Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Hate speech is a crime. that's called taking away my freedoms.
Hate speech is not a crime, youve lost no freedoms. See: Brandenburg v. Ohio
Speech becomes a crime only when immanent harm or criminal activity might occur.
Just proved me right.
The right to bear arms has been reduced to just fire arms
You want a right to nuclear weapons? If I can afford one, I should be able to do so. I should, at the very least be able to buy any kind of weapon I chose.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? you don't actually need one. But, since you want one, just think back a few months at all the liberals that went on TV, demanding more arms restrictions after the Congress woman was shot.
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.
He's a racist huh?
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.
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
Spin all you wish, but he still voted NO. And he was the only one who voted NO.
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.
Pauls 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 doesnt 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 ones 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.
Ron Paul's very idea that business is somehow completely "private" is specious. It depends a great deal of the public space and public funding.
It's abominable that anyone supported the denial of access to good and services simply because of ethnicity or skin color.
Wow.Spin all you wish, but he still voted NO. And he was the only one who voted NO.
Ofcourse he voted no! The civil rights act violates the freedoms of everyone else to give a group of people special privileges and entitlements. You cant give to one without taking from another.
YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE MORALITY.
Wow.Spin all you wish, but he still voted NO. And he was the only one who voted NO.
Ofcourse he voted no! The civil rights act violates the freedoms of everyone else to give a group of people special privileges and entitlements. You cant give to one without taking from another.
YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE MORALITY.
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
Pauls 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 doesnt 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 ones 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.
Ron Paul's very idea that business is somehow completely "private" is specious. It depends a great deal of the public space and public funding.
It's abominable that anyone supported the denial of access to good and services simply because of ethnicity or skin color.
Its abominable that in a free country the government mandates to every businessman who he can and cannot do business with. Everyone that owns property who they can and cannot rent to, etc.
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.
Spin all you wish, but he still voted NO. And he was the only one who voted NO.
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?
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.
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?
I dont support the GOP's war on Abortion, Pot, or Euthanasia. Ron Paul doesn't support the war on Drugs, and I doubt Euthanasia. He doesn't support abortion but he recognizes that it is not the federal governments jurisdiction and should be differed to the states.
I have said many times that Liberals would do good to support Ron Paul.
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.
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?
Wow.Ofcourse he voted no! The civil rights act violates the freedoms of everyone else to give a group of people special privileges and entitlements. You cant give to one without taking from another.
YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE MORALITY.
Aren't murder laws legislating morality?
