Posts tagged debate

Ron Paul Supporter Likes The Way Paul Tells It Like It Has No Chance Of Being.
RICHMOND, IN—Self-proclaimed strict constitutionalist and freethinker  Rick Crawford told reporters Monday he is supporting Ron Paul in the  2012 Republican presidential primaries because of the way the candidate  looks people directly in the eye, doesn’t mince words, and tells it like  it will never, ever be in a million years. “Ron cuts right through the  fat and doesn’t sugarcoat anything when he talks about policies that  would be absolutely impossible to implement, like abolishing the federal  income tax, eliminating Medicare, or putting the nation’s currency back  on the gold standard,” Crawford said as he pounded a hand-painted “Ron  Paul 2012” sign in his front lawn. “He’s not afraid to give Americans  no-nonsense straight talk about his completely delusional fantasy world.  That’s why I’m part of the highly unlikely Ron Paul revolution.”  Sources close to Crawford’s family said his wife supports Mitt Romney  because of the way he tells it like people want to hear it.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/ron-paul-supporter-likes-the-way-paul-tells-it-lik,27138/
~ I don’t think Paultards will get it, which makes this article even better. BAAHAAHA!

Ron Paul Supporter Likes The Way Paul Tells It Like It Has No Chance Of Being.

RICHMOND, IN—Self-proclaimed strict constitutionalist and freethinker Rick Crawford told reporters Monday he is supporting Ron Paul in the 2012 Republican presidential primaries because of the way the candidate looks people directly in the eye, doesn’t mince words, and tells it like it will never, ever be in a million years. “Ron cuts right through the fat and doesn’t sugarcoat anything when he talks about policies that would be absolutely impossible to implement, like abolishing the federal income tax, eliminating Medicare, or putting the nation’s currency back on the gold standard,” Crawford said as he pounded a hand-painted “Ron Paul 2012” sign in his front lawn. “He’s not afraid to give Americans no-nonsense straight talk about his completely delusional fantasy world. That’s why I’m part of the highly unlikely Ron Paul revolution.” Sources close to Crawford’s family said his wife supports Mitt Romney because of the way he tells it like people want to hear it.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/ron-paul-supporter-likes-the-way-paul-tells-it-lik,27138/

~ I don’t think Paultards will get it, which makes this article even better. BAAHAAHA!

11 notes

"The Trouble With the ‘64 Civil Rights Act"    -by RON PAUL

"On June 4, 2004, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Act. Only the heroic Ron Paul dissented. Here are his comments."

-Lew Rockwell

~ “heroic?”  

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.”

Me- First of all, there was no “forced integration” but your choice of words says a lot. Maybe you forgot but people were fighting for this “forced integration” because they had been suffering through the hell of “forced discrimination”. They were “forced” to use separate benches and “forced” to sit in the back of the bus. Relations absolutely did improve but with social conditions, such as poverty and the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr, it took some time. What is wring with you? How can someone claim he’s not racist because he wants to end the “war on drugs” yet he opposes the Civil Rights Act? Right..

"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.

Me- This is hilarious for a few reasons. The Civil Rights Act had no effect of private property owners whatsoever. Desegregation laws allowed people on public property  including schools, hotels, and restaurants. Nothing about having to share private property. It sounds like you’re really just against Affirmative Action, but you’re skirting around it as per usual. So in a nutshell, you oppose Civil Rights because it infringes on your right to discriminate, and property rights for "those whose actions decent people find abhorrent" are a better way to “maintain a free society” then to actually give people freedom and protect their rights.. Oh. This is why you have such a huge white supremacist fan base p.s.he intended purpose of Affirmative Action is to

"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.”

Me- We get it. You are obsessive about the federal government and you know what the framers of the Constitution “intended” because you’re psychic. Got it.

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”

Me- Again, you are so full of it! The Civil Rights Act did nothing to violate any laws and it protects people from discrimination. You seem to have a huge problem with this which concerns me. No the bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds, but hey, neither can you asshole! They don’t need to be able to read minds to investigate a crime. Ask Randy Gray or Don Black about the times they were arrested for hate crimes. .

"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.”

Me- Have I mentioned how full of shit you are? HOW DO YOU THINK PUBLIC ATTITUDES AND EFFORTS WERE INFLUENCE??? pfft..

"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”.

Me- And, fuck you very much Ronald. No one wants a “color-blind” society. It’s called “diversity.” This was the most flawed argument I’ve ever read. Furthermore, eat a dick. What’s wrong with you?? Take a Xanex or something and calm the fuck down.

me.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

36 notes

Dear Ron Paul,

I really question you a lot. A lot. I just reviewed a statement of yours from the FOX Google debate and my head is spinning..

Did you really say that? I mean, really. "No Birthright citizenship" was your answer? Really.. REALLY??

Let me remind you about that crazy little thing you happen to rant and rave about 24/7.. That’s right! The United States Constitution..

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


I’m sure all of your neo-nazi endorsers were very pleased with your statement, but it is indeed heartless, twisted, and unconstitutional.

Hope you continue to fuck yourself,

Me


12 notes