USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to ST_Dux

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?

I totally and utterly disagree. Can I make it any clearer?

ST_Dux there as is no absolute right to property, else the lands that form America would remain under the ownership and control of the British crown. All rights without exception are negotiated in the social contract and by the wielding of power by various means, by people and organisations.

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.

I have no difficulty in understanding your and his argument it is just that it is plane fallacious. Since there is not any absolute rights. And Absolute rights have never ever existed right back to the Code of Hammurabi. You are arguing as is Ron Paul from the basis of a falsehood.

Your Property rights are protected solely by the state; through the application of its power. It can just as easily confiscate every thing you own down to the clothes on your back and it frequently does so to criminals of all kinds and even occasionally innocents. Via every means from taxes to forfeiture to war etc.

ST_Dux You are living in a libertarian fantasy world that does not and never has existed, and that the majority of other signatories to the social contract never have and will never agree too. It is a recipe that inevitably leads back to feudalism. Unless you have 100% death taxes including all gifts given by the deceased and make every child a ward of state and educate them same; it will never be fair or equitable, hence for the majority it would be a case of: "Sorry but I did not sign up to this, so here is the pointy end of a sharp stick instead."

Property rights are not sacrosanct. You own the property you do in society because of the social contract, and because most of us sign up to it. That is what keeps the wolf from the door, break it at your peril.

King George did so and lost half a continent, King Louis lost his head as did King Charles, The Shah lost his kingdom, Gaddafi lost his life and his country and if you think it was only political leaders think again Millions have lost both their lives and every stitch they owned when the social contract was broken. It is not something you should so blithely break.

You cannot own your property without the social contract, if you are too dumb to realize this, as I said, I feel sorry for you.

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.

If that was true, then you cannot stop a thief from thieving by locking him up, yet demonstrably while they are in prison they cannot thieve other than from other prisoners, ditto the racist. Also frequent visits to prison discourage people from criminal activity as do fines and having your business closed down, as this particular and very fine law does.

Is education a better method than prison for preventing theft or racism, of course, but you also want to prevent that, don't you ST_Dux?

One has to make sure that crime whether it be racism or theft does not pay, that is what the social contract does. It is made explicit in law, as it has been since the Code of Hammurabi first codified law.

You seem to worship Mammon ST_Dux. Property is only a tool ST_Dux, it is not a god. And God's are just imaginary friends, I got over the concept of imaginary friends when I was two years of age.

Try living in the real world ST_Dux it might make you happier.

Kind Regards walker

Edited October 24, 2011 by walker

[st_dux 26]

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.

It's not about the damage done to the racist. It's about the integrity of property rights. The libertarian doesn't care about the racist business owner; he would be perfectly happy to see him go out of business on account of his discriminatory practices, but only if this occurs on the open market.

As for your real life example, I don't believe the diner should have been forced to spend money on construction projects simply to appease one costumer with special needs. From their perspective, it's a waste of money. It doesn't matter if you personally believe they're making "plenty"; it's theirs, not yours and not your friend's. Imagine how you'd feel if someone told you that your house was not handicap accessible, and as per building regulations in the area, it had to be in order for you to legally live in it. Imagine being forced to spend money that you may or may not have readily available in order to renovate your house in a way that doesn't benefit you at all. In principle, this is exactly what happened in your story. A diner is just a house that someone has turned into a large dining room and opened up to guests.

ST_Dux there as is no absolute right to property, else the lands that form America would remain under the ownership and control of the British crown. All rights without exception are negotiated in the social contract and by the wielding of power by various means, by people and organisations.

I never said there was an absolute right to property. You are quite right: There are no absolute rights; all rights are negotiated in the social contract. My point was that the right to property is one of the defining rights in every Western social contract currently in use. Do you disagree with this?

Your Property rights are protected solely by the state; through the application of its power. It can just as easily confiscate every thing you own down to the clothes on your back and it frequently does so to criminals of all kinds and even occasionally innocents. Via every means from taxes to forfeiture to war etc.

ST_Dux You are living in a libertarian fantasy world that does not and never has existed, and that the majority of other signatories to the social contract never have and will never agree too. It is a recipe that inevitably leads back to feudalism. Unless you have 100% death taxes including all gifts given by the deceased and make every child a ward of state and educate them same; it will never be fair or equitable, hence for the majority it would be a case of: "Sorry but I did not sign up to this, so here is the pointy end of a sharp stick instead."

You're right: Property rights are protected by the state. My point is that this protection is a good thing that should not be arbitrarily revoked. I know that it often is revoked -- I'm not living in a fantasy land as you seem to believe -- but except in cases where the rights of others are violated I do not believe that such revocation is justified. In the case in point, of racist business owners refusing service to particular customers, I do not believe any rights are being violated. The right to property is clearly granted by the social contract; the right to be served at restaurants is not. Business owners may refuse service to patrons for a variety of reasons, and I do not see the sense in arbitrarily taking one of those reasons and making it legally invalid.

You cannot own your property without the social contract, if you are too dumb to realize this, as I said, I feel sorry for you.

Clearly. I'm not suggesting that property rights transcend the social contract or that we should get rid of it.

If that was true, then you cannot stop a thief from thieving by locking him up, yet demonstrably while they are in prison they cannot thieve other than from other prisoners, ditto the racist. Also frequent visits to prison discourage people from criminal activity as do fines and having your business closed down, as this particular and very fine law does.

Thievery and racism are not at all analogous. If you lock up a thief, there is less theft. If you shut down a racist's business, racism is not lessened; if anything, it is reinforced and strengthened.

--------

The whole point is this: Whether or not you agree with Ron Paul on this issue, you must understand that his intention is not to "pander to racists." His argument is based solely on property rights and his understanding thereof, and he does not believe that allowing private property owners to discriminate would promote racism; to the contrary, it would expose racists, hurting the position in the long run. This isn't a campaign issue for him, and it's not a big deal. It's just one of those hypothetical questions that's been thrown at him a few times to see just how ideologically consistent he really is. As it turns out, he's quite consistent.

Edited October 25, 2011 by ST_Dux

[froggyluv 2133]

It's not about the damage done to the racist. It's about the integrity of property rights. The libertarian doesn't care about the racist business owner; he would be perfectly happy to see him go out of business on account of his discriminatory practices, but only if this occurs on the open market.

And he would be perfectly happy to see him thrive if society didn't put him out of business. So frankly, I could give a monkey's banana about the happiness of the Libertarian at the cost to society as we know it know. You've failed to make a strong case as to how this civil rights act has defeated the private citizens property right except in principle.

As for your real life example, I don't believe the diner should have been forced to spend money on construction projects simply to appease one costumer with special needs. From their perspective, it's a waste of money

Well that maybe because you also don't believe in right and wrong (as you admitted) so you have no point of reference save your Austro-Economic Handbook. Luckily for the rest of us -we don't care about your obsession with Property Rights (in the extreme) to the expense of a happier society.

they're making "plenty"; it's theirs, not yours and not your friend's.

Again a vacuum of morality. Laws protect people like my friend and injured Vets so they don't have to wheel 20 blocks to eat. Don't like it -tough beans. And to further exasberate your party -he used student loans to make himself an architect despite his injury and HAS paid them back -enabling him to be a productive member of society. Sorry, but Libertarians are really out to lunch here.

Imagine how you'd feel if someone told you that your house was not handicap accessible, and as per building regulations in the area, it had to be in order for you to legally live in it. Imagine being forced to spend money that you may or may not have readily available in order to renovate your house in a way that doesn't benefit you at all. In principle, this is exactly what happened in your story. A diner is just a house that someone has turned into a large dining room and opened up to guests.

No there is a difference between my business space (Commercial) and my home (Residential). There are different zoning laws and conditions I indeed have to fufill to run my business that aren't required for my residential domain. My car is my property, yet I must fufill certain licensing, rules of the road, and other regulations to be able to drive and park in public. You want to talk recalibration? Thats fine but just tossing out such huge chunks of our social fabric is reckless to the point of absurdity. Your party needs to learn nuance rather then all-enveloping broad brush thinking.

The whole point is this: Whether or not you agree with Ron Paul on this issue, you must understand that his intention is not to "pander to racists." His argument is based solely on property rights and his understanding thereof, and he does not believe that allowing private property owners to discriminate would promote racism; to the contrary, it would expose racists, hurting the position in the long run. This isn't a campaign issue for him, and it's not a big deal. It's just one of those hypothetical questions that's been thrown at him a few times to see just how ideologically consistent he really is. As it turns out, he's quite consistent.

A dangerous hypothetical given the history of this country -things have only gotten better discrimination-wise since Civil Right Laws -thats only 60 years out of this great country's history. The Free Market didn't condemn those racists before the laws were in place and thats the bottom line. Law is action, everything else just talk.

Edited October 25, 2011 by froggyluv

[tacticalnuggets 24]

And he would be perfectly happy to see him thrive if society didn't put him out of business. So frankly, I could give a monkey's banana about the happiness of the Libertarian at the cost to society as we know it know. You've failed to make a strong case as to how this civil rights act has defeated the private citizens property right except in principle.

Well that maybe because you also don't believe in right and wrong (as you admitted) so you have no point of reference save your Austro-Economic Handbook. Luckily for the rest of us -we don't care about your obsession with Property Rights (in the extreme) to the expense of a happier society.

Again a vacuum of morality. Laws protect people like my friend and injured Vets so they don't have to wheel 20 blocks to eat. Don't like it -tough beans. And to further exasberate your party -he used student loans to make himself an architect despite his injury and HAS paid them back -enabling him to be a productive member of society. Sorry, but Libertarians are really out to lunch here.

No there is a difference between my business space (Commercial) and my home (Residential). There are different zoning laws and conditions I indeed have to fufill to run my business that aren't required for my residential domain. My car is my property, yet I must fufill certain licensing, rules of the road, and other regulations to be able to drive and park in public. You want to talk recalibration? Thats fine but just tossing out such huge chunks of our social fabric is reckless to the point of absurdity. Your party needs to learn nuance rather then all-enveloping broad brush thinking.

A dangerous hypothetical given the history of this country -things have only gotten better discrimination-wise since Civil Right Laws -thats only 60 years out of this great country's history. The Free Market didn't condemn those racists before the laws were in place and thats the bottom line. Law is action, everything else just talk.

I think its hilarious that you fail to talk about the racist fascism that propagated through Europe. You do realize the magnitude of racism was far worse with the increase in government regulation for those countries?

To put the final nail in the coffin in this ridiculous argument; the racist business owners that failed to follow the law got removed. What does that entail? It entails that the minorities never got access to the restaurant like they had planned. This means that the threat of force is a bunch of bullshit because it does not solve anything if its actually put into action. The threat of force is pure incentive, no different than the activists threatening to not consume their goods anymore. Your plan has no direct advantage over our plan. Like I said, racists were still a minority during that time, and quickly fell like a minority. It would have been no different had the government just let things run its course. Boycotts are no different than government force in the end. One is just peaceful and fair.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Thinking Racist thoughts ain't a crime.

Neither is having any other form of sick fantasies.

They are just icky.

It is not about thought it is about action as with all crime.

Overt Racism is a crime you put criminals in Jail.

Case Closed.

Kind Regards walker

[st_dux 26]

Well that maybe because you also don't believe in right and wrong (as you admitted) so you have no point of reference save your Austro-Economic Handbook. Luckily for the rest of us -we don't care about your obsession with Property Rights (in the extreme) to the expense of a happier society.

I do not believe that maintaining the integrity of property rights is done at the expense of happiness in society. On the contrary, I see property rights as a natural extension of the non-aggression principle on which the social contract is based, and I believe that it has done more than any other single idea to create happiness in society. That's why it's worthy of protection.

Again a vacuum of morality. Laws protect people like my friend and injured Vets so they don't have to wheel 20 blocks to eat. Don't like it -tough beans. And to further exasberate your party -he used student loans to make himself an architect despite his injury and HAS paid them back -enabling him to be a productive member of society. Sorry, but Libertarians are really out to lunch here.

While I see the value in handicap accessibility, I don't believe that it's fair or necessary to force property owners to spend their own money to provide it. If the public feels strongly enough about this issue, then they should have no problem allowing the government to use taxpayer money to fund the construction.

As for the student loan success story, that's great. I am not against the concept of student loans -- higher education is generally regarded as an investment for the future, after all -- but they are currently too easy to access due to government guarantees. There is no credit check and no consideration regarding how valuable your education actually will be toward earning a living capable of paying back the loan, and this is why there are so many defaults on student loans. Your friend is the exception here rather than the rule, and I have little doubt given the profitability of the field he has chosen to enter that he could have acquired such a loan in a free market without government guarantees. That being said, I certainly wouldn't fault anyone for taking advantage of government-guaranteed loans. I think the government is being reckless in offering them, but I would never fault anyone for simply taking advantage of the opportunities afforded to him. I'm glad that your friend had an opportunity and found success.

No there is a difference between my business space (Commercial) and my home (Residential). There are different zoning laws and conditions I indeed have to fufill to run my business that aren't required for my residential domain. My car is my property, yet I must fufill certain licensing, rules of the road, and other regulations to be able to drive and park in public. You want to talk recalibration? Thats fine but just tossing out such huge chunks of our social fabric is reckless to the point of absurdity. Your party needs to learn nuance rather then all-enveloping broad brush thinking.

There is a difference, but that difference amounts to little more than legal fiction. Fundamentally, property is property. As for your car analogy, you actually only need to follow those rules if you intend to use public roadways or facilities. It's perfectly legal to buy a car for your personal use and drive it around a private track without a license. No one does this, of course, but the point is that the regulations arise from the use of a public resource (the road), not the use of private property (the car).

Hi all

Thinking Racist thoughts ain't a crime.

Neither is having any other form of sick fantasies.

They are just icky.

It is not about thought it is about action as with all crime.

Overt Racism is a crime you put criminals in Jail.

Racism is always a form of thought and never a form of action. There is no such thing as a "racist action." There are actions that may result from a racist mindset, but the actions themselves are not inherently racist -- actions don't have thoughts of their own. Establishing a distinction between "normal crime" and "racist crime" (e.g., "hate crime") serves only to legally reinforce the concept of racism.

In the United States, overt racism is actually not a crime. You can spew racist thoughts and speech in any format as much as you'd like, and people sometimes do. Now if you get so enraged and insane that you use your racist ideas as an excuse to commit assault, that's illegal -- but it's the assault that's illegal, not the racism. We don't legally suppress any ideas in the United States, regardless of how offensive or tasteless they may be to most people.

[froggyluv 2133]

I do not believe that maintaining the integrity of property rights is done at the expense of happiness in society. On the contrary, I see property rights as a natural extension of the non-aggression principle on which the social contract is based, and I believe that it has done more than any other single idea to create happiness in society. That's why it's worthy of protection.

Well I'd agree with you if by definition Property made a distinction between Commercial and Residential. Lets face the facts, if someone walks into my house unannounced, he's going down hard and fast and you would do the same to protect your family -no question. Obviously people walking into a Commercial space being pounced on by the owner for no other reason then entry -he'd be facing criminal assault charges.

A bar or club has to have a certain amount of bathrooms and fire escapes for it's customers -certainly no one in their private home is required to do this.

There is a distinction in the type of Property and how a proprieter may act. Now if the Government tried forcing Residential property owners (what I consider fully private) into making things accessable to all, building more bathrooms, being nice to minorities etc... I'd say I'd agree with you.

If the public feels strongly enough about this issue, then they should have no problem allowing the government to use taxpayer money to fund the construction.

A nice sentiment but i'd say the Libertarian standing next to you would cry foul at Gov't interference, wasteful tax spending and welfare-state-ism.

As for the student loan success story...

The prospect of cancelling Student Loans in their entirety would have long term economic impacts on our country in that our kids would be vastly undereducated and could never compete on the world market. Many other countries offer free college tuition, and with, I'd guestimate 80% of our students needing loans to enroll - we would be 4th rate.

Edited October 26, 2011 by froggyluv

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to ST_Dux.

If Ron Paul and the Republican Party want to continue to pander to racism then they must bare the consquences.

You do not seem to understand that crime is an action.

Until the thief attempts or suceeds in picking in your pocket no crime is commited, it is the overt action that is the crime. It is an action, the Criminal is doing something.

Burning Crosses on the lawns of people because they are a different colour to you is an Overt Act of Racism. It is an action, the Criminal is doing something.

Winding up lynch mob to hang some one because they are a different colour to you is an Overt Act of Racism. It is an action, the Criminal is doing something.

Physically preventing some one from taking their family for a meal at a restaraunt because they are a different colour to you is an Overt Act of Racism. It is an action, the Criminal is doing something.

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

Do you not understand that by pandering to the racists, with this proposed policy of Ron Paul and the Republican Party; that they are giving a voice to extremists and fanatics and giving them a missguided belief that their actions are acceptable?

Can you not see that this proposed policy of Ron Paul and the Republican Party is set to shatter the US body politic and destroy its social contract?

Can you not see that the only reason that Ron Paul and the Republican Party are engaged in pandering to racists is because they are short of voters and will say and do anything for power?

Kind Regards walker

Edited October 26, 2011 by walker

[tacticalnuggets 24]

Hi all

blaa...

Kind Regards walker

Ron Paul and WHO? Pandering? More consistent reformatting of passed posts? Your blowing me away walker!

[st_dux 26]

The prospect of cancelling Student Loans in their entirety would have long term economic impacts on our country in that our kids would be vastly undereducated and could never compete on the world market. Many other countries offer free college tuition, and with, I'd guestimate 80% of our students needing loans to enroll - we would be 4th rate.

No one is arguing to cancel student loans entirely. Banks and other financial institutions should of course be allowed to loan money to students for the purpose of gaining an education, but there needs to be some risk involved on the bank's part, and right now, there isn't any because the government guarantees them all. The result is that increasingly large loans are given out to everyone without question or even reasonable expectation of repayment. This, in turn, removes all incentive for colleges and universities to keep costs low, and that is why tuition costs are spiraling out of control in this country. Government-guaranteed student loans produce a tangible short-term benefit, but the long-term damage to the sustainability of our education system is rarely considered.

Burning Crosses on the lawns of people because they are a different colour to you is an Overt Act of Racism. It is an action, the Criminal is doing something.

Winding up lynch mob to hang some one because they are a different colour to you is an Overt Act of Racism. It is an action, the Criminal is doing something.

Burning crosses on people's lawns is a crime because it violates their property rights and in some cases constitutes a threat of physical violence. The criminality of the action has nothing to do with racism; it would be a crime even if the motivation for committing it had nothing to do with race. Likewise, winding up a lynch mob to hang someone is a crime whether or not race is involved. The crime is murder, not racism.

Racism itself is a way of thinking. It is not an action, and it is not a crime.

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

Do you really not see that:

• Ron Paul is not pandering to racists. His objection to the last section of the Civil Rights Act is a hypothetical one based solely on an intellectually consistent view of property rights. It is not a practical objection: He does not actually consider the repeal of the last section of the Civil Rights Act to be possible or necessary. Your charge that Paul's hypothetical opposition to one part of the Civil Rights Act -- an opposition that he and everyone else knows would never result in that section actually being repealed -- is actually an attempt to win the votes of hardcore racists is absolutely baseless and, given the fact that those who abhor racism vastly outnumber those who condone it, frankly absurd.
  
• Ron Paul is the only Republican who has expressed these views. No one else in the Republican party today has ever expressed any desire, hypothetical or otherwise, to repeal any part of the Civil Rights Act. It is a blatant composition fallacy on your part to continue to associate all Republicans with the views of one particular individual in the party.
  

[Dead3yez 0]

I believe people should have the right to discriminate against anyone they want on their own property. That makes me soooooooo racist. :j:

It ain't the 1950s anymore, btw.

[walker 0]

Hi all

If Ron Paul and the Republican party wants to continue to run policies that pander to racists there are consequences to that.

Did Ron Paul and the Republican party not realize that this was going to happen to them when they decided to pander to the extremist freaks?

Ron Paul and the Republican party can come out of the cold and stop pandering to racists any time they want but they won't, because what they want is the racist vote.

Are Ron Paul and the Republican party so desperate that they think pandering to extremists and freaks will win them an election?

Kind Regards walker

Edited October 27, 2011 by walker
spelling

[-GR-Operative 10]

In other news, US ambassador in Brazil Thommas Shannon think that in the coming years both country will abolish the visa, allowing brazilian citizens enter US soil and vice versa.

I think it has something to do with the Visa Waiver Program, but AFAIK it's not necessarily reciprocal.

[st_dux 26]

Walker, what's with the willful ignorance? Instead of posting the same thing over and over again, why don't you actually respond to my last post?

• Ron Paul is not pandering to racists. His objection to the last section of the Civil Rights Act is a hypothetical one based solely on an intellectually consistent view of property rights. It is not a practical objection: He does not actually consider the repeal of the last section of the Civil Rights Act to be possible or necessary. Your charge that Paul's hypothetical opposition to one part of the Civil Rights Act -- an opposition that he and everyone else knows would never result in that section actually being repealed -- is actually an attempt to win the votes of hardcore racists is absolutely baseless and, given the fact that those who abhor racism vastly outnumber those who condone it, frankly absurd.
  
• Ron Paul is the only Republican who has expressed these views. No one else in the Republican party today has ever expressed any desire, hypothetical or otherwise, to repeal any part of the Civil Rights Act. It is a blatant composition fallacy on your part to continue to associate all Republicans with the views of one particular individual in the party.
  

Why are you ignoring these points? Are you content to be a propaganda machine for the Democratic party, or would you actually like to join the discussion?

Operative;2045234']In other news' date=' US ambassador in Brazil Thommas Shannon think that in the coming years both country will abolish the visa, allowing brazilian citizens enter US soil and vice versa.

I think it has something to do with the Visa Waiver Program, but AFAIK it's not necessarily reciprocal.[/quote']

If it's reciprocal, that would be a good thing. We should be trying to make legal immigration easier instead of obsessing about how to keep out illegals.

[Dosenmais 10]

@walker

All i hear from you is this nonsense "raceism, raceism, raceism". For godssake read a book, Freak.

[tacticalnuggets 24]

Walkers logic is that if you indiscriminately accept campaign donations or have no desire to control racist people, you are a racist. LOL

[walker 0]

Walkers logic is that if you indiscriminately accept campaign donations or have no desire to control racist people, you are a racist. LOL

Hi all

In reply to tacticalnuggets it is not me that is voicing policies that pander to racism, it is the decision of Ron Paul and the Republican party.

At any time Ron Paul and the Republican party could stop doing so and put out a statement saying that they will never again pursue policies that pander to racism and apologize for doing so.

I have to say I do not believe they will do so because they are desperate for the votes that get from openly supporting changes to the civil rights that are clearly pander to the worst dregs of society.

In reply to ST_Dux

The Republican party has accepted Ron Paul as a member. It is somewhat deceptive of you to claim a person who is accepted as Republican candidate is not realy a Republican because he embarrasses you or the Republican party.

If the Republican party thinks Ron Paul is beyond the pale then it should throw him out of the Republican party, but I think they won't because they need the votes that pandering to the extremists that Ron Paul brings to them.

Kind Regards walker

[st_dux 26]

The Republican party has accepted Ron Paul as a member. It is somewhat deceptive of you to claim a person who is accepted as Republican candidate is not realy a Republican because he embarrasses you or the Republican party.

If the Republican party thinks Ron Paul is beyond the pale then it should throw him out of the Republican party, but I think they won't because they need the votes that pandering to the extremists that Ron Paul brings to them.

Are you seriously suggesting that everyone in a particular political party agrees on everything? What would be the point of Republican or Democrat debates if that were the case? Why would we have primary elections?

I'm not saying that Ron Paul isn't really a Republican, but I am saying that his views on the last section of the Civil Rights Act are unique among Republicans. This is a demonstrable fact. Republicans (and Democrats) disagree on all sorts of issues within their own party, so the fact that Ron Paul is alone on this issue is hardly unprecedented.

Also, you've still ignored my first point: How does it make any sense to "pander to racists" when those who abhor racism clearly outnumber those who condone it? It doesn't make any political sense to appease a tiny fringe group while alienating a much larger portion of voters. What evidence do you have that this counter-intuitive goal is in fact Ron Paul's aim?

[Dosenmais 10]

pander to racism

What Bullshit are you talking?

He would end the war on drugs which brings thousands of non-violent young people, mostly minorities, behinde bars. This creates gangs among the minorities and freak up their communities. So whats racist about that?

And to all these hate crime bullshit.: Crime is Crime, there is no different in crime against negros by white people or crime by white people against white people. We are all equal before the law.

You dumbass don't even know what you talking about. :rolleyes:

Ron Paul racist... bull man, bull.

[nettrucker 142]

dear walker

your comments on Ron Paul shows me clearly that you didn't do research. You maybe did some but the bigger picture still eludes you IMHO. Ron Paul and the republican party are a different pair of shoes. what I've seen so far is that he 's the only one of all candidates who has integrity and the profound wish to change things for the better of the American people. But don't worry he will never win . . . they gonna rig the election in case he does. He is a thread to the current power structures established in the USA. Especially to the bankers.

@ Dosenmais

please refrain from insulting fellow community members in case they have different opinions. Thanks for your understanding.

[Baff1 0]

@ Walker

Your flogging a dead horse old man.

Where they come from, this kind of stuff isn't considered to be racism.

Different nationalities have different sensibilities.

If there was any feeling at all that this was racism, no one in a political campaign who came out with it would have survived past such a comment.

This chap is in tune with a large section of public opinion and he's not so politically incorrect as to have alienated any significant number of people either.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Baff1

[froggyluv 2133]

I believe people should have the right to discriminate against anyone they want on their own property. That makes me soooooooo racist. :j:

It ain't the 1950s anymore, btw.

The discussion was more distinct then believing that people should be able to do what they want on their property. Private residential property should be able to do whatever they want and they are -such as a White Supremecy camp -are protected under their Property Rights. They can hang nooses, banners, slogans, and flags of anything they wish at any time.

I'm fine with that. The absorbtion of Commercially zoned properties is what was at issue here ie.. the ability for a business to refuse service based on a customers race etc... and have the law back him up.

It is only not the 1950's because laws were enacted working symbiotically with social pressure from mostly Northern Liberals -remember, Libertarians and Conservatives had 185 years before civil right laws were enacted to prove their point that the free market would spoil these bigots plans on it's own merit -didn't happen.

[nettrucker 142]

Watch this.

C8dwhZZAFwQ&feature=related

[walker 0]

Hi all

As he points out no one has gone after the criminals.

yhrwmJcsfT0

Kind regards walker

[-GR-Operative 10]

Source: Here

So, finally the US is going after Kony. The soldiers, although combat-equipped are to assist only allied-nations troops. The US already provides help for four countries to counter the Lord's Resistance Army.

The troops are allowed to engage only in self-defence, but it's already a start I suppose.

Kony is the leader of a christian sect that wants to establish a government based in the ten commandments, but includes forced conversion, torture and genocide in it's agenda.