OMG Ron Paul is Crushing Them in New Hampshire

Don't sugar coat it Ron, tell us how you really feel! Ha. Go RP.

All you youngsters are registered to vote? Right?

And you posters who are protesting by not voting?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

Have you seen a ballot? You could vote for the communists, or the libertarians, the green party, the pink party and on and on. There is a party for everyone and they all run a candidate for president.

GO VOTE!

reply to post by Kafternin

First of all, Ron Paul is not racist.
As for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Paul believes that legislation of this sort gradually destroys liberty and personal choice. Although he willingly admits it did some good, he believes legislation of this sort erodes the freedom of individuals to make their own choices on their own property. What followed was ever increasing intrusions on people to make their own choices about who they associate with and do business with for whatever reasons they may have.
What is left unsaid, is the hypocrisy of those in government that pretend that they are not racist by passing legislation such as this, but belong to an exclusive all white country club in an all white gated subdivision. Or, they steer money to their white friends while increasing burdensome taxes on the poor that are predominantly minorities.

Fortunately, as the video above illustrates, some black people are waking up to the two faced tactics of the progressive governments that pretend to be helping you, while sending your brothers to prison based upon a flawed but profitable drug policy, or to war based upon a flawed but profitable foreign policy.

The argument that Paul is racist is a tactic to tarnish a fine man that is one of a very few true public servants. His principles of liberty are not for sale, he is incorruptible. He has the courage to stand alone. He has treated and helped black people, something a racist would never do. Do you dispute that?

reply to post by Kafternin


Go Ron Paul!! And omg just means Obama Must Go!

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
reply to post by Kafternin

 

First of all, Ron Paul is not racist.
As for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Paul believes that legislation of this sort gradually destroys liberty and personal choice.

I have asked for 3 pages for someone to point out to me what liberties were lost by the CRA.

Only one has been shown to have been lost. The right to discriminate against an entire race. That is the only liberty anyone has shown me they lost. Your argument then must be I should support Ron Paul because...? Yeah, see I am not all that worried about that one lonely little right to discriminate. I do not need it. I do not miss it. I do not have any good reason to get it back.

I have asked several times and many have responded and yet not one of you can point out a single liberty lost by the CRA. When you can do that, you will actually have an argument.

I am not going to have one conversation 45 times with 45 different Paul supporters in the same thread. How about you guys take a break from spamming forums for a moment and read something.

reply to post by Kafternin

Frustrated are you?
Liberty may mean something different to progressives than it does to conservatives.
You called Ron Paul racist. I said that he treats black people, and how could a racist treat black people. Was there some legislation that forced Ron Paul to treat black people? Wouldn't it be required if he was racist?
Answer those questions, oh frustrated one.

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
reply to post by Kafternin

 

Frustrated are you?

Sometimes. I had a sock with a hole in it earlier but already put on my shoe. That frustrates me.

Liberty may mean something different to progressives than it does to conservatives.

I believe I have given more than ample room for any one of you to explain it to me. That is why I asked so many times. Do not tell me it is just something else, maybe, kinda sorta. Explain it to me explicitly or it really does not matter. I already wrote this post out to other posters. You see how boring it gets asking each of you the same question over again right?

You called Ron Paul racist.

I did?
Where was that?

I said that he treats black people, and how could a racist treat black people. Was there some legislation that forced Ron Paul to treat black people?

Yes, the one he still talks about not wanting to support.

Wouldn't it be required if he was racist?
Answer those questions, oh frustrated one.

It is the CRA. He can refuse to treat any patient he wants, he cannot legally just decide not to treat any one race of people based solely on race. IE, he has to treat black people because of a law that we have already covered he would not have voted for and would like to see done away with.

You did not really try to make that argument did you? It actually makes Ron look pretty bad when you put it all together like you just did. Thank you I guess.

Not one poster has been able to explain what liberty was lost by the CRA. Unfortunately that seems to be a rather key component of Ron Paul's argument. He cannot make it. None of his supporters in this thread can make it. I am guessing it is because that argument does not actually exist. I will not ask several more times or keep asking for pages. This more than enough tells me that you are all repeating things without thinking about them because I asked you to think and got nothing back in response but short circuits.

If anyone comes up with that right, I would love to read it. I just hope it is not the same right that has already been brought up and debunked more than once.

reply to post by Kafternin

What liberties were gained by the "CRA"?
You better sharpen your pencil lady.

Well, since it got awful quiet all of the sudden...
The civil rights act was seriously flawed. For one, the act itself discriminated.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) forbids employers with 15 or more employees to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion or national origin.

Employment Law
So, in the wonderful world of federal laws, the threshold of discrimination lies in "15 or more employees".

Perhaps Ron Paul actually READ the law?

Now, understand also, that "sex" was added to the CRA. It isn't all about color, it is about sex as well. My what a slippery slope these sorts of things can slide down.

The History Corner: Was the Addition of Sex to Title VII a Joke? Two Viewpoints

This was the beginning of the end for people to make business decisions based upon things like merit and personal preference. This legislation opened the door to affirmative action to counter the perceived sexism and racism of the white folks.

Edit to add: I have tons of stuff on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Information on the major players in this farce. It seems that the most racist among us are very good at painting others with the white paint.

I've been reading reports and comments about the debate all day. Most supporters seemed to have the same reaction as I did. They were cheering loudly at their TV screen, as Ron Paul was kicking ass, and taking names.

I think I read CBS called Ron Paul a "one bullet assassin"!
Another report called him a "one man wrecking ball".

It was brutal to behold, when Ron Paul said, " I had a wife, and 2 kids, and I went".
EARTH TO NEWT, GAME OVER.

Most of the comments I've seen were overwhelmingly positive, or better, and that's how I felt too. There's no doubt Ron Paul gained votes.

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
reply to post by Kafternin

 

What liberties were gained by the "CRA"?
You better sharpen your pencil lady.

edit on 8-1-2012 by SurrealisticPillow because: Punctuation

Are you #ing serious?
WOW.
I am not sure what kind of person it takes to ask a question like that. Damn. Do you have any clue what the act did? Any at all?

You fat bastard, game over LOL.

www.youtube.com...