Who do you want the next president to be?

[GostHacked]

It is because he actually supports the right for segregation. Seriously there is a reason racists flock to him, he is goldwater on steroids.

Got anything to back that up? Ron Paul wants to abolish hate laws, and make all people equal. If the laws of the land are sound and just, you don't need to enact specific laws based on a specific group. Everyone should be protected by the same laws.

[punked]

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."

[maple_leafs182]

Got anything to back that up? Ron Paul wants to abolish hate laws, and make all people equal. If the laws of the land are sound and just, you don't need to enact specific laws based on a specific group. Everyone should be protected by the same laws.

I like the way you said that, i agree.

[punked]

Got anything to back that up? Ron Paul wants to abolish hate laws, and make all people equal. If the laws of the land are sound and just, you don't need to enact specific laws based on a specific group. Everyone should be protected by the same laws.

THE CIVIL RIGHT ACT IS ONE TO MAKE ALL PEOPLE EQUAL. The actually title of the act.

An act to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States of America to provide relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.

What Ron Paul thinks is people (and there by corporations, and states) should be able to discriminate based on Color, Creed, or Sexual preference because it is some how a freedom guaranteed to people. He wants to get rid of the act that says NO ONE should be discriminated against and replace it with nothing. What you post is spin the law protects everyone and is not based on a specific group. Ron Paul thinks that is wrong because he thinks racists freedoms to discriminate trumps the legislative authority of the Federal government.

[Moonlight Graham]

Ron Paul - "Todays Conversation Was Nothing But War Propaganda".

How could you not like this guy.

He is trying to be the voice of reason.

Don't know a ton about Ron Paul's policies, but he is pretty much bang-on in that video. I can't believe that stuff came out of the mouth of a Republican!...and a popular one at that.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[Shady]

THE CIVIL RIGHT ACT IS ONE TO MAKE ALL PEOPLE EQUAL.

That's not true. People were already equal, according to the constitution of the United States.

[punked]

That's not true. People were already equal, according to the constitution of the United States.

When children are being being bused 45 minutes out of town to go to a school which has half the budget of the school that is a 5 minute walk down the street from them because of their skin color they aren't equal Shady. When people who have a different skin color are asked to take a test which is impossible to do so they can vote people aren't equal Shady. When you aren`t allowed to drink at the same water fountain, or eat in the same restaurant as your neighbor you aren`t equal.

This is the stupid argument the right uses to get the vote of the racist. You don`t need to make a law to make people they all ready are. ACCEPT THEY WEREN`T. The civil rights act just makes the practices of discrimination illegal.

PS. Ron Paul against Lincoln, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the civil war, as well just to pile on him for is crazy views.

Edited April 27, 2010 by punked

[M.Dancer]

Some folks were against it not because black kids were being bused to better white schools, but because white kids, in order to meet quotas, were being bussed to less advantaged black schools.

Most don't realize that bussing went in two directions...

[punked]

Some folks were against it not because black kids were being bused to better white schools, but because white kids, in order to meet quotas, were being bussed to less advantaged black schools.

Most don't realize that bussing went in two directions...

Yah no we need the civil rights act. For places like this. Ron Paul can shove it.

A federal judge Tuesday ordered a rural county in southwestern Mississippi to stop segregating its schools by grouping African American students into all-black classrooms and allowing white students to transfer to the county's only majority-white school, the U.S. Justice Department announced.

The order, issued by Senior Judge Tom S. Lee of the U.S. District Court of Southern Mississippi, came after Justice Department civil rights division lawyers moved to enforce a 1970 desegregation case against the state and Walthall County.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/13/AR2010041302867.html

[Shady]

When children are being being bused 45 minutes out of town to go to a school which has half the budget of the school that is a 5 minute walk down the street from them because of their skin color they aren't equal Shady. When people who have a different skin color are asked to take a test which is impossible to do so they can vote people aren't equal Shady. When you aren`t allowed to drink at the same water fountain, or eat in the same restaurant as your neighbor you aren`t equal.

All of that is unconstitutional.

[punked]

All of that is unconstitutional.

It certainly is not. You can't say it and hope it to be true, until the civil rights act segregation was legal as demonstrated by the ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson 1896. Look it up. The Civil rights act is needed, no matter what Ron Paul tells you.

[Shady]

It certainly is not.

Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment.

Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

See. Unconstitutional. However, I'm not arguing that overall, the civil rights act wasn't needed. But many practices it outlawed should have been already unconstitutional.

[punked]

See. Unconstitutional. However, I'm not arguing that overall, the civil rights act wasn't needed. But many practices it outlawed should have been already unconstitutional.

Precedent had already been set in many of those cases by previous all white supreme courts. There is a reason why it was, and still is needed. Ron Paul is dead wrong on th civil rights act, his views of the % of African Americans who commit crimes, and the Civil war. He either lives in a fantasy land, or has some serious prejudges.

[Shady]

Here's what Ron Paul had to say about much of that nonsense...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKBlk1Vpeuw

[Shady]

And I hope some of the things that several posters have alleged Ron Paul saying are his words exactly. And not something written by somebody else in one of those newsletters.

[Smallc]

Otherwise....what will happen, exactly? You'll claim to have owned them again with your half arguments?

[punked]

And I hope some of the things that several posters have alleged Ron Paul saying are his words exactly. And not something written by somebody else in one of those newsletters.

That isn't what he said in 1996 when asked about it. His statement about the newsletters then were "taken out of context" NOT THAT THEY WERE WRITTEN BY SOMEONE ELSE. I guess he is just another political lair like the rest of them. In 96 they were his now they aren't.

http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d

It is like Republicans pick the worst candidates and just stick to them no matter what.

Edited April 28, 2010 by punked

[Shady]

It is like Republicans pick the worst candidates and just stick to them no matter what.

Nobody picked and/or stuck with Ron Paul. He wins his house seat on a regular basis. But that's about it. I like some of his small government positions. As well as his reducing of American military bases and presence around the world. Other than that, I really don't care too much, and I've never been a big supporter of his. And frankly, I don't care. In my mind, he's already garnered way too much attention in this thread.

It be like us having a long dicussion about Mike Gravel in a Democrat Presidential candidate topic thread. There's not much point.

[maple_leafs182]

PS. Ron Paul against Lincoln, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the civil war, as well just to pile on him for is crazy views.

He doesn't think Lincoln should of took the country to war over slavery. He thinks the government should of bought and freed all the slaves.

I'm a bit of a pacifist so I agree with him.

[punked]

He doesn't think Lincoln should of took the country to war over slavery. He thinks the government should of bought and freed all the slaves.

I'm a bit of a pacifist so I agree with him.

And by god he doesn't care if it would have taken 5, 10, 50, or even 500 years to do it.

[thebookquakes]

BOOBIES...

[maple_leafs182]

And by god he doesn't care if it would have taken 5, 10, 50, or even 500 years to do it.

Now you are just making things up.

No other western country needed a civil war to end slavery besides America, there were other options.

[naomiglover]

I don't think it will be a democrat or a republican.

How can you not? There are no other choices.

[Guest American Woman]

maple_leafs182, on 16 April 2010 - 06:30 PM, said: I don't think it will be a democrat or a republican.

How can you not? There are no other choices.

Of course their are other choices. The majority of Americans just choose not to vote for them.

[bush_cheney2004]

Now you are just making things up.

No other western country needed a civil war to end slavery besides America, there were other options.

Patently false:

....France ended slavery in its colonial possessions only after bloody chaos of the Revolution of 1848. Civil and foreign wars surrounded the abolition of slavery in Colombia, Argentina, Venezuela, and Peru during the 1850s.

Apparently you like to make things up as well.

Edited April 29, 2010 by bush_cheney2004