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.
Posted by Pamela Geller on Saturday, December
Baby Paul: I'm against all discrimination of any kind, I wouldn't join a club. but I think what's important about this debate is not to get into any gotcha on this but asking the question. What about freedom of speech. Should we limit speech. Should we limit racists from speaking?
Baby Paul: I abhor racism. Am I a bad person because I hate racism?
Originally posted by Habit4ming
Originally posted by LogiosHermes27
Originally posted by Wookiep
reply to post by LogiosHermes27
In addition, to think, I was going to vote for him...
Oh please, don't LIE. You have been crying about his foreign policy since you got here. How is it that you think people would forget such things?? Aside from all the racist rhetoric etc about Paul, lies like this from people like you is proof you're just on here to troll. You've been called out before about this, I have no idea why you haven't been banned yet.
Every 4 years a president is giving a 30-page letter that they must study to win publics votes. Every 4 years a president is giving an agenda of what to say, and what not to say to please the voters minds, hoping to get a vote.
No president in the history of life has ever pleased the pheasants that knock at the castles door with pitch forks in hand demanding just the basic needs. No republican…No Democrat… and no independent.
They understand that it’s the 1% they care about, but it’s the 99% that they have to trick to get into office, with its magical ,exotic mind games that they play with the 99%, out that 99% they understand that 75% of the 99% have an IQ no greater than .04
So tell me how the magic show turns out before 2012...and why are you so angry, are you ok, pm if you need a shoulder to cry on…its not that serious!
edit on 22-12-2011 by LogiosHermes27 because: (no reason given)
No president in the history of life has ever pleased the pheasants...
Hmmm! This phrase certainly captured my attention since a one-day member at Daily Paul today used the same term, when he/she actually meant peasants. His/her minor spelling errors and writing style are similar to yours.
I suppose the above is off-topic, and of course, LogiosHermes27 may not be that same person. I guess I just don't understand those who on one board act like supporters and on another board or sometimes the same board, smear the same person they previously supported. Why do I care? Because our country is headed off a cliff, and I believe Ron Paul is the only candidate who can BEGIN to turn this ship of state around. If I truly thought Ron Paul were a racist, he would NOT be getting my vote. He is not a racist; he's a kind, caring individual who truly loves this country and cares about its people..all its people, no matter the color of skin, no matter their religion or lack thereof, no matter their sexual preference. He's a statesman. He is a strict Constitutionalist and would not attempt to push his views onto other people. He has my vote...and those trying to take him down have my contempt.
Fantastic thread, elPresidente.. I finally managed to read it all the way through!
Distinction blurred between private, public property
A recent Daily News editorial supported the Federal Fair Housing Act. At first glance, who could object to preventing discrimination in housing? Most citizens would agree that it is wrong to deny taxpayer-financed, public housing to anyone based on the color of their skin or the number of children in the household. But the Daily News ignores, as does the Fair Housing Act, the distinction between private and public property. Should it be prohibited for public, taxpayer-financed institutions such as schools to reject someone based on an individuals beliefs or attributes? Most certainly. Should it be prohibited for private entities such as a church, bed and breakfast or retirement neighborhood that doesnt want noisy children? Absolutely not. Decisions concerning private property and associations should in a free society be unhindered. As a consequence, some associations will discriminate. Alcoholics Anonymous may only accept alcoholics; Madison Avenue advertisers may choose only the young and slender; Boy Scouts may wish to exclude sex offenders; Christian churches may wish to exclude atheists from the clergy. A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin. It is unenlightened and ill-informed to promote discrimination against individuals based on the color of their skin. It is likewise unwise to forget the distinction between public (taxpayer-financed) and private entities. A society that forgets this distinction will ultimately lose the freedoms that have evolved and historically been attached to private ownership. Rand Paul Bowling Green
Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressmen. What an infamy that Ronald Regan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.
Black leaders are calling for a "fundamental" change: uprooting the entire "White Establishment."They want to replace "Eurocentrism" with "Afrocentrism," and make white schoolchildren "more humble." Although I am not clear in what that means, I do know what that, as Ludwig von Mises said, "the idea of liberty is Western."If they intend to replace Western culture with third-worldism, they are looking for a battle.
The racial hatred being created will surpass anything we've seen so far. If there is any issue the Republicans have in their favor for the next presidential election, it is the question of race. It was all over for Michael Dukakis when Jessie Jackson gave his awful prime-time speech at the last Democratic convention, and the cameras focused on masses of teary-eyed,left-wing blacks.
Originally posted by JBA2848
Ron Paul would be the dream of TPTB. He would get rid of oversight, get rif of laws and open the doors to them to own the US and make slaves out of the citizens and then make their children slaves by doing away with schools. You would end up with a third world country here quuicker than a blink of an eye. But he would say well your free of laws so your free. Your free of regulations so your free. And if your poor you must not be good enough or educated enough and its not the governments job to ensure you are.
Its the whole twisted answers hide behind freedom when you do something to somebody that the Pauls are so good at. If some one says why would you want to do away with civil rights. They say because they can't be free with civil rights because thats racist. They think businesses should have the right to be racist if they want because that is freedom. And when they use the excuse that the states should have the rights not the federal government is a way to say let the South rise again give them their rights back. They have a twisted, no straight answer, hide behind saying freedom, that he was putting down Bachmann and Santorium for using except they do it and use words like your not a patriot or American if you let muslims do what they want or your not Christian if you think gays should be allowed to do what they want.