__________
_____________________
_________________
__________
Paul H. 3 months ago
and once they go "out"
they should stay out
but of course, as soon as they get into trouble with that 'greener grass'
they'll come running home
they should stay out
but of course, as soon as they get into trouble with that 'greener grass'
they'll come running home
What this black guy doesn't understand is that civil rights was never narrow issue except for the narrowminded. There are fundamental moral issues involved. And if we have reason to question Ron Paul on civil rights or other social justice issues I previously mentioned, then there's good reason to pause before joining the Ron Paul agenda. I don't think you can "move on", only move forward or perhaps move backward. While both parties do seemed worn out, the problem is that in the corporate state none others are allowed except on the periphery. Libertarians like Ron Paul either belong to the Republican Party or are consigned to a political wilderness. Progressives are largely in the Democratic Party or are also marginalized. The intersting thing about the Occupy Movement is simply that it declares allegiance to no party, though some Democrats want to coop it. The Tea party, however, is mainly a part of the the Republican Party. Unless the confinement of American political life is broken, democracy is doomed in America
-Savant
_____________
I happen to teach a class in, for lack of a better word, philosophical anthropolgy. And we do a lot of exploring of what it means to be human. That has been discussed and debated for thousands of years. But I don't think such a philosophical discussion is possible here, nor necessary for right now for the sake of the issue to be discussed. For everyone can at least identify actual members of the human race even though the meaning of being human or human nature is arguable. As for Tea Partiers, I think they're human beings and entitled to rights as human beings. But I also think they're backward looking, reactionary people who don't understand the complexities of contemporary society. I think that the human being's relation to nature has to be greatly changed if the world is to be livable, and if human beings are to live in full dignity as well; for human beings are a part of nature, however peculiar a part we are. Also, I do not equate earth and property, as property is a human institution. Earth, water, air are elements of nature which some people have claimed as property. And yes, I think every human being is superior to property. Human beings possess intrinsic worth in my book. Property has no personal being. Property exists for humans, not vice versa.
-Savant
_____________________
Thats real....as more and more of our people open up that third eye, they'll realize what they're dealing with....unfortunately, we'll have some that never open it up, and will sell their soul to this devil.....Black Love Is The One Thing That Will End This Devil....literally and figuratively....brothers and sisters have to realize that....
MA'AT
@MegaMalik30 It's so much deeper than that. The system never really want Blacks to survive in the first place. The powers that be hate, hate, hate strong Black couples and families. To tell Black women to get with white men is pouring salt on a deep wound that is still there for five centuries. Like the other sista said that White men haven't changed his views on Black women. His sexual entitlement complex is still there and that he will always go back to the White women for sure.
________________________
6 hours ago
_________
Michael Casey15 hours ago
________________
19 hours ago
Shangri La5 hours ago
They use people like this to damage our children and some of our dead-headed adults. They make the money and ruin our minds in the process. I'm sure neither of them care either way.
7 hours ago
___________
Note by Me: I don't believe that Ron Paul is a Klan member, but I get the point. Strict libertarianism is impossible to totally follow in the 21st century period.
By Timothy
jayevans2019 hours ago
So the bad economy is Obama fault? Who was president when the country had a Trillion Dollar surplus and destroyed the economy with his conservative moves and unpaid for wars? I laugh every time I see a republican try to blame every thing on Obama. Stop watching False news!
The very fact that Ron Paul opposed CIVL RIGHTS in favor of PROPERTY RIGHTS, is itself a BIG PROBLEM. And it fits an old conservative tradition of favoring property over people. The defense of slavery and of child labor was also largely in the name of property rights. So there's a LOT wrong with that. First and foremost are HUMAN RIGHTS; people before property. Though coming from a different political and philosophical perspective, Ron Paul might support SOME things progressives would support and oppose some things that progressives would oppose. But that would be coincidental for the most part. Our opposition to militarism, support for the Civil Rights act, the decriminalization of drugs, social security, universal health care are based on values greatly different than Paul's. We have a different conception of freedom and social justice than he does. And if he were elected (and had enough support in Congress)he probably would NOT succeed (even if he tried) to cut the military budget, but he would slash funds for education, health care, social security and the like. I doubt that he would directly attack Civil Rights. But as he thinks the Civil Rights act should be applied to government, but not the private sector, any new attacks on the civil rights of people of color would get very weak opposiiton from him unless someone wanted to hand a "For Whites Only" sign to a government building. As for the original intent of the Founding Fathers, as they were mainly wealthy white men (many slaveholders) I'm under no illusion that they desired democracy or socialism for America. Indeed, even the Federalist Papers indicate that they largely had a limited vision of freedom restricted by property rights and class privilege. Tom Paine perhaps excepted (
-Savant
_________
Shangri La1 hour ago
57 minutes ago
______________
Stop chirping,Frank. Check out Ron Paul's position of the Civil Rights law of 1964. We ought to look very carefully at that and a few other things before voting for Ron Paul.*crickets chirping*
He has some ok ideas, but also some very bad ones.
-Savant
First of all, individualism and racism are not mutally exclusive. Sometimes they are mutally reinforcing. Check out a book called BLACK IMAGE IN THE WHITE MIND by George Frederickson for an analysis ehich shows how individualism (beginning in the Jacksonian era) actually help give added force to racism.Ron Paul is the complete opposite of a racist. He speaks of individualism, a strong opposition to racism. He does not discriminate. Ron Paul supports freedom, and as he has said before, "Freedom unites it all, it does not divide us."
Now I don't know if Ron Paul is a racist in the sense of viewing Blacks (or non-whites generally) as inferior to whites, but his opposiion to civil rights legislation amounts to DE FACTO support for Jim Crow, even though he claims to be personally opposed to it.
-Savant
15 hours ago
___________
CobaltBlu1 day ago
No comments:
Post a Comment