It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
Originally posted by antonia
His followers could watch him eat a dead baby on national tv and still would scream for him until they were blue in the face all the while calling you a sheep for not liking him.
Wow, you really believe that?
I hope you are just way over exaggerating because I think the Paul supporters really do care about the country and it's citizens, including babies.
The hate level on this thread is off the charts. I'm out of here.edit on 12/20/2011 by sad_eyed_lady because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Originally posted by getreadyalready
What do you suppose is more racist. Recognizing people for their differences and endorsing everyone's right to make their own way, or implying that minorities can't make it on their own and are somehow inferior and require government's help to succeed?
Regarding Ron Paul's or anybody elses personal racism, this is not the greatest issue or concern for me. The issue for me is Ron Paul's consistent opposition to rulings and laws that serve to protect private the social lives of Americans from government (STATE and Federal) interference. His opposition to SCOTUS overturning the states ability to enforce racial segregation, interracial marriage bans and sodomy laws on their citizens, I mean for goodness sakes, he appears to have no issue with an envasive state government, and he has never from my research changed his positions in the past.
I don't like the idea of government having the power to get so far involved in personal lives, whether it be state or federal, though apparently Ron Paul begs to differ. Ron Paul is for states rights first and foremost, not for individual liberties. It's predictable that his loyal supporters would look past this and continiously point to his foreign policie and fiscal policies to discount his other positions that trample on individual liberties. To me these positions are VERY relevant, and it takes an element of bigotry and racism to legitimize state governments enforcing these laws on Americans.
edit on 20-12-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by NoNameBrand
This is correct.
Ron Paul is getting the same messiah treatment that Obama got in 2008 and it's incredibly naive and annoying. I love to watch RP supporters complain about Obama supporters when they do the exact same thing.
Originally posted by RedShiftDrift
People who make threads like this should have their posting privileges revoked.
Originally posted by jtma508
reply to post by RedShiftDrift
Bad analogy. I suppose being an American citizen could be considered a choice --- I suppose technically you could leave. But slavery, although widely practiced in the South (not saying it didn't exist in the North), was not an explicit policy of the United States government. Racism in the LDS, however, was (read 'The Doctrines and the Covenants' of the LDS). And Mr. Romney was a member by choice.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by David9176
And what about the people who don't own property? Theoretically, they have fewer rights because they don't own property. Basically, those with more wealth will technically have more rights than others...and more power to discriminate.
Really???? lets not forget that many of the homeless are retired vets that either have some type of brain damage or are physically incapable of performing some jobs. Many have already been turned down becuase of the lack of capabilities. However there are some jobs out there that they are currently able to perform, but unluckily they weren't wuite qualified thus the reason for them being homeless now.
But under RP's mindframe, who the heck cares about them. It's not the federal government's position to offer equal opportunity to them if the state decides that they don't care about them working. So segregation based off of disabilities would be perfectly legal.
I wouldn't be suprised if he rid of the federally funded VA system as well leaving it up to each state's program to handle the vets. Say bye to the GI Bill that we've all fought hard to make accessible to all vets. I'm pretty sure that the states will draw back on it as well. Less housing allowences, and possibly back to non for those distance learning only courses.