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

You guys realize segregation was mostly enforced through state laws, right?

The point Paul was trying to make was that he would not have voted for a law to solve a problem laws caused in the first place. Especially when said law goes straight against property rights. The government "stepped in" its own garbage.

I'm not saying the federal government should have stayed out of it entirely, I actually think this is one of the most important functions it serves. They should have gone after the unconstitutional laws pushed by these states.

Originally posted by Runaway1977

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.

Nobody is saying its gone. Do you honestly believe you are doing damage to racists the country over by having these silly laws? Haters gonna hate. I don't respect racists enough to sacrifice my liberties to stop them.

Hoax alert: Ron Paul has never said "I Would Not Have Voted For The 1964 Civil Rights Act". The OP is dishonest. I've followed Ron Paul for years and know he would never say that. Hopefully this article will be moved into the appropriate hoax trash can.

Originally posted by Butterbone
James Byrds death had nothing to do with property rights or his ability to buy a big mac in a store.

It was murder. And please explain to us how the CRA should have stopped his murder, considering it happened 34 years after the CRA was passed???

It would not have. It had nothing to do with that. It was a response to the idea posited that racism would not float because it is socially unacceptable. My point was that racism and murder may both be socially unacceptable but Byrd's death points out that does not mean those things no longer happen. People want to say racism is dead. I contend that dragging a man to death for being black is a pretty solid rebuttal to that.

If he hadn't been murdered because he was black, then a native american, a woman, a homsexual, a jew, a hindu, a mexican, or some other individual from a minority group would have suffered his fate at the hands of the group of people who were already willing, and waiting to murder "someone".

You can't paint the civil rights act as a protective blanket for individual racism. Because it isn't. And the CRA1964 hasn't stopped any individual acts of racism, and has ONLY punished people who are proven to be involved in acts of institutional racism. Which is exactly what was needed to express and force the understanding that racism cannot be ingrained in government institutions because those institutions represent ALL of the public. It also extends to businesses who work within the structure of proper business licenses. Public businesses that offer services, had to be included so that the framework of institutionalized racism didn't get a second chair to sit in immediately.

You clearly missunderstood what it was I was responding to by pointing out Byrd's death and while I appreciate the time and energy you took in your response I have to say it hardly seems relevant as there is nothing in there actually related to the point I was making. I hope I have since cleared that up for you.

And you know what, for the most part, commercial racism is dead. The minorities are less minorities than they were and businesses cannot ignore them anymore. If business owners want to try to exclude people discriminitorily then that is their personal choice and they should have the freedom to do so. Just as we all would have the freedom to discriminate against that business by shopping elsewhere and putting them out of business, or at least marginalizing them to the degree that no real measure of success could be had that would help promote their ideals.

What we have now are people who become successful in normal business practices who are secret racists and through their success, covertly continue to spread and expand racism out of the idea that it is the literal "secret" to their success.
That's what the CRA still promotes. Forcing an ideological standard on a personal choice that the secret racists use to their advantage. In their underground culture, fighting the CRA makes them folk heroes'.
If we take that mystique away from them, and drown in the light of reality and truth, they won't be able to defend it, and it will, begin to crumble an die off.

I have to agree to not agree. The Lisa Simpson tiger preventing rock argument is still entertaining though.

Jesus this board is as bad as some politicians sometimes.
Ron Paul is NOT racist, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that, beyond people manipulating his words and using circumstantial evidence.

Why are people attempting to discredit him when he's been right about so many things? does the truth hurt that bad?

Originally posted by redoubt
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.

I need to inquire as to how one goes about boycotting a business they are banned from using to begin with.
Do not take this as argumentative. I just try to assume I am missing something.

People complain alot about the FED, sad thing is most of them not mature enough to live without the FED..

Just look at some of the hate filled, small minded people you run into on the net everyday.

Look, plain and simple the point Pauls making is that in the 60s and before, segregation was socially acceptable. Now days, its not socially acceptable, but is still a personal right as an individual. He is saying that the states should have the right to allow an individual, if they're stupid enough, to post signs in their establishment. That doesn't make it morally right. But should be legal. The owner will of course lose business now days, whereas before, it really didn't affect it so much. Its not up to big govt to decide what the social based laws of the state are. Its up to the state, if you don't like it, vote with your feet. Go somewhere else, thats the way its suppose to be.

The main issue at hand is States Rights, not segregation, or whether or not he agrees with the Jim Crowe laws. Don't blurr the issue, thats exactly what Matthews was trying to do, and Mr. Paul called him on that.

I honestly can't believe what I'm reading in some of these posts. I don't see how anyone can believe in 2011 that the election of Ron Paul as president is going to bring back widespread racism. Do we still have racism in the US? Of course we do, and no amount of government legislation is ever going to change it. Do we have a populace that is rejecting racism? Yes. Not 100%, but that is unrealistic to believe it could ever be that way.

Look at the EU. They are considering returning to a system of requiring passports to travel among member states. Seems the free travel thing didn't work out so well for them. Who is this mainly directed at? Muslims, under the guise of stemming the flow of radicals into and about the member states. Racist you ask? Of course. These are the same people who love to rant about America being racist by not allowing the flow of illegal immigrants into our southern borders.

I grew up in a time when asking if a black friend could spend the night was unthinkable, white flight was everywhere around me, and all this was acceptable, not that it was right, it was the norm. When all the whites had left our neighborhood, was it magically non racist? Nope, just changed directions. I was one of the last white students at my school, and every time I tried to go to the restroom I would get harassed or jumped. Had to have an adult escort me to the restroom. My grandfather had to walk me to school and home from school.

Did this turn me into a racist? No, I just learned that I didn't want to live like this. I don't need the FEDERAL government telling me not to be racist. I have learned that on my own. We still have racists among all races, and this will never change. If legislation was enacted today removing all FEDERAL government intrusion into race and gender related problems, do any of you think the STATES would not pick up the slack and regulate what is necessary to prevent discrimination? There would be a few doofuses who would throw up signs prohibiting certain classes of people from their businesses, but not many.

Back up and look at the whole house, not just the front door. Ron Paul is not the evil some would like to make him out to be. He is against big FEDERAL government, and for giving states the right to legislate what is acceptable or illegal. We can't continue to support the monstrosity created by the FEDERAL government. They have overreached their boundaries, and we are no better off today than before this massive intrusion into our lives, and the lives of others all around the world began. If we don't do something different, we are all at risk of losing what little we have left.

Originally posted by retiredTxn
I honestly can't believe what I'm reading in some of these posts. I don't see how anyone can believe in 2011 that the election of Ron Paul as president is going to bring back widespread racism.

Where has that been stated yet in this thread, in such simplistic terms?

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
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.

I was thinking the exact same thing myself in between noticing the number of posts I find on ATS promoting or cheering on discrimination against Muslims and Mexicans. The argument I am hearing hear seems to be white people saying that racism is dead because they let a black guy be president. Of course a bunch of them are trying to say he is a spy from Africa but that has nothing to do with his race I guess.



Watching that crowd of people chant at those Muslims to "go home" as if they were from a different land just because they were a different religion tells me more than enough that racism is not only not dead in the US, it has morphed into something more socially acceptable even within the laws now. I see it is ok to deny Muslims passage on a plane now if it makes other people feel "icky." But I am sure those people all have a black friend so it is ok.

reply to post by Runaway1977


I meant to embed this video but it is too late to edit it back in.



I think anyone that wants to respond to me by arguing that racism is gone or not socially acceptable anymore watch that in full before they do. If you really feel like you need to be reminded of current hateful atmospheres in the US against people based on very little then just look at the suggested videos for a couple of hours as well.

Originally posted by Runaway1977
reply to post by Runaway1977

 

I meant to embed this video but it is too late to edit it back in.

I think anyone that wants to respond to me by arguing that racism is gone or not socially acceptable anymore watch that in full before they do. If you really feel like you need to be reminded of current hateful atmospheres in the US against people based on very little then just look at the suggested videos for a couple of hours as well.

So searching on the internet where you can find virtually anything proves your point? Look there is racism still here, but it is not as widespread as many are claiming. Please don't think you prove a point by finding some YouTube video or Internet pictures of racists. I could easily google any type of group and use those results as proof under your premise.

Originally posted by Wooliebear
Nobody is saying its gone. Do you honestly believe you are doing damage to racists the country over by having these silly laws? Haters gonna hate. I don't respect racists enough to sacrifice my liberties to stop them.

Nobody is? I must be hearing wrong then. It certainly seems like a few people have said things like "there is a black president now so the race card is void" or something close to that. Maybe I am wrong.
You bring up an interesting point. Of course your liberties should not be sacrificed. I thought for a bit what liberties the Civil Rights Act may be taking from you and I was at a loss. Could you tell me what liberties you have to sacrifice in for the CRA to be in place?

Originally posted by CoolStoryMan
Jesus this board is as bad as some politicians sometimes.
Ron Paul is NOT racist, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that, beyond people manipulating his words and using circumstantial evidence.

Why are people attempting to discredit him when he's been right about so many things? does the truth hurt that bad?

If it helps, I do not think that Ron Paul is a racist. I do not think his motivation is based on race. From what I am reading in this thread and from watching interviews with him in full rather than these clips I just feel that he is a bit naive or perhaps idealistic. I think he has a good heart and has great ideas for America. I just think that some of them are a little out of touch with reality. I do not disagree with everything I have heard from him and I do not think he is a racist but I really do not understand his stand on the Civil Rights Act. I guess, I actually almost have to wonder if maybe there is not a racist motive because what other reason is there for a small government candidate to make this a flagship issue? Is this really the biggest intrusion on your rights? How about the Patriot Act? It seems like people on ATS have huge lists of government intrusions so why would he even waste a breath worry about this when if what he says is true, repealing it would have no effect on anything anyway. Does that make sense?

Originally posted by DoesAnythingEverHappen
So searching on the internet where you can find virtually anything proves your point? Look there is racism still here, but it is not as widespread as many are claiming. Please don't think you prove a point by finding some YouTube video or Internet pictures of racists. I could easily google any type of group and use those results as proof under your premise.

Actually that is a clip that I saw on International News. It was a big story. There is even a thread on ATS about it somewhere. I will try to find it. My points were simple. Racism still exists in the US. Many white people are not the least bit ashamed to gather in public in front of cameras and extol said racism. Black people may get to ride in front of the bus now but people who chose to follow Islam or appear middle eastern are not allowed to build houses of worship as other religions in the US are.

My video proved all of those things.

I found it. There are actually more but this is the one I had read.
Anti-Muslim hate rally summons the ghosts of Jim Crow

Originally posted by bongo0770
reply to post by The Sword

 

Let the 2012 Ron Paul bashing begin. Someone, who can create new threads, should make one titled "Consolidated: Ron Paul bashing thread" where we post and address the most common Ron Paul bashing tactics. This way we can refer the freedom haters to that thread rather than starting 600 new threads on the same subject.

good idea.

even if he's not perfect, he is the least of the problem 'representatives' that deserve a bashing.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by retiredTxn
I honestly can't believe what I'm reading in some of these posts. I don't see how anyone can believe in 2011 that the election of Ron Paul as president is going to bring back widespread racism.

Where has that been stated yet in this thread, in such simplistic terms?

Originally posted by Kali74
There's too many what if's in Ron Paul's scenario. There cannot be limitless freedoms in any society, freedoms should exist until they impose on someone elses freedoms. Discrimination is against the law and should be...no matter which you slice this, in the end if you're agreeing with THIS PARTICULAR statement that Ron Paul made then you are arguing pro-segregation and pro-racism. Do we really want to go backwards 50 years? What about the ramifications? Are people looking to start a new race war? A new civil war?

Honestly what exactly is the point even in making such a statement? Why make racially charged statements when we have finally come far enough to elect a black man into office? This is insanity I can't even believe it was said or that people actually support the statement. In 2011 you are saying it's ok to deny service based on ethnicity?

edit on 14-5-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

It's not simplistic, yet I never said it was. I did not quote anyone, I implied some believe the election of Ron Paul would bring back widespread racism. By statements such as the above, the equation of even agreeing with Ron Pauls statement is enough to take us back 50 years, much less his election.

I gave my personal insight, that is all. If you do not read it this way, that is because we all have different perceptions.

Originally posted by Runaway1977

Originally posted by Wooliebear
Nobody is saying its gone. Do you honestly believe you are doing damage to racists the country over by having these silly laws? Haters gonna hate. I don't respect racists enough to sacrifice my liberties to stop them.

Nobody is? I must be hearing wrong then. It certainly seems like a few people have said things like "there is a black president now so the race card is void" or something close to that. Maybe I am wrong.
You bring up an interesting point. Of course your liberties should not be sacrificed. I thought for a bit what liberties the Civil Rights Act may be taking from you and I was at a loss. Could you tell me what liberties you have to sacrifice in for the CRA to be in place?

Race Card and racism are two separate things. Maybe I missed the post where someone waived the mission accomplished banners.

If you had read my first post, you would have seen my reasoning against the bill. It went after property owners who were acting under state law. Public schools and transportation were heavily segregated. These state laws might never have passed if the federal government had prevented unconstitutional voting practices in public elections, thus allowing black people to have a say in the state and federal issues of the day.

Thus, three actions could have ended nearly all segregation in these regions without one property right being infringed upon;

1) No state can make laws that force the segregation of any group or groups.
2) No American citizen shall be denied the right to vote in a fair and equal manner
3) No government agency, at the state or federal level, may refuse service or assistance to ANY American citizen on basis of race.

The Fed needed to flex some muscle, and did, but they didn't need to get in to the private sector.

The Civil Rights Act did a lot more than simply make it illegal for property owners to discriminate and encourage desegregation in schools.

Among other things, it:

Barred unequal application of voter registration requirements.

Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, religion, gender, or ethnicity.

Prevents discrimination by government agencies that receive federal funds.

Prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

Made it easier to move civil rights cases from state courts with segregationist judges and all-white juries to federal court.

Only a partial quote from en.wikipedia.org...

It was about due process, voter rights, employee rights, and citizen access to government services or structures. I understand what Ron Paul is saying here, and I agree with the principle of people having the right to do what they want with their property. But not passing this act would have had other far-reaching consequences and would have maintained a status quo under which American citizens were being deprived of their rights in many instances.

If the act is amended someday to restore the property rights Paul is referring to, I can only hope that there would be - at minimum - provisions to ensure that if someone owns the only one of something in a given area/town/city/etc., they cannot discriminate against customers who have no other recourse than to undertake undue hardship, owing to who the most injured party would be in that scenario, which in my opinion would be the one who has to travel out of their way to obtain services or goods elsewhere. (Displeasure at having to serve a customer due to racial or other views is not as great a legal injury or burden as having to travel a great distance to obtain a needed service or good.) And I would hope that the other provisions of the act mentioned above would not be amended or overturned.

The Civil Rights Act was a hard won victory for equal protection under the law, and to throw the whole thing away would be a disastrous step backward in my opinion.

Just my two cents. Peace.