Republican Party Depends On Racist Tactics, Editorial Says

GhostWriter16 · Oct 8, 2012

If that's what you call a "Racist bigot" than go racist bigots!

Is that what you call a racist bigot? I don't. I think of people like Don Black, David Duke, and even Abraham Lincoln when I think of "Racist bigots" long before I think of Dr. Paul

useless · Oct 8, 2012

I guess when reality collides with your fanaticism for Ron Paul, you have ignore to reality.

Gen.Mannerheim · Oct 8, 2012

Formaldehyde said:
His autographed axe handles aka "Pickrick drumsticks" were quite popular with those who demanded only the finest implements to keep uppity blacks in line.

Danm straight

! You obviously missed the sarcasm in the wink back there.

Gen.Mannerheim · Oct 8, 2012

GhostWriter16 said:
If that's what you call a "Racist bigot" than go racist bigots!

Is that what you call a racist bigot? I don't. I think of people like Don Black, David Duke, and even Abraham Lincoln when I think of "Racist bigots" long before I think of Dr. Paul

I wouldn't go with "bigot" but Lincoln was rather raciest.

GhostWriter16 · Oct 8, 2012

useless said:
I guess when reality collides with your fanaticism for Ron Paul, you have ignore to reality.

You're one to talk about "Reality" :rolleyes:

Gen.Mannerheim said:
I wouldn't go with "bigot" but Lincoln was rather raciest.

I don't use the word "Bigot", its a propaganda term much like "Homophobe." But Useless uses the word "Bigot" for everything, so... what can I say? And Lincoln was absolutely a freaking racist and Ron Paul is not.

Crezth · Oct 8, 2012

GhostWriter16 said:
And Lincoln was absolutely a freaking racist and Ron Paul is not.

lol 5char

Antilogic · Oct 9, 2012

Lincoln was ahead of his time, while Paul seems to be staring back at the 19th century with a nostalgic tear running down his cheek.

GhostWriter16 · Oct 9, 2012

Antilogic said:
Lincoln was ahead of his time, while Paul seems to be staring back at the 19th century with a nostalgic tear running down his cheek.

In some ways so do I. On racial issues? No.

WindFish · Oct 9, 2012

GhostWriter16 said:
In some ways so do I. On racial issues? No.

Yeah, you're going to have prove that Saint Ronald of Paul isn't a racist.

GhostWriter16 · Oct 9, 2012

WindFish said:
Yeah, you're going to have prove that Saint Ronald of Paul isn't a racist.

No, I don't. This post is total lunacy. Since when do we have to prove the innocence of people rather than their guilt?

You people think that a concept as simple as "Liberty" is racist these days :crazyeye:

WindFish · Oct 9, 2012

GhostWriter16 said:
No, I don't. This post is total lunacy. Since when do we have to prove the innocence of people rather than their guilt?

Paul wants to get rid of the Civil Rights legislation which is only needed because society is still unequal.

You people think that a concept as simple as "Liberty" is racist these days

No, we think that a concept of signing off racist newsletters is racist these days. :king:

JollyRoger · Oct 9, 2012

There is no liberty interest in acting on your bigotry.

GhostWriter16 · Oct 9, 2012

Paul wants to get rid of the Civil Rights legislation which is only needed because society is still unequal.

Well, there are two things at work here, there were the Jim Crow laws, which needed to die and everyone knows it, including Ron Paul, and there is the section that restricts private property rights, which, even if you think its necessary, is absolutely unconstitutional at the Federal level and you know it. That's what the Pauls object too. I don't know if Ron has specifically addressed it, but I do know Rand even saidd that he would have signed the bill had he been in congress at the time, in spite of this provision. (I wouldn't have, in spite of how necessary ending Jim Crow was, I wouldn't sign the bill until the attack on private property rights was removed.)

No, we think that a concept of signing off racist newsletters is racist these days.

Never happened and you know it.

WindFish · Oct 9, 2012

GhostWriter16 said:
Well, there are two things at work here, there were the Jim Crow laws, which needed to die and everyone knows it, including Ron Paul, and there is the section that restricts private property rights

Which part restricts private property?

, which, even if you think its necessary, is absolutely unconstitutional at the Federal level and you know it.[/quote]

If the SCOTUS doesn't think that then they aren't unconstitutional

That's what the Pauls object too. I don't know if Ron has specifically addressed it, but I do know Rand even saidd that he would have signed the bill had he been in congress at the time, in spite of this provision.

So they are racists

(I wouldn't have, in spite of how necessary ending Jim Crow was, I wouldn't sign the bill until the attack on private property rights was removed.)

What do you mean?

Never happened and you know it.

Except that it did.

useless · Oct 9, 2012

I posted actual photocopies of the letters from Paul's newsletter (which his publishing company published and which he gained money from said publishing) and Dommy denied them.

He's not interested in facts, he's not interested in anything that doesn't portray Ron Paul as a saint, even when Ron Paul's own words make him look like a crazy, old, senile man who is a relic of a by-gone racist world.

Symphony D. · Oct 10, 2012

AlpsStranger said:
Most Republicans are not racists.

That said, the electoral strategy of the Republicans has been implicitly racist for some time.

Ah, yes, in the same way that aiding and abetting a criminal does not predispose you to charges of conspiracy, and the same as how if somebody told you they went to Klan rallies for the social life you'd take them at face value?

If you support a racist institution then you are supporting racism and that makes you a racist. There is no personal absolution from the moral consequences of your actions just because you intellectually do not agree with the ideology of those enabled by them. That got put to rest with Eichmann. "I was just voting for my pet single-issue/wonky personal ideology/whatever I picked up from my parents/whatever," is no more an excuse than "I was just following orders," in terms of ignoring the results of one's actions in propagating a system of inequality and injustice.

FriendlyFire · Oct 10, 2012

Patroklos said:
It's when your head explodes. I don't want to miss that.

I dont know if shooting yourself in the foot, then the other foot, then after letting them heal again just to shoot yourself is exactly in the same fashion is something that one would find amusing.

GhostWriter16 · Oct 11, 2012

@WindFish- Federal laws prohibiting discrimination based on race in hiring and serving people. There was one particular section that did that, the rest of the bill was aimed at ending the Jim Crow Laws, which were absolutely unconstitutional.

Crezth · Oct 11, 2012

GhostWriter16 said:
the Jim Crow Laws, which were absolutely unconstitutional.

How so?

WindFish · Oct 11, 2012

GhostWriter16 said:
@WindFish- Federal laws prohibiting discrimination based on race in hiring and serving people. There was one particular section that did that, the rest of the bill was aimed at ending the Jim Crow Laws, which were absolutely unconstitutional.

So you would have let segregation continue?

Republican Party Depends On Racist Tactics, Editorial Says

Deity

Social Justice Rogue

Grand Moff

Grand Moff

Deity

第六天魔王

--

Deity

Class Warrior

Deity

Class Warrior

Slippin' Jimmy

Deity

Class Warrior

Social Justice Rogue

Deity

Codex WMDicanious

Deity

第六天魔王

Class Warrior

Similar threads