Patters

http://www.democraticunderground.com...esg_id=3882544

MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about race, because I, I read a speech you gave in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. And you said this: "Contrary to the claims of" "supporters of the Civil Rights Act of" '64, "the act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of" '64 "increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty." That act gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters, and you seem to be criticizing it.

REP. PAUL: Well, we should do, we should do this at a federal level, at a federal lunch counter it'd be OK or for the military. Just think of how the government, you know, caused all the segregation in the military until after World War II. But when it comes, Tim, you're, you're, you're not compelled in your house to invade strangers that you don't like. So it's a property rights issue. And this idea that all private property is under the domain of the federal government I think is wrong. So this--I think even Barry Goldwater opposed that bill on the same property rights position, and that--and now this thing is totally out of control.

...


MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."

REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist..

MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.

REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.

PatsFanInVa

Evidently, Mr. Paul believes slavery to have been a property issue as well.

There are, it turns out, important limitations to libertarian dogma, particularly when we don't append "civil" as a prefix.

PFnV

Real World

You know, I watched the second half of the show, and saw Russert ask that question, and Paul answer it. He, as in Paul, in no way was opposing the Act because he didn't like black people, and said so. His position was that the Act, in some way, violated the the rights of property owners.

After watching him on Meet the Press yesterday, I came away with a better understanding of what Paul stands for. He's a true believer in the Constitution, and state's rights. His support for the legalization of drugs isn't so much because he wants them available next to the Twinkies at a 7-Eleven. He only wants them legalized at the federal level, because he believes only the states should regulate them. As a big believer in state's rights, I came away with a much better respect for his positions. He was adamant that drugs were terrible. I'd liked alot of what he said. I wish he explained himself better in the debates.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Harry Boy

I'm not a Ron Paul fan but little by little I'm becoming one.

He is right on the money when he says "Slavery Would Have Been Phased Out" and you all know it would have been "Phased Out" the only country that still practices it now is Africa and maybe some Middle Eastern Dumps.
We didn't have to slaughter all those young men during the Civil War to abolish Slavery the American people realized how wrong it was for one person to "own" another person, the people would have ended slavery without the Mass Murder of the Civil War.

Private Buisness & Home:
In America we have "FREEDOM" the Far Left Liberals are always reminding us of this whenever we want to see what our enemy's are up to.

The Civil Rights act was well on it's way to being fixed we didn't need the Riots "A Mans Home Is His Castle" if I like a person I will have them in for dinner, I don't care if they are Orange People with Penis's hanging out of their noses, but I also have the freedom to refuse to bring anybody home that I don't want to bring home and I damn well don't have to explain to the Government why I don't bring them home.

Segregating all PUBLIC places was the best thing that ever happend in the war against discrimination and it was long overdue but don't you self serving chest thumping politically correct pandering do-gooders out there tell me who I have to bring into my Private World.

Segregation is still practiced in the private sector today, they now have a "MISS BLACK AMERICA PAGENT" some of you misty eyed do-gooders out there "TRY TO ENROLL YOUR PRETTY LITTLE BLUE EYED BLONDE WHITE GIRL IN THAT CONTEST"

I now admire Ron Paul, he has the balls to stand right up and say what he thinks and it sounds just as though he sat that sneaky "closet liberal democrat" Tim Russert right on his a$s.

To the Far Left Wing Politically Correct Pandering Do-Gooder anybody who doesn't think like they do is Racist, but "WE" know different.

The American People themselves would have solved "the slavery problem" because the American People knew it was wrong, we didn't have to slaughter each other doing it.

Bring whoever you want home to meet the kids and play with your dog but don't ever let the Liberals in our Government tell you to bring somebody home that you don't want to bring home, if they insist, then that is the time to Start Another Civil War.

DON'T CONFUSE COMMON SENSE WITH RACISM (BUT OF COURSE YOU WILL) IT MAKES THE D0-GOODER FEEL ALL GOOEY INSIDE, IT ALSO MAKES THEM FEEL SUPERIOR IN THEIR LITTLE WORLD OF PHONY BONAFIDE "SLOBBERS"

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE
LET COMMON SENSE PREVAIL
Merry CHRISTmas.
Todays Ancestors Of The American Slave LOVE Jesus Christ.

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself

sdaniels7114

Lincoln didn't start the war IMO. The war was started when US government property was attacked at fort Sumter. That facility was paid for with taxes from everyone. It belonged as much to some guy from Boston as it did to some other guy from Savanna.

How could you fairly phase slavery out anyway? Once you declare it something that has to go, how do you convince those that have to live in bondage during the transition that they still have to be slaves? Imagine you're a 35 yr old slave on the day they announce a 20 year transition period to the end of slavery:

"Oh so in 20 years I'll be 55 and free to what starve? now that my useful working life is about over? Thanks so much, I'm leaving now."

Patters

Yes, the notion of fairly phasing out slavery is absurd, and the idea of buying them like property from their owners is equally ridiculous. The whole opposition to slavery is that humans cannot be someone's property. To treat them that way would in fact sanction slavery. His view of property rights is warped.

Real World

You make a good point, but we'd have to consider such a phase out in an 1800's mentality. Maybe (and I stress maybe) something along those lines would have been plausible back then, whereas it wouldn't be today. For example, 40 years ago it was ok to have "whites only" sign, or "colored entrance", etc. It's hard to say in today's terms what would have worked 150+ years ago. It's interesting to discuss though.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Harry Boy

Billy Joe Redneck Down In Alabama wasn't the only slave owner in the world and the European country's didn't need a Civil War to get rid of it, Ron Paul isn't a racist he's an inteligent "REALIST" with the balls to tell it like it is to A Left Wing Closet News Media Liberal.

Kudos to Ron Paul.

Britian:
After 1830 when the mood of the nation changed in favour of a variety of types of reform, the antislavery campaign gathered momentum. In 1833 Wilberforce's efforts were finally rewarded when the Abolition of Slavery Act was passed. Wilberforce, on his death-bed, was informed of the passing of the Act in the nick of time. The main terms of the Act were:

all slaves under the age of six were to be freed immediately
slaves over the age of six were to remain as part slave and part free for a further four years. In that time they would have to be paid a wage for the work they did in the quarter of the week when they were "free"
the government was to provide £20 million in compensation to the slave-owners who had lost their "property."
In the West Indies the economic results of the Act were disastrous. The islands depended on the sugar trade which in turn depended on slave labour. Ultimately, the planters were unable to make the West Indies the thriving centres of trade which they had been in the eighteenth century. However, a moral victory had been won and the 1833 Act marked the beginning of the end of slavery in the New World
http://www.victorianweb.org/history/antislavery.html

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself

PressCoverage

look at how so many polarized posters continue to line up behind and defend Ron Paul... both from the right and left...

telling, indeed...

Patters

Personally, I think this thread might discredit him for some. I had read that some people faulted Paul for his attitude towards civil rights, but until this I never saw any specifics.