It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 19
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in


posted on May, 16 2011 @ 11:20 AM
For those who really believe Ron Paul, or those who support him are racist (bold mine):

Q: If you are elected president in 2008, what positive and significant legacy, if any, will you leave for Black Americans?

A: I would like to believe that if we had a freer society, it would take care of Blacks and whites and everybody equally because we’re all individuals. To me, that is so important. But if we had equal justice under the law, I think it would be a big improvement. If we had probably a repeal of most of the federal laws on drugs and the unfairness on how Blacks are treated with these drugs laws, it would be a tremendous improvement. And also, I think that if you’re going to have prosperity, it serves everybody. And if this is done by emphasizing property rights and freedom of the individuals, making sure that the powerful special interests don’t control Washington, that the military industrial complex doesn’t suck away all the wealth of the country, and then we would have prosperity.

Q: What policy would you support to guarantee young Black and Latino men a fairer equal justice system?

A: A system designed to protect individual liberty will have no punishments for any group and no privileges. Today, I think inner-city folks and minorities are punished unfairly in the war on drugs. For instance, Blacks make up 14% of those who use drugs, yet 36 percent of those arrested are Blacks and it ends up that 63% of those who finally end up in prison are Blacks. This has to change. We don’t have to have more courts and more prisons. We need to repeal the whole war on drugs. It isn’t working. We have already spent over $400 billion since the early 1970s, and it is wasted money. Prohibition didn’t work. Prohibition on drugs doesn’t work. So we need to come to our senses. And, absolutely, it’s a disease. We don’t treat alcoholics like this. This is a disease, and we should orient ourselves to this. That is one way you could have equal justice under the law.

Yeah, he's a racist alright.

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:01 PM

Originally posted by The Sword
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.

I'm not defending Ron Paul. I'm pointing out that his ideas are good ideas. They are based on the better principles that we teach ourselves and our children. While honesty is more difficult to accomplish, if maintained, it will produce better results. It just has to follow a natural course.

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:38 PM

Originally posted by deesul69
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

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

They were there under the orders of The POTUS who is the Commander Of Chief who was a former 5 Star General of the Army.

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:03 PM
reply to post by primus2012

There are no saviors in American politics, no matter which party.

I'm sure most people have learned from supporting Obama. I know that I have.

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:08 PM
reply to post by 27jd

You are taking election propaganda and pretending its the truth... Remember you only say things that gets you votes in elections..

I have no view on Ron Paul either way, annoying little monkey at most.

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 07:53 PM

Originally posted by ShogunAssassins
You are taking election propaganda and pretending its the truth... Remember you only say things that gets you votes in elections..

Hopefully, we'll be able to find out if it's truth or not. I agree, you never know until somebody is elected whether they'll follow through. I voted for Obama in the last election, might as well have voted another term for GWB. If Ron Paul wins we'll see if he delivers, or if he's just another two party scammer.

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 08:24 PM

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by primus2012

There are no saviors in American politics, no matter which party.

I'm sure most people have learned from supporting Obama. I know that I have.

Why haven't you updated your dishonest title to remove the quotes, since Ron Paul never said the words you claimed he did? I reported you but for the hoax you are spreading, for some reason the mods are letting the hoax continue on. Well?

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 08:40 PM
How quickly the tar-and-feather brigade/wag-the-doggers flurry into motion. The argument that is developing in this thread is quite beside the point of it. The distraction/obfuscation is in full swing!
Having seen the Chris Matthews interview, I see how the social image of Rep. Paul is being framed by the MSM. Triggering debate on race issues is a no brainer, thats why TPTB and the MSM rely on it like a crutch.
The debate that is forming here is one that should exist under a separate thread title far as I'm concerned.
Ron Paul did not make the quote the OP quotes him as saying.... Duh!
Thread over. Begin new thread, title : "Race/Racism in American Politics"

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 09:19 PM
reply to post by DjDoubleD

The best part is that this single MSM frame job, is being heavily defended, endorsed, and pointed at as proof on a website that spends 98% of it's time screaming at the top of it's lungs, "You can't trust the MSM".

Well obviously some people can trust it, when it offers them up the exact proof they already wanted.

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 09:44 PM

Originally posted by SaberTruth

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.

Racism is not a 'subset of bigotry'. Racism is the power-structure of institutionalized bigotry.

As for your claims that people get called a racist for critiquing Obama's policy, I find it highly ironic that your rant against Obama is based on his race and contains no critique of policy.

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 10:53 AM

Originally posted by Quadrivium
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'm a new member and this interested me. Can you tell us what "it really stood for" at the time? Also, what is the relevance of your two questions?

Also, if you can tell me how it violates the Constitution, that'd be great.

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Misoir

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by ThichHeaded

If everyone banned everyone, then nothing would get sold.

A smart businessman would look around him and see all these segregated businesses then say to himself, "I know how I can make some real money". So he removes the 'No minorities allowed' sign from his store. All the non-racist whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, etc... will all go to his store. He would soon have the largest customer base because the other idiots are segregating their business.

One by one the segregated businesses will either go bankrupt or desegregate.

Greed can be good because without greed that first businessman would never have changed his store policies. It's really a domino effect, one domino falls then the rest fall too.

Greed is a double edged sword and therefore I disagree that greed and the markets will work out all of our woes. You are looking for a system to shape society, not only to shape it, but shape it in a good decent and pleasant way. What what do you do if people who want to end up on top in the capitalist game, buy themselve political power to skew the playing field, pull of stunts like the junk bond debacle (well I guess it wasnt a debacle for the guy who kicked it off).

The markets also prefer the services of workers with few or no rights, where they have to work 16 hours plus just to feed themselves and they dont need a home because they sleep in the factory. Is that good? People in Europe with a low skill set in Europe and America have seen their real income decrease, because in that specific field the market ships off jobs to countries where repressive regimes keep the workers from bettering their situation. Is that good?

Instead of boycotting China and India and telling them we wont do buisness with them, untill they quit undercutting European and American workers by giving their workers an absoulte appaling compensation, we tell low skilled workers in America and Europe to just accept the decreasing standard of living of the lower class as a fact of life and to hush about it, because else even more jobs will go to sweatshops oversea. Is that good?

Before you speak out against goverment intervention in the free markets again, keep the many lobbys in mind and the organisations, who seek to buy themselves goverment intervention in the free markets in their favor, by enacting policies that will bankrupt their competition, by gaining access to YOUR tax dollars, or by other means.

The idea of democracy is to have goverment intervention that will benefit the majority, however with corporatism money spells politics and it isnt necessarily wielded by the majority. We need a goverment that acts on the best interest of the population at large, not a goverment that does not act at all and stands by as the strong crush the weak, or, even worse, allows itself to be bought up.
edit on 28-12-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 16  17  18   >>

log in