The Truth About Ron Paul - Part 2

[Windsblow]

THe 2 party system sux because we always take the position of the post above me. Why don't we just grow up as a people and start voting on principle. Not knocking your post flawed, I totally understand, I just am pointing out the obvious.

 

[Windsblow]

i thought ron paul was more powerful, according to you guys.

i mean, he will somehow give us all raises, surely he can employ chuck norris to deliver a roundhouse kick to the media.

Someone doesn't understand the basic economic role of Government. Raises????? Anyone who understand basic Miseian theory, basic economics and supporting Ron PAul wouldn't make a juvenile and idiotic claim as "raises" from a President.

 

[londonfog]

Just to be clear... UB has brought up the GAy thing. I never once insinuated anything about his homosexuality. Him being GAY is not my business and I don't care where people put there penises.

What if it was up you butt or in your mouth...bet you would care then...lol..j/k and couldn't resist

 

[londonfog]

It's too bad RP wont ever get elected. I actually like his message, and it's about the only time I would vote repub. Last election he was always getting 3-5% of the vote, even with all the hype behind him. The 2 party system sucks.

Well its kinda his own fault he will not be elected ...He knows the Republicans will not give him the nod to run in the general, but yet he still ran as one...If he truly had a movement that was so strong and had people really by him and his cause he should be able to run as a independent and make some real noise and get his message out..but I guess we seeing the truth.

 

[budlover13]

It's too bad RP wont ever get elected. I actually like his message, and it's about the only time I would vote repub. Last election he was always getting 3-5% of the vote, even with all the hype behind him. The 2 party system sucks.

But he didn't. That's only what was reported.

http://wearechangetv.us/2011/06/cnn-reports-ron-paul-at-0-while-cnn-online-poll-shows-him-at-75/

 

[Carthoris]

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.

Repeat: Civil war had little to do with slavery. Slavery was not in danger. This is a FACT that is not and cannot be denied by anyone with any knowledge of the war and time. Continuing to do so is retarded.

The president did not have the power to get rid of slavery. The anti-slavery states were not strong enough to get rid of slavery. Also, keep in mind that constitutionally slavery was legal and the northern states were violating the law and constitution by not following the laws requiring slaves be returned. Not that it is right - but if you make a set of rules that must be followed, then you have to follow them too even if it isn't in your favor. I am unsure why you bother to argue points that are clearly wrong.

 

[Carthoris]

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.

Once again, the North could not outlaw slavery due to amendments being a certain #'s of votes and therefor couldn't outlaw slavery and had no chance of getting it outlawed. Just google congress at that time. Also, what part of S Carolina was dispelling forces of a foreign country from its land did you not get. The north was given 5 months to leave peacefully and refused. Look at the circumstances around it . It would be about the same as the US attacking an English fort that refused to vacate after having seceded. No difference. Secession was not illegal as the Constitution did not give the Fed Gov the right to make it illegal. You never went to school did you? S Carolina told the Federal Gov to leave and they refused and started to send more troops and supplies.

 

[londonfog]

^^^^^^so says the guy who also thinks...
"Blacks could of went and bought land somewhere and started their own city that didn't outlaw blacks in the front of the bus, or gave them a better selection of shopping."... unfuckingbelievable the shit I see on this forum

 

[Carthoris]

Can anyone answer what the Civil War was about ???? I bet slavery comes in to play in more then one reasoning...Lazy evil southern states getting money and power off the backs of blacks...feeding hate and cruelty into a nation that was trying to move away from such...Now sure it was more then one reasoning for the southern states to leave the Union but slavery still was a major major player...give your reason(s) for the war and lets see..and yeah Lincoln didn't care about the slave one way or the other his main concern was to keep the Union together but he also didn't want slavery to spread anymore then it had...Southern people who claim that Heritage $hit are just as ignorant as their ancestor...nothing to be proud of when you raping, killing, abusing, breaking up families, abusing, and mistreating another race...

You suggest the North had no part of this entire situation. Slavery is wrong. No one is saying that it was the right thing to do. However, who do you think all the slave produced products were bought by. How can you have a society of laws if the laws are broken in justification of what is right? Wouldn't that justify us all in breaking the law whenever we feel justified? You either follow the law or you don't - you can't have it both ways.

 

[Carthoris]

Yeah maybe they should change it to Lincoln didn't free the slaves, but his actions did.

Or you should change it to "Lincoln worked to free the slaves because it suited his actual goal - which was keeping the Union together even though he did it unconstitutionally and pissed on the very laws he empowered to protect the blacks against oppression. Lincoln used the blacks just as surely as the slave owners."

 

[londonfog]

Carthoris I don't bother to read your shit anymore...your thinking is somewhat of a bigot..Still waiting for you to explain the statement you made that UB uses as his sig. When you made that asinine statement back then I pointed out Rosewood as an example of the cruelty that others did when Blacks did just as you claimed they should have done...You always claiming how well traveled you are, but I fail to see it at all for you still seem to be rather ignorant and travels usually brings some sort of knowledge and understanding of people...

 

[Carthoris]

Well its kinda his own fault he will not be elected ...He knows the Republicans will not give him the nod to run in the general, but yet he still ran as one...If he truly had a movement that was so strong and had people really by him and his cause he should be able to run as a independent and make some real noise and get his message out..but I guess we seeing the truth.

Lets put this all into perspective. 1 in 10 people or thereabouts are very positive to Ron Pauls positions. That means that one in every 10 people you see tomorrow would vote for Ron Paul in an instant. About half would vote for Ron Paul when running against Obama. Every other person you see tomorrow would vote for Ron Paul. So what does that tell you about how popular he is? While he may not be the most popular with Republicans, he is one of the most popular Republicans. Few people vote in the primaries. It isn't out of the question he would win.

 

[londonfog]

A guy walks into a bar, sits down and has a drink. Suddenly, a man hollers at him, ''I screwed your mom last night!'' Disturbed, the guy tries to ignore him.

Again, he hears, ''Your mom was good in bed last night!'' Again, he tries to ignore it. The man is just about to speak again but the guy stops him and says, ''Dad, go home, you're drunk!''

 

[Carthoris]

Carthoris I don't bother to read your shit anymore...your thinking is somewhat of a bigot..Still waiting for you to explain the statement you made that UB uses as his sig. When you made that asinine statement back then I pointed out Rosewood as an example of the cruelty that others did when Blacks did just as you claimed they should have done...You always claiming how well traveled you are, but I fail to see it at all for you still seem to be rather ignorant and travels usually brings some sort of knowledge and understanding of people...

I think I explained myself quite plainly in the other hundreds of words in that post and the posts after that one sentence taken out of context. That quote is about as honest as me quoting Obama as saying "I am from Kenya" when he is saying "People suggest I am from Kenya". You completely miss the rest of the entire post where I say something along the lines of "The government was wrong in not protecting the people who did so, as that was their primary function, to protect the rights of its citizens"

Since I noticed FDD here, is it Rollitup policy to put other users names in your signature? The quote is about as honest taken as a piece, as my taking individual letters from quotes of Uncle, London, and Dan and putting them together to say "We love to suck each others dicks and we love communism" If not, then I guess I should make that my new quote?

 

[Windsblow]

What if it was up you butt or in your mouth...bet you would care then...lol..j/k and couldn't resist

We finally agree. See even we can find common ground.

 

[londonfog]

Carthoris whatever I quote came directly from the individual who said it...no misquote at all..neither is the one that you said...so no edit needed unlike what you just stated you would do...now I do believe that would be wrong...nothing wrong with using a quote in your sig...if you are now ashamed at what you say ...maybe you should think before you type...again no quote we use is edited...you said it ...and it was not taken out of context...hell its your words...Now go run and cry to fdd lol.....Hurry go tell ...I'm waiting for the excitment...ROFL@U

 

[londonfog]

We finally agree. See even we can find common ground.

Definitely on that one...

 

[londonfog]

I am not sure what you base my race on.

I don't think your views stopped any of those things from happening. Mine don't PROMOTE it, they just don't outlaw it. You don't have a right to outlaw peoples views, or what they do with their property/life in light of those views. With the exception being if they are outright hurting someone. They don't have to allow everyone the same usage of their things, they just can't use their things to pointedly hurt someone. Hurting and not helping aren't the same thing, once again.


Blacks could of went and bought land somewhere and started their own city that didn't outlaw blacks in the front of the bus, or gave them a better selection of shopping. As a person you don't have an obligation to other people to treat them all the same. The government does have that obligation, but the people do not. Thus the difference between a public business(A government owned/run business) vs a private business(An individually owned business)

Once again, you are trying to push me into defense of segregation. I will not defend it, and I don't believe in it. I will, however, defend the right of people to do what they want with their personal property. This is a lot like Republican's accusing Democrats of being on the side of terrorists because they don't vote for whatever anti-terrorism bill is on the table at the moment.

Once again, hurting and not helping are not the same. I have a well on my property, my neighbors are both growing veggies. I could give one neighbor water, and not give the other one water. I am not hurting either neighbor, I am helping one of them. You are not understanding the difference. Hurting would be throwing salt on the neighbors plants.

Also, that was 50 years ago. In another 20 years almost all the people who lived through those times will be dead. In 50 it is likely no one alive will have ever lived through it. The laws are not needed to protect anyone in this day and age, and in fact restrict freedom now. It is like arguing slavery laws are still needed to keep people from going out and roping some black folks up.

again how was this taken out of context...I pointed Rosewood massacre as an example of why some blacks didn't do this and you just type another long winded bunch of nonsense...UB use it as a sig.and you claim its wrong...WTF.. get a pair.... either stand up for what you say or don't say it.

 

[deprave]

New Ron Paul Movie, "For Liberty" Full HD STREAMING: http://freedomftw.net/2011/06/youtube-ron-paul-2012-whos-laughing-now/

 

[sync0s]

All i know is you seem to have such a high emphasis on this matter, that is why i asked.
Gay marriage rights, seem to be a real home hitting issue with yourself.
moral high ground, or bigotry is besides the point.
A lot of your posts have such concern for this matter.
Homosexuality is really no ones business IMHO its a private personal matter, not a matter of national interests when, sorry if i offend you, there is far more important shit than gay marriage.
Besides the definition of marriage "a more or less durable connection between male and female lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring." or "a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners."
Domt get me wrong, i believe that homo's or lesbos have the right to be with each other with the same legality of marriage, but it should not be labeled as marriage because its like these gay's want us to re write the meaning of what marriage actually means.
What ever happened to the good ol' days, when gays weren't all in your face about it?
This issue is stupid to bring to the table of national interests, when there truly are far more important matters at hand.
So when you always bring up gays, and gays, and more gays, it makes me wonder what and why that is personally your rebound and talking point.

Who the fuck determines what marriage means? Perhaps this meaning of marriage is the reason why divorce rates are skyrocketing? Marriage is love and commitment in life to a partner for life. Nothing more, nothing less.

Words have no meaning until humans give it meaning. Bigotry doesn't exist unless we choose to be bigots. Finally, ignorance doesn't exist unless we choose to be ignorant. Stop choosing to be an ignorant bigot.

Those were good ol' days for you, while homosexuals were committing suicide because the world considered them freaks. Be proud of a persons individualism and freedom to express their own selves in what ever way they choose.

What can be more important than a matter of personal freedom and a right to choose the direction of your own personal life? Money? Cars? Foreign exchange? Who to bomb next? What slut I'm going to get herpes from next? Choose your priorities carefully, because your priorities can avoid you and affect someone else now, and come back to haunt you later.

Lastly, why is it that when you defend homosexuals, you are labeled gay? Why the fuck does it matter if you are labeled gay if you are not? I have found that in most cases the people who are most opposed to homosexuals, and have the most drastic reaction to the premise of them being gay, are actually hiding something deep down inside.