Great. Your explanation is likely to be as compelling to low income Americans as Paul’s take on diversity and affirmative action being bad has been to minorities.
And please, no more about Ron Paul’s wondrous appeal to black Americans. You could fit all of his black supporters in a metaphorical shoebox.
People owe more allegiance to their own people than to foreigners and strangers. If you sell out and backstab your own people, that is as low as it gets.
You sound like a globalist.
It is worth noting that the Gini coefficient which measures income inequality trended down (toward greater equality) from 1950 to 1980. Then comes Reagan, the Republican Congress, and Bush II. Now we’re around the same rate as Mexico and China.
I conclude that the Democratic dominance of government in the post-war years, up to Reagan, helped make the US a fairer place where poor people had more social mobility, and opportunity became more evenly spread.
But having equal opportunity and allowing people a chance to excel really isn’t a priority for Ron Paul and his economic allies. They’d rather see a dog-eat-dog economic system based on sink or swim, and if you sink, it’s your own fault… no matter how many anchor weights were clasped to your legs.
The Constitution allowed for black people to vote. That is why Frederick Douglass backed the Constitution.
The Constitution also provided an incentive to the States to end slavery. The 3/5 rule raised the representation in congress and in the Electoral College of any state that ended slavery.
The Founding fathers opposed slavery, and all of the leading Founders made statements on the record against it, despite slavery being legal and common around the world for 5000 years.
It’s this kind of silly statement that pretty much eviscerates your argument.
You’re now actually arguing that slave owners opposed slavery, and that buying human beings as property wasn’t as bad as being a race traitor so Africans were the real villains in the story.
If you mean “the Constitution would still have been valid if US legislation at that time had permitted blacks to vote”, you’re right. If you mean that the Constitution somehow made it effectively possible for blacks in general to vote, or formally recognized blacks’ right to vote before the 15th Amendment, I’m not sure where you’re getting that idea.
I also can’t figure out what you mean by “Frederick Douglass backed the Constitution.” The Constitution had already been the law of the land for at least several decades by the time Douglass was born, around 1818.
Actually, preferring Obama to Ron Paul doesn’t necessarily mean that you defend Obama’s positions. It just means that you think that Obama’s positions, despite their admitted flaws, are less flawed than Paul’s are.
And you know whom these people considered to be their “own”?
So what?
Is that supposed to be an insult?
What the devil did they put in the Koolaid down at Paul headquarters?
Thomas Jefferson opposed violent video games but supported Marilyn Manson.
This shows us that Ron Paul should be elected as our next president.
You seem to be ignorant that many of the Founding Fathers did not own slaves. And all of the major ones were against slavery, they said it, it is part of the historical record.
For your information, they did not own slaves because it was thier choice, the ones who had slaves inherited them. None of the Founding Fathers sold off their fellow citizens to Africa.
Herbert Hoover had a subscription to Danni’s Hard Drive that he paid for with his Visa check card. At least, he never publicly denied it. Therefore, Ron Paul will surely be elected president in 2012.
You oppose the Constitution of the United States. Ron Paul supports it. Ron Paul does not need your vote to win the election.
Where the heck did you study American History?
We all know that many of the FF–the Northerners–didn’t own slaves. Some of the Southerners who did might have had qualms about slavery, but I haven’t seen statements from* all* of them. Supply quotations, please.
During those times, some Southern slave owners did realize that slavery was wrong. Some of those were so committed to that belief that they freed their slaves, inherited or not. Those who had doubts but kept their slaves did so for their own economic benefit.
Your last statement is out of touch with reality.
You’re the one putting people into groups. Are you a collectivist?
I know that “you disagree with me, therefore you are ignorant!” is a page out of the Paul Playbook for Making Friends and Getting Votes, but this doesn’t work. Remember, your claim was that the FF’s opposed slavery. By admitting that even one of them owned slaves,you have admitted that your statement was fictional and at the very least one of them not only wasn’t against slavery, but was so pro-slavery that they owned human beings as property.
Of course, you’re also wrong in your next claim, I’ll get to that.
Fictional.
Just for example:
[
](http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/040112/12slave.htm)
Hrm, was it you who said that Paul is Madison’s second coming?
Likewise, fictional.
[
](http://www.mountvernon.org/learn/meet_george/index.cfm/ss/101/)
Of course your objection is nonsense in any case, even if it were true. “Sure they held human beings as prisoners and property and forced them to work for no compensation with a status less than white people, but at least they didn’t buy them originally!”
Well, it’s a darn good thing that they weren’t Race Traitors. That’d be even worse!
You are the one who is trying to smear the Founding Fathers.
If you have any pull, at all, please try to make this Paul’s campaign slogan.
Surely can you cite him opposing the Constitution? Or are you now at the point of saying that not only is Ron Paul the only one who understand the Constitution, but that anybody who doesn’t agree with him actually opposes it?
Um… no. You’re the one who said that the FF’s owning slaves (and choosing not to release them) wasn’t bad because people owe primary allegiance to their racial groupings before other people.
Not that your “If you disagree with me, you might be a commie!” gambit is any less effective than the rest of your support for Paul…
Are you joking?
This is kind of like that whole ‘reality having a liberal bias’ thing, isn’t it?
ETA for clarification: except in this case it’s “reality is trying to smear the founding fathers”.
George Washington had a wicked sense of humor and wrote an awesome standup routine about people meeting each other after first making contact in AIM chatrooms.
This shows us that Ron Paul will be elected to the office of the presidency.
