dwccrew wrote:

isadore wrote:
heck he even opposes fighting the civil war to end slavery

MAybe you need a history lesson, the Civil War was fought to preserve the Union, not to end slavery. Slavery was the issue that put the North and South at odds, but not the reason for the war. The war was because the South seceeded from the union.

You are misleading everyone (just as you are misleading with all of your accusations) by saying Dr. Paul opposed the civil war to end slavery, he opposed it because he believes the states rights should trump federal governments. Here, learn something.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/U.S.+Civil+War

The U.S. Civil War, also called the War between the States, was waged from April 1861 until April 1865. The war was precipitated by the secession of eleven Southern states during 1860 and 1861 and their formation of the Confederate States of America under President Jefferson Davis. The Southern states had feared that the new president, Abraham Lincoln, who had been elected in 1860, and Northern politicians would block the expansion of Slavery and endanger the existing slaveholding system. Though Lincoln did free Southern slaves during the war by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, he fought primarily to restore the Union.

read your own quote, who started the shooting war, the South. Why did they initiate the conflict, to protect the institution of slavery and their right to spread it throughout the Americas. What increasingly became a Northern reason for conducting the war, ending slavery. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and had begun the process of passing the 13th Amendment when he was assassinated. Paul was quite willing to see slavery continue using the false economic argument that it was not economically viable at the time when slavery had made the Southern states the richest in our nation at the time.

dwccrew wrote: Also, Ron Paul has stated he accepted the donation NOT because he supports the neo-nazi's views, but because the donator supports Ron Paul's views. He even asks why should he give the money back so the guy can use it for evil purposes? Ron Paul is a solid wall that neither the left or right can break down.

People claiming Ron Paul is a racist are reaching, big time.



Skip to 3:35. Ron Paul explains his position.

by donating to Paul he had altready used his money for evil purposes, financiing a stalking horse to advance to bring many of his view more nearly into the mainstream. Opposition to Civil rights, neo Confederatism, anti Israel opinions. Those newsletters released under Paul's letterhead in the 1990s would do any neo Nazi proud with their racism and anti Semitism.

Seriously though, we know that the Progressive strategy is when you can't beat someone on ideas, just call them a racist. Don't like Obama, oh, you're a racist. Believe in private property, you're a racist. The real racists are the people who use race as a distinguishing factor in arguments.

Question: If you could, how many of you would choose American as your race instead of white, black, etc? I would.

bigmanbt wrote: Seriously though, we know that the Progressive strategy is when you can't beat someone on ideas, just call them a racist. Don't like Obama, oh, you're a racist. Believe in private property, you're a racist. The real racists are the people who use race as a distinguishing factor in arguments.

Question: If you could, how many of you would choose American as your race instead of white, black, etc? I would.

Not to mention they dishonor those who have experienced the scourge of true racism. They spit on and diminish those that have suffered at the hands of racist pigs by throwing the word around like a political football.

seriously though, lol,
as the Pauls try to push racial progress in our nation back a hundred and fifty years, we sure wouldnt want to apply the racist label to them. Ok they are not racist, they are just in service to racism, putting their best efforts forward to allow bigots their return to the sunlight where they are just expressing their private property rights with their application of their racist beliefs.

majorspark wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: Seriously though, we know that the Progressive strategy is when you can't beat someone on ideas, just call them a racist. Don't like Obama, oh, you're a racist. Believe in private property, you're a racist. The real racists are the people who use race as a distinguishing factor in arguments.

Question: If you could, how many of you would choose American as your race instead of white, black, etc? I would.

Not to mention they dishonor those who have experienced the scourge of true racism. They spit on and diminish those that have suffered at the hands of racist pigs by throwing the word around like a political football.

oh you mean like those people who sat in at woolworths counters and were spit on among other indignities for their efforts.

isadore wrote: seriously though, lol,
as the Pauls try to push racial progress in our nation back a hundred and fifty years, we sure wouldnt want to apply the racist label to them. Ok they are not racist, they are just in service to racism, putting their best efforts forward to allow bigots their return to the sunlight where they are just expressing their private property rights with their application of their racist beliefs.

Just because the Pauls don't believe the government should be involved in race issues, does not mean they believe in racism. It's 2 seperate things that you either aren't smart enough to understand or are too thickheaded to admit.

The Pauls don't believe that government should pass legislation on race issues. Affirmative Action is reverse racism. If I don't agree with AA am I a racist?

"Just because the Pauls don't believe the government should be involved in race issues, does not mean they believe in racism. "

"The Pauls don't believe that government should pass legislation on race issues."
Like the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.

isadore wrote: "Just because the Pauls don't believe the government should be involved in race issues, does not mean they believe in racism. "

"The Pauls don't believe that government should pass legislation on race issues."
Like the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.

No, like the Civil Rights Act, Affirmative Action, etc.

Please cite one time the Pauls have ever said they were against the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments.

I think you have your answer right there as to whether or not the Pauls are racists or not. They fully support the Constitution which consists of the aforementioned amendments, therefore I ask, how can they be racists?

dwccrew wrote:

isadore wrote: "Just because the Pauls don't believe the government should be involved in race issues, does not mean they believe in racism. "

"The Pauls don't believe that government should pass legislation on race issues."
Like the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.

No, like the Civil Rights Act, Affirmative Action, etc.

Please cite one time the Pauls have ever said they were against the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments.

I think you have your answer right there as to whether or not the Pauls are racists or not. They fully support the Constitution which consists of the aforementioned amendments, therefore I ask, how can they be racists?

No they dont. Ronny opposes the 16th and 17th Amendments. He does not want citizens to be able to elect their Senators.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/3/1/17199/47658
He opposed the war that made the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments possible.
He opposed the Civil Rights law that ended the system of dejure segregation that denied blacks basic human rights
He opposed that law that gave them access to public accomodations
He opposed the Voting Rights Act that finally gave blacks true suffrage in the South.
If he is not a racist, he and his son sure is their best friends among leading present day political leaders

Wow, he opposes the 16th and 17th amendment, not sure how that relates to him being racist. You stated something about the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. When did either Dr. Paul claim to be against any of those? Links?

dwccrew wrote: Wow, he opposes the 16th and 17th amendment, not sure how that relates to him being racist. You stated something about the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. When did either Dr. Paul claim to be against any of those? Links?

""The Pauls don't believe that government should pass legislation on race issues."
The 13th, 14th and 15th Amednments are legislation proposing Amendments to the Constitution passed by 2/3 votes of the United States Congress.
" They fully support the Constitution which consists of the aforementioned amendments, therefore I ask, how can they be racists? "
They dont fully support the Constitution as was shown by Ronny's stated opposition to the 16th and 17th Amendments.

Ronny opposed the Civil War which brought about the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendment. He was quite willing to let slavery continue in existence with the false idea that it was near to an end.

ummmmm, nope!

just an idiot.

dwccrew wrote: Wow, he opposes the 16th and 17th amendment, not sure how that relates to him being racist. You stated something about the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. When did either Dr. Paul claim to be against any of those? Links?

You do realize, I hope (?), that you have fallen under Isi's particular type of voodoo spell... right? lol

isadore wrote:

dwccrew wrote: Wow, he opposes the 16th and 17th amendment, not sure how that relates to him being racist. You stated something about the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. When did either Dr. Paul claim to be against any of those? Links?

""The Pauls don't believe that government should pass legislation on race issues."
The 13th, 14th and 15th Amednments are legislation proposing Amendments to the Constitution passed by 2/3 votes of the United States Congress.
" They fully support the Constitution which consists of the aforementioned amendments, therefore I ask, how can they be racists? "
They dont fully support the Constitution as was shown by Ronny's stated opposition to the 16th and 17th Amendments.

Ronny opposed the Civil War which brought about the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendment. He was quite willing to let slavery continue in existence with the false idea that it was near to an end.

Yeah, you already tried saying this and then I asked you to provide some sort of link or proof, which you haven't. But everyone knows that's your M.O. and no one takes you seriously for that reason.

He opposed the Civil War, but not for the reasons you state. He believes that the southern states secession should have been recognized by the union.

dwccrew wrote:

isadore wrote:

dwccrew wrote: Wow, he opposes the 16th and 17th amendment, not sure how that relates to him being racist. You stated something about the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. When did either Dr. Paul claim to be against any of those? Links?

""The Pauls don't believe that government should pass legislation on race issues."
The 13th, 14th and 15th Amednments are legislation proposing Amendments to the Constitution passed by 2/3 votes of the United States Congress.
" They fully support the Constitution which consists of the aforementioned amendments, therefore I ask, how can they be racists? "
They dont fully support the Constitution as was shown by Ronny's stated opposition to the 16th and 17th Amendments.

Ronny opposed the Civil War which brought about the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendment. He was quite willing to let slavery continue in existence with the false idea that it was near to an end.

Yeah, you already tried saying this and then I asked you to provide some sort of link or proof, which you haven't. But everyone knows that's your M.O. and no one takes you seriously for that reason.

He opposed the Civil War, but not for the reasons you state. He believes that the southern states secession should have been recognized by the union.

Your statements about Paul about his stand on racial legislation and his support of the Constitution have both been shown to be false.
He claims that slavery was about to end on its own in America. That is false as has been shown in research going back as far as Kenneth Stampp's Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Antebellum South.

His stand is despicable
But made even more so by his opposition to the law that ended dejure segregation in our nation, plus making publci accomodation open to blacks.
And his opposition to the Voting Rights Act that finally gave blacks a say in governing in the South.
He is a racist or a fellow traveler with them, and so is the chip off the old sheet.

isadore wrote:

dwccrew wrote:

isadore wrote:

dwccrew wrote: Wow, he opposes the 16th and 17th amendment, not sure how that relates to him being racist. You stated something about the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. When did either Dr. Paul claim to be against any of those? Links?

""The Pauls don't believe that government should pass legislation on race issues."
The 13th, 14th and 15th Amednments are legislation proposing Amendments to the Constitution passed by 2/3 votes of the United States Congress.
" They fully support the Constitution which consists of the aforementioned amendments, therefore I ask, how can they be racists? "
They dont fully support the Constitution as was shown by Ronny's stated opposition to the 16th and 17th Amendments.

Ronny opposed the Civil War which brought about the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendment. He was quite willing to let slavery continue in existence with the false idea that it was near to an end.

Yeah, you already tried saying this and then I asked you to provide some sort of link or proof, which you haven't. But everyone knows that's your M.O. and no one takes you seriously for that reason.

He opposed the Civil War, but not for the reasons you state. He believes that the southern states secession should have been recognized by the union.

Your statements about Paul about his stand on racial legislation and his support of the Constitution have both been shown to be false.

What? LOL

Delusional comes to mind. I can't have a conversation with someone who just states their opinion and uses that as fact.

Paul opposed the 16th and 17th amendments. That hardly constitutes him not supporting the Constitution.

And you still have not been able to provide any proof that either Paul is against the 13th-15th amendments. Your non-sensical conjecture is not proof.

dwccrew wrote:

isadore wrote:

dwccrew wrote:

isadore wrote:

dwccrew wrote: Wow, he opposes the 16th and 17th amendment, not sure how that relates to him being racist. You stated something about the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. When did either Dr. Paul claim to be against any of those? Links?

""The Pauls don't believe that government should pass legislation on race issues."
The 13th, 14th and 15th Amednments are legislation proposing Amendments to the Constitution passed by 2/3 votes of the United States Congress.
" They fully support the Constitution which consists of the aforementioned amendments, therefore I ask, how can they be racists? "
They dont fully support the Constitution as was shown by Ronny's stated opposition to the 16th and 17th Amendments.

Ronny opposed the Civil War which brought about the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendment. He was quite willing to let slavery continue in existence with the false idea that it was near to an end.

Yeah, you already tried saying this and then I asked you to provide some sort of link or proof, which you haven't. But everyone knows that's your M.O. and no one takes you seriously for that reason.

He opposed the Civil War, but not for the reasons you state. He believes that the southern states secession should have been recognized by the union.

Your statements about Paul about his stand on racial legislation and his support of the Constitution have both been shown to be false.

What? LOL

Delusional comes to mind. I can't have a conversation with someone who just states their opinion and uses that as fact.

Paul opposed the 16th and 17th amendments. That hardly constitutes him not supporting the Constitution.

And you still have not been able to provide any proof that either Paul is against the 13th-15th amendments. Your non-sensical conjecture is not proof.

You actually read what you write.
"They fully support the Constitution which consists of the aforementioned amendments"
then you write
"Paul opposed the 16th and 17th amendments. That hardly constitutes him not supporting the Constitution."
That I that is the example of self contradiction.
I see you do not deny his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that gave basic freedoms to blacks.
The Russert interview showed his opposition to the Civil War and his willingness to allow slavery to continue.
His opposition to the war that allowed the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.

dwccrew wrote: Wow, he opposes the 16th and 17th amendment, not sure how that relates to him being racist.

He equates state sovereignty with past racist state institutions. Which does not negate the principals this country was founded on. He seeks to use the immoral behavior that some of our sovereign states exhibited, mainly which existed in the deep south, to empower federal sovereignty over all states.

Many Americans believe these amendments grant the federal government more power than many of the founders envisioned the federal government would ever possess. I and many of my fellow Americans disagree with these amendments based on that principle and the intent of many of the founders. Race has nothing to do with it.

He dishonors those that have experienced true racism by labeling those Americans who believe in the founders original intent concerning a federal union of sovereign states by likening those Americans like you and me as the racists who used that sovereignty to enslave and degrade their fellow man.

Americans like you, me, and the Pauls, believe in a certain style of government that many of the founders envisioned. We will not be beaten down by the sins of our fellow Americans. Much blood and tears were shed over this. At the state and federal government levels this scourge has been defeated at great cost.

The vast majority of Americans that governed unjustly at the federal and state level, concerning the unjust treatment of their fellow man, are in the grave or near the grave themselves and hold little political power.

I do not agree with everything Ron and Rand espouse, but this racist shit is unfounded and simply bullshit.

majorspark wrote:

dwccrew wrote: Wow, he opposes the 16th and 17th amendment, not sure how that relates to him being racist.

He equates state sovereignty with past racist state institutions. Which does not negate the principals this country was founded on. He seeks to use the immoral behavior that some of our sovereign states exhibited, mainly which existed in the deep south, to empower federal sovereignty over all states.

Many Americans believe these amendments grant the federal government more power than many of the founders envisioned the federal government would ever possess. I and many of my fellow Americans disagree with these amendments based on that principle and the intent of many of the founders. Race has nothing to do with it.

He dishonors those that have experienced true racism by labeling those Americans who believe in the founders original intent concerning a federal union of sovereign states by likening those Americans like you and me as the racists who used that sovereignty to enslave and degrade their fellow man.

Americans like you, me, and the Pauls, believe in a certain style of government that many of the founders envisioned. We will not be beaten down by the sins of our fellow Americans. Much blood and tears were shed over this. At the state and federal government levels this scourge has been defeated at great cost.

The vast majority of Americans that governed unjustly at the federal and state level, concerning the unjust treatment of their fellow man, are in the grave or near the grave themselves and hold little political power.

I do not agree with everything Ron and Rand espouse, but this racist shit is unfounded and simply bullshit.

+100. Well said, but it won't make any difference in Isi's mind. Isi complaining about the Pauls being racists is funny when you look at his/her comments, on the radical Islam thread, towards muslims in general.

majorspark wrote:

dwccrew wrote: Wow, he opposes the 16th and 17th amendment, not sure how that relates to him being racist.

He equates state sovereignty with past racist state institutions. Which does not negate the principals this country was founded on. He seeks to use the immoral behavior that some of our sovereign states exhibited, mainly which existed in the deep south, to empower federal sovereignty over all states.

Many Americans believe these amendments grant the federal government more power than many of the founders envisioned the federal government would ever possess. I and many of my fellow Americans disagree with these amendments based on that principle and the intent of many of the founders. Race has nothing to do with it.

He dishonors those that have experienced true racism by labeling those Americans who believe in the founders original intent concerning a federal union of sovereign states by likening those Americans like you and me as the racists who used that sovereignty to enslave and degrade their fellow man.

Americans like you, me, and the Pauls, believe in a certain style of government that many of the founders envisioned. We will not be beaten down by the sins of our fellow Americans. Much blood and tears were shed over this. At the state and federal government levels this scourge has been defeated at great cost.

The vast majority of Americans that governed unjustly at the federal and state level, concerning the unjust treatment of their fellow man, are in the grave or near the grave themselves and hold little political power.

I do not agree with everything Ron and Rand espouse, but this racist shit is unfounded and simply bullshit.

After experencing the utter failure of the Article of Confederation government which gave states ultimate sovereignty most of the Framers of our Constitution were quite ready for a national government whose powers had supremacy over those of the states.
The Framers also established a system to alter the Constition in Article V of the document and chose to place only one limitation on that right of amendment, cannot take away equal representation in the Senate, all else is open to change by the Framers choice. They also wrote in the necessary and proper clause that allowed the government to expand its powers beyond the direct expressed wording of the Constitution. And a Supremacy Clause that allowed the Constitution and national law to overrule state law.
I am sure many of these framers would be shocked to see women vote, blacks vote, but they established the system that allowed it.
As to the sins of some of our citizens, the Pauls continue to give their support to the gravest of those sins.
Ronny opposes the war that end the worst of these sins.
He opposes the Civil Rights Act that ended Jim Crow apartheid and denied blacks use of public accomodation, education and job opportunity in large section of our nation. He is joined in this by his son, the KKK and Neo Nazis. More introspective and decent conservatives like the late William Buckley have apologized for their opposition as did even George Wallace, but not the Pauls.
Ronny opposed the 1965 Voting rights act that finally enfranchised the majority of blacks in the South.
In 2007 Ronny and one other bigot were the only two Congressmen to oppose reopening investigation into murders of blacks and civil rights workers by the Klan and other terrorist. http://emmett-till.blogspot.com/2009/09/epilogue-who-killed-emmett-till.html
He claims not to be a racist, he may not be, but as a politican and legislator he sure is in service to racism.

dwccrew wrote:

majorspark wrote:

dwccrew wrote: Wow, he opposes the 16th and 17th amendment, not sure how that relates to him being racist.

He equates state sovereignty with past racist state institutions. Which does not negate the principals this country was founded on. He seeks to use the immoral behavior that some of our sovereign states exhibited, mainly which existed in the deep south, to empower federal sovereignty over all states.

Many Americans believe these amendments grant the federal government more power than many of the founders envisioned the federal government would ever possess. I and many of my fellow Americans disagree with these amendments based on that principle and the intent of many of the founders. Race has nothing to do with it.

He dishonors those that have experienced true racism by labeling those Americans who believe in the founders original intent concerning a federal union of sovereign states by likening those Americans like you and me as the racists who used that sovereignty to enslave and degrade their fellow man.

Americans like you, me, and the Pauls, believe in a certain style of government that many of the founders envisioned. We will not be beaten down by the sins of our fellow Americans. Much blood and tears were shed over this. At the state and federal government levels this scourge has been defeated at great cost.

The vast majority of Americans that governed unjustly at the federal and state level, concerning the unjust treatment of their fellow man, are in the grave or near the grave themselves and hold little political power.

I do not agree with everything Ron and Rand espouse, but this racist shit is unfounded and simply bullshit.

+100. Well said, but it won't make any difference in Isi's mind. Isi complaining about the Pauls being racists is funny when you look at his/her comments, on the radical Islam thread, towards muslims in general.

Being critical of those who chose to believe that drawing a cartoon mocking Muhammed earns you a death sentence, does not make someone a racist. Race is not a matter of choice, that belief system is.

Isi,

I'm not convinced that the Paul's are racist. I think that people who espouse such views are often the most trigger happy people. Or maybe knee-jerk could be the better phrase.
The Paul's are two people involved in politics that are willing to put the money where their mouth is. All Rand Paul is saying is that when our federal government blanket law, they are not considering all points of view, some of which are hidden. It's not that they are promoting segregation.
In fact, in the interview with Maddow, R.P. plainly ask the question of at what point does a business stop being privately ran instead of government ran. In other words, what are the draw-backs, even when doing great things? That's a very basic and all-reaching question. It deserves ALOT of thought, racial issues aside. That question could be applied to every scenario. From the EPA to education to healthcare and everything in between concerning social issues.
Like I said on page1, what's the difference between discriminating against race and discriminating against gender. Why is one OK and the other isn't? Why is one "cause" greater than the other?

Just another point of view to consider.

isadore wrote: Being critical of those who chose to believe that drawing a cartoon mocking Muhammed earns you a death sentence, does not make someone a racist. Race is not a matter of choice, that belief system is.

I kinda agree with Isa on this.

CenterBHSFan wrote: Isi,

I'm not convinced that the Paul's are racist. I think that people who espouse such views are often the most trigger happy people. Or maybe knee-jerk could be the better phrase.
The Paul's are two people involved in politics that are willing to put the money where their mouth is. All Rand Paul is saying is that when our federal government blanket law, they are not considering all points of view, some of which are hidden. It's not that they are promoting segregation.
In fact, in the interview with Maddow, R.P. plainly ask the question of at what point does a business stop being privately ran instead of government ran. In other words, what are the draw-backs, even when doing great things? That's a very basic and all-reaching question. It deserves ALOT of thought, racial issues aside. That question could be applied to every scenario. From the EPA to education to healthcare and everything in between concerning social issues.
Like I said on page1, what's the difference between discriminating against race and discriminating against gender. Why is one OK and the other isn't? Why is one "cause" greater than the other?

Just another point of view to consider.

well CB rand is hardly one to put his money where is mouth is. In April the Courier-Journal interview revealed his racist belief and then the further exposure on the Maddow show as he tried to weasel out of them with a spuriious argument about the refusal of service in public accomodation as being a free speech issue. Since then he has been groveling on his belly trying to hide from his true beliefs or in hiding from interviewers.
Now his daddy with his consistent anti black voting record is putting his money where his mouth is.
No Civil Rights law ending Jim Crow or segregation in public accomodation, or other civil rights titles ending gender discrimination
No Voting Rights Act enfranchising the majority of Southern blacks
No funding to catch murders of blacks and civil rights workers during the era of struggle.
Hell no Civil War to free blacks in the first place. Maybe that doesnt make someone a racist to you, my standards are different.
Racial issues aside, lets do something about slavery, no lets put racial issues aside, we sure wouldnt want to interfere with slave owners property rights, what long range damage that would have.
gosh racial issues aside that Hitler sure made the trains run on time and really had alot of respect for the property rights of German corporations.
Now if Ron Paul really wanted to put his money where his mouth is, he would be in Kentucky telling the people he doesnt believe they should be allowed to vote to elect their senator, he is against the 17th Amendment. Then he and his son could travel the country sticking up for BP, a truly oppressed corporation whose property rights may be threatened in the future just because of a little accident that killed eleven men and did wonders for the Gulf.