Poll: Are you entitled to money for being called a racial slur?
Yes
No
[Show Results]
 
Are you entitled to money for being called a racial slur?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-02-2012, 11:21 AM
 
RE: Are you entitled to money for being called a racial slur?
(17-02-2012 11:09 AM)germanyt Wrote:  Has nothing to do with Rand Paul.


Your desire to repeal Civil Rights act and let the free market eliminate racism is textbook Rand.

Actually, he brought that very issue BACK to life in the past 2 years.

Certainly you know this, right?
If not, you are more like Rand than you know.
Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2012, 11:22 AM
RE: Are you entitled to money for being called a racial slur?
(17-02-2012 11:18 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(17-02-2012 11:02 AM)germanyt Wrote:  It seems to me you think that all of a sudden signs will pop up that say 'no blacks', 'no atheists', 'no gays', etc. It's not going to happen. Very few business owners would put their company at risk by advertising blatant biggotry.

If it was completely legal to put up such a sign, you think people wouldn't do it?

I think they would. And I think many people would applaud. And the divisions would get worse.

I think you do have legal protection. Tell me your boss wouldn't get into trouble for putting up a "no atheists" sign, or for firing you on purely religious grounds - I'm sure with all the high profile atheist cases that have been recently won he'd be savaged by the law.

In any case, *not* discriminating is agreed as a good thing to do, why is it wrong to have a law that people should do the right thing?

LA is an At-will state. You can be fired for anything with no reason given.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2012, 11:30 AM
RE: Are you entitled to money for being called a racial slur?
(17-02-2012 11:22 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  LA is an At-will state. You can be fired for anything with no reason given.

GT has no contract?

Even so
Quote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_emp...exceptions

Although all U.S. states have a number of statutory protections for employees, most wrongful termination suits brought under statutory causes of action use the federal anti-discrimination statutes which prohibit firing or refusing to hire an employee because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or handicap status.

So he is protected, provided he can prove he was fired for religious reasons - which might be hard to do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2012, 11:31 AM
 
RE: Are you entitled to money for being called a racial slur?
(17-02-2012 11:09 AM)germanyt Wrote:  can't get anyone in Congress to work together

Sorry, gotta call you on that one.
THAT's the problem of the voters in the last election, that voted in the "Party of NO".
Those that supported the Orange Man revolution is to blame.

I totally agree that O'bush has done some terrible terrible things. But he's got a LOT to show too.

He was, and still is, the ONLY candidate (that is electable) that is aware that NAFTA has to be retooled. He at least knows of the problem.
Dennis K and Ron P but hate it as much as i do, but neither have a snowballs chance in hell.

The economy is on the mend and employment is insane. So if i had to vote today, it would NOT be for Obama..but would be for Status Quo (which means obama..basically). Right now, no change in top leadership is good.
Romney is clueless and a traitor for American businesses.
I actually planned on sitting this one out, but i cant allow my NO vote to be a yes vote for someone else. So i am probably...reluctatnly and unhappily gonna vote this time.
Enough is Enough, the Conservative party HAS to get its collective SHIT together and give us a Statesmen. Until then we've got O'bush vs Religious Reich.

For the record, i WISH obama was as bad of a liberal as we were threatened with by Faux Noise and all the conservative blathering. Truth is we have basically survived a 3rd term of W. If he were the Union Anti Gun Freakazoid Liberal we were told about...he would not stand a chance.

This weekend the mall parking lot was packed MORE than it was at Xmas, we had to wait an hour for a seat at a mediocre restaurant and again..i am in employment business...and business is VERY VERY good.
Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2012, 11:33 AM
RE: Are you entitled to money for being called a racial slur?
(17-02-2012 11:30 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(17-02-2012 11:22 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  LA is an At-will state. You can be fired for anything with no reason given.

GT has no contract?

Even so
Quote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_emp...exceptions

Although all U.S. states have a number of statutory protections for employees, most wrongful termination suits brought under statutory causes of action use the federal anti-discrimination statutes which prohibit firing or refusing to hire an employee because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or handicap status.

So he is protected, provided he can prove he was fired for religious reasons - which might be hard to do.

No, it can be for religious reasons, they just can't say it's for religious reasons. You don't have to give an explanation because you can be fired for "no cause at all". The entire system is a contradiction.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2012, 11:39 AM
RE: Are you entitled to money for being called a racial slur?
(17-02-2012 11:18 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(17-02-2012 11:02 AM)germanyt Wrote:  It seems to me you think that all of a sudden signs will pop up that say 'no blacks', 'no atheists', 'no gays', etc. It's not going to happen. Very few business owners would put their company at risk by advertising blatant biggotry.

If it was completely legal to put up such a sign, you think people wouldn't do it?

I think they would. And I think many people would applaud. And the divisions would get worse.

I think you do have legal protection. Tell me your boss wouldn't get into trouble for putting up a "no atheists" sign, or for firing you on purely religious grounds - I'm sure with all the high profile atheist cases that have been recently won he'd be savaged by the law.

In any case, *not* discriminating is agreed as a good thing to do, why is it wrong to have a law that people should do the right thing?

Because we are a learning institution she can't put a sign like that up because we can't discriminate against anyone in regards to students. If we did I would quit and make sure that no one I know attended school there. I would actively campaign against the school based on discrimination and ultimately aid in shutting it down.

As for me, I can be fired for being atheist. She can't exactly tell me that is the reason but she doesn't have to. In Louisiana you can fire someone because you don't like their unibrow. You don't have to give a reason for termination here. And I agree with it.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2012, 09:17 PM
RE: Are you entitled to money for being called a racial slur?
(17-02-2012 11:02 AM)germanyt Wrote:  It seems to me you think that all of a sudden signs will pop up that say 'no blacks', 'no atheists', 'no gays', etc. It's not going to happen. Very few business owners would put their company at risk by advertising blatant biggotry.

Actually I could well believe that, in certain areas of America, doing so could would allow someone to tap into a niche in the market and be a very shrewd business move.

If you're in a town and you wanna open a barbers but there are already three you're gonna struggle. If the town has a slightly racist undertone and you open a barbers with a huge 'no blacks' sign across the door then you have a unique marketing point to work with. Then there will most like be a barbers spring up with 'no whites' across the door as someone else taps into the resentment the black community feel at being discriminated against. These two new barbers will probably force the original three out of business. This will probably lead to the same thing happening with many businesses in the town. So rather than a town with businesses that serve anyone, regardless of race, and only a very slight racial divide (if that), you end up with a town where businesses are based around colour and there is full-on racial distrust and even dislike in the most extreme cases.

All of this will empower anyone with a prejudice to be so bold and before you know it half the businesses in America are 'white only' or 'black only'.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Hughsie's post
19-02-2012, 06:23 AM
RE: Are you entitled to money for being called a racial slur?
Well... I'm a bit grossed out by all of this.

For those that are interested, I found a list a while back that shows what bills Dr. Paul has supported over the years.

It is quite long, but a good read.

In the comments thread to my previous post on Ron Paul, the indispensable Trefayne compiled a series of posts on Paul's track record as a congressman, particularly those bills he sponsored or co-sponsored.

Here's Trefayne:

What's more, consider Ron Paul's record in Congress. Not that he'll ever occupy the Oval Office, but what would he do after pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq? His past legislative proposals will provide some clues, and they are not friendly to progressive ideas. Here are some bills that Ron Paul has proposed, not merely voted on, but sponsored. And you can see that he tries repeatedly on certain issues, which suggests they are important to him.

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
-- He opposes the right of women to be free to control their own reproductive systems if they happen to live in particular states or other countries, or if they work for the Peace Corps.
Ron Paul introduces three pro-life bills

H.R.1095: To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.

H.R.777: To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.

H.R.1548: To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.

H.AMDT.1003 (A024): Amendment no. 17 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit the use of funding for abortion, family planning, or population control efforts.

H.AMDT.380 (A022): An amendment no. 9 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit funding for population control or population planning programs; family planning activities; or abortion procedures.

H.AMDT.312 (A011): An amendment, printed as amendment No. 32 in the Congressional Record of July 16, 1997, to prohibit the use of funds appropriated in the bill for Family Planning, birth control or abortion.

H.R.4984: A bill to prohibit the use of funds for the Peace Corps to be used for travel expenses of individuals in order for abortions to be performed on those individuals.

-- He wants to erase the distinction in U.S. law between a zygote and a person
H.R.2597: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

H.R.1094: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

H.R.776: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception

H.R.392: A bill proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States guaranteeing the right to life.

-- He would deny the use of the Federal court system -- and even Federal precedent -- to people discriminated against because of their religious beliefs or sexual orientation. This would also limit the cross-state recognition of same-sex marriages. Some of these bills he cynically calls this the "We the People Act".
H.R.300: To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.

H.R.4379: To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.

H.R.5739: To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.

H.R.3893: To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.

H.R.1547: To restore first amendment protections of religion and religious speech.

H.R.4922: To restore first amendment protections of religion and speech.

H.R.5078: To restore first amendment protections of religion and speech.

-- This includes limits on courts' hearing cases related to abortion, and he has introduced bills specific to these kinds of cases. He also uses the deceptive term "partial-birth abortion".
H.R.1545: To prohibit Federal officials from paying any Federal funds to any individual or entity that performs partial-birth abortions.

H.R.1546: To provide that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases.

H.R.2875: To provide that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases.

H.R.3400: To provide that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases.

H.R.3691: To provide that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear partial-birth abortion-related cases.

H.R.15169: A bill to eliminate the appellate jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court with respect to certain abortion cases.

-- Even though he claims to be a "libertarian", he opposes people's freedom to burn or destroy their own copies of the design of the U.S. flag
H.J.RES.80: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags.

H.J.RES.82: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags.

LAWS IMPROVING THE LOT OF THE WORKING CLASS

-- He has tried to repeal the Occupational Safety and Health Act:
H.R.2310: A bill to repeal the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

H.R.13264: A bill to repeal the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

-- He would like to make it much easier to decertify labor unions:
H.R.694: To amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit elections to decertify representation by a labor organization.

-- He opposes the Minimum Wage:
H.R.2962: A bill to repeal all authority of the Federal Government to regulate wages in private employment.

-- He would deny the prevailing wage to employees of federal contractors, and remove prohibition on kickbacks in Federal projects:
H.R.736: To repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act.

H.R.2720: To repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act.

-- He wants to severely weaken Social Security:
H.R.2030: A bill to amend the Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to make social security coverage completely optional for both present and future workers, to freeze benefit levels, to provide for the partial financing of future benefits from general revenues subject to specified conditions, to eliminate the earnings test, to make changes in the tax treatment of IRA accounts, and for other purposes.

H.R.4604: A bill to repeal the recently enacted requirement of mandatory social security coverage for employees of nonprofit organizations.

VOTER ISSUES

-- He has come out against attempts to make the United States more democratic, including the idea of eliminating the Electoral College, even *after* the debacle in the 2000 Presidential election:
H.CON.RES.48: Expressing the sense of the Congress in reaffirming the United States of America as a republic.

H.CON.RES.443: Expressing the sense of the Congress in reaffirming the United States of America as a republic.

-- He wants to repeal the "Motor Voter" Act, which has made it easier for people to register to vote.
H.R.2139: To repeal the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

CORPORATE POWER

-- He would repeal significant portions of antitrust law, including the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, and others.
H.R.1247:
To ensure and foster continued patient safety and quality of care by exempting health care professionals from the Federal antitrust laws in their negotiations with health plans and health insurance issuers.

H.R.1789: To restore the inherent benefits of the market economy by repealing the Federal body of statutory law commonly referred to as "antitrust law", and for other purposes.

-- He would gut the regulatory power of Federal agencies, forcing Congress to micromanage all decisions:
H.R.1204: A bill to an Act to restore the rule of law.

DISCRIMINATION

-- He has tried to make it easier for racial and ethnic discrimination in our society:
H.R.3863:
A bill to provide that the Internal Revenue Service may not implement certain proposed rules relating to the determination of whether private schools have discriminatory policies.

H.R.5842: A bill to make all Iranian Students in the United States ineligible for any form of federal aid.

H.R.4982: A bill to provide for civil rights in public schools.

-- He would propose an amendment to the Constitution to gut the Fourteenth Amendment by denying citizenship to people born here whose parents aren't already citizens "nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States". That latter part could produce some serious political discrimination, especially if radicals can have their citizenship revoked:
H.J.RES.46: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.

H.J.RES.46: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.

H.J.RES.42:
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

-- He would limit or try to repeal various environmental protection laws and regulations, including the Clean Air Act, the Soil and Water Conservation Act, and the use of devices that protect the "bycatch" of sea life:
H.J.RES.104: To disapprove a rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to proposed revisions to the national pollutant discharge elimination system program and Federal antidegradation policy and the proposed revisions to the water quality planning and management regulations concerning total maximum daily load.

H.R.3735: To disapprove a rule requiring the use of bycatch reduction devices in the shrimp fishery of the Gulf of Mexico.

H.R.4423: To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to provide that the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery shall be managed in accordance with such fishery management plans, regulations, and other conservation and management as applied to that fishery on April 13, 1998.

H.R.2504: A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to postpone for one year the application of certain restrictions to areas which have failed to attain national ambient air quality standards and to delay for one year the date required for adoption and submission of State implementation plans applicable to these areas, and for other purposes.

H.R.7079: A bill to repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977.

H.R.7245: A bill to amend section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters which are navigable and for other purposes.

Ron Paul also has a lot of bills relating to the shrimp industry and trying to block competition. Maybe he's in their pocket?

-- He would promote offshore oil-drilling, the construction of more refineries, coal-mining on Federal lands, and block conservation measures. This would further threaten our coastal and internal environments, and further trap our economy in fossil-fuel dependency:
H.R.2415: To reduce the price of gasoline by allowing for offshore drilling, eliminating Federal obstacles to constructing refineries and providing incentives for investment in refineries, suspending Federal fuel taxes when gasoline prices reach a benchmark amount, and promoting free trade.

H.R.4004: To reduce the price of gasoline by allowing for offshore drilling, eliminating Federal obstacles to constructing refineries and providing incentives for investment in refineries, suspending Federal fuel taxes when gasoline prices reach a benchmark amount, and promoting free trade.

H.R.393: A bill to amend section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters which are navigable and for other purposes.

H.R.4639: A bill to repeal all Federal regulations and taxes on the production of fuel.

H.R.5293: A bill to prohibit the imposition of unreasonable severance taxes or fees on coal or lignite mined from Federal lands.

H.R.6936: A bill to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from promulgating any federal emergency energy conservation plan which would restrict recreational boating.

-- He has fought ratification of the Law of the Sea. As President would he "un-sign" it? [More here.]
H.CON.RES.56: Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should not ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty.

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND MILITARY ISSUES

-- This "champion of peace" wanted to prohibit the dismantling of ICBM silos in the U.S.:
H.R.1665: To prohibit the destruction during fiscal year 2002 of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States.

H.R.3769: To prohibit the destruction during fiscal year 2001 of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States.

-- He would continue U.S. opposition to the International Criminal Court, despite the usefulness of this body for prosecuting war-crimes that are not challenged domestically.
H.R.1154: To provide that the International Criminal Court is not valid with respect to the United States, and for other purposes.

H.AMDT.480 (A010): An amendment numbered 9 printed in part A of House Report 107-450 to prohibit funds authorized in the bill from being used to assist, cooperate with, or provide any support to the International Criminal Court.

H.R.4169: To provide that the International Criminal Court is not valid with respect to the United States, and for other purposes.

H.CON.RES.23: Expressing the sense of the Congress that President George W. Bush should declare to all nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty, also referred to as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and the signature of former President Clinton to that treaty should not be construed otherwise.

H.RES.416: Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the International Criminal Court.

-- He has promoted the Bricker Amendment to the Constitution, and otherwise sought limit the protections of international law. He would also prohibit U.S. courts from citing foreign laws or policies (other than English ones) in their decisions:
H.J.RES.1028: A resolution proposing the Bricker amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to force and effect of treaties and executive agreements.

H.J.RES.492: A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to force and effect of treaties and Executive agreements.

H.CON.RES.49: Expressing the sense of Congress that the Treaty Power of the President does not extend beyond the enumerated powers of the Federal Government, but are limited by the Constitution, and any exercise of such Executive Power inconsistent with the Constitution shall be of no legal force or effect.

H.R.4118: To ensure that the courts interpret the Constitution in the manner that the Framers intended.

H.R.1658: To ensure that the courts interpret the Constitution in the manner that the Framers intended.

-- He would end U.S. participation in the United Nations. Failing that he would prohibit or severely curtail appropriations for U.S. payments to the U.N. or its affiliated agencies. Please note that isolationism is not the same as anti-imperialism:
H.R.1146: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.

H.R.1146: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.

H.AMDT.285 (A038): An amendment numbered 11 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit use of funds in the bill to pay any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations

H.R.1146: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.

H.AMDT.190 (A024): Amendment sought to prohibit use of funds for any U.S. contribution to the UN or any affiliated agency of the UN.

H.AMDT.191 (A025): Amendment sought to prohibit use of funds for use toward any U.S. contribution for UN peacekeeping operations.

H.R.1146: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.

H.AMDT.306 (A006): Amendment sought to eliminate the authorization of funding for any United Nations program.

H.R.1146: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.

H.AMDT.138 (A010): Amendment sought to provide for the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations.

H.R.1146: To provide for complete withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations.

H.R.3890: A bill to limit United States contributions to the United Nations.

H.R.3891: A bill to terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, and to remove all privileges, exemptions, and immunities of the United Nations.

H.R.6358: A bill to limit United States contributions to the United Nations.

H.R.14788: A bill to limit U.S. contributions to the United Nations.

-- Not having any success there, he has worked to block U.S. membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization:
H.CON.RES.132: Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should formally withdraw its membership from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

H.CON.RES.4: Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should not rejoin the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.

H.CON.RES.443: Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should formally withdraw its membership from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

H.CON.RES.489: Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should not rejoin the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

-- Would he pull the U.S. out of the ABM Treaty?
H.J.RES.566: A joint resolution withdrawing the United States of America from the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, and the Interim Agreement Protocol, and Agreed Interpretations of the Treaty, signed of May 26, 1972.

-- Oh, but he would "protect" U.S. soldiers from wearing any insignia of another country or the U.N.
H.R.4797: To protect America's citizen soldiers.

-- Would he try to re-establish U.S. "sovereignty" over the Panama Canal? As I recall, the Canal Treaty was a major concern of the far Right back in the 1970's and 1980's:
H.CON.RES.231: Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Panama Canal and the Panama Canal Zone should be considered to be the sovereign territory of the United States.

H.RES.1410: A resolution in support of continued undiluted U.S. sovereignty and jurisdiction over the U.S.-owned Canal Zone on the Isthmus of Panama.

H.R.2522: A bill to prohibit the use of any United States funds to implement the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 unless the use of those funds for that purpose is hereafter expressly provided for by the Congress and to prohibit the transfer to the Republic of Panama any territory or other property of the United States in the Canal Zone unless the Congress hereafter enacts legislation which expressly authorizes such transfer.

A GUN FREE-FOR-ALL

-- He would allow more guns in schools and National Parks, repeal requirements for background checks and gun-locks, use Federal authority to nullify state laws regarding concealed weapons, and eliminate many other regulations including prohibitions on gun possession by minors, recent felons, fugitives, addicts, and domestic abusers, and prohibitions relating to semiautomatic weapons:
H.R.2424: To repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that Act.

H.R.1897: To protect the second amendment rights of individuals to carry firearms in units of the National Park System, and for other purposes.

H. R. 1096: To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans.

H.R.1703: To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans.

H.R.3125: To protect the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

H.R.153: To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans.

H.R.1762: To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans.

H.R.1179: To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans.

H.R.407: To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in that State.

H.R.2721: To restore the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.

H.R.2722: To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in the State.

H.R.1147: To repeal the prohibitions relating to semiautomatic firearms and large capacity ammunition feeding devices.

H.R.3892: A bill to repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968.

H.R.3892: A bill to repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968.

H.R.2311 A bill to repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968.

H.R.14768: A bill to repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968.

EDUCATION POLICY

-- Speaking of schools, he would weaken educational standards by using Federal power to interfere with states improving their standards for teacher certification:
H.R.966: To prohibit the Federal Government from planning, developing, implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of certification and from withholding funds from States or local educational agencies that fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification.

H.R.1706: To prohibit the Federal Government from planning, developing, implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of certification and from withholding funds from States or local educational agencies that fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification.

H.R.4653: A bill to prohibit the payment of Federal Education assistance in States which require the licensing or certification of private schools or private school teachers.

TAX POLICY

-- He wants to dramatically reduce the tax obligations of people who make inordinately high incomes and who inherit large fortunes they did not earn. Specifically, this includes attempts to repeal the estate tax, and to apply one tax rate to all income levels.
H.J.RES.23: Proposing an amendment the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.

H.J.RES.14: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.

H.J.RES.15: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.

H.J.RES.45: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in the business in competition with its citizens.

H.J.RES.81: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.

H.J.RES.116: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.

H.R.5484: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide for the taxation of certain income at the flat rate of 10 percent and to repeal the estate tax.

H.R.2137: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide that a 10-percent income tax rate shall apply to all individuals, and to repeal all deductions, credits, and exclusions for individuals other than an exemption of $10,000.

H.R.1664: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide that a 10-percent income tax rate shall apply to all individuals and to increase the deduction for personal exemptions from $1,000 to $2,500.

H.J.RES.23: A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.

H.R.6352: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide that a 10 percent income tax rate shall apply to all individuals, and to repeal all deductions, credits, and exclusions for individuals other than an exemption of $10,000.

H.R.4569: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to repeal the estate and gift taxes and the tax on generation-skipping transfers.

H.R.15619: A bill to repeal the estate tax.

-- And short of that he wants us to pay our income taxes every month, and not use withholding.
H.R.1364: To restore to taxpayers awareness of the true cost of government by eliminating the withholding of income taxes by employers and requiring individuals to pay income taxes in monthly installments, and for other purposes.

H.R.4855: To restore to taxpayers awareness of the true cost of government by eliminating the withholding of income taxes by employers and requiring individuals to pay income taxes in monthly installments, and for other purposes.

Finally, the even weirder parts of Ron Paul's record:

GOLD! GOLD! GOLD!

-- What is his obsession with gold, and does this make for sound economic policy?
H.R.3101: To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for the establishment of a precious metals investment option in the Thrift Savings Fund.

H.R.3732: To amend title 31, United States Code, to limit the use by the President and the Secretary of the Treasury of the Exchange Stabilization Fund to buy or sell gold without congressional approval, and for other purposes.

H.R.4226: A bill to provide for the minting of gold coins and silver coins by the United States.

H.R.1662: A bill to provide for the minting of American Gold Eagle coins pursuant to Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States.

H.R.1663: A bill to provide for the minting of American Gold Eagle coins pursuant to Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States.

H.R.878: A bill to execute Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

H.R.391: A bill to repeal the privilege of banks to create money.

H.R.3862: A bill to provide for a full assay, inventory, and audit of the gold reserves of the United States, and for other purposes.

H.R.3349: A bill to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to strike and sell gold medallions to the general public.

H.R.2658: A bill to amend the Federal Reserve Act to terminate the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to require the delivery of gold to the Treasurer of the United States, which shall be known as The Gold Ownership Act of 1979.

H.R.5605: A bill to amend the Trading with the Enemy Act.

H.R.5658: A bill to make Federal Reserve Notes and United States Notes redeemable in gold.

H.R.6217: A bill to prohibit the sale of gold bullion by any agency of the United States unless specifically authorized by law.

H.R.6297: A bill to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to strike and sell gold medallions to the general public.

H.R.7874: A bill to repeal the privilege of banks to create money.

H.R.6054: A bill to provide for the minting of the American Eagle gold coin pursuant to article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States.

-- He might even try to get rid of the Federal Reserve, which has long been a bogeyman of the far right:
H.R.2778: To abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks, to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and for other purposes.

H.R.5356: To abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks, to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and for other purposes.

H.R.1148: To abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks, to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and for other purposes.

H.R.875: A bill to repeal the Federal Reserve Act.

H.R.876: A bill to repeal section 105(b) of the Monetary Control Act of 1980.

H.R.4652: A bill to provide that no officer or employee of the United States shall change the design of Federal reserve notes unless such change is specifically authorized by Federal law.

-- Does he want to abandon the dollar and set up 50 separate state currencies? Does that even make sense?
H.R.2779: To repeal section 5103 of title 31, United States Code.

H.R.3931: A bill to amend the Coinage Act of 1965 to provide that coins and currencies of the United States, including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations, shall be legal tender only for the payment of Federal taxes, duties and dues.

OMNIBUS REACTIONARY

-- He has favored all manner of other right-wing policies, in the following case with a single bill, which includes provisions for such things as supporting corporal punishment, requiring that young people seeking reproductive care have their parents notified, allowing churches and religious organizations that run "public" services to discriminate against potential clients, and moving us back to school segregation.
H.R.7955: A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.

Fortunately, Ron Paul rarely gets anywhere with his proposals. I doubt there would be many progressives, or even many liberals, who would like where this man comes from politically, or where he wants to take us.

Here's the link where I got it from, with clickable links on each bill that takes you directly to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and shows you the bill in a more detailed manor.

Back on to the subject, being called racial slurs shouldn't entitle people to money, now that I think about it. Being a first generation American, I've seen it from both sides of the fence. The Euro-Americans insult my parent's accents, and the Afro-Americans used to call me coconut (reason being, I speak eloquently, and I shun Ebonics, you just can't win sometimes). This is in New York City, the supposed melting pot of cultures. I cannot begin to imagine what troubles exist elsewhere. Suing for a racial slur can get a point across, and it can lead to people not wanting to accidentally slip up, if you catch my drift.

All in all, I'm naturally an open guy, and descending from two Trinidadians, and attending family reunions with many, many interracial marriages (my coolest cousin is a Chinese ex-Rastafarian, atheist now), I lack the ability to see differences in people. I don't find it hard to talk to a "white" man or woman, or a "black" man or woman; I don't see any difference. Both have two eyes, a nose, and a mouth. Both are humans, too. Dodgy.

Sad thing is so long as people are conditioned to hate, they'll hate. My folks hate "white people" and "the jews", even though my mother's father was Irish. Only way to deal with racial slurs is to avoid them like hot coals, and condition the children to dislike them.

And GermanyT, repealing the civil rights act just doesn't make any sense to me. It does for you, and I read your reasons why, but for me, it doesn't make any sense.

"You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger.” -Siddhārtha Gautama
"I have just three things to teach: simplicity, patience, compassion. These three are your greatest treasures.” -Lao Tzu
"...thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself..." -Jesus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thinking about Myths's post
19-02-2012, 04:40 PM
RE: Are you entitled to money for being called a racial slur?
I voted yes, simply because so companies themselves won't support this kind of action from their employees. I don't know how it works over there but around here there are business that simply take a "won't accept such clients" perspectives and then fire the employees when getting sued, turning this into money compensation won't save anyone's lifes but will turn a "company wins - client loses" into "company loses -client wins", which is much more convincing.

Disregard my old posts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2012, 01:21 PM
RE: Are you entitled to money for being called a racial slur?
hey, I think someone in this forum just called me a stupid spic, I want a milion dollars from the onwer of this forum!! ok in seriousness The owner should not be held accountable because his employee is a racist douch and said some thing completely stupid.

Give a man a fish ,you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish ,you feed him for a life time,give a man religion,he will die praying for a fish
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: