LOL what a joke. That is what you call a quote mine. One line taken completely out of context with no regards to the subject or paragraph it came from. He's talking about property, not downplaying the roles of activists. Good grief. You wonder why our political system is so screwed up.
"The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%. National Weather Service data shows that Americans are struck and killed by lightning about as often. "
"There is no documented wave or trend of individuals voting multiple times, voting as someone else, or voting despite knowing that they are ineligible. Indeed, evidence from the microscopically scrutinized 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington State actually reveals just the opposite: though voter fraud does happen, it happens approximately 0.0009% of the time. "
@Vote3rdParty bull, in every single fascist state in history government had the final say and even though corporate interests can amd have agained favor in certain aspects government interests/social engineering has caused far more damage to our economy. I have plenty of proof to prove it without chanting greed a thousand times as if it is a valid argument
I agree that everyone is allowed to act as backward as they please on private property, but to state that it was solely Liberal activists that brought the change in public perception is a ton of spin and only perpetuates the dogma of Liberal righteousness and is completely silly.
Law does not bring morality, it only induces a false sense of it.......ask any black person
There is no freedom outside of celibacy and cannabis is that Miracle. the summation of the 1st 3 chapters in Genesis. transcends race and gender.You can't legislate morality,you can't fix stupid. Cannabis amnesty is the messiah Israel ? awaits....peace
Well, I would call myself a secular humanist and atheist aswell.
For me reason, ethics, and justice for every human being has to be held in the highest esteem. We MUST treat ech other as equals, with dignity and respect to achieve the goals of "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for all.
Now where do you put discrimination on the basis of "race"? Why not on the basis of age, beliefs or hair color?
Ron just can't argue his points well when he is in this kind of environment, where he under time constrain to give his answers. He should refrain from appearing on these networks in the future.
@cupocity303 - He has been. Ron Paul has been avoiding MSNBC for fear of being asked a tough question. God forbid if he's asked about why he admitted to writing his racist newsletters in 1996!
@Vote3rdParty Well he still appears more on Liberal precincts than most other Republican politicians. Been on Bill Maher, Jon Stewart etc,. Since he kind of is a "useful idiot" during the off-season of Elections. They bring him on and let him trash the republicans on their behalf regarding the Wars. But then he became a threat with his popularity increasing, and they started knocked him back down because they don't like his Rigid consistency. As for the news letters, coud care less
actually lawrence it was a REPUBLICAN congress that changed segregation you freaking douchebag prick.. DEMS have always and continue to hold blacks down did I mention MLK JR was a registered republican this tool obviously doesnt know his history... Ron Paul 2012
To the 10th+5th : It is neither violating states' rights nor infringing on your right to private property. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States.
If it violated the 10th we would go back to the Articles of confederacy and your property is not being taken, it's just regulated under the Commerce Clause.
I saw this and it just opened up a can of worms for research. Why would this guy be so nasty to a person willing to do an interview. He never let him speak and make his point. Broke him off and eventually gave us his opinion and never interviewed the poor guy. What a waste of interview.
@Vote3rdParty Racists have the right to be Racists as long as their actions do not include force. The free market will punish them, so there is no need for government. if a racist restaurant owner decides to exclude black patrons, they will deprive themselves of the revenue as well as offend remaining customers. Most likely, they will go out of business.
I see and idiot host trying to turn things out of context,distort the meaning of what DrPaul meant in order to discredit him.He said it could been done in a better way but they did not let him elaborate on that.Integration can not be achieved by imposing it and the US constitution is anyway telling everything about civil libertys and rights so in reality there would have been no need for a civil rights act but only to repeal the illegal unconstitutional laws promoting/allowing discrimination
Educating someone does not mean talking over someone and not letting them answer. This should be re-titled: Ron Paul Educates Lawrence O'Donnell on CRA.
@tgbotg - So if Paul was on your imaginary TV show you would let him ramble on taking up all the rest of your time? You would only get to ask one fucking question. That's not an interview. That's a speech to Paultards. Paul got more time than any capable person would need for getting their point across. I'm sure you think Obama should only get asked one question as well when he's being interviewed on FAUX News!
@Vote3rdParty Did you watch the video? I'll assume you did since you posted it. No, I do recognize that RP has a tendency to ramble on and sometimes the interviewer has to cut him off because of more questions or a hard break. But that's not the case here! So much time is wasted when LO is trying to talk over RP as he's trying to answer. He's asking tough questions that require an explanation, not a one sentence quip! This is what happens to candidates with actual substance.
Lawrence is an idiot. He stated it himself, that there were laws violating blacks. It was government discriminating against blacks. The civil rights act was intended to deflect guilt by enforcing unnecessary laws on the free market. If people do not understand this distinction they are fools. Government is the use of force, and to give any group an advantage at the expense of another through force is WRONG.
@VINNYMOR - Obviously! You think think racist white restaurant owners can keep blacks off their "white property" without the STATE governments (states rights') coming in and arresting the blacks for violating "the law." But that's what the "free" market is, the government enforcing "property rights" laws.
@Vote3rdParty Youre totally demagoging the issue. "obviously you think.." Calling people racists. Grow up. Thats not what he said and you're just using a logical fallacy to demagogue and issue. The Civil Right movement was fought against the powers of the State. It was institutionalized racism. Civil Disobedience is by definition used against the powers of government, not private individuals on their private property.
@mahavira108 - Wrong. The Civil Rights movement was fought against racism in general, not "the power of the state." Though I agree with you, the Civil Rights movement was anti-states' rights. And the the product of the movement, the CRA of 64 overturned all the fascist Jim Crow laws of the southern states. Thank you Civil Rights Act of 64. And fuck STATIST Ron Paul for opposing it.
@Vote3rdParty If I own it is it mine? Or am I just renting from the gov't? Maybe we can "force" interracial child birth. All one race, no racism...Now that's freedom!
The concept of "civil rights" is 100% incompatible with constitutional rights. O'Donnell is an idiot who can't comprehend the idea that government legislating who you can't associate with is the same problem as government legislating who you have to associate with. Idiot O'Donnell is unaware that the Woolworth's lunch counters, the Atlanta buses, and the US military, etc., were all segregated before any constitutional rights were infringed upon by anti-constitutional "civil rights" laws.
@wrjamescom - Get an education. The whole idea of Civil Rights come from the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. Funny you would refer to Civil Rights Laws (which further enforce what's already in the Constitution) as anti-Constitution with NO MENTION of the BLATANTLY unconstitutional fascist Jim Crow laws. Your racism is apparent.
@Vote3rdParty Take your own advice and get an education before attepting to educate others with your parrot lines. Obviously, you have never actually read the constitution, including amendments 13 and 14. As for the Jim Crow laws, yes, they were mostly unconstitutional, but your parroting lines about them isn't relevant to anything I said. Get your trainer to teach you some better lines.
@Vote3rdParty Well, at least you got part of that right. Rights are individual in nature, there can be no such thing as group rights. But the constitution does not give anyone authority over anyone else. If you are forced to trade with me based on race, then your rights are subject to my convenience, in other words, you have none. The idea of civil "rights" is just that, the infringement on constitutional rights for the benefit of some.
@ShinjukuHH Yes, I've not only heard of it, I've actually read it. Have you? If you had, then you'd already know that it does NOT authorize the federal government to be involved in any way regarding employment agreements between people, including people running a business. It only authorizes federal involvement in regulating interstate commerce, foreign trade and trade with Indians.
@wrjamescom You know, the federal governemnt can do it - Title VII of the CRA "prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin"
@ShinjukuHH My point was that the CRA clearly is unconstitutional under amendments 9 and 10, and in some cases 1 and 5. If more people were familiar with the constitution and appreciated it's importance we'd never allow the congress and the courts to ignore the constitution and enact such things.
@wrjamescom 9th: Interesting! You want your "Freedom to Discriminate" (which is not in the Constitution) but you claim that it is some "inalienable right".If it were the case, you would be returning to Plessy (reestablishing "Seperate but Equal")
@ShinjukuHH Are you seriously that illiterate? Property rights are in the constitution, as are many others. There is nothing in the constitution subjecting the exercise of those rights to your test of discrimination. Individuals are free to trade and or associate with whom they please, or not, without need of reasons which may be acceptable to you or anyone else. Your parrot line regarding Plessy isn't even relevant to the discussion.
@wrjamescom Yet, those property rights aren't being infringed upon by the CRA. The Supreme Court made that clear.
And with regard to Plessy v. Ferguson:
You can play this thought experiment out for yourself. If the CRA violated all the Amendments you mentioned, you would have to return to "seperate but equal".
@ShinjukuHH Nonsense! "Separate but equal" refers to government, not the people. Separate schools, for example, is not unconstitutional for private schools if they choose. Actually, it wouldn't be anyway, because the federal government has no jurisdiction in education, but that's another issue. There's nothing in the constitution that says individuals can't discriminate on whatever basis they choose. Government can't, but individuals are not subject to thought police.
@ShinjukuHH Yeah, that's BS, you labeled your comment appropriately. The Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional for the same reason and the CSA, they violate the constitutional rights of people. I'm atheist. If you don't want to trade with me, including hire me or buy from me or sell to me, that's your right. But government is not allowed to discriminate. You can't see the difference between individuals and government. You're too brainwashed to know what rights mean.
Lawrence said it took Liberals to make this country better. Liberals like to put everyone into groups. They think in terms of groups. You'll always have racism with thinking like that. Racists believe all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike. Racists think only in terms of groups. Racism will only be erased when we start looking at our fellow men as individuals. To hell with the racist LEFT. to hell with the racist RIGHT. LIBERTARIANS see people as individuals
If there's anyone who groups people it's Ron Paul. Did you read his racist newsletters? He uses blanket statements to describe all blacks. The Reich-Wing puts minorities into groups such as Muslims being "terrorists" and blacks being "welfare queens." Then when the Left says that's wrong, we are accused of "race baiting" and "grouping people."
@Vote3rdParty This is like bashing a super pac for running a bad commercial, Ron Paul was still practicing medicine at the time and allowed other people under other management to run the newspapers under his name. So if you want to accuse him of something, let it be ignorance of the situation or gross mismanagement, which granted is not a good quality of somebody who wishes to be a commander-in-chief of the free world.
If there's anyone who groups people it's Ron Paul. Did you read his racist newsletters? He uses blanket statements to describe all blacks. The Right-Wing puts minorities into groups such as Muslims being "terrorists" and blacks being "welfare queens." Then when the Left says that's wrong, we are accused of "race baiting" and "grouping people."
@Vote3rdParty Also, you responded to werowocomico with the newsletters and didn't acknowledge the point made being that rights come as individuals, not as collectives, thus people should not be rewarded or punished based on race or religion. Both parties are responsible for racist legislation. On the (D) side JFK (as much as I liked him) voted against the Civil Rights Law in '57 pushed by Eisenhower, and Woodrow Wilson signed in more segregation laws than any pres. in history.
@AcedMoney777 - Congrats you can channel Ron Paul. Now stop and think about what you're saying. Rights DO NOT come from being an "individual." Rights are privileges granted by society. Whether or not those rights are legitimate is up to society to decide. Rights are not magically things that are rained down by Jesus. lol...
@Vote3rdParty (p2) As well as the Dems who created the Jim Crow laws. Republicans however are the ones propping up the drug laws and enciting these wars overseas which are always prime for utmost racism (more minorities are subject to racism in war time then ever). So please get out of the left/right ping pong game, its meaningless.
@AcedMoney777 - The racism today is coming from mainly one party, and that's the Republicans. I agree, dems should be doing more to end the drug war. Have you not been paying attention to the anti-democratic voter I.D. laws and redistricting to prevent blacks from voting? Have you not read Ron Paul's racist newsletters? Have you not heard Newt Gingrich call Obama a "food-stamp" president and the audience cheering enthusiastically?
@Vote3rdParty You're not getting it, both parties are the same. What may be the more race friendly party now, will become the racist party in 10-20 years from now. Just do some research on the dixiecrats (racist southern dems who switched to the republican party). I'm not a Republican but im trying to give you some facts on the democratic party and its history, they were against the civil rights, they were against freeing the slaves, they past hateful segregation laws (Pre. Wilson)
@AcedMoney777 (pt.2) Yes, I agree the national ID card is a horrible thing and a huge violation of constiutional rights, Ron Paul also vehemently opposes Nat ID btw. He is also the leading voice in either party in the fight against the drug war, rectifying the bias judicial system where the incarceration rate for blacks is dramatically higher than any other race, and having individual rights AS individuals, not by races or groups. Also, the newsletters controversy has already been
@AcedMoney777 (pt.3) investigated and proven false. This attack came from people linked to Newt Gingrich (who IS a racist) and John Boehner. /watch?v=rGH77lZsglU (its two part investigative report by Ben Swann). I'm not saying Ron Paul is perfect, but he understands the game of 'left/right' politics and how they are really one party. You said it yourself 'Dems were right-wing during Jim Crow'.
@AcedMoney777 (pt.4) The media claims the Dems want welfare state and Repubs want Warfare state, and while thats true, the whole truth is that both parties want both welfare and warfare state as they both voted unanimously for things like the NDAA and Patriot Act and they both voted unanimously for the Iraq and Afghanistan War. Don't listen to the MS media about RP, do your own research on what his positions are and his explanations. Btw, I wanted Obama to win in '08.
@AcedMoney777 - (4) Clinton had a HUGE surplus before the decade long Bush tax cuts and two decade long wars. Just look at the numbers. Sure, dems are not great but you can not spread equal blame over the parties. I say this as someone who never votes democrat. If things were my way, the democratic party would be actual socialists instead of for regulated capitalism. I've been looking into Paul's record for years. I'm not one to trust the MS media.
@Vote3rdParty (7) Clinton had a surplus because of the natural swing of the economy, ask any economist. It was Clinton's excessive warmongering and launching bomb campaigns whilst killing over 750,000 iraqi/afghan civilians. Face it, they ARE one party. We haven't had capitalism in 80+ years, evidenced by having the Fed, Bailouts, Large Debt etc. Voting by the Constitutional isn't always popular but at least you know that its the law instead of voting by who pays you the most.
@AcedMoney777 - (7) Sorry, but Clinton tax rates worked, and Clinton's wars were tiny in scale to Bush's. There's not comparison spending wise. The Democratic Party is no longer as far right as Clinton, thank god. Half the Democrats in the Senate voted against giving Bush the power to go to war with Iraq, while only one Republican in the senate opposed Bush. Again, both parties are bad, but one is far worse.
@Vote3rdParty (8) In many ways, we are a wannabe socialistic country. Regulated Capitalism is fascism. Free markets, operated by the people will always produce a stronger economy/jobs/trade, sure its not utopia for all + grandma to become rich and famous, but if you think our current system is, get real, ask North Korea. Heck, if you want socialism why dont you move to a socialist country? I'm not joking btw.
(8) - Name a single elected politician who believes that the means of production should be communally owned as opposed to owned by a "free" market dictator? We are no were near socialist, for the private sector still has power over our government. I'd rather make stay in America and make it better than flee during the fight. I could tell you to move to Iran if you want far-right policies, but I doubt you want to flee either. Also, please look up the definition of fascism
@Vote3rdParty (10) Most politicians want big business in bed with big government (which is how Musollini describes fascism). We dont have a free market that is run by the people. We have Corporatism run by a few wealthy individuals who manipulate the market thru price fixing and debasement of currency. I never said we were socialist, but we are Corporatist and I'm against the foreign wars that (R)s and (D)s support.
@AcedMoney777 (10) Corporations in bed with big government is actually pretty vague. That could be either state communism (gov control over private sector) or fascism (private control over government.) What we are experiencing in the U.S. is Corporations controlling the government.
@Vote3rdParty (11) for what its worth I enjoyed this conversation, I didnt have an agenda to convert you or anything, and while I disagree with you on somethings I agree with you on others. I get tired of people conjuring some very misconstrued ideas MSM displays about Paul. As far as I can see, he's the best candidate we have now, far better than any Repubs or Dems running and will at least bring our troops home and restore some individual liberties to the people. Take care
@AcedMoney777 - (3) What's been proven false? The Ron Paul Survival Report which became the Political Report? If by "proven false" you mean Paul ran on the fact he wrote them when he decided to run for office again in 1996, sure. LOL. They are also written in 1st person from Paul's perspective and mention his family, Libertarian run in 88, and home in Lake Jackson, TX. They also span 7 years, too long not to receieve complaints and discontinue the newsletters (if it was ghstwriter)
@AcedMoney777 - (Pt 2) Are you trying to argue that Ron Paul is not a racist? LMFAO! Just read the Ron Paul newsletters (which he admitted authoring.) Also Ron Paul has made it apparent he hates individual rights. Just look at his record on the gay rights and CRA. I also wouldn't call him the "leading voice" on the drug war. He is for states rights, meaning states could enforce even stricter, more racist drug laws.
@Vote3rdParty (2) He isnt a racist. I've read the RP newsletters, nearly 600 of them, only 6 of them contain racist remarks, ironically all 6 of those had no bi-lines and only up until a month ago found a author named James B. Powell wrote all 6 of them. All the articles which Paul wrote, had Paul's bi-line. So, was Paul irresponsible as a publisher? Yes and has admitted that. A Racist? No. In fact, the NAACP Chairman has publicly come out and defend RP as being an Anti-Racist.
@AcedMoney777 - Lies. James B. Powell isn't the author of the Survival Report, he authored the Ron Paul Strategy Guide. Nice try though, really. Every issue that I've seen of the Survival Report has contained racism and many contain homophobia. Can you link me to some issues of the Survival Report that do not? Paul also ran his 1996 campaign on the fact he wrote the fascist Ron Paul Survival Report. But no evidence will convince a Paultard.
@Vote3rdParty Read the prose of those 9 letters, the diction and style are identical to one another, your problem is reading between the lines. You've even proven my point that they all are compartmentalized in the Survival Report. Neither one of them had by-lines, until they were uncovered to be authored by Powell. Please name some legislation Paul himself has PASSED that supports federal segregation.
@AcedMoney777 - Trying to change the subject I see? Do you really think a sneaky slimy POLITICIAN like Ron Paul would actually push for blatantly racist laws? He would lose his seat immediately and thus the little power he has.
Why are you still arguing about the newsletters? He RAN his campaign on the fact he wrote the Survival Report. To anyone who is not a cultist Ron Paul supporter, this is definitive undeniable proof. Not to mention the fact the span 7 years.
@Vote3rdParty (3) His record on gay rights and civil liberties are flawless in accordance to the constitution as its explicit that these civil cases like these should be handled at state/local level. Also, you're bringing up Civil Rights Act? Really? I thought you wanted to stop living in the past? And he didn't oppose CRA in principal rather he believes it should have been done at a state level since the federal CRA does violate Property Rights for owners.
@AcedMoney777 (3) His record on civil liberties and gay rights is tyrannical to say the least. Paul supported Texas' ban on gay sex, shitting on the Constitution which grants us all individual liberty and freedom. Some libertarian! I'm not dwelling on the past, I'm telling you Ron Paul's record. Are you arguing Paul has changed his position? If not I think the CRA is a valid point. The CRA made it so the STATE couldn't initiate force against blacks who wonder on to "white property"
@Vote3rdParty (2) So you can talk about Paul's record, yet when I bring up democrats supporting hateful legislation you get upset? A ban on gay sex...can you cite legislation? Other than that, if you believe in states rights, Paul's record on gay marriage is the same: no Federal gov't involved in marriage, but only to enforce the contracts. If you're not a statesman, than we can end this conversation now because you would then believe in the "State" and not "states".
@AcedMoney777 - (2) Who said I was getting upset? Name on democrat who is alive that that supports hateful legislation. Also, democrats can be right-wing too you know. Read about Lawrence v. Texas. Paul supporter Texas in that case. Also Paul supported DOMA, the Marriage Protection Act, and voted to ban gay adoptions. Individual rights are not up to the states. That's explicitly laid out in the Constitution, which Paul takes a dump on ever day.
@Vote3rdParty (3) He supports the ideas of CRA in ending segregation, but the problem was it violated private property and privacy rights, and while the sentiment is good, the delivery is still a violation of basic rights which are the bedrocks of our society. It also gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country.
@AcedMoney777 - (3) The Supreme Court ruled it did not violate private property rights because it's property intended for public use as opposed to property meant for private use, such as a homestead. You and Ron Paul are making a conscious choice of strict private property rights while ignoring the occupancy rights of blacks.
@Vote3rdParty (4) This expansion of fed. power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The founders intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the govt regulatory power over every business that has any connection with IC.
@AcedMoney777 - (4) Are you really arguing against the 13th and 14th Amendments which grant all individuals equal liberty? Are you a libertarian are aren't you? Where in the Constitution is regulation banned? That one is definitely new to me.
@Vote3rdParty (5) Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the govt could ensure an employer was not violating cra was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat/judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony.
@AcedMoney777 - (5) If someone put's up a whites only sign, their is no reading minds involved. That is blatant racism forced on the populace, taking away the individual freedom of blacks. How can you say affirmative action hasn't lead to racial harmony when race relations are at their best ever. Hell, we even have a black president. I'm sorry but I think you are living in a bubble.
Signs only show us the where really stupid people are and i support them identifying their stupidity so I can avoid them.
Living in a bubble is when you think outlawing something removes it, it might make you feel better by annointing yourself steward of the community but it is a false sense of righteousness. I bet you give kids apples at halloween and think they eat them
@Vote3rdParty (4) Just because something is done at a state level (like if CRA was handled at state level for ex.) doesn't mean you would have one state passing CRA and another not. That would be preposterous if a state didnt pass that, businesses imposing a "whites only" rule would be publicly boycotted and go out of business. Don't underestimate the common sense of the people.
@AcedMoney777 - (4) Learn your history. "White's only" businesses were thriving at the time of the CRA, because most southerners were racists (and still are). The Constitution doesn't say that individual rights are up to the states. Individual rights are protected at the federal level as laid out in the 13th and 14th amendments. That means the courts can overrule fascist laws put forth by the states.
@Vote3rdParty (6) Have you ever lost a job to a minority (this includes women, btw not just different races) who was less qualified for a job than you but that particular company had to meet their minority quota? Affirmative Action is for minorities…. which includes WHITE women, black women etc. It isn’t about race, it’s about what’s fair, what works, and what doesn’t work…. and AA doesn’t work and it’s not fair.
@AcedMoney777 (6) Please address my original points in part 6. Affirmative action is something that was needed at the time of the CRA. When slavery ended, do you think blacks were giving homes to live in and jobs by the state? Nope. They were still slaves after slavery ended, just not chattel slaves. Whites kept their monopoly of the MoP and the capital. It took over a hundred years for blacks to a more equal opportunity.
@Vote3rdParty (7) I agree that the federal govt's job is to protect individual rights, but does not have the right to overturn a law a state has put in place, but to simply produce the atmosphere for individuals to make the choice in states. You're seeing this right now with cannabis law, where states have voted to legalize marijuana and then the federal govt actually overturns it and criminalizes it again.
@AcedMoney777 (7) So are you for Amending the Constitution, because no where does it say state law overrules the U.S. Constitution. For "Constitutionalists," you and Paul sure like to ignore the Constitution. I agree with you one drugs. In that case, it is the federal government infringing on our rights. I'm always on the side of liberty whether it comes to state or federal law.
@Vote3rdParty (5) And he is a leading voice for ending the drug war, they could enforce stricter laws but they wont. Think about it, you think a local government is going to pass up on hundreds of millions of dollars of tax money that they could be collecting while saving millions of dollars from their prison systems (Paul wants to pardon all non-violent drug crimes btw).? Most states would decriminalize if the ppl wanted to, and if the state doesnt, ppl petition.
@AcedMoney777 (5) - I agree with Paul on the FEDERAL drug war, but under Paul, states could put force even more racist and harsh drug laws. You could get life in prison for a bag of weed depending on what state you are in under Paul.
@Vote3rdParty (8) It could make drug laws worse, but it could make it much better, and that's solely dependent on the people at local levels. Paul also wants to pardon all non violent drug crimes. You might be talking hypothetical in regards to states rights on the drug war issue. This actually gives states a chance to compare and contrast whether drug legalization works or not, then to adjust and correct accordingly as goes with most civil issues given to states.
@AcedMoney777 (8) With redistricting and new voter ID laws we could be looking at total one party control in the south, where the drug laws are the strictest. This means Republicans can push any crazy law with no consequences because they've rigged the game. My view of America isn't one where your rights change depending on where you wonder. A federal amendment legalizing drugs would be amazing.
@Vote3rdParty (6) People have a lot more power to make changes at local govt than they would at federal level. And addressing the him writing in 1st person, a 5 year old can do that. It's obvious the racist letters was just dirty politics 101. And the racist comments spanned in 9 letters (instead of 6) and those spanned from Oct '90 to Feb 91 and Jun.-Jul '92 (NOT 7 years). How do you kno he didn't receive complaints? Paul has disavowed these for over 20 years you know.
@AcedMoney777 - (6) I'm not oppose to decisions being made locally as long as the don't violate the constitution or pollute the air I breathe or the water I drink.
Watch "Ron Paul: The Deep Dark Details" here on youtube. The writing indeed span 7 years. The dates are provided in the video under Ron Paul's racist writings. You are really arguing that Paul hired someone who wanted to frame him a racist and let him write for this long! Why do I waste my time arguing with you people?
@Vote3rdParty (9) As I've already stated RP was a negligent publisher. However, do you think Steve Forbes reads and endorses line and precept in Forbes Magazine? Not a chance. Im not saying he hired someone to write racist statements for him, I'm saying that he hired freelancers over the years and one of them wrote their own racist sentiments in Paul's newsletters. Regardless, he has explained that he has disavowed all those slanderous comments repeatedly.
@AcedMoney777 (9) He was more than a negligent publisher, he authored some of the craziest bullshit about blacks and gays I've ever read. Also, Ron Paul and associates only has four employees in Texas (where the newsletters were put out) and those employees were Lew Rockwell and Paul's family. He made almost 1 million off the newsletters meaning tons of people were reading. Yet no complaints over 7 years? He also mentions content from the newsletters in an interview in 1995.
@AcedMoney777 - You don't need to educate me, I'm well aware of American history. FACT: Right now the democrats are far, far, FAR ahead on the race issue. That's all I said. If the Dems are racists in 10 years, guess what? You fight them! Just like you should be fighting the Republicans NOW on the race issue, instead of dwelling on the past.
@Vote3rdParty Who cares about whether dems or repubs are ahead on the race issue? Thats like arguing which singer in Milli Vanili is better? Totally irrelevant. Dont you see they both are the same? Its called a two party dictatorship, political wrestling federation. Those act like they oppose each other on TV but then they're in the back room doing deals with each other (talk about bi-partisanship). You are the one dwelling in the past by ignoring that fact.
@AcedMoney777 - "Who cares about whether dems or repubs are ahead on the race issue"
Everyone who isn't a racist cares. Since you are a Paul supporter, and he is an admitting a racist, not much more has to be said. They are not the same. One party is a centrist party and the other is a far-right bat shit party.
@Vote3rdParty Let me try to speak to you in simple terms: I oppose racism regardless of which party is the mouthpiece. The reality, which you have chosen to turn away from, is that both parties have racist tendencies. I don't care which party is less racist. That's like choosing which kind of cancer you want. Dems are shit and Repubs are shit. Period. Funny thing is, have you heard RP come out and say "I'm a racist"? So he's not an admitant racist, thats just your assumption.
I think it's just you mpadovano1. Just because Ron Paul gave medical treatment to interracial couples doesn't mean that he could not possibly be racist. He is simply trying to get Paul to explain what he himself has stated. Ron is doing what he does best. Trying to sidestep a direct question. The question he was asked had nothing to do with "privacy in the bedroom"; but that is what Paul keeps going back to. Why don't you "get real" and stop making excuses for Paul when he can't explain himself?
Is it me or did Ron Paul educate O'Donnell here? Talking over someone like Lawrence did does not mean he's right. He's condescending and totally arrogant here. Ron Paul was giving medical treatment to interracial couples before Lawrence could even read. Get real.
He says "Activist left government," but THAT WAS... what? Vatican II, where the pope oversaw the murder of so many u.s. officials in the 60s, and imposed "ecumenical councils" where the people had previously had freedom of (real) religion? Where "religion" wasn't just propping up a few leftist canards (like "inclusivity" etc.) Where many people actually read the Bible and were allowed to not have it "re-interpreted" by the pope (since there weren't even any catholic founders of the u.s.)
@westchesterny L.O.D.---the name says it all, doesn't it? I don't need a Papist to intercede so I can talk to God. I can do that fine--all by myself. No Mary-in-a half- shell on my lawn. Quis Separabit.
That prick Lawrence O'Donnell is a fuckin' Liberal bitch that couldn't argue himself out of a paper bag.I am sure Dr Paul left the interview secure in the knowledge that he was correct on all points...and that L.O.D. needs a big smack in the head.
@ugotitpunk Maybe this O'Donnell person just moved from Ireland or something. Freedom for African Americans ALONE is not freedom, lol, (obviously). Things s/a loss of habeus corpus, taking private property, and so on, is not freedom. This O'Donnell person does not seem to be an American, or to have gone to any schooling where they would teach him U.S. history. How did he get a labor visa? Is he a citizen yet?
Lawrence wasn't being fair... but the world isn't fair in the US. Here we put down the ppl that are actually willing to help us and choose whatever "looks good" or agrees with what our anger or passion agrees with. We don't care if it solves the problem. We care that it doesn't interfere with our cell service, internet, cable, coffee cup, public transportation... as long as the routine isn't broken, who gives a fuck who is president. Fuck it, we deserve it. Time for a new Superpower.
@cyvais wow, did you learn that at home, lol. You sound like the type who rolls over for anything. We this, we that. Speak for your own weak-ass self.
@ThirdEyeMessenger They got a quick interview, limited time, if Lawrence did not cut in and talk over him, he would be allowed to keep talking that hype , say nothing and run-down the clock. You better believe they get paid "speaking fees" to get on these programs, that is why that SCUM BACK Joe Walsh is on EVERYTHING.
Paul figured he could talk his. Paul DOES NOT like to be challenged. You seem him get ruffled.
He does not like to be questioned, and most people get confused by that crap and give him a wide berth, as IF he is an economist or philospher or some genius. he likes that. But Lawrence is SMARTER than him anda real debater. Running in for the kill each chance he gets. Had the "genius" Paul confused, talking nothing of importance. Then Paul starts to yell (see the fULL clip).
The law of segregation was illegal and unconstitutional, and the law that forced private property owners to do what the government wanted was illegal and unconstitutional, that's what i got from it.
@gerard1657 ??? What video did you watch? Repeal the unjust segregation laws on the state books, as opposed to creating federal law that requires people to do with their own private property what the government says they should do with private property. This infringement extends to ALL private property to this day.O'donnell doesn't know what he's talking about and he got his ass kicked in this video.
WHAT THE FUK U PATHETIC SELF-HATING ANTI-WHITE RACIST JACKASS! Let Ron Paul SPEAK!
This jew-azz-licking CLOWN is just some OFFICE THUG who is hired 2 shout down, insult, & talk over his so-called 'guests'. Y the fuk should I continue listening 2 this insane BULL$hit flowing from this idiot's mouth? Grow a penis, O'Fuktard. CLICK!
DAMN could ron "the hitman" paul give just 1 fuckin interveiw without flip-floppin all over the damn place??? this guy flip flops more than mitt "the loser" ronmey.
@propagandadrunken 2 things: He was not allowed to explain his reasoning. The other... you try to have a philosophical argument about such a vast subject as Civil Rights in the space of 2 and a half minutes.
@cyvais They could not discuss the topic, you are right, but Lawrence,rather that let Paul keep spouting and SAY nothing (seethe FULL clip), he cut in on ONE comment that Paul himself had made, and he hammered him and Paul tried to defelct the attack, by suggesting Lawrence did not "play fair" (just listen to Paul rant),
Those conversations are never long, they just are meant to see where the politician stand on an issue, or to question a comment made in the past.
@cyvais Maybe you were hoping the Lawrence would have done what you would have done? Just listen to all that crap, go along with it, because you agree, or you think what he said is so intelligent. lawrence checked Paul, by letting him know that his comment was BS and there was no way he could BS around the statement.
Paul always whines about abstracts. "We must end the Fed." yeah right. When? Try never.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who has a clue about what is really going on in this country. He has a plan to deal with the problems. His story never changes. With Romney you never which Mitt you are getting. Is he pro gun control or a member of the NRA? Is he pro abortion or anti abortion? Is he pro bailout or anti bailout? It is a fact He has been on both sides. Who knows what he will be tomorrow. Newt has memory problems and can't keep his facts straight. Go Ron Paul.
Rating the video and the ability to like or dislike a comment is disabled; that should tell you everything. Lawrence O'Donnell is a typical biased talking-head who doesn't let his guest, in this case Dr. Ron Paul, answer the questions. Losers like O'Donnell wish they possessed one-tenth of the intellect Ron Paul has. Unless you are brain-washed by the MSM; Ron Paul is clearly the only logical choice for President in 2012.
@TheMonkIsMad 1) O'Donnell didn't post this video so blaming him for ratings being disabled is ridiculous 2) Most likely they were disabled because of Paulbots such yourself who spam and rate down any and all videos critical of Paul
@njanovic1980 It's called Patriotism in it's truest form. If you were awake to the fact that Ronnie is the man for the job, Then you would also defend him with the zeal of a cult member.
@cyvais So if someone doesn't support Paul, if someone has different opinions than Paul and if someone doesn't accept him unquestioningly that means they are unpatriotic? Sounds rather totalitarian for people who claim to love "liberty" and "freedom". Just more evidence of the fascistic tendencies of many of Paul's followers.
@njanovic1980 Right, Paul is from racist Texas grew up in that period. He was an MD, not an economist, or a political theorist. He had a big family and they problaby all obeyed him. He was worshipped as an OB-GYN, now he has becomethe posterleader for the LIBERTARIAN wing of the GOP. He does not like people challenging his BS. You can see he is getting huffy and puffy because Lawrence is calling him on that BS he is spouting. Lawrence is talking fact. Paul is talking in abstracts.
@louisrr01 Paul is originally from PA if I remember correctly. He is a dogmatic ideological purist. His ideologoy must always triump even when history, facts, reality and practicality show those particular ideological positions to be wrong. He's a pie in the sky utopian.
@njanovic1980 He is from PA originally, I believe. Practiced in Texas. I agre that he is dogmatic and i agree almost puritanical in belief system/world-view. I don't know if he is really an idealogue (ideological purist). I essentially would agree with his NEED to be correct at all costs. He is an MD with an ego, probably a subservient wife and a Senator for a son. He is looking out for the 1% claiming the "government" is the evil entity, yet he has been in congress forever.
@louisrr01 It's utopian b/c he has this idealistic view - just do this that and the other thing and then all will be right and perfect. Of course such attempts don't bring about a utopia b/c that is impossible, usually such attempts result in massive misery and suffering.
LOL what a joke. That is what you call a quote mine. One line taken completely out of context with no regards to the subject or paragraph it came from. He's talking about property, not downplaying the roles of activists. Good grief. You wonder why our political system is so screwed up.
McNutzo 1 hour ago
BTW, you should read what I write a little more carefully before pouncing.
cc4272 17 hours ago
LOL..........Taking a stance that we should allow voter fraud.
Only in America
cc4272 17 hours ago
"We estimate more than 5 million voters could be affected by the new laws, based on six key numbers.
3.2 million voters affected by new photo ID laws."
brennancenter
Of course the usual suspects will dismiss this information
K2Karakoram 17 hours ago
continued
"The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%. National Weather Service data shows that Americans are struck and killed by lightning about as often. "
.brennancenter
K2Karakoram 17 hours ago
"There is no documented wave or trend of individuals voting multiple times, voting as someone else, or voting despite knowing that they are ineligible. Indeed, evidence from the microscopically scrutinized 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington State actually reveals just the opposite: though voter fraud does happen, it happens approximately 0.0009% of the time. "
K2Karakoram 17 hours ago
Voter ID, Well when we have Republican party (in some instances) that doesn't allow for
Student ID but only the ID of a driver license,that doesn't apply those same ID laws to
itself(like In Iowa) and so many more specifics I could list, Its clear that todays Republican
party is attempting to use voter ID laws as a way to weed out voters that they believe are
more likely to be Democratic voters. True voter fraud(not registeration fraud) is very very
rare.
K2Karakoram 17 hours ago
Comment removed
cc4272 19 hours ago
@Vote3rdParty bull, voter ID's are an attempt at curtailing voter fraud
cc4272 19 hours ago
@Vote3rdParty bull, in every single fascist state in history government had the final say and even though corporate interests can amd have agained favor in certain aspects government interests/social engineering has caused far more damage to our economy. I have plenty of proof to prove it without chanting greed a thousand times as if it is a valid argument
cc4272 19 hours ago
Sorry, I fail to see how he educated him.
I agree that everyone is allowed to act as backward as they please on private property, but to state that it was solely Liberal activists that brought the change in public perception is a ton of spin and only perpetuates the dogma of Liberal righteousness and is completely silly.
Law does not bring morality, it only induces a false sense of it.......ask any black person
cc4272 20 hours ago
There is no freedom outside of celibacy and cannabis is that Miracle. the summation of the 1st 3 chapters in Genesis. transcends race and gender.You can't legislate morality,you can't fix stupid. Cannabis amnesty is the messiah Israel ? awaits....peace
callegal2010 1 day ago
Lawrence O'Donnell for the win
MegaLink117 1 day ago
Well, I would call myself a secular humanist and atheist aswell.
For me reason, ethics, and justice for every human being has to be held in the highest esteem. We MUST treat ech other as equals, with dignity and respect to achieve the goals of "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for all.
Now where do you put discrimination on the basis of "race"? Why not on the basis of age, beliefs or hair color?
ShinjukuHH 1 day ago
@Vote3rdParty LEAVE RON PAUL ALONE!
He's the only one that can save our liberty!
You should remove this video at once.
MikeFCox 2 days ago
Ron Paul is a fraud on domestic issues.
Tsnore 5 days ago
Ron just can't argue his points well when he is in this kind of environment, where he under time constrain to give his answers. He should refrain from appearing on these networks in the future.
cupocity303 5 days ago
@cupocity303 - He has been. Ron Paul has been avoiding MSNBC for fear of being asked a tough question. God forbid if he's asked about why he admitted to writing his racist newsletters in 1996!
Vote3rdParty 3 days ago
@Vote3rdParty Well he still appears more on Liberal precincts than most other Republican politicians. Been on Bill Maher, Jon Stewart etc,. Since he kind of is a "useful idiot" during the off-season of Elections. They bring him on and let him trash the republicans on their behalf regarding the Wars. But then he became a threat with his popularity increasing, and they started knocked him back down because they don't like his Rigid consistency. As for the news letters, coud care less
cupocity303 2 days ago
actually lawrence it was a REPUBLICAN congress that changed segregation you freaking douchebag prick.. DEMS have always and continue to hold blacks down did I mention MLK JR was a registered republican this tool obviously doesnt know his history... Ron Paul 2012
samsung337 5 days ago
@samsung337 Oh yeah the "Dixiecrats" were REAL democrats... right!
Learn your country's history.
Sincerely, some German guy.
ShinjukuHH 3 days ago
@wrjamescom No, it isn't.
To the 10th+5th : It is neither violating states' rights nor infringing on your right to private property. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States.
If it violated the 10th we would go back to the Articles of confederacy and your property is not being taken, it's just regulated under the Commerce Clause.
ShinjukuHH 6 days ago
Comment removed
ShinjukuHH 6 days ago
I saw this and it just opened up a can of worms for research. Why would this guy be so nasty to a person willing to do an interview. He never let him speak and make his point. Broke him off and eventually gave us his opinion and never interviewed the poor guy. What a waste of interview.
senses2000 1 week ago
@Vote3rdParty Racists have the right to be Racists as long as their actions do not include force. The free market will punish them, so there is no need for government. if a racist restaurant owner decides to exclude black patrons, they will deprive themselves of the revenue as well as offend remaining customers. Most likely, they will go out of business.
VINNYMOR 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I see and idiot host trying to turn things out of context,distort the meaning of what DrPaul meant in order to discredit him.He said it could been done in a better way but they did not let him elaborate on that.Integration can not be achieved by imposing it and the US constitution is anyway telling everything about civil libertys and rights so in reality there would have been no need for a civil rights act but only to repeal the illegal unconstitutional laws promoting/allowing discrimination
chris99103 1 week ago
Educating someone does not mean talking over someone and not letting them answer. This should be re-titled: Ron Paul Educates Lawrence O'Donnell on CRA.
tgbotg 2 weeks ago
@tgbotg - So if Paul was on your imaginary TV show you would let him ramble on taking up all the rest of your time? You would only get to ask one fucking question. That's not an interview. That's a speech to Paultards. Paul got more time than any capable person would need for getting their point across. I'm sure you think Obama should only get asked one question as well when he's being interviewed on FAUX News!
Vote3rdParty 1 week ago
@Vote3rdParty Did you watch the video? I'll assume you did since you posted it. No, I do recognize that RP has a tendency to ramble on and sometimes the interviewer has to cut him off because of more questions or a hard break. But that's not the case here! So much time is wasted when LO is trying to talk over RP as he's trying to answer. He's asking tough questions that require an explanation, not a one sentence quip! This is what happens to candidates with actual substance.
tgbotg 1 week ago
Lawrence is an idiot. He stated it himself, that there were laws violating blacks. It was government discriminating against blacks. The civil rights act was intended to deflect guilt by enforcing unnecessary laws on the free market. If people do not understand this distinction they are fools. Government is the use of force, and to give any group an advantage at the expense of another through force is WRONG.
VINNYMOR 2 weeks ago
@VINNYMOR - Obviously! You think think racist white restaurant owners can keep blacks off their "white property" without the STATE governments (states rights') coming in and arresting the blacks for violating "the law." But that's what the "free" market is, the government enforcing "property rights" laws.
Vote3rdParty 1 week ago
@Vote3rdParty So, you don't think property rights should be upheld?
munkyusm 1 week ago
@Vote3rdParty Youre totally demagoging the issue. "obviously you think.." Calling people racists. Grow up. Thats not what he said and you're just using a logical fallacy to demagogue and issue. The Civil Right movement was fought against the powers of the State. It was institutionalized racism. Civil Disobedience is by definition used against the powers of government, not private individuals on their private property.
mahavira108 5 days ago
@mahavira108 - Wrong. The Civil Rights movement was fought against racism in general, not "the power of the state." Though I agree with you, the Civil Rights movement was anti-states' rights. And the the product of the movement, the CRA of 64 overturned all the fascist Jim Crow laws of the southern states. Thank you Civil Rights Act of 64. And fuck STATIST Ron Paul for opposing it.
Vote3rdParty 3 days ago
@Vote3rdParty If I own it is it mine? Or am I just renting from the gov't? Maybe we can "force" interracial child birth. All one race, no racism...Now that's freedom!
samaeling 5 days ago
Republicans hate Americans.
Period.
PrinceMyshkin22 2 weeks ago
The concept of "civil rights" is 100% incompatible with constitutional rights. O'Donnell is an idiot who can't comprehend the idea that government legislating who you can't associate with is the same problem as government legislating who you have to associate with. Idiot O'Donnell is unaware that the Woolworth's lunch counters, the Atlanta buses, and the US military, etc., were all segregated before any constitutional rights were infringed upon by anti-constitutional "civil rights" laws.
wrjamescom 2 weeks ago
@wrjamescom - Get an education. The whole idea of Civil Rights come from the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. Funny you would refer to Civil Rights Laws (which further enforce what's already in the Constitution) as anti-Constitution with NO MENTION of the BLATANTLY unconstitutional fascist Jim Crow laws. Your racism is apparent.
Vote3rdParty 1 week ago
@Vote3rdParty Take your own advice and get an education before attepting to educate others with your parrot lines. Obviously, you have never actually read the constitution, including amendments 13 and 14. As for the Jim Crow laws, yes, they were mostly unconstitutional, but your parroting lines about them isn't relevant to anything I said. Get your trainer to teach you some better lines.
wrjamescom 1 week ago
@wrjamescom - Spare me the blabber. Where am I wrong regarding the Constitution and its OBLIGATION to protect individual rights?
Vote3rdParty 3 days ago
@Vote3rdParty Well, at least you got part of that right. Rights are individual in nature, there can be no such thing as group rights. But the constitution does not give anyone authority over anyone else. If you are forced to trade with me based on race, then your rights are subject to my convenience, in other words, you have none. The idea of civil "rights" is just that, the infringement on constitutional rights for the benefit of some.
wrjamescom 2 days ago
@wrjamescom Crap! The Constitution provides that Congress shall make laws, the President execute laws, and courts interpret laws.
And have you ever heard of the "Commerce Clause"?
ShinjukuHH 1 week ago
@ShinjukuHH Yes, I've not only heard of it, I've actually read it. Have you? If you had, then you'd already know that it does NOT authorize the federal government to be involved in any way regarding employment agreements between people, including people running a business. It only authorizes federal involvement in regulating interstate commerce, foreign trade and trade with Indians.
wrjamescom 1 week ago
@wrjamescom You know, the federal governemnt can do it - Title VII of the CRA "prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin"
ShinjukuHH 1 week ago
@ShinjukuHH My point was that the CRA clearly is unconstitutional under amendments 9 and 10, and in some cases 1 and 5. If more people were familiar with the constitution and appreciated it's importance we'd never allow the congress and the courts to ignore the constitution and enact such things.
wrjamescom 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wrjamescom 9th: Interesting! You want your "Freedom to Discriminate" (which is not in the Constitution) but you claim that it is some "inalienable right".If it were the case, you would be returning to Plessy (reestablishing "Seperate but Equal")
1st: LOL - this is ridiculous!
ShinjukuHH 6 days ago
@ShinjukuHH Are you seriously that illiterate? Property rights are in the constitution, as are many others. There is nothing in the constitution subjecting the exercise of those rights to your test of discrimination. Individuals are free to trade and or associate with whom they please, or not, without need of reasons which may be acceptable to you or anyone else. Your parrot line regarding Plessy isn't even relevant to the discussion.
wrjamescom 2 days ago
@wrjamescom Yet, those property rights aren't being infringed upon by the CRA. The Supreme Court made that clear.
And with regard to Plessy v. Ferguson:
You can play this thought experiment out for yourself. If the CRA violated all the Amendments you mentioned, you would have to return to "seperate but equal".
ShinjukuHH 2 days ago
@ShinjukuHH Nonsense! "Separate but equal" refers to government, not the people. Separate schools, for example, is not unconstitutional for private schools if they choose. Actually, it wouldn't be anyway, because the federal government has no jurisdiction in education, but that's another issue. There's nothing in the constitution that says individuals can't discriminate on whatever basis they choose. Government can't, but individuals are not subject to thought police.
wrjamescom 2 days ago
Comment removed
ShinjukuHH 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wrjamescom Now this is some first class bullshit.
Separate but equal was a legal doctrine that justified segregation on the basis of race, while the service (allegedly) remained the same.
Perfect examples were: Segregated water fountains, lunch counters, railroad cars, Greyhound waiting rooms etc. etc.
This is Jim Crow, Plessy and this resulting doctrine of segregation, all the way to Brown v Board and the CRA.
Do you really want that?!
Ron Paul does.
ShinjukuHH 2 days ago
@ShinjukuHH Yeah, that's BS, you labeled your comment appropriately. The Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional for the same reason and the CSA, they violate the constitutional rights of people. I'm atheist. If you don't want to trade with me, including hire me or buy from me or sell to me, that's your right. But government is not allowed to discriminate. You can't see the difference between individuals and government. You're too brainwashed to know what rights mean.
wrjamescom 1 day ago
Lawrence said it took Liberals to make this country better. Liberals like to put everyone into groups. They think in terms of groups. You'll always have racism with thinking like that. Racists believe all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike. Racists think only in terms of groups. Racism will only be erased when we start looking at our fellow men as individuals. To hell with the racist LEFT. to hell with the racist RIGHT. LIBERTARIANS see people as individuals
Werowocomico 2 weeks ago
If there's anyone who groups people it's Ron Paul. Did you read his racist newsletters? He uses blanket statements to describe all blacks. The Reich-Wing puts minorities into groups such as Muslims being "terrorists" and blacks being "welfare queens." Then when the Left says that's wrong, we are accused of "race baiting" and "grouping people."
Vote3rdParty 1 week ago
@Vote3rdParty This is like bashing a super pac for running a bad commercial, Ron Paul was still practicing medicine at the time and allowed other people under other management to run the newspapers under his name. So if you want to accuse him of something, let it be ignorance of the situation or gross mismanagement, which granted is not a good quality of somebody who wishes to be a commander-in-chief of the free world.
urrejhipokritet 4 days ago
If there's anyone who groups people it's Ron Paul. Did you read his racist newsletters? He uses blanket statements to describe all blacks. The Right-Wing puts minorities into groups such as Muslims being "terrorists" and blacks being "welfare queens." Then when the Left says that's wrong, we are accused of "race baiting" and "grouping people."
Vote3rdParty 1 week ago
@Vote3rdParty Educate yourself on those newsletters before you use them as ammo. Paul has disavowed them for years, here's an expose on them.
/watch?v=rGH77lZsglU
AcedMoney777 1 week ago
@Vote3rdParty Also, you responded to werowocomico with the newsletters and didn't acknowledge the point made being that rights come as individuals, not as collectives, thus people should not be rewarded or punished based on race or religion. Both parties are responsible for racist legislation. On the (D) side JFK (as much as I liked him) voted against the Civil Rights Law in '57 pushed by Eisenhower, and Woodrow Wilson signed in more segregation laws than any pres. in history.
AcedMoney777 1 week ago
@AcedMoney777 - Congrats you can channel Ron Paul. Now stop and think about what you're saying. Rights DO NOT come from being an "individual." Rights are privileges granted by society. Whether or not those rights are legitimate is up to society to decide. Rights are not magically things that are rained down by Jesus. lol...
Vote3rdParty 3 days ago
@Vote3rdParty (p2) As well as the Dems who created the Jim Crow laws. Republicans however are the ones propping up the drug laws and enciting these wars overseas which are always prime for utmost racism (more minorities are subject to racism in war time then ever). So please get out of the left/right ping pong game, its meaningless.
AcedMoney777 1 week ago
@AcedMoney777 - The racism today is coming from mainly one party, and that's the Republicans. I agree, dems should be doing more to end the drug war. Have you not been paying attention to the anti-democratic voter I.D. laws and redistricting to prevent blacks from voting? Have you not read Ron Paul's racist newsletters? Have you not heard Newt Gingrich call Obama a "food-stamp" president and the audience cheering enthusiastically?
Also the dems were right-wing during Jim Crow.
Vote3rdParty 3 days ago
@Vote3rdParty You're not getting it, both parties are the same. What may be the more race friendly party now, will become the racist party in 10-20 years from now. Just do some research on the dixiecrats (racist southern dems who switched to the republican party). I'm not a Republican but im trying to give you some facts on the democratic party and its history, they were against the civil rights, they were against freeing the slaves, they past hateful segregation laws (Pre. Wilson)
AcedMoney777 2 days ago
@AcedMoney777 (pt.2) Yes, I agree the national ID card is a horrible thing and a huge violation of constiutional rights, Ron Paul also vehemently opposes Nat ID btw. He is also the leading voice in either party in the fight against the drug war, rectifying the bias judicial system where the incarceration rate for blacks is dramatically higher than any other race, and having individual rights AS individuals, not by races or groups. Also, the newsletters controversy has already been
AcedMoney777 2 days ago
@AcedMoney777 (pt.3) investigated and proven false. This attack came from people linked to Newt Gingrich (who IS a racist) and John Boehner. /watch?v=rGH77lZsglU (its two part investigative report by Ben Swann). I'm not saying Ron Paul is perfect, but he understands the game of 'left/right' politics and how they are really one party. You said it yourself 'Dems were right-wing during Jim Crow'.
AcedMoney777 2 days ago
@AcedMoney777 (pt.4) The media claims the Dems want welfare state and Repubs want Warfare state, and while thats true, the whole truth is that both parties want both welfare and warfare state as they both voted unanimously for things like the NDAA and Patriot Act and they both voted unanimously for the Iraq and Afghanistan War. Don't listen to the MS media about RP, do your own research on what his positions are and his explanations. Btw, I wanted Obama to win in '08.
AcedMoney777 2 days ago
@AcedMoney777 - (4) Clinton had a HUGE surplus before the decade long Bush tax cuts and two decade long wars. Just look at the numbers. Sure, dems are not great but you can not spread equal blame over the parties. I say this as someone who never votes democrat. If things were my way, the democratic party would be actual socialists instead of for regulated capitalism. I've been looking into Paul's record for years. I'm not one to trust the MS media.
Vote3rdParty 2 days ago
@Vote3rdParty (7) Clinton had a surplus because of the natural swing of the economy, ask any economist. It was Clinton's excessive warmongering and launching bomb campaigns whilst killing over 750,000 iraqi/afghan civilians. Face it, they ARE one party. We haven't had capitalism in 80+ years, evidenced by having the Fed, Bailouts, Large Debt etc. Voting by the Constitutional isn't always popular but at least you know that its the law instead of voting by who pays you the most.
AcedMoney777 2 days ago
@AcedMoney777 - (7) Sorry, but Clinton tax rates worked, and Clinton's wars were tiny in scale to Bush's. There's not comparison spending wise. The Democratic Party is no longer as far right as Clinton, thank god. Half the Democrats in the Senate voted against giving Bush the power to go to war with Iraq, while only one Republican in the senate opposed Bush. Again, both parties are bad, but one is far worse.
Vote3rdParty 2 days ago
@Vote3rdParty (8) In many ways, we are a wannabe socialistic country. Regulated Capitalism is fascism. Free markets, operated by the people will always produce a stronger economy/jobs/trade, sure its not utopia for all + grandma to become rich and famous, but if you think our current system is, get real, ask North Korea. Heck, if you want socialism why dont you move to a socialist country? I'm not joking btw.
AcedMoney777 2 days ago
(8) - Name a single elected politician who believes that the means of production should be communally owned as opposed to owned by a "free" market dictator? We are no were near socialist, for the private sector still has power over our government. I'd rather make stay in America and make it better than flee during the fight. I could tell you to move to Iran if you want far-right policies, but I doubt you want to flee either. Also, please look up the definition of fascism
Vote3rdParty 2 days ago
@Vote3rdParty (10) Most politicians want big business in bed with big government (which is how Musollini describes fascism). We dont have a free market that is run by the people. We have Corporatism run by a few wealthy individuals who manipulate the market thru price fixing and debasement of currency. I never said we were socialist, but we are Corporatist and I'm against the foreign wars that (R)s and (D)s support.
AcedMoney777 1 day ago
@AcedMoney777 (10) Corporations in bed with big government is actually pretty vague. That could be either state communism (gov control over private sector) or fascism (private control over government.) What we are experiencing in the U.S. is Corporations controlling the government.
Vote3rdParty 1 day ago
@Vote3rdParty (11) for what its worth I enjoyed this conversation, I didnt have an agenda to convert you or anything, and while I disagree with you on somethings I agree with you on others. I get tired of people conjuring some very misconstrued ideas MSM displays about Paul. As far as I can see, he's the best candidate we have now, far better than any Repubs or Dems running and will at least bring our troops home and restore some individual liberties to the people. Take care
AcedMoney777 1 day ago
@AcedMoney777 - (3) What's been proven false? The Ron Paul Survival Report which became the Political Report? If by "proven false" you mean Paul ran on the fact he wrote them when he decided to run for office again in 1996, sure. LOL. They are also written in 1st person from Paul's perspective and mention his family, Libertarian run in 88, and home in Lake Jackson, TX. They also span 7 years, too long not to receieve complaints and discontinue the newsletters (if it was ghstwriter)
Vote3rdParty 2 days ago
@AcedMoney777 - (Pt 2) Are you trying to argue that Ron Paul is not a racist? LMFAO! Just read the Ron Paul newsletters (which he admitted authoring.) Also Ron Paul has made it apparent he hates individual rights. Just look at his record on the gay rights and CRA. I also wouldn't call him the "leading voice" on the drug war. He is for states rights, meaning states could enforce even stricter, more racist drug laws.
Vote3rdParty 2 days ago
@Vote3rdParty (2) He isnt a racist. I've read the RP newsletters, nearly 600 of them, only 6 of them contain racist remarks, ironically all 6 of those had no bi-lines and only up until a month ago found a author named James B. Powell wrote all 6 of them. All the articles which Paul wrote, had Paul's bi-line. So, was Paul irresponsible as a publisher? Yes and has admitted that. A Racist? No. In fact, the NAACP Chairman has publicly come out and defend RP as being an Anti-Racist.
AcedMoney777 2 days ago
@AcedMoney777 - Lies. James B. Powell isn't the author of the Survival Report, he authored the Ron Paul Strategy Guide. Nice try though, really. Every issue that I've seen of the Survival Report has contained racism and many contain homophobia. Can you link me to some issues of the Survival Report that do not? Paul also ran his 1996 campaign on the fact he wrote the fascist Ron Paul Survival Report. But no evidence will convince a Paultard.
Vote3rdParty 2 days ago
@Vote3rdParty Read the prose of those 9 letters, the diction and style are identical to one another, your problem is reading between the lines. You've even proven my point that they all are compartmentalized in the Survival Report. Neither one of them had by-lines, until they were uncovered to be authored by Powell. Please name some legislation Paul himself has PASSED that supports federal segregation.
AcedMoney777 1 day ago
@AcedMoney777 - Trying to change the subject I see? Do you really think a sneaky slimy POLITICIAN like Ron Paul would actually push for blatantly racist laws? He would lose his seat immediately and thus the little power he has.
Why are you still arguing about the newsletters? He RAN his campaign on the fact he wrote the Survival Report. To anyone who is not a cultist Ron Paul supporter, this is definitive undeniable proof. Not to mention the fact the span 7 years.
Vote3rdParty 1 day ago
@Vote3rdParty Well, now I see you are in a haze........"sneaky slimy POLITICIAN like Ron Paul would actually push for blatantly racist laws"
What year is it ?
cc4272 18 hours ago
@Vote3rdParty (3) His record on gay rights and civil liberties are flawless in accordance to the constitution as its explicit that these civil cases like these should be handled at state/local level. Also, you're bringing up Civil Rights Act? Really? I thought you wanted to stop living in the past? And he didn't oppose CRA in principal rather he believes it should have been done at a state level since the federal CRA does violate Property Rights for owners.
AcedMoney777 2 days ago
@AcedMoney777 (3) His record on civil liberties and gay rights is tyrannical to say the least. Paul supported Texas' ban on gay sex, shitting on the Constitution which grants us all individual liberty and freedom. Some libertarian! I'm not dwelling on the past, I'm telling you Ron Paul's record. Are you arguing Paul has changed his position? If not I think the CRA is a valid point. The CRA made it so the STATE couldn't initiate force against blacks who wonder on to "white property"
Vote3rdParty 2 days ago
@Vote3rdParty (2) So you can talk about Paul's record, yet when I bring up democrats supporting hateful legislation you get upset? A ban on gay sex...can you cite legislation? Other than that, if you believe in states rights, Paul's record on gay marriage is the same: no Federal gov't involved in marriage, but only to enforce the contracts. If you're not a statesman, than we can end this conversation now because you would then believe in the "State" and not "states".
AcedMoney777 1 day ago
@AcedMoney777 - (2) Who said I was getting upset? Name on democrat who is alive that that supports hateful legislation. Also, democrats can be right-wing too you know. Read about Lawrence v. Texas. Paul supporter Texas in that case. Also Paul supported DOMA, the Marriage Protection Act, and voted to ban gay adoptions. Individual rights are not up to the states. That's explicitly laid out in the Constitution, which Paul takes a dump on ever day.
Vote3rdParty 1 day ago
@Vote3rdParty (3) He supports the ideas of CRA in ending segregation, but the problem was it violated private property and privacy rights, and while the sentiment is good, the delivery is still a violation of basic rights which are the bedrocks of our society. It also gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country.
AcedMoney777 1 day ago
@AcedMoney777 - (3) The Supreme Court ruled it did not violate private property rights because it's property intended for public use as opposed to property meant for private use, such as a homestead. You and Ron Paul are making a conscious choice of strict private property rights while ignoring the occupancy rights of blacks.
Vote3rdParty 1 day ago
@Vote3rdParty Private property intended for public use is not private property ?
Lord, I have heard everything..........Is your dwelling within public sight ?
If so I can make a valid argument that it should be shuttered with you in it for public good.
cc4272 18 hours ago
@Vote3rdParty (4) This expansion of fed. power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The founders intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the govt regulatory power over every business that has any connection with IC.
AcedMoney777 1 day ago
@AcedMoney777 - (4) Are you really arguing against the 13th and 14th Amendments which grant all individuals equal liberty? Are you a libertarian are aren't you? Where in the Constitution is regulation banned? That one is definitely new to me.
Vote3rdParty 1 day ago
@Vote3rdParty (5) Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the govt could ensure an employer was not violating cra was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat/judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony.
AcedMoney777 1 day ago
@AcedMoney777 - (5) If someone put's up a whites only sign, their is no reading minds involved. That is blatant racism forced on the populace, taking away the individual freedom of blacks. How can you say affirmative action hasn't lead to racial harmony when race relations are at their best ever. Hell, we even have a black president. I'm sorry but I think you are living in a bubble.
Vote3rdParty 1 day ago
@Vote3rdParty
Signs only show us the where really stupid people are and i support them identifying their stupidity so I can avoid them.
Living in a bubble is when you think outlawing something removes it, it might make you feel better by annointing yourself steward of the community but it is a false sense of righteousness. I bet you give kids apples at halloween and think they eat them
cc4272 18 hours ago
@Vote3rdParty (4) Just because something is done at a state level (like if CRA was handled at state level for ex.) doesn't mean you would have one state passing CRA and another not. That would be preposterous if a state didnt pass that, businesses imposing a "whites only" rule would be publicly boycotted and go out of business. Don't underestimate the common sense of the people.
AcedMoney777 2 days ago
@AcedMoney777 - (4) Learn your history. "White's only" businesses were thriving at the time of the CRA, because most southerners were racists (and still are). The Constitution doesn't say that individual rights are up to the states. Individual rights are protected at the federal level as laid out in the 13th and 14th amendments. That means the courts can overrule fascist laws put forth by the states.
Vote3rdParty 2 days ago
@Vote3rdParty (6) Have you ever lost a job to a minority (this includes women, btw not just different races) who was less qualified for a job than you but that particular company had to meet their minority quota? Affirmative Action is for minorities…. which includes WHITE women, black women etc. It isn’t about race, it’s about what’s fair, what works, and what doesn’t work…. and AA doesn’t work and it’s not fair.
AcedMoney777 1 day ago
@AcedMoney777 (6) Please address my original points in part 6. Affirmative action is something that was needed at the time of the CRA. When slavery ended, do you think blacks were giving homes to live in and jobs by the state? Nope. They were still slaves after slavery ended, just not chattel slaves. Whites kept their monopoly of the MoP and the capital. It took over a hundred years for blacks to a more equal opportunity.
Vote3rdParty 1 day ago
@Vote3rdParty (7) I agree that the federal govt's job is to protect individual rights, but does not have the right to overturn a law a state has put in place, but to simply produce the atmosphere for individuals to make the choice in states. You're seeing this right now with cannabis law, where states have voted to legalize marijuana and then the federal govt actually overturns it and criminalizes it again.
AcedMoney777 1 day ago
@AcedMoney777 (7) So are you for Amending the Constitution, because no where does it say state law overrules the U.S. Constitution. For "Constitutionalists," you and Paul sure like to ignore the Constitution. I agree with you one drugs. In that case, it is the federal government infringing on our rights. I'm always on the side of liberty whether it comes to state or federal law.
Vote3rdParty 1 day ago
@Vote3rdParty (5) And he is a leading voice for ending the drug war, they could enforce stricter laws but they wont. Think about it, you think a local government is going to pass up on hundreds of millions of dollars of tax money that they could be collecting while saving millions of dollars from their prison systems (Paul wants to pardon all non-violent drug crimes btw).? Most states would decriminalize if the ppl wanted to, and if the state doesnt, ppl petition.
AcedMoney777 2 days ago
@AcedMoney777 (5) - I agree with Paul on the FEDERAL drug war, but under Paul, states could put force even more racist and harsh drug laws. You could get life in prison for a bag of weed depending on what state you are in under Paul.
Vote3rdParty 2 days ago
@Vote3rdParty (8) It could make drug laws worse, but it could make it much better, and that's solely dependent on the people at local levels. Paul also wants to pardon all non violent drug crimes. You might be talking hypothetical in regards to states rights on the drug war issue. This actually gives states a chance to compare and contrast whether drug legalization works or not, then to adjust and correct accordingly as goes with most civil issues given to states.
AcedMoney777 1 day ago
@AcedMoney777 (8) With redistricting and new voter ID laws we could be looking at total one party control in the south, where the drug laws are the strictest. This means Republicans can push any crazy law with no consequences because they've rigged the game. My view of America isn't one where your rights change depending on where you wonder. A federal amendment legalizing drugs would be amazing.
Vote3rdParty 1 day ago
@Vote3rdParty (6) People have a lot more power to make changes at local govt than they would at federal level. And addressing the him writing in 1st person, a 5 year old can do that. It's obvious the racist letters was just dirty politics 101. And the racist comments spanned in 9 letters (instead of 6) and those spanned from Oct '90 to Feb 91 and Jun.-Jul '92 (NOT 7 years). How do you kno he didn't receive complaints? Paul has disavowed these for over 20 years you know.
AcedMoney777 2 days ago
@AcedMoney777 - (6) I'm not oppose to decisions being made locally as long as the don't violate the constitution or pollute the air I breathe or the water I drink.
Watch "Ron Paul: The Deep Dark Details" here on youtube. The writing indeed span 7 years. The dates are provided in the video under Ron Paul's racist writings. You are really arguing that Paul hired someone who wanted to frame him a racist and let him write for this long! Why do I waste my time arguing with you people?
Vote3rdParty 2 days ago
@Vote3rdParty (9) As I've already stated RP was a negligent publisher. However, do you think Steve Forbes reads and endorses line and precept in Forbes Magazine? Not a chance. Im not saying he hired someone to write racist statements for him, I'm saying that he hired freelancers over the years and one of them wrote their own racist sentiments in Paul's newsletters. Regardless, he has explained that he has disavowed all those slanderous comments repeatedly.
AcedMoney777 1 day ago
@AcedMoney777 (9) He was more than a negligent publisher, he authored some of the craziest bullshit about blacks and gays I've ever read. Also, Ron Paul and associates only has four employees in Texas (where the newsletters were put out) and those employees were Lew Rockwell and Paul's family. He made almost 1 million off the newsletters meaning tons of people were reading. Yet no complaints over 7 years? He also mentions content from the newsletters in an interview in 1995.
Vote3rdParty 1 day ago
@AcedMoney777 - You don't need to educate me, I'm well aware of American history. FACT: Right now the democrats are far, far, FAR ahead on the race issue. That's all I said. If the Dems are racists in 10 years, guess what? You fight them! Just like you should be fighting the Republicans NOW on the race issue, instead of dwelling on the past.
Vote3rdParty 2 days ago
@Vote3rdParty Who cares about whether dems or repubs are ahead on the race issue? Thats like arguing which singer in Milli Vanili is better? Totally irrelevant. Dont you see they both are the same? Its called a two party dictatorship, political wrestling federation. Those act like they oppose each other on TV but then they're in the back room doing deals with each other (talk about bi-partisanship). You are the one dwelling in the past by ignoring that fact.
AcedMoney777 2 days ago
@AcedMoney777 - "Who cares about whether dems or repubs are ahead on the race issue"
Everyone who isn't a racist cares. Since you are a Paul supporter, and he is an admitting a racist, not much more has to be said. They are not the same. One party is a centrist party and the other is a far-right bat shit party.
Vote3rdParty 2 days ago
@Vote3rdParty Let me try to speak to you in simple terms: I oppose racism regardless of which party is the mouthpiece. The reality, which you have chosen to turn away from, is that both parties have racist tendencies. I don't care which party is less racist. That's like choosing which kind of cancer you want. Dems are shit and Repubs are shit. Period. Funny thing is, have you heard RP come out and say "I'm a racist"? So he's not an admitant racist, thats just your assumption.
AcedMoney777 1 day ago
@Vote3rdParty (2) They both support racist legislation. You're arguing semantics, I'm arguing principals and philosophy.
AcedMoney777 1 day ago
I think it's just you mpadovano1. Just because Ron Paul gave medical treatment to interracial couples doesn't mean that he could not possibly be racist. He is simply trying to get Paul to explain what he himself has stated. Ron is doing what he does best. Trying to sidestep a direct question. The question he was asked had nothing to do with "privacy in the bedroom"; but that is what Paul keeps going back to. Why don't you "get real" and stop making excuses for Paul when he can't explain himself?
MrsWindy100 3 weeks ago
Is it me or did Ron Paul educate O'Donnell here? Talking over someone like Lawrence did does not mean he's right. He's condescending and totally arrogant here. Ron Paul was giving medical treatment to interracial couples before Lawrence could even read. Get real.
mpadovano1 3 weeks ago
He says "Activist left government," but THAT WAS... what? Vatican II, where the pope oversaw the murder of so many u.s. officials in the 60s, and imposed "ecumenical councils" where the people had previously had freedom of (real) religion? Where "religion" wasn't just propping up a few leftist canards (like "inclusivity" etc.) Where many people actually read the Bible and were allowed to not have it "re-interpreted" by the pope (since there weren't even any catholic founders of the u.s.)
westchesterny 3 weeks ago
@westchesterny L.O.D.---the name says it all, doesn't it? I don't need a Papist to intercede so I can talk to God. I can do that fine--all by myself. No Mary-in-a half- shell on my lawn. Quis Separabit.
ugotitpunk 3 weeks ago
That prick Lawrence O'Donnell is a fuckin' Liberal bitch that couldn't argue himself out of a paper bag.I am sure Dr Paul left the interview secure in the knowledge that he was correct on all points...and that L.O.D. needs a big smack in the head.
ugotitpunk 3 weeks ago
@ugotitpunk Maybe this O'Donnell person just moved from Ireland or something. Freedom for African Americans ALONE is not freedom, lol, (obviously). Things s/a loss of habeus corpus, taking private property, and so on, is not freedom. This O'Donnell person does not seem to be an American, or to have gone to any schooling where they would teach him U.S. history. How did he get a labor visa? Is he a citizen yet?
westchesterny 3 weeks ago
@westchesterny Ha!
ugotitpunk 3 weeks ago
Lawrence wasn't being fair... but the world isn't fair in the US. Here we put down the ppl that are actually willing to help us and choose whatever "looks good" or agrees with what our anger or passion agrees with. We don't care if it solves the problem. We care that it doesn't interfere with our cell service, internet, cable, coffee cup, public transportation... as long as the routine isn't broken, who gives a fuck who is president. Fuck it, we deserve it. Time for a new Superpower.
cyvais 3 weeks ago
@cyvais wow, did you learn that at home, lol. You sound like the type who rolls over for anything. We this, we that. Speak for your own weak-ass self.
westchesterny 3 weeks ago
@westchesterny You're right, man... I don't know what I was thinking... Ron Paul is gonna kick everyone's ass!!!
cyvais 2 weeks ago
yea its hard to have a legitimate conversation when some scumbag talks over you and demagogues your words.
ThirdEyeMessenger 3 weeks ago
@ThirdEyeMessenger yeah ron paul is a scumbag ,we agree
louisrr01 3 weeks ago
@ThirdEyeMessenger They got a quick interview, limited time, if Lawrence did not cut in and talk over him, he would be allowed to keep talking that hype , say nothing and run-down the clock. You better believe they get paid "speaking fees" to get on these programs, that is why that SCUM BACK Joe Walsh is on EVERYTHING.
Paul figured he could talk his. Paul DOES NOT like to be challenged. You seem him get ruffled.
louisrr01 3 weeks ago
@ThirdEyeMessenger The scumbag is Paul. FACT.
He does not like to be questioned, and most people get confused by that crap and give him a wide berth, as IF he is an economist or philospher or some genius. he likes that. But Lawrence is SMARTER than him anda real debater. Running in for the kill each chance he gets. Had the "genius" Paul confused, talking nothing of importance. Then Paul starts to yell (see the fULL clip).
louisrr01 3 weeks ago
@louisrr01 Louis hase el amor con mi perro.
cyvais 3 weeks ago
@cyvais not unless your dog is also tu mamacita, kid
louisrr01 3 weeks ago
@louisrr01 She is peanut... have fun! Here's her number: 917-991-8097.
cyvais 3 weeks ago
@louisrr01 10/10 troll
ThirdEyeMessenger 3 weeks ago
@ThirdEyeMessenger why bring your mother into the conversation?
louisrr01 3 weeks ago
The law of segregation was illegal and unconstitutional, and the law that forced private property owners to do what the government wanted was illegal and unconstitutional, that's what i got from it.
JenAlinaR 3 weeks ago
does O'Donnel claim a political party?
snowboarddude117 3 weeks ago
@snowboarddude117 socialist/democrat...so, your point?
louisrr01 3 weeks ago
@louisrr01 No point, just wondering
snowboarddude117 3 weeks ago
hahahha...ron paul is pissing in his pants. He keeps avoiding responding to a direct question .What a scumbag
gerard1657 3 weeks ago
@gerard1657 ??? What video did you watch? Repeal the unjust segregation laws on the state books, as opposed to creating federal law that requires people to do with their own private property what the government says they should do with private property. This infringement extends to ALL private property to this day.O'donnell doesn't know what he's talking about and he got his ass kicked in this video.
TailoredFitcincy 3 weeks ago
@gerard1657 like you.
cyvais 3 weeks ago
O'Donnell won't allow Ron Paul to speak. Argument lost, O'Donnell.
Solarfactor 3 weeks ago
WHAT THE FUK U PATHETIC SELF-HATING ANTI-WHITE RACIST JACKASS! Let Ron Paul SPEAK!
This jew-azz-licking CLOWN is just some OFFICE THUG who is hired 2 shout down, insult, & talk over his so-called 'guests'. Y the fuk should I continue listening 2 this insane BULL$hit flowing from this idiot's mouth? Grow a penis, O'Fuktard. CLICK!
DuralastTurbo 3 weeks ago
DAMN could ron "the hitman" paul give just 1 fuckin interveiw without flip-floppin all over the damn place??? this guy flip flops more than mitt "the loser" ronmey.
LAWRENCE O'DONNEL SLAUGHTERED THIS PIG RON PAUL.
OBAMA 2012
propagandadrunken 3 weeks ago
@propagandadrunken 2 things: He was not allowed to explain his reasoning. The other... you try to have a philosophical argument about such a vast subject as Civil Rights in the space of 2 and a half minutes.
cyvais 3 weeks ago
@cyvais They could not discuss the topic, you are right, but Lawrence,rather that let Paul keep spouting and SAY nothing (seethe FULL clip), he cut in on ONE comment that Paul himself had made, and he hammered him and Paul tried to defelct the attack, by suggesting Lawrence did not "play fair" (just listen to Paul rant),
Those conversations are never long, they just are meant to see where the politician stand on an issue, or to question a comment made in the past.
louisrr01 3 weeks ago
@cyvais Maybe you were hoping the Lawrence would have done what you would have done? Just listen to all that crap, go along with it, because you agree, or you think what he said is so intelligent. lawrence checked Paul, by letting him know that his comment was BS and there was no way he could BS around the statement.
Paul always whines about abstracts. "We must end the Fed." yeah right. When? Try never.
louisrr01 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul is the only candidate who has a clue about what is really going on in this country. He has a plan to deal with the problems. His story never changes. With Romney you never which Mitt you are getting. Is he pro gun control or a member of the NRA? Is he pro abortion or anti abortion? Is he pro bailout or anti bailout? It is a fact He has been on both sides. Who knows what he will be tomorrow. Newt has memory problems and can't keep his facts straight. Go Ron Paul.
walimu62 1 month ago
Rating the video and the ability to like or dislike a comment is disabled; that should tell you everything. Lawrence O'Donnell is a typical biased talking-head who doesn't let his guest, in this case Dr. Ron Paul, answer the questions. Losers like O'Donnell wish they possessed one-tenth of the intellect Ron Paul has. Unless you are brain-washed by the MSM; Ron Paul is clearly the only logical choice for President in 2012.
TheMonkIsMad 1 month ago
@TheMonkIsMad 1) O'Donnell didn't post this video so blaming him for ratings being disabled is ridiculous 2) Most likely they were disabled because of Paulbots such yourself who spam and rate down any and all videos critical of Paul
njanovic1980 4 weeks ago
@njanovic1980 It's called Patriotism in it's truest form. If you were awake to the fact that Ronnie is the man for the job, Then you would also defend him with the zeal of a cult member.
cyvais 3 weeks ago
@cyvais So if someone doesn't support Paul, if someone has different opinions than Paul and if someone doesn't accept him unquestioningly that means they are unpatriotic? Sounds rather totalitarian for people who claim to love "liberty" and "freedom". Just more evidence of the fascistic tendencies of many of Paul's followers.
njanovic1980 3 weeks ago
@njanovic1980 the reason you dont support him is because youve been brainwashed not to. period. lol
Fyreguy16 3 weeks ago
@njanovic1980 Paul is a fool and a smiley old racist.
louisrr01 3 weeks ago
@njanovic1980 Right, Paul is from racist Texas grew up in that period. He was an MD, not an economist, or a political theorist. He had a big family and they problaby all obeyed him. He was worshipped as an OB-GYN, now he has becomethe posterleader for the LIBERTARIAN wing of the GOP. He does not like people challenging his BS. You can see he is getting huffy and puffy because Lawrence is calling him on that BS he is spouting. Lawrence is talking fact. Paul is talking in abstracts.
louisrr01 3 weeks ago
@louisrr01 Paul is originally from PA if I remember correctly. He is a dogmatic ideological purist. His ideologoy must always triump even when history, facts, reality and practicality show those particular ideological positions to be wrong. He's a pie in the sky utopian.
njanovic1980 3 weeks ago
@njanovic1980 He is from PA originally, I believe. Practiced in Texas. I agre that he is dogmatic and i agree almost puritanical in belief system/world-view. I don't know if he is really an idealogue (ideological purist). I essentially would agree with his NEED to be correct at all costs. He is an MD with an ego, probably a subservient wife and a Senator for a son. He is looking out for the 1% claiming the "government" is the evil entity, yet he has been in congress forever.
louisrr01 3 weeks ago
@njanovic1980 Also, I don't know if his philosophy would be condiered Utopian, althoug "pie-in-the-sky," seems about right. IMHO
louisrr01 3 weeks ago
@louisrr01 It's utopian b/c he has this idealistic view - just do this that and the other thing and then all will be right and perfect. Of course such attempts don't bring about a utopia b/c that is impossible, usually such attempts result in massive misery and suffering.
njanovic1980 3 weeks ago
@cyvais Yeah the job of BS dummy. Talks a lot of gibberish.
louisrr01 3 weeks ago
@TheMonkIsMad LMAO so everyone who doesn't agree with all of Paul's ideas is brainwashed by the MSM?? What an incredibly logical argument.
tzimtzum1618 4 weeks ago
@tzimtzum1618 this comment is a ridiculous stretch on what tz said.
TailoredFitcincy 3 weeks ago
@TheMonkIsMad VOTE OBAMA
propagandadrunken 3 weeks ago
Lawrence is a dumbass prick
rapiant 1 month ago
Comment removed
rapiant 1 month ago