Quote:
Originally Posted by Arne
Firstly, Ron Paul would have abolished the Jim Crow laws. Period.
Again, he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act as a whole, which included the repeal of freedom of association. That does not mean, he wouldn't have fought for repeal of the Jim Crow laws.
Secondly, more black people are locked up in prison today, than were slaves before the cival war. A huge part of that goes back to the war on drugs, which es will abolish, as well.
Thirdly, calling Ron Paul anything else than a Libertarian is just plain stupid.
|
I have never seen anywhere where Ron Paul said the federal government should have gotten involved with the Civil Rights movement, as in overriding the racist laws of the southern states. Frankly it seems you just made that up, but maybe you can prove otherwise.
Secondly, no, Paul is not a libertarian. He is an extreme states' rights conservative. For example, Paul is against the Texas v. Lawrence decision, which struck down Texas sodomy laws. A libertarian would support that decision since it protects an individual's right to have sex with another consenting adult. But Paul is not a libertarian, he is a states' rights conservative. He is against that decision because he believes it interferes with states' rights. Maybe you need to do a little more research on what this person you spend so much time defending actually believes.
Fact of the matter is he does pander to racists. Maybe he doesn't believe in white supremacy, but he does pander to the white supremacists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/us...agewanted=3&hp
And of course he there were all those racist comments in his news letters.