The Pauls- a Blast From the Past
While we are on the subject of the delightful racial views of the Paul family, perhaps it would be pleasant to take a stroll down memory lane, way back to 2004:
"Last week, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The heroic Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No. Here is his statement. ~ Ed."
Well, not all of it. My readership is hardly large enough that I can afford to having you dying of boredom. Here's just a taste:
"Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676... contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty."
Diminishing individual liberty of white people to keep those filthy Negroes out of their stores and restaurants. Of course, Mr. Paul has nothing to say about the individual liberty of those aforementioned Negroes to actually patronize those stores and restaurants- a liberty that is of apparently of no value in the considered reflection of Mr. Paul.
Now, as to increasing racial tensions from Whites toward Blacks, well, perhaps that is true. I suppose Blacks should have just kept to their place, rather than risking having whites feel increased tension.
"Last week, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The heroic Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No. Here is his statement. ~ Ed."
Well, not all of it. My readership is hardly large enough that I can afford to having you dying of boredom. Here's just a taste:
"Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676... contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty."
Diminishing individual liberty of white people to keep those filthy Negroes out of their stores and restaurants. Of course, Mr. Paul has nothing to say about the individual liberty of those aforementioned Negroes to actually patronize those stores and restaurants- a liberty that is of apparently of no value in the considered reflection of Mr. Paul.
Now, as to increasing racial tensions from Whites toward Blacks, well, perhaps that is true. I suppose Blacks should have just kept to their place, rather than risking having whites feel increased tension.
Comments
In the short run, possibly. But a commenter who spoke to that issue on Talking Points Memo said that breaking down those barriers allowed the younger generations to interact with each other, thereby allowing the normally segregated south to see that accepting people for who they are instead of what color they are is a way to strengthen one's community.
I remember visiting Montgomery, Ala., a while back and having lunch in a downtown restaurant.
African Americans and whites were sitting side-by-side enjoying their integrated lunches while A.A. and white waitresses served them.
This, of course, would have been unheard of just 60 years ago.
For supposedly smart men, the Pauls are appallingly dumb.