Ron Paul 2012

Discussion in 'Politics' started by JohnPot, Aug 14, 2011.

  1. Dsourman

    Dsourman New Member

    Ron Paul wants to take America back to a time when businesses were allowed to be racists and states were allowed to deny women the right to choose. Wake up people!

    This guy should never get even close to public office. Don't let him pull the wool over your eye be cause of his BS position on weed.
  2. Silence

    Silence New Member

    You see, that's a very fine line in my view.

    Yes, people have the right to serve who they want and not serve who they don't want but racism is a pathetic waste of people's energy in my mind. I think if the went through the government perhaps to get licensed somehow for a white/black only establishment that's fine but there are still plenty of racists in America. The last thing we need is for them to be allowed to fully express that.
    Segregation is a waste of time, money, and energy.
    Granted, with all the new buildings, it'd probably make jobs (silver lining to it :p)

    Perhaps people could choose to not serve people but NOT based on race, religion, or ideals. Maybe if only there shop per say was in danger.


    Pull the wool over our eyes because of his BS position on weed?

    Do some research. Legalizing marijuana isn't the only good thing he wants to do.

    First off, how easily do you think he'd get racism back into the states? I don't think it'd fly to well in congress or with the American people.

    Second, you put that states were allowed to deny women the rights to choose. Right to choose what?
    Please explain what you meant by this so I can respond accordingly without sounding like an idiot (lack of information).
  3. Dsourman

    Dsourman New Member

    1. You need to wake up. Ron Paul is a Republican - running as one. I do not believe he will follow threw on most of libertarian ideas. I question him running as a republican.
    2. What is a woman's right to choose? Really? Go ahead and vote for Ron Paul.

    I do believe Barney Frank will follow threw even though he is working with RP.
    "Though the bill has four Democratic cosponsors – John Conyers of Michigan, Barbara Lee of California, Jared Polis of Colorado, and Steve Cohen of Tennessee – the bill stands no chance of passing the Republican-controlled house, say analysts."
    Remember, RP is a Republican therefor he could never even get support from his own party. What a joke. Why even care about Ron Paul, he is conservative. I will never be conservative in my politics, I believe in social programs for the poor and needy.
  4. Silence

    Silence New Member

    First off, you're picking parties here. YOU need to wake up and learn we aren't all conservatives, liberals, republicans, or democrats. We are Americans. You are worried about the fact that he is a Republican.
    I DO NOT think he will follow ANY or at least very few of the Republican ideals. I think he will follow more of the liberal viewpoints then you think. Telling someone to wake up and basically choose a side OTHER THAN Republican is pathetic and bias. Just saying it as I see it.

    Second, why would Ron Paul help kill a bill he HELPED to make? Think about the logic in that. It probably won't get past most of the Republican party but do you really think Ron Paul is going to help a party he is running with even though he doesn't agree with their views for the most part to kill a bill he helped create? I seriously doubt that.

    Third, you are saying why even care about a conservative. First off, let me correct you. Ron Paul is a mix between libertarian and conservative.
    You can't say he's one group or the other when in reality he's both.

    All I ask is that you provide me with proof that he is going to turn on EVERYTHING he said he'd do.

    Let me give you something to think about though.
    The "popular ones" in congress or the government in general? He rarely associates with them. The fact that he keeps away from the popular, yet still simple puppets, people in politics (Bachmann, Perry, Romney, etc.) should tell you a lot.
  5. Dsourman

    Dsourman New Member

    Wake up yourself.
    1. How am I picking parties?
    2. You can remain ignorant, but it is a choice at this point.
    3. Ron Paul is not liberal. You think he is liberal?
    4. American's choose sides, that is democracy (although we are not a real democracy), having an opinion, standing by it and...... yes, voting.
    You are in serious denial if you think supporting Ron Paul isn't choosing sides. Wake up.
    5. Yeah, I do not support conservative ideology, you have problem with that?

  6. Silence

    Silence New Member

    Excuse me. Let me rephrase what I said before.
    How are you picking parties? Well, everyone has a right to that and I will openly it's not my place to judge that. But downright opposing someone for the party they are in is foolish.

    #2 Answer : I can remain ignorant? How is it being ignorant because I support someone who ACTUALLY shows potential (if you do research about Ron Paul)

    #3 Answer : I never said he was STRICTLY liberal. He combines the best of both conservative and liberal. What he has said are his viewpoints are both liberal and conservative so you can't say he's strictly one or the other. Read more carefully next time before replying.

    #4 Answer : I suppose that's true. Saying I choose Ron Paul is obviously picking sides. I mean opposing a different group openly and basically saying They are wrong, no matter what.

    #5 Answer : I have no problem with that. I am not a conservative but I do like some of their ideals. NOT ALL OF THEM however. Some are complete crap while others have a good logical base to them.
    No. I don't have a problem with you not believing in something. Everyone has the right to that. When did I say I had a problem with someone not supporting something? If you don't have a reason or haven't researched WHY, then I think you are somewhat foolish.

    There are answers to your statements. This time, please read thoroughly before replying. Do not take offense to that, I am actually being honest because you replied with some things I never said.

    Thank You
  7. Silence

    Silence New Member

    Let me ask you a question. This will allow me to get a little bit of a clearer view of where you stand.

    Who do you want to win the 2012 election?
  8. Dsourman

    Dsourman New Member

    Ron Paul supporters always say "you need to research Ron Paul." I am not convinced you have researched Ron Paul.

    Ron Paul's politics are why I could never support him. I am aware of what he stands for and no matter how much he wants to legalize drugs I can never I support him.

    Conservative, liberal, septuagenarian, idiot, whatever. No to RP.

    He is pro lifer who would support businesses who choose to be racist.
    Think what you want, but at least think about it.

  9. Silence

    Silence New Member

    Well, whether you are convinced or not, I've done plenty of research on him. And I see why he'd want to do that for businesses but I see the problems that could arise such as racism and segregation surfacing again and us going back to old problems.

    Also, I don't support him because he wants to legalize marijuana. Granted, I really support that policy, but that's not my sole reason.

    And I will think what I want. And I have thought about it extensively. I do understand where you are coming from however and respect your concerns about some of his policies.

    I believe the only reason he wants businesses to be able to choose who they do business with is just so that people can regulate customers. But I see the racist potential for that.

    One last thing. Thanks for the debate. I love a long drawn out debate, regardless of if someone wins or not.
  10. MrIMStoned

    MrIMStoned |BIG BROTHER|

    I also find racism to be a waste of time and counterproductive for any smart business.

    I'm 100% against that idea. People should not be forced to get a license to run a business.

    Oh boy. If you understand anything about America, you should understand that you need to allow racists to fully express themselves (without hurting other people or damaging their property obviously.) Isn't that the very first amendment?

    I agree that segregation is in direct violation of the constitution. The government is not allowed to discriminate. Individuals yes, governments no. The government belongs to everyone and serves everyone regardless of race/religion/culture.

    No. You should have the right to choose whom you do business with.

    Let's get something straight. Paul would support a businesses right to choose. Paul would not support a racist business. There is a difference.
  11. Silence

    Silence New Member

    I say they should only have to get a license if it is for a black/white only business.
    I don't think people should randomly be able to say their establishment is no-whites/blacks allowed.

    And back to your first response. I said "racism is a pathetic waste of time" which implied also what I stated in a later post.
    I believe businesses should not be allowed to not serve someone based on race, sex, religion, or ideals (not lifestyle, but beliefs).

    Also. With racists expressing themselves. I understand that they have a constitutional right to express themselves, but they shouldn't have the right to attack others (not necessarily physically) based on what they think is right and wrong. That's one of the most childish things I can think of!
    Why should you have any right to hate someone who is black? If they give you a reason to hate them, by all means, hate them till the day you die. But over the color of their skin? Or perhaps someone who's a different religion (I just remembered this is a legalization support website :rolleyes:).

    And I know that the government is not but people ARE allowed to, but businesses are not a people. They are establishments setup by people to give a good or service. IMO, businesses should not be allowed the right to discriminate based on race, sex, religion, or ideals. But remember, that's just my opinion.

    And I know that people have the right to choose who they do business with but first off, saying no to business is just stupid in the business world. Period. But declining business due to race, sex, religion, or ideals is just childish and stupid. Realistically, is a white Christian any better at buying your product or service for the exact same price than a black Muslim per say? I think not.

    OKAY! Now that all of that is out on the table, I want to say thank you to MrIMStoned for "intervening" in a way.
    This allowed me to rethink and regroup.
  12. MrIMStoned

    MrIMStoned |BIG BROTHER|

    I think they should.

    If you want to live in a society where the government can force you to do business with people who you don't want to do business with. :shrug:

    They don't have the right to attack others. They have the right to say whatever they want to say, even if it's stupid dumbfuck shit. (especially if it's stupid dumbfuck shit.)

    It's called freedom. You have the right to hate anyone you want for any reason you want. As long as you do not assault said person you hate, or damage their property. You should be allowed to live your life however you see fit, and the government has no right to force you to do business with people you hate.

    You're right, businesses aren't people, their technically property. Is it not equally discriminate to force someone to do business with people he does not want to do business with? If some guy wants to open a racist establishment, that's his business. I personally would never patronize his business, and would hope other people had the good sense to boycott such a business. I would not, however, force my beliefs onto that business owner. That would make me no better than him.

    It is stupid. Very stupid. Too bad in a free country people are free to be as stupid as they wish. (As long as they don't hurt people physically or damage their property)

    No thank you necessary, I'm just a bored libertarian. :2cents:

    I thank you for encouraging a lively debate.:cool:
  13. Silence

    Silence New Member

    I love having so many outlooks on certain problems on the site.

    Can always learn new things from someone with a different viewpoint :D

    And thank you to you as well Mr.
    IMO, the whole thing is a mess and a VERY VERY VERY fine line.

    On one hand, you don't want racism. On the other hand, you want people to have the right to do as they please and do business with whom they please.
    Tough decision in my mind :confused:
  14. Kushy

    Kushy down

    The Civil Rights Act has no relevance to today's society. Ron and Rand are against it because it violated the Constitution, specifically private property rights. But in todays society, if a business made their store "blacks only" or started kicking out black people, for example, that business would be done within 24 hours. The free market (the people) always regulate industry much better than the government does. Blacks would start protesting, everyone would see what a disgusting racist pig the owner was, and he'd be out of business immediately. To think that racism would run rampant without the government forcing us to "not kick out black people" out of our stories is just silly and demonstrates our overdependence on government to tell us what is right and wrong. WE AS PEOPLE can determine what is right and wrong, we have our own brains and we can think for ourself. The government is nothing but a huge bureacracy of groupthink - as soon as one person says a shitty idea, everyone is on board because of the human tendency to rely on others idea.
  15. Buzzby

    Buzzby Buddhist Curmudgeon

    That's why there aren't any people living on the street nobody begging for change every block downtown, right? :rolleyes:
    2 people like this.
  16. TEK2yuhDOME

    TEK2yuhDOME New Member

    This dude speaks truth!
  17. Izzyrizzy

    Izzyrizzy New Member

    Ron paul is the only republican that I like, but i think his standing for marijuana is to commercial, I think hes supporting marijuana just for the voted.. But thats just me, i dont trust anyone haha
  18. vvicked0471

    vvicked0471 Super mod

    Not to be rude, but your saying this reveals that you don't know a lot (or much at all) about RP. He is against marijuana prohibition on a federal level because the federal government has no constitutional power to ban any substance for any reason.

    He doesn't favor marijuana legalization, as many like to disingenuously spread. He favors getting the federal government getting out of the way and allowing the individual states to make up their own minds about whether or not marijuana should be legal.

    His stance on marijuana couldn't be less commercial. It's one major reason he gets dismissed as a fringe candidate. One who doesn't have a chance because he "favors legalizing drugs" (a favorite sound bite of his opposition, untrue as it is).
  19. gypsyhoops

    gypsyhoops New Member

    Just wanted to jump on this racist business bandwagon here for a sec. I can understand the point of view that businesses should be able to choose whether they do business with someone, and agree with it to a point. If someone walks into your store, and is being a dick, absolutely kick them out, regardless of if they are black, white, or whatever. There is nothing that prohibits someone from taking this kind of action against people currently that they do not wish to do business with, is there? But at the point that as a business owner you are refusing an entire breed of people for hate-filled reasons, unrelated to doing business in the first place, has that company not transcended it's original purpose and become a symbol of discrimination and segregation? If a business chooses to use their storefront as a portal of hatred by professing that certain people are unwelcome because of their beliefs or skin color, and makes it known through signage and misguided rhetoric, they have become a beacon of social commentary that opposes basic civil rights, instead of just a business making business decision on who they consider a worthwhile customer.

    I do not know the specific language that removes a business's right to segregate, but I imagine it is worded in such a way that only disallows refusal on the basis of race or religion, which is clearly an act of hatred and not sound business practice. To me, a company that would want to take advantage of a repeal of any law that prohibits this kind of behavior would, in fact, be acting unconstitutionally in accordance with current civil rights policy. As society progresses our laws change, sometimes in ways that interact, effect, and modify how other laws behave and are conceived, and in this particular case it has been for the better.
  20. MrIMStoned

    MrIMStoned |BIG BROTHER|

    Sarcasm. Awesome.

    And your solution is to force people into social equality or what?

    I personally want to see the government not using force to extort welfare money from me. Money that is spent in a manner I think is inefficient and wasteful. The same reason I wouldn't give money to the beggers downtown, it's not going to help them and is a waste of my efforts.

    I'd rather donate to a privately run halfway house that is very effecient in getting addicts/the mentally ill off the street and get them jobs. A place that can run on a small budget of personal donations, not a gigantic bureaucracy of wasteful spending and political kickbacks.

    Think of how much more prosperous we could all be if the government let you keep your income and spend it however you saw fit. That would be a prosperous society, and if you think the government can decide how to spend your money better than yourself, you may as well go live in Cuba.
    2 people like this.

Share This Page