Why Ron Paul?

Why?

 

Just pokin' fun, I know you know there's no shortage of foolish people out there. :up:

 

Ask the person who wasn't promoted or hired because of his race if the law is racist. That's what matters here, not "who" passed the law. :up: Individual rights matter more than collective rights.

 

I disagree; if the purpose for committing a criminal act against somebody was initiated and/or based in particular on their race, that should be a seperate, chargable offense (as it is).

This comes from having investigated hate crimes and interviewing the people who committed them. It takes a special someone to initiate a criminal act based on race, and they should be addressed in a special way...

You're asking me the justify Affirmative Action, which I've already said twice I disagree with.

Whatdoyawantfromme?!?

Who mentioned protecting any particular class? I'm talking about protecting people from crimes committed against them because of their race.

What race that is makes no difference.

You're expanding well past the original ideologies being discussed; don't take this the wrong way, but I'm not gonna spend hours debating every nuance of race, discrimination and the legislation in place intended to provide equality and balance.

I already gave you your one point, dammit

'64 was a much-needed turning point in the evolution of equality. Do I think we've all become our own worst enemies in recent years and certain regards since that time? Yes. But that's another topic that involves media, cultural and educational influences that goes way beyond this discussion.

A combination of both; you can't turn a blind eye if the offense isn't committed to begin with.

Here's a taste of what it's really about. This was decided this week, involving a jack-in-the-box who doesn't seem to understand what's wrong with posting a "White's Only" sign in 2012.

Ron Paul would have you believe it was this person's right to post that sign and prohibit use of what was a publically-accessible pool by a particular race.

Ron Paul is wrong.

Actually the first passenger on the ship to gingerland would be Molly. Sorry, it's just gotta be done.

I agree there are flaws, just like I agree the ACLU doesn't take up certain causes that would reflect contrary to the image they're trying to project.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's not a separate offense, but an "aggravating factor".

We can agree to disagree, though. I find the concept of "hate crimes" incompatible with equal protection under the law.

Are crimes against children "hate crimes"? Cuz it takes an even more special someone to brutalize a child, and I'd much rather see a pedophile swing than a guy who got into a fight and called someone a racial epithet.

No I'm not. I'm just having a discussion with ya. You don't have to justify jack shit.

I repeat, what difference does the motivation for the crime make? The crime is the crime is the crime, to treat a perpetrator differently because he *didn't* call me a honky-ass-cracka while he was beating my ass and stealing my stash of Twinkies doesn't make my beautiful face beautiful again, or get me back my fucking Twinkies!

Well phooey on you then! I thought we were expanding each others' minds (and since I'm retired from racing, I won't need a new helmet to compensate for the increased cranial size ).

Yep. I still don't believe it wouldn't have happened anyways, with less resentment and less unintended consequences, though. No way of saying one way or t'other, though.

The offense isn't the racist motivation, the offense is the (rape-murder-assault-etc). Those *were* happening, those *were* being covered up and/or ignored by the "ol' boy network". It was symptomatic of a problem with *governmental* entities, not with private persons.

Wasn't a publicly accessible pool, it was a pool at an apartment complex that was for the use of the tenants (AFAIK). The property owner (rightsholder) *should* be able to choose who can and cannot utilize her facilities, and that is covered under the contract law of the lease signed by the tenants. This imagined "right" to others' property is a lot of what's wrong with the country today.

Yeah, it's detestable, and exhibits what a disgusting person she is, but it should not be illegal for a person to choose who has access to her property.

Dits is gonna get you for that one. :tut:

Yep.

You're released from playing post-ping-pong, thanks for hanging out and bantering. If you're up for some different shit to talk about, check out the "anti-mayor" thread, I'd like your thoughts on it since you're living it out there. :up:

 

^ No problem, it's entertaining to converse about these things and read different viewpoints

And just to clarify, where I'm at a 'hate' or 'bias' crime is one where the crime is initiated due to bias. If two guys get into a fight over a parking spot, and one yells out a racial epithet during the exchange, that doesn't necessarily constitute a hate crime.

 

It figures you would pick the low hanging fruit and go after a topic that is so complex and very much open to opinion more than fact. I don't find anything crazy about this quote. In its purest sense this statement is dead on. Liberty is the right to do what you want as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. And it is not someones right to frequent someone else's establishment if they are not welcome.

This post says it very well.

 

I don't see anything wrong with the quotes you mentioned. Some are paranoid or perhaps over the top, but I'd say Dr. Paul's views are much closer to those of the Founders than our current crop of European style statists and social democratics.

Ron Paul is the only person who I believe would actually TRY to reduce the size and scope of the Federal government. I think of Ron Paul as a latter day Barry Goldwater. In a few decades, it'll be viewed as a tragedy that he was never elected President. The fact that people view him as radical reflects poorly on Americans, not on him. I'll vote for him as a write-in whether he runs on a third party platform or not. I think he'd actually have a better chance of beating the Bama than Romneybot, but we'll never know.

 

Admittedly I don't know much about Goldwater, but my dad was a big supporter and even campaigned for him. After he was crushed in the election it seems my dad has given up all hope on that type of candidate and wont even look at Ron Paul. He just keeps saying he can't win. My brother mentioned that only 20 some % of voters are registered Republicans. I don't think Romeny can win because he wont carry enough of the die hard Republicans and not enough of the independent. I think Ron Paul can carry more independents. If they don't nominate him he will just run as an independent and Perot the election.

 

Eh, I started from the top of the list - sorry if you didn't like the order, though I'm amused that out of the 20 quotes I provided the one you seem to feel strongest about is the one serving as a thinly disguised validation to justify segregation.

That said, I'll pick another couple just for you:

Aaron Russo: Is there a law that requires people to file a 1040?
Ron Paul: Not explicitly, but it's certainly implied.
Aaron Russo: Well, implied by force?
Ron Paul: Yeah.
Aaron Russo: But is there a law?
Ron Paul: I can't cite a law, no. But, you know, if they think it's the law, and they have all the guns, it's an authoritarian approach.

Really, there are no laws on the books to provide for paying income taxes? That's 16th amendment conspiracy nonsense.

Question: So do you think the gold standard would fix that?
Ron Paul: The gold standard would keep you from printing money and destroying the middle class.

A return to the Gold Standard would work better for the scale of our current economy then Fiat Money? Well then, we're gonna need some more horse-drawn wagons to pull them gold bars 'round so we can get some bankin' done. I hear they got a mountain full in Kentucky - yee haw!

"A central bank that deliberately destroys the value of the currency in secrecy, without restraint, without nary a whimper, yet cheered on by the pseudo-capitalists of Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, and Detroit"

Our central bank is deliberatly destroying the value of our currency in secret?!? You don't say. BLACK HELICOPTERS! BLACK HELICOPTERS!

Question: As a doctor, is it meaningful to you when somebody say that healthcare is a right, or that people have a right to good medical care?
Ron Paul: That's incorrect, because you don't have a right to the fruits of somebody else's labor. You don't have a right to a house, you don't have a right to a job, you don't have a right to medical care.

You shouldn't have a right to any medical care? Bring out your dead, the cart's a comin'! Better yet, under Ron Paul's philosophy, make sure you carry proof of medical insurance every possible second - it'd be a shame to see you get wheeled out of the E.R. and into the street in an unconcious state because you didn't have proof of insurance or the right to medical care.

"A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked."

"Demanding domestic security in times of war invites carelessness in preserving civil liberties and the right of privacy"

"We quadrupled the TSA, you know, and hired more people who look more suspicious to me than most Americans who are getting checked. Most of them, they just don't look very American to me"

So which is it, Ron? Do we up our security, down our security, or try to find ourselves some more 'proper' blond-haired, blue-eyed Americans to run those border checkpoints more gooder?

See, now I'm hungry...

 

You picked the one being discussed. I just commented on it. He says nothing about segregation. You are way to fixated on your false belief he is racist.

Its using gold to back the dollar. Not actually carrying around gold. I guess you are missing the point.

Government healthcare is quite a bit different than giving someone emergency medical care. Its amazing how many people that cant afford healthcare can afford cable tv, cell phones, designer cloths, eating out, etc, etc.

Are you really that confused? These are 3 different topics. Simply secure the boarders before you worry about other countries issues. The civil liberties he is talking about are the rights we have that are being stripped away with the increased aggressive security. He says some of these TSA workers look suspicious and nothing about race. Again you are way to fixated on your racist conspiracy.

Well if the shoe fits. You are doing a pretty good job of demonstrating someone is cuckoo and its not Ron Paul.

 

Hey Darren. Stop swinging on Frenchie's nuts.
Other than that, you're dead on in this thread. If someone beats me up or shoots me, it doesn't matter why they did it. Whatever they were thinking when they did it isn't a separate crime. Hate crime legislation is bullshit. It just makes some people feel better, which isn't legal justification.

 

I'm gonna print this out in color and frame it on my wall.

 

I want to have your baby. Shit, I'm late to the party.

 

Oh c'mon. Do you understand the difference between government and private citizens?

Really?

Am I really gonna have to school you in Civics 101?

(I'm so getting arrested if I ever drive through Joisey... )

So, what *law* is it? The 16th Amendment merely authorizes the collection of the income tax as a direct tax...

Do you know what the "gold standard" is? It ain't dragging around huge blocks of shiny yellow metal -- it is issuing currency based on the *fixed* value of currency to the gold you have ON HAND.

Some light reading for you, if you can find a fresh candle and the breeze doesn't blow through your log cabin and blow it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard

INFLATION! INFLATION! CURRENCY DEVALUATION! CURRENCY DEVALUATION!

How much did a home cost in 1971? How much does it cost now?

How much does the dollar you saved in 1971 buy compared to what it bought in 1971?

Welcome to currency devaluation.

Right? You know what a *right* is, don't you (in the parlance of "inalienable rights")? I'm pretty certain that intrinsic to your humanity is not a right to demand of others their time, their knowledge, their Band-Aids, or their internal organs.

Health care is a product, a service, a consumable, and a necessity for life.

So are food and shelter.

Quote 1: control the problems we have *at home*, instead of creating and mitigating problems abroad. If you can't keep your own house in order, what credibility do you have on the world stage to dictate how others run their affairs?

Quote 2: Instituting a police state does not make a people safer -- it is an affront to individual liberty and stands in stark opposition to the guaranteed rights to be free of unreasonable search & seizure and free from arrest except on a signed and sworn warrant. You like the 16th Amendment, but not the 4th?

Quote 3: His use of the term "American" isn't to be interpreted as a statement of national origin; he's referring to the decidedly unAmerican police state that we've become, with checkpoints and searches more akin to the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War than a free people in a free country. But I suppose if you're convinced he's a racist, nothing he says won't be viewed through that prism.

When Sarah sees this, she's gonna whoop your ass. She's jonesing for cereal but most of it isn't gluten free.

 

(Pssst....hey, Dern - you don't really think those one-liners are there to sum it up with complete accuracy, do you? Ya got your one point )

 

Fixed that for ya.

Now why don't you go pistol whip a Boy Scout for jaywalking with a feeble old grandmother.



Unless they're "minorities", of course.

 

Now why would anyone want to do that?

On a side note, here's some reading for you. I'm a big believer in past practice being a solid indicator of future performance, so it doesn't matter to me how polished or well scripted his campaign website is - the guy's a kook.

 

Oh I've read all that stuff before.

The newsletters? That's been debunked -- numerous times.

The "kooks" who follow him? Is Jody Foster to blame because John Hinckley shot Reagan to impress her?

This is a great quote from that article...tell me what's wrong with it:

As to the rest of it, it is the editorial ramblings of a man with an axe to grind, who offers no citation for the accusations he levels, nor any evidence beyond his interpretation of what he believes may have been said by Ron Paul.

I'd recommend reading Ron Paul's books (there are books that predate his latest presidential campaigns), read the House rolls on the legislation he's voted for (and more importantly, the legislation he's voted against), pull up some C-SPAN vids from the speeches he's given from the floor of the House...and then tell me where his record on these accusations truly stands.

If he's a kook, he's a lot less kooky than the other fucking lunatics frothing at the bit to have their finger on the nuke football.

 

Actually they haven't been. Paul has never identified the 'authors' of the articles or explained how they were published in a Newletter titled in his name without his being aware of the content, or why his hometown was specifically referenced.

That's not conspiracy - that's fact. If I legitimately didn't write something and was being chastised for someone else's words during a campaign, I'd be finding out who wrote what and naming those responsible - particularily if the writings were published under my name. But I don't think for a second he didn't know, and wouldn't be suprised if he personally cleared every single word at the time given that it was his name on the cover.

Like I said, right now the entire field is a disappointment, imo. There's not a one of them I have confidence in - but that doesn't mean I'm going to default to Paul.