RON PAUL is ELECTABLE

[LibertyForAll]

MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews pressed Paul during a TV appearance on whether he would have voted against the '64 law, a landmark piece of legislation that took strides toward ending segregation.

"Yeah, but I wouldn't vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws," Paul said. He explained that he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act "because of the property rights element, not because they got rid of the Jim Crow laws."

He goes on to say....

"This gimmick, it's off the wall when you say I'm for property rights and for states rights, and therefore I'm a racist," said the Texas congressman. "That's just outlandish."


and .....

"For you to imply that a property rights person is endorsing that stuff, you don't understand that there would be zero signs up today saying something like that," he said. "And if they did they would be an idiot and out of business."

Referring to signs on businesses that said whites only.

So what is he really saying here?

He is saying that he did not believe in the Jim Crow Laws but that he didn't agree with the legislation on the basis that it gave the federal government the right to tell us what to do on our own property.
He is against the government mandating morality and basically says here that the free market will decide what a business can get away with.

I do agree that In this day and age it you would be hard pressed to make a living by placing a sign like that in the window. I agree that the government should not dictate morality and that it should be up to the people to decide what actions are morally reprehensible.

I am not in agreement with this on the general principle that this country was founded on the idea that all men are created equal. I believe this equality should be gauranteed by the constitution and the fact that there were holes that allowed this kind of behavior was an oversight that needed to be corrected. I don't however fault Dr. Paul for his view because he is not taking issue with the intent of the law he is taking issue with the powers it granted to the federal government. By saying he wouldn't have voted for it he is saying he wouldn't have supported the law as written but that isn't to say that if it was modified he wouldn't have supported it as I believe his statements in regards to it implied.

Sometimes a persons meaning and intent cannot be gleaned from a 6 second sound byte. You have to dig a little deeper and reason things out for yourself. I don't think this makes him a racist at all but I think maybe he is stricter in his libertarian ideologies than perhaps I am. I can disagree with him on this and still think he is mostly right on the money with most of his ideas.

I am quoting from this article:
Paul says he would have opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Give me a fucking break with this convoluted bullshit to justify bigotry and racism of others.

You pay rent on property or you outright own it. Fine. But the second you open up that property as a business to serve the PUBLIC, then you come under the laws of State and Federal gov't....and if the gov't (by which is voted on via representation of the majority) states that discrimination against a specific memeber of the the general public is illegal, then that's that.

Paul essentially tries to split a hair in order to accomodate the bigots and racists in our society, and thus garner more support for his candidacy....then he acts as if his butt doesn't stink. Sorry, but the vast majority of Americans weren't buying that claptrap 50 years 40 some odd years ago, and they're not buying it now.

To me, guys like Paul are WORSE than those that wear the pointed hood...at least you know EXACTLY were you stand with them.

I didn't twist anything, I just looked at what he said. I definitely didn't justify any bigotry or racism. Also no one said anything about not following state laws or federal laws. The point was that a federal law was passed that changed state laws. You can discuss how you might have done things differently without being a racist just like you can discuss the patriot act without being a traitor. The world is not black and white.

No one is disputing that racism is wrong but how you handle racism in society is subject for debate. The answer that Ron Paul gave was about the role of the federal government and how much power they should have and if you listen to him speak and read his words on other subjects you might have a better understanding of his positions without jumping to conclusions.

 

[geauxtohell]

Ron Paul is not electable.

Why? Because he's a member of the wrong party. If he had stuck with his own libertarian party, then in a race where everyone is fed up with the DNC and GOP, it might be a different story. Ron Paul, as it stands, is not electable because he stands no chance in hell of winning his party's nomiation. His foreign policy views make him dead meat with the GOP base. He might win Iowa and New Hampshire and get a little surge, but he will lose every single state in the South and the GOP will pick someone safe and, unless it's Romney, lose the 2012 election.

I actually prefer Paul over any of the current crop of nut-bars who seem to want to get us into another futile war. I reason that, all of the social policies he wants to enact/change, will be kept in check by congress and the courts. However, the one place where the president has almost God-like power is in the ability to declare war. In that regard, Paul would be the best alternative to what we have now.

I just know he's dead meat. Why the old boy insists of running to the same master after repeatedly being kicked like a dog, is baffling to me.

Why he won't simply announce that he will run as a libertarian if the GOP doesn't select him is further baffling to me.

 

[conner700]

Ron Paul has more of a chance of winning Obama over any of the other Rep can. He is a liberalterian-and doesn't believe gov should have control over indiv rights.

I am going to keep my eyes and ears open to what he has to say. I wouldn't count him out just yet.
The other can are riding their sinking ship. Ron Paul is holding steady in the polls.

 

[geauxtohell]

Ron Paul has more of a chance of winning Obama over any of the other Rep can. He is a liberalterian-and doesn't believe gov should have control over indiv rights.

I am going to keep my eyes and ears open to what he has to say. I wouldn't count him out just yet.
The other can are riding their sinking ship. Ron Paul is holding steady in the polls.

Polls being Iowa and New Hampshire.

Unfortunately for the Paul people, that will not decide the election.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Ron Paul is not electable.

Why? Because he's a member of the wrong party. If he had stuck with his own libertarian party, then in a race where everyone is fed up with the DNC and GOP, it might be a different story. Ron Paul, as it stands, is not electable because he stands no chance in hell of winning his party's nomiation. His foreign policy views make him dead meat with the GOP base. He might win Iowa and New Hampshire and get a little surge, but he will lose every single state in the South and the GOP will pick someone safe and, unless it's Romney, lose the 2012 election.

I actually prefer Paul over any of the current crop of nut-bars who seem to want to get us into another futile war. I reason that, all of the social policies he wants to enact/change, will be kept in check by congress and the courts. However, the one place where the president has almost God-like power is in the ability to declare war. In that regard, Paul would be the best alternative to what we have now.

I just know he's dead meat. Why the old boy insists of running to the same master after repeatedly being kicked like a dog, is baffling to me.

Why he won't simply announce that he will run as a libertarian if the GOP doesn't select him is further baffling to me.

I'm a supporter and i don't think he has a chance no matter the party. The Republican politicians would rather have Obama re-elected than Paul elected.

But at least running as a republican he can get his message to the masses on tv through the debates. Status quo reps and dems and the media have teamed up to make sure no 3rd party member will ever be heard.

 

[Jebril]

Ron Paul a RACIST? Yeah. When pigs fly.

Ron Paul electable? It's looking more and more possible with every coming day, like I said, he's not losing supporters, only gaining them.

If you look into his ideas you can see why he says things you don't like, like getting rid of student loans. Are you willing to look at his arguments or just post his stand and attack him for it while ignoring the reasoning?

Ron Paul is not electable.

Why? Because he's a member of the wrong party. If he had stuck with his own libertarian party, then in a race where everyone is fed up with the DNC and GOP, it might be a different story. Ron Paul, as it stands, is not electable because he stands no chance in hell of winning his party's nomiation. His foreign policy views make him dead meat with the GOP base. He might win Iowa and New Hampshire and get a little surge, but he will lose every single state in the South and the GOP will pick someone safe and, unless it's Romney, lose the 2012 election.

I actually prefer Paul over any of the current crop of nut-bars who seem to want to get us into another futile war. I reason that, all of the social policies he wants to enact/change, will be kept in check by congress and the courts. However, the one place where the president has almost God-like power is in the ability to declare war. In that regard, Paul would be the best alternative to what we have now.

I just know he's dead meat. Why the old boy insists of running to the same master after repeatedly being kicked like a dog, is baffling to me.

Why he won't simply announce that he will run as a libertarian if the GOP doesn't select him is further baffling to me.

How is he suppose to run as a third party candidate and get any attention? It won't work, at least now he's being talked about by the media, given interviews and having a place at debates. The system doesn't give you a choice on something like this. He needs to run as a Republican to have a real chance of winning, and believe me he does. Stop voting on what the media tells you and vote on what you agree with, that's how people can take a stand. Forget this MSM nonsense that he is unelectable, thinking in a one track predetermined mindset is dangerously close minded. He's doing well in polls and we still have more time to go, we do not know what will happen.

 

[geauxtohell]

Ron Paul is not electable.

Why? Because he's a member of the wrong party. If he had stuck with his own libertarian party, then in a race where everyone is fed up with the DNC and GOP, it might be a different story. Ron Paul, as it stands, is not electable because he stands no chance in hell of winning his party's nomiation. His foreign policy views make him dead meat with the GOP base. He might win Iowa and New Hampshire and get a little surge, but he will lose every single state in the South and the GOP will pick someone safe and, unless it's Romney, lose the 2012 election.

I actually prefer Paul over any of the current crop of nut-bars who seem to want to get us into another futile war. I reason that, all of the social policies he wants to enact/change, will be kept in check by congress and the courts. However, the one place where the president has almost God-like power is in the ability to declare war. In that regard, Paul would be the best alternative to what we have now.

I just know he's dead meat. Why the old boy insists of running to the same master after repeatedly being kicked like a dog, is baffling to me.

Why he won't simply announce that he will run as a libertarian if the GOP doesn't select him is further baffling to me.

I'm a supporter and i don't think he has a chance no matter the party. The Republican politicians would rather have Obama re-elected than Paul elected.

But at least running as a republican he can get his message to the masses on tv through the debates. Status quo reps and dems and the media have teamed up to make sure no 3rd party member will ever be heard.

I can buy that I started a lengthy thread in August with the Paul supporters (the thoughtful and articulate ones and not the drones) and that was the basic conclusion they had.

I also agree the rank and file GOP will destroy him. They hate him. I watched what they did to him in the past on another political message board affiliated with a well known right wing talk show host.

Like I tell the Paul people, the liberals (at this point) aren't your problem.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Ron Paul is not electable.

Why? Because he's a member of the wrong party. If he had stuck with his own libertarian party, then in a race where everyone is fed up with the DNC and GOP, it might be a different story. Ron Paul, as it stands, is not electable because he stands no chance in hell of winning his party's nomiation. His foreign policy views make him dead meat with the GOP base. He might win Iowa and New Hampshire and get a little surge, but he will lose every single state in the South and the GOP will pick someone safe and, unless it's Romney, lose the 2012 election.

I actually prefer Paul over any of the current crop of nut-bars who seem to want to get us into another futile war. I reason that, all of the social policies he wants to enact/change, will be kept in check by congress and the courts. However, the one place where the president has almost God-like power is in the ability to declare war. In that regard, Paul would be the best alternative to what we have now.

I just know he's dead meat. Why the old boy insists of running to the same master after repeatedly being kicked like a dog, is baffling to me.

Why he won't simply announce that he will run as a libertarian if the GOP doesn't select him is further baffling to me.

I'm a supporter and i don't think he has a chance no matter the party. The Republican politicians would rather have Obama re-elected than Paul elected.

But at least running as a republican he can get his message to the masses on tv through the debates. Status quo reps and dems and the media have teamed up to make sure no 3rd party member will ever be heard.

I can buy that I started a lengthy thread in August with the Paul supporters (the thoughtful and articulate ones and not the drones) and that was the basic conclusion they had.

I also agree the rank and file GOP will destroy him. They hate him. I watched what they did to him in the past on another political message board affiliated with a well known right wing talk show host.

Like I tell the Paul people, the liberals (at this point) aren't your problem.

Yeah i don't think they have ever been. It's the fiscally liberal neoconservatives who call themselves conservatives that are the Paul's biggest problem.

It's not Paul vs Obama, sadly it never will be so we can never take the discussion that far, it's Paul vs the neocons in the party he shares.

 

[LibertyForAll]

I think it makes more sense to run as a republican and try to win that nomination and gather supporters from that party and see how far you can get then if you lose the nom switch to the libertarian party and court the independants. If he switched parties now he would lose all support from the diehard republicans he might be able to convert. If he waits it out he will have the underdog effect on his side and that could carry a lot of weight especially if the republican candidate shoots himself in the foot which is likely with this crowd.

 

[geauxtohell]

I think it makes more sense to run as a republican and try to win that nomination and gather supporters from that party and see how far you can get then if you lose the nom switch to the libertarian party and court the independants. If he switched parties now he would lose all support from the diehard republicans he might be able to convert. If he waits it out he will have the underdog effect on his side and that could carry a lot of weight especially if the republican candidate shoots himself in the foot which is likely with this crowd.

Paul has said he won't do that. I take him at his word.

 

[Paulie]

I think Ron Paul is good man and has a few good ideas. But come on the attack ads against him would be astronomical.

First, the racist newsletter. Whether he wrote it or not, he still had his name on it.

Second, the call to get rid of federally back student loans, is not going to sit well with many independence wondering how they are going to send their kids to college.

Third, he calling for getting rid of the CIA, FBI, DHS, DEA, Border Partol, NSA, INS etc. I guarantee a third party candidate would emerge and steal a good percent of the conservative vote.

Fourth, the cuts to the military would give more rise the 3rd party candidate.

Fifth, most people don't understand the implication to getting rid of the federal reserve, but that is not the point. The scare attack ads would turn many people against him!

Sixth, calling for an end to medicare and social security isn't going to win a strong turnout crowd. That would be elderly voters!

Seventh, the getting rid of Department of Education, Energy, Housing and EPA will be used against him effectly.

But this is useless, Ron Paul has a snowballs chance in hell of winning the GOP nomination!

PF Tithead has wetdreams over RP because he thinks RP will cut off Israel, which is turn. But RP will cut off the UN, Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt and the PALESTINIANS (they are dependent on us for there funds). RP won't say a damn thing about how the Israelis strike back at the Palestinians who attack them, nor will he give a shit about settlement building!

Be careful what you wish for scumbag!

RON PAUL is ELECTABLE because he's DELEGATABLE! The MOST important thing to KNOW!!! - YouTube

The saddest part about this post, is that all those things you say he'd lose because of, are things conservatives WANT.

You would sell out your ideals for someone who can "win", who isn't going to fucking provide SHIT for the conservative cause. Not a god damn fucking thing and you know it.

It'll be another Bush, just an Obama that isn't a democrat and isn't quite as OBVIOUS about how he's continuing to steer the country left.

 

[Lakhota]

Ron Paul has about as much traction as Ralph Nader. Both are goofy...

 

[Charles_Main]

RON PAUL is ELECTABLE

He could compete rather well in a General Election, But he stands about as much chance of Winning the Primary as I do.

 

[Paulie]

RON PAUL is ELECTABLE

He could compete rather well in a General Election, But he stands about as much chance of Winning the Primary as I do.

How ridiculous is that though? He polls the best against Obama, only behind Romney. He polls between slightly beating him, and down by 5%. Everyone else in the field besides those 2 get CREAMED by Obama in head to head polling.

Paul appeals to the center. I have no idea why he's tossed aside so easily in an election where the right so desperately wants the current president out of there.

 

[Wicked Jester]

RON PAUL is ELECTABLE

He could compete rather well in a General Election, But he stands about as much chance of Winning the Primary as I do.

How ridiculous is that though? He polls the best against Obama, only behind Romney. He polls between slightly beating him, and down by 5%. Everyone else in the field besides those 2 get CREAMED by Obama in head to head polling.

Paul appeals to the center. I have no idea why he's tossed aside so easily in an election where the right so desperately wants the current president out of there.

He's tossed aside 'cause he's a friggin' lunatic, who should NEVER be anywhere near the Whitehouse, Paulie.

Christ, it doesn't take much to see the man is a few teeth short of a grill.

 

[Charles_Main]

RON PAUL is ELECTABLE

He could compete rather well in a General Election, But he stands about as much chance of Winning the Primary as I do.

How ridiculous is that though? He polls the best against Obama, only behind Romney. He polls between slightly beating him, and down by 5%. Everyone else in the field besides those 2 get CREAMED by Obama in head to head polling.

Paul appeals to the center. I have no idea why he's tossed aside so easily in an election where the right so desperately wants the current president out of there.

Call it what you want, Them is the Facts. He can't win the Nomination. Mainly because of his Defense and Foreign Policy Ideas. They scare the hell out of the GOP base, and with out the Base, You wont get the Nod.

Barring a Major New Player, Romney is going to be the Candidate, and IMO we could do worse. Harvard Law and Business school. An Amazing Private Sector Resume, A Good Public Service Record, Very Intelligent and good in a Debate.

To me this Election is about one thing only. Putting an End to the Far Left Agenda. Key to that is Taking the WH. IMO Romney Is the best shot at that. Paul may poll well, but he comes off as a Cranky old man, and slightly Coo Coo at times. Obama would eat him alive in Debates, Romney will give Obama a Good Run for his Money in the Debates.

All this is of course just my opinion. And I am being totally Pragmatic. Believe Romney is bar far not my first Choice, But Winning is all that matters this time around.

 

[Paulie]

He could compete rather well in a General Election, But he stands about as much chance of Winning the Primary as I do.

How ridiculous is that though? He polls the best against Obama, only behind Romney. He polls between slightly beating him, and down by 5%. Everyone else in the field besides those 2 get CREAMED by Obama in head to head polling.

Paul appeals to the center. I have no idea why he's tossed aside so easily in an election where the right so desperately wants the current president out of there.

He's tossed aside 'cause he's a friggin' lunatic, who should NEVER be anywhere near the Whitehouse, Paulie.

Christ, it doesn't take much to see the man is a few teeth short of a grill.

Yes I know Jester, you don't like Paul. I vaguely remember you maybe mentioning it once before in another thread somewhere

 

[Paulie]

Obama would eat him alive in Debates

You've got to be kidding me. First of all, they wouldn't differ much on foreign policy so that debate would almost be moot all on its own.

Second of all, the only other issue that really matters is economics and you're fucking high on crack if you think Obama is taking Paul in a debate on that topic. Obama is economically RETARDED and you know it.

 

[Wicked Jester]

How ridiculous is that though? He polls the best against Obama, only behind Romney. He polls between slightly beating him, and down by 5%. Everyone else in the field besides those 2 get CREAMED by Obama in head to head polling.

Paul appeals to the center. I have no idea why he's tossed aside so easily in an election where the right so desperately wants the current president out of there.

He's tossed aside 'cause he's a friggin' lunatic, who should NEVER be anywhere near the Whitehouse, Paulie.

Christ, it doesn't take much to see the man is a few teeth short of a grill.

Yes I know Jester, you don't like Paul. I vaguely remember you maybe mentioning it once before in another thread somewhere

It's not that I don't like him.......he's a fuckin' loon, period!

 

[Lakhota]

Ron Paul is 76 years old, cranky and goofy.