The Truth About Ron Paul - Part 2

londonfog said:

why would you oppose the 1964 Civil rights act ????

Click to expand...

Apparently, you do not read. It infringes on private property rights by forcing privately owned business on private property to serve a specific group of people. It is in your own right to choose who you will or will not serve regardless of color, creed, sex, or orientation.

I am not opposed to the 1964 civil rights act. I am posting all of this because it is absolutely retarded to believe that simple opposition means that you are a racist. It's like saying that if this were the 1860s and you were against the civil war you were pro slavery and a racist. Unfounded. (By the way, if you disagree, Lincoln didn't even want the civil war, he was forced into it)

sync0s said:

Apparently, you do not read. It infringes on private property rights by forcing privately owned business on private property to serve a specific group of people. It is in your own right to choose who you will or will not serve regardless of color, creed, sex, or orientation.

I am not opposed to the 1964 civil rights act. I am posting all of this because it is absolutely retarded to believe that simple opposition means that you are a racist. It's like saying that if this were the 1860s and you were against the civil war you were pro slavery and a racist. Unfounded. (By the way, if you disagree, Lincoln didn't even want the civil war, he was forced into it)

Click to expand...

if you want to be a private club/business do so..well in you rights but if you serving the public then you will serve all..Now if you don't like the fact that in this country if you open a business that serves the public you have to serve all regardless of color, creed, sex, or orientation ...then maybe you should open a business in another country and take that racist and bigotry shit with you....

londonfog said:

if you want to be a private club/business do so..well in you rights but if you serving the public then you will serve all..Now if you don't like the fact that in this country if you open a business that serves the public you have to serve all regardless of color, creed, sex, or orientation ...then maybe you should open a business in another country and take that racist shit with you....

Click to expand...

In modern America, a business that refused to serve someone based on race would highly likely never succeed anyways. What do you mean by serving the public? In political context that would mean serving a "tax payer" entity, meaning some sort of business contracted with a government body? I can agree to that. I consider any private customer being served by a private business a private transaction, therefore nothing is "public" about it. On your definitions our government could go retrieve all customer records from private business any time they wanted to because they "serve the public" making it "public information." Bye bye doctor patient confidentiality. Also, remember when our government was suing google in order to retrieve all search records from american users, and google fought it so hard until they had no choice? What do you suppose these records were used for (narcotics arrests would be a big guess of mine).

Your proposal for leaving the country because you are racist is also complete disregard for constitutional rights. It is understandable to have dismay for a racist if you are so truly opposed, but to deny one the rights to an opinion or voice within this country is denying all Americans the right to the first amendment.

The true thing you should be saying is all Socialists and Communists (no one admits to this one even if they share the same ideals) should get the fuck out, because these political ideals are exactly what our founding fathers and the people of colonial america did not want our country to be. Therefore, these ideals are actually completely against the American way of life as intended by it's founders.

sync0s said:

In modern America, a business that refused to serve someone based on race would highly likely never succeed anyways. What do you mean by serving the public? In political context that would mean serving a "tax payer" entity, meaning some sort of business contracted with a government body? I can agree to that. I consider any private customer being served by a private business a private transaction, therefore nothing is "public" about it. On your definitions our government could go retrieve all customer records from private business any time they wanted to because they "serve the public" making it "public information." Bye bye doctor patient confidentiality.

Your proposal for leaving the country because you are racist is also complete disregard for constitutional rights. It is understandable to have dismay for a racist if you are so truly opposed, but to deny one the rights to an opinion or voice within this country is denying all Americans the right to the first amendment.

The true thing you should be saying is all Socialists and Communists (no one admits to this one even if they share the same ideals) should get the fuck out, because these political ideals are exactly what our founding fathers and the people of colonial america did not want our country to be. Therefore, these ideals are actually completely against the American way of life as intended by it's founders.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you never read the Civil Rights Act and what it did and did not do..Do you know the difference between private and public ???

sync0s said:

Your proposal for leaving the country because you are racist is also complete disregard for constitutional rights. It is understandable to have dismay for a racist if you are so truly opposed, but to deny one the rights to an opinion or voice within this country is denying all Americans the right to the first amendment.

Click to expand...

Oh you can stay but if you are to do business you will go by the law of the land..or maybe let me SUGGEST you find another country that will allow you to be as racist as you like...

londonfog said:

Sounds like you never read the Civil Rights Act and what it did and did not do..Do you know the difference between private and public ???

Click to expand...

Title II

Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."


That is the part of the ERA that is the cause for debate. Yes, I did read it.
What's that? You own a restaurant in Vegas and on your own private property that wants to serve tourists? That's not happening unless you follow our rules!

Here is some more:

Title VII

Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e [2] et seq., prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[31]). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.[32]

Click to expand...

Only exemptions to title 7:

There are partial and whole exceptions to Title VII for four types of employers:

• Federal government; (Comment: The proscriptions against employment discrimination under Title VII are now applicable to the federal government under 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-16)
• Federally recognized Native American tribes
• Religious groups performing work connected to the group's activities, including associated education institutions;
• Bona fide nonprofit private membership organizations.

Click to expand...

sync0s said:

Title II

Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."


That is the part of the ERA that is the cause for debate. Yes, I did read it.
What's that? You own a restaurant in Vegas and on your own private property that wants to serve tourists? That's not happening unless you follow our rules!

Click to expand...

ummmm its not private if you serving tourist whom we can assume is the public...tell you what open a restaurant/casino call it a country club...make your members of your club pay a fee allow them to bring guest and then you can get your racism on by just allowing your members in..good luck with that...and read the whole Civil Rights Act not the Wiki version..might learn something

londonfog said:

ummmm its not private if you serving tourist whom we can assume is the public...tell you what open a restaurant/casino call it a country club...make your members of your club pay a fee allow them to bring guest and then you can get your racism on by just allowing your members in..good luck with that...and read the whole Civil Rights Act not the Wiki version..might learn something

Click to expand...

So if your a tourist the government owns your business? You can't start a casino and call it a "private gambling club," that's illegal (oops, already discovered how the law is forcing private business to abide.)

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the
premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

Click to expand...

God damn, happy? I have read it and was looking for quotes for you. I do believe that above quote covers all customers possible to force a privately owned business on privately owned property to abide by government restrictions.


Along the same lines, did you know the American Disabilities Act requires a government to accommodate current drug addicts as long as they are enrolled in a treatment program (even if they are fucked up at work!) and cannot fire the employee? See how a seemingly good intending law can completely disrupt a private business?

Finally, cut the "your racism" out of your post. I resent that statement, I am not a racist. Your only proving my point above that if you disagree with the particular legislation then you are automatically labeled a racist.

londonfog said:

and if you really want to continue discussing American politics I would suggest you start by doing some research ...Try google..its your friend...Its a known fact that he voted against MLK birthday ..the same as John McCain

Click to expand...

I have to go to work, so I don't have time to point out all the inaccuracies of the last day or two. However, LOL. You make it sound like they tried to steal MLK's birthday. You are free to celebrate whatever day you want. You can't give everyone a holiday.

Dan Kone said:

when the south succeeded.

Click to expand...

... and what did they succeed at? ooops, another typo? Another shining example of how our government run education system is seceding.

What do you call a person who does not allow another into a business due to the color of his or her skin ????? Is there a new word we call them now ???? Do we call them "Protector of Property Rights" ?????? I call them racist...Hell even a bigot would still take your money.

UncleBuck said:

so, the guy who advocates against barring all minorities of a certain type from his restaurant/laundromat/gas station is a racist?

wow, you are a stupid piece of shit.



yeah. we are a bunch of commies for not wanting blacks or jews or muslims to be unable to purchase gasoline at certain gas stations.

and also, my farts smell like sweet jasmine in bloom.

congratulations, you have made the most retarded argument i have ever seen in my entire life. ever.

Click to expand...

My Response to the first quoted part:

londonfrog said:

business that serves the public you have to serve all regardless of color, creed, sex, or orientation ...then maybe you should open a business in another country and take that racist and bigotry shit with you....

Click to expand...

READDDDDDDDDD

Secondly, I never said anyone was a socialist or a communist and in fact the point was off the topic of the 64 civil rights act and more was about the discussions over this entire politics forum. So perhaps the argument was retarded because you didn't read anything neither did you attempt to understand what you were reading.

If you actually read you would see that I support the 64 civil rights act and was merely posting the opposition view on it and what valid points they have. AGAIN, you continue to paint people who oppose the act as a racist, this makes you the ignorant moron.

sync0s said:

I feel like I'm arguing with dogs right now, because your minds are unable to think outside of the fucking box.......

What about movie producers needing the hire a black man for a black man role? If he rejects white or mexicans or muslims for the part does that make him a racist?

Click to expand...

ROFL....If a producer needed a man to fill the role of a black man why would you hire a white person ???? bad example dude..Everyone can't act or fill the role of certain parts in a movie, but everyone can and should be able to buy things out of a store or get a meal at a restaurant or get a room in a motel...and you really need to read up on the health care plan..if you don't make a certain amount your health care will be free ( waiver )...and I notice that most people who use that as their argument are the very one who don't make enough to worry about getting fined

sync0s said:

Are you stupid? In what way did any of my above posts say I ADVOCATED segregation? Read dude, please, read.

In all actuality, the government had full right to pass an act that desegregated public facilities. Perfect. Imposing on privately owned property is actually infringing on an essential right: property rights.

Dig your head out of your ass and stop being persuaded by the cover story and look at the details. Slavery is wrong, segregation is wrong, but our government is the main product of creation for both.

Click to expand...

You're still supporting segregation of private businesses such as restaurants, hotels, etc.

The thing about this is that either way someone loses a "right". Either black folks lose the right to be treated as equals, or business owners lose the right to be racist and oppress minorities. It's absurd to think the rights of business owners to be racist and oppressive is more important than the rights of black Americans to be treated as equals.

Property rights aren't the only and most important right in this country. Sorry, but some things are even more valuable than the right to be racist.

sync0s said:

In modern America, a business that refused to serve someone based on race would highly likely never succeed anyways.

Click to expand...

That's largely because of the civil rights act. It took that to make America see the error of it's ways. Had we never forced desegregation on the south in all likelihood it would still be segregated today.

Mr Neutron said:

... and what did they succeed at? ooops, another typo? Another shining example of how our government run education system is seceding.

Click to expand...

Combing through my posts hunting for typos and spelling errors is getting really fucking old. It doesn't make you look smart. It makes you look petty. Get over yourself.

If that's all you have to contribute to a discussion, then fuck off dude. No one cares.

[video=youtube;o_be9XZ_4_c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_be9XZ_4_c&feature=player_embedded[/video]


Mike church is the Man..... He finally ask PAul the big question and then let him answer them in long form. Doesn't cut him off and smear him with out of context editing and sound bites

Ron PAul is the best man for the job. Pauls knowledge makes Obama look like a highschool idiot.

Dan Kone said:

That's largely because of the civil rights act. It took that to make America see the error of it's ways. Had we never forced desegregation on the south in all likelihood it would still be segregated today.

Click to expand...

How do you prove this to be true or untrue. YOu can't support a claim with a hypothetical. The civil rights act only took place because the people wanted it to. You can't say that if the people never had a civil right movement then the people wouldn't ever have had a civil rights movement. What really happened in this country was the Federal government used the momentum of a grassroots and the ground swell rejection of a Government impossed racial policy to impose more federal regulation and oppression on the States.

I love how people see the Segregated South as oppression of whites on black and see the civil rights movement as the Government liberating blacks.

Oppression in the south was Governmental oppression and the civil rights movement was the power of the people. All that really happened was the Federal Government took advantage of the people, (black and white) that wanted the Statist imposition of segregation to end, and further destroyed the Constitution in the name of the civil rights movement. We didn't need the Feds it would had happened without them.

Windsblow said:

How do you prove this to be true or untrue. YOu can't support a claim with a hypothetical.

Click to expand...

The evidence is the resistance desegregation met in the south. They did not want it at all and showed no willingness to desegregate on their own.

The civil rights act only took place because the people wanted it to.

Click to expand...

The people in the south sure as hell didn't want it. It was very unpopular there. It caused the southern democrats to become republicans where they stay to this day.

You can't say that if the people never had a civil right movement then the people wouldn't ever have had a civil rights movement.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that their is no evidence that the south would have desegregated on it's own and there is a lot of evidence that they would not have. It took the national guard to step in to make that happen.

^^^^^Agree 100%