Unbelievable: Ron Paul Slams Civil Rights Act

[WatertheTree]

[SIZE=+1]"The first measure of a free society is not that its government performs the will of the majority. We had that in 1930s Germany and in the South until the '60s. The first measure of a free society is that its government protects the just freedoms of its minorities.
The majority is quite capable of protecting itself."
-- Jim Warren[/SIZE]

None is being violated of ANY rights, except for the majority who now have to conform to a federal bureaucracy and mandates. Now if we were locking the minority up in gulags then that argument would stick, but here is holds zero relevance.

So rights are only violated if people are being locked up in gulags?

Round and round we go playing the liberals semantic games.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, he chooses to protect the rights of the majority against the will of the minority. Will expressed in the form of a bureaucratic mandate coming from a bloated federal government.

[SIZE=+1]"The first measure of a free society is not that its government performs the will of the majority. We had that in 1930s Germany and in the South until the '60s. The first measure of a free society is that its government protects the just freedoms of its minorities.
The majority is quite capable of protecting itself."
-- Jim Warren[/SIZE]

None is being violated of ANY rights, except for the majority who now have to conform to a federal bureaucracy and mandates. Now if we were locking the minority up in gulags then that argument would stick, but here is holds zero relevance.

Enforcing the protection of rights guaranteed in the Constitution requires federal 'bureauocracy and mandates'.

 

[Avatar4321]

Thanks for showing just how much the left will lie and lie to get what they demand and to Hell with the law and Constitution.

?

This makes no sense.

During the Civil Rights Era and beyond, it was progressives alone who fought against conservatives and their effort to restrict civil rights, particularly with regard to African-Americans. Liberals fought for the rule of law, and to ensure the fundamental tenets of the Constitution remain in place: equal access to the law, equal protection of the law, and the right to due process.

If it wasnt for the racism of progressives, the civil rights movement would never have needed to exist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

None is being violated of ANY rights, except for the majority who now have to conform to a federal bureaucracy and mandates. Now if we were locking the minority up in gulags then that argument would stick, but here is holds zero relevance.

So rights are only violated if people are being locked up in gulags?

Round and round we go playing the liberals semantic games.

Should a gun store have the right to deny the sale of a gun to someone SOLELY because of the color of his skin?

 

[francoHFW]

Paul/Santorum 2012!! They didn't mean it!

 

[paperview]

Yeah, things were going along swimmingly after Brown v Board

 

[WatertheTree]

And this...

On September 30, 1962, riots erupted on the campus of the University of Mississippi in Oxford where locals, students, and committed segregationists had gathered to protest the enrollment of James Meredith, a black Air Force veteran attempting to integrate the all-white school. Despite the presence of more than 120 federal marshals who were on hand to protect Meredith from harm, the crowd turned violent after nightfall, and authorities struggled to maintain order. When the smoke cleared the following morning, two civilians were dead and scores more were reported injured.

For Meredith, the riot was perhaps a fitting coda to a process that began almost two years earlier when he brought suit against the school, alleging that he was denied admission on the basis of race. Although a lower court sided with the university, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued a decision in June 1962 ordering the school to admit Meredith the following fall, thereby ensuring a showdown between the federal government and Mississippi's segregationist state government. After spending the night of September 30 under federal protection, Meredith was allowed to register for classes the following morning, and became the first black graduate from the university in August 1963.

Great, the rights of hundreds were violated so one person could have what they want. Fantastic. Fast forward a few years and the majority is taxed to death, mandated to death, watched to death, regulated to death. All so a few different minority groups can the rent they lobbied for from the government.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Thanks for showing just how much the left will lie and lie to get what they demand and to Hell with the law and Constitution.

?

This makes no sense.

During the Civil Rights Era and beyond, it was progressives alone who fought against conservatives and their effort to restrict civil rights, particularly with regard to African-Americans. Liberals fought for the rule of law, and to ensure the fundamental tenets of the Constitution remain in place: equal access to the law, equal protection of the law, and the right to due process.

If it wasnt for the racism of progressives, the civil rights movement would never have needed to exist.

Hey look, another CrusaderFrank impersonator.

 

[paperview]

And this...

On September 30, 1962, riots erupted on the campus of the University of Mississippi in Oxford where locals, students, and committed segregationists had gathered to protest the enrollment of James Meredith, a black Air Force veteran attempting to integrate the all-white school. Despite the presence of more than 120 federal marshals who were on hand to protect Meredith from harm, the crowd turned violent after nightfall, and authorities struggled to maintain order. When the smoke cleared the following morning, two civilians were dead and scores more were reported injured.

For Meredith, the riot was perhaps a fitting coda to a process that began almost two years earlier when he brought suit against the school, alleging that he was denied admission on the basis of race. Although a lower court sided with the university, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued a decision in June 1962 ordering the school to admit Meredith the following fall, thereby ensuring a showdown between the federal government and Mississippi's segregationist state government. After spending the night of September 30 under federal protection, Meredith was allowed to register for classes the following morning, and became the first black graduate from the university in August 1963.

Great, the rights of hundreds were violated so one person could have what they want. Fantastic. Fast forward a few years and the majority is taxed to death, mandated to death, watched to death, regulated to death. All so a few different minority groups can the rent they lobbied for from the government.

Wow. That pretty much tells me all I need to know about you.

 

[WatertheTree]

So rights are only violated if people are being locked up in gulags?

Round and round we go playing the liberals semantic games.

Should a gun store have the right to deny the sale of a gun to someone SOLELY because of the color of his skin?

Yes they should have that right. Who is the government to mandate that a business owner cannot choose who they do business with? Should not a landlord be able to choose who he rents to?? Should not an employer be able to choose who they hire??


Its called freedom people, sometimes its ugly but its better then tyranny.

This is the same old tired liberal hand held out, cant do nothing for myself rent seeking argument.

 

[paperview]

White Conservative Southerners: Help! We're being oppressed!

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's interesting how once you get below the surface of Ron Paul's more publicized appeal to the so-called isolationists (like myself)

you find yourself at the real core of his support,

racists and anti-government crazies.

 

[Mr.Nick]

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

I don't like the civil rights act either....

Who the fuck is anyone to tell another individual what they can and cannot do??

The civil rights act is a form of social engineering...

I'm no racist either, however as a libertarian our government has ZERO right telling others what position to hold on others.....

I suppose if you have a problem with a business that is say opposed to blacks then boycott that said business, however our government has absolutely no authority to FORCE a business to hire a black, gay, Muslim, Christian, Jew or even a one armed man for that matter..

Per Tenth Amendment I suppose a state could but not the federal government...

Besides, these days I don't think anyone really cares about race, sex or religion, just as long as the individual is competent in their position...

 

[Paulie]

It's interesting how once you get below the surface of Ron Paul's more publicized appeal to the so-called isolationists (like myself)

you find yourself at the real core of his support,

racists and anti-government crazies.

Please.

The racists and "anti-government crazies" are going to vote for whoever the republican nominee is. Don't pin that group on Paul.

PLENTY of people are going to vote R in 2012 because he ain't "the ******".

 

[NYcarbineer]

Round and round we go playing the liberals semantic games.

Should a gun store have the right to deny the sale of a gun to someone SOLELY because of the color of his skin?

Yes they should have that right. Who is the government to mandate that a business owner cannot choose who they do business with? Should not a landlord be able to choose who he rents to?? Should not an employer be able to choose who they hire??


Its called freedom people, sometimes its ugly but its better then tyranny.

This is the same old tired liberal hand held out, cant do nothing for myself rent seeking argument.

I thought the right to bear arms was constitutionally protected?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Round and round we go playing the liberals semantic games.

Should a gun store have the right to deny the sale of a gun to someone SOLELY because of the color of his skin?

Yes they should have that right. Who is the government to mandate that a business owner cannot choose who they do business with? Should not a landlord be able to choose who he rents to?? Should not an employer be able to choose who they hire??


Its called freedom people, sometimes its ugly but its better then tyranny.

This is the same old tired liberal hand held out, cant do nothing for myself rent seeking argument.

Who is the government? It is the governing body established by the Consitution of the United States. Agreed to as the supreme law of the land, by the founders, and sustained as such by all ensuing generations of the American People. That is who the government is, and that government says you can't discriminate by race in a public establishment of business.

 

[Dragon]

If it wasnt for the racism of progressives, the civil rights movement would never have needed to exist.

Anyone who opposed civil rights was, BY DEFINITION, no progressive.

A Democrat, possibly. A progressive, NEVER!

 

[paperview]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9kT1yO4MGg]Segregation at All Costs: Bull Connor and the Civil Rights Movement - YouTube[/ame]

 

[rightwinger]

Round and round we go playing the liberals semantic games.

Should a gun store have the right to deny the sale of a gun to someone SOLELY because of the color of his skin?

Yes they should have that right. Who is the government to mandate that a business owner cannot choose who they do business with? Should not a landlord be able to choose who he rents to?? Should not an employer be able to choose who they hire??


Its called freedom people, sometimes its ugly but its better then tyranny.

This is the same old tired liberal hand held out, cant do nothing for myself rent seeking argument.

It was not freedom when you were forced to ride in the back of a bus, or swim in a public pool or attend a university you pay taxes for

Is it freedom if we both pay the same for a meal but you can eat yours in the dining room and I have to eat out back? Is it freedom to go to a town and have nobody willing to rent you a room?

 

[Mr.Nick]

White Conservative Southerners: Help! We're being oppressed!

That's murder....

As a matter of fact the KKK was the "ACORN" of the Democratic Party.

As usual the Democrats were authoritarian then and they have never changed....

The democrats were the ones stringing up black folks - that IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE.

Southern Democrats were the most racist "people" you could possibly imagine...

Republicans were never racist.... Back in those days democrats were conservative - Republicans back then were more liberal than the democrats...

Funny how little modern progressives know about US culture pre 1970 or so...