It’s going to be a race to see which is crazier: Ron Paul or his supporters
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) suggested Friday that he wouldn’t have voted in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act if he were a member of Congress at the time.
Paul, the libertarian Texas Republican who formally announced Friday that he would seek the presidency for a third time, said he thought Jim Crow laws were illegal, and warned against turning strict libertarians into demagogues.
MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews pressed Paul during a TV appearance on whether he would have voted against the ’64 law, a landmark piece of legislation that took strides toward ending segregation.
“Yeah, but I wouldn’t vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws,” Paul said. He explained that he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act “because of the property rights element, not because they got rid of the Jim Crow laws.”
You know that the MSM is going to attempt to link this kind of bat shut crazy with TEA Party, and call us all raaaaacists, despite the fact that Democrats were mostly against the Civil Rights Act, filibustered it…you know moat of the Dem parties racist history. Unless you are an idiot Liberal.
But, seriously, Ron, just go away.
You know, I almost understand what he is saying. Certainly government intrudes into the property rights of people more than they should. Laws such as the ADA are often non-specific where a business cannot know if they are in compliance or not.
The problem with Paul’s assertion of “the market would handle discrimination” is that it wasn’t. Jim Crow laws were happily enacted by Democrats and their repeal was fought by Democrats.
Most time the market will address inequities but Jim Crow and discrimination is one of those times when the “market” not only did not address discrimination, it fostered it.
Paul is wrong on the history, wrong on his premise and wrong on the outcome.
You mean the 1964 Civil Rights Act that gave us:
affirmative action
ended our freedoms of association
ended merit in favor of race weighting
That 1964 Civil Rights Act?
The act that so improved race relations in the USA and paved the way to hate crimes legislation?
Why only bigots could possibly have opposed that.
Paul, like Democrats, are wrong for the human race. Well, maybe not the al-Queda race, but the USA race.
(yes, I know!!!!)
Molon Lobe,
Wow.
I haven’t seen such a strawman like your post since the Wizard of Oz. You are to be congratulated, sir.
Barry Goldwater also voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I was around at the time. The CRA was viewed as a most definite intrusion into the public sector and has set the ground work for much of our loss of freedom. I was also totally unnecessary. In fact, I would say that it has fostered resentment of blacks more than acceptance. What people don’t understand is that many of the laws we have passed that are “moral” or “right” or “enhance our security” or are “good for the children”, have taken our freedom. We no longer live in a free society.
The CRA was considered a intrusion into the public sector because before that, it allowed people to discriminate against those of different races. When you read the actual bill, there is nothing in it that is contrary to the spirit of America.
People should have been allowed to vote without differing restrictions. Are you for that David? Are you for tests one race of people in order to vote and not a set of tests for another race? Do you think that a person shouldn’t use a public bathroom because they are a certain race? Or a public drinking fountain?
Either you believe that all people deserve to have the same rights or you don’t.
GC,
You have some leaps of logic and connectivity that are amazing. You, again, show that you do not know what you are talking about and you clearly love having the government decide everything.
I am aware that in Mississippi, where I lived, that you had to read the first paragraph of the Constitution before you were given a voting card. That seems like a reasonable request, that someone can read before they make a decision for voting. As to using the rest room, if someone owns a business and wants to control access to aspects of his business, then that is his concern. I am not allowed to eat in certain resturants in my town and certainly would be refused the restroom in these same locations, and that is with the CRA in place (since it only applies to certain people and not other, as our head lawyer says).
I will say that the government should be out of our lives and if we want to do things that don’t seem appropriate, that is our business. I certainly don’t want you telling me or anyone else what to do. But that is of little concern as laws like the CRA have set a pattern that allow our government to become the socialist monster that we have today. Good evening, comrade.
david,
Here we go again.
You, again, show that you do not know what you are talking about and you clearly love having the government decide everything.
You think the government saying that all people should be treated equal is having the government “decide everything?” Are you kidding me? Talk about a lack of logic.
That seems like a reasonable request, that someone can read before they make a decision for voting.
Reasonable to whom? Please show me in the Constitution where is says that a “reading test” is required to be eligible to vote. Go ahead. I’ll wait for you to find it.
Can’t?
Gee… I wonder why?
It is absolutely amazing that you say that I am trying to allow the government to “decide everything” and then point as something “reasonable” a government instituted rule that flies in the face of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. It is amazing that you support a government decision that deprived people of the natural right to vote.
As to using the rest room, if someone owns a business and wants to control access to aspects of his business,
Of course, the CRA covered PUBLIC restrooms and facilities as well but you conveniently left that out.
I am not allowed to eat in certain resturants in my town and certainly would be refused the restroom in these same locations
They don’t allow white sheets and pointed hats in those restaurants?
that don’t seem appropriate, that is our business.
So if a person violates the Constitution, you feel that is their business and that the government should stay out of it?
Given that the government’s main function is to protect the rights of people, and given that the right to vote is a natural right, you think that the government should stay out of things if that right is denied? Under what theory?
I certainly don’t want you telling me or anyone else what to do.
The CRA did not tell anyone what they had to do. The CRA prohibited people such as yourself from denying the rights guaranteed enumerated by the Declaration and codified by the Constitution. If you don’t like the idea of protect the rights of people, go buy an island and set up your own little anarchist’s haven there.
But that is of little concern as laws like the CRA have set a pattern that allow our government to become the socialist monster that we have today.
You are joking right? No, I suspect you aren’t. You believe that you have the right to violate the rights of others. Where does that belief come from? It certainly is not from any historical understanding of natural rights and societal contracts. So where are you getting the idea that denying the rights of people is something that you can do?
Good evening, comrade.
Just so you know, the term “Comrade” was said by people who believed in Communism. It didn’t matter whether the person to whom they were addressing the term was a Communist or Socialist. What mattered was the idea that the speaker was a Communist or Socialist.
I’ll leave you to chew on that little tidbit and figure out how it applies to you.
GC,
I am not sure that the Constitution is specific on who can and can’t vote. I know that the issue was left to the states until the 60’s. In fact, as I remember my history, voting required requirements. Those requirements were that you owned property. You are confused as to the formation of our government. We are not supposed to be a Democracy. We are a Republic. There is a big difference. Having everyone with an equal vote is not a good form of government. The Greeks found this out and switched. Consider this, 51% of Americans do not pay taxes. This is becoming obvious in that they are voting in a manner that takes the wealth away from the other, productive people in our country.
It is painfully obvious that you are not a conservative and do not know the concept of freedom. If you have a response, try to keep it in line with the thread and avoid making wild, crazy assertions. Also, if you reference something, make sure it is not off the internet and from a real, legitimate source.
I am not sure that the Constitution is specific on who can and can’t vote.
Really? Then you need to actually read the document.
Those requirements were that you owned property.
Which was quickly abolished as many citizens did not own property.
You are confused as to the formation of our government. We are not supposed to be a Democracy. We are a Republic.
Actually, david, we are a Representational Republic. Of course, one of us knew that and the other one didn’t.
Having everyone with an equal vote is not a good form of government.
And this relates to the discussion at hand how? Neither of us has a direct vote on Federal laws. Some states do allow direct votes by citizens on state and local laws. So your point, as always, is without merit.
Consider this, 51% of Americans do not pay taxes.
Which would be the fault of the people elected in the Representational Republic, right? Those people would be the Senators and House members whose votes on such issues carry more weight than an average citizen. Thus, your premise that “non equal value is a good thing” is dis-proven by your own words.
Furthermore, david, your assertion that you have the right to deny the value of a person’s vote is morally, ethically, and legally wrong.
It is painfully obvious that you are not a conservative and do not know the concept of freedom.
Really? I am not the one trying to limit people from voting. You are. Your definition of “someone who is not a conservative” is anyone who disagrees with you.
Also, if you reference something, make sure it is not off the internet and from a real, legitimate source.
That’s funny, david. In our past discussions, you have referenced uncited articles that you read, your dead parents, and your neighbor. Excuse me while I laugh at the (lack of) quality of your citations.
No true conservative is a racist david. No true conservative wants the death of his ancestors fighting for independence and equality to be trampled upon by the likes of you.
I am sorry GC, I tried to get you to go down the Constitution trick, but you did not fall for it as you never read the document. The Constitution is betwen 10 and 20% on voting issues. So why did we need another law? Doesn’t make sense unless their was another reason.
I don’t think I referred to dead parents. But it shows the type of person that you are. You will go on about racism but then revel in the killing of old bin and say nasty things about my parents and hate the KKK of whom you really don’t know or understand. But it is ok for you to hate and desparage others as long as they are not black. Odd isn’t it.
In fact GC, I really think you need some help. You seem like a screw is loose. But that is true of most liberals.
I am sorry GC, I tried to get you to go down the Constitution trick, but you did not fall for it as you never read the document.
You believe that reading the Constitution is a trick? How sad for you.
The Constitution is betwen 10 and 20% on voting issues.
I have no idea what this means. Obviously you don’t either.
So why did we need another law? Doesn’t make sense unless their was another reason.
We needed another law because people like you wanted to deny people of color the right to vote on a completely arbitrary standard. That is why. You and your fellow bigots wanted to oppress people and not allow them to vote so the “reading” or “testing standard” was conceived after the poll tax was outlawed. You and your hooded mates didn’t want people to vote so not only did you make a test that was not within the spirit of the country, you tried to make sure that no one of color would ever learn to read so they could pass the test. That is what Democrats did in the South and you supported them and continue to support them today.
I don’t think I referred to dead parents.
Actually you did. One of the unreferenced sources you mentioned at one time was that your parents, who had passed away, said that during WWII people partied in the streets of Miami during the entire war. The comment stuck with me not only because it was false and an obvious lie, but I wondered why someone would bring up the fact that their parents were dead in order to bolster a fictional position.
If you think it is sick that someone mentioned the death of your parents, look in the mirror. You are the one that started it, I am just using the information you gave. If you don’t like it, then use other sources.
In fact GC, I really think you need some help.
I suspect that you say that of anyone who calls you out david.
You have shown the ability to not engage in meaningful debate. Your sources are a joke. Your positions are basically that of a 5 year old who says “it is that way and you can’t disagree with me!”
You seem like a screw is loose. But that is true of most liberals.
You opinion will be given all the consideration it is worth.
I’ll let you go now….. I am sure that there is a cross to burn or a sheet to sow that is calling your attention.
Remember david, the racism and bigotry that you have displayed is not that of a conservative. True conservative rejoice in the diversity of people and come together on ideas. True conservatives do not back away from people or wish to deny people their rights because of the color of their skin.
You could learn something from that, but you won’t.
By the way david, do not think for a moment that it has escaped notice that you have failed to address how allowing people to vote is a violation of your rights or is the government making a choice for you.