The Truth About Ron Paul - Part 2

[Dan Kone]

Exactly its not necessary and people should protest it, not have the government use force. Society does not grow by force and coercion. Just look at the ridiculous pot laws. Some of the people here are using the same argument to stop it as you do. They think its wrong but even though it isn't ursuping others rights pot should be illegal.

I get what you're saying and it doesn't sound that unreasonable from our perspective today. But if you go back to the south at the time of civil rights legislation, it was necessary. If we are talking about most areas of the country today, sure, what you're saying might be true in some areas. But it wasn't true when talking about the south in the 60's. The theoretical arguments you guys are making isn't what was going on in the south. Whites only businesses were thriving and most of the goods/services black folks had access to were substandard.

When Ron Paul argues against the civil rights act that is a segregationist argument, because without the government stepping in, the result was segregation. Think about what you're really arguing here. Don't think only about the modern implications, but also the implications of the time when it became law. Do you really believe segregation was justified based on property rights?

 

[tryingtogrow89]

Yea right, these pigs have nothing to hide.
Call all the lame stream media outlets, and demand they cover these parasites!
[youtube]dHdaW2ORDlw[/youtube]
[youtube]Zq5LoDtnq_0[/youtube]
[youtube]zZg6t6zsGR0[/youtube]
[youtube]BU2XBc9j0kY[/youtube]

 

[Carthoris]

people will be racist.

we don't have to condone this. we can condemn it.

and we rightly do just that, despite ron paul's objections.

You can condemn it, but you shouldn't be allowed to dictate someones morality. Do you feel strongly that marijuana should be legalized? Do you feel strongly for women's rights?

Do those who feel strongly for things your disagree with not deserve the same allowance to believe what they do? If you condone penalties against racists you are every bit as bad as someone who is against pro choice and condones people who have abortions going to prison.

They believe abortion is murder. Do you think you should be held to their standards? Maybe you should actually stop and think about whether you want to be told how to live before you condemn others for how they live.

I am pro choice. Whether it be the choice to kill a baby in my ass or wherever a guy would grow one or not to like dark people. Hell, maybe I want to start a Caucasian night club that dances to oldies. What I do with things that are mine is none of your business or anyone elses. You might accuse me of justifying racism or being racist, but that isn't what this is about. This is about the right of each person to be and do what they want as long as they aren't hurting someone. Not letting someone shop at a store isn't hurting anyone, its not helping them, but it isn't hurting them. I have absolutely not responsibility to any other citizen other than to not hurt them. You might say it is about fairness or right and wrong - If it is strictly about right and wrong, then why does the government support programs for minorities only? If it is wrong to reject one person from a store based solely on color then why would it be ok to reject someone for a scholarship solely on color?

 

[Carthoris]

nope. if i don't patronize that business but enough other people do, the problem remains.

and why are we even considering a candidate who brings the conversation BACKWARDS by about 50 years? shouldn't we be projecting 50 years forward? ya know, looking for long term solutions?

just a thought.

More like 200+ years. We based this country on individual freedom. Every law that restricts individual freedom regardless of the intent erodes freedom.

 

[Carthoris]

two quotes come to my mind: 'all evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing' and 'i am my brother's keeper'.

i guess, since we can not and must not police right and wrong, we should release all the murderers, rapists, and pedophiles, right?



this is completely off topic. we are talking about businesses to which the civil rights act applies, ones that claim to be open to the public.

i may disagree that augusta national does not allow women members, but that is their right as a PRIVATE, NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC establishment.



private businesses do not NEED a reason, they are private.



common sense is knowing wht you are talking about with respect to the topic at hand, the civil rights act of 1964. perhaps you have noticed that private businesses are NOT restricted from letting in those they allow, while PUBLIC businesses must allow all but the unruly and disruptive.



we have legislated progressively towards racial and gender equality (remember those amendments that allow blacks and women to vote?).

are you saying you are more intolerant to women and blacks? that is what i hear.



it must be tough to be a white male in america nowadays. as a fellow white male, i feel your pain. it is soooooooooooo tough.



fact: minorities are ALWAYS less qualified



yay for centuries old logic that no longer applies!

What is the difference between a private and public business?

 

[UncleBuck]

What is the difference between a private and public business?

like the difference between a public and a private golf course.

 

[Carthoris]

textbook move: the whites are the ones who face discrimination now! forget the achievement gap, the disproportionate amount of minorities in prison, or any number of other examples of how discrimination against minorities is still well and strong, it is the poor tough white male who faces the shit end of the stick.

boo fucking hoo.

Whites definitely face discrimination in prison. The government allows them to be abused in prison. In many communities blacks outnumber whites - why aren't whites protected as minorities in those communities? Are whites incapable of being minorities?

 

[Carthoris]

truth stings a bit, doesn't it?

ron paul does not support civil rights: FACT
ron paul would have let the economy collapse: FACT
ron paul does not support more liberty for women: FACT

Ron Paul holds that all people are created with the right to be who they are to begin with and don't need laws to give them rights they are given naturally by a government who doesn't have the right to give them the right anyway. - FACT
Ron Paul knows the economy will collapse eventually and require a complete overhaul. It is like deciding to fix your leaking engine now or wait til it runs out of oil. Rep and Dem want to wait til the engine is junk before any action - FACT
Ron Paul thinks men and women have the same liberty. Women outnumber men and have the same right to vote - how could men oppress women in this circumstance? The answer - they couldn't. Ron Paul doesn't think the government needs to make laws about things they have no right to make laws about - FACT

 

[Carthoris]

ok realistically you can't open up next to me..you can go about two blocks down...so that rules you out..and you would be surprise just how many Mexicans would be happy to have a place that only they could wash..Now I'm sure quite a few blacks would be upset, but hey I'm black so they would still come and ask me why as they do their wash and I will just tell them so bullshit about white folks and lice...so you keep thinking you know people when I see and deal with these people evey damn day ( almost )...

Have you ever been to London?

 

[Carthoris]

um, i included the date it was from. so i was already what you might call "informed" of that fact.

facts would inform you that that exact quote is still displayed ON HIS WEBSITE. so he still endorses it, i would say.



state-sponsored extremism FTW.

the SCOTUS ruled that abortion is legal. that means EVERYWHERE.

You boyfriend Dan started a thread called something along the lines of "State rights are fucking awesome, fuck the feds". Does this only apply when it is something you like?

 

[Carthoris]

i was trying to simplify for ease of debate and obviously failed. Would this serve as a better example:

In my town, it is a common belief/perception/true based on my 37 years of observation that because of culture and habits there are a lot more Hispanic parents that control their children to what i consider an acceptable public level of behavior. Not that they(the kids) do anything much different than white kids or black kids or any other kids. It is the fact that their parents choose to take them out into public, hype them up on candy, get all sticky and dirty, scream and throw fits when they want a candy or ice cream or soda or ad nauseaum. They can curse, shout, push, and be otherwise rude and obnoxious. Is it a Hispanic thing? That's what i've been told by my Hispanic friends that DO properly raise their children.

It would be suicide to open up a business in my town that excluded Hispanics, financially and quite possibly literally. But i still say that i should retain the right to do so if i so wish.

Does that more accurately address the issue? Because if not i'll try again. And again. And again.
The more we debate the better i get at countering all these faux-points.

Being a part of a Hispanic family, I have some insight. It depends, it is really a cultural thing. Mexicans don't get punished for punishing their kids, so they control them better. It has a lot to do with home life. You might not find the same thing in other Hispanic families/cultures.

I really have a hard time believing any of you have ever been to any country that isn't a first world country besides to pick up cheap whores in a border town. Having lived in 3rd world countries, I think you all need the experience of it to understand your own lives.

 

[Carthoris]

so are you saying only Hispanic kids act out in public ????? [youtube]uHp8CsFRQMM[/youtube] come on kids are kids...nope another bad example ...I see now by your conversation you pretty young and naive not saying that as a jab , but its the truth...Mexicans children are no worst then spoiled little white kids..or rotten little black kids..kids are kids..and for the record you have the right to not allow anyone in your store who is disruptive again something you can change ...you can't change being Mexican...ok you can try again..but this time take your time

I think you read that backwards.

 

[Carthoris]

I get what you're saying and it doesn't sound that unreasonable from our perspective today. But if you go back to the south at the time of civil rights legislation, it was necessary. If we are talking about most areas of the country today, sure, what you're saying might be true in some areas. But it wasn't true when talking about the south in the 60's. The theoretical arguments you guys are making isn't what was going on in the south. Whites only businesses were thriving and most of the goods/services black folks had access to were substandard.

When Ron Paul argues against the civil rights act that is a segregationist argument, because without the government stepping in, the result was segregation. Think about what you're really arguing here. Don't think only about the modern implications, but also the implications of the time when it became law. Do you really believe segregation was justified based on property rights?

If you admit it doesn't matter today - why keep supporting it?

 

[Carthoris]

like the difference between a public and a private golf course.

A private golf course isn't a business anymore is it? It is a club asset

 

[deprave]

I am beginning to understand the left frustrations with Ron Paul, the main frustrations lately are all stemming from the lefts concern for the economy and the GOP to blocking the raising of the debt ceiling, they are seeing doom and gloom on the horizon, liberal pundits and scholars are freighted to death the debt ceiling raising will be blocked again and they are angry as hell with republicans, rightfully so, but Ron stays on his path and stand true to his genuine beliefs, Ron is not one of these typical conservative that will cut spending left and right, like he says, if he believes the debt ceiling needs to be raised he would raise it, Ron has his own plans and his own solutions and its not the rapid cuts the gop is after, Dr. Pauls solutions are very unique, they are revolutionary, this is what we need, revolutionary plans and ideas.

This new interview

Ron Paul calls it a "political stunt"
"it wouldnt be his way of doing this"
"I wasnt impressed"
"you have to raise the debt limit soon"

[video=youtube;M_YKAHTm8eQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_YKAHTm8eQ[/video]

As usual Ron Paul makes it clear how much he disagrees with the people we have in congress these days, As usual he believes the republicans way of doing things is misguided.


Dr Paul is not your typical republican by today's standards, don't let your disdain for those phoney bastards leak in to your view of Ron Paul, What the GOP is doing and what Ron Paul is doing are very different.

Ron Paul is not the status quo - Ron Paul represents real positive change and progress, this is why liberals and progressives must give Ron Paul a chance. Please remove your mental block from Ron Paul and see that he is our best choice for change.



Cmon Folks, Common effing sense, this man has it, other politicians lack it.

 

[Girdweed]

It would require a lot more than that to fully implement his free market philosophy for America and he's well aware of that, little steps along the way can bring us closer to sound money however, his audit of the federal reserve is just one revolutionary step in the right direction, he has done more then anyone else has done and plans to do more then anyone else plans to. Whats Mitt Romney's Plan ....Cut the deficit by spending less? lol ..Obama...Cut the deficit by spending more? .......has that worked? How many books have they wrote on economics?

The problem with this idea IMHO is that it's almost guaranteed to bring about more problems in the long run. 4 or 8 years is not enough time to push through a truly functional philosophy. Why are we in the mess we are currently in? We expect a President to accomplish his goals in an impossibly short period of time. What ends up happening is that the next cycle changes horse midstream, leaving a wake of half completed tasks behind. If we start with Ron Paul's approach to limiting the Feds (which can't happen with no support from the Legislative Branch), the SCOTUS would likely overturn most of the changes.

I like many of Ron Paul's ideas but his economic stances do not hold much water IMHO as several are unconstitutional and he gets zero support from the GOP base. That's a recipe for ineffectiveness. Sure, he'd line item a lot from the budget. My problem with that is that I'm not certain that the damage could be reversed.

As for monopolies, I can not and will not be convinced that a monopoly is effective for consumers. I purchased a few stores in Florida a few years ago. It didn't take long to realize that I could make much more by buying all of my competition (even if overpriced), then charging through the eyes. It worked well enough to retire for the second time (disabled military). I made much more from selling the cornered market than I would have from the business over the next 12 years.

It's tough to take the stance of supporting the Constitution when you do not support the Constitution.

Rand Paul, his son, has pretty revolutionary ideas as well. Locking up folks who speak out against the current government does not seem to follow my limited understanding of the Constitution.

It's about ideas, not people.

 

[deprave]

"Rand Paul, his son, has pretty revolutionary ideas as well. Locking up folks who speak out against the current government does not seem to follow my limited understanding of the Constitution."

What he said was taken out of context, these "folks" he suggest locking up are foreigners in our airports who are suspected terrorist that are caught with contraband, this was in his speech against the TSA in which he was suggesting alternatives such as selective screening. The thing is you must listen to the audio of this to hear it in the proper context. I have posted the link to the mp3 in its own thread about rand on these forums.


I am not understanding how you see some of Ron Pauls economic views as unconstitutional please elaborate on that point.

 

[Girdweed]

The Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) grants the powers of regulating interstate trade to Congress. This has been upheld in many Supreme Court cases. I will provide a list of cases if you desire.

One of the most interesting early cases is Gibbons v. Ogden. The SCOTUS is in charge of interpreting the Constitution.

The Supremacy Clause is also relevant. It's Article VI. Check Ableman v. Booth.

The problem with the Constitution is that you either take it or leave it. Sweeping change as suggested by Ron Paul does not follow stare decisis and will not stand up in the SCOTUS, thereby rendering his ideas impossible IMHO.

I'll go back and listen to the Rand Paul segment.

 

[budlover13]

Being a part of a Hispanic family, I have some insight. It depends, it is really a cultural thing. Mexicans don't get punished for punishing their kids, so they control them better. It has a lot to do with home life. You might not find the same thing in other Hispanic families/cultures.

I really have a hard time believing any of you have ever been to any country that isn't a first world country besides to pick up cheap whores in a border town. Having lived in 3rd world countries, I think you all need the experience of it to understand your own lives.

That's what my friends tell me too. And no, the closest i have come to a third-world country was some missionary work(construction) on a Native American reservation which while poor and hard-working cannot compare to what i have seen in third world countries.

 

[Girdweed]

The 14th Amendment is also a problem. Section 1, Clause 2 is worth a read.