Civil Rights Act

1196 Responses




On July 3, 2004, Ron Paul was the only Congressman to vote against a bill hailing the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In this speech to Congress, Ron Paul courageously spoke out on the often controversial issues of race relations and affirmative action. He explained why the Civil Right Act had failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society.

Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

1,196 responses to “Civil Rights Act”

  1. Ianjmacdonald

    @classicliberalism

    Ever heard of the Congressional Black Caucus? They exist for one purpose: examining legislation in terms of its benefits for blacks. They meet on federal property while on the public dime, and yet they do not admit non-blacks.

    It is a racist organization.

    Ever heard of national Council of La Raza (“The Race”)? They are a federally-funded brown supremacist organization.

    Non-whites are free to associate as non-whites without being excoriated by the media, or investigated and prosecuted by the government. And everyone thinks that this is normal.

    Whites are not allowed the same rights. All I demand is equal rights for whites. We are not demanding anything different than what other races demand.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  2. Ianjmacdonald

    @classicliberalism

    By forbidding deed covenants, federal civil rights laws prevent whites from establishing their own communities.>if other people bother you by simply existing, you have the choice to leave.I have a better idea: restore private property rights and freedom fo association.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. Ianjmacdonald

    @classicliberalism@ClintFitzgerald

    All I know is that if I fail to hire enough “non-whites,” federal regulators will fine me. When it come to enforcing privileges for non-whites in BRA (Black Run America), lefties somehow have no problem recognizing race.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. alim

    I appreciate your remarks. England brought about a broadly successful end to racism in pretty fast measure, based on groups of citizens who spoke out against it and – (herein may be the ‘kick-start’ you suggest) – slave owners were paid by the government for losses from the freeing of slaves that had previously been their ‘property’. England did many things to curb slavery – Wikpedia has a good amount of historical information. Though many people spoke out against slavery in America, our government took a different approach to dealing with slaves and with slave owners and of course the Civil War carved a chasm between north and south that we still deal with today.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Hmm

    The Birthplace of Reagan America and Modern Conservative Political Strategy, An Excerpt from an Interview with Eventual RNC Chairman Lee Atwater in 1981

    Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he’s campaigned on since 1964 and that’s fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

    Questioner: But the fact is, isn’t it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

    Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Gregor97

    It seems some people don’t understand. Ron Paul doesn’t want the government’s hand in private business. You don’t have a right to other people’s products, money, service or employment. However in public buildings such as libraries, it’s a different story, because everyone paid for it, it belongs to everyone and thus Ron Paul believes there should be no discrimination in public buildings.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. mmmdee

      @Gregor97 So if Private Businesses want to buy and sell slaves, dump acid into drinking water, and do just about any horrendous thing they feel they need to do, they should be allowed to do so without restrain? really?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. David25

        @mmmdee@Gregor97 Humans aren’t a commodity and he adheres to strict property rights which doesn’t allow you to pollute your neighbors air or land.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Redmond J

          @David25@mmmdee@Gregor97 Polluted air and water are famous for obeying real estate boundaries.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        2. mmmdee

          @David25@Gregor97 Yeah, but Big Corporations don’t give a flying fuck. Without regulations they will do whatever they want to do period. History has shown this time and time again. Read about when America was laissez-Faire, before the progressive era, and how bad it was. Heck, look at other countries RIGHT NOW, with no regulations on Big Businesses or the environment. It’s shit. Proper shit. He can believe in a strict property blah blah all day long, but reality CORPORATIONS DON’T. and they have proven it again and again! without regulations on them, THEY WILL DO AS THE PLEASE. And what can poor people do about it? Without money, all they get is a shit lawyer. A shit lawyer vs millions of dollars in the Judge’s pocket from the corporation = nothing getting done, and America going back to it’s state before the progressive era. And if you’ve never heard of such a time, you really need to read about it, and learn.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        3. SamFox

          @mmmdee , says you. If a big corp pollutes ect they will go out of business.

          No sane person would do business with them. The free market would shut them down. Pollution & such aw on the downhill BEFORE govt stepped.

          Here is ‘progressive’ from old school progs.

          Margaret Sanger:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSIeSfCzEfA

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=susYD1DL_wY

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8R5huKNJk8

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3Hy5BiUaf8

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEja-1emRic

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM2FyiA58KI

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUHXHZUcRfI

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMhuajIwb6I

          GB Shaw:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQvsf2MUKRQ

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40VegR6uaTI

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93eir00rOho

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ6nWn6t1s0

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiraPcLi5Mg

          0bama-

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRgpdw7gYOk

          Hill Clinton-lies about what a liberal & a ‘progressive’ is. 0 lies about where he gets donations.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2oOoCdFblc

          Besides, can you please show us where Ron calls for NO He calls for regulations? Didn’t think so. He calls for a great reduction of regs, but never says NO REGS. He is NOT an anarchist.

          Don’t you know ron wants to RESTORE the true law of the land, the US Constitution to it’s rightful place. For that he gets hammered by big govt socialists & control freak supporting fringe media.

          SamFox

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        4. Reality Check

          @SamFox re “No sane person would do business with them.” Or the businesses would move to India, Mexico, China, or some other country were environmental abuses can be ignored by the American consumer.

          http://izismile.com/2010/04/19/slaves_at_chinese_factory_that_produces_for_microsoft.html

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        5. mmmdee

          @SamFox BP pollutes the air. has it gone out of business?

          Ron paul’s website says

          A PRO-ENERGY PRESIDENT

          As President, Ron Paul will lead the fight to:

          * Remove restrictions on drilling, so companies can tap into the vast amount of oil we have here at home.

          * Repeal the federal tax on gasoline. Eliminating the federal gas tax would result in an 18 cents savings per gallon for American consumers.

          * Lift government roadblocks to the use of coal and nuclear power.

          * Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington.

          http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/energy/

          and then:

          REAL SOLUTIONS

          As President, Ron Paul will lead the way out of this crisis by:

          * Opposing all unfunded mandates and unnecessary regulations on small businesses and entrepreneurs.

          http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/economy/

          excuse me for interpreting that as no regulations on big companies. *eye roll*

          hey can YOU tell ME where he says “i dont call for no regulation, just a great reduction of regulation?”

          I THOUGHT SO.

          and stop flooding this place with opinionated youtube videos. that counts as nothing.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. scottg1089

        @mmmdee@Gregor97 nobody is opening a goddamn slave shop. jesus christ open your f’n eyes. if people want to say black people can’t come into their business then fine, that’s up to them but when you’re selling the same goods as that person down the block and you sell to all races would anyone shop at the racist’s store (racist’s, obviously)? ignorant to even ask a question like that.. selling slaves… sigh

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. mmmdee

          @scottg1089@mmmdee@Gregor97 Nobody’s opening a goddamn slave shop? how silly are you. Today, more slavery is going on than ever before. Educate yourself bro. The only reason that police can crack down on businesses that engage in slave trade is because of the thirteenth amendment. Something that Ron Paul disagrees it with because he thinks it would have made more sense for the union to buy all the slaves from the confederacy instead of force them to end slavery. How that makes any fucking sense is beyond me, cause (just like you), he has so much faith in racist, ignorant white people. You believe that every white person is sane enough not to open a slave shop (even though they are thousands of businesses in America and Europe importing and trading slaves to this day ) and He believes every racist, ignorant white person back then would agree to sell their slaves when they knew they weren’t going to have any more slaves to do their work. really?

          In the 1960s when the Civil Rights Bill was introduced, things were horrendously bad for black people. Get your head out of your ass bro. When Black people tried seating in the front of the bus, they were beating and told to go back, when businesses refused to serve black people, they were celebrated. The white people then are not the white people now, idiot. They weren’t moral enough to say “oh, i’ll go down the road and buy stuff from a non racists place” they WERE the racists and LOVED the racists. This was a time when 2 FUCKING MILLION WHITE PEOPLE were openly and unashamedly KKK members. The ONLY way for black people to move forward and start a process towards true equality was if the government helped them as it was meant to do under the 14th amendment. Period. There is no other way. You are ignorant to believe white people back in the 1960s were so good, that they’d happily just give black people full equality without much struggle. You need to go back and read your history,

          »crosslinked«

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        2. scottg1089

          @mmmdee@Gregor97 i didn’t even read your entire post honestly, but from the other 2 posts, and the first 3 or 4 sentences you typed this time you’re either A) scared of the white man (lol) or B) you’re a racist yourself.

          you are a retard lol. you have to understand by now that white people aren’t against blacks. there’s always going to be a few radicals who are racist (like yourself) just shut the fuck up. and don’t tell people to do research or read anything because you don’t know what the fuck you’re even talking about lol.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        3. mmmdee

          @scottg1089@Gregor97 ” Dear Scary Black woman, I’m a dumbass who doesn’t read or know anything so i’m just going to call you a white hating racist who needs to shut up, because it makes me feel more secure, I have no better response being that my brain is illogical and cannot respond to reason, and It reinforces my false belief that I’m right and you’re wrong. You see, I know that majority of white people in the 1960s were racist and very much against black people and even today, that there are still a lot of bigoted people in power and a lot of mistreatment of minorities (blacks, Latinos, women, lgbt citizens etc), I mean, I’d have to live in a box not to know that, but i’m just going to close my eyes and whisper blah blah blah to myself in hopes that the scary black woman (being you) will shut the fuck up and let me live my privileged life in my ron paul delusional bubble of nonsense, sincerely yours scottg1089″–Scottg1089 ( December 2011).

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        4. Redmond J

          @scottg1089@mmmdee@Gregor97 Thank you Scott for demonstrating the audience Ron Paul’s newsletters were written to attract.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        5. mmmdee

          @scottg1089@Gregor97 Thank You Darcee. Good to know some people still know a lot about history.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        6. SamFox

          @scottg1089 , right on. Besides, the constitution NOW says slavery is illegal. That is the kind of regulation Ron Paul wants to restore, the Constitution.

          mmmdee, you get that yet?

          SamFox

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        7. SamFox

          @Redmond J , maybe so. But also remember, Ron did not write the racist crap & had denounced that foolishness many itme.

          The ‘Ron is a racist’ lying smear was answered some years ago.

          Since there is no real dirt to dig up on Dr. Paul, media has to program people into a guilt by association gimmick to try to convince the gullible Homer simpson useful idiots that Ron is bad because he is racist.

          Ron has never been racist. any one who has done any open minded honest research knows that already.

          Note that they attack Ron Rules For Radicals style. They don’t/can’t attack him on his issue stands, his voting record, his speeches or his platform. They don’t want those things exposed to the public or his support would skyrocket faster than it is now.

          This is why those who do honest open minded research support Ron Paul for POTUS 2012!!!

          All they can do against Ron are the RFRs personal attacks that are now where near truthful. It’s a sad commentary on the US citizen that so many are duped by the duds.

          SamFox

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        8. SamFox

          @mmmdee ,lotta words, no proof. Typical.

          Show us where Ron is what you said. Put up the proof in his own words. You can’t.

          SamFox

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        9. SamFox

          @mmmdee , actually it was Dems who were most racist. And opposed the civil rights act. They try to hide that & even have the gall to say they are why blacks are free. They like you lie a lot.

          http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

          http://errvideo.com/Links/24/

          http://www.suwanneegop.com/NBRA%20Civil%20Rights%20Newsletter-2.pdf

          Now whatcha got to say? I already did your ‘progressive’ ancestors. You gave no reply to that either. Ignoring evidence you are wrong is proving you don’t have much integrity .

          SamFox

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        10. mmmdee

          @SamFox show us where ron paul is what you said? are you fucking kidding me? i’m talking about the civil rights act in this thread and why it’s useful, not about who ron paul is. can you fucking read or are you a blind moron? can you tell me what i said about ron paul? cause last time i checked i was talking about the civil rights act and how useful it was when it was put in place. YOU ARE A FUCKING TROLL, DO YOU UNDERSTAND? A FUCKING TROLL.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      3. SamFox

        @mmmdee , you going to answer my challenge? Betcha can’t.

        SamFox

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. mmmdee

          @SamFox jesus christ. shutup troll.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      4. Joe

        A truly free market prevents abuses like this. If you don’t like businesses that do these things, you don’t have to buy their products. If enough people don’t buy their products, then they are forced from economic necessity to change or go out of business. It is only when government gets involved and passes laws that allow bad behavior to exist that there are problems because the law negates consumer sentiment as a motivator for change because why should a business change when the government has put laws in place allowing them to do what they do?

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. mmmdee

      @Gregor97 I mean, since Private Business are supposed to be “untouchable” or something? right?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Redmond J

        @mmmdee@Gregor97 I don’t suppose it’s even worth pointing out that in Ron Paul’s world the Civil Rights activists were criminals trespassing on private property while the owners of No Dogs, Blacks or Jews establishments were simply citizens defending their property rights.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        1. SamFox

          @Redmond J , no it is not worth pointing out unless you can back it up.

          You some kind of frog or toad? You sure made a big unsubstantiated leap on that one!!

          More RFR character assassination via a flimsy guilt by made up association ploy.

          What a gross attempt at deception. YUCK!!

          SamFox

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. Gregor97

        You obviously haven’t educated yourself very well on Libertarian thought. People and businesses can do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t violate anyone’s rights. So they can’t violate anyone’s property, physically harm anyone, force people to work for them etc. However not hiring or providing services to anyone are not in violation of any right, however forcing them to hire or sell is.

        Try reading this: http://www.dailypaul.com/196432/the-right-to-be-racist

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. mmmdee

          @Gregor97 not hiring or providing services to anyone based on their gender, sexual orientation or race is not a violation of any right? how so?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Gregor97

          @mmmdee

          Yes it’s not a violation, as you don’t have a right to THEIR money, products, service, or employment.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. ianqmacallister

          Because you have no right to buy goods or services from me. My labor is my own. For you to assert that you are entitled to come onto my property and buy goods or services from me is to assert that I am your slave.

          I am a free man desiring to live in a free society. I shall enter into contracts only with those with whom I wish to do business, and who wish to do business with me.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      3. Gregor97

        @mmmdee@Gregor97

        I know you’re thinking that if businesses are allowed to be prejudiced, they will be prejudiced. Yeah, maybe like 0.00001%. The reason being that public opinion has changed drastically from very racist to very anti-racist. Just look at the things people say now vs. the 30s when racial slurs were commonplace.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        1. mmmdee

          @Gregor97 You live in a bubble lol.

          In countries were there are no regulations of business, AMERICAN businesses open sweat shops, with horrible working conditions and low pay, basically slave labor. In the 1960s, when the civil rights act was introduced, 99.9% of white businesses aka businesses in power WERE prejudiced. And if the government left them alone, IT WOULD HAVE CONTINUED. bigots just dont wake up one day in morning and decide not to be bigots.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        2. Gregor97

          @mmmdee@Gregor97

          Your first statement is invalid as no country has free markets AND American “sweatshops”. All because there are no regulations on business doesn’t make it a free market; you also need no regulations on the workers and consumers. Otherwise it’s a Fascist system.

          Now moving on to your second statement. I recognize that there where many prejudiced businesses in the 60′s; but that doesn’t mean it would have continued. The majority of people were changing their opinion on race, and the market would have strongly reflected that; there were no reasons to have the government take over the whole scene. Just look at businesses who make one controversial comment; they’re dead not because of government, but because of their consumers.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        3. mmmdee

          @Gregor97 The majority of people were changing their opinion on race in the 1960s (i’m assuming you are talking of white people here), really? can you back that up with the source you got your information from? I want to check it out, because i’ve been in AP World History, AP U.S History, and AP Government and own multiple history books, and i have never once heard or read tabout majority of white people (who ran everything in the 1960s) changing their opinion on race without government intervention (or prior to government intervention). So Please cite your information, thanks. I would love to know where this is coming from.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  7. jwpa13

    Mr. Paul, the constitution as originally written acknowledged people’s rights to OWN other people. It took a war and constitutional amendments to end that and another amendment to give women the rights the founding fathers gave to men ONLY

    To have life, liberty and a CHANCE at the pursuit of happiness one must have decent job.and a decent education and to some degree a decent home. Your position, taken to its logical conclusion, means that liberty gives personal property owners the right to deny liberty to others.

    Your strict interpetation of our constitution would once again give store owners the right to deny any group I do not prefer, jobs If I owns the biggest or only store in a town I can refuse to sell food, clothing, the right to use MY bathrooms to certain groups. and in short order turn back the clock to pre-civil rights times and have segregation today, tomorrow and forever.

    NO SIR, the FEDERAL government has a role to play in ensuring that all sexes and races get a level playing field when it comes to the delivery of basic things NATIONWIDE. Separate is not equal. If a mostly white town in a mostly white state decided to allow “private all white ” schools to exist, the public school in at least some of that state’s towns would over time degrade into a mostly ethnic student body. Without the interaction between young whites and other races (who tend to come from poorer backgrounds) we would begin to slip back into more polarized communities. The public schools would be in competition with private ones for the best teachers and the best of all available resources Without a broad spectrum of candidates to run for election to public school boards, public schools would surely suffer and in the course of time die on the vine. The inner city schools of large metropolitan areas now need state tax aide to remain viable, and that is WITH laws to accomplish this.

    I like your ideas on the “FED” sir, but on the whole your vision of states rights , and a government so small as to not be able to protect its weakest citizens from the tyranny of the majority leads me away from supporting you.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    1. Ianjmacdonald

      @jwpa13

      >constitution as originally written acknowledged people’s rights to OWN other people.

      Oh really? Please identify the specific section which acknowledges the right to own other people.

      >Your position, taken to its logical conclusion, means that liberty gives personal property owners the right to deny liberty to others.

      You have no right to use my bathroom. You have no right to join my club. You have no right to be my neighbor, renter, or employee. Why would you want to force other people to associate with you? Are you really that so disagreeable?

      >If a mostly white town in a mostly white state decided to allow “private all white ” schools to exist, the public school in at least some of that state’s towns would over time degrade into a mostly ethnic student body.

      So what? Then they would not have to deal with white oppression.

      >public schools would surely suffer and in the course of time die on the vine.

      As opposed to the suberb job that they are doing now?

      The cold hard truth is that many of us want absolutely nothing to do with many of you. We want you to go away and leave us alone, but you keep blabbering on about how you have some kind of right to force your presence on us.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      1. true

        1- Ok, in the Constitution, it acknoledges slavery and says Congress cannot move against it for 20 years. 3- Your argument that then minorities would not have to deal w/ racism is racist, ignorant, offensive, and stupid. Segregation is considered by pretty much everyone else in the world besides you to be bad. If you are truley against the ruling of Brown v. Board, then I feel sorry for you.

        4- They do have a right to force you to do certain things. They are the government! It would be nice if the government did not have to regulate things, but when people are ignorant, they need to step in! By being a racist asshole, you force the government to be larger!

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        1. ianqmacallister

          Who argued that minorities would not ever have to deal with “racism”? If you are a minority in a country, you might just have to deal with the fact people prefer the company of their own kind. If segregation is universally considered so bad, then why do people when left to themselves prefer the company of their own kind? Sunday morning church services and backyard bar-b-ques, for example. Did you know that forced integration in prisons is a complete failure? Did you know everyone in corrections knows that assigning cellmates according to race reduces the level of prison violence? And yet the race deniers are not at all concerned with the results of their policies. In their world, the only thing that counts is that they have such awesomely noble intentions.Why must the government force people to associate with people against their will? Why would *you* want to associate with someone who does not want to associate with you? Are you really so loathsome that you need the government to force other people to associate with you?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        2. ianqmacallister

          If segregation is so universally considered bad, then why must liberals insist on laws forbidding it? If diversity is so wonderful, then must it be crammed down our throats? Are you so loathsome that you must use laws to force yourself onto the company of those who do not wish to be around you?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        3. SamFox

          @true show us where “1- Ok, in the Constitution, it acknoledges slavery and says Congress cannot move against it for 20 years.” That’s horse wash. Where in the world did you get that?

          Govt is limited in what they can “force us to do”. That is what the Constitution you so dreadfully fear is for.

          You want more go up a few posts. I left plenty about the US founders & slavery.

          SamFox

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        4. mmmdee

          @SamFox hey troll, have you heard of dred scott vs. stanford? you know the case that shows not only how the constitution acknowledges slavery but how slaves were PROPERTY and slave masters were PROTECTED by the constitution and law. if not look it up. this is something i learned in 10th grade so you sound like an idiot.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. SamFox

      @jwpa13 Horse feathers. You are a liar. Prove me wrong with Ron’s own words.

      You Homer Simpson Spooky Dude shills are so easy.

      If you knew anything, you would know that the Founder’s constructed the Constitution in such as way the slavery could be abolished.

      https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.arts.tv/lMi7KC4_DbA

      http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/respub/v6n1/boyd.html

      http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=99

      “I like your ideas on the “FED” sir, but on the whole your vision of states rights , and a government so small as to not be able to protect its weakest citizens from the tyranny of the majority leads me away from supporting you.” ???? Have any citations to prove your point? It is clear you have no clue about what this paragraph says.

      You are so far off base on that one, it’s almost amusing. Not trying to attack or demean. I am just mystified how you could come up with such an inaccurate statement.

      I am also baffled by your saying that Ron’s strict adherenec to the Constituion is a bad thing. “Your strict interpetation of our constitution would once again give store owners the right to deny any group I do not prefer, jobs If I owns the biggest or only store in a town I can refuse to sell food, clothing, the right to use MY bathrooms to certain groups. and in short order turn back the clock to pre-civil rights times and have segregation today, tomorrow and forever.”

      I agree with Ron. If you let the fed govt over step it’s Constitutional restraints an inch, how long will it be before they are every where in control of every thing. That IS the situation we are facing today. More & more liberty & civil rights of ALL citizens are now threatened because people thought “Oh, that’s a good thing for the fed govt to do.” People all to often fail to realize they opened a Pandora’s box by allowing some of their freedoms to be eroded, no matter how “good the intentions’ may be & how much more the govt would eventually gobble up.

      If you don’t want to be thought a complete air head, please prove your case. You can’t because your contentions are no where found in anything Ron has said or written.

      If I’m wrong, please show us how, in Ron’s own words. Not media ‘analysis’ or opinion.

      Bethca can’t get ‘er done!

      SamFox

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. ClintFitzgerald

    Frank Roman is right. He said, ” Freedom of association. The FedGov has no business whatsoever in determining who we associate or do business with,” and that is moral.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. classicliberalism

      @ClintFitzgerald

      Thank you, sir! It’s hard discussing racial issues because people get so nasty and personal. It’s usually the liberals who do that, too. They scream racism or make personal attacks about you (like saying ‘get out of your mom’s basement’) or say “there are more nonwhites than whites” (yet they claim to be against majority rule), etc.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. true

        One of the reasons you may find it hard to talk to people about this stuff is because you are racist! Racism was a huge problem, and still is. If you knew anything about America, you would know that minority rights are an important part of our philosophy. Affirmative action may be flawed, but it is still outweighed by the benifits of it.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. ianqmacallister

          I have no trouble talking to people about race. I see that you exhibit the typical knee-jerk response of anti-white bigots in that you simply denounce as :racist” anyone with whom you disagree.

          “Anti-racist” is code for “anti-white.”

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Redmond J

          @ianqmacallister ”

          I have no trouble talking to people about race. I see that you exhibit the typical knee-jerk response of anti-white bigots in that you simply denounce as :racist” anyone with whom you disagree.

          “Anti-racist” is code for “anti-white.””If Ron Paul isn’t the guy who wrote the Ron Paul newsletters, Ron Paul’s supporters are eager to remind us that they’re the guys who read them.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. mmmdee

          @ianqmacallister hhahahaha….please tell me you’re not serious..

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        4. ianqmacallister

          All I demand is that every individual be treated equally before the law, and that property rights and freedom of association be restored.

          I do not seek anti-black laws, I do not seek the restoration of Negro slavery.

          And one other thing, speaking, globally, whites are the true minority.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6pzPp1Q2ew

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. mmmdee

      @ClintFitzgerald lolololol. Freedom of association is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests, not the freedom of whites to actively discriminate against minorities. You are really clueless about the constitution.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      1. David25

        @mmmdee@ClintFitzgerald It does not however allow federal government to force people to do something, that would be infringing on people’s freedoms to do what they want.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. ianqmacallister

        Freedom of association means that I get to decide who I want to associate with, and that you get to decide who you want to associate with. You have no right to get an invitation the parties that I hold, or the nightclub that I operate. Likewise you are under no obligation to admit me to your church, or allow me to join whatever clubs you might run.

        It’s called freedom.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        1. mmmdee

          @ianqmacallister Hey, i copied and pasted word for word the definition of freedom of association as defined by constitutions around the word (not just the U.S btw), and the definition the U.S courts accept when ruling on cases. In case your brain did not comprehend it the first time, let me repeat it for you–Freedom of association is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests. Does this mention invitations to parties in anyway? really? and let’s get real here, when have any minorities went to court about not being invited to parties? seriously? you are a fucking moron. So let me say this as slowly as possible, just for you, NO. ONE. IS. FORCING. YOU. TO. INVITE. ANYONE. TO. YOUR. PARTY. NO. ONE. SAID. THEY. HAD ANY. RIGHT. TO. GET INVITATIONS. TO. PARTIES. YOU. HOLD. OR. ANYONE. HOLDS. YOU. ARE. BEING. DELUSIONAL. I. REPEAT. YOU. ARE. BEING. DELUSIONAL. seek help before it’s too late.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. ianqmacallister

          “Freedom of association” means my freedom to associate with whom I want.

          “when have any minorities went [sic] to court”

          mmmdee prefers to throw a tantrum and call names instead of having a discussion.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. ianqmacallister

          OK, mmmdee, let’s accept your definition just for the sake of argument.

          “Freedom of association is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.”

          You clearly do not believe that whites should also enjoy freedom of association. How would you react to a group of white people coming together *as whites* to collectively express, promote, pursue and defend their common interests *as white people*? We all know the answer. You people would scream to high heaven! You and the rest of the “teach tolerance” crowd would denounce us all as evil Nazi white supremacists! Liberals have such amazing double standards around the issue of race. Blacks can come together at a meeting of the NAACP without fear of being denounced as “black supremacists.” Latinos can associate through National Council of La Raza (literally “The Race”) without being denounced as a “hate group.” Whites are the only group denied that same right.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  9. harddrive1919

    @FrankRoman

    Awwww…Don’t be so sensitive FRANK. There you go again getting your panties in a wad because I don’t share your teenage wet dream. Quit playing the race card and get off the video games kid. Ask your messiah ron paul that if he hates the govt so much, why has he been in it for most of his life. Why doesn’t he decline his govt healthcare? I’ll tell you why, since you need an adult to think for you…..because no private insurance would cover his old ASS….get off the gas and come with a better response moron….I will wear the title of racist coming from a reactionary idiot like yourself….good day FRANK ROMAN…lol

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Informme

      @harddrive1919@FrankRoman

      That’s silly. Government is supposed to be a place for debate and change. To suggest that Paul leave government because he objects to what happens there is to say that he should run away from what he believes in. He’s not a career politician; he had a successful medical practice in Texas. He’s in Washington because he felt compelled. And can you please provide the relevant links to where Paul discusses his GOVERNMENT healthcare? I wouldn’t be very surprised if it emerged that he had only private healthcare. In fact, if you were to follow him more closely, you’d learn that he does not participate in any government program which would benefit him personally at the expense of the taxpayers, e.g. the congressional pension plan. Equally, he has vowed that as president, he would only accept the average American income (about $39,000 per year) instead of the current salary of $400,000.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. scottg1089

        @Informme@harddrive1919@FrankRoman well said sir, it’s a good thing harddrive is a big boy and can think for himself.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. FrankRoman

    Freedom of association. The FedGov has no business whatsoever in determining who we associate or do business with.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. TroyWilliams!

      Some people see a desired ends and are morally ambivalent about how those ends are reached. The social engineers who ripped our society apart with an experiment that the majority of Americans didn’t want finally have their near dystopian society fractured at every conceivable social fault line.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. classicliberalism

        @TroyWilliams!

        I remember seeing a video with Humprey (I think?) and Thurmond. Thurmond said the civil rights bill would force businesses to do business with people they didn’t want to, that it would lead to discrimination against whites (which it has) and that it’s best for people to accept people on their own and without laws telling them to. Instead of passing laws making it illegal for people to discriminate against you, why not create your own business? Why is it wrong to discriminate on race (something you don’t chose), but not wrong for a bar to only hire young, pretty females? I mean, they didn’t choose to be young or pretty.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. IanMacAlister

          Should women have the freedom to establish their own health clubs so that they can work out free from the leering male gaze?

          Should black bar owners have the freedom to not serve drinks to known Klansmen?

          Why would someone even want to patron a tavern, restaurant or hotel where they were not welcome?

          Should I be forced to hire someone not because I think he’s best for the job, but to satisfy some quota set down by some federal diversicrat?

          How can the Black Congressional Caucus meet in publicly-owned buildings on the public dime while excluding non-blacks without facing legal action from the Department of Justice?

          Why does the National Council of La Raza (“The Race”), a racial advocacy group, get federal tax dollars year after year? Should tax dollars really be spend funding a racist agenda?

          If I run “gay marriage freedom of association” through google I get back 1,700,000 hits. Is it hypocritical for leftists to invoke the principle of “freedom of association” when advocating for gay marriage while denying freedom of association in just about any other context?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. mmmdee

      @FrankRoman is that really how freedom of association is defined or are you pulling bs out of your ass? think about it.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. SeekingKnowledge

    In France, there are no distinctions based on race and I have noticed that the people seem to openly accept all races. In the UK, any quotas or favouritism is illegal. In Germany, all races, sexes, and social backgrounds have equal rights.

    In South Africa, they have a form of Affirmative Action, this is what I found:

    The policies of Employment Equity and, particularly, Black Economic empowerment have been criticised both by those who view them as discriminatory against white people, and by those who view them as ineffectual.[42][43][44][45][46]

    These laws cause disproportionally high costs for small companies and reduce economic growth and employment.[39] The laws may give the black middle-class some advantage but can make the worse-off blacks even poorer.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. classicliberalism

      I read by Thomas Sowell-a black man-that the black middle class was actually growing prior to the civil rights movement and the laws being against discrimination. The anti-discrimination laws cost companies money when they are forced to hire people they don’t want to, when they are forced to hire people that aren’t as qualified, which then makes companies go oversea where there aren’t all the anti discrimation laws or massive regulations. This, obviously, leaves more people out of work here.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. mmmdee

      @SeekingKnowledge In American, there is absolutely no discrimination in work places, no discrimination by the police, and no discrimination period. Minorities and Privileged people are equal. Let’s get rid of all the laws now. Everything is obviously equal everywhere.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. ianqmacallister

        No law will ever make blacks equal to whites.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        1. mmmdee

          @ianqmacallister laws will help even out the inequality as time passes.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. ianqmacallister

            That is nothing but wishful thinking on your part. No law can raise the average black IQ to match the average white IQ. No law can force blacks to adopt better study habits and a work ethic, or make them more future-oriented, or less sexually promiscuous.

            I am sick of silly liberals and their delusional thinking.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  12. SeekingKnowledge

    I completely agree with the statement that “this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife.” @dariusjjohnson It is true that some people will discriminate, but that is ALL RACES. One of my teachers in high school blatantly favored her race (African American) over others, which caused the rest of us to sit silently and listen, not participating in class discussions (it was a US Government class, too!).

    Laws that promote Native American restitutions and Affirmative Action does not promote equality… it does the opposite.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. classicliberalism

      @SeekingKnowledge@dariusjjohnson

      Communism claimed the lives of 100 million people trying to make things ‘equal’

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. SeekingKnowledge

        Communism was not about race. I don’t see your point on this one.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. classicliberalism

          @SeekingKnowledge

          Your claim is that the government has an obligation to take people out of poverty and make them equal. I’m saying communism tried to ‘make people equal’ (the same way the multiculturalists today and ‘civil rights people’ try to make things equal) and millions of people died. There just won’t be equality no matter what. There will always be some group or person that is better off than another. There will always be someone richer than you or smarter than you or better-looking than you, etc. Liberals are always whining about how things are unfair and how certain people aren’t successful.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Liberatino

          yea its about marginalizing the individualist, the bourgeois and the entrepreneur

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. dariusjjohnson

    i dont believe in Ron Pauls stance on ending the civil rights act, because some people well make it there duty to deny certain races their service and all that well do is cause more tension and im guessing most of that would be in the south, saying the civil rights act isnt the reason for why we are far more racially equal is not very smart, Just like with his stance on drugs, if people dont want to do drugs the fact that they become legal isnt going to turn them into a crack addicts. And for people that are racist they will be that way whether its legal/socially frowned upon or not. So if you made it ok for them to get a chance to demean there business in a way they can deny service based upon race, and try to show that they are better . than they’re going to take that chance every time they can. The civil rights act doesnt need to be changed in fifty years there should be little to no racism left, ending the act would set us back another 50 years.. although i dont agree with his stance on this topic, it doesnt matter because it is so far “out there” that it will never be passed, since he is the only one who voted against it. So I will vote for him , and i dont put his stance to this topic in that factor..

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. DrewJohnson

      You miss the whole point. If a business chooses to discriminate then it is their right to do so because it is their property and the government has no business controlling what they can and cannot do with their property or what contracts an individual can enter into (regardless of his motivation which can never be known) if we truly exist in a free society.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. dariusjjohnson

        @DrewJohnson I don’t miss the point , all I’m saying is if people were given the chance to do that again it wouldn’t be better for our society at this point..

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. classicliberalism

          @dariusjjohnson@DrewJohnson

          That’s not the point again. Where in the constitution does it say one has to associate with people they don’t like?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. SamFox

        @DrewJohnson What Ron Recognizes that far to many people miss, is that if govt gets a foot in the door in arenas that are popular with a lot of voters, but are un-Constitutional, where will they go next?

        Paul is not FOR racism or discrimination. He is FOR liberty & freedom for all, even those who are stupidly small minded racists. Plus a lot of the public discrimination at restaraunts & other private businesses was driven by local ordinences & local govts. Many of the establishments didn’t choose to discriminate, they were forced to by local legislation. Not all, but many.

        Most business will go down the tubes if they discriminate. One color that ALL business peeps really like is green. We all spend the same color of money…

        Good points Drew.

        SamFox

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. dariusjjohnson

    I don’t believe in affirmative action i think the smartest or best person for the job should get it but i don’t mind where in some cases they have to interview a person of minority because some people dont give minorities a chance even if they are the best candidate. furthermore i do believe that the civil rights act did help end a lot of racial tension maybe not at first, but only once you meet, go to school with, work with, and see how a person of different color lives do you start to understand them and see that they are just the same as you in the end..

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. ianqmacallister

      @dariusjjohnson Affirmative action is not at all about having to interview minorities; it’s about lowering standards in order to enroll, hire, and promote “enough” non-Asian minorities to satisfy the racial bean counters. The problem is that the average white IQ in America is 102 while the average black IQ is 85. That 17 point different is slightly more than one standard deviation. This means that the average white person has a higher intelligence than 85% of the blacks, and thus any test for cognitive ability will per force discriminate against blacks. No law of man can undo what Mother Nature has wrought.

      Your statement assumes that racial tension is caused by lack of contact between members of different races. In my own case, I can tell you that I was a racial liberal through the end of the third grade. Starting fourth grade my school was integrated, and boy oh boy did I get an upclose, uncensored view of blacks over the next nine years, and I quickly learned that we are NOT “all the same.” By the time I graduated high school I wanted absolutely nothing to do with blacks.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. harddrive1919

    @regisjbeakensr THIS IS EXACTLY WHY RON PAUL, YOU, AND OTHER DUMAZZEZ AND MORONS THAT SUPPORT HIM AND GET A HARD ON WHEN HE SPEAKS WILL NEVER SNIFF THE WHITEHOUSE. HE WILL JUST CONTINUE TO SELL ALL OF YOU THE WET DREAM YOU HAVE BEEN BUYING ABOUT HOW HE HATES GOVT ALL THE WHILE HE CONTINUES TO COLLECT HIS GOVT CHECK AND HIS GOVT HEALTHCARE AND OTHER BENEFITS…LOL WHAT A BUNCH OF IDIOTS

    GOOD DAY

    P.S. …YOU NEED TO GET OUT MORE AND REALIZE THAT THE COUNTRY WILL GET BROWNER AND BROWNER…LIVE WITH IT CRYBABY

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. SamFox

      harddriveby, did you know that Ron sends some of his office expense $ back? He has never taken a taxpayer funded junket, he always votes against undeclared war & tax increases? That ending the racist war on drugs is a good thing?

      I take it you have no clue what you are talking about. But most of you Homer Simpson trolls from Media Matters don’t know much about him either.

      dariusjjohnson, you said,

      “furthermore i do believe that the civil rights act did help end a lot of racial tension maybe not at first, but only once you meet, go to school with, work with, and see how a person of different color lives do you start to understand them and see that they are just the same as you in the end.”

      I don’t think you know it, but you contradicted yourself. What follows after you said “…maybe not at first…” is how it would have happened without the civil rights thing. Most people were ahead of the curve & knew that racism is, well, very stupid & shows those who are so inclined to be of very small mind & probably don’t have much of a life.

      Ron was not against equality. He was against more big govt intrusion. He knew where it leads when govt gets it nose under our tent. They end up taking over the whole place! Look what we have now….

      SamFox

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. dariusjjohnson

        @SamFox I get what your saying , But not everyone was over that curve and some people never would have, if they weren’t forced in the first place that’s all i meant by that

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. SamFox

          @dariusjjohnson Some one forced against their will

          is of the same opinion still.

          Sure they forced. But there was a lot of hidden resentment that is still with us today. If the fed govt wanted to force anyone, they should have been going after local & state cops who did not provide equal protection under the law to ALL citizens as the Constitution requires. THAT would have been Constitutional.

          Force is faster, true. But it is not as effective or as long lasting as time. If they wouldn’t get over the curve force couldn’t do it either.

          Please remember, Ron is not against equality for all. He does warn against classifying people as groups instead of as individuals. It says a.. men, not all people groups, are created equal.

          SamFox

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. dariusjjohnson

          @SamFox I think you misunderstand me I never said Ron Paul is against equality for all. I like that he is against classyfing people as groups as i feel the same way. But i just dont agree with him on wanting to end the civil rights act.. other than that me and Ron Paul see eye-to-eye on most every other issue..

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. SamFox

          @dariusjjohnson I was not accusing you by my sentence or saying you thought other wise. I just threw that in for ‘just in case’ info. No worries M8!! :-)

          By the way, where does the lead article say anything about ending civil rights act? I coulda missed it.

          Any hoody, what’s done is done. Let’s get a Constitutionalist like Ron Paul elected. Then a lotta this kind of stuff will fall into place.

          @ all readers here-

          If there is a better PRO-Constitutionalist candidate out there than Ron Paul, some one with a more consistent freedom & liberty for ALL voting record, for longer, PLEASE!!! Some body! Trot them out!

          Any one out there even almost as good as Ron Paul???? Do the research & get back. Thanks.

          SamFox

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        4. dariusjjohnson

          @SamFox Oh i threw that out there because people were commenting about it, because he voted against the act . my fault for listening to them.. but i agree .. Ron Paul for president..

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        5. SamFox

          @dariusjjohnson no worries 8*. Tis all good!

          No one candidate is going to please all the people all the time. But no one running can come close to Ron Paul’s 30+ year PRO-constitution voting record or platform.

          Some of them are now talking a bit like Ron, but NONE of them have his pro liberty & freedom for all voting record & platform or been more consistent.

          Have a good one every one!

          SamFox

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        6. classicliberalism

          @dariusjjohnson@SamFox

          There is never going to be equality, no matter how many laws or rules you instill. Some people are stupid, some are smart, some are gifted, some are talentless, etc. Instead of forcing people to associate with you, create your own system and your own circles.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. FrankRoman

      @harddrive1919

      Ah, I see: an anti-white bigot closes his kindergarten screed with a declaration that reveals what truly simmers under the surface. Just exactly HOW will your life improve once the white majority is gone? You are a racist and a bigot.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. harddrive1919

        @FrankRoman

        Don’t be so sensitive. There you go again getting your panties in a wad because I don’t share your teenage wet dream. Quit playing the race card and get off the video games kid. Ask your messiah ron paul that if he hates the govt so much, why has he been in it for most of his life. Why doesn’t he decline his govt healthcare? I’ll tell you why, since you need an adult to think for you…..because no private insurance would cover his old ASS….get off the gas and come with a better response moron….I will wear the title of racist coming from a reactionary idiot like yourself….good day FRANK…lmbao

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. classicliberalism

          @harddrive1919@FrankRoman

          Sensitive? You want to talk about sensitive, hardrive? Frank here seems very polite and well spoken unlike you. What is it with your marxists and anti-white folks that you get so nasty and immature (like saying ‘teenage wet dream’ and ‘go play video games, kid) that you can’t debate intelligently and without calling the person a racist or making remarks about their sex life or whatever? Show me one nation run by blacks or latins that is a first-world civilization.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. SamFox

          @harddrive1919

          Where did Ron say he hated govt? Ron Paul has been in govt because he is trying to get the fed govt back under the Constitution’s limits the US Founders put on it in our founding documents. .

          The title you wear is Homer Simpson. Cass Sunstein said your type is easy to manipulate. He was right.

          How long have you been shilling for Media Matters? You should hit Soros up for a raise. You have done a fine job of clouding up the thread with your Rules For Radicals tactics & misinformation.

          The fact that you really don’t say any thing & never back up what little you do should make him smile real big for ya & give you a nice pat on the head while telling you “Good little Homer! Keep up the BS misinformation for me. You do the [socialist control freak] ‘progressive’ movement proud!”

          SamFox

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. Ianjmacdonald

          @harddrive1919@FrankRoman Lefties are incapable of engaging in any kind of serious sustained debate on issues, so they resort to ritual defamation of their opponents. It’s as true of you as it is of Time Wise.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        4. Ianjmacdonald

          Lefties have no problem recognizing a black person when it comes to enforcing privileges for blacks in contemporary America. If you’re asking me, then I would point you to J. Philippe Rushton and Michael Levine. “Race” is a signifier for continental origin. If in 1500 your ancestors lived in sub-Saharan Africa, then you are a Negro. If in 1500 your ancestors lived in Europe, then you are a Caucusoid.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        5. Jen1982

          See, I disagree here. I usally do not agree a lot with the right side, Im more in the middle that leans a little left. However, Im thinking I really like Ron Paul. Me being in the middle, I usally see more hate coming from the right side and cant get anyone to debate me. Both sides tend to act like children a lot. The right side tends to be real close minded and its my way or the high way. Just the way I see it.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        6. ianqmacallister

          And your point would be?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    3. classicliberalism

      @harddrive1919@regisjbeakensr

      Before you insult conservatives for their supposed lack of intelligence, you might want to learn how to spell correctly.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. harddrive1919

        And you might want to move out of your mother’s basement….i don’t care if I spell a word or two incorrectly on this dumb website idiot….you set your self up for that one moron

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. classicliberalism

          @harddrive1919

          Here you go: making accusations about me that aren’t true as most blacks and hispanics and white liberals do when debating the issues of race. If you want whites and asians and others to not be so prejudice against blacks, you might want to learn how to speak intelligently, not make comments about people’s sex lives (as many blacks do when someone debates them on race), not get emotional and all that. I don’t care for Louis Farrakhan, but at least he speaks well and gets attention because he doesn’t say ‘yo, yo, yo’ or make comments about white men’s penis sizes or talk like a thug.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Ianjmacdonald

          @classicliberalism@harddrive1919

          Harddrive has no rational arguments. All he has are insults and infantile rage.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. regisjbeakensr

    blacks have abused the system to where whites are fed up.anyone who came here after the war gets on the band wagon for slavery. my ass. 20% of blacks have slavery heritage and many were owned

    by blacks. less than 20% of whites owned blacks . italians were treated like blacks till they took over. AND MIGHT I ADD MANY WHITE MEN DIED FOR YOU OR DIXIE WOULD HAVE ONE. NORTHERN WHITES FREED YOU ASS not blacks like people are led to believe. and if i don’t want to live by blacks that is my right that was taken away. and if your interracial your black.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    1. classicliberalism

      @regisjbeakensr

      That’s the whole problem with anti-discrimination laws. If an employer doesn’t hire someone that the law requires them to, they get sued. Then when they do hire that person they are required to hire, it’s still the employee’s word against the employer. There are tons of people who scream ‘racism’ and discrimination just to get sympathy and money. The more laws you place against businesses (like anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action, higher taxes, etc), the more will go overseas and there will be less jobs here.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Jen1982

      If your interracial your black and white. Just saying. How cme white people deny them and black people do too?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. ianqmacallister

        The average African-American is about 20% European by blood. In Barry Soetero’s case, he is half and half, but he has always decided to check the box that says “African-American” so that he could qualify for government-enforced racial privileges in education and hiring. He’s just another no-talent affirmative action baby.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. jwpa13

    You can’t pass a law making people like each other. YOUCAN pasws laws making people go to the same schools, eat at the same restraunts and live in the same areas, thus allowing people to get to know each other. . If people don’t know each other HOW can they learn to love and accept each other. It’s easier to hate a stranger than to like him.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. classicliberalism

      @jwpa13

      You can only hate someone (for any reason in your mind) if you have interactions with them. Not only that, but your DNA over millions of years tells you what to avoid and who to avoid based on your intution. I don’t need to tell you a tiger is dangerous. I don’t need to tell you it will hurt putting your hand on a hot stove. You learn these things.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Ianjmacdonald

      @jwpa13

      It is a much cherish liberal myth that hate and prejudice are generated by lack of contact. By golly if only blacks and whites were forced to mingle, they’ get to know and love each other, and everyone would end up holding hands and singing kumbaya.

      My school was integrated starting in 4th grade. Up until then I was a foolish liberal. After nine years of daily interactions with blacks, I graduated and wanted nothing more to do with them. I have structured my life so that the only time I have anything to do with a Negro is when they are handing me something over the counter.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  18. regisjbeakensr

    ron paul does’nt have alzheimers i do.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. regisjbeakensr

    keithline if you don’t have a thought to express the issues just read and learn something you wasted a comment. i won’t stoop to your level and tell you how i really feel about your comment., but if you think you hurt anyone we blew you off for what you are. sorry people too many are quite intelligent with all views having some truth to it. ty god bless peace be with you all.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. McCordRM

    I agree with Ron Paul on this one.

    You cannot force someone to like, or accept, someone else. Prejudice has existed, does exist, and will always exist. Every time we see, meet, or speak to someone new we get a fist impression. It’s not a choice we make, it’s inherent. It’s human nature.

    That’s not to say that our first impressions are always correct, just that we should stop behaving like it’s somehow immoral, or evil, to have them. What we can control, however, are our actions based upon those impressions. But that’s up to the individual, not the government. I refer to #3 Freedom of Thought, in my article:

    http://richardmccord.com/opinions/freedom/

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. kenta.takao

      I completely agree with your statement. The government can’t tell when a person is being racist and by developing a law trying to just that is highly ineffective and useless. There shouldn’t be a racial quota in companies but rather you get hired for your skills no matter what the color of your skin is.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. SamFox

        @kenta.takao Good points.

        The govt could care less about racism. Govt cares only about control. They are using any issue they can to expand fed control over We The People. WTP are who they really don’t are for. Govt like to take our $, but they don’t care much for us.

        Their lack of care for the people is evident in one regard by the way they have trashed the economy & seek to destroy free market capitalism with high taxes & fees & massive regulation. Also in the way they put control strings on money stolen from people in all the states & sends some it back with said control strings firmly attached.

        Their is an element in govt that wants to make us all slaves, so I guess in that regard they are ‘equal opportunity’. Remember ‘workfare’? WF is about making slaves, a little at a time.

        If you want to know who was most against civil rights, it was the Dems. They fought tooth & nail against freedom & equality for blacks. You want to know what the ‘progressive’ movement thinks of people of color, go to YouTube & look up Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project. Also look up GB Shaw & find out what he thinks if ‘ you don’t produce enough’ & his take on a ‘humane gas’.

        SamFox

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. classicliberalism

      @McCordRM

      I agree, too! What annoys me most is that it’s only whites who have been forced really to follow these anti-discrimination laws. The civil rights people seem more to want to ‘stick it to whitey’ than they want equal protection and fair treatment for all. The more laws and regulations placed on businesses since the 60s (like the Civil Rights Act) the more they will leave the country and the more people will be out of work here.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. regisjbeakensr

    ok i’m white and owe nobody anything i’m sick and tired of this poor me bull. how about i had to move from a town 12000 but jobs everywhere went the marines came out and they had to hire blacks to mkeep gov’t jobs so a town with 3 people black had to go to the city and get blacks in our town one was mailman my mother called me on the phone all upset she says” we got one right here” i lived in south florida funnier than hel this country now discriminates against whites. how about laziness they come to work cause trouble threaten the bosses both naacp and physically i didn’t put up with that kind

    i put a heavy bag speed bag strike back bag and 400lbs weights if they felt froggy we would visit my toys and i would say don’t ever threaten me again fired and beat same i am 5’9″ 230 15% bodyfat used to be 8

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. keithkline79

      Hahah, you are the most unintelligible moron EVER! Simply amazing.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Kraedi

        This man has already admitted to being old, dying, having bi-polar disorder, Alzheimer’s disease, and dementia, himself. So thanks, Captain Obvious. Keith, you lost an argument that you never even bothered to start. Try a bit harder in the future. You might actually change someone’s mind.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. keithkline79

          Who’s got dementia, etc… Ron Paul or regisjbeakensr?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Kraedi

          @keithkline79 quoted from regisjbeakensr “i apologize for grammer and know i put sentences toether. i have alzheimers dementia and am glad i still can do this well. as for subjects if you try you can read it. i also have bipolar where my mind races.”

          Ron Paul does not seem to be showing signs of Dementia, not yet.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. SamFox

          @keithkline79 Who’s got dementia? Those who don’t do their research on America’s best hope for a restoration of freedom & liberty for all.

          Those who only hear what candidates say at ‘debates’ without checking to see if they have already walked that talk, making sure that the candidate is consistent with his past record, platform & speeches.

          Ron Paul does have a ‘mental disease’. It’s called Giveusallourfreedomback Syndrome. Main symptom is Constitutionalitus.

          SamFox

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. Ian

    Sorry folks, the name “Tea Party” has been commandeered by theocratic authoritarian neocons, and the historical prank’s meaning has gone with it.
    What we need is a NEW prank…

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  23. Sandra

    The Civil Rights Act is not responsible for keeping black America down. Unlimited hereditary welfare, encouraged by white leftist plantation masters, bears the primary responsibility. Post-civil rights Black Americans were on their way up before they were herded into government funded slums and encouraged to address grievances by taking “free” money.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6

    1. John Locke

      There you go again–it’s always someone else’s fault. Stop blaming others (always a “victim”) and making excuses for people who have no pride and are CONTENT to sit around and take federal money, have five kids by six different fathers, and not get up and contribute (only take) anything to society. Get off your ass and do an honest day’s work and stop blaming other people for your faults. Stop looking to the government to solve your problems.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. gusjaster

        She’s saying the government CREATES problems and set Blacks up for decades of receiving free money, which in turn has instilled the laziness you speak of in many communities. You dumbass.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. classicliberalism

      I read that, too, that blacks were moving into the middle class faster prior to all the ‘civil rights’ laws that were passed. Not that I am blaming whites for how blacks are, but the liberals have enabled them and annoyed whites by forcing them to do business and associate with people they don’t want to. I’d also argue blacks today are WORSE OFF than they were before then for the simple fact there wasn’t all the gang violence, wasn’t all the fatherless homes, wasn’t the welfare, etc.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. Patriot Dave

    This is Dave, I changed my Screen Name. (You all probably could have guessed that. LOL.) Anyway:

    I have a couple of ideas I’d like to throw around and see what you all think about them.

    I watched the documentary about the Ron Paul Revolution, the origin of the Tea Party in 2007, and the 2007 campaign. I didn’t even know about Ron Paul back then; I wish I had and I wish I was a part of the movement back then. But, I see how all the grassroots support was pretty independent, and all fun.

    Idea one: I wouldn’t want to take away from the creativity, the individualism, or the fun away, but I wonder, since Ron Paul is a lot more well known these days, if we who support Ron Paul and this revolution, can reform and deploy a lot more seriously this time around. I wonder if we could somehow organize nationwide boycotts of Fox News, and all companies that advertise on the Fox Network. Maybe even boycott everything that has to do with fox, even their movies. If they aren’t going to take our candidate seriously, and black him out, then maybe it’s time to fight fire with fire, and become a more serious revolution, a political force to be reckoned with. I’m thinking we can write a letter, and have as many as we can petition it, send it to Fox, and send a copy to every company that advertises on Fox that we intend to boycott, until our candidate gets fair and equal air time, and interviews, and we’re going to be keeping track.

    Idea two: Do you guys think we can start up another Tea Party, and call it something along the lines as; “The Original Ron Paul Tea Party” founded 2007.

    Idea three: Does anyone think that it could be feasible to begin a nationwide 3RD Party Alliance, with all third party groups and fringe groups? Not that we are going to agree with each other on everything, but create a movement for the sole purpose of challenging the statist quo, and to bring a political fight to the establishment? Do you think that it could be possible to unite the Constitutionalist, the Libertarian Party, Green Peace, Peace and Freedom, ACLU, Free Church Movement, and others, not to embrace each others’ ideologies, but just to support a fringe candidate just for the sake of finally dethroning the establishment? I wonder if there are any people out there who would be willing to engage other grass roots, third party, and fringe politic leaders and organizers in conversations to form a coalition, a Third Party Alliance.

    What do you guys think?

    -Patriot Dave

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0

    1. SamFox

      It’s to late for a 3rd party this late in the campaign season. Not a bad idea though.

      I like yer other 2 suggestions, those are not to late.

      SamFox

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. Dave

    Spuishi, and Tammy:

    Squishi,

    I was going to “like” your comment, but I was trying to do it from my i-phone, and accidently like hit “dislike.” Sorry about that. I had to get on my laptop to post, lol.

    Yeah, I was going to like your comment, and the European guy’s comment, etc., one because they are well written arguments, not mindless jabber, and also because a huge pet peeve of mine is how it seems like many folk act as if NOTHING EVER HAPPENED. I hear Fox talk radio jockys laugh at people who bring up race issues, and snicker at them, as if to say that it’s all in the past, and let’s forget about it, and anything we say, and everything we do, has nothing to do with race. That’s bovine feces! Marry your daughter off to a big chocolate man and I’ll believe you.

    For example, I was listening to Fox radio in the car one day, when a black man was on the radio explaining that “Obama has the Black vote. We all know why the Blacks are going to vote for him.” The talk jock, (I don’t know his name) mocked him and repeated in a sarcastic voice, “Yeah, we all know why, huh. Yeah, we all know why.” What is that? Why do they mock? Why is it so hard for some White people to just accept history for what it was, and the fact that racism is not dead in our country?

    Speaking of marriage, however, I can not say that things are as bad as it used to be everywhere. Where I’m from, there are tons of interracial marriages and children born to these unions. There is a lot more tolerance these days. But, I would be naive to eat the pie-in-the-skie ideals of full fledged Libertarians. Yes, I do believe Dr. Paul believes a little TOO much in the inherent good-will of humanity. Unlike his stance on foriegn policy, history is not on his side concerning this issue.

    Tammy:

    I am BIG believer in education. I’m not that big of fan of our current public education, but like you said, it’s not the same every where. I guess some places have steller education programs, and turn out bright grads, etc., while other places underperform. I do tend to trust Dr. Paul’s assessment of the Dept. of Education, and its impact on public education, but I’m no expert on the subject. I do feel that publically funded schools have way too much offerings, things that perhaps could be funded privately by their parents. That said however, I would consider myself more Jeffersonian than libertarian. Jefferson believed that free education and free press would ensure a free society. If I were running for president, I would address every issue that Dr. Ron Paul is addressing, but I wouldn’t touch the Civil Rights Act, and most likely investigate and reform the dept. of education and public schooling.

    Dave

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  26. squishi

    Something is fundamentally wrong with anyone who believes that segrgatiin was less of an infrigement on individual rights than the “forced integration” brought by the Civil Rights Act. To say that public attitudes changed and that race relations are better DESPITE the Civil Rights Act is just dumb. So White people were eventually going to say “Ya know, I think I’ll let that nigra sit at my lunch counter today” or “I think it’ll be good for the nigras to be able to dine in tonght instead of picking it up at the kitchen in back” or “That nigra lady looks tired, as a man I should give my front bus seat to her”… Racial strife? I think we had a Civil War over racial strife (oops I mean state’s rights… to have slaves). Racial strife existed before and after integration. Google Rosewood or Black Wall Street. Revisionist history isn’t cute under any political title. But the fact that the Libertarian thinks that founding fathers were the cornerstone for civil liberties when they owned slaves, and that White Only is a property rights not human rights issue… Absurd!

    I’ve heard stories of German POW’s receiving more rights than Black Soldiers during WW2. Able to seek leisure and dine places, American citizens weren’t. This is a tragic circumstance. To look at that and see property rights vs. immorality is out of touch if not worse!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4

    1. SamFox

      squishi, you need to do some looking into how the Founders set up the Constitution to END slavery.

      Don’t react. Do the research, please.

      If the Fed govt wanted to something about segregation, why didn’t they go after southern law enforcement for not enforcing equal protection under the law.

      All forcing the issue did was prolong the problem. If you are forced to do something you will most likely get angry, resentful & cling to your position even more. Force makes people want to go the opposite way, it does not lead them to a more clear understanding or better thought processes. It galvanizes their previous belief & they cling even tighter to it on the inside. The inside is what needs to change.

      White Only at a private business is the stupid owners choice. It’s HIS business! If govt can force one thing, where will their force stop? Look around at how much govt controls our lives, or seeks to. For Heaven’s sake, you can make beer & wine at home but God help ya if you grow a cannabis plant or two!

      Some guy got busted by the Feds for growing his own wheat on his own property & the wheat never left his property. How about all the fuss by local cops around the nation against those dangerous lemonade stands that kids put up. Mercy, people, we have way to much govt now! A lady was popped for having the nerve to grow a vegetable garden in her front yard! she musta been a real threat! OH yeah! And it’s getting worse!

      SamFox

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. classicliberalism

      Where does it say in the US Constitution that busiensses and people in general are supposed to associate with people they don’t wish to? Why is it only whites who were forced to be racially inclusive? Other races aren’t. Blacks have it better off living in a white country than they ever would in Africa. Hell, blacks are treated like hell in China right now! I’m not going to be full of white guilt. If other races don’t have to apologize and pay for their past, neither should we.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  27. Eli Johnson

    Not to be awful, but if given the opportunity will White Americans do the right thing in situations such as providing rights to all citizens, etc.? The answer would be no. I have rarely met a White American who does not believe they are superior based on pigment alone. It doesn’t matter if it is a hillbilly from WV, there is something about Whites in America that is inherently insidious. I for one would not want to have to wait around for a bunch of White people to get a conscience and a brain for that matter for my life to change and I’m a White person albeit a transplanted European with much better fashion sense and overall taste. I digress..

    I see if from the perspective of a person who is generally appalled at the anti-intellectual bent of most White Americans. Being left to your own devices rarely works out for anyone but yourselves. Try not to be too revisionist with you history you loveable Yanks.

    I would say though, if I were Black in America I would NEVER trust a White person. Ever. I would smile in your face and play nice, but I would watch my back 24/7. Any minority that does otherwise seems to pay an extremely high price for that trust. As an economist, that cost is too high and the reward non-existent.

    It is your country though. Whites that is. You can do whatever you will, but it won’t be an easy road for you. Encouraging a return to 18th and 19th century America will prove to be more bloody than you could ever imagine. The expectation that you are going to drag America back to a time where only White males had rights is going to be your undoing. But do as you will.

    Enjoy your evening and best of luck to Mr. Paul.

    Cheers!

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 24

    1. Justplaythegame

      That’s a heck of a way to live life, you sound like a soured white looking for a reason that has come and gone. I always been poor white trash and knew it had nothing to do with color but class. You can be snubbed or shunned by any color that “thinks” its better than you through money, celebrity status or birthing place. I been fortunate, I have acquaintances as an adult and treat them as they treat me regardless. But, I wont think of the color of their skin to have any bearing, never have. I find more reversed racism with the mentality you show towards “all” whites. I don’t “owe” anyone anything through their color or persecutions as I don’t resent europe for persecuting my ancestors being christians and tossed to the lions. You do realize, if it was “all” whites, these civil rights laws would never have passed to begin with? It’s not a “white” country.. it’s “our” country. But some on both sides have nothing better to do than promote a race issue to continue hatred. Once you put it in your mind that a man puts his pants on different than you, you allow them to make the class and separations. Maybe I have more “self” respect than normal But, I never seen a better man than me. maybe richer, poorer and in different colors, but never better for some born entitlements owed them. We all live and die no matter what class or color you call yourself. I guess that’s why I support flat tax for “all” and same rights to “all” Americans bar none. Anyone that opposes this, opposes true freedoms and creates the separations.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3

      1. jwpa13

        WRONG Mr. poo white trash..YOU DO owe your fellow man something. That something is respect. It is only class warfare when the underclass fights back… until then it’s just the status quo… The flat tax is a great idea. A national SALES tax SUCKS as the riich can’t POSSIBLY spend the same percentage of their income as the less wealthy that makes that tax regressive. I live in SE PA. 16 miles from TAX FREE Delaware. If I want to buy a high priced TV I go to delaware. If a rich guy wants a high priced yacht or airplane or whatever, he buys it in the Bahamas or someplace, “uses” it there for a while and brings it into the US as a “used item” and will pay less tax on it. If you think for a second a sales tax will work for the betterment of Americans YOU ARE NUTS. A NO DEDUCTIONS flat tax on all income (earned by sweat in a factory or by smarts on the stock market or even the OLD FASHIONED way, by inheritance, that is the way to go.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Ianjmacdonald

          @jwpa13

          @jwpa13 “YOU DO owe your fellow man something. That something is respect.”

          Wrong. Respect is something that is earned. I don’t owe yo a damned thing, you moocher.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. ianqmacallister

          @Ianjmacdonald@jwpa13

          It depends on the situation. I have learned to trust my gut. If some stranger walks up to me in a parking lot and starts asking me for change or says “yo, what time you got?” then I go into a higher state of readiness since I absolutely refuse to be a victim.

          I am against any law which commands me to associate with people with whom I ordinarily would not.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. classicliberalism

      I’d have to say, if you hate a certain race of people and don’t trust them, why live in a country full of them? And there are other minorities here that don’t like blacks. Trust me, I’ve met them. It’s not as if blacks are nice to whites either. A majority of the racial violence is black on white. Blacks in Africa are killing whites and displacing them as we speak. The Civil Rights Act violated the rights of whites, because they were forced to live around people they didn’t want to, forced to hire people they didn’t want to, forced to do business with people they didn’t want. Many blacks hate whites and even other minorities. They are very resentful of others who are better off than them.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  28. Mimi

    If the civil rights act had not been passed, how many more decades would it have taken for segregation to end on its own? For that matter, if the emancipation proclamation had not been signed, how long would it have been before people took it upon themselves to tire of their slave labor and hire paid employees instead? I think Mr. Paul has a lot of great thoughts, but he places way to much faith in human beings to do the right thing. If it were that simple we wouldn’t need any laws.

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 8

    1. alim

      Forcing people to get along creates force, not cooperation. Forcing people to accept any kind of change, instead of allowing change to happen over time seems like an easy and fast fix. This ‘fix’ however, exacerbates the problem because the true fix will only come from genuine attitudinal change ( through promoting thoughtful learning about others, acceptance of others, edification of others, charity toward others, love toward others) over time, in the time in which it takes to accomplish that root change. In the case of the Civil Rights Act, which is force, it is no fix at all. Racism through slavery (for example) was an immoral mistake. Mistakes of this magnitude take time to turn around. It appears easy to demand people to change their minds by force, but it does not reduce the time it takes for people to change their minds, in fact (as Dr Paul suggests), it lengthens that process and can cause a backlash, not just against change, but also against force. An example of that is the Civil War. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. As people become thirsty for change, change comes. It is not easy or convenient. It often comes with great cost and suffering. Monumental mistakes such as racism, with or without laws that demand change before change comes, exacerbate the problem, as we see played out even today.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. classicliberalism

      Irrelevant. Why should you be forced to associate with people you don’t want to? Where does it say in the US Constitution people have to be around people they don’t want to? What about blacks who want laws passed to give prefences to only blacks and want to take what whites have simply because they’re white? Other races are ‘racist’ as well, yet I don’t hear people like you demanding Asians, Arabs, Africans, etc be diverse and include others.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    3. ianqmacallister

      Harvard had been graduating blacks for nearly a 100 years before passage of the Civil Rights Act. They didn’t need a law.

      >I think Mr. Paul has a lot of great thoughts, but he places way to much faith in human beings to do the right thing.So instead you place great faith in government to “do the right thing”? The government is merely a collection of human beings.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  29. Nav

    RACE, RELIGION, CASTE, MONEY, and anything else the divides one person from another is only more fuel to the fire.
    By this I do not mean equality. Liberty is finding beauty and nurture it in what ever form it might be.
    Dear Dr. Paul,
    I share your empathy towards the Americans, the current foreign policies, and the dismal economy. With what I have heard you say so far, these effects are still repairable.
    I want to understand your approach towards the minorities and under-privileged populace, with regards to Education, Healthcare, employment opportunities, etc.
    Liberty in its purest sense would mean equality! This as I understand is too altruistic.

    What are the first few things you do if you become the President of United States to strike a social balance?

    Sincerely
    Your supporter

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4

    1. classicliberalism

      The only real problem is when race is politicized. it’s not differences between races or religions that cause problems; it’s only when these differences are politicized.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. ianqmacallister

      >Liberty in its purest sense would mean equality!You can’t possibly believe anything so foolish. Not only is inequality necessary, but a conception of total equality is simply wrong, as the fact that human beings are born unequal in regard to physical and mental capacities is not denied by any reasonable man and all human power would be insufficient to make men really equal. Men are and will always remain unequal.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    3. ianqmacallister

      “Liberty in its purest sense would mean equality!”You can’t possibly believe anything so foolish. Not only is inequality necessary, but a conception of total equality is simply wrong, as the fact that human beings are born unequal in regard to physical and mental capacities is not denied by any reasonable man and all human power would be insufficient to make men really equal. Men are and will always remain unequal.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  30. PeoplePower

    The law is wrote by definition,however the perspective of that law can be changed.

    For example everyone has a right to own their own “home”, & all the companies refer to “houses” technically a house it not a home so you cannot own it.
    Just one way these crooks fk with the law.

    Ignore all the bs about Ron Paul, the people at the top are very scared of him, I wonder why lol.

    Go Ron Paul :-)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  31. david devore

    Sadly, there is a large number of people opposed to Obama because he’s black.

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 19

    1. Charles

      How would you know? Did you get this notion from the propaganda machine?

      I’ve met very, very few people who oppose Obama because he (half) black. The vast majority of people I know do oppose Obama, because his every step is toward more and more government control, and because he clearly opposes Liberty.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

    2. Kraedi

      As equally sad, there is a large number of people who support Obama because he is black.

      I thought we were voting for a man to lead our nation. Not what our favorite color is.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    3. classicliberalism

      There’s a lot of blacks who hate whites and want us displaced and dead, too. I wonder if you are going to be outraged at them.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. Tom Amitai

    Notice that nowhere in this statement does Ron Paul say he believes in the equality of all races? He just says he’s in favor of “racial harmony”.

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 22

    1. Tammy

      Do you think that he does not believe in equality of the races?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4

      1. Ianjmacdonald

        Why should he? The scientific evidence does not show that talents are equally distributed among all races. Go read The Bell Curve.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Ianjmacdonald

          It’s not an appeal to authority; it’s simply a question. Don’t accept anything just because some authority figure says so. Have you read any of the works by Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushon, Michael Levine, or Jared Taylor?

          Surely you’re heard of the great geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza? He wrote The History and Geography of Human Genes. In the introduction he states that there is no such thing as “race,” but then he spends the next 1088 pages documenting the very thing he says does not exist. There are in fact non-trivial, heritable average group differences. If you do not like the term “race,” fine; feel free to use whatever term you like. Breed, sub-species, varietal. Cavalli-Sforza likes the word “group.” And it just so happens that “group” just happens to match up with our everyday understanding of race.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. ianqmacallister

          So you say that there’s no such thing as race?

          Did you know that forensic serologists can determine the racial mixture of an unknown suspect by simply examining DNA material left at a crime scene? That’s because “race” is reflected down at the level of DNA. (Don’t like the word “race”? Fine, use some other word. Breed, subspecies, varietal, group, or cluster of alleles. Don’t let the philosophical word argument get in the way of understanding the science here.)

          10 Fallacies of Race Denial

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZurClqPGLc

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. Dave

    I feel Tammy’s pain! That said, there is NO WAY I will vote for anyone else but Ron Paul! In spite of our disagreements, I’M VOTING RON PAUL! Period. That said, I and others who also will vote for him have the same shuttering down the spine feeling that Tammy gets when he says things about the Civil Rights Act, and Dept. of Education. Well, honestly, I don’t care about the Dept. of Education issue, (not because I don’t care about education) but it pales in comparison to the Civil Rights Act. Listen, I don’t know the ethnicity of those of you who are against it. But my dad is a victim of racism, and a store cashier threw money at my great grandmother’s face. We’re Hispanics, JFYI. I must imagine that it’s easy to talk down the Civil Rights Act being a member of the most advantaged race in the land. The Civil Rights initiatives were fought long and hard for many decades by oppressed peoples who suffered shame because of Jim Crow laws and rape, theft and murder by the hands of white people. Ok, I kept saying private businesses. How about we keep it on incorportaed businesses and public businesses? When you incorporate you become a “creature of the state” anyways. Corporations are subject to state regulations anyways. I don’t know. Just some thoughts.

    But Tammy, Ron Paul is the only candidate I can vote for. I can not vote for anyone else. I wouldn’t worry about it. He’s a very smart man and I’m sure he would try to phase out anything he doesn’t like. Beside that, we have congress and the judicial system to help slow things down. LOL. Checks and balances, and also referendum just in case we don’t like something. That is how a democracy is supposed to work. But, above all these issues, WE got to END THE FED, foreign aid, global wars, policing and nation building, and all the corersion, and all that crap that is smothering us to death. VOTE RON PAUL 2012!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2

    1. Tammy

      Dave,

      I definitely see your point here. It seems like Ron Paul’s major focus lately is the fed, foreign aid, and global wars. I don’t know how far he could go with ending the civil rights act, dept. of ed, etc., and I am sure he would implement gradual changes in any case. It says in this article, in fact, that he was the ONLY one to oppose the civil rights act, which tells me that trying to end it won’t fly anyway.

      I do want to say a few things about the dept. of ed, though. Even though it may not seem as important as the Civil Rights Act, I wouldn’t brush it off as unimportant. The Civil Rights Act is much broader than the dept. of ed. It does not specifically target children in public schools. The dept. of ed works especially for children in schools — it enforces legislation to ensure all children have equal opportunities and prohibits discrimination against faculty and students. I personally see the dept. of ed. as important (I am an educator) because of the strong desire of parents to see their children have a better future. Adults will often undergo discrimination in all sorts of situations, and they may or may not fight against it. But when it comes to their child’s education, I think many will fight harder and expect more from the schools because they are supposed to be safe and fair. Some people (unfortunately) learn to accept discrimination as the norm, but not so easily when it comes to their kids.

      Even at a national level, it is never nice to see racism or discrimination (I, for one, think it is disgusting), but to see or hear of a child suffering from it, I innately feel much more appalled. During my student teaching, I remember one young man tell me that he was embarrassed of his Hispanic ethnicity. He would rather be white, he said. This stems from discrimination and racism. It was heartbreaking. I cannot speak for others, but I don’t think it is far-fetched to guess that many feel the same way I do. The dept. of ed works at the national level to keep discrimination from happening in schools and to encourage diversity. Obviously, discrimination still happens, and people can argue about the effectiveness of the dept., but I worry that if states were left to enforce their own legislation, than children from some states will suffer the consequences. While there is legislation that is not so great (ie, No Child Left Behind), other types are considered very significant, particularly the ones dealing with equal opportunity and civil rights. I personally want to see the United States as a place that will stand against racism and discrimination in all the states. In my opinion, civil rights and education are of national importance.

      At the same time, I do see your points. Worrying about what “might” happen won’t do much good, especially when you see a candidate who really wants to dramatically change the way things are going. I really do appreciate Paul’s view of not trying to fix a broken system. If something is no longer working, then why shouldn’t we try something else? I think Paul stands out because he is not concerned with the political status quo, even when it concerns highly controversial topics with his republican peers. I admire this attitude, and it highly sways my own attitude towards him!

      Thanks for your comments, Dave!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

      1. david devore

        A friend of mine refers to public high school as “Pre-Jails.”

        School taxes make up the lion’s share of property taxes but what do we get? A dumbed own population that believes government will solve all problems. This must cease.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

        1. Tammy

          Describing all public high schools as “pre-jails” is a bit of an overgeneralization. There are really good high schools, usually in the higher income neighborhoods where people want to invest their property, state, and local taxes to maintain quality schools (in addition to the federal funding). The ones that are really bad are actually not funded well at all, not in all cases, of course, but in many. On the other hand, there are school districts in lower income communities that have been very successful. Usually this takes a team of educators who have a lot of experience and dedication and are supported by their local and state government. Wake county school district in North Carolina is a really good example of a success story for both lower and higher income neighborhoods. They had a very good economic plan and strong school board to accomplish this.

          There are always those schools that are just not successful for a number of reasons, but taking money out of the school system never makes a school better.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

        2. Ianjmacdonald

          Wrong. Linking black academic failure to inadequate educational resources has evolved into a bogus yet almost universally embraced Scientific Truth. If there were a Mendacity Hall of Fame, this “how can they learn when the toilets are broken” argument would have its own wing. Just as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, “everybody knows” that blacks do poorly on standardized tests, fail to graduate, and must take remedial courses if they get into college only because wealthy white suburban schools outspend inner city schools. This assertion is easily disproven with readily available statistics, and it has been repeatedly shown that dramatically increased spending has virtually no effect on test scores. None of this has undermined this counterfeit Scientific Truth. In fact, in a bizarre twisting of logic, it is sometimes argued that no matter how much money is spent on blacks, they will perform inadequately if some whites somewhere get more. According to this thinking, if white schools are defunded black scores will soar.

          Public schools in Washington, D.C., are among the most lavishly funded schools in the country, and yet the performance of the (overwhelmingly minority) students is abysmal.

          The chief aim of US public K-12 education over the last half century has been to get children in the 85 to 90 IQ range (i.e., mainly blacks and Hispanics), most of whom are poorly motivated, to perform as if they were well-motivated students with IQs of 100 or higher. Billions have been wasted on every educational gimmick imaginable, and even larger futile government expenditures are on the horizon. It is almost like drug addiction.

          Pour as many billions of dollar down the educational rat hole as you want, you will never be able to undo the unequal distribution of talent bestowed by Mother Nature.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. Ken

    I’ve read a few of the comments here and what a lot of people seem to be missing is that reverse discrimination is not only inefficient, it violates the fundamental liberties of those under its foot. Purchasing labor isn’t any different than purchasing anything else of value.

    This is like the government telling you that you have to make certain percentages of your purchases at various stores to make sure everyone gets the business. However you claim that you should be able to spend your money as you see fit. Employers should be given the same right.

    When it comes to the public sector, they are spending our money in essence, so there must be a higher standard. However, quotas aren’t the answer, as we cannot assume that the best people for the jobs are going to be distributed by some formula based upon race or gender. This is supposed to be the point here, to have the best people hired.

    It is also clear that such legislation worsens relations instead of improving them, as Ron points out. People generally don’t need much of a reason to hate, but when they see racial or gender bias depriving them of their livelihood, or the livelihood of others, now we’ve really given then a reason.

    The sooner we are rid of these ill conceived, conunterproductive, and oppressive constraints the better, and it’s great that we have someone like Ron who is not afraid to act upon principles rather than just look to appease people, as is the norm in Washington.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4

    1. jonbowen

      I think the term “reverse discrimination” is a misnomer. Discrimination is discrimination.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  35. 60srad

    You have a “better” idea? Let’s hear it. Laissez-faire?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    1. Ianjmacdonald

      Yes. Respect for private property right, individual liberty, free exchange of goods and services, no bailouts for floundering industries, currency backed up by precious metals, and end to the Federal Reserve and its handmaiden fractional reserve banking.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply