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.
The Ron Paul crowd needs to be a bit less paranoid, and realize there's no conspiracy.
Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
Let me preface this by saying I'm non partisan, but I am black so the majority of my community is either democratic, or non partisan.
Over the past few weeks, at various community functions, and even on some local talk radio, people have been discussing how they're gonna get Obama reelected. I try to be present so that I can speak my part and try to explain how Ron Paul's ideas cater to both republicans and democrats in their own respective manners. But over the last week a new tactic has sprung up.
Democrats vote in the republican caucus and vote for either Bachmann, Huntsman, Santorum, or Gingrich - saying that the people would rather want Obama, than a police state supporting fool like one of them.
I do see the logic behind their tactic, but what they'll be doing if this truly catches on, is damning Ron Paul to the nowhere bench. This is bugging me because at this point, my voice is drowned out by "GET A LOSER NOMINATED" calls.
Suggestions on what I can do anybody?edit on 8-12-2011 by My.mind.is.mine because: (no reason given)
I survived Reagan and three Bush presidencies. Can it get much worse than that?
They know if they put Obama up against Paul, that Obama will get smashed, so they feel it is somehow their duty to get that fraud elected again.
I KNOW it cant be his policies that keeps people behind him.
I believe it has more to do with race than anything else.
People can deny it all they want, but thats what I see.
Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by Common Good
They know if they put Obama up against Paul, that Obama will get smashed, so they feel it is somehow their duty to get that fraud elected again.
I KNOW it cant be his policies that keeps people behind him.
I believe it has more to do with race than anything else.
People can deny it all they want, but thats what I see.
Yes, put Ron Paul, who has stated he wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights act because if the business aspect of it, up against Obama.
Have to watch where you step with this one, it's easy to step in a pile of S with your argument....just sayin'edit on 8-12-2011 by David9176 because: (no reason given)
I always get a kick out of the different definitions of 'extreme' you and I seem to operate under. I'd also say is entirely likely we'd see some skeletons come out of Huntsman's closet if he started coming up significantly in any polls, but I'll agree I tend to have somewhat fond feelings for him as compared to the rest of the lot, excepting Paul and Johnson.
As far as guaranteed wins for Obama, I have to disagree. Paul pulls a good bit of independent and even democratic support - better with independents than Obama, even - and has polled quite competitively against Obama for many months now. Better than Huntsman on a regular basis, if I recall correctly.
so you are saying(and ill be careful not to step in poo) that somehow Paul wouldnt stand a chance because Obama is black and Paul wouldnt have voted for the civil rights act? So in plain english, what you really mean to say is that Paul is racist, and cant beat a black man cause of his views on the civil rights act.
That's an easy enough argument to settle. CRA '64 wouldn't have been necessary as repealing Jim Crow laws would have taken care of the issues well enough, and the states were already in good part moving the right direction anyway. You shouldn't mandate what someone can do with their own property or business, even if that means there's a chance they might do stupid things. Besides, it was only based on a perverted understanding of the interstate commerce clause, and as far as I'm aware, Paul - like most libertarians, has no problem when any of the other civil rights acts. Even Goldwater fought FOR the previous bills, but couldn't support '64 for the same reasons Paul discusses. It's simply not a race issue, it's an issue of if the government can control your personal business.
Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by Common Good
so you are saying(and ill be careful not to step in poo) that somehow Paul wouldnt stand a chance because Obama is black and Paul wouldnt have voted for the civil rights act? So in plain english, what you really mean to say is that Paul is racist, and cant beat a black man cause of his views on the civil rights act.
No sir, you brought up the racial aspect....i was only making the counterpoint based on your post. I did not say he was racist...and as I have stated countless times before in other posts...his views are based on the business aspect of the amendment. Regardless, to think that this will not be viewed in a bad light with the general public is a bit foolish...especially amongst minorities..don't you think?
Be realistic.