Who Will You Vote For in 2012?

[ExLibris]

LOL-abolishing the Jim Crow laws exactly what the civil right act.! But you and Ron Paul said that is a violation of people’s personal liberties! So how would you have done it differently? How could you abolish Jim Crow laws without requiring businesses to accommodate African-Americans?

What personal liberties did the civil rights act take away from you ? What were you allowed to do prior to this that you cannot do now?

Jim Crow refers to public property having lawful segregation. Private property was merely de facto segregation, so private segregation cannot be put under the umbrella of Jim crow.

Paul merely wishes that private property owners be allowed to do what they wish with their property.

The argument is not whether it is right or wrong to discriminate. The argument is should a private individual be able to use his property as he wishes.

Accepting the premise that a private individual should be in complete control of his property, it’s no wonder why Ron Paul would vote against the Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 wrongfully allowed the Federal government to come in and exert unwarranted force into what should be a private affair between private property owners and patrons (in addition of course to repealing Jim Crow laws).

So, had the 1964 Civil Rights Act merely gotten rid of the Jim Crow laws, which strictly involved public property, then of course Ron Paul would have voted for it because he would have never voted for Jim Crow laws in the first place.

His no vote would have merely been on the principle that the Federal government should not involve itself on matters of what one does with private property.

This is a matter of legal precedent as well. When an answer is given in a deposition, if one part of it is wrong then the entire thing is wrong.

If one part of the law is unjust, then the entire law is unjust.

How would segregation in the private sector be remedied?

You would simply let the market work. Segregationist restaurant owners, taxi cab drivers, and hotel operators would limit themselves to fewer customers than non-segregationist counterparts. Not to mention, all of us, as free agents of Charity, would be required to demand of our businesses to give equal opportunity and treat all people with respect. If they refuse, boycott and picket them.

Ron Paul believes in the kindness and reasonableness of people.

I’m not saying do or do not vote for Ron Paul. I just hoped to improve on the articulation of his argument and belief.

 

[TMC]

Hogwash!

In what way? He has said that federal laws outlawing racial discrimination are unconstitutional. He thinks that the government lacks the power to outlaw racial discrimination, hence he believes it should be (and must be) legal. That is different than saying that he thinks it is good - he has said he is personally against racial discrimination, but that he does not think the government should make it illegal.

 

[jam070406]

In what way? He has said that federal laws outlawing racial discrimination are unconstitutional. He thinks that the government lacks the power to outlaw racial discrimination, hence he believes it should be (and must be) legal. That is different than saying that he thinks it is good - he has said he is personally against racial discrimination, but that he does not think the government should make it illegal.

No, he didn’t. Read the post above yours.

 

[TMC]

How would segregation in the private sector be remedied?

You would simply let the market work. Segregationist restaurant owners, taxi cab drivers, and hotel operators would limit themselves to fewer customers than non-segregationist counterparts. Not to mention, all of us, as free agents of Charity, would be required to demand of our businesses to give equal opportunity and treat all people with respect. If they refuse, boycott and picket them.

We tried this approach for 100 years, from the end of the Civil War until the Civil Rights Act. It didnt work. Maybe we would have eventually ended segregation, green lining and other forms of race discrimination without government action, maybe not. So how long should our minority citizens have waited for that? Another 100 years? Longer?

 

[jam070406]

We tried this approach for 100 years, from the end of the Civil War until the Civil Rights Act. It didnt work. Maybe we would have eventually ended segregation, green lining and other forms of race discrimination without government action, maybe not. So how long should our minority citizens have waited for that? Another 100 years? Longer?

Not really, because the Jim Crow laws were still in effect.

If Paul thinks that private property owners be allowed to do what they wish with their property then blacks can discriminate against whites, no?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Comment? Not really. I am growing tired of the condescending tones. I have been addressing the ‘issues’ and have repeatedly seen my points dismissed.

How many years during GWB did Republicans have control? What got accomplished? How many justices were appointed by Republicans, prior to the two newest appointees? What got accomplished? What was the name of the abortifacient the US was primary customer of the Chinese during the terms of GWB? RU486? Was playing politics with the Chinese reason enough to turn heads on? Why did the FDA turn their heads, again during GWB’s terms, when women suffered severe health problems and some even died from that drug? If I remember correctly, it was because of how vocal prolife groups were.

Republicans want full control again, badly. Of course they’re responding to the empty promises now. They blew an election because of their lack of action. It’s time to make up for lost ground and there’s only one way to do that.

I had confused some of Scalia’s comments with Clarence Thomas’.

Scalia had made some ‘similar’ comments, but I cannot find the interview.

Interesting how Ron Paul supporters sometimes end up delivering Democrat talking points. Kinda makes a fella wonder.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

You didn’t ask me, but I know the answer. Discriminate based on race. That is the only “right” that was taken away. Ron Paul thinks that racial discrimination should be legal - he has made that perfectly clear. I am personally glad that racial discrimination is now illegal. That is one of the many reasons I do not support Ron Paul.

So, you’d have no problem with the government examining my monthly commercial activity and determining how many white owned business, black owned business, hispanic owned businesses, asian owned business, women owned businesses, handicapped owned businesses, muslim owned businesses, etc… and determining that I don’t conduct enough commerce with minority owned business and are therefore subject to being fined? I mean, if the government can tell you that you have to hire a certain number of black people, asians, women, hispanics, Jews, Transvestites, etc…why can’t they tell you where you can or cannot shop based on the racial profiles of the businesses you frequent?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Interesting how Ron Paul supporters sometimes end up delivering Democrat talking points. Kinda makes a fella wonder.

People confuse liberty with liberalism. Like I said, most of this debate is not a conservative v. liberal thing, it is a big government controlling your life v. small government letting you live your own life thing. There are plenty of big government conservatives on these boards, obviously. They want the government to control your life in different ways than liberals do, but they want to control it nontheless.

Liberals believe you are too stupid to know what do properly do with your own money, so they have the government take it away and spend it for you.

Conservatives believe you are too base and vile to make proper moral choices, so they have the government do that for you.

But they both cry Freedom! Liberty! While taking those very things from you.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Not really, because the Jim Crow laws were still in effect.

If Paul thinks that private property owners be allowed to do what they wish with their property then blacks can discriminate against whites, no?

You know, now that I think about it, the NFL is comprised of about 75% black people, 20% white, 4% Pacific Islander, and 1% Hispanic. I think that the EEO needs to address this obvious racial disparity and adjust the mix of players to more closely resemble the racial mix of society.

 

[ExLibris]

We tried this approach for 100 years, from the end of the Civil War until the Civil Rights Act. It didnt work. Maybe we would have eventually ended segregation, green lining and other forms of race discrimination without government action, maybe not. So how long should our minority citizens have waited for that? Another 100 years? Longer?

No longer than they already did.

amazon.com/gp/product/0688062695/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thomacom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399349&creativeASIN=0688062695

Thomas Sowell, who wrote the popular Basic Economics, found in his book Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality that the trends of employment for blacks did not change significantly pre-1964 and post-1964.

If I remember correctly, he found that employment was actually lower in 1967 than 1960.

Further, the argument of convenience for those who suffer the shameful crime of discrimination avoids an important question: Does one have the right to the private property of another?

Again, I’m not saying that the free market approach is perfect. I think there’s merit to both sides of the argument. Do you error on liberty or equality?

 

[ishii]

Comment? Not really. I am growing tired of the condescending tones. I have been addressing the ‘issues’ and have repeatedly seen my points dismissed.

I feel as though I’ve addressed your points in my posts, no?

How many years during GWB did Republicans have control? What got accomplished? How many justices were appointed by Republicans, prior to the two newest appointees? What got accomplished?

***Control ***of what? The Republicans had small majorities in the house of reps from 2000-2006 and razor thin majorities in the senate - it was 50/50 for a while until James Jeffords changed parties giving the Democrats a small edge. Then in 2006 the Dems swept both houses. Hardly “control” now, isn’t it? If you want an example of “control” then look at the large majorities that Obama had in his first two years in which he was able ram Obama care down our throats. The GOP never had that kind of power under Bush. What got accomplished under George W. Bush? How about the nominations of Roberts and Alito for starters? Or are you going to find some obscure interview that “proves” they aren’t pro-life? As for Clarence Thomas, point out where in the interview you posted that shows he wouldn’t help to overturn Roe V Wade?

Republicans want full control again, badly. Of course they’re responding to the empty promises now. They blew an election because of their lack of action. It’s time to make up for lost ground and there’s only one way to do that.

Look, as Estesbob pointed out, you’re peddling the tired myth of Republican “inaction” that serves as a convenient excuse to vote for the “perfect” candidate who has no chance to win. In doing so, you conveniently ignore the real reason that we still have the Roe V Wade decision preventing any common sense restrictions on abortions in the states: that is the overwhelmingly pro-abortion stance of the Democrats and the Democrat catholics who vote for them. Biden, Kennedy, Pelosi, et al. If you want to know why Roe V Wade is still the law of the land, ask them why they insist on being pro-abortion.

Ishii

 

[TMC]

So, you’d have no problem with the government examining my monthly commercial activity and determining how many white owned business, black owned business, hispanic owned businesses, asian owned business, women owned businesses, handicapped owned businesses, muslim owned businesses, etc… and determining that I don’t conduct enough commerce with minority owned business and are therefore subject to being fined? I mean, if the government can tell you that you have to hire a certain number of black people, asians, women, hispanics, Jews, Transvestites, etc…why can’t they tell you where you can or cannot shop based on the racial profiles of the businesses you frequent?

Where did I advocate any of those things?

 

[estesbob]

You know, now that I think about it, the NFL is comprised of about 75% black people, 20% white, 4% Pacific Islander, and 1% Hispanic. I think that the EEO needs to address this obvious racial disparity and adjust the mix of players to more closely resemble the racial mix of society.

The civil rights act contained no provisions allowing racial quotas

 

[TMC]

No, he didn’t. Read the post above yours.

Have you reviewed Paul’s stance on this issue? He has made himself perfectly clear - he thinks that private racial discrimination should be legal. How could anyone that claims to be a supporter of his not know that?

 

[TMC]

Not really, because the Jim Crow laws were still in effect.

If Paul thinks that private property owners be allowed to do what they wish with their property then blacks can discriminate against whites, no?

Yes, he believes that all people should be allowed to discriminate. That is his position on the issue.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

The civil rights act contained no provisions allowing racial quotas

It opened the door for them in a major way.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Yes, he believes that all people should be allowed to discriminate. That is his position on the issue.

So, you then believe that the Federal Government has the Constitutional authority to force us to be nice to each other? Wow, I seriously don’t want to live in your world dude.

 

[jam070406]

Yes, he believes that all people should be allowed to discriminate. That is his position on the issue.

Allowed by who? God or government?

 

[Red_Wolf]

Wow! This is really sidetracked. Some are attacking Ron Paul because he disagrees with some parts of old legislation, SAYING HE SHOULD STATE HIS POSITION ON WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE. Are you next going to attack him for lack of a stated position for the tariff of 1832?

Pro-Life, the next step how to get there from here.
Budget.
The Federal Reserve; reining in run away government. If you don’t understand that, forget the Austrian school; just read the scholars of Salamanca. If you don’t know what Salamanca is; are you Catholic?
PEAK OIL. No one has called me on my previous mention of that. Does everyone have their head in the sand?

What I am trying to say is that the “viable candidates” have one thing in common: no plan, or intention, of leading this country anywhere but down the slippery slope.

Ron Paul is the only viable candidate from the standpoint of leading this country where it needs to go. The others are just variations of how to slide down.

If Ron Paul is unelectable, then this country if finished. I suspect that what makes him “unelectable” is the unwavering desire of some to see this country go down the drain.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Wow! This is really sidetracked. Some are attacking Ron Paul because he disagrees with some parts of old legislation, SAYING HE SHOULD STATE HIS POSITION ON WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE. Are you next going to attack him for lack of a stated position for the tariff of 1832?

Pro-Life, the next step how to get there from here.
Budget.
The Federal Reserve; reining in run away government. If you don’t understand that, forget the Austrian school; just read the scholars of Salamanca. If you don’t know what Salamanca is; are you Catholic?
PEAK OIL. No one has called me on my previous mention of that. Does everyone have their head in the sand?

What I am trying to say is that the “viable candidates” have one thing in common: no plan, or intention, of leading this country anywhere but down the slippery slope.

Ron Paul is the only viable candidate from the standpoint of leading this country where it needs to go. The others are just variations of how to slide down.

If Ron Paul is unelectable, then this country if finished. I suspect that what makes him “unelectable” is the unwavering desire of some to see this country go down the drain.

I understand what you’re saying, though i don’t believe it’s “Ron Paul or doom” for the U.S. So, you don’t like all other imaginable Republicans. I get it. But there is the further question: “What are Ron Paul people going to do if he’s not the nominee?” Gonna throw away your vote and help Obama take this country into the tank faster than the worst Republican you can possibly dream up? Are you going to sit by in a snit so the abortion promoters win? It’s highly unlikely Ron Paul will run as a third party candidate, so are you going to help Obama by writing Paul in just to show how miffed you are that the voters didn’t choose him for the nominee?

Honestly, if I was in charge of the Obama campaign, I would encourage that kind of attitude in the Ron Paul supporters. Likely that’s exactly what the DNC is doing; perhaps even in places like CAF. They aren’t stupid. When the 2012 election comes around, they will be in here just like they were in 2008, encouraging prolife people to throw their votes away on third parties and write-ins.

Are prolifers really going to let the abortion promoters manipulate us that way? I would hope not. Support Ron Paul all you want for the primary if that’s how you feel about him. Maybe he’ll be the nominee and maybe he won’t. But in the general, don’t give abortion a pass.

I don’t like Ron Paul at all, but if he’s the nominee, I’ll vote for him anyway, precisely because I don’t want to fail to oppose abortion.