Hatemonger Rick Santorum Says Obama is Taking 'White' Money & Giving it To 'Blacks'

[Theobrothers]

Ok, did you seriously not watch the two video's I linked...

Seriously?

This will be my last comment since you are content to debate in ignorance without even the slightest effort to learn something.

"So, what have been the horrific social, & Constitutional effects of having to allow"

Force, not allow.

Precedents based upon the idea of "forcing for the greater good" will, and indeed have lead to, as I stated an "erosion of ones personal property rights guaranteed by the constitution."

[Theobrothers]

Constitutional law did not fail anyone. The people enforcing the laws failed. New laws weren't what were needed, people who were actually willing to ENFORCE the laws already in existence is what were!

[Theobrothers]

Um, your challenge requires me to prove a negative in which any and all people could individually counter by their actions. In other words, your challenge isn't logical or related to the disagreement.

My challenge was in direct response to a rather flawed statement you made.

"a constitution which had failed to protect colored people even in the 60's"

The challenge.

"I challenge you to show me on what basis ANYONE could argue the legality of segregation within public institutions."

[tmmy773]

The last election NH republicans chose McCain...not Romney or Huckabee. Most people in NH support civil rights. I live in NH and wanted to say this.

[Theobrothers]

Sharpton is a moron.

LoL. The civil rights laws weren't necessary to desegregate public institutions, like schools, hospitals, and government buildings as that segregation in those places was ALREADY illegal under the constitution.

Further, to say the civil rights laws, which counter freedom of association, was a fair sacrifice to diminish racial inequalities and tensions is as asinine as claiming that minimum wage helps the poor and has helped to raise up impoverished minorities.

Stupid.

[politicalarticles]

@Theobrothers -- Stop the juggling of mis-information. The constitution and legislation go hand in hand. The civil rights acts of the 60's were meant to strengthen the constitution -- a constitution originally written by slave owners, a constitution which had failed to protect colored people even in the 60's.

When bums like you cry out about "states rights" -- you are essentially longing for the days when you could hang black people willy-nilly.

Forget it, those days are gone!

[Theobrothers]

@politicalarticles

LoL @ misinformation.

I challenge you to show me on what basis ANYONE could argue the legality of segregation within public institutions.

Further, I challenge you that where in the constitution you have the right to FORCE me to associate with you on my PRIVATELY owned property.

What a joke. Misinformation is claiming that the civil rights act did not destroy individual rights, and that it actually made us more accepting of each other racially.

[politicalarticles]

@Theobrothers -- I challenge you too, to prove that if criminal penalties are not waved in front of your face -- you might just hang me!

And, remember -- you were doing that 24/7 not too long ago.

[schillerblvd]

@Theobrothers The reason a person has any private property in the first place is that they have made an implicit agreement with the GOVERNMENT, that having the rights to that land PROTECTED by the state means that they will share in the responsibilities that people have towards their communities. That is why people are not allowed to dump toxic waste on their precious private property. It is the taxpayors who support the ability for you to own that property in the first place.

[schillerblvd]

@Theobrothers So, if you want to own a home, you absolutely have the right to let in only whom you want, but if you own a business, that means that you have contracted with your local community.

Let's say you own a business, but you do not allow blacks in your store. Your store gets robbed. The sheriff of your little podunk town happens to be black. Should that sheriff also have the right not to investigate the crime because he hates your white ass?

[Theobrothers]

@schillerblvd

As for contracting with the local community, it really is no different than your home. With a home there are rules and regulations, forms of taxation, and etc that you must comply with. The same is true for any business. In principle there is no difference.

Sherrifs dept is a government service paid by forced taxation. So nope. He could rightfully not invite the business owner over to dinner though.

[schillerblvd]

@Theobrothers Sure there is. A home & a business serve 2 entirely different purposes. Taxpayor money does support the oppurtunity for a business to even exist. What do you think would happen if the sidewalk in front of a business, the road leading to the business, the police force that protects the business, the water quality , the enviornmental safety of the area around the business, all were no longer supported by the taxpayor? Pretty hard to operate a business, huh?

[Theobrothers]

@schillerblvd

Um... Those are all created/maintained by forced taxation.

I'm bored man, nothing you bring up is thought provoking. Please get to something where I actually have to think/research to defend.

[schillerblvd]

@Theobrothers If you owned a clinic in Podunk & that was the only clinic for miles, should you be able to refuse business to somebody in need of emergency services because you don't like their skin color? Then why should the taxpayers be obligated to provide services, like police & fire protection for you? Ecspecially if some of those taxpayers happen to be the same people you are discriminating against!

[Theobrothers]

@schillerblvd

Being forced to pay the government, by DEFAULT, gives you the right to use those services. To not allow someone to use those services based on their PRIVATE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED business practices is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

If someone opens a clinic which discriminates, any other individual can open a clinic which doesn't, and free market competition will ensue.

Paying your taxes doesn't give you the right to withhold PUBLIC services.

*yawn*

[schillerblvd]

@Theobrothers So, what have been the horrific social, & Constitutional effects of having to allow blacks, homosexuals, & other undesireables into your local pathetic widget shop?

And let's assume that one of these undesireables survived the heart attack when they were denied medical services. He may have been an officer worker, but hey! according to you, he should just go & open his own medical clinic. Do you have any clue how pathetic & infantile you sound?

[Theobrothers]

@schillerblvd

The Patriot Act, The NDAA, and any erosion of ones personal property rights guaranteed by the constitution.

You aren't qualified to opine on infantilism. For you to be arguing from the perspective you are means you haven't the slightest conceptual ability regarding the designation of rules.

Again, your argument bore's me, do some research on property rights, then contemplate it, then come back and debate.

Here is a starting point;

/watch?v=pEOlK4y8AUo

/watch?v=qqod16fhMPE

[schillerblvd]

@Theobrothers WTF does the NDAA have to do with the topic? I agree that NDAA, the Patriot Act, Warrantless surveillance are all fucking horrendus & unconstitutional, but that does not address my point about people being denied critical services based upon people's stupid prejudices.

[Theobrothers]

@politicalarticles

Anyone who is not given the due process of law is having their rights violated.

Con-sti-tu-tion. Hence the Patriot Act being a total violation of EVERYONE's rights.

Please set up more strawmen for me to knock down.

Thanks.

[schillerblvd]

@Theobrothers Boy, you are really talking out of both sides of your ass! If segragation was already illegal, than wtf is this precious freedom of association that was supposedly sacrificed? If "freedom of association" results in illegal segragation then what the holy fuck are you blabbering about? Jesus H. Christ! The right wing is truly devolving at an unprecedented rate! I bet you believe Santorums lame ass "Blah people" excuse, huh? You fucking infantile half-wit!!!!

[MrWeknowNow]

No reason to vote for these guys smh nothings changed!

[12cornelious]

thank u rev.sharpton for marching in the civil rights movement!!

[12cornelious]

rick want a goverment job!! he funny but goverment too big!!lol lol

[thenewmike2012]

This looks and sounds horrible for Santorum...but in fairness, was he responding to a comment or question? The video doesnt show that.

[optionsupdate]

blacks are princes and kings and have been de throned by the evil white man

[optionsupdate]

Al Sharpton doing it for "the man" you got to get dirty sharpton to earn that money. sell out

[optionsupdate]

nice to see Sharpton making some decent money

[justjulie37]

Fuck you Santorum

[splicedenergy]

@LibertyFight NDAA was veto proof. Ron Paul would have no choice but to sign it as Obama did. The patriot act can only be repealed by congress. So RP would have no choice in that either.

[Theobrothers]

@splicedenergy

If the country elects Paul, do you seriously think the collective wouldn't force out any incumbent that attempted to stalemate the woken public?

Do you seriously think if Paul gets elected people, at that point, are still watching FOX, CNN, and MSNBC?

If Paul is elected, it only happened because the vast majority of voters woke the fuck up, and consequentially will force out any douchebag who has sold their seat to special interests.

Guaranteed.

[splicedenergy]

@Theobrothers If you were truly awake you'd realize that it isn't Paul that the establishment and elite fear. It's actually Gary Johnson. Since you've fallen for the bait and switch I can only conclude that you are still asleep.

[Theobrothers]

@splicedenergy

I'm not saying that Paul is the only one who could have carried the torch. Gary or Buddy and a few others could have. However, he had a much bigger base of support, he has a much longer record of spreading this message.

As for Gary, he had no real support. The establishment had no reason to fear him because no one was really listening. And as for a bait and switch, if that were true Gary would never have endorsed Paul if you were right.

I live and breath this shit kid.

[splicedenergy]

@Theobrothers I'm not a kid. Gary didn't have support because the corporate media refused him all airtime except perhaps 3 hours all together. They refused to put him on polls. If he wasn't on the polls he couldn't get recognition therefore he couldn't poll the numbers to get in the debates. It was a catch 22. Set up by who/what Mr "I breath this"? He would endorse Paul, Paul is the closest match to his own political positions. Ron Paul has fans.

[Theobrothers]

@splicedenergy

When you have less than 0.1% of the entire country, is there really a point in placing you in a poll? Look man, I'm not one of those Paul supporters who thinks everything is unfair and everyone deserves a chance. No catch 22, no support is no support.

Ron Paul had AT LEAST 10% of the base, so he by default deserves a spot. He could push past the bullshit the MSM is doing because people like me force it through alternative media.

Again, you don't endorse a bait and switch.

[splicedenergy]

@Theobrothers What part of catch 22 did you not understand? He has support. Refusing coverage prevents him from being supported more. RP could never be president. It will never happen. It's been 3 runs for RP and he's never made it to primaries because the man cannot govern. It's impossible for someone to govern who doesn't believe in government. Do you understand yet?

[Theobrothers]

@splicedenergy

Vicious circle is the definition you are looking for. Little support because the media wont cover him, the media wont cover him because he has little support.

Ron has the Catch 22 situation. The media purposefully ignores and avoids discussing him, we complain, so they cover him, but they purposefully only bring up points which stigmatize him. So it's be ignored, or be known for only negative things.

Learn English yet? Asshat.

LoL.

[splicedenergy]

@Theobrothers No, RP  has had coverage for 30 years. He's ran 3x for potus the luster wore off a looooooooong time ago idiot.

[Theobrothers]

@splicedenergy

Weak rebuttal. Learn English. LoL. Catch 22, hahahahahahHAHAHAHAHAHA

[splicedenergy]

@Theobrothers I'm not going to respond to childish tit for tat shit. If you were serious about our politics (you've demonstrated you are not) and not a cult followerer then you wouldn't be playing games. Catch 22 is exactly what it is. There is nothing to rebut.

[Theobrothers]

@splicedenergy

I could teach you English all day.

"I'm not going to respond to childish tit for tat shit"

Irony.

[splicedenergy]

@Theobrothers English is my first language. You aren't making any sense.

[Theobrothers]

@splicedenergy

You shouldn't be satisfied with an intermediate level of English.

Keep studying kid. One day...

[splicedenergy]

@Theobrothers Some call it a cult following. I wouldn't be able to disagree with it because of the behaviors of supporters. RP has been in congress 3 decades. Of course people know him. And of him. Gary was a 2 term successful governor. He's famous only in New Mexico. Gary has a record too. And proven he can govern. Ron Paul has not done that. Ron Paul cannot govern because he doesn't believe in government. That's the reason for the bait and switch.

[hajqbvii]

84% of the people on food stamps in Iowa are 'white'.....9% are 'black'.....

[jason101other]

is there any bigger racist hatemonger in this country that good ole al sharpton? give me a break