RP Spammers Unite to Win North Carolina County Strawpoll

[Damocles]

People who dismiss, as a matter of course, all things that come from another, even in agreement, because that other is part of a different group never challenge themselves with new ideas.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

Ah, a Reagan quote.

Yes. Intentional.

 

[Damocles]

What exactly is the problem then cypress?

Well, see? The problem is racism, so we must make laws that separate us into "races" and pretend that it fixes the problem, that there will suddenly magically end a focus on race because we focused on race by legislating. Do you see how circular this is?

No, instead of moving past it ever, we must make smaller and smaller groups of race that we can focus on to fix racism. Never listening to any other idea that might take us out of this circular loop, dismissing them as "racist" without allowing others to listen. Gather in groups and shout them down before another might be infected with an idea that isn't this one.

 

[Cypress]

Please, first he is all racist, that was shown to be false. Then he proposed taking away civil rights laws, that too was shown to be false. He was "translated" by you and I in differing viewpoints on the same statement. I proposed changes, you present only the same, then say he is part of the problem for not proposing changes?

You are all over the place desperate to dismiss without attempting to understand.

I never said Ron Paul was racist, himself.

Do a search on this thread, come back empty handed, and admit you were wrong


I believe I've been entirely consistent: Ron Paul (and most libertarians I've ever known) are hostile to Federal Civil rights laws. Remember? Its a State Issue. How often have we heard that?

As such, I don't think he's part of the solution of addressing the problem of racism in this country, in any effective way.

As for your solutions? I'm sorry, I just haven't read every single post. I'm more intereested in what Ron Pauls positions are. I thought we were talking about him

 

[Damocles]

I never said Ron Paul was racist, himself.

Do a search on this thread, come back empty handed, and admit you were wrong


I believe I've been entirely consistent: Ron Paul (and most libertarians I've ever known) are hostile to Federal Civil rights laws. Remember? Its a State Issue. How often have we heard that?

As such, I don't think he's part of the solution of addressing the problem of racism in this country, in any effective way.

As for your solutions? I'm sorry, I just haven't read every single post. I'm more intereested in what Ron Pauls positions are. I thought we were talking about him

Except when you go off the subject and make positive assertions about all humanity dismissing any chance we will ever have of becoming colorblind, right?

Then when I answer it accordingly, without mention of R. Paul as it wasn't mentioned in the post to begin with, you pretend that I must only speak on that subject. You, yourself, progressed the conversation and refuse to continue it.

 

[Cypress]

Except when you go off the subject and make positive assertions about all humanity dismissing any chance we will ever have of becoming colorblind, right?

As you well know, that's directly related to Ron Paul's apparent insistence that we just have to change our hearts. That attitude alone not going to cut it now, ten years from now, or 20 years from now.

If you just want to admit that Ron Paul has little to no interest in enforcing federal civil right laws, that's fine. That he thinks we don't need those laws, we just need to change our hearts. Cool. Just tell me.


BTW: did you find that quote of me calling ron paul a racist yet?

 

[Damocles]

As you well know, that's directly related to Ron Paul's apparent insistence that we just have to change our hearts. That attitude alone not going to cut it now, ten years from now, or 20 years from now.

If you just want to admit that Ron Paul has little to no interest in enforcing federal civil right laws, that's fine. That he thinks we don't need those laws, we just need to change our hearts. Cool. Just tell me.


BTW: did you find that quote of me calling ron paul a racist yet?

I was speaking of the subject and the pattern of the thread. That you jumped in the middle of the pattern of the thread doesn't change what I see happening one iota.

R. Paul has made no assertion that he would not enforce those laws, you make only assumptions. He certainly has made no assertion he would repeal them, so you have only assumption rather than undesrtanding to base your accusation. As I said, understanding means little when dismissing can be done before understanding is even considered.

 

[Cypress]

I was speaking of the subject and the pattern of the thread. That you jumped in the middle of the pattern of the thread doesn't change what I see happening one iota.

R. Paul has made no assertion that he would not enforce those laws, you make only assumptions. He certainly has made no assertion he would repeal them, so you have only assumption rather than undesrtanding to base your accusation. As I said, understanding means little when dismissing can be done before understanding is even considered.

Okay, so at best he's undeclared on whether he is a forceful advocate for enforcing civil rights.

Damo, do I have to log on under a different screen name, and pretend I'm a foxy liberal chick so you feel you can admit you made a mistake? I don't believe there's anywhere in this thread I suggested that ron paul himself was a racist.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

Okay, so at best he's undeclared on whether he is a forceful advocate for enforcing civil rights.

That's kind of an unfair statement since he's the most forceful advocate for civil liberties in the entire Presidential field Republican or Democratic.

 

[Cypress]

That's kind of an unfair statement since he's the most forceful advocate for civil liberties in the entire Presidential field Republican or Democratic.

Okay, I guess I should have just saved time and googled Paul's view and record on civil rights myself, since no one on the thread could give me straight answers. It took me like 5 seconds on google.

On stuff like Patriot Act and flag burning, Paul is good. Like I knew he was.

We were discussing civil rights as it pertains to discrimination and minorities though. His record is not that great. He appears to be against affirmative action, he does not support gays serving openly in the military, and he voted to ban gay adoption in the District of Colombia

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

 

[Kamala Trump]

Here comes the cold water ...

This is meaningless and changes nothing.

Always good to see and hear politically active people getting involved .. but with regards to Ron Paul .. he's a delusional pipedream and the one guy who is more dangerously insane and less of a human than George Bush.

No matter how fervently Paul supporters believe him to be the messiah, America is NEVER going to adapt his policies nor elect anyone as president who has the associations that he has.

Nor will America EVER adapt libertarian myopic-no-applicable-real-world beliefs.

I applaud the political spirit but I detest the candidate.

That's right, you want a globalist, but with a D in front this time.

 

[Cancel7]

Okay, I guess I should have just saved time and googled Paul's view and record on civil rights myself, since no one on the thread could give me straight answers. It took me like 5 seconds on google.

On stuff like Patriot Act and flag burning, Paul is good. Like I knew he was.

We were discussing civil rights as it pertains to discrimination and minorities though. His record is not that great. He appears to be against affirmative action, he does not support gays serving openly in the military, and he voted to ban gay adoption in the District of Colombia

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

I see. And he's anti-choice.

So this guy doesn't even have the social issues going for him like most libertarians do.

Yeah, trashcan.

 

[Cypress]

I see. And he's anti-choice.

So this guy doesn't even have the social issues going for him like most libertarians do.

Yeah, trashcan.

Indeed.

And in spite of the manufactured howls of outrage about how incoherent my posts were, it was really quite this simple:

Ron Paul either doesn't believe in some of these civil rights laws pertaining to women, minorities, and gays (he votes against them)....

...Or, he just thinks we should all change what's in our hearts, and that will magically solve the problem.

No it won't. Not for the foreseeable future. That's why we have these laws, and why we enforce them.

 

[Beefy]

From your site Cypress:

* Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
* Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
* Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
* Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
* Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
* Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
* Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
* Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
* Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
* Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
* No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
* Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

Lets take these one by one, and look at the spin machine.


* Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)

They're not.

* Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)

Voted no on FEDERAL FUNDING of such research, with him I agree. This is pretty clear 10th Amendment shit.

* Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)

Another Federal funding issue.

* Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)

Again, is this the job of the Federal Government?

* Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)

I figured you would have liked that one. I disagree with him on this.

* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)

I disagree with him on this as well, as this should be a state's rights issue.

* Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)

I thought you might like this one as well. I don't, but I thought you might.

* Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)

This sounds very nebulous. Is this the litmus test on whether or not he's for funding? It sounds suspect. You're a good investigator, why not find out before making a call on it?

* Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)

What part of the Constitution mandates that the Federal Government, and not States and communities generate this kind of funding. Please research and get back to me.

* Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)

This is a repeat, again nebulous. I don't like it, but I thought you might.


* Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

Oh the horror.

Seriously, what do you have against this guy so much that it dries you to a bunch of bullshit?

 

[Beefy]

* Don't ask, don't tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007)

I disagree.

* Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)

I agree.

* Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)

I agree.

* Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)

I agree.

* Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)

Nebulous, what does this mean? Protecting the Pledge?

* Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)

He's right again.

* Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

Why does he have the same responsibility of the DC city council? This one smells funny.


* Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)

This is obviously correct, or is it only correct if the preference goes to minorities?

* Rated 67% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

The ACLU is not anything by which I guage my vote.

 

[Cypress]

From your site Cypress:

Seriously, what do you have against this guy so much that it dries you to a bunch of bullshit?



Jesus Beefy, there were other people on this thread way harsher on Ron Paul than I was - but you made a bee-line straight for me? I'm flattered!


I don't like his domestic policies. With a few exceptions, they're pretty much your garden-variety ultra conservative republican policies.

 

[Beefy]

Good God Cypress, read the site you posted. Are you that afraid of a rational Republican? The guy is on your side more often than not. What's your beef with him, specifically?

 

[Beefy]

From your site Cypress:

Seriously, what do you have against this guy so much that it dries you to a bunch of bullshit?



Jesus Beefy, there were other people on this thread way harsher on Ron Paul than I was - but you made a bee-line straight for me? I'm flattered!


I don't like his domestic policies. With a few exceptions, they're pretty much your garden-variety ultra conservative republican policies.

Are you kidding me? Not even close, not even. Seriously. I just came in late on the thread, and saw your knee-jerk anti-republican shit, and it i pretty obvious that yo didn't even read the site you posted. Read it. Or s this like Russo's movie, where you don't need to because you already know?

We're still friends though.

 

[Cypress]

Good God Cypress, read the site you posted. Are you that afraid of a rational Republican? The guy is on your side more often than not. What's your beef with him, specifically?

He's anti-choice, he votes often (not always) against gay rights, he's anti-affirmative action, he thinks the federal governments job is defense and protection of property and not much else.

The list goes on, but that's a start.

edit: voted against stem cell funding. etc

 

[Beefy]

He's anti-choice, he votes often (not always) against gay rights, he's anti-affirmative action, he thinks the federal governments job is defense and protection of property and not much else.

The list goes on, but that's a start.

edit: voted against stem cell funding. etc

Not according to your site. And being anti-affirmative action means what? Racist? BS. I'm anti Affirmative Action BECAUSE it is INHERENTLY racist. Not because I am a racist. Any system that relies on your skin color to advance you is racist, and its totally dishonest to spin it otherwise.