OMG Ron Paul is Crushing Them in New Hampshire

When the man who wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act called MLK Jr. his hero, I felt a little sick to my stomach.

reply to post by Kafternin


Well, obviously you have very little understanding of why he said he wouldn't have voted for it (not repeal it, pay attention) and why his logic is absolutely sound.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Kafternin

 

Well, obviously you have very little understanding of why he said he wouldn't have voted for it (not repeal it, pay attention) and why his logic is absolutely sound.

edit on 8-1-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

Obviously you and Ron Paul have very little understanding of why MLK jr. fought so hard FOR IT then? I said he wants to repeal it, not that he would have repealed it. Are you suggesting I am wrong in that? He just would not have voted for it? There is not footage of his saying he wants to put an end to it? Are you really sure about that?

Now tell me you honestly think his hero MLK would have really embraced the idea of not supporting something he eventually gave his life for?

Originally posted by Kafternin

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Kafternin

 

Well, obviously you have very little understanding of why he said he wouldn't have voted for it (not repeal it, pay attention) and why his logic is absolutely sound.

edit on 8-1-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

Obviously you and Ron Paul have very little understanding of why MLK jr. fought so hard FOR IT then? I said he wants to repeal it, not that he would have repealed it. Are you suggesting I am wrong in that? He just would not have voted for it? There is not footage of his saying he wants to put an end to it? Are you really sure about that?

Now tell me you honestly think his hero MLK would have really embraced the idea of not supporting something he eventually gave his life for?

Wow you joined just yesterday to troll Ron Paul threads? I looked at your posting history and since you have become a member 24hrs ago that is all you have done. If you have proof that Ron Paul said he would repeal the Civil Rights act then go ahead and post up the video of it, or credible reference. Until then you are just another troll.

Originally posted by SpaDe_



Wow you joined just yesterday to troll Ron Paul threads? I looked at your posting history and since you have become a member 24hrs ago that is all you have done.

You are right I just signed up yesterday. Which makes your lie that much more obvious. Why would you do that? Of the few posts I have, some of them are about Ron Paul. Some of them are not. Not much of a pool as of yet but Ron Paul is far from the only thing I posted about so far. How did you check? I mean, because you failed miserably.

If you have proof that Ron Paul said he would repeal the Civil Rights act then go ahead and post up the video of it, or credible reference. Until then you are just another troll.

In an interview with Candy Crowley on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, Ron Paul slammed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, saying it “undermine[d] the concept of liberty” and “destroyed the principle of private property and private choices.”

“If you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can’t do, and you ignore and undermine the principles of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms,” Paul explained. “And that’s exactly what has happened. Look at what’s happened with the PATRIOT Act. They can come into our houses, our bedrooms our businesses … And it was started back then.”

He compares it to the patriot act here. So you are going to have to decide, does he support the CRA and the Patriot Act or neither? Because in this interview where he explains why he would do away with it, that is what he says.
www.mediaite.com... andy-crowley-civil-rights-act-destroyed-privacy/

The only thing I support is the truth.

reply to post by SpaDe_


Instead of being attack dogs, how about you try helping your guy out a little? It seems the more I point out how mean and snarly you all can be, the more I just get attacked. How about you pretend you are out helping Ron Paul at a booth somewhere. I am curious. I might want to support your guy. I have some questions like what does Ron Paul say true libertarians would do with the CRA if given the power to repeal it?
Now pretend you want me to vote for Paul and at the same time, do not lie to get me to do it. Try to be nice. See how that works.

I am also curious, Ron Paul says the CRA trampled personal property rights. How so and which ones?

reply to post by Kafternin


You said specifically that Ron Paul would REPEAL it. It doesn't say anything about that in your source. For someone who is just about the truth you sure lack bringing it forward. Maybe you should change your statement? As far as your posting history, a simple look at it shows your intention. Nice try though.


ETA: This is your 4th post after joining this site:

Ron Paul has been a politician longer than I have been alive and all he has ever accomplished with that is getting himself rich. I see no accomplishments for the people anywhere. I see he makes a nice sum after each failed run for president as well. Career politician who has done nothing but enrich himself the entire time. He is the real deal alright, just like the rest of them.

Again for someone who is just about truth..................

reply to post by squidboy

Settle down.

Romney on Healthcare? How so? Ever been to Mass? It's the blueprint for Obamacare... Also.. I forget how many states are fighting Obamacare in the courts, but it's substantial.-Squidboy

Romney will be crushed by Obama on this issue . Maybe reread what I poted? I said as much. Repubs are against Obamacare and BECAUSE Romney passed a similar healthcare ill in Mass., he can't debate with Obama on this issue.

reply to post by Kafternin


just recheck your facts..

and pay attention to what he actually says himself...

cant be so hard can it..


talk about denying ignorance....

reply to post by Kafternin


He said he wouldn't have voted for it, he didn't say he would repeal it.. that wouldn't fly and he knows that.

Here is where you are being dense and letting it show that you are still apparently in grade school. He said he wouldn't have voted for the civil rights act. That means as it was. Is it so hard to understand that maybe if there were changes he would have voted for it? As it was he wouldn't have voted for it.. doesn't mean he wouldn't have voted for another civil rights act. The reason he is opposed is because it takes away the rights of business owners over their property. Do you deny that? It is now for the most part obsolete. I think if someone wants to run a business and say certain people can't come in.. so be it. If they want to be racists, they will run their business into the ground or be run out of town, good riddance. Everyone would have the same rights though. That means a black business owner could deny service to a neo nazi. It gives people control where the government had taken it away.

Get your facts straight and learn to think without the box.

reply to post by Kafternin


Every time our government passes a new "act," it seems to give more rights to one group by taking away from another. They make these "acts" sound good so the public accepts them but hidden in their lengthy verbiage are things that remove rights from one group in order to give them to another and that's what Ron Paul is against.

No American, no matter who they are or where they come from, should have less or more rights than another.

I am also curious, Ron Paul says the CRA trampled personal property rights. How so and which ones?

Well, if the CRA says that a private establishment has no choice in who they allow in their establishment, that seems to be a trampling of personal property rights, does it not? With all its good intentions, if you strip away the sunshine and lollipops, it is still taking away the rights of one to give to another.

I’m not against the Civil Rights Act and believe it was important and did a lot of good. Sometimes the good does outweigh the bad but as a property owner, do I not have the right to say who I want on my property?

Two examples of acts that were passed that sound really good but are anything but are No Child Left Behind and Affirmative Action.

Lately, they’re getting pretty sloppy with their acts and the damage they could cause is getting pretty obvious; ie: The Patriot Act, NDAA, PIPA, SOPA. They just keep getting worse and worse and with each one that’s brought to the table and passed, more and more of your rights are stripped away either in the name of giving more rights to someone else at your expense or your “safety and security.”

So what's it going to be? More of the same or possibly, just maybe, someone who actually cares what happens to this country?

I don't have any in-the-clouds belief that Ron Paul can just "poof" change things overnight but I do believe, if he is true to his word and is real, that maybe he can get America heading in the right direction again. No one man can just change things like magic but if you get the right man in power, he can significantly help turn things around. I can only vote for who I believe could try to make the most difference.

If he is actually elected or even just nominated to run, I might gain some hope back that we still do have a choice. I'm not sure I believe that today but just the fact that he's running and gaining so much ground leads me to believe there is still a sliver of hope to cling to that our children and their children might yet have a future.

Originally posted by squidboy
More importantly, How is Obama going to defend signing NDAA in? Oh that's right... The only Candidate on the GOP that would probably bring that to the table is Paul. I'm also willing to bet Paul would bring up the whole assassinating American Citizens thing as well....

That pretty much sums it up. When it comes right down to it, Obama and all of the republican contenders support the NDAA; TARP and the bank bailouts; billions in foreign aid when the number of unemployed and homeless in this country increases; the endless wars draining our economy and sacrificing our country's best young people; the relentless intrusion by the federal government into every aspect of our lives; a fiat currency system controlled by an international banking cartel; and generally ignoring the Constitution when it conflicts with the interests of the federal government.

Aside from Ron Paul, there is no republican contender that would have done anything significantly different than what Barak Obama has done in the past three years. Media outlets derive their income from corporations that profit from the aforementioned points, so it is in their best interests that the points aren't examined in too much detail.

Rather than discuss these points, it's easier to try to paint him as a dangerous crackpot, a racist, an anti-semite, or whatever else they can think of. The more time he has to spend answering those charges, the less time he has to explain why the path we are on can only lead to the US becoming a larger version of North Korea.

What saddens me is that so many people fall for it. They really think Ron Paul is going to abolish the 13th Amendment, re-institue slavery, set up concentration camps for Jews, give nuclear weapons to Iran, isolate us from our allies, or whatever doom and gloom scenario they are told to imagine.

If Ron Paul gets the black vote, it is all over.

All over for the criminal establishment, that is.

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
If Ron Paul gets the black vote, it is all over.

All over for the criminal establishment, that is.

edit on 8-1-2012 by SurrealisticPillow because: (no reason given)

That is a great video. I love this.

The feeble old man with the squeaky voice only makes everyone wish he would shut up so the headache his ranting starts will subside. Most annoying talker of all time.
He is knowing his role though by attacking Newt and the gang for Romney.
Like the GOP chairman alluded to the other day, Ron Paul is a loyal Republican because the Party is holding his son's political career as hostage. Ron Paul is a loser, the fix is so obviously in to ensure that.

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused

I am also curious, Ron Paul says the CRA trampled personal property rights. How so and which ones?

Well, if the CRA says that a private establishment has no choice in who they allow in their establishment, that seems to be a trampling of personal property rights, does it not? With all its good intentions, if you strip away the sunshine and lollipops, it is still taking away the rights of one to give to another.

That is not true at all and thus is the underlying problem. The CRA did nothing to erode your right to refuse service to anyone you wish on an individual basis. The only thing it prevented was from blanket banning entire races.

You still have the right to refuse service to anyone you wish.
You do not have the right to refuse service to an entire race based solely on it being an entire race.

Please argue against that for me.

You actually propose that the CRA took rights away from people but cannot explain exactly what rights? All you can do is describe the right of a white business owner to discriminate based solely on race.

Not really helping Ron Paul out there pal.

Originally posted by SpaDe_
reply to post by Kafternin

 

You said specifically that Ron Paul would REPEAL it. It doesn't say anything about that in your source.

Yes it does, you just have to actually read it. Let me guess you just looked for the word repeal?

For someone who is just about the truth you sure lack bringing it forward.

Show me where I have posted something untrue.

Maybe you should change your statement? As far as your posting history, a simple look at it shows your intention. Nice try though.

That I am not a birther, I agree with the conservatives about healthcare, and I do not love Ron Paul fans rabid attack style of covering for the doddering old man to the tune of about 1 out of every 10 threads? Amazing job, Sherlock.

ETA: This is your 4th post after joining this site:

Ron Paul has been a politician longer than I have been alive and all he has ever accomplished with that is getting himself rich. I see no accomplishments for the people anywhere. I see he makes a nice sum after each failed run for president as well. Career politician who has done nothing but enrich himself the entire time. He is the real deal alright, just like the rest of them.

Again for someone who is just about truth..................

edit on 1/8/2012 by SpaDe_ because: (no reason given)

What about it is not true?
It is one thing to post emoticons and laugh at people. It is quite another to actually factually make your point.

Originally posted by Acetradamus
reply to post by Kafternin

 

just recheck your facts..

and pay attention to what he actually says himself...

cant be so hard can it..


talk about denying ignorance....

I would be more than happy to look over whatever opposing quotes you have to offer. Why you assume I have not been paying attention to what he says himself is beyond me. His disdain for the CRA is kind of part of his gig. Do you think I just made it up? Or do you think I got that from listening to him?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Kafternin

 

He said he wouldn't have voted for it, he didn't say he would repeal it.. that wouldn't fly and he knows that.

You seem to think he only mentioned the CRA one time and only had one opinion on it ever. Jesus, do any of you ever read the things he writes or listen to what he actually says? I do. It seems you miss a lot of it.

Here is where you are being dense and letting it show that you are still apparently in grade school. He said he wouldn't have voted for the civil rights act. That means as it was. Is it so hard to understand that maybe if there were changes he would have voted for it?

Here is where you are being insulting and dishonest.
Yes, he said he would not vote for it as it was...

...

...

AND...

HE HAS MADE SEVERAL OTHER STATEMENTS ABOUT THE CRA.

You are clinging so hard to one, just one but it is not working. What about insulting me at the top makes you think I am going to want to hear you out more I wonder?

As it was he wouldn't have voted for it.. doesn't mean he wouldn't have voted for another civil rights act.

Really? Which other one would he have voted for. Certainly not one that did ANY OF THE THINGS THE CRA did. He has made his reasons for not approving of it quite clear. You are being dishonest by pretending there was some mysterious poison pill in there that holy Ron just could not stomach. He flat out said he did not approve of the government forcing businesses to stop discriminating based solely on race.

The reason he is opposed is because it takes away the rights of business owners over their property.

What rights?

Do you deny that?

Yes I do. You have the right to refuse service to anyone you wish with your private business. That is the law. What right did you lose with CRA besides being able to discriminate based solely on race?

PLEASE TELL ME?
No one else can.

It is now for the most part obsolete.

Because of it.

I love that facepalm argument the best. The CRA was never needed because it would not be necessary today because it worked so well when it was needed.

That makes me dizzy.

I think if someone wants to run a business and say certain people can't come in.. so be it.

They can do that now. They cannot just say certain races can't come in just because of what race they are.

Is that the right you are lamenting the loss of? Stormfront has a shirt for you.

If they want to be racists, they will run their business into the ground or be run out of town, good riddance.

Jim Crowe ended because it was bad for business then right? Right? Right?
No.

Everyone would have the same rights though. That means a black business owner could deny service to a neo nazi. It gives people control where the government had taken it away.

Neo Nazi is not a race and you and that black guy can both refuse service to any race neo nazi you like.

Get your facts straight and learn to think without the box.

Funny after you got not a one correct but are the second person to defend Ron Paul in wanting to allow business owners the "right" to discriminate based solely on race, apparently something very important to Ron Paul - not a racist, not the author of the racist Ron Paul newsletters.

Uh huh,

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Here is your argument.

Not racist Ron Paul wants business owners to retain the right to warn off potential customers that they are not wanted based on nothing more than their race.
Ron Paul supporters support him in this because they want this right.
But it is a right they will never exercise because it will be bad for business.

Sure, that makes sense.

So why is it so important to regain this right again?