Ron Paul was also against recognizing MLK's birthday as a federal holiday, and same with Rosa Parks.

There's a lot of retarded shit that Dr.Paul believes in, and through his "states rights" vision, he'd allow states to re-segregate schools, teach creationism, deny contraceptives, and let coroporations run amok, killing our economy, provide unsafe and unfair labor practices, dissolve unions, and rape our wilderness.

This video is about as un-biased as Karl Rove's nutsac.

freedom of speech does not mean freedom to interrupt someone's speech.

however...

democracy means you are allowed to shout at leaders who break their oath of office. in fact, democracy COMPELS you to shout at leaders who break their oath of office.

The ONLY logical time to do this is when they are trying to spew more lies from a pulpit.

this isn't freedom of speech, this is CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE.

go look it up, retards. Google Rosa Parks or something, or maybe you think she should have sat quietly in the correct place on the bus and written a strongly worded letter to her representative in congress?

How about some brownies to go with your lemonade.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
"Give me your pee, Rosa!"

I think I'll make that my new catch phrase.

"Give me your pee, Rosa!"

I think I'll make that my new catch phrase.

15 years ago the Lithuanians stood up to the Soviet Army with peaceful protest. I guess P&T never went to Lithuania. Maybe they were working on "Bullshit: Peaceful Protest"... 30 minutes of ignoring the existence of Gandhi and Rosa Parks, interviewing some guy from a Tai-Chi club instead, editing it to make him look like a fruitcake.

"... I think frustration is just human nature, you will never eliminate it (and personally i dont think you should)...."

Wow. I'm so happy you said that.

Where were you when Rosa Parks should have just walked to the back of the bus?

Where were you when Dr. King should have known his place and washed dishes instead?

Where were you when the Indians should have just bought their own salt from the British?

Please, don't forget to tell us all when we can take "one step at a time" according to your benevolent specifications.

Are you seriously comparing John Sinclair with Dr. King and Rosa Parks?


There's a difference between laws against drugs, or laws against...say...praying. It there were a law, that forced me to do something (or not do something) that went against my principles, that's a different story. John Sinclair just wanted to get high. That's a selfish reason for breaking the law. Don't act like he was doing something noble.

In reply to this comment by Fedquip:
sometimes you have to break the law and demand change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rosa_Parks_Booking.jpg

Are you guys seriously comparing John Sinclair with Dr. King and Rosa Parks?


There's a difference between laws against drugs, or laws against...say...praying. It there were a law, that forced me to do something (or not do something) that went against my principles, that's a different story. John Sinclair just wanted to get high. That's a selfish reason for breaking the law. Don't act like he was doing something noble.

deedub81:
yes, I realize the context in which I am invoking Rosa Parks. I did so because so many apologists invoke the "well, that's just how things are, deal with it". That is the same argument given to justify things like blacks once having to give up bus seats to whites, or sexual harassment towards a female in a male dominated industry.

Mink:
You're right.

Sometimes:
I never said that gay jokes or racist jokes are okay. I'm sorry if it sounded like that. I take vulgar language very seriously. I don't think it has any place in society. I think parents that hear their boy talking like that should knock some sense into 'em.

I lived in San Fransisco when I was younger and I know a lot of gay people that I like very much. I saw more homosexuality in one week than you'll see in your life. I'm not threatened by Homosexuals. I'm annoyed by so called "Flamers". I think frat boys are especially annoying, and I make fun of guys wearing "bikini inspector" shirts. Does that make me intolerant? Well then why am I intolerant if I'm annoyed by a "Flamer"? I think a guy wearing a pastel colored shirt, daisy dukes, lipstick, and roller blades is asking for people to poke fun at him. That's all I'm saying.

I think some straight men are uncomfortable around gay men, not threatened. The more time you spend around people of different backgrounds and races and lifestyles, the more comfortable you feel around them, right? That's human nature.


P.S. You realize you're invoking Rosa Parks while we're talking about frat boys and gay halo 3 players, right?

deedub81:

that gay jokes are common among HS and College boys is not any better than the fact that Nigger and Noose jokes are common in certain parts.


Why is is that straight men (in particular) are so threatened by gay men, that a mere mention of their sexuality is viewed as "shoving it in your face". Compare that with some frat boy wearing a "bikini Inspector" or "big pimpin" shirt, and let's re-examine the idea of who is "flaunting their sexuality".

And of course he chose that name to get reactions out of people. Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus to get a reaction out of people. Discrimination, prejudice, and harassment don't go away on their own.

Except that's not what I said. What I said was: "Now when Ron Paul votes against awarding a medal to Rosa Parks and claims that it would be unconstitutional to do so I just have to smile."

In other words viewed within the context of Ron Paul's racist comments his Rosa Parks vote adds further shading.

I think you're just trying rationalize away Ron Paul's racism. Those comments are explicitly racist. He's offered a higly dubious explanation for these. They aren't "tired"; they've never been properly scrutinized.

Qualm - you stated earlier that Paul's vote not to award Rosa Parks the congressional medal of honor was racially motivated, but it would seem to me that Grimm has effectively refuted that conclusion - based on a verifiable, publicly recorded fact - that is, the identical action carried out in the face of a similar motion to honor a couple of white folk.

As for the few statements "quoted" above - I have seen the same tripe paraded across the internet as the "proof" that Dr. Paul is a racist and no more. Nothing. Nada.

I would think that a hardcore racist as you (and others) make him out to be would have a bit more baggage on display like say, political speeches (of which I am sure there are many for one with such a long political career), interviews (lots of them), a voting record, and a political paper trail supporting your thesis. I have found none - other than the same worn, disputed quotes on offer here. And yes, I've looked (google is my (and your) friend). Quite the contrary, you can find writings of his that strike a decidedly anti-racist note.

You are entitled to your opinion but that would appear to be all it is...

I don't think Ron Paul simply "supports" the constitution, or is just innocently concerned with upholding the constitution; I think he's made a weapon of it. I think he's fundamentally dishonest on this point. He's a right-wing libertarian proponent of Austrian School economics. Towards this end I suspect he has a hidden agenda. I also have strong and reasonable suspicions that he's a racist. Now when Ron Paul votes against awarding a medal to Rosa Parks and claims that it would be unconstitutional to do so I just have to smile.

dag wrote:

I know he's a strict constitutionalist - but I don't think I could go as far as to vote against giving Rosa Parks a medal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 573. At the same time, I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies. However, I oppose the Congressional Gold Medal for Rosa Parks Act because authorizing $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Rosa Parks who is widely recognized and admired for standing up against an overbearing government infringing on individual rights.

Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I must remain consistent in my defense of a limited government whose powers are explicitly delimited under the enumerated powers of the Constitution--a Constitution, which only months ago, each Member of Congress, swore to uphold.

Perhaps we should begin a debate among us on more appropriate processes by which we spend other people's money. Honorary medals and commemorative coins, under the current process, come from allocated other people's money. We should look for another way.

It is, of course, easier to be generous with other people's money.