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: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by yourmaker
 


Tell every Ron Paul supporter you know to Boycott Raw Story. I've heard others say it and I think it's appropriate.

I think this Mike Rogers character and Raw Story writers have gone over the line of responsible 'journalism' into pure smear tactics.




posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by PaxVeritas
 


A pit off-topic here, but "Gay Rights" is probably the biggest piece of double think in the last 10 years. So is "human rights".

You know that when people apply a label and then insert a noun after it, such as "Black Rights", "Gay Rights", etc, that you are actually just placing a limitation on your rights?

People should not be fighting for any particular "group" to have more rights, we should all have the same rights, regardless of sex, color, sexual orientation etc..

Funny enough Ron Paul's America has that. The Common Law has that.

The only way any of us will be free, is if we all consider ourselves one and the same. Members of the race of man.

~Keeper


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

edit on 12/31/2011 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   





posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I totally agree with your post and wish I stated it like you did. When I say "Gay Rights" I meant the EQUAL right to be seen as a "partner for life" (cough gag yeah right) like us straight people. But I see many of those who oppose that same freedom either with the Church (Gawwwwd) or the Fed. I think it should be a pure legal contract of the State.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
if paul places well in iowa, then he will become the focus of the attack ads

his only hope if to fly under the radar, maybe a 4th place finish

if he finishes 3rd or 2nd, look out, he will get roasted

he published a book and some newsletters awile back that will be the end of his campaign

the end



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


That is was Ron Paul wants. As much as I love him, he's just plain wrong on some instances.

And this is one of them. It doesn't make him a bigot, just deluded in some of his views.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
He does.

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

I've looked into him plenty, even daily

His opposition like yourself often make the same posts though

He's like this or like that but nothing to back it up

Your post is like one-liners losing ATS points
I've even seen one-liners with a 4 word phrase express a point more than your post



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


If they had the same rights, then there would be no push for "gay rights". If gays were allowed to Marry, or they weren't discriminated against.. do you think they would just go to lobby because it's fun?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
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.


I understand what you are saying
But my argumetn in the OP, I know you weren't addressing me, is that you could say the same thing about the Federal Govt. can also discriminate on a federal level

But the video clip starts off with them talking about the reverend which right away puts you in a certain perspective and then they go on to state power/policies.
So it makes the viewer think that the notion of states discriminating is very propbable

I once posted an article on ATS about racist comments on website and then an investigation found out that the comments came from DHS.
So now you may have many racists on the federal level.
But what are you going to do?
Nothing

But power to the states means everyone in that state will feel slightly more affected and they can go protest at their local representative's office, their mayor or governor.
These are people that want to be re-elected

But not everyone will fly to washington, and there's protests daily there
But protests on state levels will be more foucsed and consdensed naturally because every state will have their own issues.
Just my opinion



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by Miraj
 


No you miss the point I am trying to make. People who are disenfranchised and who do not have the same "rights" as everybody else, should be banding together. Not working individually on their separate platforms.

Our rights are all interconnected, nobody should fight alone, everybody should be on everybody's side. That's the point I am trying to make. The "Gay Rights" movement has done more harm than good to the vast majority of individual rights in the world; creating a sub society that is governed in groups by labels.

Individual rights, not blanket rights are the real keys to freedom.

~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 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


If they had the same rights, then there would be no push for "gay rights". If gays were allowed to Marry, or they weren't discriminated against.. do you think they would just go to lobby because it's fun?


Gay people do have the same rights as any other person and the push for "gay rights" is a misguided political movement that serves no one.

No rights are being denied or disparaged by the denial of a marriage license. Legal Definition of License:


The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a Trespass or a tort. The certificate or the document itself that confers permission to engage in otherwise proscribed conduct.


If it is a right then no one need seek permission from anyone in order to exercise that right. I am certain that the act of marriage is a right and not some privilege that people need to seek permission from anyone either than the person they want to marry. The question should never have been why can't gays get a marriage license? The real question is why is anyone acquiescing to a licensing scheme for what is self evidently a right to do? Why are heterosexuals lining up in droves for marriage licenses? Do these people think marriage is a privilege that only the state can grant?

Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Thing is, if you remove the Federal Government's choke hold over the states, you effectively empower the people.

As you said, not everybody can go to Washington to protest, but they sure can go to their state legislature or mayors office or whatever it may be. More power to the states always translates to more power from the people.

Especially when that state congress has the power to recall senators and congressmen/women who vote outside of the state's interests.

States rights is VERY important in a free and open America. The Federal Government has become this disgusting oversight committee that has FAR too much power and no oversight of their own.

To add to your thought, the fact that the Federal Government is given enough power to discriminate against any citizen or group of other government body, legislative or otherwise, is absurd, and really the entire problem.

~Keeper

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

edit on 12/31/2011 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/31/2011 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Thanks to Ron Paul, Gingrich and the other top republican contenders it is nearly time to call this election for Obama


4 more years!


yay





posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
I'm totally tired of the Gay marriage issue myself. I wish the influence of the Church and GOVERNMENT apparatus was abolished and two consenting adults who wish to make each other miserable forever can do so equally.

Sorry if the topic got off of the OP's video. I still insist Raw Story needs to lose all Ron Paul supporters comments because the personal attacks were outrageously false.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
I'm tired of all these politicians bashing on Ron Paul. There's nothing they won't say to discourage future voters from voting for him. All they're doing is just "poisoning the well."



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by PaxVeritas
I still insist Raw Story needs to lose all Ron Paul supporters comments because the personal attacks were outrageously false.


Problem is he's not wrong, he just doesn't understand what he's saying. It happens to a lot of people who don't get drastic policy changes or freedoms for that matter.

Rawstory has the right story, but the wrong interpretation of what RP actually wants to do with such things.

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 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



That's the original Raw Story article:

www.rawstory.com...

In the video:

Ed Shultz : "Ron Paul attracts a fringe element"

Mike Rogers:

Accuses Ron Paul and supporters of wanting a Theocracy
Accuses us of being ANTI "Sharia Law" (wtf?) Like we're anti Muslim? Some of us? Huh?
Accuses Ron Paul and supporters of wanting to make this country a "Biblical" country (wtf?)

The whole tone is that Paul supports this wacky reverend because he's trying to appeal to( in not so few words) the "KKK".

The Raw article even references the SPLC for backup.

It's just gotten ridiculous all around.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
There is nothing false about claiming that Ron Paul supports a states right to legalize discrimination, I've heard him say as much on several occasions with my own ears. He has said that he believes that businesses should have the right to discriminate as well if they so choose. Nothing new about this revelation and this is one of the primary reasons that I cannot support him in the upcoming election.

On another note, Republicans believe in "State's Rights" about as much as I believe in flying pigs. Awful funny how 5 of the republican candidates, (Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann, Huntsman & Santorum) decided to sue Virginia over the state's provisions for a candidate to appear on their state's ballot, claiming that they are unconstitutional. Maybe they meant state's rights for everyone except Virginia?

www.thebostonchannel.com...


(CNN) -- Four candidates left off the Virginia Republican primary ballot joined Rick Perry Saturday in suing the state's board of elections over laws they say are "unconstitutional."
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum joined the lawsuit, originally filed Tuesday, challenging provisions that determine who can appear on the primary ballot.


State's Rights My Ass! The current republican party and everything they stand for is an absolute joke. They are the party of hypocrites, plain & simple.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Rawstory has to make it into a sensational piece of journalism, because sensationalism sells. They focus primarily on Ron Paul wanting states to have the freedom to "fill in the blank", because if they publicize the right "fill in the blank" they stir up controversy, page views, ad profits, readership and blah blah MONEY IN THEIR POCKETS.

Now it's my turn to fill in the blank:

Ron Paul wants states to have the freedom to "make stupid ****ing choices without the Federal Government dictating how you should live your life."

The fact is, if a state makes a stupid ****ing choice and people disagree with it, they can simply go to any of 49 other states who will undoubtedly capitalize on a stupid choice another state made. Does the state who made a stupid choice deserve the consequences?

Yes. You're damn right they do. Some people learn the hard way. Some people never learn anything because they are just fine being ignorant sheep.

Would you look at that! Ron Paul wants you to deny ignorance! Ron Paul wants you to stop being a sheep heading off to the slaughter. If you end up slaughtering yourself, well at least you did it of your own free will.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by PaxVeritas
I'm totally tired of the Gay marriage issue myself. I wish the influence of the Church and GOVERNMENT apparatus was abolished and two consenting adults who wish to make each other miserable forever can do so equally.


I agree wholeheartedly. It's a matter of their personal ability to enjoy equal happiness under the law which is something very deeply important to every single individual. It is no less reasonable than a heterosexual couple's right to seek the happiness of an open bond with their soul mate.

If our states can justify denying something so deeply important to one's personal happiness due to a bias of a larger group of people exercising their power over a smaller group of people because they don't like them then....well consider this can of worms.

The Muslim population in America has been raising and it is not unthinkable that one state could have a majority population of Muslims. Will people fight so hard for the individual state rule if that state decides that women in their state be prohibited from appearing in public dressed in anything less than a full burka? Logically that's only clothes and only in pubic, so it is far less intrinsic to the personal happiness of ones personal bond to their soul mate.




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join