His consistent opposition to the voting rights act of 1964 says it all to me.Denmark Vesey said...
His consistent opposition to the voting rights act says it all to me to me too. It says RP respects Black people too much to relate to them like they're stupid.The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a tool of bondage. A sham. A hoax. A bamboozle. A bait n switch.
It is a Hegelian Head Fake. It promises to empower when it actually weakens.
It does not protect our right to vote. If Black Americans are in deed complete citizens with the same rights as other Americans, why would we need a special act of Congress to secure our right to vote?
Wouldn't the existence of such an act serve as evidence the rights of Black people were not protected by the same mechanisms that protected the rights of other Americans?
Rights come from the Creator not the US Congress. Congress cannot give rights. Congress, like prison, grants privileges. Anything congress gives ... congress can take away. Thus the symbolic "renewal".
It is a Voting Privileges Act.
What kind of people are given "privileges"? Free people? American Citizens? No.
Corporate slaves? US citizens? (small 'c') Yes.
Subjects. Employees. People who contracted to obey corporate policy are given privileges. Prisoners are given privileges (visitation privileges, library privileges). Plantation Negros are given privileges (voting privileges, driving privileges).
The VRA of '64 is not about voting. It is not about rights. It is about status. It affirms the status of Black people as corporate citizens instead of American Citizens. It turns Black people into Plantation negros.
To accept this privilege is to contract with the US corporation. It makes you a corporate servant.
Opposition to the Voting Rights Act is opposition to a weapon used to enslave Black people.
Ron Paul is the only thing poppin'.
Like a can of brew.
14 comments:
If what is attributed to him is false or no, it is his philosophy beyond these topics that troubles me and I disagree with. Period. He doesn't warrant my vote because of his other position on the role of government and its impact on society.
Plus, Objectivism, like libertarianism, is an Utopian ideal and I am soo like over wishing on a star for things to be right and fair.
[quote]He doesn't warrant my vote because of his other position on the role of government and its impact on society.[/quote]
Big Mark 243:
Can we talk about a "framework" and not a specific candidate or party as I ask you the following question?
DESCRIBE WHAT DOES WARRANT your INVESTMENT based on your belief that, if these theories are placed into power the INTERESTS that you value most for the segment of the population that you prioritize will be adequately advanced.
THEN - if you could provide real world details of ORGANIC increase after then got into power this would be a bonus.
Thank you in advance.
His consistent opposition to the voting rights act of 1964 says it all to me.
I personally don't care whether or not Ron Paul is a bigot. He is a politician. Therefore, for every meme he debunks--Gov should not have say over what we put in our bodies, the fed should done away with, etc--he will introduce a new one.
Let the government legalize drugs. You will hear this cat on TV justifying why the Gov should tax them and control the supply as well. Same old "government knows best" shit, but no one would call him on it because the situation would be new and he'd sell it. Kinda like what Bush pulled.
I respect him openly speaking on the Federal Reserve, but that shit has been in place for almost 100 years. He can openly speak on it now because they already know what's going to replace it.
Everything he says, no matter how lovely it sounds, sets the stage for someone, that's not anybody on this blog, to make money. Not a Ron Paul thing, but a POLITICIAN thing.
Bigot? I could give a damn. A politician is a politician is a politician.
If you were to replace the Civil Rights Act with Jim Crow and the segregation laws that preceded it, Ron Paul's stance would be the same. It's not an issue of Ron Paul not wanting "rights" for Black people, women and others deemed minorities, it's about not wanting the government involved in determining personal preference and legislating morality. A bunch of negroes scared that they soon may not be able to shop at a Wal-Mart somewhere because segregation will be reinstated are not thinking rationally (and are doing themselves a disservice by patronizing establishments such as Wal-Mart in the first place), and the corporate heads running the joint would be beyond stupid to revert back to segregation anyway; they're in it for green, not white, black or brown. The more participants the better, which is a sentiment shared with voting as well.
In 2012, with more people awaking to the realization that the electoral process in this country is a fraud, with more people not afraid to look at unconventional methods of making a living and a designed-to-fail school system being publicly exposed for what it is, there is no need for government intervention through attempted legislation of morality.
The Civil Rights Act may have "allowed" for more Black doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc. but the real issues are the for-profit prison industrial complex maintained by the so-called "War on Drugs" and the recent signing of the NDAA and its Patriot Act predecessor, indoctrinating compulsory schooling and the marriage between Big Pharma and the medical industrial complex; all things which are detrimental to EVERYONE, not just Black people.
No, more black doctors, lawyers and teachers are very much the issue.
So...are all the Ron Paul supporters saying he actually didn't say and/or support all those statments he made in his books, newsletters and interviews over all these years? And we are really supposed to believe that?
Because if Obama said it you wouldn't.
A few really ugly lines that he did not approve in a newsletter...and suddenly it's "all the statements he made in his books, newsletters adn interviews"--like the sin has infected everything the man has ever said or written all of a sudden! Have you actually read any of Ron Paul's books? Point to what interviews he's done "over the years" where he's spewing racist hate. SMH.
If Obama said anything other than his name, yeah...I wouldn't believe it because he has a embarrassingly large public record of contradiction and outright lying. Ron Paul...not so much.
Ultimately, it's the messages RP is getting out there--about the Drug War, about the so-called War on Terrorism, government interventionism, the fact that we have a global planned economy (run by the FED and its doppelgangers, the central banks in other nations)and not a capitalist one--these are the things worth bumping him for. He's the only one saying them and they need to be said.
As Agueybana says though, a politician is a politician is a politician...maybe? Wait and see...wait and see... but no one else, in either party, including the president, even deserves a second look.
I think the smears against Paul are precisely because he's upsetting the game. Sure, the PTB may have contingency plans for a guy like RP, but not quite as ideal as the same ol' same ol' they'd have with any other candidate...We'll see.
Then, again...is this just the flipside of the coin to the Obama+Jeremiah Wright controversy of 2008? If you expect everything to be a Hegelian Headfake...everything looks like a Hegelian Headfake...
Wake up, real racism runs much deeper and is far more damaging than than Bill Cosbyian accountability rhetoric.
http://www.wnd.com/2011/12/382325/
Welfare:
For generations, condescending politicians have targeted minorities with welfare programs from food stamps to stimulus packages. The programs promise hope but instead keep families dependent on politicians to eat and shelter themselves. Coupled with minimum-wage laws, welfare checks out-price the average entry-level worker from the home. Thus, families are discouraged from staying together. Welfare spending further keeps minority communities hostage by inflating the money supply and causing rising costs of goods and services.
According to the media, to oppose welfare programs is to oppose the interests of minorities. In reality, to oppose welfare is to oppose the accumulation of state power at the expense of minorities’ independence.
Isn't this about a Presidential candidate who may be a bigot and a racist?
He is either a racist or a weak manager, both of which disqualifies him for the presidency.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/27/395391/fact-check-ron-paul-personally-defended-racist-newsletters/
"Isn't this about a Presidential candidate who may be a bigot and a racist?" Anonymous
No.
That could apply to every candidate.
It's about some black people, so worried about "racism" they are willing to become slaves to avoid it.
Dr. Paul is against intervention, foreign or domestic. Some interpret this as liberty loving, others interpret this as indifference.
If you're in good shape (defensively, fiscally) he's part of the solution because others' problems you shouldn't have to deal with. If you're in poor shape he's part of the problem because your problems others shouldn't have to deal with.
I feel that man on drug policy, as in we shouldn't have one cuz thats your business. But the consequences of his unchecked capitalism ... not so much.
- Bless
"Ron Paul supports the elimination of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He asserts that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and has introduced legislation to repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified on February 3, 1913."
Name 1 industrialized sovern nation larger than NYC absent of income taxes?
Ron Paul statement to congress July 3, 2004:
"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society."
You decide?
It doesn't matter what is said or advertised, what really matters is how policies actually affect everyone in the real world.
Look at the decline of the US (amongst all races) since the "Civil Rights" Era and "Great Society." These are no more accurate labels than the "Patriot Act" or the "War On Terror."
Post a Comment