Who Else Knows That Ron Paul will NEVER be President?

[Carne Seca]

So Carne
I am correct that the Mormon church has a history of institutional Racism which existed until 1978

And the admission to Priesthood for blacks that came about was due to revelations to church leaders from God
and had nothing to do with the US goverment threatening to take away their tax free status nor anything to do with the NCAA Threatening to kick them out of the league

Once again, I have yet to find a satisfactory explanation for the ban. I have a HUGE problem with it. And once again, it was not the only church practicing some form of discrimination. Doesn't make it right. It really pisses me off. Just like the church getting involved in prop. 8 in California. If you expect me to defend the position of the church before 1978, you are going to be very disappointed. That's why I stick around. Change comes from the inside.

Now, why don't you be fair and bring up the racist policies of most churches across the nation before the Civil Rights Act.

 

[Carne Seca]

huh? I never made an argument saying it only happened here, in the 80's it WAS a mainly gay disease, now its mostly from IV drug users. Statistics wholly bear this truth out, you should look into them.

It's a worldwide epidemic. The gay population was the hardest hit in the States. In Haiti it was heteros. In Africa as well. It wasn't mainly a gay disease. It was and is a pandemic.

 

[NoDrama]

And i didnt accuse every Mormon of being a racist. But the Mormons practiced Jim Crow policys before Jim Crow policys were official parts of some state goverments

You are extremely misinformed to say the least. Before jim Crow we had the Black codes and before that we had actual slavery. Racism was part of the landscape in those days, it was the law. Now you go and try telling us that those people that followed the law, their posterity is racist becasue 200 years ago their relatives were forced to act that way by law. You have no argument.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Bullshit. By the time it got to the states the disease had already spread to four other continents. By Heteros. The so-called patient zero was a Canadian flight attendant who was bisexual. He infected both men and women in Europe and North America.

I call your bullshit on his called bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rayford

He was gay. Never left his home town in his whole life. Which means for about ten years or more, AIDS was slowly being passed by the gay community, before this "bi" canadian flight attendant "patient zero."

 

[NoDrama]

It's a worldwide epidemic. The gay population was the hardest hit in the States. In Haiti it was heteros. In Africa as well. It wasn't mainly a gay disease. It was and is a pandemic.

yep, not disagreeing with that, but were talking about 30 years ago.

 

[HereToday]

It's a worldwide epidemic. The gay population was the hardest hit in the States. In Haiti it was heteros. In Africa as well. It wasn't mainly a gay disease. It was and is a pandemic.

Thanks for acknowlegding that Mormons do indeed have a racist history. And yes Southern Baptists were equally if not more so inclined.

As to Haitians the big joke in the 80s was
If you got aids how to convince your freinds you were actually Haitian

 

[Carne Seca]

I call your bullshit on his called bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rayford

He was gay. Never left his home town in his whole life. Which means for about ten years or more, AIDS was slowly being passed by the gay community, before this "bi" canadian flight attendant "patient zero."

Patient Zero refers to the carrier not the one infected. I can also cite a case in the 50's where a man was bitten by a monkey and died from a mysterious illness. His doctors saved tissue samples and were tested after the AIDS pandemic started. it tested positive. Patient zero was in his late thirties when they realized he was transmitting the disease across North America and Europe. He slept with HUNDREDS of men and women AFTER he was diagnosed. He had no idea how many he slept with before he was diagnosed.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Patient Zero refers to the carrier not the one infected. I can also cite a case in the 50's where a man was bitten by a monkey and died from a mysterious illness. His doctors saved tissue samples and were tested after the AIDS pandemic started. it tested positive. Patient zero was in his late thirties when they realized he was transmitting the disease across North America and Europe. He slept with HUNDREDS of men and women AFTER he was diagnosed. He had no idea how many he slept with before he was diagnosed.

The first reported case of AIDS was 1966. That would have made "patient zero," 13 at the time. A Jamaican clerk in 1959 died of Pneumocystis pneumonia. Which means he almost certainly died of AIDS. So the Canadian patient zero really isn't patient zero in North America. HIV has a DNA signature patient to patient and has been traced to some time in the 30s as it's origin as SIV.

Point is, there were carriers, in yhe US, way before "patient zero" could have been a carrier. If anything he could be described as the typhoid Mary of AIDS.

 

[Rob Roy]

Really sad to see people agreeing with segregation ...The whole point of the Civil rights era was to stop discrimination ... I guess some will never understand unless it happens to them on an everyday bases... I'm glad that this country has made changes that makes everyone able to be treated fairly ( in most cases, but still has some ways to go) ... The Civil Rights Act repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination. Now if you feel that it was wrong to do this then I guess that says a lot about your person. When the House of Representatives took up a resolution "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Ron Paul was the only member who voted "no." So to him I also say NO .. and Nodrama you comparing the Civil Rights Act to child molestation was very weak, but when you are on the wrong side of the fence trying to defend your stance, you will always tend to come off that way...

You miscast the conclusion, at least regarding my posiiton. I am not personally for "segregation" nor am I for "forced association". I oppose the initiation of aggression. (That was for you Uncle Buck) If somebody discriminates based on something like race, gender preference, etc. MY opinion is that is a foolish thing for them to do. Being foolish and initiating aggression are not the same thing though in every instance. If you have experienced discrimination based on something like race or gender preference I'm sorry to hear that.

I believe that individual rights of people to own themselves and their property and their behaviors are primary. Whether I agree with your behavior or not, is not important as long as you don't (ready Uncle Buck?) "initiate aggression." Your asking a third party (such as government) to forcefulyl make another associate with you is an act of aggression.

 

[Rob Roy]

So this chinese guy goes into a bar and says to the bartender who happens to be black
"Hey Nig give me a jig"
Bartender says?
"what did you just say motherfucker?"
Chinese guys says
"hey nig dont be a prig and give me a jig"
Bartender takes a breath and says to the guy
"look that aint nice, come on back here and see what its like"
So the Chinese guy goes in back of the bar and the black guy says
"HEY CHINK Give me a fucking drink"
Chinese guy says
"Sorry we dont serve niggers here"

its real funny until
A minority doesnt get a place to live where he wants to live because of racism
The car dealership charges a minority more in interest on a loan becuase they are a minority
The bank not only charges more interest but redlines whole neighborhoods where they wont loan money for anything (makes it nice to drive prices down for redevelopment later)
A business wont hire a qualified minority because of their skin color not their experience skill or references

Ron Paul is a racist. He cant walk that back with pretty illiogical and hypocritical rationalizations about "individual rights vs. collective rights"
and if you forgive Ron Paul for that kind of morality then it comes into question what kind of morality you have.
Everyone of us is racist. The best of us rise above it.
Ron Paul never rose above it. He just masks it and not too skillfully either

You make a claim that "everyone of us is racist". How did you arrive at that conclusion? Also what if a person is mixed race? ...which part of their body do they despise?

You cite examples of racism...no shit some people are racists. Racism is stupid...got it. Does that mean that a person that wants every individual to have the right to own their own body or control their own property or chose with whom they will associate is necessarily a racist?

 

[Canna Sylvan]

You miscast the conclusion, at least regarding my posiiton. I am not personally for "segregation" nor am I for "forced association". I oppose the initiation of aggression. (That was for you Uncle Buck) If somebody discriminates based on something like race, gender preference, etc. MY opinion is that is a foolish thing for them to do. Being foolish and initiating aggression are not the same thing though in every instance. If you have experienced discrimination based on something like race or gender preference I'm sorry to hear that.

I believe that individual rights of people to own themselves and their property and their behaviors are primary. Whether I agree with your behavior or not, is not important as long as you don't (ready Uncle Buck?) "initiate aggression." Your asking a third party (such as government) to forcefulyl make another associate with you is an act of aggression.

I was refused service at a Korea Town bakery. I at first thought the owner didn't know English until he spoke it just as well as I do to another Korean customer. The owner acted like I didn't exist. Imagine if the owner was white doing that to koreans. The civil rights act had nothing to do with racial equality. It was just a bunch of do gooding self hating white liberals wanting to make themselves washed of all their sins. I'm not saying denying based on race is a good thing, but seriously, it wasn't to make all races equal. It was to give certain races special rights to make up for past wrongs. Those past wrongs were wrong, but the civil rights act wasn't the solution. All it did was cause later reverse discrimination.

 

[UncleBuck]

Your asking a third party (such as government) to forcefulyl make another associate with you is an act of aggression.

i'll say it again, aggression is not part of this discussion.

no one is forcing anyone to associate with anyone. what is being enforced is equal treatment of all.

you have ZERO RIGHTS to do anything that harms another.

to put it in hyperbolic terms, we could say that the government uses "acts of aggression" to punish people that murder other people. are you morally opposed to punishing murderers because it involves "acts of aggression" by the government?

no one has a right to deny someone service in a supposedly public establishment due to skin color or other arbitrary reasons because it is harmful to those people being denied service. no one is getting punched in the face, as per the "parker standard", but harm is being caused nonetheless. history proves this.

if you are morally opposed to the government using "force" or "aggression" to make sure that people are not overstepping their rights and freedoms and thus harming others, i have to wonder how you would feel about the government using "force" and "aggression" to punish murderers as well.

just give it up. it is only hurting your cause.

 

[HereToday]

I was refused service at a Korea Town bakery. I at first thought the owner didn't know English until he spoke it just as well as I do to another Korean customer. The owner acted like I didn't exist. Imagine if the owner was white doing that to koreans. The civil rights act had nothing to do with racial equality. It was just a bunch of do gooding self hating white liberals wanting to make themselves washed of all their sins. I'm not saying denying based on race is a good thing, but seriously, it wasn't to make all races equal. It was to give certain races special rights to make up for past wrongs. Those past wrongs were wrong, but the civil rights act wasn't the solution. All it did was cause later reverse discrimination.

Then you can get a redress for your grievances.
Or better yet. Embarass the owner of Korean town bakery
Organize a protest in front of his place of business

 

[NoDrama]

i'll say it again, aggression is not part of this discussion.

no one is forcing anyone to associate with anyone. what is being enforced is equal treatment of all.

you have ZERO RIGHTS to do anything that harms another.

to put it in hyperbolic terms, we could say that the government uses "acts of aggression" to punish people that murder other people. are you morally opposed to punishing murderers because it involves "acts of aggression" by the government?

no one has a right to deny someone service in a supposedly public establishment due to skin color or other arbitrary reasons because it is harmful to those people being denied service. no one is getting punched in the face, as per the "parker standard", but harm is being caused nonetheless. history proves this.

if you are morally opposed to the government using "force" or "aggression" to make sure that people are not overstepping their rights and freedoms and thus harming others, i have to wonder how you would feel about the government using "force" and "aggression" to punish murderers as well.

just give it up. it is only hurting your cause.

Then we have to do away with all the laws that give preferential treatment, because they might be great for others, but they cause me harm.

 

[UncleBuck]

I was refused service at a Korea Town bakery. I at first thought the owner didn't know English until he spoke it just as well as I do to another Korean customer. The owner acted like I didn't exist.

you poor, persecuted soul.

The civil rights act had nothing to do with racial equality. It was just a bunch of do gooding self hating white liberals wanting to make themselves washed of all their sins.

care to talk about the green book for negro travelers, and why it ceased to be published after civil rights passed into law?

... it wasn't to make all races equal. It was to give certain races special rights....

who gets "special rights" based on civil rights legislation?

 

[HereToday]

Then we have to do away with all the laws that give preferential treatment, because they might be great for others, but they cause me harm.

How does the Civil Rights Act give preferential treatment?

 

[NoDrama]

Then you can get a redress for your grievances.
Or better yet. Embarass the owner of Korean town bakery
Organize a protest in front of his place of business

You can only get a redress of grievances against a government, not another citizen. he COULD stage a protest after securing the proper permits and such, but probably not worth the effort when baked goods are easily sourced from other places of business.

 

[NoDrama]

How does the Civil Rights Act give preferential treatment?

No one said that, your brain doesn't work right duke. I mean I don't get it, youve been here for months and months and you still can't decipher a fucking post nor are you aware of words. Its no wonder you can't discern the meaning of anything you read and just jump to conclusions.

 

[UncleBuck]

Then we have to do away with all the laws that give preferential treatment, because they might be great for others, but they cause me harm.

which laws are harming you?

i am actually interested in which laws are giving others preferential treatment at your expense.

 

[Rob Roy]

i'll say it again, aggression is not part of this discussion.

no one is forcing anyone to associate with anyone. what is being enforced is equal treatment of all.

you have ZERO RIGHTS to do anything that harms another.

to put it in hyperbolic terms, we could say that the government uses "acts of aggression" to punish people that murder other people. are you morally opposed to punishing murderers because it involves "acts of aggression" by the government?

no one has a right to deny someone service in a supposedly public establishment due to skin color or other arbitrary reasons because it is harmful to those people being denied service. no one is getting punched in the face, as per the "parker standard", but harm is being caused nonetheless. history proves this.

if you are morally opposed to the government using "force" or "aggression" to make sure that people are not overstepping their rights and freedoms and thus harming others, i have to wonder how you would feel about the government using "force" and "aggression" to punish murderers as well.

just give it up. it is only hurting your cause.

You are almost there...."acts of aggression" is not the same as "the INITIATION of aggression" (as in he hit me first or took my stuff first)

The government does initiate aggression routinely. When a murderer is "punished" they were punished because they were guilty of INITIATING aggression.

You state you have ZERO rights to harm another. We agree there...AND I have zero right to force another to associate with me....that would be harming them wouldn't it?