Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?

[Hash Zeppelin]

sorry, i'll try to be more clear. i think it was itisme who wrote: Ron Paul was going to "reset America to its core values" ... so i said cool, i've already got my slaves picked out. i could've just as easily said great, i'm so sick of women voters, or good, no more Hillary Clinton's running for office ...

perhaps you see where i'm going with this now. i just wanted to point out that our "core values" have evolved as we moved from agrarian to post industrial society, and since the church has been weakened. for the better i think. slavery, Jim Crow are considered kinda naughty now. and i'd like to keep it that way.


but then old Ron argues that southern property owners had every right to be racist because states and property rights are more important than human rights. he even came out against the historic civil rights act. so while i've never accused him of racism over his opposition to the civil rights act, or because he sent out racist newsletters back in the day (who hasn't?), i am concerned that his ideas could allow for an erosion of civil rights.

I am a little torn on this subject.

The civil rights movement is still going on for Homosexuals and pot growers. the ability to do what you want on your own land is a civil right, and an unalienable right. Also, I personally would like to know which business are racist so I can boycott them. However I think the country would still be a little ass backwards with out the civil rights movement.

Now that there are as many "minorities" as white folks they are finally no longer minorities. they are just Americans with economic and voting power. Can Liberty over come now that the country is a little more enlightened about things like science? (I say that with half sarcasm because of Climate Change deniers.)

 

[Rukind]

Ummm...I'm a RP Supporter-- Not sure what you are talking about--

my comment wasn't directed towards you. it was more directed at people hinting at ron paul being a racist. which is ridiculous. same goes for womens right and all that bullshit. there should be no "womens rights".. It is human rights. we all deserve them regardless of sex or color. thats what ron paul believes.


Ron paul:

Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.


Basically, the only way to get rid of racism all together is to not even recognize it. its time to move on and stop with the minority thing and putting people into "groups". Ron paul has said this as well.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

Fair enough--
But if we want States to have the Right to Legalize cannabis...they must have the Freedom to do as they wish, according to how the People feel--
That has to include Total Freedom...not just the ones we agree with-- It brings to mind something GW said...(paraphrase) "It is one thing to have Freedom, it is another thing to go overboard with freedom"-- I don't believe there can be too much freedom!!
States or Corporations that invoke Racially Discriminating Doctrine, will soon find that they cannot operate in that manner, unless most of the people in that area agree with it--
Freedom has to go both ways...either we want a Nanny State, or a Free State-- Might mean some have to relocate to a place they feel more comfortable--

Exactly right!

he is not racist.. at all. he has his reasons for not supporting the civil rights act but it has nothing to do with racism.

It seems people just want to take everything the guy believes in and then spin in until it fits their views.

this is 2012, racism isn't going to tolerated.

This is what I think and hope as well

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

Great Post Dude!!!!

Great Post Dude!!!!

my comment wasn't directed towards you. it was more directed at people hinting at ron paul being a racist. which is ridiculous.


Ron paul:

Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.


Basically, the only way to get rid of racism all together is to not even recognize it. its time to move on and stop with the minority thing and putting people into "groups". Ron paul has said this as well.

Such a wonderful, logical explanation by Dr. Paul, and you.

It is amazing what people can understand with critical thinking when they put there ego's aside.

 

[Rukind]

Everyone picks out every little thing ron paul says and makes it sinister. Just because it doesn't support their life long political views. such as, he isn't a democrat or something stupid like that. Or the fact he doesn't believe in evolution and he is a christian.. so what who cares? same with abortion. the guy delivered quite a few babies in his life time and i would feel the same most likely. He still says leave it up to the states. which is the truth.

Also it seems people just aren't reading into the issues. he is the only guy standing up for us i dont see how that isn't enough (especially during times like these where it is absolutely crucial to make some changes)

 

[itisme]

0.9% of the electorate has spoken. Iowa is non binding, and NH is one of the smallest states.

Any they moved their primary up and were punished and lost 12 delegates or very close to that.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Ron paul:

Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations.

I wonder how polls of minority opinion would compare?

However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The people have the right to improve relations without mandating us to do so. The CRA codifies rights so that individuals or groups can't act on some aspects of intolerance.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country.

No power is exercised unless business chooses to discriminate. Regulating discrimination doesn't involve the promotion or hiring of unqualified applicants. That said, discrimination does prevent qualified minorities from advancement.

We just recently mandated same pay for women as men. The idea that we don't practice discrimination in the workforce either ignores or dodges reality.

The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

We're free to operate private clubs and discriminate (or not discriminate.) Hanging "Whites Only" signs in so-called "public" establishments is another animal. One doesn't have to insert Ron Paul's personal motives into the equation. We have enough racial intolerance already happening to know this kind of thing risks descending into chaos.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce.

Don't forget "promoting the general welfare...".

The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

What freedoms are restricted other than the right to say, "No Minorities"?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society.

Laws against theft and fraud don't eliminate theft and fraud. IMO, the standard is elevated to the point of impracticality. Humans nature itself is predisposed to discrimination.

Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota.

I can hire and promote from within as I see fit. I just can't discriminate based on ethnicity. Why would anybody want that right?

Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Laws don't mitigate all crime. That why we litigate what spills over.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Is this a scientific judgement of diverse opinion or is an aggregate of like opinion? If it's the latter, is it the majority opinion?

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

I respectfully disagree.

 

[el bee]

abortion, the economy, gay rights, mmj... <-- this is the exact shit they want us all fighting among ourselves....

Politics is strange and these type of things really muddy the water and certainly divide. Last years Supreme Court decision to allow big money to dominate elections, therefore policy, is so strange and absurd I can't comprehend it.

There is no way I'm gonna read the full thread with a hangover, but I just wanna know.....how did Gary Johnson get zero respect from the GOP or CNN or anyone besides a couple magazine articles. Dude seems awesome AND effective.

 

[Cojito]

... Or the fact he doesn't believe in evolution and he is a christian.. so what who cares?

we care because the last religious nutter we had at the wheel ran us into a ditch. and we still haven't gotten out.

look, if we want a free and open society - we should care. if we want our decisions based on reason and logic - we should care. if we value progress and science - we should care. if we want equal right for gays - we should care. if we want fewer wars - we should care. we are still at war with religious zealots. you don't have to look hard at the middle east to see that religion has stunted their progress, twisted their worldview. and ours. we can't afford to give any credence to this kind of primitive, iron-age thinking.

 

[Rukind]

I wonder how polls of minority opinion would compare?

The people have the right to improve relations without mandating us to do so. The CRA codifies rights so that individuals or groups can't act on some aspects of intolerance.

No power is exercised unless business chooses to discriminate. Discrimination does not involve the promotion or hiring of unqualified applicants. That said, discrimination does prevent qualified minorities from advancement.

We just recently mandated same pay for women as men. The idea that we don't practice discrimination in the workforce either ignores or dodges reality.

We're free to operate private clubs and discriminate (or not discriminate.) Hanging "Whites Only" signs in so-called "public" establishments is another animal. One doesn't have to insert Ron Paul's personal motives into the equation. We have enough racial intolerance already happening to know this kind of thing risks descending into chaos.

Don't forget "promoting the general welfare...".

What freedoms are restricted other than the right to say, "No Minorities"?

Laws against theft and fraud don't eliminate theft and fraud. IMO, the standard is elevated to the point of impracticality. Humans nature itself is predisposed to discrimination.

I can hire and promote from within as I see fit. I just can't discriminate based on ethnicity. Why would anybody want that right?

Laws don't mitigate all crime. That why we litigate what spills over.

Is this a scientific judgement of diverse opinion or is an aggregate of like opinion? If it's the latter, is it the majority opinion?

I respectfully disagree.

You aren't seeing it from the perspective that ron paul see's it. This is also my perspective. He does not see people in groups or as minorities. There is no reason for a "black history month" or a "black entertainment television". that is just as racist as having a white entertainment television.

the idea is to remove these boundaries and stop addressing each other as a group or minority.

there is no reason for a civil rights act when there is no minority.

here is an example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeixtYS-P3s

 

[Rukind]

we care because the last religious nutter we had at the wheel ran us into a ditch. and we still haven't gotten out.

look, if we want a free and open society - we should care. if we want our decisions based on reason and logic - we should care. if we value progress and science - we should care. if we want equal right for gays - we should care. if we want fewer wars - we should care. we are still at war with religious zealots. you don't have to look hard at the middle east to see that religion has stunted their progress, twisted their worldview. and ours. we can't afford to give any credence to this kind of primitive, iron-age thinking.

okay good luck finding any candidate up there that does not have a religious belief. so lets just stop saying that actually matters.

ron paul has said that his beliefs on religion and evolution have no influence in his politics. also the truth is, no one knows whether there is a god or not. so, you cant say he is wrong. also evolution is basically proven, but there is also science that says it isn't. so who gives a fuck. there is always 2 sides to every story. people can look at the world how ever they like. I believe in evolution because its pretty much obvious but that doesn't mean you cant see it from another point of view. You should be more open to other people's way of thinking. 5 grams + of some dried cubensis mushrooms will help with that.

i suggest you start here to answer your questions about these issues http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKAaps6mFYk

also, If Ron Paul hates gay people, why did he hire a gay campaign manager in 2008? Kent Snyder

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

You aren't seeing it from the perspective that ron paul see's it. This is also my perspective. He does not see people in groups or as minorities. There is no reason for a "black history month" or a "black entertainment television". that is just as racist as having a white entertainment television.

I disagree that I fail to see any perspective that's articulated well enough to comprehend. How does a man not see groups yet describes DC black males as 95% criminal or semi-criminal? In 1995, Ron Paul said the context of the comment had to be considered. In 2000, Ron Paul condemned it. I for one would like to witness the "context" that Ron Paul referenced in 1995. That might persuade me to reconsider - or not.

the idea is to remove these boundaries and stop addressing each other as a group or minority.

That's a goal I happen to agree with. The only problem with moving back to achieve it invites all the transgressions we've sought to mitigate.

there is no reason for a civil rights act when there is no minority.

here is an example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeixtYS-P3s

I respectfully disagree and thanks for the link.

 

[Rukind]

I disagree that I fail to see any perspective that's articulated well enough to comprehend. How does a man not see groups yet describes DC black males as 95% criminal or semi-criminal? In 1995, Ron Paul said the context of the comment had to be considered. In 2000, Ron Paul condemned it. I for one would like to witness the "context" that Ron Paul referenced in 1995. That might persuade me to reconsider - or not.

That's a goal I happen to agree with. The only problem with moving back to achieve it invites all the transgressions we've sought to mitigate.

I respectfully disagree and thanks for the link.

sorry DB, nothing is going to make you reconsider any issue that doesn't work with your point of view, so I dont see why you even get involved in this thread. you will spin these issues in anyway that will support your view.

Your wrong. respectfully...

We need your vote man. this is our last chance. the united states isn't going to make it much longer with our current way of doing things and you know this. at least life in the united states isn't going to be so good for the "99%". its time to make a change. a real one, not the "change we can believe in" bullshit.


there is good science and bad science. when you constantly twist the facts to support your theory and make it accurate, that is bad science. your only in it for your own victory. much like the lipid hypothesis (not relevant to politics).

I want ron paul as president for the good of our country and not because I want to be right for my own selfish reasons. I was a democrat and voted for obama and deeply regret it. I am sick of all the bullshit.

we are in some serious trouble if we dont make some changes and i really want my kids to grow up in a free world. I dont want to raise kids in a world like this. I dont want war for the rest of my life.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

Disco, Ron Paul is more Liberal than Barack Obama on many Issues.

Ron Paul wants to shrink the military industrial complex. Obama increased military spending and then signed a bill a last week expanding the budget more, and signed away the 4th amendment.

Ron Paul wants to end the drug war. Obama raided more dispensaries than bush after his justice department said he was not going to raid them in a policy letter to the public. He also increased the DEA's budget.

Ron Paul says leave gay marriage up to the states. Obama says no gay marriage.

That is three major examples of where he is more logical and liberal than any politician running for office in 2012.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

sorry DB, nothing is going to make you reconsider any issue that doesn't work with your point of view, so I dont see why you even get involved in this thread. you will spin these issues in anyway that will support your view.

Your wrong.

We need your vote man. this is our last chance. the united states isn't going to make it much longer with our current way of doing things and you know this. at least life in the united states isn't going to be so good for the "99%". its time to make a change. a real one, not the "change we can believe in" bullshit.


there is good science and bad science. when you constantly twist the facts to support your theory and make it accurate, that is bad science. your only in it for your own victory.

I want ron paul as president for our country and not because I want to be right for my own selfish reasons. I was a democrat and voted for obama and deeply regret it. I am sick of all the bullshit.

we are in some serious trouble if we dont make some changes and i really want my kids to grow up in a free world. I dont want to raise kids in a world like this. I dont want war for the rest of my life.

You're welcome to an opinion. My point of view might be further influenced once I gather further information. Ron Paul has enough money to consider the advice of public relations professionals who coach clients on how to deliver their message. In this case, when one wants additional information to make more informed decisions, they're often disparaged and their motives are questioned.

Your base is strong but numerically, it's not enough to win national office. That fact that few house representatives achieve the presidency isn't coincidence. Districts aren't necessarily mirrors of the national electorate.

I happen to disagree with the pretext of economic crash and burn. "Change we can believe in" isn't a slogan for fixing economic problems. It's a slogan for fixing us, i.e. our ability to compromise our solutions. Not in spite of our differences but because of them.

I'm not here for any victory other than seeking additional information to make informed decisions. IMO, Ron Paul deals an appealing hand. I just want to see more cards before I cast my vote.

Wasn't aware I was twisting facts. I've attempted to point out situations that at best, need the benefit of the doubt and at worst deserve more information.. We're 11 months from the election and that's a long time for Ron Paul to articulate aspects that generate enough ripples beyond the base to sink him with the national electorate.

 

[dagnabit]

Why would anybody want that right?

herein lies the fundamental difference of thought processes....

it does not matter if you or i think it's correct or incorrect or even makes us scratch our heads or it even makes us mad.

it is a persons right to choose whom they enter into contract with or do not based on whatever criteria they deem relevant.

you nor i nor anyone else should be able to use the force of law to force another in to what we deem right action or right thinking.

 

[dagnabit]

Everyone picks out every little thing ron paul says and makes it sinister. Just because it doesn't support their life long political views. such as, he isn't a democrat or something stupid like that. Or the fact he doesn't believe in evolution and he is a christian.. so what who cares? same with abortion.

you should read more of the good doc

he was one of only 2 out of 8 candidates in '08 to raise his hand that he DOES believe in evolution.

he is more pro choice than obama

 

[MostHigh]

The CRA officially legislated against naturally occurring though processes. It forced people into complying, conforming and conditioning their offspring to live differently than how things had been.

To me, it was a well intended Act, but had no concern for individualism, and instead, focused on forcing naturally segregated populations to get use to one another and get along. And when you go and do a thing like legislate unwanted, victimless behavior...you're in for a decades long bit of push back.

Most of which is right in that no one, so long as they do not physically intrude into another's world, should be subjected to being forced to develop and or adopt other people's ways.

Far as I'm concerned, the CRA was irrelevant from the word go. Ethnicities were already getting along. Not famously of course, more of a work in progress and promise of a better day with each successive generation born into a society that puts more energy into tolerance than it does intolerance. I do not require being told to weigh and judge people on their actions, that their ethnicity has nothing to do with how I view and relate to a person.

That though, does not remove the fact that its awfully disturbing that the US federal government has laws that require me to hold hands around a campfire with people I may find I object to being in the presence of.

Couple of bottom lines here. So what if a non-violent person doesn't want to cohabit, work with or hire an ethnic minority. If they don't want to get along in a group mind set, they are free to go find one that suits them, or, just go rouge and live how they want to live. Meting penalties for doing otherwise...is more intrusive than the ways it was intended to replace.

Also...after decades of being forced indoors, denied safe access to simply sitting in my home with a small amount of cannabis...I fairly well don't care what else RP intends to do in office. So long as I can finally stop worrying about my door being kicked in due to ever short-sighted drug warring...I'll accept Ron Paul's want of dissolving government programs that have done nothing but become hugely expensive, net negative results.

Sad but true...2012, I'm a one issue voter. And really...its time that issue go away.

 

[ShroomDr]

Disco, Ron Paul is more Liberal than Barack Obama on many Issues.

Ron Paul wants to shrink the military industrial complex. Obama increased military spending and then signed a bill a last week expanding the budget more, and signed away the 4th amendment.

Ron Paul wants to end the drug war. Obama raided more dispensaries than bush after his justice department said he was not going to raid them in a policy letter to the public. He also increased the DEA's budget.

Ron Paul says leave gay marriage up to the states. Obama says no gay marriage.

That is three major examples of where he is more logical and liberal than any politician running for office in 2012.

The only thing i would disagree with is Obama attempted to sign away the 4th amendment. If anything, by putting it on the books he has opend himself up to SCOTUS, GWB would have never made that mistake.

==============
==============

Im pretty sure these 'Superpacs' are actually allowing the puppet masters to hold back and only give short bursts of money. This may allow for an extended primary race like democracy should call for.

Romney and Perry both already have well funded SPAC's
Dr Paul's 'moneybombs' are essentially the same thing, only raised by young internet people.
Newt has a Casino backer
and
Santorum got a million dollars boost the day after Iowa.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Bush didn't have to address codification because he had no pressing cases to deal with.