Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A failed businessman was president before him. The presidency doesn't seem to really require qualifications, just a personable orator.
I would say most founders were lawyers and personable orators? Perhaps that is why they weren't very good at defining the qualifications of the Presidents in the future?
Location: Charlotte,NC, US, North America, Earth, Alpha Quadrant,Milky Way Galaxy
3,770 posts, read 7,547,554 times
Reputation: 2118
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDC
Okay I actually watched the video and that pinko Matthews wouldn't let Paul get a word in edge-wise.
Ron Paul actually would also oppose Jim Crow laws, he raised a good point that things like segregation in the military were all instituted BY LAW, not by individual volition. His basic belief is that you should be allowed to do what you want with your own private property.
I have to admit I didn't hear where Ron or Rand explicitly said they approved of segregation as what was implied over and over again. It seems like they (MSNBC) really wanted them to trip over their words.
Now, Ron DOES need to explain what appears to be mutually exclusive ideas- how would he have been in favor of taking down Jim Crow and making race based segregation illegal *and* then allowed said biz owner to do whatever they want. The point is you can't do whatever you want.
That part is what appeared to be double talk and as a result didn't really have to much sympathy for the shakedown MSNBC gave them.
Last edited by Miker2069; 05-17-2011 at 01:06 PM..
I would say most founders were lawyers and personable orators?
None of them spoke in favor of things like UHC or public option. Goes to show how quickly the standards for a "constitutional scholar" declined over the many decades.
LMAO
Ron Paul is against the war on drugs. Guess who that affects negatively more than any other group? Minorities
I'll remember that the next time I see a meth lab bust or here oxycontinin referred to has "Hillbilly Heroin".
Quote:
Ron Paul is for keeping our troops out of harms way when it is not part or protecting our borders like the Constitution says. Guess who gets put in harms way more than any other group? minorities
Wrong, the majority of troops that serve are White Americans. Only 29.7% of the active duty miliitary are minorities and only 24% of reserve force identifies itself as mnority.
LMAO
Ron Paul is against the war on drugs. Guess who that affects negatively more than any other group? Minorities
Ron Paul is for keeping our troops out of harms way when it is not part or protecting our borders like the Constitution says. Guess who gets put in harms way more than any other group? minorities
yea I get what you mean about how you spin it. Ron Paul is puts that back in its hole where it belongs.
JazzyTallGuy had some good responses to this post. I'll add: it doesn't matter what he thinks about that stuff, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about discrimination masquereding as "property rights".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miker2069
<snip>
Now, Ron DOES need to explain what appears to be mutually exclusive ideas- how would he have been in favor of taking down Jim Crow and making race based segregation illegal *and* then allowed said biz owner to do whatever they want. The point is you can't do whatever you want.
That part is what appeared to be double talk and as a result didn't really have to much sympathy for the shakedown MSNBC gave them.
What he said. You have to come down on one side or the other of that issue. I go for human rights over property rights.
Location: Charlotte,NC, US, North America, Earth, Alpha Quadrant,Milky Way Galaxy
3,770 posts, read 7,547,554 times
Reputation: 2118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
JazzyTallGuy had some good responses to this post. I'll add: it doesn't matter what he thinks about that stuff, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about discrimination masquereding as "property rights".
What he said. You have to come down on one side or the other of that issue. I go for human rights over property rights.
Exactly. A principal or a truth isn't something that warps depending on who is "beholding it".
Now, Ron DOES need to explain what appears to be mutually exclusive ideas- how would he have been in favor of taking down Jim Crow and making race based segregation illegal *and* then allowed said biz owner to do whatever they want. The point is you can't do whatever you want.
Jim Crow laws were mandatory discrimination imposed by government. They forced both public and private businesses to seggregate based on race(get to the back of the bus). In fact, there were many bus companies that hated the seggregation policies because they placed an undue burden on those private companies through those government regulations.
The Civil Rights act that Ron Paul disagrees with is not the part that tells governments they can no longer discriminate(which overturned the Jim Crow laws). The part that Ron Paul disagrees with is a regulation on private businesses, which in-effect places regulations on private individuals for the sake of social engineering. Which the federal government does not have authority from the constitution to do.
Ron Paul believes in basically a strict originalist interpretation of the constitution. If its not in the constitution, then the federal government doesn't have the authority. On the contrary, the states have always had authority to pass things like the Civil Rights act, ever since the ratification of the constitution 220 years ago. Ron Paul does not believe that people should discriminate, and he understands that the states do have authority to prevent discrimination. He simply argues that parts of the Civil Rights act are unconstitutional(which they are), and so would not have voted for it as it was passed. This has been misconstrued to make Ron Paul seem like a racist, and that he is an advocate for discrimination. Which just isn't true.
Jim Crow laws were mandatory discrimination imposed by government. They forced both public and private businesses to seggregate based on race(get to the back of the bus). In fact, there were many bus companies that hated the seggregation policies because they placed an undue burden on those private companies through those government regulations.
Not every jurisdiction had Jim Crow laws, and they weren't the same everywhere. However, there was de facto segregation virtually everywhere in the US prior to the CRA.
Not every jurisdiction had Jim Crow laws, and they weren't the same everywhere. However, there was de facto segregation virtually everywhere in the US prior to the CRA.
Do you actually have a point?
Your rambling doesn't address the issue of the constitutionality of the Civil Rights act, and why Ron Paul opposes parts of it on constitutional principle, not on expediency or personal feelings.
He has basically the argument that the federal government has no right to police personal behavior, such as sexual preference discrimination(homosexuality), individual recreational drug use, or discrimination by private individuals.
You can't take a stand for liberty, then start making exceptions because the majority don't like truly believe in it. You'll end up sounding like a hypocrite. I would much rather Ron Paul stand on principle and have a real position, rather than just doing whatever sounds popular that day.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
