Ron Paul is not one bit racist. Have studied his works for 7 years now. Anyone that thinks he is, is ignorant. As for Rand, I don't know if he is or isn't. But his interview with Maddow showed nothing proving any racist inclination.

Footwedge wrote: Ron Paul is not one bit racist. Have studied his works for 7 years now. Anyone that thinks he is, is ignorant. As for Rand, I don't know if he is or isn't. But his interview with Maddow showed nothing proving any racist inclination.

well lets see what we have here. We have your written guarantee that ron paul is not a racist, impressive. And on the other side he is at least 6 or 7 bits racist as we have a series of racist newsletter produced under his name in the 1990s, his taking campaign contribution from an infamous racist neo nazi, his opposition to the most important civil rights legislation of the 20th century that ended dejure segregation in the South and opened publc accomodation to blacks, his opposition to the 1965 Voting Rights Act that finally gave the large majority of Southern blacks suffrage, and his opposition to the Civil War that set them free. Who could possibly doubt your analysis, its based on ....

isadore wrote:

Footwedge wrote: Ron Paul is not one bit racist. Have studied his works for 7 years now. Anyone that thinks he is, is ignorant. As for Rand, I don't know if he is or isn't. But his interview with Maddow showed nothing proving any racist inclination.

well lets see what we have here. We have your written guarantee that ron paul is not a racist, impressive. And on the other side he is at least 6 or 7 bits racist as we have a series of racist newsletter produced under his name in the 1990s, his taking campaign contribution from an infamous racist neo nazi, his opposition to the most important civil rights legislation of the 20th century that ended dejure segregation in the South and opened publc accomodation to blacks, his opposition to the 1965 Voting Rights Act that finally gave the large majority of Southern blacks suffrage, and his opposition to the Civil War that set them free. Who could possibly doubt your analysis, its based on ....

Like I said, i've studies the man's works, passages for 7 years. And somehow your interpretations of things have more merit than mine? Is that the crux of your argument?

Had you studied the man intimately like I have, then you would know the circumstances behind the so called news letters from neo nazis...and you would then understand that he had absolutely nothing to do with the contexts of those letters. He vehememtly denounced what was written in those...some 18 years ago.

As for "accpeting a 500 dollar contribution from a racist....show me a politician....evn one politician...that has not received campaign contributions from a savory character or a savory group of characters. You can't...because there aren't any.

Again...Paul has gone on official record in denouncing the beliefs of this one individual....and moreover made it clear that he despises every thought associated with his nazi beliefs. He kept the 500 dollars to further gis campaign for the fight for libertarian views.

As an obstetrician, he has delivered many babies from both Latino and African American descent....sure signs of a racist, huh?

In the huge infinite world of cyberspace...with google at the ready andf at your fingertips...you cannot nor will you ever find even one person lat claim to even one instance where Paul deningrated anyone outside of the Caucasian race. 30 years of public life....and nor even one lousy stinking internet story of him even hinting at racism.

Yeah Isidore...you never cease to amaze me.

But keep up the good fight....

Footwedge wrote:

isadore wrote:

Footwedge wrote: Ron Paul is not one bit racist. Have studied his works for 7 years now. Anyone that thinks he is, is ignorant. As for Rand, I don't know if he is or isn't. But his interview with Maddow showed nothing proving any racist inclination.

well lets see what we have here. We have your written guarantee that ron paul is not a racist, impressive. And on the other side he is at least 6 or 7 bits racist as we have a series of racist newsletter produced under his name in the 1990s, his taking campaign contribution from an infamous racist neo nazi, his opposition to the most important civil rights legislation of the 20th century that ended dejure segregation in the South and opened publc accomodation to blacks, his opposition to the 1965 Voting Rights Act that finally gave the large majority of Southern blacks suffrage, and his opposition to the Civil War that set them free. Who could possibly doubt your analysis, its based on ....

Like I said, i've studies the man's works, passages for 7 years. And somehow your interpretations of things have more merit than mine? Is that the crux of your argument?

Had you studied the man intimately like I have, then you would know the circumstances behind the so called news letters from neo nazis...and you would then understand that he had absolutely nothing to do with the contexts of those letters. He vehememtly denounced what was written in those...some 18 years ago.

As for "accpeting a 500 dollar contribution from a racist....show me a politician....evn one politician...that has not received campaign contributions from a savory character or a savory group of characters. You can't...because there aren't any.

Again...Paul has gone on official record in denouncing the beliefs of this one individual....and moreover made it clear that he despises every thought associated with his nazi beliefs. He kept the 500 dollars to further gis campaign for the fight for libertarian views.

As an obstetrician, he has delivered many babies from both Latino and African American descent....sure signs of a racist, huh?

In the huge infinite world of cyberspace...with google at the ready andf at your fingertips...you cannot nor will you ever find even one person lat claim to even one instance where Paul deningrated anyone outside of the Caucasian race. 30 years of public life....and nor even one lousy stinking internet story of him even hinting at racism.

Yeah Isidore...you never cease to amaze me.

But keep up the good fight....

" you would then understand that he had absolutely nothing to do with the contexts of those letters." I could be wrong, but I think you mean contents, not contexts? But either way you are wrong. As this article from Reason Magazine, a journal of Randite Libertarians, shows the newsletter was issued through a small organization Paul was intimiately involved with, it included family members. Paul had a close relationship with the author that continued for more than a decade after the letters were revealed. The letters were purposeful choice of the Paul organization to stir support to attract racist support. That when the letters were first revealed Paul defended them, only several years later when they became a political liability did he denounce them.
That he was intimately involved with the group that issued the newsletter
http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletters
Paul made a decision at that time to attract support and money from racists and anti semites. His acceptance of that money from the neo nazi continues that policy.
"contributions from a savory character or a savory group of characters. " Politicans accept contributions from "tasty" groups?
Neo Nazis are beyond the pale, and a decent human being would feel repelled to accept their money, but not Paul.
He has consistently opposed programs that help to give blacks basic rights in our nation. That is furthering racism. Opposing the war that set them free, opposing the law that ended American apartheid, opposing the law that enfranchised Southern blacks, opposing the law to investigate their murderers. He is in service to racism.

I think we all have at least a little bit of "racist" in us, and that would include myself and both Pauls. I'm not proud of it and I doubt the Pauls are either, but it's simply the truth.

Swamp Fox wrote: I think we all have at least a little bit of "racist" in us, and that would include myself and both Pauls. I'm not proud of it and I doubt the Pauls are either, but it's simply the truth.

I've never bought into that point of view.

It is my belief that everybody has prejudice. But, alot of people just interchange between the two as being the same thing.
Personally, I have many prejudices, but that doesn't have anything to do with the color of somebody's skin or where they were born. My prejudices are mainly about behaviors and not looks.

Racism, bigotry and prejudices all have their own meanings.

CenterBHSFan wrote:Racism, bigotry and prejudices all have their own meanings.

I agree...but they are all interrelated.

For example (I know I'm going to open myself up to all sorts of abuse from the lefties and don't really care), I'm certainly fine with having black neighbors, co-workers, friends, etc. but I'm not quite ready for my daughters to date black boys and I definitely do not want a black son-in-law. That, of course, makes me a racist.

Conversely I believe that most blacks are racist because they are raised with a "white America owes me a living because of slavery" attitude making that a preconceived yet reasonably accurate notion on my part (IE: prejudice).

Finally, I think a majority of blacks are liberal and I loathe liberalism. That doesn't make me racist, but it does mean I'm bigoted towards liberalism.

ALL of us to one degree or another are racist, prejudiced, and bigoted.

These inherently negative qualities, right or wrong, are a normal part of the human condition. How we choose to deal with them is the key to civil living.

what if your daughter fell in love with a junior thomas sowell or walter williams

^^^I'm an equal opportunity racist. :rolleyes:

Believer, I still don't agree with that premise.

I have family (women) who are married to black men. I could care less about it and love them both (couples). Same with family who are married to Mexicans. They are all welcomed and absorbed into my family just like any other day. So are their children.
Now, one of those men - his brother is not welcome into my house or even as far as my yard. Because he's heavily into drugs, won't work, has cheated on his wife and has even been jailed for D.V.
My problem with him has nothing to do with the color of his skin or where he's from. It is his BEHAVIOR that I don't like.
I suspect that perhaps my age has something to do with it. I think that progressively, younger generations just don't quite care as much as their parents, grandparents and so on.

I do not blanket rule people based on specific incidences that have happened in my life. I wasn't raised like that and have not known any reason to pick up that habit on my own. To me, it's just like any other topic (this forum for instance) I have the options of picking and choosing which one I pay attention to.

Like I said earlier, I have my prejudices, no doubt about it. But, it has nothing to do with being a racist.

isadore wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

isadore wrote:

Footwedge wrote: Ron Paul is not one bit racist. Have studied his works for 7 years now. Anyone that thinks he is, is ignorant. As for Rand, I don't know if he is or isn't. But his interview with Maddow showed nothing proving any racist inclination.

well lets see what we have here. We have your written guarantee that ron paul is not a racist, impressive. And on the other side he is at least 6 or 7 bits racist as we have a series of racist newsletter produced under his name in the 1990s, his taking campaign contribution from an infamous racist neo nazi, his opposition to the most important civil rights legislation of the 20th century that ended dejure segregation in the South and opened publc accomodation to blacks, his opposition to the 1965 Voting Rights Act that finally gave the large majority of Southern blacks suffrage, and his opposition to the Civil War that set them free. Who could possibly doubt your analysis, its based on ....

Like I said, i've studies the man's works, passages for 7 years. And somehow your interpretations of things have more merit than mine? Is that the crux of your argument?

Had you studied the man intimately like I have, then you would know the circumstances behind the so called news letters from neo nazis...and you would then understand that he had absolutely nothing to do with the contexts of those letters. He vehememtly denounced what was written in those...some 18 years ago.

As for "accpeting a 500 dollar contribution from a racist....show me a politician....evn one politician...that has not received campaign contributions from a savory character or a savory group of characters. You can't...because there aren't any.

Again...Paul has gone on official record in denouncing the beliefs of this one individual....and moreover made it clear that he despises every thought associated with his nazi beliefs. He kept the 500 dollars to further gis campaign for the fight for libertarian views.

As an obstetrician, he has delivered many babies from both Latino and African American descent....sure signs of a racist, huh?

In the huge infinite world of cyberspace...with google at the ready andf at your fingertips...you cannot nor will you ever find even one person lat claim to even one instance where Paul deningrated anyone outside of the Caucasian race. 30 years of public life....and nor even one lousy stinking internet story of him even hinting at racism.

Yeah Isidore...you never cease to amaze me.

But keep up the good fight....

" you would then understand that he had absolutely nothing to do with the contexts of those letters." I could be wrong, but I think you mean contents, not contexts? But either way you are wrong. As this article from Reason Magazine, a journal of Randite Libertarians, shows the newsletter was issued through a small organization Paul was intimiately involved with, it included family members. Paul had a close relationship with the author that continued for more than a decade after the letters were revealed. The letters were purposeful choice of the Paul organization to stir support to attract racist support. That when the letters were first revealed Paul defended them, only several years later when they became a political liability did he denounce them.
That he was intimately involved with the group that issued the newsletter
http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletters
Paul made a decision at that time to attract support and money from racists and anti semites. His acceptance of that money from the neo nazi continues that policy.
"contributions from a savory character or a savory group of characters. " Politicans accept contributions from "tasty" groups?
Neo Nazis are beyond the pale, and a decent human being would feel repelled to accept their money, but not Paul.
He has consistently opposed programs that help to give blacks basic rights in our nation. That is furthering racism. Opposing the war that set them free, opposing the law that ended American apartheid, opposing the law that enfranchised Southern blacks, opposing the law to investigate their murderers. He is in service to racism.

MLK said the following....

".... live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

Ron Paul agrees with this statement 110%...and has said so hundreds of times in his expression denouncing the "collectivist" attitudes of racist groups.

Isa worships a federal government which handed down the dehumanizing Dred Scott decision and affirmed separate but equal through the Surpreme Court. And slavery ended in most areas of the world without war. The Civil War, I remind you, that killed over half a million Americans.

I wonder if Isa supports the federal government immorally looting the money of future generations? How is this not indentured servitude? Or if Isa supports the federal reserve system that charges usury - interest - for money created out of thin air. Unconstitutional and immoral as all religions are against the practice.

Footwedge wrote:

isadore wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

isadore wrote:

Footwedge wrote: Ron Paul is not one bit racist. Have studied his works for 7 years now. Anyone that thinks he is, is ignorant. As for Rand, I don't know if he is or isn't. But his interview with Maddow showed nothing proving any racist inclination.

well lets see what we have here. We have your written guarantee that ron paul is not a racist, impressive. And on the other side he is at least 6 or 7 bits racist as we have a series of racist newsletter produced under his name in the 1990s, his taking campaign contribution from an infamous racist neo nazi, his opposition to the most important civil rights legislation of the 20th century that ended dejure segregation in the South and opened publc accomodation to blacks, his opposition to the 1965 Voting Rights Act that finally gave the large majority of Southern blacks suffrage, and his opposition to the Civil War that set them free. Who could possibly doubt your analysis, its based on ....

Like I said, i've studies the man's works, passages for 7 years. And somehow your interpretations of things have more merit than mine? Is that the crux of your argument?

Had you studied the man intimately like I have, then you would know the circumstances behind the so called news letters from neo nazis...and you would then understand that he had absolutely nothing to do with the contexts of those letters. He vehememtly denounced what was written in those...some 18 years ago.

As for "accpeting a 500 dollar contribution from a racist....show me a politician....evn one politician...that has not received campaign contributions from a savory character or a savory group of characters. You can't...because there aren't any.

Again...Paul has gone on official record in denouncing the beliefs of this one individual....and moreover made it clear that he despises every thought associated with his nazi beliefs. He kept the 500 dollars to further gis campaign for the fight for libertarian views.

As an obstetrician, he has delivered many babies from both Latino and African American descent....sure signs of a racist, huh?

In the huge infinite world of cyberspace...with google at the ready andf at your fingertips...you cannot nor will you ever find even one person lat claim to even one instance where Paul deningrated anyone outside of the Caucasian race. 30 years of public life....and nor even one lousy stinking internet story of him even hinting at racism.

Yeah Isidore...you never cease to amaze me.

But keep up the good fight....

" you would then understand that he had absolutely nothing to do with the contexts of those letters." I could be wrong, but I think you mean contents, not contexts? But either way you are wrong. As this article from Reason Magazine, a journal of Randite Libertarians, shows the newsletter was issued through a small organization Paul was intimiately involved with, it included family members. Paul had a close relationship with the author that continued for more than a decade after the letters were revealed. The letters were purposeful choice of the Paul organization to stir support to attract racist support. That when the letters were first revealed Paul defended them, only several years later when they became a political liability did he denounce them.
That he was intimately involved with the group that issued the newsletter
http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletters
Paul made a decision at that time to attract support and money from racists and anti semites. His acceptance of that money from the neo nazi continues that policy.
"contributions from a savory character or a savory group of characters. " Politicans accept contributions from "tasty" groups?
Neo Nazis are beyond the pale, and a decent human being would feel repelled to accept their money, but not Paul.
He has consistently opposed programs that help to give blacks basic rights in our nation. That is furthering racism. Opposing the war that set them free, opposing the law that ended American apartheid, opposing the law that enfranchised Southern blacks, opposing the law to investigate their murderers. He is in service to racism.

MLK said the following....

".... live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

Ron Paul agrees with this statement 110%...and has said so hundreds of times in his expression denouncing the "collectivist" attitudes of racist groups.

His proided lip service as opposed to his actions. His newsletter in the 90s purposely attracting racist funds, his continuing acceptance of those funds, his opposition to the law that ended dejure segregation and opened public accomodation to blacks, his opposition to the law that enfranchised southern blacks, his opposition to funding investigation of murderers of blacks and civil rights workers, his opposition to the war that set them free.

bman618 wrote: Isa worships a federal government which handed down the dehumanizing Dred Scott decision and affirmed separate but equal through the Surpreme Court. And slavery ended in most areas of the world without war. The Civil War, I remind you, that killed over half a million Americans.

I wonder if Isa supports the federal government immorally looting the money of future generations? How is this not indentured servitude? Or if Isa supports the federal reserve system that charges usury - interest - for money created out of thin air. Unconstitutional and immoral as all religions are against the practice.

The Dred Scott and Plessey decisions were made by Supreme Courts that were loaded with the type justices that President Paul would put on the bench. Appointees would worshipped states rights and property rights over basic human rights. Roger Taney was definitely a Ron Paul kind of guy, making sure that people (slaveowner) could take the property (slaves) anywhere in US territory.
In 1860 slavery was hardly dying, but expanding. The South was the richest part of our nation, wealth based on humans as property. The powerful slave oligarchy and their acolytes in the North were working to expand slavery into our territories and into other nations of the Americas. The cancer was nowhere near ending.
Social Security has provided for generations of America's elderly and disabled, The Federal Reserve has provided for a century of American economic growth.

^ There have been plenty of racists in the federal government who believe in the strength of the federal government. Dr. Paul is against racism.

You mean the social security system and medicare that is over 40 trillion dollars in debt and threatens to saddle our children with debt they can't pay off. This debt will seize their capital from their labor and reduce them into a form of indentured servitude. I guess you support that.
http://www.pgpf.org/about/nationaldebt/


And the Federal Reserve that caused the Great Depression, according to no less than the Fed chairman Ben Bernanke.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/12/60minutes/main4862191_page3.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

So let's recap, Isa, while incorrectly blaming slavery on states rights is currently in favor of the newsest servitude system by enslaving our children to debt.

bman618 wrote: ^ There have been plenty of racists in the federal government who believe in the strength of the federal government. Dr. Paul is against racism.

You mean the social security system and medicare that is over 40 trillion dollars in debt and threatens to saddle our children with debt they can't pay off. This debt will seize their capital from their labor and reduce them into a form of indentured servitude. I guess you support that.
http://www.pgpf.org/about/nationaldebt/


And the Federal Reserve that caused the Great Depression, according to no less than the Fed chairman Ben Bernanke.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/12/60minutes/main4862191_page3.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

So let's recap, Isa, while incorrectly blaming slavery on states rights is currently in favor of the newsest servitude system by enslaving our children to debt.

No, he may say he is against racism but his actions show quite the opposite. He attracted bigot funds with anti semitc and racist commentary written for him in his newsletter, keeps racist donations, votes against funding investigation of civil right workers and blacks, opposes the law ending jim crow, and the law giving southern blacks voting rights, the actions of a committed racist.
As opposed to Ron Paul who was quite willing to accept the extension of real chattel servitude, paying off our obligations to our senior citizens, handicapped and orphans will not place any American in any real servitude.
As anyone can read Bernake does not put the blame for the Depression soley on the Fed, they did not start it and their actions were just one of many causes for worsening it. And what were the mistakes that Bernanke saw why the Fed was not proactive enough, they did not expand, inflate the money supply and they did not bail out the banks.
Two actions that would of course be condemned paul and the tea party types.
Of course you were not able to understand the earlier explanation of states rights and slavery, no surprise. States rights and property rights did not cause slavery, they were just used to defend it. John Calhoun and the slave owning southern elite and the northern doughface sympathizers. Then later states rights and property rights have been used by bigots to defend American apartheid and denial of basic rights to blacks since the end of Reconstruction, people like Bilbo, Faubus, Barnett, Wallace and Paul

I agree with Dr. Paul when he says slavery would have ended on its own. When the industrial revolution was in full force, slavery would have become outdated and more expensive to feed and clothe the slaves over just using machinery that would have been faster and more efficient.

I'm sorry, but Dr. Paul is correct in that assumption.

As Bman stated, slavery ended in many other countries without civil war.

dwccrew;375022 wrote:I agree with Dr. Paul when he says slavery would have ended on its own. When the industrial revolution was in full force, slavery would have become outdated and more expensive to feed and clothe the slaves over just using machinery that would have been faster and more efficient.

I'm sorry, but Dr. Paul is correct in that assumption.

As Bman stated, slavery ended in many other countries without civil war.

The United States is not the rest of the world. Chattel slavery was thriving here. There were 4 million blacks enslaved in 1860, slavery was expanding, not contracting, It was spreading into the west and there were serious plans to expand into the Americas for example Walker Expedition to Nicaraugua and the Ostend Manifesto plan to seize Cuba. The South was politically powerful, before Lincoln we had a series of Presidents who were either slaveholders or doughfaces, northerners sympathetic to the South like Pierce and Buchanan. In 1860 There was no significant abolitionist movement in the South and had not been for several years. Much of the leadership in Britain and France, the internaltaional superpowers of the day, were sympathetic to the South and had significant trade ties to it.

The South was the wealthiest part of the country and that wealth was based on slavery. . And as Kenneth Stampp showed in The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Antebellum South the value of slaves was rising because of high demand. A measurement of Southern wealth from the census.

http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu/php/state.php
American Heritage.com
The development of the machinery to replace workers in the cotton industry was far away, an acceptable cotton picker was not ready for use until 1941 and even after that it took a generation for it to be fully accepted.
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2004/1/2004_1_36.shtml
Mac Millan Information Now Encyclopedia:
“In fact, however, slaves were used successfully in factories such as the Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond. They also labored in the salt mines and turpentine plants of North Carolina, the coal mines of western Virginia, and the sugar mills of Louisiana. Moreover, when, during the Civil War, Southerners confronted a manpower shortage and the need for rapid industrialization, they quickly overcame their prejudices against using slaves in factories.”

and
“Moreover, slaves, who received no wages, could do the same labor more cheaply than free white men.”
http://www.civilwarhome.com/slavery.htm


People operate machinery and as can be seen around the world today many industries locate themselves in areas that the wage situation is closest to slave labor.
Slavery easily could have existed in America for several generations without the Civil War. If it had I am sure Ron and Rand Paul would be out there defending the property rights of slaveowners as they defend the rights of bigots to discriminated in public accomodation today.

isadore;375339 wrote:The United States is not the rest of the world. Chattel slavery was thriving here. There were 4 million blacks enslaved in 1860, slavery was expanding, not contracting, It was spreading into the west and there were serious plans to expand into the Americas for example Walker Expedition to Nicaraugua and the Ostend Manifesto plan to seize Cuba. The South was politically powerful, before Lincoln we had a series of Presidents who were either slaveholders or doughfaces, northerners sympathetic to the South like Pierce and Buchanan. In 1860 There was no significant abolitionist movement in the South and had not been for several years. Much of the leadership in Britain and France, the internaltaional superpowers of the day, were sympathetic to the South and had significant trade ties to it.

The South was the wealthiest part of the country and that wealth was based on slavery. . And as Kenneth Stampp showed in The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Antebellum South the value of slaves was rising because of high demand. A measurement of Southern wealth from the census.

http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu/php/state.php
American Heritage.com
The development of the machinery to replace workers in the cotton industry was far away, an acceptable cotton picker was not ready for use until 1941 and even after that it took a generation for it to be fully accepted.
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2004/1/2004_1_36.shtml
Mac Millan Information Now Encyclopedia:
“In fact, however, slaves were used successfully in factories such as the Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond. They also labored in the salt mines and turpentine plants of North Carolina, the coal mines of western Virginia, and the sugar mills of Louisiana. Moreover, when, during the Civil War, Southerners confronted a manpower shortage and the need for rapid industrialization, they quickly overcame their prejudices against using slaves in factories.”

and
“Moreover, slaves, who received no wages, could do the same labor more cheaply than free white men.”
http://www.civilwarhome.com/slavery.htm


People operate machinery and as can be seen around the world today many industries locate themselves in areas that the wage situation is closest to slave labor.
Slavery easily could have existed in America for several generations without the Civil War. If it had I am sure Ron and Rand Paul would be out there defending the property rights of slaveowners as they defend the rights of bigots to discriminated in public accomodation today.

While you have provided a great history lesson, you have provided nothing that refutes my statement. You didn't disprove that slavery wouldn't have ended on its own. You did not provide evidence that either of the Pauls would be defending the property rights of slaveowners.

IMO, Ron Paul would be an advocate of the abolition of slavery, just as he is anti-abortion. Dr. Paul puts human life ahead of everything. He is against abortion. He even states that while he is for people's personal freedoms and choice, he is against abortion because a fetus is human life. I feel this is how Ron Paul would view a slave, as a human, not as property.

Furthermore, it is because of his opinion on abortion that I feel he would be for the abolishment of slavery. You have not provided any sufficient evidence other than twisting Dr. Paul's words and fitting it to support your weak argument.

Dr. Paul certainly believes in freedom, we all know that. His belief in freedom wouldn't allow him to be racist or allow slavery. Dr. Paul's main thesis is that people have the right to do whatever they want to do, so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. Slavery infringed upon the rights of African-Americans, so therefore would be illegal. No person who believes in true freedom could/would be racist, and Dr. Paul and Rand certainly fit the ideas of true freedom. Property rights are sacred to Dr. Paul, but nothing beats infringing upon the rights of others to him.

bigmanbt;375981 wrote:Dr. Paul certainly believes in freedom, we all know that. His belief in freedom wouldn't allow him to be racist or allow slavery. Dr. Paul's main thesis is that people have the right to do whatever they want to do, so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. Slavery infringed upon the rights of African-Americans, so therefore would be illegal. No person who believes in true freedom could/would be racist, and Dr. Paul and Rand certainly fit the ideas of true freedom. Property rights are sacred to Dr. Paul, but nothing beats infringing upon the rights of others to him.

QFT!!!!

dwccrew;375918 wrote:While you have provided a great history lesson, you have provided nothing that refutes my statement. You didn't disprove that slavery wouldn't have ended on its own. You did not provide evidence that either of the Pauls would be defending the property rights of slaveowners.

IMO, Ron Paul would be an advocate of the abolition of slavery, just as he is anti-abortion. Dr. Paul puts human life ahead of everything. He is against abortion. He even states that while he is for people's personal freedoms and choice, he is against abortion because a fetus is human life. I feel this is how Ron Paul would view a slave, as a human, not as property.

Furthermore, it is because of his opinion on abortion that I feel he would be for the abolishment of slavery. You have not provided any sufficient evidence other than twisting Dr. Paul's words and fitting it to support your weak argument.

This is a great point. Paul has stated he believes abortion is an immoral practice and the taking of a human life. Yet he is also against the involvement of the federal government in the issue without a constitutional amendment. He advocates that the resolution of the abortion issue be made peacefully and politically, either at the federal level through the amendment process, or at the state or local level. Using Isadore's logic, Ron and Rand Paul must be pro-abortion.

http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm

If Paul would have been alive at the time of the Civil War he would have been anti-war, anti-slavery, and anti-federal government involvement without a constitutional amendment granting the federal government the authority to abolish slavery by the sovereign states. Dr. Paul would have fought within the state government of Texas to remove the scourge of slavery from that state. He would also have advocated for the abolition of slavery through the political amendment process. Just as he is today with the issue of abortion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRx-trdMGtY

bigmanbt;375981 wrote:Dr. Paul certainly believes in freedom, we all know that. His belief in freedom wouldn't allow him to be racist or allow slavery. Dr. Paul's main thesis is that people have the right to do whatever they want to do, so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. Slavery infringed upon the rights of African-Americans, so therefore would be illegal. No person who believes in true freedom could/would be racist, and Dr. Paul and Rand certainly fit the ideas of true freedom. Property rights are sacred to Dr. Paul, but nothing beats infringing upon the rights of others to him.

like the property rights of bigots denying public accomodation to blacks, like slaveowners property rights to their chattels. He has not supported any of the important acts that have helped blacks, that is how much he is for freedom, just not for African Americans

dwccrew;375918 wrote:While you have provided a great history lesson, you have provided nothing that refutes my statement. You didn't disprove that slavery wouldn't have ended on its own. You did not provide evidence that either of the Pauls would be defending the property rights of slaveowners.

IMO, Ron Paul would be an advocate of the abolition of slavery, just as he is anti-abortion. Dr. Paul puts human life ahead of everything. He is against abortion. He even states that while he is for people's personal freedoms and choice, he is against abortion because a fetus is human life. I feel this is how Ron Paul would view a slave, as a human, not as property.

Furthermore, it is because of his opinion on abortion that I feel he would be for the abolishment of slavery. You have not provided any sufficient evidence other than twisting Dr. Paul's words and fitting it to support your weak argument.

well lets see, proviided evidence that slavery not nearly about to end, despite what the uninformed Ronny and his acolytes claims. It was profitable, politically strong, not under significiant international pressure and adaptable to the industrial economy.
And Ron has shown repeatedly he has no interest in granting basice human rights to blacks, opposing the law that ended American Apartheid, open public accomodation to blacks. He opposed the law that opened voting to most Southern blacks. He opposed provided funds to investigate the murders of civil rights workers. And he opposed fighting the Civil War to set blacks freee. That is a racist.