The Truth About Ron Paul - Part 2

[UncleBuck]

if you weren't convinced previously that ron paul fucks turtles, take a gander at this:

[video=youtube;leYuJ4KkAuA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leYuJ4KkAuA[/video]

clearly, he has gained favor with the turtles by exchanging sexual favors with them.

just fucking sick.

 

[sync0s]

You're still supporting segregation of private businesses such as restaurants, hotels, etc.

The thing about this is that either way someone loses a "right". Either black folks lose the right to be treated as equals, or business owners lose the right to be racist and oppress minorities. It's absurd to think the rights of business owners to be racist and oppressive is more important than the rights of black Americans to be treated as equals.

Property rights aren't the only and most important right in this country. Sorry, but some things are even more valuable than the right to be racist.

I guess some things are more important than the right to like cheeseburgers, let's outlaw that because it's for the "greater good." Oh, I got a good one: some things are more important than the right to smoke marijuana, it morally corrupts our society and breaks the fabric of American families (bullshit).

Why do I need to repeat myself. Founding fathers said that just because majority wants it, to pass legislation that would neglect the rights of the minority (in this case, not racial minority) than it would be considered oppression.

I will agree with you that the civil rights act was the main driving factor in how racism is so demonized in modern America. As I stated in earlier post just last night, our government perpetuated racism in our country and the civil rights act was a desperate attempt to undo their creation. Everything from Jim Crowe Laws to how racism was taught in schools. Our culture that was promoted by the legislation of our government indoctrinated white people into a racist ideal. You aren't naturally racist, that has to be learned from somewhere. Don't use the parents taught it excuse. I know plenty of people (myself included) who had racist family try to embed those thoughts in their head and they still ended up completely opposite. The laws and segregation required by our government forced people to not be able to see the truths.

 

[Windsblow]

The evidence is the resistance desegregation met in the south. They did not want it at all and showed no willingness to desegregate on their own.



The people in the south sure as hell didn't want it. It was very unpopular there. It caused the southern democrats to become republicans where they stay to this day.



I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that their is no evidence that the south would have desegregated on it's own and there is a lot of evidence that they would not have. It took the national guard to step in to make that happen.

There is a clear difference in opinion here and I see the Sociologic mechanics in a very different light. YOu probably think if It wasn't for the Civil War that there would still be slavery.

Government is very pragmatic and politicians are not "principled". Government does only what is in there own best interest and going against the will of a people is never in there own best interest.

YOu act as as if all people in the south resisted. I beg to differ.

The civil war was wrong and so was the Federal involvement in the civil right movement.

Government can't change anything only people can....... Segregation would had been gone without the Feds shredding the Freedoms of ever American.

 

[Windsblow]

YOu also ignore the bulk of my point...... Oppression is the act of Governments not Race. SO the Civil War, Slavery, Segregation, Civil Rights etc... are just shifts in the oppression of the State, not of some abstraction of power contain in the pigments of an individual. We fail to see what society is suffering from. It's not Racism.....It's Statism. But, you folks can continue on with your State worship and arrogantly progress into your Utopia of blissful oppression.

 

[Carthoris]

Can do.



http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2007/12/23/4426982-ron-paul-on-meet-the-press

Ron Paul wanted to wait for a "free market" solution to slavery. Letting it go along as is until the free market decided to get rid of it on it's own. Some how it's none of the government's business to end crimes against humanity occurring in this country. Free market principles are more important than human rights apparently. Unless you're a slave, then you might have felt differently about the subject.

Ron Paul opposing segregation because he believes segregation is a property owner's right:

[video=youtube;iSQc5gcAGLQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSQc5gcAGLQ&feature=youtu.be[/video]

He also opposes having Martin Luther King's birthday being a holiday.

Ron Paul said murdering 600k people wasn't the right plan to free slaves. No one else had a major civil war over the issue. What Ron Paul is saying is that if you think war was largely about slavery, wouldn't it have been cheaper and 600,000 lives saved by just buying the freedom of the slaves and letting them go? If we can look at it and realize that - do you think Lincoln was retarded and didn't? So, why didn't they do just that if the issue was slavery? Because Lincoln's goal was to keep the country together, not free the slaves.

Also, keep in mind that slavery was not as risk at the start of the civil war. That was something that came after the war started. If there had been no civil war, there would have been no emancipation proclamation. There would of been an eventual end to slavery just like in every other major country in the world.

You can agree or not agree with those facts, but facts they remain.

 

[Dan Kone]

I guess some things are more important than the right to like cheeseburgers, let's outlaw that because it's for the "greater good." Oh, I got a good one: some things are more important than the right to smoke marijuana, it morally corrupts our society and breaks the fabric of American families (bullshit).

Those things are indeed bullshit, but that's a false comparison. It's not bullshit that black folks were being denied equal treatment in the south due to segregation.

 

[Dan Kone]

Ron Paul said murdering 600k people wasn't the right plan to free slaves. No one else had a major civil war over the issue.

And the idea that it was somehow that was the north's fault contradicts US history. The south decided rather than explain their position to the American people they were going to subvert democracy and attack the united states. 100% of the blame for that goes to the confederacy. The confederacy was wrong and the United States were correct. It really is that simple. All these attempts to make the south out to be the victims are disgraceful attempts to rewrite history.

What Ron Paul is saying is that if you think war was largely about slavery, wouldn't it have been cheaper and 600,000 lives saved by just buying the freedom of the slaves and letting them go? If we can look at it and realize that - do you think Lincoln was retarded and didn't? So, why didn't they do just that if the issue was slavery? Because Lincoln's goal was to keep the country together, not free the slaves.

Also, keep in mind that slavery was not as risk at the start of the civil war. That was something that came after the war started. If there had been no civil war, there would have been no emancipation proclamation. There would of been an eventual end to slavery just like in every other major country in the world.

It was 100% about slavery the whole time. That's it. There was no other driving issue. The American people elected an anti-slavery president so the south decided to ignore the will of the people, broke off, and attacked the united states.

You can agree or not agree with those facts, but facts they remain.

You can't disagree with a fact unless it is not a fact. Attempts to revise history are not facts, they are bullshit.

 

[Windsblow]

Ron Paul said murdering 600k people wasn't the right plan to free slaves. No one else had a major civil war over the issue. What Ron Paul is saying is that if you think war was largely about slavery, wouldn't it have been cheaper and 600,000 lives saved by just buying the freedom of the slaves and letting them go? If we can look at it and realize that - do you think Lincoln was retarded and didn't? So, why didn't they do just that if the issue was slavery? Because Lincoln's goal was to keep the country together, not free the slaves.

Also, keep in mind that slavery was not as risk at the start of the civil war. That was something that came after the war started. If there had been no civil war, there would have been no emancipation proclamation. There would of been an eventual end to slavery just like in every other major country in the world.

You can agree or not agree with those facts, but facts they remain.

You are correct. The fact will remain regardless of these mindless Statist Pagans. They will all bow at the alter of the State. You will never change these kind of folks. Just like the Union Goons..... They can't fathom self respect, individualism, and self reliance. These folks will forever buy into all the marxian conspiracy theories against the individual.

 

[Carthoris]

And you did not demonstrate any contradiction if that is what you're going for.



ummm. You do realize the south started succeeding before Lincoln was sworn in and they attacked the united states first right? And that Lincoln didn't deliver the emancipation proclamation until the war was 6months old?

So if by support genocide you mean supporting people who were defending themselves against an aggressor who attempted to subvert democracy in order to enslave a race of people, then yes. I totally support genocide.

That is the single worst attempt at revising history I've ever seen. You should be embarrassed for making that post.

First, the civil war started on April 12, 1861. The Emancipation Proclamation was on January 1, 1863. That is almost 2 years. So you are obviously full of shit there.

Second, the first attack of the war was in Charleston, S Carolina on April 12th, 1861. How do you attack your own city? South Carolina seceded from the USA on December 20, 1860. Are you trying to suggest that perhaps the Union army wasn't told to leave South Carolina's land after 5 months of being out of the USA?

 

[Carthoris]

And the idea that it was somehow that was the north's fault contradicts US history. The south decided rather than explain their position to the American people they were going to subvert democracy and attack the united states. 100% of the blame for that goes to the confederacy. The confederacy was wrong and the United States were correct. It really is that simple. All these attempts to make the south out to be the victims are disgraceful attempts to rewrite history.

What Ron Paul is saying is that if you think war was largely about slavery, wouldn't it have been cheaper and 600,000 lives saved by just buying the freedom of the slaves and letting them go? If we can look at it and realize that - do you think Lincoln was retarded and didn't? So, why didn't they do just that if the issue was slavery? Because Lincoln's goal was to keep the country together, not free the slaves.



It was 100% about slavery the whole time. That's it. There was no other driving issue. The American people elected an anti-slavery president so the south decided to ignore the will of the people, broke off, and attacked the united states.



You can't disagree with a fact unless it is not a fact. Attempts to revise history are not facts, they are bullshit.

Once again I must state the most important part that you ignored completely:

What Ron Paul is saying is that if you think war was largely about slavery, wouldn't it have been cheaper and 600,000 lives saved by just buying the freedom of the slaves and letting them go? If we can look at it and realize that - do you think Lincoln was retarded and didn't? So, why didn't they do just that if the issue was slavery? Because Lincoln's goal was to keep the country together, not free the slaves.

Also, did you seriously say that slavery was the entire reasoning behind the civil war and nothing else was involved? No scholar, historian, or person who didn't fuck his grandma would hear that and take you seriously ever again. I mean - seriously? Slavery was in no danger before the civil war and would of probably went on another couple decades unless there was a serious buyout of the slaves by the fed gov. If you don't understand that, then you really need to learn more about your own country.

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

From Abe Lincoln himself. Only wanted to save the union.

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

 

[Windsblow]

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

From Abe Lincoln himself. Only wanted to save the union.

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

Now don't go putting up crap like that.......... We would hate to see documentation of history. We only go by TExt book history round here.

 

[Dan Kone]

Once again I must state the most important part that you ignored completely:

What Ron Paul is saying is that if you think war was largely about slavery, wouldn't it have been cheaper and 600,000 lives saved by just buying the freedom of the slaves and letting them go?

And what Ron Paul doesn't seem to grasp about history is that this wasn't even an option because the south subverted our democracy by forming a new country and attacking us because they weren't happy with the results of a democratic election. Some how you guys are under the false impression that America could have somehow stopped the civil war from happening, but that's a complete falsehood.

This whole picture people like Ron Paul are trying to paint about the evil US government taking away states rights and behaving in a tyrannical nature to trample the rights of southerners is complete 100% bullshit.

This wasn't about states rights. This was about evil greedy slave owners trying to subvert democracy so they could continue to enslave a race of people. The south was wrong and the united states was right. It's that simple. All this revisionist civil war history is a pack of lies and it's shameful that everyone is so willing to defend the rights of slave owners. I can't believe this is even being discussed.

Also, did you seriously say that slavery was the entire reasoning behind the civil war and nothing else was involved?

Yes. That's right. It was about slavery. None of that states rights bullshit. It's not a right to commit crimes against humanity by enslaving a race.

 

[londonfog]

I see Carthoris back from scanning items at Wal Mart to try and defend that Southern Heritage that he claims to not be a part of...lol

 

[Windsblow]

And what Ron Paul doesn't seem to grasp about history is that this wasn't even an option because the south subverted our democracy by forming a new country and attacking us because they weren't happy with the results of a democratic election. Some how you guys are under the false impression that America could have somehow stopped the civil war from happening, but that's a complete falsehood.

This whole picture people like Ron Paul are trying to paint about the evil US government taking away states rights and behaving in a tyrannical nature to trample the rights of southerners is complete 100% bullshit.

This wasn't about states rights. This was about evil greedy slave owners trying to subvert democracy so they could continue to enslave a race of people. The south was wrong and the united states was right. It's that simple. All this revisionist civil war history is a pack of lies and it's shameful that everyone is so willing to defend the rights of slave owners. I can't believe this is even being discussed.



Yes. That's right. It was about slavery. None of that states rights bullshit. It's not a right to commit crimes against humanity by enslaving a race.

JUst because you keep repeating thing doesn't make them so. History is always written by the winner.... And to clear one thing up. We were not a Democracy never have been. That a very basic fact that puts a lot of history into it's correct context. Why did you not respond to the quote of good 'ol honest Abe? LOL!

Why don't you do some simple web searches and you can find quotes of good 'ol Abe and his feelings of the "Negroid Slave Race".

 

[Dan Kone]

JUst because you keep repeating thing doesn't make them so. History is always written by the winner.... And to clear one thing up. We were not a Democracy so. That a very basic fact that puts a lot of history into it's correct context. Why did you respond to the quote of good 'ol honest Abe? LOL!

Why don't you do some simple web searches and you can find quotes of good 'ol Abe and his feelings of the "Negroid Slave Race".

Ok. So tell me, why did the south undermine the results of a democratic election and attack the united states? Please explain what the north did to force the south to do that. Let's hear your twisted version of history.

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

No response to Lincoln saying it wasn't about slavery?

 

[Windsblow]

Ok. So tell me, why did the south undermine the results of a democratic election and attack the united states? Please explain what the north did to force the south to do that. Let's hear your twisted version of history.

Edit

JUst because you keep repeating thing doesn't make them so. History is always written by the winner.... And to clear one thing up. We were not a Democracy never have been. That a very basic fact that puts a lot of history into it's correct context. Why did you not respond to the quote of good 'ol honest Abe? LOL!

Why don't you do some simple web searches and you can find quotes of good 'ol Abe and his feelings of the "Negroid Slave Race".

 

[Windsblow]

No response to Lincoln saying it wasn't about slavery?

Of course not. What do you expect. These are the same folk that think Social Security is solvent. LOL

I love the regurgitation of textbook history about the Government written by the Government. It never seems to raise any flags with folks. Why is that?

 

[Windsblow]

Ok. So tell me, why did the south undermine the results of a democratic election and attack the united states? Please explain what the north did to force the south to do that. Let's hear your twisted version of history.

I don't need to do your work for you. Why don't you do some honest research, set aside your biases and then come up with your own conclusion about it.