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: 11
18
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
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?


double-talk from the get-go.

talk about assuming.. jeez..




posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesul69
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.


Does "everyone else" seem to know what the president of the US does? That is kind of a big government job no matter how many folksy things you say or how much time you spend pullin' weeds at your fake ranch. Ron Paul being president will not magically turn the POTUS into Sheriff Taylor if that is your premise. Maybe it is just me but this whole trend of running for a high seat in government because you believe it does not work and is not needed does not really come across any better when people try to help him explain it.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesul69
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.


He said in the interview and it has been repeated in this thread that he feels it is not necessary because the problem it solved no longer exists. You explain that another way for me.


This is like saying he would have voted against a Polio Vaccine because you do not see Polio today.

edit on 14-5-2011 by Runaway1977 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Runaway1977
 


No it's not. He wouldn't have voted tor the CRA the way it was, because it infringes on property rights. Getting rid of the jim crow laws would have had the same effect without infringing on other rights. And battery, murder, and other forms of violence were already illegal, so are you saying that the CRA changed who is a victim and who is not?



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



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Runaway1977

Originally posted by deesul69
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.


He said in the interview and it has been repeated in this thread that he feels it is not necessary because the problem it solved no longer exists. You explain that another way for me.


This is like saying he would have voted against a Polio Vaccine because you do not see Polio today.

edit on 14-5-2011 by Runaway1977 because: (no reason given)


It's easy to explain that another way for you. He said the problem no longer exists because of getting rid of jim crow, not CRA. So he does not contradict himself at all. That's just the way that you understand it.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesul69
It's easy to explain that another way for you. He said the problem no longer exists because of getting rid of jim crow, not CRA. So he does not contradict himself at all. That's just the way that you understand it.


I get it. He is delusional. You might have to go to the Byrd memorial and inform him that after the end of Jim Crow, racism died. He might have trouble hearing you though.
edit on 14-5-2011 by Runaway1977 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
I don't care if the man is a card carrying sheet wearing cross burning sheep "flarging" Member of the Klu Klux Klan.

He is allowed to hold his own opinions, even as an elected official. If he thinks the civil rights movement was a mistake, then he's just an idiot, and we have tons of idiots in office all over the country.

You can't tell him he is wrong for holding an opinion different than the majority.

And to be accurate and not just painting with some gibberish partisan brush, he stated his belief that property owners should be allowed to put up signs that say "No Blacks", or "Whites Only". And the people who live in that community will judge that property owner and take their own steps to let that owner know how they feel about it.

If there are enough people in an area that agree with the property owner, then those people will go to that establishment. If no one agrees with it, then that establishment will go out of business.

You wanna know what the root of that philosophy is??? Honesty. I know it's crazy.

There are people who are racist. They have judged an entire group of people based on something. So let them. You can't stop them. They are free to be racists. You can't tell them to not be racist. What we do instead is tell them to lie. Tell them to keep their racism secret. Force them into hiding where we can't deal with them on normal societal terms. Where there is no impact for their secret racism. They flourish in the dark and walk through the light with no reason to believe that their practices and ideology are wrong.

If one grocery store opens that has a sign, "whites only", then to be perfectly honest, there will be at least ONE more store that opens that accepts customers regardless of their skin color.

In town with only 3 non whites, this could cause a problem. In a town where the non whites can't actually get to another store to buy groceries, then this racism would actually be causing harm to someone.
In that case you have an instance to file a lawsuit proving that one persons racism is causing harm to another persons pursuit of life liberty and happiness. So a court would really be bound to set an injunction against one business that requires them to make accommodations to serve members of the public that they would otherwise choose not to.

But until this very theoretical situation comes up, you are forcing people to lie and do something they don't want to. You are forcing them to pretend that their own ideals are unimportant.

That is very un-American.


Look at this set up. If I start a business I am required to get a business license. One of the agreements you make for getting that license is to follow the governments rule that all people are to be considered equal in terms of public operation.

Now why can't someone who is going to start a business have the option to get a "freedom of ideals" stamp on their business license that excludes them from certain provisions of the rules that pertain to social justice issues.
So once this business pays to buy that stamp then that public business can if it chooses discriminate against customers on the basis of Race, Religion, Sexual Orientation, Age, Gender, Eye and Hair Color, and so on and so on. Basically if you wish to pay a premium for the freedom to exercise your ideals then you should be allowed to do that.
As long as you create signage that clearly states your restrictions and blah blah blah, and your ideals and discrimination does not present a risk to the public and blah blah blah.


I know all this sounds like I am promoting racism, but that's not the case. It really should be more about honesty, and allowing people to live how they want to live.

The community is the place that social justice should take effect and be applied.

The government should not allowed to be Racist, and it should be made extremely clear and be very harshly punished when it is found that any elected official is practicing racism in the governments business.

Since the government represents the public it must be impartial to all of the public.

Private businesses should be under no such restriction.

If the government can tell a private company that they cannot discriminate against anyone on the basis of civil rights, then Chik-Fil-A damn well better open on sundays so I can get my CkikenSammich when I WANT.

So wouldn't it be better if the Racists weren't "Secret" racists??? I think so. I'd rather know up front that someone is a racist. That way I can tell them that I am not giving them my business because they are racist. I can tell my friends not to frequent them because they are racist.
Community pressure will always trump laws.
If I can, as a distributor, tell a Grocery store in Alabama, that I will not sell them Chlorox Bleach because they are a racist business, that pressure will get to them eventually if more distributors also deny them sales.
Pressure in this way, show people that their ideals are not in line with their community, and then they change their mind, Because they WANT to. Not because they were made to. And that is when change is real and not just pretend.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesul69
reply to post by Runaway1977
 


No it's not. He wouldn't have voted tor the CRA the way it was, because it infringes on property rights. Getting rid of the jim crow laws would have had the same effect without infringing on other rights. And battery, murder, and other forms of violence were already illegal, so are you saying that the CRA changed who is a victim and who is not?


You are confusing two different points. If getting rid of the Jim Crow laws was sufficient, you are going to have to educate me on a little history. I seem to remember plenty of voluntary segregation going on in your country and I am sure we can go example for example. Would you like to do that?

My point about violent crimes is that they happen. People are trying to say that no business would be racist because it is frowned upon in today's society. lots of things that are frowned upon happen. How many corporations can I find threads about on ATS highlighting how unscrupulous or downright evil they are in today's society? No one publicly condones rape. It happens though, right? No one publicly condones putting 30% meat products in your tacos. It happens though. No one publicly condones racism, but the KKK still exists and owns businesses. The Aryan Union has a whites only business policy today. These things only need a little more leeway to slip right back to where they were. I have heard all the hatred for Mexicans as if they are all illegal somehow. I have seen Seiks actually beat up because they looked Muslim. It sounds wonderful, it really does. Unfortunately I have a feeling that Paul lives in a very nice gated community where it might work too.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Butterbone
And to be accurate and not just painting with some gibberish partisan brush, he stated his belief that property owners should be allowed to put up signs that say "No Blacks", or "Whites Only". And the people who live in that community will judge that property owner and take their own steps to let that owner know how they feel about it.


Just like they did in the 1960's.
It really does sound wonderful. I love reruns of Andy Taylor.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


What Ron Paul - and his slavering followers - fail to realize, is that the market WOULD NOT fix this problem... because the problem was CAUSED BY THE MARKET. Segregated lunch counters and water fountains were not written into state laws, they existed because that is what the dominant segment buying public wanted.

Some of his more hardcore fluffers might hten say "what's the problem with that, if it's what the customers wanted?" Well, thing is, we're not talking about something like adding insoles to a line of shoes or removing chipotle mayo from a menu. We're talking about dehumanization of our fellow human beings.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
What would happen is that, being America is a white dominated country, whites would shop in white only shops, blacks in black only, hispanic in hispanic only, etc.

The mess would be that white America wouldn't be satisfied with that. Using government, or in other words, their uncle/aunt/grandfather, they would get assistance from legislation.

Another thing is it would be easier for them to monopolize small areas. Some white only establishments would service minorities, but they would do it with an attitude and subject the minority customers to civil rights violations...and there wouldn't be anything the minorities could do about it. After all, it's a white country!

If Billy Bob saw Tyrone was making too much money from his black only customers, he'd have his cousin the sheriff go find some law Tyrone is violating so Tyrones customers would have no choice but come to his establishment at double the price of course. This is what our history was like and would return to once again.

Any one who assumes we have grown past racism are sadly mistaken. If we this instant, abolished civil rights, the racists would drop their disguises and people you never assumed were racists would let their colors show. Over night companies like Pepsi, Coke, IBM, etc., could just fire millions of blacks and other minorities.

Some people are either racists or ignorant...



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


What he is saying is based on the principle of property rights. In the 1964 the Civil Rights Act was necessary. However, presently not so much. If a business decides to decline service to a certain group it is their loss, and they will likely go out of business because that is terrible business model.

What Ron Paul espouses is the principle of property rights and liberty. If you want to make a stupid business decision that will hurt your reputation, and lead to financial failure it is your right. Again in 1964 it was necessary. Now no so much. I do not think Ron Paul meant if he was President he would bring this up for a vote, but rather he is trying to communicate he is a man of principles.

Everyone always says that politicians should make decisions based on principles rather then political pandering, and Ron Paul has done it on an issue he could have easily shrugged off, and simply gone with the crowd. He is not a racist. He does not support discrimination. He supports a limited government, which intervenes only in time of true necessity. That being said I hope he would have voted for the civil rights act in 1964. I "hope" that he is speaking about the civil rights act in the present context.

Still this is a non-issue. He is not going to attempt to address this if he was president, but I am sure many people are happy that they can make this issue, and hopefully continue to keep the political social class in power, because if Ron Paul was the president they would all be pretty worried about being outed, and the government being held accountable on all levels.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Runaway1977

Originally posted by Butterbone
And to be accurate and not just painting with some gibberish partisan brush, he stated his belief that property owners should be allowed to put up signs that say "No Blacks", or "Whites Only". And the people who live in that community will judge that property owner and take their own steps to let that owner know how they feel about it.


Just like they did in the 1960's.
It really does sound wonderful. I love reruns of Andy Taylor.


If you think our society has not progressed as a majority, then I feel sorry for you. Yes, some people would use this as a way to communicate racism, but a majority of people would not. No large corporation is going to refuse to service to certain groups. Maybe some small town businesses will, but they are small business and most likely need any business they can get to survive, and will most likely go out of business. So in actuality it would be a very small number. However, if Apple, Mcdonalds, Burger King, Wendy's, Taco Bell, IHOP, etc started refusing service you would win this argument, and I too would support a civil rights act.

The civil rights act was necessary in 1964. Now we COULD let stupid businesses make dumb decisions, and we would see many of them disappear. However, repealing the civil rights act is a colossal waste of time, and if Ron Paul would actual pursue this action he would lose my vote for being similar to our inefficient government, and addressing unimportant issues.
edit on 14-5-2011 by DoesAnythingEverHappen because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
In 2011 you are saying it's ok to deny service based on ethnicity?


We're saying it's OK for a business to deny services to any for any reason and then go bankrupt because of it.

As far as that goes, we're also saying:

It's OK to take any drug, or combination of drugs you want, and waste away in a sewer doing it.

It's OK to say whatever you want to someone, and get pounded into paste because you said it.

It's OK to drive at whatever speed you want to, and wrap your car around tree.

Do you see what we and Dr. Paul are getting at? NOTHING is without consequences. But, society will be self-governing and will do away with the detritus without the help of the Federal government.

/TOA



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




So, do you agree or disagree that people should be free to express and act on racial prejudice? More importantly, do you agree or disagree that a recurring argument in this thread has been that people should be free to act on racial prejudice?


I think you are missing the point. Any type of discrimination that arose is the effect -- not the cause. Personal freedom and personal choice are the issues that are being discussed. The fact that people can choose to be discriminatory is a possibility that stems from personal freedom/choice.

I could truly care less if certain individuals did not want me or by business on their property. It is their property after all. I would simply find alternatives that provide what I am looking for. Alternatives will always exist. They may not be efficient, cost effective, have lower quality commodities, or any number of negative aspects but, the alternative would be available.

The racism attacks used by hordes of people are nothing more than emotional subterfuge to create a reaction that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


Ron Paul was saying you wouldn't need a civil rights act if Government wasn't supporting the initial racist behavior in the first place.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Runaway1977

Originally posted by deesul69
It's easy to explain that another way for you. He said the problem no longer exists because of getting rid of jim crow, not CRA. So he does not contradict himself at all. That's just the way that you understand it.


I get it. He is delusional. You might have to go to the Byrd memorial and inform him that after the end of Jim Crow, racism died. He might have trouble hearing you though.
edit on 14-5-2011 by Runaway1977 because: (no reason given)


I suppose CRA ended racism as well?


The only aspect of the CRA that Dr. Paul disagrees with is infringing on property rights by making business owners have to allow anybody on their property. That has nothing to do with Byrd.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stuship
reply to post by The Sword
 


Ron Paul was saying you wouldn't need a civil rights act if Government wasn't supporting the initial racist behavior in the first place.


Somebody who gets it!! You get a star my friend.
edit on 14-5-2011 by deesul69 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


I hope you don't mind, but I have added you as my friend.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
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.

No, they were threatening whites; I never heard one news report of any whites in vans, that's pure fiction. And you even admit there were "black guys with a stick"! Where were the white guys with sticks? Having sticks is better than driving around in vans? o.O




top topics



 
18
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join