posted February 26, 2011 02:32 PM            

i CHOSE to live here after being elsewhere.

YOU were merely born here and too LAZY to see for yourself what other parts of the world are like.

or too scared by the stories you hear thirdhand to venture out of your own sandbox

which is it jwhop? scared of your own shadow or just too bigotted to chance finding out you might be wrong?

posted February 26, 2011 06:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
littlecloud i am not going to argue with your ideas about why feminism happened. a lot of people went way too far with it, that is true.

but apart from procreation your belief that women and men cannot survive on their own is proven wrong over and over by women who have been left - or chosen - to do just that rather than live in abusive conditions.

feminism was about choice, not about superiority or the desire to be men. though there certainly are feminists who are driven by resentment and envy, the majority never really were. in some of our states even now a husband cannot(or will not) be convicted of raping his wife even if that is what he has done. is this worth preserving? does it strengthen families?

while i am sure there are some sections of the establishment who see breaking up families as a good thing, most women would disagree heartily that they want anything more than to IMPROVE families and give women who don't WANT families that choice, as well as a voice in the general conversation that is equal to men's.

---

When I said that women and men cannot live without each other I meant it in two ways, for the survival of the species and spiritually in a way. When we work harmoniously together much can be accomplished. It can't be done by one person, one side only. This includes abuse. Of course a woman can survive on her own if she has to leave an abusive relationship, and she by all means should. But she will wish she could have a supportive partner. Staying with a partner who abuses us is definitely a destructive influence on family and I absolutely believe that such a relationship should not be preserved. It is sad that people think that a husband can't rape his wife. She has the right to say no and to be respected for her decision. I'm all for that. On the other hand we can talk about societies influence on men and how it's "cool" to sleep with everything that walks. We can even throw pornography in the mix and it's influence on relationships and sex. There are many details involved in these situations (abuse).

Generally and simply speaking, all people have a want and a need to share their life with someone, it's natural. The best results are acquired when we work together to tackle problems when everyone's voice is equal, as it should be. When we don't have this in our lives we feel unfulfilled. Women who leave abusive relationships are happier that they are out of them but they still yearn for that companion to share their life with. Generally speaking we all need somebody. This is all I meant by what I said. Apparently I need some lessons in communication

I am just angry that women's equality was something that needed to be fought for. Any person's equality for that matter. I am angry that these things were funded and driven with sinister intentions. I am angry that society, establishments and what have you have corrupted people's lives so much by bombarding people with so many messages in regards to relationships, sex, and by man's and woman's "roles" in relationships.

I also agree with your last paragraph 100%

posted February 26, 2011 06:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by littlecloud:
This is such narrow minded thinking that it disgusts me. THIS kind of thinking is what holds people back. Firstly women won the right to vote for two reasons 1) to be taxed 2) to break up families. I bet this is why black people got the right to vote as well. This just speculation I don't have proof just my own deductive reasoning. I am not saying that I am pro-slavery and that I hate black people or some stupid **** like that. I'm just saying that these wonderful things we look at in history are very darkly tainted.

[QUOTE]I'll trade you O'Bomber and all the Socialist demoscats in the Congress of the United States for one, (1) person who believes in a Constitutional republican form of government, the "rule of law" and free market domestic economic policy.

---

*sigh* [/QUOTE]

Why is it narrowminded thinking to say that I rather vote for a person who is part of a political party that:

supports women's rights, gay rights, black and other racial rights ,and overall equal/civil rights far more than the Republican Party does

My having narrowminded thinking is just your opinion. It's not truth.

I could say the same stuff about you!

Should I insult you and tell you that you have narrowminded thinking because of what you say.

You always talk about stuff like you know everything and that its all true.
You don't even back your stuff up with actual evidence.

Exactly you speculate.
You don't have proof!

I strongly suggest you watch what you say to people in regards to telling people what and how they are.

You don't know me to tell me that I have narrowminded thinking. It's all because I don't share your views.

You have your views,and I have mine.

oh another thing

Overall American History is darkly tainted any way. That's a no-brainer.

------------------
A different mind is NOT a deficient mind.

posted February 26, 2011 06:48 PM            

He doesn't even support the Civil Rights Act,Civil Right Voting, nor gay marriage, nor women's rights for that matter in regards to abortion.

------------------
A different mind is NOT a deficient mind.

posted February 26, 2011 06:52 PM            

Barack Obama on Civil Rights

# Admired repeated acts of "self-creation" by Malcolm X. (Aug 2008)
# Has stood together with Latino leaders for last 20 years. (Jun 2008)
# Hate crimes related to the immigration issue is unacceptable. (Feb 2008)
# People want to move beyond our divisions. (Jan 2008)
# 2004 DNC speech merged “heritage” with “diversity”. (Dec 2007)
# The politics of fear undermines basic civil liberties. (Oct 2007)
# 1980s boss predicted Obama would be heir to MLK’s voice. (Aug 2007)
# Racial equality good for America as a whole. (Jun 2007)
# Put the Confederate flag in a museum, not the state house. (Apr 2007)
# Muslim heritage gives Obama unique influence in Muslim world. (Oct 2006)
# No black or white America--just United States of America. (Oct 2006)
# Gays should not face discrimination but should not marry. (Oct 2004)
# Forthright on racial issues and on his civil rights history. (Jul 2004)
# Defend freedom and equality under law. (May 2004)
# Politicians: don’t use religion to insulate from criticism. (Apr 2004)
# Miscegenation a felony in 1960 when Obamas practiced it. (Aug 1996)
# The civil rights movement was a success. (Aug 1996)

Affirmative Action
# Keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day’s work. (Aug 2008)
# Past discrimination affects future generations. (Jul 2008)
# Apply affirmative action to poor white college applicants. (Apr 2008)
# Community organizing continues the civil rights movement. (Apr 2008)
# Legalized discrimination meant blacks could not amass wealth. (Mar 2008)
# Fight job discrimination to give women equal footing at jobs. (Feb 2008)
# Remove discriminatory barriers to the right to vote. (Feb 2008)
# Benefited from affirmative action but overcame via merit. (Dec 2007)
# Include class-based affirmative action with race-based. (Oct 2007)
# Better enforce women’s pay equity via Equal Pay Act. (Aug 2007)
# Blacks should infiltrate mainstream to affect change. (Aug 2007)
# Commitment to diversity by CEOs is advisable. (Mar 2007)
# African-Americans vote Democratic because of issue stances. (Jul 2004)
# Supports affirmative action in colleges and government. (Jul 1998)

Gay Rights
# Opposes CA Prop. 8, one-man-one-woman marriage. (Jul 2008)
# Being gay or lesbian is not a choice. (Nov 2007)
# Decisions about marriage should be left to the states. (Oct 2007)
# Homosexuality no more immoral than heterosexuality. (Oct 2007)
# Ok to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples; they know already. (Sep 2007)
# Has any marriage broken up because two gays hold hands? (Aug 2007)
# We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions. (Aug 2007)
# Legal rights for gays are conferred by state, not by church. (Aug 2007)
# Disentangle gay rights from the word “marriage”. (Aug 2007)
# Gay marriage is less important that equal gay rights. (Aug 2007)
# Gay rights movement is somewhat like civil rights movement. (Aug 2007)
# Let each denominations decide on recognizing gay marriage. (Jul 2007)
# Pass ENDA and expand hate crime legislation. (Mar 2007)
# Opposed 1996 Illinois DOMA bill. (Mar 2007)
# Supports health benefits for gay civil partners. (Oct 2006)
# Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality. (Oct 2006)
# Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is. (Oct 2004)
# Include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws. (Jul 1998)

Voting Record
# Strengthen the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Aug 2007)
# Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
# Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
# Ending racial profiling is part of fight for justice. (Jan 2001)
# Sponsored bill for special-needs evacuation plans. (Sep 2005)
# Sponsored bill for a Rosa Parks commemorative postage stamp. (Dec 2005)
# Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
# Rated 100% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
# Recognize Juneteenth as historical end of slavery. (Jun 2008)
# Provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees. (Dec 2007)
# Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment. (Mar 2007)
# Reinforce anti-discrimination and equal-pay requirements. (Jan 2008)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm

note:
# Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)

# Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)

------------------
A different mind is NOT a deficient mind.

posted February 26, 2011 10:18 PM            

The US Constitution was created when slavery was permitted.

You can't deny that United States of America wasn't made for Native Americans and African Americans. It was made for only the European Americans.

In some ways, you can say that referring to Native Americans as an insult as it is reminder that the Europeans came on their lands and massacred and drove them to reservations as pillaged and raped the land that belongs to them. They did on their backs. Many of the Native Americans were wiped out by murder and disease by the Europeans.

America is a forced label on landmasses that belong to the Native Americans.

The US Constitution is deeply flawed.

Libertarianism would mean allowing businesses to discriminate against people

It would lead to increased segregation.

I am sorry

but as somebody that is part black , I don't want to live being discriminated against like what happened before the Civil Rights Act

If you aren't black or part black, you cannot possibly understand.

White people are the majority people of the country. Black people are a minority people of the country.

If white people were allowed to discriminate, black people would be screwed.

If all white people were racist and all black people were racist, it would be the black people that are massacred and made slaves. It wouldn't be the white people.

Majority always rules. That's just the way natural law works.

Article I, Section 2 use to have a line that read, "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

It was later replaced by Section 2 of the 14th Amendment: "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

The original US Constitution was flawed, and that's why there are amendments to it.

Let's not go there about how USA should go by the Constitution that our founding fathers' created. That Constitution wasn't made for non-whites,women,and homosexual people.

bottom line:

I don't want to f-cken live in the times of the founding fathers!

Maybe you do!

but I certainly the hell don't!

I don't even give sh-t about the 4th of July. Like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, it had no meaning in the lives of African Americans. July 4, 1776 was Declaration of Independence for only the European Americans. It didn't apply to the African Americans nor the Native Americans.

------------------
A different mind is NOT a deficient mind.

posted February 26, 2011 10:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
okay i will give you the benefit of the doubt due to advanced age...perhaps you can only read a few words at a time

i CHOSE to live here after being elsewhere.

YOU were merely born here and too LAZY to see for yourself what other parts of the world are like.

or too scared by the stories you hear thirdhand to venture out of your own sandbox

which is it jwhop? scared of your own shadow or just too bigotted to chance finding out you might be wrong?

---

Yeooooowww. I NEED to hang out here more. I think I would fit in much better!

posted February 27, 2011 01:55 AM            

and i'm afraid we have reached the cosmopolitan/corrupt time that jefferson warned about...quite awhile ago now!!

however i do believe that had they lived in a more tolerant time they would have done an even better job, and that most of them foresaw also that those groups denied equality THEN would have to be included someday.

it is hard to envisage a spherical world when the ruling paradigm calls it flat. it is amazing really that despite their dependence on slave labour they saw the inevitable end of slavery and the distastefulness of it as an institution.

posted February 27, 2011 05:50 AM            

Jwhop is absolutely right in regards that this country has become a socialist one. Is that what you want to support? Answering to the gov't about where you p!ss and the color of your sh!t? Because you know what? That's where it's getting to. You think socialism is good? Really? Who the F*ck does it benefit other than the people in power? You think you live in a free country? When are you people going to wake up and see that you don't? What is it going to take?

You want proof? The world is my proof. Look at Monsanto. They want to patent SEEDS!!! SEEDS!!! Can you believe that? They want to patent seeds in the name of science so that people aren't allowed to store their own seeds for their own harvest. Of course a percentage of your own harvest is then given to Monsanto because they OWN it. In India 3 farmers commit suicide a DAY, because of Monsanto. They can't afford to buy seeds from Monsanto every harvest and then have to borrow money with high interest rates from money lenders. What kind of life is that? In Mexico GMO corn threatens to wipe out the natural species of corn that has been there since the Mayan civilization. Corn that is an ingrained part of these people's culture. Because of GMO corn thousands of years of history are threatened to be wiped out.

Why does this matter? Because Monsanto lobbies many offices in gov't. Many people that worked in Monsanto move on to work for the FDA, CDC and other areas. Then they go on to become congressmen, politicians. THAT'S why it matters.

Did you know that many states have made ILLEGAl to collect rainwater? So WTF now? The gov't owns the skies and water that falls from it? Are you serious? http://www.groovygreen.com/groove/?p=3135
There's a link for you.

You know what how about you think for your self? Let's try that. Instead of trying to prove your point all the time, why don't YOU do some research of YOUR own and search the claims that I make, or that Jwhop makes and whoever else opposes your opinion. Why don't you stop doing what you've been taught all your life and stop getting bent over by the gov't cause you know what? That's what it's doing to each and every one of us. Whether you realize it or not.

posted February 27, 2011 05:53 AM            

quote:

---

Overall American History is darkly tainted any way. That's a no-brainer.

---

posted February 27, 2011 06:17 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glaucus:
IMHO The US Constitution is invalid because it was created after taking away the Native Americans' lands.

The US Constitution was created when slavery was permitted.

You can't deny that United States of America wasn't made for Native Americans and African Americans. It was made for only the European Americans.

In some ways, you can say that referring to Native Americans as an insult as it is reminder that the Europeans came on their lands and massacred and drove them to reservations as pillaged and raped the land that belongs to them. They did on their backs. Many of the Native Americans were wiped out by murder and disease by the Europeans.

America is a forced label on landmasses that belong to the Native Americans.

---

Hmmmmm, did you ever think that maybe this is the reason that Ron Paul basis his immigration laws on?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glaucus:
The US Constitution is deeply flawed.

Libertarianism would mean allowing businesses to discriminate against people

It would lead to increased segregation.

---

Reality check. They already do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glaucus:
I am sorry

but as somebody that is part black , I don't want to live being discriminated against like what happened before the Civil Rights Act

If you aren't black or part black, you cannot possibly understand.

White people are the majority people of the country. Black people are a minority people of the country.

If white people were allowed to discriminate, black people would be screwed.

If all white people were racist and all black people were racist, it would be the black people that are massacred and made slaves. It wouldn't be the white people.

Majority always rules. That's just the way natural law works.

---

Ha!!! You want talking about equality. Ok lets do that for a second. Firstly, I as a white woman have endured more racist comments from a "minority" than a white man. I have never uttered racial slurs. I disapprove of any kind of these. Yet why do I have to be subject to them as a "majority"? Why should anyone? Why is this never mentioned? Why do I only hear about racism towards black people only, when I have experienced the exact opposite? Discrimination exists in the very laws that don't allow them. Many companies and schools have to have a ratio of black:white to prove that they don't discriminate. However this action on itself discriminates. How is this equality? Why is that minority receives more funding from school in regards to financial aid, grants, and scholarships. Columbia University in NY no longer gives out scholarships unless you are minority. How is this equality?

You know what true equality is? Allowing ALL students to be able to get into school because of their grades. Allowing ALL students to be able to receive all the financial aid they can get from proof of income ALONE. True equality would be to take away that stupid box you have to check off in regards to what race you are when applying for things. I would always check other and then I would write HUMAN, because that is what we all are.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glaucus:

Article I, Section 2 use to have a line that read, "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

It was later replaced by Section 2 of the 14th Amendment: "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

The original US Constitution was flawed, and that's why there are amendments to it.

Let's not go there about how USA should go by the Constitution that our founding fathers' created. That Constitution wasn't made for non-whites,women,and homosexual people.

---

I agree it was made for all people and should have been and should be upheld that way. Maybe it's not the Constitution that is as flawed as you say, maybe it's the people that "enforce" it that are flawed.

posted February 27, 2011 03:30 PM            

please get off it
USA is no way near being socialist

It's not narrowminded to vote for people that supports the rights of all people

The Republican Party don't do that.
The Democratic Party does

The Republican Party wants to push conservative values on people and that means that they want abortion illegal. They want gay marriage illegal. They would want to get rid of social programs that help people.
If they had their way, they would made interracial relationships/marriages illegal too. They would make being a nonChristian illegal.

Liberalism isn't about pushing one's way of life onto others. It's about allowing people to be truly independent and have equal rights. Conservatism is about pushing one's way of life onto others as it restricts people of their equal rights. Homosexual people don't have all their rights. They are not allowed to get married like us Heterosexual people. Their rights are infringed upon by people who have Christian and other religious beliefs that include that same sex marriages are immoral. They think that homosexuality is a sin or a sickness. They don't respect the natural being of a homosexual person. They deny the homosexual person's civil rights. Homosexual rights are civil rights. Women's rights are civil rights.

I listed a whole thing of civil rights, and you can't sit here and tell me that I am better off voting for a Republican. I am better off voting for Barack Obama or any other democrat.

I am very liberal, and that doesn't mean that I want to push my values onto people. It means that I want equal rights for all people. United States of America was not created for equal rights for all people. It was forced to progress with the progression of times.

USA is:

not just for white people
not just for men
not just for heterosexual people
not just for Christians

but for all people

I stressed that time again

Barack Obama has a better record when it comes to women's rights, homosexual rights, and overall civil rights way compared to any Republican as well as Ron Paul.

Hillary Clinton is not far from Barack Obama in regards to those things. I would have voted for if she had won the Democratic Nomination.

I believe in things like socialistic healthcare. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with it. I don't see why socialism is a bad thing. I think that it's because that people confuse it with communism. Even communism has been distorted. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. thought maybe USA needs to move towards Democratic Socialism. I agree with that.
The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. There are racial disparities in every area. There are gender disparities in every area. There are definitely sexual disparities in area.

Thank God that there is a Civil Rights Act and Civil Rights Voting that allowed me to vote. According to Ron Paul, the Civil Rights Act and Civil Rights Voting Act is wrong. Therefore, if he had his way, I wouldn't be allowed to vote.

That whole property stuff is something that I find ridiculous. Why should people be allowed to discriminate in businesses. Why can't sit in a restaurant and not be discriminated against. Under the libertarianism, I would be discriminated against businesses. If a lot of people were racist and allowed to discriminate, there would be very little places where I can get service.

Under the constitution, slaves were not considered to be fully humans. They could be legal property. That whole talk about property is a gray area.

I don't think that you should be telling people that they have narrowminded thinking

Another thing. I am sorry about any discrimination and racism that you had as a white woman. In general , black women have it a lot tougher.

Do you know, the original women's rights movement didn't include black women. It didn't. Black women had to form their own civil rights movement. Susan B. Anthony and other women's rights leaders weren't for equal rights for all women. They only believed in equal rights for only white women. Black women suffered bigotry by white women in the women's rights movement. Therefore, they had to create their own women's rights movement.

any ways
I think that we should agree to disagree

You're not going to change my beliefs, and I am not going to change yours which wasn't my intention. I was only defending myself because you personally attacked me by telling me that I have narrowminded thinking for my wanting to vote for people that have liberal ideals which is strongly connected to equal/civil rights for all.

------------------
A different mind is NOT a deficient mind.

posted February 27, 2011 03:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
you're right, glaucus, the constitution was for 18th century america and did its best to make a framework that would last, but recognized (by building in amendments) that things would have to change...

and i'm afraid we have reached the cosmopolitan/corrupt time that jefferson warned about...quite awhile ago now!!

however i do believe that had they lived in a more tolerant time they would have done an even better job, and that most of them foresaw also that those groups denied equality THEN would have to be included someday.

it is hard to envisage a spherical world when the ruling paradigm calls it flat. it is amazing really that despite their dependence on slave labour they saw the inevitable end of slavery and the distastefulness of it as an institution.

you see how hard the every-man-for-himself unfettered by the needs of others dies...

---

I agree with all all that you said, kat.

------------------
A different mind is NOT a deficient mind.

posted February 27, 2011 04:32 PM            

Employment Non-Discrimination:
Ron Paul is opposed to Employment Non-Discrimination Bill that is inclusive of gays, lesbians and transgender.

Hate Crimes:
Ron Paul opposes a transgender-inclusive hate crimes bill. As a matter of fact, he opposes any hate crimes legislation.

Same-Sex Marriage/Civil Unions:
Ron Paul opposes same-sex marriage, but does not support a federal amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Gay and Lesbian Adoption:
Ron Paul voted to support a ban of gay adoptions in Washington, DC in 1999.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell:
Ron Paul supports keeping the military ban on gays and lesbians. He said, "I think the current policy is a decent policy."

More About Ron Paul:
In a candidate debate on CNN Ron Paul said about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell": "I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem."

About Gay Marriage
At a Values Voter Debate in September 2007, Ron Paul said, "True Christians, I believe, believe that marriage is a church function, not a state function. It's not a state function. I don't think you need a license to get married. We should define it."
http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/RonPaul.htm

------------------
A different mind is NOT a deficient mind.

posted February 27, 2011 05:02 PM            

Rated 67% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record.
Paul scores 67% by the ACLU on civil rights issues

Rated 38% by the HRC, indicating a mixed record on gay rights.
Paul scores 38% by the HRC on gay rights

OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 HRC scores as follows:

* 0% - 20%: opposes gay rights (approx. 207 members)
* 20% - 70%: mixed record on gay rights (approx. 84 members)
* 70%-100%: supports gay rights (approx. 177 members)
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Civil_Rights.htm

There is no friggen way that I would vote for Ron Paul because he has a mixed civil rights record and a mixed gay rights record.
Barack Obama has a much higher civil rights record and a much higher gay rights record

Ron Paul is He's rated 39 percent for affirmative action by the NAACP too. I have my own mixed feelings about it because of the racial resentment that is connected to it.

Ron Paul is rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. He is rated 56% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion.

There is no way that I am going to vote for Ron Paul because he is strongly pro-life and has a mixed abortion record. Barack Obama is strongly prochoice,and he has a much higher abortion rights record.

Therefore, it's a no-brainer for a person who believes in civil rights/equal rights like me to vote for Barack Obama instead of Ron Paul.

Other things that Barack Obama voted for which would make me vote for him instead of Ron Paul

Strengthen the Americans with Disabilities Act

Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.

Ending racial profiling is part of fight for justice.

Sponsored bill for special-needs evacuation plans.

Opposes CA Prop. 8, one-man-one-woman marriage

Being gay or lesbian is not a choice

Homosexuality no more immoral than heterosexuality

We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions

Pass ENDA and expand hate crime legislation

Opposed 1996 Illinois DOMA bill

Supports health benefits for gay civil partners

Include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm

------------------
A different mind is NOT a deficient mind.

posted February 27, 2011 05:50 PM            

There has been controversy over Ron Paul’s ties to racism for some time now. Many people have pointed to Ron Paul’s Newsletters as proof of his racism. Paul has previously admitted to writing the newsletters and defended the statements in 1996, then blamed them on an unnamed ghostwriter in 2001 and then denied any knowledge of them in 2008. He has given no explanation, for how the racism entered his newsletter. If we are to take Paul at his word, he is guilty of at least promoting racism on a large scale. Paul earned almost a million dollars a year from the racist, conspiracy theorist newsletters. Here are some excerpts that I’ve found.

ron paul needlin

In this story Ron Paul writes about “needlin” and blames packs of young black girls for spreading AIDS to white women. I could find no evidence of this “epidemic” and the article seems to have no point other than to make white people scared of Black people.

Ron Paul MLK

In this piece he criticizes Martin Luther King as a pro-communist philanderer and says the MLK holiday is “Hate Whitey Day.” This is in great contrast to 2008 when he told Wolf Blitzer that Martin Luther King was one of his heroes. When activists suggested naming a city after Martin Luther King Paul suggested other names such as “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” He would continue:

ron paul mlk 2

In another piece he blamed Black people for the riots that happened in Chicago in 1992 after the Bulls won the NBA Championship

basket ball riots

Paul here is using false information to attack African Americans. The Washington Post reported that 1000 people were arrested but did not indicate their race. The riot, like most sports riots was multi-racial, including Blacks, white and Latinos, yet Paul used the incident to demonize African Americans. The Washington Post also reported that two officers suffered minor gunshot wounds and that 95 were injured in total, but the way Paul phrased it, it would seem most of the 95 officers injured were shot.

ron paul blast em

In this article Paul uses the “carjacking” epidemic to put fear into white people. He advises them to carry guns and shoot “carjackers” illegally and then dispose of their weapons. He also refers Black people as “animals” and directly refers to his home town of Lake Jackson, Texas.

The newsletters also contained the quotes:

opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions

if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be,

This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s

Here are some of the newsletters I could find. They also contain a good deal of homophobic and Black Helicopter, New World Order conspiracy theories and warnings of upcoming in “race wars.”
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-revealed/comment-page-3/#comments

If he says that didn't write the newslestters, he is either a liar or just totally ignorant.

Both would make him unsuitable for president

------------------
A different mind is NOT a deficient mind.

posted February 27, 2011 06:32 PM            

Here are some youtube videos in regards to Ron Paul being a freemason and being connected to the Illuminati.

I am not sure what to think, but there are other people that think that many politicans are freemasons and connected to the Illuminati. Ron Paul may not even be different from them.

Ron Paul Freemasonic Connections. PROOF! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMg-q19RJck&feature=related

PROOF!! Ron Paul is an Illuminati puppet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyQxC6Lh3FU&feature=related

Ron Paul Freemason Rosecrucian ILLUMINATI connection EXPOSED http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtYzKYG4fqk

------------------
A different mind is NOT a deficient mind.

posted February 27, 2011 07:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by littlecloud:
Glaucus you continue to prove my point by every post you make.

Keep eating what you are being fed, I'm sure that what you are being given is for your own safety and that they are truly looking out for you.

---

The only people that will look out for you is,

1. Yourself, first and foremost.
2. Trusted family and trusted friends.

Politicians, or any organization, can not in a realistic respect do that.

Do they love you?

Honestly ask that.

No it is not a joke.

Is real love, not what motivates a person to take care of another?

If not, what is motivating you?, or whatever the matter is?

posted February 27, 2011 11:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glaucus:
IMHO The US Constitution is invalid because it was created after taking away the Native Americans' lands.

The US Constitution was created when slavery was permitted.

You can't deny that United States of America wasn't made for Native Americans and African Americans. It was made for only the European Americans.

In some ways, you can say that referring to Native Americans as an insult as it is reminder that the Europeans came on their lands and massacred and drove them to reservations as pillaged and raped the land that belongs to them. They did on their backs. Many of the Native Americans were wiped out by murder and disease by the Europeans.

---

As the granddaughter of a fullblood Chiricahua Apache grandmother and 1/2 Mescalero Apache grandfather, I want to say that most people tend to glamorize American Indians. History has only looked at the atrocities committed towards AI's and not what the tribes were doing before Europeans were ever even on a boat on their way to this country. Tribes decimated Tribes, Tribes killed the men and took the women and children. I know- I come from one of those tribes.

This is NOT the only country that has ever had slaves, been enslaved or been slave masters. Tribes often enslaved other Tribes or worse, sold them to the Mexican's where they were then sold to the Spanish and off to other countries they went.

Many American Indians believe and have fought for our constitution.

I would go on but I don't see a need to. The real history is out there if people care to read it. I, for one, do not feed into this whole "Native American peace lovers and pipe smoker" BS. We are MUCH MUCH more than that and to put us into a victim category just further demeans what we are.

posted February 28, 2011 01:42 AM            

History is indeed written by those that win, and can be manipulated to serve ones purpose.

Every winning team needs fans and cheerleaders to convince the normal people that, This is the correct way of doing things.

I am an extremist, And I hate extremists. They out voice the regular people. Usually a dumb person with too much rage leading the charge as well. These people can be manipulated easily, just find out what the leader wants, and make him happy. He will soon forget about the "regular" people that he is apart of.

Personality cults. Or personality lead anything.

posted February 28, 2011 11:00 AM            

I would vote for a Republican if he/she has:

a strong Civil Rights voting/support record
a strong Homosexual Rights voting/support record
a strong Women's Rights voting/support record
a strong Abortion Rights voting/support record
a strong Church/State separation voting/support record
a strong voting/support record in regards to being against the death penalty
a strong voting/support record in regards to being against the 3 strikes law
a strong voting/support in

no mixed record on any of things things

at least a mixed record on healthcare,economy,education,energy,affirmative action, I can understand that.

If a Republican meets all that criteria, I will vote for him or her.

If not, I will vote for somebody else that meets that criteria.

------------------
A different mind is NOT a deficient mind.

posted February 28, 2011 11:04 AM            

When those evil white Europeans landed on the North American Continent, they found slavery and involuntary servitude was already
alive and well here...being practiced by American Indian tribes. Yep BearsArcher!

Does that make those American Indians evil? Nope, their cultural attitudes and practices must be viewed within the context of the times and conditions in which they lived. In fact, slavery and involuntary servitude has been practiced in every region on earth at one time or another.

Now Glaucus, here's something you and other race baiting obsessed leftists don't want to talk about.

Slavery was also being practiced in Africa at the time. How do you suppose all those black slaves were made available to get them to America in the first place? Do you suppose those white slave traders went into the African countryside and captured them? Wrong Glaucus, their own black brothers and sisters sold them to the slave traders. Their own black brothers went into the lands and villages of other tribes, raided, took them captive and sold them.

You say white Europeans "stole" American Indian lands but who did the American Indians "steal" the land from?

Hint...hint; you might want to look up Kennewick Man Glaucus, that is, if and only IF you're interested more in facts than emotional ranting.

The remains of Kennewick Man were dated to more than 9,000 years old...and Glaucus, that predates American Indians in America. Further Glaucus, the remains of Kennewick Man show he was Caucasoid...Caucasian and not of the same genetic root stock as American Indians.

Your rant that the United States Constitution is invalid rises to the level of Space Alien Conspiracy theories Glaucus. So does your nonsense that the founders considered blacks to not be human...because they only assigned blacks to 3 fifths of a person.

What trash Glaucus.

The 3 fifths rule was instituted to prevent the South with it's heavy population of slaves from tipping the balance of the federal government power in favor of Southern slave owning states. That rule was put in place for determining the number of members of the House of Representatives and for purposes of taxation...should apportionment of federal taxes become necessary.

How odd Glaucus that you...and your little Marxist icon..O'Bomber...champion "women's right to choose".

It's apparent you do not understand that abortion was a genocidal weapon aimed straight at blacks and other minorities...whom elitist Socialists considered "undesirables". Abortion..."women's right to choose" was the eugenics weapon of choice to keep the numbers of "undesirables" in check.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg...."Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."
It would be good for you to look up the Socialist elitist, Margaret Sanger. Sanger founded the Birth Control League which later became...Planned Parenthood.

Now Glaucus, that's enough time wasted on correcting your ill-considered rant(s). There's not enough hours in the day to correct them all.

Perhaps a little Thomas Jefferson is in order for you Glaucus.

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

posted February 28, 2011 11:22 AM            

Well Mblake81...if you speak the same way you write then one would necessarily conclude English is not your first language...or, that you were not educated in an American school.

Unless of course, you're just attempting to be deceptive.

Nevertheless, you live in a conservative state like South Carolina, full of intelligent people who elected conservatives in the legislature and senate as well as Governor. Living among all those intelligent conservatives must be a real shock to your system...eh Mblake81?