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: 14
18
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Isn't Mr. Paul supposed to be the "Poster Boy of The TP"? This proves that a TP wouldn't vote for The Civil Rights Act which was the then most important piece of legislation since The New Deal nearly 30 yrs earlier.

My, my they can't hide it anymore and are now blatant about it.




posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
|Really?!?! Is that what you would do?? Protect the freedoms of the ignorant bigoted store owner who has the "right" to not serve whoever he wants, over that of your pregnant wife's right to buy a bottle of water on a hot summers day????|

Yes, that's what you should do... 'protect ... freedoms ... (and) right(s).

All freedoms.

Yes, this gives free, sovereign individuals the right to be a complete jackass.

It's called freedom for a reason...

(And this from a Canadian!)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
I'm east indian Punjabi Brown-Skin
and i'd love to see brown people not allowed here signs
this way I know where my money is going, I dont' want to eat at a racist's restaurant


I have to agree.

If a black business or person puts a sign out that says no whites allowed, it would have the same effect.

People need to actually think about this for a minute. Sign "NO WHITE"S ALLOWED" or "NO BLACKS ALLOWED"

First thing that comes to mind is this person is hateful and angry, so why would I want to shop in this environment?

Don't want to be associated with hateful, ignorant people let alone give them any business.

edit on 15-5-2011 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by DjDoubleD
 


These hypothetical situations are so beside the point its not even funny. Do you think someone crazy enough to open that can of worms is really concerned about current civil rights laws? If he is going to make a scene and be a jerk because he is an actively participating racist, he is going to act pretty much the same way regardless. People like this do not, and would never work in said store because it would be a financial disaster for the business. What you people are telling me is that if the law requiring equal treatment of races in private businesses did not exist, your local Costco's manager would fire his employees, go to a trailer park, and start tracking down the most abrasive racist a-holes he can find? I cant even participate in this discussion. I think more and more people are just throwing down the race card because they know it will piss people off, and have less respect for racial equality than the people that are supposedly racist.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
This proves that a TP wouldn't vote for The Civil Rights Act which was the then most important piece of legislation since The New Deal nearly 30 yrs earlier.


How exactly does it prove what anyone aside from Ron Paul would or would not have done? Or have you gone across the country and asked every single person if they associate with the tea parties and, if so, if they would have voted for the Civil Rights Act had they been alive and able to vote on it when it was passed? Somehow I highly doubt that you have. I also fail to see the relevance the tea parties have with this thread.
edit on 5/15/2011 by Jenna because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
I want to ask politicians in office this question:

"Would you have voted for the 1913 Federal Reserve Act?"

Will the people who are opposed to Ron Paul for not voting for the civil rights act as equally mad if politicians today said they would vote for the 1913 federal reserve act? You know the majority will say they would have voted for it. Some rogues will say no, some lying, others (Ron Paul Rand Paul) telling the truth. Just a thought. If we are going to criticize Ron Paul for a bill that happened 40 years ago, why not go further back and ask politicians if they would have voted for the 1913 federal reserve act.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


The point your failing to see is that it's a property rights argument. The Civil Rights act went too far in that it now regulates private property rights. Yes, there was segregation prior to the act however in today's society where we have matured and evolved, anyone putting up a sign to block people from their business will be shunned and end up out of business.

The reason it didn't work so well in the 60s was because the southern Democrats were still not mature enough to allow blacks to be completely free. They were the ones that pushed the Jim Crow laws. But Ron is right, the market would have sorted the issue out on it's own because people would have started shunning those that discriminated. Now we have even more problems.. we have to have quotas for every company and every college... we can't deny a minority access to college even if their grades come nowhere near up to standards for a basic entrance exam. People should be free to hire whoever they want.. not because of the color of their skin. That was also the same reason Rand Paul opposed this.. .as did Barry Goldwater.

Goldwater told people in the 60's this would lead to a quota system.. and what do we have today? a quota system. If I own a company and want to hire someone... I almost have to give the job to a minority if they apply.. even if they aren't nearly as qualified .. otherwise I can be sued for discrimination. So hiring people based on color / minority status is no way to run a business.. it should be best qualified, regardless of minority status.
edit on 15-5-2011 by Twainfan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
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.


Well said and so true. I truly believe RP is not a racist whatsoever, if you can get past the initial comment, and read the rest of the story, RP does make good sense.

RP did state that this matter, should NOT be a federal issue, but a State issue. So its not like he's saying that there wouldn't be any governance...



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
This proves that a TP wouldn't vote for The Civil Rights Act which was the then most important piece of legislation since The New Deal nearly 30 yrs earlier.


How exactly does it prove what anyone aside from Ron Paul would or would not have done? Or have you gone across the country and asked every single person if they associate with the tea parties and, if so, if they would have voted for the Civil Rights Act had they been alive and able to vote on it when it was passed? Somehow I highly doubt that you have. I also fail to see the relevance the tea parties have with this thread.
edit on 5/15/2011 by Jenna because: (no reason given)


Jenn,

Simple, that is the fact the greater group nor any wings of the group are failing to either slam, condemn or to speak out against this stance speaks volumes. None of them would've voted for it so that they can exploit African Americans for cheap labour for their corporate donors and sponsors. That is all this is. Next time, come up with an original thought please.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


"keep your hands off the social issues ron".

this just took 1st place for dumbest comment on ats, EVER.

hes running for PRESIDENT, and on top of that his only stance on social issues is whether or not they are constitutional.

do you see the constitution as just a list of suggestions or something? do you even know what the word constitution means?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


I take it you don't believe in private property rights then? Because that is all this is about. Once the govt can tell you who you have to let in your own business, they can tell you who you have to let into your own home, they can tell you that you can't smoke in your own home etc etc.

Ron Paul is about protecting freedom and liberty.. not an intrusive govt. He believes in States Rights.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
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.


First of all, if property/store owners were to discriminate against a certain segment of society, that same segment could just as easily boycott said business. It would ultimately fail. The free market depends on exchange between the seller and the consumer and it is, contrary to popular belief, the market that is more dependent upon the consumer than vice-versa.

Secondly, you are making a most irrational judgment by assuming that property rights would immediately lead to some Jim Crow era vision of hell. We have matured as a society... as a culture. People are not born racist and so there is no logic in saying that returning these rights to the individual would lead immediately to such an end.

The Civil Rights Act was written for the era in which it was created. Times change, though and given that we do not live sealed up in an old a mayonnaise jar, it may be time to give society a chance to get it right without the fat hand of government.

Cheers



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Twainfan
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


I take it you don't believe in private property rights then? Because that is all this is about. Once the govt can tell you who you have to let in your own business, they can tell you who you have to let into your own home, they can tell you that you can't smoke in your own home etc etc.

Ron Paul is about protecting freedom and liberty.. not an intrusive govt. He believes in States Rights.


This has nothing to do with business denying who gains entry and who does not as that is banned and forbidden via Anti discrimination laws. You still can deny anyone you want from entring your home as that will never change.

Landlord and Co-Ops, HOA's retain the right to either allow or deny smoking in our buildings. I am a homeowner and do allow smoking even though neither one of my current tenants smoke.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
You know whats really funny to me?

Seeing all these people SCRAMBLING, trying to dig dirt up on Ron Paul ever since his Presidential announcement.

This mans ENTIRE POLITICAL STANCE is open for review. With Ron Paul, You know what you are going to get because the man has been speaking in our faces for many many years. If there was EVER any dirt on him, it would have been brought out already. He is ALWAYS consistant with his views, and dont think for one minute that he is going to get caught up in a political "gotcha" moment. These Ron Paul bash threads are going to start comming out people, and there will be NO SUBSTANCE, to ANY of them. Mark my words.

If Pauls enemies were smart, they would just stay away from him.
You dont get into a political shouting match on stage with the hardest constitutionalist/fiscal conservative that we have in Congress.

Ron Paul actually knows how to use his Brain, so dont expect to many "Obama-esque" mistakes from this man.

The man is for Liberty. Liberty only comes one way. Its a really simple ideal. You be you, and I be me.

Thats why he wouldnt vote for it.

I doubt he would have voted for more than 1/4 of the laws on the books that are there today. They infringe on peoples liberties, simple as that.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I'll still vote for him. I don't have anything to do with civil rights but I do know one thing. If he wouldn't have voted for that....he wouldn't have voted for women's liberation back in the day either. I would respect a great leader who would carry those noble values. I feel it would have made the world a much better place. I feel that black people should have been emancipated but I feel that women's liberation was like unleashing a bear with Mad Cow Disease onto the public. It was better when women had no say. The world has always been at war, but when it was just men in control something was taken or given and empires were built. In the advent of the women's movement, all we get is nothing but crumbling empires, no built ones, we get a never ending terrorism, the world is literally falling apart at the seams. I dare say the women's movement opened the door for the Antichrist to come. Let's face it. We were the greatest empire on earth and, IRONICALLY, around the time women started getting into our offices and started getting leadership positions "handed" to them....everything has just come unraveled and we now have a war that will never end. OK, I know that Bush started all this, but you can't take back what you have always said women..... "behind every great man, is a greater woman who's actually in control", you can't just use your statements when something good happens. So as you can see it was Hillary Clinton's fault. She is the secretary of State....and who was the last one? Right, Condoleezza Rice! This started with them. The women who are judges, all they do is hold a personal agenda against men and royally screw them and make sure they are imprisoned, sometimes for virtually no reason, most times it is in defense of another woman even if the other woman is the criminal. Why are all of the terrorists attacking us now in droves? Why does the rest of the world hate our guts now since the 20's and has gotten progressively worse to the point of a community hate against America, involving the whole world? Because they don't respect us because we have these selfish women in offices and ruling men over here in America and in their country this is unheard of. They know they must keep the reigns on women over in the middle east because of the implosion effect of a country when you let them loose. Women only destroy. We have proof of this now in America. The terrorists think of us as a weak joke because of women, who are even by the Bible's standards the "weaker sex". When you put them in office they try the illusion of strength, by making sure there are laws that protect women and ignore men, making sure media puts out agenda about "woman power" and movies where women are kicking men's asses, and pop bands like the "Spice Girls" who fan the flames of this illusion that only women believe ...and the weak, prostrating men who they have manipulated into believing this lie of strength. If I were President of the United States I would put all women who want to be in control of men or leaders of men...into internment camps and I would start a campaign making sure that all female children were indoctrinated to know their place, .........under the leadership of men. Women cannot lead and the US is now proof of that. When we gave them power all they did was jam their foot down on the gas and drive us into the ditch. I suspect Bush's wife was behind what he did. At any rate if Ron Paul were to consider THIS route of the expungement of women's liberation and make our country great again. I would fully support this, even financially. We can start with TEXAS where the women are the worst example of everything I have spoken of. Once the women have been routed out of offices and leadership positions.........our country would, once again, be strong and would be taken seriously. It's not a house to decorate and nag at men....this is America, a once great empire before women started eating at it like a selfish cancer by installing feminism. Just a thought,.......it can be great again men, but there is one thing that must be first done. So, in summation, if Ron Paul would not have voted for the emancipation of black people......I would be bothered by that one,.....but if he would get rid of women's lib and free our country from the bondages of weakness, nagging, and self-destruction.....I would indeed back him up in every way. I would even work in his office FOR FREE.

edit on 15-5-2011 by Phenomium because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by AndrewJay


Freedom of speech is more important than racism because eventually society overcomes the probelm of racism using freedom of speech without Government dictating to them what can and cant be said.


On what empirical data do you base that theory? Because I can't think of ONE SINGLE example from history where racism faded away on its own. OR at all, even with help.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoesAnythingEverHappen
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.


So as long as it is just some people that are institutionalizing racism, it is ok with you. Just not big companies? What makes you so sure big companies would not anyway? Denny's is a pretty big company and they got in all kinds of trouble for discrimination practices. They did not stop because business suffered. They stopped because they got caught. That was in the 1990s. It sounds nice to pretend everyone that matters would be good and the rest are not worth worrying about but it is all just ifs and buts and history shows us otherwise.


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)


So you defend the same ironic concept that you then take note of? You say we do not need it, because it worked. You then go on to say that small government Ron Paul would lose your vote for pursuing it because obviously if it is not needed, repealing it would do nothing but cost time and money to result in what you claim would be no change anyway. You seem a little conflicted about it but at least we can agree on the last part.

Unfortunately the main part you are forgetting is that while your argument on behalf of Paul is that it was a success and therefore no longer needed, he said he never would have supported it to begin with. His argument is quite different from the defense of it you offered.
edit on 15-5-2011 by Runaway1977 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Once again the federal government is using the COMMERCE CLAUSE of the constitution to institute unconstitutional laws. The 1964 Civil Rights Act wasn't the FIRST civil rights act.



The Civil Rights Act of 1875 (18 Stat. 335) was a United States federal law proposed by Senator Charles Sumner and Representative Benjamin F. Butler (both Republicans) in 1870. The act was passed by Congress in February, 1875 and signed by President Grant on March 1, 1875.

The Act guaranteed that everyone, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, was entitled to the same treatment in "public accommodations" (i.e. inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement). If found guilty, the lawbreaker could face a penalty anywhere from $500 to $1,000 and/or 30 days to 1 year in prison.

However, the law was rarely enforced, especially after the 1876 presidential election and withdrawal of federal troops from the South. Finally, in the 1883 Civil Rights Cases, the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional on the basis that although the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination by the state, it does not give the state the power to prohibit discrimination by private individuals.

Many of the 1875 Act's provisions were later enacted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act, this time using the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.


Everyone with a brain who respects the constitution and freedom knows that just because some law is named "civil rights act" or "patriot act" doesn't necessarily mean the law protects civil rights or makes you a patriot. Often times, we've seen it means just the opposite. Laws can't destroy racism. Laws can only punish, never prevent. Ron Paul wouldn't have voted for any law that is unconstitutional, even if it meant making every American a billionaire - Some Americans might be upset, but that's the kind of man Ron Paul is - he stands for freedom and the constitution, never wavering.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


You're assuming that just because every store would be allowed to discriminate, that every store would discriminate. If the civil rights act was repealed today, only a very minute amount of stores would begin racially discriminating. And any store owner that would do that today would be causing trouble already for blacks in their store. All it would do today is open up possibilities for other types of discrimination. Like Muslims, Hispanics, gays, or subcultures like goth, punk, and ghetto gangsters. I believe it is the right of the store owner to refuse service to anyone based on prejudice. Just as it is his right to guard his home from people he doesn't trust, his store is his property and he should be able to guard it as well, even if he is misguided by social bigotry.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by deesul69
I suppose CRA ended racism as well?


Thank you for making my point that racism has not ended. I am glad that we agree on that.


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.


I am not sure how you do not see the connection after you just did that 180 and agreed with me. Byrd is just a very good example of racism being alive and well. That is the point of the CRA. To prevent that racism from becoming institutionalized. Murder is against the law but it happens. How much more often do you suppose it might happen were it not against the law? I hope this is not a language barrier issue.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join