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

reply to post by The Sword


I think it goes deeper and people like to divert attention from the fact early in his career he signed a number of extremely Racist newsletters and then tried to deny he knew what was in them. He may have matured beyond that, no way to know. He is kind of a mirror image of the radical Progressives and either extreme is a bad thing.

My problem is his inability to answer questions clearly, his lack of communications skills and he seems to know a lot about a very limited number of subjects. Any way you slice it, if he gets 10% of the vote I would be surprised.

People need to watch his interviews. He seems confused and totally incapable of dealing with any topic he does not have a memorized talking point for. He makes the same statements over and over and when asked a probing question, he all but falls apart.

I see him more as good choice for a Cabinet Post, but not a leader. I have nothing against him and he would be better than what we have now, but I doubt he could control the course of Congress. He simply can't communicate what he wants to say and totally lacks anything resembling the charisma a leader would need. Not his fault, but real leaders are extremely rare animals.

Of course nothing could be much worse than Obama.

I am very impressed with Herman Cain and I could not see myself going for Paul with a candidate like Cain in the running. I think Cain will be this elections surprise.

So you don't think its fair for business owners to segregate their own businesses. I disagree but if we keep it that way, then go ahead and get rid of the quotas as well.

Can we please put this aside. This is clearly a political talking point aimed at hurting Ron Paul.

dont get me wrong, there are plenty of things i can disagree with Ron Paul on, this is not one of them.
The law was passed because of segregation issue's. It was important at the time but in todays society it has no purpose and getting rid of it would do no harm.
Here are just some reasons why the law is outdated and basically meaningless today:

1) Racism is publically unacceptable. Therefore, its against business interet to discriminate in the first place.

2) Any business can discriminate if they really want to. No amount of laws will ever change that.
Have you ever walked into a business and seen a "We Have the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" sign?
LEgally, that allows the business to refuse service to ANYONE, for ANY reason, for ANY amount of time.
Whether it be a drunk homeless man or that ethnic culture you dont want in your store, at the end of the day that sign gives you the right to be a racist. And even though racism is outdated and wrong, people are still racist. I have seen stores treat customers of certain ethnicity very poorly. Those customers never come back and it is bad for business.

3) No amount of government laws will ever eliminate racism. And any laws attempting to do so will result in big problems for businesses, regardless of whether they are being racially critical or not.

Here's an exampe: Lets say you pass a law banning the sign that reads "We have the Right to refuse service to anyone.'

Now what?
Now homeless men can walk into your store and sleep there, and there's nothing you can do.
People causing trouble and scaring customers away will not be allowed to be removed from the store. Even worse, attempting to remove a hoodlum from a store may result in the "racism card" being played, even though the store owner had perfect reason to remove the person from the store.

This is just the tip of the ice berg too. There is no end in sight when you really think about.

So really, i am just pointing out some obvious reasons why this debate is pointless. It is just an attack on Ron Paul's reputation and has nothing to do with racism.

You can call him a liberatarian, cuz he is definately a conservative liberatarian.
You can calll him anti-war, anti-abortion all that good stuff.

But Racist? cmon... did we run out of bad things to say about Mr Paul?

Ron Paul is against government intervention in the work place just like how he is against government intrusion into the first amendment. Just because something is controversial doesn't mean the government must protect us from ourselves, in fact that is the number one reason why it should be allowed because it is controversial. In a free market society people can be free to choose who they want to be in business with. A system that forces you to be in business with someone you don't want to do business with is immoral.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Here an article about those newsletters. I guess its up to the reader to decided if its true or not.

The controversial newsletters include rants against the Israeli lobby, gays, AIDS victims and Martin Luther King Jr. -- described as a "pro-Communist philanderer." One newsletter, from June 1992, right after the LA riots, says "order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

Ron Paul '90s newsletters rant against blacks, gays

I've been reading in this forum people want freedom and this is what it is, freedom to do WHATEVER you want and now what? Not such a good idea huh?

Sheesh, make your minds up

reply to post by David291


it's not freedom to do whatever you want because there are certain rules that must be followed such as not violating someone's rights which the government does as part of their daily business.

That's because it's not an issue for the Federal Government to decide under the Consititution of the United States.

In the same interview, he said that he WOULD have voted to abolish Jim Crowe.

Dr. Ron Paul's entire campaign for years has been about getting Federal Government out of your lives, no matter how unpopular his position on certain items.

I respect that he stands by his moral convictions, regardless of how unpopular some of his responses might be. He's not saying what's popular to get votes. He's saying what's right.

And for the record, I'm white, but dated a Black South African woman for several years. If you want someone who experienced racism first hand, talk to her. USA has NOTHING on what Black South Africans went through under Apartheid. And yes, we both experienced bigoted people telling us what they thought of a white man dating a black woman, and we're in Canada.

Originally posted by LoverBoy
So you don't think its fair for business owners to segregate their own businesses. I disagree but if we keep it that way, then go ahead and get rid of the quotas as well.

Free enterprise market would decide. If their customers weren't happy with the segregation of the business, the business would be out of business, as Ron Paul said.

I know what ticket solves this.

PAUL / CAIN 2012

Herman Cain announced his support of the gold standard on a radio program in late 2010: "Yes I believe in the gold standard. We should have never gotten off the gold standard because when we got off the gold standard, that then allowed Congress to inflate our currency whenever they overspent. Now look at the mess that we have."

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.

reply to post by BiGGz


I'm going to answer with "NONE OF THEM" since that seems like the best answer out of the bunch.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Quit trying to derail my thread by promoting yours.

There is nothing academic about any of your posts/threads.

reply to post by sara123123


This topic has nothing to do with Democrats.

Let's focus on Ron Paul.

reply to post by gnosis111


Where did I say that?

It's funny to read some of these responses. They whine and piss and moan about me but they offer nothing of substance to this topic. Not to mention, the haters trying hard to derail this entire thread because it questions their messiah.

I've yet to see a credible argument for allowing businesses to openly discriminate against customers.

reply to post by Bixxi3


I've read that Ron Paul himself did not author these newsletters and that they were the work of a doppelganger.

What is his official stance on them again?

So let me get this straight... Amongst all the other REAL problems your country is facing, along the lines of economy, warfare, war of drugs, etc, you'd let this, practically non issue in comparison, stop you from voting a candidate that would actually mean a REAL, positive difference to your nation?

I mean it just seems ridiculous to me as I'm sure you're aware that his intentions behind the views on which this thread is based on are certainly not "evil"... and certainly not based on any sort of racist ideals that some ignorant fools would have you believe. His views go hand in hand, consistent as ever, with his anti/smaller government/pro constitution ideals.

So my point is SO WHAT! You don't agree with him on something. Is that really so important to you, among all the other problems, that you'd rather one of the other same old puppets in office, with the same old status quo as an result?

If so, I mean no disrespect, but you really need to get your head out of your ass and look at the bigger picture, because Ron Paul is quite literally your nation's only hope.

Their are no equal rights.What about affirmative action?Is that equal?

reply to post by The Sword


This topic was illustrated with an interview of Ron Paul by a democrat on MSNBC. The Civil Rights Act is used by the Democrat party power structure jsut as they used the past laws of inequality to further their power.

I am surprised you are so uninformed about the history of race and politics in America. Read and learn.

Originally posted by Daedal
Their are no equal rights.What about affirmative action?Is that equal?

Affirmative action is NOT equal. It gives a disproportionate amount of rights to minorities, while taking them away from majorities.