigning them to groups. You can't GET less racist than that, and even the head of his local NAACP, the (black) Nelson Linder defends Paul against ignorant charges of racism.

As to you "endorsing" Paul, I'm close to calling you a liar based on your other discussions. Either that, or you have no apparent moral integrity based on all the back-room discussions you claim to have had with Paul and pretty much every other powerful person in the world, proving to you that Paul is a liar and essentially evil. I can't speak for Paul, but I'll go so far as to say if *I* were him, I would politely decline your endorsement and repudiate your ignorance.

Be well.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Oh and i guess all the other candidates are not racist at all, and have never had a racist thaught or known a racist person lol give me a break.

P.S. i live in canada so i dont really care either way, but it just seems logical that Ron Paul is the only one who deserves a shot at president. Besides he cant be any more racist than your neighbor or Obama...



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

edit on 21-12-2011 by StarPeace because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
We are all in some way racists - but supporting any bill that gives racial preference at all to anyone goes over the line between having your own beliefs and inflicting them on others.

In reality it seems like the OP is blatantly racial biased while claiming others to be, ironic at least.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by StarPeace
 

That is exactly the case. Good point.
I don't know whether he's truly a racist or not, but by policy he is.
Allowing businesses to not hire black people or not serve
Gays and Hispanics in their restaurants, well that's racist.
Oh I know, the market will take care of itself ? That's a laugh.
All those private country clubs, schools and businesses were not hurting
a bit when they were forced to include all walks. Now it's just unspoken rules.
I know it may seem like he has the votes to be effective,
but it's not even remotely close, sorry.
He will certainly need minorities (non white men)to win the general election.
Like it or not, the days of white American rule are over.
At least he's honest. That's a lot better than his republican friends.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteDevil013
 

The President is the Chief of the MILITARY. We need a man who understands the military, AND has a strong business sense.

So, a former USAF Flight Surgeon who is a student of history and warned us about our foreign policy opening us to terrorist attacks (which then happened) and receives more donations from the military than all other republican candidates put together...doesn't understand the military? Even when the CIA confirms his views?

And a successful OBGYN who offered free or discounted services instead of accepting entitlement funds from patients, whose stock portfolio WELL outperformed the experts over the last 10 years, and who warned us about the consequences of our regulatory and fiscal policies for the last 30 years doesn't understand business?

Just saying, friend...



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by sealing
 

Allowing businesses to not hire black people or not serve
Gays and Hispanics in their restaurants, well that's racist.

It's a matter of your rights and governmental precedent. ALLOWING people to do stupid things, including acting in racist fashion, is not racist of itself - it's an exercise in liberty. America is all ABOUT giving people the freedom to do whatever stupid thing they want, and you'd better realize that means protecting your rights to be free from the government dictating anything else you might want to do as well.

If you allow the government to say they can do this, under the interstate commerce clause - what can they NOT force business owners or private citizens to do? We've already seen this open the door to mandated (and counter-productive) health insurance and a whole host of other things. Where does it stop, when people with crazy ideas get into power and decide it's right for them to tell YOU how to do your business or live your life?



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
He is serving in a capacity as a Representative in the US Congress. His role is only to define the Federal Government's role. It isn't in his capacity at this time, or at the time he becomes president, to legislate on behalf of the states.


So really, what you’re saying is that he is only concerned with individual liberty when it comes to the Federal government enforcing laws, but he will not protect individual liberties from State governments because, as you say, it isn't his role to regulate the states? Wow, just wow, this your explanation here. Government fascism is all well and fine, provided it's just the federal government, forget about the State governments! Ok!


So, I can still get behind all of his positions, but I would expect each state to have people similar to Ron Paul that will stand steadfast for their State's Constitution,


So to put it plainly, allow the state governments to enforce sodomy laws and racial segregation laws again that will limit the individual liberties of their citizens, property rights, and just let the States be ruled by Mob rule right? Thank you for clarifying your position here.


It might mean that some states will have laws we don't like or agree with, but that is their right.


So it's well within the right for the State of Texas to bring back their sodomy laws, arresting two consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes?? You agree its well within the States right that they segregate American citizens by force? You have no issue with State governments telling a man where he can purchase private property due to racial zoning laws? You support giving States such power over American citizens? And yet you want t complain about this invasive federal government?

This is the difference between you and me, this is why Ron Paul’s political views isolate him so much in the mainstream. Americans want their individual liberties to be protected by all forces, State and government. Ron Paul and his supporters, want to pass on unprecedented powers back to the States over their residents. This is why Ron Paul continues to be a fringe candidate, and this is why the charges of racism continue to stick around during his campaign. You're not going to get far convincing the American people that giving state governments this much power over individual liberty is justifiable.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


His role as a public servant is in the Federal capacity. He has no say so over state laws. His job is to enforce the Constitution and limit the role of the Federal government. If you want him to change your state laws, then vote for him as Governor, not President.

Nobody is saying anything is "ok," we are just saying it isn't the Federal Government's role to dictate to states, or to individuals what they should be doing.

How can you champion individual rights, but not be able to see that more laws only limit individual rights? There is no such thing as any law that increases anybody's rights. The Bill of Rights lays out limits of Federal Government. Each state should have something similar, but that is their choice alone.


So it's well within the right for the State of Texas to bring back their sodomy laws, arresting two consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes?? You agree its well within the States right that they segregate American citizens by force? You have no issue with State governments telling a man where he can purchase private property due to racial zoning laws? You support giving States such power over American citizens? And yet you want t complain about this invasive federal government?


I don't support any of those things, and I would never stand for them in my state. But, that is apples and oranges. I don't want the Federal Govt telling my state that we can't make our own laws.

Let's deal with the over-bearing Federal Govt for now, and we'll deal with the over-bearing State Govts next. I would not live in such a state as you describe, and I would not allow such laws to be rendered in my state, and I would not sit idly by while things like you describe were happening. Still, I want the final say to be with us, the citizens, not with the Federal Govt.
edit on 21-12-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


yep, and if you live in a state that treats you bad, you have the freedom to move to another state that better suits your views. Pretty soon, you will see other states grow based on their track record and the failing states will have to adapt or keep loosing tax revenue.

So you are against personal responsibility? Thanks for clearing that up.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


Allowing whites only businesses/groups will pull this country apart.
Of course I know your not advocating this.
But having to wear your seatbelt or seeing a "No Diving" sign
is a little different than policies based solely on race or gender.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Tea4One
 


Thanks for starting this thread, OP. It just means that RP is kicking complete and total ass, when this kinda stuff pops up. He's not a racist. this has been covered. thanks for playing



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Those who are defending Ron Paul will never be convinced he is a racist because he isn't.

Those who are attacking Ron Paul will never be willing to look at the evidence he isn't.


You can tell the desperation to attack Ron Paul here on ATS goes up in equality with the desperation of the MSM.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoNameBrand
What I have noticed here on ATS is that you can't say anything negative about everybodys hero Ron Paul. It will just get twisted and turned around until people think he is more of the great savior so many people here think he is.

Now i'm not advocating against him or anything, just saying this is the trend I have seen.

Good Luck Tea4one. You are about to become enemy number one on ATS.
I kid, I kid.

edit on 20-12-2011 by NoNameBrand because: .

edit on 20-12-2011 by NoNameBrand because: (no reason given)


Same can be said for Obama supporters on here as well.

Hey noname, name me one politician other that Ron Paul who has talked the talk and walked the walk of his beliefs not only for his 12 terms in Congress, but his whole life! That's what makes him a hero to me; that he's unwavering, uncompromising in his beliefs in liberty, freedom and peace.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by openminded2011
 


Come to think of it... these are many of the reasons that I WILL be voting for Ron Paul this year. I prefer to NOT be coddled from cradle to grave by my government.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
reply to post by Tea4One
 

The federal government did a great job desegregating schools, didn't they?


the point of the Brown vs Board of education ruling in 54' was not intended to change societal attitudes, it was not intended to end racism, this is a silly argument. The point of the ruling was the end the States ability to mandate or force racial segregation on Americans. What people or kids think or who they wish to associate with is their business, neither the state government or federal government should have business in dictating who people must associate or mix with. So long as all Americans are paying taxes, they should be treated equally in the public arena by government.


I think your argument with respect to segregation falls flat. Ron has mentioned time and again that people should have the right to do as they please as long as it doesn't cause harm to someone else. Same can be said for states. In this regard, I can't see Dr. Paul being in favor of segregation based on his belief in state's right and personal liberty. It is obvious that harm is being done to others by segregating, so my belief is he would not allow this to take place.

The more you understand about the man, the more these kinds of arguments just don't hold any weight.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by sealing
reply to post by Praetorius
 
Allowing whites only businesses/groups will pull this country apart.
Of course I know your not advocating this.
But having to wear your seatbelt or seeing a "No Diving" sign
is a little different than policies based solely on race or gender.

I have a little more faith in our people and the current age than to believe that would happen on a remotely wide scale in the first place (and I well comforted that any stupid enough to do so would run out of business soon enough), but it's a non-issue regardless. Paul does not campaign or actively speak on such issues. They are so far off his radar that it's not even worth talking about, and even if he did want to bother with trying to slay that whale, it's such a political hot-potato, there would be no traction for it whatsoever that anyone would have to worry about such a thing happening anyway.

It's a side-issue and distraction with no relevance to much of anything, honestly. Not trying to snap at you, just clarifying - Ron's got his views on property rights, but that's about as far as it goes: nowhere.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join