Unbelievable: Ron Paul Slams Civil Rights Act

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

The Civil Rights Act does not give special privileges to any group, nor does it legislate morality any more or less than any other law does.

 

[ShackledNation]

The judges are part of gov't RW, they're just as guilty of being unconstitutional as the other branches.


The whole system is corrupted by money, power and special interests.

The ACLU uses those same judges to get laws declared unconstitutional all the time. Why can't the Libertarians?

Libertarians support the ACLU half of the time. So when the ACLU successfully advocates the end of an unconstitutional law that violates civil liberties, they are following libertarian principles.

 

[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.

The Civil Rights Act does not give special privileges to any group, nor does it legislate morality any more or less than any other law does.

Educate yourself.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

The Civil Rights Act does not give special privileges to any group, nor does it legislate morality any more or less than any other law does.

Educate yourself.

I have, thanks for your concern.

You've never read any part of the Civil Rights Act. So shut up.

 

[PredFan]

The Civil Rights Act does not give special privileges to any group, nor does it legislate morality any more or less than any other law does.

Educate yourself.

I have, thanks for your concern.

You've never read any part of the Civil Rights Act. So shut up.

I don't mean the government indoctrination you got in public schools. Go to your closet, retreive your unused brain, put it back in your head and try using it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Educate yourself.

I have, thanks for your concern.

You've never read any part of the Civil Rights Act. So shut up.

I don't mean the government indoctrination you got in public schools. Go to your closet, retreive your unused brain, put it back in your head and try using it.

The Civil Rights Act is a law, it isn't indoctrination. All one has to do is read it - which you clearly have not done - to see it does not create special rights for certain groups. In fact, quite the opposite, it forbids the creation of special rights for certain groups.

 

[WatertheTree]

Our Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written and is emulated around the world. Our current government fully complies with it's constitutional powers which has enabled the United States to flourish economically, socially and militarily

If you think we are in violation of the Constitution you are welcome to cite case law

President Obama’s Top 10 Constitutional Violations | Hawaii Reporter

Don't worry I'm not claiming it's just your democrats, republicans are just as guilty of wiping their bottoms with the Constitution.

Your link is just an opinion piece from a rightwing blog. To be unconstitutional it needs to be declared by the courts like our great constitution requires

My ass. Every evil vile example of tyranny that arose from freedom perverted the peoples laws. Every god damn one you ignorant old man. Every ******* one used the courts to defend the perversion. We the people are the ones who decide whats constitution and what is not.

Only a liberal mentality would depend on a small group of unelected officials to decide what is right and what is wrong. You sir are a coward.

 

[ShackledNation]

Does nobody else find it odd that judges owe their jobs to the very people they are supposed to judge--the President and Congress? And that maybe, just maybe, when the makers of the law control who interprets the law, the interpreters of the law will have a bias in favor of the makers?

 

[rightwinger]

The judges are part of gov't RW, they're just as guilty of being unconstitutional as the other branches.


The whole system is corrupted by money, power and special interests.

The ACLU uses those same judges to get laws declared unconstitutional all the time. Why can't the Libertarians?

Libertarians support the ACLU half of the time. So when the ACLU successfully advocates the end of an unconstitutional law that violates civil liberties, they are following libertarian principles.

Oh.....so then it is possible to use our courts successfully to challenge constitutionality?


It seems that is what the courts are for......not libertarian blogs

 

[rightwinger]

Does nobody else find it odd that judges owe their jobs to the very people they are supposed to judge--the President and Congress? And that maybe, just maybe, when the makers of the law control who interprets the law, the interpreters of the law will have a bias in favor of the makers?

That sure helped Dick Nixon didn't it?

 

[rightwinger]

President Obama’s Top 10 Constitutional Violations | Hawaii Reporter

Don't worry I'm not claiming it's just your democrats, republicans are just as guilty of wiping their bottoms with the Constitution.

Your link is just an opinion piece from a rightwing blog. To be unconstitutional it needs to be declared by the courts like our great constitution requires

My ass. Every evil vile example of tyranny that arose from freedom perverted the peoples laws. Every god damn one you ignorant old man. Every ******* one used the courts to defend the perversion. We the people are the ones who decide whats constitution and what is not.

Only a liberal mentality would depend on a small group of unelected officials to decide what is right and what is wrong. You sir are a coward.

You have a sad, sad perversion of our laws and our form of government

It is we the people who elect representatives to protect our rights. For over 200 years we have relied on these representatives and voted them out of office when they were not meeting our expectations.
The courts have been responsible for much of the progress we have made in this country. Especially in the area of civil rights that libertarians hate so much

 

[ShackledNation]

Does nobody else find it odd that judges owe their jobs to the very people they are supposed to judge--the President and Congress? And that maybe, just maybe, when the makers of the law control who interprets the law, the interpreters of the law will have a bias in favor of the makers?

That sure helped Dick Nixon didn't it?

It sure helped Bush, Obama, and pretty much every president and congress except Nixon. Nixon was pardoned anyway. And I am referring to laws that violate the constitution, not actions by presidents. Either way, Nixon actually facing public scrutiny for his actions is the exception to the rule, not the rule itself. Nowadays presidents don't record themselves anymore.

 

[Zoom]

No, it's people who have more faith in gov't than americans who think we have to have gov't to keep americans from segregating.

When you take the emotion out of it you realize all those businesses would be out of business in 2 seconds thanks to the american ppl and not gov't.

Ron Paul clearly hates blacks, as evidence of all the free healthcare he gave to minorities. I can only imagine how much money Obama has given to minorities out of his pocket to pay their healthcare expenses. It's probably in the billions of dollars.

Bullshit. I drove across the country twice and have stopped at some small towns who's demographics where pretty much the same. All white. In those towns, if they had signs that said no blacks served, they would be "out of business in 2 seconds"?

Here is a hint, Americans would not do the right thing if they didnt have to. Laws are in place for a reason and its juvenile and just dumb to think otherwise.

Businesses can serve whoever the **** they want...

One time I wasn't dressed correctly and I was refused entry into a ******* club - is that discrimination??

You can change your clothes. You cant change your color.

A business can have a dress policy, but since the nosey government intruded, they cant stop you from coming in because of your color.

Do you still not get it?

 

[ShackledNation]

Bullshit. I drove across the country twice and have stopped at some small towns who's demographics where pretty much the same. All white. In those towns, if they had signs that said no blacks served, they would be "out of business in 2 seconds"?

Here is a hint, Americans would not do the right thing if they didnt have to. Laws are in place for a reason and its juvenile and just dumb to think otherwise.

Businesses can serve whoever the **** they want...

One time I wasn't dressed correctly and I was refused entry into a ******* club - is that discrimination??

You can change your clothes. You cant change your color.

A business can have a dress policy, but since the nosey government intruded, they cant stop you from coming in because of your color.

Do you still not get it?

Do you realize that it is legal for customers to discriminate against business owners based on race and refuse to shop at businesses if they are run by a race they do not like?

For example, say I am asian and I do not like to patronizing stores run by non asians. I could thereby refuse to go to any establishment run by a black person or a white person. Shouldn't I be forced to do so by the government, out of fairness and equality to the storeowners?

 

[Zoom]

I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of your fellow americans, i truly am. If you really think we'd have a nationwide epidemic of thriving racist businesses.

As you fast forward 50 years and say.......see, we would have done it without the civil rights act

Looking at it from today's perspective it is easy to say "America is not like that, we would have desegregated on our own"

Looking at it from a 1960s perspective, we had maintained a states rights enforced segregation for 100 years. We had communities burning churches, lynching blacks, spitting on children.....all to maintain their cherished segregation

And Ron Paul would be perfectly fine in letting them

Burning churches was illegal then, lynching blacks was illegal then, spitting on children racists will still do.

Agree to disagree, as I do with most liberal emotion based stances on political issues.

and yet, some people behind those sheets were law enforcement members. Imagine how it must have been for blacks back then. Going to a police station knowing the chief was a KKK emember. You need links? It happened. More than we want to remember.

Fast forward to today and Ron Paul had his way. You are a black father with your son trying to eat at a business. You are driving across the country and stopped off in a small town. As a man, some teenager comes up to you and says your kind are not welcomed here. This is not 1955, I am talking 2012 (in Paul's world). Imagine this crap! If you cant, is it because you are not a minority? Is it as simple as that?

 

[Zoom]

Businesses can serve whoever the **** they want...

One time I wasn't dressed correctly and I was refused entry into a ******* club - is that discrimination??

You can change your clothes. You cant change your color.

A business can have a dress policy, but since the nosey government intruded, they cant stop you from coming in because of your color.

Do you still not get it?

Do you realize that it is legal for customers to discriminate against business owners based on race and refuse to shop at businesses if they are run by a race they do not like?

For example, say I am asian and I do not like to patronizing stores run by non asians. I could thereby refuse to go to any establishment run by a black person or a white person. Shouldn't I be forced to do so by the government, out of fairness and equality to the storeowners?

What?

 

[ShackledNation]

You can change your clothes. You cant change your color.

A business can have a dress policy, but since the nosey government intruded, they cant stop you from coming in because of your color.

Do you still not get it?

Do you realize that it is legal for customers to discriminate against business owners based on race and refuse to shop at businesses if they are run by a race they do not like?

For example, say I am asian and I do not like to patronizing stores run by non asians. I could thereby refuse to go to any establishment run by a black person or a white person. Shouldn't I be forced to do so by the government, out of fairness and equality to the storeowners?

What?

I can choose not to patronize a business based on the race of the owner. I can say "I will only shop at stores run by white people" or "I will only get haircuts from asian people." So can you. That is legal. That is discrimination. What should we do about it?

 

[Zoom]

Do you realize that it is legal for customers to discriminate against business owners based on race and refuse to shop at businesses if they are run by a race they do not like?

For example, say I am asian and I do not like to patronizing stores run by non asians. I could thereby refuse to go to any establishment run by a black person or a white person. Shouldn't I be forced to do so by the government, out of fairness and equality to the storeowners?

What?

I can choose not to patronize a business based on the race of the owner. I can say "I will only shop at stores run by white people" or "I will only get haircuts from asian people." So can you. That is legal. That is discrimination. What should we do about it?

That is a personal choice and not a policy written on a wall. You are free to use/not use a business as a consumer. That business is not allowed to not serve you based on color.

Stop being juvenile. Ron Paul, this is not 1955. People in this country would not "do the right thing" on their own, no matter how Rosy your glasses are. If it weren't for the government stepping in and people fighting and dying for civil rights, we would be stuck in time. Back to a time that was an embarrassment to us as a country.

 

[ShackledNation]

What?

I can choose not to patronize a business based on the race of the owner. I can say "I will only shop at stores run by white people" or "I will only get haircuts from asian people." So can you. That is legal. That is discrimination. What should we do about it?

That is a personal choice and not a policy written on a wall. You are free to use/not use a business as a consumer. That business is not allowed to not serve you based on color.

Yet you are not free to refuse to sell what you produce to who you want as a producer? Isnt refusing to sell to white people or black people or whomever the same personal choice as refusing to buy from them?

There is no moral difference at all. Why should it not also be a policy written on the wall to ban customers from discriminating against business owners? The discrimination is exactly the same. If you want to call Paul a racist for his views on the civil rights act, then you too must also be a racist unless you want to use government to force customers to purchase an equal amount of goods from black people and white people to ensure there is no discrimination taking place.

 

[Unkotare]

The US Government of 1930s FDR made major strides into turning the US into the greatest country on earth

That criminal made "great strides" in drowning the greatest country on earth in debt and creating perpetual dependency from among the greatest, most bold and innovative individuals on earth.