On July 3, 2004, Ron Paul was the only Congressman to vote against a bill hailing the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In this speech to Congress, Ron Paul courageously spoke out on the often controversial issues of race relations and affirmative action. He explained why the Civil Right Act had failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society.
Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.
He is NOT isolationist. He is a NON-INTERVENTIONIST. And about the 911 attacks, it’s about BLOWBACK, and like it or not, it’s the reality. That’s why a lot of countries hate us, because we occupy other countries and police the world. So now, almost entire world hate us precisely because of our “friendly” foreign policy and you don’t like him because of his foreign policy?
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
http://waterworldeden4.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/respectful-remedy-of-abhorrent-actions/
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Isn’t individual liberty also about not discriminating based on Race, Creed, Color, or Sex? So therefore it would be unconstitutional to deny service based on those parameters alone, right? So the way I see it, it the Civil Rights Act is more redundant on rights that every human is endowed with (not just Americans if it is truly “God Given”, right?). I can see property rights being eaten away by legislation that masks what should already be claimed and realized. As freedom lovers we can not deny those that seek liberty as well, that would be counterproductive. Anyway, the whole argument becomes a muddled mess. Although I think with “race” being in the forefront more than in recent years, we should take advantage and start to talk about the wounds and triumphs we have had with American race relations. First and foremost, we must remember we are Americans first, everything else flows from that. Peace.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Wrong. Individual liberty means you cannot be forced to work with or associate with anyone based on a government decree. You get to make those decisions for yourself.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
this whole argument is ridiculous. If the Congressional vote was 434-1, then it doesn’t seem like it deserves this big of an argument. In a democractic society, the majority vote rules. Clearly, the majority vote was for the civil rights act.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
Ever heard the phrase “Tyranny of the majority”? If 51% of the people vote to kill the remaining 49%, would that be OK with you because it’s what the majority wants?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
can u please tell us what documentation you are talking about?
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
@Jacob9578 Can you explain what happened to building 7 if it wasn’t attacked by a plane?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@David25 I never said whites were a minority. quote me correctly, thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
I’m the one who said whites were minorities in Texas, somewhat wrong but right in a way. Not sure what you’re talking about.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
President Ron Paul?
http://johnston-sequoia.blogspot.com/2012/01/presi…
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Shawn,
He doesn’t blame America, because he believes the way I do, YOU and I are America. He blames the establishment, crony, military-industrialist government and their 100 years of very bad foreign policy, for 9/11. People err when they equate the entrenched government with the American Republic. If you worked in a company that had exceptional and great employees, but very bad management and terrible policies that bankrupt the company, would you say it’s the employees’ fault for bad business, or management’s? Is it right that employees blame management for losing their jobs, when they could have kept their jobs if management had better policies? So, the Republican and Mainstream Media crams the word “isolationist” down our throats, when Ron Paul constantly says that he is open to trade, and diplomacy, and that waging endless, undeclared wars, which are against the Law, namely, the U.S. Constitution, and all such aggression isolates us from the world, so who are the real isolationist? Our Founding Fathers advocated for “Trade with all, Entangling Alliances with none.” So, you CAN support a man who advocates for the Founding Documents of this great country, and the Constitutional Republic and ideals of the Founders.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
@Patriot Dave you are right on! Thanks.
To those uncertain of Ron Paul’s foreign policy–
Here is why we had 9-11–
Did blowback cause 9-11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjqGBBFiowE
NY Times: http://tinyurl.com/6o3rlcb
Ron’s ‘mind our own business’ ‘do to others what we would have them do to US’ nonintervention FP would have prevented 9-11. We would not have been POing the ME for decades before the attack.
http://debrainwashing.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/what-would-ron-paul-have-done-with-911/#comment-57
Is Ron isolationist? No.
http://paulitifact.com/
“Wiped off the map” rumor of the century- http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century
Ron’s FP–
Same as Founders
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul413.html
Ron’s FP;
Wise,
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/fisk5.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4zKzXFcLN4
Same as Founders
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul413.html
The Original US FP
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/fff-video.html
http://www.examiner.com/conspiracy-in-denver/support-the-troops-by-supporting-ron-paul
Back up for Ron Paul FP–
Former CIA bin Laden expert, M Scheuer backs up Ron:
http://ronpaulflix.com/2011/09/michael-scheuer-former-bin-laden-cia-expert-backs-up-ron-paul-on-911-sep-13-2011/
This also backs up Ron–1 of 4 parts-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSt4L43RbeA
M Scheuer endorses Ron-
http://lewrockwell.com/scheuer/scheuer12.1.html
Jews who like Ron Paul–
Ron is not against Israel-
http://zionistsforronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://www.americansforisrael.com/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2827219/posts
Not attacking any one, just trying to get the truth our to combat fringe media propaganda spin & duplicity regarding Ron’s foreign policy.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
@Deb Harris Lets stick to facts please. Ron Paul needs support from the non-conspiracy crowd too.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
do u have any idea how offensive that is to people who died in 9/11? The buildings didn’t implode, moron. They collapsed.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
He argues that the free market would have eventually corrected these social injustices including child labor etc. Progressives argue that without government intervention child labor would continue to exist. This is not true because research shows that by the time child labor laws were enacted child labor was already on a steep decline because the standard of living for Americans had been increasing and Americans could afford to send their kids to school thanks to the market. Eventually If left alone child labor would have eliminated it self. Same for segregation eventually the American whites would have began to hire blacks because of demand for labor creating competition and eventually other business’s would have to hire blacks in order to keep up. When government forces things on the people it creates rebellion. By allowing the people’s public opinion to change on their own and to figure out that sending kids to work or discriminating someone because of the color of their skin is idiotic, it creates a more pure society. The civil war was fought because of pressure from northerners who believed it was unfair that the south didn’t have to pay their workers. The norths economy was mainly manufacturing while the south was agriculture so therefor they didn’t have a need for slaves. All of this was masked by the morality of slavery.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
@Felipe21 This is ridiculous. So whites would “hire blacks” but still not let them live, eat, play, where they wanted to. People need laws to legislate their lack of morality, such as laws against murder, rape, assault, segregation and discrimination. It’s nothing new. I don’t know where Paul and supporters get any backing of their claim that left to their own, humans act with kindness! Especially when it’s market driven! There is nothing in the history of the world that supports that kind of thinking.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
@inaladeeda @Felipe21 Where do you get backing for your claim otherwise? I don’t need laws to regulate my morality, do you?
Maybe a good example could be seen in sports. It happened naturally without laws mandating it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
@orsigno @inaladeeda There were many whites that marched in the civil right marches. Its not like every white at the time was racist. The people who were racist at the time continued to be racist after the civil right laws were put in place. People were already becoming tolerant and it wasn’t because of these laws. What these laws do is give the opposition reason to organize and isolate themselves such as the kkk. You can’t find support for this kind of thinking because there has never been a time where information was so readily available to people. In the past people were oppressed because they didn’t know any better this would not happen today also because there are people who would not let it happen such as non profit organizations that help people get on their feet. No one system can work in every nation. This type of system would not work in a third world country where the population is not educated. I also believe in socialism but eventually it could only progress a nation so far and eventually a free market system would be required.
What attracts me most to Ron Paul are his economic policies. He predicted the Credit crisis along with other economists like Peter Schiff. He argues that the economy has been declining even though some numbers don’t show it, ever since the Federal reserve was created no matter what party was in control of Washington. Politicians ever since have been covering up these holes until the next election season. They argued that inflation was good at some degree because it meant the economy was growing. This is not true and you can tell this by looking at how today people can not afford a college education while in the past people could work and be able to pay for college.
Both both political parties are big spenders and like war. I’m 16 and I like to engage in these debates to learn more and become a better citizen I am very open minded and am interested in what other people have to say.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
Inaladeeda’s comments perfectly exemplify a Machiavellian worldview that regards humans as inherently wicked, and that they must be controlled by their moral superiors (the state).
>So whites would “hire blacks” but still not let them live, eat, play, where they wanted to.
In 1947, when the Brooklyn Dodgers hired Jackie Robinson, why did racial discrimination by major league teams begin to drop like a hot potato? It wasn’t feelings of guilt by white owners, affirmative action or anti-discrimination laws. It was greed. Refusing to hire talented people due to one’s racial preference hurts the bottom line and places your firm at a competitive disadvantage relative to other firms which do not hire on the basis of race.
Just because I hire you does not mean that I want to live next door to you, or socialize with you. Why is that a problem for you? People like you consider people like me to be evil old racists, so why on earth would you want to live next to me, socialize with me, or sit down for supper with me? Why does your happiness depend on whether I allow you into my club? And why must the law force us to be together when we clearly would rather be apart?
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
@ianqmacallister Baseball is an excellent example of why the “free market” does NOT work for sorting out social issues like this.
Professional baseball got started in the mid-to late 1800s and didn’t ban blacks until AFTER a few had already played alongside whites! It took another 50+ years for Jackie Robinson to come along. So if that is your “hot potato”, I’d hate to see what a cold one looks like. (Or rather, we’ll all be long dead waiting to see it.)
As for the rest of your post, well, it’s amusing to see that some segregationists are still around. But seriously, that particular policy’s not going to make a comeback. Nor will discrimination against women or any minorities for that matter. Never fear though, there are probably still a few groups left you can discriminate against (since that kinda thing seems to make you happy). You might have to look hard though now that all the good ones are taken. Find one and enjoy. Go nuts!
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
@Felipe21 , glad to have you aboard. You give a ray of hope for the younger generation. You are going to inherit the big govt debt & police state.
My son is 26 & he is not half as savvy on politics as you.
Hang in there young blood! Thanks for a good researched post!
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@Felipe21@orsigno@inaladeeda
actually, the federal reserves were created during the great depression, so actually, the economy has improved quite a bit since.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
@orsigno@inaladeedathe existence of murder, rape, RACISM, and all other crimes prove that, in fact, there is a reason for laws regulating morality.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
@orsigno@inaladeeda
being discriminatory in hiring practices DOES hurt people. It hurts people who need jobs but cannot get them because of the color of their skin.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
@orsigno@inaladeeda@Felipe21 you don’t need laws to regulate your morality but racists, sexists, and homophobes do. In the 1960s the racists had a more viscous voice and power than the oppressed, so if ever there was a time for the federal government to stand up for its citizens and as you say “regulate morality”, it was then.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
mmmdee–Like I said way back up in here somewhere
, once the Feds get a foot in the door…
http://www.naturalnews.com/030799_food_freedom_Wickard_vs_Filburn.html
Results of Fed law & ‘ war on [some] drugs’ leads to–
http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2010/aug/16/grandmothers_death_botched_drug
http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/botched.htm
The above is only a few of the victims of the fed laws regarding drugs.
Feds got the RICO Act, another foot in the door. It was supposed to only be for organized crime, now it’s every one.
http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=215
Look at the way the income tax laws have expanded. What a ‘Fed hand in our pocket’ has led to from what is was supposed to be.When first introduced it was supposed to be temporary & voluntary. What do we have now?
So much for letting govt gain a nose under the tent…the road to hell the US is now on is said to be paved with good intentions…are those intentions really all that good?
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Jacob9578 . I didn’t know the ‘Federal’ Reserve was foisted on the US during the great depression. I coulda swore it came in 1913. Silly me. Letting facts get in the way of my imagination.
http://www.scionofzion.com/federalreserve.htm
http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1095269452.php
I take it you go to a government school, so it’s no wonder you have been misguided on this subject. Not making fun of you. I had to learn this on my own also. I went to govt schools as well.
I was playin a bit at 1st, but not meaning to be nasty, hurtful or any thing.
Thanks.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@mmmdee, We do need some laws. But the feds use every excuse they can to add new ones & gain more control over our lives.
The CRA was not needed. There was already a Constitutional provision, the 14th amendment.
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That’s why I mentioned that the Feds could have enforced equal protection under the law in an earlier post floating some where in this part of cyber space.
Thanks.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@SamFox The 14th amendment applies to the state not business and the civil rights bill was as a result of harmful business activities under the jim crowe law that was supported by the supreme court plessy v ferguson ruling.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
mmmdee. , true, “The 14th amendment applies to the state…”. It forbids the state from discriminating with laws favorable to one group over another.
To requote part of the 14 amendment:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;…” The state could not pass a law that said whites could have privileges that blacks can’t.
BUT a private business could decide who they wanted to serve.
Plus, & let me clarify my original point, The FEDS could legally enforce ON the states what the 14th Amendment is some times called, Equal Protection Under The Law. The law in this case = the Constitution.
Thus the CRA was not really needed, but did allow the fed govt another foot in another door.
Let me be clear. I do NOT support racism. I think it’s a sick mental state that needs some kind of treatment. It’s IMO some kind of mental disease based on a very foolish assumption: one race is superior based on skin color.
How stupid is that? VERRRRY!!!
Also let me be clear: I am sick of the Fed govt expanding it self into every area of our lives. I gave a few examples of that in another reply I made to one of your other comments.
I hope you understand where I am coming from. So called good intentions of the fed govt seldom lead to good policies. If the policy takes away my freedom or yours I don’t like it.
That being said, a private business is another subject. Related to be sure, but not to be dictated to by fed laws. Private business owners are also “…Citizens of the United States”. A business owner is IN a state. They are not THE state.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@inaladeeda , actually, the free market has more power to ‘change minds’., so to speak than you realize.
Here is why we did not need another Fed law.
14th Amendment
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Feds already had a law. They did not need a new one.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The bad behavior of racism is corrected in truly free markets. A merchant who hangs a “whites only” sign in his window doesn’t hurt anyone but himself because eventually one of his competitors will hang a “all are welcome” sign in his window and all the non-whites will flock to his business to spend their money so the racist merchant will be forced to do the same or go out of business. The same with hiring. If two businesses in the same field are looking to expand their work forces and one hires only whites and the other hires any suitable applicant who applies regardless of race, then the one who hires without regard to race will grow his business faster and force the other out. Racism only continued in the south because the laws of the time allowed it to exist. The Jim Crow laws are a perfect example of bad behavior being allowed to thrive because of government intervention in free markets.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Felipe21 Sorry, but inaladeeda has it right. If not, there would have been little need for much of the legislation–in the form of Constitutional amendments, etc–since the emancipation of the slaves. After, all they were freed right?? The “free market” had 100 years since then to sort itself out! The CR legislation–not just for blacks, but women, and other minorities–would not have been needed if there were some great , unseen, equalizing force at hand that obviated it. Yet, RP supporters *still* say that the CR legislation was too soon? You’ve got to be kidding! These ideas are nice in theory, (in a society where there are no prejudices and minority rights can be implicitly respected by all) but in practice if the majority has little direct, immediate incentive to respect them they just don’t work. As the saying goes: “Hope is not a strategy!”
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Except that the south had the Jim Crow laws for all those years that allowed discrimination based on race. All that needed to happen was for the Supreme Court to strike down the Jim Crow laws as unconstitutional and that would have solved it.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
He argues that the free market would have eventually corrected these social injustices including child labor etc. Progressives argue that without government intervention child labor would continue to exist. This is not true because research shows that by the time child labor laws were enacted child labor was already on a steep decline because the standard of living for Americans had been increasing and Americans could afford to send their kids to school thanks to the market. Eventually If left alone child labor would have eliminated it self. Same for segregation eventually the American whites would have began to hire blacks because of demand for labor creating competition and eventually other business’s would have to hire blacks in order to keep up. When government forces things on the people it creates rebellion. By allowing the people’s public opinion to change on their own and to figure out that sending kids to work or discriminating someone because of the color of their skin is idiotic, it creates a more pure society. The civil He argues that the free market would have eventually corrected these social injustices including child labor etc. Progressives argue that without government intervention child labor would continue to exist. This is not true because research shows that by the time child labor laws were enacted child labor was already on a steep decline because the standard of living for Americans had been increasing and Americans could afford to send their kids to school thanks to the market. Eventually If left alone child labor would have eliminated it self. Same for segregation eventually the American whites would have began to hire blacks because of demand for labor creating competition and eventually other business’s would have to hire blacks in order to keep up. When government forces things on the people it creates opposition and riots by allowing people to figure out that they have no other choice it creates a more pure and humble society. The civil war was MAINLY fought over economic reasons and not necessarily to give blacks equal rights. Ask yourselves why is America the only country to have fought a war over slavery? The civil war was fought because of pressure from northerners who believed it was unfair that the south didn’t have to pay their workers. The norths economy was mainly manufacturing while the south was agriculture so therefor they didn’t have need for slaves. All of this was masked by the morality of slavery.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mau, glad to help. Good legitimate Q.
It’s not the text that contains what you inquire about. It’s the bill itself. It’s a false flag attack on personal liberty, in this case the liberty & rights of private business owners. Govt used the CRA to get it’s big foot in the door.
If the govt cared about discrimination , they would end the discriminatory war on some drugs. Blacks get locked up a lot more than other groups. NYC has a ‘stop & frisk’ policy that targets blacks & Hispanics many times more than other ethnic groups.
Hope that helps. Thanks.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SamFox You neglect the rights of people of color to live a life free of discrimination, harassment, and the freedom to do what they want. Private business owners are doing just fine, the CRA has not hurt them, compared to what blacks and other people of color suffered in this country before it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@inaladeeda No I don’t. I don’t neglect any rights for any one.That’s why I said ” If the govt cared about discrimination , they would end the discriminatory war on some drugs. Blacks get locked up a lot more than other groups. NYC has a ‘stop & frisk’ policy that targets blacks & Hispanics many times more than other ethnic groups.
I just understand that if the govt gets it’s foot in the door they go all freaky in their efforts to be the controlling factor in ALL our lives as they spread like cancer from one issue to the next.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SamFox@inaladeeda I like both of your comments, because you both make valid points. Personally, I agree with and endorse everything Ron Paul is campaigning on right now, but because of the history of advantaged White America, Slavery, Discrimination, Segregation, Sexism, etc., and because the Civil Rights Act was brought about by a Populist movement, I don’t agree with anything suggesting a repeal of the Civil Rights Act. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, libertarian IDEALS, are IDEAL in a country with either all the same ethnicity, or in a country where bigotry, racism, advantages, etc., don’t exist, and America is not that country.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SamFox@inaladeeda
SamFox, your argument does not make sense. The discrimination by police should absolutely be stopped, but legalizing drugs so they cant arrest anyone will not stop the problem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Jacob9578 ,Good legitimate Q in a reasoned reply.
I did not say it would completely solve police discrimination. Or totally prevent discrimination & abuse by any other groups who are deluded by racist views or policy. But ending the drug war would stop much of the abuse by cops & others, especially in law enforcement.
Copy & paste the following to a search–
Marijuana laws once used by states to discriminate
History of cannabis and industrial hemp prohibition
War on drugs an attack on the Bill Of Rights
War on drugs led to militarization of police agencies
Hemp For Victory, YouTube video
War on drugs is lost
How much is the drug war costing in terms of money
How many innocents have been killed because of the war on drugs
Why does Law Enforcement Against Prohibition call for ending drug war, leap.cc
How many die each year from Rx drug use
How many die each year from illegal drug use
I only put up a few topics, but there should be enough to give you an idea of where I am coming from & why Ron Paul says the war on [some] drugs should end.
I do not advocate using drugs. I advocate that people own their bodies. not govt, & that people should be free to make their own choices. If they commit a real crime when using, they are then subject to prosecution.
All prohibited drugs were once legal. There was no huge problem with addiction or crime then.Explore this one at leap.cc
I say RE-legalize; take the profits from the cartels, end a lot of graft & bribes & save MANY lives. Let states, NOT feds, regulate distribution through dispensaries in conjunction with Consequences Of Use education based on truth, not Reefer Madness style propaganda.
Drug use & related problems should be a medical issue, not a criminal one. Unless a real crime is committed when using of course. .
Thank you.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
SanFox, I completely agree with you that we should re-legalize drugs. You and I both know that for most of this nation’s history we got along just fine without a DEA and a perpetual ‘war on (some) drugs.” However, speaking as a rightest, I condemn anti-drug laws on the grounds that they are wrong, not racist.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Patriot Dave you are a smart man.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SamFox stop and frisk and the war on drugs were not problems for the black community in the 1960s. Problem was discrimination and poverty as a result of this discrimination and the civil rights bill served as a way to begin the process of eliminating this problem. it was wideley accepted by the black communit and civil rights proponents and wideley discredited by racists.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@mmmdee actually they were, though not nearly so much then as now.
What I was saying you didn’t seem to grasp. No offence, not attacking.
What I was illustrating is the point I made that if govt it gets a foot in the door in an arena they can’t be trusted to keep from taking more power from We The People. That once the feds get a toe hold they will try to own the whole mountain, so to speak.
I was illustrating govt over reacah that defies the Constitution.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Shawn, a correction. Ron Paul does believe that it’s OK to amend the Constitution. After all, amending is part of the Constitution & Founder’s intent to deal with future issues.
Your business is supposed to be YOUR BUSINESS! You own it. No one else’s.
You call Ron’s FP ‘isolationist’. I challenge you to show me where Ron calls for the USA to close off from the rest of the world. If Ron is ‘isolationist’ so then were Washington & Jefferson. Ron has the same FP as they do. You should know that. You should be ashamed for being so easily tricked. Please do more research.
Not attacking, correcting.
“Isolationist” is a fringe media propaganda construct, NOT what Ron advocates.
Ron’s FP; Wise,
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/fisk5.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4zKzXFcLN4
The original US FP-
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/fff-video.html
Same as Founders
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul413.html
Is Ron isolationist? No.
http://paulitifact.com/
“Wiped off the map” rumor of the century-
http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century/
Links I posted regarding Ron & Israel, above, agree with the above link.
Thank you for being open minded enough to check this our.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SamFox
Jefferson and Washington were isolationists. They openly declared themselves to be isolationists. And the US isolation strategies in both World Wars led to far more people being killed
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Jacob9578 Would you please back that up. Not attacking or mocking, but I never heard that before.
!st show us where ANY US Founders were isolationist.
2nd show us what the US FP was before WWII.
Thank you.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SamFox
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is inextending our commercial relations to have as little politicalconnection as possible… Why, by interweaving our destiny with that ofany part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils ofEuropean ambition, rivalships, interest, humor, or caprice?… It is ourtrue policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion ofthe foreign world.” – george washington
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jacob9578. thanks Jake. You make my case.
What you are talking about in your quote is not isolation. It’s a call for the USA to mind our own business. You can see from the following that I am correct.
Here is more of what Washington & Jefferson & J Q Adams said–
Tom J: ” Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none. – Thomas Jefferson”
JQ Adams: [Goes along with Jefferson's quote.]
I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. [We could insert "The Middle East" here & do the quote no injustice.] Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. – Thomas Jefferson (1823)
America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom. – John Quincy Adams (1821)
[Cont. next post. I hope.
]
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
From G Washington Farewell Address- [Cont. from above post.]
“Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations [Like the ME] is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe [ME could go here as well.] has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her [As in the ME.] politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?[Again, the ME.] Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, [The ME] entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European [The ME] ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world [ME fits here.]; Wow! Ron Paul is so in line with what the Founders advocated!! Is not that a grand ideal?
YES!! IT IS!!
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I figure someone needed to post this
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Shawn- If a business is owned by a private citizen, which most are in our capitalistic society, then it is therefore private property. You should take a Constitutional Law class or two and learn how to read legal documents and contracts. Perhaps an MBA is in order? About Dr.Paul’s foreign policy… I am an Infantry Veteran by the way… The USA would not be “turning their back” on anyone. Israel and her allies are quite capable of defending themselves. Look at how fast they crush the opposition in a history book. We need to bring all of our boys and girls home. Close up shop.(Lock down the boarders) Decriminalize drugs.(not Legalize everything) Start growing cannabis for production of paper, clothing, smoking, and making bio-diesel. This would make the 10% unemployment rate in America drop quite a bit. Also, we need to re-industrialize the United States. I would do this by discontinuing outsourcing. Tap the Alaskan pipeline, drill for oil off the east coast, and drill for oil in North and South Dakota. Re-open old and make new oil refineries across the USA. All of these things would drastically increase productivity in the USA, decrease the unemployment rate, and basically liberate the people of our country again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I didn’t write that NO non-Asian minorities are qualified for jobs requiring strong mental aptitude, but you will not find them in proportion to their population at large due the average black-white IQ differential. The average African-American IQ is 85 while the average European-American IQ is about 102. If the top professional and managerial jobs in this country require an IQ of at least 115 or thereabouts, then only about 2.5 percent of blacks appear able to compete for those jobs. The comparable figure for whites would be about 16 percent. Total black population with IQs over 115: 800,000. Comparable figure for whites: about 30 million.
There’s simply no getting around this. See “Black-White IQ Differences” by Daniel Seligman. http://library.flawlesslogic.com/iq.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
Paul foreign policy is Non-interventionist not Isolationist. Isolationist want to close off all trade with all countries and be self-reliant. Paul wants to open up free trade with nearly every country, all the other candidates have more isolationist policies than this. It is interventionist policies that let to 9/11. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo
I agree public buildings should not be allowed to discriminate, privately they should be able to do what they want. I think he is referring to the EEOC part, but I might be wrong. My view is no amount of government can change someone’s morals, but the government is supposed to represent everyone so it cannot discriminate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@David25 , your link was taken down. Here are some others–
http://slander.revolutioni.st/isolationist.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4a__tcfFug
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqdH6y4-8xU&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLDF2E16B6A8273AD1
ThanksDavid for a good post.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Thank you for replacing it with some more, it was educational. Very good video with Jack Hunter, great job with the extensive research keep up the good work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ok excuse me, whites are the biggest single ethnic group in Texas, combined the other ethnic groups outnumber non-hispanic whites. So the correct statement would be there are more minorities than whites, sorry.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Depends on how one defines “white.” According to the US Census, white persons in Teas not Hispanic constitute 45.3% of the population. That’s a minority. Texas no longer has a majority. Whites are a minority in Texas just as we are a small minority worldwide.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ianqmacallister And this explains White Anxiety and support for Ron Paul. Fear of losing power and control.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@inaladeeda Wow, who do you work for?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Actually Ron Paul has a decidedly pro-immigration stance, and does not appear to have a racially conscious bone in his body. I disagree with his stance on immigration, and cringed when I heard him praise Martin Luther King as his “hero.” Likewise when he described the criminal justice system as biased against blacks. That’s just foolishness.
I’ll still vote for Ron Paul for his positions on the Constitutional, true civil rights, and sound economics. All other candidates are bought and paid for by Wall Street, the military-industrial-intelligence complex, and the Zionist Lobby.
Regarding the decline of white majorities, yes, I do not like it. So what?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ianqmacallister , the criminal justice system IS biased against black people.
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0303e.asp
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/64
I usually post a lot of links, but 2 are enough for now.
Thank you for a reasonable post. You make some very good points.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
From “Racism and the Drug War” by Jacob C. Hornberger.
First, these days the word “racism” means so many different things that it doesn’t mean anything anymore. There’s racial prejudice, racial animosity, ethnic pride as a white person, preference for one’s own kind as a white person, the study of racial differences, criticizing a black president as a white person, etc. All these these things get shoehorned into the category “racism.” I recommend the book “Racism, Schmacism” by radio talkshow host James Edwards.
Like the term “assault weapon” and “gateway drug,” the word “racism” simply has no fixed meaning.
“In 1986, before the enactment of federal mandatory minimum sentencing for crack-cocaine offenses, the average federal drug sentence for African-Americans was 11 percent higher than for whites. Four years later, the average federal drug sentence for African-Americans was 49 percent higher.”
This statistic might very well be true, but is it evidence of “racism” in the criminal justice system? Listen, I am old enough that I actually remember when the fedgov enhanced penalties for crack cocaine. Do you know who was pushing for those laws? The Black Congressional Caucus. Are they racist?
Check out the arrest and conviction statistics generated in those cities where the local criminal justice machinery – which which carries almost all the burden of the w”war on drugs” – is run BY BLACKS. Do you still see the same patterns cited by Hornberger? Of course you do. What does that tell you? Do you really think that black cops, black prosecutors and black judges are are targeting black offender BECAUSE THEY ARE MOTIVATED BY ANTI-BLACK BIAS?
Perhaps we should look around for other reasons why blacks are more likely to be ensnared by the drug war. The fact is that any given black defendant is more likely to have a prior criminal history than any given white defendant. The fact that these laws ensnare blacks is because blacks are more likely to violate them by dealing drugs or engaging in violence around commerce in drugs, not necessarily because all cops are racists.
If you think that the criminal justice system is racially-biased against black, then you should read The Color of Crime by the New Century Foundation. Colorofcrime.com.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One remarkable thing is that a lot of people here are saying the government should do what is in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and say it should not do some of the things that are not in that law but still vociferously stand opposed to the law. One key thing not in the law is that there is *no* provision which would restrict private employers from discriminating. It primarily addressed public accommodations and voting rights. Paul has an issue with this? Does he miss the good old days where blacks could stay in certain hotels only if they happened to be sports stars traveling with their mostly white teammates but then still had to eat in the kitchen instead of the dining room?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@Reality Check Paul has no problem with voting rights for all. I know of no words he has uttered that could lead to the conclusion that he is against any citizen voting rights.
If by ‘public accommodations’ you mean govt offices & such, he says there should be no discrimination by govt in State of Fed buildings.
Private businesses are a different matter. Those are owned by private citizens & should remain under their control.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This argument has been wonderful in bring a topic out that no one really wants to talk but is needs to be discussed. But the fact is that Paul only objects to the Federal mandate that was enforced and argues that the federal government in no way could figure out what motivated each case of racism, so they put in another one size fits all fix. This needs to be taken care of by the state and local governments to avoid someone coming in from 100′s of miles away thinking they know whats best for the locals but really just impresses their boss in hopes for a promotion.
For the arguments that will come saying there is NO WAY this would work because the southern states are full of whiteys who hate everyone besides them, whites have been the minority in Texas for a few years now under Latinos. Plenty of Latinos get hired here with absolutely no involvement by the federal government (or any government) because they work harder than alot of white people, trust me I live here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@David25 I live in Texas too. Latinos face discrimination here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@mmmdee I didn’t say they weren’t discriminated against, everyone gets it some time or another. Its a part of life for people to hate on you. That doesn’t mean they don’t get hired for positions they are qualified for anymore.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@mmmdee , so why do Latinos, who know bias & prejudice when they see or experience it, keep electing Ron Paul?
You think Ron is prejudiced? Since you live in Texas, why not call Nelson Linder, Austin chapter president of the NAACP, & see what he says.
http://tinyurl.com/bnup9cq
How about what these people say:
http://tinyurl.com/29f3w6
http://tinyurl.com/3znrsqx
http://tinyurl.com/3gk69mhRon
News Letter attack, racist accusations = lib smear campaign
http://tinyurl.com/7o3dvcu
I hope you are open minded & honest enough to at least check these out. IMO you are being conned by fringe media. Many ‘news’ outlets are owned or greatly influenced by Spooky Dude.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nonsense. Every other job I see advertised says something like “bilingual preferred.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@mmmdee I’m from Texas too. Everybody of every shade faces some kind of discrimination.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@orsigno compared to white people, miorities face more discrimination in texas.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Not sure about that. Every time I look through the help wanted ads I see “bilingual preferred.” For some jobs it’s even now mandatory.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ianqmacallister pics or it didn’t happen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@mmmdee@ianqmacallister
iangmc, it’s kinda funny to see mmmdee asking for citations to prove a point.
mmm never puts up ANY back up for statements mmm makes, so maybe mmm is showing another ‘progressive’ double standard, eh mmm???
I have left m many challenges asking for m to prove what m says, but all I get in return is Rules For Radicals jive song & dance around the issue I challenge on.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SamFox @mmmdee @ianqmacallister I had finals last week. i already told everyone that. i’m in the process of replying to everyone today. after showing you my cited work, i’ll expect your citation as well. thanks. And please be mature, except you’re a 6th grader, then carry on with your “progressive double standards” hogwash.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@mmmdee , cite some of my double standards would you please. Thanks.
Hey, I got up to 6th grade already? Wow!! Thanks for the graduation! I thought you had me in 3rd grade, but who cares….
Kinda funny you asking some one to be mature. After reading some of the cussing you do & the snarky names…
You a comedian? Your posts are often gut busters!
SamFox!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SamFox you really are an idiot aren’t you?
when i said “progressive double standards” did you not know i was just quoting what you previously said when you said? or don’t you remember saying “iangmc, it’s kinda funny to see mmmdee asking for citations to prove a point.
mmm never puts up ANY back up for statements mmm makes, so maybe mmm is showing another ‘progressive’ double standard, eh mmm???” ? idiot.
or don’t you see the quotes around my “progressive double standards” when i said it as a mockery towards your delusion?
so why should i cite something you invented out of your delusion?
how about you cite the progressive double standards you can’t shut up about. troll.
I’m not going to be mature to a drone who calls people socialist/lib and other absurdities and accuses me of shit i don’t even know. If you were a more respectable person, i could have a proper and respectable conversation with you, but after reading all your nonsense and garbage shit on this site in response to my previous posts, that is not an option.
I’d rather be a comedian than a delusional idiot that believes telling people to go to cuba makes you seem somewhat enlightened.
fuck off dumbass.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
mmmdee. All you did in your ‘reply’ is call me what you are. That’s an old ‘progressive’ tactic of ‘ label the other guy with what I am’, just like you did by calling me what ya did. By using that tactic you hope to show the other person to be what they are not, but you are. “Racist” is one of the most terms deceptively bandied about by lib progs.
When you said “I am not going to be mature…” you describe almost everything you have posted. Your next to last paragraph is just a dodge, a song & dance to excuse your lack of ability to factually respond that proves my assertion. As does your last sentence.
My delusion? So show us. If that were true & you had any thing to substantiate that I am delusional I am sure you would have posted it right away. All you continue to do is post no substance jive, as in your above post that only obfuscates the issue as you attack me instead of what I say in defense of Ron.
The issue most at hand is that you don’t like Ron Paul. You call him names & put him down, but you NEVER, as I challenged you to do, put up his own words, then show us what’s wrong with what he said or believes.
I even left you links to his foreign policy which you can’t impugn so you sing & dance your way out of any substantive reply. That’s because you cannot take Ron’s foreign policy down with out going out side to fringe media &/or what spin master talking heads have spun to redefine what he said.
Here AGAIN are 2 links to Ron’s FP. Show us where it’s wrong, bad or dangerous to the USA. You CAN”T, so you’ll post your signature song & dance as to why it’s not worthy of refutation. You will continue to say “Ron Paul is isolationist” or what ever you believe is wrong with his FP.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul413.html
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/
Prove your point, not with you immature screeds &/or media ‘analysis’; use Ron’s own words. You are deathly afraid to put up Ron Paul’s own words because you know you cannot prove by them he is nuts or what ever it was you said Ron is or was. You’ll again make up your own juvenile excuses why I am not worthy of reply & junk of that ilk.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@David25 This is what the real world looked like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Robinson. And that was for someone who had it fairly well off. “I see you are an officer willing to put your life on the line during wartime, now go sit down in the back of the bus!”
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@David25 That’s fine now, but this was fought for by the People and brought about by the Civil Rights Movement in 1964. There is nothing in this Act that disadvantages big businesses, and we’d be naive to think that big corporations with entrenched White CEO’s don’t still discriminate in discreet fashion. That said, Ron Paul, President 2012!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Patriot Dave True, if they are real pieces of crap anyone would, that is why we as a people have to wake up, watch and research these people and companies. A lot of CEO’s would screw anyone just to make a buck, a great example is Mitt Romney and his time at Bain Capital. Just as side note not all CEO’s are white most notable recently Herman Cain who is just as bad as Romney with his time serving a head of one of the Fed banks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@David25 Right, not all CEOs are White, and CEOs of other ethnicities aren’t always innocent either.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The truth hurts, doesn’t it hmmh. If what I saw is so false and wicked, then it should be easy to disprove. Instead of pointing out the flaws in my facts or logic, you simply throw a temper tantrum and resort to name calling. Resorting to name calling is a dishonorable way of admitting that you simply have no counter-argument.
The fact is that Congress simply cannot pass any law which undoes that which Mother Nature has ordained. People can still be equal before the bar of justice, but the fact remains that due to the average black-white cognitive differential, the *average* European-American has a higher IQ than 85% of all African-Americans.
Don’t accept my word for this. You can go read the scientific studies which have looked into the question. Go read Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn. Read the study that was just published August 2011 in the Journal of Molecular Psychiatry.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@JoshuaChavers@Ianjmacdonald@classicliberalism@ClintFitzgerald Is this a joke?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That does it for me. I no longer am interested in Ron Paul. Our country must have laws or there would be no freedom for anyone especially libertarians.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@classroom teacher There would be laws, just laws enforced by the state government instead of the federal. As long as they don’t keep others’ freedoms from them the people locally in the state would be free to rule themselves.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@classroom teacher , you get in the corner & wear a dunce cap for an hour!
“That does it for” you? Pray tell why? No citations?
Don’t you do your own thinking & research? Or are you another easy to manipulate Homer Simpson who has been taken in by fringe media propaganda spewing talking heads.
I am not attacking. Just trying to say YOU BEEN HAD!
Can you show us where Ron has said he wants no laws? Where he advocates anarchy? What you posted reflects comments that came from biased news. Not what you would have said if you had looked up what Ron himself actually believes & advocates as opposed to malicious & deceptive purposely misinterpreted Ron Paul statements spun by fringe media.
What Ron was expressing is what he says often when it comes to govt shoving it’s big foot in a door, don’t let them!
Let fed govt getting involved in the civil rights thing & where do they go next? What will they call for controlling next? What Ron was saying don’t let the govt camel get it’s nose under your tent.
Where were the Feds when it came to equal treatment under the law, an area they do have Constitutional backing for.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SamFox@classroom teacher
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4
If anyone has questions about Ron Paul being a racist
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Motov , GREAT VIDEO!! Thank you. I saw it on the side of another site & changed tabs & could not find it again.
Ron is not now nor has he ever been a racist.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Motov@SamFox@classroom teacher
My GOD! A BLACK PERSON! IN A VIDEO BY RON PAUL! I now realize how racially accepting he is.
Anyone can put a minority in a video. It doesn’t mean they aren’t racist
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@Motov@SamFox@classroom teacher
Exactly. I personally do not believe that Ron Paul is a racist. I do believe that he is strongly ideologically driven, however, to a fault. But, for all his faults, which aren’t many, he has way too many good things about his ideology and political philosophy to not support him and advocate and campaign for him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Jacob9578@Motov@SamFox Yes, anyone can put a minority in a video, but not everyone can get a TESTIMONIAL about being helped in a time before Ron Paul EVER thought about running for president. Nerd.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SamFox@Motov because we can tell who is racist just by looking at them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Jacob9578@Motov@SamFox@classroom teacher show me at least 500 black supporters of ron paul and we can have a conversation on the black community’s support of ron paul.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Jacob9578 , that video was not done by Ron Paul. He was surpized by it in fact.
Man., you have yer mind made up, dontcha. I’ll confuse you with some facts anyway.
These videos were also not made By Ron Paul. These people did them on their own FOR Ron.
Defending RP from Racist label: Texas NACCP chapter Prez-
http://tinyurl.com/bnup9cq
http://tinyurl.com/29f3w6
http://tinyurl.com/3gk69mhRon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQkNABSM3fk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PNKT20jSf4&feature=related
NAACP agrees with Ron, also opposes war on some drugs
http://www.naacp.org/press/entry/naacp-passes-historic-resolution-calling-for-end-to-war-on-drugs
News Letter attack = lib smear campaign
http://tinyurl.com/7o3dvcu
Ron interview by W Blitzer on racism,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKBlk1Vpeuw
These are not really intended for you jake or mmm. I know you are close minded & more than likely working for some Soros funded internet hit squad that fears Ron Paul ending the intentional collapse of the USA.
Rather these are intended for honest & open minded people.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SamFox@classroom teacher
Currently the most contraversial issue handled by state gov’ts is gay marraige, which is being handled in a biggoted and unfair manner.
“Where were the Feds when it came to equal treatment under the law, an area they do have Constitutional backing for.”
What the hell are you talking about?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Jacob9578, why don’t you find out? What, we gotta hand feed you every thing? How about reading the document. “Equal treatment under the law” is in there. And it is mandatory.
Sheesh.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@classroom teacher “He who can not protect themself without the law, is either a fool or a coward.” He who can not live without that law is both.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Forced integration is unconstitutional? I quite think that the forced integration of our schools after the end of segregation is a good thing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Do you like how they’ve had to dumb down the curriculum?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ianqmacallister It depends on which state you live in. In Vermont, the public school Education is awesome. The state government controls what teachers can teach, not the federal government.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Vermont demographics
European-Americans: 95%
African-Americans: 1%
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/50000.html
How could the education there possibly be awesome with such a stunning dearth of diversity? Don’t those people understand that “diversity is our strength”?
Must be the fresh Vermont air.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ianqmacallister or it must be that Vermont is liberal not libertarian or conservative.
I think The more liberal or less conservative/Libertarian the government of a city, regardless of diversity, the better the city (or even country in most cases) is in health (better environment laws, better health care polices), education, and living standards, because less conservative/Libertarian governments tend to invest more time into the livelihood of it’s people.It’s their liberal government, and mindset.
For example Barbados has a great education system (99.7 Literacy rate) and it’s 90% black. And other majority black countries like Zimbabwe, South Africa, Kenya etc have good Literacy rates. South Korea also has a great education system, and it’s (99.0 Literacy rate), and it’s mostly non white. So this is clearly not a white/Black thing.
And Although Norway, Canada, Germany and the U.S have more white people in them, Norway, Canada, and Germany (or less conservative that the U.S), have better education and health care.
So there’s that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ianqmacallister And it might also be that a lot of people who live in Vermont don’t think like you. thank goodness.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@mmmdee, problem is, all those things are not mandated in the Constitution for the fed govt to do. If you like big govt & lotsa nanny stateism & the control over the citizens it comes with, you could always move to Cuba.
The problems we are having are because govt has illegally usurped power that is not given them in our founding documents.
Big govt is not the solution. Big govt is the problem!! Many of the places that have all the great stuff you say they do, also have a lot more restrictions on freedom & liberty.
Where does govt get the $ it ‘invests’? From the private sector.
Problem with libs & the socialism they love to impose is that sooner or later they run out of other people’s $$.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@mmmdee , No, that’s not that. THIS IS!
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=HcBaSP31Be8&vg=medium
The above is your 0-care, hope ya like it.
Can’t say I do.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“And other majority black countries like Zimbabwe, South Africa, Kenya etc have good Literacy rates.”
Now there are some countries worth emulating.
(Do you really take their literacy statistics seriously?)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SamFox@mmmdee Also, the more contracts for social programs the people enter into with their government, the more the government OWNS them, and laws that restrict the liberties of the people oppress them in other areas of life. I’m not an absolutist, and say that there is never a place or a time when socialism will not work, but it doesn’t work in the United States. Socialism would morph into communist dictatorship in the U.S. before you can say Soviet Union. The police state and the deterioration of our Constitutional liberties are tell-tail signs that a socialist state just won’t work in a country who’s tradition of Freedom and the MERIT system is still a flame that burns within many Americans. I can do for myself without the “Federal Government telling me which hand to use to wipe my ass.” Like Thomas Jefferson, I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences that come with Liberty, than to those that come with too small a degree of it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SamFox the constitution gives the national govt supremacy over the state governments. Under Justice Marshall, and following supreme court cases like mcculloch vs maryland etc, the national government’s supremacy over states was solidified. The original constitution was not a set in stone rule, it was meant to evolve as time passes. For example the original constitution allowed for slavery and today, it does not. Learn something about history.
And since we are suggesting places for people to move to now, i suggest you move under a rock and live there forever.
You like throwing out vague nonsense without explaining your reason behind this vague nonsense. “big govt is the problem” why? how? in what ways? etc etc. Is it a definite always thing? why is that? and so on. So if you are going to throw out vague nonsense, at least have an explanation ready for it or you are just wating everybody’s time.
“problem with libs and…” *yawn* stop spitting out what you read on bumper stickers and use your brain. Your poorly thought out and mindless repetition only reveals how little you know about socialism. Word of advise, stop watching to much fox news and actually think for yourself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ianqmacallister good question. because european and american companies exploit the lack of labor laws in other countries and make people work for 75 cents and hour or lower while stacking up on profit, and then there are sweat shops. But most importantly is their lack of respect for the housing and living conditions of the people they exploit, their oil companies spill oil in villages, towns, etc, they use up all the resources that the natives would be using to make life more bearable. Watch yes men fix the world and educate yourself on these things. Also nice to note, these companies are 99.9% run by white people.
and germany and norway both have one of the best gdp in europe and they are very liberal. I’m afraid now you will go and look up their demographics and say “aha! no blacks!”
You can’t win it ignorance. It’s either the blacks are doing it or the liberals. how sad.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Social democracy works as well as it does in Northern Europe because the societies are filled with Northern Europeans.
Rhodesia was the bread basket of Africa when Europeans ran it. Now it is an economic basket case.
South Africa under white rule a much more civilized country than it is now. In fact, it was so prosperous that blacks from the rest of the Africa flocked to South Africa for a better life, notwithstanding apartheid. The blacks took it over, and it’s gone down hill. The country experiences rolling blackout. Violent crime is through the roof. It’s the rape and murder capital of the world. Read Ilana Mercer’s latest book on the subject, Into The Cannibals’ Pot.
Same old story all over Africa when the Europeans left. The Africans just could not even maintain the civilization and infrastructure that was left behind by the whites, and things just started going downhill.
By the way, I hadn’t posed a question; I had simply observed the world around me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@ianqmacallister you sound stupid. please stop.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ianqmacallister
If ur saying that black kids being in schools dumb down the curriculums, you are a racist
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If you introduce a child who is in the 80 or so IQ range to reading at the usual age of six, he’s much more likely to fail than children with IQs of 100 or higher, and much more likely to be given up on by the time he’s at an age at which he could read with the same level of facility as the average six-year-old — that is to say, when he’s nine or ten. The average black entering first grade is about a year behind in level of development. A year is a crucial difference when it comes to readiness for reading and arithmetic.
There is a huge academic literature on the gaps in cognitive test results, practically all of it converging on the fact that African American mean scores on cognitive tests fall below the white means by a tad more than one white standard deviation.
You can’t face the fact that there are real differences between the various racial groups.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
@Jacob9578@ianqmacallister if you say that, yes you are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am a realist. Since you cannot handle the truth, you want to shoot the messenger. Why get mad at me? I didn’t design Africans to have a lower average IQ than anyone else.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@DaveJannsen yes intergration is a good thing. But letting the fed govt camel’s nose under the tent is always a bad idea. They never know when to stop.That is why Dr. Paul says what he does about the CRA.
We can’t trust govt to exercise any self control. Especially when the only control they want to exercise is over We The People.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For those who think Ron Paul a bigot who hates everyone not just like him, please google “the question was answered six years ago”. This is a blog from an openly gay candidate in Virginia who Ron Paul put his support behind.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@David25 okay? and? do majority of lgbt citizens support ron paul? do they? are they libertarian or republican? are majority of minorities libertarian/republican/ron paul supporters? are they? ask yourself these questions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@mmmdee Seem to be coming over more and more everyday. 6 years ago no one was talking about anything Paul was, now its mainstream.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@David25 because six years ago ron paul wasn’t a threat. He was a crazy old HARMLESS man. Now, it’s a different thing. He actually has a shot at running against Obama. So now, he’s a crazy old POTENTIALLY HARMFUL man, and any sane person can’t have that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@David25 ps: I’ve always been politically active. Just never cared for Ron Paul, and still don’t actually, it’s just the absurdity of his followers on this page is amusing. Even regular republicans i engage in conversation with aren’t this openly delusional. What i’m reading here is the kind of thing I watch on Fox news, so…i’m pretty entertained.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@mmmdee There is no difference between Republicans and Democrats or between the different news networks. Both parties want to spend alot of your money and either tax the poor or impose impossible fees and fines from regulations on small businesses. Both parties want endless war to save us from the “terrorist” who are pissed off because we’ve been bombing their families for years and just want us to quit occupying their country.
And all the mainstream news networks are paid for by the banks which is obvious from barrage of commercials from BoA, Chase, and others. The banks hate Ron Paul because its his mission to take down the Fed who bails them out whenever they get in trouble for making bad investments (16 trillion at first glance from the audit). Which, if we didn’t have such corrupt regulating bureaucrats in D.C., the rich heads of these companies would be in jail by for fraud. Maybe get some of the money they got for stealing all their customers back since most of it didn’t exist to begin with thanks to our fractional-reserve banking system.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@mmmdee Look up “the compassion of Dr. Ron Paul” to see how crazy and dangerous he is. Don’t just put someone down because some talking head told you so, especially when they are getting paid to do it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
mmmdee. , It’s easy to call names, engage in negative generalities & make inane statements that you don’t back up. Your repetition of fringe media blather exposes you as one who is being led around by the nose by biased ‘news’ media talking heads.
You are a good Homer Simpson it appears. Very easy to manipulate, as your posts show. They reflect no original thought. You do, however, mirror many fringe media talking points whose purpose is to deceive, misinform & manipulate. You got suckered badly & it shows!
Why is it you who major in Ron Paul bashing do the Rules For Radicals personal attack thing rather than doing, say, “Here is Ron Paul’s foreign policy from his own words. See where it’s wrong”? & then point out the deficiencies. It’s not that you oppose Ron. That is your right & I support it.
It’s that in your opposition to Ron you lie. That is NOT right. You should be ashamed.
Why don’t you show us the smoking gun beyond reasonable doubt proof that absolutely proves Ron wrote any thing racist. That HE IS a racist. That he has ever been over heard saying such. How many videos have you found where people are saying “I heard Ron & here is what he said” or videos of Ron in his own words saying any thing racist.
You can’t.
The ONLY thing this ‘Ron is a racist’ lying, disingenuous media propaganda campaign has going for it is a weak attempt at guilt by association. Only shallow souls fall such easy to refute agendas.
Oppose Ron all you want. You are free to have your own opinion. Just make sure it is based on verifiable facts lest you find media gotcha & you were conned & you continue to look foolish when you make unsubstantiated juvenile remarks. Above all, GET HONEST!
Thanks.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@David25@mmmdee
Actually, the last time there was no federal reserve bailing out banks, we had the Great Depression. That was bad.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@mmmdee Harmful to whom? The paradigm that we need to force whites to hire non-whites in 2012?
Let me attempt to shift yours. If you aren’t the most qualified, you shouldn’t be the one hired. Universities are no longer required to become qualified as people realize people aren’t really learning anything useful there other than how to socialize and how to owe a ton of money to people you’ve never met. As a matter of fact, you can get qualified to do pretty much whatever you want without ever stepping foot in a University. The internet is a beutiful thing.
Want to work in the computer security industry? Go get your CISSP and/or Security+ certifications and demonstrate some technical ability (That you learned from tinkering on your personal computer) and I can get you a job tomorrow. You might not start at $100k/yr, nobody does.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Jacob9578@mmmdee The Fed act was passed in 1913 in a nearly empty congress near Christmas, well before the depression and it immediately began retracting the money supply and causing people to live with less. Speculators on Wallstreet made reckless investments that they knew they would get bailed out from with taxpayer money because of their cozy relationship with the Fed. When the stock market crashed people ran on the banks and thanks to our flawed fractional-reserve banking system everyone was stiffed and left with nothing. This caused the Great Depression.
2 lies about the Fed- 1. Its not federal, this is a private bank that sold stocks to get started and has no govn’t oversight. 2. There are no reserves, all the gold for our country has been shipped seas into European banks and god knows where else. The Fed has NEVER been audited which is completely insane. Kind of a long movie but very informative,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs&list=FLjqxoWx4rFgapNfLvVTjzzw&index=12&feature=plpp_video
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SamFox I call people names? look who the fuck is talking? socialist? libs? go to cuba if you don’t like it here? progressive double standards? fuck off dumbass. you are stupid fuck and i’m not apologizing. I don’t even want to have a conversation with you because you disgust me.And you’re the same guy whose been running your mouth about citations right? and where are yours? seriously. I can’t even talk to you, you’re too fucked up to have a conversation with.
I repeat liberal inane blah? coming from the fox news drone, that’s a fucking lot.
Just reading your comments gave me a fucking headache.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@orsigno his harmful to sane people but thanks for pointing out that some white people like yourself are uncomfortable with being forced to do the right thing.
If you aren’t the most qualified for a job you shouldn’t be hired, i agree and i’m sure everyone agrees but that is not what the civil right asks or civil right activists ask. They ask for whites to not be racist or discriminatory towards minorities in the work place. the end. somehow in your head (and in your head only ) this is equal to forcing people who aren’t qualified for a job to take that job over a qualified person, and how that makes any remote sense is beyond me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@orsigno
he’s harmful to sane people but thanks for pointing out that some white people like yourself are uncomfortable with being forced to do the right thing.
If you aren’t the most qualified for a job you shouldn’t be hired, i agree and i’m sure everyone agrees but that is not what the civil right asks or civil right activists ask. They ask for whites to not be racist or discriminatory towards minorities in the work place. the end. somehow in your head (and in your head only ) this is equal to forcing people who aren’t qualified for a job to take that job over a qualified person, and how that makes any remote sense is beyond me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@mmmdee , why? These Q’s don’t take us any where. David25 is right. Straw man per chance…
ron POaul’s liberty message IS quite catching!
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@David25 Thanks David! Great link!
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Affirmative action is nothing less than official, government-mandated discrimination against whites. It requires the lowering of standards overall in order to hire “enough” non-Asian whites. Read The Affirmative Action Hoax by Steven Farron.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In an unregulated market you boycott any establishment that wants to deny someone services because of their race or anything else. This would make it much easier to point out racist and shun them for what they are instead of forcing people to hide the fact and letting it grow even greater in secret. Public opinion was already turning away from the appalling open racism and putting this tactic in action in 1964. If the government would a have stood up and protected Americans right to free speech instead of letting the local police beat them when they tried to protest much of the violence probably would not have happened.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@David25 “In an unregulated market you boycott any establishment that wants to deny someone services because of their race or anything else.”Or, if all the political, social and economic power lies in the hands of the racists, you boycott (or firebomb) any establishment that breaks ranks and treats black customers fairly. You know, what actually happened in real life back when the South got to play by Ron Paul’s rules.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Redmond J@David25 Exactly!
lol just like I was saying to the other guy who was like “People would go down the road to the non racists shop and buy the same product without the government” really? because like time I checked, those people WERE the racists. Like…a horrible majority of white people in the south were racists, point blank.
About this boycotting thing, Back then Whites/Racists had invented a society were blacks could not move forward on their own, blacks couldn’t just boycott white businesses, because back then, the white businesses were the best, and it was purposefully made that way so that Blacks HAD to depend on whites.
But even then, take a look at Chick-fil-a today. Chick-fil-a is openly homophobic and funds organizations and political candidates that are also homophobic. LGBT activists have boycotted this organization for months now (almost a year), and that doesn’t mean anything, because well endowed homophobes still eat there, and Chick-fil-a is still up and running without a hitch.
Back in the 1960s even if blacks boycotted these businesses, it wouldn’t do anything, because well endowed racists (which was pretty much everyone except Latinos, Asian, Native Americans etc) or well endowed non racists who liked the product regardless of it’s harmful policies, because it wasn’t directly harming them and it was cheap (hey i’m not racist, but this is some good shit and for less too!) would continue to buy from that business. (I mean, it even happens today, people still buy stuff from Walmart even though they don’t agree with it’s hurtful/horrendous working Policies. Things are just Cheaper there, so people buy things there).
My problem with Ron Paul supporters is that they have a disconnect with reality. They keep offering present solutions to problems in the past, as if people today are the same people back then, and as if problems today are the same as problems back in those days. It’s a very unrealistic approach to things.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@mmmdee@Redmond J This is why the size of the government must be reduced. When we give power to regulators they becomes corruptible, choosing to help those organizations who they like or can fill their pockets and heavily regulate those they want to be left behind.
The reason the civil rights act was passed is the public outcry, which means the majority of the Americans were waking up the mistreatment of blacks. This outcry began to pressure government to stop looking the other way and stop giving favorable treatment to racist establishments. So for fear of losing their jobs, they began telling people what to do instead of stopping the local governments from enforcing jim crow laws that held minorities back and making sure the little guy could get things done just as easily as those who were already established and well known. Without the regulations helping racist, established businesses and the regulators guarding them, minorities would have a much easier time making just as good a product or service (if not better) as any other business around as long as they worked hard to do so.
I do not disagree with what the civil rights act was trying to do or the good results it accomplished, I just believe that if left up to the the people this would have happened anyway through peoples’ common sense. Once the government is allowed by us the begin regulating one aspect of our lives they will use it to regulate others and gain more power. Just like they did when it helped them gain power by passing laws to hold back minorities, thankfully the country was still run by the people mostly and partially stopped them from doing this.
All of this does require people to do their research before they spend their money blindly and to have a little dignity (which I believe most people do or we would still be a slave country). It may take longer to get things accomplished, but it is the only way to get real change and not force people to be fakes. People have been freed from oppression throughout history only to be held back by those who lust for power. We must pay attention to what people DO not just what they say will do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@mmmdee@Redmond J Actually looking at where our money is going is the number one topic of this election and something everyone (including me) needs to get better at, I for one will not eat at a chick-fil-a again. (Kinda off topic) This points out why the mainstream media is such a sham, because most Americans that I know and talk to have heard nothing of this and should. The news networks lean toward making their bosses money, not forward delivering fair and balanced news that is good for all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@mmmdee@David25 Ron Paul is a throwback to the 1920′s when the Civil War was viewed as a tragic mistake, slavery as not really all that bad, America as an island that could divorce itself from the world and not be affected by what happened elsewhere, racism as natural, African Americans as completely undeserving of human or civil rights, and Hoovernomics as not yet fully discredited. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRx-trdMGtY
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And I suppose you consider the War Between the States a good thing? 600,000 American men killed not counting civilians. Large parts of the South devastated.
It would have been far cheaper to just buy the slaves and then set them free. Lincoln wanted them sent back to Africa.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@mmmdee , I see you didn’t answer my challenge to put up Ron Paul’s own words on subjects then refute them &/or show how he is wrong or bad or what ever.
Whatamatta, you got nuttin you can show us?? Just as I thought. I note you ignore what I asked you to do & continue unsubstantiated propaganda attacks on Ron.
I knda figured you’d do the ignore thing. Shows what you are, a shill troll working for one of Spooky Dude’s propaganda outlets.
Thanks for nothing. But then again, that IS your posting style.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Redmond J , you really hitting the propaganda over drive or what? All you have proven is that you have a biased opinion of Ron Paul. I note that you left no citations, no back up, no proof at all for your guilt by wishful association screed.
I offer you the same challenge I gave mmmdee.I bet I get the same response from you.
Show us in Ron’s own words where he says the USA should quit the rest of the world. How is is an isolationist as you so tacitly expressed in you tirade of lies.
Put up Ron’s own words. Not media ‘analysis’, not Bill O’Reilly spin or other vapid talking head opinion. Only Ron’s words. Use videos, books he wrote, speeches…as long is it is what Ron himself expressed.
I am betting you can’t prove any of your criticisims of Ron Paul this way.
Prove me wrong. You can’t.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SamFox dude…chill the fuck out. I’m studying for my finals. I’m going to get back to everyone (not just you) when it’s over next week. I don’t live on this website, jesus.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@mmmdee, chill yer own self. You have had plenty of time to lie all over the place about Ron Paul, that’s why I called ya out.
Hope ya do well on yer finals.
Hope also that you are an honest & open minded person. All I ask is an honest open minded evaluation of Ron. Not the repetition of fringe media analysis & the deceptive spin they put on Ron’s words & stances on issues as the establishment tries to torpedo the only true threat to the $ pig trough most in the fed govt feed from. Including the military industrial complex.
OK, now we both B chilled, study hard do well & get back.
Please know I am not trying to put you down, though it does seem like it at times I think. It is that I get frustrated when people attack Ron Paul but never prove their case using what Ron himself has said or written.
My comments are directed at your words, not you. If I have attacked you personally I apologize. That is not a tactic I use on purpose.
Good luck on yer tests. Always hated tests.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ianqmacallister buy slaves from southerners who were unwilling to sell them and ship them back to africa were they will be re-enslaved by southerners under their new confederate country all over again. sounds like a perfect plan.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@SamFox what challenge?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SamFox you are dumb.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
mmmdee has to resort to insults because she can not refute the arguments of her opponents.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@David25 That’s a very nice fantasy world to live in, but do you have time to boycott every single organization that discriminates. You finish with buses, but then what about trains, trolleys, mortgage lending, policing, jury selection. How do you boycott the court system? You say the government should have stood up and protected Americans’ right to free speech, but the fact is the Federal government did. Did you forget that little fact? When Americans were killed and police failed to investigate, Federal agents were sent to investigate. When Americans wanted to attend the public schools they had the full right attend, yep, the Federal government had to step in. Instead of putting out these fires one by one, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 sought to say enough is enough. If Paul has an issue with American’s being guaranteed the rights they were born with, then I have an issue with Paul claiming he stands up for the rights of all Americans.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@Reality Check I could boycott the most of those services actually, especially since there are plenty of people who just want your money and don’t care what color your skin is. Jury selection should have some kind of regulation on it to keep a fair jury. The Civil Rights Act did nothing to stop police from racial profiling, which is still out of control so that failed and Paul is the only one who has the guts to take that on. And if you say letting people get hosed down and beaten is free speech I’m sure the Occupy people would disagree. Schools shouldn’t be public and tax credits should be available for homeschooling so parents are responsible for their kids education not the rest of us. If you want to change public opinion you have to get out change people’s minds by example. No amount of govn’t is going to change someone’s morals, it will just make them resent others more.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Ianjmacdonald@classicliberalism@ClintFitzgerald You can hire all the non-whites you want if they are more qualified. You get fined when you start hiring whites over more qualified blacks and can not even hide the fact you are doing it simply because they are black.
White people have it soooo hard in America.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Ianjmacdonald@jwpa13
You will note that MacDonald didn’t use the phrase “degrade into a mostly ethnic student body”; jwpa13 did.
Regarding the “current egalitarian view on race,” it’s anti-scientific bunk inspired by cultural Marxism. Peoples are not interchangeable, Negroes are not merely Caucasians wrapped in dark skin. Read Why Race Matters by Michael Levin (1997). I see that it has been updated and re-released November 2011. See also the works by Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton, and Richard Lynn. Also read Race: A Social Destruction of a Biological Concept, Biology and Philosophy 25 (2010), 143-162, by Neven Sesardic, professor of philosophy at Lingnan University, Hong Kong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@classicliberalism
Ever heard of the Congressional Black Caucus? They exist for one purpose: examining legislation in terms of its benefits for blacks. They meet on federal property while on the public dime, and yet they do not admit non-blacks.
It is a racist organization.
Ever heard of national Council of La Raza (“The Race”)? They are a federally-funded brown supremacist organization.
Non-whites are free to associate as non-whites without being excoriated by the media, or investigated and prosecuted by the government. And everyone thinks that this is normal.
Whites are not allowed the same rights. All I demand is equal rights for whites. We are not demanding anything different than what other races demand.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@classicliberalism
By forbidding deed covenants, federal civil rights laws prevent whites from establishing their own communities.>if other people bother you by simply existing, you have the choice to leave.I have a better idea: restore private property rights and freedom fo association.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@classicliberalism@ClintFitzgerald
All I know is that if I fail to hire enough “non-whites,” federal regulators will fine me. When it come to enforcing privileges for non-whites in BRA (Black Run America), lefties somehow have no problem recognizing race.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I appreciate your remarks. England brought about a broadly successful end to racism in pretty fast measure, based on groups of citizens who spoke out against it and – (herein may be the ‘kick-start’ you suggest) – slave owners were paid by the government for losses from the freeing of slaves that had previously been their ‘property’. England did many things to curb slavery – Wikpedia has a good amount of historical information. Though many people spoke out against slavery in America, our government took a different approach to dealing with slaves and with slave owners and of course the Civil War carved a chasm between north and south that we still deal with today.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Birthplace of Reagan America and Modern Conservative Political Strategy, An Excerpt from an Interview with Eventual RNC Chairman Lee Atwater in 1981
Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he’s campaigned on since 1964 and that’s fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.
Questioner: But the fact is, isn’t it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It seems some people don’t understand. Ron Paul doesn’t want the government’s hand in private business. You don’t have a right to other people’s products, money, service or employment. However in public buildings such as libraries, it’s a different story, because everyone paid for it, it belongs to everyone and thus Ron Paul believes there should be no discrimination in public buildings.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Gregor97 So if Private Businesses want to buy and sell slaves, dump acid into drinking water, and do just about any horrendous thing they feel they need to do, they should be allowed to do so without restrain? really?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@mmmdee@Gregor97 Humans aren’t a commodity and he adheres to strict property rights which doesn’t allow you to pollute your neighbors air or land.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@David25@mmmdee@Gregor97 Polluted air and water are famous for obeying real estate boundaries.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@David25@Gregor97 Yeah, but Big Corporations don’t give a flying fuck. Without regulations they will do whatever they want to do period. History has shown this time and time again. Read about when America was laissez-Faire, before the progressive era, and how bad it was. Heck, look at other countries RIGHT NOW, with no regulations on Big Businesses or the environment. It’s shit. Proper shit. He can believe in a strict property blah blah all day long, but reality CORPORATIONS DON’T. and they have proven it again and again! without regulations on them, THEY WILL DO AS THE PLEASE. And what can poor people do about it? Without money, all they get is a shit lawyer. A shit lawyer vs millions of dollars in the Judge’s pocket from the corporation = nothing getting done, and America going back to it’s state before the progressive era. And if you’ve never heard of such a time, you really need to read about it, and learn.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@mmmdee , says you. If a big corp pollutes ect they will go out of business.
No sane person would do business with them. The free market would shut them down. Pollution & such aw on the downhill BEFORE govt stepped.
Here is ‘progressive’ from old school progs.
Margaret Sanger:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSIeSfCzEfA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=susYD1DL_wY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8R5huKNJk8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3Hy5BiUaf8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEja-1emRic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM2FyiA58KI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUHXHZUcRfI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMhuajIwb6I
GB Shaw:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQvsf2MUKRQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40VegR6uaTI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93eir00rOho
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ6nWn6t1s0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiraPcLi5Mg
0bama-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRgpdw7gYOk
Hill Clinton-lies about what a liberal & a ‘progressive’ is. 0 lies about where he gets donations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2oOoCdFblc
Besides, can you please show us where Ron calls for NO He calls for regulations? Didn’t think so. He calls for a great reduction of regs, but never says NO REGS. He is NOT an anarchist.
Don’t you know ron wants to RESTORE the true law of the land, the US Constitution to it’s rightful place. For that he gets hammered by big govt socialists & control freak supporting fringe media.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SamFox re “No sane person would do business with them.” Or the businesses would move to India, Mexico, China, or some other country were environmental abuses can be ignored by the American consumer.
http://izismile.com/2010/04/19/slaves_at_chinese_factory_that_produces_for_microsoft.html
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@SamFox BP pollutes the air. has it gone out of business?
Ron paul’s website says
A PRO-ENERGY PRESIDENT
As President, Ron Paul will lead the fight to:
* Remove restrictions on drilling, so companies can tap into the vast amount of oil we have here at home.
* Repeal the federal tax on gasoline. Eliminating the federal gas tax would result in an 18 cents savings per gallon for American consumers.
* Lift government roadblocks to the use of coal and nuclear power.
* Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/energy/
and then:
REAL SOLUTIONS
As President, Ron Paul will lead the way out of this crisis by:
* Opposing all unfunded mandates and unnecessary regulations on small businesses and entrepreneurs.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/economy/
excuse me for interpreting that as no regulations on big companies. *eye roll*
hey can YOU tell ME where he says “i dont call for no regulation, just a great reduction of regulation?”
I THOUGHT SO.
and stop flooding this place with opinionated youtube videos. that counts as nothing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@mmmdee@Gregor97 nobody is opening a goddamn slave shop. jesus christ open your f’n eyes. if people want to say black people can’t come into their business then fine, that’s up to them but when you’re selling the same goods as that person down the block and you sell to all races would anyone shop at the racist’s store (racist’s, obviously)? ignorant to even ask a question like that.. selling slaves… sigh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@scottg1089@mmmdee@Gregor97 Nobody’s opening a goddamn slave shop? how silly are you. Today, more slavery is going on than ever before. Educate yourself bro. The only reason that police can crack down on businesses that engage in slave trade is because of the thirteenth amendment. Something that Ron Paul disagrees it with because he thinks it would have made more sense for the union to buy all the slaves from the confederacy instead of force them to end slavery. How that makes any fucking sense is beyond me, cause (just like you), he has so much faith in racist, ignorant white people. You believe that every white person is sane enough not to open a slave shop (even though they are thousands of businesses in America and Europe importing and trading slaves to this day ) and He believes every racist, ignorant white person back then would agree to sell their slaves when they knew they weren’t going to have any more slaves to do their work. really?
In the 1960s when the Civil Rights Bill was introduced, things were horrendously bad for black people. Get your head out of your ass bro. When Black people tried seating in the front of the bus, they were beating and told to go back, when businesses refused to serve black people, they were celebrated. The white people then are not the white people now, idiot. They weren’t moral enough to say “oh, i’ll go down the road and buy stuff from a non racists place” they WERE the racists and LOVED the racists. This was a time when 2 FUCKING MILLION WHITE PEOPLE were openly and unashamedly KKK members. The ONLY way for black people to move forward and start a process towards true equality was if the government helped them as it was meant to do under the 14th amendment. Period. There is no other way. You are ignorant to believe white people back in the 1960s were so good, that they’d happily just give black people full equality without much struggle. You need to go back and read your history,
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@mmmdee@Gregor97 i didn’t even read your entire post honestly, but from the other 2 posts, and the first 3 or 4 sentences you typed this time you’re either A) scared of the white man (lol) or B) you’re a racist yourself.
you are a retard lol. you have to understand by now that white people aren’t against blacks. there’s always going to be a few radicals who are racist (like yourself) just shut the fuck up. and don’t tell people to do research or read anything because you don’t know what the fuck you’re even talking about lol.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@scottg1089@Gregor97 ” Dear Scary Black woman, I’m a dumbass who doesn’t read or know anything so i’m just going to call you a white hating racist who needs to shut up, because it makes me feel more secure, I have no better response being that my brain is illogical and cannot respond to reason, and It reinforces my false belief that I’m right and you’re wrong. You see, I know that majority of white people in the 1960s were racist and very much against black people and even today, that there are still a lot of bigoted people in power and a lot of mistreatment of minorities (blacks, Latinos, women, lgbt citizens etc), I mean, I’d have to live in a box not to know that, but i’m just going to close my eyes and whisper blah blah blah to myself in hopes that the scary black woman (being you) will shut the fuck up and let me live my privileged life in my ron paul delusional bubble of nonsense, sincerely yours scottg1089″–Scottg1089 ( December 2011).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@scottg1089@mmmdee@Gregor97 Thank you Scott for demonstrating the audience Ron Paul’s newsletters were written to attract.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@scottg1089@Gregor97 Thank You Darcee. Good to know some people still know a lot about history.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@scottg1089 , right on. Besides, the constitution NOW says slavery is illegal. That is the kind of regulation Ron Paul wants to restore, the Constitution.
mmmdee, you get that yet?
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Redmond J , maybe so. But also remember, Ron did not write the racist crap & had denounced that foolishness many itme.
The ‘Ron is a racist’ lying smear was answered some years ago.
Since there is no real dirt to dig up on Dr. Paul, media has to program people into a guilt by association gimmick to try to convince the gullible Homer simpson useful idiots that Ron is bad because he is racist.
Ron has never been racist. any one who has done any open minded honest research knows that already.
Note that they attack Ron Rules For Radicals style. They don’t/can’t attack him on his issue stands, his voting record, his speeches or his platform. They don’t want those things exposed to the public or his support would skyrocket faster than it is now.
This is why those who do honest open minded research support Ron Paul for POTUS 2012!!!
All they can do against Ron are the RFRs personal attacks that are now where near truthful. It’s a sad commentary on the US citizen that so many are duped by the duds.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@mmmdee ,lotta words, no proof. Typical.
Show us where Ron is what you said. Put up the proof in his own words. You can’t.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@mmmdee , actually it was Dems who were most racist. And opposed the civil rights act. They try to hide that & even have the gall to say they are why blacks are free. They like you lie a lot.
http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/
http://errvideo.com/Links/24/
http://www.suwanneegop.com/NBRA%20Civil%20Rights%20Newsletter-2.pdf
Now whatcha got to say? I already did your ‘progressive’ ancestors. You gave no reply to that either. Ignoring evidence you are wrong is proving you don’t have much integrity .
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SamFox show us where ron paul is what you said? are you fucking kidding me? i’m talking about the civil rights act in this thread and why it’s useful, not about who ron paul is. can you fucking read or are you a blind moron? can you tell me what i said about ron paul? cause last time i checked i was talking about the civil rights act and how useful it was when it was put in place. YOU ARE A FUCKING TROLL, DO YOU UNDERSTAND? A FUCKING TROLL.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@mmmdee , you going to answer my challenge? Betcha can’t.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SamFox jesus christ. shutup troll.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A truly free market prevents abuses like this. If you don’t like businesses that do these things, you don’t have to buy their products. If enough people don’t buy their products, then they are forced from economic necessity to change or go out of business. It is only when government gets involved and passes laws that allow bad behavior to exist that there are problems because the law negates consumer sentiment as a motivator for change because why should a business change when the government has put laws in place allowing them to do what they do?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Gregor97 I mean, since Private Business are supposed to be “untouchable” or something? right?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@mmmdee@Gregor97 I don’t suppose it’s even worth pointing out that in Ron Paul’s world the Civil Rights activists were criminals trespassing on private property while the owners of No Dogs, Blacks or Jews establishments were simply citizens defending their property rights.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@Redmond J , no it is not worth pointing out unless you can back it up.
You some kind of frog or toad? You sure made a big unsubstantiated leap on that one!!
More RFR character assassination via a flimsy guilt by made up association ploy.
What a gross attempt at deception. YUCK!!
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You obviously haven’t educated yourself very well on Libertarian thought. People and businesses can do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t violate anyone’s rights. So they can’t violate anyone’s property, physically harm anyone, force people to work for them etc. However not hiring or providing services to anyone are not in violation of any right, however forcing them to hire or sell is.
Try reading this: http://www.dailypaul.com/196432/the-right-to-be-racist
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Gregor97 not hiring or providing services to anyone based on their gender, sexual orientation or race is not a violation of any right? how so?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@mmmdee
Yes it’s not a violation, as you don’t have a right to THEIR money, products, service, or employment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Because you have no right to buy goods or services from me. My labor is my own. For you to assert that you are entitled to come onto my property and buy goods or services from me is to assert that I am your slave.
I am a free man desiring to live in a free society. I shall enter into contracts only with those with whom I wish to do business, and who wish to do business with me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@mmmdee@Gregor97
I know you’re thinking that if businesses are allowed to be prejudiced, they will be prejudiced. Yeah, maybe like 0.00001%. The reason being that public opinion has changed drastically from very racist to very anti-racist. Just look at the things people say now vs. the 30s when racial slurs were commonplace.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@Gregor97 You live in a bubble lol.
In countries were there are no regulations of business, AMERICAN businesses open sweat shops, with horrible working conditions and low pay, basically slave labor. In the 1960s, when the civil rights act was introduced, 99.9% of white businesses aka businesses in power WERE prejudiced. And if the government left them alone, IT WOULD HAVE CONTINUED. bigots just dont wake up one day in morning and decide not to be bigots.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@mmmdee@Gregor97
Your first statement is invalid as no country has free markets AND American “sweatshops”. All because there are no regulations on business doesn’t make it a free market; you also need no regulations on the workers and consumers. Otherwise it’s a Fascist system.
Now moving on to your second statement. I recognize that there where many prejudiced businesses in the 60′s; but that doesn’t mean it would have continued. The majority of people were changing their opinion on race, and the market would have strongly reflected that; there were no reasons to have the government take over the whole scene. Just look at businesses who make one controversial comment; they’re dead not because of government, but because of their consumers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@Gregor97 The majority of people were changing their opinion on race in the 1960s (i’m assuming you are talking of white people here), really? can you back that up with the source you got your information from? I want to check it out, because i’ve been in AP World History, AP U.S History, and AP Government and own multiple history books, and i have never once heard or read tabout majority of white people (who ran everything in the 1960s) changing their opinion on race without government intervention (or prior to government intervention). So Please cite your information, thanks. I would love to know where this is coming from.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Mr. Paul, the constitution as originally written acknowledged people’s rights to OWN other people. It took a war and constitutional amendments to end that and another amendment to give women the rights the founding fathers gave to men ONLY
To have life, liberty and a CHANCE at the pursuit of happiness one must have decent job.and a decent education and to some degree a decent home. Your position, taken to its logical conclusion, means that liberty gives personal property owners the right to deny liberty to others.
Your strict interpetation of our constitution would once again give store owners the right to deny any group I do not prefer, jobs If I owns the biggest or only store in a town I can refuse to sell food, clothing, the right to use MY bathrooms to certain groups. and in short order turn back the clock to pre-civil rights times and have segregation today, tomorrow and forever.
NO SIR, the FEDERAL government has a role to play in ensuring that all sexes and races get a level playing field when it comes to the delivery of basic things NATIONWIDE. Separate is not equal. If a mostly white town in a mostly white state decided to allow “private all white ” schools to exist, the public school in at least some of that state’s towns would over time degrade into a mostly ethnic student body. Without the interaction between young whites and other races (who tend to come from poorer backgrounds) we would begin to slip back into more polarized communities. The public schools would be in competition with private ones for the best teachers and the best of all available resources Without a broad spectrum of candidates to run for election to public school boards, public schools would surely suffer and in the course of time die on the vine. The inner city schools of large metropolitan areas now need state tax aide to remain viable, and that is WITH laws to accomplish this.
I like your ideas on the “FED” sir, but on the whole your vision of states rights , and a government so small as to not be able to protect its weakest citizens from the tyranny of the majority leads me away from supporting you.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@jwpa13
>constitution as originally written acknowledged people’s rights to OWN other people.
Oh really? Please identify the specific section which acknowledges the right to own other people.
>Your position, taken to its logical conclusion, means that liberty gives personal property owners the right to deny liberty to others.
You have no right to use my bathroom. You have no right to join my club. You have no right to be my neighbor, renter, or employee. Why would you want to force other people to associate with you? Are you really that so disagreeable?
>If a mostly white town in a mostly white state decided to allow “private all white ” schools to exist, the public school in at least some of that state’s towns would over time degrade into a mostly ethnic student body.
So what? Then they would not have to deal with white oppression.
>public schools would surely suffer and in the course of time die on the vine.
As opposed to the suberb job that they are doing now?
The cold hard truth is that many of us want absolutely nothing to do with many of you. We want you to go away and leave us alone, but you keep blabbering on about how you have some kind of right to force your presence on us.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
1- Ok, in the Constitution, it acknoledges slavery and says Congress cannot move against it for 20 years. 3- Your argument that then minorities would not have to deal w/ racism is racist, ignorant, offensive, and stupid. Segregation is considered by pretty much everyone else in the world besides you to be bad. If you are truley against the ruling of Brown v. Board, then I feel sorry for you.
4- They do have a right to force you to do certain things. They are the government! It would be nice if the government did not have to regulate things, but when people are ignorant, they need to step in! By being a racist asshole, you force the government to be larger!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Who argued that minorities would not ever have to deal with “racism”? If you are a minority in a country, you might just have to deal with the fact people prefer the company of their own kind. If segregation is universally considered so bad, then why do people when left to themselves prefer the company of their own kind? Sunday morning church services and backyard bar-b-ques, for example. Did you know that forced integration in prisons is a complete failure? Did you know everyone in corrections knows that assigning cellmates according to race reduces the level of prison violence? And yet the race deniers are not at all concerned with the results of their policies. In their world, the only thing that counts is that they have such awesomely noble intentions.Why must the government force people to associate with people against their will? Why would *you* want to associate with someone who does not want to associate with you? Are you really so loathsome that you need the government to force other people to associate with you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
If segregation is so universally considered bad, then why must liberals insist on laws forbidding it? If diversity is so wonderful, then must it be crammed down our throats? Are you so loathsome that you must use laws to force yourself onto the company of those who do not wish to be around you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@true show us where “1- Ok, in the Constitution, it acknoledges slavery and says Congress cannot move against it for 20 years.” That’s horse wash. Where in the world did you get that?
Govt is limited in what they can “force us to do”. That is what the Constitution you so dreadfully fear is for.
You want more go up a few posts. I left plenty about the US founders & slavery.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SamFox hey troll, have you heard of dred scott vs. stanford? you know the case that shows not only how the constitution acknowledges slavery but how slaves were PROPERTY and slave masters were PROTECTED by the constitution and law. if not look it up. this is something i learned in 10th grade so you sound like an idiot.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@jwpa13 Horse feathers. You are a liar. Prove me wrong with Ron’s own words.
You Homer Simpson Spooky Dude shills are so easy.
If you knew anything, you would know that the Founder’s constructed the Constitution in such as way the slavery could be abolished.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.arts.tv/lMi7KC4_DbA
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/respub/v6n1/boyd.html
http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=99
“I like your ideas on the “FED” sir, but on the whole your vision of states rights , and a government so small as to not be able to protect its weakest citizens from the tyranny of the majority leads me away from supporting you.” ???? Have any citations to prove your point? It is clear you have no clue about what this paragraph says.
You are so far off base on that one, it’s almost amusing. Not trying to attack or demean. I am just mystified how you could come up with such an inaccurate statement.
I am also baffled by your saying that Ron’s strict adherenec to the Constituion is a bad thing. “Your strict interpetation of our constitution would once again give store owners the right to deny any group I do not prefer, jobs If I owns the biggest or only store in a town I can refuse to sell food, clothing, the right to use MY bathrooms to certain groups. and in short order turn back the clock to pre-civil rights times and have segregation today, tomorrow and forever.”
I agree with Ron. If you let the fed govt over step it’s Constitutional restraints an inch, how long will it be before they are every where in control of every thing. That IS the situation we are facing today. More & more liberty & civil rights of ALL citizens are now threatened because people thought “Oh, that’s a good thing for the fed govt to do.” People all to often fail to realize they opened a Pandora’s box by allowing some of their freedoms to be eroded, no matter how “good the intentions’ may be & how much more the govt would eventually gobble up.
If you don’t want to be thought a complete air head, please prove your case. You can’t because your contentions are no where found in anything Ron has said or written.
If I’m wrong, please show us how, in Ron’s own words. Not media ‘analysis’ or opinion.
Bethca can’t get ‘er done!
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Frank Roman is right. He said, ” Freedom of association. The FedGov has no business whatsoever in determining who we associate or do business with,” and that is moral.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ClintFitzgerald
Thank you, sir! It’s hard discussing racial issues because people get so nasty and personal. It’s usually the liberals who do that, too. They scream racism or make personal attacks about you (like saying ‘get out of your mom’s basement’) or say “there are more nonwhites than whites” (yet they claim to be against majority rule), etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One of the reasons you may find it hard to talk to people about this stuff is because you are racist! Racism was a huge problem, and still is. If you knew anything about America, you would know that minority rights are an important part of our philosophy. Affirmative action may be flawed, but it is still outweighed by the benifits of it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have no trouble talking to people about race. I see that you exhibit the typical knee-jerk response of anti-white bigots in that you simply denounce as :racist” anyone with whom you disagree.
“Anti-racist” is code for “anti-white.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ianqmacallister ”
I have no trouble talking to people about race. I see that you exhibit the typical knee-jerk response of anti-white bigots in that you simply denounce as :racist” anyone with whom you disagree.
“Anti-racist” is code for “anti-white.”"If Ron Paul isn’t the guy who wrote the Ron Paul newsletters, Ron Paul’s supporters are eager to remind us that they’re the guys who read them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ianqmacallister hhahahaha….please tell me you’re not serious..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All I demand is that every individual be treated equally before the law, and that property rights and freedom of association be restored.
I do not seek anti-black laws, I do not seek the restoration of Negro slavery.
And one other thing, speaking, globally, whites are the true minority.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6pzPp1Q2ew
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ClintFitzgerald lolololol. Freedom of association is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests, not the freedom of whites to actively discriminate against minorities. You are really clueless about the constitution.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@mmmdee@ClintFitzgerald It does not however allow federal government to force people to do something, that would be infringing on people’s freedoms to do what they want.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Freedom of association means that I get to decide who I want to associate with, and that you get to decide who you want to associate with. You have no right to get an invitation the parties that I hold, or the nightclub that I operate. Likewise you are under no obligation to admit me to your church, or allow me to join whatever clubs you might run.
It’s called freedom.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@ianqmacallister Hey, i copied and pasted word for word the definition of freedom of association as defined by constitutions around the word (not just the U.S btw), and the definition the U.S courts accept when ruling on cases. In case your brain did not comprehend it the first time, let me repeat it for you–Freedom of association is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests. Does this mention invitations to parties in anyway? really? and let’s get real here, when have any minorities went to court about not being invited to parties? seriously? you are a fucking moron. So let me say this as slowly as possible, just for you, NO. ONE. IS. FORCING. YOU. TO. INVITE. ANYONE. TO. YOUR. PARTY. NO. ONE. SAID. THEY. HAD ANY. RIGHT. TO. GET INVITATIONS. TO. PARTIES. YOU. HOLD. OR. ANYONE. HOLDS. YOU. ARE. BEING. DELUSIONAL. I. REPEAT. YOU. ARE. BEING. DELUSIONAL. seek help before it’s too late.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Freedom of association” means my freedom to associate with whom I want.
“when have any minorities went [sic] to court”
mmmdee prefers to throw a tantrum and call names instead of having a discussion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
OK, mmmdee, let’s accept your definition just for the sake of argument.
“Freedom of association is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.”
You clearly do not believe that whites should also enjoy freedom of association. How would you react to a group of white people coming together *as whites* to collectively express, promote, pursue and defend their common interests *as white people*? We all know the answer. You people would scream to high heaven! You and the rest of the “teach tolerance” crowd would denounce us all as evil Nazi white supremacists! Liberals have such amazing double standards around the issue of race. Blacks can come together at a meeting of the NAACP without fear of being denounced as “black supremacists.” Latinos can associate through National Council of La Raza (literally “The Race”) without being denounced as a “hate group.” Whites are the only group denied that same right.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@FrankRoman
Awwww…Don’t be so sensitive FRANK. There you go again getting your panties in a wad because I don’t share your teenage wet dream. Quit playing the race card and get off the video games kid. Ask your messiah ron paul that if he hates the govt so much, why has he been in it for most of his life. Why doesn’t he decline his govt healthcare? I’ll tell you why, since you need an adult to think for you…..because no private insurance would cover his old ASS….get off the gas and come with a better response moron….I will wear the title of racist coming from a reactionary idiot like yourself….good day FRANK ROMAN…lol
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@harddrive1919@FrankRoman
That’s silly. Government is supposed to be a place for debate and change. To suggest that Paul leave government because he objects to what happens there is to say that he should run away from what he believes in. He’s not a career politician; he had a successful medical practice in Texas. He’s in Washington because he felt compelled. And can you please provide the relevant links to where Paul discusses his GOVERNMENT healthcare? I wouldn’t be very surprised if it emerged that he had only private healthcare. In fact, if you were to follow him more closely, you’d learn that he does not participate in any government program which would benefit him personally at the expense of the taxpayers, e.g. the congressional pension plan. Equally, he has vowed that as president, he would only accept the average American income (about $39,000 per year) instead of the current salary of $400,000.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Informme@harddrive1919@FrankRoman well said sir, it’s a good thing harddrive is a big boy and can think for himself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Freedom of association. The FedGov has no business whatsoever in determining who we associate or do business with.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Some people see a desired ends and are morally ambivalent about how those ends are reached. The social engineers who ripped our society apart with an experiment that the majority of Americans didn’t want finally have their near dystopian society fractured at every conceivable social fault line.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@TroyWilliams!
I remember seeing a video with Humprey (I think?) and Thurmond. Thurmond said the civil rights bill would force businesses to do business with people they didn’t want to, that it would lead to discrimination against whites (which it has) and that it’s best for people to accept people on their own and without laws telling them to. Instead of passing laws making it illegal for people to discriminate against you, why not create your own business? Why is it wrong to discriminate on race (something you don’t chose), but not wrong for a bar to only hire young, pretty females? I mean, they didn’t choose to be young or pretty.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Should women have the freedom to establish their own health clubs so that they can work out free from the leering male gaze?
Should black bar owners have the freedom to not serve drinks to known Klansmen?
Why would someone even want to patron a tavern, restaurant or hotel where they were not welcome?
Should I be forced to hire someone not because I think he’s best for the job, but to satisfy some quota set down by some federal diversicrat?
How can the Black Congressional Caucus meet in publicly-owned buildings on the public dime while excluding non-blacks without facing legal action from the Department of Justice?
Why does the National Council of La Raza (“The Race”), a racial advocacy group, get federal tax dollars year after year? Should tax dollars really be spend funding a racist agenda?
If I run “gay marriage freedom of association” through google I get back 1,700,000 hits. Is it hypocritical for leftists to invoke the principle of “freedom of association” when advocating for gay marriage while denying freedom of association in just about any other context?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@FrankRoman is that really how freedom of association is defined or are you pulling bs out of your ass? think about it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In France, there are no distinctions based on race and I have noticed that the people seem to openly accept all races. In the UK, any quotas or favouritism is illegal. In Germany, all races, sexes, and social backgrounds have equal rights.
In South Africa, they have a form of Affirmative Action, this is what I found:
The policies of Employment Equity and, particularly, Black Economic empowerment have been criticised both by those who view them as discriminatory against white people, and by those who view them as ineffectual.[42][43][44][45][46]
These laws cause disproportionally high costs for small companies and reduce economic growth and employment.[39] The laws may give the black middle-class some advantage but can make the worse-off blacks even poorer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I read by Thomas Sowell-a black man-that the black middle class was actually growing prior to the civil rights movement and the laws being against discrimination. The anti-discrimination laws cost companies money when they are forced to hire people they don’t want to, when they are forced to hire people that aren’t as qualified, which then makes companies go oversea where there aren’t all the anti discrimation laws or massive regulations. This, obviously, leaves more people out of work here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SeekingKnowledge In American, there is absolutely no discrimination in work places, no discrimination by the police, and no discrimination period. Minorities and Privileged people are equal. Let’s get rid of all the laws now. Everything is obviously equal everywhere.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No law will ever make blacks equal to whites.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@ianqmacallister laws will help even out the inequality as time passes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That is nothing but wishful thinking on your part. No law can raise the average black IQ to match the average white IQ. No law can force blacks to adopt better study habits and a work ethic, or make them more future-oriented, or less sexually promiscuous.
I am sick of silly liberals and their delusional thinking.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
I completely agree with the statement that “this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife.” @dariusjjohnson It is true that some people will discriminate, but that is ALL RACES. One of my teachers in high school blatantly favored her race (African American) over others, which caused the rest of us to sit silently and listen, not participating in class discussions (it was a US Government class, too!).
Laws that promote Native American restitutions and Affirmative Action does not promote equality… it does the opposite.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SeekingKnowledge@dariusjjohnson
Communism claimed the lives of 100 million people trying to make things ‘equal’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Communism was not about race. I don’t see your point on this one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SeekingKnowledge
Your claim is that the government has an obligation to take people out of poverty and make them equal. I’m saying communism tried to ‘make people equal’ (the same way the multiculturalists today and ‘civil rights people’ try to make things equal) and millions of people died. There just won’t be equality no matter what. There will always be some group or person that is better off than another. There will always be someone richer than you or smarter than you or better-looking than you, etc. Liberals are always whining about how things are unfair and how certain people aren’t successful.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
yea its about marginalizing the individualist, the bourgeois and the entrepreneur
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
i dont believe in Ron Pauls stance on ending the civil rights act, because some people well make it there duty to deny certain races their service and all that well do is cause more tension and im guessing most of that would be in the south, saying the civil rights act isnt the reason for why we are far more racially equal is not very smart, Just like with his stance on drugs, if people dont want to do drugs the fact that they become legal isnt going to turn them into a crack addicts. And for people that are racist they will be that way whether its legal/socially frowned upon or not. So if you made it ok for them to get a chance to demean there business in a way they can deny service based upon race, and try to show that they are better . than they’re going to take that chance every time they can. The civil rights act doesnt need to be changed in fifty years there should be little to no racism left, ending the act would set us back another 50 years.. although i dont agree with his stance on this topic, it doesnt matter because it is so far “out there” that it will never be passed, since he is the only one who voted against it. So I will vote for him , and i dont put his stance to this topic in that factor..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You miss the whole point. If a business chooses to discriminate then it is their right to do so because it is their property and the government has no business controlling what they can and cannot do with their property or what contracts an individual can enter into (regardless of his motivation which can never be known) if we truly exist in a free society.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DrewJohnson I don’t miss the point , all I’m saying is if people were given the chance to do that again it wouldn’t be better for our society at this point..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@dariusjjohnson@DrewJohnson
That’s not the point again. Where in the constitution does it say one has to associate with people they don’t like?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DrewJohnson What Ron Recognizes that far to many people miss, is that if govt gets a foot in the door in arenas that are popular with a lot of voters, but are un-Constitutional, where will they go next?
Paul is not FOR racism or discrimination. He is FOR liberty & freedom for all, even those who are stupidly small minded racists. Plus a lot of the public discrimination at restaraunts & other private businesses was driven by local ordinences & local govts. Many of the establishments didn’t choose to discriminate, they were forced to by local legislation. Not all, but many.
Most business will go down the tubes if they discriminate. One color that ALL business peeps really like is green. We all spend the same color of money…
Good points Drew.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t believe in affirmative action i think the smartest or best person for the job should get it but i don’t mind where in some cases they have to interview a person of minority because some people dont give minorities a chance even if they are the best candidate. furthermore i do believe that the civil rights act did help end a lot of racial tension maybe not at first, but only once you meet, go to school with, work with, and see how a person of different color lives do you start to understand them and see that they are just the same as you in the end..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@dariusjjohnson Affirmative action is not at all about having to interview minorities; it’s about lowering standards in order to enroll, hire, and promote “enough” non-Asian minorities to satisfy the racial bean counters. The problem is that the average white IQ in America is 102 while the average black IQ is 85. That 17 point different is slightly more than one standard deviation. This means that the average white person has a higher intelligence than 85% of the blacks, and thus any test for cognitive ability will per force discriminate against blacks. No law of man can undo what Mother Nature has wrought.
Your statement assumes that racial tension is caused by lack of contact between members of different races. In my own case, I can tell you that I was a racial liberal through the end of the third grade. Starting fourth grade my school was integrated, and boy oh boy did I get an upclose, uncensored view of blacks over the next nine years, and I quickly learned that we are NOT “all the same.” By the time I graduated high school I wanted absolutely nothing to do with blacks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@regisjbeakensr THIS IS EXACTLY WHY RON PAUL, YOU, AND OTHER DUMAZZEZ AND MORONS THAT SUPPORT HIM AND GET A HARD ON WHEN HE SPEAKS WILL NEVER SNIFF THE WHITEHOUSE. HE WILL JUST CONTINUE TO SELL ALL OF YOU THE WET DREAM YOU HAVE BEEN BUYING ABOUT HOW HE HATES GOVT ALL THE WHILE HE CONTINUES TO COLLECT HIS GOVT CHECK AND HIS GOVT HEALTHCARE AND OTHER BENEFITS…LOL WHAT A BUNCH OF IDIOTS
GOOD DAY
P.S. …YOU NEED TO GET OUT MORE AND REALIZE THAT THE COUNTRY WILL GET BROWNER AND BROWNER…LIVE WITH IT CRYBABY
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
harddriveby, did you know that Ron sends some of his office expense $ back? He has never taken a taxpayer funded junket, he always votes against undeclared war & tax increases? That ending the racist war on drugs is a good thing?
I take it you have no clue what you are talking about. But most of you Homer Simpson trolls from Media Matters don’t know much about him either.
dariusjjohnson, you said,
“furthermore i do believe that the civil rights act did help end a lot of racial tension maybe not at first, but only once you meet, go to school with, work with, and see how a person of different color lives do you start to understand them and see that they are just the same as you in the end.”
I don’t think you know it, but you contradicted yourself. What follows after you said “…maybe not at first…” is how it would have happened without the civil rights thing. Most people were ahead of the curve & knew that racism is, well, very stupid & shows those who are so inclined to be of very small mind & probably don’t have much of a life.
Ron was not against equality. He was against more big govt intrusion. He knew where it leads when govt gets it nose under our tent. They end up taking over the whole place! Look what we have now….
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SamFox I get what your saying , But not everyone was over that curve and some people never would have, if they weren’t forced in the first place that’s all i meant by that
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@dariusjjohnson Some one forced against their will
is of the same opinion still.
Sure they forced. But there was a lot of hidden resentment that is still with us today. If the fed govt wanted to force anyone, they should have been going after local & state cops who did not provide equal protection under the law to ALL citizens as the Constitution requires. THAT would have been Constitutional.
Force is faster, true. But it is not as effective or as long lasting as time. If they wouldn’t get over the curve force couldn’t do it either.
Please remember, Ron is not against equality for all. He does warn against classifying people as groups instead of as individuals. It says a.. men, not all people groups, are created equal.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SamFox I think you misunderstand me I never said Ron Paul is against equality for all. I like that he is against classyfing people as groups as i feel the same way. But i just dont agree with him on wanting to end the civil rights act.. other than that me and Ron Paul see eye-to-eye on most every other issue..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@dariusjjohnson I was not accusing you by my sentence or saying you thought other wise. I just threw that in for ‘just in case’ info. No worries M8!!
By the way, where does the lead article say anything about ending civil rights act? I coulda missed it.
Any hoody, what’s done is done. Let’s get a Constitutionalist like Ron Paul elected. Then a lotta this kind of stuff will fall into place.
@ all readers here-
If there is a better PRO-Constitutionalist candidate out there than Ron Paul, some one with a more consistent freedom & liberty for ALL voting record, for longer, PLEASE!!! Some body! Trot them out!
Any one out there even almost as good as Ron Paul???? Do the research & get back. Thanks.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SamFox Oh i threw that out there because people were commenting about it, because he voted against the act . my fault for listening to them.. but i agree .. Ron Paul for president..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@dariusjjohnson no worries 8*. Tis all good!
No one candidate is going to please all the people all the time. But no one running can come close to Ron Paul’s 30+ year PRO-constitution voting record or platform.
Some of them are now talking a bit like Ron, but NONE of them have his pro liberty & freedom for all voting record & platform or been more consistent.
Have a good one every one!
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@dariusjjohnson@SamFox
There is never going to be equality, no matter how many laws or rules you instill. Some people are stupid, some are smart, some are gifted, some are talentless, etc. Instead of forcing people to associate with you, create your own system and your own circles.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@harddrive1919
Ah, I see: an anti-white bigot closes his kindergarten screed with a declaration that reveals what truly simmers under the surface. Just exactly HOW will your life improve once the white majority is gone? You are a racist and a bigot.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@FrankRoman
Don’t be so sensitive. There you go again getting your panties in a wad because I don’t share your teenage wet dream. Quit playing the race card and get off the video games kid. Ask your messiah ron paul that if he hates the govt so much, why has he been in it for most of his life. Why doesn’t he decline his govt healthcare? I’ll tell you why, since you need an adult to think for you…..because no private insurance would cover his old ASS….get off the gas and come with a better response moron….I will wear the title of racist coming from a reactionary idiot like yourself….good day FRANK…lmbao
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@harddrive1919@FrankRoman
Sensitive? You want to talk about sensitive, hardrive? Frank here seems very polite and well spoken unlike you. What is it with your marxists and anti-white folks that you get so nasty and immature (like saying ‘teenage wet dream’ and ‘go play video games, kid) that you can’t debate intelligently and without calling the person a racist or making remarks about their sex life or whatever? Show me one nation run by blacks or latins that is a first-world civilization.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@harddrive1919
Where did Ron say he hated govt? Ron Paul has been in govt because he is trying to get the fed govt back under the Constitution’s limits the US Founders put on it in our founding documents. .
The title you wear is Homer Simpson. Cass Sunstein said your type is easy to manipulate. He was right.
How long have you been shilling for Media Matters? You should hit Soros up for a raise. You have done a fine job of clouding up the thread with your Rules For Radicals tactics & misinformation.
The fact that you really don’t say any thing & never back up what little you do should make him smile real big for ya & give you a nice pat on the head while telling you “Good little Homer! Keep up the BS misinformation for me. You do the [socialist control freak] ‘progressive’ movement proud!”
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@harddrive1919@FrankRoman Lefties are incapable of engaging in any kind of serious sustained debate on issues, so they resort to ritual defamation of their opponents. It’s as true of you as it is of Time Wise.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lefties have no problem recognizing a black person when it comes to enforcing privileges for blacks in contemporary America. If you’re asking me, then I would point you to J. Philippe Rushton and Michael Levine. “Race” is a signifier for continental origin. If in 1500 your ancestors lived in sub-Saharan Africa, then you are a Negro. If in 1500 your ancestors lived in Europe, then you are a Caucusoid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
See, I disagree here. I usally do not agree a lot with the right side, Im more in the middle that leans a little left. However, Im thinking I really like Ron Paul. Me being in the middle, I usally see more hate coming from the right side and cant get anyone to debate me. Both sides tend to act like children a lot. The right side tends to be real close minded and its my way or the high way. Just the way I see it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And your point would be?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@harddrive1919@regisjbeakensr
Before you insult conservatives for their supposed lack of intelligence, you might want to learn how to spell correctly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And you might want to move out of your mother’s basement….i don’t care if I spell a word or two incorrectly on this dumb website idiot….you set your self up for that one moron
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@harddrive1919
Here you go: making accusations about me that aren’t true as most blacks and hispanics and white liberals do when debating the issues of race. If you want whites and asians and others to not be so prejudice against blacks, you might want to learn how to speak intelligently, not make comments about people’s sex lives (as many blacks do when someone debates them on race), not get emotional and all that. I don’t care for Louis Farrakhan, but at least he speaks well and gets attention because he doesn’t say ‘yo, yo, yo’ or make comments about white men’s penis sizes or talk like a thug.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@classicliberalism@harddrive1919
Harddrive has no rational arguments. All he has are insults and infantile rage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
blacks have abused the system to where whites are fed up.anyone who came here after the war gets on the band wagon for slavery. my ass. 20% of blacks have slavery heritage and many were owned
by blacks. less than 20% of whites owned blacks . italians were treated like blacks till they took over. AND MIGHT I ADD MANY WHITE MEN DIED FOR YOU OR DIXIE WOULD HAVE ONE. NORTHERN WHITES FREED YOU ASS not blacks like people are led to believe. and if i don’t want to live by blacks that is my right that was taken away. and if your interracial your black.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@regisjbeakensr
That’s the whole problem with anti-discrimination laws. If an employer doesn’t hire someone that the law requires them to, they get sued. Then when they do hire that person they are required to hire, it’s still the employee’s word against the employer. There are tons of people who scream ‘racism’ and discrimination just to get sympathy and money. The more laws you place against businesses (like anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action, higher taxes, etc), the more will go overseas and there will be less jobs here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If your interracial your black and white. Just saying. How cme white people deny them and black people do too?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The average African-American is about 20% European by blood. In Barry Soetero’s case, he is half and half, but he has always decided to check the box that says “African-American” so that he could qualify for government-enforced racial privileges in education and hiring. He’s just another no-talent affirmative action baby.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You can’t pass a law making people like each other. YOUCAN pasws laws making people go to the same schools, eat at the same restraunts and live in the same areas, thus allowing people to get to know each other. . If people don’t know each other HOW can they learn to love and accept each other. It’s easier to hate a stranger than to like him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@jwpa13
You can only hate someone (for any reason in your mind) if you have interactions with them. Not only that, but your DNA over millions of years tells you what to avoid and who to avoid based on your intution. I don’t need to tell you a tiger is dangerous. I don’t need to tell you it will hurt putting your hand on a hot stove. You learn these things.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@jwpa13
It is a much cherish liberal myth that hate and prejudice are generated by lack of contact. By golly if only blacks and whites were forced to mingle, they’ get to know and love each other, and everyone would end up holding hands and singing kumbaya.
My school was integrated starting in 4th grade. Up until then I was a foolish liberal. After nine years of daily interactions with blacks, I graduated and wanted nothing more to do with them. I have structured my life so that the only time I have anything to do with a Negro is when they are handing me something over the counter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
ron paul does’nt have alzheimers i do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
keithline if you don’t have a thought to express the issues just read and learn something you wasted a comment. i won’t stoop to your level and tell you how i really feel about your comment., but if you think you hurt anyone we blew you off for what you are. sorry people too many are quite intelligent with all views having some truth to it. ty god bless peace be with you all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree with Ron Paul on this one.
You cannot force someone to like, or accept, someone else. Prejudice has existed, does exist, and will always exist. Every time we see, meet, or speak to someone new we get a fist impression. It’s not a choice we make, it’s inherent. It’s human nature.
That’s not to say that our first impressions are always correct, just that we should stop behaving like it’s somehow immoral, or evil, to have them. What we can control, however, are our actions based upon those impressions. But that’s up to the individual, not the government. I refer to #3 Freedom of Thought, in my article:
http://richardmccord.com/opinions/freedom/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I completely agree with your statement. The government can’t tell when a person is being racist and by developing a law trying to just that is highly ineffective and useless. There shouldn’t be a racial quota in companies but rather you get hired for your skills no matter what the color of your skin is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@kenta.takao Good points.
The govt could care less about racism. Govt cares only about control. They are using any issue they can to expand fed control over We The People. WTP are who they really don’t are for. Govt like to take our $, but they don’t care much for us.
Their lack of care for the people is evident in one regard by the way they have trashed the economy & seek to destroy free market capitalism with high taxes & fees & massive regulation. Also in the way they put control strings on money stolen from people in all the states & sends some it back with said control strings firmly attached.
Their is an element in govt that wants to make us all slaves, so I guess in that regard they are ‘equal opportunity’. Remember ‘workfare’? WF is about making slaves, a little at a time.
If you want to know who was most against civil rights, it was the Dems. They fought tooth & nail against freedom & equality for blacks. You want to know what the ‘progressive’ movement thinks of people of color, go to YouTube & look up Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project. Also look up GB Shaw & find out what he thinks if ‘ you don’t produce enough’ & his take on a ‘humane gas’.
SamFox
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@McCordRM
I agree, too! What annoys me most is that it’s only whites who have been forced really to follow these anti-discrimination laws. The civil rights people seem more to want to ‘stick it to whitey’ than they want equal protection and fair treatment for all. The more laws and regulations placed on businesses since the 60s (like the Civil Rights Act) the more they will leave the country and the more people will be out of work here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0