I went when I was really young. I think I mainly visited resorts and amusement parks.
Ron Paul
-
the whole electoral college was a brilliant idea to make all states as competitive and equal as possible for the presidential elections. those who think otherwise just dont like losing all the time and want to change our system as it was intended just for the hope of a win.
this is a representatvie democracy, where all states are treated as equally as possible. you could just take all the populous areas and let them dictate terms to the rest of the entire country. i think not.
-
If you are a drug addict, the state can mandate an abortion
If the state determines you would not make a fit mother due to mental capacities, they can mandate an abortion
If you get pregnant in prison, the state can mandate an abortionJust a few examples. I said CAN. There is legal precedent. I’m not saying that they do it routinely. But we also don’t say all women go have abortions by choice either. Some lucky few survive their pregnancies and grow up to be productive members of society despite the best efforts of the state. In fact, since 1990, abortion rates have been declining and we do not have an influx of “unwanted” children. And with all the scientific breakthroughs in getting the genetic materials needed for research without needing aborted fetus’, the corporate sponsorship is falling away from behind Roe v Wade. I suspect we just need to kill off the baby boomers with old age and Roe v. Wade will be over turned by cooler, less radical minds.
-
i never said he was a nazi. i was just saying that he didnt return contributions to white supremacy groups. and that his writings, or not his writings, depending on what you think of the deal, were not to flowery for minorities.
its just what i know.
but it doesnt matter, b/c the democrats have the GrandDragon of the KKK(Bryd). or actually it does, b/c democrats can be racists all day long and nobody cares(bill clinton). republicans dont allow it.
I felt like I should reply to this … I dont understand why people are mad (or why people love to point this out) at Ron Paul for not returning the money donated by the white supremacy group. The money was given to Ron Paul so that he could spread his message of liberty and peace.
Why would Ron Paul give money back to the White supremacists? If he did, then they (the WhSuprems) would use thay money to spread their message. I would have been very dissapointed if he had given the money back.
Spreading a message of peace and personal liberty is a good thing.
Using money for that message instead of a message of hate is a better thing! -
The reason people think he should is cause that might mean he is getting “bought” out by a special interest, and a rather extreme one. But personally I wouldn’t be bought off with a $500 donation, so I think that is where their logic is sunk… Plus of course what you brought up.
GG
-
Two things.
1) The fact that Obama is not only running for President as a black man but is actually WINNING pretty much ends any argument that this nation is racist. If the NATION was racist, then he wouldn’t even be a contender. (There are individual racists, I will get to that in a moment.)
2) Bill Clinton has issued some pretty racist comments recently, he’s a democrat. Hillary Clinton also made some quasi-racist comments when she basically said MLK was a worthless rabble rouser and it was LBJ that did the real work. (AKA, it took a rich, white democrat to bestow upon the African-American community justice and liberty, because they couldn’t do it themselves.) Meanwhile, the Democrats have elevated grand wizards of the KKK party and various other white supremacists to power. If anything, Ron Paul, the Republicans and the Libertarians are the defenders of equality and justice and it’s the democrats that are the racists.
But that’s just the way I, as an individual, see it.
-
i also agree that if there are any racist minded people who think one race is inferior it is the democrats. every policy they have for minorities is put in to play by getting people to think that without this help these people couldnt achieve anything. thats racist.
-
i also agree that if there are any racist minded people who think one race is inferior it is the democrats. every policy they have for minorities is put in to play by getting people to think that without this help these people couldnt achieve anything. thats racist.
At least there is one thing we can agree on.
-
of many. :-D
-
the whole electoral college was a brilliant idea to make all states as competitive and equal as possible for the presidential elections. those who think otherwise just dont like losing all the time and want to change our system as it was intended just for the hope of a win.
this is a representatvie democracy, where all states are treated as equally as possible. you could just take all the populous areas and let them dictate terms to the rest of the entire country. i think not.
Obviously not all states are equals because there is quite a bit disparity in electoral votes.
Again, I repeat that states don’t elect the POTUS, PEOPLE DO. The balance you are talking about is in regards to Congress, not the President.
The electoral college is a decent system that needs replaced or fixing. That is all.
@Cmdr:
Two things.
1) The fact that Obama is not only running for President as a black man but is actually WINNING pretty much ends any argument that this nation is racist. If the NATION was racist, then he wouldn’t even be a contender. (There are individual racists, I will get to that in a moment.)
2) Bill Clinton has issued some pretty racist comments recently, he’s a democrat. Hillary Clinton also made some quasi-racist comments when she basically said MLK was a worthless rabble rouser and it was LBJ that did the real work. (AKA, it took a rich, white democrat to bestow upon the African-American community justice and liberty, because they couldn’t do it themselves.) Meanwhile, the Democrats have elevated grand wizards of the KKK party and various other white supremacists to power. If anything, Ron Paul, the Republicans and the Libertarians are the defenders of equality and justice and it’s the democrats that are the racists.
Oh please, put up some quotes. But you never do so you can keep making the ridiculous claims that is your modus operandi.
BTW, David Duke, Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, anyone using the term islamofascist, etc.
Racists can be found of any color, size, shape, or political party. I don’t think anyone has a monopoly on it, and stating so is absurd.
i also agree that if there are any racist minded people who think one race is inferior it is the democrats. every policy they have for minorities is put in to play by getting people to think that without this help these people couldnt achieve anything. thats racist.
That doesn’t make any sense at all. If Democrats were racist, why in the hell would the give handouts and advantage to the people they hate? Jesus, I would think you can come up with something better…
-
no it doesnt need fixing or replacement. the founding fathers knew what they were doing, and we are to be stewards for their vision.
not change it so a certain party has a better chance of winning. i can see right through that crap. and so would they. dont whine about it, find a way to win with it. dont cry over it and attempt to change it to unfairly suit your political desires.
jermo,
you get a diploma? FOR THEIR VOTES!!!
and the democrats have the ex GrandDragon of the KKK as their most senior member, and have refused to get rid of him since '84. they just wont. republicans wouldnt ever do that. think about it.
oh and ever republican who has said the n word is gone. every democrat who has is still there. think about that also.
-
islamofascist is not a racest statment, it is a statment that targets a group of people that combined a religion and ideal to make a dangorous combination.
it is a group of fascist that hide behind religion. if it was Christians doing the same and saying it was the will of God then there would be no one calling it racest or any thing else if it was refeired to as Christofascism (or some other idea of the same). there would still be thouse saying it’s wrong, but there always will be.
the only other way to group this radical group together would be in another name that would even be called racist like Islomic extreamist, or Islomic Terrorist, or some other name. the target of the name is a group with in Islam (not the whole group and i have never heard any one say that it targets the whole group except those opposed to it’s name) that is extream or fascist. -
islamofascist is not a racest statment, it is a statment that targets a group of people that combined a religion and ideal to make a dangorous combination.
it is a group of fascist that hide behind religion. if it was Christians doing the same and saying it was the will of God then there would be no one calling it racest or any thing else if it was refeired to as Christofascism (or some other idea of the same). there would still be thouse saying it’s wrong, but there always will be.
the only other way to group this radical group together would be in another name that would even be called racist like Islomic extreamist, or Islomic Terrorist, or some other name. the target of the name is a group with in Islam (not the whole group and i have never heard any one say that it targets the whole group except those opposed to it’s name) that is extream or fascist.actually they call those christians crusaders but whatever.
-
OK folks, watch the religion aspect. This is a Ron Paul thread in General Discussion, not a religious topic in the deleted Political Discussion area…
Only warning for this thread…
-
Jermo,
Go listen to a Bill Clinton speech. Especially the ones in regard to S. Carolina. It’s choked full of racist comments.
Islamo-Fascist is just a way to separate the loonies out to blow themselves up for their religion from the mass majority of Muslims who are sane and rational people. If the term applied to ALL Muslims, then you could call it racist.
And I agree with Balung. Let’s restore the election process to how the Founding Fathers wanted it!
That means the huddled masses don’t get to vote for President (Only the electoral college gets too). Only land owners can vote for Senators. And only those who can vote for the largest body of state government can vote for Congressmen.
You see, that’s the problem. You all complain about the electoral college when it’s your man who loses. But you don’t realize just how good you actually have it.
And I hope Ron Paul DOES run as an independent. It’s probably what he is going to do because its the only thing that makes sense for him not dropping out and saving his money for the next campaign. Then at least I’d have someone to vote for if McCain wins Tuesday that isn’t Hillary or Obama.
-
Jen, you need to re-do your American Civics history…
You have the original standards for both the House of Representatives and Senate wrong.
-
I have the standards themselves right. I may have the houses off. Though, I thought the congress was whomever the states allowed and the senate was land owners.
According to section II, it appears I was right. The House (Congress) was elected by the huddled masses (whomever the states allowed to vote for their own largest branch of government). And the Senate was elected by the land owners/state assembly. (Section III)
http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm
That’s what they have listed at the Senate’s own website. If anyone knows how to get elected, I’d assume it’s the Senators and Congressmen, eh?
-
Senators were chosen by State Legislatures. There is no mention of “land owners” in Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 1. This remained teh method for Senators until the 17th Amendment was passed in 1913.
Representatives were elected by the people (those qualified to vote under state law). Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 1.
-
I believe land owners were the only ones who could register to vote. So it ends up being nearly the same thing. Land owners could register to vote, they elected the state congress and senate, the state congress and senate (the state legislators) appointed senators and appointed members of the electoral college.
So my POINT stands. The point being that one should feel lucky they can cast a ballot and those ballots determine HOW their electoral college WILL vote for President. (I believe almost every state has mandated that electoral college members must vote the way the state/precinct votes in the general election. I’m sure some industrious ne’er do well will find some precinct in the bowels of American society that still allows the one or two electoral college members to dissent with the people, but by in large, I believe almost all of them have to vote the way their regions (precinct/state, whatever) tell them too.)
-
@Cmdr:
I believe land owners were the only ones who could register to vote.
That varied by state and commonwealth.
-
I think there has been more posted about the other candidates than the one on the title.
I do respect RP for his long-held stances.
It shows that he is more than a mere politician, a man of principal.
However, he is for troop withdrawals, so I can not vote for him.
With lives of our troops at risk half-way around the world, I prefer JM, who has been a steadfast supporter of our armed services.
One of the titles at stake is Commander in Chief of the USA, so other issues do pale in comparison. Troop withdrawals without mission objective achievement would force our allies to reconsider the current world order, it would also invite massive foreign lobbying on where our military resources get deployed, esp at election time.
Suggested Topics
