Ron Paul = Martin Luther King?

Dan Kone said:

Is that the same constitution that originally proclaimed that someone who's black is actually only 3/5th of a person? lol

And it's really hard to call someone who didn't support the civil rights act or even Lincoln ending slavery "a champion of Civil Rights".

I get you like Ron Paul, and that's ok. But you can't just say stuff which is clearly absurd and expect people to believe it.

Click to expand...

Please that is just crass and unfair. Ron Paul supports equal right for all, literally, and he did support the end to segregation and the end to slavery don't be a douche...

Dan Kone said:

Is that the same constitution that originally proclaimed that someone who's black is actually only 3/5th of a person? lol

And it's really hard to call someone who didn't support the civil rights act or even Lincoln ending slavery "a champion of Civil Rights".

I get you like Ron Paul, and that's ok. But you can't just say stuff which is clearly absurd and expect people to believe it.

Click to expand...

Actually Dan, you are dead wrong about the 3/5ths of a person issue but that is to be expected from a liberal.

The northern states wanted slavery to be illegal while the DEMOCRATIC southern states wanted to keep it legal. What the federal government said was WHEN COUNTING REPRESENTATION... Slaves are counted as 3/5th's of a free man.

That means, the more slaves the south had the LESS representation they would have in the federal congress.

The move was to FORCE the south to free more slaves.

But of course, you have it 180 degrees and are slandering the very people you should be putting on a pedastle and saluting for their progressive ideas to free the slaves.

This is why a liberal education is worth a pound of crap. The left is willing to manipulate every issue, twist it and use it against the very people who had good intentions.

NLXSK1 said:

Actually Dan, you are dead wrong about the 3/5ths of a person issue but that is to be expected from a liberal.

The northern states wanted slavery to be illegal while the DEMOCRATIC southern states wanted to keep it legal. What the federal government said was WHEN COUNTING REPRESENTATION... Slaves are counted as 3/5th's of a free man.

That means, the more slaves the south had the LESS representation they would have in the federal congress.

The move was to FORCE the south to free more slaves.

But of course, you have it 180 degrees and are slandering the very people you should be putting on a pedastle and saluting for their progressive ideas to free the slaves.

This is why a liberal education is worth a pound of crap. The left is willing to manipulate every issue, twist it and use it against the very people who had good intentions.

Click to expand...

The claim that Black people aren't the constitution is just an interpretation, and an invalid one at that. Regardless, not just our constitution but any constitution, human rights, and Civil liberties are THE FOUNDATION of classic liberalism which is the FOUNDATION OF all Libertarian and Anarchist philosophies......MLK doesn't have a monopoly on 'Civil Rights'...Dan..and certainly not democrats...

Ron Paul being the 'Champion of Civil Liberties' this is not something I just came up with out of thin air. I thought I was rather fair in explaining the similarities, there is very little technical similarities, or similarities on specific issues, but as for political philosophy they come from the same tree.

Again nobody can ever be another MLK and politically they are very different Ron Paul and MLK, but as far as political philosophy history, they are very much alike.