Author Topic: Ron Paul Exposed As White Supremacist By Anonymous  (Read 15323 times)

Yeah, only because the disallowing of signs gave blacks the ability to use white stores. This didnt stop racism, it just made it invisible. What would have been a much better example of racism prevention was the integration of our public school system.
It didn't stop it but it sure as hell helped in the progression of the US slowly becoming less tribal-dominant

You strike me as the same kind of person who would be against gay marriage because you would think it'd make everyone gay.
I don't see how you can derive that from what I have said.

It didn't stop it but it sure as hell helped in the progression of the US slowly becoming less tribal-dominant
Yes and the passing of this bill would make the Unites States "tribal-dominant" in what way? Unless of course everyone is already secretly tribal, in which case it'd might as well be passed anywhoo

I don't see how you can derive that from what I have said.
Hi, if they allowed that you'd still see signs today saying Whites only and No Blacks because there was nothing to stop them for doing it so its likely there would be more tribal people today if they allowed it.

If you see nothing wrong with that, and you call yourself a libertarian, you are either stupid or not a libertarian.
I don't call myself a libertarian.

That's a good reference. Call me misinformed but I don't know the specifics of the 1964 Civil Rights Act so I can't comment too much on it. I'm guessing I'd have wanted the act to pass, but while I might disagree with his opinion, that doesn't prove he's tribal. He has a good reason for disagreeing with it, even if I'd argue the advantages are better than the disadvantages.

His position doesn't prove he's a tribal, it just matches perfectly with his support for the Confederacy, "states' rights", the number of avowed tribals involved in his campaign, his opposition to medals for Rosa Parks on 'constitutional' grounds but not veterans, etc.

Yes and the passing of this bill would make the Unites States "tribal-dominant" in what way? Unless of course everyone is already secretly tribal, in which case it'd might as well be passed anywhoo


See what I said earlier. Allowing such things may make sense in a utopian US without a significantly disenfranchised black community. As it is, it is both foolish and a sign that you've allowed yourself to be wooed by the notion that 'racism (on a wide scale) is over'.

I don't call myself a libertarian.

I wasn't talking to you specifically.

Yes and the passing of this bill would make the Unites States "tribal-dominant" in what way? Unless of course everyone is already secretly tribal. in which case it'd might as well be passed anywhoo
What? Are you purposefully misreading what I'm saying or are you just illiterate? I didnt say if the bill passed it would be tribally dominated. I said that you would see more tribal people today than you do now. There would be fewer than there was but there would still be more tribals than today.
Unless of course everyone is already secretly tribal.
You're assuming there were as many tribals back then as there are today. The US was a majorly tribal place in the 60's.
Unless of course everyone is already secretly tribal. in which case it'd might as well be passed anywhoo
I repeat again "what?"

Call me ignorant, but I think racism should be legalized and anti-discrimination laws revoked simply because if I do not wish to give housing to a specific person I should be allowed to. Why should I be forced to rent a room in my home (shut up) to a specific person when I do not want to?

Being a bigot carries its own implications and creating laws that are supposed to read the intent of your actions like that are always going to be prone to frivolous lawsuits and do nothing but risk destroying completely innocent people.

You can't cure a problem like racism or religion by outlawing it. When you do this, you get fringe groups like the kool kids klub and A3P because they feel persecuted. I think issues that arise out of ignorance have a tendency to eliminate themselves when the next generation becomes more well educated.


And, of course, by specifically trying to eliminate hate you get what's called political correctness. There have been studies that show that African American students across the board test lower in terms of IQ than white students. If I say this, everyone immediately jumps to the conclusion that I'm tribal, despite having the previous statement been a fact. African Americans are less educated and do not perform as well in schools as white students. This is a problem and before we can address it we have to acknowledge it. There are a lot of programs out there that reward schools for graduating blacks, but all this does is encourage Academia to lower its standards to receive higher income.

It upsets me that race and racism is such a taboo subject. There should be no reason for people to fear the word monday as much as they do. Its offensiveness is imbued in it by the very people that find it offensive. Political Correctness prevents people from having legitimate discussions about gaps in the graduation margin based on race. It might not necessarily mean blacks are less intelligent than whites, it could simply mean they learn a different way that most white students, but we'll never know because people are too fearful of what the general reaction will be to their statements.

What? Are you purposefully misreading what I'm saying or are you just illiterate? I didnt say if the bill passed it would be tribally dominated. I said that you would see more tribal people today than you do now. There would be fewer than there was but there would still be more tribals than today.You're assuming there were as many tribals back then as there are today. The US was a majorly tribal place in the 60's.I repeat again "what?"
Where did I assume there were as many tribals today? I was saying the bill wouldnt even be used as there arent nearly as many tribals today as there were in the past (By this I mean tribals that see others as unequals and push that view. Not people who are like "Blacks are less intelligent than whites" but yet still have black friends and wouldnt restrict upon their rights). Unless of course there are all of these people simply restricting their tribal views until the passing of a bill like this in which case I dont see why they should have to contain their views to begin with.

Call me ignorant, but I think racism should be legalized and anti-discrimination laws revoked simply because if I do not wish to give housing to a specific person I should be allowed to. Why should I be forced to rent a room in my home (shut up) to a specific person when I do not want to?

wait what
i mean i know i didnt read this whole argument but since when was anyone forced to rent rooms to people they dont want to..?

and anyways your house burned down lol

Call me ignorant, but I think racism should be legalized and anti-discrimination laws revoked simply because if I do not wish to give housing to a specific person I should be allowed to. Why should I be forced to rent a room in my home (shut up) to a specific person when I do not want to?
I'm pretty sure you can already do this, it doesn't matter the race you can refuse to let them rent from you. Also people who are try hard politically correct people are loving stupid in my opinion.

wait what
i mean i know i didnt read this whole argument but since when was anyone forced to rent rooms to people they dont want to..?

and anyways your house burned down lol
If I ran an apartment building and someone got state aid Im pretty sure I legally have to let them live there.

wait what
i mean i know i didnt read this whole argument but since when was anyone forced to rent rooms to people they dont want to..?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84k2iM30vbY

"Fair housing. It's not an option, it's the law."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84k2iM30vbY
"Fair housing. It's not an option, it's the law."

yes but they'd have to prove you kicked them out because of their race. next to impossible to do. even if you actually DID kick them out because of race it'd be fairly easy to come up with another excuse.

Where did I assume there were as many tribals today?
I'm going to assume you're trolling/ illiterate from this one sentence. Go back and reread what I said please, oh and then reread your posts.
There wouldnt be more tribals, tribals would just be allowed to bar blacks/others from stores.
*Cough*
« Last Edit: February 01, 2012, 11:44:07 PM by Khepri »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84k2iM30vbY

"Fair housing. It's not an option, it's the law."

So what you're saying is, if you have an apartment complex and a black person is interested in an open room, you'd turn them down just cause their black? But accept a white person just because they're white? Is that what I'm getting from this?

Using the video as an example, of course.

So what you're saying is, if you have an apartment complex and a black person is interested in an open room, you'd turn them down just cause their black? But accept a white person just because they're white? Is that what I'm getting from this?

Using the video as an example, of course.
Reread please.