Ron Paul: Civil Rights Act Of 1964 'Destroyed' Privacy
154 replies, posted
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/ron-paul-civil-rights-act_n_1178688.html[/url]
[release]WASHINGTON -- Despite recent accusations of racism and homophobia, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) stuck to his libertarian principles on Sunday,[b] criticizing the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it [i]"undermined the concept of liberty" and "destroyed the principle of private property and private choices."[/i] [/b]
"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The Civil Rights Act repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination.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."
[b]Paul explained that while he supports the fact that the legislation repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws, which forced racial segregation, he believes it is the [i]government, not the people[/i], that causes racial tensions by passing overreaching laws that institutionalize slavery and segregation.[/b] Today's race problems, he said, result from the war on drugs, the flawed U.S. court system and the military.
"The real problem we face today is the discrimination in our court system, the war on drugs. Just think of how biased that is against the minorities," he said. "They go into prison much way out of proportion to their numbers. They get the death penalty out of proportion with their numbers. And if you look at what minorities suffer in ordinary wars, whether there's a draft or no draft, they suffer much out of proposition. So those are the kind of discrimination that have to be dealt with, but you don't ever want to undermine the principle of private property and private choices in order to solve some of these problems."
Paul's comments on how to improve race relations come at an interesting time, following the recent revelation of a series of racist and homophobic newsletters that were published under his name in the 1980s and 1990s. Paul has denounced the newsletters, and he says that although he was the publisher, he didn't write or review any of the offensive comments in them -- only the "economic parts."
"I'm the true civil libertarian when it comes to [race relations], and I think that people ought to, you know, look at my position there, rather than dwelling on eight sentences that I didn't write and didn't authorize and have been, you know, apologetic about," he told ABC's Jake Tapper on Sunday. "Because it shouldn't have been there, and it was terrible stuff."[/release]
I don't agree with him, but he does have a pretty good and interesting point.
We do loose a bit of our freedom when the government tells us we can't be a bigot.
And yet he was in that pic with the KKK Grand Wizard and the Neo Nazi party leader.
[QUOTE=The Baconator;34009143]And yet he was in that pic with the KKK Grand Wizard and the Neo Nazi party leader.[/QUOTE]
Someone should fetch that from the other thread.
[QUOTE=Nikota;34009206]Someone should fetch that from the other thread.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://meta.filesmelt.com/downloader.php?file=ronpaul.png[/img]
I'm all for property rights but I think civil rights are more important
Let me guess what's next: "The emancipation proclamation was unconstitutional".
The War on Drugs definitely sucks but you can't blame EVERYTHING on it. People are racist, and if it takes government intervention to limit that, then so be it.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;34009301][quote]"The real problem we face today is the discrimination in our court system, the war on drugs. Just think of how biased that is against the minorities," he said. "They go into prison much way out of proportion to their numbers. They get the death penalty out of proportion with their numbers. And if you look at what minorities suffer in ordinary wars, whether there's a draft or no draft, they suffer much out of proposition. So those are the kind of discrimination that have to be dealt with, but you don't ever want to undermine the principle of private property and private choices in order to solve some of these problems."[/quote]
well at least that's nice[/QUOTE]
How's that nice?
What the fuck does racism has to do with anything? Is it the court's fault that for some reason minorities tend to do more crime than the majority?
He's saying as if people need to go to prison by percent. Like, there can't be more than 5% black people in jails because they make up only 5% of total US population. Does that make sense to you? I don't think so.
What he says is just as stupid as this idiotic law that passed in Belgium that forces a certain percent of women to be in their parliament. This way they're fighting with "sexism". Sexism my ass, who the fuck cares that a woman is the the parliament? If she's smart enough she'll enter the parliament without any idiotic laws.
[quote]The Civil Rights Act repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination[/quote]
couldn't you continue the ban on government sponsored racism via jim crow laws and public segregation while still letting business owners exercise their right to choose who they serve? i can at least see what point he's trying to make with the whole "it takes away your liberties to not be a racist" thing, but i don't see how not letting the GOVERNMENT take away the rights of minorities to use public services (bathrooms/fountains) that their tax dollars paid for without discrimination has anything to do with individual liberties.
[editline]2nd January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;34009636]Let me guess what's next: "The emancipation proclamation was unconstitutional".[/QUOTE]
totally comparable! excellent post!!
[editline]2nd January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zeke128;34009216][img]http://meta.filesmelt.com/downloader.php?file=ronpaul.png[/img][/QUOTE]
is there a story behind this photo or is it just assumed they met at a cross burning and took a photo to celebrate white pride
I swear the dude in the back looks like hugh laurie
That thing with the hat looks creepy.
Billy the Kid
[QUOTE=person11;34009640]The War on Drugs definitely sucks but you can't blame EVERYTHING on it. People are racist, and if it takes government intervention to limit that, then so be it.[/QUOTE]
But it doesn't actually limit racism (which as such is a good goal), it only stops people from saying such opinions out aloud, which actually might make things even worse (ever heard of suppressed anger bubbling to the surface?).
[QUOTE=Zeke128;34009216][img]http://meta.filesmelt.com/downloader.php?file=ronpaul.png[/img][/QUOTE]
Who is the kid on the right?
[editline]2nd January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=juhana;34009908]But it doesn't actually limit racism (which as such is a good goal), it only stops people from saying such opinions out aloud, which actually might make things even worse (ever heard of suppressed anger bubbling to the surface?).[/QUOTE]
What a well thought out, and properly backed argument...
[QUOTE=juhana;34009908]But it doesn't actually limit racism (which as such is a good goal), it only stops people from saying such opinions out aloud, which actually might make things even worse (ever heard of suppressed anger bubbling to the surface?).[/QUOTE]
That makes no sense whatsoever. Pre-civil rights act black people got lynched all the time.
[editline]2nd January 2012[/editline]
and now when is the last time you heard about someone getting lynched?
[QUOTE=juhana;34009908]But it doesn't actually limit racism (which as such is a good goal), it only stops people from saying such opinions out aloud, which actually might make things even worse (ever heard of suppressed anger bubbling to the surface?).[/QUOTE]
It's more of an appeal from the government to the people to stop discriminating, than it is an actual law. Your point about "anger bubbling to the top" is pure speculation.
Better then Obama.. So Obama, what about closing Gitmo and believing in the people?
What does the civil rights act have to do with the government "coming into our bedrooms"?
i have the right to not give them some booty
[QUOTE=Kung Fu Jew;34010300]i have the right to not give them some booty[/QUOTE]
"Sir, looking over your bedroom tapes I've noticed you've only had sex with white people. You need to throw a minority in there soon or you can expect a heavy fine for violating the civil rights act of 2013."
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;34009097]I don't agree with him, but he does have a pretty good and interesting point.
We do loose a bit of our freedom when the government tells us we can't be a bigot.[/QUOTE]
We also lose a bit of freedom when the government tells us we can't lynch the [del]niggers[/del] [del]blacks[/del] African Americans
It's not a pretty good or interesting point, it's the same old racist apologist bullshit
this isn't new
Ron Paul's already publicly stated his opposition to the Civil Rights Act because it limited the freedoms of business owners
and laws don't really stop discrimination, people will always find another way. all it does is put overhead on businesses
"They can come into our houses, our bedrooms our businesses ... And it was started back then."
From the man who opposes abortion. Ron Paul: For individual's rights, so long as those individuals are white men.
[QUOTE=Contag;34010721]We also lose a bit of freedom when the government tells us we can't lynch the [del]niggers[/del] [del]blacks[/del] African Americans
It's not a pretty good or interesting point, it's the same old racist apologist bullshit[/QUOTE]Sometimes people have to realize that absolutely unlimited freedom is a dangerous thing.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34011124]Sometimes people have to realize that absolutely unlimited freedom is a dangerous thing.[/QUOTE]
Because nobody lives in a vacuum
Except he's strongly stated that there is no right to privacy in the past and that he would not support/uphold any right to privacy, so what the fuck does he care?
Also he's wrong.
Funny how he supports privacy, but wants to repeal Roe v Wade (abortion) which is entirely based on the right to privacy.
[editline]2nd January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];34017234']Except he's strongly stated that there is no right to privacy in the past and that he would not support/uphold any right to privacy, so what the fuck does he care?
Also he's wrong.[/QUOTE]
He probably said that so he can repeal Roe v Wade as I mentioned.
What a prick.
So everyone loved the shit out of this guy, then he was somehow linked to something about racism, now hes a laughing stock all in the span of a few months
what
[QUOTE=Shazmind;34017304]So everyone loved the shit out of this guy, then he was somehow linked to something about racism, now hes a laughing stock all in the span of a few months
what[/QUOTE]
He seemed like such a nice guy before that picture with the Grand Wizard.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.