Thursday, August 25, 2011

Ron Paul Opposes Civil Rights Act

Ron Paul and his tinfoil hat.
Who is this guy, really?
Only way to find out is to dig, because I suspect the media's protecting him.

Story here.

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, he then said it would've been because of one part of it, not the others.  He's trying to have it all ways at once.

But if he had voted against the Civil Rights Act, then segregation and racism would have continued, if his vote had been the tie-breaker.

Think about that.


glacierman said...

Ron Paul has more integrity in his left thumbnail than almost all of the politicians on Capitol Hill.

Junk legislation is always coupled with good legislation so that you are compelled to vote for the bills as by not doing so you are painted exactly as Paul is being painted in this article.

When you trust articles with Chris Matthews name attached to not have an angle which twists principled people with whom he is not politically aligned an the far left, you are clutching at straws.

Matthews hates everything conservative. I am surprised you stooped with this one, CS!

Canadian Sentinel said...

I'm afraid that I must do this.

Problem is that Dr. Paul has this kind of baggage.

The media is holding their fire until he's nominated. They don't want to sink his chances of being nominated.

They want him to be the one to go against Obama. Then during the election campaign they'll bomb and blitz RP with all the baggage stuff they can muster. And I suspect they've already got a big file on him, of stuff that's either true or false or indeterminate.

This is how the game is played by the Left and the MSM.

This is why RP, compared to the likes of Palin/Bachmann, is far riskier a choice for GOP Nominee, notwithstanding his many good ideas (not all of them are so great, though, IMHO).

Bachmann/Palin are actually safer choices, because they don't really have the kind of devastating baggage as does Dr. Paul. Truth/falsehood notwithstanding... it's all about manipulating the perceptions of the swing voters, and the worse the baggage, the worse the perceptions...

This is why I do this. I seriously don't think RP will have a prayer against the big left-wing propaganda machine that successfully devastated Sarah Palin's image with many swing voters as well as leftists. And Palin has far less, if any, baggage!

glacierman said...

CS, if you don't have baggage then you aren't alive.

The Left and MSM are offended by those will morals and principles. Ron Paul is Pro-life (he's delivered close to what? 5000 babies-that is offensive to the Progs).

Ron Paul also believes the State should not have any business nor control over marriages, ANY marriages, including same-sex ones, for that matter. Marriage is between a MAN & WOMAN and the State uses marriage as a cash-cow, mainly for lawyers to make a whole pile of jingle when they end and create a whole lot of jobs. Marriage is between the couple and before God. The State needs to get out of the marriage business. But because our culture is so used to relying on the State to sanction, bless and control marriage, we have bought into the need to have them involved, handing over our responsibilities and guidance to lawmakers, instead of doing the right thing ourselves.

I could go on for a very long time about the libertarian slant of Paul's, but most of the nut-jobs in the Pauline camp are not libertarians, but libertines! A huge difference, the first based on liberty (rights and freedoms) vs. the latter based in anarchy.

Check out the difference, that will make RP way more attractive to those who are "freedom loving" individuals.

∞ ≠ ø said...

"Ron Paul has more integrity in his left thumbnail than almost all of the politicians on Capitol Hill."

While I understand where you are coming from, I myself cannot match the legalization of drugs (we're not just talking pot here) and integrity. Pork vs. pot is a loose loose in my book.

Pairing his call for the legalization of drugs with his peacenik world view clearly disqualifies him for a conservative label as I understand it. He is a libertarian. Interestingly, I get the feeling that there are very few genuine libertarians in the tea party.

Libertarianism (IMO)is a cover phrase for individualism (in creeps Nietzsche). It has always been a veritable playground of moral relativism for both liberal and conservative branded thinking. Both left and right libertarians embrace the approach to anarchy if not anarchy itself as any true anarchist refuses to agree to any label.

I like Ron Paul very much. For years he has been a good ambassador of like minded people. Unfortunately I think he has no experience with addiction, and I am unwilling to accept another first strike.

Right now, I'm really hoping the Gingrich campaign will catch fire.

∞ ≠ ø said...

P.S. Here is a fun little political spectrum test. Take it and we can compare where we ended up on the chart. It's free of sign-ups or any advertising nonsense.

glacierman said...

Thanks for the Nolan Chart test. I am a....LIBERTARIAN!!!

No surprise to me, but didn't realize I was so close to the very tip of the quadrant!!!

How did you score?

∞ ≠ ø said...

I came in at conservative. The tip of the star was right under the letter 'n'. The monetary / trade policy question was the most difficult. I didn't care for most of the answers.

The diagram has its limitations of course. For example I would inscribe the field limits in a circle. That way fascism, for example, would not be forced to appear as a centrist statist phenomenon. But it's a fun little exercise and the site has its unique perspective to contrast and compare your own thoughts with. Worth the price of admission.

I think CS needs to play.

Full circle, I think Paul would fair better as an independent and should probably continue to run as one after the Republican primaries. I do fear that this may result in a divided conservative electorate in the long run, and also may cause a different 'Republican' primary result than what may have occurred had he not participated.

glacierman said...

Paul is getting some air time by being in the Republican Party, but he is not a centrist within like many of the other candidates. He is able to speak about the constitution with knowledge and conviction, wagging it in the face of the progs whenever he can, reminding the citizens of its place as the document which defines and gives inspiration to all those who will give it the time of day.

The dream of the nation builders of this present time in US history are fearful of a man like Paul, as he is not willing to play the PC game. He calls the Feds on the fiat currency, calls the unlimited military spending to scrutiny with the failing foreign policy, and won't play the multi-culturalism charade.

What's not to like about this warrior?