Ron Paul's “South Was Right” Civil War Speech With Confederate Flag

[JohnOfSheffield]

what rights in particular are you talking about? This is to generic to make any sort of sense of.

If you were capable of reading you'd see that i've already mentioned them in a previous post, most alarming are the proposed violations of womens rights to their own bodies and the RIGHT to marry (as established in Loving vs. Virginia to be a fundamental right) between two people without discrimination.

States are not supposed to be homogenous in their implementation of state government. If you don't like the laws of one state you can move to another state. Thats the whole concept behind states..

And if you had an abortion in one state you might be arrested when entering another? Or if you are in a same sex marriage and get into an accident in a state which don't support it your partner doesn't have any rights that a spouse should have?

It's fucking daft and i think you get that too, not only is it a violation of the interpretation the SC has made in the case of abortion when acknowledging the constitution, in the second case it's a plain violation. Should violations of the constitution be up for popular vote in states? Absolutely not.

Was it the intention when it was written that it ever should be, absolutely not, was it the intention of ANY founding farther, absolutely not, does it go against the bill of rights, absolutely, does RP give a sheit... no.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

you lost me here.

I quoted you, i responded.

It's not that hard to understand, really, just stay off the hard drugs for a month and you'll get very simple things like these in no time.

Good luck!

 

[frostedflakes]

In case anyone ever tries to trot out the 'Civil War wasn't about slavery' BS, just encourage them to go read the enacted and declared reasons for secession published by the states themselves.

For example, South Carolina:



http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Ron Paul just shows that he knows as little about history as he does about economics. What an idiot.

I suppose that's why some slave states like Kentucky fought for the Union.

Slavery was a big part of it no doubt, but the bigger issue was whether states had the right to secede from the union over any dispute, be it slavery or something else.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

If you were capable of reading you'd see that i've already mentioned them in a previous post, most alarming are the proposed violations of womens rights to their own bodies and the RIGHT to marry (as established in Loving vs. Virginia to be a fundamental right) between two people without discrimination.



And if you had an abortion in one state you might be arrested when entering another? Or if you are in a same sex marriage and get into an accident in a state which don't support it your partner doesn't have any rights that a spouse should have?

It's fucking daft and i think you get that too, not only is it a violation of the interpretation the SC has made in the case of abortion when acknowledging the constitution, in the second case it's a plain violation. Should violations of the constitution be up for popular vote in states? Absolutely not.

Was it the intention when it was written that it ever should be, absolutely not, was it the intention of ANY founding farther, absolutely not, does it go against the bill of rights, absolutely, does RP give a sheit... no.

Same sex Marriage:

Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty".[132] Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."[133] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[134] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[135][136] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[135]

Abortion:
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/


That took two seconds to track down. None of his ideas are radical or discriminatory here.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Same sex Marriage:

Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty".[132] Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."[133] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[134] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[135][136] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[135]

Abortion:
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/


That took two seconds to track down. None of his ideas are radical or discriminatory here.

They are both radical and discriminatory, not to mention he signed the right to personhood act which means he's against even BC as in the pill, IUD's and plan B as well as any form of abortion in any case, even if both the mother and the child will die as a complication.

This should never be up for popular vote, these are rights that are granted as per the constitution and interpreted and ruled on by the SC and should NEVER be in question unless there is a challenge to the SC.

 

[Craig234]

I suppose that's why some slave states like Kentucky fought for the Union.

Slavery was a big part of it no doubt, but the bigger issue was whether states had the right to secede from the union over any dispute, be it slavery or something else.

Actually, it wasn't about the right to secede, it was about the reasons they wanted to. The civil war, however, used force to answer the issue that they don't have the right.

This raises issues about freedom. Why should one group of people bind future generations to joining the US if they don't want to? This is a general issue for nations.

I know there are huge practical issues, but as a principle...

 

[IceBergSLiM]

If you were capable of reading you'd see that i've already mentioned them in a previous post, most alarming are the proposed violations of womens rights to their own bodies and the RIGHT to marry (as established in Loving vs. Virginia to be a fundamental right) between two people without discrimination.



And if you had an abortion in one state you might be arrested when entering another? Or if you are in a same sex marriage and get into an accident in a state which don't support it your partner doesn't have any rights that a spouse should have?

It's fucking daft and i think you get that too, not only is it a violation of the interpretation the SC has made in the case of abortion when acknowledging the constitution, in the second case it's a plain violation. Should violations of the constitution be up for popular vote in states? Absolutely not.

Was it the intention when it was written that it ever should be, absolutely not, was it the intention of ANY founding farther, absolutely not, does it go against the bill of rights, absolutely, does RP give a sheit... no.

Same sex Marriage:

Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty".[132] Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."[133] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[134] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[135][136] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[135]

Abortion:
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/


That took two seconds to track down. None of his ideas are radical or discriminatory here.

EDIT: I actually am not a single issue voter adn I don't necessarily agree with him on all his abortion views. I do agree that at a federal level tax dollars should not be going towards such a controversial issue.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Same sex Marriage:

Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty".[132] Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."[133] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[134] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[135][136] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[135]

Abortion:
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/


That took two seconds to track down. None of his ideas are radical or discriminatory here.

EDIT: I actually am not a single issue voter adn I don't necessarily agree with him on all his abortion views. I do agree that at a federal level tax dollars should not be going towards such a controversial issue.

Second time you posted it, do i need to reply twice?

 

[Steeplerot]

I saw all these years ago, and this is why I have always been anti-Paul, his crazy economics are just offshoots of anti-union southerner propaganda to be expected, how were people duped so hard? Stupid internets and young people who have no knowledge of history. The poor right is REALLY desperate for a champion. It's a damn shame.

Forgive me while If I do not whip out the tiniest violin though. People should educate themselves and not be so damn dogmatic. You get stuck into ideological corners like this, and many STILL will swear the guy is "on our side" or "it's a conspiracy". meh, good riddance to Paul and his hordes of annoying drones.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Second time you posted it, do i need to reply twice?

if you want. This got way off topic. This was about him being an alleged racist with discriminatory tendencies.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I saw all these years ago, and this is why I have always been anti-Paul, his crazy economics are just offshoots of anti-union southerner propaganda to be expected, how were people duped so hard? Stupid internets and young people who have no knowledge of history. The poor right is REALLY desperate for a champion. It's a damn shame.

Forgive me while If I do not whip out the tiniest violin though. People should educate themselves and not be so damn dogmatic. You get stuck into ideological corners like this, and many STILL will swear the guy is "on our side" or "it's a conspiracy". meh, good riddance to Paul and his hordes of annoying drones.

I disagree. I don't agree with him on everything but he is far and away the best choice out. He is the only one with consistency in his principles.(Whether they are all valid or not he stands for something) He is the only non status quo candidate.

I don't think anything in the OP is a deal breaker.(I don't think it proves anything, he may be a closet rascist or he may not)

EVEN IF HE IS THE SECRET LEADER OF THE KKK, ALL black people are going to vote for obama again anyways.

 

[Steeplerot]

(Whether they are all valid or not he stands for something)

This is desperation to me. Which is why I said its such a shame righties need a champion so bad, now do we as the American people so apathetic DESERVE better is a argument I would not like to get into as in the end I am a realist but positive person. I still strongly disagree, we could do far better, as I said before even if I was voting this time around and for some reason had to vote R I would vote for ANYONE but Paul, that libertarian nonsense is a fastrack to serfdom, I would rather enjoy the last 50 or so years of my life in the USA before it all comes crashing down into a banana republic dump people like paul are so hell bent on.


At least lame GOPers try to at least kinda half-ass some kind of rationality. (even though they are whores to big industry in other ways, just not as dangerously reckless with the free-market religious fundamentalism stuff, its creepy utopian drivel) mankind has gone that kind of economic fundie route before and it does not work. Left OR Right. It is inherently unamerican imo. A politically immature mind falls for false revolutions and their snake oil sellers all throughout history. No way is Paul good for America.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

This is desperation to me. Which is why I said its such a shame righties need a champion so bad, now do we as the American people so apathetic DESERVE better is a argument I would not like to get into as in the end I am a realist but positive person. I still strongly disagree, we could do far better, as I said before even if I was voting this time around and for some reason had to vote R I would vote for ANYONE but Paul, that libertarian nonsense is a fastrack to serfdom, I would rather enjoy the last 50 or so years of my life in the USA before it all comes crashing down into a banana republic dump people like paul are so hell bent on.


At least lame GOPers try to at least kinda half-ass some kind of rationality. (even though they are whores to big industry in other ways, just not as dangerously reckless with the free-market religious fundamentalism stuff, its creepy utopian drivel) mankind has gone that kind of economic fundie route before and it does not work. Left OR right. Period.

i'm hardly a righty btw. I voted for obama last time around.

I could only hope for serfdom, they only were expected to pay 20% of their income.

maybe I misunderstood but How are you confusing RP with religious fundies?

Ron Paul is all about liberty and maximizing personal freedoms and getting the government out of our personal lives. Name a single alternative with those principles and a better implementation plan?

 

[Steeplerot]

i'm hardly a righty btw. I voted for obama last time around.

I could only hope for serfdom, they only were expected to pay 20% of their income.

maybe I misunderstood but How are you confusing RP with religious fundies?

I will expand on that, I am sometimes a bit obtuse, a right wing Libertarian IS a fundamentalist. The free-market fairy story is no different that 1920s communist utopian BS, this is where Ayn Rand got her fundamentalist kick from. (A Russian immigrant from the era of Lenin!) Right wing libertarians are just bolsheviks (in reality both are traitors of the working class) from the "opposite viewpoint".

I like to look at it as I am a atheist: the fallacy of being called a satanist by christians, satan/god worship are both CHRISTIAN concepts. So is all this utopian economic nonsense. Paul or Lenin..same dogma. Same wild eyed fundamentalist madness that leads to human strife.

Now I love Russian history and Russia is amazing, but their economic utopian madness of the past never, and will never work in the USA. I tell this to stalinists and the like in leftists forums all the time, same goes for right wing libertarians also.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

if you want. This got way off topic. This was about him being an alleged racist with discriminatory tendencies.

Kinda did, i don't think he's a racist, but he's a populist like any other politician and will pander to anyone that will hear him.

I don't think he's much different than anyone else, he panders to the religious right as much as anyone but he tries to hold the door open for sanity, i think most see that his approach isn't all that different though.

 

[eternalone]

Ron Paul has a fringe view of the Constitution that doesn't meet with most of the rest of our society. So yes, he rejects the Constitution as it is commonly understood in the US and tries to replace it with his view.

Your right but not only that if you read my previous post, Ron Paul was specifically implicated in Operation Red Dog by Michael Perdue. Google it if you dont know what it is. If you put that fact together and add his close associations with stormfront owner Don Black, and his racist newsletters, it would not be hard to conclude that Ron Paul is a subversive attempt by the anti government militias and white supremacist organizations to place one of their own in office under the cover of constitutional rights which appeals to people. All in all the video and his racist newsletters are enough for me to know this guy is a bad person at his core.

 

[Dari]

I disagree. I don't agree with him on everything but he is far and away the best choice out. He is the only one with consistency in his principles.(Whether they are all valid or not he stands for something) He is the only non status quo candidate.

I don't think anything in the OP is a deal breaker.(I don't think it proves anything, he may be a closet rascist or he may not)

EVEN IF HE IS THE SECRET LEADER OF THE KKK, ALL black people are going to vote for obama again anyways.

Out of all the candidates, why is he the best choice, in your opinion?

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

He's "entitled to his opinion?" That's seriously the best you can do here? The man is running for POTUS. His opinions matter, tremendously. Yeah, he's entitled to his opinion and we're entitled to vote for or against him on the basis of said opinions. And?

Funny how everyone on the left defended Obama for attending a church run by a black racist.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

I will expand on that, I am sometimes a bit obtuse, a right wing Libertarian IS a fundamentalist. The free-market fairy story is no different that 1920s communist utopian BS, this is where Ayn Rand got her fundamentalist kick from. (A Russian immigrant from the era of Lenin!) Right wing libertarians are just bolsheviks (in reality both are traitors of the working class) from the "opposite viewpoint".

I like to look at it as I am a atheist: the fallacy of being called a satanist by christians, satan/god worship are both CHRISTIAN concepts. So is all this utopian economic nonsense. Paul or Lenin..same dogma. Same wild eyed fundamentalist madness that leads to human strife.

Now I love Russian history and Russia is amazing, but their economic utopian madness of the past never, and will never work in the USA. I tell this to stalinists and the like in leftists forums all the time, same goes for right wing libertarians also.

Moonbeam?

 

[yllus]

What an uniquely American predicament - the presidential candidate who most values civil liberties is also completely crazy and a proponent of racist views. With luck like that you'd think America had personally offended Allah or something.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

I disagree. I don't agree with him on everything but he is far and away the best choice out. He is the only one with consistency in his principles.(Whether they are all valid or not he stands for something) He is the only non status quo candidate.

I don't think anything in the OP is a deal breaker.(I don't think it proves anything, he may be a closet rascist or he may not)

EVEN IF HE IS THE SECRET LEADER OF THE KKK, ALL black people are going to vote for obama again anyways.

You're on to something. Since the "black" leaders claim white people are all racists, this is a sure thing for Paul now. If the 95-97% of blacks vote for Obama again, and all the racist white people vote for Paul, he's a sure win.
So what's worse, a racist candidate or a racist voting population?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

You're on to something. Since the "black" leaders claim white people are all racists, this is a sure thing for Paul now. If the 95-97% of blacks vote for Obama again, and all the racist white people vote for Paul, he's a sure win.
So what's worse, a racist candidate or a racist voting population?

This doesn't make sense. As stated previously I voted Obama last time around. I'm not black

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Out of all the candidates, why is he the best choice, in your opinion?

explained pretty clearly in the first 3 sentences of my posted that you quoted.

 

[fskimospy]

Funny how everyone on the left defended Obama for attending a church run by a black racist.

Interesting how we view opinions someone personally holds and opinions that someone's acquaintance holds differently.

Crazy, I know.

 

[fskimospy]

You're on to something. Since the "black" leaders claim white people are all racists, this is a sure thing for Paul now. If the 95-97% of blacks vote for Obama again, and all the racist white people vote for Paul, he's a sure win.
So what's worse, a racist candidate or a racist voting population?

Except of course that large swaths of white America believe racists are morally repulsive people, so your master plan might not work out so well.