I'd like to take you to lunch, but you're black and they don't serve you

Status
Not open for further replies.

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Ron Paul is showing how he defines the word "liberty" - it has nothing to do with the liberty for blacks to have equal access under the law to public businesses.

It has only to do with the liberty of the owners to discriminate and segregate.

Paul recently gave a speech reiterating those views:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1178688.html

If there's one major bit of social pogress the country seems pretty united on in at least the last 50 years, it's the end to legal segregation and racism.

A majority of both parties supported the Civil Rights Act in 1964, with most opposition coming from the south (Democratic at the time, mostly).

In 2004, a symbolic vote was held in the House to say that they supported the passing of the Civil Rights bill on the 40th anniversary. All members voted yes but one - Ron Paul.

We don't need a radical ideologue oblivious to the harm of his ideology, who twists words like 'liberty' to not mean what they should, who creates disaster and proclaims utopia.
 

GaiaHunter

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2008
3,628
158
106
Seems easy we go to some other restaurant - why do you want to give business to a jerk?

And if no restaurants serve black people just open your own - you have a huge untapped costumer base right there.

It is like those restaurants that don't want to serve people without a coat or shoes...
 
Last edited:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Seems easy we go to some other restaurant - why do you want to give business to a jerk?

And if no restaurants serve black people just open your own - you have a huge untapped costumer base right there.

It is like those restaurants that don't want to serve people without a coat or shoes...

And wrong forum by the way.

You know, that worked great for the century we had it. Blacks couldn't go to white restaurants, swimming pools, nightclubs, drinking fountains, schools, be employed in the same positions with whites and make decent money, live in 'white neighborhoods' per the housing covenants, marry out of their race, in some states, or much more, but they could say "jerks!"
 
Last edited:

GaiaHunter

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2008
3,628
158
106
I'm white, this is the right forum, I don't have to post in the black forum.

You know that was just a copy paste from my previous post on your wrong thread.

You know, that worked great for the century we had it. Blacks couldn't go to white restaurants, swimming pools, nightclubs, drinking fountains, schools, be employed in the same positions with whites and make decent money, live in 'white neighborhoods' per the housing covenants, marry out of their race, in some states, or much more, but they could say "jerks!"

Why would one choose to go to a place where he is hated?

Would you go to a restaurant owned by someone you know hates you and let him be in charge of the food you going to put in your mouth?

And of course Civils Rights Act was repealing the Jim Crow laws.

The Jim Crow laws were state and local laws in the United States enacted between 1876 and 1965. They mandated de jure racial segregation in all public facilities, with a supposedly "separate but equal" status for black Americans. In reality, this led to treatment and accommodations that were usually inferior to those provided for white Americans, systematizing a number of economic, educational and social disadvantages. De jure segregation mainly applied to the Southern United States. Northern segregation was generally de facto, from blacks predominately living in urban ghettos.

During the Reconstruction period of 1865–1877, federal law provided civil rights protection in the U.S. South for "freedmen" – the African Americans who had formerly been slaves. In the 1870s, Democrats gradually returned to power in the Southern states, sometimes as a result of elections in which paramilitary groups intimidated opponents, attacking blacks or preventing them from voting. Gubernatorial elections were close and disputed in Louisiana for years, with extreme violence unleashed during the campaigns. In 1877, a national compromise to gain Southern support in the presidential election resulted in the last of the federal troops being withdrawn from the South. White Democrats had regained political power in every Southern state.[5] These conservative, white, Democratic Redeemer governments legislated Jim Crow laws, segregating black people from the white population.

Blacks were still elected to local offices in the 1880s, but the establishment Democrats were passing laws to make voter registration and electoral rules more restrictive, with the result that political participation by most blacks and many poor whites began to decrease.[6][7] Between 1890 and 1910, ten of the eleven former Confederate states, starting with Mississippi, passed new constitutions or amendments that effectively disfranchised most blacks and tens of thousands of poor whites through a combination of poll taxes, literacy and comprehension tests, and residency and record-keeping requirements.[6][7] Grandfather clauses temporarily permitted some illiterate whites to vote.

Voter turnout dropped drastically through the South as a result of such measures. For example, Alabama had tens of thousands of poor whites disfranchised.[8] In Louisiana, by 1900, black voters were reduced to 5,320 on the rolls, although they comprised the majority of the state's population. By 1910, only 730 blacks were registered, less than 0.5 percent of eligible black men. "In 27 of the state's 60 parishes, not a single black voter was registered any longer; in 9 more parishes, only one black voter was."[9] The cumulative effect in North Carolina meant that black voters were completely eliminated from voter rolls during the period from 1896-1904. The growth of their thriving middle class was slowed. In North Carolina and other Southern states, there were also the effects of invisibility: "[W]ithin a decade of disfranchisement, the white supremacy campaign had erased the image of the black middle class from the minds of white North Carolinians."[9]

Those who could not vote were not eligible to serve on juries and could not run for local offices. They effectively disappeared from political life, as they could not influence the state legislatures, and their interests were overlooked. While public schools had been established by Reconstruction legislatures for the first time in most Southern states; those for black children were consistently underfunded compared to schools for white children, even when considered within the strained finances of the postwar South. The decreasing price of cotton kept the agricultural economy at a low.

In some cases, progressive measures intended to reduce election fraud, such as the eight box law in South Carolina, acted against black and white voters who were illiterate, as they could not follow the directions.[10] While the separation of African Americans from the general population was becoming legalized and formalized during the Progressive Era (1890s–1920s), it was also becoming customary. Even in cases in which Jim Crow laws did not expressly forbid black people to participate, for instance, in sports or recreation, the laws shaped a segregated culture.[3]

In the Jim Crow context, the presidential election of 1912 was steeply slanted against the interests of black Americans. Most blacks still lived in the South, where they had been effectively disenfranchised, so they could not vote at all. While poll taxes and literacy requirements banned many poor or illiterate Americans from voting, these stipulations frequently had loopholes that exempted white Americans from meeting the requirements. In Oklahoma, for instance, anyone qualified to vote before 1866, or related to someone qualified to vote before 1866 (a kind of "grandfather clause"), was exempted from the literacy requirement; the only persons who could vote before that year were white male Americans. White Americans were effectively excluded from the literacy testing, whereas black Americans were effectively singled out by the law.[11]

Woodrow Wilson, a Southern Democrat and the first Southern-born president of the post-Civil War period, appointed Southerners to his Cabinet. Some quickly began to press for segregated work places, although Washington, D.C. and federal offices had been integrated since after the Civil War. In 1913, for instance, the Secretary of the Treasury William Gibbs McAdoo – an appointee of the President – was heard to express his opinion of black and white women working together in one government office: "I feel sure that this must go against the grain of the white women. Is there any reason why the white women should not have only white women working across from them on the machines?"[12]

Wilson introduced segregation in federal offices, despite much protest.[13] He appointed segregationist Southern politicians because of his own firm belief that racial segregation was in the best interest of black and white Americans alike.[13] At Gettysburg on July 4, 1913, the semi-centennial of Abraham Lincoln's declaration that "all men are created equal", Wilson addressed the crowd:

How complete the union has become and how dear to all of us, how unquestioned, how benign and majestic, as state after state has been added to this, our great family of free men![14]

A Washington Bee editorial wondered if the "reunion" of 1913 was a reunion of those who fought for "the extinction of slavery" or a reunion of those who fought to "perpetuate slavery and who are now employing every artifice and argument known to deceit" to present emancipation as a failed venture.[14] One historian notes that the "Peace Jubilee" at which Wilson presided at Gettysburg in 1913 "was a Jim Crow reunion, and white supremacy might be said to have been the silent, invisible master of ceremonies."[14] (See also: Great Reunion of 1913)

Ron Paul might not be in favour of the Civil Rights Act but he would have never been in favour of the Jim Crow laws in the first place either.

From your own link.

Paul explained that while he supports the fact that the legislation repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws, which forced racial segregation, he believes it is the government, not the people, that causes racial tensions by passing overreaching laws that institutionalize slavery and segregation. Today's race problems, he said, result from the war on drugs, the flawed U.S. court system and the military.

"The real problem we face today is the discrimination in our court system, the war on drugs. Just think of how biased that is against the minorities," he said. "They go into prison much way out of proportion to their numbers. They get the death penalty out of proportion with their numbers. And if you look at what minorities suffer in ordinary wars, whether there's a draft or no draft, they suffer much out of proposition. So those are the kind of discrimination that have to be dealt with, but you don't ever want to undermine the principle of private property and private choices in order to solve some of these problems."

That is the problem of governments, be it federal, state, local, etc, where it can keep giving itself powers to do whatever it wants and it is all legal because, well, law can be legally changed by them...

That is the reason there is a constitution to limit government powers but using whatever pretexts politicians are always ignoring/circumventing the constitution.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.