Unbelievable: Ron Paul Slams Civil Rights Act

[rightwinger]

You know what? I think the Republican party should run on a platform of repealing the Civil Rights Act.

Seriously.

I heartily recommend you go for it.

I think Ron Paul already is

 

[Stephanie]

Federal Government- to do what is in the best interests and general welfare of the people

omg..this thinking right here is why we as a country of freedom is doomed folks.
too many people think like this today..

 

[Dr.Drock]

Moral of the story, if it weren't for gov't imposed morals, we wouldn't have any morals.



The American People are so awful if it weren't for our beloved, superior, benevolent gov't we'd all probably still own slaves.

 

[dblack]

You know what? I think the Republican party should run on a platform of repealing the Civil Rights Act.

Seriously.

I heartily recommend you go for it.

I think Ron Paul already is

And how did you get to thinking that? Because he's not.

This is how demagoguery works. People, usually inspired by a sound bite and little else, let their imaginations run wild.

One of Ron Paul's key faults as a politician is that he doesn't respect demagoguery. Most other politicians learn to never say anything that can be construed to actually mean anything. The never explain their views, never indulge any detailed discussion of their political philosophy or convictions. They just spew empty platitudes that have been time-tested against distortion.

Ron Paul isn't railing against the Civil Rights Act. He is questioning the precedent that our government should be so involved in day-to-day business decisions. It's still an open debate, still an important issue that is raised in more and more laws currently under consideration. Which means, of course, he should have never brought it up. He should have stuck with some thing simple and digestible. Truth, justice and the American way!

 

[rightwinger]

Federal Government- to do what is in the best interests and general welfare of the people

omg..this thinking right here is why we as a country of freedom is doomed folks.
too many people think like this today..

You don't elect your Congressmen and Senators to do what is in the best interests of the country?

I do

 

[rightwinger]

You know what? I think the Republican party should run on a platform of repealing the Civil Rights Act.

Seriously.

I heartily recommend you go for it.

I think Ron Paul already is

And how did you get to thinking that? Because he's not.

This is how demagoguery works. People, usually inspired by a sound bite and little else, let their imaginations run wild.

One of Ron Paul's key faults as a politician is that he doesn't respect demagoguery. Most other politicians learn to never say anything that can be construed to actually mean anything. The never explain their views, never indulge any detailed discussion of their political philosophy or convictions. They just spew empty platitudes that have been time-tested against distortion.

Ron Paul isn't railing against the Civil Rights Act. He is questioning the precedent that our government should be so involved in day-to-day business decisions. It's still an open debate, still an important issue that is raised in more and more laws currently under consideration. Which means, of course, he should have never brought it up. He should have stuck with some thing simple and digestible. Truth, justice and the American way!

That is Supermans motto......not Ron Paul's

 

[LibertyForAll]

The fact that Ron Paul does bring it up is on of the reasons I like him. He isn't hiding his stance and he isn't trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. He is trying to raise the level of conversation. This issue is really about liberals trying to shame people into ignoring his real message by obfuscating the facts with emotional grandstanding. This is a debate about the powers of the federal government not about who should be equal. Anyone who ignores that fact and attempts to pull the race card on this issue is being deliberately dishonest or they are egregiously misinformed.

 

[Dragon]

Actually, RW, as a point of constitutional law you're not correct. Neither is the guy you responded to.

The federal government's purpose is to exercise those powers delegated to the Congress in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. That does NOT include "doing anything it wants in service to the common defense and general welfare." That phrase is a modifier on the taxation/spending power, not a separate power on its own.

The states have all powers normally exercised by governments, except those delegated to the federal government and those explicitly forbidden to the states by either their own constitutions or the U.S. Constitution. Unlike the federal government, state governments are not limited to enumerated powers.

So in a way, you have it exactly backwards.

 

[rightwinger]

The Civil Rights Act of 1965 made the US a truly great nation.

Up until that time, we claimed to be a great nation but lacked a moral compass. Any nation that denies a significant part of their population basic liberty and freedom because they do not like their color is not a great nation.

For Ron Paul to seek to deny people the right to attend the college of their choice, eat at a public lunch counter, be seated in a restaurant, swim in a public pool or stay in a hotel solely because some racists believe them to be subhuman shows why Paul is unfit to be President

 

[High_Gravity]

Ron Paul is against civil rights?

 

[High_Gravity]

The Civil Rights Act of 1965 made the US a truly great nation.

Up until that time, we claimed to be a great nation but lacked a moral compass. Any nation that denies a significant part of their population basic liberty and freedom because they do not like their color is not a great nation.

For Ron Paul to seek to deny people the right to attend the college of their choice, eat at a public lunch counter, be seated in a restaurant, swim in a public pool or stay in a hotel solely because some racists believe them to be subhuman shows why Paul is unfit to be President

So Ron Paul is ok with segregation, but wants to legalize drugs? oh boy.

 

[dblack]

The Civil Rights Act of 1965 made the US a truly great nation.

Up until that time, we claimed to be a great nation but lacked a moral compass. Any nation that denies a significant part of their population basic liberty and freedom because they do not like their color is not a great nation.

For Ron Paul to seek to deny people the right to attend the college of their choice, eat at a public lunch counter, be seated in a restaurant, swim in a public pool or stay in a hotel solely because some racists believe them to be subhuman shows why Paul is unfit to be President

 

[Dr.Drock]

The Civil Rights Act of 1965 made the US a truly great nation.

Up until that time, we claimed to be a great nation but lacked a moral compass. Any nation that denies a significant part of their population basic liberty and freedom because they do not like their color is not a great nation.

For Ron Paul to seek to deny people the right to attend the college of their choice, eat at a public lunch counter, be seated in a restaurant, swim in a public pool or stay in a hotel solely because some racists believe them to be subhuman shows why Paul is unfit to be President

So Ron Paul is ok with segregation, but wants to legalize drugs? oh boy.

No he's not ok with segregation.

It's the same tired old act Obamabots use when they say being against welfare means you want poor people to stay poor forever, if you're against Obamacare you want all sick/poor people to die, if you're against Social Security you want all old people to go broke, etc etc.

Same tired old act, having nothing to do with intellect, everything to do with grabbing at emotions and fearmongering.

 

[High_Gravity]

The Civil Rights Act of 1965 made the US a truly great nation.

Up until that time, we claimed to be a great nation but lacked a moral compass. Any nation that denies a significant part of their population basic liberty and freedom because they do not like their color is not a great nation.

For Ron Paul to seek to deny people the right to attend the college of their choice, eat at a public lunch counter, be seated in a restaurant, swim in a public pool or stay in a hotel solely because some racists believe them to be subhuman shows why Paul is unfit to be President

So Ron Paul is ok with segregation, but wants to legalize drugs? oh boy.

No he's not ok with segregation.

It's the same tired old act Obamabots use when they say being against welfare means you want poor people to stay poor forever, if you're against Obamacare you want all sick/poor people to die, if you're against Social Security you want all old people to go broke, etc etc.

Same tired old act, having nothing to do with intellect, everything to do with grabbing at emotions and fearmongering.

Than whats his problem with civil rights exactly? I don't understand how anyone can have an issue with that, taking all that away puts our country backwards and puts people of color like me in a very very awkward position.

 

[Dr.Drock]

So Ron Paul is ok with segregation, but wants to legalize drugs? oh boy.

No he's not ok with segregation.

It's the same tired old act Obamabots use when they say being against welfare means you want poor people to stay poor forever, if you're against Obamacare you want all sick/poor people to die, if you're against Social Security you want all old people to go broke, etc etc.

Same tired old act, having nothing to do with intellect, everything to do with grabbing at emotions and fearmongering.

Than whats his problem with civil rights exactly? I don't understand how anyone can have an issue with that, taking all that away puts our country backwards and puts people of color like me in a very very awkward position.

Because all it does is put more power into gov't.

Leave the formation of morals and society up to the people as much as possible. If a business segregates on race, it'll be put out of business immediately by the people, no gov't necessary.

Instead what our gov't has done has invented a new kind of racism, that looks down on poor inner city people (often times blacks) by saying they HAVE to have extra gov't help in order to survive.

 

[dblack]

Than whats his problem with civil rights exactly? I don't understand how anyone can have an issue with that, taking all that away puts our country backwards and puts people of color like me in a very very awkward position.

He's actually in favor of Civil Rights. His issue with the Civil Rights Act was the portion that granted government the power to interfere with personal decisions. He believes (and I agree with him) that the state telling us who we must associate with, who we must do business with, who we can hire or fire (and for what reasons) is unnecessary to achieve equal protection. It's intrusive and sets up a dangers precedent that supports the corporatism that is now running rampant.

 

[High_Gravity]

Than whats his problem with civil rights exactly? I don't understand how anyone can have an issue with that, taking all that away puts our country backwards and puts people of color like me in a very very awkward position.

He's actually in favor of Civil Rights. His issue with the Civil Rights Act was the portion that granted government the power to interfere with personal decisions. He believes (and I agree with him) that the state telling us who we must associate with, who we must do business with, who we can hire or fire (and for what reasons) is unnecessary to achieve equal protection. It's intrusive and sets up a dangers precedent that supports the corporatism that is now running rampant.

Be that as it may if you actually left this up to the people, big parts of the country would still have segregation, especially here in the South. I just can't support that, the only way civil rights were enforced was by force, not because people wanted them. I am half Black and I will stand to lose alot if Civil rights are taken away.

 

[High_Gravity]

No he's not ok with segregation.

It's the same tired old act Obamabots use when they say being against welfare means you want poor people to stay poor forever, if you're against Obamacare you want all sick/poor people to die, if you're against Social Security you want all old people to go broke, etc etc.

Same tired old act, having nothing to do with intellect, everything to do with grabbing at emotions and fearmongering.

Than whats his problem with civil rights exactly? I don't understand how anyone can have an issue with that, taking all that away puts our country backwards and puts people of color like me in a very very awkward position.

Because all it does is put more power into gov't.

Leave the formation of morals and society up to the people as much as possible. If a business segregates on race, it'll be put out of business immediately by the people, no gov't necessary.

Instead what our gov't has done has invented a new kind of racism, that looks down on poor inner city people (often times blacks) by saying they HAVE to have extra gov't help in order to survive.

That depends on the area of the business, if I opened a whites only store in Baltimore or Chicago sure it would fail, however if I did that in rural Alabama or Idaho, the business would probably survive.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Than whats his problem with civil rights exactly? I don't understand how anyone can have an issue with that, taking all that away puts our country backwards and puts people of color like me in a very very awkward position.

Because all it does is put more power into gov't.

Leave the formation of morals and society up to the people as much as possible. If a business segregates on race, it'll be put out of business immediately by the people, no gov't necessary.

Instead what our gov't has done has invented a new kind of racism, that looks down on poor inner city people (often times blacks) by saying they HAVE to have extra gov't help in order to survive.

That depends on the area of the business, if I opened a whites only store in Baltimore or Chicago sure it would fail, however if I did that in rural Alabama or Idaho, the business would probably survive.

That's one way to look at it, here's another.

You've got a POS racist who owns a business, he can't segregate his business so he gets business from black ppl who are making a POS racist who hates them rich. Rather than taking their money to a business who deserves it.

 

[High_Gravity]

Because all it does is put more power into gov't.

Leave the formation of morals and society up to the people as much as possible. If a business segregates on race, it'll be put out of business immediately by the people, no gov't necessary.

Instead what our gov't has done has invented a new kind of racism, that looks down on poor inner city people (often times blacks) by saying they HAVE to have extra gov't help in order to survive.

That depends on the area of the business, if I opened a whites only store in Baltimore or Chicago sure it would fail, however if I did that in rural Alabama or Idaho, the business would probably survive.

That's one way to look at it, here's another.

You've got a POS racist who owns a business, he can't segregate his business so he gets business from black ppl who are making a POS racist who hates them rich. Rather than taking their money to a business who deserves it.

On the other hand with the economy the way it is, can anyone really afford to segregate their business anymore, unless they are really, really stubborn? businesses are closing left and right, I would assume most businesses would be welcome to any kind of business regardless of color right now.