Ron Paul the racist

[taichiliberal]

Newsletters - Those are the only examples in EXISTENCE. I'm sure if there were others they'd be ALL OVER the internet.

Soc. Sec. - BROKE! Dead and done. More going out than coming in. Tomorrow's workers will pay more and more just to take care of today's recipients. You're a heartless bastard if you support that. Taking the money from foreign aid and foreign adventurism IS the plan. It pays for those who need it WITHOUT raising taxes on EVERYBODY.

Health Care - Is a RIGHT?? Please quote the Preamble and 9th Amendment where it says that, I can't seem to find it here. And I didn't invoke the Creator, our Founders did.

What the fuck are you smoking talking about 'dismantling the government'. Can you point to any position paper, speech, article or bill that calls for that?

None of your statements are true, nothing you've said is a fact, you've simply ranted about shit that you know nothing about. Now go away, or I'll spank your tired little ass some more...

I love it when basically ignorant libertarian parrots just rant and stamp their widdle feet while proudly braying their willful ignorance and denial as righteous facts.

1- Examples are just that...EXAMPLES of the theme or substance of a larger item. Here's a more elaborate article on Paul's newsletter. Note it gives where one can get the periodical record for the newsletter:

Ron Paul: a history of documented racism


2 - And as we see, our Libertarian lunkhead fully drinks from the same trough as Limbaugh/Hannity/Kristol, and the rest of the neocon/teabagger crowd. Someone pull this simpleton aside and educate him on the true status of Social Security (note that Guy DID NOT acknowledge my point regarding the usage of Soc Sec as a budget subsidy, which it WAS NOT designed for). Here, Sen. Bernie Sanders educates the masses: NYC Educator: Bernie Sanders on Social Security

3 - Guy, like every other libertarian parrot who is willfully ignorant on the subject he squawks about, plays games regarding the Preamble and 9th Amendment with regards to healthcare. Let me educated the dullard:

Preamble To the Constitution of the U.S.A
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So if Guy thinks that HEALTH is separate from "general welfare", then he needs a refresher course in civics.

4 - Anyone with an 8th grade education can follow the "logic" of Paul's idealism and come to the conclusion that it renders the very purpose of the federal gov't almost obsolete, save for maintaining the military. Case in point, the laughable BS Paul spews when he speaks against the Civil Rights Act of 1964....

Ron Paul says he would have opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act !!! // Current TV


Poor Guy.....wasting his time trying to justify BS that the rest of the country knows is BS, as Paul and his son confirms when pressed for details.

 

[GuyPinestra]

I love it when basically ignorant libertarian parrots just rant and stamp their widdle feet while proudly braying their willful ignorance and denial as righteous facts.

1- Examples are just that...EXAMPLES of the theme or substance of a larger item. Here's a more elaborate article on Paul's newsletter. Note it gives where one can get the periodical record for the newsletter:

Ron Paul: a history of documented racism

The only parrot around here is you, Mr. Taichi Idiot. There is no link to ANY of these supposed racist newsletters. You're a liar, and a damned poor one at that. Your 'article' is nothing more than a re-hashed version of every hit piece to come before it. I will take one of those 'items' and ask you to engage just a couple of those overworked brain cells for a minute.

When Ronald Reagan signed the Martin Luther King Holiday bill into law, Paul wrote, “What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!” He added, “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”

In reality, Paul has noted King as one of his heroes on many occasions. Indeed, one of the very few times that the Congressman has ever voted for something that is not explicitly authorized in the Constitution, it was for America to recognize Martin Luther King Day as a public holiday.

The fact that, as Politifact documents, “in the late 1970s and early 1980s, (Paul) voted….to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday on the third Monday in January,” before any of the newsletters were published, proves that the newsletters were written by other people and did not represent the views of Paul himself.

2 - And as we see, our Libertarian lunkhead fully drinks from the same trough as Limbaugh/Hannity/Kristol, and the rest of the neocon/teabagger crowd. Someone pull this simpleton aside and educate him on the true status of Social Security (note that Guy DID NOT acknowledge my point regarding the usage of Soc Sec as a budget subsidy, which it WAS NOT designed for). Here, Sen. Bernie Sanders educates the masses: NYC Educator: Bernie Sanders on Social Security

Bernie Sanders didn't bother in his 15 minute speech to tell anyone that the Social Security Trust Fund is full of nothing but I.O.U.'s. Our sleazy politicians have drained that fund of assets and replaced them with nothing but empty promises. In fact, Dr. Paul introduced a bill in Congress to STOP the government from spending it, but sadly and typically, he was ignored. Here's a little something to chew on from Forbes magazine...

Here’s how President Barack Obama answered CBS’s Scott Pelley’s question about whether he could guarantee that Social Security checks would go out on August 3, the day after the government is supposed to reach its debt limit: “I cannot guarantee that those checks [he included veterans and the disabled, in addition to Social Security] go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”

And Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner echoed the president on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday implying that if a budget deal isn’t reached by August 2, seniors might not get their Social Security checks.

Well, either Obama and Geithner are lying to us now, or they and all defenders of the Social Security status quo have been lying to us for decades. It must be one or the other.

Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit.

President Obama’s budget director, Jack Lew, explained all this last February in USA Today:

“Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing. They are paid for with payroll taxes collected from workers and their employers throughout their careers. These taxes are placed in a trust fund dedicated to paying benefits owed to current and future beneficiaries. … Even though Social Security began collecting less in taxes than it paid in benefits in 2010, the trust fund will continue to accrue interest and grow until 2025, and will have adequate resources to pay full benefits for the next 26 years.”

Notice that Lew said nothing about raising the debt ceiling, which was already looming, and it shouldn’t matter anyway because Social Security is “entirely self-financing” and off budget. What could be clearer?

Unconvinced, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote a subsequent column questioning Lew’s assertions. “This [Lew’s] claim is a breathtaking fraud. The pretense is that a flush trust fund will pay retirees for the next 26 years. Lovely, except for one thing: The Social Security trust fund is a fiction. … In other words, the Social Security trust fund contains—nothing.”

Social Security status-quo defenders have assured us for the past 25 years that Social Security is fully funded—for the next 25 years, or 2036. So if there are real assets in the Social Security Trust Fund—$2.6 trillion allegedly—then how could failure to reach a debt-ceiling agreement possibly threaten seniors’ Social Security checks?

The answer is that the federal government has borrowed all of that trust fund money and spent it, exactly as Krauthammer asserted. And the only way the trust fund can get some cash to pay Social Security benefits is if the federal government draws it from general revenues or borrows the money—which, of course, it can’t do because of the debt ceiling.

Like I said, broke as a joke.

3 - Guy, like every other libertarian parrot who is willfully ignorant on the subject he squawks about, plays games regarding the Preamble and 9th Amendment with regards to healthcare. Let me educated the dullard:

Preamble To the Constitution of the U.S.A
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So if Guy thinks that HEALTH is separate from "general welfare", then he needs a refresher course in civics.

I would imagine an explanation of the term 'common defense and general welfare' would be most appropriate if given by one of the men who wrote it. Since James Madison isn't here to educate you himself, let me just highlight some of his words. I'll provide a link to the entire letter below...

It is not to be forgotten, that a distinction has been introduced between a power merely to appropriate money to the common defence and general welfare, and a power to employ all the means of giving full effect to objects embraced by the terms.

1. The first observation to be here made is, that an express power to appropriate money authorized to be raised, to objects authorized to be provided for, could not, as seems to have been supposed, be at all necessary; and that the insertion of the power "to pay the debts," &c., is not to be referred to that cause. It has been seen, that the particular expression of the power originated in a cautious regard to debts of the United States antecedent to the radical change in the Federal Government; and that, but for that consideration, no particular expression of an appropriating power would probably have been thought of. An express power to raise money, and an express power (for example) to raise an army, would surely imply a power to use the money for that purpose. And if a doubt could possibly arise as to the implication, it would be completely removed by the express power to pass all laws necessary and proper in such cases.

2. But admitting the distinction as alleged, the appropriating power to all objects of "common defence and general welfare" is itself of sufficient magnitude to render the preceding views of the subject applicable to it. Is it credible that such a power would have been unnoticed and unopposed in the Federal Convention? in the State Conventions, which contended for, and proposed restrictive and explanatory amendments? and in the Congress of 1789, which recommended so many of these amendments? A power to impose unlimited taxes for unlimited purposes could never have escaped the sagacity and jealousy which were awakened to the many inferior and minute powers which were criticised and combated in those public bodies.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: James Madison to Andrew Stevenson Please feel free to read the whole letter if those few brain cells aren't already worn out.

4 - Anyone with an 8th grade education can follow the "logic" of Paul's idealism and come to the conclusion that it renders the very purpose of the federal gov't almost obsolete, save for maintaining the military. Case in point, the laughable BS Paul spews when he speaks against the Civil Rights Act of 1964....

Ron Paul says he would have opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act !!! // Current TV


Poor Guy.....wasting his time trying to justify BS that the rest of the country knows is BS, as Paul and his son confirms when pressed for details.

The logic of Paul's idealism is to put the Federal government back in the box that was created for it by our Founders. The fact that you support it's extreme over-reach only illustrates to me how little you really understand about what our Founders created.

Here is Ron Paul's opinion of the Civil Rights Act, in his own words...

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

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

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

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

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

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

How's that ass feel now, dipshit?

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Then you need to open your eyes and pay more attention: Sen. Bernie Saunders immediately comes to mind. Rep. Maxine Waters is another....that's just off the top of my head.

Still waiting for your link on Ron Paul saying he would have voted against the civil rights bill.

And you have a link for the Sanders/Waters (I actually believe you-I just couldn't find anything with a quick Google search).

I have to wonder where have you been regarding Paul's duplicitous nature regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Note the following:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOMCwr72Dig]Lawrence O'Donnell Educates Ron Paul on Civil Rights Act - YouTube[/ame]

Ron Paul says he would have opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act !!! // Current TV

As for Sanders and Waters, check their individual websites. I can't do ALL your homework for you, ya know!

-Find the quote in the interview where Paul says he would not have voted for the 1964 civil rights act. Yes he says there were portions he thought potentially violated property rights (but that there were also portions that he agreed with). If you, post the exact time in the video (or the exact time in the 2nd part of the interview)-where he specifically says he would not have voted for it. I'll be waiting. Digesting everything in context is key.

For example at 4:38 of this video (an extended version of the video you posted...gee I wonder why you didn't post the whole thing?) Ron Paul says we should have repealed the Jim Crow Laws:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ8azMKI3m0&feature=related]Ron Paul vs Lawrence O'Donnell pt. 2 - YouTube[/ame]

-So he agreed with repealing the Jim Crow Laws, talks about about blacks being executed more than whites (specifically rich whites), sponsors a bill that balances the unbalance conviction penalties of crack (used more by blacks) vs cocaine (used more by whites), calls out fellow Republicans for (and I quote) "hating Muslims", isn't a birther....and this is the person you're going to honestly call racist? Really? Now do you see why it's laughable?

-Aad as I expected if you actually watch the interview with Paul he clearly says he's all for getting rid of the unconstitutional laws in states that were a part of the Civil Rights Act.

-Now a question for you...O'Donnell says that if it wasn't for "activist liberal government" (his words-not mine), that segregation would still exist today. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?


-Finally, I never asked for you to "do my homework" I asked you to back up your statements. BIG difference. Somebody who's reluctant to show actual evidence to their stances...there's usually a reason as to why. I never make statements of fact (not opinions) without backing them up with some sort of proof. It's not my "homework" to fact-check your statements. That's yours.

 

[Peach]

So you hold something against Paul even though he said those weren't his words from twenty years ago? But obama saying something 20 years ago and denies he said it you give him a Pass?
Paul has been pretty consistent in his view. He's a libertarian, and libertarians are for protecting everybody's rights, racist's aren't. So something that was taken out of context 20 years ago is all you have to hold over his head. You lost because it's really weak.

I'd point out Obama is regularly called a racist, though his mother was Caucasian, and what someone wrote FOR Paul, or says Paul said 20 years ago, is too attenuated to prove JACK.

 

[Unkotare]

I'd point out Obama is regularly called a racist, though his mother was Caucasian.

And? Are you under the impression that his mother being caucasian somehow means he can't be racist? wtf?

 

[JamesInFlorida]

I'd point out Obama is regularly called a racist, though his mother was Caucasian.

And? Are you under the impression that his mother being caucasian somehow means he can't be racist? wtf?

If someone's is 50% white, whose mother (and people who they were raised by mind you) were white-no that doesn't mean that person can't be racist against white people. But it does mean it's extremely unlikely.

 

[Peach]

I'd point out Obama is regularly called a racist, though his mother was Caucasian.

And? Are you under the impression that his mother being caucasian somehow means he can't be racist? wtf?

it is an indication he wasn't as he was raised by his white mother & grandparents. I use it as an example of why the tenuous links of racism against Paul do not PROVE he a racist. Obama went to a church years ago that was headed by a preacher who made some racist statements, Paul let his office send out newsletters YEARS ago that included racist statemts. Not enough to conclude either man is racist. Paul should admit he was negligent for not checking the newsletters however.

 

[GuyPinestra]

I'd point out Obama is regularly called a racist, though his mother was Caucasian.

And? Are you under the impression that his mother being caucasian somehow means he can't be racist? wtf?

If someone's is 50% white, whose mother (and people who they were raised by mind you) were white-no that doesn't mean that person can't be racist against white people. But it does mean it's extremely unlikely.

snopes.com: Obama Racism Quotes

 

[Peach]

Still waiting for your link on Ron Paul saying he would have voted against the civil rights bill.

And you have a link for the Sanders/Waters (I actually believe you-I just couldn't find anything with a quick Google search).

I have to wonder where have you been regarding Paul's duplicitous nature regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Note the following:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOMCwr72Dig]Lawrence O'Donnell Educates Ron Paul on Civil Rights Act - YouTube[/ame]

Ron Paul says he would have opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act !!! // Current TV

As for Sanders and Waters, check their individual websites. I can't do ALL your homework for you, ya know!

-Find the quote in the interview where Paul says he would not have voted for the 1964 civil rights act. Yes he says there were portions he thought potentially violated property rights (but that there were also portions that he agreed with). If you, post the exact time in the video (or the exact time in the 2nd part of the interview)-where he specifically says he would not have voted for it. I'll be waiting. Digesting everything in context is key.

For example at 4:38 of this video (an extended version of the video you posted...gee I wonder why you didn't post the whole thing?) Ron Paul says we should have repealed the Jim Crow Laws:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ8azMKI3m0&feature=related]Ron Paul vs Lawrence O'Donnell pt. 2 - YouTube[/ame]

-So he agreed with repealing the Jim Crow Laws, talks about about blacks being executed more than whites (specifically rich whites), sponsors a bill that balances the unbalance conviction penalties of crack (used more by blacks) vs cocaine (used more by whites), calls out fellow Republicans for (and I quote) "hating Muslims", isn't a birther....and this is the person you're going to honestly call racist? Really? Now do you see why it's laughable?

-Aad as I expected if you actually watch the interview with Paul he clearly says he's all for getting rid of the unconstitutional laws in states that were a part of the Civil Rights Act.

-Now a question for you...O'Donnell says that if it wasn't for "activist liberal government" (his words-not mine), that segregation would still exist today. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?


-Finally, I never asked for you to "do my homework" I asked you to back up your statements. BIG difference. Somebody who's reluctant to show actual evidence to their stances...there's usually a reason as to why. I never make statements of fact (not opinions) without backing them up with some sort of proof. It's not my "homework" to fact-check your statements. That's yours.

Paul wanted issue by issue votes so private property owners COULD discriminate though he doesn't define Jim Crow laws, those laws in effect ALLOWED public businesses to exclude blacks.
***********************************************************
Some examples of Jim Crow laws are the segregation of public schools, public places, and public transportation, and the segregation of restrooms, restaurants, and drinking fountains for whites and blacks. The U.S. military was also segregated.
************************************************************

Voting against Jim Crow would end the disenfranchisement of blacks, thus, it appears in Paul's view it became a local issue that would be decided on a local basis for at least some entities. Note the Jim Crow laws allowed separate restaurants, so Paul would have ended separate but equal in those businesses. A more costly, messy way to end segregation, but Paul made it clear he was against Jim Crow, it stands to reason he thought the Civil Rights Act would blacks MUST be allowed on PRIVATE residences, and "clubs" and that is what he opposed.

 

[Unkotare]

I'd point out Obama is regularly called a racist, though his mother was Caucasian.

And? Are you under the impression that his mother being caucasian somehow means he can't be racist? wtf?

If someone's is 50% white, whose mother (and people who they were raised by mind you) were white-no that doesn't mean that person can't be racist against white people. But it does mean it's extremely unlikely.

Bull-fucking-shit. Where the fuck did you get that stupid idea?

 

[Unkotare]

I'd point out Obama is regularly called a racist, though his mother was Caucasian.

And? Are you under the impression that his mother being caucasian somehow means he can't be racist? wtf?

it is an indication he wasn't as he was raised by his white mother & grandparents..

That indicates nothing of the sort.

 

[Sallow]

for the answer, read paul's own words and his newletter.

why do you deceptively say..in his own words ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz3PZSLjhmA]Ron Paul talks about secession... in front of the Confederate Flag - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

for the answer, read paul's own words and his newletter.

why do you deceptively say..in his own words ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz3PZSLjhmA]Ron Paul talks about secession... in front of the Confederate Flag - YouTube[/ame]

Is their a point you're trying to make with this video?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

He's deflecting because his candidate is a flat out racist and doesn't even try and hide it. This has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with secession.

He's a tool, that's all.

 

[Sallow]

why do you deceptively say..in his own words ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz3PZSLjhmA]Ron Paul talks about secession... in front of the Confederate Flag - YouTube[/ame]

Is their a point you're trying to make with this video?

That Ron Paul is a racist...isn't that clear?

Gosh.

 

[Sallow]

He's deflecting because his candidate is a flat out racist and doesn't even try and hide it. This has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with secession.

He's a tool, that's all.

Hmm..Secessionist or Racist?

Which quality would be better for a US president?

So hard to choose.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Ugh. This is such a tedious topic. There are plenty of racists out there, plenty. And it's not confined to one party, there's more than enough in both. As far as I'm concerned, it's a wash. Sadly, nothing of substance will be accomplished until both sides stop screaming and pointing the finger at each other.

.

 

[mal]

Only white liberals call paul racist

That would be me and I go by what has come out of his mouth.

Are you saying Paul lied?

What did he say?



peace...

 

[mal]

why do you deceptively say..in his own words ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz3PZSLjhmA]Ron Paul talks about secession... in front of the Confederate Flag - YouTube[/ame]

Is their a point you're trying to make with this video?

Yeah... Aside from not being Bright enough to NOT stand in front of that Flag and Speak, I don't get the "Racist" call...

Someone want to Quote Paul?...

He's a Boob, don't get me Wrong, but I Tire of the Regurgitation of "Racist" by Dishonest Liberals.

Substance to the Claim, Please.



peace...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ron Paul talks about secession... in front of the Confederate Flag - YouTube

Is their a point you're trying to make with this video?

That Ron Paul is a racist...isn't that clear?

Gosh.

OK if that is your measure of a racist using the flag behind them