Jump to content


GOOGLE RON PAUL

Member Since 06 Aug 2012
Online Last Active Today, 02:38 AM
*----

#2958028 Statement by AP

Posted by GOOGLE RON PAUL on 16 September 2014 - 01:44 PM

Children aren't autonomous adults.

 

why can i hit a child up to a certain point and it's ok but i can hit an adult in the exact same way and face charges? adults are more physically and emotionally capable of dealing with violence. children are generally helpless.

 

i'll go ahead and answer this for you since you appear to be getting at it anyway: there's this weird concept of ownership over children that bad parents use to justify their own lazy, abusive behavior




#2956902 Mixing Social, Justice, and the Market (NFL)

Posted by GOOGLE RON PAUL on 16 September 2014 - 01:27 AM

in a truly free market the court of public opinion will determine whether or not beating women and children is wrong and the consumers will vote with their wallets accordingly

 

take your courts and laws to communist china you fuging statist




#2948193 Jerry Richardson demonstrating character

Posted by GOOGLE RON PAUL on 14 September 2014 - 04:55 AM

artduck03.gif




#2948190 Should the government intervene with the NFL's policies?

Posted by GOOGLE RON PAUL on 14 September 2014 - 04:46 AM

i think the government should respect the league's private matters by revoking the nfl's 501c6 status and repealing all league-specific antitrust exemptions so that those washington liberal bureaucrats have no excuse to stick their noses where it doesn't belong




#2944895 Do we care about 9-11 anymore?

Posted by GOOGLE RON PAUL on 12 September 2014 - 12:19 AM




#2938402 Bruce Levenson thinks southern whites are made uncomfortable by blacks

Posted by GOOGLE RON PAUL on 09 September 2014 - 02:15 AM

Improve the product on the court/field, then everything else will follow. That's why I disagree with the bobcats name change.

 

i've noticed a lot of interest and excitement re: the name change from people who poo on the bobcats even during their p awesome 2nd half last season so if appealing to their delicate sensibilities by changing the name allows them to objectively analyze and appreciate the team then w/e

 

i basically ignored the people who were really weird about the name change before it ever happened so i have no idea what their motivations were. on the upside idk if we actually sign lance if we weren't trying to hype up the rebrand, even if the rebrand almost caused us to max out gordon hayward lol




#2938395 Bruce Levenson thinks southern whites are made uncomfortable by blacks

Posted by GOOGLE RON PAUL on 09 September 2014 - 02:05 AM

yes, the internet, message board, name calling guys, call others coward

 

you guys are the kings of enlightenment. 

 

sz called you a coward so idk if this was directed at me but uh you compared being a white guy who sets his homepage to drudge report today to being black in the 50s after posting one of your patented "feral black animals brutally attack a white person" videos in a thread about how apparently "southern whites are made uncomfortable by blacks." im not going to call you a coward, im just going to suggest that maybe you should just shut the fug up if you care at all that your presence on this forum strongly supports kt's claim that this place is stormfront for ppl who also occasionally want to talk about football or ogle women that are at most half their age whom they wouldn't even be able to make eye contact with in public

 

goddamn is kt still banned here? i mean i get it, if you ignore the actual racism around here then kt is a crazy person just trying to fug up zod's forum so again if you're willing to ignore it then kt should definitely be banned




#2937850 Bruce Levenson thinks southern whites are made uncomfortable by blacks

Posted by GOOGLE RON PAUL on 08 September 2014 - 07:22 PM

"Maybe you think that white people are just born scared and uncomfortable around blacks?  Usually not the case.  Part of their fears are unfounded, but"

 

i really just can't figure out why kt would compare this place to stormfront




#2928641 fast food wages--economics

Posted by GOOGLE RON PAUL on 06 September 2014 - 04:54 AM

here's a thing

 

http://blakefallconroy.com/18.html

 

mwm-1.jpg

 

 

 

The minimum wage machine allows anybody to work for minimum wage. Turning the crank will yield one penny every 4.97 seconds, for $7.25 an hour, or NY state minimum wage. If the participant stops turning the crank, they stop receiving money. The machine's mechanism and electronics are powered by the hand crank, and pennies are stored in a plexiglas box. The MWM can be reprogrammed for different minimum wage's in different locations

 

minimum wage jobs are super fuging shitty as is and if the response is to automate them then fuging do it already. as has been posted itt, the government is already subsidizing the existence of millions of poor working people because, in a shocking twist, capitalism has failed them. automate your poo, guarantee a universal minimum income, let robots do the shitty jobs that most of you itt wouldn't work now for your current salaries, much less minimum wage, and allow people to find some sort of rewarding work and idk meaning in life beyond "expendable, exploitable, faceless peasant" somewhere else




#2928639 fast food wages--economics

Posted by GOOGLE RON PAUL on 06 September 2014 - 04:45 AM

isn't it weird how wages have remained relatively stagnant for decades while productivity and profit have increased but setting the minimum wage to match rises in productivity and profit would somehow destroy capitalism as we know it? i mean really if your dumb economic system can be upended by paying the people who actually produce your product a living wage then you should at least consider the possibility that it sucks and is dumb as heck




#2928636 Kinda Racist? Try Diet Racism

Posted by GOOGLE RON PAUL on 06 September 2014 - 04:32 AM

the official beverage of the tinderbox

 

post of the year imo




#2926423 Shooting in Missouri sparks protests, looting

Posted by GOOGLE RON PAUL on 05 September 2014 - 05:19 AM

imo the real problem is that the liberal media runs with headlines like "man's death after chokehold raises old issue for the police" instead of the obvious "piggyback ride goes horribly wrong; hero cop survives, goes home to his loving family"




#2926401 Shooting in Missouri sparks protests, looting

Posted by GOOGLE RON PAUL on 05 September 2014 - 04:22 AM

Because arresting people who beat up and stab other people and drive around drunk is solely for the purpose of protecting capital interest?

And helping people with suicidal thoughts to get the help they need is solely protecting capital interests?

And because solving problems FOR people that are low-income is 50% if not more of calls is solely protecting capital interests?

And because searching for murderers or kidnappers is just because of capital interests...

People know a lot less about what goes on in the day of a police officer than what they think.

 

indisputable evidence of widespread profiling of racial minorities

 

countless examples of "improper use of deadly force" aka poo that will get you arrested, charged and convicted of murder if you were to reverse the roles. for example, shooting a black man in the back as he laid face down in front of several cops, in front of dozens of witness (several of which recorded the execution) only to be convicted of "involuntary manslaughter" and be granted double credit for time served

 

responding to protests in wildly different ways. the response seems to be mostly dependent upon the demographic that makes up the bulk of protestors. for example here recently taking property damage more seriously than the life of a black teenager, all because a pig happened to pulled the trigger

 

existing in a country that demonizes union membership while often enjoying the strongest union in their respective communities, which is p funny when you consider the history of police involvement in union busting

 

 

it's great that police direct traffic and talk down jumpers but if you and/or the people you've decided to defend would do more of that while doing less of the whole oppressing minorities and working to permanently secure a desperate underclass, that would be fantastic




#2924120 Comedy Gold

Posted by GOOGLE RON PAUL on 04 September 2014 - 06:03 AM

y'all centrists like to claim they're "just the wingnut fringe and shouldn't be considered as wielding representative force" and yet these are the people who give the tea party its clout

 

centrist is a meaningless term here on the carolinahuddledotcom. ppl try to present themselves as "moderates" or "independents" so that they can pretend that they just happened to reach the exact same goddamn conclusion as their party of choice because it's just objectively correct (party of choice is almost always democratic or republican because as we all know policy is binary). the ppl unwilling to acknowledge that the inmates are running the asylum in the republican party are straight ticket republicans, whether they label themselves as "centrists" or not. 

 

the best explanation i've seen for the civil war going on in the GOP is that decades ago republicans never anticipated (or cared?) that the true believers (the poor gullible racists who fell for the southern strategy) would:

 

1) discover they had been tricked by establishment republicans

and 2) declare the establishment "RINOs" and continue red-baiting and race-baiting in a way vaguely similar to that of establishment republicans but much more crudely because they actually believe this poo but lack the ivy league education to dress it up appropriately

 

these people were genuinely pissed that obummer's a black communist muslim but simply voting for another "RINO" would never again be enough for them because those establishment fugers were never actually going to rightfully impeach him for being a kenyan




#2924098 Open Carry: Black man/White men

Posted by GOOGLE RON PAUL on 04 September 2014 - 05:03 AM

 

The Panthers, however, took it to an extreme, carrying their guns in public, displaying them for everyone—especially the police—to see. Newton had discovered, during classes at San Francisco Law School, that California law allowed people to carry guns in public so long as they were visible, and not pointed at anyone in a threatening way.

In February of 1967, Oakland police officers stopped a car carrying Newton, Seale, and several other Panthers with rifles and handguns. When one officer asked to see one of the guns, Newton refused. “I don’t have to give you anything but my identification, name, and address,” he insisted. This, too, he had learned in law school.

“Who in the hell do you think you are?” an officer responded.

“Who in the hell do you think you are?,” Newton replied indignantly. He told the officer that he and his friends had a legal right to have their firearms.

Newton got out of the car, still holding his rifle.

“What are you going to do with that gun?” asked one of the stunned policemen.

“What are you going to do with your gun?,” Newton replied.

By this time, the scene had drawn a crowd of onlookers. An officer told the bystanders to move on, but Newton shouted at them to stay. California law, he yelled, gave civilians a right to observe a police officer making an arrest, so long as they didn’t interfere. Newton played it up for the crowd. In a loud voice, he told the police officers, “If you try to shoot at me or if you try to take this gun, I’m going to shoot back at you, swine.” (GRP note: this fuging owns) Although normally a black man with Newton’s attitude would quickly find himself handcuffed in the back of a police car, enough people had gathered on the street to discourage the officers from doing anything rash. Because they hadn’t committed any crime, the Panthers were allowed to go on their way.

 

 

 

Republicans in California eagerly supported increased gun control. Governor Reagan told reporters that afternoon that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” He called guns a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” In a later press conference, Reagan said he didn’t “know of any sportsman who leaves his home with a gun to go out into the field to hunt or for target shooting who carries that gun loaded.” The Mulford Act, he said, “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.”

 

 

INDISPUTABLY, FOR MUCH of American history, gun-control measures, like many other laws, were used to oppress African Americans. The South had long prohibited blacks, both slave and free, from owning guns. In the North, however, at the end of the Civil War, the Union army allowed soldiers of any color to take home their rifles. Even blacks who hadn’t served could buy guns in the North, amid the glut of firearms produced for the war. President Lincoln had promised a “new birth of freedom,” but many blacks knew that white Southerners were not going to go along easily with such a vision. As one freedman in Louisiana recalled, “I would say to every colored soldier, ‘Bring your gun home.’”
 

After losing the Civil War, Southern states quickly adopted the Black Codes, laws designed to reestablish white supremacy by dictating what the freedmen could and couldn’t do. One common provision barred blacks from possessing firearms. To enforce the gun ban, white men riding in posses began terrorizing black communities. In January 1866, Harper’s Weekly reported that in Mississippi, such groups had “seized every gun and pistol found in the hands of the (so called) freedmen” in parts of the state. The most infamous of these disarmament posses, of course, was the Ku Klux Klan.

 

http://www.theatlant...ingle_page=true






Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com