It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 8
18
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Well lets say this I remember seeing the signs not in a book or magazine but hanging there in front of my eyes . I remember the 2 sets of bathrooms The white bathrooms were in inside while blacks were out back or out side the restaurants. Some places in the south they were still hanging till the late 60s

Uncle Pat owned a Drugstore, with a malt and burger shop ,and a grocery store in a small Texas town . He didnt have signs or 2 bathrooms . His was the biggest in town for years .

Dad grew up on a small farm him and the uncles and aunts when young would be in the fields picking melons cotton ect side by side with the blacks or hispanics .

I advocate freedom to do what you wish as long as you don't hinder anyone else community ownership like coops are fine just like private ownership . I really dont see the past returning with the signs .

One point here some strict fundamentalist churches have been forced to hire gays for certain jobs Should the government really be doing that ? Under the civil rights acts . Whats next forcing Jews and Muslims to eat pork because everyone else does and its good for you ? Should a church be allowed to hire people who adhere to their faith ? You start with one little law restricting personal property uses by owner and where it ends who knows .




posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


I can't believe you even posted that....did u even watch the interview?? The whole thing, not just a 20 sec. snippit?? Do yourself and others reading this thread a favor, and watch the interview, Matthews was trying to trap Paul but it didnt work. Matthews at te end even states that Paul has a good chance at winning this.
youtu.be...
edit on 14-5-2011 by Chickensalad because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Is anyone responding to this NOT white? Or experienced hate based (not ignorance based) racism first hand?



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Denco
Is anyone responding to this NOT white? Or experienced hate based (not ignorance based) racism first hand?


You have to be non-white to experience hate-based racism?



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ThichHeaded
 


The Civil Rights Act had to be created because white people were not being fair. They would not hire anyone but whites, which caused economic hardships and the need for welfare in the first place.
It is a shame people are allowed to pick and choose history. Now they will be repeating everything and never learning anything.
Yeah, I see it coming and at first you all will cheer.
Then the feudalistic boot will come.
When there are no more races, who do you think the scapegoat rope will fall on?
Yeah, I say let the idiots get what they want so they can cry about how stupid they were and how good they once had it and it will never return again.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaWhiz
reply to post by ThichHeaded
 


The Civil Rights Act had to be created because white people were not being fair. They would not hire anyone but whites, which caused economic hardships and the need for welfare in the first place.
It is a shame people are allowed to pick and choose history. Now they will be repeating everything and never learning anything.
Yeah, I see it coming and at first you all will cheer.
Then the feudalistic boot will come.
When there are no more races, who do you think the scapegoat rope will fall on?
Yeah, I say let the idiots get what they want so they can cry about how stupid they were and how good they once had it and it will never return again.


Speaking of "picking and choosing history".

You have no idea, whatsoever, about what it is you are talking about.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Lol, how many times has Ron Paul ran for President now?



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 

He's right about the Civil Rights Act. It was written by the socialists who controlled the white system so they could create the system of race doctrines and preferences that we have now. Racism and race violence by the preferred of society is as strong as ever. Institutionalized discrimination is still named beautiful - as long as it targets whites and in particular - white males. They even have the race doctrines to debase whites so everyone understands why they should be discriminated against and are not permitted equal rights. Just new colors and it is still used by the elite to divide and conquer our people and our freedom.

Democrats still have their power built upon an order of race special rights and race enemies who don't have equal rights. Democrats were the party of the White Klan before they became the today's Klan with a Tan. Look at Holder's Division of voting rights! He admitted in a hearing that the protection of voting rights is for blacks against white racists -not for protecting whites from black racists. They just flipped the racist system up-side-down and called it beautiful.

Get your head out of the sand.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
this is about property rights not about civil rights. the civil rights act was needed at that time but come on, its a different world these days, im fairly certain we could survive without. its not like if that legislation was abandoned the country would automatically go back to pre-civil rights segregation. i think the same could be said for a lot of laws that maybe at one time were needed, but now the education and common sense is out there and its no longer needed.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonbreath
 


this is his 3rd campaign. 3rd times the charm right? i hope



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by Denco
Is anyone responding to this NOT white? Or experienced hate based (not ignorance based) racism first hand?


You have to be non-white to experience hate-based racism?


That's why I said OR



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Again, its government intervention into something that isn't needed. Apparently we don't trust the paper that embodies our beliefs as a nation, which is why Ron quipped during the debate that we need government to make laws to protect us from ourselves.

Until we realize that each of us holds the key to liberty and freedom and are willing to exercise our rights, then we'll always be one step away from a totalitarian government by allowing them to exercise control over the people.

Remember one of Jefferson's quotes:

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Which do we have nowadays?



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
The problem is that the 1964 Voting Rights Act grew ouf the failure of the Federal Gov't to insure rights implicit in the 14th Amendment of 1868 as well as the political reconstruction of the South. The legislative act of 1964 would not have been necessary if the Southern states had not been, de facto, in violation of the 14th Amendment since the end of reconstruction in 1877.

What Ron might have said is that an intrusive federal legislative remedy should not trump a constitutional one--already on the books.

But then how do you deal with nullification of federal law? Abe Lincoln (and Grant, Truman, Ike and Kennedy) knew that the only real answer is not Law but Force.

The Voting Rights Act of 1964 led to the equal protections mandated by the 14th Amendment, but the real cost (or carrot) was a huge payoff in social spending (roads, medicare, welfare) from the federal gov't to the states which has now become unsustainable.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


Social issues are not economic issues?? I beg to differ, poverty is a social issue, affluence is a social issue. And you made the argument for him yourself. If business owners choose to discriminate in our society they would not last as business owners. Ancient history. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" is discriminatory in your eyes then?



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 



So, do you agree or disagree that people should be free to express and act on racial prejudice?


People already do express feelings of racial prejudice.

People have the freedom to think or feel whatever their whims may warrant.

We certainly do not need thought police.

As for "acting" on a prejudice, are you talking about a business not serving someone because of a prejudice?

Of course they should have that freedom, and we very well have the freedom to boycott them.

Now, as for "acting on racial prejudice" I cannot tell if you are insinuating violence?

"Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."


More importantly, do you agree or disagree that a recurring argument in this thread has been that people should be free to act on racial prejudice?


People should be free to do what they will with their property, and a person's place of business is their property. If they do not want to serve someone based on a prejudice they do not have to.

And, of course, we as consumers do not have to spend our money there.

You're just grasping at straws.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonbreath
 



Same as Reagan, 3 times.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Once again Ron Pauls comments are intentionally perverted and manipulated. Stop twisting the mans opinions, he is not racist at all, he is for FREEDOM and PROPERTY rights, nowhere does he ever say a HUMAN is property



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 

i work at a hotel and i can refuse to serve anyone. Its policy!
But seriously free markets like this sounds great bu treally what would happen? Some places are just more racist then others you'll probably have more hate crime rise in certain areas.Being allowed to discriminate like this just isn't a good thing. Do you really want to see a dinner full of KKK guys who would beat up any white guy who didnt support there business. And you can't say it wouldn't happen because it has happened. Something like this would just be a step backwards. In todays PC world this would just create a split.

Edit: just want to say i really respect ron paul as a politician. who sticks to his gun and doesn't sway because of public opinion.It shows he has values, and i don't see this as a racist move by him. More politicians like that please!

edit on 14-5-2011 by Bixxi3 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


Umm.. how is it the Governments business who I hire, serve etc? The law is correct in making sure public facilities and public employers cannot discriminate but private businesses? I don't think so.

If I don't like Koreans for whatever reason it should be my right not like Koreans. To ban Koreans from my store. Tough, go somewhere else.

Same with blacks. Well maybe not..

And technically speaking, businesses CAN still refuse to serve anyone ... except blacks, no one can refuse service to blacks, because unlike all the other major ethnic groups the blacks protest, boycott, maybe a little riot who knows, and eventually authorities fearful of political backlash will have you publicly destroyed.

I recall recently a bowling alley around where I used to live has declared openly they refuse to allow Russians into their facility because they had some kind of issue with a group of Russians. When Ukrainians started getting mad about being kicked out because employees thought they were Russians, the facility banned Ukrainians too, or anyone with a slavic accent.

There was another case where a shop began refusing to service dressed police officers. So yes, unless you're black, at any time for whatever reason a business can stop service to you.
edit on 5/14/2011 by Rockpuck because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/14/2011 by Rockpuck because: issues



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by sara123123
reply to post by The Sword
 

He's right about the Civil Rights Act. It was written by the socialists who controlled the white system so they could create the system of race doctrines and preferences that we have now. Racism and race violence by the preferred of society is as strong as ever. Institutionalized discrimination is still named beautiful - as long as it targets whites and in particular - white males. They even have the race doctrines to debase whites so everyone understands why they should be discriminated against and are not permitted equal rights. Just new colors and it is still used by the elite to divide and conquer our people and our freedom.

Democrats still have their power built upon an order of race special rights and race enemies who don't have equal rights. Democrats were the party of the White Klan before they became the today's Klan with a Tan. Look at Holder's Division of voting rights! He admitted in a hearing that the protection of voting rights is for blacks against white racists -not for protecting whites from black racists. They just flipped the racist system up-side-down and called it beautiful.
Get your head out of the sand.





Wow Sara!
I could not have said that better myself! Wish I could give you more than just 1 star. Many want us to believe that somewhere between 1963 and 1965 both parties switched places. The truth of wthe matter is that the lead democrates found a way to get everything they wanted.
Look to the "New Deal" in the 30's, look at the minority support that swapped sides. The '64 civil rights act, affirmative action and all the entitlements were just icing on the cake. They are still holding many minorities as slaves. They have made them dependent on the government. They also have secured the votes of these people as well as clouding the vision of many a liberal by calling their acts "social justice".




top topics



 
18
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join