You gave me an example between two situations. One violent, one non-violent (but also non-threatening, non-binding, non-compulsory, non-theft, etc, regardless of the fact that I didn't point it out). I pointed out the single fact in answer to a specific question. You assumed I implied the same answer to a different situation with different circumstances. That was you, not me. Here is a huge step forward for you to take in your listening skills: Instead of asking yourself what someone was trying to say, ask yourself what he did not say.
That's the difference, to you. I just followed your reasoning. Here's what I think. I think you're a stone racist. That's the core, the beginning, the ur belief. Everything else is just gossamer on pig shit. All of the other silly, stupid "logic" you use is an attempt by you to justify your racist policy ideas without saying "I hate black people." That's what I think.
So Ron Paul is well into his fourth thread (not counting the racist kook one) and the Republican frontrunner who is having a truly astonishing run, Mike Huckabee, is still on his first thread. Okay.... So how do you like them Buffalo Bills. Think they can reach the .500 mark this year?
Have you noticed how little of the threads are about Ron Paul? We have professional threadjackers among us. See what I mean?
I think you missed a very important post from me. Take some time to read back a little ways in this thread. I'll let you know something really interesting...if I say that I hate black people, I would be admitting that I hate my own grandmother, half of my mother, as well as half of my girlfriend. The truth of the matter is that I hold the same beliefs as my grandfather, who married a black woman. The simple fact that I don't believe it to be a crime for someone else to be racist doesn't mean I don't despise racists. If anything, I have more of a reason to hate them than anybody. Maybe when some black panther wannabes come throwing molotovs in your grandparents house, you can come back and tell me you know what racism feels like.
Theirs no way in hell I would ever vote for that bigot of ron paul. Clinton all the way, the hell with republican greedy scums.
Hell yeah!!!!!! To hell with greedy people that want to let you keep your money. Vote for selfless bitches who want to take it all away!
I haven't read all of this thread, but it's quite clear than Ron Paul supporters are ********ing lunatics.
Kill, probably not, well not Americans anyway. But jail? Sure he would. Remember "campaign finance reform"? That law that makes certain speech illegal? What do you think the consequences of that are? Provide one example where the majority of RP supporters are lunatics.
Known racist Ron Paul came out in support of Muhammed Ali today (his 65th birthday). I'm confused. Obviously Paul doesn't know Ali is black. I wish he was better informed.
Agreed. Whether you support him or not, he's earned his place at the table. Oh, this is hilarious. Y'know, Paul has managed to turn a typical campaign dynamic upside down: Usually, it's the candidate who has to duck and dance with his/her words and the supporters don't care for the nuance; with Paul, he's the one who's plain-spoken and his supporters are the ones gyrating like a fighter jet trying to keep from getting a missile in the tailpipe.
Looks like it's now official: Fox is going to exclude the leading Republican fund raiser from their upcoming New Hampshire Republican debate. This despite his running 4th in New Hampshire in their own poll. Browsing the forums, it looks like there's going to be serious blowback on this.
If this is true, it's an absolute outrage. This takes unfair and unbalanced to a new level. (I say this as someone who thinks Paul is, at best, a crank who should own a coin and precious metals shop instead of being a Congressman, let alone seek higher office.)
Source/link? I know he's doing well, but has he really raised more than Giuliani and Romney? I don't believe it. But, that doesn't mean this isn't outrageous. New Hampshire is probably Paul's best state in the whole damn country. He could run well there.
I think Paul has the single day record but Romney is way ahead in total contributions. Even Paul's detractors probably will admit he should be in a debate.
Not total funds raised over the course of the year no, but it's a safe bet he's blowing them away in Q4, as no Republican has yet raised $19 mil in any quarter, not counting Romney's own personal donations. And donations usually decline in Q3 and Q4 whereas Ron Paul's are increasing.
Good grief the very study you continue to cite even mentions that the "distrust" side effect disipates and is not outweighed by the benefits of desegregation. Putnam even cites the military as an example. The only crap being spewed around here comes from your keyboard.
And if Paul is indeed excluded from this debate that's absolutely wrong. Just for the record, in my very humble opinion, I don't think Paul is racist. But I do think he's naive if he doesn't understand that the end result of some his policy goals would allow racism to persist. I agree with some of his positions on a few issues. But mainly I think his views on federalism, however, are more in line with 1807 instead of 2007. I don't think those views were spawned out of an intentional animosity toward minorities. He should be allowed at the debates.