It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rawstory Managing Director: "Ron Paul Wants The States To Be Able To Discriminate"

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   


Ok this is pure political madness

So if you listen and watch the video the guy is basically saying Ron Paul wants the states to be able to discrimate and perhaps eventually put gays in jail or kill them.
Then he talks about journalistic responsibilities?

What stops me from flipping that around and saying
"I will vote for Obama, because that will allow Washington to discriminate on the federal level and put gays in jail NATIONWIDE!"

What stops me from saying that?
edit on 31-12-2011 by ModernAcademia because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Ron Paul wants to return the power to the individual states and remove federal control over everything.. Which by the way is how the government was INTENDED to operate.

Right now the federal government has power over the states on virtually all things, and that is not the way the government was set up to function.. Ron is a constitutionalists and his goal is to give back that control.

This guy is basically being a sensationalist.. just because the states would suddenly have more power doesn't mean that they'd all degenerate back to owning slaves and segregating bathrooms again, that is just an insane thing to suggest..

It's sort of like Ron's view on drugs.. the government has no authority to tell you what you can put in your body, that isn't constitutional .. just because he would take away federal criminalization of such things does not mean that A) everyone would suddenly go snorting coc aine or B) that local state government would allow it anyway

People seem to have no rational thought on what it ACTUALLY means to return to the constitution



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Great Catch here! I'm still wondering how we;re supposed to be totally outraged at Ron Paul for being the beneficiary of this Reverend's endorsement? Weren't we told ad naseum after the hateful rhetoric of an different Rev. in 2008 that one should never be judged by such things..even when they've endorsed the Religious speech by 20 years of loyal attendence, as opposed to a single bad endorsement issue?

Hmm.... Hypocrisy there NBC? Just a little maybe?

The Rev. here sounds like a scumbag, on closer inspection but what is Paul or ANY of them for that matter, supposed to do on people endorsing them?? Should it now be enough to just get an unknown guy of the David Duke flavor to endorse a candidate and by that alone, shoot the chances of the Candidate? Oh neat... Just when I think the campaign it hitting near bottom, I'm reminded we haven't seen anything yet.

Thanks for reminding me why I look upon all MSM as rather weak and humorous attempts at real news delivery. Maybe with more practice....naww, these turkeys still couldn't report news. They just don't know the difference from their personal bias anymore.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Slander is as slander does. The Paul campaign sees an endorsement from a 'preacher' and thanks him. The press digs in to it and finds an extreme view of the 'preacher' and then associates that to the Paul campaign. The Paul campaign removes their thanks to the 'preacher' after learning of it and the press takes that as a 'cover-up'. I suppose the only correct thing to do is hire an investigator on every single person that endorses you before accepting it?

Too bad MSNBC didn't think it noteworthy to investigate the people that endorsed Obama - they might have found some ACTUAL murderers.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
This stuff doesn't matter though. A) Its MSNBC. B) If you hate Ron Paul because there is an (R) next to his name or because there isn't a Czar lined up to work with him then you'll eat up every negative thing said about him and turn your brain off, if you are open to his message of liberty then you'll see through the smear campaign. In effect, the only people bolstered by these lies are the ones trying to dig them up for their own agenda.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Well Rawstory, it's been real, but not real fun. You turned into a whiny, agenda-driven liberal rag anyway. The end. Out of my bookmarks, and I'll never post another rawstory again. Ha. Too bad the other 83% of ATS that supports Ron Paul doesn't do the same. ATS boycott on Rawstory. Sounds good to me.

If they are going to distort the truth to that point, then what good are they as a news organization? Rawstory sold out. Used to be a cool little place. Big government and big business suck. They always ruin everything for that last dollar. :shk:

I've been noticing they've been picking their RP stories very carefully, and they are all bad.

Kiss it, Rawstory.

edit on Sat Dec 31st 2011 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
An online friend of mine showed me a related article that interview and it led me to Raw Story and this video with a really hyperbolic article and I was like "not again", because it seems like they've been doing hit pieces or tabloid journalism about Ron Paul. Then I found out their managing director, this Mike somebody totally trashed Ron Paul and his supporters on the Ed Shultz show.

That site has some hateful people. I thought Huffington Post was bad but Raw Story is trash. It's almost like they hate everyone who is not a self described "Socialist" or Obama/ Bernie Sanders supporter.

The stuff this Michael guy said on that video is totally uncalled for. I think Ron Paul fans should never post on that site ever or never even link to that site out of protest for this obvious slander and the other stuff going on there recently.

I think a lot of people who are I guess "Libertarian" or "Independent" Ron Paul supporters go there.
I hope word gets out about that place and some sort of online 'protest' goes viral. People should protest websites like they do physical locations.

Add in Huffington Post while we're at it too.




posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 



I wrote my reply before seeing what you posted. I agree wholeheartedly. Boycott Rawstory. I think every Ron Paul supporter should never link to their, visit there, even speak about that place.

Trust me, that site will feel it since a lot a "Left" Libertarians read that site a lot.

And with this video of their Director slandering us I think it's clear Raw Story is Anti Ron Paul and his supporters. It couldn't be any more clear.

Good post.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
When Lawrence vs. Texas was decided by the Supreme Court making sodomy no longer illegal, I remember one of the lawyers who wanted the sodomy laws overturned going on t.v. and assuring people who were concerned that this could possibly lead someday to gay marriage, that that would never happen. Now we have this preacher who supposedly wants to make being gay a crime and supposedly Ron Paul going along with the state's having the right to decide this. This is what happens when common sense goes out the window. If they had just left sodomy illegal, the gays would have stayed in the closet and not started hammering about 'marriage equality' and then no one would be talking about wanting to outlaw them. The middle ground is best just left alone.

The people who feared overturning sodomy laws would lead to gay marriage were right and the lawyer who reassured them there was nothing to worry about lied. And now that the gays have pushed so far, society might start to push back. They should have just left it alone.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Hillarie
 


The "gays" are not gay because they were allowed to have 'sodomy'. They didn't want marriage so they could have sex. They wanted a RIGHT that all of us have to love someone and have the same benefits us straight people do with that person. If you've ever known gay people from their early years you would know it's NOT a 'decision' to be gay. They don't have 'sodomy' sex and then realize "oh man I need more of this stuff I'm becoming gayer by the second'

Your post sounds like the most ridiculous back woods view of the matter. As if it's the SEX that makes one gay.

Anyways I'm on a tangent. I still think Rawstory is crap and should be boycotted.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 



So if you listen and watch the video the guy is basically saying Ron Paul wants the states to be able to discrimate


He does.

If you don't know this about Ron Paul...then maybe you need to look into him some more.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


aww jeez. Another lie.


He just wants the issue to be a states rights issue, not a federal issue. Like it should be according to the Constitution. And thank God we have someone like him to at least be aware of the power grabbing that has been going on, rather the slanderers like you who just want to bring him down at any cost.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 



So if you listen and watch the video the guy is basically saying Ron Paul wants the states to be able to discrimate


He does.

If you don't know this about Ron Paul...then maybe you need to look into him some more.



6 out of 50 States already have Gay Marriage as recognized and legal.

So what's the deal with the other 44 and their State legislatures?

Are you saying States ALREADY don't 'discriminate' on their own? Because I got 44 of them that say you're wrong.

Ron Paul's position is no different than what the Status Quo has been...EXCEPT for one part.

He'll make sure the Federal Government abides by the States law on what it decides and their jurisdiction is null.

Ron Paul's position is actually more 'progressive' than any current law or sentiment, even Obama's.

Weird huh? For the so called "Anti Gay" candidate?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


aww jeez. Another lie.


He just wants the issue to be a states rights issue, not a federal issue. Like it should be according to the Constitution. And thank God we have someone like him to at least be aware of the power grabbing that has been going on, rather the slanderers like you who just want to bring him down at any cost.


Ok...let's expand this logic.

Current federal allow prohibits discrimination. So current state discrimination is not allowed.

If it is given to the States, which means the future state COULD allow discrimination.

Now...if someone wants to move from a system where discrimination is prohibited to a system where it is possible...I would say that means Ron Paul wants to move to a system where the States are able to discriminate.

There is no lie in this...Ron Paul wants a system where the States are ABLE to discriminate. The quote doesn't say "Ron Paul wants the States to discriminate"...he wants them to BE ABLE to discriminate.

I don't see how you deny it...he calls it "States rights"...and that translates to that he wants them to BE ABLE to decide if they want to discriminate.

No lies...only Ron Paul's own position on the matter.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by PaxVeritas
 



6 out of 50 States already have Gay Marriage as recognized and legal.


Which is a perfect example of why Ron Paul's stance is wrong in my opinion. "Gays" are only equal in 6 out of our 50 States....that is not right.

The Federal government should pass a law that grants "gay rights" so that individual states can't take that away from them.

Your argument is a pure argument AGAINST Ron Paul...I'm not sure you realize that.
edit on 31-12-2011 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 





Current federal allow prohibits discrimination. So current state discrimination is not allowed.


Arguably current federal discrimination is not allowed either, and yet the federal government discriminates anyway. The FDA is engaged in a war on raw milk distributors, "alternative" medicine distributors and various other groups of people who do not conform to current federal "standards". The FEC - up until the SCOTUS struck down the Bipartisan Finance Campaign Reform Act (a portion of it) - was claiming the authority to suppress political speech, and let's not pretend that under the BFCRA unincorporated flesh and blood individuals were not under the same attack by this legislation that any corporation was.

The DEA discriminates against a certain type of distributor and even consumers of a particular class of products consistently in high demand. However, and this is very important to understand, all of that gross usurpation of power by the federal government that has a demonstrable effect of discriminatory practices doesn't hold a candle to the most recent odious piece of dung Congress called legislation and the current President signed into "law", which is the NDAA which is, astoundingly, the federal government authorizing them themselves the power to discriminate against any person they may so whimsically care to, and fully disregard due process of law and engage in any number of rights violations including the right to life.




edit on 31-12-2011 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Hate to tell you, but the states already do, with welfare it is very noticeable, now it would just be out in the open, and hell, maybe in some states I would Actually get help when I NEED it because they may discriminate for me instead of against me, especially in the south. Oh and Affirmative Action is definately discriminatory in my opinion. So now it will just not be called what it isn't but be regarded as what it IS.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by PaxVeritas
 



6 out of 50 States already have Gay Marriage as recognized and legal.


Which is a perfect example of why Ron Paul's stance is wrong in my opinion. "Gays" are only equal in 6 out of our 50 States....that is not right.



Agreed to the second part.




The Federal government should pass a law that grants "gay rights" so that individual states can't take that away from them.



But it doesn't HAVE that right. That's an Article 1 Section 8 or 10th Amendment issue. Saying what SHOULD and CAN be are two different things. You cannot legally bind a State to respect a Federal Law unless the Superior Court hears it and judges on a different interpretation or you make an entire Amendment to it. No President has suggested or tackled it because they all KNOW it's not a Constitutional ability on it's own.





Your argument is a pure argument AGAINST Ron Paul...I'm not sure you realize that



That's because as you stated above in your response to the other poster you see Ron Paul's view on the matter as "Anti Gay", when in fact every single President up till present HAS to be "Anti Gay" in that aspect because the power is not GRANTED by the Federal Government.

You're simply wishing for Paul to do something he can't do, and which no other President can or has. So you hold Paul's platform to a stringent standard when he is just reiterating the Constitution. And THAT is because of your bias against him. Hence you don't see the argument rationally or legally.

And from what I've read of you above, you think Paul wants "State's to discriminate" when the States' already do. He didn't invent the notion. And he also doesn't want Gay people to be punished or infringed upon, or blacks to be able to be lynched or slavery to come back.

Where do all these hyperbolic and sensationalist notions come from? What fear makes those that believe like you so scared he's a Tyrant like that? I've seriously been trying to figure it out because no literature or video or speech has anything close to what I'm hearing from people who oppose him.

It's like he's Hitler in the imaginations of some... when I feel I'm looking at Jefferson. I really don't get the disconnect.




edit on 31-12-2011 by PaxVeritas because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-12-2011 by PaxVeritas because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Although a Semi-Supporter of Ron Paul, I have to say TA, that yes, he does in fact wish for a country where the state may decide to discriminate, at the will of the people.

That's true states rights. He doesn't WANT them to discriminate, but the freedom to do so, as given to them by the constitution is what he wants.

Providing freedoms to people, doesn't mean just giving them to those we consider "good". People who want to do bad things with those freedoms will do so. It'll be up to the people at the point, to decide whether or not they will allow this in their state.

Effectively people will start voting with their U-Haul's. Like minded individuals will group together and make the rules they want. Which was the original intent of having the states in control anyway. The Federal Government should be there for essential services, and nothing else.

~Keeper

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
this drives me absolutely insane, how can they even pretend???

and generalizing ron pauls supporters like that, seriously disturbing, just like they did to OWS.

any movement that challenges the status quo with intelligence is instantly linked with something degrading.
edit on 31-12-2011 by yourmaker because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join