Originally Posted by
xlxBigSexyxlx
Reverse racism is bullshit, it doesn't exist, it doesn't happen, this country is still very much inclined to favoritism. White people aren't out of work, look around, there are no Harvard graduates who are starving. Women still get paid less than men, in fact, there is even a bias against Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. It hasn't swung put all the weight on the otherside of fulcrom. What is it with conservatives and this unhealthy nightmare that rich white people are gonna switch sides with poor urban blacks? Is it because that maybe they've treated them badly? I certainly hope not.
I touched on this in RED in an earlier post.
And yes, Ron Paul is racist! Did you read the quotes? Do you hear the news? If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then Ron Paul is racist.
I have seen no evidence to support this, please point to DIRECT evidence of his "racist" views. From everything I have read he believes all people should be treated equally, and that does mean that a black, hispanic, or any other minority should not have MORE rights or MORE entitlements based on race. Equality means that we all get the same treatment across the board. Giving more aid or entitlements because someone is a minority, is not treating all people as equals, as is stated in our Constitution.
I don't think you get the point about the federal reserve. You want a money backed by something hard, be it gold, silver, or some other commodity. IT DOESN'T WORK! It doesn't allow for national debt, which is necessary in running a world economy.
You would rather have a system of debt put in place, that makes it impossible to pay back? So in essence, you believe the American people should become indentured servants to the Federal Reserve, a non-governmental institution with absolutely no oversight what so ever, owned by private bankers, who get rich lending the United States money at interest. They print money ILLEGALLY, only the United States government can print currency, as is stated in the Constitution.
No! You don't know what you want to try. Libertarianism is running away from a problem that needs resolution. The elitist dominating us now are those of the Republican party which has turned horribly conservative. They have taken away freedoms with the "Patriot Act" and other "wartime necessities" that are completely unjustified.
Have you ever heard Ron Paul speak on these issues? He is against everything that you just named. He has even stated that the Republican party has "lost its way," those were his exact words. He sticks to traditional Republican ideals. He has said he will immediately repeal the Patriot Act.This is clear evidence you have never investigated what he actually stands for, you prefer to parrot people like Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck, who are basically Facists.
I DO NOT SUPPORT THE IRAQ WAR. Ron Paul IS an isolationist though, non of this non-interventionalist nonsense. Of course countries under oppression need help. Are you saying that CCCP, Mao-China, and Nazi-Germany needed no regulations because none of their countries "asked" for help? The Iraq war is a horrible war fueled by profiteers and lobbyists. I think we can both agree on that.
I am saying, what business does the United States have imposing its viewpoints or its ideologies on other SOVERIEGN NATIONS? Absolutely none. We are a super power now, that is your justification to invade countries who do things that we do not agree with? It was my understanding the United Nations dealt with the crimes against humanity, and that the burden was not rested solely on the United States. That is one of the main reasons people around the world are so unhappy with us presently, we run all over the world screaming "YEEEHAWWWW" and dont stop to consider what other countries or the UN would do. If I recall correctly, the United Nations did have troops on the ground in Rawanda, and they chose NOT TO INTERFERE, so if you would like to cast blame on someone for the 1,000,000 people killed with machedes, put that one on the powers that be at the UN. We have to help countries who are being "oppressed?" Ok, well who actually gets to determine that, and what would your definition of oppressed be. It is in fact, not our job to help countries who oppress their people, at least not militarily. That is the point of sovereignty, they rule thier country the way they want, and we rule ours the way we want. If the people wanted to change their countries government bad enough, they will have a rebellion. This has proven true throughout HISTORY. Meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations only creates problems for us here at home, blowback/fallout.
"Ron Paul sees the futility..."
Anyone who truly believes that won't garner a vote from me or anyone with a good head on their shoulders. That makes Ron Paul sound weak, lazy, and selfish; which I am sure that he is.
Weak, lazy, and selfish? I would like you to reconsider those thoughts, and consider how you would feel if you were the one signing the paper to sentence 3,000+ US soldiers to their deaths, and twice that amount wounded and maimed for life. In addition to the 500,000+ Iraqi non-combatants which have been killed thus far. Ron Paul realizes that these deaths are completely unnecessary and that putting our soldiers lives at risk should only be done when there is an imminent threat to this country. There is no mention or room for pre-emptive military strikes in the Constitution. The logic used for these strikes is FUTILE, and the motives behind them are to limit our liberty's at home, so perhaps you should read into this a little bit more. Actions speak much louder than words. So stop listening to what the politicians who start these military campaigns SAY, and watch what they DO. They invade Iraq, we have the Patriot Act to limit our freedoms, and then we say we are in "wartime" so now domestic's can be held as POW's and denied all of their rights essentially. A Boston man was held at Guantanamo Bay for 4 years without any charges being filed, and recently released. Then fast forward to today where the Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act is introduced, to allow the government to view any dissenters as enemies of the state(sound familiar?) and jail you as such for speaking out against government.
Federal Aid is a necessity or else states would not care for their foster children, their poor, their drug-addicted people. People need help and a lot of those times they just can't get up and say "No more dependency, I am gonna start a multibillion-dollar company." Ron Paul doesn't believe in freedom for people! He really doesn't! He believes in protecting the rich from participating in a society.
Man, your views just show how little you actually know about the issues and they honestly border on dillusional. How will the states pay for their foster children, poor, and drug-addicts? WITH EXCISE TAXES! They dont need Federal money to do this, jesus christ. I cant believe I actually have to explain this to someone. The tax's we pay to the state through various means, property tax, cigarettes, gas, etc, all pays for state functions. Thats why there is no provision in the Constitution for an income tax, because its not needed. But I'm sure your one of the people who will say "If we dont have an income tax how will we pay for highways." Well, to inform anyone reading, 100% of the paid income tax each year goes towards the national debt (I.E.-the interest that the Fed charges us to print our own currency).
Are you a confederate? You certainly sound like one because you advocate state freedom so much. Since you want to rid of the federal reserve then you'll probably support Ron Paul when he says that each state should have their own currency and ally themselves with different foreign powers. Wait, isn't that hypocritical? Isn't that the confederation of states? the reason why we adopted the constituion and a federal government?
I think it is!
Please show me the quotation or video where he said each state should have their own currency? Who said this Glenn Beck? Bill O'Reily? He said that the US government should print its own currency and do so on the gold/silver standard. He also said he would like to allow for competing currencies, but never stated the specifics. It would allow private industry to start their own currency as well. This is totally acceptable in a free-market economy.
Healthcare is a right! You're part of a society! Realize that. You don't live on your own island where you grow gold coins. This is the future, of course you won't like when you have to help but you don't see the ends. And it's not creating a nation of addicts, it's helping people survive. Ok, ok, ok; let's look at some countries that don't aid their poor: India, Vietnam, the Baltic countries, South America, and "just a few" others. But it's ok because these people all fend for themselves, probably why they've earned the name "the untouchables". Some many different countries are developing a healthcare system for the poor.
Helping people survive? Ron Paul does not advocate leaving everyone hanging out to dry. He advocates helping the people who absolutely need the help. The current system of entitlement ENCOURAGES and FOSTERS laziness and gives people NO INCENTIVE to work and survive on their own. They cause huge tax increases because so many people are addicted to entitlements like welfare, section 8 housing, food stamps, etc. All of these systems breed laziness. Health care is not a right, and the government meddling in health care will only serve to LOWER THE QUALITY OF HEALTHCARE and make it even more inefficient. Your oh so great universal healthcare makes the quality of healthcare worse for EVERYONE, so that a marginal amount of society can get free healthcare, that doesnt sound very democratic.
Get Majority of people OFF entitlements=Lower Tax's
Lower Tax's=More people working lower income jobs keep more of their money and can SURVIVE without the state/governments help.
A rather simple equation.
Fine, if you don't want people to take your money then please, take your money somewhere else! Please go somewhere so that there can be one less Ron Paul vote. In fact, start your own country, maverick; one where you can get Mexicans to do your work but you don't need to pay them because they don't eat or need care
You never stop do you. Are you one of the people who believe that "Mexicans do the jobs that Americans dont want to?" Lol, I love that idiotic argument. Americans will not do the same jobs as illegal immigrants AT THE RATE THEY ARE WILLING TO PAY. The only reason the employers pay less, is because these people BREAK INTO OUR COUNTRY and provide their services for a cheaper salary, UNDERCUTTING THE AMERICAN WORKER!!! This is terrible for our economy because many of these illegals do not pay tax's, yet they still use our services. I would be much more apt to pay a higher rate for labor, to tax paying American citizens.
And for Christ's sake, of course we need more taxes for schooling! Look at your spelling! "Indepedant/depedant"
"wellfare" "Interventionist" "Pendelum". Sounds like the public school you went to wasn't funded enough or that the private school wasn't as good as Ron Paul thought it would be.
And I am on the verge of ignoring you completely; for the last time, WHAT ABOUT WOMEN'S RIGHT TO ABORTION AND CIVIL LIBERTIES FOR GAY/LESBIAN CITIZENS?
Reply With Quote
