SisterMaryElephant
Active Member
Ron Paul is going to go down in history as a great leader
8 years of Paul
2012 and again in 2016
Yeah, maybe, but leader of what?
He'll NEVER be President.
Who Else Knows That Ron Paul will NEVER be President?
- Thread starter SisterMaryElephant
- Start date
Yeah, maybe, but leader of what?
He'll NEVER be President.
SisterMaryElephant
Active Member
No, he not only won't but he can't. Congress passes laws and that one won't pass anytime soon...
beardo
Well-Known Member
The libertarian movementYeah, maybe, but leader of what?
He'll NEVER be President.
The tea party {before it got taken over}
The occupy movement {before it got taken over}
And The U.S.A. with any luck
SisterMaryElephant
Active Member
Not only deluded but intellectually dishonest too. Even RP admits he won't win.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
He was the leader of the tea party? A movement from the inception that had no leader?
Is that something equivalent to Al Gore inventing the internet?
I bet Ron Paul invented Sunday's too? The day, not the dessert...
londonfog
Well-Known Member
the statement was made that "he was an old man who lived thru the Civil rights period" actual quote
...I was just pointing out his age at the time of the signing of the Civil rights act ( in which he disagrees with) ...which was 35..yes he was 13 when Truman submitted his civil rights plan to Congress and he was 35 when they voted on the Civil Rights Act...so he did live thru it.... and his stance is he would have voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act...sorry can never support or vote for a man that would vote against me and deny me having the same rights as other..
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You are correct according to the constitution he can't. It is interesting that Nixon set drug policy and was a driving force behind "the war on drugs" though.
As an aside even though they aren't supposed to, Presidents have waged foreign wars absent a Congressional declaration....so it appears that they pretty much do what they want to...
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Perhaps you misconstrue his reasons?
l don't think Ron Paul's lack of support for the civil rights bill is founded in wanting to deny anybody rights. I think he has stated he is for protecting individual rights, but does not favor SPECIAL rights for people based on race, religion or creed etc.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
at the expense of others' individual rights.
please explain how civil rights means "special rights" for any race, religion, creed, or anyone else.
this is just silly now.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Quotas. All people have rights, nobody should have "special rights" based on race etc., be they white, yellow, brown or black.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
so being able to just go to a hotel and get a room is a "special right" ????...going up to a lunch counter and expect to get served is a "special right"...WTF...people will say anything to make what they say seem right..oops I mean "special right".
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
please point out "quotas" in civil rights.
this promises to be GRAND.
hang on while i fire up some popcorn.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Please re-read my post. I was repeating what I believe Ron Paul's rationale was for HIS position. Getting a room or being served in MY opinion is between the proprietor and the customer. If I were a proprietor I would not discriminate based on race, gender preference or religion. I think it is silly and a poor business practice. I think as a property owner that is up to my discretion. If YOU were the proprietor it is not up to me to tell YOU how to run YOUR business.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
left alone with this freedom, certain establishments took actions which caused harm to others.
their freedom ends when it causes harm others. civil rights was the end to this harm.
they stopped publishing 'the green book for negro travelers' directly after.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I can see where you might think that. In MY preference I agree that discrimination based on something as arbitrary as race or gender is pretty stupid. However, the freedom to associate or disassociate and for people to control their own private property is important too.
Since I believe in something known as the non initiation of aggression, I don't think it is okay for me to tell others what to do with their own body or their own justly acquired property. If a person refuses to serve me, I don't necessarily agree that they are making a wise choice if they base it on my race or gender preference etc. but they aren't "initiating aggression" against me if they decline me a service. If they actively pursue me or "initiate aggression" that is different, but denial of association (service) is a neutral act. Neutral in the sense of "initiating aggression". Albeit, in many instances it does not seem very nice, or a smart business move.
Using force to ensure people will associate when one party does not want to, is an intitiation of aggression. In that instance I would ask government to not intervene, as the association is not mutual or consensual.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
how many times are you going to repeat that irrelevant canard?
the key phrase here is not "initiating aggression", it is "causing harm", which we have gone over already.
are you ever going to show me where it dictates "quotas" in the civil rights act?
So if i want to make a law that protects children from being molested, but part of that law is daily body cavity searches for all males of the ages 16-55, you ok with that ?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
are you trying to analogize the civil rights act to daily cavity searches for large swaths of the population?
you're normally better than that.
No, I am making a point that you can't justify any and every egregious activity simply because it would also help someone. London is still under the assumption that RP would not have voted for the Civil Rights act simply because he doesn't think Blacks should have rights, but that completely and totally not true. RP thought that the fed having the power to control your business and private property was wrong and unconstitutional and therefore would not have voted for it. London seems to feel that blacks having rights is totally worth taking other peoples rights away. He seems to think that every lunch counter, store and service was exclusive to whites only from 1 BC all the way until 1964 and that blacks couldn't do a damned thing until after.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i will let london speak for himself, but i don't think he feels that way. and i think your analogy was a poor one.
and i disagree with the part in red especially strongly. you try to describe it as a zero sum game, if one group gains rights, another one loses rights. i completely disagree. the "rights" that you claim are lost caused harm to others, thus they were never really "rights" in the first place.
civil rights did not destroy private property rights, it simply narrowed them in a way that no sane and rational person should feel compelled to speak so strongly against.