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.

 

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

page: 10
18
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies

Originally posted by Daedal
Their are no equal rights.What about affirmative action?Is that equal?



Affirmative action is NOT equal. It gives a disproportionate amount of rights to minorities, while taking them away from majorities.

My point exactly.




posted on May, 14 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErEhWoN



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.
reply to post by Misoir
 


So why didn't this happen before the Civil Rights Act was enacted? Is this how things were before this law passed?

Or was the nation divided between white and black, segregated neighborhoods. This is how it would retun to.

Those were ugly days, and to even entertain the notion of returning to those days is an abomination.


Actually, it DID happen before the Civil Rights act was enabled, but any store owner who did so was in violation of Federal Law.

Many restaurants, hotels, stores, and other businesses didn't give a hoot who they did business with.

We see something quite similar right now with how people would react to this sort of thing when you see stories in the press of Bed and Breakfast owners who refuse gay couples access to their business on "religious grounds". They make the front page pretty fast on an international level and become pretty well known as bigots.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Well look on the bright side, your vote doesn't matter Actually, nobody's' vote matters !


I'm still voting for the guy either way



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunniesAffirmative action is NOT equal. It gives a disproportionate amount of rights to minorities, while taking them away from majorities.


Roger, this is one of the fundamental problems with American society today. If we are truly to ever have equality we need to treat each person as an individual and not a member of a group.

Granting preferential treatment to some over others because of real or perceived past injustice will not solve anything.

Punishing/rewarding people who are alive today for the actions of people with who they share a genetic past further breeds division.

Here is one of a series of videos that I think explain this issue quite well:



The whole series is worth a gander IMO.

edit on 14/5/2011 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Dr. Paul simply beleives in small government without intervention into personal lives and onto property rights. It's funny that people pull the race card to try to discredit him.

Just like from his libertarian views on legalizing drugs and personal responsibility, ending the "war on drugs" and effectively bringing an end to the horrible violence in Mexico and the main source of income for violent gangs, the only thing they want to hear or talk about from this is "he wants to legalize heroin". At least he didn't lie about his views on not voting for the civil rights act. He told the truth and backed it up.

From his views on foreign policy to fiscal and personal responsibility, he's exactly what this country needs right now. Better than Obama, who's flushing this country down the crapper as we speak. Wait until the hyperinflation hits from Quantitative easing. Everybody will be listening to what Dr. Paul has to say then!! He's definitely got my vote!!


edit on 14-5-2011 by deesul69 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Well the "Free Market" thingy would never have solved the problems as some proclaim. The only thing that would have happened is racist whites would not have allowed minorities, pressured other non-racists whites into not servicing minorities with violence and kept it how some racists want it....whites own 90% of everything while all the minorities scrambled for the remaining 10%.

Don't let people drilling the free market crap fool you. They are either racists or ignorant. Lets look at some of the establishments that are still to this day largely segregated. Do they appear to be going out of business? Do some of these country clubs appear to be on the verge of bankruptcy?

Without the civil acts, there would be a GOOD OL BOY network that we wouldn't believe! We think minorities constitute the majority of prisoners now! There wouldn't be any minorities in law enforcement, medicine, etc., because it would be legal for the owners and originals to just say, "No we don't allow NWORD or espanol derogatory name."

There would have been a race war about 20 years ago because minorities wouldn't have accepted that short of a stick by the time my generation came along.

People who don't approve of the civil rights are either racists or ignorant. I disagree with the government intruding too much, but civil rights is somewhere Federal guidance was needed.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
So Ron Paul is saying we do not need the Civil Rights Act because we live in a world where it is no longer relevant, thanks to the Civil Rights Act. That would explain his stance on drugs then.

I hear that murder and rape are socially unacceptable. Why do you still have laws against such things? People would not murder or rape because they might lose the business they do not want or be looked upon poorly.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
Sword,
If many knew the history behind the civil rights bill and what it really stood for at the time it was past then I think few would vote for it now.
A couple of questions for you to look into to help understand this.
1) who started the kkk?
2) How many times prior to 1964 did a civil rights bill come to the floor and which party brought it there?
If you are able to answer these two questions, then you may then want to ask yourself what changed in 1964. The answer may surprise you.




I hope you're not about to state the Democrats (using a blanket statement) as if you're unaware that Southern Democrats defected from the party BECAUSE they were against desegregation. They then joined the REPUBLICAN party. So the Democrat party was left with people who were for the civil rights and desegregation.

To answer your questions, the Democrat Party, before the racists whites said screw equality, we're defecting to the REPUBLICAN party started the KKK and opposed civil rights.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaberTruth

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic


Absolutely. The New Black Panther Party was threatening whites at the polls to get Obama elected, and there is a lot of heat between blacks and hispanics too. Racism isn't just a problem with whites.

edit on 14-5-2011 by SaberTruth because: (no reason given)




No they were not threatening whites! They were at the polls because there were white people riding around in vans trying to persuade and trick black people into not voting. The NBP were there to comfort black voters that they would be protected.

The white people came up to vote and the Black Panthers had nothing to say to them. The white people were just intimidated to see black guys there with a stick.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by DZAG Wright
 


Not to mention that all the fuss in the press over the "Black Panthers" when in reality, it was 2 guys in a group of 3 guys that the real Black Panthers have completely disavowed. That seemed like a big deal at the time but it seems a lot easier for some to pretend two guys are part of some great black army.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesul69
Dr. Paul simply beleives in small government


Isn't he running for president for the 3rd time?
That sounds like a pretty big government job.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Runaway1977
 


Small government is not literal, like a little government. Small government like Minarchism. And hey, Reagan ran 3 times. 3rd time's a charm!! Look at everything he accomplished.

Seems like history repeating itself. Obama is the new Carter!!

edit on 14-5-2011 by deesul69 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesul69
reply to post by Runaway1977
 


Small government is not literal, like a little government. Small government like Minarchism.


So he does not really mean the words he uses? Are all the things that Paul says metaphor then? Like saying the CRA is not needed because it works so well already is metaphor for 'logical mobius strip?"



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
There are quite a few ultra right winged things he has said, ie. he believes in everyone taking responsibility only for health care, but doesnt believe in any form of medicare. That is, he believes that everyone should pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for direct cost I guess or just die and women should die in childbirth. Back to the olden days of small amounts of elite, and massive amounts of impoverished serfs. He is an ultra conservative who talks like a friend of the people, but he isn't any common folk's friend.
edit on 14-5-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I would rather have a politician that is honest. Rather than have one tell me what i want to hear. Being for Civil Rights Act or not.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Runaway1977
So Ron Paul is saying we do not need the Civil Rights Act because we live in a world where it is no longer relevant, thanks to the Civil Rights Act. That would explain his stance on drugs then.

I hear that murder and rape are socially unacceptable. Why do you still have laws against such things? People would not murder or rape because they might lose the business they do not want or be looked upon poorly.


No, he's saying that property rights should not be regulated by the federal government. And yes, it is no longer relevant in the way it was back then. We no longer need the federal government to step in where an entire local or county legal system has all the police, judges and politicians as members of the KKK, as we did in the 60s. The government has no right to tell somebody who can come on their property. If they want to lose money by being racist, (which is really stupid) that's their right. People do not have to frequent that business. Murder and rape are violent crimes with victims. Not really related to this subject at all.
edit on 14-5-2011 by deesul69 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by OG_SWAGGA_KING
I would rather have a politician that is honest. Rather than have one tell me what i want to hear. Being for Civil Rights Act or not.


Damn straight.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Runaway1977
 


No, everyone else seems to know the meaning of small government vs big government. There are a lot of things and terms that are not meant to be taken literally. People will take any words they can to twist them around and discredit somebody.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Runaway1977
 


I don't beleive he ever said that we don't need the CRA because it worked so well. He said that he would have voted against the civil rights act because it infringes on property rights, but would have voted against jim crow laws, which infringes on a person's equality.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesul69
No, he's saying that property rights should not be regulated by the federal government. And yes, it is no longer relevant in the way it was back then. We no longer need the federal government to step in where an entire local or county legal system has all the police, judges and politicians as members of the KKK, as we did in the 60s. The government has no right to tell somebody who can come on their property. If they want to lose money by being racist, (which is really stupid) that's their right. People do not have to frequent that business. Murder and rape are violent crimes with victims. Not really related to this subject at all.
edit on 14-5-2011 by deesul69 because: (no reason given)


So you are just repeating what I said. You also believe that the CRA is not needed because it has succeeded. I must not understand English the way I thought if that is supposed to make any sense. That might explain why you would then go on to pretend racism has no victims or violence involved. James Byrd sure sounds like the name of a victim of violent racism to me. You are saying we do not need laws against such things because they do not happen. Yet, there he is. A real dead black man, dragged to death by racist whites. So either laws against racism and murder are pointless because no one would do these things or they are pointless because people do these things anyway.




top topics



 
18
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join