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.

 

Is Ron Paul a racist NWO SOB?

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by MrWendal
How about this... what business does the Supreme Court have to make a ruling on this issue to begin with??


The fourth amendment protects our homes, our persons, our papers and our effects from unreasonable search and seizure. If we feel our privacy is being violated by law, our recourse for Constitutionally-protected rights is the Supreme Court.

Ron Paul sites the fourth amendment PRIVACY as his reason why the Patriot Act is unconstitutional.
By the same logic, any laws against abortion or sodomy would also be unconstitutional. But not by "Ron Paul logic". Apparently he believes abortion and homosexuality are morally wrong and so he would remove federal privacy jurisdiction under these particular cases and would open the door for states making them both illegal.

I have done my research. I strongly considered voting for Paul. But my research is what changed my mind.




And when did "Sodomy" become an act exclusive to gay people??


I didn't say it was. I know what sodomy is. And it's none of Ron Paul's OR the state's business what I do in my bedroom. My privacy is federally protected in the Constitution and it's the president's job to uphold such. Ron Paul has stated that he would not. He's not getting my vote.



SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT. yOU FEEL IT IS THE FED GOV'S ROLE TO LEGISLATE THE ACTS OF IMMORALITY, BUT NOT MORALITY?

hOW DOES ANY OF THIS MAKE SENSE?

You feel the people in the states should be legislated against their own opinions that govern them and it's the feds job to ensure immorality trumps morality and it's definitions? And I am sure you can provide for me your opinion that it's not your personal morality that governs your opinion and that legislating immorality isn't the same as legislating m,orality because you have a secret defin ition that the authors of the 4'th didn't understand?

PUH-LEASE, this is circle-reasoning to the point of becoming dizzy.




posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by manna2
 


Originally posted by manna2
the more posts I read of yours the more I have to question your intent and motives.


My intent and motives in doing what?

Your statement has me curious. What makes you think my intent and motives are any different than anyone else on this board? What do you suspect my intent and motives to be? You don't publicly question the motives of the OP, who suggests that Ron Paul is a racist NWO SOB, or anyone else in the thread... but MY motives for posting my opinions in this thread are different or somehow not acceptable?

Really curious about that statement.



In your quotation of the 4'th I have to ask you to interprete this for me.
What does the word "against" mean to you and what is it's context in the statement?


This Merriam Webster definition suits my interpretation of the word "against" as used in the 4th amendment.

b : as a defense or protection from


I have the right to be secure in my person and home, protected from unreasonable search and seizure.



I feel you simply are biased and have every intention of making any claim fit your personal paradigm.


I am biased. Now. After researching, I have become biased. Isn't everyone biased against those they don't support and biased toward those they do?



I simply cannot take you seriously and this is a glaring example.


Glaring example of what, you haven't stated... but don't take me seriously. I'm just one person sharing my opinion and views. Take it or leave it.

.
edit on 1/31/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by manna2
 



Originally posted by manna2
SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT. yOU FEEL IT IS THE FED GOV'S ROLE TO LEGISLATE THE ACTS OF IMMORALITY, BUT NOT MORALITY?


I don't feel it's the government's job to legislate morality OR immorality. ANY government. Federal or state. However, it IS the federal government's job to uphold the Constitution by protecting my right to privacy.

Morality is irrelevant.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by manna2
 



Originally posted by manna2
SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT. yOU FEEL IT IS THE FED GOV'S ROLE TO LEGISLATE THE ACTS OF IMMORALITY, BUT NOT MORALITY?


I don't feel it's the government's job to legislate morality OR immorality. ANY government. Federal or state. However, it IS the federal government's job to uphold the Constitution by protecting my right to privacy.

Morality is irrelevant.


And if the Federal Government fails to uphold the Constitution then it is up to the people to restore the Constitution I think the thing that attracted me to RP the most is the fact that he wants a smaller government and wants to cut corporations down a peg and make them pay the taxes they should be paying. Although your opinions inspire me to do more research about the abortion issue, I don't believe we should force women to keep a child if she does not want to... But does RP even have the authority to do so? And keep in mind that even though you may not agree with him entirely you can always count on congress voting against his bills he proposes right? I could be wrong on my assumption here but are you trying to say that you like the way things are going in our country now? IDK about you but I had a huge hope for Obama 4 years ago and you say in your closing quote that you would rather have 4 more years of broken promises? RP may be in the GOP but that doesn't mean he is like other republicans... IDK about you but I was counting on Obama to swell job growth and make healthcare affordable... And you know what? 4 years later I'm still struggling with finding a job and my teeth still hurt from not being able to afford a dentist... I'm tired of the empty promises. And if things don't change in the next year you'll be seeing me screaming on the streets with the rest of those occupy "hippies" and "bums" I do not agree with the way they're protesting but I can honestly say I understand why they're so angry. Because there are sects of society that are falling through the cracks and many people are just ignoring it, even I was ignoring it this past year but now that my life is being personally affected by it I understand them now truly.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
Is Ron Paul a politician?
I swear, people should really have caught on by now to NEVER trust a politician.
However, I do trust Paul more than the others, but not much more. And I do support what he says(most of it), but again, he's a politician...there's a special spot in hell reserved just for them.


Well if I can't trust any politician at all then should I just go off into the wilderness and eat leaves? As long as I live in this society I have to have faith that I could elect someone who isn't corrupt. I can't afford to be as jaded as you on politics, what else do you suggest for the system then? Burn it to the ground and start over? That would be chaos as well lol imagine having the people scramble to the white house and make up a whole new congress all over again? I personally believe we should ban people 50 and up from being in congress. I appreciate the fact that young people are dreamers and maybe if we had dreamers running the world then perhaps their silly "utopia" could become a reality?



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by squidboy
Um...

First, the blog just gives a big list of links, that are named in a negative manner. You can do that with everything.

The sky hates the color green.

Second. If you've been a Ron Paul supporter for a long time, you would know this is nothing more then a bs attempt to discredit the man. They name each link with a SUBJECTIVE and BIASED opinion and then link a vote or an article. Naming a Link with an opinion does no always make that opinion TRUE.

Subjectively leading the reader with a named link without the appropriate context or further research from the reader is wrong and easily shut down with proper research.

That's the problem today, most people will not research for themselves....

btw the Sky doesn't hate the color green.


Well said squidboy! I'd say you hit the nail on the head with this one!



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
I read the headlines to the articles and I'd have to agree with Dr. Paul on 95% of those assertions. I am guessing that the "racist" charges are Dr. Paul simply using the term "black" in a sentence or something That alone will draw a "racism" accusation from the left these days. So what is the problem?


You are probably right about that bud! I was just freaked out last night but once I sat down for about an hour and read through it all I realized it was just some blogger trying to smear him.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
ron paul wants to end the federal reserve? what? is he the antichrist? i'd rather have international bankers print money out of thin air, let america borrow from them, and charge interest. wait what?



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by ShamilAbdullah
 





Deny ignorance


This will be wildly unpopular but I am SO sick of hearing this. It reminds me of the people that say sheeple. It reminds me of posts that spit the words 'believer' or 'skeptic' as if either are wrong on a conspiracy board.
slow down their sir your putting too much thought into it, they have a rant forum i do believe? But i am sure you have some thoughts on the topic right?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by VerityPhantom
 


This blog has swayed you? To each they're own, but this blog is weak.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


I'd say it more like made me falter for a moment
but SWAYED? Not exactly. I did end up reading it through and through and realized it was extremely misleading with the name of the links.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by mnmcandiez
 


Sarcasm???.......I have lost all faith in ATS...................Gonna go hang myself.
Just Kidding i know you get it
edit on 1-2-2012 by LongbottomLeaf because: typo



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   
The new slogan is deny evidence or deny intelligence reply to post by Domo1
 



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join