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

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


I don't think the national guard was there to force segregation. That would be illegal

Originally posted by Runaway1977

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.

No you are making up the answers you want.

#1 you are jumping to a conclusion that I am racist. Or that I back racist ideas. That's the first "tactic" of people who don't want to discuss something but instead, want to feel superior for their "better" ideas.
I personally feel that racism is ignorant and based in fear, and is an excuse. To say that you can't get ahead because "black people" get all the breaks based on Equal Opportunity Employment is just an excuse for being lazy and unwilling to work hard. The majority of people who are racists that I have met are also well...dumb people really. But nobody put a "judge all" badge on my arm, so I have to accept that dumb people are as free as anyone else. Right. Really, can being that dumb also give them a right to a special minority status???
Just askin.

I only advocate honesty. Allowing people to be honest, means allowing them to be racist in public if they want.
There is nothing about being racist in public and in practice that makes it OK to attack or harm others.
You are jumping to that conclusion as well. Violence against people should be dealt with as criminal acts no matter what their race or minority status is.

If let people who want to put up whites only signs, or No Gays signs, then the rest of their community will be the judge of whether they are right or wrong.

If you make a law saying that they can't have those signs and that their ideals are wrong, then they will resist it, go underground, and grow their ranks as a response to the ideological attack they perceive and will try to grow, " an army" in response in case they feel they need to defend their ideas.

But please, keep ignoring reasoned and calm discussion so you can continue to make up your own "facts" and jump to conclusions as you please. You'll obviously convince people who disagree with you that way and you can fix everything. You know, just like it's fixed right now. Since it's all fixed because of the CRA already.

Originally posted by Mizzijr
I too would have to hear his reasons, then I'd ask him about the African Americans and see if he would think they deserve certain rights, depending on how he answers, then I'd make my choice.

Everything isn't about business. It's also about our country as a whole. Our country has fought each other over this disgusting matter called "racism." When your country is in chaos you do something about it, not take sides. Squash all of it if possible.

Ron Paul is my Congressman. I have interacted with him over a period of years about a variety of issues. He is no racist. He is smeared as a racist because he does not go along with the Left's post segregation race structure. Ron Paul is for the constitution and liberals have named the constitution racist because it does not permit them to discriminate and control the speech and associations of others..

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I know. It's not a hard concept to understand. What I'm dumbfounded by is how people can rush to twist words and attempt to imply things. I'm so sick of hearing things like Ron Paul is racist, crazy, or doesn't know what he's talking about. He's a very smart man, and if people would just take 10 minutes to research him, instead of listening to the criminal mainstream media, they would realize that he is one of the only honest politicians EVER.

Read Ron Paul's wikipedia page. He got his start as a doctor, and continued to deliver babies even while serving as a congressman!! He refused to register for a congressional pension while serving 4 terms. This is a good man, not a racist like he's been painted by the nutcase democrats!!
Out of all the babies that Dr. Paul has brought into this world, what percentage do you think are non-white?

He has stated himself that Rosa Parks is his hero, and that he would spend his own money to give her a medal!! Anybody that tries to paint this man as a racist is just IGNORANT!!

Originally posted by Runaway1977

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.

Now you are just making stuff up. I didn't state that racism was gone. I believe the opposite is true.
Racism is GROWING because it is becoming a SUBCULTURE and it is gaining it's own specific ECONOMY and all of this is happening because people are being told that they are not allowed to be racist.
Just like drug subculture, sexual subcultures, it is an ideological subculture that has a strong base and is increasing. Radical Muslim extremism is ALSO growing as a subculture because large parts of the American Mainstream spend time on TV and Radio denouncing these things that people start to apply their own reverse psychology phooey voodoo to it.

Just like you are in this thread. You obviously feel that racism is a true and constant evil that must be defeated, so you feel 100% justified and righteous in your beliefs so anyone who doesn't agree with you instantly is some kind of enemy.

It's just a simple inelegant way for you to feel secure and superior. Enjoy it, obviously your way of being right has worked out so well for all of us.

Taking a stance based on honesty and freedom could NEVER work.

Originally posted by deesul69
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

I know. It's not a hard concept to understand. What I'm dumbfounded by is how people can rush to twist words and attempt to imply things. I'm so sick of hearing things like Ron Paul is racist, crazy, or doesn't know what he's talking about. He's a very smart man, and if people would just take 10 minutes to research him, instead of listening to the criminal mainstream media, they would realize that he is one of the only honest politicians EVER.

Read Ron Paul's wikipedia page. He got his start as a doctor, and continued to deliver babies even while serving as a congressman!! He refused to register for a congressional pension while serving 4 terms. This is a good man, not a racist like he's been painted by the nutcase democrats!!

Out of all the babies that Dr. Paul has brought into this world, what percentage do you think are non-white?

He has stated himself that Rosa Parks is his hero, and that he would spend his own money to give her a medal!! Anybody that tries to paint this man as a racist is just IGNORANT!!

edit on 16-5-2011 by deesul69 because: (no reason given)

The problem is that he doesn't just pick a side and repeat the same remarks he's told to. He actually looks at problems and suggests ways to fix it that don't fit into one specific partisan agenda.

It's just to irritating that large groups of people spend so much time patting each other on the back for parroting the same dumb ideas that someone else has told them to repeat.

reply to post by deesul69


Yep.. they really don't want him in there.
We can't say it's just Dems I would say there are an equal amount of Reps after him. It sucks that people can take a sentence like the the thread title and cast it out and wait for people to attach a huge opinion full of implications to it and he is stuck with it because he is just so honest and stands behinds his belief fully knowing that most Americans wont understand the scale and importance of what he is saying they will pass it off with the most garbage excuse. America needs to teach reasoning in schools. People need to ask THEMSELVES what could this mean. The last place we need to get our ideas from is two dip# pundits talking back in forth pretending to not be pretend news while on a news station. I don't even like to think about it.

This will be the first man I offer my time and money to help campaign. I'm 25, and am technically registered Dem, but in the last two years have really found that this man is much more in line with my beliefs, and I know not all of them will help me I don't make much money and a lot of his ideas will help people who are in the money HOWEVER it does set up a system that gives me a chance and makes it much more likely I could succeed in making it. In all fairness it wasn't Ron Paul that made me change ideologically from Dem to Indie.. it was pretty much every one else I've seen run. I saw him do a joint interview with Nader earlier this year. I wish Nader would make up for his Spoiler campaigns by giving this man his run offs. He seemed fond of Paul rarely disagreeing (except healthcare and you know.. Nader stuff).

One last note. I would pay a thousand dollars to see Palin debate Paul one on one.

Originally posted by Runaway1977

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?

He is idealistic, but in this time, we may need a leader like that, to try and get this nation back on the right path. People are sick of the government intruding on them and making this country worse. The government has repeatedly used 9/11 as a reason to ruin our lives.....enough is enough.

Originally posted by deesul69
The right of the owner of a business of the type in Title II Sec. 201 loses the right to decide who they will allow on their personal property. Good for equal rights, but unfortunately that is a liberty lost, and goes against our country's constitutional values.

Wrong. Owners still have the right to refuse service to people on certain grounds. The only liberty you are actually whining about losing the the freedom to discriminate against customers based on race and race alone. Just admit it like a real adult. You can refuse to serve a man waving a gun in your face. You can refuse to serve someone who is swearing at you and shouting. You can refuse service to anyone who is not dressed properly. You can refuse service to anyone who cannot pay.

The only "liberty" you are worried about losing would the right to discriminate based on race. Now, hearing you defend that should be worth asking you to answer my question twice and read 5 responses to it before I get an answer.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

One last note. I would pay a thousand dollars to see Palin debate Paul one on one.

I am female and I can not STAND Palin. I think she is a NWO puppet even though she may not know it. The fact that she was picked as running mate for McCain says it all. Esp since she was such an unknown.

The MSM has literally shoved her down the throats of the T-party.

reply to post by Butterbone


Like the people who want to end the Fed? Do they really know what the Fed is?

We can all keep going back and forth but nothing's being accomplished here. 18 pages of people defending Ron Paul.

reply to post by primus2012


You have to be VERY naive if you think that Ron Paul is going to magically step in and lead us all down the golden brick road to Oz.

I already stated it earlier in this thread: I'm not voting at all in 2012.

Isn't it fun to get people all riled up?

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by primus2012

 

You have to be VERY naive if you think that Ron Paul is going to magically step in and lead us all down the golden brick road to Oz.

I already stated it earlier in this thread: I'm not voting at all in 2012.

Isn't it fun to get people all riled up?

Nobody is forcing you to vote, isn't that the beauty of a supposed free nation?

Or....you want the government to control social issues, they might as well force you to vote too.


Nobody really believes Ron Paul will change the world overnight but like we all KNOW, it would be a step in the RIGHT DIRECTION. We may not have our country back for many decades but at least following the Constitution would be emphasized under a Ron Paul led America.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by primus2012

 

Isn't it fun to get people all riled up?

It's no fun for the recipient if you don't offer a solution.

All it does in your case is make you look like an attention seeker.

And while I truly have my doubts as to the legitimacy of our election process, I will punch, fill in or write in my vote for Ron Paul if, for no other reason, than to do what I know in my heart to be right.

Right man, Right message, Right time...Ron Paul 2012.

reply to post by eLPresidente


People said the very same thing about Obama in 2008.

Look at what happened there.

I don't think Paul can change much either.

reply to post by The Sword

Like the people who want to end the Fed? Do they really know what the Fed is?

Of Course I know what the FED is! Why else do you think I hate it???

I read all of A Primer on Money (Government Printing Office, House of Representatives, Committee on Banking and Currency, 88th Congress, 2nd session, 1964).

I read Congressman McFadden's Speech On the Federal Reserve He was the president of the First National Bank in Canton, Pennsylvania and later chair of the Congressional Committee on Banking and Currency so I really think he knew what he was talking about!

...The dean of Washington newspapermen at that time and founder of the National Press Club, Mr. George Stimpson, when asked in later years to comment on the seriousness and magnitude of the charges being made by McFadden, he replied, "It was incredible. This town went into a state of shock. We couldn't believe what we were hearing. Of course, they said right away that he had lost his mind." "Do you think he had?", Stimpson was asked. "Oh, no," came the reply. "But it was too much, too much for one man to do". www.sweetliberty.org...

I think Henry Ford said it best:

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

These bankers get you to sign a contract giving them the RIGHT to collect the fruits of your labor while they give you NOTHING! They wrap up their arrogantly brazen fraud in scholarly Baffle Gab using university economics departments they bought and paid for. They convince everyone the economy will somehow keel over dead if THEY do not inject a steady stream of "fiat currency" into the economy. A stream of currency THEY exchange our labor for, while inflating prices and devaluing wages until after forty years the minimum wage now has less than a tenth of its buying power.

They have siphoned off the wealth of this country for a hundred years and contemptuously call us The Great Unwashed

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by primus2012

 

You have to be VERY naive if you think that Ron Paul is going to magically step in and lead us all down the golden brick road to Oz.

I already stated it earlier in this thread: I'm not voting at all in 2012.

Isn't it fun to get people all riled up?

I said he "could"...read it again, that's not naievity. I've followed the man for years, I trust him. I believe that he would make every effort to right the course of this country in troubled waters. I understand why he wouldn't have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I wouldn't be supporting him if I thought he was racist.

You already voted by creating this defaming thread.

reply to post by The Sword


For those that aren't sure about Ron Paul. I would urge you to look up his voting record in congress, you can't @#$% that kind of consistency. The man only votes for measures allowed by the US constitution. Which was written to keep us out of the position we the people find ourselves in now!

reply to post by joyride0187

For those that aren't sure about Ron Paul. I would urge you to look up his voting record in congress, you can't @#$% that kind of consistency. The man only votes for measures allowed by the US constitution. Which was written to keep us out of the position we the people find ourselves in now!

BINGO!

And that is why the Banker OWNED MSM hate him. If the talking heads want to keep their jobs they better work their rears off defaming him no matter what their privately believe.

...While Derry was one of the funniest people I've ever known, he was also very smart. Nothing got past Derry. He wasn't afraid to take on rot and corruption which cost him a long time radio show slot. You see, he took on Monsanto, a sponsor the network felt was more important than the truth. MY FRIEND, DERRY BROWNFIELD, REST IN PEACE

Florida Reporters Awarded $500,000 in Damages after FOX TV Caved into Monsanto and Killed an Investigative Series on the controversial recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH)

TAMPA (August 18) After listening to all the evidence for five full weeks and deliberating more than six hours, a state court jury has agreed with what fired journalists Steve Wilson and Jane Akre said long ago: FOX Television pressured them to broadcast a false, distorted or slanted news report....

"Freedom of the Press" means the OWNER of the printing press gets to print what HE wants

Originally posted by Runaway1977
The only "liberty" you are worried about losing would the right to discriminate based on race.

I know the question wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer it anyway. Yes, the right to discriminate based on race would be a personal "liberty", albeit an ignorant one. Black folks exercise that liberty frequently, openly. I've watched the show on CNN 'Black in America', where it was openly called for blacks to frequent black owned businesses, one guest on the show stated they don't mind traveling further to give money back to "their" race. You really should stop trying to play little 'gotcha' games with other members and attempting to paint anybody who agrees with Paul that the government should not be able to legislate against ignorance, as racists. That poo is getting real old. It's not the government's place. As far as government establishments, like schools and such, of course they should be subject to such laws.

But private property owners should have the right to be ignorant fools...and the market would take care of them, and they would probably see the err of their ways. I personally wouldn't give money to anybody who discriminates based on race, black or white. On the flip side, if you're black, would you want to eat at a restaurant owned by the grand wizard of the KKK, and give them your hard earned money to fund their hate picnics or whatever? And perhaps since they're forced to serve those they ignorantly hate, they may be more apt to spit in peoples food. This kind of law basically forces that to be the case, and personally I would like to know if somebody hates me before I eat there.