Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on May 20, 2010, 04:14:36 PM
-
Ron Paul has made some statements about preferring to let the local states handle the civil rights issues, over national days, etc. More to it, I can't watch much of it.
They're attacking him 24/7. I've seen them make attacks like this - there's usually a good reason. They're scared shitless of the guy, and are doing anything to label him a racist and marginalize him. Thye know Rand Paul, as inexperienced as he may be, could knock Obama down 20 approval points with a single nationally televised debate.
They attacked the birthers with this exact same fervor. 911 skeptics too ;)
-
This guy is already presenting himself as a person who is aloof, evasive, can't answer direct questions, playing the round the mulberry bush game. Eh another loser...BTW he is one of the RAINBOW KIDS (Freemasonry)
-
lol that didnt take long...
-
Didn't Ron Paul have some issues raised about race? Had to do with a newsletter or something?
-
This guy is already presenting himself as a person who is aloof, evasive, can't answer direct questions, playing the round the mulberry bush game. Eh another loser...BTW he is one of the RAINBOW KIDS (Freemasonry)
He answered the questions very well you retard, its that stupid bitch that can`t let the emotion of the subject go enough to think logically. You dont have the brains to understand what he`s saying.
-
Didn't Ron Paul have some issues raised about race? Had to do with a newsletter or something?
I take it you didnt watch the video.
-
I take it you didnt watch the video.
Actually I watched the video that 33 posted in the other thread:
He sounds good.
If they discussed Ron Paul's newsletter issue I didn't hear it (or missed it).
-
He answered the questions very well you retard, its that stupid bitch that can`t let the emotion of the subject go enough to think logically. You don't have the brains to understand what he`s saying.
He did answer the questions well, I thought too. I don't want to get in a fit with anyone but I'm not sure I agree with what he's saying on this issue. Have to think about it more. I'm not sure there's anything wrong with setting a few ground rules (laws) for business to follow. I mean you could easily have some towns that would refuse business to anyone based on color? so like some black dude stops for gas in a small town and the guy says, sorry pal, you'll have to move along, we don't accommodate nigs here, next town is 70 miles away. "but I only have a quarter tank, I might not make it" Oh tuffshit buddy, get off my property. And what the hell if he had a wife and baby in the car? No, I'm kinda tending to think this is an important ground rule for business to be held to. Or lol, how about this possible small town event: My wife is in labor early, is there a doctor in town? "yea, dr jack, His private practice is just down the street but I'm sorry, he doesn't deliver black babies...."
yea, not good. gotta think about this a bit.
-
He answered the questions very well you retard, its that stupid bitch that can`t let the emotion of the subject go enough to think logically. You dont have the brains to understand what he`s saying.
There is a difference between giving an answer and giving the correct answer. He gave an answer that did not answer the question, which is why despite Rachel Maddow asking over and over essentially the same thing he continued with the same idiotic type responses...Make me wanna back hand him and say ARE YOU LISTENING TO WHAT SHE IS ASKING YOU???
-
He did answer the questions well, I thought too. I don't want to get in a fit with anyone but I'm not sure I agree with what he's saying on this issue. Have to think about it more. I'm not sure there's anything wrong with setting a few ground rules (laws) for business to follow. I mean you could easily have some towns that would refuse business to anyone based on color? so like some black dude stops for gas in a small town and the guy says, sorry pal, you'll have to move along, we don't accommodate nigs here, next town is 70 miles away. "but I only have a quarter tank, I might not make it" Oh tuffshit buddy, get off my property. And what the hell if he had a wife and baby in the car? No, I'm kinda tending to think this is an important ground rule for business to be held to. Or lol, how about this possible small town event: My wife is in labor early, is there a doctor in town? "yea, dr jack, His private practice is just down the street but I'm sorry, he doesn't deliver black babies...."
yea, not good. gotta think about this a bit.
Nothing really to think about...the guy is essentially saying it is NOT OK for the government to engage in discrimination (racial, religious, gender) but it is OK for the average Joe to do it. His reason for it being ok for the average Joe is he does not want to get into violating someone first amendment rights. I guess he does not understand that the violated and violator both have RIGHTS!!!!...now whose rights will he uphold???
-
Nothing really to think about...the guy is essentially saying it is NOT OK for the government to engage in discrimination (racial, religious, gender) but it is OK for the average Joe to do it. His reason for it being ok for the average Joe is he does not want to get into violating someone first amendment rights. I guess he does not understand that the violated and violator both have RIGHTS!!!!...now whose rights will he uphold???
Personal discrimination, unless used in criminal activity, is perfectly fine. You hate anyone who isn't a Muslim, so you should agree with this. Funny how it's not ok when it doesn't suit your personal agenda, isn't it?
Explain to me how first amendment rights are violated when Person A has a discriminatory opinion of Person B.
-
kinda derailed my point samson. :( but I don't really wanna get into it so fuck it.
-
Nothing really to think about...the guy is essentially saying it is NOT OK for the government to engage in discrimination (racial, religious, gender) but it is OK for the average Joe to do it. His reason for it being ok for the average Joe is he does not want to get into violating someone first amendment rights. I guess he does not understand that the violated and violator both have RIGHTS!!!!...now whose rights will he uphold???
the govt already discriminates...Affirmat ive action mean anything to you? how about quotas?
funny thing is most liberals are all for those forms of discrimination... ::)
I get what your saying huggy and I tend to agree but then like paul tried to point out where does it stop? where does private ownership stop and public domain begin?
-
I heard someone today calling him the "Kentucky Fried Candidate" that is pretty hilarious... ;D ;D
-
I get what your saying huggy and I tend to agree but then like paul tried to point out where does it stop? where does private ownership stop and public domain begin?
exactly and that's why it's something to think about rather than decide right away. I have to think about this some. I think we've always kinda agreed with always asking the question of where it stops. Yes, Paul was also pointing that out a bit with what he said.
-
kinda derailed my point samson. :( but I don't really wanna get into it so fuck it.
How did I derail your post?
This is why Rachel kept saying so you say it is ok for a person to discriminate, but not for the government? Which sent Rand on this humuna humuna fit being evasive about what HE would do in dealing with this type of situation. You should know by now that I hate ALL POLITICIANS BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL LIARS. It is pretty clear what this guy will end up doing and being. Flash back to Obama before the election and after?..
-
the govt already discriminates...Affirmat ive action mean anything to you? how about quotas?
funny thing is most liberals are all for those forms of discrimination... ::)
I get what your saying huggy and I tend to agree but then like paul tried to point out where does it stop? where does private ownership stop and public domain begin?
So like Rand you support blatant discrimination?
The only beneficiaries to affirmative action and quotas are WHITE WOMEN. Somehow you seem to have forgotten the history of america which was to discriminate against white women, Native People, Blacks, Hispanics and any non white person/people. The Civil Rights marches by the Black populaces opened doors for the "jew" and White women in particular, both of whom were looked down upon in america and were discriminated against by white men. Do your research...
-
exactly and that's why it's something to think about rather than decide right away. I have to think about this some. I think we've always kinda agreed with always asking the question of where it stops. Yes, Paul was also pointing that out a bit with what he said.
you know back 50 yrs ago I think that it wouldnt have been possible, today with the media and technology as well as the evolvement of society I dont think it would really make all that much of a difference. Most ppl agree that discrimination shouldnt exist and wouldnt discriminate and with technology and how small the world is these days those that do wouldnt be around to long I suspect.
there are already institutions that discriminate on the basis of race and sex its just mainly against white males so I guess its ok with most ppl who are against discrimination in one form but for it in another...again affirmative action, quotas...
-
So like Rand you support blatant discrimination?
The only beneficiaries to affirmative action and quotas are WHITE WOMEN. Somehow you seem to have forgotten the history of america which was to discriminate against white women, Native People, Blacks, Hispanics and any non white person/people. The Civil Rights marches by the Black populaces opened doors for the "jew" and White women in particular, both of whom were looked down upon in america and were discriminated against by white men. Do your research...
LMAO jag paul point blank said he DOES NOT SUPPORT discrimination, what he is saying is that he doesnt believe the federal govt should have the right to mandate private businesses...
so all this discrimination justifies what they were maching against? do you not understand that Affirmative action and racial quotas is discrimination?
are you for those? then dont you understand that you yourself are for discrimination?
-
you know back 50 yrs ago I think that it wouldnt have been possible, today with the media and technology as well as the evolvement of society I dont think it would really make all that much of a difference. Most ppl agree that discrimination shouldnt exist and wouldnt discriminate and with technology and how small the world is these days those that do wouldnt be around to long I suspect.
BINGO. It would be business suicide. We dont need the Federal government holding ours hands every step of the way.
And you are right that he mentioned that these types of problems should be delt with on a local level. That makes him racist? ::)
-
BINGO. It would be business suicide. We dont need the Federal governement holding ours hands every step of the way.
And you are right that he mentioned that these types of problems should be delt with on a local level. That makes him racist? ::)
LOL i gave msnbc and others 3 days before they started calling him a racist...it took a day and a half.
this is nothing more than a poliitical talking point and an extremely weak one at that, like paul said this is a non issue and its not like he is going to author legislation to repeal it so again just distraction.
-
LMAO jag paul point blank said he DOES NOT SUPPORT discrimination, what he is saying is that he doesnt believe the federal govt should have the right to mandate private businesses...
so all this discrimination justifies what they were maching against? do you not understand that Affirmative action and racial quotas is discrimination?
are you for those? then dont you understand that you yourself are for discrimination?
DUH...Affirmative action and racial quotas made sure WHITE WOMEN in particular got a chance to succeed. So its purpose was to CORRECT the denial of opportunity to certain people which had gone on in america by white men for centuries.
-
LOL i gave msnbc and others 3 days before they started calling him a racist...it took a day and a half.
this is nothing more than a poliitical talking point and an extremely weak one at that, like paul said this is a non issue and its not like he is going to author legislation to repeal it so again just distraction.
I agree completely, total distraction and she just wouldn't let it go. Fuck, give it a rest.
-
DUH...Affirmative action and racial quotas made sure WHITE WOMEN in particular got a chance to succeed. So its purpose was to CORRECT the denial of opportunity to certain people which had gone on in america by white men for centuries.
its a illogical you brain child
your justifying discrimination with discrimination.......... .............
thats what you were against in the FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LMAO some fuking ppl :o :o :o ::)
-
well as of late any white male that believes in the constitution and tradition is called racist by general electrics news outlet, so i dont realy think it matters what he said, hell he could probably have a black wife, or black roomates and a black best friend and adopt a black child and general electric media would still spin up some race card.
-
well as of late any white male that believes in the constitution and tradition is called racist by general electrics news outlet, so i dont realy think it matters what he said, hell he could probably have a black wife, or black roomates and a black best friend and adopt a black child and general electric media would still spin up some race card.
lol
-
well as of late any white male that believes in the constitution and tradition is called racist by general electrics news outlet, so i dont realy think it matters what he said, hell he could probably have a black wife, or black roomates and a black best friend and adopt a black child and general electric media would still spin up some race card.
LOL wouldnt suprise me
-
UPDATE
How Rand Paul's civil-rights views escaped media scrutiny
The editorial board of Louisville's Courier-Journal didn't mince words following its sit-down with Rand Paul last month. Much of what the Republican Senate candidate supports, it wrote, "is repulsive to people in the mainstream," including "an unacceptable view of civil rights."
And yet Paul's view that the federal government should not have the power to force integregation on private businesses — part of 1964's landmark Civil Rights Act — didn't get the attention of the national press until Wednesday, following interviews with NPR's Robert Siegel and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. (Watch the exchange with Maddow below. Paul subsequently changed his position Thursday, after an intense 24 hours of media fallout.)
http://www.hulu.com/watch/151086/the-obama-administration-rand-paul-on-civil-federal-and-business-rights
It's not as if the national media ignored the Kentucky contest. To the contrary, Washington political reporters headed out to cover the horse race — who's up, who's down — and wrote extensively on how the election plays into a larger narrative of tea party candidates like Paul fighting against the GOP establishment.
Somehow lost in all that coverage was any focus on Paul's views on the Civil Rights Act. Indeed, a Lexis-Nexis search for "Rand Paul" and "Civil Rights Act" yields no results for the weeks after the Courier-Journal editorial ran.
So if Paul's view is controversial enough to dominate cable news and the political blogosphere all day Thursday, how come it wasn't an issue in the month leading up to Kentucky's primary?
"It's hard to say why the national media didn't pick it up," said Bennie Ivory, executive editor of the Courier-Journal. "It was clearly out there — a major editorial on a really highly visible race."
Ivory added that "it's just interesting how this thing has evolved in the last 24 hours."
Indeed, the main political storyline one minute is Paul's insurgent victory and the next, it's a 46-year-old law. Given Paul's libertarian views, it's relevant to ask what the extension of such beliefs would mean in practice.
Siegel, when reached by phone Thursday, said he wasn't sure why the civil-rights question didn't come up since the Courier-Journal editorial. "It's the first time I've interviewed him," he said. "If I interviewed him a month ago, I would have asked him the same thing."
The reason for asking Paul that question, Siegel said, is because "the overarching question is, 'Just how conservative, how radical, how extremist are you?' "
After putting the question to Paul, Siegel followed up a couple more times. But he didn't have the chunk of time that Maddow did to press on for 15 minutes.
Maddow, in an email to Yahoo! News, said that she's enjoyed her interviews with Paul and his father, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, and explained why she felt it was an important issue to push.
"Anyone campaigning to be part of a federal lawmaking institution should expect to be asked, even pressed, on his or her views of the appropriate reach of federal law," Maddow said.
"For years, I've felt that the relationship between Ron Paul supporters and establishment conservatism is one of the most interesting, relatively unexplored dynamics in modern U.S. politics," Maddow continued. "I intend to keep covering it, and I hope that Rand Paul and Congressman Ron Paul and members of the movement they've inspired will continue to be willing to participate in the conversation."
It's not uncommon for statewide candidates to face a different level of exposure once they appear on the larger national-media stage. That scenario plays out every four years, as elected officials with little name recognition coast to coast take their case to the national electorate in presidential contests. Paul, now in a much more closely watched Senate race, will likely be the focus of increased scrutiny of his views and associations.
For instance, the Washington Post published a letter Paul wrote to the Bowling Green Daily News in May 2002, where he argued against the "Fair Housing Act." In views similar to those expressed on NPR and MSNBC, Paul wrote that "a free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin."
Meanwhile, Mother Jones looked at Paul's appearances on the radio show hosted by Alex Jones, whom the magazine dubs an "anti-government conspiracy theorist."
While Paul put out a statement clarifying his views on the Civil Rights Act Thursday, and emphasizing that he wouldn't try to repeal it, the candidate may find that he'll need to respond to more questions on his worldview in the future, depending on what else is dug up.
"I think he's going to have to start answering people's questions now," Ivory said. "He's going to have to. His answers are going to have to be deeper than they have been."
http://www.yahoo.com/?&r491=1274410219
-
samsons is for discrimination...
for affirmative action and quotas = for racial and sex discrimination.
-
playing the race card is the easiest way for people that are up to no good to pit people against each other, if general electric news was realy concerned with real matters of race they would be playing quotes from dr, martin luther king. talking about love, charity, caring, and acceptance of all. not attacking the problem with another problem of equal negativity
-
its a illogical you brain child
your justifying discrimination with discrimination.......... .............
thats what you were against in the FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LMAO some fuking ppl :o :o :o ::)
hahaahahah...It is going to be so easy for another nation to take over america with this mentality you have put on display.
Let me give you an analogy to help your comprehension.
You have been robbed of your possessions. You call the cops. You file your complaint that your neighbor broke into your home and stole your expensive items. You present receipts, pictures, all manner of proof that the products stolen are yours. The cops go over to the neighbors home and finds that YES they have your possession in their home, but he can not give them back to you. WHY? Because to take the possessions from your neighbor to return to you would be considered STEALING!!!!!
That is an example of the mentality you have on display with the ILLOGICAL logic that correcting a negative behavior is somehow NEGATIVE ITSELF.
-
Dems are scared of Rand Paul in 2012.
The repubs are kicking themselves for running 2 RINOs and not Ron Paul in 2008... he woulda cleaned obama's clock.
You throw in hair and youth... he's Ron paul +1.
-
you know back 50 yrs ago I think that it wouldnt have been possible, today with the media and technology as well as the evolvement of society I dont think it would really make all that much of a difference. Most ppl agree that discrimination shouldnt exist and wouldnt discriminate and with technology and how small the world is these days those that do wouldnt be around to long I suspect.
there are already institutions that discriminate on the basis of race and sex its just mainly against white males so I guess its ok with most ppl who are against discrimination in one form but for it in another...again affirmative action, quotas...
I don't think technology has simplified or made the world as small as you think. I can see how someone who's lived in big cities mostly would think so, but I could easily shock you with what some people believe. Different areas have their own issues or problems. as a quick example, in western Nebraska, I was pretty shocked at their views of women when I lived there. Not all were like this but many were. I could not believe some of the shit I heard there. Even sat through an ass chewing by some fool that was pissed off that the company I worked for hired women. No I'm not kidding. Even for some shit like getting a loan. They didn't want to deal with women. It better be the husband or father or whatever going in with them and doing the talking. I found that odd because you can drive a few hours to Wyoming where views on women are completely opposite.
-
hahaahahah...It is going to be so easy for another nation to take over america with this mentality you have put on display.
Let me give you an analogy to help your comprehension.
You have been robbed of your possessions. You call the cops. You file your complaint that your neighbor broke into your home and stole your expensive items. You present receipts, pictures, all manner of proof that the products stolen are yours. The cops go over to the neighbors home and finds that YES they have your possession in their home, but he can not give them back to you. WHY? Because to take the possessions from your neighbor to return to you would be considered STEALING!!!!!
That is an example of the mentality you have on display with the ILLOGICAL logic that correcting a negative behavior is somehow NEGATIVE ITSELF.
wow whatever country youre from is screwed with geniuses like you running around...
correcting the behavior is negative if youre using the same behavior youre trying to correct...
you wouldnt be stealing the property as it was already yours...a quota or AA that keeps the best person from getting the job or slot in order to give a person who shouldnt qualify but does b/c of race or sex is discriminatory...
again AA is discrimination...anybody with logical sense can see that...but i guess thats the problem with you not getting it...
-
I don't think technology has simplified or made the world as small as you think. I can see how someone who's lived in big cities mostly would think so, but I could easily shock you with what some people believe. Different areas have their own issues or problems. as a quick example, in western Nebraska, I was pretty shocked at their views of women when I lived there. Not all were like this but many were. I could not believe some of the shit I heard there. Even sat through an ass chewing by some fool that was pissed off that the company I worked for hired women. No I'm not kidding. Even for some shit like getting a loan. They didn't want to deal with women. It better be the husband or father or whatever going in with them and doing the talking. I found that odd because you can drive a few hours to Wyoming where views on women are completely opposite.
dont get me wrong hugo Im not saying that it wouldnt happen im saying that I dont think it would be rampant...I agree there are always going to be ppl that hold those views and that would if able to discriminate according to them but the vast majority I dont think would and with technology and the shrinking of the world those that do would likely be put out of business...look at arizona and the boycotts and they arent even discriminating anybody...
-
hahaahahah...It is going to be so easy for another nation to take over america with this mentality you have put on display.
Let me give you an analogy to help your comprehension.
You have been robbed of your possessions. You call the cops. You file your complaint that your neighbor broke into your home and stole your expensive items. You present receipts, pictures, all manner of proof that the products stolen are yours. The cops go over to the neighbors home and finds that YES they have your possession in their home, but he can not give them back to you. WHY? Because to take the possessions from your neighbor to return to you would be considered STEALING!!!!!
That is an example of the mentality you have on display with the ILLOGICAL logic that correcting a negative behavior is somehow NEGATIVE ITSELF.
You believe women belong at home "servicing" their men and you want to lecture on discrimination? ::)
-
dont get me wrong hugo Im not saying that it wouldnt happen im saying that I dont think it would be rampant...I agree there are always going to be ppl that hold those views and that would if able to discriminate according to them but the vast majority I dont think would and with technology and the shrinking of the world those that do would likely be put out of business...look at arizona and the boycotts and they arent even discriminating anybody...
I'm not blaming you or disagreeing with you or anything. I'm still thinking about this and don't feel I'm ready to lay down a final opinion. So no biggie, we're just talking at this point.
One thing that we do know is that we can see these beliefs become widespread. It happens all the time through time. It seems right now we're at a level where it is more limited than it has been at other times. what will it be in 10 or 15 years? Who knows. Plus I also am not sure it's not worth consideration just because 5% or so are victims in this. For the Americans that walk into a business and get their asses kicked out for their color, it might not seem so much of a small problem.
-
I'm not blaming you or disagreeing with you or anything. I'm still thinking about this and don't feel I'm ready to lay down a final opinion. So no biggie, we're just talking at this point.
One thing that we do know is that we can see these beliefs become widespread. It happens all the time through time. It seems right now we're at a level where it is more limited than it has been at other times. what will it be in 10 or 15 years? Who knows. Plus I also am not sure it's not worth consideration just because 5% or so are victims in this. For the Americans that walk into a business and get their asses kicked out for their color, it might not seem so much of a small problem.
I agree with you and the changing views of ppl which could be problematic in the future. I agree that I dont think its worth changing simply so a few can legally discriminate. Which is a point I think paul was trying to make when he kept saying that it was a non issue. If ppl are getting their asses kicked ppl need to get arrested for it whether discrimination is legal or illegal.
-
author=tonymctones link=topic=331367.msg4734815#msg4734815 date=1274413061]
wow whatever country youre from is screwed with geniuses like you running around...
Glad to see you recognize genius...and your mentality/IQ is what???
correcting the behavior is negative if youre using the same behavior youre trying to correct...
Again using your logic...A man is raping your wife and has a gun to her head. Should you call the cops or use your gun to stop it? According to your logic doing either of these is wrong, because you are using the same behavior Violence or the police violence) as the person committing the act of violence on your wife, so it is best to let him continue raping her. CAN YOU SEE HOW DUMB YOUR REASONING SOUNDS..?
you wouldnt be stealing the property as it was already yours...
According to your logic it would be stealing, because the act of taking something from someone (regardless of how they obtained it) IS STEALING.
a quota or AA that keeps the best person from getting the job or slot in order to give a person who shouldnt qualify but does b/c of race or sex is discriminatory...
You're grasping for straws as the issue had nothing to do with a person supposedly not being qualified...the issue is race, religion or gender discrimination....stay on topic
again AA is discrimination...anybody with logical sense can see that...but i guess thats the problem with you not getting it...
So you are using your contempt for women as reason to discriminate? As it stands anyone can scream anything as a reason to discriminate, but there is no way you can tell me that sitting in an ALL MALE OFFICE is not telling of your mentality, DESIRES and ways. In your mind ALL WOMEN ARE STUPID AND THEREFORE UNQUALIFIED for a job, education, opportunity, whatever and based upon that your mentality you are justified to DENY them employment or opportunity. Right now white men are crying the loudest about Mexicans "taking their jobs" (it was the Japanese and Chinese a minute ago)...don't be angry, because based on your logic the jobs went to the people most intelligent and capable of doing it.....
You get dummer by the minute TWO TOES...You have missed the entire understanding of the analogy, the explanation and the plain logic. Which only goes to prove you selectively decide what you will and won't understand.
-
Should a black restaurant owner be forced to serve members of the Ku Klux Klan?
-
LOL jag according to your facebook iq test im above 140 ;)
lol youre not to good with logic are you?
AA and quotas do have to do with qualifications you dipshit...b/c regardless of qualifications they must fill quotas and use AA assuring that the best person for the job doesnt have the best chance to get the job...
lets break it down for you...ppl were discriminating against minorities and women which ppl didnt like, so in order to level the playing field you feel that discriminating against the majority and men is ok?
the reason you want AA and quotas is b/c of discrimination but you use discrimination when you use AA and quotas... ::)
-
You believe women belong at home "servicing" their men and you want to lecture on discrimination? ::)
That's called being a wife and mother. sadly the failure of that responsibility is the reason for the widespread failure of youth and consequently adults in america and europe. Both look at marriage with disdain, look at the responsibility of a father and mother with disdain and it is reflected in the children of both nations. The blatant disrespect of parents, of society, of people of things deemed sacred etc etc. Women have been taught to look down upon the husband adn disrespect him at every turn, proclaim independence and do their own thing all the while neglecting responsibilities at home...in particular the children. It doesn't take long after the fall of the household's head and particularly the mother that the children go awry. Look at your failing education, high fatherless pregnancy rate, violence, crime, limited structure/guidance, failed homes, runaways, drugs, depression, contempt of everyone and everything...all stems from a failed households...
-
This was taken from another site but I thought it makes a lot of sense to post here.
As a young black man, who was fortunate enough to grow up in a time where I didn’t have to check for a sign that says "No Colored Allowed" the civil rights act debate has left me conflicted at times. How can I.. a black man be opposed to something that I have directly benefited from? But what it comes down to is, you do not want government forcing you into associations, period. That decision set a major precedent for government to over step their boundaries and interfere and infringe on the individual rights of American citizens/businesses.
It took me a while to come to this conclusion, because growing up, my mother would tell me stories how she would have to walk miles to a store that served blacks when there was a store just right around the corner from her house, but refused to take black people's green money. She told me how mad she would be when her mother asked her to go to the store for milk, sometimes she would get her friend (who was mulatto and very light skinned) to go to the store for her...but it did not always work.
I could not imagine living in a society so fucking backwards and retarded. But we have to realize this was a social ill that not only haunted (and still haunts) nations and cultures all across the world. Skin color prejudice is still prevalent today not only in America, but in every country, even among black and Latin Americans. It's a social ill and social ills cannot be solved by the barrel of a gun (i.e. the government), but through education and enlightenment.
This is what should be celebrated from the civil rights era, it was a true moment of change, when black and white faces came together and said no more, we will boycott, we will march, and we will unify against a common enemy called Racism. Over the years, the government has stolen that success from the movement as if it was the government that turned the tide of racism of prejudice. No it was not the government. What should be mentioned is the hundreds if thousands of businesses who took down their signs voluntarily. Who's to say we would still be a segregated nation today if there was no Civil Right Act, specifically the provision prohibiting businesses that server the public to no discriminate based on race, gender, or religion. The civil rights movement would have kept on fighting, people would have still become much more enlightened, and the forces of the market would have reigned.
Those businesses that chose to turn away blacks would have eventually failed, and the ones that didn’t would have prospered. Maybe, just maybe, we would be a little less racially obsessed today. Now as far as government buildings, schools and services, housing, no they should not be segregated. The government could have taken a much less forceful option and just promoted equality and non-discrimination, instead of forcing association on to private individuals. And Maybe, blacks would be better off then we are today, maybe we would have focused on building stronger communities instead of integrating ,this is what Malcolm X preached time and time again. Maybe we would have focused more on building more of our own stores, own neighborhoods, own malls, own manufacturing base.. Who knows?
-
Should a black restaurant owner be forced to serve members of the Ku Klux Klan?
As long as the white men remove their sheets and conduct themselves like the y are somewhat civilized...sure. I would suggest the Black restaurant owners keep their guns clearly visible and a few patrons keep the rifles aimed at their heads the whole time..
But let me ask you this since you want to operate on STUPID as well. How does the KKK reflect white women, Native People, Hispanics or Blacks in any way shape or form? THe issue is discrimination not blatant violence. IN the case you just posted the restaurant owners would have the right to not only discriminate, but to bar the KKKfrom even coming into their restaurant....that is not discrimination..that becomes a safety/violence issue.
Again like Two Toes you regurgitate stupidity missing the topic completely and then say things for shock value as opposed to a logical argument.
-
As long as the white men remove their sheets and conduct themselves like the y are somewhat civilized...sure. I would suggest the Black restaurant owners keep their guns clearly visible and a few patrons keep the rifles aimed at their heads the whole time..
But let me ask you this since you want to operate on STUPID as well. How does the KKK reflect white women, Native People, Hispanics or Blacks in any way shape or form? THe issue is discrimination not blatant violence. IN the case you just posted the restaurant owners would have the right to not only discriminate, but to bar the KKKfrom even coming into their restaurant....that is not discrimination..that becomes a safety/violence issue.
Again like Two Toes you regurgitate stupidity missing the topic completely and then say things for shock value as opposed to a logical argument.
hahahhahah youre the idiot that doesnt see that AA and quotas are discrimination... ::)
-
As long as the white men remove their sheets and conduct themselves like the y are somewhat civilized...sure.
::)
-
hahahhahah youre the idiot that doesnt see that AA and quotas are discrimination... ::)
I love the sound of DEFEAT...
-
I love the sound of DEFEAT...
hahahhah youre a bigger dip shit than i gave you credit for... ;D
-
hahahhah youre a bigger dip shit than i gave you credit for... ;D
mental case
-
That's called being a wife and mother. sadly the failure of that responsibility is the reason for the widespread failure of youth and consequently adults in america and europe. Both look at marriage with disdain, look at the responsibility of a father and mother with disdain and it is reflected in the children of both nations. The blatant disrespect of parents, of society, of people of things deemed sacred etc etc. Women have been taught to look down upon the husband adn disrespect him at every turn, proclaim independence and do their own thing all the while neglecting responsibilities at home...in particular the children. It doesn't take long after the fall of the household's head and particularly the mother that the children go awry. Look at your failing education, high fatherless pregnancy rate, violence, crime, limited structure/guidance, failed homes, runaways, drugs, depression, contempt of everyone and everything...all stems from a failed households...
Epic failed understanding of why there are two income households these days and not one. Hint: it has nothing to do with a failed responsibility of women to their families.
-
Should a black restaurant owner be forced to serve members of the Ku Klux Klan?
Hell NO! The Klan is a terrorist organization ...therefore it's members are terrorists.
No law abiding American citizen should be forced to harbour or give aid, comfort and/or sustenance to terrorists.
-
hahahhahah youre the idiot that doesnt see that AA and quotas are discrimination... ::)
But it's not discrimination... it's exactly the opposite of discrimination. It's mandated inclusion. That's not an unimportant distinction.
Discrimination is the exclusion of a certain group. Quotas and AA don't prevent other groups from getting jobs, etc...
-
Ron Paul has made some statements about preferring to let the local states handle the civil rights issues, over national days, etc.
More to it, I can't watch much of it.
They're attacking him 24/7. I've seen them make attacks like this - there's usually a good reason. They're scared shitless of the guy, and are doing anything to label him a racist and marginalize him. Thye know Rand Paul, as inexperienced as he may be, could knock Obama down 20 approval points with a single nationally televised debate.
They attacked the birthers with this exact same fervor. 911 skeptics too Wink
Better yet, don't watch any of it.
Many of us on here have been telling you for a while now, that they are not worth a shit.
Nice to see you are finally realizing it.
-
Why are you guys trying to explain a political concept to someone with a tail and knuckles that scrape on the ground?
If Jane Goodall couldn't edcuate SAMSON, even after spending years living among the apes, then what chance do we have?
We should start with something simple first. If we all motivate and work as a team, we can teach SAMSON how to pick the lice out of his fur.
-
Rand Paul is way too intelligent for the emotionally driven libs.
-
But it's not discrimination... it's exactly the opposite of discrimination. It's mandated inclusion. That's not an unimportant distinction.
Discrimination is the exclusion of a certain group. Quotas and AA don't prevent other groups from getting jobs, etc...
a distinction without a difference, anyway you slice the pie it results in discrimination...
by mandating you include certain ppl b/c of their race/sex you exclude others b/c of their race/sex...THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT AA AND QUOTAS ARE AGAINST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I don't think technology has simplified or made the world as small as you think. I can see how someone who's lived in big cities mostly would think so, but I could easily shock you with what some people believe. Different areas have their own issues or problems. as a quick example, in western Nebraska, I was pretty shocked at their views of women when I lived there. Not all were like this but many were. I could not believe some of the shit I heard there. Even sat through an ass chewing by some fool that was pissed off that the company I worked for hired women. No I'm not kidding. Even for some shit like getting a loan. They didn't want to deal with women. It better be the husband or father or whatever going in with them and doing the talking. I found that odd because you can drive a few hours to Wyoming where views on women are completely opposite.
I agree with you Hugo! For those who say that it would be suicide for a private business to discriminate in this day and age, just look at the restaurant chain Cracker Barrel, and look at SunTrust Bank and Merrill Lynch just to give you a few examples. They all practiced rampant racial discrimination until recently, and nothing changed until the government stepped in. And even after that, they were still in business. So much for business suicide.
I don't think Rand Paul is a racist. I think that he makes valid points about big government and private business liberties. I just don't think that he fully understands the consequences if what he's proposing was ever actually done.
-
UPDATE
I almost threw up my collard greens reading this. While Rand has such DIFFICULTY with race and discrimination in america , he has no problem bending his ass over and opening it real wide for the Israelis...what a SAP ASS he is.... hope you guys wise up and stop electing these LOSERS into offices. Wasn't being fooled by everyone from Clinton to Bush to now Obama awakened you americans to anything concerning politics in america?
Rand Paul and Israel
By Philip Klein on 4.22.10 @ 11:06AM
(http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0bBp5LpaIe2SQ/610x.jpg)
I've obtained a document that the Rand Paul campaign is circulating to those interested in his views on Israel, and it's interesting to see how the positions he's taking as a Republican Senate candidate in Kentucky differ from those adopted by his father, Rep. Ron Paul, a harsh critic of U.S.-Israel ties.
"Israel and the United States have a special relationship," Rand's position paper begins. "With our shared history and common values, the American and Israeli people have formed a bond that unites us across the many thousands of miles between our countries and calls us to work together towards peace and prosperity for our countries."
Rand goes on to support free trade with Israel, call for divestment from Iran, and "strongly object to the arrogant approach of (the) Obama administration" toward the peace process. "Only Israel can decide what is in her security interest, not America and certainly not the United Nations," he asserts.
In one clear departure from his father, Rand states that:
As a United States Senator, I would never vote to condemn Israel for defending herself.
Whether it is fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon, combating Hamas-linked terrorists in Gaza or dealing with potential nuclear threats in the Persian Gulf, Israeli military actions are completely up to the leaders and military of Israel, and Israel alone.
By contrast, when Israel retaliated against Hamas in Gaza to stop rockets from being fired toward Israeli civilians, his father rushed to condemn Israel. In a YouTube video, Ron Paul called it a "pretty sad day for the whole world" that he said reflected the spread of the idea of preemtive war. He went further, by saying the fact that the United States provides aid to Israel and did nothing to try and stop the military action made the U.S. complicit. He said the action would "antagonize" the Arab-Muslim world and warned that "we’ll suffer the consequences."
Continued U.S. support for Israel is part of Ron Paul's broader view of foreign policy and the concept of "blowback." Rand Paul focuses his statement on condemning foreign aid to enemies of Israel, saying that, "In the Senate, I would strive to eliminate all aid to countries that threaten Israel." But he doesn't address the issue of aid to Israel itself.
The United States Special Relationship with Israel
By Dr. Rand Paul
Candidate, United States Senate
Israel and the United States have a special relationship. With our shared history and common values, the American and Israeli people have formed a bond that unites us across the many thousands of miles between our countries and calls us to work together towards peace and prosperity for our countries.
The free trade agreement that has existed, and been subsequently strengthened, between our countries since 1985 is a tremendous mutual benefit. As a United States Senator, I would work against the growing protectionist sentiment in our country and defend free trade with Israel.
I would never vote to place trade restrictions on Israel, and I would filibuster any attempts to place sanctions on Israel or tariffs on any Israeli goods.
The issue of Palestine is incredibly difficult and complex. The entire world wishes for peace in the region, but any arrangement or treaty must come from Israel, when she is ready and when her conditions have been met.
I strongly object to the arrogant approach of Obama administration, itself a continuation of the failures of past U.S. administrations, as they push Israel to make security concessions behind thinly veiled threats.
Only Israel can decide what is in her security interest, not America and certainly not the United Nations. Friends do not coerce friends to trade land for peace, or to give up the vital security interests of their people.
As a United States Senator, I would never vote to condemn Israel for defending herself.
Whether it is fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon, combating Hamas-linked terrorists in Gaza or dealing with potential nuclear threats in the Persian Gulf, Israeli military actions are completely up to the leaders and military of Israel, and Israel alone.
It is not the place of outsiders to meddle or pass judgment or to use our power or relationship to force Israel to go against her own interest for the sake of “peace.”
Peace is a laudable goal. But it is just that – a goal. It is not an end at any cost.
It makes no sense to me that the United States provides Arab countries hostile to Israel with $12 billion in annual financial and military aid. Many of the weapons that Israel would face in a Middle Eastern conflict would have come directly from our government. I find this appalling. In the Senate, I would strive to eliminate all aid to countries that threaten Israel.
Finally, Iran has become increasingly bellicose towards Israel. Thankfully, Israel has one of the bravest, most elite military forces in the world. I would never vote to prevent Israel from taking any military action her leaders felt necessary to end any Iranian threat.
Just as the United States would not follow the will of another country in the face of our national security, we shall not limit the options of Israel in this area.
Finally, I believe the United States should increase the pressure on Iran. I would mandate that all publicly managed investment funds divest from Iran immediately.
We should not be subsidizing any company that does business with Iran, and we should not allow U.S. companies or those with funds from U.S. taxpayers to enrich Iran through its national energy program. I would fight to end all subsides to American corporations that do business with Iran, including so-called renewable energy companies that work through Brazil to provide support to Iran and empower its dictators dangerous nuclear saber rattling.
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/04/22/rand-paul-and-israel
-
It's always about Israel with you, Samson.
Why do you keep posting stuff without links and sources? Where did you get this?
Ron Paul, Rand's father, was accused of being anti Israel for saying that America should stop giving so much money away to ALL other countries. This of course includes Israel, hence the accusations that Paul is anti-Israel.
-
It's always about Israel with you, Samson.
Why do you keep posting stuff without links and sources? Where did you get this?
Ron Paul, Rand's father, was accused of being anti Israel for saying that America should stop giving so much money away to ALL other countries. This of course includes Israel, hence the accusations that Paul is anti-Israel.
Loco aren't you from Argentina or Venezuela? Why are you so concerned about Israel and comments about it?
The political system of america is so skewed in favor of Israel because of the ZIONIST control of america. For Rand Paul to continue the 'practice' only shows who controls him. he can't see the problems facing america, but he is concerned about the issues of Israhell.... More will be revealed about this guy soon enough.
-
Loco aren't you from Argentina or Venezuela? Why are you so concerned about Israel and comments about it?
LMFAO. Coming from a douchebag who doesn't even live in America, posts extensively on an American board, and criticizes 33 for not looking at other world issues.
You just continue to top yourself, idiot.
-
Here is one to get Jag all worked up.
Ha ha. Someone sent this to me.
-
LMFAO. Coming from a douchebag who doesn't even live in America, posts extensively on an American board, and criticizes 33 for not looking at other world issues.
You just continue to top yourself, idiot.
Criticizes 3? what criticism are you taking about?
BTW keep laughing until those ZIONIST have you in a FEMA camp...
-
He answered the questions very well you retard, its that stupid bitch that can`t let the emotion of the subject go enough to think logically. You dont have the brains to understand what he`s saying.
LOL! ::)
Kill yourself...
-
STOP OBAMA THE RADICAL MARXIST - HE IS KILLING THE MARKETS!
-
benny dont want any part of that thread now 333.
-
STOP OBAMA THE RADICAL MARXIST - HE IS KILLING THE MARKETS!
There you go. LOL
Keep the gems coming, PEA BRAIN. ;D
-
Hell NO! The Klan is a terrorist organization ...therefore it's members are terrorists.
No law abiding American citizen should be forced to harbour or give aid, comfort and/or sustenance to terrorists.
Thats YOUR opinion of the Klan!!!Once again liberals are amazing.Its ok for THEM to discriminate,just not whites.If I own a personal training buisiness is it ok for me to not train blacks?Why wouldnt it be ok?Its my freaking buisiness.
-
LOL! ::)
Kill yourself...
I'd hire you even if you are retarded, no discrimination here.
-
Here is one to get Jag all worked up.
Ha ha. Someone sent this to me.
A real American should above all defend America, not foreign nations.
-
a distinction without a difference, anyway you slice the pie it results in discrimination...
by mandating you include certain ppl b/c of their race/sex you exclude others b/c of their race/sex...THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT AA AND QUOTAS ARE AGAINST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, it's a distinction with a very important difference.
By mandating that certain people be included b/c of their race/sex you are acknowledging that a disproportionate number benefits because of their race/sex . That is what quotas are against- insuler, self-perpetuating cultures.
-
Thats YOUR opinion of the Klan!!!
Go luck up the definition of a terrorist organization, and you'll see it fits the Klan to a T.
That's just one of the reasons President Clinton named the KKK as a terrorist organization,
...but I know you have no respect for Clinton.
-
Are the bloods, crips, ms13, latin kings, vatos loco, mexican mafia et al terrorist organizations?
-
Go luck up the definition of a terrorist organization, and you'll see it fits the Klan to a T.
That's just one of the reasons President Clinton named the KKK as a terrorist organization,
...but I know you have no respect for Clinton.
so palin was correct when she said obama was paling around with terrorist?
-
Are the bloods, crips, ms13, latin kings, vatos loco, mexican mafia et al terrorist organizations?
You seem to have forgotten the long establish ITALIAN mafia/mob/terrorist organization with their money laundering , cop killing, drug smuggling, loan sharking, neighborhood terrorizing history.
-
Go luck up the definition of a terrorist organization, and you'll see it fits the Klan to a T.
That's just one of the reasons President Clinton named the KKK as a terrorist organization,
...but I know you have no respect for Clinton.
So I hope he put Robert Byrd on a terror watch list considering he was a recruiter for the Klan.Oh wait,he is now a democrat so he cant be a racist anymore.
The Klan has about 5,000 members nationwide.Wow,thats a real terrosrist organisation.Clinton also said McVeigh acted because of Rush Limbaughs words.However,McCveigh NEVER EVER mentioned Limbaugh even once,but he did mention the Clinton administrations terrosrism and murder at WACO.Perhaps Clinton should have put his justice department on a terror list with big fat shakey Janet Reno as public enemy number one.