It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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."
Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by ThichHeaded
If everyone banned everyone, then nothing would get sold.
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.
Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Misoir
For that reason, the government usually steps in.
Originally posted by berilium
reply to post by The Sword
ya imagine if we had a free society