The Truth About Ron Paul - Part 2

I like how people equate the Civil Rights Act with equality. Wouldn't a one sentence bill stating "All people are equal in America regardless of race, religion, creed, ect." have been better? Remember the governments of the country were oppressing blacks, not the individual. A simple amendment classifying that laws may not be made based on race, sex, ect would of fixed the problem without destroying personal property rights.

You realize the buses were already desegregating before the law - right? Why would they do that? Oh, thats right, because they were losing customers. You mean the free market does actually work?

The judge 11 minute interview with Ron Paul at the National Debt Clock
[video=youtube;3WTLerItL00]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WTLerItL00&feature=related[/video]

Carthoris said:

I like how people equate the Civil Rights Act with equality. Wouldn't a one sentence bill stating "All people are equal in America regardless of race, religion, creed, ect." have been better? Remember the governments of the country were oppressing blacks, not the individual. A simple amendment classifying that laws may not be made based on race, sex, ect would of fixed the problem without destroying personal property rights.

You realize the buses were already desegregating before the law - right? Why would they do that? Oh, thats right, because they were losing customers. You mean the free market does actually work?

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about all that but I agree and I think we can all agree that the Civil Rights act was simply a piece of paper but this was the answer to the protests, to the issue that was still controversial, to the peoples movement in social justice. So this piece of paper does hold some significance in that it was a declaration of victory. A strong argument against the opposition and the oppression. Its not fair to say that this paper held NO significance but I think it is fair to say that this piece of paper could of been written better so that it did not violate our constitutional rights....and thats what Dr. Paul is saying in his "controversial" speech that is so often misinterpreted, Dr Paul is simply saying that this piece of paper could of been written better.

So carthosis says that we could of done it without a piece of paper, I would have to disagree, a piece of paper was necessary, its just too bad this peice of paper was written by any government, Id much rather MLK wrote the paper himself, like carthosis said, or even Ron Paul.....If Ron Paul wrote it then it would be just some simple common sense 1 paragraph simply saying "every man is equal"

Its really too bad the first congress didn't accept Thomas Jefferson's philosophy, its too bad they had to remove the anti-slavery language from his own documents because of controversy, but you think back to that time when they were just some revolutionaries plotting in secrecy they needed to garner all the support against Britain that they could, even in the 1700s they had to be 'PC'.

The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress."

Click to expand...

Carthoris said:

I like how people equate the Civil Rights Act with equality. Wouldn't a one sentence bill stating "All people are equal in America regardless of race, religion, creed, ect." have been better? Remember the governments of the country were oppressing blacks, not the individual. A simple amendment classifying that laws may not be made based on race, sex, ect would of fixed the problem without destroying personal property rights.

You realize the buses were already desegregating before the law - right? Why would they do that? Oh, thats right, because they were losing customers. You mean the free market does actually work?

Click to expand...

isnt there a line about "all men are created Equal" In the constitution?
Yet for more than a century and a half this wasnt true in practice?

dukeanthony said:

isnt there a line about "all men are created Equal" In the constitution?
Yet for more than a century and a half this wasnt true in practice?

Click to expand...

Hence my statement that a 1 sentence bill could of fixed all the issues. Declare men to have meant all humans of every race, creed, and religion. Taking away the rights of people to control their property was not the point of the movement to begin with.

Carthoris said:

Hence my statement that a 1 sentence bill could of fixed all the issues. Declare men to have meant all humans of every race, creed, and religion. Taking away the rights of people to control their property was not the point of the movement to begin with.

Click to expand...

Well then why wasnt it fixed for 160 years?
obviously that one sentence in the constitution didnt mean Jack Shit if you were a Minority

yeah its open to the public except for you black brown and yellow motherfuckers
I get your drift adolph
States Rights

this is what the bill should of said

[video=youtube;60m831gtz_U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60m831gtz_U&feature=related[/video]

deprave said:

I'm not so sure about all that but I agree and I think we can all agree that the Civil Rights act was simply a piece of paper but this was the answer to the protests, to the issue that was still controversial, to the peoples movement in social justice. So this piece of paper does hold some significance in that it was a declaration of victory. A strong argument against the opposition and the oppression. Its not fair to say that this paper held NO significance but I think it is fair to say that this piece of paper could of been written better so that it did not violate our constitutional rights....and thats what Dr. Paul is saying in his "controversial" speech that is so often misinterpreted, Dr Paul is simply saying that this piece of paper could of been written better.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't my 1 sentence bill have done that?

So carthosis says that we could of done it without a piece of paper, I would have to disagree, a piece of paper was necessary, its just too bad this peice of paper was written by any government, Id much rather MLK wrote the paper himself, like carthosis said, or even Ron Paul.....If Ron Paul wrote it then it would be just some simple common sense 1 paragraph simply saying "every man is equal"

Click to expand...

I didn't say we didn't need a paper that fixed it, I just think they did something completely different from what the movement seemed to be about. My very short bill would of addressed the underlying problem which was that the governments of the country did not treat the citizens equally, using race to discriminate against the citizens it was meant to protect. Keep in mind that the buses in Montgomery discriminated against blacks because there was a law that said they had to. Even if they wanted to, the protests and rallies that were taking place would of fixed the issue with the buses without the civil rights bills. The federal government should of just said that the laws may not discriminate based on who a person is and left it at that. Not only did they never do this, they did the exact opposite and many laws are now targeted at individual races once again.

carthoris said:

wouldn't my 1 sentence bill have done that?

Click to expand...

no


.........................

dukeanthony said:

Well then why wasnt it fixed for 160 years?
obviously that one sentence in the constitution didnt mean Jack Shit if you were a Minority

yeah its open to the public except for you black brown and yellow motherfuckers
I get your drift adolph
States Rights

Click to expand...

LOL, you have serious issues. I am not racist, I would not of supported slavery, and I would never not sell something to someone based on race, religion, or creed. However, if I were inclined to keep a group of people out of my PRIVATE BUSINESS then I should be allowed to do so. A public business would a government run business. A private business is private property run by a private individual. It isn't any different than your house. What they did was only a step away from declaring that people should not be allowed to choose their relationships and friendships based on whatever they want.

dukeanthony said:

no


.........................

Click to expand...

Why wouldn't it of?

Cause theres more to it then that. One paragraph sure but one sentence...

deprave said:

Cause theres more to it then that.

Click to expand...

Removing the ability of the government to discriminate would of gone a long way towards fixing the problems. You might consider reading some of the information on the bus strikes. The businesses wanted to cave in long before the laws passed because they were losing business and thought maybe they would lose more. People didn't change because of the Civil Rights Act. People were still allowed to hate whoever they wanted. Do you honestly believe that any business that didn't want to serve blacks started serving them? People don't want to go somewhere that doesn't want them anyway. The bus companies were forced to segregate people.

Do you think the entire Civil rights Amendment was about a black lady on the Bus?
You do know the civil rights amendment also covers against sex discrimination?
You do know its more than Just Goverment that was discriminating?

Do you think its fair that 2 equally qualified people are elgible for a loan but the minority doesnt get it?
Thats the way it used to be
along with
-Jobs
-Housing
-and Justice

NoDrama said:

You know why this video is disturbing? Because it only shows how ignorant most people really are. It doesn't really say anything about people who voted for Obama any more than it says about people who voted for McCain or Ron Paul as there will be ignorant buffoons in every demographic, group and class.

What this video shows more than anything else is how the mass media has told the majority of people how and what to think. Shame on America for letting the Boob Tube turn them all into boobs.

Click to expand...

I disagree, with the real answers and issues ron paul injects, anyone who listens to him and then supports him is automatically at least a little more educated than the dumb asses in the video, if you ask any ron paul supporter why they support him they will give you straight, key, related answers, not hmms and haaaa's and because he is white.lol

deprave said:

Cause theres more to it then that. One paragraph sure but one sentence...

Click to expand...

lol, stop editing things I already replied to. Yea, it might be a run on sentence. lol My point was they did a lot of things that didn't accomplish anything and had nothing to do with the problem.

Carthoris said:

Removing the ability of the government to discriminate would of gone a long way towards fixing the problems. You might consider reading some of the information on the bus strikes. The businesses wanted to cave in long before the laws passed because they were losing business and thought maybe they would lose more. People didn't change because of the Civil Rights Act. People were still allowed to hate whoever they wanted. Do you honestly believe that any business that didn't want to serve blacks started serving them? People don't want to go somewhere that doesn't want them anyway. The bus companies were forced to segregate people.

Click to expand...

Nope I sure don't believe that, I agree almost completely, I am just wording it differently, your going to the extreme, but it should get some credit, the piece of paper made it official, so it does deserve credit. Quite the Socio-logical impact.

dukeanthony said:

Do you think the entire Civil rights Amendment was about a black lady on the Bus?
You do know the civil rights amendment also covers against sex discrimination?
You do know its more than Just Goverment that was discriminating?

Do you think its fair that 2 equally qualified people are elgible for a loan but the minority doesnt get it?
Thats the way it used to be
along with
-Jobs
-Housing
-and Justice

Click to expand...

Now they reversed the roles and the minority gets special consideration for being a minority. Is that fair? No. How many people do you think would actually give up a sale or money because they were racist? Not very many. At this day and age we would basically be where we are at now even with the Civil Rights Act. In fact, I would argue that without 50 years of extreme PCness we would be in better shape with the issue than we are now.

deprave said:

Nope I sure don't believe that, I agree almost completely, I am just wording it differently, your going to the extreme, but it should get some credit, the piece of paper made it official, so it does deserve credit. Quite the Socio-logical impact.

Click to expand...

I know we are getting to the same point. Debate is a lot like negotiating a price. You start at extremes and work your way towards each other. Can you imagine if the dems or reps started at what they would actually accept? The other side would immediately set the goal closer. I agree it made an impact and that some of the impacts were really good, but at what cost. It is like promoting fire safety by outlawing stoves, lighters, and electrical appliances. The CRA did some great things, it just did them wrong. One expects everything that the government does to be of this nature. I still believe removing government interference would of been the best thing in the long run and fixed the problems faster.

CNN - Ron Paul 'Might' have a chance...his popularity is exploding

The CNN clip today shows how scared they are.

"A man who doesn't want government running for government, seems like sort of a contradiction" LMAO
[video=youtube;HgPnZoHsY4Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgPnZoHsY4Q[/video]