A Message From JFK / MLK / Ron Paul



Oreo Livermore

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
734
MLK was a good man.

You're right, he never got elected to anything but he would have been a better president than the ponce we have now reading the teleprompter. He did not need someone to write his lines for him.
 

rhonda15

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
3,532

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,363

Oreo Livermore

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
734
"I mean, I look at the speeches of Martin Luther King, and I tell you I become emotional watching the speeches of Martin Luther King. I love it because he was a transformational figure"

This is what he said. You quote where he said he would not serve a black man.

Not in the article you linked. Maybe you linked the wrong article
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,363
"I mean, I look at the speeches of Martin Luther King, and I tell you I become emotional watching the speeches of Martin Luther King. I love it because he was a transformational figure"

This is what he said. You quote where he said he would not serve a black man.

Not in the article you linked. Maybe you linked the wrong article
Try this one.

Back to Goldwaterism The Reality-Based Community

Paul is obviously someone who likes to blather his admiration for King, but has a "sneaking regard" for the days of Jim Crow, when a property owner was entitled to be as much a bigot as he liked.

He also gets it wrong when he says it was the Federal Government that unpinned Jim Crow. It was State Governments who did that & it took US Government intervention, due to MLK & LBJ, to change the situation. Pity the interviewer let him off the hook. If Paul had been around in the 1960s, he would have been against Civil Rights for black people.

He talks a good job, I'll give you that. A firebrand Libertarian game-changer? Most definitely not.
 

Oreo Livermore

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
734
Why don't you quote from the article you linked to.

You can't because he did not say it.

The horse hoowie does not cut it any more.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,363
Why don't you quote from the article you linked to.

You can't because he did not say it.

The horse hoowie does not cut it any more.
Facts are facts.

If Rand Paul had lived in the South in the Civil Rights era, he would have opposed Big Government intervention to establish the rights of blacks not to be segregated in public places, to vote and to get an education. He would probably have "stood in the schoolhouse door" with George Wallace.

He might have done so on principled grounds of libertarianism rather than racism, but the fact is he would have supported Jim Crow. America rejected his logic in 1964-65, and they will reject it again.

He is going to be asked about it sooner or later.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,363
Like father, like son. Ron Paul thinks Abraham Lincoln was "big government"


"...., Congressman Paul uttered some shocking, if not downright bizarre, comments yesterday during his interview. He claimed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had everything to do with government taking over property rights and nothing to do with race relations. He claimed that Ronald Reagan was a "failure" because he didn't bring down the federal government to "constitutional levels," whatever that means.

Even more surprising and dismaying to me is Congressman Paul's complete lack of understanding about Abraham Lincoln and the reasons for the Civil War. Paul stated in the interview "Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil warÂ…. [President Abraham Lincoln] did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic," Paul said. "Every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach"

The Abraham Lincoln Blog: Ron Paul's Bizarre Opinion On Lincoln And Civil War
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,363
Curiousier and curiouser.

The more I look into the Pauls, father and son, the dodgier they become.

Apparently, Paul Snr. voted against Rosa Parks getting the a Congressional Gold Medal because "The Constitution does not authorise the expenditure". However, he has voted similar expenditiure to organisations like the Boy Scouts of America.

[Rosa Parks was the woman who refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Ala. bus to a white person. She was arrested, but kicked off the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the Civil Rights movement as a national issue. She represents a shining example of a civic, peaceful response to injustice]

The Ron Paul Survival Report: How to Nail a Paultard, Part 1: The Rosa Park Medal

The Ron Paul Survival Report: Ron Paul: "No" on Rosa Parks, "Yes" on Homophobic Organizations

For the Pauls, the Constitution is what they like it to be at a point in time.
 

Oreo Livermore

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
734
Facts are facts.

If Rand Paul had lived in the South in the Civil Rights era, he would have opposed Big Government intervention to establish the rights of blacks not to be segregated in public places, to vote and to get an education. He would probably have "stood in the schoolhouse door" with George Wallace.

He might have done so on principled grounds of libertarianism rather than racism, but the fact is he would have supported Jim Crow. America rejected his logic in 1964-65, and they will reject it again.

He is going to be asked about it sooner or later.


Here is a fact for you.

George Wallace was a democrat.

The republicans helped the blacks and the republicans were the ones who freed the blacks

How stupid do you feel now.

If your aunt had balls she would still be your aunt because ye are always assways:lol::lol::lol::lol:



________________________________________________
my sig Recent Discussions - Real Irish Politics Forums
 

Oreo Livermore

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
734
Curiousier and curiouser.

The more I look into the Pauls, father and son, the dodgier they become.

Apparently, Paul Snr. voted against Rosa Parks getting the a Congressional Gold Medal because "The Constitution does not authorise the expenditure". However, he has voted similar expenditiure to organisations like the Boy Scouts of America.

[Rosa Parks was the woman who refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Ala. bus to a white person. She was arrested, but kicked off the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the Civil Rights movement as a national issue. She represents a shining example of a civic, peaceful response to injustice]

The Ron Paul Survival Report: How to Nail a Paultard, Part 1: The Rosa Park Medal

The Ron Paul Survival Report: Ron Paul: "No" on Rosa Parks, "Yes" on Homophobic Organizations

For the Pauls, the Constitution is what they like it to be at a point in time.
Why don't you read the reports you link


______________________________________
my sig Recent Discussions - Real Irish Politics Forums
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,363
Here is a fact for you.

George Wallace was a democrat.

The republicans helped the blacks and the republicans were the ones who freed the blacks

How stupid do you feel now.

If your aunt had balls she would still be your aunt because ye are always assways:lol::lol::lol::lol:



________________________________________________
my sig Recent Discussions - Real Irish Politics Forums
Ah, as Myles ns gCopaleen would have said "Shure, isn't Liverwurst great at the repartee!".

Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan were Repubicans - it didn't stop Paul Snr. from atacking them. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but didn't two Democratic Presidents (Harry Truman and LBJ) drive a*holes like Strom Thurmond and Wallace out of the party.

And what party did Thurmond join? The Republicans, where he fitted right in.
Thurmond was an unapologetic racist, who was later found to have fathered a daughter on a black maid of 16, when he was 25 years old. Sure, it was only wild oats, but he never acknowledged her to the good ol' boys who voted for him, while he made secret payments to keep her quiet.

Who copied Wallce's "southern strategy" to get himself elected? Nixon. What party did Nixon lead. The Republicans.

Your latest swoon, Mr Paul, is getting a lot of attention today. He might survive, might even win. He might not. Gloss has worn off a bit, though, hasn't it?

Matthew Yglesias Rand Paul Only Likes the Easy Part of Freedom

Matthew Yglesias Freedom as White Supremacy

Rand Paul On Civil Rights Controversy: I Shouldn't Have Talked To Rachel Maddow [UPDATED]
 

seenitallb4

Active member
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
197
Ah yes- the race card. Forget the deficit, war and civil liberties- mere distractions compared to such issues as the congressional medal of honor and the civil war. Strange how the majortiy of people killed by the post WW2 war mongering of the industrial complex were Asian and Middle Eastern and strange how the massive attack on freedom that is the drug war disproprotionately imprisons young black males. But who cares about that? Much better to focus on more substantial issues.
 

seenitallb4

Active member
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
197
Ron Paul's view on why the civil war ddin't need to be fought:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CigdTwwO7-I&feature=PlayList&p=D5768B8A7FFEB535&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=17]YouTube - Ron Paul: Civil War Didn't Need To Be Fought: Could Have "Just Bought The Slaves & Freed The Slaves"[/ame]
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,363
Seldom has a Presidential candidate shown himself to be more ignorant than Paul in this clip.

The Abraham Lincoln Blog: Ron Paul's Bizarre Opinion On Lincoln And Civil War

Incidentally, I would argue the limits of how far a government should be prepared to intervene to protect the rights of a minority gets to the heart of the purported "libertarianism" of the Pauls. Their answer is 0.

I accept the Pauls are not racist, at least "race" is not top of their agenda.
 

Oreo Livermore

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
734
He owedto joy


Lincoln issued the proclaimation of emancipation to free the slaves, right.


Why don't you pull out your history book and find the date he did that. Then flick through the pages and find out the date the civil war started.

Then you might figure it out



There is only one poster on the whole site that knows less about American history than you and I am beginning to miss him


Hey Tommy. Are you celebrating Paul's 206000 votes in Kentucky
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,363
He owedto joy


Lincoln issued the proclaimation of emancipation to free the slaves, right.


Why don't you pull out your history book and find the date he did that. Then flick through the pages and find out the date the civil war started.

Then you might figure it out



There is only one poster on the whole site that knows less about American history than you and I am beginning to miss him


Hey Tommy. Are you celebrating Paul's 206000 votes in Kentucky
Sorry, you'll have to explain it to me.

I believe Paul argues that the US should have bought all the slaves and freed them in 1861.

Anyone with even an average knowledge of American history knows that was totally unacceptable to the Confederate states. Even when Lincoln offered compensated emancipation to slave states that stayed in the Union (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri), they turned him down!
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top