The Truth About Ron Paul - Part 2

[newworldicon]

yawnnnnn...again do you have anything to add to the reason why he voted against MLK birthday ????

Yes I just did, voting no to a holiday does not make you racist, do you have anything to say about him voting no, shall I yawn at you??

Enlighten me with your sofa wisdom???

 

[UncleBuck]

ron paul didn't support the emancipation??

is he really that old??? lol....

do you notice the way he hunches at the podium?

and the way he's been repeating himself for the last 40 years? he is like my gramps telling the same war stories over and over again.

he could quite possibly be on his way to alzheimers. could you imagine giving him the nuclear codes?

 

[londonfog]

no worries for he will not make it out the primary...I think Michele Bachmann took his tea party and owning him...I say either Mitt or Michelle

 

[Dan Kone]

All of this is presumptious Dan, you are assuming that because he wanted to give property owners as much consideration as the suppressed that he is now racist, would you only give reasonable doubt to those you liked??

So in a nutshell are you saying Ron Paul is secretly a racist??

It's not presumptuous to say he considers the rights of segregationists to oppress minorities more important that the civil rights of black Americans. He does. That's 100% what he believes. He's very open about that and doesn't speak in uncertain terms. That alone is arguably racists. If you combined that with his views on ending slavery, mlk's birthday, and the fact that he published a racist newsletter under his name which may or may not have been written by him, it's hard to not come to the conclusion that he's either a racist or he panders to racists.

 

[Dan Kone]

Yes I just did, voting no to a holiday does not make you racist, do you have anything to say about him voting no, shall I yawn at you??

Enlighten me with your sofa wisdom???

When he opposes MLK's birthday as a holiday, published a racist newsletter under his own name, and has managed to find an excuse to be against practically every key piece of legislation that makes black Americans equal citizens, the combination of all that makes it perfectly reasonable to wonder if he's a racist or not. His views and explanations are indistinguishable from David Duke. Are we going to argue that David Duke isn't a racist?

I don't see how anyone can look at the sum of Ron Paul's positions on the subject and draw the conclusion that it is impossible he's a racist or that he is somehow on the side of black Americans.

 

[londonfog]

A man telling another man that he cannot come into his business only because of the color of his skin is racism..Ron Paul's "idea" would have the government sanction that racism..WTF

 

[Dan Kone]

A man telling another man that he cannot come into his business only because of the color of his skin is racism..Ron Paul's "idea" would have the government sanction that racism..WTF

The fact that he values segregationists right to oppress minorities over the civil rights of black people is a little bit racists in it self IMO. It's saying that protecting bigotry is more important than the right of a black person to be treated as an equal. That logic only makes sense if you consider someone who is black to be less important than a white person.

 

[deprave]

damn you guys are just having a hayday in my absence lol, Wish I had time to repeat myself to you guys for the 100th time on these issues but I really don't, try reading this thread. FYI dan kone, london frog, and uncle buck are all trolls dont even waste your time guys.

 

[Dan Kone]

Of course. Anyone who doesn't support Ron Paul 100% of the time is a troll.

 

[deprave]

Of course. Anyone who doesn't support Ron Paul 100% of the time is a troll.

anyone who antagonizes people for entertainment is a troll, that is all 3 of you by definition.

 

[UncleBuck]

damn you guys are just having a hayday in my absence lol, Wish I had time to repeat myself to you guys for the 100th time on these issues but I really don't, try reading this thread. FYI dan kone, london frog, and uncle buck are all trolls dont even waste your time guys.

that's the spirit!

once the truth about ron paul comes out in a thread bearing that title, the people exposing that truth must be insulted and marginalized as "trolls".

forget that we don't meet that definition, or that we are making cogent, substantive arguments, we must be trolls.

and the guy who comes in and throws insults is the enlightened one.

makes perfect sense.

 

[UncleBuck]

anyone who antagonizes people for entertainment is a troll, that is all 3 of you by definition.

you think we are just antagonizing you for entertainment?

although it is entertaining to see your thread backfire completely, that is not what we are doing.

we are expressing our political opinions in a cogent, mild-mannered, and substantive way.

you are the one antagonizing by calling us "trolls".

 

[deprave]

"making cogent, substantive arguments"
LOL
Beg to Differ....You guys just repeat the same crap this entire thread. Ignoring the substance in anyone elses post entirely, and only posting at troll opportunities.

thats why your post are never more than 5 lines because all the substance?

Not seeing the "backfire"

Goodnight

 

[UncleBuck]

"making cogent, substantive arguments"
LOL
Beg to Differ....You guys just repeat the same crap this entire thread. Ignoring the substance in anyone elses post entirely, and only posting at troll opportunities.

thats why your post are never more than 5 lines because all the substance?

Not seeing the "backfire"

Goodnight

notice the highlighted line.

meditate upon it as you rest.

goodnight, princess.

 

[londonfog]

So if you against Ron Paul you are a troll...???

 

[Dan Kone]

So if you against Ron Paul you are a troll...???

Yes. And if you bring up one of Ron Paul's publicly stated opinions and it doesn't make him look good, you're dishonest.

 

[NoDrama]

He stands up for black people so much he thinks ending slavery and giving them civil rights was a mistake.

I didn't say that. By misquoting me you're doing exactly what you accuse me of doing.

I said Ron Paul didn't support ending slavery. He didn't support the emancipation proclamation. He didn't support ending segregation.

Ahh the power of the quote, you said all those things and more. Ron Paul totally supports ending slavery, although somewhat a moot point since it was abolished before he was born. What he doesn't support is the murder of 400,000 Americans to enforce it. Obviously you do support that kind of genocide. So thats what we have here, by your own logic Dan, you support murdering people, lots and lots of people, a literal mile long road of corpses is what you like to see to get your point across. He totally supported ending segregation, but he doesn't support the federal government taking away your other rights to do that. Intellectual dishonesty on your part everytime you try to muddy the waters with your ill conceived ideas you little genocidal maniac you. How does it feel to support the wholesale murder of hundreds of thousands of people?

 

[sync0s]

He is right. You guys are repeating arguments. This argument was used a looooooooooooooooooooooong time ago. It turned into an argument over affirmative action, I posted a study that showed that repeal of affirmative action (done in Cali) only hurt blacks marginally because of unqualified people not being allowed into the colleges. It hurt whites as well equally. The ones who benefited were the asian population because they deserved entrance into the colleges more. Our government is preventing deserving people from going to school because they simply see color. Stop arguing racism, if you see color: you are racist. It's that simple. Stop looking at us as individually collected races all out against each other and start looking at us as a group of Americans who are for the benefit of our fucking country.

For fucks sakes........

 

[UncleBuck]

... if you see color: you are racist...

i must be racist then.

but not my dog

just kidding. i don't have a dog.

 

[sync0s]

The civil rights act of 1964 actually imposed rules on private property owners to obey the government. Remove all race and equality points of this and this is the bottom line. It was a law that violated our constitutional rights. Don't forget the fact that RP is right: your government promoted racism, and the 64 act was a desperate move to undo their own beast. Laws of segregation only promote ignorance because if you never had a conversation with a black person, you are very inclined to follow the opinion of the racist white.

Proof: look at how our government recognizes blacks as "African Americans." It's downright ignorance because whites are "Caucasions" and not "European Americans," and if you are a real African American but you are white you would say you are "Caucasion." How are we so blind?