The more I think about Rand's Civil Rights Act answer, the more it bothers me
I read the Act and can't find anything wrong with it.
You might be able to make the case that this sort of thing isn't for the Federal government...instead the states decide, but states don't make laws about federal elections, states don't make inter-state laws.
So really, Rand and Ron's stiff-arming the CRA bothers me (Ron initially didn't like the CRA...he flip-flopped with Laura).
Half of my family is black. What the hell am I supposed to tell them? That private businesses should have the right to discriminate service, employment, etc. on the utterly ridiculous bias of race, color, religion, sexual orientation, or nationality?
And don't claim that the free market will purge the vast majority of racists and bigots out...history proves otherwise.
How do I tell my 16 year old black niece (who will vote in 2012) that it should be okay for restaurants, colleges, banks, etc. to not give her equal opportunity?
And how do I respond when they say, "Wasn't Ron Paul accused of writing something racist? And Ron Paul said he didn't like the Civil Rights Act? And now, Rand Paul JUST said he didn't like parts of the Civil Rights Act? What the fvck is wrong with them and what the fvck is wrong with you for backing them? Further, why should I even let you babysit my black child if you are going to consort with these sorts of people?"
I'm ugly and I get
I'm ugly and I get discriminated against all the time!
Where's the law protecting my rights, dammit!?
When the blast wave hits, don't scream--you wanted this!
When a legislative body of the many can write laws which only
apply to the few, it matters not the content of the law, for a State of tyranny has been forged.
Vote for Liberty...Buy Silver Eagles.
If you believe in freedom,
If you believe in freedom, then you really have to question the wisdom of the "public accommodation" clause of the CRA which, like the Jim Crow laws before it, sought to engineer society, simply from a different perspective. When the government prohibits a behavior, it is forced underground and society's ability to have an open debate that informs public opinion is denied.
Nobody can dispute that we don't know how society would have reacted and evolved if business owners had been allowed to voluntarily deny service to people based on race (or not to) because that opportunity was taken away by government.
Like those who enacted the Jim Crow laws to keep people from voluntarily integrating, I believe that integration would have occurred in this country organically over time if the people had simply been left alone and allowed to make their own decisions. Abandoning racial discrimination makes economic sense. It appeals to our founding principles and to our morality.
The reverse Jim Crow regime enacted in the 1960's had its own long list of failures, abuses, and unintended consequences, just like most other government programs. When will we learn?
“Wasting a vote is sometimes voting for somebody that you don't really believe in."
-Ron Paul
Private businesses already
Private businesses already discriminate on the basis of sex and nobody seems to have a problem with it. Car insurance companies typically charge men more than they charge women. Yes, this is based on statistical research... but I bet the same research would also show that people of a certain race or skin color are more likely to get into an accident than others are. You can bet, however, that if an insurance company charged differently based on race or skin color, the people would be up in arms. Interesting how inconsistent and hypocritical people can be.
Personally, I fully support the idea of companies digging their own graves by being allowed to discriminate. In today's world, it will only fly if consumers let it.
I'm Black
And I prefer to know who the small minded are. It is one's freedom to deny another entry into your space. I don't have no problem with that. If u don't want me there, I don't want to be there(nor would I trust u ain't spittin' in my food or what not). Maybe the "Black" community would actually have some economics communities were it not for forced segregation. I believe we naturally would have moved toward desegregation, but to force it has caused many "unintended" consequences. Tell Black people the truth...I think we know this inside anyway. Hell, if folks want to use the n-word, go ahead...I have my own definition of its origins (see naga). Stop protecting folks from the truth. I'm sure Malcom X, Marcus Garvey, Khalid Muhammad and the like would support the ideas of Liberty and Freedom Dr. Paul communicates. The best way to reach "Blacks" is with the cold hard truth...stop pussyfootin' around with the Liberty message....Truth IS!
Now in public spaces, I don't think its right to segregate.
more to say...
There is much more the "Black" community needs to discuss around this issue. Equal opportunity to be brainwashed by the establishment(?), u can keep dat...please please Pleeaaaase deny me entry to the Matrix so that we are more encouraged to teach our own and feed our own and we learn self sufficiency...as opposed to learning to be dependent on this current broken system. If we were under a different system, maybe my opinion would be different, but with the way things are...not.
Black folks been livin' in a police state.....welcome to the Party!
Labor Laws Still In Place
Why would you tell your family that private businesses should have the right to discriminate? That's not what Ron Paul is saying. That would be no less wrong than forcing racial quotas, both of which are racist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand, Ron Paul is not in support of eliminating labor laws that prohibit discrimination. As far as I know, he said nothing of the such. His criticism of the '64 Civil Rights Act specifically had to do with forced racial quotas in hiring, since doing so did more to feed racial tensions than eliminate them. I believe he is consistent in his views, that hiring based on race is wrong, whether by the choice of the employer or by the government mandating racial quotas. In other words, treating everyone as individuals, not as groups, and that includes our government. If there is evidence an employer is discriminating based on race, they've broken the law. This has nothing to do with being opposed to forced racial quotas.
Please pay attention to dates on postings and comments
Hi RonPaulRocks@Lxavision, I see you've just registered this account less than an hour ago, so let me welcome you to the Daily Paul community!
Here's a tip to make your participation more helpful: When digging through the discussion forums, please pay attention to the dates of the postings and the comments. You've just replied to a thread that has been dead for more than a year and a half.
Unfortunately, this can mark a long-forgotten thread as a newly-active thread, and can sometimes stir up issues that have been settled or that everyone has moved on from.
My rule of thumb is that if a thread hasn't been commented on in over a week, probably no one else is interested in reopening the issue, so I don't usually comment on threads that old.
Apology
I apologize for not paying attention to the date. Won't happen again.
If someone doesn't want me (a white man) in their restaurant...
...personally, I'd rather know right away by the sign on their door, rather than to have them spit (or worse) into my food or drink because they are forced to serve me in their private establishment.
Lots of Mexicans in LA don't like white people and I know for a fact that when white people go into certain authentic Mexican restaurants there, that is EXACTLY what happens.
I KNOW because I have a friend who grew up there and knows the culture.
SO...
If you want to inadvertently supoport a bigoted business because they have no choice but to serve you then I see why you support this kind of law.
But personally - I would not patronize a business practicing bigotry against another ethnic group.
For example - I have no interest in socializing with the Ku Klux Clan, but I'm sure they would be glad to have my membership if I did.
Remember - Rand is speaking STRICTLY of only PRIVATE organizations - which are just extensions of someone's private home or property.
It's a shame you feel we need government to tell us what is moral and what isn't.
I personally know what is right from wrong and I don't need anyone to legislate it to me.
And by the way, if I wanted to join a womaen's only health club or school, or the Black caucus can I claim my civil rights are being violated when I'm refused?
Apparently not because this goes on all the time...But I believe fully in their right to do that.
So tell your 16 year old niece that the message of liberty is one of INDIVIDUAL rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and to own private property.
She has EVERY right that EVERY OTHER citizen has.
But beyond that, there are no other "rights."
THERE ARE NO OTHER SPECIAL RIGHTS TO food, a house, clothing, education, a job, health care, a car, unemployment, retirement, a vacation, because you're old, disabled, gay, straight, trans-gender, female, male, black, white, Mexican, Irish, Asian, Italian, Eskimo, Indian, Russian, brown, red, yellow, orange, purple, blue, violet...OR ANYTHING ELSE.
You don't have the RIGHT to HAPPINESS - only the right to PURSUE HAPPINESS and THAT is where we are totally confused as a society.
SO...whenever a government decides that one of the above is a "right" it means it has to TAKE it from someone else to obtain it and to GIVE it to someone else.
And then it gets control of BOTH citizens.
By allowing private business to discriminate, it would only expose their utter stupidity if they did, and ultimately I believe they would fail.
At least we would know what is in their hearts.
"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul
This Black Man
Right On! (with Black Power Fist Up)
Power to the People
Wow after reading your comment further down.....
As a black female, I feel sorry for your niece if you are offering her any advice. She has nothing to worry about regarding her color because the world is a whee bit different. She needs to worry about being smart enough to have a good work ethic and a persona that serves her well. If you must find a racist scapegoat look at the people who want equal rights with equal outcome. Warn er of the people who claim to love black people and show how much they love them by giving them everything. Making black people modern day slave, making them dependent. Lose lose situation for blacks. Warn you niece to ignore racism, take her business elsewhere, be highly independent, be well read, and learn to think for herself.
"Every generation needs a new r3VOLution"- Thomas Jefferson
The question and debate has
The question and debate has ZERO to do with race, but instead property rights.
Let's say a black shop owner has a white bigot klansman come into his store. Does he have a right to kick that white bigot out? NOPE! He should because it is supposedly his private property and shop.
What Rand Paul is saying is that racism is abhorent, but the one little part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that is objectionable is the Federal intrusion into a shop owners private property. Nobody in their right mind thinks racism is good and deep down anyone with any logic knows that some white klansman store owner barring black patrons today would be picketed and boycotted out of business.
Rand agrees that the institutional State passed Jim Crow laws that segregated schools and other government institutions needed to be stopped.
Think about it though...that black shop owner SHOULD have the right to kick some known white bigot out of his own privately owned shop!
================
Who is John Galt? Vote ███ ███ 2012!
If we allow free association
If we allow free association and free speech then the racists in our society will shine through. Being a white man I know there are a few bars and restaurants where I would not be welcome. Racism comes in all directions.
"And don't claim that the free market will purge the vast majority of racists and bigots out...history proves otherwise."
Today we have technology so American citizens are aware of what is going on and are ready for any boycott. Look how much flack Rand Paul got for his statement. Could you imagine an establishment locking there doors to a certain group of people? The media firestorm would be huge. At least we would find out who the racist's are.
Maybe the CRA was needed as a nudge from government as with affirmative action, and it worked. But as our government normally does, the law has been perverted and now will decide if we can serve salt or not. As with wars ( police actions ) we never come home.
When they nudge they never let go.
Peace
Watch the video about this by Southern Avenger..
Anyone who is uncomfortable with Rand's stance or statement about this issue needs to watch the video by SA@TAC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INbEJnddUds
After you watch this if you are still having problems, I would like to hear why.
******************************
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."
We're all losing our rights.
Black, white it doesn't matter. For example, the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Habeas Corpus, No-fly list, no-fly-no-buy-list and the list goes on.
Rand was standing up for free speech (in all it's forms) that's it. And let's be honest, without free speech there would not have been a Civil Rights Act.
It's a ploy to try and fracture the movement. Whenever they can't come up with a legitimate argument, they start name calling. Just like little children on a playground.
If indeed there are racists within our midst, please point them out. They are not welcome here.
www.drugpricelookup.com
Where is the greatest threat
Where is the greatest threat to our civil rights coming from? What exactly are our civil rights?
I contend that our civil rights are our God-given Rights as defined in the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. To you victims of the public schools, let me inform you that the Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to that Constitution.
And what are they? Well, they protect our Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Assembly, and Freedom of the Press. They guarantee our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The guarantee our protection from Unreasonable Search. They protect us from being forced to testify against ourselves. They protect us from torture. They guarantee us the Right to legal counsel, and a speedy, public trial.
And the list goes on. But where is the primary threat to these Rights coming from? Who is trying to control speech, labeling politically incorrect statements as "hate speech"? Who is preventing any public display of religious sentiment? Who is trying to gain control of the Internet? And who is branding Americans who are peaceably demonstrating their concern over the loss of these Rights, as "extremists" and "racists"? I am referring to the Tea Parties, of course.
Who has been trying to disarm the American people for over forty years? Who brands individuals as "enemy combatants" and deprives them of legal counsel and a speedy public trial? Who is using torture against "suspected" terrorists?
But these are terrorists, we don't need to be concerned about their rights, you say. Well, take a look at who your politicians are branding as "extremists" and "potential terrorists".
I will believe that Washington is serious about civil rights when they stop trying to undermine them.
It didn't bother Dr. Paul...
The Trouble With Forced Integration
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
July 3, 2004
Last week, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The heroic Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No. Here is his statement. ~ Ed.
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.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
Ron Paul 2012 for Peace
IF the government can tell you
Who you must associate with, it also has the right to tell you who you cannot associate with.
Never forget that the governments in the southern states and in some cases the US government (for example in the military)enforced segregation. In fact, the governments of the southern states refused to protect those people that wanted to integrate from racists that tried to stop private, voluntary integration.
finally, the CRA did not end segregation, anyway. There is alot of mythology that paints a much rosier picture of the impact of the CRA than is really true. Perhaps you may remember the forced school integrations of the 70s - busing - how did that work out ? It wasn't all "Remember the Titans".
Property
The question Paul was asked is, does a private business owner have the right to deny anyone service?
The answer is no, but ideally the answer should be yes.
It's like a seminar I went to on the nature of punishment, the consensus was that "punishment" was not effective and we shouldn't punish criminals. My answer simply was..."I like your house, give me the keys."
The intellectual argument may be correct, but it is not feasible. Maybe someday we will live in a Utopia where punishment isn't needed and the concept of racism is so foreign that we don't need laws to restrain each other.
Yet, the majority of the population is not ready for that, and I doubt they ever will be.
Rand Paul stands with Martin
Rand Paul stands with Martin Luther King. Where do you stand on the issue of private property? You're either falling into the race baiting trap or you're trying to set it. This is not a difficult concept.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck.
Ron's newsletter said racist stuff, Ron had white supremacist supporters, Ron initially stiff-armed the Civil Rights Act, and Ron is clearly an anti-zionist.
Rand stiff-armed the Civil Rights Act and has a questionable campaign manager.
Each of the above can be debated...but the evidence is there.
Further, and perhaps more insightful, I grew up in the South and when people start using hemming and hawing, using certain rhetorical arguments, they are really covering for their racial issues. When they bring up segregation, Jim Crowe laws, etc., nine times out of ten, they have both a Civil War chip on their shoulder and racial issues. Put a couple Mint Julips in them and, bing, David Duke; the layers under the surface rise up...leading first to white survivalism, then white supremacy.
No one here will ever truly know how the Paul's really feel, but the preponderance of evidence shows that the Paul's have racial issues; issues that clearly impact their political stances.
Still, the Paul's are heads and shoulders above the vast majority of Dems and Pubs. However, this reduces the Paul's status as leaders of a revolution to the lesser of evils.
The honeymoon is over.
So it's time for each of us to either compromise (again) or move on. I'll choose the later (the gold pushers will be elated).
BTW: I noticed that no one disputed my statement about how whites will need the CRA-like laws after the demographics change. I sincerely doubt most people here agree with it; clearly, this indicates the oh-so common combination of ignorance and arrogance.
Boru. I take issue with your sentance that reads...
"Ron's newsletter said racist stuff".
It bothers me on several levels. One, I believe I have read all the "problem statements and paragraphs", and none are racists. The second level it bothers me that Ron Paul back in 1990 made the political decision to just apologize for it and move on. Third it bothers me that so few (perhaps I am the only one?), who will stand up and argue that those phrases are not racists. And finally, I have created a thread here and found no one wants to discuss the issue.
So you "win" by default. Ron has apologized, not defended and no one seems to want to delve into those "racists statements".
But I will have you know that I for one take issue with your sentence that says "Rons newsletter says racists stuff". You make the assertion but do not make the case. I don't accept your assertion. The newsletters never said the "n" word and more to the point, does not make any racist case. REAL RACISM, real racists stuff argues for one race over and superior to the other, as well as argues for the others exploitation, expulsion and/or extermination. Ron's newsletter did none of this. What people read into Ron's newsletter comes from their own suspicious minds.
This racist suspicion is well planted from the traditional Liberal vs Conservative divide. Even today, Liberals do their very best not to define racism, keeping it purposely very broad and wide and left to LIBERAL interpretation. Doc Mike Newcome and other progressive radio talk show hosts have been going on for days if not weeks now that spins conservatism as essentially a "racist philosophy".
Next, your other statement I also take issue with: you wrote: "No one here will ever truly know how the Paul's really feel, but the preponderance of evidence shows that the Paul's have racial issues".
I know nothing about you other than what you wrote about your family. But from that I can say the same about you. You have "racial issues". Namely white guilt, embarrassment, and over reaching 'sensitivity'.
The PAULS have both made it very clear that they are standing up for the Human Right of Property, which they strongly feel gives us a FREE SOCIETY. They heroically (in this overly sensitive over reaching racially bend over backwards climate) point out that the breach to that human right came through the Commerce Clause and the 64 civil rights act that DEFINED PUBLIC SPACE inside a PRIVATE SPACE. The question that Rand said to Rachael Maddow was he wanted to know "How far we go" with that. He then went on to point out the entry through which big govt has entered the PRIVATE WORK PLACE. From all kind of rules and regulations. From gun owners walking in for example. He could have brought up smoking and a host of other ways that Government actually now SETS POLICY on how to RUN a PRIVATE BUSINESS. The supreme court by the way has this delema. They have historically afforded NO PUBLIC SPACE inside of PRIVATE CLUBS. SO lets say you have a Boy Scout Club. That club sets its own policies without government getting involved. Sex Clubs, have also been able to do what they do without government getting involved because it was a private club. Lesbian Restaurants run as a CLUB vs a "Business open to the Public" have been able to have dances, drinking, food served, and in every other way ran as a profit making enterprise, BUT because it was a PRIVATE CLUB it could have ITS private property right--specifically the right of exclusion. Thus straight males and certain females could be denied entry. Perhaps Rachael belongs to one of those clubs. I do not know, and if she did, I would protect HER RIGHT and the CLUB OWNERS RIGHT to engage in such practices.
The biggest point that Rand Paul made and the perhaps the fasted one that Rachael past over --was the point that it was GOVERNMENTS own Jim Crow laws and other rules and its police forces that made PRIVATE BUSINESS TOW THE LINE. Zoning laws where horrendous, government allowed deed restrictions to pass on and over the next owners life, liberty and property. Government codified a pervasive bigotry and racism, but without government's backing and the police backing, it had NO FUTURE in a FREE SOCIETY. Again, Government WAS the PROBLEM, NOT ALLOWING for FREEDOM to reign supreme. It did not allow for people to freely make associations as they wished, it enforced a racial segregation. RAND APPLAUDED the fact that THAT was ended. To do so DOES NOT MEAN that one has "racial issues".
The next point that Rand made was to address HER implication that Rand was FOR segregated Lunch Counters. He was not. He pointed out that the "govt licensed" WOOLWORTH business FOLLOWING THE JIM CROW LAWS. SO those laws where bad and did not allow for FREEDOM to reign. He could have pointed out that the Police enforced them too, by taking the Black customers out and putting them in jail for what? Violating governments laws.
In another prior response on this thread I replied how you should respond to your ethnically mixed family -- be yourself and treat them like the free & intelligent people that they are. Be brave like Ron and RAND. IF YOU yourself do not have any "racial issues" then feel safe to stand up and speak about the most important human right we have, the RIGHT of PROPERTY.
Notice that the RIGHT of Property is not a right TO any particular property, its a right to gain, to hold, to dispose of property FREELY, in a voluntary manner. This is something that SLAVES did not have. Point that out. Point out that Jim Crow laws and zoning laws and other laws and police themselves all VIOLATED one's Human Right to Property by enforcing a racist bigoted code, both written and unwritten.
What is good about the 64 civil rights act is that suddenly, across the board all those laws rules and unwritten codes where WIPED AWAY. Deed restrictions that said to owners that they could not sell to Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, etc where suddenly null and void. (gays came later civil rights acts). Same with hotel and restaurant business owners who WANTED to do business but felt threatened to do so. So there are many good things about the 64 civil rights act, in the main all good, and as Rand said, he would have voted for it, despite its flaws.
Now, I think, the "PREPONDERANCE of the EVIDENCE" is that RON PAUL and RAND PAUL are CLEARLY NOT RACISTS. You do realize that the good doctor Ron Paul lived through a long period of American History where it was very OK to BE openly Racists?? Yet there is nothing IN THE 'OK TO BE RACIST past' that comes up on Dr. Ron Paul. Unlike someone around his age such as Senator Robert Byrd or Jesse Helms, there is NOTHING in Ron Paul's past that is the least bit RACIST, MEAN, UGLY. And this man was in the Air Force no less, a place that loved to racially segregate.
Rand Paul is CLEARLY NOT RACIST as well. He is like me, a child of the 60's. He is a "civil rights' baby, meaning that a lot of us have taken to heart Dr Martin Luther King's turn of phrase, Judge Me By the Content of My Character, NOT the Color of My Skin.
Those of us raised with this non-racist mindset, have grown up innocently, openly, and now at the age of 40 plus have started to say openly, the CONTENT of ones Character does not look good for many racial minorities and for many blacks as well. We are openly objecting to Ebonics, or any poor language skills. The HIP-HOP Gangster Rapp CULTURE is BAD THING for the CONTENT of ONES CHARACTER. Comedians such as Chris Rock and others are openly attacking this CULTURE without being "anti-black" or Racists. What is needed now is for WHITE people of MIX family BACKGROUNDS like the one that you have to BRAVELY step up and Call out this "Culture" which says (in Chris Rocks words) 'does not give a dam about your MBA, just wants to know if you can Kick My Ass.' This is a culture that is truly the PROBLEM, not RACISM. THIS IS THE CULTURE that is FILLING young black minds, with VALUES that are no good. When Bill Cosby spoke up about it he needed to be applauded in the black community (and white). But instead, they hated him for it. Liberals are all about explaining away the likes of Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and Supreme Court Judge Thomas as deluded fools, as 'traitors to their racial culture', as victims of munhouser syndrome, ...yet their own bigotry alludes them.
I find it heart warming that private schools in some inner city areas are working 24/7 to BLOCK OUT that culture so that they can TEACH and get these young minds into College. Marva Collins pointed the way in the 1970's, and guess what, it was not through GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS. Watching 60 minutes last week they profiled yet another school, an inner city BOARDING SCHOOL that did its level best to BLOCK OUT THIS CULTURE... this MTV, RAPP culture. And for you and I, freedom fighting brother in arms, we must recognize that the biggest FUEL to that bad inner city black culture is AGAIN, governments DRUG WAR.
So let me end by saying, Be BRAVE, and applaud Dr Ron and RAND PAUL. They know it is not EASY to say such things, but they do because they are counting on GOOD people Like YOU and ME to NOT GET CONFUSED by the LIBERAL narrative that loves to paint anything not inside their political narrative as racists.
You and I can watch the movie MILK, about the gay SF politician and cheer him on, because its cheering for Liberty. We can watch old news reels of Martin Luther King and his marches and cheer him on, because its about Liberty. But our message has got to be, LIBERTY is GOOD, but with out the RIGHT OF PROPERTY, it means little in the REAL WORLD. For the magnification & REALIZATION of our rights to LIFE and LIBERTY, can only be realized with the RIGHT OF PROPERTY. After all, pre jim crow & slavery was a life that granted Life and Liberty, but if you do not own your BODY, YOUR LABOR, not FREE TO BUY AND SELL AND TRADE, then you have little.
In peace & liberty,
Treg
I am sad for you, that your life experiences
have given you the view that so many/most people are closest if not outright racists.
I will say my experience in America is the opposite. I think most Americans enjoy giving people a fair break. It may be, after ceaseless conditioning and race-baiting by government/politicians educators/psychologists/media that many feel as you do.
I cannot know how much you've experienced real and hurtful racism. I live in Berkeley, we just don't see that here. Near Oakland, I have seen reverse racism a little. When I lived in D.C. for a few years was my first experience meeting people who expected me to be racist just merely because I am caucasian.
It makes me think that the victims of media racist hype are on both sides; you and your family wrongly feel that lots of people are against you because of race. Many of those people feel your suspicion or antagonism because you assume they are racist. I feel it in your writing here in this thread. We both lose the mutual good will that free peaceful people should share.
I hear a universe of love and good will from Ron Paul, for all people of good intent and peace. I hope you one day will hear his sincerity too.
if you think that all that
if you think that all that crap constitutes Ron Paul "walking" like a racist and therefore probably being one, you would do great working for the MSM.
Ventura 2012
I'm white
I'm white and have been discriminated against based on my color.
I didn't sue nor desire to.
Mobile-Friendly U.S. Constitution
But it's not "racist"
when a White person gets discriminated against or when "minorities" discriminate (they've "earned" it), according to most idiots. It never ceases to amaze me how far backward so many White people bend over to justify (and even condone!) bigotry against their own people.
That seems to be the mentality of a lot of people of all ethnic groups these days. "It's only bigoted if a White person does it", which in itself is a bigoted mentality.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying this because of your post, it just happened to get me started on the subject. ;0
---
@OP: If you think Dr. Paul is a bigot, then you REALLY haven't been paying attention.
Also, and I say this because people seem to use the two terms interchangeably, Supremacy and Separatism are two very different concepts. Supremacy = rule over other racial/ethic groups. Separatism = stay away from other racial/ethic groups ("separate but equal" mentality). How come I never hear people whine about Black and Brown Supremacists/Separatists?
Personally, I'd just assume staying away from everybody, because most people are idiots who make such trivial issues such as genetic makeup such a big fucking deal.
EDIT: typo
A signature used to be here!
yaaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnnn.... Buy
yaaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnnn.... Buy Gold boru..
“A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.” (Prov. 22:3; 27:12 KJV)
Hey McCain-----┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
You sound like a communist
The question is not what people do on their PRIVATE PROPERTY, but what the correct response of the government is.
The response that the government has the duty and right to force people to modify their behavior on their private property is what you appear to be advocating, which is in abrogation of private property, which, in my estimation is communist.
good for you, comerade
Where's the letter with the
Where's the letter with the racist things that Dr.Paul wrote??? Got proof, knucklehead?
In addition, so what if white supremacists sent Ron money without him knowing, President Obama knowingly attended a racist church!!!
Go crawl back under the slimy rock you slithered out from under!!!