It is currently Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:58 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:09 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:53 am
Posts: 2541
Location: Illinois
Negative Zero wrote:
He broke what rules exactly?


He lies by omission. Paul refuses to talk about his libertarian agenda of repealing Civil Rights Laws, Child Labor Laws, selling the national parks to mining and lumber industries, eliminating Social Security, Medicare, ect. Hiding his true agenda is breaking the rules.

Negative Zero wrote:
Libertarianism is the notion that you can do whatever you want, provided you don't directly harm someone else in the process (in other words, victimless crimes aren't...crimes). It also is for government not intervening in people's personal lives and simply leaving them alone.


This is code for the libertarian goal of eliminating Civil Rights Law. Ron Paul and all true Libertarians wish to return to Jim Crow. Your view of doing "whatever you want, provided you don't directly harm someone else in the process" includes a return to "whites only" lunch counters, and forcing coloreds to sit in the back of the bus.

You understand that, and so does Ron Paul. Yet, neither you nor he will come right out and admit it. Instead you talk in code in the hope that no one will figure out what you really mean to do.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:37 pm 
shoeless wrote:
Negative Zero wrote:
He broke what rules exactly?


He lies by omission. Paul refuses to talk about his libertarian agenda of repealing Civil Rights Laws, Child Labor Laws, selling the national parks to mining and lumber industries, eliminating Social Security, Medicare, ect. Hiding his true agenda is breaking the rules.
He doesn't have to point out every thing he wants to repeal. He basically wants to get the federal government out of everything, not just "civil rights laws," or more accurately described as "civil entitlements laws," as they grant people the right to get things, thus entitling them. I don't support entitlements. I don't want entitlements. Just because you believe the federal government needs to be your fucking nanny doesn't mean the rest of the country should agree with you. Furthermore, he does say he wants to get rid of a lot of that, and fairly regularly. It's on his long list of federal things he wants to get rid of.
shoeless wrote:
Negative Zero wrote:
Libertarianism is the notion that you can do whatever you want, provided you don't directly harm someone else in the process (in other words, victimless crimes aren't...crimes). It also is for government not intervening in people's personal lives and simply leaving them alone.

This is code for the libertarian goal of eliminating Civil Rights Law. Ron Paul and all true Libertarians wish to return to Jim Crow. Your view of doing "whatever you want, provided you don't directly harm someone else in the process" includes a return to "whites only" lunch counters, and forcing coloreds to sit in the back of the bus.
Actually, no. While I'm not in support of government intervention, I do not therefore want bus companies forcing people to sit on the back of the bus based on the color of their skin, so I would boycott that bus company myself. The government was wrong to tell Martin Luther King Jr. and his followers that they can't boycott the bus, and then the government was wrong again to say that not only is their previous mistake revoked, but the bus company itself was required to have non-racist policies by law.

shoeless wrote:
You understand that, and so does Ron Paul. Yet, neither you nor he will come right out and admit it. Instead you talk in code in the hope that no one will figure out what you really mean to do.
This reminds me of the McCarthy era. "All Commies want to subvert our nation and burn the flag." Likewise, the same dipshit logic of, "All libertarians want black people back in the cotton fields!" is being spouted by you.

Fail.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:09 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:53 am
Posts: 2541
Location: Illinois
Negative Zero wrote:
He doesn't have to point out every thing he wants to repeal. He basically wants to get the federal government out of everything, not just "civil rights laws,"...

Furthermore, he does say he wants to get rid of a lot of that, and fairly regularly.


Oh, so now you admit that Ron Paul wants to gid rid of Civil Right Law. Please give an example of Ron Paul admitting such during the current presidential campaign.

Negative Zero wrote:
While I'm not in support of government intervention, I do not therefore want bus companies forcing people to sit on the back of the bus based on the color of their skin, so I would boycott that bus company myself.


Sure you would. :wink:

Negative Zero wrote:
The government was wrong to tell Martin Luther King Jr. and his followers that they can't boycott the bus, and then the government was wrong again to say that not only is their previous mistake revoked, but the bus company itself was required to have non-racist policies by law.


In other words, you favor repeal of Civil Rights Law. Why can't you come out and say it? Why can't Ron Paul come right out and make a public speech calling for the repeal of Civil Rights Law? I'll tell you why not. Because, if he did, his campaign would be over within the day. Therefore, he hides his aganda.

Negative Zero wrote:
This reminds me of the McCarthy era. "All Commies want to subvert our nation and burn the flag." Likewise, the same dipshit logic of, "All libertarians want black people back in the cotton fields!" is being spouted by you.

Fail.


:lol: Why, because I called you on your (and Ron Paul's) goal of repealing Civil Rights Law? That's what you want, isn't it? What's the matter? Can't you defend your own platform?

How pathetic. When someone finally exposes the libertarian goal of a return to Jim Crow, you just get angry that your secret plan has been revealed, and cry "McCarthyism"!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:05 pm 
shoeless wrote:
Oh, so now you admit that Ron Paul wants to gid rid of Civil Right Law. Please give an example of Ron Paul admitting such during the current presidential campaign.
No, I want to repeal government involvement. It'd be one thing if the "Civil Rights Law" you describe were the only thing I want to repeal. I want to repeal quite a bit. Your argument is called a strawman.

shoeless wrote:
Sure you would. :wink:
I have nothing to say to this as it can be summed up as you just insinuating that I'm a racist, again.

shoeless wrote:
In other words, you favor repeal of Civil Rights Law. Why can't you come out and say it? Why can't Ron Paul come right out and make a public speech calling for the repeal of Civil Rights Law? I'll tell you why not. Because, if he did, his campaign would be over within the day. Therefore, he hides his aganda.
Don't you mean agenda? And no, he doesn't hide his agenda. If you ask him if he wants to repeal special treatment law, he will say he does.

shoeless wrote:
:lol: Why, because I called you on your (and Ron Paul's) goal of repealing Civil Rights Law? That's what you want, isn't it? What's the matter? Can't you defend your own platform?
My platform is not based on repealing "Civil Rights Law." That would be like saying your platform is to make people superior based on the color of their skin, because you support Affirmative Action, which gives people special treatment in job hiring and college admission [1], which meets the second dictionary definition of racism [2] It doesn't logically follow, and your analogy fails. If I support racism, then so do you since you want to give people special treatment by Federal law based on their race. QED, bitch.

And actually, no, I can't defend my platform when I'm banned from your board for expressing a different opinion than your own.

shoeless wrote:
How pathetic. When someone finally exposes the libertarian goal of a return to Jim Crow, you just get angry that your secret plan has been revealed, and cry "McCarthyism"!
Oh you got me. You got me at my secret goal of white supremacy, and my desire to revoke all civil liberties by granting too many civil liberties. You clever man, you.

P.S., the race card fails in a logical debate, but nice try.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:29 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:53 am
Posts: 2541
Location: Illinois
That One Guy wrote:
No, I want to repeal government involvement.


More libertarian code. You guys sure think you are clever. Now, please give a documented example of Ron Paul saying he would repeal Civil Rights Law (without using code words) during the current presidential campaign, as you claimed without basis in a previous post.

That One Guy wrote:
Don't you mean agenda? And no, he doesn't hide his agenda. If you ask him if he wants to repeal special treatment law, he will say he does.


Once again with the libertarian code words. Aren't you the sly one. C'mon son. What's the matter? Can't you just say it? Say, "I want to repeal the 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS." That's what you and Ron Paul want to do. Just come clean and spit it out. Then send an email to your candidate and ask him to do the same. It will make both of you feel better.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 6:32 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:53 am
Posts: 2541
Location: Illinois
That Final Guy wrote:
And to you, my dear shoeless:
shoeless wrote:
More libertarian code. You guys sure think you are clever. Now, please give a documented example of Ron Paul saying he would repeal Civil Rights Law (without using code words) during the current presidential campaign, as you claimed without basis in a previous post.


He wants to have individual liberties. Not racial ones.

Ron Paul wrote:
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.


More clever libertarian code. Translated: Liberty means the right of the free market to discriminate based on skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

That Final Guy wrote:
shoeless wrote:
Once again with the libertarian code words. Aren't you the sly one. C'mon son. What's the matter? Can't you just say it? Say, "I want to repeal the 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS." That's what you and Ron Paul want to do. Just come clean and spit it out. Then send an email to your candidate and ask him to do the same. It will make both of you feel better.
You know, you're right. I do want to repeal "Civil Rights Law," on the basis that it doesn't grant civil rights.


Good boy! Speaking honestly, without code words, is an excellent first step. Don't you feel better now? If you want to feel even better, write Ron Paul and ask him to publicly proclaim his opposition to Civil Rights Law.

That Final Guy wrote:
Is race an acceptable trait to put into LEGAL CONSIDERATION, or not? You have the following options: yes, no


That's easy. Yes. When people are discriminated against because of their race, LEGAL CONSIDERATION must be used to protect them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:51 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 11:46 pm
Posts: 14444
Location: NC
TEA PARTY BENEFITS PAUL

_________________
Image

"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime."
Honore de Balzac

"Democrats work to help people who need help.
That other party, they work for people who don't need help.
That's all there is to it."

~Harry S. Truman


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 6:47 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:02 am
Posts: 1148
Location: Mill Valley, CA
Catherine wrote:

Aren't they sort of distorting history?

I'll buy it if the claim is that a Bush monarchy has not done much to represent this country, and therefore our taxes should not go to him.

But I think the "Boston Tea Party" reference is a more general attack on taxes in general.

_________________
Which way is up?

I haven't used this screen name elsewhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:19 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:53 am
Posts: 2541
Location: Illinois
Channel Zero wrote:
Catherine wrote:

Aren't they sort of distorting history?

I'll buy it if the claim is that a Bush monarchy has not done much to represent this country, and therefore our taxes should not go to him.

But I think the "Boston Tea Party" reference is a more general attack on taxes in general.


It was an attack on the unfair collusion between the British government and the English East India Company. The colonists were not happy about the corporatist policies of their government which fostered a monopoly on imports.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h646.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:40 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007 11:37 pm
Posts: 1646
Location: Denver
I hope you folks enjoy perpetual war because that is what your insider, corporate approved candidate likely had to approve in order to keep their status and maintain their funding.

Unless you are backing Kucinich or Gavel or something along those lines.

This is how the monsters keep succeeding in their end runs. They have the public bickering about relative trivia while they steal and murder ad infinitum.

_________________
"If the people allow private banks to control their currency the banks and corporations will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:29 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:53 am
Posts: 2541
Location: Illinois
James Kirchick of The New Republic has just exposed 20 years of racist newsletters by Ron Paul.

Angry White Man
The bigoted past of Ron Paul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:58 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 11:46 pm
Posts: 14444
Location: NC
Uh-Oh...this is Ron Paul's little blue dress.


Quote:
To understand Paul's philosophy, the best place to start is probably the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Auburn, Alabama. The institute is named for a libertarian Austrian economist, but it was founded by a man named Lew Rockwell, who also served as Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982. Paul has had a long and prominent association with the institute, teaching at its seminars and serving as a "distinguished counselor." The institute has also published his books.

The politics of the organization are complicated--its philosophy derives largely from the work of the late Murray Rothbard, a Bronx-born son of Jewish immigrants from Poland and a self-described "anarcho-capitalist" who viewed the state as nothing more than "a criminal gang"--but one aspect of the institute's worldview stands out as particularly disturbing: its attachment to the Confederacy. Thomas E. Woods Jr., a member of the institute's senior faculty, is a founder of the League of the South, a secessionist group, and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, a pro-Confederate, revisionist tract published in 2004. Paul enthusiastically blurbed Woods's book, saying that it "heroically rescues real history from the politically correct memory hole." Thomas DiLorenzo, another senior faculty member and author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, refers to the Civil War as the "War for Southern Independence" and attacks "Lincoln cultists"; Paul endorsed the book on MSNBC last month in a debate over whether the Civil War was necessary (Paul thinks it was not). In April 1995, the institute hosted a conference on secession at which Paul spoke; previewing the event, Rockwell wrote to supporters, "We'll explore what causes [secession] and how to promote it." Paul's newsletters have themselves repeatedly expressed sympathy for the general concept of secession. In 1992, for instance, the Survival Report argued that "the right of secession should be ingrained in a free society" and that "there is nothing wrong with loosely banding together small units of government. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, we too should consider it."

The people surrounding the von Mises Institute--including Paul--may describe themselves as libertarians, but they are nothing like the urbane libertarians who staff the Cato Institute or the libertines at Reason magazine. Instead, they represent a strain of right-wing libertarianism that views the Civil War as a catastrophic turning point in American history--the moment when a tyrannical federal government established its supremacy over the states. As one prominent Washington libertarian told me, "There are too many libertarians in this country ... who, because they are attracted to the great books of Mises, ... find their way to the Mises Institute and then are told that a defense of the Confederacy is part of libertarian thought."

Paul's alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began," read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with "'civil rights,' quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda." It also denounced "the media" for believing that "America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks." To be fair, the newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were "the only people to act like real Americans," it explained, "mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England."

This "Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" was hardly the first time one of Paul's publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled "What To Expect for the 1990s," predicted that "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.'" Two months later, a newsletter warned of "The Coming Race War," and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, "If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it." In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo." "This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s," the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter's author--presumably Paul--wrote, "I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming." That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which "blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot." The newsletter inveighed against liberals who "want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare," adding, "Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems."




Now if some of this same kind of stuff could be found on Mike the Huck....

Quote:
Ron Paul is not going to be president. But, as his campaign has gathered steam, he has found himself increasingly permitted inside the boundaries of respectable debate. He sat for an extensive interview with Tim Russert recently. He has raised almost $20 million in just three months, much of it online. And he received nearly three times as many votes as erstwhile front-runner Rudy Giuliani in last week's Iowa caucus. All the while he has generally been portrayed by the media as principled and serious, while garnering praise for being a "straight-talker."

From his newsletters, however, a different picture of Paul emerges--that of someone who is either himself deeply embittered or, for a long time, allowed others to write bitterly on his behalf. His adversaries are often described in harsh terms: Barbara Jordan is called "Barbara Morondon," Eleanor Holmes Norton is a "black pinko," Donna Shalala is a "short lesbian," Ron Brown is a "racial victimologist," and Roberta Achtenberg, the first openly gay public official confirmed by the United States Senate, is a "far-left, normal-hating lesbian activist." Maybe such outbursts mean Ron Paul really is a straight-talker. Or maybe they just mean he is a man filled with hate.

_________________
Image

"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime."
Honore de Balzac

"Democrats work to help people who need help.
That other party, they work for people who don't need help.
That's all there is to it."

~Harry S. Truman


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:16 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007 11:37 pm
Posts: 1646
Location: Denver
Purple Tang wrote:
I hope you folks enjoy perpetual war because that is what your insider, corporate approved candidate likely had to approve in order to keep their status and maintain their funding.

Unless you are backing Kucinich or Gavel or something along those lines.

This is how the monsters keep succeeding in their end runs. They have the public bickering about relative trivia while they steal and murder ad infinitum.



I hope you folks enjoy perpetual war and the other trimmings that come with the corporate backed status quo candidates.

You may have a chance, albeit a small chance, if Edwards gets the nomination. he has successfully fought corporate power before.

_________________
"If the people allow private banks to control their currency the banks and corporations will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:45 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:53 am
Posts: 2541
Location: Illinois
Purple Tang wrote:
I hope you folks enjoy perpetual war and the other trimmings that come with the corporate backed status quo candidates.

You may have a chance, albeit a small chance, if Edwards gets the nomination. he has successfully fought corporate power before.


No, I do not want perpetual war. However, I also refuse to stomach perpetual racism.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 12:12 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 11:46 pm
Posts: 14444
Location: NC
I fail to see how anyone can support Ron Paul, but if I had been a supporter, I can assure you that after reading the info at shoe's link, I would never vote for Paul to be prez.

_________________
Image

"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime."
Honore de Balzac

"Democrats work to help people who need help.
That other party, they work for people who don't need help.
That's all there is to it."

~Harry S. Truman


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Blue Moon by Trent © 2007
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group