Liberals, Don't Vote For Ron Paul, Vote For The Guy Bombing Brown People, page 4

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 07:16 AM

link

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
The racist Ron Paul Newsletters make him unvotable by liberals, because they would have to abandon their overwhelming minority support in doing so.

Firstly this is completely untrue

More liberals have voted for him to any other republican candidate in how long?

Newsletters get trivialized in front of Obama's support for Indefinate Detention to so many liberals

you are supporting than nothing more than a facade

Don't expect truth from him.

He spends all his time on ATS trying to prove Paul is a scum bag and a racist.

It's not even about the politics anymore, sadly that's how it is all over the country AND in DC.

Pretty much makes me sick to see someone with so much venom towards a man that just wants to abide by the true law.

I mean look at his avatar, the guy obviously doesn't really know fiction from reality.

I'm sorry TF, but your campaign against RP is weak. It's the same things over and over, and not really talking about the issues at all.

gladtobehere

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 08:36 AM

link

Liberals, dont vote for the only candidate opposed to racial profiling. That would be err racist?

Ron Paul: the Only Candidate to Condemn Racial Profiling at CNN Debate

proximo

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 09:35 AM

link

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

How does giving the states the power to write their own laws and not be beholden to federal laws racist?

Giving States the power to mandate or segregate Americans by race is by nature racist. Ron Paul opposes the decision regarding Brown vs the board of education of 54'. He claims this is about restoring rights to the States, but really this is for the part about at core his racist beliefs. When it comes down to it, if you truly valued the rights of the individual, you would ensure those rights are protected from all forces, State and Federal. It is a apparent that Ron Paul does not, by his positions. It is very apparent that he has a total diregard for protecting the rights of the individual regardless of race. You don't see Paul's positions as racist? Well that's fine, you'll have a very hard time convincing most folks in the mainstream.

I'd assume he'd also want to restore the power of States to enforce slavery? Or to declare all black Americans non-persons and therefore not eligible for citizenship regardless? Shall we literally restore power back the States? Really? Why not dissolve the Union while your at it?

Giving the states the power to potentially write racist laws is racist? That is irrational, that is like saying cars have the ability to kill people, therefore people driving cars are likely to murder people and cars should be banned. You are telling me you really believe if states are given the power to write laws without oversight from the feds, that at least some of them are going to re institute segregation or slavery? I don't think you really believe that. This is a ridiculous straw man argument.

What is far more likely is that things like gay marriage, and drug legalization will actually be made legal in some states and stick.

As recently as 2003, the State of Texas was regulating what two consenting adults did in the privacy of their own laws. See Lawrence vs Texas, Ron Paul considered this 'States right' as well. Ron Paul supports maximizing the power of the State governments, even if it is at the expense of the individual. The policies that he and his supporters hold are far from giving back more control to the individual.

What I don't think you get is that if states are given total control, your liberal utopia is all but guaranteed to be created. Instead of focusing on this positive you would rather focus on the fact that conservatives might also get a state that aligns to their beliefs. It would basically setup competition between the states, and the best ideas would win out by virtue of people and businesses moving there. I think what you are really worried about is your ideals would not ultimately win out in a free marketplace.

Quetzalcoatl12

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 10:05 AM

link

Excellent points proximo.

However what really strikes me is the amount of venom on this thread from the extreme anti-Paul fanatics and the extreme Paul supporters. Emotions are playing more a factor than the actual facts from both sides. Damn TPTB really have done a number on us huh

Even on a conspiracy site such as ATS, you still label yourselves as Liberals and Conservatives. Interesting>

proximo

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 10:33 AM

link

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl12
Excellent points proximo.

However what really strikes me is the amount of venom on this thread from the extreme anti-Paul fanatics and the extreme Paul supporters. Emotions are playing more a factor than the actual facts from both sides. Damn TPTB really have done a number on us huh

Even on a conspiracy site such as ATS, you still label yourselves as Liberals and Conservatives. Interesting>

I don't consider myself conservative or liberal I am actually fiscally conservative and socially liberal, so I don't really fit in either one - nor do I want to. I am merely trying to respond to southern guardian in a language they seem to relate to.

krossfyter

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 01:10 PM

link

ok so under a paul administration... the free market would take place and states would be competing.

one state... say california would legalize marijuana

texas wont.

california would make money from this and the economy would boom there because of it.

texas sees dollar signs and legalizes marijuana?

this a possibility?

edit on 27-12-2011 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)

Southern Guardian

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 01:46 PM

link

Originally posted by proximo
Giving the states the power to potentially write racist laws is racist?

Yep, it takes a measure of personal racism to support giving States the power to enforce laws that invade upon individual liberty on grounds of race. The excuse that this is just maximizing States rights is nonsense.

I assume you'd support protecting the right of State governments to segregate Americans by race right?

Instead of focusing on this positive you would rather focus on the fact that conservatives might also get a state that aligns to their beliefs.

Why must I ignore the negatives? The fact that over the course of history it took the actions of the Federal government to end slavery, to end jim crow laws, because the State governments were clearly corrupt and incapable of protecting individual liberties, says alot to me about entrusting such powers to State governments.

Do you support protecting individual liberties and rights first? Or do you support protecting States rights first? Please, answer this question for me.

EarthCitizen07

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:00 PM

link

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by antonia
I'm confused, last I checked you didn't even like liberals. Why are you worried about who they vote for?

I like liberals, they make great targets

It's not the vote but the approach to cries of racism that I find hypocritical.

Except it is moderate right wingers "smearing" far right wingers. That is the hypocritical part! Everyone else just sits on the sidelines and laughs hysterically. The liberals, progressives and communists could not give one iota about republicans or libertarians...both are outdated and work for the elite!

A civil war among right wingers. What could be better? I hope it continues to the end so that the democrats win a landslide victory. And I am not even a democrat but at least they are closer to me then these JOKERS!

Annee

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:11 PM

link

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But he wants to overturn Roe V Wade and allow states to make abortion illegal... As a woman, I don't feel that he places MY freedom and liberty very highly... The more I learn about him and his followers, the less I like him.

Yeah! I think way too many put too much into states rights. I can see it in specifics - such as: agriculture - flood control - highway maintenance - etc.

But not Equal Rights. Equal Rights should be Federal. Marriage should be Federal (at one time there may have been a reason for marriage to be a state right - - but not anymore).

I don't support Libertarian either. I'm not Liberal - - I consider myself a logical Progressive. I find the concept of Isolationism in today's world ridiculous.

Bombing Brown people? What the hell does the color of their skin have to do with politics?

ModernAcademia

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:24 PM

link

Originally posted by Annee
But not Equal Rights. Equal Rights should be Federal. Marriage should be Federal

The federal govt. can take rights away as fast as they can give them out

Originally posted by Annee
I find the concept of Isolationism in today's world ridiculous.

What does isolationism have anythign to do with this?
Are you parroting McCain?

Originally posted by Annee
Bombing Brown people? What the hell does the color of their skin have to do with politics?

What does the drug war have to do with skin color?
Oh
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There you go

Annee

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:37 PM

link

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
The federal govt. can take rights away as fast as they can give them out

So can states. Federal Equal Rights might prevent removal of state judges that voted for equal gay rights.

What does isolationism have anything to do with this? Are you parroting McCain?

I have no idea what McCain thinks about isolationism. As I stated - I am a logical Progressive. Logic to me is the natural progression to a One World Federation (legitimate not NWO conspiracy). Ever seen Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot"? How ridiculous are we?

Originally posted by Annee

What does the drug war have to do with skin color?

Drugs are global.

Annee

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link

Obama is bombing brown people every fracking day, innocent brown peopel
Ron Paul wants to end this

The drug war, so many minorities going to jail for non-violent crimes
THIS IS NOT A DRUG LEGALIZATION THREAD FYI

Please explain this again.

Who exactly is Obama bombing?

Skin color makes someone a minority? Last I heard whites are the minority in America.

Gee - maybe economic factors - society and culture - - - has something to do with creating a "labeled" minority group.

Anyway - - - I stated why I don't vote for Libertarians.

ModernAcademia

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link

Originally posted by Annee
So can states. Federal Equal Rights might prevent removal of state judges that voted for equal gay rights.

State power means state level protests will be way more effective
politicians want to be re-elected

It's way easier to control groups on a federal level than it is on a state level

krossfyter

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by Annee
So can states. Federal Equal Rights might prevent removal of state judges that voted for equal gay rights.

State power means state level protests will be way more effective
politicians want to be re-elected

It's way easier to control groups on a federal level than it is on a state level

you mean its way easier to control groups on state level than federal?

EarthCitizen07

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by Annee
So can states. Federal Equal Rights might prevent removal of state judges that voted for equal gay rights.

State power means state level protests will be way more effective
politicians want to be re-elected.

It's way easier to control groups on a federal level than it is on a state level

One can argue all day long if america is a federation of states or a union of states, but the bottom line is the federal government funds all the states that follow interstate commerce laws and other regulations. The federal government is supreme to state law, not the other way around.

Now if you say states should have more power that is certainly a possiblity, but the devil is in the details and I fear while some states may have favorable legislation others will exploit the chance to create racist, homophobic, isolationist policies. As they say the sword cuts both ways............

In other words I am not totally pro or con more state law. It is a complex topic!

proximo

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by proximo
Giving the states the power to potentially write racist laws is racist?

Yep, it takes a measure of personal racism to support giving States the power to enforce laws that invade upon individual liberty on grounds of race. The excuse that this is just maximizing States rights is nonsense.

I assume you'd support protecting the right of State governments to segregate Americans by race right?

Ok, so the states also have the right to pass a law that said child molestation was legal, so I guess by your logic then the state is pro child molestation just because they have the ability to legalize it. Do you not see how stupid your argument is?

Would I personally support segregation, No I would never support that. Do I think there is a chance that will ever be a real concern, well only chance would be if we get attacked, and people blame a race instead of the perpetrators. I guess this is possible, because as you tend to demonstrate in your posts, people tend to react on emotion and not logic. That did happen in WWII with the Japanese. I would like to think we have progressed but I know better.

Would I accept it if the people voted for such a law, well yes I would have to, but I would work within the system to try and get that changed, or move to a different state.

Instead of focusing on this positive you would rather focus on the fact that conservatives might also get a state that aligns to their beliefs.

Why must I ignore the negatives? The fact that over the course of history it took the actions of the Federal government to end slavery, to end jim crow laws, because the State governments were clearly corrupt and incapable of protecting individual liberties, says alot to me about entrusting such powers to State governments.

The reason you should ignore the negatives is this is the real world - nothing is black and white, there is no perfect answer to anything, and you will never ever get everyone to agree politically. I find this idea that we would still have slavery and segregation if not for the federal government laughable. You really over estimate the amount of racism that exists, most of the racists left today are retired or dieing. Stop looking at the past, look at current hot button issues like gay marriage and drug legalization, it is the federal government that is restricting them, if anything we would progress faster if individual states gained more power.

Limiting a governments power is always a good thing, the more power one holds, the more corruption there will be, Absolute power corrupts abosolutly. That is the same reason our constitution set up the three branches of government as a check on any entities power, and wanted to limit the federal governments powers to matters of defense and trade.

Do you support protecting individual liberties and rights first? Or do you support protecting States rights first? Please, answer this question for me.

Well I support both and I think the question makes no sense. The federal government has every bit as much power to take away individual rights as the states would. I would argue the federal government has more power, since you could simply move to a different state if your liberties were removed in the one you were residing in, but under a federal law you would have to leave the country.

Annee

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Now if you say states should have more power that is certainly a possibility, but the devil is in the details and I fear while some states may have favorable legislation others will exploit the chance to create racist, homophobic, isolationist policies. As they say the sword cuts both ways............

Yes! And they have.

Which is why I stand for all Equal Civil Rights - - being federal. That includes Marriage rights.

Geographic and weather patterns are state specific - so they (and all related issues) are something that needs to be states rights. Gun laws/hunting regulations - etc. Concrete things that are specific to the area.

Annee

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by Annee
So can states. Federal Equal Rights might prevent removal of state judges that voted for equal gay rights.

State power means state level protests will be way more effective
politicians want to be re-elected

It's way easier to control groups on a federal level than it is on a state level

I do not support it if it involves Equal Civil Rights. Those are not state issues.

Control? So - dominate religious states control those who are not religious. Not OK.

Annee

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link

Originally posted by proximo
Ok, so the states also have the right to pass a law that said child molestation was legal, so I guess by your logic then the state is pro child molestation just because they have the ability to legalize it. Do you not see how stupid your argument is?

That's an argument?

How about "what can happen - will happen".

ModernAcademia

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link

Originally posted by Annee
Control? So - dominate religious states control those who are not religious. Not OK.

Correct!
NOT OK!

Even WORSE if on a federal level

that's when you go to your LOCAL representative's office without having to fly to Washington

See the diff?