Unbelievable: Ron Paul Slams Civil Rights Act

[Lakhota]

By Laura Bassett

WASHINGTON -- Despite recent accusations of racism and homophobia, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) stuck to his libertarian principles on Sunday, criticizing the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it "undermine[d] the concept of liberty" and "destroyed the principle of private property and private choices."

"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The Civil Rights Act repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination.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."

More: Ron Paul: Civil Rights Act Of 1964 'Destroyed' Privacy

 

[Lakhota]

Not only would I not want this Neanderthal clown in the White House, I wouldn't even want him working on White House property - as gardener, janitor, or anything else.

 

[WatertheTree]

Ron Paul's stance on this issue is that you cannot legislate morality, and by giving special privileges or entitlements to one group you strip the rights of another.

P.S. Your a partisan shitstain on the clean white undies of the United States. Go fuck yourself you do nothing liberal. All you and your party can do is bitch and complain while holding your hand out expecting others to provide for you.

 

[Two Thumbs]

By Laura Bassett

WASHINGTON -- Despite recent accusations of racism and homophobia, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) stuck to his libertarian principles on Sunday, criticizing the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it "undermine[d] the concept of liberty" and "destroyed the principle of private property and private choices."

"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."

More: Ron Paul: Civil Rights Act Of 1964 'Destroyed' Privacy

So you can't prove him wrong and all you have left is teh crying game.

Thanks for being such an open and honest leftist. It gives me and others an incite into what the rest want but are smart enough not to say out loud.

 

[WatertheTree]

What a way to totally ignore all of that interview except for the part that best suits you.

You and people like you fucking make me want to vomit. You claim to care about people and this and that but its all bullshit.

Here is the full video, people can watch it and judge for themselves if Ron Paul is a racist.
Ron Paul Interview On CNN's State Of The Union 01/01/12 - YouTube

 

[Lakhota]

Spin all you wish, but he still voted NO. And he was the only one who voted NO.

 

[DaGoose]

Ron Paul's stance on this issue is that you cannot legislate morality, and by giving special privileges or entitlements to one group you strip the rights of another.

P.S. Your a partisan shitstain on the clean white undies of the United States. Go fuck yourself you do nothing liberal. All you and your party can do is bitch and complain while holding your hand out expecting others to provide for you.

NO WAY YOU JUST SAID THAT. That is so full of shit. What about the GOP's war on abortion rights? Euthanasia? Marijuana use?

The GOP is the party that GOVERNS on legislating morality. Why the fuck do you think that the supposed MORAL Majority played such a big factor in their party?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ron Paul's stance on this issue is that you cannot legislate morality, and by giving special privileges or entitlements to one group you strip the rights of another.

Paul’s stance on the issue indicates his ignorance of – or contempt for – the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

The Civil Right Act of 1964 doesn’t attempt to ‘legislate morality,’ nor does it bestow a ‘special privilege’ on anyone. And no one lost his rights in favor of another.

To maintain such nonsense only exhibits one’s ignorance of the Act.

When the Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it determined, among other things, that segregation statues – such as restrictions in public accommodations – violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, where laws may not be enacted which effect only a particular class of persons. See: Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States

Indeed, the Act ensures that all Americans have equal protection and access to the laws, just as required by the Constitution.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Spin all you wish, but he still voted NO. And he was the only one who voted NO.

You are the one that posted the spin and not the whole video.

Thanks for showing just how much the left will lie and lie to get what they demand and to Hell with the law and Constitution.

 

[Lakhota]

Spin all you wish, but he still voted NO. And he was the only one who voted NO.

You are the one that posted the spin and not the whole video.

Thanks for showing just how much the left will lie and lie to get what they demand and to Hell with the law and Constitution.

Hey, Sparky, I posted the first three paragraphs of the article and provided the link for the balance.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Thanks for showing just how much the left will lie and lie to get what they demand and to Hell with the law and Constitution.

?

This makes no sense.

During the Civil Rights Era and beyond, it was progressives alone who fought against conservatives and their effort to restrict civil rights, particularly with regard to African-Americans. Liberals fought for the rule of law, and to ensure the fundamental tenets of the Constitution remain in place: equal access to the law, equal protection of the law, and the right to due process.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Ron Paul's stance on this issue is that you cannot legislate morality, and by giving special privileges or entitlements to one group you strip the rights of another.

P.S. Your a partisan shitstain on the clean white undies of the United States. Go fuck yourself you do nothing liberal. All you and your party can do is bitch and complain while holding your hand out expecting others to provide for you.

NO WAY YOU JUST SAID THAT. That is so full of shit. What about the GOP's war on abortion rights? Euthanasia? Marijuana use?

The GOP is the party that GOVERNS on legislating morality. Why the fuck do you think that the supposed MORAL Majority played such a big factor in their party?

you're not paying attention.

Paul would allow all of that. assuming he could get the laws changed.

and fyi; you're team took away Freedom of Speech and the Right to bear arms. So don't try the moral high ground, it's a slippery slope.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

and fyi; you're team took away Freedom of Speech and the Right to bear arms. So don't try the moral high ground, it's a slippery slope.

?

You continue to make no sense.

How was ‘Freedom of Speech’ taken away? Cite the statute. How was the ‘Right to bear arms’ taken away? Again, cite the statue.

 

[Lakhota]

Ron Paul is only half nuts - but that half is REALLY NUTTY.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Thanks for showing just how much the left will lie and lie to get what they demand and to Hell with the law and Constitution.

?

This makes no sense.

During the Civil Rights Era and beyond, it was progressives alone who fought against conservatives and their effort to restrict civil rights, particularly with regard to African-Americans. Liberals fought for the rule of law, and to ensure the fundamental tenets of the Constitution remain in place: equal access to the law, equal protection of the law, and the right to due process.

Which became; You must hire a minority, even if he's less qualified. You must promote minorities, even if they can't do the job.

on and on

That's tyranny, whether you like it or not.

Remember when you used to be against the Patriot Act?
Or that extra check Bush sent out yearly?
Or when you were against the death penalty?
How about when you were against the war and spreading it?


None of you are against those things now.

 

[Two Thumbs]

and fyi; you're team took away Freedom of Speech and the Right to bear arms. So don't try the moral high ground, it's a slippery slope.

?

You continue to make no sense.

How was ‘Freedom of Speech’ taken away? Cite the statute. How was the ‘Right to bear arms’ taken away? Again, cite the statue.

Hate speech is a crime. that's called taking away my freedoms.
The right to bear arms has been reduced to just fire arms, and the left fights daily to restrict those to the point of uselessness.

these are well known facts. If you don't actually know this, look it up yourself.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ron Paul is only half nuts - but that half is REALLY NUTTY.

Paul is not ‘nuts,’ he’s ignorant, as is his followers.

They maintain this naïve, reactionary fantasy as to what they think the Constitution means. My best extrapolation is that they mistakenly perceive the Constitution as a ‘blueprint of government’ only; they fail to understand the Constitution is for the most part a legal document, a product of centuries of the development of Anglo-American legal tradition, and exists only in the context of its case law.

They’re entitled to maintain their pathetic fantasy as to the Constitution, of course, albeit subjective and meaningless.

 

[liebuster]

He's a racist huh?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rWFvrxeD8c&feature=player_embedded]12/29/11 - Ron Paul Emotional Reaction To Compassion Ad - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4&feature=player_embedded]The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Lakhota]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hate speech is a crime. that's called taking away my freedoms.

Hate speech is not a crime, you’ve lost no freedoms. See: Brandenburg v. Ohio

Speech becomes a crime only when immanent harm or criminal activity might occur.

The right to bear arms has been reduced to just fire arms…

You want a right to nuclear weapons? Scalia himself noted in Heller that there are appropriate restrictions on the availability of firearms. Is Scalia a liberal?

…and the left fights daily to restrict those to the point of uselessness.

Example? Citation?

The left considers Heller settled law, they make no effort to enact new restrictions, and there is currently no serious legislation pending in Congress to do so.