"Ron Paul Believes Businesses Should Be Allowed To Put Up A 'NO BLACKS' Sign!" (Mexicans, party)

[desertdetroiter]

Originally Posted by summers73

I said thugs (black trash) as well as white trash.

I discriminate equally.

Whites can't be thugs?

You have a strange way of applying words.

[Bulldawg82]

Originally Posted by Pamky

Wouldn't the banning of a certain race infringe the rights of that race? What if there is only one black family in a city and all businesses stop catering to blacks? Wouldn't that be an infringement of their rights?
Where should the black family be able to buy their goods or get their medicine?

That is NOT what Ron Paul is saying - that is just what Christ Matthews is accusing. Ron Paul correctly states that the laws striking down the Jim Crow crap ensures that, what Chris Matthews is saying, can't happen - and shouldn't. He clearly states support for the overturning of Jim Crow. As is usual, Ron Paul is of substance and his detractors are just running off of emotion or agenda.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by summers73

Um, weren't you pro-government folks complicit in enforcing segregation?

Nice personal attack. I grew up in Pennsylvania. My high school was integrated when my father went there, 1927-31. We did not have any "Jim Crow" laws that I am aware of, and I would hardly have been in a position to enforce them, having been 15 when the 1964 CRA was passed. Find someone else to blame, bub.

[emilybh]

Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas

Yes, it is legal for business to refuse service to anyone they chose. But if the story is accurate Ron Paul will NEVER see the inside of the Whitehouse other than a vistor and it looks his chances of that happening are probably slim to none. Nothing like watching the wannabes commit politcal suicide.
Casper

It isn't accurate and anyone but the dumbest people ought to be able to figure out that the Media is just trying to SPIN what he says. They will also see that he isn't letting them this time.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by pollyrobin

And that is done at your local, state level. It has nothing
to do with the federal government More to do with Home Owner Associations, greedy developers wanting residual income from master planned communities and safety/legal
reasons to prevent lawsuits.

I would wager to say you would not have the same
restrictions outside of a metro area, than within it.
That is why a lot of folks hate HOA's and the
suburbs Too uptight

Good Gawd! What assumptions you make. I live in a city, albeit a suburban city. It is city code to mow your lawn, fence your pool, etc. Do you think people who live in "the city" are unconcerned about their property values and/or safety? All this garbage about "state/local level" is mental gymnastics.

[Pamky]

Originally Posted by Bulldawg82

That is NOT what Ron Paul is saying - that is just what Christ Matthews is accusing. Ron Paul correctly states that the laws striking down the Jim Crow crap ensures that, what Chris Matthews is saying, can't happen - and shouldn't. He clearly states support for the overturning of Jim Crow. As is usual, Ron Paul is of substance and his detractors are just running off of emotion or agenda.

Ron Paul believes that a business should have the right to discriminate. So that means a business could also put up a "no Blacks" or "no Whites" sign.
There could be a scenerio that Blacks or any other race could be excluded from all businesses in their city.

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by Neuling

Regarding your weird analogies: I don't know of any shop that says clients must be a certain height or weight, dressed in a certain way etc.

Many bars and clubs have a pretty strict set of rules regarding who they allow into their club. Many other businesses have dress codes which are effectively discriminatory in a more subtle way. There are some businesses that have weight and height restrictions(usually its more for practical reasons than being intentional, IE seats on a plane, amusement park, etc). I remember reading an article about some restaurant in Portland that refuses to service government employees(like cops). And there are plenty of businesses that service only seniors, or kids, or women, or men. There is plenty of discrimination that doesn't involve race that is perfectly legal in this country.

There are jobs which require certain properties, yes. But that is the only reason why someone not fulfilling those requirements is not hired. What requirement does a black client not fulfill? Either they have the money to buy an item or they don't. Money is money...

I am not advocating racism or discrimination, I am merely stating that people should be free to decide for themselves. If you take away a persons freedom to do something that doesn't harm anyone just because you don't like it, that opens the door for an almost endless stream of personal regulations in the name of "the public good". And that will transform our free society into tyranny of the majority, or tyranny of the elite/intellectuals, who want to push their views and beliefs onto us.

I am not an advocate for discrimination, I am an advocate for freedom. The problem with giving people freedom is that they won't always do what you want them to do. But I would much rather a society where people are free to be stupid and to be *******s, than a society that has strict controls over all behavior.

What you seem to want is the equivalent of a theocracy, because it is the enforcement of a moral code based on nothing more than opinions or perceptions of the people. We might as well be living in Iran if you had what you want.

Stop blaming government. It is normal civilian people who create problems, and usually government tries to correct. Doesn't mean those efforts are always successful, but still, obviously there is a need to act, else not the majority of those in charge would say yes to laws etc.

People do create problems. The question is how to address those problems. More importantly, there is the argument that Milton Friedman always had, that the best thing to do in the face of a problem, is nothing. Because by doing something you almost always make things worse.

He generally quoted Thoreau in "If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life."

That is in essence the nature of government, it is always doing things that are supposed to be in the public good. Of course, the public good generally comes in the form of regulating individual behavior and putting heavy restrictions on private-business. Otherwise known as, the destruction of liberty. Those laws rarely have the outcome that they are intended to have. Look at prohibition.

Personally, I believe that the Civil Rights laws and acts(like affirmative-action, forced-busing) have actually done more harm than good. From the beginning with slavery, to Jim-crow, to affirmative-action, to other kinds of special-privileges. The government has been the problem, and it continues to be the problem by stirring up angst and hostilities between different groups.

If you actually look at black history, the black community was in far better shape before the Civil Rights act. There was by far less black crime and hatred before the Civil Rights movement. And before you start talking about lynchings, there were literally only 3,500 black lynchings in 100 years, that is 35 a year. In comparison there are about 1 million black-on-white violent crimes every year in this country, largely ignored by the political correctness that has gripped America.

If you actually look at income and education gaps between blacks and whites, they were dropping much more quickly before the Civil Rights act than afterwards. So don't pretend for a minute that the government has done absolutely anything to do help black America. It has done nothing but paint them as victims and basically forced them to be reliant on the government(which is why they vote so overwhelmingly for Democrats). The government has done more to justify racism than to tear it down, with their racist laws and special-privileges. The government has done more to perpetuate racism than any member of the KKK could ever dream.

[emilybh]

Originally Posted by Neuling

Where exactly? xx:yy? I don't feel like wasting 10 minutes of my life on an old racist

It starts at the 4min 23 second mark ( you lazy).

[emilybh]

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

This is obviously where you two disagree with myself. I believe this is supposed to be a free country, in which people are allowed to do things that may or may not be socially acceptable, as long as they are not harming others. That is in essence the embodiment of the first-amendment.

You two seem to want a government that tells people what they are allowed to do, say, eat, buy. Where they are allowed to work, who they must hire, what they must learn, etc.

You give lip-service to freedom, then you abandon it as soon as it doesn't match your views and beliefs.

You two are hypocrites of the highest order.



You're new motto should be "You are free to do anything that I will allow you to do."

LOL! Good one Redshadowz!

[Bulldawg82]

Originally Posted by Pamky

Ron Paul believes that a business should have the right to discriminate. So that means a business could also put up a "no Blacks" or "no Whites" sign.
There could be a scenerio that Blacks or any other race could be excluded from all businesses in their city.

That is illegal, as per the constitution. Ron Paul clearly says so and he would not support such a thing. As he said, he fully supports the overturning of the Jim Crow laws that allowed such things. That is a gross leap of logic to say that he is for signs that say "No (insert your people choice)" .