Even though you speak from mankinds true heart your wasting time and revelution is the only answer and the 27 levels above the President will not stand...your wise words aren't stopping water floridation or barium dumped by the military complex. Stop talking and reform these anti-human power.
I know you are well meaning, but I had to laugh at your selection of government travesties. Water fluoridation and barium dumping? How about war, theft of private production/property, criminalization of nonviolent activity, spying, etc?
The NRA is giving FREE 1-yr memberships to everyone who wants to Join. They are trying to build up their membership to fight pending Legislation that impacts our right to keep and bear arms. It is very important that anti-gun congressmen see how many people they will have to fight to get their legislation through. We renamed the url. Just add tk to it.
"bullshit. dumbasses like you are the reason racism exists. if you want to stop racism then you can start by killing yourself. i think MLK would agree with me on that "
Exactly. Wasn't his dream that people would not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character? So far, RPHB hasn't proved himself to be a very tolerant, honest person.
I mentioned six things, and you seized on one. Interesting.
Paul opposes the Emancipation Proclamation and 13th Amendment. He voted against the Voting Rights Act. He cast the only vote in Congress to send our tax dollars to fund the genocide in Darfur (the vote was 418-1). He had KKK members working his campaign. He called black people "dirty," rapists, and "animals," and urged all whites to arm themselves. He was endorsed by David Duke and every leading white supremacist in the country.
Yeah. So much for being curious and having an open mind. Racism exists because there are still racists out there. People who think America was wrong to end slavery, and wrong to end segregation. People who voted against the MLK holiday. And people wearing white sheets and hoods who support them.
Well, he opposes every single advancement in the entire history of American civil rights. We ended slavery in the 1860s, outlawed segregation and voting discrimination in the 1960s, and created the MLK holiday in the 1980s. He opposes all of that. Plus, for years he earned $940,000 a year writing and publishing (with his closest advisor, Lew Rockwell) insanely racist and vile newsletters. And he accepted money from white supremacist terrorists and flat refused to donate it. That's a start.
"Well, he opposes every single advancement in the entire history of American civil rights. We ended slavery in the 1860s, outlawed segregation and voting discrimination in the 1960s, and created the MLK holiday in the 1980s. He opposes all of that. "
He told Tim Russert that Lincoln was wrong to go to war, and America was wrong to free the slaves without the consent of the racist slaveowners, and without paying them for their "property." That precludes the Emancipation Proclamation and 13th Amendment.
He told Russert he opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which ended segregation.
He voted against the Voting Rights Act and MLK holiday. That's just the public record.
He was against it because the Civil Rights Act FORCED business owners to serve blacks even if they didn't want to. He was protecting it out of liberty, not out of racism. Same with the slaves. He's not motivated by racial hatred.
Yup. That's exactly why he opposed it. Either racial discrimination is justified or its not. Either all men are created equal or they're not. Either blacks are sub-human, inferior animals, or they're human beings and Americans. Once you accept that all men are created equal, once you become a real American, there's no valid reason for denying liberty, justice, and freedom to black people based on the color of their skin.
So you're saying in a country that's supposed to protect your freedom of expression and property rights is supposed to force someone to give up their property to someone they don't want to? Because that's what you're arguing--and you're ignoring the message of freedom and basically advocating fascism. That's why Ron Paul did not support the Civil Rights act, because it went beyond Political freedom, it went out to force regulations on PRIVATE rights.
The Civil Rights Act doesn't impinge on any property rights at all. No one in America ever had a property right to treat other human beings as subhuman, as animals, as genetically inferior. Either all men are created equal or they're not. We the People judge others on the content of their character. We understand that it's un-American to discriminate on the basis of race. We understand that you're a traitor, that you hate America, hate the Constitution, and hate the founders.
What don't you understand about people being forced to serve someone even if they don't want to on their own property? That's not liberty. And the sense of equality only applies to the eyes of the State, which should have secular view as well.
Racism would just be pointless for someone harboring strong principals such as this. And it's exactly why he's often accused of being racist, cuz' he didn't vote to allow things like stealing money from me to give to some minority deemed hopeless by the neo-libs and neo-cons.
It can't be up to the people decide since everyone has their own visions of what's "fair" or "equal", especially with the freedom to practice religions and to express other ideas even if they don't like it... You have the right to pursue happiness, not the right to demand and take it from someone else.
Some people believe it's "fair" or "equal" to murder others. Too bad. Here in America, we have a government and we prohibit murder. You're free to move somewhere else.
Similarly, we believe all men are created equal. If you voluntarily choose to act in interstate commerce, you need not serve a dog that comes to the counter, but you may not discriminate against other humans. YOU believe blacks are lower than dogs, but We the People do not. Traitors like you are always free to move.
Yea, people believe in something, but you want to go and make it so that nobody can do anything practice anything. But you're not really listening to anything I'm sayng..
I'm done talking with your dirt slinging ass, cuz' I'm sick of you accusing me as being a racist for supporting freedom and independence. Please go kill yourself and do everyone else a favor.
You oppose the Civil Rights Act, which ended segregation and continues to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race in housing, employment, and education. There's only one reason anyone would oppose that in 2009, and we all know what it is.
I have to disagree. If I applied to Harvard and an African-American just as smart and just as wealthy applied at the same time, they would take the African-American instead of me because they like to have a quota. Yeah, thank you Civil Rights Act and Affirmative Action. Thank you for protecting me.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It's a false hypothetical because you're not smart enough to get in, but Harvard doesn't have a quota, kiddo. Quotas are prohibited, and have been for a long, long time. You really have no idea what you're talking about, and you're embarassing yourself.
sorry (aszhole) quotas was the wrong word. Harvard has repeatedly downplayed their low numbers of Asian students, but it's o.k. to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (yeah, I might not be Harvard smart, but I'm no dummy. I know what Harvard and all educational institutions report their statistics to. And no, I didn't have to look it up) because Harvard still meets the adequate requirements Affirmative Actions requires. I wasn't saying AA is bad, I'm saying it works poorly
Yeah, quotas was really the wrong word. Harvard is a private school. It can adopt its own affirmative action if it wants, but that's purely a private decision. And kids that just miss out on Harvard still do just fine in life.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Quotas are not prohibited. The Univeristy of California system only outlawed them 8 years ago. Private colleges are still allowed to do so. And it is the right of Harvard to place quota systems in place.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Do you really believe segregation has ended? Have you been to Sumter, South Carolina. How about Oxnard, CA? South-Central Los Angeles? No segregation still exists.
That's an idiotic comment. People of color are no longer legally required to use separate drinking fountains, to ride in the back of the bus, to attend separate and inferior schools, to hold only certain jobs, or to marry only within their own race. Now stop spamming the board.
Pot calling the kettle black. I guess you automatically place "legal" in front of segregation. But segregation can be and is voluntary in many communities. You also show an gross naivete towards the quality of 1950s all-black schools. While the facilities may not have been on par, the education was better than many of our children get today. I am against forced segregation (so is Ron Paul jackass) but voluntary segregation is fine with me.
It's not voluntary segregation. Black folks don't hang out with you because you're wearing a white sheet and hood.
You and Paul want to legalize and encourage states and businesses to force blacks to the back of the bus, impose separate drinking fountains and swimming pools, and deny them jobs, housing, and education. You're fucking sickening. But you've lost that war. You and your Valley Swim Club, James Von Brunn, hang-all-the-Negroes horseshit doesn't play in today's America.
Saying and suggesting are two different things. I'd argue that your 'straw man' argument associates me with an anti-black movement. That would generally require me to not be black, not have a black girlfriend, not have black friends, etc. So back to the inferior education standards argument that you conveniently ignored. If you live in North Central Omaha (Nebraska), you are not allowed to attend the great schools of Northwest Omaha or Papillon. Guess who makes up 80% of North Omaha.
Never suggested anything of the sort, either. It's certainly easier to keep attacking that strawman, but it sure ain't persuasive.
Being a racist doesn't require shit. Either you hide your KKK robes from your alleged black friends, or you've found self-hating black friends, or you're only now discovering your racism via Youtube, or like a lot of racists you love the individual but hate the race. I could give a shit. You want to legalize and encourage segregation, and that's fucking sickening.
An out of nowhere accusation. Where have you seen me, or Ron Paul for that matter, promote forced segregation? Libertarians of our persuasion are against force. But we also believe in private property. So where you may own a restaurant and now want to serve me because of my mixed ethnic heritage, so be it. But the government should not pass laws mandating you keep me out. But I supposed many of you need the government in your lives.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act ended segregation. It stopped people like you from forcing blacks to the back of the bus, to separate drinking fountains and swimming pools, to inferior lunch counters, schools, houses, and jobs. There is only one reason anyone would oppose the Act, and we all know what it is---you believe one race is genetically inferior, and should be treated as inferior, and subhuman. It's fucking sickening. Here in America, We the People believe all men are created equal.
Oh, poor little child. You bring up the red herring and then start flinging them around like we were in a fish market. You can come to that conclusion if you would like, but if you had ever been somewhere you would know that sitting on a bus is far from the most distressing reality of the African-American community. With all this regulation, black businesses still have trouble getting loans in black communities. Poverty is at a all time high. The men are caged up by the state.
Um, yeah, we still have inequality in society. Your "solution" is to repeal the Civil Rights Act and legalize segregation and discrimination in employment, housing, and education. That's pretty fucking sick.
I would say that my solution lies in Malcolm X's "The Ballot or the Bullet". I recommend listening to his speech and analyzing the words. Do you think his analysis would conclude the ballot worked?
Ah, you have such a simple mind. Rosa Parks sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott, which led to the desegregation of the public transit in that city within months. The movement also led several other southern cities do end segregation. The Civil Rights Act did none of this. The people did it. And I do not believe that the government has the right to segregate. But I do believe private individuals do. And the Civil Rights Act also allows private individuals to do the same.
You racists are sickening. It's vile to take in vain the name of Rosa Parks, who helped desegregate one sector in one city at great personal cost, and who SUPPORTED the Civil Rights Act. It's fucking laughable to suggest that the CRA hasn't accomplished anything. If it hadn't, you KKK fuckers wouldn't spend all your time on Youtube opposing it. The CRA has been fucking you in the ass for 35 years, by keeping you from discriminating in housing, education, and employment. That's the bottom line.
It is funny that you are unable to hold a conversation without resorting to belligerency. Anybody who has watched 20/20 knows that the CRA has not achieved that. Do you know that Ron Paul was the only Congressman who offered to pay for Rosa Park's Congressional Gold Medal out of his own pocket? None of your liberal friends did. She was brave, but I have to stand with Cedric the Entertainer in relation to your worship of her.
You think the CRA hasn't achieved anything. That's insane.
Paul was the only Congressman to vote to DENY Parks the Congressional Gold Medal. It's sick. He supported far more expensive medals for other people, but no medal for her, for the obvious reason. And a fake offer he knew no one would accept is just an insult. Either she's an American hero or she's not. A bunch of guys passing the hat is a poor, insulting substitute for recognition by one's country. Why not just admit you hate her?
You bring me joy ! The Congressional Record shows that Ron Paul voted against the Congressional Medal for Pope John Paul, Mother Teresa, Ronald Reagan, Tony Blair, and the Dalai Lama. You have made quite the name for yourself. Congratulations. Some day you will die. Hopefully before then you can become intellectually relevant.
Yeah. Two Catholics, a non-Christian minority, a foreign leader who Paul called "an enemy of freedom and liberty," and a former president who Paul called "a failure." Thanks for that. There's only one reason you and Paul oppose the Congressional Gold Medal for Rosa Parks, and we all know what it is.
Intellectually relevant? Really? You're an admitted racist who wants to repeal the CRA and legalize segregation and discrimination. Your kind stopped being intellectually relevant 100 years ago.
I don't know about Ron Paul, but I am for equal rights for all. However, I think that African Americans are needed at our jobs, but the thing is, it is impossible to fire people that are not doing their jobs and there is the problem. We have to become more efficient and demand more from our workers, and if a worker has no fear of being fired, many have no desire to do a better job. It has nothing to do with color, it only has to do with human nature.
Anyone who's a racist is a douchebag (and I am of northern European decent). Let's stop talking about "race" and focus on the destruction of our economy and our currency!!
No, but MLK was a socialist who believed in redistribution. Contrary to his "I have a dream" speech, he was all for judging people on the basis of their color when it came to government entitlements
Check to see if your Congressman/Woman has co-sponsored H.R. 1207, Audit the Fed Bill, yet by going to the site below. Once you put your zip code in you will not only find out if they are a co-sponsor but ways to contact them if they aren't.
1207Check.
Add tk to the url above and also to the one below to sign the Petition.
AuditTheFed.
Ron Paul/Rand Paul 2012
HISTORY that We The People WILL DEFINITELY get behind.
The civil war was really more about the Federal government conquering the states, which up until that point were voluntarily part of the union. I love how you think the war's purpose was to end slavery. Hahaha...high school rubbish but it's funny.
The civil war was Hamilton's ideas conquering Jefferson's. A shame over 600,000 people had to die for it, but you seem not to mind that fact. Had Lincoln really wanted to free slaves, it would have been cheaper to BUY them all than the war cost. LOL
He thinks the American Civil War was a wise war. A war that killed 620,000 men to stop slavery that every other nation simply stopped by decree.
He is a War Lover and Anti Humanity.
His mouth is a Spigot of Hateful Refuse.
He loves a Government of Imperfect Men who tell people how their tax dollars should be spent whether on a holiday to worship an immoral man who cheated on his wife or a Bloated Civil Rights Act . He is a Fascist Ideal Believer .
In 1991, Paul said "In 1988 when I ran president on the Libertarian Party ticket, I was berated for hours because I had refused to vote, while in Congress, for a MLK holiday. I didn't know then about his plagiarism, but the rest of King's crimes were clear. J. Edgar Hoover once called him 'the most dangerous man in America.' Who could have known the danger would continue after his death and threaten to strangle our culture?"
In 1990, Paul said "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressmen. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day."
Yup. When you say Ron Paul hates blacks, half his supporters deny it. The other half say "So what? So do I!" At least you KKK fuckers are honest about it, even if you are traitors.
I'm not really a traitor. Don't like them now, didn't like them before.
I don't support killing or lynching them, but if I don't have to hang around them I won't.
We also don't need laws protecting them. Let the free market do it. Free market favors businesses who support woman and minorities anyway. (Pay them less, hire more, lower unemployment, more employees = better for the business = more money = wages raised)
Sure. The free market was fucking great for blacks before the Civil War, and almost as good before the civil rights movement!
Either you believe all men are created equal or you don't. Either you believe discrimination on the basis of race or sex are wrong, or you don't. It's really that simple.
"After slavery ended it didn't get much better"---that's the quintessential racist thing to say. Slavery was centuries of rapes, whippings, lynchings, abuse, beatings, the selling of one's children, and the COMPLETE LOSS OF ALL FREEDOM. Of course emancipation improved things, you sick piece of shit---people were FREE. They could have babies and not have them ripped from their arms and sold away. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Sharecropping made the former slave worthless. Rent could be charged, hours worsened, expectations rose. Slavery you wouldn't get thrown deeper into debt if the weather was bad and the crop worse. Sharecropping you would.
Sure, some escaped to the North. Happened under slavery too.
Wow. Someone should put a bullet in your head right now. I'd love to watch the blood pour over your white sheet and hood and onto the floor. Racist, ignorant, and arrogant is just a brutal combination, and shows that the world would be a far better place without you. You're just another racist piece of shit who thinks the stealing and selling of black children continued after emancipation. Your poor, poor parents.
He thinks the American Civil War was a wise war. A war that killed 620,000 men to stop slavery that every other nation simply stopped by decree.
He is a War Lover and Anti Humanity.
His mouth is a Spigot of Hateful Refuse.
He loves a Government of Imperfect Men who tell people how their tax dollars should be spent whether on a holiday to worship an immoral man who cheated on his wife or a Bloated Civil Rights Act . He is a Fascist Ideal Believer .
What a pile of shit. Racist Southerners seceded and fired on American troops before Lincoln even took office, and refused all compromises that did not involve the extension, expansion, and PERMANENT protection of slavery. At that point, Lincoln could either defend our troops, save the country, and free the slaves, or surrender, allow secession to stand, and accept that slavery would last another 100+ years. We the People think he made the right choice. You do not, for the obvious reason.
"RonPaulHates..." on MLK day -- guess what? It DOES cost a LOT of taxpayer money. All federal employees get paid days off that day. That pisses a ton of money down the handout drain. But "obviously" this couldn't be a reason to oppose it. Ron Paul is not a fiscal conservative, and always votes to increase waste and spending, right? (har) You're living in a fantasy world where real life is filtered through your own personal bias.
A holiday doesn't piss "a ton" of money down the drain. That's absurd. You'd have to be wearing a sheet and hood to exaggerate that much.
And Paul has NEVER ONCE IN HIS ENTIRE LIFE said he voted against the MLK holiday because of the cost. Not yesterday, not today, not ever. Not once in his entire life. Maybe you should stop making up lies for him?
Paul explained that he voted No because MLK was a Communist, plagiarist, and gay child rapist, and "most dangerous man in America." He's sick.
In 1991, Paul said "In 1988 when I ran president on the Libertarian Party ticket, I was berated for hours because I had refused to vote, while in Congress, for a MLK holiday. I didn't know then about his plagiarism, but the rest of King's crimes were clear. J. Edgar Hoover once called him 'the most dangerous man in America.' Who could have known the danger would continue after his death and threaten to strangle our culture?"
Can I have a legit link or source of where he said that? And that quote seems odd in the way its spoken...is that a direct quote? Ron Paul has always applauded MLK for his peaceful protests and I'm sure he wouldn't say MLK did any crimes unless he did commit them...but I'm willing to hear your point...I just need solid proof
And I have something for you to read. They are being critical of Ron here, but the hilarious thing is that it says he voted FOR MLK DAY, fool.
Google "A few exceptions to his small-government principles" and read the first link at Politifact.
And if you're going to quote that old "newsletter", we already know he never even read it--it was written by staff. He'd never let that go out had he known. Listen to his speeches, he doesn't hate anyone.
Yeah, yeah, it's the same brain-dead sentence from the St. Petersburg Times, the least reputable source on Earth. Congratulations! I've only seen that quoted as fact from 500 other uneducated Paul supporters!
You actually believe he voted for the MLK holiday!!! Ahahahahahaha!!! He's bragged about voting against it for decades, and he's NEVER ONCE IN HIS ENTIRE LIFE CLAIMED TO HAVE VOTED FOR IT, but you honestly believe he did! How fucking awesome is that!
Least reputable according to what authority? You? lol. Based on your track record, I'm gonna have to go with what makes sense based on what I've heard him ACTUALLY SAY. Which has nothing to do with anything racist or hateful.
Read Robert P Murphy's book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism", there's a whole chapter on slavery there. And how the government ENFORCED slavery when the market wanted to shut it down--because it is too inefficient and not worth it (not to mention immoral).
No strong opinion until I'm shown proof otherwise. I'm sure as hell not going to take your word for it. And it doesn't say "move". But who cares? Maybe he did vote against it. This is such a small thing it's pointless.
I don't know exactly what the specifics of the bill or what the alternative was, but neither do you. Maybe it's not relevant.
Almost the entire premise of your "racism" claim is based on a vote for or against a holiday. That's some pretty fuzzy logic you're using there.
Ahahahahahaha!!!! You honestly think he voted for the MLK holiday!!! I've seen some ridiculous nonsense from Paul supporters, but you literally believe the sun rises in the west, that grass is orange, that the sun revolves around the Earth! He's BRAGGED about voting against it for decades and NEVER ONCE IN HIS ENTIRE LIFE CLAIMED TO HAVE VOTED FOR IT! Not yesterday, not today, not ever. Not once in his entire life. But you still believe he did!
There is no day for black people, you racist fuck, any more than Washington's birthday is a day for white people. Either MLK is a national hero or he's not. We the People believe he is. You and Paul do not, for the obvious reasons---jealousy, fear, stupidity, and hatred. It's no wonder Paul got only 2% of the total primary vote. Who would vote for a man supported by people like you?
Good. Washington's birthday is a day for America's independence from a monarchy.
MLK can be a national hero, just don't expect me to care about him.
Jealousy? Jealous of what?
Fear? Of what? Black people for the most part are democratic, so yeah I would fear that being widespread.
Stupidity? lol.
Hatred? Yup.
He only got 2% of the vote because the republicans voting in that supported Bush and his neo-con war views. Why do you think McCain got elected? He agrees 90% of the time with Bush.
No, the Fourth of July is a day to celebrate America's independence from Britain. How fucking stupid are you? Did you even pass junior high? If you have some sort of disability, let me know and I'll back off.
Fourth of July is the day we celebrate independence. That's why we call it "Independence Day." Seriously, how fucking stupid are you? Any rational person would say---"Oh yeah, Washington's Day celebrates Washington and Independence Day celebrates independence. My bad." But not you---you double down on your retarded claim! You really think Washington's Birthday is the day we celebrate America's independence from Britain!!! Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
What is wrong with you? You are obsessed with pointless arguments. The house (the country) is on fire and you're attacking one of the residents because you think they didn't like the color of the wall paint in the basement.
Provide credible proof of your accusations.
Or how about discussing a Ron Paul position that doesn't have masses of progaganda and misinformation on it out there, like closing the Fed. He's fighting to stop the government from stealing from us, including losers like you.
RPHB: The sad thing here is that you basically seem to believe that because your view is PC, and Ron Paul's is not politically correct, it somehow makes your arguments stronger. Are you really that dense?
I don't believe anything of the sort, and Paul is a hell of a lot worse than "not politically correct." He opposes every single advancement in the entire history of American civil rights, from the Emancipation Proclamation to the 1964 Civil Rights Act to the MLK holiday. And he made $940,000 a year publishing and writing (with his best friend and closest advisor, Lew Rockwell) newsletters that called blacks dirty, rapists, and "animals," and MLK a gay child rapist. He's sick.
That's because these laws make some "more equal" than others. It's politically incorrect to say this, but it's true. It's also not PC to say that these laws HURT minorities more than they help.
Example:
Affirm action disproportionally puts minorities (that scored lower than others, thus were less prepared) into tougher and "better" schools. Because the schools are tougher--they don't do as well as they would have at a "normal" college. 2.5 GPA at Harvard is not as good as a 3.5 at X State sch.
Nope, none of those laws made anyone "more equal" than anyone. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves. The 1964 Civil Rights Act outlaws discrimination on the basis of race or gender. The MLK holiday honors a man the rest of us believe is a national hero. That's it. Not a single one of them authorizes affirmative action. You're don't know what the hell you're talking about, and it's really sad to watch.
What? I wasn't talking about those laws. I was pointing out a flaw in your "minority only legislation" logic.
Those particular laws you point out, weren't even needed, and still aren't. Once slavery ended and the 3/5 flaw in the Constitution was corrected, all we needed to do was enforce EXISTING laws correctly. All those laws do now is allow the occasional lawsuit, other than that they don't do much.
Of course the free market punishes racism by default, but I'm sure you don't know why.
Wow. The Emancipation Proclamation "[wasn't] even needed." The 1964 Civil Rights Act, which MLK so famously marched on Washington to achieve, which finally ended segregation, which to this day prevents discrimination in housing, hiring, and education, "[wasn't] even needed." I gotta tell you, I've seen a lot of racist shit on the Internet, but you're fucking unbelievable. That's really beyond the pale. Even KKK assholes don't argue the EP wasn't needed to end slavery. Wow.
Clearly you don't understand even the simplest concepts. A NEW law was not needed, I am saying. Common law protecting EVERYONE from discrimination should have been enough. Do you understand now?
Perhaps those laws were needed to force the executive branch to enforce the law correctly, but the proper course of action would have been IMPEACHMENT of any president who refused to enforce equal civil rights for ALL humans.
"Common law"? You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. You've obviously never even stepped foot in a law school, much less graduated from one. The Southern states SECEDED FROM THE UNION AND FIRED ON AMERICAN TROOPS. There was no "impeachment." There was only saving the Union and freeing the slaves, or surrendering, allowing secession to stand, and accepting another 100+ years of slavery. We the People think LIncoln made the right choice. You and Paul don't, for the obvious reason.
..What? You think the civil war was about freeing slaves? Hahaha Even 3rd graders know that isn't true.
Lincoln DIDN'T CARE about slavery, read his first inaugural address where he said he'd support an amendment to ENFORCE slavery if it served his purposes. So much for your "hero". (haha)
And guess what? Succession was CONSTITUTIONAL. Lincoln tricked the south into firing on Fort Sumter. Everyone at the time knew this as fact.
Read Thomas Dilorenzo, obviously you don't know the history.
Don't care about Lincoln's thoughts, since he didn't make the choice. The South seceded from the Union and fired on American troops before he even took office. And it did so because of slavery, as everyone knows. If a guy starts a fight because he thinks you slept with his girlfriend, it doesn't matter how you feel about her---you're now in the middle of a fight started over the girlfriend. And secession was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court decided that in Texas v. White.
You're completely wrong. Read "Lincoln's Tariff War" by Dilorenzo at the Mises institute's website by googling that phrase, and learn.
And a 5-3 decision by a corrupt Supreme Court (thanks in part to Lincoln) is hardly a convincing argument. There is a reason that Jefferson wasn't so fond of Judicial power, and this kind of crap is why.
That's like saying the Patriot Act was constitutional, because the vote passed in Congress. No, it's not that simple.
Actually, here in America, the Founding Fathers empowered the Supreme Court to hear and decide questions of constitutional law. It's right there in Article III. So, those of who love America and respect the Constitution understand the Supreme Court is the final arbitrer of the legality of secession, and the Patriot Act (if a lawsuit gets there). Those of you who hate America, and want to shred and take a shit on our Constitution, obviously do not respect it.
You talk as if the Founders were all in unanimous agreement on everything, the Supreme Court can never be wrong or make decisions that are against the intent of a law or the Constitution.
If Bush had appointed admitted racists to the SC, and they subvert the intent of the law, this is okay and perfectly Constitutional? Not if you can think for yourself.
You are a sheep among the herd of followers, and an apologist for flagrant disregard for the correct role of government in a free society.
Never once said the Founders were all in unanimous agreement. Good job attacking a strawman, though!
The Founders were in agreement about who should decide questions of Constitutional law. Know how I know that? BECAUSE THEY WROTE DOWN THEIR ANSWER. And they wrote down "the Supreme Court," not "some 31-year-old racist asshole who's never even stepped foot in a law school, much less graduated." Real Americans respect and defend the Constitution. You don't. And that's the bottom line.
Your ad hominem attacks are dishonest, wrong, and make you look like an ignorant fool.
So since you seem to believe "law school" is required to understand the original intent of the constitution--what are your credentials?
..No, I never claimed you wrote that. I think you believe this topic is a clear cut, black and white, decided issue. I'm trying to get through to you that the scope of federal government was something that the founders did not agree upon, and judicial power was another.
If Bush had appointed admitted racists to the SC, and they subvert the intent of the law, this is okay and perfectly Constitutional?
Answer the question. Do you believe the Supreme Court can do no wrong? They never make mistakes or misinterpret the original intent of the constitution? No similarities to a monarchy?
Read The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, you might learn something. But if you are a PC-lover, you'll just go into denial of course. PC is hated for a reason.
We the People believe in the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. We believe all men are created equal. We believe in liberty and justice for all. We believe in the rule of law. And we believe in listening to actual experts who HAVE GRADUATED COLLEGE, not 31-year-old racist assholes who have NEVER STEPPED FOOT IN A LAW SCHOOL. We had 8 years of arrogant, ignorant Republicans running the country, and look where it got us. No fucking thanks.
Who here hasn't graduated college? You perhaps. Most people here are probably either grads or in college now. RP supporters tend to be informed and educated better than the Republicrats, you see.
And attacking Bush/Repubs will get you nowhere. The true defenders of freedom and liberty don't like the actions of either party. How is that not "straw man"?
The great thing about this country is that EVERYONE gets a voice, even ignorant sheep like yourself, so you can drop that mode of attack.
Heck, by your logic, the Supreme Court could rule the Patriot Act constitutional, and since you're a sheep who just goes along with anything the government authority says... you'll just go along with having your rights taken away.
No, that's not how it's supposed to work. The people are supposed to be the ultimate authority, not any one person or group of individuals, even the supreme court. But if the people just go along with everything like sheep, we're not really free.
And the Court could order that the sun revolve around the Earth, too. But it never has. Retarded, meaningless hypotheticals is all you're capable of, because you're uneducated and have NEVER EVEN STEPPED FOOT INSIDE A LAW SCHOOL. And the people are the ultimate authority, you fucking retard---they can amend the Constitution if they consider a Court interpretation inaccurate. They never even tried after Texas v. White, because everyone knew and knows secession is unconstitutional. What an idiot!!
Which law school have you attended? You've yet to say why you're such an authority. Do you even read anything other than bull crap Internet misinformation?
The people have lost control, because sheep like yourself have become acquiescent. We're supposed to be the ultimate authority, but everyone alive knows that we're not, look at the approval ratings of our stupid politicians. Wasn't Obama's recently lower than even Bush's approval ratings this early in his presidency? That's interesting.
And the Patriot Act comparison is hardly "retarded and meaningless". Something like that could EASILY happen in the future, and you'd just roll over and take it. That's thinking for yourself. Stop listening to establishment propaganda from the Republicrats.
Please, give us another one of your public school versions of US history, or the civil war, or anything. Gotta put that brainwashing to good use, after all!
Thinking for yourself burns up too many calories anyway, which creates more carbon dioxide, and makes the Earth get all hot and stuff. So I understand your "thinking" (i.e. memorization) here now.
It's not a "version," dipshit. The South seceded and fired on our troops before Lincoln even took office. That's a fact. All of the South's settlement demands concerned slavery. The South declared slavery and the genetic inferiority of black people the "cornerstone" of their new nation. Those are facts. So Lincoln could either surrender, allow secession to stand, and accept another 100+ years of slavery, or he could save the Union and free the slaves. We know which choice you'd prefer, and why.
Nice rewrite of history, there. "Fired on our troops" before Lincoln in office?
Your public school version, account, rendition, whatever you want to call it, of historical events is establishment propaganda, and not reflective of what people actually were saying and writing at the time.
Lincoln "surrender"? To who? The south wasn't trying to rule the north.
Obviously you have an interest in Lincoln and the civil war, you should read Dilorenzo with an open mind and get a different view.
It's not a re-write. The South fired on us before Lincoln even took office. That's a fact.
And surrender to the South, obviously. The South was shooting at us. Lincoln could either surrender, allow secession to stand, and accept another 100+ years of slavery, or defend the troops, save the Union, and free the slaves. We think he made the right choice, because we think all men are created equal. You don't.
And you can't buy anything without a willing seller. Obviously. Fucking racists!
Fort Sumter was April 12, 1861, dummy, well after the election. Don't you even check your facts? And if you had read the Dilorenzo link I posted before, it would be clear that the north provoked the attack.
Lincoln could have PURCHASED and freed all the slaves, prevented a bloody war with over 600k casualties, and avoided massive war debt by negotiation.
Here's something to shatter your public school world view: google "Black Southerners in Confederate Armies" so much for ending slavery.
No shit, you uneducated dick. Racist assholes (like you) fired on our troops long before Fort Sumter. And you can't buy anything without a willing seller, and the racist assholes (like you) wouldn't have sold their slaves for all the money on Earth. Shit, Lincoln offered to buy slaves in the border states and found exactly ZERO takers.
Let's cut through the bullshit--you think blacks are subhuman. You think the South should be a separate, slaveholding nation to this day. You're a traitor.
Is that why in his inauguration speech he said he'd support an amendment ENFORCING slavery if it would stop the war?
You mean at *below* the average price. And then theyd join the war to boot. For a guilt-ridden reverse racist, you sure are good at fiction. All the money on the Earth huh?
I support and believe no such thing, you cretin. I think MLK was heroic and I work with black Americans with more intelligence and common sense in their pinky than you have in your entire defective head.
And even if there was fighting before Sumter, obviously it wasn't enough to start a war that couldn't be stopped, what's your point?
You imply that slaveowners wouldn't have been willing to sell, even if the offer would benefit them more than the inefficiency of slavery. That is not a logical conclusion to make, sorry. Too little, too late. Just like Bush closing Guantanamo, and Obama's fun times in Afghanistan... too late.
"Even if" there was fighting? Why don't you do the research? Why don't you learn American history BEFORE you run your mouth? What the fuck is wrong with you?
Racists like you seceded and fired on American troops rather than allow even a Free Soil President to take office. They declared that Jefferson was wrong, that all men are NOT created equal. Slavery was the center of their entire economy and society, and they would give it up only at the point of American guns. You racist piece of shit!
Doesn't matter, that's why. It changes nothing, and by the way, nice attempt trying to get me to provide proof of YOUR "facts". The burden of proof is on you.
So is that what they taught you in public school? And then the "non-racists" like Lincoln, (who was willing to support slavery), all came and saved the day, the end? Yes, you are right, of course, why didn't I see it earlier? LOL You still think the civil war was entirely about slavery...hahaha.. your ignorance is sad but entertaining.
I don't know what shit school you went to, but I learned the real Lincoln, warts and all. None of it's relevant to the causes of the war, though, because he didn't start it. The South did, and you racists said why at the time. You cited slavery in your declarations of secession. You said slavery and the inferiority of blacks was the "cornerstone" of your new nation. And when we tried to make peace in 1861, every single one of your demands related to the preservation and EXPANSION of slavery.
I "learned" the same crap you did in school. You actually believe it was all 100% true and accurate? lol History is written by the victor. You really think a federal government--literally running our schools--will tell you the full unbiased truth? If that's not a perfect propaganda enabler, what is?
This is where having a mind for yourself comes in, you see. Read Thomas Dilorenzo's "The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War"-- with an open mind.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Lincoln's agenda is irrelevant, because he didn't start the war. You racists did. You stated your reasons at the time, and every single one of them related to slavery. You declared slavery and the genetic inferiority of blacks the "cornerstone" of your new nation. You said you seceded because Jefferson was wrong, because all men are NOT created equal. When America sought peace in 1861, you demanded the preservation and EXPANSION of slavery, and nothing else. Lincoln merely defended America.
(1) Lincoln thought that blacks were genetically inferior. That is why he didn't approve of inter-racial relationships.
As far as I have read, Sumner is considered the first real strike in the Civil War. If this is indeed true, then what the Southern States had done was strike on a "foreign" military force invading their country, since they believed it was there right to succeed, and they had officially declared that.
You need to read some more. It's Fort "Sumter," not Sumner, and the South fired on American troops well before before that. Ironically, Sumner was the member of the House of Representatives who the racist Southerner Preston Brooks beat almost to death on the floor of the House in 1856 for criticizing slavery. The South had no right to secede, as the Supreme Court confirmed, and Lincoln was right to save the Union. I can't believe you defend Southern racists.
Their beliefs are irrelevant. If I believe I'm allowed to murder someone in cold blood, that doesn't make it right. Similarly, the Supreme Court ended all doubt about whether secession is legal.
(2) A true libertarian cannot be racist or prejudice because they see every person as what they are, a sovereign individual. You can find that the president of the Austin NAACP Nelson Linder has declared those statements nonsense. Ron Paul and him have been acquaintances for over 20 years.
Ooh, so no one who calls himself a "libertarian" has ever been a racist in the entire history of the universe, or ever could be going forward. That label wipes everything clean! And the "one black friend" defense, which is so pathetic there are entire websites devoted to mocking it! Quite an argument you've put together!
It isn't the one black friend. It is the NAACP. I should have clarified for you. That is the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, which, I think, means black. I can't remember, really.
I do truly admire how avidly against him you are, though. By yourself, you are trying to take on all of these people who are for the same principles, and you are the only on the forum against them. Congrats on your dedication to your ideology, seriously.
Nope. It's one man making one personal recommendation. He didn't speak even for his own chapter, much less any of the NAACP's dozens of other chapters, much less the entire organization. Paul has one black friend. Good job by you! Super persuasive!
Yeah. I think bigotry and inequality are wrong, and that generally people should get an education before they run their mouth. You obviously disagree.
Thing is... Your opinions aren't based on his policy at all... This is a huge issue... Its all based on the precedence of his opinion on the civil war... Hypothetically assuming Ron Paul was a racist (Though he isn't), his policies are specifically opposed to interfering in governing, much less making oppressive laws... We now have a black president, so the need for affirmative action, is obviously passed...
I guess the way I look at it, feel free to not vote for him because of personal opinions... However, if that's your stance, I argue you shouldn't vote for any of the other presidents, like Mick Romney who believes in Magical Underpants, or McCain and others who believe in Creation and deny the entire scientific basis of evolution and other matters... Ron Paul isn't an evolutionist, I believe this position profoundly idiotic, but it doesn't effect his policies, and he'd be good for our country..
I think it's relevant whether our president is a racist. You don't think it matters. Luckily, the overwhelming majority of American voters agree with me.
My opinion is based on Paul's opposition to every advancement in the entire history of American civil rights, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, and MLK holiday; his $940,000 profit from writing and publishing racist newsletters with Lew Rockwell; and his public statements and actions. His record is crystal clear.
Ron Paul is not a racist. He simply believes that it is not the Federal government's purview within the constitution to legislate the way you want. There are several things where I do not necessarily see eye to eye with Ron Paul. And I would take a bullet for the man.
Nonsense. He thinks America was wrong to free the slaves in 1862. He voted against the MLK holiday in both 1979 and 1983. There was only one reason anyone did that.
I see, so not wanting to saddle the economy with yet another holiday which lowers American productivity and makes American businesses less profitable in the world market, that could not possibly be a reason?
And if you think Ron Paul is 'pro-slavery', you really understand absolutely nothing about his philosophy.
But it is also quite obvious that you do not 'want' to understand. Your mind is made up and you are sticking to it, right or wrong.
The MLK holiday doesn't saddle the economy with anything, and doesn't affect American businesses at all. It doesn't even apply to them. That's why Paul has NEVER ONCE IN HIS ENTIRE LIFE claimed to have voted against the MLK holiday because of economics. Not yesterday, not in 1979, not in 1983. Not once in his entire life.
Never said he was pro-slavery. Said he thinks America was wrong to free the slaves in 1862. Good job attacking a strawman, though!
A nation would have a holiday honoring MLK because he was a national hero. Obviously. And federal holidays apply only to federal employees. They don't apply to anyone else, much less the entire American workforce.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Stick to Romania's issues, and leave us alone.
part of the civil rights movement(or more how it was high jacked) is affirmative action. since ron paul wasnt in congress when the civil rights act was voted, he could have voted only on things that give priviledges to minorities, which is a load of shit.
the US has a lot of heroes. why not have a national holiday for everyone of them? why is MLK special? besides being black.
and by the way, federal personal not working is bad for the economy too due to the fact that the work on that day has to be filled too. why should people subsidize that natioanl holiday through taxes?
By that logic, all federal employees should work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No, thanks. That's why Paul has never once in his entire life said he voted against the MLK holiday because of workload. He supports a SMALLER federal government, remember? He would prefer if federal employees worked even LESS days. So go sell that shit somewhere else.
In Playboy magazines January 1965 issue, King stated that "all of Americas wealth today could not adequately compensate its Negroes for his centuries of exploitation and humiliation."
Anticipating the contemporary movement demanding "reparations" for slavery, he insisted that black Americans be given preferential economic treatment.
I don't hate MLK. I hate Socialism. I and my children shouldn't have to pay for something that happened nearly 200 years ago, and just because we're white. That's unfair, it hints at racism, and it's wrong. Why wouldn't you agree?
The blacks have taken Martin Luther King's words and have twisted them into meaning "the blacks should have more power and more rights than the whites." Now, I don't think MLK day is bogus, or should not be celebrated, but I can't blame Ron Paul for feeling the way he does about "racial separatism day", when it should be "racial equality day".
It's not "racial separatism day" or "racial equality day." It just celebrates MLK. Either he's a national hero or he's not. Either segregation and discrimination are wrong or they're not.
I'm Irish, and I'm not looking for compensation from the British just because I have a grudge. Matter of fact, I don't hold a grudge against anyone anymore. That's the great thing about forgiveness. It frees you.
Wow. Comparing yourself to African slaves---the Middle Passage, the complete loss of all freedom, and centuries of rapes, lynchings, beatings, whippings, degradation, abuse, and the seizure and sale of children, followed by another century of segregation and discrimination. Do you even HAVE a bottom of the barrel? Don't you have any sense of shame?
I was going to offer you some hay, but it looks like you've constructed that strawman all on your own. Nice work!
There's only one reason anyone would oppose the MLK holiday, and we all know what it is. Shit, most of Paul's angry white male supporters admit it right up front, and why the fuck not? You're anonymous anyway.
Even though you speak from mankinds true heart your wasting time and revelution is the only answer and the 27 levels above the President will not stand...your wise words aren't stopping water floridation or barium dumped by the military complex. Stop talking and reform these anti-human power.
PaulLayton1102 2 years ago
I know you are well meaning, but I had to laugh at your selection of government travesties. Water fluoridation and barium dumping? How about war, theft of private production/property, criminalization of nonviolent activity, spying, etc?
jimmyjoe1975 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The NRA is giving FREE 1-yr memberships to everyone who wants to Join. They are trying to build up their membership to fight pending Legislation that impacts our right to keep and bear arms. It is very important that anti-gun congressmen see how many people they will have to fight to get their legislation through. We renamed the url. Just add tk to it.
NRA4Free.
PLEASE PASS THIS ON TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!!!
Ron Paul/Rand Paul 2012
ONLY Doctors WILL HEAL Our Country
NoBailout4Banksters 2 years ago
why doesn't Obama hire this guy?
NewOrleansComputerRe 2 years ago
"bullshit. dumbasses like you are the reason racism exists. if you want to stop racism then you can start by killing yourself. i think MLK would agree with me on that "
Exactly. Wasn't his dream that people would not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character? So far, RPHB hasn't proved himself to be a very tolerant, honest person.
PLLwatchcat 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul-Kucinich 2012 (copy and paste spread the word) If you do not copy and paste this the United States will fail and the world will end.
itisnevernow1 2 years ago
I mentioned six things, and you seized on one. Interesting.
Paul opposes the Emancipation Proclamation and 13th Amendment. He voted against the Voting Rights Act. He cast the only vote in Congress to send our tax dollars to fund the genocide in Darfur (the vote was 418-1). He had KKK members working his campaign. He called black people "dirty," rapists, and "animals," and urged all whites to arm themselves. He was endorsed by David Duke and every leading white supremacist in the country.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Oh, and you're making this shit up. I checked, and I didn't find any of this dirt you're digging up.
FlyingBurritoMan 2 years ago
Yeah. So much for being curious and having an open mind. Racism exists because there are still racists out there. People who think America was wrong to end slavery, and wrong to end segregation. People who voted against the MLK holiday. And people wearing white sheets and hoods who support them.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Well, he opposes every single advancement in the entire history of American civil rights. We ended slavery in the 1860s, outlawed segregation and voting discrimination in the 1960s, and created the MLK holiday in the 1980s. He opposes all of that. Plus, for years he earned $940,000 a year writing and publishing (with his closest advisor, Lew Rockwell) insanely racist and vile newsletters. And he accepted money from white supremacist terrorists and flat refused to donate it. That's a start.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
"Well, he opposes every single advancement in the entire history of American civil rights. We ended slavery in the 1860s, outlawed segregation and voting discrimination in the 1960s, and created the MLK holiday in the 1980s. He opposes all of that. "
Sources, please...
PLLwatchcat 2 years ago
He told Tim Russert that Lincoln was wrong to go to war, and America was wrong to free the slaves without the consent of the racist slaveowners, and without paying them for their "property." That precludes the Emancipation Proclamation and 13th Amendment.
He told Russert he opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which ended segregation.
He voted against the Voting Rights Act and MLK holiday. That's just the public record.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
He was against it because the Civil Rights Act FORCED business owners to serve blacks even if they didn't want to. He was protecting it out of liberty, not out of racism. Same with the slaves. He's not motivated by racial hatred.
FlyingBurritoMan 2 years ago
Yup. That's exactly why he opposed it. Either racial discrimination is justified or its not. Either all men are created equal or they're not. Either blacks are sub-human, inferior animals, or they're human beings and Americans. Once you accept that all men are created equal, once you become a real American, there's no valid reason for denying liberty, justice, and freedom to black people based on the color of their skin.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
So you're saying in a country that's supposed to protect your freedom of expression and property rights is supposed to force someone to give up their property to someone they don't want to? Because that's what you're arguing--and you're ignoring the message of freedom and basically advocating fascism. That's why Ron Paul did not support the Civil Rights act, because it went beyond Political freedom, it went out to force regulations on PRIVATE rights.
FlyingBurritoMan 2 years ago
The Civil Rights Act doesn't impinge on any property rights at all. No one in America ever had a property right to treat other human beings as subhuman, as animals, as genetically inferior. Either all men are created equal or they're not. We the People judge others on the content of their character. We understand that it's un-American to discriminate on the basis of race. We understand that you're a traitor, that you hate America, hate the Constitution, and hate the founders.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
What don't you understand about people being forced to serve someone even if they don't want to on their own property? That's not liberty. And the sense of equality only applies to the eyes of the State, which should have secular view as well.
FlyingBurritoMan 2 years ago
And wtf are you babbling about at the end? The FOUNDING FATHERS SUPPORT EXACTLY what Ron Paul supports..
FlyingBurritoMan 2 years ago
Racism would just be pointless for someone harboring strong principals such as this. And it's exactly why he's often accused of being racist, cuz' he didn't vote to allow things like stealing money from me to give to some minority deemed hopeless by the neo-libs and neo-cons.
FlyingBurritoMan 2 years ago
It can't be up to the people decide since everyone has their own visions of what's "fair" or "equal", especially with the freedom to practice religions and to express other ideas even if they don't like it... You have the right to pursue happiness, not the right to demand and take it from someone else.
FlyingBurritoMan 2 years ago
Some people believe it's "fair" or "equal" to murder others. Too bad. Here in America, we have a government and we prohibit murder. You're free to move somewhere else.
Similarly, we believe all men are created equal. If you voluntarily choose to act in interstate commerce, you need not serve a dog that comes to the counter, but you may not discriminate against other humans. YOU believe blacks are lower than dogs, but We the People do not. Traitors like you are always free to move.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Yea, people believe in something, but you want to go and make it so that nobody can do anything practice anything. But you're not really listening to anything I'm sayng..
I'm done talking with your dirt slinging ass, cuz' I'm sick of you accusing me as being a racist for supporting freedom and independence. Please go kill yourself and do everyone else a favor.
FlyingBurritoMan 2 years ago
You oppose the Civil Rights Act, which ended segregation and continues to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race in housing, employment, and education. There's only one reason anyone would oppose that in 2009, and we all know what it is.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
I have to disagree. If I applied to Harvard and an African-American just as smart and just as wealthy applied at the same time, they would take the African-American instead of me because they like to have a quota. Yeah, thank you Civil Rights Act and Affirmative Action. Thank you for protecting me.
KingCorvette 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's a false hypothetical because you're not smart enough to get in, but Harvard doesn't have a quota, kiddo. Quotas are prohibited, and have been for a long, long time. You really have no idea what you're talking about, and you're embarassing yourself.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
sorry (aszhole) quotas was the wrong word. Harvard has repeatedly downplayed their low numbers of Asian students, but it's o.k. to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (yeah, I might not be Harvard smart, but I'm no dummy. I know what Harvard and all educational institutions report their statistics to. And no, I didn't have to look it up) because Harvard still meets the adequate requirements Affirmative Actions requires. I wasn't saying AA is bad, I'm saying it works poorly
KingCorvette 2 years ago
Yeah, quotas was really the wrong word. Harvard is a private school. It can adopt its own affirmative action if it wants, but that's purely a private decision. And kids that just miss out on Harvard still do just fine in life.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Quotas are not prohibited. The Univeristy of California system only outlawed them 8 years ago. Private colleges are still allowed to do so. And it is the right of Harvard to place quota systems in place.
jimmyjoe1975 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Do you really believe segregation has ended? Have you been to Sumter, South Carolina. How about Oxnard, CA? South-Central Los Angeles? No segregation still exists.
jimmyjoe1975 2 years ago
That's an idiotic comment. People of color are no longer legally required to use separate drinking fountains, to ride in the back of the bus, to attend separate and inferior schools, to hold only certain jobs, or to marry only within their own race. Now stop spamming the board.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Pot calling the kettle black. I guess you automatically place "legal" in front of segregation. But segregation can be and is voluntary in many communities. You also show an gross naivete towards the quality of 1950s all-black schools. While the facilities may not have been on par, the education was better than many of our children get today. I am against forced segregation (so is Ron Paul jackass) but voluntary segregation is fine with me.
jimmyjoe1975 2 years ago
It's not voluntary segregation. Black folks don't hang out with you because you're wearing a white sheet and hood.
You and Paul want to legalize and encourage states and businesses to force blacks to the back of the bus, impose separate drinking fountains and swimming pools, and deny them jobs, housing, and education. You're fucking sickening. But you've lost that war. You and your Valley Swim Club, James Von Brunn, hang-all-the-Negroes horseshit doesn't play in today's America.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
LOL. Are you suggesting that I am Caucasian?
jimmyjoe1975 2 years ago
Nope. Never said anything of the sort. Good job attacking a strawman, though!
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Saying and suggesting are two different things. I'd argue that your 'straw man' argument associates me with an anti-black movement. That would generally require me to not be black, not have a black girlfriend, not have black friends, etc. So back to the inferior education standards argument that you conveniently ignored. If you live in North Central Omaha (Nebraska), you are not allowed to attend the great schools of Northwest Omaha or Papillon. Guess who makes up 80% of North Omaha.
jimmyjoe1975 2 years ago
Never suggested anything of the sort, either. It's certainly easier to keep attacking that strawman, but it sure ain't persuasive.
Being a racist doesn't require shit. Either you hide your KKK robes from your alleged black friends, or you've found self-hating black friends, or you're only now discovering your racism via Youtube, or like a lot of racists you love the individual but hate the race. I could give a shit. You want to legalize and encourage segregation, and that's fucking sickening.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
An out of nowhere accusation. Where have you seen me, or Ron Paul for that matter, promote forced segregation? Libertarians of our persuasion are against force. But we also believe in private property. So where you may own a restaurant and now want to serve me because of my mixed ethnic heritage, so be it. But the government should not pass laws mandating you keep me out. But I supposed many of you need the government in your lives.
jimmyjoe1975 2 years ago
The 1964 Civil Rights Act ended segregation. It stopped people like you from forcing blacks to the back of the bus, to separate drinking fountains and swimming pools, to inferior lunch counters, schools, houses, and jobs. There is only one reason anyone would oppose the Act, and we all know what it is---you believe one race is genetically inferior, and should be treated as inferior, and subhuman. It's fucking sickening. Here in America, We the People believe all men are created equal.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Oh, poor little child. You bring up the red herring and then start flinging them around like we were in a fish market. You can come to that conclusion if you would like, but if you had ever been somewhere you would know that sitting on a bus is far from the most distressing reality of the African-American community. With all this regulation, black businesses still have trouble getting loans in black communities. Poverty is at a all time high. The men are caged up by the state.
jimmyjoe1975 2 years ago
Um, yeah, we still have inequality in society. Your "solution" is to repeal the Civil Rights Act and legalize segregation and discrimination in employment, housing, and education. That's pretty fucking sick.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
I would say that my solution lies in Malcolm X's "The Ballot or the Bullet". I recommend listening to his speech and analyzing the words. Do you think his analysis would conclude the ballot worked?
jimmyjoe1975 2 years ago
Your solution is to repeal the Civil Rights Act. You think the world was a better place when Rosa Parks was forced to the back of the bus. It's sick.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Ah, you have such a simple mind. Rosa Parks sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott, which led to the desegregation of the public transit in that city within months. The movement also led several other southern cities do end segregation. The Civil Rights Act did none of this. The people did it. And I do not believe that the government has the right to segregate. But I do believe private individuals do. And the Civil Rights Act also allows private individuals to do the same.
jimmyjoe1975 2 years ago
You racists are sickening. It's vile to take in vain the name of Rosa Parks, who helped desegregate one sector in one city at great personal cost, and who SUPPORTED the Civil Rights Act. It's fucking laughable to suggest that the CRA hasn't accomplished anything. If it hadn't, you KKK fuckers wouldn't spend all your time on Youtube opposing it. The CRA has been fucking you in the ass for 35 years, by keeping you from discriminating in housing, education, and employment. That's the bottom line.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
It is funny that you are unable to hold a conversation without resorting to belligerency. Anybody who has watched 20/20 knows that the CRA has not achieved that. Do you know that Ron Paul was the only Congressman who offered to pay for Rosa Park's Congressional Gold Medal out of his own pocket? None of your liberal friends did. She was brave, but I have to stand with Cedric the Entertainer in relation to your worship of her.
jimmyjoe1975 2 years ago
You think the CRA hasn't achieved anything. That's insane.
Paul was the only Congressman to vote to DENY Parks the Congressional Gold Medal. It's sick. He supported far more expensive medals for other people, but no medal for her, for the obvious reason. And a fake offer he knew no one would accept is just an insult. Either she's an American hero or she's not. A bunch of guys passing the hat is a poor, insulting substitute for recognition by one's country. Why not just admit you hate her?
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
You bring me joy ! The Congressional Record shows that Ron Paul voted against the Congressional Medal for Pope John Paul, Mother Teresa, Ronald Reagan, Tony Blair, and the Dalai Lama. You have made quite the name for yourself. Congratulations. Some day you will die. Hopefully before then you can become intellectually relevant.
jimmyjoe1975 2 years ago
Yeah. Two Catholics, a non-Christian minority, a foreign leader who Paul called "an enemy of freedom and liberty," and a former president who Paul called "a failure." Thanks for that. There's only one reason you and Paul oppose the Congressional Gold Medal for Rosa Parks, and we all know what it is.
Intellectually relevant? Really? You're an admitted racist who wants to repeal the CRA and legalize segregation and discrimination. Your kind stopped being intellectually relevant 100 years ago.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
I don't know about Ron Paul, but I am for equal rights for all. However, I think that African Americans are needed at our jobs, but the thing is, it is impossible to fire people that are not doing their jobs and there is the problem. We have to become more efficient and demand more from our workers, and if a worker has no fear of being fired, many have no desire to do a better job. It has nothing to do with color, it only has to do with human nature.
sweettea2u 1 year ago
I thought the government conducts murder.
jimmyjoe1975 2 years ago
name one thing that everyone can believe in if they just think about it
00AgentMan 2 years ago
Anyone who's a racist is a douchebag (and I am of northern European decent). Let's stop talking about "race" and focus on the destruction of our economy and our currency!!
johnjohngoose 2 years ago
No, but MLK was a socialist who believed in redistribution. Contrary to his "I have a dream" speech, he was all for judging people on the basis of their color when it came to government entitlements
wvmcc82 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check to see if your Congressman/Woman has co-sponsored H.R. 1207, Audit the Fed Bill, yet by going to the site below. Once you put your zip code in you will not only find out if they are a co-sponsor but ways to contact them if they aren't.
1207Check.
Add tk to the url above and also to the one below to sign the Petition.
AuditTheFed.
Ron Paul/Rand Paul 2012
HISTORY that We The People WILL DEFINITELY get behind.
NoBailout4Banksters 2 years ago
Ron Paul is a true Patriot!
uncleardegree 2 years ago
support for ron paul
jlott00 2 years ago
runaway inflation
flipout1 2 years ago
The civil war was really more about the Federal government conquering the states, which up until that point were voluntarily part of the union. I love how you think the war's purpose was to end slavery. Hahaha...high school rubbish but it's funny.
The civil war was Hamilton's ideas conquering Jefferson's. A shame over 600,000 people had to die for it, but you seem not to mind that fact. Had Lincoln really wanted to free slaves, it would have been cheaper to BUY them all than the war cost. LOL
garoad2 2 years ago
I like to say I support people and then I make an ass out of myself. It is a great way to trash someone and make the supporters look bad.
theyalllied 2 years ago
Google "Slavery and War by Murray N. Rothbard", read first link, become enlightened.
"RonPaulHatesBlacks" - you might learn something from someone smarter than everyone here.
garoad2 2 years ago
RonPaulHatesBlacks Hates Mankind.
He thinks the American Civil War was a wise war. A war that killed 620,000 men to stop slavery that every other nation simply stopped by decree.
He is a War Lover and Anti Humanity.
His mouth is a Spigot of Hateful Refuse.
He loves a Government of Imperfect Men who tell people how their tax dollars should be spent whether on a holiday to worship an immoral man who cheated on his wife or a Bloated Civil Rights Act . He is a Fascist Ideal Believer .
(Nice!)
garoad2 2 years ago
In 1991, Paul said "In 1988 when I ran president on the Libertarian Party ticket, I was berated for hours because I had refused to vote, while in Congress, for a MLK holiday. I didn't know then about his plagiarism, but the rest of King's crimes were clear. J. Edgar Hoover once called him 'the most dangerous man in America.' Who could have known the danger would continue after his death and threaten to strangle our culture?"
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
In 1990, Paul said "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressmen. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day."
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Complaining about people hating blacks annoys me.
Yes, I find all black people I know very annoying, and hard to stand them.
If I was in Congress I would support them simply because they whine and mindless support Democrats when you don't.
Oh well.
lemonycheese 2 years ago
Yup. When you say Ron Paul hates blacks, half his supporters deny it. The other half say "So what? So do I!" At least you KKK fuckers are honest about it, even if you are traitors.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
I'm not really a traitor. Don't like them now, didn't like them before.
I don't support killing or lynching them, but if I don't have to hang around them I won't.
We also don't need laws protecting them. Let the free market do it. Free market favors businesses who support woman and minorities anyway. (Pay them less, hire more, lower unemployment, more employees = better for the business = more money = wages raised)
lemonycheese 2 years ago
Sure. The free market was fucking great for blacks before the Civil War, and almost as good before the civil rights movement!
Either you believe all men are created equal or you don't. Either you believe discrimination on the basis of race or sex are wrong, or you don't. It's really that simple.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
After slavery ended it didn't get much better.
Free market was also harsh to other races, not just blacks. Anyone other than white male for that matter.
I would have been discriminated against 200 years ago too, but I'm not changing my views on freedom for my race's benefit of 200 years ago.
lemonycheese 2 years ago
"After slavery ended it didn't get much better"---that's the quintessential racist thing to say. Slavery was centuries of rapes, whippings, lynchings, abuse, beatings, the selling of one's children, and the COMPLETE LOSS OF ALL FREEDOM. Of course emancipation improved things, you sick piece of shit---people were FREE. They could have babies and not have them ripped from their arms and sold away. What the fuck is wrong with you?
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Rapes - Didn't stop
Whippings - Didn't stop
Lynchings - Got worse, more public, more brutal
Selling Children - Didn't change
I'd rather be a slave then a sharecropper.
Sharecropping made the former slave worthless. Rent could be charged, hours worsened, expectations rose. Slavery you wouldn't get thrown deeper into debt if the weather was bad and the crop worse. Sharecropping you would.
Sure, some escaped to the North. Happened under slavery too.
lemonycheese 2 years ago
Wow. Someone should put a bullet in your head right now. I'd love to watch the blood pour over your white sheet and hood and onto the floor. Racist, ignorant, and arrogant is just a brutal combination, and shows that the world would be a far better place without you. You're just another racist piece of shit who thinks the stealing and selling of black children continued after emancipation. Your poor, poor parents.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
My dad's more racist then I am, I think he'd be disappointed I haven't threatened you yet.
Oh well.
lemonycheese 2 years ago
That is because the media likes to totally fuck up the definition..
BIackOp 2 years ago
RonPaulHatesBlacks Hates Mankind.
He thinks the American Civil War was a wise war. A war that killed 620,000 men to stop slavery that every other nation simply stopped by decree.
He is a War Lover and Anti Humanity.
His mouth is a Spigot of Hateful Refuse.
He loves a Government of Imperfect Men who tell people how their tax dollars should be spent whether on a holiday to worship an immoral man who cheated on his wife or a Bloated Civil Rights Act . He is a Fascist Ideal Believer .
lakerdave 2 years ago
What a pile of shit. Racist Southerners seceded and fired on American troops before Lincoln even took office, and refused all compromises that did not involve the extension, expansion, and PERMANENT protection of slavery. At that point, Lincoln could either defend our troops, save the country, and free the slaves, or surrender, allow secession to stand, and accept that slavery would last another 100+ years. We the People think he made the right choice. You do not, for the obvious reason.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
youtube com/watch?v=xtNUJ2vy_eo
"RonPaulHates..." should also watch this link, instead of spewing false trash with NO proof or evidence. Get a life.
garoad2 2 years ago
I'm sure he does. If he took half of that time to actually read about Ron Paul he probably would be much smarter.
Kapan60 2 years ago
Wish we had a Ron Paul in Canada!
oryxx 2 years ago 2
"RonPaulHates..." on MLK day -- guess what? It DOES cost a LOT of taxpayer money. All federal employees get paid days off that day. That pisses a ton of money down the handout drain. But "obviously" this couldn't be a reason to oppose it. Ron Paul is not a fiscal conservative, and always votes to increase waste and spending, right? (har) You're living in a fantasy world where real life is filtered through your own personal bias.
garoad2 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A holiday doesn't piss "a ton" of money down the drain. That's absurd. You'd have to be wearing a sheet and hood to exaggerate that much.
And Paul has NEVER ONCE IN HIS ENTIRE LIFE said he voted against the MLK holiday because of the cost. Not yesterday, not today, not ever. Not once in his entire life. Maybe you should stop making up lies for him?
Paul explained that he voted No because MLK was a Communist, plagiarist, and gay child rapist, and "most dangerous man in America." He's sick.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
haha he never said that...i can just tell by the way you "quoted" RP...he'd never say anything like that ever...if he did...prove it..links????
JENNASAURTWENTY4 2 years ago
In 1991, Paul said "In 1988 when I ran president on the Libertarian Party ticket, I was berated for hours because I had refused to vote, while in Congress, for a MLK holiday. I didn't know then about his plagiarism, but the rest of King's crimes were clear. J. Edgar Hoover once called him 'the most dangerous man in America.' Who could have known the danger would continue after his death and threaten to strangle our culture?"
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Can I have a legit link or source of where he said that? And that quote seems odd in the way its spoken...is that a direct quote? Ron Paul has always applauded MLK for his peaceful protests and I'm sure he wouldn't say MLK did any crimes unless he did commit them...but I'm willing to hear your point...I just need solid proof
JENNASAURTWENTY4 2 years ago
Hey dummy "RonPaulHates...":
Provide proof.
And I have something for you to read. They are being critical of Ron here, but the hilarious thing is that it says he voted FOR MLK DAY, fool.
Google "A few exceptions to his small-government principles" and read the first link at Politifact.
And if you're going to quote that old "newsletter", we already know he never even read it--it was written by staff. He'd never let that go out had he known. Listen to his speeches, he doesn't hate anyone.
garoad2 2 years ago
Yeah, yeah, it's the same brain-dead sentence from the St. Petersburg Times, the least reputable source on Earth. Congratulations! I've only seen that quoted as fact from 500 other uneducated Paul supporters!
You actually believe he voted for the MLK holiday!!! Ahahahahahaha!!! He's bragged about voting against it for decades, and he's NEVER ONCE IN HIS ENTIRE LIFE CLAIMED TO HAVE VOTED FOR IT, but you honestly believe he did! How fucking awesome is that!
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Least reputable according to what authority? You? lol. Based on your track record, I'm gonna have to go with what makes sense based on what I've heard him ACTUALLY SAY. Which has nothing to do with anything racist or hateful.
Read Robert P Murphy's book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism", there's a whole chapter on slavery there. And how the government ENFORCED slavery when the market wanted to shut it down--because it is too inefficient and not worth it (not to mention immoral).
garoad2 2 years ago
A sentence from the St. Petersburg Times that says he voted to MOVE the holiday, not create it in the first place?
Ahahahahahahahahaha!!!! You honestly believe he voted for the MLK holiday! Ahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
No strong opinion until I'm shown proof otherwise. I'm sure as hell not going to take your word for it. And it doesn't say "move". But who cares? Maybe he did vote against it. This is such a small thing it's pointless.
I don't know exactly what the specifics of the bill or what the alternative was, but neither do you. Maybe it's not relevant.
Almost the entire premise of your "racism" claim is based on a vote for or against a holiday. That's some pretty fuzzy logic you're using there.
garoad2 2 years ago
Ahahahahahaha!!!! You honestly think he voted for the MLK holiday!!! I've seen some ridiculous nonsense from Paul supporters, but you literally believe the sun rises in the west, that grass is orange, that the sun revolves around the Earth! He's BRAGGED about voting against it for decades and NEVER ONCE IN HIS ENTIRE LIFE CLAIMED TO HAVE VOTED FOR IT! Not yesterday, not today, not ever. Not once in his entire life. But you still believe he did!
Ahahahahahahahaha!!!! What an idiot!
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Why do we need a day for black people?
You're pathetic at arguing.
Getting one fact wrong doesn't mean he's completely clueless. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean their a racist KKK member.
You're a pathetic person who covers up for lack of knowledge by spewing ridiculous statements that don't make sense.
Get over yourself. Do you wonder why people hate blacks?
lemonycheese 2 years ago
There is no day for black people, you racist fuck, any more than Washington's birthday is a day for white people. Either MLK is a national hero or he's not. We the People believe he is. You and Paul do not, for the obvious reasons---jealousy, fear, stupidity, and hatred. It's no wonder Paul got only 2% of the total primary vote. Who would vote for a man supported by people like you?
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Good. Washington's birthday is a day for America's independence from a monarchy.
MLK can be a national hero, just don't expect me to care about him.
Jealousy? Jealous of what?
Fear? Of what? Black people for the most part are democratic, so yeah I would fear that being widespread.
Stupidity? lol.
Hatred? Yup.
He only got 2% of the vote because the republicans voting in that supported Bush and his neo-con war views. Why do you think McCain got elected? He agrees 90% of the time with Bush.
lemonycheese 2 years ago
No, the Fourth of July is a day to celebrate America's independence from Britain. How fucking stupid are you? Did you even pass junior high? If you have some sort of disability, let me know and I'll back off.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Fourth of July wasn't the day we got independence.
And again with the insults. You're bad at arguing, when you run out of facts you just result to insults, over and over again.
lemonycheese 2 years ago
Fourth of July is the day we celebrate independence. That's why we call it "Independence Day." Seriously, how fucking stupid are you? Any rational person would say---"Oh yeah, Washington's Day celebrates Washington and Independence Day celebrates independence. My bad." But not you---you double down on your retarded claim! You really think Washington's Birthday is the day we celebrate America's independence from Britain!!! Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
I never said it wasn't.
I guess that's all I can say to this post, it's one rational sentence then a bunch of drivel.
RESPOND TO MY OTHER POINTS INSTEAD OF IGNORING THEM.
Thank you.
lemonycheese 2 years ago
Ahahahahaha---you still think Washington's Birthday is the one day we celebrate independence! Ahahahahahaha!!!!
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
What is wrong with you? You are obsessed with pointless arguments. The house (the country) is on fire and you're attacking one of the residents because you think they didn't like the color of the wall paint in the basement.
Provide credible proof of your accusations.
Or how about discussing a Ron Paul position that doesn't have masses of progaganda and misinformation on it out there, like closing the Fed. He's fighting to stop the government from stealing from us, including losers like you.
garoad2 2 years ago
RPHB: The sad thing here is that you basically seem to believe that because your view is PC, and Ron Paul's is not politically correct, it somehow makes your arguments stronger. Are you really that dense?
garoad2 2 years ago
I don't believe anything of the sort, and Paul is a hell of a lot worse than "not politically correct." He opposes every single advancement in the entire history of American civil rights, from the Emancipation Proclamation to the 1964 Civil Rights Act to the MLK holiday. And he made $940,000 a year publishing and writing (with his best friend and closest advisor, Lew Rockwell) newsletters that called blacks dirty, rapists, and "animals," and MLK a gay child rapist. He's sick.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
That's because these laws make some "more equal" than others. It's politically incorrect to say this, but it's true. It's also not PC to say that these laws HURT minorities more than they help.
Example:
Affirm action disproportionally puts minorities (that scored lower than others, thus were less prepared) into tougher and "better" schools. Because the schools are tougher--they don't do as well as they would have at a "normal" college. 2.5 GPA at Harvard is not as good as a 3.5 at X State sch.
garoad2 2 years ago
Nope, none of those laws made anyone "more equal" than anyone. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves. The 1964 Civil Rights Act outlaws discrimination on the basis of race or gender. The MLK holiday honors a man the rest of us believe is a national hero. That's it. Not a single one of them authorizes affirmative action. You're don't know what the hell you're talking about, and it's really sad to watch.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
What? I wasn't talking about those laws. I was pointing out a flaw in your "minority only legislation" logic.
Those particular laws you point out, weren't even needed, and still aren't. Once slavery ended and the 3/5 flaw in the Constitution was corrected, all we needed to do was enforce EXISTING laws correctly. All those laws do now is allow the occasional lawsuit, other than that they don't do much.
Of course the free market punishes racism by default, but I'm sure you don't know why.
garoad2 2 years ago
Wow. The Emancipation Proclamation "[wasn't] even needed." The 1964 Civil Rights Act, which MLK so famously marched on Washington to achieve, which finally ended segregation, which to this day prevents discrimination in housing, hiring, and education, "[wasn't] even needed." I gotta tell you, I've seen a lot of racist shit on the Internet, but you're fucking unbelievable. That's really beyond the pale. Even KKK assholes don't argue the EP wasn't needed to end slavery. Wow.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Clearly you don't understand even the simplest concepts. A NEW law was not needed, I am saying. Common law protecting EVERYONE from discrimination should have been enough. Do you understand now?
Perhaps those laws were needed to force the executive branch to enforce the law correctly, but the proper course of action would have been IMPEACHMENT of any president who refused to enforce equal civil rights for ALL humans.
Got it?
garoad2 2 years ago
Your logic isn't wanted here, stop trying. He's really not worth the time, one of the most dense obamanuts I've ever talked to.
lemonycheese 2 years ago
I know lemon, he's a fool. But it's actually fun, and it drives up the post ratings right? hehe
garoad2 2 years ago
Why yes it does.
I don't think I've ever seen a Ron Paul supporter cuss at or flame someone who disagrees.
lemonycheese 2 years ago
"Common law"? You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. You've obviously never even stepped foot in a law school, much less graduated from one. The Southern states SECEDED FROM THE UNION AND FIRED ON AMERICAN TROOPS. There was no "impeachment." There was only saving the Union and freeing the slaves, or surrendering, allowing secession to stand, and accepting another 100+ years of slavery. We the People think LIncoln made the right choice. You and Paul don't, for the obvious reason.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
..What? You think the civil war was about freeing slaves? Hahaha Even 3rd graders know that isn't true.
Lincoln DIDN'T CARE about slavery, read his first inaugural address where he said he'd support an amendment to ENFORCE slavery if it served his purposes. So much for your "hero". (haha)
And guess what? Succession was CONSTITUTIONAL. Lincoln tricked the south into firing on Fort Sumter. Everyone at the time knew this as fact.
Read Thomas Dilorenzo, obviously you don't know the history.
garoad2 2 years ago
Don't care about Lincoln's thoughts, since he didn't make the choice. The South seceded from the Union and fired on American troops before he even took office. And it did so because of slavery, as everyone knows. If a guy starts a fight because he thinks you slept with his girlfriend, it doesn't matter how you feel about her---you're now in the middle of a fight started over the girlfriend. And secession was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court decided that in Texas v. White.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
You're completely wrong. Read "Lincoln's Tariff War" by Dilorenzo at the Mises institute's website by googling that phrase, and learn.
And a 5-3 decision by a corrupt Supreme Court (thanks in part to Lincoln) is hardly a convincing argument. There is a reason that Jefferson wasn't so fond of Judicial power, and this kind of crap is why.
That's like saying the Patriot Act was constitutional, because the vote passed in Congress. No, it's not that simple.
Think for yourself for a change.
garoad2 2 years ago
Actually, here in America, the Founding Fathers empowered the Supreme Court to hear and decide questions of constitutional law. It's right there in Article III. So, those of who love America and respect the Constitution understand the Supreme Court is the final arbitrer of the legality of secession, and the Patriot Act (if a lawsuit gets there). Those of you who hate America, and want to shred and take a shit on our Constitution, obviously do not respect it.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
You talk as if the Founders were all in unanimous agreement on everything, the Supreme Court can never be wrong or make decisions that are against the intent of a law or the Constitution.
If Bush had appointed admitted racists to the SC, and they subvert the intent of the law, this is okay and perfectly Constitutional? Not if you can think for yourself.
You are a sheep among the herd of followers, and an apologist for flagrant disregard for the correct role of government in a free society.
garoad2 2 years ago
Never once said the Founders were all in unanimous agreement. Good job attacking a strawman, though!
The Founders were in agreement about who should decide questions of Constitutional law. Know how I know that? BECAUSE THEY WROTE DOWN THEIR ANSWER. And they wrote down "the Supreme Court," not "some 31-year-old racist asshole who's never even stepped foot in a law school, much less graduated." Real Americans respect and defend the Constitution. You don't. And that's the bottom line.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Your ad hominem attacks are dishonest, wrong, and make you look like an ignorant fool.
So since you seem to believe "law school" is required to understand the original intent of the constitution--what are your credentials?
..No, I never claimed you wrote that. I think you believe this topic is a clear cut, black and white, decided issue. I'm trying to get through to you that the scope of federal government was something that the founders did not agree upon, and judicial power was another.
garoad2 2 years ago
If Bush had appointed admitted racists to the SC, and they subvert the intent of the law, this is okay and perfectly Constitutional?
Answer the question. Do you believe the Supreme Court can do no wrong? They never make mistakes or misinterpret the original intent of the constitution? No similarities to a monarchy?
Read The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, you might learn something. But if you are a PC-lover, you'll just go into denial of course. PC is hated for a reason.
garoad2 2 years ago
If you had wheels, would you be a wagon?
We the People believe in the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. We believe all men are created equal. We believe in liberty and justice for all. We believe in the rule of law. And we believe in listening to actual experts who HAVE GRADUATED COLLEGE, not 31-year-old racist assholes who have NEVER STEPPED FOOT IN A LAW SCHOOL. We had 8 years of arrogant, ignorant Republicans running the country, and look where it got us. No fucking thanks.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Who here hasn't graduated college? You perhaps. Most people here are probably either grads or in college now. RP supporters tend to be informed and educated better than the Republicrats, you see.
And attacking Bush/Repubs will get you nowhere. The true defenders of freedom and liberty don't like the actions of either party. How is that not "straw man"?
The great thing about this country is that EVERYONE gets a voice, even ignorant sheep like yourself, so you can drop that mode of attack.
garoad2 2 years ago
Heck, by your logic, the Supreme Court could rule the Patriot Act constitutional, and since you're a sheep who just goes along with anything the government authority says... you'll just go along with having your rights taken away.
No, that's not how it's supposed to work. The people are supposed to be the ultimate authority, not any one person or group of individuals, even the supreme court. But if the people just go along with everything like sheep, we're not really free.
garoad2 2 years ago
And the Court could order that the sun revolve around the Earth, too. But it never has. Retarded, meaningless hypotheticals is all you're capable of, because you're uneducated and have NEVER EVEN STEPPED FOOT INSIDE A LAW SCHOOL. And the people are the ultimate authority, you fucking retard---they can amend the Constitution if they consider a Court interpretation inaccurate. They never even tried after Texas v. White, because everyone knew and knows secession is unconstitutional. What an idiot!!
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Which law school have you attended? You've yet to say why you're such an authority. Do you even read anything other than bull crap Internet misinformation?
The people have lost control, because sheep like yourself have become acquiescent. We're supposed to be the ultimate authority, but everyone alive knows that we're not, look at the approval ratings of our stupid politicians. Wasn't Obama's recently lower than even Bush's approval ratings this early in his presidency? That's interesting.
garoad2 2 years ago
And the Patriot Act comparison is hardly "retarded and meaningless". Something like that could EASILY happen in the future, and you'd just roll over and take it. That's thinking for yourself. Stop listening to establishment propaganda from the Republicrats.
garoad2 2 years ago
Please, give us another one of your public school versions of US history, or the civil war, or anything. Gotta put that brainwashing to good use, after all!
Thinking for yourself burns up too many calories anyway, which creates more carbon dioxide, and makes the Earth get all hot and stuff. So I understand your "thinking" (i.e. memorization) here now.
garoad2 2 years ago
It's not a "version," dipshit. The South seceded and fired on our troops before Lincoln even took office. That's a fact. All of the South's settlement demands concerned slavery. The South declared slavery and the genetic inferiority of black people the "cornerstone" of their new nation. Those are facts. So Lincoln could either surrender, allow secession to stand, and accept another 100+ years of slavery, or he could save the Union and free the slaves. We know which choice you'd prefer, and why.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Nice rewrite of history, there. "Fired on our troops" before Lincoln in office?
Your public school version, account, rendition, whatever you want to call it, of historical events is establishment propaganda, and not reflective of what people actually were saying and writing at the time.
Lincoln "surrender"? To who? The south wasn't trying to rule the north.
Obviously you have an interest in Lincoln and the civil war, you should read Dilorenzo with an open mind and get a different view.
garoad2 2 years ago
It's not a re-write. The South fired on us before Lincoln even took office. That's a fact.
And surrender to the South, obviously. The South was shooting at us. Lincoln could either surrender, allow secession to stand, and accept another 100+ years of slavery, or defend the troops, save the Union, and free the slaves. We think he made the right choice, because we think all men are created equal. You don't.
And you can't buy anything without a willing seller. Obviously. Fucking racists!
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Fort Sumter was April 12, 1861, dummy, well after the election. Don't you even check your facts? And if you had read the Dilorenzo link I posted before, it would be clear that the north provoked the attack.
Lincoln could have PURCHASED and freed all the slaves, prevented a bloody war with over 600k casualties, and avoided massive war debt by negotiation.
Here's something to shatter your public school world view: google "Black Southerners in Confederate Armies" so much for ending slavery.
garoad2 2 years ago
No shit, you uneducated dick. Racist assholes (like you) fired on our troops long before Fort Sumter. And you can't buy anything without a willing seller, and the racist assholes (like you) wouldn't have sold their slaves for all the money on Earth. Shit, Lincoln offered to buy slaves in the border states and found exactly ZERO takers.
Let's cut through the bullshit--you think blacks are subhuman. You think the South should be a separate, slaveholding nation to this day. You're a traitor.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Is that why in his inauguration speech he said he'd support an amendment ENFORCING slavery if it would stop the war?
You mean at *below* the average price. And then theyd join the war to boot. For a guilt-ridden reverse racist, you sure are good at fiction. All the money on the Earth huh?
I support and believe no such thing, you cretin. I think MLK was heroic and I work with black Americans with more intelligence and common sense in their pinky than you have in your entire defective head.
garoad2 2 years ago
And even if there was fighting before Sumter, obviously it wasn't enough to start a war that couldn't be stopped, what's your point?
You imply that slaveowners wouldn't have been willing to sell, even if the offer would benefit them more than the inefficiency of slavery. That is not a logical conclusion to make, sorry. Too little, too late. Just like Bush closing Guantanamo, and Obama's fun times in Afghanistan... too late.
garoad2 2 years ago
"Even if" there was fighting? Why don't you do the research? Why don't you learn American history BEFORE you run your mouth? What the fuck is wrong with you?
Racists like you seceded and fired on American troops rather than allow even a Free Soil President to take office. They declared that Jefferson was wrong, that all men are NOT created equal. Slavery was the center of their entire economy and society, and they would give it up only at the point of American guns. You racist piece of shit!
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Doesn't matter, that's why. It changes nothing, and by the way, nice attempt trying to get me to provide proof of YOUR "facts". The burden of proof is on you.
So is that what they taught you in public school? And then the "non-racists" like Lincoln, (who was willing to support slavery), all came and saved the day, the end? Yes, you are right, of course, why didn't I see it earlier? LOL You still think the civil war was entirely about slavery...hahaha.. your ignorance is sad but entertaining.
garoad2 2 years ago
I don't know what shit school you went to, but I learned the real Lincoln, warts and all. None of it's relevant to the causes of the war, though, because he didn't start it. The South did, and you racists said why at the time. You cited slavery in your declarations of secession. You said slavery and the inferiority of blacks was the "cornerstone" of your new nation. And when we tried to make peace in 1861, every single one of your demands related to the preservation and EXPANSION of slavery.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
I "learned" the same crap you did in school. You actually believe it was all 100% true and accurate? lol History is written by the victor. You really think a federal government--literally running our schools--will tell you the full unbiased truth? If that's not a perfect propaganda enabler, what is?
This is where having a mind for yourself comes in, you see. Read Thomas Dilorenzo's "The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War"-- with an open mind.
garoad2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Lincoln's agenda is irrelevant, because he didn't start the war. You racists did. You stated your reasons at the time, and every single one of them related to slavery. You declared slavery and the genetic inferiority of blacks the "cornerstone" of your new nation. You said you seceded because Jefferson was wrong, because all men are NOT created equal. When America sought peace in 1861, you demanded the preservation and EXPANSION of slavery, and nothing else. Lincoln merely defended America.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
(1) Lincoln thought that blacks were genetically inferior. That is why he didn't approve of inter-racial relationships.
As far as I have read, Sumner is considered the first real strike in the Civil War. If this is indeed true, then what the Southern States had done was strike on a "foreign" military force invading their country, since they believed it was there right to succeed, and they had officially declared that.
InfiniteAstonishment 2 years ago
You need to read some more. It's Fort "Sumter," not Sumner, and the South fired on American troops well before before that. Ironically, Sumner was the member of the House of Representatives who the racist Southerner Preston Brooks beat almost to death on the floor of the House in 1856 for criticizing slavery. The South had no right to secede, as the Supreme Court confirmed, and Lincoln was right to save the Union. I can't believe you defend Southern racists.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
I said "believed," but I agree they did have the right. They did not do it for the proper purposes. I said "First real" as in official.
InfiniteAstonishment 2 years ago
Their beliefs are irrelevant. If I believe I'm allowed to murder someone in cold blood, that doesn't make it right. Similarly, the Supreme Court ended all doubt about whether secession is legal.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
(2) A true libertarian cannot be racist or prejudice because they see every person as what they are, a sovereign individual. You can find that the president of the Austin NAACP Nelson Linder has declared those statements nonsense. Ron Paul and him have been acquaintances for over 20 years.
InfiniteAstonishment 2 years ago
Ooh, so no one who calls himself a "libertarian" has ever been a racist in the entire history of the universe, or ever could be going forward. That label wipes everything clean! And the "one black friend" defense, which is so pathetic there are entire websites devoted to mocking it! Quite an argument you've put together!
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
It isn't the one black friend. It is the NAACP. I should have clarified for you. That is the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, which, I think, means black. I can't remember, really.
I do truly admire how avidly against him you are, though. By yourself, you are trying to take on all of these people who are for the same principles, and you are the only on the forum against them. Congrats on your dedication to your ideology, seriously.
InfiniteAstonishment 2 years ago
Nope. It's one man making one personal recommendation. He didn't speak even for his own chapter, much less any of the NAACP's dozens of other chapters, much less the entire organization. Paul has one black friend. Good job by you! Super persuasive!
Yeah. I think bigotry and inequality are wrong, and that generally people should get an education before they run their mouth. You obviously disagree.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Thing is... Your opinions aren't based on his policy at all... This is a huge issue... Its all based on the precedence of his opinion on the civil war... Hypothetically assuming Ron Paul was a racist (Though he isn't), his policies are specifically opposed to interfering in governing, much less making oppressive laws... We now have a black president, so the need for affirmative action, is obviously passed...
Daharen 2 years ago
I guess the way I look at it, feel free to not vote for him because of personal opinions... However, if that's your stance, I argue you shouldn't vote for any of the other presidents, like Mick Romney who believes in Magical Underpants, or McCain and others who believe in Creation and deny the entire scientific basis of evolution and other matters... Ron Paul isn't an evolutionist, I believe this position profoundly idiotic, but it doesn't effect his policies, and he'd be good for our country..
Daharen 2 years ago
I think it's relevant whether our president is a racist. You don't think it matters. Luckily, the overwhelming majority of American voters agree with me.
My opinion is based on Paul's opposition to every advancement in the entire history of American civil rights, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, and MLK holiday; his $940,000 profit from writing and publishing racist newsletters with Lew Rockwell; and his public statements and actions. His record is crystal clear.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Ron Paul is not a racist. He simply believes that it is not the Federal government's purview within the constitution to legislate the way you want. There are several things where I do not necessarily see eye to eye with Ron Paul. And I would take a bullet for the man.
Panpiper 2 years ago
Nonsense. He thinks America was wrong to free the slaves in 1862. He voted against the MLK holiday in both 1979 and 1983. There was only one reason anyone did that.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
"There was only one reason anyone did that. "
I see, so not wanting to saddle the economy with yet another holiday which lowers American productivity and makes American businesses less profitable in the world market, that could not possibly be a reason?
And if you think Ron Paul is 'pro-slavery', you really understand absolutely nothing about his philosophy.
But it is also quite obvious that you do not 'want' to understand. Your mind is made up and you are sticking to it, right or wrong.
Panpiper 2 years ago
The MLK holiday doesn't saddle the economy with anything, and doesn't affect American businesses at all. It doesn't even apply to them. That's why Paul has NEVER ONCE IN HIS ENTIRE LIFE claimed to have voted against the MLK holiday because of economics. Not yesterday, not in 1979, not in 1983. Not once in his entire life.
Never said he was pro-slavery. Said he thinks America was wrong to free the slaves in 1862. Good job attacking a strawman, though!
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
"Said he thinks America was wrong to free the slaves in 1862."
Sources, please.
PLLwatchcat 2 years ago
no offense, but affirmative action is a load of crap. it's racism.
by the way, why would the country have a MLK holiday? let's have a holiday for every president of the US too. hey, let no american work anymore!
delyshBB 2 years ago
Who the fuck is talking about affirmative action?
A nation would have a holiday honoring MLK because he was a national hero. Obviously. And federal holidays apply only to federal employees. They don't apply to anyone else, much less the entire American workforce.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Stick to Romania's issues, and leave us alone.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
part of the civil rights movement(or more how it was high jacked) is affirmative action. since ron paul wasnt in congress when the civil rights act was voted, he could have voted only on things that give priviledges to minorities, which is a load of shit.
the US has a lot of heroes. why not have a national holiday for everyone of them? why is MLK special? besides being black.
delyshBB 2 years ago
and by the way, federal personal not working is bad for the economy too due to the fact that the work on that day has to be filled too. why should people subsidize that natioanl holiday through taxes?
delyshBB 2 years ago
By that logic, all federal employees should work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No, thanks. That's why Paul has never once in his entire life said he voted against the MLK holiday because of workload. He supports a SMALLER federal government, remember? He would prefer if federal employees worked even LESS days. So go sell that shit somewhere else.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
In Playboy magazines January 1965 issue, King stated that "all of Americas wealth today could not adequately compensate its Negroes for his centuries of exploitation and humiliation."
(cont)
TruthteIIer 2 years ago
Anticipating the contemporary movement demanding "reparations" for slavery, he insisted that black Americans be given preferential economic treatment.
This is Socialism. No MLK day FTW!!
TruthteIIer 2 years ago
Yeah. You and Paul hate MLK. We know. We the People consider him a national hero.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
I don't hate MLK. I hate Socialism. I and my children shouldn't have to pay for something that happened nearly 200 years ago, and just because we're white. That's unfair, it hints at racism, and it's wrong. Why wouldn't you agree?
TruthteIIer 2 years ago
The blacks have taken Martin Luther King's words and have twisted them into meaning "the blacks should have more power and more rights than the whites." Now, I don't think MLK day is bogus, or should not be celebrated, but I can't blame Ron Paul for feeling the way he does about "racial separatism day", when it should be "racial equality day".
PLLwatchcat 2 years ago
It's not "racial separatism day" or "racial equality day." It just celebrates MLK. Either he's a national hero or he's not. Either segregation and discrimination are wrong or they're not.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
I'm Irish, and I'm not looking for compensation from the British just because I have a grudge. Matter of fact, I don't hold a grudge against anyone anymore. That's the great thing about forgiveness. It frees you.
TruthteIIer 2 years ago
Wow. Comparing yourself to African slaves---the Middle Passage, the complete loss of all freedom, and centuries of rapes, lynchings, beatings, whippings, degradation, abuse, and the seizure and sale of children, followed by another century of segregation and discrimination. Do you even HAVE a bottom of the barrel? Don't you have any sense of shame?
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
So you DO sympathize with Socialism? Ok, that's all I wanted to know.
TruthteIIer 2 years ago
I was going to offer you some hay, but it looks like you've constructed that strawman all on your own. Nice work!
There's only one reason anyone would oppose the MLK holiday, and we all know what it is. Shit, most of Paul's angry white male supporters admit it right up front, and why the fuck not? You're anonymous anyway.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago