LibertyForAll
Senior Member
MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews pressed Paul during a TV appearance on whether he would have voted against the '64 law, a landmark piece of legislation that took strides toward ending segregation.
"Yeah, but I wouldn't vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws," Paul said. He explained that he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act "because of the property rights element, not because they got rid of the Jim Crow laws."
He goes on to say....
"This gimmick, it's off the wall when you say I'm for property rights and for states rights, and therefore I'm a racist," said the Texas congressman. "That's just outlandish."
and .....
"For you to imply that a property rights person is endorsing that stuff, you don't understand that there would be zero signs up today saying something like that," he said. "And if they did they would be an idiot and out of business."
Referring to signs on businesses that said whites only.
So what is he really saying here?
He is saying that he did not believe in the Jim Crow Laws but that he didn't agree with the legislation on the basis that it gave the federal government the right to tell us what to do on our own property.
He is against the government mandating morality and basically says here that the free market will decide what a business can get away with.
I do agree that In this day and age it you would be hard pressed to make a living by placing a sign like that in the window. I agree that the government should not dictate morality and that it should be up to the people to decide what actions are morally reprehensible.
I am not in agreement with this on the general principle that this country was founded on the idea that all men are created equal. I believe this equality should be gauranteed by the constitution and the fact that there were holes that allowed this kind of behavior was an oversight that needed to be corrected. I don't however fault Dr. Paul for his view because he is not taking issue with the intent of the law he is taking issue with the powers it granted to the federal government. By saying he wouldn't have voted for it he is saying he wouldn't have supported the law as written but that isn't to say that if it was modified he wouldn't have supported it as I believe his statements in regards to it implied.
Sometimes a persons meaning and intent cannot be gleaned from a 6 second sound byte. You have to dig a little deeper and reason things out for yourself. I don't think this makes him a racist at all but I think maybe he is stricter in his libertarian ideologies than perhaps I am. I can disagree with him on this and still think he is mostly right on the money with most of his ideas.
I am quoting from this article:
Paul says he would have opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
Give me a fucking break with this convoluted bullshit to justify bigotry and racism of others.
You pay rent on property or you outright own it. Fine. But the second you open up that property as a business to serve the PUBLIC, then you come under the laws of State and Federal gov't....and if the gov't (by which is voted on via representation of the majority) states that discrimination against a specific memeber of the the general public is illegal, then that's that.
Paul essentially tries to split a hair in order to accomodate the bigots and racists in our society, and thus garner more support for his candidacy....then he acts as if his butt doesn't stink. Sorry, but the vast majority of Americans weren't buying that claptrap 50 years 40 some odd years ago, and they're not buying it now.
To me, guys like Paul are WORSE than those that wear the pointed hood...at least you know EXACTLY were you stand with them.
I didn't twist anything, I just looked at what he said. I definitely didn't justify any bigotry or racism. Also no one said anything about not following state laws or federal laws. The point was that a federal law was passed that changed state laws. You can discuss how you might have done things differently without being a racist just like you can discuss the patriot act without being a traitor. The world is not black and white.
No one is disputing that racism is wrong but how you handle racism in society is subject for debate. The answer that Ron Paul gave was about the role of the federal government and how much power they should have and if you listen to him speak and read his words on other subjects you might have a better understanding of his positions without jumping to conclusions.
Last edited: