Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

[Zig]

bullshit...it's what makes the world go around.

:lol:

 

does any real politician give a shit about what's happening miles away?

 

sure it may cross their mind but guess what? they're thinking the same shit you ppl are...

 

GLAD ITS THEM AND NOT ME.

 

 

you pay taxes= you're a slave.

 

they who control the money control the world...and it ain't who you think.

 

its sad because, a majority of people who aren't interested in politics or don't know anything about politics, and are also uneducated on our basic history or even geopolitical history, think, talk, and respond this way whenever involved in political discussions.

 

now i don't disagree with his slave statement, nor do i disagree with his resentment of politicians, but he clearly isn't comprehending anything about this conversation... probably has no idea who ron paul is, and probably couldn't even name people in the current administration running office.

 

im not saying i can personally name everyone in the current administration, im just making the point that the general populace is completely out of touch with the political process in America and would rather put up their middle finger than engage in a discussion about ideology. it's a big reason why our government is as corrupt as it has become, because for the most part americans don't know shit about government or give a fuck about it.

 

i can't really say that all the blame is on the average citizen though, i have to blame the education system, the media, and even the government itself for discouraging it's own citizens from being intelligent and though provoking when it comes to political issues.

[lord_casek]

Black mans view on Ron Paul being called a racist

[lord_casek]

Well said, props good sir.

[oookeybooty]

its sad because, a majority of people who aren't interested in politics or don't know anything about politics, and are also uneducated on our basic history or even geopolitical history, think, talk, and respond this way whenever involved in political discussions.

 

now i don't disagree with his slave statement, nor do i disagree with his resentment of politicians, but he clearly isn't comprehending anything about this conversation... probably has no idea who ron paul is, and probably couldn't even name people in the current administration running office.

 

im not saying i can personally name everyone in the current administration, im just making the point that the general populace is completely out of touch with the political process in America and would rather put up their middle finger than engage in a discussion about ideology. it's a big reason why our government is as corrupt as it has become, because for the most part americans don't know shit about government or give a fuck about it.

 

i can't really say that all the blame is on the average citizen though, i have to blame the education system, the media, and even the government itself for discouraging it's own citizens from being intelligent and though provoking when it comes to political issues.

 

 

 

 

 

i do know who ron paul is, i do know about politics, and i wished so much for this country to change.

 

POLITICIANS ARE NOT MEANT FOR CHANGE...THEY ARE MEANT TO KEEP THINGS THE SAME.

 

why would i care about a government which does such things to the ppl of this country?

 

all politicians, would never get my respect they are just as crooked as the next man.

 

 

have i given up on politicians? yes...but i would never give up on the ppl of this country.

 

the ppl make this country not your politician...and politicians are not once who they were so they don't count as my " People" anymore. if ppl had a real problem in this country they would revolt just like they do in the middle east...those ppl take no shit.

 

 

could you imagine ppl burning down city hall in your state? could you imagine ppl fire-bombing the white house because of all the fucked up shit this country put it's ppl thru?

 

they don't...because this is a " Great" country.

 

i'll tell you what this country is...a piece of shit covered in frosting.:lol:

 

 

 

RIP JFK...

 

 

 

 

so get that straight homey.

[ipod90]

Ron is the last of a dying breed. This needs to happen or hello fascism. Fingers fucking crossed aye .:cool:

[angelofdeath]

'i hate all politicians'

 

then:

 

'RIP JFK'

 

unless im taking this post wrong, sounds like you like JFK.

seems pretty funny to me if this is the case

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

He's confused.

 

Just nod your head, and smile.

[TheoHuxtable..]

Black mans view on Ron Paul being called a racist

 

Even if Ron Paul is against CRA '64, segregation/Jim Crow existed in both the public & private sectors. And CRA '64 ended both. So while one may argue the libertarian argument for private business, what would they say about government institutionalized Jim Crow laws?

 

The claim at the time was "separate but equal", but the facilities provided between blacks & whites were anything but equal. Whether it was public transit, restrooms, schools, etc. That famous photo of the drinking fountains symbolized this - how the "Whites Only" fountain was new and modernized for its time, while the "Colored" fountain was old & decrepit - and those fountains were in a public/government building.

 

So if Ron Paul considers himself a strict Constitutionalist, then he should view institutionalized Jim Crow laws and unequal treatment through lack of funding & facilities by the government as being unconstitutional. CRA '64 mandated Jim Crow as being unconstitutional.

[angelofdeath]

i answered this in my previous post which must of made to much sense to debate.

 

but in short, RP is only against the provision of the civil rights act that forces private business to associate with people. i dont know how many times rand or ron said this, but they both said it more times than i can count when the whole brouhaha was going down on this issue. he is for the provisions that outlaw segregation on government/public property. so you are trying to make a case against the guy when he agrees with what you are saying about public property.

 

the constitutional argument against the CRA 64 is largely against the sections that pertain to private businesses (which in fact were regulated by state and local government segregation laws).

but there are also two schools of thought on the 14th amendment besides its dubious ratification. one side makes the case the creators of the amendment had a narrow interpretation. which is pretty much undoubtably true in a historical context. the amendment was passed solely to make sure freed slaves and blacks could own property, serve on a jury, etc. one could also further this argument by saying the courts held this view for many years therefore further reinforcing this argument. under this argument the bill of rights still only applies to the federal government as was originally intended and not to the states.

 

the second side makes the argument theo is making which in the current constitutional arrangement and levels of tyranny we currently toil under, i tend to accept. although the federal government's role is broader in scope than the framers intended, i dont have any problem really with the bill of rights being applied to the states. which in turn also means the 14th amendment can be used to strike down those segregation laws. but you enter into a 'camels nose under the tent' scenario with this line of thought. where do you draw the line and on what issues can you keep using the 'unequal' treatment argument? this viewpoint is fine if it is extremely limited but i recognize this is one of the clauses in the constitution used by the courts to expand the size and scope of the national governments power.

it is a tricky issue.

[angelofdeath]

i'd also like to point out... the 'libertarian' position on 'segregation' and/or laws pertaining to segregation on 'public' property is:

 

the government cannot legitimately own property and should not be running transit, schools, etc.

[El Mamerro]

In other words, a position that conveniently avoids reality.

[Zig]

He's confused.

 

Just nod your head, and smile.

 

:laugh1:

[angelofdeath]

In other words, a position that conveniently avoids reality.

 

you know, many thought abolitionists in the 19th century as taking a position that 'conveniently avoids reality.'

[TheoHuxtable..]

i answered this in my previous post which must of made to much sense to debate.

 

Nah I just skimmed through it - didn't really read it.

 

in short, RP is only against the provision of the civil rights act that forces private business to associate with people. i dont know how many times rand or ron said this, but they both said it more times than i can count when the whole brouhaha was going down on this issue. he is for the provisions that outlaw segregation on government/public property. so you are trying to make a case against the guy when he agrees with what you are saying about public property.

 

the constitutional argument against the CRA 64 is largely against the sections that pertain to private businesses (which in fact were regulated by state and local government segregation laws).

but there are also two schools of thought on the 14th amendment besides its dubious ratification. one side makes the case the creators of the amendment had a narrow interpretation. which is pretty much undoubtably true in a historical context. the amendment was passed solely to make sure freed slaves and blacks could own property, serve on a jury, etc. one could also further this argument by saying the courts held this view for many years therefore further reinforcing this argument. under this argument the bill of rights still only applies to the federal government as was originally intended and not to the states.

 

the second side makes the argument theo is making which in the current constitutional arrangement and levels of tyranny we currently toil under, i tend to accept. although the federal government's role is broader in scope than the framers intended, i dont have any problem really with the bill of rights being applied to the states. which in turn also means the 14th amendment can be used to strike down those segregation laws. but you enter into a 'camels nose under the tent' scenario with this line of thought. where do you draw the line and on what issues can you keep using the 'unequal' treatment argument? this viewpoint is fine if it is extremely limited but i recognize this is one of the clauses in the constitution used by the courts to expand the size and scope of the national governments power.

it is a tricky issue.

 

If Ron Paul is in favor of sections of CRA '64 that regulated government-sanctioned discrimination - great. However, one can still make the argument that a private business practicing racism & discrimination is and should be against the law, in the breath of a private business committing other forms of unfair practices towards customers that would also be against the law (fraud, assault, threats, misrepresentation, etc.).

[TheoHuxtable..]

i answered this in my previous post which must of made to much sense to debate.

 

Nah I just skimmed through it - didn't really read it.

 

in short, RP is only against the provision of the civil rights act that forces private business to associate with people. i dont know how many times rand or ron said this, but they both said it more times than i can count when the whole brouhaha was going down on this issue. he is for the provisions that outlaw segregation on government/public property. so you are trying to make a case against the guy when he agrees with what you are saying about public property.

 

the constitutional argument against the CRA 64 is largely against the sections that pertain to private businesses (which in fact were regulated by state and local government segregation laws).

but there are also two schools of thought on the 14th amendment besides its dubious ratification. one side makes the case the creators of the amendment had a narrow interpretation. which is pretty much undoubtably true in a historical context. the amendment was passed solely to make sure freed slaves and blacks could own property, serve on a jury, etc. one could also further this argument by saying the courts held this view for many years therefore further reinforcing this argument. under this argument the bill of rights still only applies to the federal government as was originally intended and not to the states.

 

the second side makes the argument theo is making which in the current constitutional arrangement and levels of tyranny we currently toil under, i tend to accept. although the federal government's role is broader in scope than the framers intended, i dont have any problem really with the bill of rights being applied to the states. which in turn also means the 14th amendment can be used to strike down those segregation laws. but you enter into a 'camels nose under the tent' scenario with this line of thought. where do you draw the line and on what issues can you keep using the 'unequal' treatment argument? this viewpoint is fine if it is extremely limited but i recognize this is one of the clauses in the constitution used by the courts to expand the size and scope of the national governments power.

it is a tricky issue.

 

If Ron Paul is in favor of sections of CRA '64 that regulated government-sanctioned discrimination - great. However, one can still make the argument that a private business practicing racism & discrimination is and should be against the law, in the breath of a private business committing other forms of unfair practices towards customers that would also be against the law (fraud, assault, threats, misrepresentation, etc.).

[angelofdeath]

Nah I just skimmed through it - didn't really read it.

 

you should actually read it because it completely smashes your next argument.

 

 

 

If Ron Paul is in favor of sections of CRA '64 that regulated government-sanctioned discrimination - great. However, one can still make the argument that a private business practicing racism & discrimination is and should be against the law, in the breath of a private business committing other forms of unfair practices towards customers that would also be against the law (fraud, assault, threats, misrepresentation, etc.).

 

is racism stupid? sure.

should we throw someone in jail if they choose not to associate with someone on their own property? no

 

if you conclude that we need to throw 'racists' in jail who 'discriminate' then we must also throw you in jail if you choose not to leave your front door open in order for homeless people to enter your property therefore 'increasing' the freedom of everyone. we must also throw racist customers in jail who choose not to do business with store owners they dont like. why can we throw business owners in jail but we cant throw racist customers in jail? and why is it only racial discrimination that is bad, but when people who search for sex partners discriminate on the basis of looks, intelligence, race, and sexual orientation its fine? why can private property owners discriminate and throw drunks off their property, people who dont have on shoes or shirts, people who arent dressed to the proper dress code, non payers, people fighting, people who are armed? why can the basketball team discriminate against people in wheel chairs, people who weight to much, people who are to short, the mentally retarded? why should the jewish store owner be forced to associate with neo nazi's, klansmen or members of the violent separatist organizations? why arent we forcing the boy scouts to allow girls in? why arent we forcing guys to attend 'girls nights out?'

 

discrimination is choice. people do it every day. freedom of association is a bedrock principle of a free society. the government shouldnt force a racist to conform to their idea of what is right and they shouldnt force someone to allow someone on to their property. if they can force a racist to do so, on the same principle, they can force anyone to associate with whoever they think you should. if you hold the position that the government has a right to force associations, but that they cannot force YOU to associate with various people... you sir, are a hypocrite. you cannot get mad when congress is lobbied to force you to associate with various individuals on your own property.

[oookeybooty]

'i hate all politicians'

 

then:

 

'RIP JFK'

 

unless im taking this post wrong, sounds like you like JFK.

seems pretty funny to me if this is the case

 

 

you did get it confused...last time i checked JFK wasn't running for any office.

 

and yea nod your head and keep smiling...:lol: :rolleyes:

[lord_casek]

JFK was the POTUS. Last time I checked, that means he was a politician.

[angelofdeath]

i like the guys' quasi anarchist rhetoric then praising a statist president.

[lord_casek]

I liked the part where he said this:

 

"i do know who ron paul is, i do know about politics, and i wished so much for this country to change."

 

That last part speaks so much.

[wearekilluminati]

"POLITICS" literally translates to MANY-BLOODSUCKERS poly-ticks

fuck PON RAUL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me...............................................bunch of cheerleadin faggots on here..........yes you

[angelofdeath]

^^^ this guy was always funnier than the other dude.

 

how on earth, can a guy who wants to limit government as much as possible be considered a blood sucker?

personally, if i was totally against politics i wouldnt post in a political forum.

but that is just me

[lord_casek]

I think he's getting high and trolling us.

 

If I ran a medical marijuana shop I think I'd be very involved in politics for a few reasons.

One being I'd want to make sure I was able to continue helping my patients, especially since Colorado is the most recent state to get gov threats.

 

I would also want a man in the seat of the president like Ron Paul, who is completely for medical marijuana.

 

[Zig]

hold on ima doin an impression of killuminati...

 

FUCK YALL, WAKE UP YO, I LIKE TYPING IN CAPS, YALL ALL DUMB AND SHIT SMELL THE COFFEE FUCK ILLUMINATI SHEEPLE DERP DERP DICK IN MAH ASS

 

"some random but horribly misquoted smart thing an actual intellectual once said that isn't relevant at all to anything we're talking about"

 

OH YEA IMA KILL YOU TOO (random threat on your life)

[wearekilluminati]

YO YO YO WAHT NAH MAN WAKE UP.LOL DICK ON YO ASS LOL that was funny. YEAP an exact impression of me.. i forgot how much i missed dickhead croosfire..getting all ya blabberbrained individuals panties in a bunch. i love seeing ya expertise analyzation of bullshit..ha long live ron pail surely hes going get us out of this mess obama, bush, clinton bush, reagan, nixon, johnson ,etc, etc got us in. get a life and suck a nut or a split whichever one you prefer.