THE POLITICAL ARENA!!! Political Gladiators Inside!!

[Hawk]

Ron Paul didn't think Texas got enough Stimulus money from Obama, so he and his buddies asked for more. For high-speed rail. Scan of actual document. Blog posts are okay with joe, so they're allowed now.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... -paul.html

I don't know about this particular instance, because I just saw it and haven't had time to research it; but you can find numerous examples of similar proposals from Ron Paul. Invariably, when it comes to the vote he votes against it. When asked in the past why he will propose something only to vote against it later, he states that he feels it is his duty as a representative to bring proposals that people in his district have asked him to, but as a principled (yes, that word actually applies to him) politician he can't vote in favor of it. This somewhat paradoxical behavior seems confusing to some, but I understand it. He's trying to fill his obligations to both his district and his convictions about our Constitution at the same time.

These convictions have certainly gotten him into trouble in the past. One time Congress was proposing awarding a gold medal in honor of Rosa Parks that would have cost U.S. taxpayers $30,000. Despite the fact that Dr. Paul had openly praised Ms. Parks prior to the event and cited her as an important example of civil disobedience (something he has often advocated), he voted against the award stating that it wasn't something that was Constitutionally within Congress' rightful authority to do. He then made a proposal that the whole thing should still be done, only privately, and made a personal donation that would go towards the acquisition of the gold medal. He invited his fellow Congressmen to do the same. Not one of them would contribute when it was their own money they were spending and not the taxpayer's. I think Mr. Hocherl should consider this action before the next time he slanders Dr. Paul with racist epithets, btw. Dr. Paul has done a lot towards contributing to equality in this country. The fact that he holds the individual as more important than the group think racial categories shouldn't undermine that.

Another time a similar award was on the table in recognition of Reagan. Despite the fact that Reagan was a personal friend of Dr. Paul's he still voted against it, citing the same reasons and stating that the whole idea was counter intuitive to the small government mindset that Reagan advocated.

Mr Feathers should read my posts.

Mr. Feathers: "The fact that he (Ron Paul) holds the individual as more important than the group think racial categories shouldn't undermine that."

The translation of the above quote means that in a private business open to the public (like a restaurant) the owner (under Libertarian rules) would be allowed to discriminate (keep out blacks, Jews or any race). I think that is a major flaw with Libertarianism. That's my point. No slandering involved. If you agree with Ron Paul that's your right. The problem I had with Joe is he won't say, he just calls me names.

Ron Paul has said he likes the civil rights act for the public sector but not for the (open to the public) private owner. No slander, just a fact.

Relative to Ron Paul, I only posted race rhetoric form his own news letters. He said he didn't know who wrote it. My post ask the question, is Ron Paul a racist ? I then pointed out he claimed he didn't know who wrote it, my point being that if he let news letters go out IN HIS NAME and has NO CLUE of the content or who the author is, how could he run a country ? No slandering involved.

And Yes, if Ron Paul would tolerate / allow race discrimination in the private sector open to the PUBLIC (like a bar) I find that despicable. No slandering involved. I also made a point that Ron Paul has accepted money from a white supremacist group. That was not slander either.

[Banned]

A nice article about George Soros and his skinny puppet.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/opinion/s ... -puppeteer

"The question is why did Soros decide to make Obama president instead of Hillary? The answer is simple. Obama was an empty suit, easily controllable by the master puppeteer. Hillary was too much of an insider Washington politician to be anyone’s puppet. And women are much more difficult to control. And so, invisible Soros chose the best potential puppet at hand. And he won."

[Banned]

Hey joe, songsmith has been a respected member of this forum since it's birth and has been nothing but informative and helpful to a lot of people throughout the years. You have been a flaming dickhead on here for what, six years? You prove time and time again how immature you are with your ridiculous know-it-all rants and defamatory remarks. I can't figure out why you're still here, plenty of people have been banned for much less than what you spew out on a daily basis. This is ROCKPAGE and you, joey, don NOT rock, so why don't you get on your little keyboard and see if cockpage exists and go there. Dick.

This is a political thread. You have only made personal attacks here, you have never attempted a political thought. I know it is hard to think with shit for brains, but try it once.

[Banned]

Ron Paul didn't think Texas got enough Stimulus money from Obama, so he and his buddies asked for more. For high-speed rail. Scan of actual document. Blog posts are okay with joe, so they're allowed now.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... -paul.html

I don't know about this particular instance, because I just saw it and haven't had time to research it; but you can find numerous examples of similar proposals from Ron Paul. Invariably, when it comes to the vote he votes against it. When asked in the past why he will propose something only to vote against it later, he states that he feels it is his duty as a representative to bring proposals that people in his district have asked him to, but as a principled (yes, that word actually applies to him) politician he can't vote in favor of it. This somewhat paradoxical behavior seems confusing to some, but I understand it. He's trying to fill his obligations to both his district and his convictions about our Constitution at the same time.

These convictions have certainly gotten him into trouble in the past. One time Congress was proposing awarding a gold medal in honor of Rosa Parks that would have cost U.S. taxpayers $30,000. Despite the fact that Dr. Paul had openly praised Ms. Parks prior to the event and cited her as an important example of civil disobedience (something he has often advocated), he voted against the award stating that it wasn't something that was Constitutionally within Congress' rightful authority to do. He then made a proposal that the whole thing should still be done, only privately, and made a personal donation that would go towards the acquisition of the gold medal. He invited his fellow Congressmen to do the same. Not one of them would contribute when it was their own money they were spending and not the taxpayer's. I think Mr. Hocherl should consider this action before the next time he slanders Dr. Paul with racist epithets, btw. Dr. Paul has done a lot towards contributing to equality in this country. The fact that he holds the individual as more important than the group think racial categories shouldn't undermine that.

Another time a similar award was on the table in recognition of Reagan. Despite the fact that Reagan was a personal friend of Dr. Paul's he still voted against it, citing the same reasons and stating that the whole idea was counter intuitive to the small government mindset that Reagan advocated.

Mr Feathers should read my posts.

Mr. Feathers: "The fact that he (Ron Paul) holds the individual as more important than the group think racial categories shouldn't undermine that."

The translation of the above quote means that in a private business open to the public (like a restaurant) the owner (under Libertarian rules) would be allowed to discriminate (keep out blacks, Jews or any race). I think that is a major flaw with Libertarianism. That's my point. No slandering involved. If you agree with Ron Paul that's your right. The problem I had with Joe is he won't say, he just calls me names.

Ron Paul has said he likes the civil rights act for the public sector but not for the (open to the public) private owner. No slander, just a fact.

Relative to Ron Paul, I only posted race rhetoric form his own news letters. He said he didn't know who wrote it. My post ask the question, is Ron Paul a racist ? I then pointed out he claimed he didn't know who wrote it, my point being that if he let news letters go out IN HIS NAME and has NO CLUE of the content or who the author is, how could he run a country ? No slandering involved.

And Yes, if Ron Paul would tolerate / allow race discrimination in the private sector open to the PUBLIC (like a bar) I find that despicable. No slandering involved. I also made a point that Ron Paul has accepted money from a white supremacist group. That was not slander either.

Lots of beating around the bush here. Are you trying to say Ron Paul is a racist?

[Hawk]

I don't know about this particular instance, because I just saw it and haven't had time to research it; but you can find numerous examples of similar proposals from Ron Paul. Invariably, when it comes to the vote he votes against it. When asked in the past why he will propose something only to vote against it later, he states that he feels it is his duty as a representative to bring proposals that people in his district have asked him to, but as a principled (yes, that word actually applies to him) politician he can't vote in favor of it. This somewhat paradoxical behavior seems confusing to some, but I understand it. He's trying to fill his obligations to both his district and his convictions about our Constitution at the same time.

These convictions have certainly gotten him into trouble in the past. One time Congress was proposing awarding a gold medal in honor of Rosa Parks that would have cost U.S. taxpayers $30,000. Despite the fact that Dr. Paul had openly praised Ms. Parks prior to the event and cited her as an important example of civil disobedience (something he has often advocated), he voted against the award stating that it wasn't something that was Constitutionally within Congress' rightful authority to do. He then made a proposal that the whole thing should still be done, only privately, and made a personal donation that would go towards the acquisition of the gold medal. He invited his fellow Congressmen to do the same. Not one of them would contribute when it was their own money they were spending and not the taxpayer's. I think Mr. Hocherl should consider this action before the next time he slanders Dr. Paul with racist epithets, btw. Dr. Paul has done a lot towards contributing to equality in this country. The fact that he holds the individual as more important than the group think racial categories shouldn't undermine that.

Another time a similar award was on the table in recognition of Reagan. Despite the fact that Reagan was a personal friend of Dr. Paul's he still voted against it, citing the same reasons and stating that the whole idea was counter intuitive to the small government mindset that Reagan advocated.

Mr Feathers should read my posts.

Mr. Feathers: "The fact that he (Ron Paul) holds the individual as more important than the group think racial categories shouldn't undermine that."

The translation of the above quote means that in a private business open to the public (like a restaurant) the owner (under Libertarian rules) would be allowed to discriminate (keep out blacks, Jews or any race). I think that is a major flaw with Libertarianism. That's my point. No slandering involved. If you agree with Ron Paul that's your right. The problem I had with Joe is he won't say, he just calls me names.

Ron Paul has said he likes the civil rights act for the public sector but not for the (open to the public) private owner. No slander, just a fact.

Relative to Ron Paul, I only posted race rhetoric form his own news letters. He said he didn't know who wrote it. My post ask the question, is Ron Paul a racist ? I then pointed out he claimed he didn't know who wrote it, my point being that if he let news letters go out IN HIS NAME and has NO CLUE of the content or who the author is, how could he run a country ? No slandering involved.

And Yes, if Ron Paul would tolerate / allow race discrimination in the private sector open to the PUBLIC (like a bar) I find that despicable. No slandering involved. I also made a point that Ron Paul has accepted money from a white supremacist group. That was not slander either.

Lots of beating around the bush here. Are you trying to say Ron Paul is a racist?

No beating around the bush at all, I have a major problem with race discrimination any where. Libertarians don't = in privately owned places OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. Because they believe the individual (the owner) supersedes the group.

What happens when a group is the owner and wants to keep out the individual because he black ? Then the group supersedes the individual ?

Is Paul a racist ? is not a concern of mine.

[Banned]

Is Paul a racist ? is not a concern of mine.

Ha ha ha. You have more posts about racism and Ron Paul than you have posts about blues music. Who do you think you are kidding, yourself?

[Banned]

Speaking of Ron Paul, he won more straw polls.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... l-in-iowa/

[Hawk]

Is Paul a racist ? is not a concern of mine.

Ha ha ha. You have more posts about racism and Ron Paul than you have posts about blues music. Who do you think you are kidding, yourself?

You're absolutely right, all of which are directed at HIS Libertarianism, not Ron Paul specifically.

Why don't you get it if you are a Libertarian ? Liberterians would support the right of race discrimination in the private sector open to the public even if they themselves ARE NOT racist. That's a fact. You should understand your own party.

Did you think they were racists because they would tolerate / allow race discrimination ?

[songsmith]

High speed rail is a joke. .

Well, I agree with that part. It may fly in Asia, but that's because they have FAR less existing highway infrastructure. Here, it's rendered completely unnecessary by cheap highway transportation. Plus, the safety factor. If I'm going 200mph on rails, I want to drive.

[Banned]

Is Paul a racist ? is not a concern of mine.

Ha ha ha. You have more posts about racism and Ron Paul than you have posts about blues music. Who do you think you are kidding, yourself?

You're absolutely right, all of which are directed at HIS Libertarianism, not Ron Paul specifically.

Why don't you get it if you are a Libertarian ? Liberterians would support the right of race discrimination in the private sector open to the public even if they themselves ARE NOT racist. That's a fact. You should understand your own party.

Did you think they were racists because they would tolerate / allow race discrimination ?

Its subjective. Some see libertarians as freedom lovers wanting individual liberty. Some see racism. Has your government's multitude of laws eradicated racism and discrimination?

[Hawk]

Ha ha ha. You have more posts about racism and Ron Paul than you have posts about blues music. Who do you think you are kidding, yourself?

You're absolutely right, all of which are directed at HIS Libertarianism, not Ron Paul specifically.

Why don't you get it if you are a Libertarian ? Liberterians would support the right of race discrimination in the private sector open to the public even if they themselves ARE NOT racist. That's a fact. You should understand your own party.

Did you think they were racists because they would tolerate / allow race discrimination ?

Its subjective. Some see libertarians as freedom lovers wanting individual liberty. Some see racism. Has your government's multitude of laws eradicated racism and discrimination?

Race discrimination has been greatly reduced by the Civil Rights Act allowing blacks to eat in formerly whites only restaurants and much much more.

I see freedom taken away from races if they are not allowed to eat in a restaurant. You see that as freedom of the owner.

Why don't you get it if you are a Libertarian ? Liberterians would support the right of race discrimination in the private sector open to the public even if they themselves ARE NOT racist. I see that as a flaw. You see it as Liberty and freedom. What else is there to be said ?

[songsmith]

Its subjective. Some see libertarians as freedom lovers wanting individual liberty. Some see racism. Has your government's multitude of laws eradicated racism and discrimination?

Race discrimination has been greatly reduced by the Civil Rights Act allowing blacks to eat in formerly whites only restaurants and much much more.

I see freedom taken away from races if they are not allowed to eat in a restaurant. You see that as freedom of the owner.

Why don't you get it if you are a Libertarian ? Liberterians would support the right of race discrimination in the private sector open to the public even if they themselves ARE NOT racist. I see that as a flaw. You see it as Liberty and freedom. What else is there to be said ?

Exactly. Laws are made by a democratic society to protect the interests of segments of that society, in this case to ensure that freedoms aren't taken away from races other than the majority race, based on the societal ideal that all men are created equal, and deserve equal access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Joe, and likely most Libertarians, feel that individual liberties trump societal liberties, so the idividual shop owner should have the right to deny service based on race. Joe's assertion that racism still exists is correct; however, to strike down anti-discrimination laws based on the point that they are not effective is akin to legalizing murder based on the fact that people still kill one another, regardless of law.
I believe the idea that each of us exists in a vacuum, entitled to the fruits of society but not the rules, is the fatal flaw in "small-L" libertarianism. I feel that if Joe was ejected from any shop, simply because they didn't want him there, he would certainly be the first to protest.

[lonewolf]

Nobody has the absolute right to access another's privately owned business.

If you think so, just ask somebody who's been barred from a place. If it was an absolute right, you couldn't kick somebody out for bad behavior without due process of law.

Neo-liberals and neo-progressives just can't quite wrap their head around that simple concept.

[Hawk]

Nobody has the absolute right to access another's privately owned business.

If you think so, just ask somebody who's been barred from a place. If it was an absolute right, you couldn't kick somebody out for bad behavior without due process of law.

Neo-liberals and neo-progressives just can't quite wrap their head around that simple concept.

Legally they can't ban people because of their race from a place open to the public. That has nothing to do with banning because of bad behavior.

[Banned]

Nobody has the absolute right to access another's privately owned business.

If you think so, just ask somebody who's been barred from a place. If it was an absolute right, you couldn't kick somebody out for bad behavior without due process of law.

Neo-liberals and neo-progressives just can't quite wrap their head around that simple concept.

Legally they can't ban people because of their race from a place open to the public. That has nothing to do with banning because of bad behavior.

Can they ban a person for bad behavior who happens to be a different race? The person will of course cry race discrimination.

Doctors ban patients for a variety of reasons. Many people do not realize that this happens but it does. A doctor does not have to treat everybody, and I'm not talking about having the correct insurance coverage. Lawyers can also turn away clients, can even stop working with a current client for a variety of reasons.

If one of those people who were refused treatment or representation were of a different race, are they victims of racism?

[Hawk]

Nobody has the absolute right to access another's privately owned business.

If you think so, just ask somebody who's been barred from a place. If it was an absolute right, you couldn't kick somebody out for bad behavior without due process of law.

Neo-liberals and neo-progressives just can't quite wrap their head around that simple concept.

Legally they can't ban people because of their race from a place open to the public. That has nothing to do with banning because of bad behavior.

Can they ban a person for bad behavior who happens to be a different race? The person will of course cry race discrimination.

Doctors ban patients for a variety of reasons. Many people do not realize that this happens but it does. A doctor does not have to treat everybody, and I'm not talking about having the correct insurance coverage. Lawyers can also turn away clients, can even stop working with a current client for a variety of reasons.

If one of those people who were refused treatment or representation were of a different race, are they victims of racism?

No. Not if the reason is different than race. If you are implying some idiots beat the law by claiming it's something other than race, when it actually is race you're probably right. If you're claiming that sometimes the race card in unfairly played, you're right. If you're implying that things would be better without the civil rights laws, you're wrong.

Joe: "Can they ban a person for bad behavior who happens to be a different race? The person will of course cry race discrimination."
Joe, are you implying all individuals of minority races cry race discrimination ?

[Banned]

Legally they can't ban people because of their race from a place open to the public. That has nothing to do with banning because of bad behavior.

Can they ban a person for bad behavior who happens to be a different race? The person will of course cry race discrimination.

Doctors ban patients for a variety of reasons. Many people do not realize that this happens but it does. A doctor does not have to treat everybody, and I'm not talking about having the correct insurance coverage. Lawyers can also turn away clients, can even stop working with a current client for a variety of reasons.

If one of those people who were refused treatment or representation were of a different race, are they victims of racism?

No. Not if the reason is different than race. If you are implying some idiots beat the law by claiming it's something other than race, when it actually is race you're probably right. If you're claiming that sometimes the race card in unfairly played, you're right. If you're implying that things would be better without the civil rights laws, you're wrong.

Joe: "Can they ban a person for bad behavior who happens to be a different race? The person will of course cry race discrimination."
Joe, are you implying all individuals of minority races cry race discrimination ?

I wrote "a person". How do you get all from that?

[Banned]

"Every day," Farrell notes, "the Obama administration misrepresents and conceals the true, complete record of who is going in and out of the White House -- all the while proclaiming themselves champions of transparency. It's truly Orwellian."

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/e ... z1cPlyBDlb

[lonewolf]

Nobody has the absolute right to access another's privately owned business.

If you think so, just ask somebody who's been barred from a place. If it was an absolute right, you couldn't kick somebody out for bad behavior without due process of law.

Neo-liberals and neo-progressives just can't quite wrap their head around that simple concept.

Legally they can't ban people because of their race from a place open to the public. That has nothing to do with banning because of bad behavior.

Yes, but don't confuse that with rights. The Civil Rights Act has nothing to do with rights...its a criminal law that is enforced at the barrel of a gun.

[Hawk]

Can they ban a person for bad behavior who happens to be a different race? The person will of course cry race discrimination.

Doctors ban patients for a variety of reasons. Many people do not realize that this happens but it does. A doctor does not have to treat everybody, and I'm not talking about having the correct insurance coverage. Lawyers can also turn away clients, can even stop working with a current client for a variety of reasons.

If one of those people who were refused treatment or representation were of a different race, are they victims of racism?

No. Not if the reason is different than race. If you are implying some idiots beat the law by claiming it's something other than race, when it actually is race you're probably right. If you're claiming that sometimes the race card in unfairly played, you're right. If you're implying that things would be better without the civil rights laws, you're wrong.

Joe: "Can they ban a person for bad behavior who happens to be a different race? The person will of course cry race discrimination."
Joe, are you implying all individuals of minority races cry race discrimination ?

I wrote "a person". How do you get all from that?

You said "...of course..." as though you were expecting it from anyone that it happened to. Since I didn't know what you were implying I asked a question, I did not make a statement. You could answer the question and then I would know you were not implying "all".

[Banned]

I will answer it again. I wrote "a person". Could an answer be more clear?

Most people who claim to speak English would understand the difference between "a" and "all". There is a little difference.

[shredder138]

Hey joe, songsmith has been a respected member of this forum since it's birth and has been nothing but informative and helpful to a lot of people throughout the years. You have been a flaming dickhead on here for what, six years? You prove time and time again how immature you are with your ridiculous know-it-all rants and defamatory remarks. I can't figure out why you're still here, plenty of people have been banned for much less than what you spew out on a daily basis. This is ROCKPAGE and you, joey, don NOT rock, so why don't you get on your little keyboard and see if cockpage exists and go there. Dick.

This is a political thread. You have only made personal attacks here, you have never attempted a political thought. I know it is hard to think with shit for brains, but try it once.

Look back at your posts old man, you made personal attacks on everyone here ( except lonewolf). Maybe if you didn't have shit for brains you'd recognize that. You can take your selfish old man politics and shove em up your ass.

[Banned]

Hey joe, songsmith has been a respected member of this forum since it's birth and has been nothing but informative and helpful to a lot of people throughout the years. You have been a flaming dickhead on here for what, six years? You prove time and time again how immature you are with your ridiculous know-it-all rants and defamatory remarks. I can't figure out why you're still here, plenty of people have been banned for much less than what you spew out on a daily basis. This is ROCKPAGE and you, joey, don NOT rock, so why don't you get on your little keyboard and see if cockpage exists and go there. Dick.

This is a political thread. You have only made personal attacks here, you have never attempted a political thought. I know it is hard to think with shit for brains, but try it once.

Look back at your posts old man, you made personal attacks on everyone here ( except lonewolf). Maybe if you didn't have shit for brains you'd recognize that. You can take your selfish old man politics and shove em up your ass.

I respond to personal attacks in a like manner. You have ZERO political content in a political thread.



Wonder who the personal attack troll is?

[songsmith]

Nobody has the absolute right to access another's privately owned business.

If you think so, just ask somebody who's been barred from a place. If it was an absolute right, you couldn't kick somebody out for bad behavior without due process of law.

Neo-liberals and neo-progressives just can't quite wrap their head around that simple concept.

Neo-conservatives can't wrap their heads around nuance. Bill's not speaking in racial absolutes. He understands that to bar someone from a business based exclusively on their race is wrong and has consequences, but not everyone of different races behaves badly. It seems like the argument you're making is that people who happen to belong to a racial minority can't be thrown out for any reason, which is untrue. Whether or not that person then cries "racism" is irrelevant to his point. The point is that the Civil Rights Act ended whites-only businesses and water fountains, etc., and rightly so. Again, one should not enjoy the fruits of society (profits made from the group) without responsibility to society (allowing everyone in that group into your shop, even those you discriminate against). This is a classic case of arguing FOR yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

[Banned]

"An advanced battery manufacturer that was awarded millions in federal stimulus dollars is now in financial hot water and is being closely monitored by the Energy Department.

New York-based Ener1 received a $118.5 million grant to expand its manufacturing operations in Indianapolis, Ind., run by a subsidiary EnerDel, which received a visit from Vice President Joe Biden earlier this year."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/10 ... z1cSuphzfi

Is there any "green" company that Obama funded with his porkulus slush fund that is legitimate?

Anyone want to bet that someone from this company is a big money contributor to the Obama campaign?