Ron Paul: Civil Rights Act Of 1964 'Destroyed' Privacy
154 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34022416]"Except that's to make sure people don't get hurt for being too damn big, how the hell is that even relevant. Are you serious?"
who are you to say who is allowed to ride? oh right, you're the business owner!
"That's RACE SPECIFIC THOUGH, wow, great job."
my bad, but does my mistake invalidate the point i'm making?
"They don't have the money... they can't pay, how is that discrimination? Are you insane?"
the price you set is an arbitrary requirement of your customer to receive service.
"i'll only provide this service if you ______"
what gives you the right to tell someone you won't serve them based on finance, but not based on race?
is "no shirts/shoes, no service" unfair then? that's discrimination but it's still perfectly legal as far as i'm aware. i'm not saying this discrimination is right or justified, but i don't see how it infringes on anyone's rights.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry but I can't possibly take you seriously any more.
"who are you to say who is allowed to ride? oh right, you're the business owner!"
[B]ITS FOR SAFETY[/B]
and if you can't pay for something, why should you get it for free? do you even realize how retarded your examples are?
"is "no shirts/shoes, no service" unfair then?"
Basic common sense says it's all about being hygienic and sensible. Letting gigantic fat slobs with no shirts on in isn't the same as letting a black man is.
"if you kick him out of your shop you aren't harming him anymore than you are if you deny him service based on how much money he has in his wallet."
We aren't saying you can't, we're saying you can't BASED ON RACE.
[QUOTE=J!NX;34022461]I'm sorry but I can't possibly take you seriously any more.
"who are you to say who is allowed to ride? oh right, you're the business owner!"
[B]ITS FOR SAFETY[/B]
and if you can't pay for something, why should you get it for free? do you even realize how retarded your examples are?[/QUOTE]
"its for safety"
uh ok, well if someone is stupid enough to believe blacks are a threat to their business, couldn't it still be considered "for safety"?
you're arguing based on the logic of what [B]should[/B] be done by the business owner, not by whatever legal or constitutional obligations the person has. you need to try and grasp that i'm not arguing because i think discrimination is awesome and should be endorsed or practiced by anyone, it'll help your argument a lot.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34022438]because they are both PRIVATE PROPERTY.[/QUOTE]
You can repeat that sentence ten thousand times. My answer is [b]SO FUCKING WHAT[/b].
If deciding what you want causes more damage to other people than it does good, why should it still be kept?
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34022459]
if you kick him out of your house you're harming him by denying him access to food and shelter[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but I didn't want to sell my food or shelter to anyone. If you offer a service and then say to some people "oh you can't have this service because I don't like your face" you are harming them for no good reason. Stopping people from taking your food and your shelter is in order to prevent you getting hurt.
[QUOTE=Glorbo;34022505]You can repeat that sentence ten thousand times. My answer is [b]SO FUCKING WHAT[/b].
If deciding what you want causes more damage to other people than it does good , why should it still be kept?[/QUOTE]
"so fucking what"?
my answer to that is [B]SO FUCKING WHAT[/B]
haha pwnd i win i win!!!!
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34022515]"so fucking what"?
my answer to that is [B]SO FUCKING WHAT[/B]
haha pwnd i win i win!!!![/QUOTE]
After I saw your ban history, I said "Yeah, I'm not even going to listen to him anymore"
because why even argue with you
you aren't going to realize how utterly retarded your examples are, there's no reasoning with you at all.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34022515]"so fucking what"?
my answer to that is [B]SO FUCKING WHAT[/B]
haha pwnd i win i win!!!![/QUOTE]
It is a valid answer considering your argument is basically "Self defense is technically murder, so I should be able to murder everyone for any reason I want to no? What's the difference if they're both murder?"
And compare that with "A house is a private property, so I should be able to kick anyone out of any private property for any reason I want to no? What's the difference if they're both private property?"
[QUOTE=Glorbo;34022505]You can repeat that sentence ten thousand times. My answer is [b]SO FUCKING WHAT[/b].
If deciding what you want causes more damage to other people than it does good , why should it still be kept?[/QUOTE]
you know what? You are right. And since deciding not to let homeless people sleep in your living room causes more damage to others than good, the government should move some homeless people into everyone's houses. They should also raise taxes to 60%, because that money could be used better by the government.
[QUOTE=J!NX;34022551]After I saw your ban history, I said "Yeah, I'm not even going to listen to him anymore"
because why even argue with you
you aren't going to realize how utterly retarded your examples are, there's no reasoning with you at all.[/QUOTE]
lmao
i've not been banned for 3 months and i think without tooting my own horn i've been behaving pretty well lately, i wouldn't peg you for the kind of person to just drop an argument and use "ban history" as an excuse for it
[editline]3rd January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Glorbo;34022582]It is a valid answer considering your argument is basically "Self defense is technically murder, so I should be able to murder everyone for any reason I want to no? What's the difference if they're both murder?"
And compare that with "A house is a private property, so I should be able to kick anyone out of any private property for any reason I want to no? What's the difference if they're both private property?"[/QUOTE]
thats actually not my argument but w/e makes you feel like you're winning
[editline]3rd January 2012[/editline]
UH OH HERE COMES THE INDISCRIMINATE DUMB RATINGS POST-ARGUMENT
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34022614]lmao
i've not been banned for 3 months and i think without tooting my own horn i've been behaving pretty well lately, i wouldn't peg you for the kind of person to just drop an argument and use "ban history" as an excuse for it
[editline]3rd January 2012[/editline]
thats actually not my argument but w/e makes you feel like you're winning[/QUOTE]
"I don't agree with discrimination but if they want to kick out blacks for being blacks from their store I'm OK with it"
yeah because that makes sense.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34022614]uH OH HERE COMES THE INDISCRIMINATE DUMB RATINGS POST-ARGUMENT[/QUOTE]
"I'm going to make myself look smart and witty by mocking J!NX for rating my dumb posts XXDDDD"
[QUOTE=J!NX;34022636]"I don't agree with discrimination but if they want to kick out blacks for being blacks from their store I'm OK with it"
yeah because that makes sense.
"I'm going to make myself look smart and witty by mocking J!NX for rating my dumb posts XXDDDD"[/QUOTE]
"i have a learning disability that prevents me from fully comprehending the concept of playing devils advocate"
"i'm going to show how not upset by the argument i am by going in and rating posts i've already seen, dumb"
[QUOTE=Nikota;34009065][url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/ron-paul-civil-rights-act_n_1178688.html[/url]
[release]WASHINGTON -- Despite recent accusations of racism and homophobia, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) stuck to his libertarian principles on Sunday,[b] criticizing the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it [i]"undermined the concept of liberty" and "destroyed the principle of private property and private choices."[/i] [/b]
"If you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can't do, and you ignore and undermine the principles of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms," Paul told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union." "And that's exactly what has happened. Look at what's happened with the PATRIOT Act. They can come into our houses, our bedrooms our businesses ... And it was started back then."
The Civil Rights Act repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination. Although Paul was not around to weigh in on the landmark legislation at the time, he had the chance to cast a symbolic vote against it in 2004, when the House of Representatives took up a resolution "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Paul was the only member who voted "no."
[b]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 [i]government, not the people[/i], that causes racial tensions by passing overreaching laws that institutionalize slavery and segregation.[/b] 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."
Paul's comments on how to improve race relations come at an interesting time, following the recent revelation of a series of racist and homophobic newsletters that were published under his name in the 1980s and 1990s. Paul has denounced the newsletters, and he says that although he was the publisher, he didn't write or review any of the offensive comments in them -- only the "economic parts."
"I'm the true civil libertarian when it comes to [race relations], and I think that people ought to, you know, look at my position there, rather than dwelling on eight sentences that I didn't write and didn't authorize and have been, you know, apologetic about," he told ABC's Jake Tapper on Sunday. "Because it shouldn't have been there, and it was terrible stuff."[/release][/QUOTE]
Troll logic?
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34022585]you know what? You are right. And since deciding not to let homeless people sleep in your living room causes more damage to others than good, the government should move some homeless people into everyone's houses. They should also raise taxes to 60%, because that money could be used better by the government.[/QUOTE]
Wrong. Sheltering homeless people damages me immensely, since I have to work much harder than I usually need to. It also might cause my house to get robbed or destroyed.
How does not offering black people service damage me?
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34022614]
thats actually not my argument but w/e makes you feel like you're winning
[/QUOTE]
Uhm, yes it is. It's exactly the argument.
[QUOTE=Zeke128;34009216][img]http://meta.filesmelt.com/downloader.php?file=ronpaul.png[/img][/QUOTE]
Pardon my ignorance, but who, exactly, are those two other people in the picture? Yes a KKK guy and a Nazi but I mean who's who?
[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;34022668]Pardon my ignorance, but who, exactly, are those two other people in the picture? Yes a KKK guy and a Nazi but I mean who's who?[/QUOTE]
i think its just the guy in the center who is both a KKK guy AND a nazi
[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;34022668]Pardon my ignorance, but who, exactly, are those two other people in the picture? Yes a KKK guy and a Nazi but I mean who's who?[/QUOTE]
The older dude is probably the KKK guy, and the kid is probably the Nazi considering the whole pretentious unlikable dickwad look he's got going on.
am i the only one that recognizes the person on the right is a woman?
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34022651]"i have a learning disability that prevents me from fully comprehending the concept of playing devils advocate"
"i'm going to show how not upset by the argument i am by going in and rating posts i've already seen, dumb"[/QUOTE]
if you weren't upset by dumb ratings why would you care
rofl wow
the reason I did it was to see if you'd react all butthurt , just like you were butthurt and left a comment on my page that one time
butthurt
[editline]2nd January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34022721]am i the only one that recognizes the person on the right is a woman?[/QUOTE]
I'm not blind like they are, at least.
[QUOTE=Glorbo;34022666]Wrong. Sheltering homeless people damages me immensely, since I have to work much harder than I usually need to. It also might cause my house to get robbed or destroyed.
How does not offering black people service damage me?
Uhm, yes it is. It's exactly the argument.[/QUOTE]
The Government will feed and cloth them, you will only house them. It will be no extra effort. And stop being discriminatory against homeless people.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34022743]The Government will feed and cloth them, you will only house them. It will be no extra effort. And stop being discriminatory against homeless people.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean "only house them"? Does that include paying for their gas, their electricity, their water, their living space? Because if the government pays for all of that they're basically living in a different apartment than me.
[QUOTE=J!NX;34022722]if you weren't upset by dumb ratings why would you care
rofl wow
the reason I did it was to see if you'd react all butthurt , just like you were butthurt and left a comment on my page that one time
butthurt
[editline]2nd January 2012[/editline]
I'm not blind like they are, at least.[/QUOTE]
i was about to say we were at a stalemate but i saw that you edited your post and used the word "butthurt"
check and mate
[QUOTE=Glorbo;34022772]What do you mean "only house them"? Does that include paying for their gas, their electricity, their water, their living space? Because if the government pays for all of that they're basically living in a different apartment than me.[/QUOTE]
Yes. You see, the government decided it was also better if everyone was put into state owned condos. It would be better in the long run. (see where the logic of "the government can do it it it's for the greater good" goes?)
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34022721]am i the only one that recognizes the person on the right is a woman?[/QUOTE]
I figured it was just an incredibly effeminate guy
it's funny because he actually said this years ago
he actually does have a point imo
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34022787]i was about to say we were at a stalemate but i saw that you edited your post and used the word "butthurt"
check and mate[/QUOTE]
pls stop being butthurt
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34022817]Yes. You see, the government decided it was also better if everyone was put into state owned condos. It would be better in the long run. (see where the logic of "the government can do it it it's for the greater good" goes?)[/QUOTE]
You don't have any long term goals using these statements.
A law should cause good in both the long run and the short run, and have more benefit than damage.
Putting everyone into state owned condos was tried in soviet and socialist countries and it failed in the long run. Therefor, it should not be done.
Likewise, not providing service to people based on gender offers no real benefit to the store but damages an entire sector of the population immensely, and creates discrimination against them, reducing their economic status in the long run. Therefor, it should not be done.
[QUOTE=Glorbo;34022582]It is a valid answer considering your argument is basically "Self defense is technically murder, so I should be able to murder everyone for any reason I want to no? What's the difference if they're both murder?"
And compare that with "A house is a private property, so I should be able to kick anyone out of any private property for any reason I want to no? What's the difference if they're both private property?"[/QUOTE]
self defense isn't murder though. a business is private property unless it's publicly funded.
this whole argument is irrelevant because you actually can kick anyone out of your privately owned business for any reason, including race.
[QUOTE=Glorbo;34022916]You don't have any long term goals using these statements.
A law should cause good in both the long run and the short run, and have more benefit than damage.
Putting everyone into state owned condos was tried in soviet and socialist countries and it failed in the long run. Therefor, it should not be done.
Likewise, not providing service to people based on gender offers no real benefit to the store but damages an entire sector of the population immensely, and creates discrimination against them, reducing their economic status in the long run. Therefor, it should not be done.[/QUOTE]
Yes I do. I am using these statements to show that saying the government can do whatever it wants for the greater good is stupid. Shops are private property, and therefore the owners have rights. You can't revoke those rights because the government thinks it doesn't create enough good.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34021004]somewhat valid point, but by that logic everyone is entitled to access to everyone's homes considering they are led to by public roads and protected by public officials[/QUOTE]
I think you missed my point on that.
If someone is claiming to want a 'hands off' freedom from the government(ie don't limit my rights), how does that same person turn around and benefit by accepting a place in the same society that is protected/supplied/run by that same government?
It's hypocritical at best, wanting all the benefits of being in the US without being beholden to the laws that make that life possible.
So no, I'm not saying anyone is 'entitled' to anything belonging to someone else. I'm saying the homeowner has to pay his or her property taxes because he or she benefits from those services(if those services are paid by taxes). It's why anti-war people can't say "I want my tax dollars to go towards paying for anything except nuclear weapons". It's why childless people can't say "I don't think I should have to pay taxes that are spent on public schools, since I have no kids to send to school."
You get to pick and choose your representation in government, you don't get to pick and choose what aspects of the government you want and don't want to take part in, in terms of law. If there is something you don't want(ie illegal immigrants), you influence things by empowering representatives to address that.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34023313]Yes I do. I am using these statements to show that saying the government can do whatever it wants for the greater good is stupid. Shops are private property, and therefore the owners have rights. You can't revoke those rights because the government thinks it doesn't create enough good.[/QUOTE]I've never seen a list of rights for businesses. In fact, there is a large movement trying to make sure businesses don't get rights. You know, like getting Corporate person-hood removed. Businesses should be able to do whatever they want within the confines of the law the and the rights of others, not the other way around. Being a business should not give you free reign to do whatever the hell you want.
I'd like to criticize certain individuals, regardless of if they are supposedly playing devil's advocate or whatever, for quite frankly being hypocrites. Some of you have clung to the Occupy movement and supposedly hold their views, yet you come in here and go off about how businesses should basically be able to do whatever the hell they like for no reason other than being businesses. And quite frankly, its sickening to see.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;34023794]I think you missed my point on that.
If someone is claiming to want a 'hands off' freedom from the government(ie don't limit my rights), how does that same person turn around and benefit by accepting a place in the same society that is protected/supplied/run by that same government?
It's hypocritical at best, wanting all the benefits of being in the US without being beholden to the laws that make that life possible.
So no, I'm not saying anyone is 'entitled' to anything belonging to someone else. I'm saying the homeowner has to pay his or her property taxes because he or she benefits from those services(if those services are paid by taxes). It's why anti-war people can't say "I want my tax dollars to go towards paying for anything except nuclear weapons". It's why childless people can't say "I don't think I should have to pay taxes that are spent on public schools, since I have no kids to send to school."
You get to pick and choose your representation in government, you don't get to pick and choose what aspects of the government you want and don't want to take part in.[/QUOTE]
i'm not sure what your point is to be honest, could you be a bit more specific?
[editline]3rd January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34023828]I've never seen a list of rights for businesses. In fact, there is a large movement trying to make sure businesses don't get rights. You know, like getting Corporate person-hood removed. Businesses should be able to do whatever they want within the confines of the law the and the rights of others, not the other way around. Being a business should not give you free reign to do whatever the hell you want.
I'd like to criticize certain individuals, regardless of if they are supposedly playing devil's advocate or whatever, for quite frankly being hypocrites. Some of you have clung to the Occupy movement and supposedly hold their views, yet you come in here and go off about how businesses should basically be able to do whatever the hell they like for no reason other than being businesses. And quite frankly, its sickening to see.[/QUOTE]
this isn't a right of the corporations, it's a right of the people who own these businesses
the business is private property, and whoever owns that property can treat it like it's private (because it is). why would you criticize me for being a hypocrite if you apparently understand that i'm only playing devils advocate and i don't endorse or believe in the outcome of my arguments?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.