Ron Paul is a racist.

Originally posted by David9176
So, how far are some of you willing to take basing everything on property rights?

To what extreme do you see fitting?

Pretty damn extreme.

Got a problem with that?

reply to post by David9176

And what about the people who don't own property? Theoretically, they have fewer rights because they don't own property. Basically, those with more wealth will technically have more rights than others...and more power to discriminate.

Where are the homeless to go? Sleep on the roads since it's public property?

The homeless have every bit as much right, ability, and incentive as anyone else to find employment, build wealth, and have a better life. Rags-to-riches stories are not uncommon. Are you arguing the "we should take care of everyone from cradle-to-grave" side here? Let me know how that works out in the real fiscal world.

Should PEOPLE help one another? Yes, we should feel that obligation pulling at our heartstrings and as such do what we can. Does that means government should get involved? Absolutely not. It's rife with corruption, horrible at doing such things, and we'll ALL end up bankrupt as a result. To directly answer the question, though, where do they go now? They would go to the same places then - private benefactors, charities, churches and the like. And the states are all more than welcome to set up and handle these issues themselves, if they think they can do so without causing more problems than they address. What's the issue with letting the states and the people handle this?

For instance, in Paul's eutopia...there would be no federal minimum wage. In other words, it would be left to states who would then have to compete...driving down their own minimum wage laws to keep and maintain businesses. It's the same thing that is happening now with states competing for jobs with their tax rates.

Ignorant, first off. There are valid arguments and concerns both ways on the minimum wage issue, but pray tell - what power does the president have over the minimum wage in the first place? Complete and utter non-issue and distraction. Paul does not campaign on the minimum wage, nor would he have the power or honest concern to bother with addressing it. At most, he could educate us as to the issue one way or the other, then let the people and their representatives address it as they see fit. This is another 'gotcha' question of little actual import and I'm not aware of Paul seriously ever addressing it unless asked directly, since it's effectively not even on his radar given the scale of issues we're dealing with.

It will only continue to destroy our standard of living. Paul's world is a pipe dream...and yes....if an actual racist looked at his stances...they would support him...just like David Duke has done in the past.

Before making such claims as the first, I'd suggest looking into counter arguments on the minimum wage issue, the plight of small business owners in light of getting the help they need while being able to maintain profit, and a range of related issues. As to the latter - you think "racists" only support Ron Paul? I'd love to see ANY sort of valid substantiation of that in the first place, especially in light of the islamophobia rampant among the republican party in general, and specifically those who support the more militaristic candidates.

But, feel free to enlighten me - what policies of Paul's would racists so ardently cling to, other than his defense of private property rights?

Remember now....the argument I've always read about the civil war was that it wasn't really about slavery...it was about STATE'S RIGHTS......which is why so many in the south...and the north (I see it all the time in Michigan) proudly drive around with the confederate flag on their vehicle. I doubt they are all Dukes of Hazard fans.....

Well, I won't delve too far into conjecture as this isn't an area I've studied much - and I'm honestly struggling to see how it's pertinent anyway - but it's pretty simple to demonstrate that the civil war wasn't about slavery. Lincoln admitted clearly that he could care less about the slavery issue one way or the other, the emancipation proclamation only freed SOUTHERN SLAVES (that's right - the north got to keep theirs - can't have an additional northern rebellion because you took their slaves away!), and according to the Declaration of Independence, the south had a right to leave the union if they wanted - the north used force against such, violated the first amendment, habeas corpus, and caused the death of 600k+ americans for no good reason.

Take care.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Thanks for your responses.

Not all liberals agree with each other and progressives are more left than liberals.

This is why I often say that Extreme Right and Extreme Left have more in common than all the folks in the middle. Check out my next few points for more evidence of that.

I should have said most of the haters are conservative rather than liberals. Would that have changed anything?

Not really, because I would have probably disagreed with your version of "hate." As Rockpuck said, most of the actual "hate groups" are more on the side of neo-liberalism or neo-progressives. I see the system trying to make minorities dependent on the system. They use jail, welfare, and affirmative action to handicap minorities and it can be more harmful than helpful. I will say that some conservatives have their values misplaced and they think things like 3-strike laws and mandatory sentencing are conservative values, but they are wrong. Anything that takes the decision making out of the hands of individuals and localities is not a conservative view. Even drug laws are more on the side of liberals, because they take control away from individuals and localities.

So, Extreme Right and Extreme Left have the same views when it comes to drugs, and prison, and possibly even affirmative action.

Is there enough gold/silver to accomodate the vast money supply? I don't think there is and why would we need money to be backed by gold/silver anyway?

We agree here. There is not enough gold/silver, commodities, or GDP to support the current money supply after all the quantitative easing. This is the precise reason that we NEED a standard of some kind. Our money has an arbitrary value that can be changed on a whim, and we can't trust our politicians to do the right things.

In any case what exactly is "the nanny business"? Do you mean no social welfare systems like other nations have: social security, medicare and medicaid. People pay money into it and should collect unimpeded. The reason the government comes up short is because they divert funds from the trust fund into other areas.

Again, we agree here to a certain extent. We need those programs, but they are supposed to be temporary relief for folks having hard times, they are not supposed to be retirement funds and careers! The government needs to fund these programs, and not divert the funds, and not use the programs as a means of controlling the population or scaring up votes. Social Security originally had a very narrow use to supplement welfare programs for the most destitute elderly. It was never intended as a sole source of income. Welfare and Unemployment were intended likewise to help people through rough patches, not become careers. Disability is now considered part of Social Security, it pays out to people that have never paid in, and it pays far better than welfare, and it is not applied fairly in any manner whatsoever. People with cancer and heart bypass surgeries are being denied, while people with shyness disorders are being approved. Those systems require 100% overhauls, earmarked funding that cannot be touched by politicians, and safety parameters to limit their abuse.

The way I see it is seperation of church from state implies the two operate seperately and do not interfere with each other in any official capacity. You can belong to any church you want but schools are discouraged from teaching religion. As for abortion I support abortion under certain conditions. Death penalty for multiple planned murders.

Once again we agree completely! Separation of Church and State was never supposed to preclude a kid from saying a prayer in school, or take Jesus out of Christmas, or force towns to take down nativity scenes, it was just supposed to keep the government from making laws regarding religion. That intention has totally backfired, because now the government makes laws regarding religion, but it makes them entirely against religion. Abortion is a necessary evil, there are situations that require it, but they should be narrow and specific, and only with agreement between doctors and parent(s). Death Penalty is also a necessary evil, and should only be used in the most severe cases, and only where there is unanimous support for it. None of this 3-2 voting by appeals panels, that is infuriating to me!

It seems you call yourself LEFT, and I call myself RIGHT, but we agree about 85% of the way! See what I mean! XLeft and XRight see the whole picture. The middle is the problem. The middle are the folks eroding our values and destroying our country and compromising simply out of convenience. We need a leader that will refuse to compromise. That leader is RON PAUL!!!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Most conservatives are racists, regardless if they admit it or not, so why should ron paul be any different?

Let me guess
most blacks are criminals
most hispanics are illegals
most arabs are terrorists
most asians are crazy smart


take that crap outa here. You clearly hate conservatives so I highly doubt you know any well enough to make such a broad stereotype.

reply to post by Fitch303
Burn...

Any form of collectivism and generalization is simply shortsighted and undesirable - and often very far from accurate in its conclusions. As well, the same thought patterns and ignorance behind racism apply so readily to many other topics.

reply to post by Fitch303


Exactly.

I myself just watched a BBQ rib contest on my DVR and the southern black guy came in last.
The All American Muslim show doesn't ever show terrorist actions or hand grenades in baby strollers.
I even see jews on the news losing millions during the financial crisis.


Sometimes you actually have to open the book and read it.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I think the problem begins and ends with big business running the show with total contempt for non-corporate entities. A corporation is an artificial person. And then we have the rich billionares/trillionares donating to finance campaigns during election time.

A simple and all-enclusive mandatory vote/poll tax should substitute donations of any kind, and donations made illegal after a certain amount. The middle is more prone to compromise by their very nature.

In any case I found the video of Ron Paul and competing currencies just so you don't think I make up things along the way....



My "problem" is I read too much conspiratorial text and it is difficult for me to remember who said what, when and where.

Ron Paul is a smart man and definitely should be the prime runner for the republicans but I have never compromised on my principles for voting across party lines and won't do so now. I might however switch from democrat to spusa since the democrats are too right for me!

Originally posted by Rockpuck

Originally posted by David9176
So, how far are some of you willing to take basing everything on property rights?

To what extreme do you see fitting?

Pretty damn extreme.

Got a problem with that?

So according to you, everything should be private

I can't speak for others but I certainly have a problem with that!

For starters the government should be public property.

To me, it looks like that bill was to stop busing and similar policies, which are extremely racist policies. Determining that you'll go to this school or that school solely based on race = racism.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Thanks for the video! So he is advocating the use of competing currencies in the form of minted gold and silver. It wouldn't be a competing fiat currency, but it would be gold and silver currency, controlled by anti-fraud and anti-counterfeiting laws, and it would give people a choice of whether or not to do business with the worthless fiat currency or the real gold and silver currency.

It sounds great, I don't think it is practical, but I think it drives home the point of how worthless our dollar is. I have to wonder if he was serious about his proposal, or if driving home the point was the real intention all along?

Either way, I don't see any harm in what he proposes. What would be the harm in letting someone print a $1 gold coin, or $100 gold coin, and letting businesses and individuals do business with that as "currency?"

It has seemed lately that the government would like to outlaw all forms of "bartering." It is just additional ways to control the population and keep their thumb on everything and everyone.

Thanks again for the video!

when all of washington became sellouts one man stood above the others and rebelled. One man did the unpopular thing, he stood for the constitution, before it was cool.

Ron Paul = punk Rock!!!

Ron Paul 2012 vote for the true rebel, the man that defies the lobbiests!

reply to post by Tea4One


I got a Good Laugh from this Thread of yours . The Lamest Attempt at Smearing the Honorable Name of Ron Paul I have Ever seen . So what was your REAL Motive here , making a Fool out of yourself ( Accomplished) , or Actually Believing that Tripe ?

reply to post by Tea4One


I just had this discussion with my father regarding Ron Paul. The dude is a big racist, if he gets elected he will tear America upside down. All of the GOP candidates are pathetic.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I'm loving your Predator avatar dude, one of the greatest movies ever.

Thanks for that Dave Chapell video, I cant stop lmao!!!

reply to post by Unvarnished


How's he a racist again?

Originally posted by Fitch303

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Most conservatives are racists, regardless if they admit it or not, so why should ron paul be any different?

Let me guess
most blacks are criminals
most hispanics are illegals
most arabs are terrorists
most asians are crazy smart


take that crap outa here. You clearly hate conservatives so I highly doubt you know any well enough to make such a broad stereotype.

Generally speaking I don't stereotype people, but the thread was based on racism so I added my two cents of streotyping. Stereotyping has a basis in fact many times, but it is considered rude from a political correctness perspective.

And I don't hate strangers. I simply disagree with some or many of their views. I only hate people I know on a personal level who have done me or my family harm.

Besides I already admitted to forumulating my sentence wrong and corrected it afterwards. Relax!

In principle, I do not trust anyone in politics. Very few politicians will I trust, and Ron Paul is not one of them.

I've always been suspicious of him. This only adds conviction to that suspicion.

Originally posted by dontreally
In principle, I do not trust anyone in politics. Very few politicians will I trust, and Ron Paul is not one of them.

I've always been suspicious of him. This only adds conviction to that suspicion.

He has 30 years of voting record, 30 years of campaign finance, 30 years of putting bills up for votes, no scandals, no affairs, no arrests, etc., etc.

What exactly is it that makes you suspicious? Compare him to any other politician in DC? How can you be suspicious of this guy in particular? Is there a dead hooker I forgot about? Look at John Edwards, Newt, Weiner-Holder, Ted Kennedy, and all the others.

"If Ted Kennedy had been driving a Volkswagon, he'd be President today." --> Robert Hoffman, a founder of National Lampoon

Please elaborate on your distrust of RP.

Ron Paul explains why he's ANTI Racist

www.youtube.com...