J
jam070406
Guest
I didn’t call you a liar. I said to stop spreading falsehoods that Ron Paul is racist. And, of course, you didn’t.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
estesbob
Guest
I am absolutely sure that Ron Paul shares in your sentiments which is why I am not a supporter of his.I get it now.
You are personally all for the Federal government telling businesses that they must meet a quota based on skin color, not qualification. You are all for colleges accepting people with lower grade point averages over people with higher grade point averages based on skin color. You are for the NFL paying fines if they don’t first interview black coaches rather then someone that may be more qualified for the position. You are for the Feds forcing banks to loan mortgages to people not because they are qualified but because they have darker skin.
This is your idea of ending segregation.
Do you believe that restaurants should be allowed to deny people service because of the color of their skin? Do you believe that Hotels should be allowed to deny people accommodations because of the color of their skin? Do you believe there should be separate drinking fountains and restrooms for African-Americans if the proprietor so desires.? Do you believe in poll taxes literacy tests this based on the color of one’s skin?
Can you tell us how you would remedy the above problems in a way that would fit you and Ron Paul’s version of personal liberty?
E
estesbob
Guest
You saidI didn’t call you a liar. I said to stop spreading falsehoods that Ron Paul is racist. And, of course, you didn’t.
Otherwise quit repeating your lie.
J
jam070406
Guest
Aaaah so you ARE for the Feds forcing businesses to hire based on skin color and not qualification.I am absolutely sure that Ron Paul shares in your sentiments which is why I am not a supporter of his.
Do you believe that restaurants should be allowed to deny people service because of the color of their skin? Do you believe that Hotels should be allowed to deny people accommodations because of the color of their skin? Do you believe there should be separate drinking fountains and restrooms for African-Americans if the proprietor so desires.? Do you believe in poll taxes literacy tests this based on the color of one’s skin?
Can you tell us how you would remedy the above problems in a way that would fit you and Ron Paul’s version of personal liberty?
Were the Feds forcing restaurants to not serve people?
Do you have proof that Ron Paul thinks that separate fountains, etc. were constitutional, let alone a moral thing to do?
J
jam070406
Guest
Prove that you were not lying or misrepresenting the truth then by claiming Mr. Paul is racist.You said
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Please show us where Ron Paul supports any of the issues you present in your post, or are they merely assumptions on your part?I am absolutely sure that Ron Paul shares in your sentiments which is why I am not a supporter of his.
Do you believe that restaurants should be allowed to deny people service because of the color of their skin? Do you believe that Hotels should be allowed to deny people accommodations because of the color of their skin? Do you believe there should be separate drinking fountains and restrooms for African-Americans if the proprietor so desires.? Do you believe in poll taxes literacy tests this based on the color of one’s skin?
Can you tell us how you would remedy the above problems in a way that would fit you and Ron Paul’s version of personal liberty?
I
ishii
Guest
So that is all you offer in response? Let’s stick to the issue, shall we? You are alleging that the GOP “had opportunities but did nothing” ? Do you remember the Bork nomination? Do you remember the Clarence Thomas nomination? Which party gave us Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts? Answer: the GOP. And which party gave us the pro-abortion Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayer and Kagan? Answer: the Democrat party. And some still insist that there is no difference between the two parties on the issue! Prodigal, we remain “one more justice away” because there are too many catholics (some of them U.S. Senators) who don’t consider the Church teaching on the sanctity of life when voting. You mentioned Scalia. Here is a quote from him:I’m sorry, but I think you missed a response I posted with a quote from a Scalia interview.
It boils down to speculation. The Republicans had opportunities but did nothing, but we continue to hear ‘one more time’.
Even though they are a minority, there are prolife democrats, but they are continually maligned on these forums. It’s not a party thing for everyone. It’s individuals and they have to be individually held accountable, but politics continue to be the primary argument. Many who use ‘prolife, not only politicians,’ are not discussing other issues important to the Church and that is suspect to say the least. Christ’s message was larger than a single issue.
Christ and the Apostles taught discernment, but when it comes to politics it seems there are some who push to vote for a chance that someone is telling the truth and not pandering. To be perfectly honest, that hasn’t worked out so good yet.
“You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it,” he said in an interview with California Lawyer Scalia reiterated his position that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment doesn’t guarantee equal protection for women in a way that could be construed as allowing abortion on demand. (my bold italics).
Care to comment?
Ishii
E
estesbob
Guest
He opposed the law that banned them .He offered no alternative solution . Again it is adherence to a radical political philosophy that would have allowed these abuses to continue that concerns me,Aaaah so you ARE for the Feds forcing businesses to hire based on skin color and not qualification.
Were the Feds forcing restaurants to not serve people?
Do you have proof that Ron Paul thinks that separate fountains, etc. were constitutional, let alone a moral thing to do?
I have a feeling that before you got involved in this thread you really had no idea of how radical his ideas were. Personal liberty sounds very appealing until one finds out that Ron Paul’s definition of personal liberty allows people to trample on others liberty.
By the way-can you tell us how you would have ended segregation absent government intervention ?
E
estesbob
Guest
It is the usual tactic of demanding perfection from Republicans and lipservice from Democrats. In the topsy-turvy world of liberal Catholics those who oppose abortion really don’t want to end it, while those who support abortion really want to end it . And of course, the reason they can’t end it is because of the overheated rhetoric of those who want to end it (but really don’t ) Oftentimes in these debates. I feel like I’ve fallen into the Bizarro world of Superman lore.So that is all you offer in response? Let’s stick to the issue, shall we? You are alleging that the GOP “had opportunities but did nothing” ? Do you remember the Bork nomination? So you remember the Clarence Thomas nomination? Which party gave us Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts? Answer: the GOP. And which party gave us the pro-abortion Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayer and Kagan? Answer: the Democrat party. And some still insist that there is no difference between the two parties on the issue! Prodigal, we remain “one more justice away” because there are too many catholics (some of them U.S. Senators) who don’t consider the Church teaching on the sanctity of life when voting. You mentioned Scalia. Here is a quote from him:
“You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it,” he said in an interview with California Lawyer Scalia reiterated his position that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment doesn’t guarantee equal protection for women in a way that could be construed as allowing abortion on demand. (my bold italics).
Care to comment?
Ishii
E
estesbob
Guest
As I have stated repeatedly he opposed the legislation that made these actions illegal. He says that stopping these actions is an unconstitutional violation of personal liberty . I have yet to see other Ron Paul or any of his supporters tell us what they would have done to in these gross denial of liberties to African Americans.Please show us where Ron Paul supports any of the issues you present in your post, or are they merely assumptions on your part?
I have a question for both you and JAM did you have occasion to travel and the South in the early 60s? Do you really know how bad segregation was? Do you really think forcing businesses to accommodate African-Americans is a violation of their personal liberty?
J
jam070406
Guest
No, actually you are wrong again. He said he was opposed to the Jim Crow laws. So abolishing the Jim Crow laws would have solved the issue. Because they infringed on the constitutional rights of African Americans.He opposed the law that banned them .He offered no alternative solution . Again it is adherence to a radical political philosophy that would have allowed these abuses to continue that concerns me,
I have a feeling that before you got involved in this thread you really had no idea of how radical his ideas were. Personal liberty sounds very appealing until one finds out that Ron Paul’s definition of personal liberty allows people to trample on others liberty.
By the way-can you tell us how you would have ended segregation absent government intervention ?
What he is opposed to is the Fed government trampling EVERYBODY’S personal liberties. Black, white, brown, green, purple…
But I understand that you are for the Feds taking personal liberties. That must be why you are fighting me so hard on this.
E
estesbob
Guest
LOL-abolishing the Jim Crow laws exactly what the civil right act.! But you and Ron Paul said that is a violation of people’s personal liberties! So how would you have done it differently? How could you abolish Jim Crow laws without requiring businesses to accommodate African-Americans?No, actually you are wrong again. He said he was opposed to the Jim Crow laws. So abolishing the Jim Crow laws would have solved the issue. Because they infringed on the constitutional rights of African Americans.
What he is opposed to is the Fed government trampling EVERYBODY’S personal liberties. Black, white, brown, green, purple…
But I understand that you are for the Feds taking personal liberties. That must be why you are fighting me so hard on this.
What personal liberties did the civil rights act take away from you ? What were you allowed to do prior to this that you cannot do now?
J
jam070406
Guest
Wrong. What made those things possible were the Jim Crow laws. Which he is opposed to on the grounds they violate the Constitution.As I have stated repeatedly he opposed the legislation that made these actions illegal. He says that stopping these actions is an unconstitutional violation of personal liberty . I have yet to see other Ron Paul or any of his supporters tell us what they would have done to in these gross denial of liberties to African Americans.
I have a question for both you and JAM did you have occasion to travel and the South in the early 60s? Do you really know how bad segregation was? Do you really think forcing businesses to accommodate African-Americans is a violation of their personal liberty?
Forcing businesses to suffer penalty for hiring according to skin color is discrimination in itself and unjust.
J
jam070406
Guest
Abolish the unconstitutional laws that forced segregation. The things you’ve been complaining about. Therefore African Americans would not be designated to certain areas.LOL-abolishing the Jim Crow laws exactly what the civil right act.! But you and Ron Paul said that is a violation of people’s personal liberties! So how would you have done it differently? How could you abolish Jim Crow laws without requiring businesses to accommodate African-Americans?
What personal liberties did the civil rights act take away from you ? What were you allowed to do prior to this that you cannot do now?
He is for that, but against the Feds violating individual liberties.
T
TMC
Guest
You didn’t ask me, but I know the answer. Discriminate based on race. That is the only “right” that was taken away. Ron Paul thinks that racial discrimination should be legal - he has made that perfectly clear. I am personally glad that racial discrimination is now illegal. That is one of the many reasons I do not support Ron Paul.What were you allowed to do prior to this that you cannot do now?
E
estesbob
Guest
That is exactly what the Civil Rights Act. did . Again, you have offered no solution other than complain that ending racial discrimination is somehow a violation of your personal liberty. Ron Paul has offered no solution whatsoever to the racial problems that faced the country. Standing on the sidelines complaining your personal liberties were violated. Would have done nothing to end the discrimination.Abolish the unconstitutional laws that forced segregation. The things you’ve been complaining about. Therefore African Americans would not be designated to certain areas.
He is for that, but against the Feds violating individual liberties.
J
jam070406
Guest
aaaaand…what else? That Ron Paul objects to?LOL-abolishing the Jim Crow laws exactly what the civil right act.!
The government forcing you to run your business by meeting a quota is a violation, yes.But you and Ron Paul said that is a violation of people’s personal liberties!
Abolish the Jim Crow laws which would emphasize the dignity of African Americans as being equal under the Constitution. Allowing African Americans the chance to be hired based upon qualification and not forced because of color of skin. We are all equal right?So how would you have done it differently? How could you abolish Jim Crow laws without requiring businesses to accommodate African-Americans?
?
I suspect if I owned an NFL franchise it would effect me.What personal liberties did the civil rights act take away from you ? What were you allowed to do prior to this that you cannot do now
It’s another on a long list of liberties being stripped away by the Feds.
Is Ron Paul racist for opposing the government take over of health care too?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Comment? Not really. I am growing tired of the condescending tones. I have been addressing the ‘issues’ and have repeatedly seen my points dismissed.So that is all you offer in response? Let’s stick to the issue, shall we? You are alleging that the GOP “had opportunities but did nothing” ? Do you remember the Bork nomination? Do you remember the Clarence Thomas nomination? Which party gave us Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts? Answer: the GOP. And which party gave us the pro-abortion Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayer and Kagan? Answer: the Democrat party. And some still insist that there is no difference between the two parties on the issue! Prodigal, we remain “one more justice away” because there are too many catholics (some of them U.S. Senators) who don’t consider the Church teaching on the sanctity of life when voting. You mentioned Scalia. Here is a quote from him:
“You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it,” he said in an interview with California Lawyer Scalia reiterated his position that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment doesn’t guarantee equal protection for women in a way that could be construed as allowing abortion on demand. (my bold italics).
Care to comment?
Ishii
How many years during GWB did Republicans have control? What got accomplished? How many justices were appointed by Republicans, prior to the two newest appointees? What got accomplished? What was the name of the abortifacient the US was primary customer of the Chinese during the terms of GWB? RU486? Was playing politics with the Chinese reason enough to turn heads on? Why did the FDA turn their heads, again during GWB’s terms, when women suffered severe health problems and some even died from that drug? If I remember correctly, it was because of how vocal prolife groups were.
Republicans want full control again, badly. Of course they’re responding to the empty promises now. They blew an election because of their lack of action. It’s time to make up for lost ground and there’s only one way to do that.
I had confused some of Scalia’s comments with Clarence Thomas’.
“Your opponents were afraid that you might at some point rule against or help overturn Roe V. Wade?” Kroft asks.
“I have no idea what they thought. But they knew one thing. They weren’t in charge of me. So, I wasn’t gonna do their bidding,” Thomas says.
Thomas believes the issue of abortion is not addressed in the Constitution and should be left to the states to decide. If that were to become the majority opinion on the court, abortion could be outlawed in 40 percent of the country.
“One of the most surprising things in the book, in it, you say, ‘Like most Americans, I had mixed emotions about abortion. I wasn’t comfortable telling others what to do in that difficult circumstance,’” Kroft remarks.
“There are tough decisions we have to make in life. And of course, we all feel about that. People think that because you might agree or disagree with them on certain things, that you don’t have that concern about people who are left with tough choices. You do have that concern. But none of that had anything to do with what’s in the Constitution. The point is simply this. The Constitution is what matters. Not my personal views, whatever they may be. And I don’t go around expressing them on that issue,” Thomas says.
Scalia had made some ‘similar’ comments, but I cannot find the interview.
J
jam070406
Guest
He saw the overstepping of constitutional boundaries. Not by ending segregation but by the Feds forcing their way into the affairs of the private sector by using race as an excuse. It’s his job to uphold the constitution and the liberties of ALL people. He saw this as a slippery slope and now whites, blacks together are feeling the effects of more Fed intrusion.That is exactly what the Civil Rights Act. did . Again, you have offered no solution other than complain that ending racial discrimination is somehow a violation of your personal liberty. Ron Paul has offered no solution whatsoever to the racial problems that faced the country. Standing on the sidelines complaining your personal liberties were violated. Would have done nothing to end the discrimination.
J
jam070406
Guest
Hogwash!Ron Paul thinks that racial discrimination should be legal - he has made that perfectly clear.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.