Ron Paul 2012

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

  1. MrIMStoned MrIMStoned

    • |BIG BROTHER|
    • Since: Mar 17, 2002
    • Posts: 6,295
    Yes, it would become a symbol of discrimination and segregation. However, in a free society, people are free to express any symbol they choose. I should be able to paint the front of my house with gigantic letters that say "I HATE PURPLE PEOPLE!:mad:"

    Yea, again why does that matter? A man can run a business and make a statement at the same time. Just because you don't agree with that statement doesn't mean you have a right to stop him from expressing that statement.

    It was a series of appeals which lead to the supreme court basically saying that the government was not allowed to discriminate but private individuals are allowed. State actor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The government then over time has taken over what should be private choices, (like who you can allow in your own storee,) and what should be public decisions, (like who you can allow in a school or court house.)
  2. gypsyhoops gypsyhoops

    • New Member
    • Since: Dec 27, 2011
    • Posts: 26
    So do you think that without government intervention in discriminatory cases that racism and segregation would have just run its course? If there were not any litigious action taken against organizations that were so actively engaged in this hate agenda under the defense of free expression, do you believe that eventually they would have come around just because time has elapsed or people evolved out of it? The issue is the way you look at freedom. Some people think freedom is freedom is freedom, and everything thing your heart desires you should be able to act out to the fullest. But really, we are typically only free to do things that are relevant to ourselves and do not cause harm to others.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument seems to be that the civil rights movement wasn't unwelcome but that it went too far, that desegregation of schools and commercial communities was unnecessary. But I see a history of a regionally deadlocked difference of opinion where our government helped to push us forward as a nation to provide an entire segment of our population some basic human decencies. You said it was a series of appeals, so if pertains to law suits on the constitutionality of certain actions, I would imagine that from a basic viewpoint these arguments would have to answer who is doing more harm to someones rights to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. So wouldn't it make sense that the courts found the behavior of schools and stores in the most afflicted areas were actually the ones acting unconstitutionally by refusing people through active discrimination. I guess my point is that these organizations engaged in active behaviors against a whole group of people just for being those people, they created a public message and opted not to keep it to their private lives, at that point they were no longer the ones being tread upon, they were doing the treading, which is not allowed by our constitution.
  3. Grasshopper420 Grasshopper420

    • Banned
    • Since: Dec 29, 2011
    • Posts: 77
    I wonder how long the main stream media was sitting on the story about Ron Paul being a racist? Here he was, rising in the polls and BAM, the media fires this shot below the water level on him.
    You now have groups like the American Nazi party coming out and endorsing Ron Paul.
  4. youngblood00 youngblood00

    • Active Member
    • Since: Nov 26, 2010
    • Posts: 990
    thats a really stupid thing to say. thats what people said about john mccain and look! he's off endorsing mitt romney! hes healthy and his ideas cannot be wasted

    That sounds perfect. Because the middle east LOVES us being in their home country. thats why al qaeda is getting more support! how would you feel if china came here to police us? we need to stop being the damn world police

    im a heavy ron paul supporter and if i sit here all day and respond to the crap on here i'll fill up too many pages. but heres the thing: i think the media has been extremely unfair to him. they never say positive things and they downright lie. we NEED this man as our president, and if he isnt elected i will lose almost all hope for this country.
    personally i think i can argue against any negative statements about ron paul, but here are some of my basic ones:

    he is NOT pro-weed, he thinks the states should be able to decide(constitution)
    i think his foreign policy is great because we dont need to be wasting money just to get countries mad at us
    he didnt even see those statements in the newsletters, dont get me started on that.
    he thinks the states should make their own laws, that doesnt mean hes pro-anything.

    i probably have more feel free to debate. sorry for the rant :)

    jim crow laws, look it up.
    if not for those, there would hardly be racism. and i think society fixed itself
  5. MrIMStoned MrIMStoned

    • |BIG BROTHER|
    • Since: Mar 17, 2002
    • Posts: 6,295
    No, I don't believe it is possible for racism to run it's course. It will always exist, people will always harbour fears and prejudices of those who are different. I reject the premise that the government's intervention is working to stop racism.

    You're going to have to define that vague term of "hate agenda." If you physically hurt people or damage their property then that's a crime.

    So we're not free. This is true, I advocate freedom, and so does Ron Paul, btw.

    I think that government run business (like a school or the DMV) should not discriminate since it belongs to everyone in our society. So no religion or racism or discrimination allowed. But the government has taken it too far and is trying to tell us how to run our private business.

    However, a christian person has every right to open his own restaurant and serve only those who go to his church. That's his personal business. Same thing with a women only gym, it's their right to run a gym for only women if they want. That's freedom.
    2 people like this.
  6. MrIMStoned MrIMStoned

    • |BIG BROTHER|
    • Since: Mar 17, 2002
    • Posts: 6,295
    Iowa Caucus Results:

    Romney 24.55%
    Rick Santorum 24.54%
    Ron Paul 21.45%

    What does this mean? Do Paul and Santorum get nothing out of this since they came 2nd and 3rd? Even though they all got a statistically even amount? Is it first past the post or what?
  7. Grasshopper420 Grasshopper420

    • Banned
    • Since: Dec 29, 2011
    • Posts: 77
    Ron Paul is toast. They didn't just play the race card on Paul but dropped a bomb on his campaign. They got him looking like Adolph Hitler Version 2.0.
  8. MrIMStoned MrIMStoned

    • |BIG BROTHER|
    • Since: Mar 17, 2002
    • Posts: 6,295


    Also, I've been hearing lots about voting fraud in most counties and Karl Rove actually predicted the exact number of votes that Romney was going to win by. Coincidence?
  9. iCurlBabies iCurlBabies

    • Active Member
    • Since: Feb 6, 2011
    • Posts: 337
    Michelle is a fucking dumbass. Paul has a way better understanding of society.

  10. Grasshopper420 Grasshopper420

    • Banned
    • Since: Dec 29, 2011
    • Posts: 77
    Should we just ignore the fact that he has racist tendencies? That is if you believe the news releases lately.
  11. youngblood00 youngblood00

    • Active Member
    • Since: Nov 26, 2010
    • Posts: 990
    this annoys the fucking crap out of me when people say this.

  12. Grasshopper420 Grasshopper420

    • Banned
    • Since: Dec 29, 2011
    • Posts: 77
    OMG...you actually took a paid political ad seriously. He could be a paid actor or just an old Uncle Tom.
  13. Keith Keith

    • Discouraged
    • Since: Oct 26, 2000
    • Posts: 1,576
    Who's playing the racist tendency card now? :rolleyes:
    1 people like this.
  14. gypsyhoops gypsyhoops

    • New Member
    • Since: Dec 27, 2011
    • Posts: 26
    Didn't bother quoting it, but to the suggestion that I look up the Jim Crow laws, I am familiar. It is naive to believe that the Jim Crow laws created racism, but of course the segregation that they advocated aided in carrying it into the twentieth century.

    I won't and have not argued that racism is gone, but it has certainly been quelled as socially acceptable by government interventions. I reject the premise that the government should do nothing when the nation is faced with such extreme racism.

    Agenda might be an inappropriate word, but I more meant that I do not believe there to be any other realistic motivation for creating a white only establishment other than complete disrespect for other races. An owner could make the argument that maybe they aren't themselves against other races, but their clientele are, so that's why they don't allow them, but that is still at it's roots motivated by hate.

    I advocate freedom as well, but responsible freedom. The premise of governance is the allowance of what is appropriate to civil society; blanket freedom is anarchy and dangerous to the populous as a whole. I understand I am advocating an ideology that does not allow for total freedom, but I advocate for a balance of extremes, not one or the other. I do not believe anyone should be arrested or acted against for voicing their opinion, no matter how hate-filled or ignorant it may be. You implied above, though, that only physical altercations between people should be viewed as a crime, but what if someone was berating another person verbally with racial slurs and epithets, is this a crime? should it be stopped? or is it that person's right to express what they feel to that other person, regardless of how it impacts the other person? is it the other citizens duty to let it roll off their shoulder because the first person has the freedom to say what they want, whenever and to whomever they feel?

    Freedom is a strong word with powerful context, and I do not believe it should be applied so frivolously. Speech is also a vague word to apply it to, and I say this in spite of my unwavering support of the freedoms the constitution provides us in it's language. But interpretations are subject to individual understandings.

    Also, I never said anything against Ron Paul. In fact, I would like to see him as the candidate as well and debating on the national stage, but I do disagree with this idea, and I don't think I have to agree with everything he believes to be supportive.


    I'm assuming that this church group example is an authentic one, I haven't come across anything like it, but if a restaurant could survive on only allowing people that go to their church, I can understand this because it draws of another organization's membership. If that same restaurant instead only allowed members of a local KKK chapter to eat there, that would also be ok. I know it's kind of backwards, but this way the business is asking that anyone white, black, or whatever not eat there unless they hold a membership to some other group.

    Many women do not feel comfortable around men, which I feel is a much more valid argument than the possible counter argument that "some people don't feel comfortable around blacks". It is not ignorant for women, who are typically of smaller build than men, to feel nervous around men, particularly in health clubs where their testosterone is pumping. And I imagine that women's only health clubs provide a safe place for them to workout without being stared at and creeped on. It is ignorant for a health club to disallow blacks because their white members feel uncomfortable that their belongs would be stolen while they workout. By the way, that's a hypothetical reason I made up, but I don't think there could be a valid reason for white only establishments other than ignorance or hate.

    My only point has always been that I believe businesses should be accessible or restrictive based on criteria that are applicable to any race, because the only reason for separating races are those of ignorance or hate. I guess on this we'll just have to agree to disagree.
  15. Grasshopper420 Grasshopper420

    • Banned
    • Since: Dec 29, 2011
    • Posts: 77
    You are. You have no clue what the motivation of that guy was or if it was genuine. BUT you do know that was a paid political commercial, done by a PR firm. And we all know that PR firms would never lie, right?
  16. iCurlBabies iCurlBabies

    • Active Member
    • Since: Feb 6, 2011
    • Posts: 337
    2 people like this.
  17. SourDieselMan SourDieselMan

    • Active Member
    • Since: Jul 13, 2011
    • Posts: 819
    I was going to vote for him but then I found out that he is trying to put religion in public schools. I have nothing against people and their religious views, but when they try to force them on other people that pisses me off.
  18. Dedbr Dedbr

    • Domestic War Veteran
    • Since: Mar 24, 2001
    • Posts: 21,228
    Oh man...These threads always get hot.....:D

    Ya know what I believe? We've given up our country.....And it's going to be a 'ch kitty to get it back......

    Ded.....:toocool:
  19. Grasshopper420 Grasshopper420

    • Banned
    • Since: Dec 29, 2011
    • Posts: 77
    So what you're saying is this...He can be as racist as he wants as long as he gets the job done. Is that about it? And when his racist tendencies are reflected in his policies, what then?
  20. MrIMStoned MrIMStoned

    • |BIG BROTHER|
    • Since: Mar 17, 2002
    • Posts: 6,295
    Again, too vague. Grandstanding a bit, too. "Extreme racism?"

    What does the reason for opening the business matter? You can open any business you want. If it doesn't appeal to enough people, it will fail. It's the entire concept the country is built around. If you can open a business built around "hate" and operate it successfully, there must be a market for that business, no?

    And who are you to tell two hate filled people how to conduct their own private business?

    Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    Yeah, that's why the system of governance I/Ron Paul support is a responsible one. There are laws, there are elected representatives, there is a constitution to protect the civil liberties of everyone involved.

    Me too.:cool:

    Then I'm reading the wrong posts or something.

    As long as he is not using force to express his opinions the no, he shouldn't be stopped. Yes, it is your duty to "let it roll off your shoulder." You have no right to not be offended. In a free society, shit is going to offended you.

    It was only meant to be interpreted one way. The constitution is written in absolute terms like that so that you would have a hard time interpreting it any other way. Free speech.

    Ask a 10 year old what it means and they can give you the infiltered truth. It means no one can stop you from talking.

    I have a hard time understanding your principles.:confused: This paragraph basically says you think it's ok for businesses to allow discrimination, as long as the patrons buy a membership card first.

    Yea, well whatever those womens reasons are, they are discriminating against men. And it's their right to do so.

    Valid reason? As if every business in existence should have to serve some sort of purpose towards a societal end. That's socialist commie talk, right there.

    And my point has always been that in a free society, the government has no right to force someone to do business with someone else. Agree?

Share This Page