Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ron Paul is a racist.

page: 12
28
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 





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


LOL so instead youd rather have a federal government that overides the will of the people?

So instead, your so sure that the fed gov wouldnt do the same thing, that youd run the risk that they could mandate that ALL states practice segregation if they chose to do so?

You want power to the people, but you think that the people have a better chance fighting the FEDERAL government , then they do STATE mandates?

Come on man, in no way does that even make sense




posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


Actually I'd say you are well read on these subjects.
And Amen to the SEC being completely corrupt and
unable to regulate. The only regulatory agency with a worse record
is the oil and mineral regulators. Orgies with coc aine ! Wow...
I feel like a good start would have been Elizabeth Warren as head of the
Consumer Protection Agency. I felt like I could tell how effective
she was by the voracity and viciousness the banks treated her with.
Good sign for me. If regulations and regulators can effectively do their jobs
we'd all have clean food, clean air and much less lender fraud .
That's a start. I think it's possible to do, the agency and whatever
Entity is being regulated just can't be in business together, haha.
I used to be a libertarian but I felt like many of it's ideals were better
suited for days gone by. Meaning when this country was forming
235 years ago. We are too big and complicated now for the sweeping
simple doctrines that dictate Libertarian ideas.
Just my opinion of course.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


ron paul believes the people come first and not the state. He has said he believes the hierarchy should be people, city, state, federal government. The fed should follow the constitution and all states have their own constitution they should follow.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by sealing
 
Thanks for the response...and the kind words. It's mainly just gut feeling with what little bit I've picked up, so more research is definitely due.

I've heard about Warren in passing, but don't know much about her. Will also have to look into this.


I used to be a libertarian but I felt like many of it's ideals were better
suited for days gone by. Meaning when this country was forming
235 years ago. We are too big and complicated now for the sweeping
simple doctrines that dictate Libertarian ideas.
Just my opinion of course.

I can definitely understand the opinion, even if I don't really agree with it offhand. For me, it's kind of a case of "the more things change, the more they stay the same..." as I'm a firm believer in their being no new thing under the sun, as the bible says.

Anyhow, back to 'libertarian' ideas - I honestly haven't ever looked much into libertarian philosophy all that much, beyond what's discussed in the Declaration of Independence and firmly supporting the idea that as US citizens, we should pretty much be free to do what we will as long as we don't step on anyone else's toes, pollute their property, or harm them (etc.).

Are you speaking mainly to the non-interventionist foreign policy, government involvement in the economy, or what exactly? Sorry to keep dragging you back in here, I'm just curious for your angle on this so I can consider the issues concerning you and see if there's something I might not be catching...

Anyhow, thanks again and take care.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


You're claiming he wrote all 10 of those points.

Now it is your job to PROVE those claims.

Ready...

Set...

Go!

We're waiting.


FAIL

He didn't write any of those racist remarks, they are quotes that rolled off his own tongue and spewed forth from his mouth for public consumption.

Obvious racism is obvious.


Originally posted by TinfoilTP
Source

Straight from the horses mouth,



Do You Support White Supremacist Ron Paul ?

10 quotes directly from Ron Paul that make him sound incredibly racist, it’s hard to believe otherwise. Read the quotes for yourself, and see if you believe Ron Paul is a racist.

1. ‎”We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.”

2. “What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn’t that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?”

3. ”Six-hundred-thousand Americans died in the senseless Civil War. No, he should not have gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original tenet of the Republic.” -Regarding the Civil War

4. ”Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. These aren’t my figures, that is the assumption you can gather from” the report.”

5. “Contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.” -On the 40th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act


6. “The Criminals who terrorize our cities – in riots and on every non-riot day – are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are.”

7. “I wouldn’t vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws.” -When asked if he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act.

8. “Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action.”

9. “Immigrants can spread diseases for which we may have no immunity. There is also the question of crime and culture. Many immigrants come from countries with different legal structures and are not willing to behave in the way we expect American citizens to behave.”

10. “There is no such thing as a hate crime.”
edit on 21-12-2011 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


If Ron Paul does NOT get elected........EXPECT MORE OF THE SAME LIES FROM EITHER PARTY AND OUR ONCE PRECIOUS COUNTRY EVAPORATING AWAY!!! Ron Paul is running as a Republican only because INDEPENDANTS NEVER GET ELECTED!!!

DO THE RESEARCH........RON PAUL 2012!!!



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente
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.


JEALOUS!!

I watched that show. You could feel the crowd's enthusiasm through the TV. He KILLED.

Bonus points to Joe Rogan for daring to show his support.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Why do you keep mis-stating or over-generalizing both my positions, and the positions of Ron Paul.

We are only debating Federal Laws, and Federal Roles. Everything else you state is entirely wrong, off-topic, and irrelavent. As President, Dr. Paul will not be able to change any State laws.


In my opinion State usurps Federal, local usurps State, and Individual Responsibility is the pinnacle and of the utmost importance. I clearly stated that there already exist 10 very tried and true rules that have worked for millenia. I don't see a lot of need for many more laws than that.

Individual Rights are the #1 concern of mine, and most ultra-conservatives, including Ron Paul, and the way to ensure those individual rights is to get rid of intrusive Federal Laws and put more power in the smallest form of government possible. Federal Laws should be the most minimal, followed by a small lattice of state laws, followed by a little more inclusive Local laws and Ordinances.

Are you being intentionally dense, or are you trying to create a fight where there is none, or are you just grasping at straws because you can't find any decent argument against Ron Paul?



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 

FAIL

He didn't write any of those racist remarks, they are quotes that rolled off his own tongue and spewed forth from his mouth for public consumption.

Obvious racism is obvious.

Hum...counter-fail? Those aren't all direct quotes, as I know at least some of them came from the (ghostwritten) newsletters. Additionally, when taken IN CONTEXT, even the unsavory quotes from the newsletters seem much less so (Raimondo had a good analysis clarifying some of this here).

That being said...
1) My assumption is that this was likely addressing the specific public case of, yes, a specific black 13 year-old (and not written by Paul anyway...) - without full newsletter for context, the cherry-picking makes it impossible to tell. And I would say the following is likely accurate, regardless of who's being discussed: "who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such". So...the fact that he mentioned the boy is black...is racist?

2) What's racist about this? Then again, what's even being discussed? It seems to be a valid question on the surface, but where's the context? Worthless for any valid discussion.

3) Doesn't seem inaccurate. What's the issue? The south should have been allowed to secede, it would have been cheaper to buy (and free) the slaves if that was the issue, and Lincoln admitted he didn't care about slavery, and only freed the SOUTHERN slaves with the emancipation proclamation.

4) Context, again (and not written by Paul anyway...) - author's discussing an official study on criminal justice in DC (I've seen this one in context), and these were the results given. What's the issue?

5) Do you have any facts you want to argue this one on to say he's incorrect? I don't see anything racist here.

6) Again, unsavory (and not written by Paul anyway...) - but is it untrue? I don't have any numbers on this handy.

7) So, supporting the repeal of Jim Crow, which likely would have been sufficient to resolve matters of public discrimination in large part without trampling on private property rights via the '64 CRA...is a bad thing? How on EARTH can this one even be construed as racist.

8) Again, unsavory (and not written by Paul anyway...) - and based on the study this one is also discussing, is it untrue? (granted, this deals mainly with the author's opinion on what are "sensible political opinions")

9) Is this true, or not (the first part definitely is, from a historical viewpoint)? I don't know offhand, but I don't see anything racist about it - possibly ignorant, at worst. I've never looked into the sociological facts on this topic. Where did the quote come from? What was the context?

10) I'm inclined to agree. Crime is crime, and "hate crime" is a subject of much debate. With hate crimes legislation comes further specialized treatment/judgement BASED on the race of the victim, and perversions of justice that sometimes result in more stringent treatment when no racial bias has been successfully proven.

So...most of these are kind of useless for making a claim of racism, honestly. They're lacking context, knowledge of the subjects at hand, and understanding that not all people agree on all topics. And at least four came from whoever actually wrote the newsletters, not Paul (based on style analysis) - and he's already accepted responsibility for them, despite in-context their being much less noteworthy.
edit on 12/21/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Tea4One
 


Many of those newsletters he didn't write, others were writing them, but they were under his name, because he wanted to get the liberty message out there, since newsletters were basically the internet at the time. Since he didn't closely monitor the newsletters some people wrote whatever they wanted to write, and some of the things talked about the welfare class etc. He is not racist, this has been covered a thousand times. But you people will continue the smear campaign because he is scaring the daylights out of you (the establishment) and your corrupt system. They tried this same tactic against Rand Paul in Kentucky and he beat the daylights out of you scumbags, so good luck. The people will decide who is racist and who is not.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Tea4One
 

Anyone know what the word is for someone who is Anti-Dumb People? Whatever the word is, I am that for sure.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

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.




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.

Good on Ron Paul....I AGREE with this ... Take my words for it the bussing of the "Ghetto" crowd into upper class neighborhoods is HATED by all LEFT OR RIGHT leaning and I will tell you WHY...take for instance Roxborough/Manayunk section of Philadelphia it used to rank the best school system in the city, it once was free of crime, now the little cretons have it so that our kids can't go into stores with backpacks, I literally seen thousands of those little scum running after one white girl in her own neighborhood to jump her (they are all bussed in) I had to call the cops as the "Ethnic" security guard would not act!!! They ruined that section of Philly bussing in that crowd even the adults fear for going out onto a bus after high school lets out!!!! Not to mention they have now had to crack down on curfew because these kids tend to linger and start trouble AFTER school hours later!!!

It's one of the main things that keeps me from moving back there!
edit on 21-12-2011 by ldyserenity because: add and spelling



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


So in your mind, the racism of Ron Paul is justified?



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
LOL so instead youd rather have a federal government that overides the will of the people?


If the Federal government, or SCOTUS, took action against a mob of state residents trying to invade on my personal liberties, my personal property, yes, I'd be right behind the Federal government.

The will of the people huh? It was the will of Southerners at the time of the civil that the institution of slavery continue in their states, it was the will of the majority that racial segregation be enforced on their state residents, private propery owners being told whom they could sell to based on race, people being told whom they could love, based on race or sexuality, laws against certain thins that people do in the bedroom? these envasive laws were all at one time States rights, and at one time the majority of State residents supported these laws with complete disregard about he rights of their fellow American, until action was taken by SCOTUS and the federa government. So yes, I'd prefer to have my rights protected by mob rule.

You disagree though right? You'd prefer to give state governments to power to trample on individual liberties? Right.


You want power to the people,


Another term for mob rule. Fascism at the federal level, bad! Fascism at the State level? acceptable in your eyes. To me, big government is big government, doesn't make a difference whether it's state or Federal. You beg to differ apparently, which is fine. You value states rights above individual liberties.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


You didnt answer a single question or address the fact that over throw at a federal level, is much harder than it is to innact change on a STATE level...

you conveniently talk around that....



Another term for mob rule. Fascism at the federal level, bad! Fascism at the State level? acceptable in your eyes. To me, big government is big government, doesn't make a difference whether it's state or Federal. You beg to differ apparently, which is fine. You value states rights above individual liberties.


You are the one who said you want power for the people, and then you backtrack and call it mob rule?

Make up your mind?

The civil war wasnt about slavery, it was about big government trying to trample on the rights of states to chose what they do........

Slavery is bad , but their principle of Federal beaurocrats trying to mandate something for states they have nothing to do with is sound.......

Learn your history

Lets try to get back on topic, if you cant seem to answer the question logically..........
edit on 21-12-2011 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


It's not racism, The bussing in of those student has ruined almost every school systems' rating they bus them into, crime has gone up and businesses fear for roving thieves after school hours. Why should they be given something when they obviously don't appreciate it and to top it off they bring it down to their level? I honestly think if they bus in ANYBODY to certain Great School Districts it should not be based on race, but on merit, and they don't base it on merit at all, they will get that spot because it is "race" based, it's a bunch of BS and so is Affirmative action both are epic failures. PERIOD. I mean they have to lower the grades or make the questions easier just so they can get a position in the fire department, how is that fair, whitey has to bust his A$$ but everybody else gets by using the color of their skin? NOT FAIR AND NOT LEGAL UNDER THE CONSTITUTION!!!


In fact I could argue those two things bussing in kids based on race and affirmative action are racist to the EXTREME!!!!
edit on 21-12-2011 by ldyserenity because: spelling and add



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

Originally posted by getreadyalready
We are only debating Federal Laws, and Federal Roles.


You wish to make this just about the Federal goverment, while conveniently ignoring the times when State governments stood on the individual liberties of American citizens. I'm not however going to give you the benefit of ignoring the reality of oversized and overbearing state governments. To me both are relevant, the actions of the State government and the actions of the Federal government. For me, the individual liberty of my fellow American comes first, not the State government, not the Federal government, not the 'rights' of the majority.


Individual Rights are the #1 concern of mine,


No it's not. It is clearly your position that the State can invade upon individual rights, and this is once again demonstrated by your position regarding States rights over a history of laws that only served to limit the individual liberties, laws such as racial segregation, sodomy laws, racial zoning laws. You clearly believe that it is within the rights of the State to enforce these laws on American citizens, so it baffles me how you continue to insist that this means you support the rights of the individual. You also believe the majority of residents in one state should have the final say on these laws, which again demonstrates that this is not about the right of the individual to you.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



You wish to make this just about the Federal goverment, while conveniently ignoring the times when State governments




I don't wish to make it about anything. The fact is, this is about the election for President, not a state election. It is what it is. Everything else is irrelavent. You want to blame Ron Paul for a bunch of hypothetical worst-case, unlikely scenarios that no president would have any influence over. How does that make any sense?



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


I find people pulling the race card, and finding a racist argument to everything, w out looking at it logically.....


Tend to be the real racists

That being said, I cant honestly say i think anyone on this particular thread is a racist by any means
edit on 21-12-2011 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join