Who Will You Vote For in 2012?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Scott_Lafrance said:
THat is what the Civil Rights Act does. It doesn’t just disallow people tio discriminate, it opened the door to all this Equal Opportunity nonsense that we have now. Hiring quotas, etc… all came out of CRA. So, to ask the question, what about interstate commerce gives the federal government the right to tell a corner bodega that he cannot refuse to serve someone because of skin color? Listen, I hate racism and if you examine my life, it is patently obvious. If I discovered the corner store refused to serve hispanic people, I would stand out front of the store with a sign calling the store owners a bunch of bigots. I would tell potential customers that the owner was a racist. When the owner’s ignorant and ridiculous business practices hurts HIS bottom line, he will either change or his store will go out of business. Either way, problem solved. No government needed. Now, you just lodge a complaint to the FTC and they send in stormtroopers to raid the business, shut it down, and haul the owner off to jail. Yes, he goes to jail for being stupid. That is why I said, lets just pass a law that makes it illegal to be stupid, because that is what racism is. In a truely free country, people are allowed to be stupid. We have progressed to the point in this country where we don’t need the federal government to come in a force us to be nice to each other or they will throw us in jail. I didn’t put words in your mouth, I just drew the escalating effects that were set into motion with the CRA64 to their logical conclussion.
Click to expand...
Obama’s buddy rev. Wright needs to be arrested immediately!
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
I thought that we had the Church to teach us to love one another. Why do we need the Federal Government as well?
Click to expand...
You are aware that the church firmly supported the civil rights act? in my diocese and I believe in most dioceses across the country the Bishop ordered the priest in their diocese to preach on the necessity of this act passing on the Sunday before is voted on.

However you are giving us a stark view of what Ron Paul’s political philosophy. Ron Paul does believe people have a right to discriminate. I have no quarrel with that our personal basis but when stretched to include accommodations, voting and employment there is no doubt in the minds of most reasonable people the government regulation is needed.
 
estesbob said:
You are aware that the church firmly supported the civil rights act? in my diocese and I believe in most dioceses across the country the Bishop ordered the priest in their diocese to preach on the necessity of this act passing on the Sunday before is voted on.

However you are giving us a stark view of what Ron Paul’s political philosophy. Ron Paul does believe people have a right to discriminate. I have no quarrel with that our personal basis but when stretched to include accommodations, voting and employment there is no doubt in the minds of most reasonable people the government regulation is needed.
Click to expand...
Where does Ron Paul say he believes people have a “right to discriminate”?
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Ya, God forbid. Ron Paul is a non-interventionist. He doesn’t believe that our place is as the world police force. Look at NATO. We are one member of over a dozen nations, yet we do 90% of the heavy lifting. All that comes off the sweat off your back. Does it comfort you to know that Greece can have mandatory retirement at age 60 with full benefits because their defense is being paid for by your tax money?
Click to expand...
How would his non-interventionist philosophy apply to Israel, Scott? And should those of us who are pro-Israel support or reject his policy?
 
jam070406 said:
Except we’re moving into the extreme of tyranny because society trusts the state over the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
I’m just worried you think any laws at all are an example of “moving towards tyranny.” We need laws that preserve a just society. I read yesterday that there is some movement toward introducing leglislation that would ban abortions starting when the baby is sentient of pain. Would passage of such a law represent a movement towards tyranny?
 
tomarin said:
I’m just worried you think any laws at all are an example of “moving towards tyranny.” We need laws that preserve a just society. I read yesterday that there is some movement toward introducing leglislation that would ban abortions starting when the baby is sentient of pain. Would passage of such a law represent a movement towards tyranny?
Click to expand...
I believe the unborn has a right to life

Forcing businesses to meet quotas, forcing people to buy government healthcare, groping at airports, warrantless wire tapping, etc. are some examples Fed intrusion.
 
tomarin said:
I’m just worried you think any laws at all are an example of “moving towards tyranny.” We need laws that preserve a just society. I read yesterday that there is some movement toward introducing leglislation that would ban abortions starting when the baby is sentient of pain. Would passage of such a law represent a movement towards tyranny?
Click to expand...
Now let me ask you, did the Feds forcing businesses and colleges to meet quotas end racism?
 
jam070406 said:
I believe the unborn has a right to life
Click to expand...
Therefore not all of what is perceived by some as government overreach is tyrannical. It just depends on what you think the proper role of government is. Government has a legitimate authority to regulate some aspects of our lives in order to protect the common good.
Forcing businesses to meet quotas, forcing people to buy government healthcare, groping at airports, warrantless wire tapping, etc. are some examples Fed intrusion.
Click to expand...
I agree with your assessment of some of those. But I don’t think the Civil Rights Act falls into that category, not because it ended racism, but because it outlawed practices that were blatantly racist and which contradicted the highest law of the land.
 
tomarin said:
Therefore not all of what is perceived by some as government overreach is tyrannical. It just depends on what you think the proper role of government is. Government has a legitimate authority to regulate some aspects of our lives in order to protect the common good.

I agree with your assessment of some of those. But I don’t think the Civil Rights Act falls into that category, not because it ended racism, but it did outlaw practices that were blatantly racist.
Click to expand...
Then we both agree with Ron Paul.
 
tomarin said:
No, I think his governing philosophy is misguided and dangerous. I’ve been trying to explain why but I guess I’m doing a lousy job …
Click to expand...
Ron Paul believed the Jim Crow laws were unjust and unconstitutional. He also believed the Feds were attempting to exercise power they didn’t have by forcing businesses to meet quotas.
Why wasn’t upholding the constitutional rights of blacks by eliminating laws that forbid them at restaurants, etc. enough?
 
jam070406 said:
Ron Paul believed the Jim Crow laws were unjust and unconstitutional. He also believed the Feds were attempting to exercise power they didn’t have by forcing businesses to meet quotas.
Why wasn’t upholding the constitutional rights of blacks by eliminating laws that forbid them at restaurants, etc. enough?
Click to expand...
As far as I and Wikipedia know, that’s just what the Civil Rights Act did, no more and no less. If Ron Paul thought separate but equal was unconstitutional, then wouldn’t the federal government have a responsiblity to step in and ban those laws? Isn’t that what the federal government is for?
 
tomarin said:
I believe that’s just what the Civil Rights Act did, no more and no less. If Ron Paul thought separate but equal was unconstitutional, then wouldn’t the federal government have a responsiblity to step in and ban those laws? Isn’t that what the federal government is for?
Click to expand...
You need to go back and read why he objected to it.
He said he was for eliminating laws that forced segregation but there was more to it in the act then just that. It’s what people have been saying the whole time but people have been sticking their fingers in their ears saying …la la la la Ron Paul is racist.
 
jam070406 said:
Ron Paul believed the Jim Crow laws were unjust and unconstitutional. He also believed the Feds were attempting to exercise power they didn’t have by forcing businesses to meet quotas.
Why wasn’t upholding the constitutional rights of blacks by eliminating laws that forbid them at restaurants, etc. enough?
Click to expand...
Thats not excatly true. he beleived that Jim Crow laws restrictng acess to public facilities were wrong. he believes , however, that individuals and busisnees have every right to exclude african americans and anyone else they want to under the guise of proerty rights.
 
estesbob said:
Thats not excatly true. he beleived that Jim Crow laws restrictng acess to public facilities were wrong. he believes , however, that individuals and busisnees have every right to exclude african americans and anyone else they want to under the guise of proerty rights.
Click to expand...
Did he say he’d get rid of Jim Crow laws…yes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top