USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[Minutemen 10]

By Ron Paul's logic it is no longer against the law to take all of the private property you own.

Ron Paul's logic is that of the gangster.

[froggyluv 2133]

No, walker, "Ron Paul's logic" is against taking anyone's private property. That's the whole point: Private property should be protected at all times, even if the owner of said property happens to be racist. It is the people who want to take the property away from those who are racist that don't have a consistent opinion about private property. These are the people with the gangster mentality, not Ron Paul or any other libertarian.

And just who exactly has been so manhandled by the Gov't via the Civil Rights act and had their property taken because of their beliefs?

[walker 0]

Hi all

If laws protecting people from racism are invalid people will see no reason for there to be laws protecting bankers property or Ron Paul's property or indeed yours.

If you want to break the social contract along with Ron Paul and your Wall Street Welfare Queen buddies by all means do but there will be consequences.

Gadaffi and his corrupt supporters found this out the hard way.

Kind Regards walker

Edited October 23, 2011 by walker

[Minutemen 10]

@walker

And your wondering when people say its ironic that you speaking about stupidity?

Most things i read which are postet by you are so far from reality, but woooow, now we have an Ghaddafi-Ron Paul Link made up by the one and only no-lifer.

Ever heard of common sense? Or even common law, which is the basic principle of america?

[walker 0]

Still having that problem with making a logical argument I see.

If Ron Paul and the Republican party want to court the racist vote or threaten American voters with a second civil war they have to realize there will be consequences.

Edited October 24, 2011 by walker

[Minutemen 10]

@walker

So does that mean you never heard of it?

[Comrade Chaos 10]

I don't see Paul pandering to racism here...

o8S8N2OG7sU

[froggyluv 2133]

Yeah I saw Paul touch on that in the debates and got boos from the Conservative audience. I never thought the guy was a frothing mouth racist -but ignorant of what repercussions a repeal of the Civil Rights act could be rather.

Theres just no pressing issue driving that sentiment so it makes me worried and a little suspicious.

[walker 0]

Hi Comrade Chaos

As others have pointed out Ron Paul and the Republican Party want to remove laws that prevent overt acts of racism, hence they are courting the racist vote, that is common sense really.

Kind Regards walker

Edited October 24, 2011 by walker
spelling

[st_dux 26]

Yeah I saw Paul touch on that in the debates and got boos from the Conservative audience. I never thought the guy was a frothing mouth racist -but ignorant of what repercussions a repeal of the Civil Rights act could be rather.

Ron Paul doesn't want to repeal the Civil Rights Act. He only disagrees with one part of it, and it's not a priority issue by any means.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Yeah I saw Paul touch on that in the debates and got boos from the Conservative audience. I never thought the guy was a frothing mouth racist -but ignorant of what repercussions a repeal of the Civil Rights act could be rather.

Theres just no pressing issue driving that sentiment so it makes me worried and a little suspicious.

If Ron Paul were racist, don't you think that would make him a hypocrite when he quotes Ludwig von Mises, who was Jewish? Why would DMX and Hip Hop Nation support him if that were true?

[froggyluv 2133]

Well thats the beauty of being an independent thinker and voter - I can agree with some of a particular candidates views and abhor others. The actual vote comes down to alot of factors and I wouldn't generally disqualify on just one issue.

Oh and I gotta ask this (since folks round here seem well acquainted with him) -Is he seriously thinking about ending Student Loan Program?

Edit: Did you really just bring DMX into this :O

Edited October 24, 2011 by froggyluv

[walker 0]

Hi all

People in this thread, among Ron Paul's supporters and in the Republican Party continue to spout the racist platitudes around the usual themes of "...not a racist but..." and now the old chestnut of "...some of my best friends are..." etc.

All Ron Paul has to do is: stop courting the racist vote and drop the pro racist part of his manifesto but he won't. Because racism is, just like for all the other Republican candidates, part of his core constituancy.

Why else are republicans and the Republican party so attached to racism?

A vote for Ron Paul and in fact any Republican candidate is; while they continue to court the racist vote, ipso facto a vote for racism and all it entails. Common sense really.

Why won't the Republican party kick out its racists?

What are the Republicans and Ron Paul afraid of?

Kind Regards walker

Edited October 24, 2011 by walker

[Baff1 0]

Hi Comrade Chaos

As others have pointed out Ron Paul and the Republican Party want to remove laws that prevent overt acts of racism, hence they are courting the racist vote, that is common sense really.

Kind Regards walker

It's an overtly racist society.

I can't imagine anyone non-racist fitting in there, let alone getting elected.

[st_dux 26]

@walker:

Do you even know what we're talking about? Ron Paul's opposition to the last section of the Civil Rights Act (the only part that deals with private, rather than public, property) has absolutely nothing to do with pandering to racists. There is no "racist vote" and there hasn't been for decades; openly espousing racism today is tantamount to political suicide. Ron Paul is opposed to the last section of the Civil Rights Act because he understands that it is a direct violation of property rights, and unlike most politicians, Ron Paul is ideologically consistent.

---------- Post added at 08:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:41 AM ----------

Is he seriously thinking about ending Student Loan Program?

Take a look at the student loan default rate sometime. College tuition has been able to become far too expensive in this country precisely because anyone, regardless of credit, can easily get a government-guaranteed loan to go study liberal arts and come out with a degree that makes them no more hireable than when they went in. The market is not allowed to work in higher education: Too many people go to college; nobody pays for it, and the colleges therefore have no incentive to lower prices.

[walker 0]

It's an overtly racist society.

I can't imagine anyone non-racist fitting in there, let alone getting elected.

Hi Baff1

I do not believe the USA is a country that is racist. Racists have been a minority in the US for decades. The problem is that Ron Paul and the Republican party are pandering to them because it is desperate for any votes and thus panders to them to secure their votes, in order to shore up its declining support among voters, the same reason as it brought in the tea party minority.

Do you think that Ron Paul and the Republican party is anything other than frightened if it panders to such extremists and fanatics?

Do you not see that: by pandering to racists, Ron Paul and the Republican Party is supporting Racism?

Kind Regards walker

Edited October 24, 2011 by walker

[st_dux 26]

The problem is that Ron Paul and the Republican party are pandering to them because it is desperate for any votes and thus panders to them to secure their votes, in order to shore up its declining support among voters, the same reason as it brought in the tea party minority.

Please stop spouting this nonsense. I explained in my last post (which you apparently ignored) why Ron Paul opposes the last section of the Civil Rights Act. It has everything to do with holding a consistent view on property rights and nothing to do with "pandering to racists." In addition, Ron Paul's position on this issue is rather unique among Republicans, so it is incorrect to generalize it as held by the whole party.

[Dosenmais 10]

As others have pointed out Ron Paul and the Republican Party want to remove laws that prevent overt acts of racism, hence they are courting the racist vote, that is common sense really.

Cartmans Silly Hate Crime

Please stop spouting this nonsense.

I think even he would try, he couldn't.

[nettrucker 142]

Ron Paul is an outsider in his own party. They ignore him and they didn't even scheduled him as one of the front runners of the Republicans for the election. I watched a lot of debates with other candidates and he's the only one who makes sense IMO.

In any case let's put it in this terms "he's the lesser evil" if you want. You should really do some more research on him Walker.

kind regards

[Baff1 0]

Hi Baff1

I do not believe the USA is a country that is racist. Racists have been a minority in the US for decades. The problem is that Ron Paul and the Republican party are pandering to them because it is desperate for any votes and thus panders to them to secure their votes, in order to shore up its declining support among voters, the same reason as it brought in the tea party minority.

Do you think that Ron Paul and the Republican party is anything other than frightened if it panders to such extremists and fanatics?

Do you not see that: by pandering to racists, Ron Paul and the Republican Party is supporting Racism?

Kind Regards walker

I think the whole country supports racism by UK standards.

And I don't think any of them would recognise such a description of their country.

The whole country is populated with extremists and fanatics. That's who they are.

[walker 0]

Hi all

As I continue to point out Ron Paul and the Republican party continue to pander to the racist vote by supporting changes to the law that clearly support racism.

If they would ditch the proposed changes to laws that prevent overt acts of racism then the argument would be moot but they won't because the purpose of Ron Paul and the Republican Party is to garner extremist and fringe votes by pandering to the worst dregs of society.

The moronic expectation by Ron Paul and Republican Party supporters that just by saying they don't think the policy is racist while they continue to spout the racist platitudes around the usual themes of "...not a racist but..." and now the old chestnut of "...some of my best friends are..." etc. will somehow fool anyone but a moron bares no close examination.

To also expect those with a different view to just stop pointing out that a policy is racist, because you just say they should accept your statements shows a complete failure to understand the concept of what a forum is even beyond the fact that your arguments do not hold water.

A change in the law that allows some one to refuse the entry of someone else to a business based purely on their appearance is clearly by all rules of common sense, racist.

If you cannot see that then I feel sorry for you.

What then follows on from this is then for what purpose a politician would espouse such a policy?

When:

There is no "racist vote" and there hasn't been for decades; openly espousing racism today is tantamount to political suicide.

Well first off while there is not a majority vote in racism but when you are a declining party like the Republican party or a desperate former third party candidate like Ron Paul, you pander to every extremist fringe group there is in order to gain a few votes.

With America stuck in the Bush depression with millions out of work and being foreclosed and the 1%ers paying less taxes than the middle class while Wall Streets Welfare Queen bankers suck on the government Bush bailout teat.

Where else is Ron Paul and the Republican Party going to get votes but racists and extremists?

Kind Regards Walker

Edited October 24, 2011 by walker

[froggyluv 2133]

Take a look at the student loan default rate sometime. College tuition has been able to become far too expensive in this country precisely because anyone, regardless of credit, can easily get a government-guaranteed loan to go study liberal arts and come out with a degree that makes them no more hireable than when they went in. The market is not allowed to work in higher education: Too many people go to college; nobody pays for it, and the colleges therefore have no incentive to lower prices.

Don't care -your using a machete when a scalpel is more in order. I care about the future of this country and since I pay my taxes, I'd rather risk some defaulting so that others can excel. If default costs roughly the same as that atrocity known as the Iraq war, lets spend it on the kids and our future rather then Cheney and Halliburton.

Way to heavy handed.

@Walker: You mean racist like Pat Buchannons new book Suicide of a Superpower, which claims that America is disintegrating as whites lose their majority status. This may be the chord that Republicans are tapping into as the U.S will lose it's White Majority around 2040.

Edited October 24, 2011 by froggyluv

[hellfire257 3]

Take a look at the student loan default rate sometime. College tuition has been able to become far too expensive in this country precisely because anyone, regardless of credit, can easily get a government-guaranteed loan to go study liberal arts and come out with a degree that makes them no more hireable than when they went in. The market is not allowed to work in higher education: Too many people go to college; nobody pays for it, and the colleges therefore have no incentive to lower prices.

Very true.

When you have courses like "History of Art" it makes you wonder doesn't it? I think only "real", subjects should be funded; Maths, science, etc.

[st_dux 26]

A change in the law that allows some one to refuse the entry of someone else to a business based purely on their appearance is clearly by all rules of common sense, racist.

If you cannot see that then I feel sorry for you.

Walker, try to turn off your propaganda machine for a few seconds and actually think about this from an objective, logical point of view. The right to property is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary Western society. Under this principle, an owner of a piece of property has the sole authority to choose with whom he shares that property and at what price, if any. Do you agree or disagree with this definition?

If you agree, then it should be quite clear that any law which forces the owner of a piece of property to share that property with anyone against the owners' will is in violation of the principle of property rights. It is because of this violation and nothing else that Ron Paul is opposed to the last section of the Civil Rights Act. It shouldn't be that difficult to understand.

The idea that we can eliminate racism by violating the property rights of racists is ridiculous. Telling the racist saloon owner that he must serve all customers regardless of race or face forced closure does not make the saloon owner not racist; if anything, it strengthens his irrational hatred. Moreover, allowing the owner to discriminate is not the cause of his desire to do so. Property rights don't cause racism.

[froggyluv 2133]

The right to property is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary Western society. Under this principle, an owner of a piece of property has the sole authority to choose with whom he shares that property and at what price

This is academia taken to absolutism. All rights have conditions. I have the right to defend myself yet there are conditions that must be met before i am entitled -it is not absolute. And why should Property rights remain at 100% while Civil Rights at 50%?

Surely a case could be made that there is a distinction between Property rights as in "My house/my home business/my car" and a business that is open to the public? Does common sense not dictate this?

then it should be quite clear that any law which forces the owner of a piece of property to share that property with anyone against the owners' will is in violation of the principle of property rights

A bar owner must meet many public conditions to operate -ensuring fair and equal service to all (barring extreme circumstances) doesn't seem that unjust.

The idea that we can eliminate racism by violating the property rights of racists is ridiculous. Telling the racist saloon owner that he must serve all customers regardless of race or face forced closure does not make the saloon owner not racist; if anything, it strengthens his irrational hatred.

The bar owners who once did segregate customers and now are forced by law may still hold racist views, but so what? People aren't traumatized by ridiculously barbaric behaviour now -whose case do you think is more important?

Moreover, allowing the owner to discriminate is not the cause of his desire to do so. Property rights don't cause racism

It doesn't matter where he caught his bigotry and the civil rights are not meant to quell his own alcoholic-fathered induced behaviour -it is for the sake of those abused by such a system.

I would make the definitive argument that the laws have created a better environment for all with little evidence of damage done to the racist business owner -cept his own superiorority complex.

Heres a real life example: A good friend of mine is parapalegic from a football injury. He lives downtown and the best breakfast diner wouldn't install a ramp or widen the doors for him to get thru. He asked them nicely -for years. Finally he got the law involved and they forced the diner (who make mad bank) to spend the money to allow him entry in which they did. All of his neighbors knew about it -yet people are just too busy to make a stand and are creatures of least resistence to boycott the place. Thats reality -the laws are needed. You may not be discriminated against , but try and have a little empathy.

Edited October 24, 2011 by froggyluv