Ron Paul is a racist.

Clearly starting a thread on here against Ron Paul wasn't a good idea

The 1984 bill eliminates any say of the federal government on whether or not the school is allowed can be segregated. So his bill gives the school the power to make itself a segregated school.

He may be a constitutionalist but to regard the civil rights act of 1964 as doing nothing is foolish. The only reason I can imagine him having all these links plus thinking that, is that he cares not for minorities.

The picture was a bit fickle granted but personally, by my view, it all still stands.

There are many other reasons I don't like Ron Paul to be fair. Clearly I read into this much differently due to my already dislike of the man.

Originally posted by truthRconsequences357
Because they know that he is the only one Obama can beat!
You can take that to the bank.
You going to fall for the con-job again in 2012?

Don't you mean he is the only one that can beat Obama?

You don't think Newt or Romney or Perry can actually beat Obama? Obama will energize voters, he will have a record turnout, he plans to raise $1B dollars for his campaign. He is idolized by his supporters. NO WAY Newt or Romney or Perry can match any of that.

Now, with Ron Paul, he is also idolized, and he will also be able to generate energy, and excitement, and raise tons of campaign dollars. His turnout will be HUGE in support of him.

Paul can pull all the Independents and 3rd Party voters, Paul can pull some of the disenfranchised Democrats, and many of the Blue Dog Democrats. Paul is a True Conservative, not a Republican puppet.

There is just no way that any other Republican can do better against Obama than Ron Paul. The polls also show this to be a fact. Any any head to head poll against Obama, Paul polls better than other Republicans.

Plus, I don't believe any Paul supporter will automatically move their vote to a Republican puppet. I am more likely to write in my father's name, or my name than I am to cast a vote for Romney, Perry, or Newt.

Oh he's not a racist, I don't agree with his stance because unlike him I have no faith in the "inherent goodness of people". Most people don't make rational choices for the most part. People are driven by emotion. That's normal, but you have deal with it on that level. You can't just assume everyone is rational. I live in the south and I can pretty much promise you that if these people could segregate again they would.

Obama is a dictator, see he shook hands with one!


Rumsfield is a mass murder, he shook hands with Saddam.


McCain is a secret Muslim, he shook hands with Obama

Originally posted by Tea4One
Clearly starting a thread on here against Ron Paul wasn't a good idea

The 1984 bill eliminates any say of the federal government on whether or not the school is allowed can be segregated. So his bill gives the school the power to make itself a segregated school.

He may be a constitutionalist but to regard the civil rights act of 1964 as doing nothing is foolish. The only reason I can imagine him having all these links plus thinking that, is that he cares not for minorities.

The picture was a bit fickle granted but personally, by my view, it all still stands.

There are many other reasons I don't like Ron Paul to be fair. Clearly I read into this much differently due to my already dislike of the man.

What wasn't a good idea was posting a thread without properly researching what you're talking about. Maybe you could have had more ground had you did.

Epic topic.

Would read again.

reply to post by Tea4One


Ron Paul, like many libertarians, supports States rights first and foremost, above individual rights. This is why he doesn't support the Brown vs Board of Education 1954 which desegregated public schools and stripped that right of the States to segregate American citizens in the public setting racially, this is why he opposed the SCOTUS ruling in the Lawrence vs Texas case of 2003 which ended the ability of States to regulate what two consenting adults did in the privacy of their own homes, this is why he opposed the SCOTUS ruling in the Loving vs Virginia case which once again he believes states were in their right to regulate. He believes in maximizing states rights, not so much individual liberty, which is the fundamental problem with his candidacy and with Libertarians in general. There's nothing wrong with an envasive government that invades personal lives and property, that divides people by force, so long as it's the state government.

Now is Ron Paul a racist? given his positions among other things, I think he is. As for the racist newsletters that Paulers deny he had anything to do about?

Ron Paul doesn't seem to know much about his own newsletters. The libertarian-leaning presidential candidate says he was unaware, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, of the bigoted rhetoric about African Americans and gays that was appearing under his name.

Rockwell has denied responsibility for the newsletters' contents to The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick. Rockwell twice declined to discuss the matter with reason, maintaining this week that he had "nothing to say."

reason.com...

It's a matter of he/she said, I'm trying to figure out how he could not have known all these years that there was somebody using his name in public to support their articles. As stated, I do believe that Paul is a racist, he just won't come out and say it because it will damage his campaign, which is fine. He's probably not going to win the nomination anyway so it's irrelevent at this point.

reply to post by Tea4One

The federal government did a great job desegregating schools, didn't they? Ole Ron Paul was out of touch....but wait! This just in!
US Schools more segregated Today...

Maybe the people want segregated schools, black, brown, white, female, whatever. They DO actually work. Perhaps we should have given separate but equal a fair shot?

You know... about 4 years ago, Bill Clinton was campaigning for his wife. I went to watch him speak (he's a former POTUS. Not everyone can say they met one. I took the opportunity, and got my picture taken with him. My right hand still feels a little dirty for shaking his hand, and the photograph is certainly not proof that I agree with ANY of his positions, let-alone the worst of his positions.

Actions speak louder than words OR pictures. And Ron Paul's actions in his 12 terms of congress speak VOLUMES. These attacks are pointless to those who actually know RP's positions. And I guaran-freaking-tee that we (the mass of Ron Paul supporters) will be there to debunk all of your bogus allegations.

reply to post by Tea4One
Yes...the only "racist" running is the one who wants to attack policies that disproportionately affect minorities (war on drugs, prison-industrial complex, constant war which is fed by armies primarily drawing minority enlistments & the otherwise poor or disenfranchised, not bombing brown people for no valid reason, etc.), is defended as NOT being racist by the (black) head of the Houston NAACP, and espouses looking at & treating people as individuals and not groups.

*rolls eyes* Riiiiiiiight...

Here's a kicker for you - taken in context (as analyzed by Justin Raimondo - you can look it up), the newsletters weren't actually all that racist in the first place, but regardless, Paul didn't write them (as verified by analysis) and likely wasn't even aware of them as he wasn't even IN politics at the time as he had returned to his full-time OBGYN practice. That being said, Paul has ALREADY acknowledged his moral responsibility for them.

And oh, what a bigot and anti-semite he is, having had a gay campaign director last time around, and a jewish campaign advisor this time. Can this knuckle-headed garbage PLEASE go away now? Yes, some newsletters having absolutely NOTHING to do with Paul's actual policies, views, or on-the-record history were unfortunately written under the Paul brand. And yes, Paul disagrees with ANYTHING that says the government has a right to tell you what to do with your property, even if that gives you an option to be stupid and archaic.

How about we focus on things that actually matter, like dying civilians, disenfranchised minorities, a nation on the verge of fiscal collapse, an intrusive and abusive government, and all of the other things I don't have time to write at the moment?

EDIT:
If anyone wants to get really carried away with the race issue, we might as well get on with it. Santorum and Bachmann are racist and bigoted because they don't like & want to limit the rights of gays. They're racist because they support our prison policies, drug war, and foreign policy which have caused indiscriminate harm to various other races. Perry's a racist because of Camp Niggerhead (that's a proper term). Huntsman and Romney are both racists because they're mormon (look into what the Latter-Day Saints have said about various other races in the past). Gingrich is racist because of the policies he supports as well - and he's also a philanderer.

Does anyone see how dumb this is yet? No, I don't really think any of these people are honestly racist, but they support all sorts of policies which hurt other races directly, and some (prohibition) that were founded directly IN racism. Dumb, dumb, dumb...and if anyone here wants to tell me that ALL donors of ALL other candidates have been vetted and shown not to contain any bigots, racists, or various others typically perceived in a negative fashion, I'll eat my hat.

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
reply to post by Tea4One

 

The federal government did a great job desegregating schools, didn't they? Ole Ron Paul was out of touch....but wait! This just in!
US Schools more segregated Today...

Maybe the people want segregated schools, black, brown, white, female, whatever. They DO actually work. Perhaps we should have given separate but equal a fair shot?

I'm curious, how do segregated schools work better than integrated ones?

Originally posted by Tea4One
Clearly starting a thread on here against Ron Paul wasn't a good idea

The 1984 bill eliminates any say of the federal government on whether or not the school is allowed can be segregated. So his bill gives the school the power to make itself a segregated school.

He may be a constitutionalist but to regard the civil rights act of 1964 as doing nothing is foolish. The only reason I can imagine him having all these links plus thinking that, is that he cares not for minorities.

The picture was a bit fickle granted but personally, by my view, it all still stands.

There are many other reasons I don't like Ron Paul to be fair. Clearly I read into this much differently due to my already dislike of the man.

In fairness here, I don't think the fact it's a thread against Ron Paul that is getting you an almost vicious response from some people here. In my opinion, we'll need more threads against Paul as time goes on, to hash out his actual policies and how we all feel about them. It'll be a real sign that Dr. Paul has "arrived" as a contender for the Presidency in a real sense.

The race card is what I think is getting blow back...and the fact one has to dig clear back into the 1980's and include 25 year old pic references to back the point. Especially when we have an Attorney General and President who are both playing race games to various degrees... That really is the heart of it. Race is just a terribly touchy and downright UGLY topic in America these days. It doesn't take much to start a full war over it on a web site OR in real life sometimes.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Tea4One

 

What better frontman to run against Obama?

Seriously though, his stance is not racist, it is constitutionalist. He wants to do away with the entire D.O.E., because it isn't the Federal Govt's purvay, and it has been an epic failure. He isn't "pro-segragation," he is just anti-government involvement.

This same old tired argument has been brought up time and time again. It also goes for his other stances, such as claiming he is "pro-legalization." He is definitely not "pro" anything, he just wants the Federal Government out of the Nanny business. He wants personal responsibility and state's rights.

You can keep tossing this info out there, we've all seen it plenty of times, but it just isn't true. Some people will choose to make the leap and believe it, while others will choose to look into what Ron Paul stands for and realize this is just part of his overall stance on government.

I choose the side of personal responsibility, small government, and state's rights. YMMV

This^^^

The more we allow our gov't to take care of us and give us things, the more we dig our selves into a debt. Karmic debt, monetary debt, personal responsibility debt, etc. By allowing gov't to take care of us we essentially stay ignorant little kids.

And we (who are grown and maybe not) know how freaking annoying it is in today's day and age when every young kid thinks they know better.

You simply can't build a future when the future doesnt learn from history.

reply to post by Rockpuck

You can make that out to being "racist" I suppose .. but it's more about Freedom, something you wouldn't understand since you seem to think we all need laws to force us to like each other.

Quote of the day right here. You either embrace the philosophy of freedom, which our country was founded on, or you highlight how crazy you think it is that people would actually be allowed to be responsible for themselves.

You don't like racism? Don't segregate in your business. You don't like prostitution? Don't pay for hookers! You don't like drugs? Don't use them! That's freedom right there, being responsible for your own actions and your own choices.

reply to post by antonia

They educate better. Integrated schools were a social experiment. The idea never was to educate better, and I believe the verdict is pretty obvious that they don't.
Separate but Equal would likely educate the kids better.

I was on the fence but after this thread I'll def vote for him.

Essentially he was saying business owners can choose to not serve people based on race but guess what, that business won't be operating for more than a month because people will boycott it. I agree with his stance.

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.

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
reply to post by antonia

 

They educate better. Integrated schools were a social experiment. The idea never was to educate better, and I believe the verdict is pretty obvious that they don't.
Separate but Equal would likely educate the kids better.

The questions is: How do they educate better? If you want to talk in terms of test scores any school with mostly whites will do better as whites tend to have more money than blacks in this country. When compared mostly black school and rural white schools do the poorest and they also happen to have the poorest students.

reply to post by Fitch303


I was just thinking the same thing! Who would take their family out to dinner in an openly racist establishment? This misconception that freedom is the ultimate threat to society really needs to stop.

Originally posted by Tea4One
Clearly starting a thread on here against Ron Paul wasn't a good idea

Ah well, well all make mistakes, said the Dalek climbing off a dustbin...