The Truth About Ron Paul - Part 2

[londonfog]

Back to American History 101 with you. Blacks had the vote in the 19th century there guy. February 26, 1869 to be precise. The act also did not give anyone any rights, rights cannot come from a piece of paper, the act made it criminal to discriminate.

Those things did make racial relations worse initially, only after they had been implemented and a generation of ill conceived race generalizations were proven false did things come together. IMO the act has served its purpose, time to go the way of the dodo. Do we really need government to tell us" Hey you ARE DIFFERENT than other people, therefore we have special programs for you." ??

Please pay the attention...the Voting Rights of 65 outlawed discriminatory voting practices.. the Act prohibits states from imposing any "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure ... stopping those who deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color." In short this law actually stopped the BS that went on preventing the vote of others,but I guess you didn't really know that seeing how you actually think that Blacks really could vote in 1869...Thank you for showing me the ignorance of some...The very reason we should no let these laws change are due to people not really knowing the past and being bound to repeat it...and as far as a piece of paper not revealing the rights of Americans...what was the Constitution for ?????

 

[UncleBuck]

Back to American History 101 with you. Blacks had the vote in the 19th century there guy. February 26, 1869 to be precise. The act also did not give anyone any rights, rights cannot come from a piece of paper, the act made it criminal to discriminate.

Those things did make racial relations worse initially, only after they had been implemented and a generation of ill conceived race generalizations were proven false did things come together. IMO the act has served its purpose, time to go the way of the dodo. Do we really need government to tell us" Hey you ARE DIFFERENT than other people, therefore we have special programs for you." ??

jim crow, anyone?

american history 101.

 

[Carthoris]

WOW ...SO I have the right to let a poor single white lady start her 8 loads of clothes then right when she about to dry them I can kick her out just for being white ?????I should have that right...WTF...dude I would never do some sick shit like that , but you and Ron PAul to think that should be someones right just because he/she owns the business is freakin unbelievable...Glad we have laws to stop shit like that from happening

Having the right to do something and doing it are two different things. I could jerk off with hotsauce while thinking of puppy dogs. That doesn't mean I am going to go get my bottle right now and start. Just like Ron Paul said with the Heroin legalization question:

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

Your confusing having the right to do whatever you believe in vs saying it is OK. You don't have the natural right to tell others what they should and should not do with their property unless they are hurting other people intentionally. Not letting someone use your assets is not harming them, it just isn't helping them. No one has the right to force you to help someone. Example: You don't have the right to force me to build a house for the neighbor and control me or my hammer I would use. I don't have the right to bash the neighbors brains out with my hammer, or break the windows out of his house. That infringes on his liberty/freedom/rights. Not using my hammer to help him does not infringe on him in any way. Forcing me to use my hammer to help him would infringe on my freedom, however.

 

[Carthoris]

That's fine, but I don't see why discrimination is necessary there.

No one is suggesting that discrimination is necessary. We are suggesting that what you should be able to do whatever you want on your property, with your money, or with your services.

 

[londonfog]

yawn......stopped reading when you started jacking with Hotsauce

 

[Girdweed]

...fail to mention the SCOTUS was set up to be the weakest of the 3 judicial branches. Quite a few people disagree withe ruling since a ruling judge should have recused himself

Parker, I will address you once regarding this post, then not address you any further. Your abrasive nature and name calling are rather infantile traits and do not warrant open discussion.

Who do you feel should interpret the Constitution?

The Constitution gave that responsibility to the Supreme Court. Your argument contains no facts, only someone's irrelevant opinion.

You talk about how certain people feel but provide no information to back your claims. Then, you call folks names.

Arguing that the 14th Amendment doesn't say what it says is an indefensible position IMHO.



Good day!

 

[budlover13]

Having the right to do something and doing it are two different things. I could jerk off with hotsauce while thinking of puppy dogs. That doesn't mean I am going to go get my bottle right now and start. Just like Ron Paul said with the Heroin legalization question:

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

Your confusing having the right to do whatever you believe in vs saying it is OK. You don't have the natural right to tell others what they should and should not do with their property unless they are hurting other people intentionally. Not letting someone use your assets is not harming them, it just isn't helping them. No one has the right to force you to help someone. Example: You don't have the right to force me to build a house for the neighbor and control me or my hammer I would use. I don't have the right to bash the neighbors brains out with my hammer, or break the windows out of his house. That infringes on his liberty/freedom/rights. Not using my hammer to help him does not infringe on him in any way. Forcing me to use my hammer to help him would infringe on my freedom, however.

Reposted to FB and soon the RP page and several forums too.

 

[Carthoris]

I stated that some of Ron Paul's ideas (specifically dealing with States' rights) are unconstitutional. He said to prove it. I did.

I'm all for States' rights.

The problem is that the Constitution clearly specifies that the Feds trump States' laws.

The other problem is this question, "Why States' rights and not municipal rights?"

I'd like to see the Federal Government relax quite a few things and spend less money. These two things can be done within the contructs of the Constitution. Ron Paul's ideas are outside of the framework established by the Constitution and interpreted by the SCOTUS.

If we want to scrap the Constitution and start over, argue that point. Disassembling our entire system can not be done the way that Ron Paul is suggesting IMHO. That's why he's not taken seriously by his opposition.

He does have several good points.

A few more gov's and the Republicans will be able to scrap the constitution and start over.

 

[Carthoris]

yes, you libertarians are so much holier than thou. never making insults, especially not ones that use homosexuality as some kind of an insult. fucking asshole.

i would reference the constitution on a case by case basis for where state rights apply.

we have a landmark case on abortion decided on by the SCOTUS. i can not recall off the top of my head one that deals with cannabis, perhaps your smarmy, holier than thou ass can enlighten me.

Don't try to make it gay bashing. As a Libertarian I support gay peoples right to do whatever they want with themselves. I support your right to let Dan tea bag you all you want. You know I didn't mean it in a sexual way at all, and to pretend that I did is just trying to use emotion as a weapon, or to paint me as a racist homophobe. You know, because racist homophobes are always wrong, and since I am one, I must be wrong.

I won't bother to explain how I meant it, because anyone who can read words will already know.

 

[budlover13]

Don't try to make it gay bashing. As a Libertarian I support gay peoples right to do whatever they want with themselves. I support your right to let Dan tea bag you all you want. You know I didn't mean it in a sexual way at all, and to pretend that I did is just trying to use emotion as a weapon, or to paint me as a racist homophobe. You know, because racist homophobes are always wrong, and since I am one, I must be wrong.

I won't bother to explain how I meant it, because anyone who can read words will already know.

Not saying they are, but that is a classic troll tactic. Just an observation.

 

[Girdweed]

. However, what it boils down to is which ideals our Supreme Court Justices hold. The interstate commerce law is applied illegally on many things, and outside of the intent and scope of the law.

Agreed about the Supreme Court. As for application of the Commerce Clause, it's tough for me to see where the law is applied illegally when the main body determining legality makes the interpretation.

The Ogden case was a huge power grab, no doubt about it. The problem with the ruling is that it is legally binding as set up by the Constitution. That makes it legal.



I don't really understand the argument behind the "what the forefathers intended" comments. Several of these guys owned slaves. Ben Franklin made most of his money after running for public office. He ran for office partially so his printing business could get guaranteed gov't contracts. While the founding fathers built a wonderful outline, the details were left to be filled in by the 3 branches.

The joy of the Constitution is that it is a framework from which to build. That is also the largest drawback as it allows interpretation by whoever is around at the time.

I would prefer to see the Federal Govt take a less active roll but I just don't see it happening.

That's why I moved to Alaska. Outside of Palin, we function without much Federal intervention.

I'm not arguing this point to support the idea that government should do as much as they do. I much prefer to allow individuals and businesses much more personal liberty. The problem is that the system is set up to support the Fed. By making the SCOTUS the final say in all Constitutional matters, the founding fathers made them the supreme law.

The lesson learned here is to keep activist judges off the bench @ the Federal level.

Chief Justice John Marshall did more to grow the Federal Government than anyone else in history IMHO.

 

[UncleBuck]

you ron paul worshippers are something else.

make gay joke...had nothing to do with gayness.

i am going to laugh so fucking hard when ron paul finishes in a 3 way tie for fifth place in the primary. i will laugh and laugh and laugh.

i will practically bawl when the turtle fucker loses handily.

 

[londonfog]

and for the record I think that heroin which is man made and cannot be found in nature should be illegal..and yes if they made it legal some people ( kids included ) would just try it "once", but as we know once may be too much....So Ron Paul wrong once again...

 

[Carthoris]

yes, we have those rights naturally. the government can insure them through legislation.

you seriously think our rights can be "given" to us by the government?

You need to reread my statement again, I said just the opposite. You don't need the government to give you your natural rights - you already have them - and they can't be given to you by a government who doesn't have the rights to give them to you anyway.

i'm sure if ron paul was POTUS and vetoed any measures we took to stabilize the economy, we'd all be singing his praises right now.

LOL!

not fact. check his fucking website.

There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. - ron paul, 11/28/2007

The entire quote and the question that it came from was:
Q: If abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?A: The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.



Abortionist means a doctor who is giving abortions. Not the woman who is getting one. This was a question phrased as in if abortion was illegal. Ron Paul says "The woman shouldn't be punished, the person giving illegal abortions should if it is illegal"

Now that I have pointed out that you are using that quote wrong and out of context, you might consider not doing it anymore. If you do it after this, you are purposely doing it to give a false impression about a mans intent or nature, instead of just out of ignorance.

and how can men oppress women? look out your fucking window. check a fucking HR department. 80 cents on the dollar and you seem to think they should not be in charge of making decisions about their own body and their own health. you seem to think a fucking unborn fetus should take precedent over a fucking citizen of our nation.

oh, btw....it was the government who insured a woman's natural right to vote. shove that in your pipe and smoke it. i hope you choke on it.

i admit, a little hostile at the moment. i will burn one.

The fact that you never actually read the Constitution or its amendments word for word are showing. Stop relying on talking points someone else wrote or said.

The Constitution never barred women from voting. The 19th Amendment only clarified who could vote, it didn't reverse anything already in the constitution. That is like saying laws against beating old people made it illegal to beat old people. (They really have old people beating laws) It was already illegal to beat old people. Nothing changed, it was just a clarification to insure correct interpretation, kind of like a Supreme Court decision. Show me where the original Constitution banned women from voting? I don't think any of the Amendments said they couldn't vote before the 19th either. The 14th gave all men the right to vote but never denied women the right to vote.

 

[Carthoris]

again, i'll be sure to go cry some crocodile tears for you poor, persecuted white males and your long history of oppression in this nation of ours.

I am not sure what you base my race on.

i am not accusing you of being racist. i am pointing out that your views allow racism, segregation, discrimination, and the like to happen.

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.

bullshit.

have you checked a history book? back before civil rights, blacks had a limited selection to choose from. choice was taken away from them, and they were often left with inferior choices. i thought you were pro-choice?

seriously dude, check a fucking history book. segregation, discrimination, and the like DID hurt your fellow citizen. only a blithering fucktard would deny this historical fact.

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.

 

[Carthoris]

How can you be for Civil rights but would vote against something that gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters..WTF...The equal protection clause of the of the 14th Amendment cleared the fake claim that property rights beats racial discrimination...Glad Ron Paul will not make it out the primary!!!!! Ron Paul stated "Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry" again WTF..someone tell the man about the 1954 landmark Supreme Court’s Brown vs. Board of education,the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts, the 1965 Voting Rights Act. He actually thinks these cases made race relations worst.. WTF .. hmmmm maybe it made it worst for him due to him having to deal with the other race more up and personal..I myself would hate to see how it would be without it...

The same reason he can not personally believe in Abortion but believe in freedom enough to not pass a law outlawing it on a federal level or to vote to not pass a law that restricts minors from leaving a state that doesn't let them get abortions and going to the next to get one. It is because he believes in Freedom. That ideal must triumph above all others or the only end is authoritarian rule of someone over someone else.

 

[UncleBuck]

You don't need the government to give you your natural rights - you already have them - and they can't be given to you by a government who doesn't have the rights to give them to you anyway.

but they can be insured, and have been. check the bill of rights.

This was a question phrased as in if abortion was illegal. Ron Paul says "The woman shouldn't be punished, the person giving illegal abortions should if it is illegal"

or you could reject the question.

and i will be happy to parade that quote around all i please. i may even make it my sig just to piss off ron paul worshippers.

 

[Carthoris]

and for the record I think that heroin which is man made and cannot be found in nature should be illegal..and yes if they made it legal some people ( kids included ) would just try it "once", but as we know once may be too much....So Ron Paul wrong once again...

How about opium then? Big difference there. By that logic bubble hash is evil and should outlawed too. You are applying your morality to something you like (marijuana) in one way, and something you don't like(heroin) in another.

 

[UncleBuck]

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

but we can and rightly do outlaw actions based on those views.

you can bandy about with your view that blacks or jews should be barred from establishment x, y or z, but if you try to act on those bigoted views and keep someone out of your business which is open to the general public, no dice.

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.

put down the crack pipe and think about it logically. that is one of the most absurd statements i have ever read, even from a libertarian.

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.

by that same logic, we might as well scrap the constitution because, like, we all know what our rights are at this point. no need to codify them and shit.

let's roll a bunch of fucking doobies with the constitution.

 

[londonfog]

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.

I want to call you stupid, but I think you might just be ignorant...One reason is because of racist, lazy, jealous bastard who hate to see others of another race achieve..do some research ..Start with Rosewood massacre after that I will show you more...people like you piss me off and really make me think that Nat Turner should have a freakin holiday