Ron Paul is a racist.

The mudslinging isn't limited to the candidates, I see.

Desperate much?

Originally posted by getreadyalready
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 the uphold the individual liberties of American citizens, if State governments are invading upon our personal liberties, your damned straight it is his say, it is his responsibility to stand up, it is the responsibility of SCOTUS to step in. Stop making excuses that his role is only to protect individual liberties from the Federal government, that is not the sole purpose of the presidency.

Nobody is saying anything is "ok," we are just saying it isn't the Federal Government's role to dictate to states,

I'm already well aware of your position. You want to return unprecedent powers back to the State governments. Ron paul's position and those of his supporters is to maximize States rights, not individual liberties. I get it, this is your position, and this is where me and you stand in opposition. I believe that it is the president to stand up for individual liberties from all forces, foreign,federal and State.

How can you champion individual rights, but not be able to see that more laws only limit individual rights?

What are you talking about? I support protecting individual rights, property rights, privacy rights from the hands of both the federal and state governments. You believe that State governments should be able to invade upon these rights. What's there not to understand?

I believe that what a man chooses to smoke in the privacy of his own home, on his OWN property, is none of the business of the Federal AND State governments, you disagree.

I believe that what two consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their OWN homes is their business, none of the States or Federal governments business, you disagree.

I believe that an American citizens should have the RIGHT to purchase private property, to make a contract with a private seller, where they wish, it is not the business of the Federal or State governments to dictate where Americans must live based on racial or sexuality laws. You disagree.

I am for ensuring that fundamental individual liberties are protected, you and Ron Paul support the maximization of States rights over individual liberties, this is where I stand apart from you.

I don't support any of those things,

This wasn't about whether you supported any of these things personally, this is about whether you believe State governments have the legitimacy to enforce such laws over American citizens, and you agree.

Let's deal with the over-bearing Federal Govt for now, and we'll deal with the over-bearing State Govts next.

You already made it clear, as did Ron Paul. You're not interested in dealing with over-bearing state governments, you're interested in maximizing States rights above individual liberties.

To all the people that are genuinely buying the 'Ron Paul is a racist' bit, do you actually and TRULY believe a racist would fight the war on drugs, using the denigration of the black community as one of his main points to put it to an END? (with black people giving standing ovations in the background?)

Do you TRULY believe a racist would PRAISE MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. throughout his entire career?



Oh but you'll say...."no, Ron is a closet racist, he's doing a great job acting for over 30 years because he was setting himself up to be president at age 76"


I've asked TinfoilTP to prove his claims that Ron Paul said those 10 things he listed, where is the proof to those claims? Are we just posting things up because somebody else said Ron Paul said those things?

Here I'll help you out with your 'sources'

Ready?

www.opednews.com...

Just a few weeks ago, I was part of a huge conspiracy of anti-racist activists - activists who, online and in public, were bent on the destruction of the Ron Paul Campaign.

We used our websites and our online influence to spread outright false and misleading information. We began this online influence at least six months prior to the release of the Ron Paul Newsletters. We knew they were going to be released.

I was originally a Ron Paul supporter. I was stunned when I heard from other Anti-Racism advocates that Ron Paul had released such Newsletters. I was never shown actual newsletters, only told that they would soon be released. I trusted in my fellow activists. I had been working with most of them for several years; they had never steered me wrong before. Then right before the primaries, the Newsletters were released. Did you get that?

Right before the primaries the newsletters were released!

I felt used. Obviously the newsletters were old news, and an orchestrated release of information, in which I was but a cog in the wheel of the Establishment - an Establishment bent on the destruction of the man, bent on THEIR destruction!

Do not believe their lies. This man, Dr. Ron Paul, is NOT a racist.

I KNOW racists. I've lived amongst racists. I fight racism DAILY.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


States RIghts and Individuals rights are one and the same when we are talking about Federal Laws.

I have never said that State's have the rights to make restrictive laws, I have only said that the Federal Govt doesn't have the right to prevent such a thing. It is up to the citizens of each state to decide what their state has a right to do, or not to do.

I believe in very few laws period. I think 10 is probably enough.

reply to post by Praetorius


No I hear you,and certainly respect what you are saying. And you're right
this issue is definitely one of the red herrings.
I am just not a fan of massive deregulation, that's a trick giant corporations
tell us to convince us it's the only way they'll make money.

reply to post by Tea4One
This thread is absurd.

Ron Paul stands for liberty.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


You do realize your name is "Southern Guardian?"

How does that username come from somebody that doesn't support state's rights, or understand the concept of limited federal government?

You do realize this is a "Republic" and the states voluntarily join the republic? The Federal Government has little to no authority over any state in the original plan. The states extend a few conveniences to a centralized Federal Govt, such as maintaining a National Defense Force, but they states do not give up their own rights, and they always have the option of seceding. Of coures, that didn't work out so well the first time around, but if the Federal government gets out of control a true "Southern Guardian" would be willing to do it all over again, and win or lose, they would be proud to have stood up and fought for what this country stands is about.

And for your information, it isn't about handouts, nanny laws, entitlements, or mandatory centralized decision making. It is about personal responsibility, innovation, and high expectations. I know its hard to remember when all of those things were so popular as to be considered common sense, but there really was such a time, and Ron Paul remembers it.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

States RIghts and Individuals rights are one and the same when we are talking about Federal Laws.

States rights and individual right not the same. When States held the right under the constitution to protect slavery laws, was this in line with individual rights? What about State racial zoning laws forcing private property owners to only sell to certain buyers, is this in line with individual rights? I cannot understand for the life of me why you'd consider the two the same.

I have never said that State's have the rights to make restrictive laws,

You did, and I invite others to go back to the previous posts you made to see for themselves. As for Ron Paul's policies on maximizing states rights above individual liberties, this is going to keep him behind the other republican candidates in the long run.

Originally posted by sealing
reply to post by Praetorius

 

No I hear you,and certainly respect what you are saying. And you're right
this issue is definitely one of the red herrings.
I am just not a fan of massive deregulation, that's a trick giant corporations
tell us to convince us it's the only way they'll make money.

The deregulation thing is a mixed bag for me, personally, and one that's easy to score political points on. In my view, it seems like the regulations we tend to defend so vociferously don't really do much of anything to actually regulate the behaviour of big business or actually protect the consumer very often, if you actually look into things (what risky acts have regulation prevented? What actually dangerous drugs have they kept of the market? And on, and on...).

The concept, as with most, is lovely in theory - but then reality hits: who regulates the regulators? Why is there a revolving door policy between the regulatory agencies and the businesses they're supposed to regulate ("oh, thanks for your help regulator, now you're an exec. here and we'll replace you at the agency with one of our former execs...")? From what I can see, big business sinks its teeth into the regulatory agencies, crafts the regulations to their liking to choke out small business competition by imposing regulations only the big companies can afford to either meet or ignore (and pay their fines on), and carry on as though nothing had happened while continuing to rip everyone off and pawn substandard services or prices off on us.

I can't remember who the congressman was offhand, but there was a good account Paul recalled in one of his books - the congressman had long pushed for increased regulations on many things, and then tried to open his own bed & breakfast and was soon choked out by the - honestly ridiculous - regulatory requirements.

And back to regulatory shenanigans, the same thing occurs in the financial world - regulations are put in place, and then regulatory agencies like the SEC and various other groups just become corrupt, start shredding investigatory records, making back-end deals, ignoring regulations, and so on.

How do we fix it? Do we just create regulatory agency regulation agencies to supervise the regulatory agencies? Who will regulate them? How do you stop the corruption, inside deals, and revolving door policies? Nobody likes the option, but I really think they only valid way is to first off address some of the other big issues that play in here (like the Fed as lender of last resort enabling risky behaviours, fractional reserve banking inducing an inflationary house of cards, and a few other big points that allow systemic cheating), then clear the regulatory climate and let small business competition have a fair change to innovate and trim back these big businesses.

Then, and this is key - don't prop them up. Don't pick winners and losers, don't bail out. Let them crash. Let the market eat them and allocate the capital to people more likely to handle it better. Yes, there should still be consumer protections of some sort, but the stifling regulatory climate we've created goes well beyond that and has proved to be ineffective and counterproductive, at best.

Your thoughts? This is a discussion I'm interested in, although I definitely need to put more time and research into it.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


You are talking about two entirely different sets of laws.

It isn't up to the Federal Government to define what states can or cannot do. It is up to the citizens of that particular state.

Do you really want folks in California deciding what is right for people in Alabama, or vice versa?

reply to post by Southern Guardian

You constantly distort the facts, and hysterically assert ludicrous scenarios not based in any reality. Slavery existed because people and governments ALLOWED it to exist. It was profitable. It exploited the weak. That is the story of history. NOT some benevolent president that put the states in their place.
Stop twisting history and statements to suit your ideology.

reply to post by therealdemoboy


Yes, coddling is reserved for the top one percent, right?

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

You are talking about two entirely different sets of laws.

I'm talking about protecting individual liberties against invasive laws from both the Federal and State governments, Ron Paul is of the postion that individual liberties are not protected from the State governments.

You agree.

It isn't up to the Federal Government to define what states can or cannot do. It is up to the citizens of that particular state.

Exactly, this is your position. You believe in the legitimacy of mob rule in the States, you believe in maximizing the power of State governments in this case. You believe that individual liberty can be overruled by the residents and you wish to see such power restored to the States. I'm not sure why you continiously repeat your position, I already know this.

Do you really want folks in California deciding what is right for people in Alabama, or vice versa?

I want fundamental individual liberties to be protected in this country from all forces, State and Federal, foreign as well. This isn't about what California wants for Alabama, this is about protecting fundamental rights and individual liberties in all the States. I don't think it's any of the business of the Alabama governments to regulate what two consenting adults want to do in the privacy of their own homes, on their own propertys. I don't think California has the right to ban hispanics from owning guns. I don't think it's any of the business of Texas to force mandate private property owners to only sell to certain buyers of certain races or sexuality. It's NONE of the business of government, whether it be State or Federal.

Yawn. Been there. Done that in 2008. Yawn yet again...this is an obvious effort to put him down as he just smoked the competition in Iowa...

The entire premise of this thread is funny.

I'd love for some of you to tell the Ron Paul minorities supporters that he is racist, those same minorities (asian, hispanic, black, european, heck jewish, middle eastern and whatever else you have) waiting in line with me to see him live on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

Taking lies from the internet and spreading them like they're true doesn't even come close to stopping people from seeing the truth once they've got a taste of his message.

Keep trying, continue failing.

Originally posted by Tea4One
Public School Civil Rights Act 1984

This bill would allow schools to re-segregate.

In 2008 one of the coordinators for Ron Paul's campaign was Randy Gray who is a white supremacist.

Source

His stance on the Civil Rights act of 1964 is also distasteful. Believing in property rights over the increased protection that the act gives to minorities.

Alongside this are the newsletters that apparently he had no idea existed till now seems a bit odd to me too. If he had known they existed he allowed racists to speak in his name which is somewhat suspicious for a man of government.

newsone.com...

He is also picture here with the founders of white supremacist website Stormfront.

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.

This bill says that it 'ELIMINATES' federal courts to issue an order requiring transporation to public schools based on race,color or national origin.

at bottom of page

•OFFICIAL TITLE AS INTRODUCED:
A bill to provide for civil rights in public schools.

That means it is a bill that is NOT in favor of separation.

As for the photo. Anyone, at anytime who admires Ron Paul or any other politician or famous person can have a photo with them, it happens all the time. Do you think everyone who's had a picture with Gene Simmons is affiliates with him and believes everything he does? This proves nothing other than, he's NOT a segregationist. Did you even read it, or did you just not understand the jargon?

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

You constantly distort the facts, and hysterically assert ludicrous scenarios not based in any reality.

Reality? So because we're so sure that racial segregation will never be restored by some States, we should give the States back the power to enforce such laws over american citizens? Do you know that sodomy laws, yes, laws that dictated by the State over what two private consenting citizens did in private, was enforced as recently as 2002? Until SCOTUS stepped in?

Let's just clarify your position here. You agree with getready, that we should maximize States rights above individual liberties?

Slavery existed because people and governments ALLOWED it to exist.

Yes, and fortunately, at the convenience of Lincoln's agenda to restore the Union, that institution was ENDED by his decision and signiture. People allowed slavery to exist, and even at the time of the civil war, slavery was still supported by the vast majority in the South, it took the actions of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to put an end to the institution once and for all (regardless of whether Lincoln's intentions were moral or not).

You want to restore the powers of the State above individual liberties? Goodluck campaigning this in the primaries, seriously.

Ron Paul a racist? Not likely, at least not any more or any less than a man of his age and upbringing. All anyone needs do to dispel those accusations is look at his ideology, they aren't really two compatible things. However the unfortunate fact of his particular ideology is one which would provide fertile ground for racist groups to flourish and garner political power again.

If you want to discuss the man or his policies there is more than ample ammunition available with which to do so. To lower an unfounded personal attack on his personal beliefs, only strengthens the resolve of his misguided followers. He has many popular views, but when people really start scrutinizing him they will find his political ideology to be less than what they desire.

All Republicans say they want smaller less intrusive government, and many mistake this simple statement to mean that they want what the majority of Americans want the government they have but done with greater efficiency. This is not what they mean and it is not what they mean to do. They mean they want an impotent Federal Government with very strong and even more intrusive State Government. Because they know that is the only way that they can arrest you just for being a minority, gay and pollute your breathable air and drinkable water.

"State's rights" every time it comes out of a Republican's mouth is a euphemism for " State tyranny". Don't believe it look at every issue they use it in conjunction with, abortion, desegregation, environmental standards, gay marriage and education. Sounds an awful lot like the tyranny of mob rule to me. If Ron Paul had his way this country would have Jim Crow back with a vengeance. Louisiana would have had alot more people die, because disaster relief is not the Federal Government's place. States would be free to arrest homosexuals for what they do privately in their own home. And industry would be free to dump whatever wherever they like and bear no responsibility for it.

And what does Mr. Paul's philosophy say about all that? It is your fault, you should move to a place where they tolerate your ethnicity. It is your fault you should move to a place where you are allowed to have sex with your partner. It is your fault for living in an area prone to hurricanes. It is your fault for not living in a place with better regulations. And while all those may have a ring of truth to them, none of those answers are a viable way to run any kind of Government.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
All Republicans say they want smaller less intrusive government,

Republicans want a smaller less instrusive Federal government, they want to instead pass on unprecedented powers over Americian citizens back to the State governments.

If you want to less intrusive government both on the State and Federal level? Republican isn't the choice for you, Ron Paul included.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Interesting that you would write about Lincoln ending slavery, "regardless of whether Lincoln's intentions were moral or not). "...,
yet you don't get the irony in that? What were his intentions then, if not moral, political? Of course they were. Just like most every decision a politician makes. Only a groundswell of popular support or disgust with a law or politician can ever change the system when it DOESN'T benefit said politician and his/her power base.
These are facts.