QUOTE(ezra_z @ Dec 29 2011, 16:33)
Anti-Ron Paul smear campaign! Just like with CNN, the controlled media is trying to pick another status quo republican by pre-empting a Ron Paul win.
Ron Paul is clearly a front-runner with a big chance of winning, but the cronies are scared of a Ron Paul win because he is not owned by special interests, unlike their pet candidates Romney or Gingrich. They're doing what they can to shut Ron Paul down, including downright lieing about him.
Firstly that Ron Paul isn't in league with the same special interest groups as Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich doesn't mean that he's not in league with special interests full stop. He is. He has various PAC's making ads for him just like everyone else and he has various companies contributing to his campaigns just like everyone else. Ron Paul hasn't bank rolled his Presidential or Congressional campaigns himself.
Secondly I find it somewhat amusing that you believe the media has a preferred Republican candidate this time around and more amusing still that you think Mitt Romney is it. This is the same media that has been leading the 'anyone but Romney' charge. If the media really had a preferred dog in this fight we wouldn't have seen them crowning a new front runner every other week. By and large they seem either indifferent or terrified of just about everyone running in the Republican field.
Thirdly I tire of this constant 'media conspiracy' nonsense that gets thrown around (particularly by the right) whenever someone isn't getting favourable coverage. Do you want to know what the big media conspiracy is? Its 'how do we get higher ratings?' or 'how do we increase our sales/hits?' - they don't care about Ron Paul because there's very little viewer interest in him particularly when compared to the likes of Sarah Palin or a Rick Perry implosion. The media didn't follow Sarah Palin and her ridiculous bus around for months on end because they really want her to be President they did it because it provided them with good television/copy.
QUOTE(ezra_z @ Dec 29 2011, 16:58)
He places private property rights above the civil rights ACT. You can't seriously think the reason whites get along with blacks now is because some dude in the 60s wrote some dumb law. Is that what liberals are like?
Instead of regurgitating the soundbites that your nanny-staters feed you through their controlled NYT outlets, why don't you read the reason why Ron Paul would have opposed the Civil Rights ACT.
Out of interest have you read the Civil Rights Act?
Then theres a book by Thomas Sowell which I suggest you read: It shows amongst other things that race relations were improving before the legislation, and that the legislation actually slowed down the trend...
I suggest you do a little research before you spout misinformation. Just sayin
Speaking of doing research before spouting misinformation you may want to read the book you're recommending. Strictly speaking Sowell's position is not anti-Civil Rights Act nor does he really suggest that the Civil Rights Act itself damaged race relations within America. Broadly speaking his argument is that the Civil Rights Act and civil rights in general have been hijacked and misrepresented in the years since it was passed and that this misrepresentation is what has damaged race relations within America. He argues for example that the introduction of quotas in the early-70's did damage and that these quotas and affirmative actions where actually never intended to be part of the Civil Rights Act.
QUOTE(ezra_z @ Dec 30 2011, 02:20)
All you've done on both threads is call me naive, immature, rubbish, hotheaded and wrong on everything. No reasons or facts to back it up but thats how liberals work. I guess it hurts when the deeply indoctrinated left-wing worldview is challenged with facts.
I find myself interested in the facts you have presented in discussions – my experience from our discussions is that you make very broad statements and when pressed to explain these statements tend not to. I believe I'm still waiting for various explanations and answers in the communism thread for example.
The federal gov't only has the powers that the people gave it in the constitution. Nowhere in the constitution does it say the federal gov't has the right to tell private business owners how many blacks they have to hire.
Which isn't the intention of the Civil Rights Act (hence me wondering if you've read it).
QUOTE(ezra_z @ Dec 30 2011, 06:05)
Unfortunately yes, you need people to stand up because government will just keep on trampling on your rights bit by bit. Government is great at slowly taking away your rights via Patriot act, new NDAA, DHS etc.. People just blindly it until it reaches a tipping point and someone like Rosa Parks or Ron Paul comes up to fight to get their rights back.
Did you just equate Ron Paul to Rosa Parks?
You're eventually going to get me banned Parsifal
. You think 600k dead in a dumb war is much better than freeing the slaves a peaceful way?! Ron Paul is saying it would have been better solution to buy them back like British empire did than a war where 600k died. He is not supporting legitimising owning humans, that is incompatitble with constitutionalist view.
It is always worth remembering that in this period much of Europe had been torn apart for centuries by various civil wars and more large scale fighting between nations so there wasn't nearly the taste for violence that existed within the US in the same period. There also wasn't the same degree of tension and split within individual European countries that existed within the US. However you're also overlooking the rather violent way in which the British Empire put an end to slavery that there wasn't a civil war doesn't mean there wasn't violence and death. There was.
In addition to this (and much more importantly) Ron Paul fails to take into account the radically different attitudes toward and roles of slavery within Britain. The British economy wasn't dependent on slave labour as the economy of the southern states were – within Britain they were largely household workers and personal servants. Slavery was somewhat more important in some areas of the Empire but that's not as important as you might think to British thinking and before the official abolition of slavery and the slave trade Britain had long held the belief and legal stance that slavery was illegal and that slaves didn't exist within England (as soon as a slave touch ground in England they were legally free).Also it is all well and good to suggest that the federal government should have brought the slaves and set them free but that raises a few issues
1 – Where is the federal government getting the funds to buy the freedom of more than 4 million slaves?
2 – Who says the slaves were for sale?
You have to remember just how reliant the southern economy was on slave labour during this period. The civil war didn't happen purely because slavery was abolished and southern slaves set free with no compensation given to their owners. The actual abolition of slavery was quite important as well.
QUOTE(ezra_z @ Dec 31 2011, 01:47)
All the Rachel Maddows of the world say "oh no he's going to ruin america by cutting spending blablabla", but RP would only need to cut government spending to 2006 levels to balance the budget within 3years! Its not like in 2006 government was way to small....
*points to last years budget and debt ceiling negotiations*
The notion that Ron Paul as President would actually be able to achieve any of the things he says he'll do is massively flawed. We're living in an age where the US Government can't even agree on spending cuts they promised they'd make. The idea that any President, regardless of who they are, can make noticeable spending cuts in this climate is somewhat laughable.
QUOTE(ezra_z @ Dec 31 2011, 09:06)
It would have been stopped by the fact that you're not allowed to use force against another human being.
Unless you're the federal government in which case you can use force.
But the real question is what happens when the southern states sell their slaves to the federal government then leave the union so they can continue slavery? Again I stress that it is important to remember that the civil war wasn't fought just because slaves were set free with no compensation given to their owners. The southern states didn't just want to keep their slaves they wanted to keep slavery.
QUOTE(sanitynotincluded @ Jan 3 2012, 20:55)
Firstly, as her husband was flying on it, it would have been cheaper if she had travelled with him. The plane had to make the journey,, so it should be included in the cost of the family vacation. Clintonian hair splitting only draws attention to the obscene cost of the Obama family holiday.
Actually it would have been cheaper if President Obama hadn't gone on the vacation.
QUOTE(sanitynotincluded @ Jan 3 2012, 20:55)
Secondly, the issue is very much that the Obama family holiday has cost the US taxpayer millions of dollars. By all means break down the figures into their constituent parts, but don't try and pretend that travel expenses are not part of the cost of the holiday. Whether or not they need to fly everywhere on Air Force One is a different issue, but in the context of this discussion it is moot. I have often thought that the much lower key approach adopted by the British protection officers is more sensible, but we have to consider the world as it is, not as it might more sensibly be. For trips of that distance it is how he will travel, and when the US government has such massive debts it is not unreasonable to comment on it and question if it is appropriate, likewise the frequent fundraising/campaign trips he makes. As a comparison, had they gone to Camp David, not only would the non travel costs been much lower, but they would have travelled on Marine One which is much cheaper.
I'm not suggesting that travel expenses aren't part of the cost of the holiday. I'm stating the fact that more than $3.2 million of this '$4 million vacation' is accounted for by the cost of running Air Force One so perhaps rather than suggesting the Obama's are having extravagant multi-million dollar vacations (which is exactly what that story was suggesting) people should be asking whether or not Air Force One is cost effective or indeed needed. And I believe I'm right in saying that it is the US air force and the secret service rather than Obama that decides he should travel on Air Force One.
QUOTE(ezra_z @ Jan 4 2012, 21:41)
He said he didnt write those statements and that he's not a racist. Unfortunetly he can't factually disprove it but I believe him because there are no racist statements in his 20 years of congressional speeches, multiple books, 30 years of TV interviews.
Because he was likely to say he did write it and that he completely believed it...?