The Company Ron Paul Keeps

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Torie, IMO, this sort of criticism is beneath you.  This is standard-fare dirt-digging by a frightened beltway establishment GOP.

I think it's entirely fair to raise the issue of judgment, but if Ron responds appropriately it should be a mostly settled issue as to racism.

Oh bullsh!t, don't act like it's typical mudslinging politics to bring up Paul's history of extremely poor judgement. He publishes a series of newsletters with really vitrolic racist and homophobic content for several years and no-one can even bring it up? Please.

BTW, when these quotes first surfaced in 1996, Paul didn't deny authorship and actually defended the comments by saying that they were in the context of - and I quote - "current events and statistical reports of the time".

Even if you buy that Paul didn't write this, he

A) Associates with people who did
B) Was clearly okay with them being published

His opposition to the Civil Rights Act, for example, is on record and has nothing to do with the newsletters. Personally, I don't think someone who opposes legislating to ensure basic rights for African-Americans is fit to be President.

Funny, that was covered a couple of posts ago. Specifically,

http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2001-10-01/feature7

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It helps to read the thread before posting nonsense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed it is. Specifically, he agrees with the vast majority of it, but a very specific section (specifically designating businesses as public venues and forcing "equal treatment) he doesn't and thus he opposes it. If anything, one could argue supporters of it are racist; why can't a black man keep a member of the KKK from eating at his restaurant? It does absolutely nothing to solve complex issues, which require changes in beliefs from all people, not ham-fisted laws.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

If anything, one could argue supporters of it are racist; why can't a black man keep a member of the KKK from eating at his restaurant? It does absolutely nothing to solve complex issues, which require changes in beliefs from all people, not ham-fisted laws.

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a ham-fisted law that does nothing to solve complex issues, why can blacks eat at all white-owned restaurants?

If Glass-Steagall's repeal was bad, why did it let banks act both as investment banks AND commercial banks as was intended?

It certainly hasn't solved racial tension in the slightest, nor has it led to much improvement in living standard. I'm sure KKK members eating at black-owned restaurants appreciate it, though.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

If anything, one could argue supporters of it are racist; why can't a black man keep a member of the KKK from eating at his restaurant? It does absolutely nothing to solve complex issues, which require changes in beliefs from all people, not ham-fisted laws.

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a ham-fisted law that does nothing to solve complex issues, why can blacks eat at all white-owned restaurants?

If Glass-Steagall's repeal was bad, why did it let banks act both as investment banks AND commercial banks as was intended?

It certainly hasn't solved racial tension in the slightest, nor has it led to much improvement in living standard. I'm sure KKK members eating at black-owned restaurants appreciate it, though.

Your second point, without any basis in reality, demonstrates your need to bring an entirely irrelevant piece of legislation into this discussion.

If racial tensions are as bad as they were in the 1960s, then this would explain the lynchings of 2011, not to mention the fact that blacks still cannot vote, or the current President being a redneck who is as white as snow.  Thanks for your brilliant analysis.  If you knew anything about the KKK, also, you would understand their desire to be separate from blacks would provide them a strong disincentive to be frequenting 'black-owned' restaurants.

"irrelevant piece of legislation"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lolno. You fail to realize that that proves as much as saying "The law changed the law, therefore it worked". Anyway, blacks could eat at white-owned restaurants before 1964, too, just not at restaurants owned by racist idiots (and why they would want to eat there besides as a form of protest is a mystery to me).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did you miss the part where I said "Most of it was good, but a small part wasn't"? I was unaware the change in restaurant resulted in such broad-based results.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you knew anything about black people, you would understand their desire to be separate from racists would provide them a strong disincentive to be frequenting 'racist-owned' restaurants.

Ignoring the fact that you dodged my point altogether, it does bring up the point that racist restaurant owners would generally make less of a profit than their non-racist contemporaries, and thus racism would be an unsuccessful business policy. In fact, state laws are basically required for it to work even slightly. In South Africa, companies were actually forced by the government to pick less-qualified whites over blacks, which caused many businesses to find loopholes to hire the blacks that were pointlessly unemployed (many of whom ended up leaving, causing big problems for SA in the present day). You don't see that stuff happening when the government isn't actively causing it.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

I don't think blacks were interested in necessarily eating at restaurants owned by racists; they were more concerned with being able to eat at restaurants altogether.  In Jim Crow era Mississippi, there were more hotels willing to accommodate dogs than blacks.  An undistorted free market simply was not able to adequately address the grievances of black citizens in these areas, which is why your reliance on this absurd hypothetical of the unfortunate black restaurant owner being 'forced' to serve members of the KKK is so ludicrous.  Racism was simply too prevalent in the Deep South to warrant anything less than mandated integration.  Any talking points about freedom of association completely ignore just how dire the living conditions of blacks truly were.

Yeah, every single southerner was an incredible racist who would forgo what would amount to thousands of bucks in exclusive profits just because they are so hateful. That somehow sounds like a rather racist statement.

Again, were that the case, South African companies wouldn't have found ways to hire blacks for jobs they legally weren't supposed to, seeing as how South Africa was much, much worse than the American south.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

I don't think blacks were interested in necessarily eating at restaurants owned by racists; they were more concerned with being able to eat at restaurants altogether.  In Jim Crow era Mississippi, there were more hotels willing to accommodate dogs than blacks.  An undistorted free market simply was not able to adequately address the grievances of black citizens in these areas, which is why your reliance on this absurd hypothetical of the unfortunate black restaurant owner being 'forced' to serve members of the KKK is so ludicrous.  Racism was simply too prevalent in the Deep South to warrant anything less than mandated integration.  Any talking points about freedom of association completely ignore just how dire the living conditions of blacks truly were.

Yeah, every single southerner was an incredible racist who would forgo what would amount to thousands of bucks in exclusive profits just because they are so hateful. That somehow sounds like a rather racist statement.

You can repeat this argument of principle as many times as you'd like, but the facts speak for themselves.  The public accommodation provisions of the Civil Rights Act resulted in remarkable progress in providing opportunities for blacks, and the motivation of 'exclusive profits' that existed before that did not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/size]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/color][/size]

Jim Crow laws don't grow on trees, you know. They also aren't invented by restaurant owners and enforced by God. They are created by government, and ending Jim Crow is one of the good things the CRA did. I think we need another

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh hey, its the "all Southerners are racist" story again.

Even assuming southern whites are racist, the number of blacks in many of these places would counterbalance even that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And the CRA provisions regarding restaurants changed this... how? Hardcore KKK types could just as easily do the same to black owned restaurants or homes. Furthermore, I was unaware things like assault, arson and murder were totally legal before the CRA. Thanks for informing me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The trash coming from Romney's religion demonstrates that racists have a strong niche among his base.

The trash coming from Obama's preacher demonstrates that racists have a strong niche among Democrats.

Come on. Are you going to actually listen to what has already been said, or will you stick your head in the sand and make responses at what you think I'm saying?

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Prove it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay. There's your problem; a crooked legal system. That still exists, actually; ever wonder why so many blacks and latinos are prosecuted/given harsher treatment for drug crime?

Again, there was one specific part of the CRA that was bad. The vast majority of it was good, so stop claiming I say otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What are you saying here?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're not looking at the root of the problem. Was it white restaurant owners not letting blacks into their restaurants, or was it a corrupt legal system that encouraged discrimination in the first place? Stop it with the strawmen.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd like some of what you're smoking

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So? They were elected; what are you arguing against exactly? The Soviets had political support too when they took over, but I don't think you would claim that Russian businessmen were responsible for the ascension of the Communists.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Explain how you get "Government passes laws preventing restaurants from serving blacks" to become "evil restaurants are forced to serve blacks by government"

Were southern businesses going to discriminate with or without government support, they wouldn't need government help to do so and the "racist southerners" wouldn't have passed any laws in the first place. Ergo, it was government that caused the problem in the first place (stop it with the strawmen) and thus you're point is moot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe if you read back a bit rather than making stupid arguments you'd have a clue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(LOLGENERALIZATIONLOL)

"All Germans before the War were racist!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_germany

All Russians hate Ukrainians!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Soviet_Union_%281927%E2%80%931953%29

Proof is for losers! I can make baseless claims about people with vague generalizations and come out on top!"

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

So the original point of this thread was whether racist/crackpot articles in paul's newsletter are indicative of racism and apologists for segregation being prominent among his supporters. After multiple posts claiming that government dragged white southern businessmen kicking and screaming into compliance with jim crow laws, and the true historical lesson here is adhering to the invisable hand of the market rather than government intervention, I think the point is proven.

Add a couple layers of cluelessness to a typical paultard, which mbd fortunately isn't, and suddenly the ideas in paul's newsletter begin to make sense.

Mbd's posts here are better entertainment than cable!

What.

Are you going to make an actual argument at some point or not?

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Why is it that almost all Ron Paul threads devolve into Strawmanpalooza?

And I'm asking this of all sides.

Heavy drinking.