Unbelievable: Ron Paul Slams Civil Rights Act

[Lakhota]

I'm a hunter and gun enthusiast, but I left the NRA several years ago because of their wingnut spin.

NRA’s Fundraising Growing Quickly As They Gear Up To Defeat Obama | TPMMuckraker

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.

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.

The left doesn't just kill rights at the Federal level. They like to work it at the local level as best they can.

Chicago just passed the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, and the left cheered.
[I can't recall where] Some conservatives wanted to restrict the right to an abortion and the left screamed and screamed about rights.

So by taking that into context, the left doesn't want us to have spelled out rights, but wants us to be able to kill babies based on a twisting of the right to privacy.

 

[ladyliberal]

He's a racist huh?

Nobody in this thread has called Ron Paul a racist (admittedly, the words "nuts" and "neanderthal" have been bandied about). People have merely noted that he criticized the Civil Rights act. It's perfectly possible for non-racists to facilitate racism. As Michael Gerson put it (Ron Paul’s quest to undo the party of Lincoln - The Washington Post)

"Whatever his personal views, Paul categorically opposes the legal construct that ended state-sanctioned racism."

 

[Sallow]

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.

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.

 

[paperview]

 

[Article 15]

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

Stuff like this is why Ron Paul is not a viable candidate in the general election.

 

[WatertheTree]

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.

 

[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.

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.

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.

 

[paperview]

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.

 

[rightwinger]

Ron Paul needs to learn that there are times when you put aside your libertarianism and do something because it is the right thing to do

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Aren't murder laws legislating morality?

 

[PredFan]

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

Clearly this concept is way too complicated for you to understand, but Ron Paul is correct. If you had a lick of sense, you'd title this thread, "Ron Paul stands up for liberty for all". But no, you're unable to comprehend hence the title you chose.

 

[Article 15]

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.

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.

Yeah!

What kind of a "free" country prevents business owners from keeping people of a different skin color from frequenting their establishments?

Jeez, America! WTF?!

 

[Old Rocks]

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 **** yourself you do nothing liberal. All you and your party can do is ***** and complain while holding your hand out expecting others to provide for you.

Paul's stance is that of an unreformed bigot.

As for your final insult, it is the red states where the most 'Conservatives' live that we in the blue states are supporting.

The Red/Blue Paradox - Reason Magazine

Print|Email
The Red/Blue Paradox
Why do liberal states give while conservative states take?
Veronique de Rugy from the August/September 2011 issue


We hear it all the time: Red states are for limited government; blue states are for heavy spending. While this may be true when it comes to broad political preferences, it’s false as measured by patterns of federal spending.

When you compare the 50 laboratories of democracy after sorting them based on how their citizens voted in November 2008, only 10 Democratic-voting states are net recipients of federal subsidies, as opposed to 22 Republican states. Only one red state (Texas) is a net payer of federal taxes, as opposed to 16 blue states. One blue state (Rhode Island) pays as much as it gets.

Political scientists have been wrestling with this apparent paradox for years. One explanation sometimes offered is that the red states, on average, have smaller populations. In “Political Determinants of Federal Expenditure at the State Level,” published by the journal Public Choice in 2005, two University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa economists, Gary Hoover and Paul Pecorino, note that residents of low-population states have more per capita representation in Congress, since every state, regardless of population, has two senators. That edge, Hoover and Pecorino argue, translates into more federal handouts. The results are conspicuous in the case of homeland security grants, where small, rural, relatively low-risk states get much more money per capita than urban states that face bigger terrorist threats.

 

[PredFan]

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

Sure he did, and good for him.

 

[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 **** yourself you do nothing liberal. All you and your party can do is ***** 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 **** 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.

 

[Article 15]

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 **** yourself you do nothing liberal. All you and your party can do is ***** 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 **** 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.

Do you support laws against rape?

 

[paperview]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJF9Z9diegA&"]Eyes on the Prize - Episode 03 - Aint Scared of Your Jails 1960-1961 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PredFan]

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 **** yourself you do nothing liberal. All you and your party can do is ***** 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 **** do you think that the supposed MORAL Majority played such a big factor in their party?

You do realize that Ron Paul is only a member of the GOP because he can't get anywhere as a Libertarian right?

Of course you don't. that would take at least two functioning synapses in your brain and if you had at least that, you wouldn't be a left wing hack.

 

[WatertheTree]

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.

Aren't murder laws legislating morality?

No, thats legislating crime.