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

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

I used the search function so unless the word "Moderator" is under your title, stuff it.

Besides, other people do the same thing. You should just report it if bothers you that much.

You are bar none the most consistently unfriendly, unpleasant , most confrontational person I have ever seen on this website since ive signed up on here.......

Someone was making a simple suggestion, how about we use some manners

Ron is right on this one, I think we really need to look at the logic in some of these things before having a knee jerk reaction to political issues..........Thats how we got Obama

reply to post by dizzie56


Well, we are in a NEW election cycle and if you bothered to read the article, it has nothing to do with the 2008 campaign.

Get your facts right.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


You certainly overlooked a lot of other people then.

In fact, Ron Paul supporters of today are like Obama supporters back in 2008: They'll defend their messiah to no end, even if it clouds their individual judgment!

Makes sense to me. It is their property and business, they should have the right to discriminate in any way, even based on race. Both sides have good arguments, IMHO.

DOUBLE POST

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
reply to post by The Sword

 

See that is the cool thing about this..

If i went to a store lets say.. Bob's big ass tires.. and on the front it says No black and Arabs allowed.. I would probably be like well this guy is a douche and goto Jim's big ass tires because jim likes everyone..

Sooner or later Bob will be out of business because he was a douchebag and jim will have all the business he can have and them some..

Free market at its best.

In the real world, this scenario would turn out to be the opposite of your conclusion.

All the causation folks would shop at "Bob" store, and the minorities would go to "Jims" store as a result of that sort of sign.

People tend to prefer to shop among "birds of a similar feather". So "Bobs" store would enjoy more business obviously to having the higher customer-base. Per statistics, "Jims" store would also have the disadvantage of higher thefts then does "Bobs" which means loss of profits.

So "Bobs" business would win out in the REAL world.

Real world.

Click here for more information.

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.

Or, a smarter businessman would open several stores all catering to a different class. Now, instead of one store open to all, you have ten stores creating ten times the number of jobs and thus stimulating the economy even more.

The quality of a governing system depends more on the quality of the people implementing it than it does on the form of government. A monarchy or dictatorship can be a fine place to live, if the quality of the implementors is high. A representative republic can be a lousy place to live if the implementors are of low quality.

Here's the problem with un-restrained Libertarianism, especially in the current US culture of everybody only looking out for themselves:

Two privately owned companies:

Jim-Bob's Electric Utility company and Achmed's Food Store. They are located in a sparsely populated area, and are the only game available for electricity or food.

Jim-Bob don't like "the cuhlerds", so only white people get electric power to their homes (it's Jim-Bob's company, right? He can refuse to sell to whoever he wants right?).

Achmed doesn't care much for white people, especially now that he has to have his own electricity generation capability, so Caucasions are not allowed to shop at his food store. The only one in 50 miles in any direction. So white people have no place to buy food. Hey, it's Achmed's store, right?

And just for the hell of it, Juan owns the only gas station in 50 miles from anywhere. At this point he don't care much for whites OR Arabs, so only Latinos now can buy gas at his station.

Or failing that, sure, Jim-Bob will sell electricity to non-whites... at 10 times the rate as whites. Achmed will sell food to whites, they can pay about 10 times what non-whites pay. Same for Juan... if you are not Latino you can buy gas at his station at the "non-Latino only" pumps, which start at $15.00 per gallon.

Given a healthy culture, clearly this scenario is not likely. The current culture in the US is anything but healthy.

Agree with the comments that this is all politics and nothing about correcting social ills. FedGov is unconstitutionally huge and invasive, treating its own citizens as more of an enemy than other nations. To tell private business whom to do business with, beyond selling hi-tech to our enemies, is against the law of our land.

But the matter of racism is bigger than that. I personally never hated anyone, esp. on such a ridiculous basis as genetics. And I do believe that everyone should have the freedom to go wherever they want without being subjected to threatened hostility or verbal harassment, even if allegedly done in jest. But I draw the line at forcing people to go to "sensitivity training" because that is thought control imposed by the state. If a person hates short people, bald people, white people, etc. then so what? As long as they don't harass, threaten, or assault the people they hate, then who cares? FedGov must never legislate anything beyond its constitutional powers because, as history shows now more than ever, it can't handle it. (As Reagan put it, "Congress is like a baby: an alimentary canal with an insatiable appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.")

Another wise person whose name escapes me at the moment (I believe it was originally said in ancient Rome) said that once the public coffers are opened to give to charity, there will be no end to the raiding of public funds, and that's exactly what has happened. The lesson is that even if some cause is deemed worthy enough to make an exception to the Constitutional limits of the federal government, we must not do so and instead allow the charities to do what they do best and on the basis of freely given donations. We have become a bloated nanny state, which means the dependents will always vote for whoever increases their free money, to the point where many of them consider it a basic right to be demanded.

FedGov should protect the borders and little else.

reply to post by SaberTruth


Sure, hate whoever you want.

The majority of ignorant people will not keep it to themselves. They will discriminate, they will hurt, they will maim and do whatever they want.

That's why government has to step in. That's why we all can't have nice things.

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


I agree, but wouldn't a possible solution be for each of them to recruit new businesses to cater to their own people, making healthy competition? It's much the same with doctors for example. Often they are recruited to remote areas so all of them don't stay in the big cities.

(Besides, I like the idea of being off any sort of huge grid, electrical or otherwise. Self-sufficiency has its advantages.)

reply to post by SaberTruth


What is the point of segregation of businesses?

In fact, where's the logic at all in segregation?

All I see is people trying so hard to defend Paul's viewpoint and making a weak attempt at developing an individual opinion.

Originally posted by SaberTruth
I agree, but wouldn't a possible solution be for each of them to recruit new businesses to cater to their own people, making healthy competition? It's much the same with doctors for example. Often they are recruited to remote areas so all of them don't stay in the big cities.

Sure. However, given the genesis of such competition, I'm not sure it would be 'healthy'. More like a series of armed camps for each ethnic group. Or worse yet, further concentration of power into the hands of one group or another. ('Power' in this case being contol of resources important or vital to life in the culture).

And to use your medical example, which is a good one, what if the only doctor in the area was Dr. Goldburg. Really good doctor, really knows her stuff. But she only treats Jewish women. All men, and all non-Jews, must find medical care somewhere else. Probably in the same mythical town 50 miles down the road...

(Besides, I like the idea of being off any sort of huge grid, electrical or otherwise. Self-sufficiency has its advantages.)

I hear ya!

It's 2011 now, so why does this matter?
Why are these talking heads bringing this up again?

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Because racism is still fresh in the memories of the populace?

They know and we know that it's an effective tool to get the masses to turn against Paul and anyone like him.

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?

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
It's 2011 now, so why does this matter?
Why are these talking heads bringing this up again?

Because otherwise they'd have to focus on something relevant to today's world, and we simply can't have that. It's much better to stir the pot and give the masses something to argue over.

Originally posted by Kali74
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?

Based on observation, it is my opinion that between the miserable leadership the US had when 9/11 happened, followed by the election of a black man as President, racism has exploded in the US. It is FAR from dead or even sleeping.

I believe Paul is attempting to tap into this explosion of, call it xenophobia, as it is not entirely race-based.

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.