Unbelievable: Ron Paul Slams Civil Rights Act

[ShackledNation]

Robbery is the taking of personal property from someone using force or the threat of force.

What happens if you say "I refuse to pay taxes?"

Put your thinking cap on. Taxation is simply theft protected by the law.

More ignorant rightist nonsense.

Federal income tax is Constitutional, as are the tax laws.

I didn't say taxation was illegal. I said it was theft. In fact, I and many others have pointed out that the only difference between taxation and theft is that taxation is allowed by the law. The ignorant one here is you. You did absolutely nothing to refute the argument, and simply stated the obvious that taxation is constitutional.

We all agree taxation is legal under the constitution (which should not have been news to you if you were reading what people were saying rather than substituting your own assumptions for our words).
The argument is about the nature of taxation itself. So if taxation is not theft, answer the question. What happens if you decide not to pay taxes?

 

[ScienceRocks]

The single biggest power grab in US history. Ron Paul is RIGHT!

 

[ShackledNation]

Incorrect. It doesn’t ‘give’ the government anything. Congress derives its authority to regulate commerce from the Constitution, which long predates the Act.

Congress does not have the power to regulate commerce. It has the power to regulate interstate commerce. And regulate at the time the document was written meant "to keep regular" as in uniform, meaning the states could not pass tariffs on goods and services from other states. It mandated free trade between the states. Unfortunately, the courts have unconstitutionally amended it to mean something entirely different.

Furthermore, if the constitution is as you say, then government has the power to force customers to shop at certain stores to ensure they support black and white business owners equally.

Do you believe that customers should be prevented from discriminating against businesses? Discrimination on the part of the buyer is no different than discrimination on the part of the seller. So yes, essentially government has defined discrimination as a concept that only applies to the seller. That is simply not correct.

 

[Bern80]

Actually that's as UNdramatic as it gets. That is reality. It is the reality that liberals like you simply don't see. You're social programs don't eliminate people's poor conditions. They enable the continuation of people's poor conditions. You liberals believe every bad thing that happens to someone means they're just a victim of circumstance and think we are society that randomly chooses haves and have not. The reality is we are society of DO and do nots. You are a do not and your views enable others to be the same way. Why work to obtain when I can just advocate for government to take from others to give to me. You are on the path of least resistance. It is easiest for pukes like you to squawk endlessly about your problems and that of others instead of do something about them.

You succeed only in exhibiting your ignorance of liberals in particular, and sound public policy in general.

A court doesn't need to tell anyone what is constitutional or what isn't. That is readily observable.

According to whom? If the courts don’t have the authority, what entity does to establish uniform consensus? Here you exhibit you ignorance of the law.



Here you exhibit your ignorance of the NDAA, as nothing in the measure authorizes that. And all acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until a Federal court says otherwise, the same courts you ignorantly dismiss.

Robbery is the taking of personal property from someone using force or the threat of force.

What happens if you say "I refuse to pay taxes?"

Put your thinking cap on. Taxation is simply theft protected by the law.

More ignorant rightist nonsense.

Federal income tax is Constitutional, as are the tax laws.

It gives the government power to define discrimination.

Incorrect. It doesn’t ‘give’ the government anything. Congress derives its authority to regulate commerce from the Constitution, which long predates the Act.

None of the above is ignorance. The problem is you libs think that simply by calling a turd a rose it's no longer actually a turd.

There is nothing sound about social programs that enable the poor choices that put people on those social programs to begin with.

 

[Dragon]

Congress does not have the power to regulate commerce. It has the power to regulate interstate commerce. And regulate at the time the document was written meant "to keep regular" as in uniform, meaning the states could not pass tariffs on goods and services from other states. It mandated free trade between the states. Unfortunately, the courts have unconstitutionally amended it to mean something entirely different.

None of this is true except the part about "interstate" commerce. (Most commerce in the U.S. today is interstate, though, and even international.) The word "regulate" has not changed in meaning. The word had nothing to do with states being forbidden to impose tariffs; that's mandated in a different place (Article I, Section 10). The commerce clause does NOT mandate free trade between the states, although the Constitution does. And the courts cannot "unconstitutionally" interpret the Constitution.

Furthermore, if the constitution is as you say, then government has the power to force customers to shop at certain stores to ensure they support black and white business owners equally.

No, that doesn't follow. Shopping behavior isn't interstate commerce. However, in fact the authority of the Civil Rights Act does not stem from the commerce clause but from the 14th Amendment, so we really shouldn't be discussing the commerce clause at all in this context. The above is just to correct an error.

 

[truthsaga]

I love how Ron Paul gets attacked by defending personal liberty as being a racist, while other candidates policies will hurt the poor and minorities more then the previous administration. The man does not talk political correctness or in approved bullet points. The smartest businessman would open their doors to all costumers.

Ron Paul even in the latest ACLU report card scores higher than Obama
ACLU report card finds fault with Obama, rivals

Wake Up, my god.

 

[rightwinger]

I love how Ron Paul gets attacked by defending personal liberty as being a racist, while other candidates policies will hurt the poor and minorities more then the previous administration. The man does not talk political correctness or in approved bullet points. The smartest businessman would open their doors to all costumers.

Ron Paul even in the latest ACLU report card scores higher than Obama
ACLU report card finds fault with Obama, rivals

Wake Up, my god.

Ron Paul has stated that he is willing to sell out the freedom of people being discriminated against so that he can protect the freedom of racists

That is his tradeoff

 

[truthsaga]

I love how Ron Paul gets attacked by defending personal liberty as being a racist, while other candidates policies will hurt the poor and minorities more then the previous administration. The man does not talk political correctness or in approved bullet points. The smartest businessman would open their doors to all costumers.

Ron Paul even in the latest ACLU report card scores higher than Obama
ACLU report card finds fault with Obama, rivals

Wake Up, my god.

Ron Paul has stated that he is willing to sell out the freedom of people being discriminated against so that he can protect the freedom of racists

That is his tradeoff

Freedom is universal it doesn't belong to one group or individual. The ACLU and NAACP doesn't come out and defend you when you hold racist views.

So, rightwinger is willing to sell out the freedom of people who deserve medical care that are being discriminated because their poor, so that he can protect the freedom of the wealthier and well privileged.

Freedom and Liberty is as natural as the hair on your head and we get it from our god or from our humanity, not the government. Your statement opens the same doors that push all these wars and social programs that both sides love to use. It undermines or freedom and drives us further into debt.

 

[rightwinger]

I love how Ron Paul gets attacked by defending personal liberty as being a racist, while other candidates policies will hurt the poor and minorities more then the previous administration. The man does not talk political correctness or in approved bullet points. The smartest businessman would open their doors to all costumers.

Ron Paul even in the latest ACLU report card scores higher than Obama
ACLU report card finds fault with Obama, rivals

Wake Up, my god.

Ron Paul has stated that he is willing to sell out the freedom of people being discriminated against so that he can protect the freedom of racists

That is his tradeoff

Freedom is universal it doesn't belong to one group or individual. The ACLU and NAACP doesn't come out and defend you when you hold racist views.

So, rightwinger is willing to sell out the freedom of people who deserve medical care that are being discriminated because their poor, so that he can protect the freedom of the wealthier and well privileged.

Freedom and Liberty is as natural as the hair on your head and we get it from our god or from our humanity, not the government. Your statement opens the same doors that push all these wars and social programs that both sides love to use. It undermines or freedom and drives us further into debt.

Freedom is universal and was being denied to a major portion of our population because of skin color. The Civil rights movement was the biggest fight for freedom since the civil war and finally established the United States as a country that ensured freedom........not just talk about it

Ron Paul would reverse all that

 

[truthsaga]

Ron Paul has stated that he is willing to sell out the freedom of people being discriminated against so that he can protect the freedom of racists

That is his tradeoff

Freedom is universal it doesn't belong to one group or individual. The ACLU and NAACP doesn't come out and defend you when you hold racist views.

So, rightwinger is willing to sell out the freedom of people who deserve medical care that are being discriminated because their poor, so that he can protect the freedom of the wealthier and well privileged.

Freedom and Liberty is as natural as the hair on your head and we get it from our god or from our humanity, not the government. Your statement opens the same doors that push all these wars and social programs that both sides love to use. It undermines or freedom and drives us further into debt.

Freedom is universal and was being denied to a major portion of our population because of skin color. The Civil rights movement was the biggest fight for freedom since the civil war and finally established the United States as a country that ensured freedom........not just talk about it

Ron Paul would reverse all that

You need to revisit history.. The Civil War was not fought over slavery, but to keep the union together. Read some of what Abraham Lincoln wrote/stated and put down the Department of Education school books.

You think a government mandate really does anything to curve racism, but who started slavery in our country? You should be rallying towards a free market of ideas and prosperity. Thomas Paine presented the case nicely in the late 1700's.

This feels like a debate from the democrat underground forums.

 

[truthsaga]

Ron Paul has stated that he is willing to sell out the freedom of people being discriminated against so that he can protect the freedom of racists

That is his tradeoff

Freedom is universal it doesn't belong to one group or individual. The ACLU and NAACP doesn't come out and defend you when you hold racist views.

So, rightwinger is willing to sell out the freedom of people who deserve medical care that are being discriminated because their poor, so that he can protect the freedom of the wealthier and well privileged.

Freedom and Liberty is as natural as the hair on your head and we get it from our god or from our humanity, not the government. Your statement opens the same doors that push all these wars and social programs that both sides love to use. It undermines or freedom and drives us further into debt.

Freedom is universal and was being denied to a major portion of our population because of skin color. The Civil rights movement was the biggest fight for freedom since the civil war and finally established the United States as a country that ensured freedom........not just talk about it

Ron Paul would reverse all that

How would he reverse all that? Show the evidence of what he plans do to when he is president to reverse all of that.

 

[Dragon]

Freedom is universal it doesn't belong to one group or individual.

Untrue. In fact, the word "freedom" has no meaning until we define whose freedom to do what we're talking about. And when we do, we always find that that freedom conflicts with the freedom of someone else to do something else, so that we must choose between the two on the basis of which freedom is better deserved or more important. In that way, we arrive at the concept of a right, which is a freedom that we judge to be morally, ethically, or otherwise justified.

For example, in the American Civil War, the Confederacy and the Union both claimed by the war's end to be fighting for freedom, and both were demonstrably correct. The Confederacy was fighting for the freedom of slave-owners to own and enjoy their property, while the Union (ultimately) was fighting for the freedom of slaves not to be enslaved (although at first that wasn't so). The freedom of slave-owners to own slaves conflicts with the freedom of all potential slaves not to be slaves, so that it was necessary to decide which freedom was justified, and sacrifice the other. Today, because our ancestors made that choice, we all have the freedom not to be slaves, and so none of us has the freedom to own slaves.

Similarly, the freedom of women to enter into any sort of employment conflicts with the freedom of men to have stay-home wives and to avoid competing with women for jobs or having female bosses. The freedom of workers to organize unions conflicts with the freedom of employers to suppress unions by force. The freedom of low-wage workers to hold jobs that pay minimum wage conflicts with the freedom of employers to pay sub-minimum wages. The freedom of people from environmental pollution in their air and water conflicts with the freedom of industry and agriculture to pollute. And so on.

Liberty is always a trade-off.

 

[Dragon]

You need to revisit history.. The Civil War was not fought over slavery, but to keep the union together.

That was the original UNION goal, yes (although not the ultimate one). But it was never the CONFEDERATE goal. The states seceded in order to protect slavery. No slavery, no secession. No secession, no war. Thus, regardless of the Union's original war aim, the Civil War WAS fought over slavery.

 

[Bern80]

I love how Ron Paul gets attacked by defending personal liberty as being a racist, while other candidates policies will hurt the poor and minorities more then the previous administration. The man does not talk political correctness or in approved bullet points. The smartest businessman would open their doors to all costumers.

Ron Paul even in the latest ACLU report card scores higher than Obama
ACLU report card finds fault with Obama, rivals

Wake Up, my god.

Ron Paul has stated that he is willing to sell out the freedom of people being discriminated against so that he can protect the freedom of racists

That is his tradeoff

What freedom are they losing exactly? Do you believe only certain groups shoudl be allowed the freedom to tell others what they must do with their property?

 

[Bern80]

Freedom is universal it doesn't belong to one group or individual.

Untrue. In fact, the word "freedom" has no meaning until we define whose freedom to do what we're talking about. And when we do, we always find that that freedom conflicts with the freedom of someone else to do something else, so that we must choose between the two on the basis of which freedom is better deserved or more important. In that way, we arrive at the concept of a right, which is a freedom that we judge to be morally, ethically, or otherwise justified.

No Dragon. That is implied for freedom to exist. If what you choose to do intrudes on another's ability to do the same than the reality is said society is not free. For freedom to exist everone must be free. To ensure that everyone can do that, the one thing not allowed is anything that interferes with someone's ability to exericise their freedom.

 

[rightwinger]

Freedom is universal it doesn't belong to one group or individual. The ACLU and NAACP doesn't come out and defend you when you hold racist views.

So, rightwinger is willing to sell out the freedom of people who deserve medical care that are being discriminated because their poor, so that he can protect the freedom of the wealthier and well privileged.

Freedom and Liberty is as natural as the hair on your head and we get it from our god or from our humanity, not the government. Your statement opens the same doors that push all these wars and social programs that both sides love to use. It undermines or freedom and drives us further into debt.

Freedom is universal and was being denied to a major portion of our population because of skin color. The Civil rights movement was the biggest fight for freedom since the civil war and finally established the United States as a country that ensured freedom........not just talk about it

Ron Paul would reverse all that

You need to revisit history.. The Civil War was not fought over slavery, but to keep the union together. Read some of what Abraham Lincoln wrote/stated and put down the Department of Education school books.

You think a government mandate really does anything to curve racism, but who started slavery in our country? You should be rallying towards a free market of ideas and prosperity. Thomas Paine presented the case nicely in the late 1700's.

This feels like a debate from the democrat underground forums.

We have had this southern revisionist debate on numerous other threads....I'm not going to pick it up here

 

[rightwinger]

Freedom is universal it doesn't belong to one group or individual. The ACLU and NAACP doesn't come out and defend you when you hold racist views.

So, rightwinger is willing to sell out the freedom of people who deserve medical care that are being discriminated because their poor, so that he can protect the freedom of the wealthier and well privileged.

Freedom and Liberty is as natural as the hair on your head and we get it from our god or from our humanity, not the government. Your statement opens the same doors that push all these wars and social programs that both sides love to use. It undermines or freedom and drives us further into debt.

Freedom is universal and was being denied to a major portion of our population because of skin color. The Civil rights movement was the biggest fight for freedom since the civil war and finally established the United States as a country that ensured freedom........not just talk about it

Ron Paul would reverse all that

How would he reverse all that? Show the evidence of what he plans do to when he is president to reverse all of that.

If given the chance to vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1965, Ron Paul and his evil spawn would have voted NO

 

[rightwinger]

I love how Ron Paul gets attacked by defending personal liberty as being a racist, while other candidates policies will hurt the poor and minorities more then the previous administration. The man does not talk political correctness or in approved bullet points. The smartest businessman would open their doors to all costumers.

Ron Paul even in the latest ACLU report card scores higher than Obama
ACLU report card finds fault with Obama, rivals

Wake Up, my god.

Ron Paul has stated that he is willing to sell out the freedom of people being discriminated against so that he can protect the freedom of racists

That is his tradeoff

What freedom are they losing exactly? Do you believe only certain groups shoudl be allowed the freedom to tell others what they must do with their property?

Freedom is a tradeoff between the freedom to restrict freedom of association and the freedom of association itself

Ron Paul sides with the racists

 

[Dragon]

Freedom is universal it doesn't belong to one group or individual.

Untrue. In fact, the word "freedom" has no meaning until we define whose freedom to do what we're talking about. And when we do, we always find that that freedom conflicts with the freedom of someone else to do something else, so that we must choose between the two on the basis of which freedom is better deserved or more important. In that way, we arrive at the concept of a right, which is a freedom that we judge to be morally, ethically, or otherwise justified.

No Dragon. That is implied for freedom to exist. If what you choose to do intrudes on another's ability to do the same than the reality is said society is not free. For freedom to exist everone must be free. To ensure that everyone can do that, the one thing not allowed is anything that interferes with someone's ability to exericise their freedom.

You're confusing the concept of freedom with the concept of rights. Freedom is morally neutral. Rights are justified freedoms. Rights never conflict. Freedoms always do. But the reason why rights don't conflict is because rights result from making a decision about which freedom should prevail when freedoms do conflict. Thus, we say that people have a RIGHT not to be a slave, and for that reason people DON'T have the right to own slaves. And so we deny people the FREEDOM to own slaves, because we judge that they have no RIGHT to do so.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Now I see your problem, you have reading comprehension issues. I didn't say that the Civil Rights Act was indoctrination. Read my post again slowly. Or have someone read it for you and then explain it to you. I'm now sure that the reason you are wrong is because of your poor education.

How about instead you show me where in the Civil Rights Act it bestows special rights on certain groups of people - or - shut the fuck up.

Thanks.

It gives the government power to define discrimination.

Can you actually point to the text in the Civil rights Act special rights are bestowed on certain groups of people, or are you completely full of shit?

The final sections of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments each grant Congress the power to enforce the respective amendments through appropriate legislation.