lolbertarians

TheBig3 · 12-17-2011, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rubato

not allowing non-whites on to your premises is more than just a statement. His defense was that any business that went down that road wouldn't last long anyway, his intention wasn't to support it, he felt business wouldn't be stupid enough to do it in this day and age so there was no need for it.

Right.

What he's saying there is that the free-markets should determine these things. E.g. People wouldn't be caught shopping at such an overtly racist establishment in broad daylight. Everyone's free to have their opinion on whether or not that would work, but thats his position. He's not advocating businesses prevent non-white patrons from sitting at the lunch counter.

Also, I think Rand Paul said this, not Ron Paul.

blastingas10 · 12-17-2011, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

But he's perfectly fine with states refusing to recognize same-sex marriage. That's the problem.

It would be unconstitutional for him to come in and overthrow the states law. Similar to the way he believes the federal government shouldn't be allowed to come in and overthrow a states laws on marijuana.

Mykonos · 12-17-2011, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrd00d

That being said, I find Gingrich, Romney, Bachmann, Perry, and the rest of the bunch unelectable and more dangerous than Paul. This whole 2012 election is going to stink. Even with all those points in mind, Paul still seems the LEAST dangerous of the Republican nominations. I don't know. We're damned if we keep Obama and we're damned if ANY of the Republicans running get elected. We're damned.

I don't see why America would be 'damned' if it kept Obama. His so-called failings of his last term have been due to public resistance to some good ideas. Most British people look across the pond at how public healthcare was so brutally thrown away and laugh, because it's such an ignorant thing to do, considering the amount of people that are left with their human rights violated just because they weren't born into the right social class. The accusations of Communism are even more farfetched. I'd say that's Obama's 'left-wing' is actually more right-leaning than our current Tory government.

Look at it this way. You can have Obama, or you can vote in another Republican ****-up with questionable agendas. Honestly, I'd vote for Jimmy McMillan before anyone from the Tea Party.

~~Sansa Stark~~ · 12-17-2011, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3

Right.

What he's saying there is that the free-markets should determine these things. E.g. People wouldn't be caught shopping at such an overtly racist establishment in broad daylight. Everyone's free to have their opinion on whether or not that would work, but thats his position. He's not advocating businesses prevent non-white patrons from sitting at the lunch counter.

Also, I think Rand Paul said this, not Ron Paul.

Quote:

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

Because wanting to whitewash all Americans, advocating for the erasure of cultural identity isn't racist? Yeah, that really works out well, as evidenced by our past...

Not only that, but he wants to, again, end birthright citizenship. Why?

I mean, if he has Stormfront's seal of approval, one must wonder why.

**Janszoon** · 12-17-2011, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

It would be unconstitutional for him to come in and overthrow the states law. Similar to the way he believes the federal government shouldn't be allowed to come in and overthrow and states laws on marijuana.

I understand that, but I personally have a problem with valuing states right over individual rights, which is exactly what Ron Paul does consistently.

~~Rubato~~ · 12-17-2011, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3

Right.

What he's saying there is that the free-markets should determine these things. E.g. People wouldn't be caught shopping at such an overtly racist establishment in broad daylight. Everyone's free to have their opinion on whether or not that would work, but thats his position. He's not advocating businesses prevent non-white patrons from sitting at the lunch counter.

Also, I think Rand Paul said this, not Ron Paul.

I'm aware of that, I was speaking against any allegation that he was a racist.

I thought it was Ron ....nvm

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra · 12-17-2011, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3

We need the 2nd Amendment when some lunatic goes on a shooting spree

Actually, that's not the point of the 2nd Amendment, that's the result of the 2nd Amendment. I mean, if you have a gun, and you run up to a guy who is going on a shooting spree, and shoot him. You'll probably serve jail time.

I think the purpose of the amendment was so that people could keep their guns in order to overthrow a crooked government. Which makes no sense in the nuclear age.

TheBig3 · 12-17-2011, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paloma

Because wanting to whitewash all Americans, advocating for the erasure of cultural identity isn't racist? Yeah, that really works out well, as evidenced by our past...

Not only that, but he wants to, again, end birthright citizenship. Why?

...What?

I don't know what leap you're making there, but let me put it this way. If you're going to say the word "racist", which generally means that one race is inherently superior to another, then you'd best be certain thats what you're dealing with.

He's preaching Free-Market principles for everything. Its otherwise known as Ideology. Ideology is often bad because it has one prescription for every problem. But as misguided as he might be on this issue, I don't think that means he thinks Black folks just aren't as smart as white people.

And thats what you're saying, and its not accurate. As for birth right citizenship, I don't know why he is against it (If he is, this is the first i've heard of it) but I'm sure his website will tell you. It doesn't seem to add up though because jus soli is a founding principle and he's also someone who's got a really loose freetrade policy so if you find out, let me know.

blastingas10 · 12-17-2011, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

I understand that, but I personally have a problem with valuing states right over individual rights, which is exactly what Ron Paul does consistently.

Well the states rights should be a reflection of individual rights. I don't know how else one could handle it without having a free-for-all of governing. Something like Every man for himself, every man has his own rights and will govern himself.

But I see where you're coming from. I'm all for same-sex marriage. I guess there should just be a federal law that says: "same-sex marriage is legal. It doesn't cause you any harm so just shut the **** up about it." hahah

TheBig3 · 12-17-2011, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

Actually, that's not the point of the 2nd Amendment, that's the result of the 2nd Amendment. I mean, if you have a gun, and you run up to a guy who is going on a shooting spree, and shoot him. You'll probably serve jail time.

I think the purpose of the amendment was so that people could keep their guns in order to overthrow a crooked government. Which makes no sense in the nuclear age.

*Is anyone else not seeing full posts until they are quoted? this is really strange...

You're right if thats the point of the 2nd amendment, but theres nothing that suggests thats the actual intent. As you've said, thats your opinion.

This is now a policy fight, but the 2nd amendment doesn't cause killing spees, its generally a result of mental imbalance. Which is a big issue in the US.