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.
Rand Paul is an aberration, an anomaly, a sickness in the body politic.
LL, you offer nothing to support your assertions. I don't have to do anything about evidence until you give us something. Your beliefs are not evidence. Use facts, use correlation, use analysis . . . TALK to us with something other than your beliers.
Then you clearly haven't been paying attention.
Oh really?
What are Rands legislative accomplishments?
Zero, just like his dad
Even I will give credit to Ron Paul. I admire the man. His son has big shoes to fill.
You need a smackdown.
Tell us what a bad man he is. By all means. I can't wait.
Oh really?
What are Rands legislative accomplishments?
Zero, just like his dad
Even I will give credit to Ron Paul. I admire the man. His son has big shoes to fill.
You need a smackdown.
Tell us what a bad man he is. By all means. I can't wait.
Bad man?
I don't think he beats his wife. But there is no question that his policies are bad. Opposing Civil Rights because you want to protect the rights of racist businessmen, opposing programs that help the poor, opposing environmental protections
Does that make you a bad man? Yes it does
LL, you offer nothing to support your assertions. I don't have to do anything about evidence until you give us something. Your beliefs are not evidence. Use facts, use correlation, use analysis . . . TALK to us with something other than your beliers.
But see I have. I've demonstrated logically how taxation is theft. I don't even need to do anything for people to know that Obama increases spending and debt and overall government control of people because that is obvious.
You have done no such thing.
Your belief is not logic.
LL, you offer nothing to support your assertions. I don't have to do anything about evidence until you give us something. Your beliefs are not evidence. Use facts, use correlation, use analysis . . . TALK to us with something other than your beliers.
But see I have. I've demonstrated logically how taxation is theft. I don't even need to do anything for people to know that Obama increases spending and debt and overall government control of people because that is obvious.
You have done no such thing.
Your belief is not logic.
But see I have. I've demonstrated logically how taxation is theft. I don't even need to do anything for people to know that Obama increases spending and debt and overall government control of people because that is obvious.
Tell me how taking money from me against my will is not theft and I'll vote for Obama and donate extra to your unemployment this year.
Good boy Rand will run in his fathers image.....never pulling more that ten percent of the GOP vote
You have done no such thing.
Your belief is not logic.
But see I have. I've demonstrated logically how taxation is theft. I don't even need to do anything for people to know that Obama increases spending and debt and overall government control of people because that is obvious.
Tell me how taking money from me against my will is not theft and I'll vote for Obama and donate extra to your unemployment this year.
You have done no such thing.
Your belief is not logic.
Tell me how taking money from me against my will is not theft and I'll vote for Obama and donate extra to your unemployment this year.
It's not theft unless you can prove that it is not legitimate for people to come together and form a government,
that then becomes the legitimate authority over those people.
Even I will give credit to Ron Paul. I admire the man. His son has big shoes to fill.
You need a smackdown.
Tell us what a bad man he is. By all means. I can't wait.
Bad man?
I don't think he beats his wife. But there is no question that his policies are bad. Opposing Civil Rights because you want to protect the rights of racist businessmen, opposing programs that help the poor, opposing environmental protections
Does that make you a bad man? Yes it does
He doesn't oppose civil rights, he supports human rights and violating the rights of one group of people to grant rights to another is silly.
Good boy Rand will run in his fathers image.....never pulling more that ten percent of the GOP vote
Twenty years of another guy named Paul pretending to be a presidential candidate.
Enjoy that.
Bad man?
I don't think he beats his wife. But there is no question that his policies are bad. Opposing Civil Rights because you want to protect the rights of racist businessmen, opposing programs that help the poor, opposing environmental protections
Does that make you a bad man? Yes it does
He doesn't oppose civil rights, he supports human rights and violating the rights of one group of people to grant rights to another is silly.
He opposes Civil Rights and lets his extreme libertarian dogma get in the way of common sense
Ron Paul said:Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, 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.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
Well, if you are okay with oppressing some people for the *possibility* of helping others I can't do anything for you
