@AstroAntaAposAnarch The notorious Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination. Although Paul was not around to weigh in on the landmark legislation at the time, he had the chance to cast a symbolic vote against it in 2004, when the House of Representatives took up a resolution "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Paul was the only member who voted "no."
@AstroAntaAposAnarch Ron Paul is against the civil rights act, and thinks that black people are really fast when they steal your purse or wallet. He also made money suggesting there would be a race war. If you delve into the mans history of writings you see much more overtly racist things.
@AstroAntaAposAnarch Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters... , the CRA of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
@daswann14 I read this Resolution and for one, I can't believe Congress actually set aside valuable time to "recognize and honor" the Civil Rights Act when that time could have been better spent dealing with things like, oh, I don't know, maybe the massive debt crisis we've been facing. (If this is the way Congress has been acting these past decades, no wonder America is in the state its in) And for the record, it wouldn't have mattered if it was the frakking BoR that was being "recognized and..
@daswann14 ..honored" on the floor. It would've been a waste of time either way. Second, I agree with him completely on the CRA. Race relations have improved despite the the CRA, not because of it. When you force one group of people who hate another group to accomdate that other group it only creates more tension. The CRA was just another government power grab under the guise of civil rights, which consequently take away from people's civil liberties. E.g.: Some one demands they have the right
@daswann14 to work at the "all-white" McDonalds down the street. Result: the manager, or whoever owns the place, is now prevented from making the rules governing his own property. Question: If you and I lived next door and you smoked a lot, would I have any right to claim that I have right to live in my house without having to worry about smelling your cigar smoke and consequently forcing you to stop smoking on your own property? I willing to bet you'd say I would not. If I have problem with
@daswann14 your cigar smoking, I may freely move if I'm that desperate to get away from it, even though it's detrimental to my health (albeit insiginificantly compared to you). Reverse Scenario: I play Christian Music on the radio while I'm working on my motorcycle in the garage loud enough that you can hear it in your house. It's my property, so it's only fair I should be allowed to set the music as loud as I want. Yet you are so irritated (understably) that you
@AstroAntaAposAnarch "Reverse Scenario: I play Christian Music on the radio while I'm working on my motorcycle in the garage loud enough that you can hear it in your house. It's my property, so it's only fair I should be allowed to set the music as loud as I want." It is illegal toblastmusic so loud it disturbs people;noise citations.
@daswann14 Okay, it's illegal. So what? This whole thread is about the topic of something illegal legal. I don't see much difference. Besides it's a hypothetical scenario anycase.
If you must have a different example however, I'm happy to provide one. Reverse Scenario: I paint my house a bright pink and leave litter all about the yard (to clarify, no HOA in this neighborhood), which consequently makes your house look bad when you happen to be selling it. Just because me actions is inconvenient
@daswann14 for you, does that give you the right to take away my right as owner to paint the house whatever I want, in the name of the right to a "suitable business climate?" Well if I have to put up with your cigar smoke, then it's only fair you should have to put up with bright pink.
@AstroAntaAposAnarch You're ideologyof business and people have a right to do anything they want makes no sense. I think people should be free to do what they want so long as it does not impinge on othersbe it a pink house or smoking. Funny how Ron Paul is against Roe v Wade and abortion huh? Doesn't follw his own principles there.
@daswann14 I just believe in letting people make their own decisions in their own time. If you as the smoker, smoke in hypothetical neighborhood of non-smokers where smoking would be looked down up, I believe it should be up to you to decided whether or not you cease smoking for everyone else's sake or continue to the selfish and endure the glaring eyes of disapproval from your neighboors to continue your smoking. Same thing goes with house.
@daswann14 ...committing infanticide because it's convenient for you is one thing I will not abide. It is not fair to condemn someone to death who has yet had the chance to live their life, simply because they happen to be inside your body. Sorry, but that's the way life is. Sometimes you have to forfeit control temporarily so another may live. The woman's choice as far as abortion is concerned was when they decided to unbutton and risk the chance of pregnancy. Then when they do get...
@daswann14 ...pregnant, it's all "Oh, no! I didn't expect this. I'm pregnant! How could this possibly have happened. Well gee, I can't take care of kid now. I'm broke as it is OR Well gee, I can't have a kid, he'll ruin all the plans I have for my life. So I'm going 'nip it in the bud' as it were. Then problem solved. I'll I've done is murder my own child." Sorry, no excuse is good enough.
@daswann14 My business ideology however, does revolve around fulfilling comittments and promises made to a partner or customer, whether you want to or not. Not keeping your promises can have a detrimental effect on people when you leave them hanging out dry alone. As far as how you treat your own family and what you do with your own property however, should be up to you.
@daswann14 is up to him. Same would apply to you if you didn't want to serve certain groups. If it's your business and your property, you should have the liberty to discriminate (although given todays attitudes, you and anyone else who followed such racial philosophies would likely go out of business) Forcing someone else to accomodate you through "civil rights" is a violation of civil liberties, which, by contrast, does not force any sort of accomodation on anyone, apart from non-interference.
@daswann14 This is the problem I have with the CRA and affirmative action. Even if the whole world were to discriminate against me..... I would not raise a single finger against that fundamental liberty because it is my principle to let people make their own decisions and live with consequences, whatever they may be, even unto the point of death.
@AstroAntaAposAnarch "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e., support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."
Speaking about DC "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
@AstroAntaAposAnarch "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." Ron Paul
You can't put websites into comments for some lame reason. Google the quotes and see them cited/ in full context for yourself.
@charlesfloyb "Well, don't forget what George W. Bush has done to the country before you go bashing Obama too badly. " Terrible way to think. Bush's awfulness is in no way an excuse for Obama's malaise, constant capitulation, and outright draconian positions like signing off on detaining US citizens without a trial.
@daswann14 I'll admit signing off on detaining US citizens without a trial isn't good, but what's wrong with taxing the richest 1% their fair share? Most rich accept this, but if they can get away without paying it, they will.
@charlesfloyb "I'll admit signing off on detaining US citizens without a trial isn't good, but what's wrong with taxing the richest 1% their fair share?" ???? I'm not sure why you ask. I'm the biggest advocate there is to raising taxes on everyone and think the top bracket should be somewhere near 60%.
For truth in politics please tune to M.S.N.B.C. and if you "daswann14" or "ButterCookie1984 " or whomever has an argument about what the President has not done or accomplished I invite you to discuss your argument with me case by case, legislation by legislation etc and not just little "he didn't do this and he didn't do that's without facts and walking away. Make your case(s) with Details. It's easy to do like the haters and just throw out lil bullet points without facts. Respectfully, Spoony
Yo "daswann14" I invite You to take another look at our President and once You actually look at what he has accomplished dispite all that he's had to deal with up to and including the D.A.A. I'm pretty sure you'll see him for the absolute great man and President that he is. I think that you have heard things second hand and or incomplete i.e. he is trying to get the D.A.A. into the courts so that it can be dealt with and Dismissed Now and Not let the Republicans continue trying to make it law.
@SpoonyG925 He accomplished repealing DADT and what else exactly? Nothing. He hasn't even tried. He fought against the public option, Gitmo is still open, signed off that US citizens can be detained, decided we can execute citizens abroad, extended the awful Bush Tax cuts, did basically 0 financial reform, prosecuted no people from the Bush admin or financial sector. Dude he signed off on the DAA after he pushed to make the executive power in it Stronger!! He didn't veto it, he sucks
Ron Paul is not against public education, he's against the federal regulation of it. That's the exact same subtlety everyone is missing when they misinterpret his views. He's also for striking down Roe v. Wade; Doesn't mean he wants to ban abortion, but that's how people are interpreting it. His main thing seems to be decentralizing federal government power and returning it to the state level where it belongs (10th Amendment). You have to consider many of his other stances in light of that info.
@negrosaurus "Ron Paul is not against public education, he's against the federal regulation of it" Same thing, there is no difference. If Texas wants to teach creationism and not educate blacks more power to them in Pauls world.
"He's also for striking down Roe v. Wade; Doesn't mean he wants to ban abortion, but that's how people are interpreting it."B/c that is the correct interpretation. And it runs counter to his ideology- hypocrisy!
@daswann14 Education systems administrated by state governments and funded by taxpayers in those states is still public education. This is what Paul supports, not the abolishment or public education, just deregulating on the FEDERAL level.
Ron Paul is definitely anti-abortion, but again, he would leave it up to states to decide, rather than the federal government mandating how it's going to be in all 50 states.
@negrosaurus 'State's rights' is the age old racist arguement. Like I said Ron Paul would allows states to discriminate within their public education syste; which to me makes it no longer public.
Exaclty Ron Paul would allow states to ban abortions; 1 . thats not libertarian 2. that's a nonsense position, Ron Paul would still allow segregation, voter discrimination, and slavery. His positions on a whole host of issues are monstrous and insane.
I am a black woman, and I am not ashamed to say that I will not be voting for Obama...people need to realize that we really just voted to 'get our guy in'...but you are correct; he has not done anything.
@ButterCookie1984 I like everything you say except "...people need to realize that we really just voted to 'get our guy in'..." I think that is a mistruth that is perpetuated by many pundits, but in reality the % of blacks that voted for Obama was not statistically different from how much they normally vote for Dems in recent presidential elections. Only the turnout was relevant, which was also fed by Anti-bush sentiment.
@daswann14 true.....I stated that comment about blacks voting for Obama to refer to the majority, who only voted based on race and not policy or ideologies.
Hey!!! Glad to have you back!! I enjoyed watching this video and its very good to see 'us' being knowledgeable about politics. You are very informative on the presidential candidates and forcing us to think. I love it!!!!
I'm starting to subscribe to the theory that the conservatives are really throwing their worst candidate out there, because no one in their right mind would want to get into office with the economic problems going on right now. And of course Obama is doing a great job for the conservatives anyway.
@wonderpope That's some pretty good all-around insight. Never thought about the fact that the better candidates might be shying away from what they think is a bad situation.
Comment removed
AstroAntaAposAnarch 1 month ago
Ron Paul is a straight up racist old man .
slLLyhumans 1 month ago
@slLLyhumans One of his many problems.
daswann14 1 month ago
@daswann14
Its the only problem that matters .
slLLyhumans 1 month ago
Comment removed
AstroAntaAposAnarch 1 month ago
@slLLyhumans Exactly how is he racist?
AstroAntaAposAnarch 1 month ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch The notorious Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination. Although Paul was not around to weigh in on the landmark legislation at the time, he had the chance to cast a symbolic vote against it in 2004, when the House of Representatives took up a resolution "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Paul was the only member who voted "no."
slLLyhumans 1 month ago
Comment removed
AstroAntaAposAnarch 1 month ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch Ron Paul is against the civil rights act, and thinks that black people are really fast when they steal your purse or wallet. He also made money suggesting there would be a race war. If you delve into the mans history of writings you see much more overtly racist things.
daswann14 1 month ago
@daswann14 That's an interesting point. Do you have any citations back that up?
AstroAntaAposAnarch 1 month ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters... , the CRA of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
daswann14 1 month ago
@daswann14 I read this Resolution and for one, I can't believe Congress actually set aside valuable time to "recognize and honor" the Civil Rights Act when that time could have been better spent dealing with things like, oh, I don't know, maybe the massive debt crisis we've been facing. (If this is the way Congress has been acting these past decades, no wonder America is in the state its in) And for the record, it wouldn't have mattered if it was the frakking BoR that was being "recognized and..
AstroAntaAposAnarch 1 month ago
@daswann14 ..honored" on the floor. It would've been a waste of time either way. Second, I agree with him completely on the CRA. Race relations have improved despite the the CRA, not because of it. When you force one group of people who hate another group to accomdate that other group it only creates more tension. The CRA was just another government power grab under the guise of civil rights, which consequently take away from people's civil liberties. E.g.: Some one demands they have the right
AstroAntaAposAnarch 1 month ago
@daswann14 to work at the "all-white" McDonalds down the street. Result: the manager, or whoever owns the place, is now prevented from making the rules governing his own property. Question: If you and I lived next door and you smoked a lot, would I have any right to claim that I have right to live in my house without having to worry about smelling your cigar smoke and consequently forcing you to stop smoking on your own property? I willing to bet you'd say I would not. If I have problem with
AstroAntaAposAnarch 1 month ago
@daswann14 your cigar smoking, I may freely move if I'm that desperate to get away from it, even though it's detrimental to my health (albeit insiginificantly compared to you). Reverse Scenario: I play Christian Music on the radio while I'm working on my motorcycle in the garage loud enough that you can hear it in your house. It's my property, so it's only fair I should be allowed to set the music as loud as I want. Yet you are so irritated (understably) that you
AstroAntaAposAnarch 1 month ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch "Reverse Scenario: I play Christian Music on the radio while I'm working on my motorcycle in the garage loud enough that you can hear it in your house. It's my property, so it's only fair I should be allowed to set the music as loud as I want." It is illegal toblastmusic so loud it disturbs people;noise citations.
daswann14 1 month ago
@daswann14 Okay, it's illegal. So what? This whole thread is about the topic of something illegal legal. I don't see much difference. Besides it's a hypothetical scenario anycase.
If you must have a different example however, I'm happy to provide one. Reverse Scenario: I paint my house a bright pink and leave litter all about the yard (to clarify, no HOA in this neighborhood), which consequently makes your house look bad when you happen to be selling it. Just because me actions is inconvenient
AstroAntaAposAnarch 1 month ago
@daswann14 for you, does that give you the right to take away my right as owner to paint the house whatever I want, in the name of the right to a "suitable business climate?" Well if I have to put up with your cigar smoke, then it's only fair you should have to put up with bright pink.
AstroAntaAposAnarch 1 month ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch You're ideologyof business and people have a right to do anything they want makes no sense. I think people should be free to do what they want so long as it does not impinge on othersbe it a pink house or smoking. Funny how Ron Paul is against Roe v Wade and abortion huh? Doesn't follw his own principles there.
daswann14 1 month ago
@daswann14 I just believe in letting people make their own decisions in their own time. If you as the smoker, smoke in hypothetical neighborhood of non-smokers where smoking would be looked down up, I believe it should be up to you to decided whether or not you cease smoking for everyone else's sake or continue to the selfish and endure the glaring eyes of disapproval from your neighboors to continue your smoking. Same thing goes with house.
And abortion is plain murder to my eyes, and...
AstroAntaAposAnarch 1 month ago
@daswann14 ...committing infanticide because it's convenient for you is one thing I will not abide. It is not fair to condemn someone to death who has yet had the chance to live their life, simply because they happen to be inside your body. Sorry, but that's the way life is. Sometimes you have to forfeit control temporarily so another may live. The woman's choice as far as abortion is concerned was when they decided to unbutton and risk the chance of pregnancy. Then when they do get...
AstroAntaAposAnarch 1 month ago
@daswann14 ...pregnant, it's all "Oh, no! I didn't expect this. I'm pregnant! How could this possibly have happened. Well gee, I can't take care of kid now. I'm broke as it is OR Well gee, I can't have a kid, he'll ruin all the plans I have for my life. So I'm going 'nip it in the bud' as it were. Then problem solved. I'll I've done is murder my own child." Sorry, no excuse is good enough.
AstroAntaAposAnarch 1 month ago
@daswann14 My business ideology however, does revolve around fulfilling comittments and promises made to a partner or customer, whether you want to or not. Not keeping your promises can have a detrimental effect on people when you leave them hanging out dry alone. As far as how you treat your own family and what you do with your own property however, should be up to you.
AstroAntaAposAnarch 1 month ago
@daswann14 is up to him. Same would apply to you if you didn't want to serve certain groups. If it's your business and your property, you should have the liberty to discriminate (although given todays attitudes, you and anyone else who followed such racial philosophies would likely go out of business) Forcing someone else to accomodate you through "civil rights" is a violation of civil liberties, which, by contrast, does not force any sort of accomodation on anyone, apart from non-interference.
AstroAntaAposAnarch 1 month ago
@daswann14 This is the problem I have with the CRA and affirmative action. Even if the whole world were to discriminate against me..... I would not raise a single finger against that fundamental liberty because it is my principle to let people make their own decisions and live with consequences, whatever they may be, even unto the point of death.
AstroAntaAposAnarch 1 month ago
Comment removed
AstroAntaAposAnarch 1 month ago
@daswann14 Sorry about the disorder of the posts. I was too focused on my argument to notice.
AstroAntaAposAnarch 1 month ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e., support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."
Speaking about DC "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
daswann14 1 month ago
Comment removed
AstroAntaAposAnarch 1 month ago
Comment removed
AstroAntaAposAnarch 1 month ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." Ron Paul
You can't put websites into comments for some lame reason. Google the quotes and see them cited/ in full context for yourself.
daswann14 1 month ago
@AstroAntaAposAnarch
You ron paul guys are just trolls at this point .
slLLyhumans 1 month ago
Comment removed
AstroAntaAposAnarch 1 month ago
No comment, thanks brother. Later. Peace
SpoonyG925 1 month ago
Well, don't forget what George W. Bush has done to the country before you go bashing Obama too badly.
charlesfloyb 1 month ago
@charlesfloyb "Well, don't forget what George W. Bush has done to the country before you go bashing Obama too badly. " Terrible way to think. Bush's awfulness is in no way an excuse for Obama's malaise, constant capitulation, and outright draconian positions like signing off on detaining US citizens without a trial.
daswann14 1 month ago
@daswann14 I'll admit signing off on detaining US citizens without a trial isn't good, but what's wrong with taxing the richest 1% their fair share? Most rich accept this, but if they can get away without paying it, they will.
charlesfloyb 1 month ago
@charlesfloyb "I'll admit signing off on detaining US citizens without a trial isn't good, but what's wrong with taxing the richest 1% their fair share?" ???? I'm not sure why you ask. I'm the biggest advocate there is to raising taxes on everyone and think the top bracket should be somewhere near 60%.
daswann14 1 month ago
Good to see you back daswann
richig761 1 month ago
@richig761 Thanks man, appreciate it.
daswann14 1 month ago
For truth in politics please tune to M.S.N.B.C. and if you "daswann14" or "ButterCookie1984 " or whomever has an argument about what the President has not done or accomplished I invite you to discuss your argument with me case by case, legislation by legislation etc and not just little "he didn't do this and he didn't do that's without facts and walking away. Make your case(s) with Details. It's easy to do like the haters and just throw out lil bullet points without facts. Respectfully, Spoony
SpoonyG925 1 month ago
@SpoonyG925 In just laid out a case, I await your response.
daswann14 1 month ago
Yo "daswann14" I invite You to take another look at our President and once You actually look at what he has accomplished dispite all that he's had to deal with up to and including the D.A.A. I'm pretty sure you'll see him for the absolute great man and President that he is. I think that you have heard things second hand and or incomplete i.e. he is trying to get the D.A.A. into the courts so that it can be dealt with and Dismissed Now and Not let the Republicans continue trying to make it law.
SpoonyG925 1 month ago
@SpoonyG925 He accomplished repealing DADT and what else exactly? Nothing. He hasn't even tried. He fought against the public option, Gitmo is still open, signed off that US citizens can be detained, decided we can execute citizens abroad, extended the awful Bush Tax cuts, did basically 0 financial reform, prosecuted no people from the Bush admin or financial sector. Dude he signed off on the DAA after he pushed to make the executive power in it Stronger!! He didn't veto it, he sucks
daswann14 1 month ago
Watchin' the Iowa Caucus now on CNN....Santorum is in the lead with Romney on his heels. Just heads up to anyone not keeping up.
ButterCookie1984 1 month ago
Ron Paul is not against public education, he's against the federal regulation of it. That's the exact same subtlety everyone is missing when they misinterpret his views. He's also for striking down Roe v. Wade; Doesn't mean he wants to ban abortion, but that's how people are interpreting it. His main thing seems to be decentralizing federal government power and returning it to the state level where it belongs (10th Amendment). You have to consider many of his other stances in light of that info.
negrosaurus 1 month ago
@negrosaurus "Ron Paul is not against public education, he's against the federal regulation of it" Same thing, there is no difference. If Texas wants to teach creationism and not educate blacks more power to them in Pauls world.
"He's also for striking down Roe v. Wade; Doesn't mean he wants to ban abortion, but that's how people are interpreting it."B/c that is the correct interpretation. And it runs counter to his ideology- hypocrisy!
You've told me nothing new about Ron Paul.
daswann14 1 month ago
@daswann14 Education systems administrated by state governments and funded by taxpayers in those states is still public education. This is what Paul supports, not the abolishment or public education, just deregulating on the FEDERAL level.
Ron Paul is definitely anti-abortion, but again, he would leave it up to states to decide, rather than the federal government mandating how it's going to be in all 50 states.
negrosaurus 1 month ago
@negrosaurus 'State's rights' is the age old racist arguement. Like I said Ron Paul would allows states to discriminate within their public education syste; which to me makes it no longer public.
Exaclty Ron Paul would allow states to ban abortions; 1 . thats not libertarian 2. that's a nonsense position, Ron Paul would still allow segregation, voter discrimination, and slavery. His positions on a whole host of issues are monstrous and insane.
daswann14 1 month ago
@daswann14 Ok, now I see what you mean. Your choice of words in the video led me to believe you thought Paul wanted to privatize all education.
negrosaurus 1 month ago
I am a black woman, and I am not ashamed to say that I will not be voting for Obama...people need to realize that we really just voted to 'get our guy in'...but you are correct; he has not done anything.
ButterCookie1984 1 month ago
@ButterCookie1984 I like everything you say except "...people need to realize that we really just voted to 'get our guy in'..." I think that is a mistruth that is perpetuated by many pundits, but in reality the % of blacks that voted for Obama was not statistically different from how much they normally vote for Dems in recent presidential elections. Only the turnout was relevant, which was also fed by Anti-bush sentiment.
daswann14 1 month ago
@daswann14 true.....I stated that comment about blacks voting for Obama to refer to the majority, who only voted based on race and not policy or ideologies.
ButterCookie1984 1 month ago
Hey!!! Glad to have you back!! I enjoyed watching this video and its very good to see 'us' being knowledgeable about politics. You are very informative on the presidential candidates and forcing us to think. I love it!!!!
ButterCookie1984 1 month ago
I'm starting to subscribe to the theory that the conservatives are really throwing their worst candidate out there, because no one in their right mind would want to get into office with the economic problems going on right now. And of course Obama is doing a great job for the conservatives anyway.
wonderpope 1 month ago
@wonderpope That's some pretty good all-around insight. Never thought about the fact that the better candidates might be shying away from what they think is a bad situation.
daswann14 1 month ago