Ron Paul 2012
- Thread starter zazahzle
- Start date
deprave
New Member
so based on the far fetched assumption that a handful of extreme racist people might not serve peoples, let them be hateful, let them live a life with an enemy at every turn, its not not the 1960's and while racism still exist its only a handful of people and not on the same levels, I mean really it doesn't even apply to society today, the way we shop it would be hurtful on your business to deny someone service, is wal-mart going to put up whites only signs or something? is ebay going to need proof that your white to buy and sell? freedom and winning america back to the people is way more important then a handful of racist hateful people that might not serve ice cream or what? IDK? I never bought anything from a nazi or a racist myself. I don't want Nazi's to take away my freedom or terrorist or any other cartoon character to take away freedom.
Look the civil rights quote was taking out of context just the same as all the other crap about him like the legalizing heroin, cant you see the media twist on this? It just obvious political mud slinging.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
do you even know what you arguing for ???? ...I hear Ron Paul using the key word FREEDOM I laugh my ass off at that tired old white man talking about he lost his FREEDOM...come on...and WTF....now I do like that he would let us all get high but sorry not enough..I'm already getting high...on the real you can keep on with the thinking you doing or you can realize wind blows...
deprave
New Member
are you for real? I don't even know where to begin with you, go on google and start reading or something idk. TSA, The patriot act, , the financial crisis, or idk MARIJUANA(looks up at address bar), in the end you will see why Ron Paul is our only chance at freedom right now and taking this country back from the bankers. A vote for Ron Paul would be a vote for a peaceful 2nd American revolution. The constitution so many swore to protect is not taken so lightly by those of us who swore to protect it(Military etc..), and that constitution we swore to is under attack by progressives, social conservatives, and others, our rights are being trampled on more and more. This is about giving America back to the people, actual real change that Obama the banker puppet speaks of but doesn't act on.
part 2 of the announcement speech:
[video=youtube;BQEtP_B_IDQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQEtP_B_IDQ[/video]
Windsblow
Well-Known Member
Oh yeah discrimition only discrimination when it happens the some other than white males. Now that what I call racist. And my wife, She is so old school she probably discriminates against women more than anyone. Most people who look to be offended and see the world through that lense are always going to fight that bigot they are looking for. Others just move on and accept the fact of life and don't cry about it.
Windsblow
Well-Known Member
Cathoris.... That guy doesn't even know the definition of racism and he sure the hell doesn't know what the individual is, let alone the rights that come with it. He's a typical radical leftist. Some people just don't want to be part of logical human progress. Emotional animals is all they are and all they believe we amount to. Don't waste your time.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
nice spech but again based on his view about the civil rights vote fo 64 I will pass on Grandpa Paul..Hope he finds his FREEDOM
deprave
New Member
heres the other choices:
T Palewnty - pro-war - neocon
Some other dbag - pro war neocon
Herman Cain - Puppet, Bankster, Corporate Executive - No experience in politics
M bachman - voted for patriot act pro-war - puppet
Newt - making another book not really gunna run
obama - banker puppet
a few more neocons and banker puppets
Ron Paul
Gary Johnson
Trump - not really gunna run
Sarah Palin?
There ya go who ya gunna vote for? Obvious choice
Part 3 of the speech:
[video=youtube;NAF3Z5wZvvY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAF3Z5wZvvY[/video]
T Palewnty - pro-war - neocon
Some other dbag - pro war neocon
Herman Cain - Puppet, Bankster, Corporate Executive - No experience in politics
M bachman - voted for patriot act pro-war - puppet
Newt - making another book not really gunna run
obama - banker puppet
a few more neocons and banker puppets
Ron Paul
Gary Johnson
Trump - not really gunna run
Sarah Palin?
There ya go who ya gunna vote for? Obvious choice
Part 3 of the speech:
[video=youtube;NAF3Z5wZvvY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAF3Z5wZvvY[/video]
londonfog
Well-Known Member
ROFL who do you think would have a better idea about racism ...too easy...like me telling a woman having a baby is easy..for now on Windsblow enjoy my new answer to you...OBAMA 2012.....Ron paul won't even get the nod...blame that on the Repukes
londonfog
Well-Known Member
OBAMA 2012 seems like ...ROFL
deprave
New Member
the quote your talking about was takin out of context, again more of the mainstream media slinging mud, taking peoples words and twisting them, demonizing people and groups how they see fit.
deprave
New Member
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]This is why MSNBC says hes a racist (and yea it is only MSNBC that ran this twisted shit initially)
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]On June 4, 2004, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Act. Only the heroic Ron Paul dissented. Here are his comments.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]On June 4, 2004, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Act. Only the heroic Ron Paul dissented. Here are his comments.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]LondonFrog - This is why people talk about "Freedom" when they talk about Ron Paul - Ron Paul stands by the people and our founders 100% - - one of the few politicians that speak on behalf of our founders and the people. You really think the Civil Rights Act Waved its magic wand and ended racism? That is what he is saying here, he is saying there could of been integration done in a better way, without violating peoples rights. Real Simple. Be careful what you read or see in the mainstream media.
[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]LondonFrog - This is why people talk about "Freedom" when they talk about Ron Paul - Ron Paul stands by the people and our founders 100% - - one of the few politicians that speak on behalf of our founders and the people. You really think the Civil Rights Act Waved its magic wand and ended racism? That is what he is saying here, he is saying there could of been integration done in a better way, without violating peoples rights. Real Simple. Be careful what you read or see in the mainstream media.
[/FONT]
OregonMeds
Well-Known Member
^^Yep, it was a touchy subject, as touchy as not supporting Israel and thus being called anti semetic. Ron Paul wasn't afraid to stand on the constitution and explain point blank why anything that gives the federal government more power and individual citizens less is wrong. He is 100% right in what he said, it wasn't racist at all.
What happened to blacks at that time was sick and wrong, and I'm sure glad race relations are better than they were, but anything that has given more power to federal government in the past is what's led us to the holy shitstorm of crap we are in today, and it has to stop.
I think Ron gets my vote, I just wish there were 300 more Ron Pauls for the house and senate and another 1000 or so to protect himself from assasination and lead the armed forces and 3 letter secret murderous agencies we have.
How long do you think he'd survive really?
What happened to blacks at that time was sick and wrong, and I'm sure glad race relations are better than they were, but anything that has given more power to federal government in the past is what's led us to the holy shitstorm of crap we are in today, and it has to stop.
I think Ron gets my vote, I just wish there were 300 more Ron Pauls for the house and senate and another 1000 or so to protect himself from assasination and lead the armed forces and 3 letter secret murderous agencies we have.
How long do you think he'd survive really?
OregonMeds
Well-Known Member
true
How can that be reformed in time? Not even possible is it?
How can that be reformed in time? Not even possible is it?
mame
Well-Known Member
The problem with Paul's anti civil rights act argument is this: What about before the civil rights act? I mean, he argues that in the half century since this law was created that steps towards equality have happened despite not because of the civil rights act right? What about, for example, the 100 or so years prior to the Civil rights act? Wasn't there almost no progress made on this front? Segregation was commonplace... Public racism was a normal thing... Doesn't seem like our society was on much of a path to equality at the time, does it?
That makes it pretty easy for one to argue that the law set in motion a fundamental shift in the attitudes of Americans, doesn't it? I mean, cant I say that maybe the civil rights act of 64's greatest achievement was that it helped people to accept blacks as equals - a fundamental shift in how white Americans view minorities - leading towards a less prejudiced society?
That makes it pretty easy for one to argue that the law set in motion a fundamental shift in the attitudes of Americans, doesn't it? I mean, cant I say that maybe the civil rights act of 64's greatest achievement was that it helped people to accept blacks as equals - a fundamental shift in how white Americans view minorities - leading towards a less prejudiced society?