Who Will You Vote For in 2012?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
estesbob said:
All I have been schooled on is that I was correct in my claim that Ron Paul opposed both the voting rights act and the Civil Rights Act and would not have voted for them. I find this very troubling , and it is one of the reasons he is far down my list of candidates. I support. You prefer to dismiss his opposition to the end of segregation of blacks and him allowing blacks free access to vote as some kind of exercise in personal liberty. I don’t
Click to expand...
Of course, he himself said he is against segregation and the Jim Crow laws but you will continue to beat a dead horse…over and over and over.
 
estesbob said:
All I have been schooled on is that I was correct in my claim that Ron Paul opposed both the voting rights act and the Civil Rights Act and would not have voted for them. I find this very troubling , and it is one of the reasons he is far down my list of candidates. I support. You prefer to dismiss his opposition to the end of segregation of blacks and him allowing blacks free access to vote as some kind of exercise in personal liberty. I don’t
Click to expand...
I provided a link where he gives explanations of what he means and why. Of course it’s easier to keep repeating it as if it’s for other reasons. That will help keep him ‘unelectable’.
 
jam070406 said:
Of course, he himself said he is against segregation and the Jim Crow laws but you will continue to beat a dead horse…over and over and over.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of the myriad of Democrat politicians who tell us they personally oppose abortion but are opposed to laws banning it.

He said he is against segregation but admits he opposes laws to stop it. Same goes with the voting rights act. I am afraid that once he got in power he would take the same attitude towards abortion. Again he embraces a political philosophy that I think would result in being a deeply flawed leader. I would vote for him if he was Republican nominee, but I think there are only two chances of this happening-little and none.

We are not beating a dead horse-everybody agrees that he opposes laws that ended segregation, and to give blacks free access to the voting booth. You try to rationalize this is some kind of exercise in personal liberty, I don’t.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I provided a link where he gives explanations of what he means and why. Of course it’s easier to keep repeating it as if it’s for other reasons. That will help keep him ‘unelectable’.
Click to expand...
And the link verified what I have asserted-he opposed both the Civil Rights Act and the voting act. I agree that makes him unelectable-as it should.
 
Q: In a speech you gave in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, you said: “Contrary to the claims of supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.” That act gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters, and you seem to be criticizing it.
Click to expand...
A: Well, we should do this at a federal level, it’d be OK for the military. Just think of how the government caused all the segregation in the military until after World War II.
Click to expand...
Q: You would vote against the Civil Rights Act, if it was today?
Click to expand...
A:** If it were written the same way**, where the federal government’s taken over property–it has nothing to do with race relations. It has nothing to do with racism, **it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights. **
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
estesbob said:
Reminds me of the myriad of Democrat politicians who tell us they personally oppose abortion but are opposed to laws banning it.

He said he is against segregation but admits he opposes laws to stop it. Same goes with the voting rights act. I am afraid that once he got in power he would take the same attitude towards abortion. Again he embraces a political philosophy that I think would result in being a deeply flawed leader. I would vote for him if he was Republican nominee, but I think there are only two chances of this happening-little and none.

We are not beating a dead horse-everybody agrees that he opposes laws that ended segregation, and to give blacks free access to the voting booth. You try to rationalize this is some kind of exercise in personal liberty, I don’t.
Click to expand...
You remind me of Protestants that say Catholics worship Mary. No matter how many times you express the true belief, they say, no, you worship Mary.
 
estesbob said:
And the link verified what I have asserted-he opposed both the Civil Rights Act and the voting act. I agree that makes him unelectable-as it should.
Click to expand...
Please feel free to post the ‘objectionable’ material in his explanations…🤷
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Q: In a speech you gave in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, you said: “Contrary to the claims of supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.” That act gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters, and you seem to be criticizing it.
Click to expand...
A: Well, we should do this at a federal level, it’d be OK for the military. Just think of how the government caused all the segregation in the military until after World War II.

Q: You would vote against the Civil Rights Act, if it was today?

A: If it were written the same way, where the federal government’s taken over property–it has nothing to do with race relations. It has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights

Which verifies what I’ve been saying all along-he opposed the Civil Rights Act, which ended segregation in the South. You may be older rationalize that away as some kind of exercise in several liberty. I can’t.

I have no idea whether Ron Paul is a racist or not. But segregation was racist to the core and he has admitted repeatedly that he does not think the government had the right to end and. I am very reluctant to vote for somebody whose political philosophy leads him to such absurd conclusions.
 
estesbob said:
Which verifies what I’ve been saying all along-he opposed the Civil Rights Act, which ended segregation in the South. You may be older rationalize that away as some kind of exercise in several liberty. I can’t.

I have no idea whether Ron Paul is a racist or not. But segregation was racist to the core and he has admitted repeatedly that he does not think the government had the right to end and. I am very reluctant to vote for somebody whose political philosophy leads him to such absurd conclusions.
Click to expand...
Then anyone should be able to vote for whoever they believe is telling the most truth?
 
jam070406 said:
Of course, he himself said he is against segregation and the Jim Crow laws but you will continue to beat a dead horse…over and over and over.
Click to expand...
What’s the fun in not being able to rekill a dead horse over and over? 😛
 
estesbob said:
Which verifies what I’ve been saying all along-he opposed the Civil Rights Act, which ended segregation in the South. You may be older rationalize that away as some kind of exercise in several liberty. I can’t.

I have no idea whether Ron Paul is a racist or not. But segregation was racist to the core and he has admitted repeatedly that he does not think the government had the right to end and. I am very reluctant to vote for somebody whose political philosophy leads him to such absurd conclusions.
Click to expand...
He states quite obviously that he opposes the law AS IT IS WRITTEN. Is there something against opposing a badly written law, that creates federal overreach? Creates more problems than it solves? He doesn’t oppose desegregation and has made it abundantly clear that he considers segregation and discrimination to be moral evils, but he opposed these laws because he felt they gave the federal government too much power. A point of opinion that has become pervasively clear in the last 50 years.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
He states quite obviously that he opposes the law AS IT IS WRITTEN. Is there something against opposing a badly written law, that creates federal overreach? Creates more problems than it solves? He doesn’t oppose desegregation and has made it abundantly clear that he considers segregation and discrimination to be moral evils, but he opposed these laws because he felt they gave the federal government too much power. A point of opinion that has become pervasively clear in the last 50 years.
Click to expand...
You may buy into his rationalization of opposing the end of segregation in the South. i dont-which is why I do not support him.
 
estesbob said:
Anyone can vote for anyone they want. I am just expalining to you why i do not support ron paul
Click to expand...
So, I was right for not voting for McCain in the last election, because I did not believe him on most issues?
 
estesbob said:
I have no idea whether Ron Paul is a racist or not. But segregation was racist to the core and he has admitted repeatedly that he does not think the government had the right to end and. I am very reluctant to vote for somebody whose political philosophy leads him to such absurd conclusions.

This is false. He believes the Feds don’t have a right to dictate who businesses can and can’t hire. Which was rammed through deceptively and insidiously in a an act that was meant to help African Americans, but served a hidden agenda on the part of the Fed. Do you get it yet?
You continue to make it an issue of race and playing into emotional response and fear, which is exactly how the Feds get away with the erroding of liberty.
Click to expand...
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
So, I was right for not voting for McCain in the last election, because I did not believe him on most issues?
Click to expand...
As I said, I would vote for Ron Paul if he was Republican nominee, despite reservations about his commitment to end abortion and my concerns about his political philosophy, as there is no doubt he is much more pro-life than Barack Obama. I have no idea who you voted for in 2008. But if you voted for Obama you are complicit in empowering the most pro-abortion president in the history of the country and if you didn’t vote or threw away your vote on a nonviable third-party candidate you are just as complicit as if you voted for Obama

I take the abortion issue very seriously-when this poll started I was for Romney but his refusal to sign the pro-life pledge has dropped in far down my list. I am hopeful that Rick Perry will get into the race as he has rocksolid pro-life potentials and the contrast between his record and Barack Obama’s record is stark.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top