Ron Paul ignored.

[Tiberius]

I've heard that charge before. I'll have to call B.S. on that.

Thats logical. Youve never heard of it before. Therefore it is Bullshit.

That isn't what he said.

The point of the matter is that we unfortunately did have to vote on it. The fact that he said he wouldn't vote on it is essentially saying that he would have voted against civil rights.

That's not at all logical. Regardless of the fact that you don't vote for "rights", what the vote was for was the "civil rights act". There are numerous reasons why politicians vote against acts, and it doesn't mean they are voting against the reasons behind the act, just that they think the act is a bad idea. Ron Paul found this one unconstitutional, since it impeded on property rights.

That said, I'm against the civil rights act too, because I don't believe rights are things that can be voted on. So, does that make me a racist?

---

Yet he's all for allowing the states to vote on the RIGHT of a womans womb to do with as she pleases or not.

Is there really a right to that? Really? When there is an unborn child inside it? What about the rights of the unborn child? These are all questions that need answers before you can talk about those so-called "rights". When there are conflicting rights, whose get special treatment? Leaving it up to the states is a great idea lets people decide for themselves, rather than have such an issue decided by 9 people.

[Rev. Rye]

Whether you like his policies or not (I dislike most, but not all), he's by far the most intelligent Republican in the serious candidate atmosphere (Sorry Huntsman). I want to know why FOX and other station's ignore him, he is actually a man with a plan and the others are retarded retards. Is this democracy when a leading contender doesn't get air time?

Scary though some of his ideas are, he's a republican who doesn't slag OWS, and is probably the only geniune republican there, up for nomination.

You just answered your own question.

[reverendjeremiah]

That isn't what he said.

thats right, I was wrong. i thought he typed "I havent". Sorry prophet...my bad.

---

Is there really a right to that? Really? When there is an unborn child inside it? What about the rights of the unborn child? These are all questions that need answers before you can talk about those so-called "rights". When there are conflicting rights, whose get special treatment? Leaving it up to the states is a great idea lets people decide for themselves, rather than have such an issue decided by 9 people.

Gosh R, I guess you are right. If a woman gets raped, then she must be forced to carry to term.

It is about the rights of the unborn baby involved..correct?

---

That said, I'm against the civil rights act too, because I don't believe rights are things that can be voted on. So, does that make me a racist?

..versus...

Is there really a right to that? Really? When there is an unborn child inside it? What about the rights of the unborn child? These are all questions that need answers before you can talk about those so-called "rights". When there are conflicting rights, whose get special treatment? Leaving it up to the states is a great idea lets people decide for themselves, rather than have such an issue decided by 9 people.

Talk about a flip flopper. So walking, talking working people of a different skin color than the masses shouldnt have their rights voted to be protected, but unborn children in the womb is fine and dandy to vote on when it comes to protection rights.

So which is it with you...rights can be voted on, or rights cant be voted on?

[Minimalist]

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ron-pau...ights-act/

MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews pressed Paul during a TV appearance on whether he would have voted against the ’64 law, a landmark piece of legislation that took strides toward ending segregation.

“Yeah, but I wouldn’t vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws,” Paul said. He explained that he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act “because of the property rights element, not because they got rid of the Jim Crow laws.”

This is so typical of these fascist shitheads. "Property" is more important to them than "people." So blacks can be free but whites can legally refuse to serve them? Fuck him and all who think like him.

In case you wonder why I can't stand these libertarian fuckwits this is a prime example. Yeah, he's not a racist....he just doesn't want to have to deal with niggers.

[reverendjeremiah]

Oh..and one more thing R, and its merely just a question.

I happen to notice your title is :

Your Friendly Forum Anarchist

yet I couldnt help but notice that you never said anything to correct Prophet when he made the usual demonization of equating "anarchism" with "wild mobs in the street"

Did you not notice that he did such a thing? Is your title just a light hearted joke for a laugh and you arent really an anarchist?

Just wondering

[Minimalist]

Forget what Paul says - here is a record of what he has tried to do.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/04/...-for-paul/

I copied one part only - to refute our new "friend" who maintains that Paul wants to leave the abortion decision to the "states".

2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights.Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal Roe v. Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to “To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” This, of course, goes against current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws and precedents. Please see these links: H.R.2597 and H.R.392

Congressmen do NOT introduce bills for states. They introduce federal legislation. You are either dreadfully misinformed or outright lying about his record. I haven't decided which yet but I don't generally give people the benefit of the doubt.

[Erinome]

Here's something a friend of mine just posted on facebook:

http://madmikesamerica.com/2011/11/10-go...-ron-paul/

[Jaysyn]

True, but he has said he will not legislate his opinion. He will leave abortion up to the states.

Oh man. I feel so relieved. For a minute there I thought he was against a womans individual right to do what she wanted with her womb. He is merely "personally" opposed to it, and would rather leave her individual choice up to the masses instead.

In reality, Roe vs. Wade was a privacy based ruling by the SCotUS. Unless the 4th amendment somehow gets repealed, there is fuck all he can do regarding abortion.

---

Here is a site with all of the bills he signed
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/04/...-for-paul/

There are your links Prophet, time to put up or shut up.

[reverendjeremiah]

There are your links Prophet, time to put up or shut up.

Him and Adrian will do the usual. Claim they have all been debunked, or "that wasnt what he meant", or "it was snuck into the bill", or some other type of excuse you are used to hearing Christians make for their book and savior.

[Mister Agenda]

So which Republican candidate does everyone prefer over Ron Paul? I admit to liking Huntsman, but he has even less of a chance than Paul.