She's upset because of the way Ron Paul's conservative movement was viewed...don't look too much into this. Look more into how the unemployment rate has decreased, not because of more jobs, but because fewer American's are looking for unemployment benefits and no longer count as "unemployed". It's tragic that we're fooled into choosing between parties and individuals when the problems are within our individual state governments. You elect crooks and thieves and allow them to brainwash you into hating 1 individual who THEY elect into the White House.
Life is already difficult, being stupid makes it even harder.
Need more information; ask and you shall receive.
@grt1
This woman said she does not want to vote for Romney but supports the party enough to step aside and let them put someone gungho in there. Politics aside, it shows character on two levels because she was able to follow her conscience while displaying loyalty to her party. Even though I do not agree with the putting a Romney stooge in part I can appreciate what she did on principle.
But notice one specific post though. This mug just continues to self expose......
@Six Wishes...You asked a very interesting question.
I recently read that Black blog sites/Black Radio personalities as well as Black entertainers in general have been giving their marching orders by The Obama administration to blanket sites such as this one and radio with"suggestive speak". In plain words they are to repeat the same thing over and over and over and over until those hearing it believe it's true.
I'm not one to believe in polls nor do I now will I support Obama or Romney but if you go to Liberal sites,Obama is leading in the polls but the most credible poll has Romney leading so again "the power of suggestion is real"...
Great, another obstinate Ron Paul lingerer, "Oy vey". My vote this November will be against gross incompetence. Not party, not even idealogy, but for the dude I feel have the background to successfully run/manage America Incorporated. Like a Bill Clinton, who was a successful manager as president. He moved to the center to get things done, with Newt and Congress. Forget Obama's debacle with the embassy of Cairo's pacifing statement, Ron Paul can't even manage his overly racist newletter--allegedly. Claims he never wrote or read those newletters he's the publisher of. Lol! Yeah, the same guy who is on record depising Ronald Reagan for approving the MLK Holiday. Same guy who thinks the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is against liberty. Can't effectively manage Fido's in-house urinal, yet Melinda Wadsley is going to step down to support him. Gimme a break with that old racist croak. Bye!
Indeed, there are at least 2 other electors with issues of voting for Romney this November.
After what the Republican establishment did to Ron Paul and his delegates at the RNC, I'm surprised more registered Republicans aren't more upset with usurpation of the democratic process. You would think the Republicans would openly embrace such grass roots fervor; instead they *** themselves in the foot. Romney will lose after *** on the 2 million voters who voted for Paul in the primaries.
Invado, so much misunderstanding. If you want, I'll expound on the Ron Paul newsletters and why it is a smear campaign (one such example, Google Nelson Linder, leader of the NAACP of Austin, there are many more examples I can site if you want me to).
Paul did not vote for an MLK holiday based on his principles of the Constitution. There are other things he does on principle. Never mind that he has never voted to increase the budget, has carried the beacon to audit the Fed, refuses secret service protection, voting against every Congressional pay raise, and doesn't participate in Congressional pension program, amongst other things.
Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on every issue under the sun. Abortion, *** marriage, health care... He favors the NDAA, the Patriot Act, foreign wars of aggression, the bailouts and stimulus, accepted taxpayer money for Bain, the war on drugs, sanctions, has given the seal of approval to Ben Bernake. Why, if I didn't know better, I thought I was typing about Obama.
Paul opposes the Civil Rights Act because of its property rights aspect. For better or worse, a person who owns a business should be able to serve who he or she pleases. However, they accept all negative aspects of this policy, including loss of business and bad press and reputation (would I want to go to a racist establishment to begin with? even if they are required by law to serve me?)? Paul has repeatedly abhorred Jim Crow laws and the 'separate but equal' mentality.
I never thought the day I would sign up to respond to MTO dumbbells but this one take the cake. How on Godâs earth can anyone who is not an imbecile, stupid dumb fock blame Obamaâs policies for these sand niqqers uncivilized animals behavior ever? I donât even blame Islam for these animals because their behavior is clear as day that any religion can be twisted into an evil corruption because of blind faith. The same can also be said of politics as we see every day from Fix News and Repukes. Islam is not evil but these sand niqqers sure are just like politics is not evil but these teabaggers, rednecks sure are. I saw the film and it is some dumb *** at best so if they are showing their behind like this, I say cut off all the aids to them and let their *** suffer and DIE ***. Is this the first time these fools acting like this? Hell NO! how quickly everyone forget the Muhammad cartoon controversy when the Danish cartoonish who drew a picture of their God and they all went Gunho. Bush was in power then and it was Bill Clinton who came forward and called out these fools, so did his policies failed then like they did when Daniel Pearl was beheaded dumb fools?
Now back to Romney and the rest of the Repukes trying to pin this unrest on Obama. I call *** and just like George Bush, these to war beans neocon rascals prove that while tension is high, still at a maximum the right thing to do is bomb or initiate another war to score political points just like the Iraqi war? Is that the answer to the American people? No wonder even his own base want nothing to do with this fool who have no clear concise vision for this country never mind on a national level.
While we on the Obama blame game. What else there is to blame him for? Black poverty like those to black fools promoting an Obama poverty tour when all they proved is that they sure scared of the white man. Everyone under the Bush administration made it clear of the forewarned that if you dare speak anything bad about him, you are an unpatriotic fool. Kanye West lucky his *** was not killed and shipped back to Africa. What they forget is whities turn the book on them See, they made sure Obama would not help your stupid azzes and put out a forewarned in reverse so that any assistance to poor people with emphasis on black population that he would be a racist ROFLMAO!!! . Not giving black folks a handout is nothing new or foreign to the American government regardless of who is in office. . News Flash you ghetto birds, black people been poor under every god *** white president. If Asian families who have no or limited representatives in politics are earning even more than white families and not complaining about not seeing some *** in high places for a hand out then same go to you lazy ghetto birds. Obama, as much as white people think he is some messiah to fix things as quickly as they are brokenâ¦well HE IS NOT. Go out do something for your *** self to elevate your self-esteem.
@Eternal Troll....No one needs you to explain their position on any given subject.You seem to be so manic when it comes to many things and accepting the views of others seems to be one of them. Your opinion is just that "your opinion". You need to take your "pitiful always getting banned *** somewhere and find a life instead of being so pitiful that you come running back everytime you get banned".
While we are on here arguing, the Middle East and Northern Africa is on fire. It has nothing to do with a youtube video. No way. This is a planned Alqaeda attack. These people are carrying around pictures of Osama Bin Laden. WE ARE AT WAR! And the Obama administration is saying millions of Muslims are mad about a badly *** youtube spoof video. I doubt that. They be mad at us and they are ready to fight.
Secret Voice: Obama has made several commercials where he names what he has done to help African-Americans. I call them Black ads. They play them on black radio. It is such a joke. He says there are 2 million less Black people living in poverty today compared to 2008. There are nearly 40 million black people in America and he allegedly has helped 2 million. That's *** pitiful if you ask me. *** pitiful.
Any president regardless of color who only hears from black people is gemme gemme I would shun their *** too. You dumb fockers stay docile and passive like a *** church mouse under the white rule and now you expect me to make you front and center. He brought in law the fair sentencing act so some of their black butts can stay out of prison. If your reasons and rhetoric comes from âThe Blazeâ, a website worse than the *** film causing all this mess it is no wonder you sound like the sand niqqers acting out right now. When Reagan failed to rescue the hostages in Iran he told Americans how difficult it was right but now, Romneyâs first response was to undermine the president, like he expected him to start bombing and *** like that last fool. As for the ones crying about we are at war, hope you be the first one front and center of the war initiated by Fix News and TheBlaze.
Great1:
This is where liberalism and classical liberalism differ. I don't think a business should discriminate and I wouldn't work for or patron a business that was racist. I stopped going to my long time mechanic after he made racial comments.
However, laws cannot dictate moral behavior. If you accept this principle, then you must be willing to accept other 'moral' laws. Prohibition tried to dictate moral values on an entire country and failed miserably. A future candidate could try to pass laws to ban pornography in the future based on a moral premise (or ban drugs, which we do). While businesses in the South (and even in the North) discriminated on people (black and white), none where larger than 'mom and pop' stores. Racists stores are doomed to fail. You are allowed to have a prejudicial outlook if you so choose. Right or wrong, I for one wouldn't want to frequent a business that didn't want me in the first place.
If you own something, I believe it's yours. You acknowledge that a business owner can discriminate against certain customers. And while there is a difference between what somewhere chooses to wear or not to wear and skin color, it is still the private property owners prerogative to do what the want with their property. Just as I'm not required to let anyone into my house that I don't want, nor give anyone I want a ride in my car.
Besides, what is and isn't racism is somewhat arbitrary. Affirmative action is government sanctioned racism. It is okay to be racist if it is perceived 'good', but not if it's perceived to be 'bad'.
@StormZoee...I'm so glad that I don't listen to Black mainstream radio because I know there is some serious brainwashing going on.Black people are in double digits in terms of unemployment and although I wasn't a supporter of Bush Blacks were not in such a condition.The very fact that Obama and his people feel they can tell such blatant lies shows just how stupid they feel Blacks are and I can't even say they are wrong when it comes to these blind Black followers of Obama.
I agree with you about this rodent Eternal Idiot because that is one stupid dude and the thing that makes him even more comical is the fact that he actually believe he got some sense as well as intelligence,LOL.....
Why the hell is the president of the US connecting himself with a drug dealer and his *** of a wife? Why? There are other dignified millionaires they could connect. What is going on? I was so embarrassed when Michelle said she wanted to be Beyonce. She is a self-hating dark skin woman. She has never been a looker and now she is trying to be a glamorous star instead of a dignified first lady. It's sick and disgusting. I know the world is laughing at us.
I swear Alqaeda would grab Obama and Hillary and string them up naked and whip them and those fools would apologize for America and blame Romney. It's plain stupid. O needs to get off the campaign trail and start doing his job. The world is burning and he's making campaign speeches. He flies to Vegas while an ambassador is missing and eventually found dead. Geesh!
@Zoup, OBAMA'S FOREIGN POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST WHICH WAS TO SMILE AND COON DIDN'T WORK ....how's that for a fact. 21 countries on fire and more to come. Funny, Obama is so proud of Osama's death yet, are Muslim brothers protested w pictures of their martyr..OSAMA!! WHAT A FAILURE!! AN AL QAEDA FLAG FLYING OVER THE TUNISIA AMERICAN EMBASSY.
THEY HATE OBAMA AND THEY HATE US. ****HE FAILED*** CHEW ON THAT FACT!!
Great1:
"thats the thing..laws DO dictate behavior....they dictate whether its wrong to kill or rape or steal.....thats the society we live in....certain things have to be..... adjudged as wrong by society certain acts DO dictate that society takes action to prevent it....."
There's somewhat contradictory statements here. Laws cannot force people to change their innate behavior. If you believe that laws do dictate what 'society' deems to be correct, then you must support Prohibition of alcohol, marijuana, pornography, cursing, nudity, abortion, etc. Because a large part of society deems these to be base and immoral. So if certain situations of racism are deemed immoral, you must be willing to accept other standards of immoral behavior.
We do not needs laws to know that it is "wrong to kill or rape or steal"; people and society would know that it is wrong to hurt your neighbor. Just as a religion is not needed to dictate that is wrong to rob, kill, cheat, and rape, we do not need a law in a sense to deem that it is wrong. We do need to know what punishment is worthy of these crimes though.
"Now what laws cannot do and *** do is determine how people think..AND dictate on acts not deemed as criminal to be forbidden or based off religious edicts...youre welcome to think and be racist...hate ***..think Muslims are evil..youre just not allowed to put you business out as a public venue and expected to treat people a certain way based on how you feel and think.."
This is what laws against discrimination attempt to achieve. Forcing people to change their beliefs by threat of government action. Religion should be totally separate from government. Government has no Constitutional say in marriage, whether ***, straight, 'interracial', etc, as long as you do not harm another person. To your next point, you freely acknowledge that your allowed to discriminate based on clothing, but not on other factors. Here's the thing though, if you own land and property, it is not a public venue, it is private. Your average Chili's or Applebee's isn't a public property, it is private, just like anything you own. You should be free to serve or not serve who you choose. With liberty and freedom of choice, you take the good with the bad. I do not like to defend racist establishments, but I cannot ignore their rights. 99 out of 100 people cannot tell what the other 1 should or *** do if it doesn't harm another person.
"IF you dont like people you consider undesirable then dont invite them to your house and dont assoicate with them outside a social open setting thats youre God given right...but when you put your services out to the public domain you become subject to the laws and jurisdictions of that Government.... then thats a different argument....the Courts all the way to the SCOTUS have ruled the same in these instances..."
Again, you apply this doctrine of choice selectively; it's okay to shun people from your private house, but not okay for your private business. Who would frequent such a discriminating establishment? Not enough for it to grow and become lucrative. And I'll site you plenty of Supreme Court instance that are harmful and discriminating to people.
"also before you trash Affirmative action you need to learn the proper historical context of which it comes.....AA was devised to combat centuries of institutional racism directed at minorities..so Im not going to critique it in the same way when its seen as reverse racism..cause minorities in general have had to be a protected class in this country due its ugly history of racism and slavery......hence the argument is like comparing apples to oranges"
I'm well aware of the historical context, and I understand the good intentions behind such legislation. However, two wrongs do not make a right. Affirmative action is government sanctioned racism. A business judges people based on a skin color. If a person of a different skin color is more qualified, they are most deserving of the job and a business should not be punished based on quotas. It is effectively saying that a certain race or group of people isn't good enough on their own and they need to be given the job even if they aren't as well qualified. Racists take into account people's skin color. Affirmative action takes into account people's skin color.
And I would be remiss if I didn't say that rights do not come in bunches or groups; we only recognize individual rights. There are no *** rights, black rights, white rights, Christian rights, etc. Our Constitution only recognizes individual rights. It's been over a hundred years since the Civil War; how much longer will minorities claim discrimination? Discrimination goes both ways.
"BUT what happens when Im sick and teh doctor thats treating me for life or death is racist...or Im being robbed and the cop chasing the robber is racist.....the point Im making is your confusing free will with goods and services put in the public domain..... and currently the law says If you put out goods and services you have to obey the laws of the land....and the laws of the land say you cant discriminate against people looking for those services....youre welcome to refuse their business..and people do it all the time....they just cant say why they are refusing their business "
To your first point, this is admittedly a sticky situation. By denying a life saving operation, does the doctor violate the Constitution? I suppose a state can adopt a Good Samaritan law, but then again, a life saving operation is quite different than selling someone a beer. This is something deserving greater thought.
But your last few sentences offer a contradiction. You cannot refuse someone their business based on their skin color (even if you don't say why). You cannot compel someone not to be racist or to meet some moral standard.
But to your last statement
"LAWS are made with the intention of control...control of society...keeping check on certain actions"
Again, I contend that laws are a reflection of a society and people and cannot force people to change they way they are. By forcing a segregated bar to de-segregate, the law is ostensibly trying to dictate a business owners behavior. We have laws against actions that cause direct harm to the people because society deems murder, robbing, and rape are abhorrent. But without these laws, it would still be abhorrent; we do not need a law against murder to know murder is wrong.
"but you can compel someone to treat their fellow human being with dignity and respect when you have a public venue that caters to the society at large....difference in the actus rea( action of mind) VS mens rea( thought of the mind) as we say in legal terminology."
We do have laws that attempt to punish people that don't act respectfully. But I do not feel that I (or a society) has the right to force someone who has disrespected me to change their ways and start respecting me. If they cause me no direct harm, then I do not believe I have any recourse to force them to change their ways. I believe someone has the right to be disrespectful, to use racial slang, to fly a Confederate flag if they so chose. I do not like it, I do not think it's right, but I cannot selectively choose to defend some people and not others.
"as for your argument of nudity pornography drunkenness.marijuana..these are strictly laws of moral turpitude and are victimlesss and I AGREE there are natural laws that lets one know you should you *** rob kill or steal however when you murder rape and steal theres a victim...so society dicitates that laws must be crafted to act to protect society as a whole"
I agree that these are victimless crimes (sans something like driving while intoxicated, of course). I believe people have the right to put in their body whatever they so choose, to legally pay for *** if it's a mutual agreement (funny how we deem prostitution illegal but if we film it and call it pornography, its okay), etc, but other people deem this immoral and attempt to outlaw these things (the vast majority of politicians for the past several decades specifically).
However, laws outlawing such behavior do have victims. Prohibition caused such a spike in the black market for alcohol and spawned so many gangsters and organized crime, that we repealed it. The War on Drugs is equally harmful, empowering the drug cartels and causing so much death and wasted money fighting them and a disproportionate amount of minorities to be imprisoned (yet again, our politicians do nothing to prevent this). It is interesting that we treat dope users as Federal prisoners, yet murder reserved to the states. And as mentioned before, I do agree that law should correctly dole out punishment, I'm just saying that law itself doesn't tells us that murder is wrong, that people already know its wrong and the law reflects the punishment.
Society must be protected, but it *** come at the cost of violating someone's individual rights. As mentioned before, 99 out of 100 people cannot infringe on the rights of the one, no matter how racist or prejudicial they are.
"under your argument ...cause I cant control someones mindset of wanting to kill a person cause they are black and *** that justifies me not crafting hate crimes laws...so again you can be racist..you can hate people"different" all you like....thats LEGAL...you just cant act and cause me harm based on those thoughts...."
No, this is not what I'm arguing. People are free to do as they wish as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. Obviously you cannot go out and kill someone. But by refusing to serve someone a beer at a bar, you are not causing them harm. What exactly is a hate crime? Isn't murder in all its form a hate crime? Why should it be treated differently?
"As for doctors you mentioned above.....doctors have a Hippocratic oath they have to follow.....and IF they knowingly cause harm they are immediately open to sanction....."
They do have the Hippocratic Oath, but the oath is not legally binding. I agree if a doctor (or anyone) knowingly causes someone harm, then they should be punished. And as mentioned before, one could make the argument that by knowingly and willingly refusing to help someone in a life or death situation, they can be held accountable. Many states do have the 'Good Samaritan' law that reflects this, but that is up to the states.
"I dont know why this is so hard to understand...the premise is really quite simple...and in Pauls view especially as a doctor he should know better "
Heheh, I feel the same way! I do believe we share much the same outlook, but I feel compelled to defend someone's private property. A business should be run how they see fit, but must face the punishment. What if Wal-Mart or Apple or another big company overtly practiced racist and sexist work practices? There are laws against this. But These companies overtly and rigorously go out of their way to have a diverse work environment, not because of a law and a fine, but it would be a public relations *** and harm their profits, doing more harm than any fine would.
And in Paul's defense, he never refused anyone his service. There's a case specifically that produced a commercial about a black man in then segregated Texas whose white wife was in labor and a hospital refused to deliver for them. Dr. Paul did deliver his baby and charged them nothing. He is a staunch advocate of life and very principled and something I greatly admire. As a doctor too, he refused government healthcare based on principle; if a patient couldn't pay with Medicare or Medicaid, he treated them anyways.
I appreciate your time in responding. So many people refuse to even open up to other lines of thought.
Something I forgot to add:
A law against murder cannot prevent someone committing the murder. A law banning guns cannot prevent someone from using a gun. A law against marijuana cannot prevent someone from obtaining marijuana.
Laws cannot prevent or force someone to act differently. I believe they can only punish those that infringe on someone's rights.