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

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic

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.

I think you nailed it. Sadly, I like a lot of what Ron Paul has to say...however limitless freedom just does not work. He seems to think that people today wouldn't place "white only" signs all over the place, he is hugely mistaken.

This is just a straw man arguement taken out of context
indeed lets have more NO bama
or Sarah Palin instead
hehheh

whites only?
non whites ?
blacks?

the place will fill up with what Rps opponents ( the OPs friends I guess) want
Mexicans, illegal Mexicans, Arabs Muslims Chinese, eastern Europrans, western Europeans, women
non smokers
gays
NATIVES
remember both parties have TRIED to sneak the ol AMNESTY for illegals through..
RP was against that so the OP is for it I guess
haha

maybe even someone with a buck in their pocket might go in or
maybe the OP is afraid it will be NON WHITES only

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
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.

Absolutely. The New Black Panther Party was threatening whites at the polls to get Obama elected, and there is a lot of heat between blacks and hispanics too. Racism isn't just a problem with whites.

But racism isn't the FedGov's business unless it breaks some Constitutional law. While the laws of our land do say that all have equal rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", it does not speak to individual conscience, which is why I said that people should not be subjected to sensitivity training.

General questions: There have always been establishments such as restaurants that cater to particular groups of people, and some would refuse to seat a person not wearing a tie for example. Is this discrimination that FedGov should consider against the law? Can Christian photographers be convicted of crime if they refuse to do business that would help or condone pornography for example? Could mosques be sued for disturbing the peace by loud calls to prayer 5 times a day? I'm asking these to see where and why the lines are drawn.

reply to post by ThichHeaded


That isn't right.

If Bob the Racist runs a store that bans blacks and Arabs, then who will frequent it? His fellow racists. His business will not disappear. It will continue to operate in virtual segregation, forever. Without government intervention, desegregation simply WOULD NOT have happened in many places, and it would have taken DECADES longer, perhaps GENERATIONS before it melted away in others. Notice that, even today, we still have discrimination in every corner!

And it was the government's job to desegregate in the first place, because it was the government that ESTABLISHED segregation. Jim Crow laws intervened in private business to CREATE a culture of segregation and racial prejudice that might not have been as bad if the market really was "free."

Why is it that people love Ron Paul and this stupid "Civil Rights intervened unfairly in my business boo hoo" bologna? Because the ONLY thing that desegregation tread upon, that was not already tread upon by Jim Crow, was STATES' RIGHTS. You are banging the same tired old drum that led to the Civil War.

edit: beaten on the business argument.

It is entertaining to see Paul supporters leap to their favourite's defense, though. It's easy to see that these arguments aren't being made for the sake of the principle of the freedom to discriminate (why else would his defenders be so upset by being labelled racist for defending racism?) Just standard-issue political rhetoric, no different from the supporters of any politics-jerk: Say whatever it takes to make my guy look less terrible.

Ron Paul,
The last 'hope' (curse you B) in many Americans eyes.

Fact of the matter is, if he has not been given the 'Tap' on the shoulder by the ruling globalists....he won't become Prez....regardless of How many people vote for him.....

That is the truth of the matter.

I think the Ron Paul vote, is the 'one step back' offering, in the political shuffle that is played out in front of us, day in and day out.
Lately though, it has not been just 2 steps forward, more like 100 yard dashes, to further the globalists agenda.
Ah well, if you have not realized by now that the elections are the Circus, given to us for pacification purposes, I doubt you ever will.

When has Any party....repealed the horrible legislation undertaken by the previous party?
Never.....
That, right there is a peak behind the circus we are offered...to the heart of the matter.
There is only One party, and that is the Globalists party...and all politicians are vying for a lick at the gravy trough.

Ron Paul is floating in a political life raft, in an angry sea of chit and corruption...trying to keep his head above the toxic waste.
My admiration goes out to him, and for the most part I feel he is liked by all....and thus left alone in his corner of the political arena to do the small things that seem important to him......but to become Prez, he would either have to sell out......or there would have to be some drastic change that occurred at the top of the pyramid.

Originally posted by ThichHeaded

If someone wants to turn someone else away because of whatever reason it is thier right to.. because it is thier property to do with however they want.. so therefor it dont matter if we are a culture who like this person and that person.. when you come into my store you abide by my rules... its simple as that...

Its a tricky issue. I personally think that some level of force WAS needed to break the barrier of long standing discrimination and tradition. So I disagree with Ron Paul that it wasnt necessary and good. When people are brainwashed into religion, racism, etc., from birth onward, (against their free will, I might point out, parents and other groups impose it on children) there needs to be some other force to push back against that.

I dont agree with Ron Paul on everything. I dont agree with ANYONE on everything. But there is no hope in hell that he can change this particular issue at this point in time, so I personally do not care what he thinks about it. I care much more whether or not he will fight to undo Citizens United, so that we can get corporate money out of our electoral system and save the democracy.

And so far, it looks like he is on the wrong side of that issue for me.

My vote is going to the person I believe will fight tooth and nail against corporate personhood, and to restore fully the rights to privacy, that protect from unreasonable search and seizure, that guarantee a right to a speedy trial, etc.

As we have seen with the illegal Mexican issue,
and the amnesty and exportation of jobs to countries
where there are no civil rights issues:
like where they have suicide nets for break time

it costs the average person a lot of money to be told to play nice:
by people like Margret Sanger
who want familly planning to abort like half of the current black fetuses in the US
no need of a civil war there eh?

segragation is USED as a tool to keep silly people divided.
while they all get fleeced
it is also an excuse for the government to get a little piece of control over your business...
like anti smoking legislation
or the new FOOD LEGISLATION(s)

the fisrt thing the uS did when it made the importation of slaves illegal was to give itseldf the right to go search ships coming from africa at africa
www.yorktownhistory.org...
so there this is the kind of intrerventionist NAZI fascist search and seizure the RON PAUL IS AGAINST
so are half the peole ragging in RP on this thread

they are just not drinking enough coffee today

no lets chase the KIDDY aspects of the subject instead so people don't investigate what RP is actually on about


using a term like "Ron Paul lovers" is a cheezey thing
you want cheezey?
compare him to his opponents
haha

Originally posted by 1000TonBlocks

When has Any party....repealed the horrible legislation undertaken by the previous party?
Never.....

When have people ever moved past the two corporate parties and elected someone not owned by globalist interests?

Our electoral system is horribly corrupt. No doubt. But they havent gone so far as to make the whole system a sham, because they didnt have to. As long as we were picking one of two candidates they selected for us, they had no reason to attack the underlying mechanisms. The focused on the part that offered us the false dichotomy of "you have to pick one of these two." Advertising. Campaign finance. Etc.

We can still make our system work. But to do so, we have to ignore advertising, and ignore the two established parties, and ignore people from the two established parties who scramble to move into third parties.

We need to start with fresh meat, who has not been infected yet, and we need to force them to push through protections to the system in their first term, or we need to vote them out. We need to demand the system work, not just shrug our shoulders and say "oh well, its broken" when it doesnt.

Originally posted by SaberTruth
Racism isn't just a problem with whites.

Totally agree. However, the white culture, as the dominant culture in the US, does, I believe, have a significant influence on the degree of racism currently being displayed. Most of the anti-white racism I have personally witnessed stems from a large amount of anger and frustration resulting from white-originated racism.

This by no means makes anti-white racism "OK". It does make it understandable.

General questions: There have always been establishments such as restaurants that cater to particular groups of people, and some would refuse to seat a person not wearing a tie for example. Is this discrimination that FedGov should consider against the law? Can Christian photographers be convicted of crime if they refuse to do business that would help or condone pornography for example? Could mosques be sued for disturbing the peace by loud calls to prayer 5 times a day? I'm asking these to see where and why the lines are drawn.

Good questions. And I would say the answer to all of your questions is No, given certain assumptions:

Question 1 regarding restaurants. Assuming the restaurant in question is not the only place to get food, then this kind of discrimination is, in my opinion, acceptable. So answer is No, the gov't should not get involved, based on the mentioned assumption.

Question 2 regarding Christian phtographers and porn. Clearly No. Nobody is going to starve or freeze or bleed to death because they don't have fuel to get to the hospital if a Christian photographer refuses to do porn pictures.

Question 3 regarding Muslim call to prayer. This one is a little grayer. If there is a call to prayer at 5 AM when most people are sleeping, then maybe that would be restricted at that time of day. On the other hand, I grew up in a sawmill town where they had a loud steam whistle that went off every morning at 5, waking up the whole valley. I did not work at the sawmill, nor did my father, but we woke up anyway. I don't see any real difference between that and waking up to a call to prayer for a religion I do not subscribe to.

My main concern is with goods and services that are important or vital to the "pursuit of life". Food. Fuel. Power. Bank services. Schools. Etc.

We can have many discussions as to whether a society that is so dependent on these things is a good idea or not, but the fact remains that in our current society, these things are essentially vital to survival on any kind of decent basis. And in that case, yes, I believe gov't has a role to play in ensuring that all citizens of the country have equal access to the items vital to survival in the society.

I'm not a big fan of gov't intrusion, but I weigh the evils of that against the potential or historic evils when such intervention is not available.

For example what happened in California in the '90s when electric power distribution was de-regulated. Enron, a company run by criminals, went hog wild and denied electric service to thousands. Not based on race, granted, but the example holds - significant harm was done, many people were denied their pursuit of life, due to the actions of a private corporation that had a strangle hold on a vital service.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

Actually what you are stating has very little to do with Paul. It has more to do with history and the ongoing enslavement of minorities brought about by the 1964 civil rigbts act.
Most people only know (or care) about the bill being past in '64. They don't know the history behind the bill, they don't know and they do not care. Most "every day" liberals have no idea what or who they are really supporting. I honestly believe that if they new they would be shocked and ashamed.
It was about keeping minorities as slaves.
Quad

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

It's easy to see that these arguments aren't being made for the sake of the principle of the freedom to discriminate (why else would his defenders be so upset by being labelled racist for defending racism?)

Quite the opposite. If his supporters were defending racism, they would not be upset much to be called racists. But they are in fact defending freedom, including freedom to discriminate, not racism. Thats why they are upset tobe called racists, it is a straw man. One can easily be against such laws due to other reasons than being a racist.

reply to post by Maslo


Yes, they are defending racism. They are defending the rights of the individual to discriminate based on race, and arguing that this is not a bad thing. But, they don't believe in racism themselves (or so it seems) and resent being called racists when they are merely, innocently, saying that people have a right to be racist and the government should not intervene.

Originally posted by The Sword
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.

Get my facts right? Your beating a dead horse by just bringing this whole situation up AGAIN. Regardless of what happened in 2008 this has been brought up several times since then and this is just another attempt to smear his name with something that is taken well out of context. It has been said over and over and over that what Ron Paul said is taken out of context. If you bothered to do a proper search you would see that this has been brougth up several times before. Its old news.

reply to post by Quadrivium


I do not take the legislation at face value and I can answer both your questions:

1. Democrats created and supported the KKK, Wilson (Democrat) even began federal segregation
2. Republicans proposed all of the civil rights legislation until the 1960s.

With that stated I would personally like to know what these sinister intentions exactly were/are. I know enough about the issue to see what is being said then and today is a lie but not enough to exactly pinpoint who, what, when, where, and how. Could you help me out?

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
Yes, they are defending racism. They are defending the rights of the individual to discriminate based on race, and arguing that this is not a bad thing.

I don't want to be your friend because of your skin color, sorry SmellyBeerCap

should I be arrested for that?

What? I shouldn't because I am allowed to chose who not to be friends with?
Damn... seems like you are defending racism there bud

I can't believe I actually needed to explain that to you

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I don't understand what you are trying to say here. You agree with the arguments made in this thread, that people should be allowed to be racist? You agree with me that this is what they are saying?

Why does everyone automatically go to white people refusing service to black people? Black business owners could refuse white people as well. It would not make good business sense for either to happen as you reduce the number of clientele, but you would end up getting smarter or going broke. In the end it would work itself out.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap


I don't want you to dislike conservatives so I will get the state to make sure that it is illegal for you to think negatively of conservatives. Your thoughts and judgements will hereby be regulated and restricted for your personal benefit and the benefit of all conservatives and peace loving people alike. Now if you oppose this action then you are either a bigot (which you claim you are not) or you are defending the rights of bigots.

Fair right?

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap


OK. I think we can agree that one can defend the the right of people to be racist without this interference from the state, while not being racist themselves. Such a stance is even to be expected from libertarian politicians such as Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is a libertarian. He's against all unwanted state intrusion into the public's lives.

So let me guess you take a sentence or two out of context to demonize him and call him a racist?

Who do you work for?