Defending Ron Paul: Minorities, Equality, Property Rights

[Suptiche12]

This is actually really well done. Thanks guys.

[hortulanus94]

College students just have a certain way with videos....lol. Great video!

[criticalthinktruth]

Also, it seems to be a slap in the face to undo the civil rights laws. And yes it'd be dumb for businesses not to accept different races, but I believe this property rights issue would end up causing more division than anything. From what I'm noticing, it seems like most of Paul's fans (I thought I was one), are mostly all white... many even white supremacists or anti-semitic! That's just what I've observed.

[criticalthinktruth]

I don't know-the more I read about the tea party in general, and the more I read about Ron Paul his ideas are seeming more and more unrealistic. He claims to be a Christian...yet he would take away health insurance for the ones who truly need it. That doesn' make sense, that is not the actions of a good samaritan. And the rich/poor divide is widening, I don't see how his policies will help that. Rich can hire people for less than min wage, they'll make a profit won't they!

[YaHuWaHservant]

@criticalthinktruth I am sorry mate, but you are truly ignorant in both the stances of Ron Paul and the benefits of his stances. I would try and convince you he is an amazing choice, however I feel that to be as wrong as you are it is truly a choice. I simply hope that whichever puppet you do support makes you feel good as our country continues to sink into more unemployment and a worsening economy. Cheers

[criticalthinktruth]

And if he is to end the Federal reserve system, which I believe is fabulous, what is his plan then...will we still be using dollars? Who will be printing the money and in charge then? What is his plan for the poor, unemployed, or those who have jobs but don't offer health insurance if he takes away Medicaid/Medicare? I agree with him on these things, but I haven't heard him explain a lot of what he would do after taking these things away.

[criticalthinktruth]

I am with Ron Paul on everything except that...I am afraid he is going to be very stubborn and not want to compromise on the issue of property rights....so if some people start putting signs on their businesses saying "Whites only" or "blacks only," that takes away freedoms right there! Thats not liberty! God gave us government for a reason...there are just some things that have to be governed...I think that placing property rights above civil rights would make us revisit race (not a good way).

[TheSkunker]

@criticalthinktruth And, just for the record, God never gave us government. Humans are responsible for that mistake.

[criticalthinktruth]

I agree it may not be as bad as the 1960s...but why would we want to go back to the past!!!!!!!!? The civil rights act came about because of a MOVEMENT! Why should we let Ron Paul put property rights at more importance than civil rights!?! T

[TheSkunker]

@criticalthinktruth Not many business owners in today's America would sacrifice a demographic (and a portion of their profit) for the sake of fulfilling a prejudiced whim. Sure, it would happen on occasion, but then again, it's that person's right to run their own personal business how they see fit. The business is theirs, NOT the governments. It really comes down to whether you value the rights of the individual over the "rights of the collective". If you don't, then you're no libertarian.

[lilsm555]

People just need to grow up thats really what its about. If you are not allowing someone because they are black you are just a straight up IDIOT and should be educated ASAP. There should be no law it should just be common sense.

[masterfulmusic1]

I am really astounded by your generation. You guys, in general -- at least a lot of you -- make me feel embarrassed that as a gay man I have any shame still in me at all about it. I see so many of you for whom it genuinely makes no difference. It's amazing. Really, I never thought I would live to see that day.

[masterfulmusic1]

We'll get to "gay marriage" in Part 3. My reference, of course, was to David's example of -- what was it? -- being required to do business with people wearing eye patches? That's about as likely an outcome in regards to racial discrimination as would be sister and goldfish attempting procreation, should two men in love be given equal tax status to their heterosexual brethren.

[masterfulmusic1]

Your arguments about property rights and the absurd extremes prohibitions might take them remind me of what the extreme right says about permitting gays to marry: what next? will be marrying your dog be considered ok?

As far as the quotes attributed to Ron Paul in the second half of Point One: He said he didn't say it. Fair enough. (To the article's credit, it did print the retraction as well as the scurrilous remarks.)

[Fireball1013]

@masterfulmusic1 I knew I would experience the dog example again! :D I respect that viewpoint. If you allow gay marriage what is to stop people from marrying their pet? I would argue that their should not be a definition of marriage in regards to any arrangement at the federal level. Is it something to fear? There would be no additional benefits to marrying a dog. Would Pacs begin lobbying to support dog civil rights? It's a notion that seems unlikely and lowers the worth of homosexuals.

[masterfulmusic1]

It is not granting a class of people "special rights" merely to preserve their freedom from tyranny. That is what our Bill of Rights seeks to grant every American, and extreme times sometimes call for extreme measures -- such as the America of the 1960's. I think Ron Paul, on this, is simply wrong: legislation and enforcement was the only way a terrible situation could have been reversed. Today, yes -- knowing who the bigots are might, in itself, be enough. Not then.

[Fireball1013]

@masterfulmusic1 That's a good way to look at it. We were not around during the Civil Rights movement and can admire that we are blessed with a society that is not perfect, but largely past issues of race and gender. From the younger generation you find that race is rarely a factor in daily interaction and while the views we have may not be adopted in the immediate structure, we do believe that it is the future. Ron Paul has more faith in our ability to overcome differences without being forced.

[masterfulmusic1]

Good first video, guys. I printed out the article and studied Part One before watching. I appreciate your effort to stay even-minded. On the rights of property owners, I wonder what your position would be if, rather than discussing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, we were discussing the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863. Would you be claiming slaveowners had a right to do what they liked with their property?

[Fireball1013]

@masterfulmusic1 A great question! I personally would have freed my slaves and sent them off with a tote bag full of seated liberty silver dollars!

In all honesty, I have no way to comprehend what my moral compass would tell me around the time of the Civil War. I will say that there were thousands of men who fought for the South, near to where I currently reside, who chose to fight for their slaves. There were also men who opposed Federalism fighting right alongside. I am a Kentuckian first.

[mikeroweRules12]

Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!!!!!