Death Penalty For Gays: Ron Paul Courts The Religious Fringe In Iowa
- Thread starter Carne Seca
- Start date
deprave
New Member
The fact that he is the only one with actual real tangible supporters that are enthusiastic and in huge numbers says otherwise...
The fact that he is the only one actually campaigning says so also...
When Ron Paul speaks its hundreds or thousands of people now...When Rick Perry, Santorum, or bachman speak...Its like 10 dudes in foldout chairs who haven't seen any of the debates and they have to introduce themselves....the "audience" eventually just tells them to keep it down because they are trying to watch the football game..
Ever swing by a Ron Paul campaign HQ, its like dozens of people...yea try dropping in on one of the other guys its just abandoned buildings...its a total farce put on by the media.
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
Hey Mr. latent homosexual, the problem appears to be your comprehension skills (or the lack thereof) not mine. I was referring to the good reverend, not Holy Ron the Paul. May his Sacred Vaginal Speculum bless you and plague your enemies with yeast infections. Ron Paul's sin is courting these fucking nut case Christian Taliban terrorists. Go back to second grade and repeat it... for the third time. Maybe your comprehension skills will improve. Oh and suck some cock. You're far too uptight. It's time for you to come out already.
RP is not COURTING anyone, if he were we would see it, what is happening is that people from every walk of life are coming out to court Ron Paul.
Your insults are not even worthy of a 5th grade intellectual. Christian Taliban? LOL oh Carne!!
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
I hear bird farts again... that bird needs to stop eating the Ron Paul beans. They're so full of hot air and methane.
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
WASHINGTON -- Despite recent accusations of racism and homophobia, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) stuck to his libertarian principles on Sunday, criticizing the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 because 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 told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union." "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."
The Civil Rights Act repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination. Although Paul was not around to weigh in on the landmark legislation at the time, he had the chance to cast a symbolic vote against it in 2004, when the House of Representatives took up a resolution "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Paul was the only member who voted "no."
I wish he would hurry up and win the nomination so we can ridicule him for a whole year and then watch his supporters dissolve into tears when he loses and O'Bama starts his second term. That would be great. In the meantime he needs to keep his batshit crazy ideas to himself. He's only hurting himself.
"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 told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union." "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."
The Civil Rights Act repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination. Although Paul was not around to weigh in on the landmark legislation at the time, he had the chance to cast a symbolic vote against it in 2004, when the House of Representatives took up a resolution "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Paul was the only member who voted "no."
I wish he would hurry up and win the nomination so we can ridicule him for a whole year and then watch his supporters dissolve into tears when he loses and O'Bama starts his second term. That would be great. In the meantime he needs to keep his batshit crazy ideas to himself. He's only hurting himself.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Here you go making shit up again. You're only one with batshit crazy ideas.
"Ron Paul clarifies Jim Crow stance
Comments (256)
By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN | 1/1/12 9:43 AM EST
Texas Rep. Ron Paul says he supports the abolishment of Jim Crow laws despite comments he inserted into the Congressional Record in 2004 that the Civil Rights Act “increased racial tensions while decreasing individual liberty.”
Appearing Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” the GOP presidential contender said his remarks were targeted at how government “undermines the concept of liberty.”
“The principle of private property has been undermined, and it was started back then,” Paul said. “But they can’t twist that and say I favored Jim Crow laws.”
He said the government has stoked racial tensions with discriminatory policies, citing the court system, drug laws and drafts during wartime."
He wasn't against the civil rights movement, nor for Jim Crow laws. What he was against was government intervention, no matter the good intentions. Look at what happened when government intervened with housing before the collapse. It allowed banks to take advantage of people, who they knew wouldn't be able keep up payments.
Liberty is a word only a scant few know the definition of. RP was not against the IDEA of the Civil Rights Bill , he was against government making decisions for the citizens very own property. Undermine property rights and you have undermined freedom and liberty. Some people are unable to discern the difference and can only see in black or white, no shades of grey ever appear to them. To these people you are either with them, or with the terrorists; there is no in-between. When you have no say over your things anymore you have already lost the most basic tenet of freedom. I don't expect you fellas to understand how important your things are until someone comes along and steals them from you. Because the Civil rights bill does not treat others as equals, they can never be equals.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
sounds like you just described yourself.
liberty does not mean liberty to hurt others, which is what happened when supposedly public establishments like hotels and gas stations refused to serve (or served at inflated prices) certain segments of the public.
your liberty to swing your fist ends at my face. it isn't as "black and white" as you make it out to be.
I see you don't know what Liberty is either, don't feel bad, you are in the majority.
I want the world to have 100% peace. To further that goal I think every human being should be killed, then we will have no more wars, no more unhappiness. If you don't agree with me then you are for war, for unhappiness and against peace. See how easy it is to act like a government?
I want the world to have 100% peace. To further that goal I think every human being should be killed, then we will have no more wars, no more unhappiness. If you don't agree with me then you are for war, for unhappiness and against peace. See how easy it is to act like a government?
fenderburn84
Well-Known Member
Can you say flip flop?
Too bad Ron Paul gets misquoted so much, he was totally for getting rid of Jim Crow laws, said so right in the CNN interview, but I doubt anyone who criticizes RP ever actually watches RP in a debate or on TV, they take all their cues from someone else. Some people NEED to be told what to think, what to do and what to feel.
fenderburn84
Well-Known Member
Really? That's your defense, he said and votes on something and then HE changes his opinion and its everybody else who is eating the bs off a spoon, really?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
in case you are not paying attention, i focus my criticism precisely on what ron the paul says.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I respect your point of view in that you would serve all genders and races. So would I. However it is not up to you or I to run another persons life or tell them how to manage their private property or private business. It is IMHO a poor economic and poor moral choice to exclude somebody solely because of gender preference or race, but it is not initiating aggression to refuse to serve somebody. Those persons that would MAKE another do something with their private property are initiating aggression. When a person opts to run their business in a manner that you or I disagree with, but at the same time they do not intervene in MY business or YOURS they should be left alone.
Do I condone their behavior? No. I would open a business across the street from somebody that is deliberately denying service to good paying customers and put them out of business...that is another reason for a truly free market to exist not the crony capitalism of today.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you contradict yourself here.
their practices, which you proclaim to abhor, DO harm others. this is proven history, not some ideological fantasy.
your right to swing your fist ends at my face.
deal with it.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
When a person owns something. They control it. As in I own my body, you own yours. When a person owns property, they own it, not you, not I. I believe I am being consistent in advocating that the person that owns something has the right to set the rules governing how or whether they will allow others to participate in it. I don't believe you or I, or a group of people can or should force another to relinquish control over their body or their property.
My body is my ultimate property, my house, my business is no less MY property. I and I alone should decide what will go into my body or what will go on at MY house. Vice versa with your body or your property. The fact that you and I may choose to serve other races and other genders does not give us the right to MAKE another person use THEIR property how we would want them to. While I admire your tenacity I believe your disconnect comes when you fail to recognize the difference between a valid property right and the actual INITIATION of aggression. My failing to provide you service is not the same as me initiating aggression. It could be considered a neutral action. Your asking somebody (government) to make me perform certain acts or be set upon IS initiating aggression though.
deal with it.