ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
No one wants to go back to the days of "colored entrance out back", but for some people in here to call purer belief of liberty "racist", or racially driven, is ignorant IMO. I think there is a valid debate in this somewhere, and while some issues may be driven by the wrong reasons for some, I don't think it is that way for everyone. Some people genuinely believe in the loss of personal liberty in having the gubmit tell them who and what they can do with what is privately their's.
Ron Paul believes drugs should be legalized why? Cuz he wants to sell and do heroin? Of course not. It's because he believes in a purer form of liberty where which an adult citizen can decide for himself, what he want to put into his body. That same principle is what is being applied to the CRA.
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
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Say JetBlue decides to ban not black people but Muslim people.
Hmmmm....think people would stay away from or flock to such an airline?
How many people here have said that Muslims on their airplanes make them nervous?
Do you honestly think they'd go out of business if they promised such a thing?
That would just show that the American people don't really have a problem with profiling on airplanes. It would also be an opportunity for other airlines to offer services to Muslims, or for a Muslim to start his or her own airline company.
Or with civil rights or violating the constitution, either.
Civil rights on private property isn't in the Constitution. It's a federal law that Paul favors repealing. Someone can't then violate a law that isn't on the books.
Not that 1) Paul would ever get elected, and 2) Congress would send him a bill to sign repealing the Civil Rights Act would ever happen, but that's his stance.
Last edited by tehmackdaddy; 07-14-2011 at 02:19 PM..
Reason: spelling
Civil rights on private property isn't in the Constitution. It's a federal law that Paul favors repealing. Someone can't then violate a law that isn't on the books.
Not that 1) Paul would ever get elected, and 2) Congress would send him a bill to sign repealing the Civil Rights Act would ever happen, but that's his stance.
Neither are a lot of things (in the Constitution).
Tell you what. All who are opposed the the CRA try this one out. Any licensed business that doesn't use tax dollars FOR ANY PURPOSE can do whatever they want. They can put up "No Whites Allowed" or "No Blacks Allowed" signs on their doors and legally enforce those rules. As long as they build their own roads, power lines (or put up a turbine or solar panels), draw water from their own well, dump their ***** in their own septic, and put their own fires out and go get the bad guy who robbed you last week. That's fair, huh? Now THAT's FREEDOM!
What the hell is wrong with you? You love Ron Paul so much, you're willing to agree with every single bit of his philosophy? You know what that is, right?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Neither are a lot of things (in the Constitution).
Tell you what. All who are opposed the the CRA try this one out. Any licensed business that doesn't use tax dollars FOR ANY PURPOSE can do whatever they want. They can put up "No Whites Allowed" or "No Blacks Allowed" signs on their doors and legally enforce those rules. As long as they build their own roads, power lines (or put up a turbine or solar panels), draw water from their own well, dump their ***** in their own septic, and put their own fires out and go get the bad guy who robbed you last week. That's fair, huh? Now THAT's FREEDOM!
What the hell is wrong with you? You love Ron Paul so much, you're willing to agree with every single bit of his philosophy? You know what that is, right?
That would be fine so long as that same logic is applied in reverse. Since those licensed businesses would get roads and power lines, then they shouldn't pay a red cent in taxes.
I'm not in any way saying I'd vote against the CRA, or would have. My point is that it's ignorant to think that racism is the reason some people have an issue with the CRA. For some who believe in a purer form of liberty, any instance where the government attempts to impose it's will on you is rejected. One things for sure in all of this though, discussing this issue in this fashion in today's world is a losing propostion.
__________________
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
Tell you what. All who are opposed the the CRA try this one out. Any licensed business that doesn't use tax dollars FOR ANY PURPOSE can do whatever they want. They can put up "No Whites Allowed" or "No Blacks Allowed" signs on their doors and legally enforce those rules. As long as they build their own roads, power lines (or put up a turbine or solar panels), draw water from their own well, dump their ***** in their own septic, and put their own fires out and go get the bad guy who robbed you last week. That's fair, huh? Now THAT's FREEDOM!
"Freedom" is a two sided coin. True freedom has to include the freedom to fail and the freedom to be a racist bigot.
To your example: the racist bigot business owner's tax dollars are worth the same as yours or mine, so I don't see how he or she could be denied access to those public services. Of course, you're citing pretty much exclusively non-federal government services which wouldn't apply to a repeal of the CRA.
Lack of federal government power doesn't mean no government power at all, it just means the option to exercise that power (or not) goes to the state and local governments. This concept is clearly cited in the 10th amendment to the Constitution, which is all Paul is trying to accomplish: getting the federal government back to what it Constitutionally may do and leaving the rest of the decision making to the states and the people.
If a state wants to pass its own version of the CRA, they may. The same goes to county and city governments.
"Freedom" is a two sided coin. True freedom has to include the freedom to fail and the freedom to be a racist bigot.
To your example: the racist bigot business owner's tax dollars are worth the same as yours or mine, so I don't see how he or she could be denied access to those public services. Of course, you're citing pretty much exclusively non-federal government services which wouldn't apply to a repeal of the CRA.
Lack of federal government power doesn't mean no government power at all, it just means the option to exercise that power (or not) goes to the state and local governments. This concept is clearly cited in the 10th amendment to the Constitution, which is all Paul is trying to accomplish: getting the federal government back to what it Constitutionally may do and leaving the rest of the decision making to the states and the people.
If a state wants to pass its own version of the CRA, they may. The same goes to county and city governments.
I was referring to towns and even states who may decide to deny those services to anyone who descriminates based on race, gender and whatever. I mean, don't states end up with that right within your theoretical CRA-free government?
As I've stated before, I agree with many of the point Paul makes. I'm just not ignorant enough to believe-even philosophically- that you have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Any rigid set of principles is doomed to run into situations which naturally contradict the whole philosophy like the one hard-core Libertarians propose. What about the elimination of political borders? Many supporters of Paul oppose that one. Why? Because of the Mexicans and the laws on the books that aren't being enforced, right? Well, where in the constitution are there any immigratioon laws? The natural state of a truly free, libertarian society forbids governmental control of the free flow of goods and people by use of federal controls.
It's just foolish to adhere to rigid political principles in a world that changes faster by the day.
Oh wait...I get it!...this is all about abortion, right?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
4Likes
Re: Paul : 4 months : +11%
Linear Mode
