Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ron Paul: "I Would Not Have Voted For The 1964 Civil Rights Act"

page: 1
18
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+9 more 
posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:04 AM
link   
tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com...



Just about a year after his son Rand Paul stepped in it when he told Rachel Maddow he was opposed to provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) told Chris Matthews Friday he wouldn't have voted for the law in the first place had he been in Congress at the time. Rand's statements on the law (which he later retracted) came during his first week as the Republican nominee for Senate in Kentucky in 2010. Ron's criticisms of the law came on the day he declared his third run for the presidency. "Yeah," he told Matthews when asked if he would have voted against the act in Congress. "But I wouldn't vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws."


I can't cast for a vote for Ron Paul because of this. Yes, the civil rights act might seem unfair to business owners, etc. However, they should not have the right to discriminate. Can you imagine if businesses DID have this right? They could refuse to hire ANYONE, thus adding to the problems with unemployment, welfare and so forth.

Ron, if the market would have ended segregation, etc, why didn't this happen before the Civil Rights Act was passed?

I'm not buying his reasoning here. I think he should worry more about cutting the defense budget, ending wars, ending the Fed and shoring up unnecessary pork.

Keep your hands off of the social issues, Ron.



+27 more 
posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:06 AM
link   
This again?

There were a dozen of these threads during the last election. Just read through one of those.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:07 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 


+35 more 
posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:13 AM
link   
I am assuming here..

Maybe he wouldnt do this because it is the government invading on the property owners rights to say this is how it is..

It should be if people dont want something in thier store then they shouldnt...

its the same bs no shoes no shirt no service.. No smoking, bla bla bla.. its all the same thing just masked as something else..

Its not cause he is racist, it isnt the governments job to tell people who they can and cant have in thier store.. I can say in my store no short people or no fat people or no skinny people.. does that make me racist no.. it makes me an idiot.. if someone say no blacks or mexicans does that make them an idiot.. maybe, but it also makes them a moron..

If someone wants to turn someone else away because of whatever reason it is thier right to.. because it is thier property to do with however they want.. so therefor it dont matter if we are a culture who like this person and that person.. when you come into my store you abide by my rules... its simple as that...

THat is why he said what he said... if this makes me racist then fine so be it but I would rather have free domain to put that you can come into my store if your hair isnt at least 48 in tall than not be able to because someone in the government told me i cant.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:15 AM
link   
Id have to hear his reasons its not like he said *snip* the blacks

 


Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.
edit on 15-5-2011 by GAOTU789 because: (no reason given)


+1 more 
posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ThichHeaded
 


Well, let me clear this up for you:

If EVERY store owner is allowed to discriminate, then who the hell are they going to sell to? Where's the logic behind this? Do you want a return to a segregated, Jim Crow America?

Ron Paul claims that this is something the markets could have sorted out. Social issues are not economic issues and therefore, should be separate.


+33 more 
posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   
I would not have voted for it either. The problem here is that there was earlier legislation proposed under Kennedy that would have provided civil rights for all without the steep government intervention. Democrats and Republicans both supported this legislation heavily except the Southern Democrats. What had happened was that Lyndon Johnson wanted further government interference in private affairs which alienated many of the Republicans from the legislation.

Arguably Johnson's intentions were to drive the Southern Democrats out of the party so they would join with the Republicans which the Liberals were able to label against Civil Rights which was baseless and untrue. When he signed the legislation it sealed the death of the Democratic Party in the South paving the way for the liberals to take over all the ranks of the party. At the time Republicans were definitely not anti-civil rights they were just anti-government intervention. And why? They remember over the same issue, race, when their party interfered with private property 100 years before a Civil War broke out.

So by the Republicans not voting for the legislation which would have expanded government control into private property they were seen as the more welcoming party for Southern Conservatives when in reality they really weren't. It was all politics being played with the civil rights of an entire race of people.

Liberals wanted Southern Conservatives out of the party so they proposed legislation which expanded government knowing Republicans could not honestly support it this way the Southerners would see the Republicans as the party more aligned with their views on civil rights issues. Once again that could not be furthest from the truth.

Republicans had fought tirelessly for women's suffrage, Native American voting rights, African-American rights, to drive out the KKK, and until the New Deal the Republicans were the party of minorities. Woodrow Wilson (Democrat) was the President who started segregation of the federal government to which Republicans could only try and relax so as to not cause another Southern uprising. Then 50 years later Johnson expands the federal government again, just like Wilson, except to do the opposite and reverse his policies.

It was a game, pure and simple. All politics and all power.


+37 more 
posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


See that is the cool thing about this..

If i went to a store lets say.. Bob's big ass tires.. and on the front it says No black and Arabs allowed.. I would probably be like well this guy is a douche and goto Jim's big ass tires because jim likes everyone..

Sooner or later Bob will be out of business because he was a douchebag and jim will have all the business he can have and them some..

Free market at its best.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ThichHeaded
 


Except that it isn't a perfect assumption.

If everyone banned everyone, then nothing would get sold.

Do you think a real businessman would pass up ANY opportunity to make a buck?



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


Depends on where we are talking..

Misior brings up a good point about the south.. It still stands today so I donno dude..
(I bring this up because of the last election, if you look at how the states voted it almost looks like a civil war map..)


Northern states I am sure racism will not be tolerated... So ya some business that would put something up like that would be frowned apon just because it isnt right.. besides I wouldnt want to be caught going into a store that said no blacks allowed..
edit on 5/14/2011 by ThichHeaded because: (no reason given)


+22 more 
posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by ThichHeaded
 


If everyone banned everyone, then nothing would get sold.


A smart businessman would look around him and see all these segregated businesses then say to himself, "I know how I can make some real money". So he removes the 'No minorities allowed' sign from his store. All the non-racist whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, etc... will all go to his store. He would soon have the largest customer base because the other idiots are segregating their business.

One by one the segregated businesses will either go bankrupt or desegregate.

Greed can be good because without greed that first businessman would never have changed his store policies. It's really a domino effect, one domino falls then the rest fall too.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Good points Misoir.. thanks..



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


I just don't think that this concept will work out that smoothly.

I don't have enough faith in others to do it.

For that reason, the government usually steps in.


+4 more 
posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


Alright I understand the reservations you hold but how I see things in a more broader sense is that the federal government should not interfere with private property in such a way. If the state itself decided to pursue such policies then that is their right should the state supreme court not interject. Forced desegregation by the state or local government is not a big deal to me but by the federal government it is.

Going by another aspect you would see the argument that per se Alabama refused to desegregate then they could lose out big on private investment from out of state. Would Alabama want to be economically strangled just to hold onto segregation? No way. They would give in quick.

On a side note, you do know that Johnson's Civil Rights legislation was only pushed rather than the earlier ones because big business from the north wanted to invest and expand in the South but segregation made it difficult and risky for their business to invest/relocate there due to the damaging effect it would have had on their public approval.
edit on 5/14/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by ThichHeaded
 


If everyone banned everyone, then nothing would get sold.


A smart businessman would look around him and see all these segregated businesses then say to himself, "I know how I can make some real money". So he removes the 'No minorities allowed' sign from his store. All the non-racist whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, etc... will all go to his store. He would soon have the largest customer base because the other idiots are segregating their business.

One by one the segregated businesses will either go bankrupt or desegregate.

Greed can be good because without greed that first businessman would never have changed his store policies. It's really a domino effect, one domino falls then the rest fall too.


Your speaking common sense business...stop that. Not to many people will get that on this site.

Also, to the OP. Do a better search next time. I saw at least a dozen of these same exact threads last election time.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


ya imagine if we had a free society



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


ya imagine if we had a free society



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   
I thought when you put things in quotes it's supposed to be the exact words out of a persons mouth. Just didn't see those words said. Of course he was implying that but quotes do have a purpose and you shouldn't make up quotes. Maybe I'm just an english snob.
edit on 14-5-2011 by mayabong because: (no reason given)


+11 more 
posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Misoir
 

For that reason, the government usually steps in.


That is exactly what Ron Paul, myself, and other Libertarians are against - the government stepping in. The Federal government has absolutely no right to do so.

Dr. Paul specifically said he wouldn't vote for the property-controlling aspects of the law, he would've voted to remove the Jim Crow laws. Everyone leaves that part out. He even continues to explain that the Government set up discriminatory laws to begin with.

You can't pick and choose your liberties. You either have them, or you don't.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by berilium
reply to post by The Sword
 


ya imagine if we had a free society


in a free society a business owner could choose not to do business with whomever they want for whatever reason they please.

less laws.

more free market.






top topics



 
18
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join