Ron Paul on the Verge of Going Third Party?

Jan 12, 2008 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: National Ledger

Rep. Ron Paul's 1988 Libertarian Presidential campaign started with great promise: A former four-term Republican US Congressman running on the ticket of America's third largest party. via National Ledger

Comments
27,701 - 27,720 of 29,296 Comments Last updated May 13, 2014

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Lake Charles, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28682
Jul 29, 2012
 
LORAX wrote:
Pretty sure Affirmative Action came from the second round of Civil Rights in 1965. There was language that specifically stated a system would be developed to ensure that population numbers would be consistent with employment and enrollment numbers. So technically, it and the several bills that supported the movement did wish to solve racial inequality with mandated discrimination..... Reality - we needed affirmative action to move past deep seeded bigotry and discrimination. Now -in order to prevent that balance that has been achieved/remedied we need to remove it - as the solution has now become the problem.
Great post.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Lake Charles, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28683
Jul 29, 2012
 
LORAX wrote:
Pretty sure Affirmative Action came from the second round of Civil Rights in 1965. There was language that specifically stated a system would be developed to ensure that population numbers would be consistent with employment and enrollment numbers. So technically, it and the several bills that supported the movement did wish to solve racial inequality with mandated discrimination..... Reality - we needed affirmative action to move past deep seeded bigotry and discrimination. Now -in order to prevent that balance that has been achieved/remedied we need to remove it - as the solution has now become the problem.
That's one example of many that should have or was supposed to be a temporary law. Now with so many dependent on those laws, it will be next to impossible to repeal them or remove them.
bottlecap

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28684
Jul 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LORAX wrote:
Pretty sure Affirmative Action came from the second round of Civil Rights in 1965. There was language that specifically stated a system would be developed to ensure that population numbers would be consistent with employment and enrollment numbers. So technically, it and the several bills that supported the movement did wish to solve racial inequality with mandated discrimination..... Reality - we needed affirmative action to move past deep seeded bigotry and discrimination. Now -in order to prevent that balance that has been achieved/remedied we need to remove it - as the solution has now become the problem.
"Affirmative Action" was the fault line between the virtue of equal civil rights AND the Privleged Advantage practiced today.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmativetim...

Sept. 24, 1965 Executive Order 11246 enforces affirmative action for the first time

Issued by President Johnson, the executive order requires government contractors to "take affirmative action" toward prospective minority employees in all aspects of hiring and employment. Contractors must take specific measures to ensure equality in hiring and must document these efforts. On Oct. 13, 1967, the order was amended to cover discrimination on the basis of gender.
----------
Interesting in that the crooked war-monger President, LBJ, would go to Congress to get "civil rights" BUT bypassed Congress with an Executive Order in the case of the questionable "Affirmative Action". LBJ, by bypassing Congress, planted the seeds of racial strife and division that we citizens have to deal with today.
bottlecap

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28685
Jul 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Bill R wrote:
<quoted text>
B-cap, I find it intriguing how often people justify their
opposition to the Civil Rights Act by pointing out the
failures of those measures, laws, and programs that weren't
even a part of Civil Rights Act. I don't believe that the
attempt to link them together is unintentional.
You made the point of a black family driving hundreds of miles on vacation and then, when stopping, not knowing if they would be accepred in an eating establishment. And the point is well-taken
as it is an injustice.

It should also be noted that the first Civil Rights Bill since Reconstrution was initiated by Eisenhower in 1957 AND that LBJ opposed the Bill. Plus, Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights in a greater percentage then the Democrats.

However, It was at the implementation of "Affirmative Action" that the country made a Wrong Turn, with LBJ bypassing Congress thru an executive order. And Civil Rights history is a little muddled in this atmoshere of political correctness, so the motives of those questioning the effects of the civil rights movement should not be disparaged without a careful hearing.

Since: Dec 10

Allentown, Pa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28686
Jul 29, 2012
 
bottlecap wrote:
<quoted text>

Interesting in that the crooked war-monger President, LBJ, would go to Congress to get "civil rights" BUT bypassed Congress with an Executive Order in the case of the questionable "Affirmative Action". LBJ, by bypassing Congress, planted the seeds of racial strife and division that we citizens have to deal with today.
Exactamundo! There is no true equality when it comes to racial matters; 1 race of people will always suffer in order to propel the other race. Affirmitive Action is as anti-equality as you can get; it was made to do the very same things that it's in opposition to!

Now even though Rand and Ron spoke out against it, that in itself takes courage. In today's politicaL climate, speaking out against Civil Rights is suicide! Now I don't necessarily think it was a terrible idea, just that it was a terrible idea to force it on an entire nation. Again, the 10th Amendment allows for each state to decide.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Lake Charles, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28687
Jul 29, 2012
 
We are sooooo far past the need for Affirmative Action. Everywhere you look, there are white teenagers and early adults dressing like they are black, talking like they are black and having interracial babies. Does that sound like Black Americans are not accepted?
bottlecap

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28688
Jul 29, 2012
 
Zachary_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Affirmitive Action favors one race over another, so that is indeed racist, and it makes distinctions based on the amount of melanin in one's skin, which was NOT endorsed by MLK. But AA also robs black people of their dignity; if I were a minority, I would much rather accomplish a task on my own self worth and iniative, rather then have the goalposts moved so I can succseed. Being graded on a curve never let's a black person know if they are on point with everyone else, so in other words, AA is instituitionalized cheating.
The instituion that AA was made to go directly agasinst (segregation and Jim Crow) is a thing of the past, as should AA also be a relic of the past!

Last time I bothered to check, there was no mind control clause in the 1st Amendmnet- it protects ANY type of free speech. I got news for all you leftists- racists fight in our wars and pay taxes! There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to force people to associate with who they do not want to. The Civil Rights Act should've been a state by state thing, and the 10th Amendment guarantees the state the right to do what is necessary.
1) I'm in agreement with you on "Affirmative Action".

2) Also, in Freedom of Association.

3) As to the Civil Rights Bill itself, I favor it, as it levels the playing field. Think of it as going to a baseball game with all types of people in the stands watching the game. Everbody is happy at the fact that each team gets three out and nine innings to play the game. That is how I look at the Civil Rights Bill.

4) The States have a right to challenge any Federal Law under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. Public discourse and proceedings are always helpful. The Supreme Court has the final say.

Since: Dec 10

Allentown, Pa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28689
Jul 29, 2012
 
bottlecap wrote:
<quoted text>

3) As to the Civil Rights Bill itself, I favor it, as it levels the playing field. Think of it as going to a baseball game with all types of people in the stands watching the game. Everbody is happy at the fact that each team gets three out and nine innings to play the game. That is how I look at the Civil Rights Bill.
I do not favor the Civil Rights Bill as it was put into action. The fact of the matter is that we weren’t allowed to vote whether we wanted to integrate or not. Doesn’t that tell you something? For every single important matter, a vote is taken. The left know that if there were a vote, integration would’ve just been a pipe dream, so they forced it on us. The vast majority of blacks did not care for it, and most whites definitely did not want it. The results speak for themselves. Crime, poverty, violence, homelessness. Blacks, as a whole, were well taken care of under Jim Crow laws. Sure, they had to sit in the back of a bus, and settle for demeaning jobs, but at least they were allowed to work, and had money to take a bus. Sure, there was black poverty during segregation, but integration has enhanced it and magnified it like never before. Some black ghettos resemble Zimbabwe or the Congo; during segregation, they were right in blaming the whites. But now they have no one to blame but the soulless figure staring back at them in the mirror. Integration has created 1000s of more "racists" then before.

Now, playing devil's advocte, we have to expect racial strife. I mean, you cannot take people from 1000s of miles away, bring them to a foreign land, make them slaves, then separate yourself from them in soceity, then eventually give them total freedom and expect everything to be rainbows and kittens.
Bill R

Long Beach, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28690
Jul 30, 2012
 
LORAX wrote:
<quoted text>
Not easily accessible but returned to the medical model. I will use Great Britain and Heroin. The history is that GB has a small population of chronic heroin users. They tried the draconian approach and adopted very strict criminal sanctions. Their small population turned to a huge population and literally crippled the criminal justice system. They placed problem in a medical model and now they have one of the lowest use rates and by far one of the highest reform/recovery rates in the world.
So, your logic is that no other factors need to be considered
other than that "draconian approach?" No economic factors?
No cultural factors? Only that "draconian approach?"

Incidentally, may I then assume that you are endorsing the
approach of the U.K.'s National Health System? And may I also
assume that the success rates are not receiving their data
from the NHS or related bodies?

Finally, are you suggesting that the U.K.'s economic and
cultural decline is a delusion of some sort? Are you suggesting
that your cherished "medical model" has done any more to
slow or end the decline of Britain than the War on Drugs has
slowed or ended the decline of America?

Try again. Provide me with an example that has legalized
the use of hard drugs that has enjoyed a fabulous economic
and cultural burst of achievement or development.
Bill R

Long Beach, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28691
Jul 30, 2012
 
Zachary_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not favor the Civil Rights Bill as it was put into action. The fact of the matter is that we weren’t allowed to vote whether we wanted to integrate or not. Doesn’t that tell you something? For every single important matter, a vote is taken. The left know that if there were a vote, integration would’ve just been a pipe dream, so they forced it on us. The vast majority of blacks did not care for it, and most whites definitely did not want it. The results speak for themselves. Crime, poverty, violence, homelessness. Blacks, as a whole, were well taken care of under Jim Crow laws. Sure, they had to sit in the back of a bus, and settle for demeaning jobs, but at least they were allowed to work, and had money to take a bus. Sure, there was black poverty during segregation, but integration has enhanced it and magnified it like never before. Some black ghettos resemble Zimbabwe or the Congo; during segregation, they were right in blaming the whites. But now they have no one to blame but the soulless figure staring back at them in the mirror. Integration has created 1000s of more "racists" then before.
Now, playing devil's advocte, we have to expect racial strife. I mean, you cannot take people from 1000s of miles away, bring them to a foreign land, make them slaves, then separate yourself from them in soceity, then eventually give them total freedom and expect everything to be rainbows and kittens.
Could you reference in the Constitution the concept that
"for every single important matter, a vote is taken?" Somehow
my frayed copy seems to have lost a page somewhere. Or have
you confused that with the idea that we elect people to
represent us in sum and various fashions to (OMG) speak for
or represent us as a people?

Your words regarding "Jim Crow laws" only prove your complete
ignorance and I am amazed that you would prove it to us here
on this thread. Your words, in fact, are the sort which have
harmed Ron Paul for years now .... somehow the underbelly of
ignorant white America finds a home among many other Ron Paul
supporters who vomit at the very idea that Jim Crow laws were
a good thing for your kindly black folk who knew their place.

A side bar of sorts: 4 years ago several blatantly racist
organizations gave money to Ron Paul's campaign and when
questioned about it he explained that he has no control over
those who contribute to his campaign and rather than return
the money they donated (relatively small sums because those
belonging to such groups are generally ignorant and poor as
a result of that ignorance), he declared he would make good
use of the money.

Presumably the same logic applies to the DNC and the RNC for
accepting money for their candidates. Thank you, Goldman
Sachs, etc., etc., and so forth. Mind you, I am not discussing
the AMOUNT of money. I am discussing the principle expressed
by Ron Paul where he explained that he has no control over
what his contributors believed but would make good use of their
money for what he believed. If the reasoning works for Paul
it must also work Obama and Romney.

It is hell being consistent, isn't it?

Now, put out the kerosene lantern and get some sleep. Electricity
is coming any day now.

“UNLESS !!!!!!!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28692
Jul 30, 2012
 
Bill R wrote:
<quoted text>
So, your logic is that no other factors need to be considered
other than that "draconian approach?" No economic factors?
No cultural factors? Only that "draconian approach?"
Incidentally, may I then assume that you are endorsing the
approach of the U.K.'s National Health System? And may I also
assume that the success rates are not receiving their data
from the NHS or related bodies?
Finally, are you suggesting that the U.K.'s economic and
cultural decline is a delusion of some sort? Are you suggesting
that your cherished "medical model" has done any more to
slow or end the decline of Britain than the War on Drugs has
slowed or ended the decline of America?
Try again. Provide me with an example that has legalized
the use of hard drugs that has enjoyed a fabulous economic
and cultural burst of achievement or development.
That's exactly your problem my myopic friend, you assume far too much. We are discussing in the larger picture, for me to you, consistent thinking. For the construct of this particular tangent -central authority vs. freedom using the subject of The War on Drugs. I never claimed a cultural burst of achievement or development - where the f did that come from? What I said and have always said is that if you leave states to decide for themselves they will almost always (some definite exceptions) make a better course of action than the federal government. You asked for an example where drugs were legal and it was better for society. As my post indicated that GB had done so, but not legalizing but decriminalizing under a medical model. Of course other factors attribute to the overall society and the subject of healthcare should be addressed. btw - you dont need socialized/centralized medicine for a medical model. BUT the point I was discussing was - If a central criminal approach was better than something else. My point was that almost anything else is better than the reality of INSTITUTIONAL RACIAL DISCRIMINATION as perpetuated by OUR WAR ON DRUGS. Be consistent man. We had no problem statistically or comparatively with drugs or youth usage of drugs until we created one - with the war on drugs and we certainly did not incarcerate a huge segment of our society. And just for the record since you separate one drug from another. If you were to legalize cannabis this country would see a massive economic boom and dozens if not more industries. The "hard" drugs make up a small percentage of U.S. use and have little economic impact other than transferring the black market economy to the legal economy and an average of $37K/year (1999 numbers) per inmate for over 1 million individuals. But again over 85% of those individuals are there for pot, a drug you say you don't mind but in its current legal status perpetuates the elimination of your rights. For the remaining 15% of our hard core users - we could give them the best medicinal/treatment model in the world for a small fraction of the incarceration costs alone and have the resources to monitor each and every one of them. How many deaths would be avoided? How many families broken? Help with the disease - because if alcohol addiction is a disease than heroin addiction certainly is. I'm a recovering nicotine addict - which dwarfs all other drugs, legal or not combined, in consumption and medical costs and death. It has also been proven to be more addicting than heroin. And yet somehow we justify and defend its use, acceptance and even promotion in our society. Not logical, consistent, or ethical. I do not advocate a war on nicotine either. I abdicate returning to freedom and letting individuals make their choices and deal with the reality they create and according to the Constitution the only authorities able to interfere with that is the States and the People, NOT the federal government.

“UNLESS !!!!!!!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28693
Jul 30, 2012
 
Out of the 1.3 million individuals we federally incarcerate in the War on Drugs - over 75% are African American males 18-35.
Mill

Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28694
Jul 30, 2012
 
LORAX wrote:
Out of the 1.3 million individuals we federally incarcerate in the War on Drugs - over 75% are African American males 18-35.
I think that you are right. This whole war on drugs just like another mindless wars cause only victims and financial losses.
End of all wars, saving money for normal, noble goals just like real needs of country, if aid for another countries then real honest aid and not inciting to civil wars and military equipment and supplying with weapons.
And what about drugs and alcohol. It must be changes in mentality of people. Nobody is forced to take drugs, drink alcohol or run with weapon and shoot at another people. People make it, because they want and they like it, it is empty, selfish and very oft criminal life-style.

Since: Dec 10

Allentown, Pa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28695
Jul 30, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

Bill R wrote:
<quoted text>
Could you reference in the Constitution the concept that
"for every single important matter, a vote is taken?" Somehow
my frayed copy seems to have lost a page somewhere. Or have
you confused that with the idea that we elect people to
represent us in sum and various fashions to (OMG) speak for
or represent us as a people?
Is it right that 1 man, the President, should force the entire population to do something that he thinks is right? As a previous poster mentioned, LBJ bypassed "the elected people to represent us and speak for us" to usher in this nightmare known as integration. Kindly quote where I said that it's in the Constitution that every important matter comes to a vote, or else please retract your spurious and hyperbolic assertion, thanks.
Your words regarding "Jim Crow laws" only prove your complete
ignorance and I am amazed that you would prove it to us here
on this thread. Your words, in fact, are the sort which have
harmed Ron Paul for years now .... somehow the underbelly of
ignorant white America finds a home among many other Ron Paul
supporters who vomit at the very idea that Jim Crow laws were
a good thing for your kindly black folk who knew their place.
The need for Affirmitive Action for blacks is as good as indicator as any that we are not all the same. We spend billions of $ every year in an attempt to do the impossible. Equal opportunity certainly doe not mean "equal outcome." What really irks me is this money could be much better spent repairing things at home, like re-building the nation's infrastructure, and funding medical breakthroughs. There is nothing more laughable then the people who mistakenly beleive that "we are all the same." During the Jim Crow era, any black-on-whatever crime was far less common, because they were actually punished for it. Our system has turned 'crime' into a leisurely stay in an all-exclusive hotel with fitness facilities and any food you can think up an excuse for.

60 years of forced integration has created more racial strife and hatred then the Jim Crow era ever did, not to mention it also set back blacks 400 years. Non-white people usually prefer to live amongst themselves, but white people are not allowed to; they are called racist by the left when they begin to gather amongst themselves, yet Chinatown and the Bronx can have 99% non-whites and be perfectly fine. It really must be a burden to be so facetious! Segregation is the way most people prefer to live, now their are a few exceptions of course, but for the most part it is in par. "Birds of a feather flock together."
A side bar of sorts: 4 years ago several blatantly racist
organizations gave money to Ron Paul's campaign and when
questioned about it he explained that he has no control over
those who contribute to his campaign and rather than return
the money they donated (relatively small sums because those
belonging to such groups are generally ignorant and poor as
a result of that ignorance), he declared he would make good
use of the money.
Your point being? Ron Paul neither associates with them or supports them. Obama has lambasted Bain Capital, yet in 2008 and in 2011 he recieved campaign donations from them. So it's okay if Obama keeps their money, but Ron Paul should give money back from people who he doesn't support? Hypocritical much? In 2008 the New Black Panther party had their symbol and endorsement on Obama's web page. How would the left react if a white nationalist party had their endorsement on Ron Paul's webpage? It must be hard being this much of a hypocrite!
bottlecap

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28696
Jul 30, 2012
 
I think it is important to get back to 2012 because there are some CRITICAL ISSUES today that need to be addressed ASAP!!

And it happens that Ron Paul is the "Tip of the Spear" in two of those issues.

1) Internet Freedom

2) Reigning in the Federal Reserve

Obama is with the Bankers and is their proxy representative. He is also for Internet Censorship.

Paul is with the average citizen.

Romney is ????? It remains to be seen.
bottlecap

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28697
Jul 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Bill R wrote:
<quoted text>
.... that is to say, everything boils down to whether
something is good or bad business. To me that is moral
bankruptcy. Some things just are: if I can pay the price
for a meal or a room and your sign says "Open," you owe me
for having parked my car under the false pretense that you
would serve me or provide services.
That is the Libertarian Fallacy. Paul believes that people, left to their own devices will do what is right in the end.

There is legitimate role of government, ie, insuring a level playing field in the public square.

On the other hand, something like forced busing of kids from one neighborhood to another for school for purposes of racial quotas is a GROSS Overreach and has been a factor in the collapse of the public school system.

Certainly, those kids who had their educational opportunity stolen from them, as well as those parents who may have had to send their kids to a private school for a decent education, should be financially compensated.

Since: Jul 11

Laurel, MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28698
Jul 30, 2012
 
ron paul was made out to be a fool because he is a peaceful man
Bill R

Long Beach, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28699
Jul 30, 2012
 
Zachary_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it right that 1 man, the President, should force the entire population to do something that he thinks is right? As a previous poster mentioned, LBJ bypassed "the elected people to represent us and speak for us" to usher in this nightmare known as integration. Kindly quote where I said that it's in the Constitution that every important matter comes to a vote, or else please retract your spurious and hyperbolic assertion, thanks.
<quoted text>
The need for Affirmitive Action for blacks is as good as indicator as any that we are not all the same. We spend billions of $ every year in an attempt to do the impossible. Equal opportunity certainly doe not mean "equal outcome." What really irks me is this money could be much better spent repairing things at home, like re-building the nation's infrastructure, and funding medical breakthroughs. There is nothing more laughable then the people who mistakenly beleive that "we are all the same." During the Jim Crow era, any black-on-whatever crime was far less common, because they were actually punished for it. Our system has turned 'crime' into a leisurely stay in an all-exclusive hotel with fitness facilities and any food you can think up an excuse for.
60 years of forced integration has created more racial strife and hatred then the Jim Crow era ever did, not to mention it also set back blacks 400 years. Non-white people usually prefer to live amongst themselves, but white people are not allowed to; they are called racist by the left when they begin to gather amongst themselves, yet Chinatown and the Bronx can have 99% non-whites and be perfectly fine. It really must be a burden to be so facetious! Segregation is the way most people prefer to live, now their are a few exceptions of course, but for the most part it is in par. "Birds of a feather flock together."
<quoted text>
Your point being? Ron Paul neither associates with them or supports them. Obama has lambasted Bain Capital, yet in 2008 and in 2011 he recieved campaign donations from them. So it's okay if Obama keeps their money, but Ron Paul should give money back from people who he doesn't support? Hypocritical much? In 2008 the New Black Panther party had their symbol and endorsement on Obama's web page. How would the left react if a white nationalist party had their endorsement on Ron Paul's webpage? It must be hard being this much of a hypocrite!
This "debate" was about the Civil Rights Act and the right of
any American to be treated equally, particularly in terms of
public accommodations ... by the way, including public trans-
portation. It was not about Affirmative Action or even
integration, though bringing them into the discussion is
common fare for racists who wish to deflect from the issue
of basic American or human rights.

Presumably you believe a city or town has the right to
effectively prevent those who, when capable of doing so,
moving into a neighborhood that prefers to remain lily
white. I don't, that's all. And, just to point out the
obvious even to you, you as a white person may buy a house
or whatever in Chinatown, Harlem, or wheresoever you wish.
No one is going to stop you. Sad that you apparently don't
feel so benevolent toward those of color or those who aren't
"your kind."

You are absolutely correct. Birds of a feather tend to
flock together. The issue is whether they should be forced
to flock together and whether they should be prevented from
roosting somewhere else.

I'm not sure what you are ranting about in the campaign con-
tributions portion of your post. My point was that it is
hypocritical of Paul supporters to complain about the
contributions others (ex. Obama and Romney) receive, implying
that they must be therefore bought, while declaring that Paul
would not be influenced by the whacked organizations that
seem drawn to him .... including white supremacist groups
that you appear to have some affinity for.
bottlecap

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28700
Jul 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

swedenforever wrote:
ron paul was made out to be a fool because he is a peaceful man
As I said before, but will repeat it. Ron Paul is a GREAT man. I don't agree with him on everything but I look up to him as a "voice calling out in the wilderness", on issues like the Federal Reserve and Internet Freedom.

Its true, "He is a peaceful man", but also a man of GREAT COURAGE to take on the International Bankers. God Speed for him and Rand.
Bill R

Long Beach, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28701
Jul 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

bottlecap wrote:
<quoted text>
That is the Libertarian Fallacy. Paul believes that people, left to their own devices will do what is right in the end.
There is legitimate role of government, ie, insuring a level playing field in the public square.
On the other hand, something like forced busing of kids from one neighborhood to another for school for purposes of racial quotas is a GROSS Overreach and has been a factor in the collapse of the public school system.
Certainly, those kids who had their educational opportunity stolen from them, as well as those parents who may have had to send their kids to a private school for a decent education, should be financially compensated.
I really can't say I disagree with you here. Forced busing
was in many respects the product of the courts. They decided
the outcome.

Sidebar here: I always thought that if the goal was to make
sure blacks got a really good education the answer was
essentially to bus teachers. It would have saved a ton of
money .... but the unions of course destroyed any possibility
of that happening.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••