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

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


This is one more reason why I "WILL" vote for Ron Paul and all this double talk is not going to confuse me. What Ron Paul is always saying is it is not "Federal Government's Right or Business" to dictate what and how people should live.

You people who have been so brainwashed into believing "DEMOCRACY" is what the United States of America is about when in fact "Democracy Is Mob Rule" and our country is suppose to be a "Republic" with each and every man and woman having a vote and "Property Owner Rights" be the No#1.

This means I have a right to live as I choose and the mob can not force me to do otherwise as long as what I do does not infringe upon your equal right to do as you deem fit for yourself.

The ignorance is so disgusting. Laws are what made segregation the law to begin with. Removal of laws that said what and where people could world and live was the problem to begin with.

I will tell you this, those who think shoving all these Laws down people's throats are in for a big surprise, many of us are fed-up.

PS. The OP should immediately remove their reference to "Republic of Vermont" as they are not at all FOR a Republic and obviously doesn't know what they hell they are talking about.

edit on 15-5-2011 by MajorKarma because: Typos and expanded comment




posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by AndrewJay
Now in today's society we all know that wouldnt work. If someone put a big sign in their coffee shop saying "whites only" nobody is going to walk into that shop, not even white people. But it still should be every American's right to express his freedom of speech regardless if we agree with it or not.


Do you honestly believe the groups like the KKK and the Aryan Nation would feel ashamed to walk into such a shop? Do you think they become humble after their parades and rallies? It really seems like many people believe that racism is just gone and dead in the US but you do not have to look very far to find it.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Runaway1977

Do you honestly believe the groups like the KKK and the Aryan Nation would feel ashamed to walk into such a shop? Do you think they become humble after their parades and rallies? It really seems like many people believe that racism is just gone and dead in the US but you do not have to look very far to find it.


Thats the thing. I'm pretty sure most these people underplaying the depth to which racism is embedded in our culture are all young, white, and relatively privileged.. They think 'racism' is this horrible thing from the distant past where white people burned crosses and lynched people.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Anybody who thinks racism is only a white problem has apparently never heard of the Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam Jeremiah Wright, or Mexican/Black mutual hatred. I'm so sick of all this revisionist history.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I want to see his long form bc, schooling records, bapitizmal record, marriage license, copy of his driver's license and any medical clinetele lists, I mean if that can be demanded of Obama it must be demanded of any candidate from this point forward.

Besides, no more people over the age of say, 50 running for POTUS. It's starting to look like a geriatric convention for senior citizens or a badly written Viagra print ad. I also do not want someone being POTUS who grew up when the term "Negro" was an acceptable way to describe African Americans.
edit on 15-5-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Butterbone
If you hadn't noticed, it is no longer the 1960's. Peoples attitudes as a whole, have changed a great deal. That was another point that he made. At one point government intervention was needed in order to force a balance on a system that was purposefully weighted in one direction. As is evident, that intervention was useful and in context successful.

Yes, attitudes have changed a great deal, haven't they. You have a black president now so everything is different. Racism is all gone. Let me ask you something. Do you honestly believe there is not one person that would be willing to put up a sign saying "No Blacks" allowed? Do you really feel that way?

Let me ask you something else. How many people do you suppose might be willing to put up a sign saying "No Muslims" allowed? Even though it is a religion and not a race, it seems people have no problem discriminating against them and anyone that looks like they might be one. How about Mexicans?
[yvid]ndWOTgUpjDw[/yviid]
At a charity dinner for mothers in need, scores of white folks scream "GO BACK HOME" to American and foreign born Muslims. This is your country just a few months ago. So tell me how confident you feel about claiming attitudes have changed when you think about the other people subject to racism.

When is the last time a gay kid was beaten to death?


Belittling the harm that is caused when you force people to keep their beliefs secret and allow that secrecy to actually increase the potential of their beliefs spreading, is like putting an iron cast on a broken bone.

A person with a broken bone needs a cast. For as long as it takes for that bone to heal enough that the cast can be removed.

How long do you think people will need Equal Opportunity "auto-balance"???


I am really not sure what you are asking or saying here. I am not keen on what belittle has been done. I think people are certainly free to have any beliefs they like. It sounds like you are saying it is dangerous for a man who believes he should have sex with anyone he chooses will be done harm by a law preventing him from doing so without her consent. Is that your argument?

I think it is ok to believe a race of people might be good or bad for whatever your reasons are but I am not sure I can feel sorry for you if you are prevented from expressing that with say a baseball bat so there must be a line you have yet to draw.


If you maintain a cast indefinitely, the skin and tissue beneath it will get infected, rot, and cause a greater harm to the whole overall. Healing the bone will have been a futile exercise if you rot away the whole limb and cause blood poisoning.

You have to stop looking at the civil rights act as a cast that is required to repair the damage done by a serious break in the bone that happened during and immediately after the civil war.

If you want the US to keep harboring a secret society of racists then just keep things how they are.

If you want the US to crumble the ideas that are behind racism as a concept, then you let people be free to express it, and believe it and let them suffer the social stigma that will plague them for expressing it.


Sorry but yes I do indeed want racists to feel like they should be ashamed. That would only serve to help Ron Paul's point. You seem to be arguing something else. You not only want institutionalized racism to be legal but you openly advocate that people express it more openly. If they did that, we would then need something like a Civil Rights Act to make society work for all the people that live in it again.

I am starting to think that Ron Paul sounds great on the surface. It is just in asking a few questions that things either fall apart or get confused. This might explain why no matter how rude Chris Mathews may seem, if Ron had just answered a question he would have made a great argument but I believe I now see why actually answering might not be in his best interest. Between 3 different people responding you have managed to contradict Ron Paul and each other while scrambling to sort of make the same point.

For that, thank you. I do feel like I am learning more about the man.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
well if a bunch of KKK guys or a bunch of Black Panther guys wanna hang out in their own bars..
GO FOR IT...

Just stay out of mine.



Liberty.

MMM I can smell it.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Ron Paul also says that it was the government laws to have segregation on buses, which makes sense if they were public buses. Who else would implement it if not the state? So, people who think the civil rights act was a monumental piece of legislation have to admit that the government which created racism is now the only one that can fight racism? So in other words the government is the only thing that can protect you from the government?

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



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaberTruth
Anybody who thinks racism is only a white problem has apparently never heard of the Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam Jeremiah Wright, or Mexican/Black mutual hatred. I'm so sick of all this revisionist history.


You're conflating Bigotry with Racism. Bigotry is the hatred of another 'people' or 'race' or 'group'. Racism is institutionalized bigotry. That is, those within the institutions of power are able to perpetuate their bigotry through the mechanisms of power; Racism. None of the groups you mention have any institutional power, therefore they are not racist, although they are possible bigots (most people re bigoted in some way or another)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
Ron Paul also says that it was the government laws to have segregation on buses, which makes sense if they were public buses. Who else would implement it if not the state? So, people who think the civil rights act was a monumental piece of legislation have to admit that the government which created racism is now the only one that can fight racism? So in other words the government is the only thing that can protect you from the government?

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


wait... HOW did the 'government create racism'?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Are people suggesting that we are not allowed to write on a sign "no blacks allowed" ? Isn't that a violation of the first amendment? Of course you can't say anything threatening because then someone else may feel their rights are being violated. Apparently people feel as if their rights are being violated with a sign hanging saying "no ___ allowed" (insert minority group/s). So what is your right then? Everyone must serve you no matter what? What if you don't have money? Do you still have a right to business even without money? What if someone said "no free loaders allowed" Would that be any different? If you reply that if a minority (including a white minority) had money but was not allowed business, that would be wrong. Okay, so name one business that would turn someone who has money away? It doesn't make sense. Are there farmers out there that would stand on their moral principle to refuse service to minorities even if it involves a reduced income on their part just to prop up their racism? As Ron Paul says, that would be idiotic.

And if someone did say "no ___ allowed" then of course that would start trouble with that group. Imagine a man putting up a swastika to turn away Jews, but in the end Jews would just stand outside his shop and protest. So the best way of being left alone is to protect one's privacy by not having such insinuating signs. That would mean the only people who would put up such signs would be the ones who intentionally wanted to start trouble (CIA).



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by filosophia
Ron Paul also says that it was the government laws to have segregation on buses, which makes sense if they were public buses. Who else would implement it if not the state? So, people who think the civil rights act was a monumental piece of legislation have to admit that the government which created racism is now the only one that can fight racism? So in other words the government is the only thing that can protect you from the government?

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


wait... HOW did the 'government create racism'?


Was it or was it not legal to own slaves at one point? Yes, it was. How could this be possible without state legislation which allowed for killing runaway slaves? Or prosecuting people who gave comfort to a run away slave? Or allowed for commerce of slaves? The answer is, without government, it would not be possible. Thus, government created racism. And now foolish people expect the government to save them from the government.
edit on 15-5-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by DZAG Wright

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.

Oh brother,
If you look at what you posted then you should be able to see the problems with in.
1) Prior to 1964 ONLY republicans brought any kind of "civil rights" legislation to the floor. Where were your non-racist democrates then?
2) Could you please explain why all of the racist democrates would go over to the party that had all ways stood for civil rights. LOOK at the HISTORY.
The progressives took over the democratic party. They looked back at the New Deal and saw that prior to it almost 100% of minnorites (blacks in particular) were republican. After the New Deal those numbers shifted drastically. Minorities supported the democratic party which in turn were suppressing minorities.
Today you have the same thing going on. The republican party is the only party pushing entitlement reform. This makes them "evil" in most minority and liberal eyes.
In actuality though it is these very entitlements that continue to fuel racism, hold back minorities and keep democrates in office. I hate to make this a democrat vs. republican issue but that is what history tells us. It should really be a progressive vs. conservative issue.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
You're conflating Bigotry with Racism. Bigotry is the hatred of another 'people' or 'race' or 'group'. Racism is institutionalized bigotry. That is, those within the institutions of power are able to perpetuate their bigotry through the mechanisms of power; Racism. None of the groups you mention have any institutional power, therefore they are not racist, although they are possible bigots (most people re bigoted in some way or another)

No, racism is a subset of bigotry, a specific type of it. The topic here is not all types of bigotry but only racial bigotry which is "racism". And the point is that contrary to the claims of some in this thread, whites are not the only racists. In fact, were it not for Obama's race, I seriously doubt he'd have even been nominated by his party. They needed "the race card" and have played it daily ever since: no one can criticize Obama without being called racist, even though they are focusing on policy.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
Are people suggesting that we are not allowed to write on a sign "no blacks allowed" ? Isn't that a violation of the first amendment? Of course you can't say anything threatening because then someone else may feel their rights are being violated. Apparently people feel as if their rights are being violated with a sign hanging saying "no ___ allowed" (insert minority group/s). So what is your right then? Everyone must serve you no matter what? What if you don't have money? Do you still have a right to business even without money? What if someone said "no free loaders allowed" Would that be any different? If you reply that if a minority (including a white minority) had money but was not allowed business, that would be wrong. Okay, so name one business that would turn someone who has money away? It doesn't make sense. Are there farmers out there that would stand on their moral principle to refuse service to minorities even if it involves a reduced income on their part just to prop up their racism? As Ron Paul says, that would be idiotic.

And if someone did say "no ___ allowed" then of course that would start trouble with that group. Imagine a man putting up a swastika to turn away Jews, but in the end Jews would just stand outside his shop and protest. So the best way of being left alone is to protect one's privacy by not having such insinuating signs. That would mean the only people who would put up such signs would be the ones who intentionally wanted to start trouble (CIA).


Correct, you are forbidden via Federal and State law from denying service to someone of a non white skin colour in any business establishment but does not apply to your home as you can deny anyone you wish entry there but if you have a business you are forbidden.

The only group you could deny is vagrants, loiterers, street gangs but as long as they are a paying customer you are forbidden to deny them service.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

Correct, you are forbidden via Federal and State law from denying service to someone of a non white skin colour in any business establishment


giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming this is true, it proves the law is racist, because for instance it does not say if you refuse service to someone of a white skin color.
edit on 15-5-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
More selective, sensational BS about Ron Paul. Just like all last week when CNN kept saying, "Ron Paul wants to legalize HEROIN!". Of course, they didn't say "Ron Paul wants to end the insane drug war, and treat addicts instead of throwing them in jail on the taxpayer dime". That wouldn't shock viewers enough and would even make sense to many, and we all know the MSM is going to trash him all the way, because he's not an establishment candidate. There's no way in hell he'd get the Republican nomination anyway, but he'd be a shoe in as the libertarian candidate...or an independent. My only beef with him, is that he seems to be hypocritical when it comes to a woman's right to choose. He kinda stumbles all over himself justifying why he thinks the government should legislate against that freedom. But, I'm realistic and understand I'm not gonna agree with a candidate on everything...I'm with him on pretty much everything else, and will probably vote for him if he runs.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
but does not apply to your home as you can deny anyone you wish entry there but if you have a business you are forbidden.


This is incorrect because if the law has a warrant you can not deny the federal government entry, white or black, which is the real issue: the unlawful power of the government as opposed to this non-issue that is racism.

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



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


There were many southerners that treated blacks with dignity. There were few that treated blacks as slaves but we hear only the one sided story that slavery was an awful thing.
I grant you this I would not want to be a slave and yet what are we the people of the united states of America ?
We my fellow Americans are slaves to the government of our country.
We are puppets that when the strings are pulled we do what out so called leaders tell us to do.
We speak when told to speak just look at election day that’s our voice.
Yet we vote for the people that will enslave us.
Which they have done so very well.
If we were to truly engage in our constitutional rights where would we be ?
Think about it.
Waco
Ruby ridge
False flags 911
Bin laden the worst enemy since Adolph Hitler.
American and the world can’t even see the body.
Our so called politicians have sold us out to the big money packing mafia,criminals,low lifes,scum of the earth run our world people.
Who do you think elects our officials ?
It sure as hell aint us.
Anybody remember the election campaign of bush and gore ?
Who actually won ?
Does anybody know ?


We better get it together as Americans.
Not black,white,Hispanic, etc.
Because our gov. will put us in a hole somewhere and its almost time that our usefulness is depleated.
I say take back our country.
I’m white but that doesn,t have a damned thing to do with being an American.
We are all Americans regardless of race creed or color.
That’s my opinion oughta be yours if you are a god fearing American.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

Correct, you are forbidden via Federal and State law from denying service to someone of a non white skin colour in any business establishment


giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming this is true, it proves the law is racist, because for instance it does not say if you refuse service to someone of a white skin color.
edit on 15-5-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)


It mandated that every nationality and ethnic group must be serviced. To say there is no provision covering whites is hogwash.




top topics



 
18
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join