The Truth About Ron Paul - Part 2

sync0s

sync0s

Well-Known Member
Though the results of the affirmative action ban varied from state to state because of differences in policies intended to mitigate the effects, general trends emerged to confirm that Asian-American students are disadvantaged in a race-conscious admissions system.
California was hit hardest in its loss of black and Hispanic students and did the least legislatively to retain diversity. In 1996, Californians adopted Proposition 209, which prohibited university admission offices from considering race, sex or ethnicity in its decisions.
As a result, the number of black students admitted to the University of California at Berkeley dropped from 562 in fall 1997 to 191 in fall 1998. Hispanic admission numbers plunged as well, from 1,266 to 600. Since 1997, the percentage of black and Latino students admitted to the University has dropped 6.5 percent while the Asian-American percentage has jumped 6.2 percent.
"I'm skeptical of the finding that white students would not also be helped by a policy that gets rid of discrimination," Clegg said. "Our studies have shown that white students are hindered by politically correct admissions policies."
Click to expand...
Now, one person may look at the number of blacks going down as a red flag against this rule without taking into question whether this is a result of actually the system being more fair. A rule by which hinders Asian's and whites is just as wrong as a rule that hinders blacks.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
sync0s said:
Your assumption of minorities and welfare.
Click to expand...
no, actually I was talking about Native Americans and the reservations. Far as I know Native Americans are still minorities and as long as they live on the Reservation they can receive welfare, education, health services, housing, food assistance, clothing assistance. I know many who commute back and forth from their job in the city to their home on the reservation. Not every tribe is this way, but many are.
 
sync0s

sync0s

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
the empirical evidence is historical data.

you can even observe samples of businesses that had no problem opening their doors every day with a "no blacks" sign on the window.

and i am all for state's rights as well. if california and michigan decided AA was not for them or not needed, so be it.
Click to expand...
I can agree to this, but this does not mean it is up to the federal government to make these laws, it should be up to the states. This is an RP stance.

If a person so chose to enter an establishment that banned blacks, that's their personal choice. I for one, would refuse to do so, but you are just as free to do that as you are to smoke a joint.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
sync0s said:
Now, one person may look at the number of blacks going down as a red flag against this rule without taking into question whether this is a result of actually the system being more fair. A rule by which hinders Asian's and whites is just as wrong as a rule that hinders blacks.
Click to expand...
like i said, state rights are no issue with me.

i feel confident assuming that if one minority group or the other got an unfair shake, the fed gov would be all over them like white on rice.

did you know that ron paul once climbed into a burning building to save a litter of kittens, only to eat them all alive one by one?
 
sync0s

sync0s

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
no, actually I was talking about Native Americans and the reservations. Far as I know Native Americans are still minorities and as long as they live on the Reservation they can receive welfare, education, health services, housing, food assistance, clothing assistance. I know many who commute back and forth from their job in the city to their home on the reservation. Not every tribe is this way, but many are.
Click to expand...
Misunderstanding. IMO as long as there are reservations where US law does not prevail, it will never be a fair and equal system.
 
sync0s

sync0s

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
like i said, state rights are no issue with me.

i feel confident assuming that if one minority group or the other got an unfair shake, the fed gov would be all over them like white on rice.

did you know that ron paul once climbed into a burning building to save a litter of kittens, only to eat them all alive one by one?
Click to expand...
You are agreeing with ron paul bet yet not, and now I am confused as to your position...

I don't even know how to respond to the end of your post... lol
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
sync0s said:
Misunderstanding. IMO as long as there are reservations where US law does not prevail, it will never be a fair and equal system.
Click to expand...
how dare they live on the land we allotted them after breaking a series of contracts to force them there, even as we continue to breach a series of contracts that we have still yet to honor.

fucking savages
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
sync0s said:
You are agreeing with ron paul bet yet not, and now I am confused as to your position...

I don't even know how to respond to the end of your post... lol
Click to expand...
i often agree with ron paul. i often disagree with him.

for example: we agree on state rights. i go further though, and say there should be a strong, fed gov to insure the states play by a base set of rules.

ron paul can divide by zero.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ron paul once traded his soul to the devil for ultimate martial arts ability. once he gained such, he swiftly roundhouse kicked the devil and took back his soul. the devil, being a fan of irony, thought much of this cunning move and befriended ron paul. they are now good friends and play poker every third wednesday of the month.
 
sync0s

sync0s

Well-Known Member
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers of the government. It reads in part:
The Congress shall have Power . . .

  • To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
  • To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
  • To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
  • To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; . . .
  • To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
  • To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; . . . --And
  • To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Click to expand...
Constitution does allow paper money to be printed by the federal government only, but only at the orders of Congress. Federal Reserve is not required to get any permission from Congress to print money

Dear American:

Pursuant to your request, I will attempt to clear up questions you have about the Federal Reserve Bank (FED). I spent much time researching the FED and these are the shocking and revealing conclusions.
THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK IS A PRIVATE COMPANY. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to coin (create) money and regulate the value thereof. Today however, the FED, which is a privately owned company, controls and profits by printing money through the Treasury, and regulating its value.
The FED began with approximately 300 people or banks that became owners (stockholders purchasing stock at $100 per share - the stock is not publicly traded) in the Federal Reserve Banking System. They make up an international banking cartel of wealth beyond comparison (Reference 1, 14). The FED banking system collects billions of dollars (Reference 8, 17) in interest annually and distributes the profits to its shareholders. The Congress illegally gave the FED the right to print money (through the Treasury) at no interest to the FED. The FED creates money from nothing, and loans it back to us through banks, and charges interest on our currency. The FED also buys Government debt with money printed on a printing press and charges U.S. taxpayers interest. Many Congressmen and Presidents say this is fraud (Reference 1,2,3,5,17).
Who actually owns the Federal Reserve Central Banks? The ownership of the 12 Central banks, a very well kept secret, has been revealed:

  1. Rothschild Bank of London
  2. Warburg Bank of Hamburg
  3. Rothschild Bank of Berlin
  4. Lehman Brothers of New York
  5. Lazard Brothers of Paris
  6. Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
  7. Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy
  8. Goldman, Sachs of New York
  9. Warburg Bank of Amsterdam
  10. Chase Manhattan Bank of New York
  11. (Reference 14, P. 13, Reference 12, P. 152)
These bankers are connected to London Banking Houses which ultimately control the FED. When England lost the Revolutionary War with America (our forefathers were fighting their own government), they planned to control us by controlling our banking system, the printing of our money, and our debt (Reference 4, 22).
The individuals listed below owned banks which in turn owned shares in the FED. The banks listed below have significant control over the New York FED District, which controls the other 11 FED Districts. These banks also are partly foreign owned and control the New York FED District Bank.
(Reference 22)

  • First National Bank of New York
  • James Stillman
  • National City Bank, New York
  • Mary W. Harnman
  • National Bank of Commerce, New York
  • A.D. Jiullard
  • Hanover National Bank, New York
  • Jacob Schiff
  • Chase National Bank, New York
  • Thomas F. Ryan
  • Paul Warburg
  • William Rockefeller
  • Levi P. Morton
  • M.T. Pyne
  • George F. Baker
  • Percy Pyne
  • Mrs. G.F. St. George
  • J.W. Sterling
  • Katherine St. George
  • H.P. Davidson
  • J.P. Morgan (Equitable Life/Mutual Life)
  • Edith Brevour T. Baker
  • (Reference 4 for above, Reference 22 has details, P. 92, 93, 96, 179)
How did it happen? After previous attempts to push the Federal Reserve Act through Congress, a group of bankers funded and staffed Woodrow Wilson's campaign for President. He had committed to sign this act. In 1913, a Senator, Nelson Aldrich, maternal grandfather to the Rockefellers, pushed the Federal Reserve Act through Congress just before Christmas when much of Congress was on vacation (Reference 3, 4, 5). When elected, Wilson passed the FED. Later, Wilson remorsefully replied (referring to the FED), "I have unwittingly ruined my country" (Reference 17, P. 31). Now the banks financially back sympathetic candidates. Not surprisingly, most of these candidates are elected (Reference 1, P. 208-210, Reference 12, P. 235, Reference 14, P. 36). The bankers employ members of the Congress on weekends (nickname T&T club -out Thursday...-in Tuesday) with lucrative salaries (Reference 1, P. 209). Additionally, the FED started buying up the media in the 1930's and now owns or significantly influences most of it
(Reference 3, 10, 11, P. 145).
Presidents Lincoln, Jackson, and Kennedy tried to stop this family of bankers by printing U.S. dollars without charging the taxpayers interest (Reference 4). Today, if the government runs a deficit, the FED prints dollars through the U.S. Treasury, buys the debt, and the dollars are circulated into the economy. In 1992, taxpayers paid the FED banking system $286 billion in interest on debt the FED purchased by printing money virtually cost free (Reference 12, P. 265). Forty percent of our personal federal income taxes goes to pay this interest. The FED's books are not open to the public. Congress has yet to audit it.
Click to expand...

​
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
sync0s said:
Constitution does allow paper money to be printed by the federal government only, but only at the orders of Congress. Federal Reserve is not required to get any permission from Congress to print money
Click to expand...
You can't "Coin" paper. And besides, the federal is separate from the State, if the States did not see any paper as legal tender then the dollar could not exist.
 
sync0s

sync0s

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Eminent Domain is a bitch, ask the thousands of people it affects every year.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the constant posts here, but how about this:

The practice of condemnation was transplanted into the American colonies with the common law. In the early years, unimproved land could be taken without compensation; this practice was accepted because land was so abundant that it could be cheaply replaced. When it came time to draft the United States Constitution, differing views on eminent domain were voiced. Thomas Jefferson favored eliminating all remnants of feudalism, and pushed for allodial ownership.[2] James Madison, who wrote the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, had a more moderate view, and struck a compromise that sought to at least protect property rights somewhat by explicitly mandating compensation and using the term "public use" rather than "public purpose," "public interest," or "public benefit."

Bush executive order On June 23, 2006, the first anniversary of the Kelo decision (see above), President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13406 which stated in Section I that the federal government must limit its use of taking private property for "public use" with "just compensation", which is also stated in the constitution, for the "purpose of benefiting the general public." The order limits this use by stating that it may not be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken".[15] However, eminent domain is more often exercised by local and state governments, albeit often with funds obtained from the federal government.
Click to expand...
 
sync0s

sync0s

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
You can't "Coin" paper. And besides, the federal is separate from the State, if the States did not see any paper as legal tender then the dollar could not exist.
Click to expand...
It is regarded as one of the more poorly written parts of the Constitution, due to it's vagueness. However, read the whole post on the Fed. Enlightening how we sold our country out.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
sync0s said:
It is regarded as one of the more poorly written parts of the Constitution, due to it's vagueness. However, read the whole post on the Fed. Enlightening how we sold our country out.
Click to expand...
I know plenty about the fed, no need to try and educate me.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
i own a greenhouse. got the footing built (all free) and 3 of the 5 arches up. gotta reinforce the structure after getting the last arches up.

CIMG1959.JPG

CIMG1968.JPG
 
deprave

deprave

New Member
Right Unclebuck, keep calling a champion of the poor and the minorities a racist, it just discredits your argument. I addressed the racism claims in my original post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top