According to Dr. Paul and Libertarians like him. All things can be achieved through individual acts and the free market.

Dr. Paul, how long were blacks supposed to wait until the magical free market was going to end segregatio­n? They already waited nearly 100 years after the Civil War.

It’s easy to be against something when you’ve never had to be protected by it.

Ron Paul is educating the ignorant masses about how unjust and unconstitutional the Civil Rights Act is. How can you FORCE taverns to serve minorities and FORBID them to serve folks under 21? The Fourteenth Amendment forbids States to discriminate, but does not allow Congress to forbid private companies to discriminate. Racism needs to be combated with boycotts.

Part of the problem arises when bureaucrats dole out limited numbers of business licenses (such as taxis and bars) and you could  argue that if all the licensed taxi companies, or all the licensed bars, discriminate, that the government is discriminating; but the solution is to repeal the license restrictions so anybody can open another taxi company or bar.

What Paul is saying is that Private property rights are a superior category of rights to human and civil rights. This is just another way of endorsing  Romneys wet dream that “Corporations are people”. Ron Paul thinks that the bad things in society will work themselves out just fine as long as private property rights are respected. His is a completely amoral system. Ayn Randian system that deifies those in charge and feeds on a steady diet of sheeple.

Let’s say Walmart imposes a policy of refusing to hire minorities. [They don't] Suddenly, by deleting a large part of the application pool, Walmart has to pay more for labor. That means they have to raise prices, and that gives the other stores a chance to catch up. Walmart would pay dearly for discriminating.

Now, if the bus company, with a contract to provide bus service for the city, and a government-protected monopoly, started discriminating like that, it would be different.

This is non-issue for me as a black man because I rather know what businesses do not want my business. Many Blacks believe that integration did more harm than good contributing to the destruction of many black businesses. Black unemployment remains significantly higher than the rest of the country. On the issue of Jim Crow laws, a new Jim Crow era was erected when Richard Nixon started the Drug War. Now when a person has a drug conviction, they can be legally discriminated against in areas of employment, housing, student loans, grants etc;. Ron Paul is the only candidate that wants to end the Drug War. On the issue of education, our black children still do poorly on standardized testing, schools are pretty much still segregated, our neighborhoods are pretty much still segregated and our communities and schools are still falling short on funding. So I ask, what good has federal legislation done when these things are still a problem?

Here’s the thing…the job of the government which I believe most people agree is to protect its people.  It’s why even in a “free market” system, it is illegal to open a business where you pay someone to shoot someone in the face.  Now, there’s a lot of people that people don’t like, and a business that shoots people in the face would certainly do very, very well.  However, it causes harms to Americans, and since, the government is protecting its people, well, then it’s okay for that to be illegal.  Can we agree on that?

Of course, that’s an extreme view, but it’s similar to the idea of the Civil Rights Act.  It’s protecting American (that word seems to keep getting forgotten when we debate rights) citizens from harm.  The humiliation of being treated as second class citizens.  I can begin to fathom how awful it must feel to be told I can’t eat with other Americans because my skin color is different.  What that does for your psyche and what it does for your feeling of self worth.  It’s not getting shot in the face, but it leaves some painful scars.  Again, protection of American citizens should ALWAYS trump business interests.  That’s why in this case, libertarianism is wrong.  The illusion of a free market system is detrimental to the very protections we wish for the government to deliver to us.  Unless, as a libertarian, you want to get rid of laws that protect us and let the government be, well, I have no idea what you want the government to do.

Thank u. 

CaptainPopcorn – You apparently aren’t very educated on Paul or on libertarians.  Segregation was a product OF THE GOVERNMENT.  It was not initially created by the free market.  The military was segregated, public schools were segregated.  Slavery, was instituted by the government.  Ron Paul is for about 98% of what was in the Civil Rights Act.  He was for the repealing of Jim Crow laws, which were laws created by GOVERNMENT.  What he did not agree with was mandating private property owners who they can and cannot serve.  Blacks have green, and businesses survive on green, so it is natural the free market did not need a law with another mandate.  A business denying a black service would be run out of town and chastised by his peers and community.So you apparently have quite a misinterpretation of Paul, what he stands for, and libertarians in general.

I have no doubt that this appeal to blatant racism and segregationist beliefs (particularly in the south, but elsewhere as well) will help Paul to some degree.  His problem is that it’s a tiny sheet-wearing minority that actually wants to do away with the CRA of 1964.

Um, don’t whites who hate blacks tend to have more green than blacks during that time?  So, it would work in the northeast perhaps, but I think without the Civil RIghts Act, the south would still be okay with keeping blacks out of establishments and it’s tough for people in New York to boycott a business in the South.

Ron Paul is a disgusting racist. The fact he can come on TV in his Klan robe and hood and spout his racist views and the MSM looks the other way is disgusting. 

You do understand Black people are in jail for more than just drug laws.  The ENTIREjudicial system needs to be overhauled. 
Ron Paul has been in congress forever and has done nothing to help Black people.  If u think he is going to help Black people as President u are smoking crack.

Candy Crowley got a little flustered during another segment.
Shows her true color, red.

Here is what Candy said:
“Does Iowa stay red?…I’m sorry does Iow…Does Iowa stay ah…Democratic?”

CNN’s transcript is slightly different:
“Does Iowa stay red? Sorry. Does Iowa say Democratic?”

Does Iowa stay red?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgzYZhmqM8Y

)

We don’t have to rely on hypotheticals.  There is an actual history here.

How did it work out for Woolworth’s when they refused to serve black customers at lunch counters?  They did just fine. 

Your body is your property, therefore human rights and property rights are exactly the same thing.

Segregation was enforced by government through Jim Crow laws, not the market.

That’s the one area where his purist libertarian view might be flawed from a societal consequences standpoint.

Other than that, he’s a national treasure

If
the Republicans don’t nominate RON Paul I’m supporting Gov. Gary Johnson on the
Libertarian Ticket

  Individuals who think that the Federal Government can legislate morality are inverting what is actually happening. It is not the Government forcing society to act a certain way it is the majority of society causing it to happen regardless of what the Government does. The harms that arise due to driving bigots and racists underground, vs dealing with their transparent racism directly, causes new organized prejudices to arise, such as drug laws that are extremely harsh and unfair to minorities. The idea that the Government can solve complex long term societal bigotry and racism through decree is as naive as one can get and it only serves to drive resentful bigots and racists underground creating issues that are even harder to deal with on top of infringing on personal liberty.

If civil liberties of equal men were honored with the rule of law we would all be better off than the federal government issuing privileges to some at the expense of others.

The intent of the 64 act was noble though flawed in its Constitutional consistency which should be the measure of any legislation. Paul is advocating only that academic fact not the validity of racism. This is all part of laws that become precedent for a sliding loss of freedom. If the civil rights acts allows the deminishing of some rights in favor of others no matter how well intentioned it is bad legislation and the smart people in congress simply need to work harder to find a Constitutionally consistent solution.

The danger is just what we are now living, a Patriot act that leads to the final treason of the recently signed HR1540 NDAA bill stripping us of the last of our protection from this government out of control. 

We must embrace the freedom of all even the bigots and terrorists. It is the only way to inspire the masses. To embrace the later will only produce more division and violence.

  The reversal of the policy due to public outrage and sit-ins directly contradicts your post. I guess the free market did work.

 Who else has even made this an issue? You are the one smoking crack because instead of listening to someone who makes sense you blame him for not creating change when the very reason he cannot create change is because of the ignorance and inertia of people exactly like you.

The hyperbole isn’t helping, trose1. If you’re not going to be serious, then the conversation will just route around you.

Paul said he supported the elimination of Jim crow laws. Does this mean he supported the federal government’s mandate to the states to end the practice? This seems to be a different take on the Tenth Amendment than the States’ Rights stuff I’ve been hearing. It takes a narrow, twisted reading of the Tenth Amendment to go from this:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.

to this:

Those acts not specifically prohibited by the States cannot be forced on them by the United States.

I even had a “conservative” friend who told me that the issue with the Occupy Movement and Constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression were irrelevant as the states would be the ones to force the protestors to shut up and move on. The above interpretation was the only one I could come up with to explain her possible rationale.

U cannot segregate his views,  The man is a racist monster. The fact people pretend he is some hero tells u more about his supporters than about the man.  Racism is alive and well in U.S.

Paul brings up an important point that is so often
missed when people talk about civil rights: Jim Crow = Government. Jim Crow
came about because state and local governments didn’t like it when business did
equal business with blacks. So often we think of the Civil Rights Act as
forcing companies to do business or equal business with black Americans without
recognizing that Jim Crow forced companies to not do business or equal business
with black Americans. Countless business would have opened their services to
black Americans had government not been there to stop them. Protecting private
property rights would have made Jim Crow null and void. It can be argued, as
Paul does, that the Civil Rights Act having been imposed by Washington only intensified
and insured the longevity of racism in the south for years to come.

The man is a racist.He thinks Black people will vote for him so he can legalize drug?.  He is a nut because many Black people are not interested in legalizing drugs.  If you want to help Black people overhaul the entire judicial system. 
Paul can go back to the klan cave he came from.  He is a sick racist monster.  Those who follow him are the same.  Disgusting individuals.

Sorry but the CRA is the law of the land.  Why does he want to reliitgate it?  If he was so interested in civil rights why is he not doing anything about the GOP initiative to disnfranchise voters throughout the US?
What is he saying about the emergency manager laws being enacted in MI?  See your crackpot ideas don’t hold water with people who actually know what is going on in this country. 
Take your racist views somewhere else.

And you think government will fix everything for everybody, and that it will do it without destroying liberty.

How’s that working out for us?

You just don’t get it… Dr. Paul’s objection isn’t about segregation, it’s about the government being given the authority to tell somebody what they can do in the home or business.  It’s the same concept as non-smokers opposing bans on smoking bars.  You have the right to own a smoking bar and I have the right to avoid that place.

Harm and humiliation are two different things.

Would you eat in a restaurant with a sign that says “No Blacks Allowed?” I wouldn’t. If you were black, would you want to eat with people who would eat there? Why? I’d rather patronize someone who wants my business.

Yeah lets go back to the good old days when blacks could be barred from the purchase of goods because of their skin color. At least the moron Scottyreid would know who wants his business and who doesnt. I to look forward to the days when the “no blacks allowed” signs reappear in store front windows, hotels and restaruants. If he happens to live in a community where he cannot purchase what he wants or needs he can go down the road to the next town or state. Hey when he is on vacation he will have to plan on where he can go before hand to make sure no to offend any of the good business owners of America who simply dont want Scottyreid to set foot in their establishments and sully them for the good white folks who’s money is desired. The return of segregation would do wonders for the self esteem of black youth of America.  Scottyreid (if you are really black) you are truly nuts and need to  get your head examined.

For those who tried to qualify Rand Paul’s remarks during his senate campaign as “out of context” or “not what he  meant” or some other attempt to square his remarks with contemporary US attitudes, check out the tree from which that nut fell. 

Ron Paul sure hates the Constitution.

Typical conservative anti-logical leap. Just because the government can’t fix “everything” DOES NOT MEAN THEY CAN’T FIX “ANYTHING.” How can you dimwits claim we are the greatest nation EVAH–without crediting our governments. Stupid teabaggers! Who often proclaimed “keep your government hands off my Medicare,” what friggin idiots.

The video was not over the top, but this article made it seem like it would be.
Ron Paul has some points to make from a Libertarian pov, but overall he
did quite poorly on this issue.  It goes to show how unelectable he would be
in the general election.  However, no Repub looks very electable as it stands
right now.

Right now I think its 60/40 Obama over a Republican candidate.  Repubs best get
their game face on if they want to win the White House.

btw, I am Independent and dislike both parties equally…well almost equally…well
don’t go pass any laws saying how equally I must treat each party  OK?

Segregation ended in some stores, but not in others.  In Jackson, Mississippi for example, the Woolworth’s chose to close its lunch counter rather than desgregate.  The leader of the lunch counter sit ins in Jackson, (Medgar Evers) was murdered.   Woolworths did not end segregation in all of its stores until passage of the CRA.

http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24422

In order to end segregation in just a few businesses, protesters had to endure beatings, humiliation, harassment, assassination.  The idea that we would dishonor these peoples’ achievements and endure this whole goddamn disaster again is insane.

It does tell us quite a bit about the conservative movement, though.  I guess conservatives think that one of the great problems in this country is that you can’t hang up a “No N—’s” sign in the window of your business.

 The federal government legislates what types of behavior are permitted and which are not all the time, whether the individual agrees with these laws in their heads is of no consequence. Your concern for blacks and the “war on drugs” is laughable at best, your not fooling anyone.

“The man is a racist monster.” Yes, this link says it all:
http://youtu.be/8Rv0Z5SNrF4
Any replies to this thread?

 It appears you are the racist You are the one that appears to be O.K with the great harm the drug laws are doing to minorities and the unfairness of the judicial system to them on a statistical level. You are squarely on the side of violent drug cartels who grow rich from the status-quo drug laws and very likely would finance the campaigns of those that want to elevate it, if possible, so as to drive up prices, hence their profits, while ignoring the root causes of demand that have scientifically been shown to be better explained, and treated within a disease model than being attributable to criminality, the latter being the racists viewpoint and very likely yours as well.

“Harm and humiliation are two different things.”

Humiliation isn’t harmful?

“Would you eat in a restaurant with a sign that says “No Blacks Allowed?” I wouldn’t.”

Who cares?  Let’s say you live in a small town with only one pharmacy, for example.  This pharmacy refuses to serve non-whites.  Any non-white person in that community then suffers very real harm.

In economic terms the “corporations are people” phrase is correct. When it comes to taxation you cannot tax a business. You can only tax people. People are the only ones who can pay taxes. Not Santa, not the easter bunny…Only people. All taxes, including taxes on businesses, are paid by people. When a “business” tax is imposed, it is either paid by the shareholders, the consumer, or the employees. Taxes are always born by people.

This what Romney is referring to.

Jim Crow only enshrined in law practices that were already commonplace.  If you think there was no segregation before Jim Crow, you are sadly mistaken.

Funny then that Rep. Paul says 
“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,” 

Then he goes on now and says he favours a personhood amendment…talk about being inside “our bedrooms”.  Such hypocrisy seems to lost on Mr. Paul as he panders to the minions in Iowa. 

Huh? Really?  Are you referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or 1964?  There’s no defending Paul’s position on this.

why is he racist? because he believes that all people should be treated equally under the law? Is it because he does not believe in laws being passed that provide special treatment of some over others?

If you have one person who believes that the law should read, all are to be treated equally under the law, and the other who believes laws should be passed that help only a certain group of people who share a particular trait, which one is more fair? who would be the racist?

Look, many of the posters here take extreme positions on both sides and make simplistic arguments.  Although Dr. Paul may not be a racist in the purest sense of the word, his positions on the CRA are misguided.  BTW, he took a Hippocratic Oath to be ethical – whatever that means.

I am racist for calling out racism. (rollining my eyes).  I am against the white judicial system systematially imprisoning Black people for drugs or any other crime disproportianetly.

  Do you know what enumerated powers are? Also your lack of concern about minorities being unfairly targeted statistically, due to the “drug war”, and the erosion of personal liberty is sad. Continue supporting the laughable “war on drugs” and helping the biggest winner of it who are the drug cartels that get rich while those suffering from drug addiction, which has been shown to be closer to a disease than criminal behavior, bear the brunt of your misplaced prejudice.

I don’t think anyone is arguing with his Libertarian ideals, but the CRA of 1964 was absolutely necessary as were all other before that.  The Irish, for example, were discriminated against at first, but eventually through assimilation and strong arming became acceptable.  Blacks were here well before then, but 150 years later were still second class citizens. 

Ron Paul would have been against those unfair laws and practices because they attack liberty.

Civil rights laws only serve to create racial divisions.

Let’s not have a law, a philosophy, or a society that is dictated by color, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, etc.

Let’s stop implying that people belonging to a certain group are inferior and in need of special protections.

Let’s all have the SAME rights and the SAME responsibilities in this country and live up to that phrase, ”…all men all created equal…”.

I believe that is the message of Ron Paul.

Then why is he opposed to the law that ended those unfair laws and practices?

I think it is more likely that RP would take a “states’ rights” position on Jim Crow, which was the same position that the segregationists and secessionists took.

It’s not enough to simply holler “liberty.” A free people often have to make difficult decisions that balance the liberties of different and competing interests.

You do realise that ending drug war =/= legalising drugs, right?  That would be up to the individual states.

“Just because the government can’t fix “everything ‘DOES NOT MEAN THEY CAN’T FIX “ANYTHING.’”

Spot on. Ask any sensible minority would they rather live in those times or these. That doesn’t mean everything is peaches and cream now, but come on. The first half is the government protecting against racism. The second half is society recognizing racism and fighting against it. The latter has yet to happen, and is more of a dream than the former. Until it does, the protections of the former will do.

 I agree with you to a large degree but this is a very very important issue because it is about liberty vs life. I disagree with the idea that life begins at conception, which is a combination of cells that in no way resemble a human being. On the other hand it is legal right now to terminate a pregnancy at 8 months 2 weeks which is absolutely unacceptable in my view. There needs to be a bright red line drawn where cells have developed to the point there is a brain integrated with the nervous system and the ability for sensory perception whether it be touch or one of the other senses. This, to me, is a rational solution to the extremes of life at conception and the termination of life that could survive outside the womb.

To be fair, his beliefs on abortion seem to be genuine ones rather than pandering.  It’s still pretty jarring in light of the rest of his libertarian beliefs, though!

What you have to understand is Ron Paul is pro-life because of his experiences as a gynecologist delivering babies.

He considers an unborn child to be just that – a person. And, as such, he believes that this person should be entitled to rights, including the right to not be murdered simply because he’s not wanted by his/her mother.

If a deprivation of human rights happens behind closed doors, it doesn’t excuse it or make it less wrong.

I believe that’s Dr. Ron Paul’s position on the issue and I see nothing hypocritical about it.

This is a gross distortion just as was MSNBC on Ron Paul. Check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ2tHVkm67E&context=C32fa630ADOEgsToPDskKy9X_SYdHtkbJ-Hb1oFeFy

http://www.voteforronpaul2012.com/
Join in the R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution
http://www.facebook.com/voteforronpaul2012

Dr Ron Paul would have vetoed segregation laws because he is a constitutionalist, by belief and action! Look at his record. The only time he abandoned the constitution when voting for Martin Luther King holiday. Anything else?

Without the CRA you would still have all of those ills AND you would be sneaking in through the back entrance of the restaurant, if they were kind enough to let you in at all.

Before the PATRIOT Act, the government could never come into our bedroom!

Has this unconstitutional cracker ever heard of Lawrence v. Texas?  I must have missed Paul’s opposition to Texas’ sodomy laws.

RON PAUL 2012.  SUPPORTING SEXUAL FREEDOM SINCE 9/12/01.

“99% of the comments and replies you’re reading online come from an NSA software program spamming the internet.”

How do you know that your own comments don’t come from an NSA software program?

Oh, and $arah Palin is obviously working for Fidel Castro. You’re a brave person for pointing this out, even if the NSA is creating all of your posts.

January 16th is Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

Thank Ron Paul for it. He voted for it when he was supposedly writing racist newsletters.

Dr Ron Paul would have vetoed segregation laws because he is a
constitutionalist, by belief and action! Look at his record. The only
time he abandoned the constitution when voting for Martin Luther King
holiday.

Did you blow that crap out of your asss?

Couldn’t I make that same argument when he complains about equality initiatives? People like to point and say there are still problems, or worse, in minority communities, but when has the country EVER been completely on board with correcting the wrongs of racism? There has always been opposition, every step of the way, including today. Ignorance and inertia.

Oh Ron Paul, I know what you’re trying to say, and I know what you’re trying to protect, but please stop rambling on national news.  It’s not helping you, bro.

The man is a racist, yet he voted for Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

Really?

Do you even know what Jim Crow laws were?  They were laws which segregated government facilities — schools, public transportation, parks, etc.

They didn’t prevent individuals from transacting business with other individuals. That was done by lynch mobs, threats, economic coercion and, mainly, by private businessmen who just didn’t like n—ers.

Thank you for bringing some much needed common sense to Pablo’s inane (as usual) and stupid assertions. Very well stated. It’s hard to elevate the level of discourse on this site with posters like Pablo.

No, they aren’t.  Humiliation does harm.  Not all harm is humiliation.  Sort of an apples and fruit kind of comparison. (It’s like saying apples and fruit are two different things.)  If you truly think that, then you may be a cruel person and not even realize it.

I wouldn’t patronize, and certainly wouldn’t expect any person that I know.  But here’s the question, this was the norm back in the fifties and the sixties.  Would you say that eventually these businesses would go away?  We don’t know that, since they were thriving in the sixties without problem.  Again, I think someone mentioned that certainly the government helped inspire this trend with the segregation of the military, the segregation of water fountains, etc.  But once they were done away with, how long before the no black businesses disappeared.  Heck, that was still a policy that was in place in most private clubs and they didn’t magically go away either because suddenly morality crept into people.  And the “well, I won’t patronize the business” isn’t a solid model because as you know on this site, there are quite a few people who don’t think like you.  For example, I don’t go to strip clubs in NY.  I think their treatment of women (many are immigrants who came over with a promise of a better life but then got exploited by sleazy men.  There’s a sadness there, and I won’t go to one wondering about elements like human trafficking and exploitation.) is deplorable.  They seem to be doing quite fine without my business.

I agree with the part of your post that says many minorities in this country are treated as second class citizens. The fact that we have special laws for them shows that they are indeed thought of as a different class of citizens.

All Ron Paul is saying is that we should all be in the SAME class of citizens. Drop the African American, drop the Asian American, drop the white and Hispanic-American. We’re all just Americans.

That’s a better message of togetherness and brotherhood than what we have now.

Exactly. It becomes very feasible for whites, who are the group in power through the history of this country, to block the upward mobility of minorities. Hell, it still happens now, but would to a much larger degree without the CRA. If a white community wanted to keep minorities out, all they have to do is prevent them from entering their establishments. Who is going to live in a community where you cannot even buy the basic necessities without getting in your car and driving two towns over? Think about the gas prices alone. On top of that, I hope you can find a gas station that doesn’t discriminate.

When you celebrate Martin Luther King. Jr. Day on January 16th, thank Dr. Ron Paul for voting for it in 1979.

Thanks and have a nice day.

I sir am not a second class citizen. You may feel that way, but I am not. Thank you.

Pablum your view of human nature and societal evolution are uniformed at worst and naive at best. The lingering effects of clan-ism and tribal-ism indicate that societies such as the one you advocate are more analogous to Afghanistan than the Western World. Open your mind for once and just CONSIDER what other posters are expressing. Nevermind . . .

Actually, this is a falsehood.  Ron Paul voted AGAINST the bill that created the MLK, Jr. holiday.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1983-289

Nay: Tx-22 Paul, Ronald (R)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1983-289

Ron Paul voted AGAINST the MLK holiday.

That may not be true today, but up until 60 years ago it was fact.  In WWII every able man was expected to fight for their country.  But if you were black or a dark minority you couldn’t fight with the whites.

Look at the past 20 years how gay people have went from “ewww” to being embraced. Have there been a ton of special laws catering to gays, or have they started a social movement that has swept the country?

Ron Paul’s point is that you can’t legislate tolerance. You can only teach it and learn it through social change.

I really cannot not remember reading anything so off the rails. I rarely ask about somebody’s age, but you could not have lived prior to 1964 and been black. My God.

Of course I had Con Law back in the day when lawyers wore wigs and robes, but I remember the power for the CRA of ’64 was the Commerce Clause, which has been held to be “plenary.”  Not seating black people at restaurants meant that the sellers in other states could put less goods into the stream of commerce.  Liberty is not absolute.  I like the CRA of ’64, but I like Paul a bit too.  It is good to re-examine things without being shut down by blithe claims of racism.

Ron Paul never ever ever voted for any bill that would have made MLK day a national holiday.  He voted for an amendment in 1979 designed to defeat the real MLK holiday bill.

When the MLK holiday was passed in 1983, Ron Paul voted against it.

http://www.govtrack.us/congres...

Thanks and have a nice day.

 I think these people are selling computer info from those of us who reply.  (I’ve done it myself, so let’s hope I’m wrong.)

Does anyone here believe it’s OK for me to be denied a position because of my race, while the position is given to another, of different ethnic or racial background, who is demonstrably less qualified than I for the position?

 Actually you are spreading the falsehood. He voted for it to be on another day. He wasn’t against 0as a holiday he was against that particular day and for another day which failed to pass. That particular amendment may have failed while another one passed but that does not mean he was against the holiday.

 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-624

Aye    TX-22    Paul, Ronald [R]

 Let’s stop implying that people belonging to a certain group are inferior and in need of special protections.

Let’s
all have the SAME rights and the SAME responsibilities in this country
and live up to that phrase, ”…all men all created equal…”.

With this much I agree.  A young black man should be free to grow up, marry a white girl and hang at the yacht club with her parents and their homies.  He should not be condemned to a life of being a studious liberal.  Of being a Democrat, or worse, property of the Democrats.

As Howard Cossell would have said:

 ”DOWN GOES MUNDELL ! ! !”

You could actually research this if you like.  Ron Paul and others who opposed the holiday voted for an amendment which would have caused MLK day to always fall on a Sunday, thereby effectively making it a non-holiday.

Not once did he ever vote for any house bill that would have made MLK day a holiday.  He only voted for an amendment designed to defeat the actual bill.

The one time he had a chance to vote for the holiday, he voted against it.  That’s the truth.

Something tells me you think Washington can control the climate.

The Way to Stop Discrimination on the Basis of Race Is to Stop Discriminating on the Basis of Race

Washington seems to be having trouble figuring that out.

 Often when people agree on something, they write it down for posterity.  Laws are like that.  The CRA of ’64 hastened the rise of consciousness you allude to.  A lot of youngsters think segregated facilities happened ‘a long time ago, in a land far away’ but it is not so.  I remember segregated Greyhound Bus stations and people riding in the back of the city bus.  In fact, there was a sliding marker that said “COLORED” on the part facing the rear of the bus and “WHITE” on the part facing the front.  This was before the CRA of ’64.

No, humiliation is not harmful. Your feelings are not protected by the Constitution.

Yes, they’re calling everyone racists. How novel.

Gay people have fought through the courts, through state and national legislatures and lobbied the executive branch to achieve something closer to equal protection under the law.  The struggle is hardly finished.  Their opponents continue to try and use the government to deprive them of equal protection. 

As with all struggles for civil rights, the bigots are losing…BECAUSE people who give a damn keep fighting in every way they can.

No.

That works fine and well in a society devoid of racism. Unfortunately, that is not the case. That position is fine in a neutral society where racism does not exists. The United States has a deep history of racism that has very much impacted its societal structure. To ignore racism now, to not seek to correct the imbalances created by it, actually only perpetuates it. The time to not see race was during the establishment of racism. That boat sailed a long time ago.

  “The first half is the government protecting against racism. The second half is society recognizing racism and fighting against it.”

 You have it completely upside down. The first half is “society recognizing racism and fighting against it” not the Government. The Government is dragged kicking and screaming after society fights against racism forcing the Governments to comply and then everything it does messes up the progress that society was making. You talk like we live under the dictatorship of dear leader where he makes all the decisions vs the reality that we live in a democracy where the people push the policies. You think the hypocritical leaders who pander to the public have enough of a backbone to do anything but pander their talking points to a public that pushes them in the right direction? What a joke, it is the exact opposite of what you claim and with beliefs like yours the outcome will be a totalitarian dictatorship because you cannot think for yourself and relegate the responsibility to some abstract idea of Government ignoring the fact it is made up of flawed individuals no different than you or the average citizen..

We aren’t talking about my feelings, Pablo.  I’m a white dude.  Racism helps and protects me.

But for people who were/are actually subject to humiliation because of racism/segregation, it certainly is harmful.  Only a fool would deny that.

But look who I’m talking to!

If I complained of being the black sheep in my family, would you take that as me actually believing I am a black sheep, or me commenting on the unfair treatment I receive from my family?

But in one instance it’s blatant racism and bias, and in another, it’s a great act of “fairness”.  Fair to who?  It’s things like that, that Dr Paul finds fault with. And for saying that, he gets labled as being racist by his political and business enemies.   It’s legislated discrimination!  Anyone can try to spin it, anyway they want, but that’s the bottom line, if you just look at the facts.

  You completely miss the point by denigrating the heroic actions of protesters who endured the hardships of beatings by their own free will and in turn inspired others, a nation, to stand up for the rights of minorities, it is in no way a negative that very brave people took on these hardships to stand up for others and in actuality it is a shining example of the best of humanity. You have it all upside down and inside out without any understanding of the heroic words of Patrick Henry who said “Give me liberty or give me death”, you sir are a coward who has no understanding of the best aspects of human nature because you denigrate them as errors. I feel sorry for you because the only way you could so widely miss the mark would be due to the fact that you are completely lacking the best traits of humanity, otherwise you would know better than to judge others with arrogant indignation and you would not have a desire to impose your will on others in the most cowardly way possible, through Government coercion and relegation of personal responsibility to strangers in their gilded castle.

The KKK and racists don’t think of it that way…

Another reason Ron Paul will NEVER be POUS.

 And the drug war is a major cause of that. They are essentially the new surreptitious Jim Crow laws with some plausible deniability integrated into them so that closet and subconscious racists can openly push for harsher laws punishing minorities without being called racist or bigoted. Also just because creating laws that hold a group down is wrong does not mean creating laws to lift a particular group up is right. Everyone is better of when all are equal under the law because that will not foster resentments that create dangerous dividing lines within society that are actually harmful to the society that rational people want to see come to fruition.

 You are spreading the falsehood. He voted for it to be on another day. He wasn’t against MLK day as a holiday he was against that particular day and for another day which failed to pass. That particular amendment may have failed while another bill passed but that does not mean he was against the holiday.

 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-624

Aye    TX-22    Paul, Ronald [R]

  You are spreading a falsehood. He voted for it to be on another day. He wasn’t against MLK day as a holiday he was against that particular day and for another day which failed to pass. That particular amendment may have failed while another bill passed but that does not mean he was against the holiday.

 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-624

Aye    TX-22    Paul, Ronald [R]

What a marvelous, brilliant human being.   The GOP at its very best.

Chill out, fanatic. When I say society recognizing racism, I mean the vast majority of society actually recognizing racism AND the repercussions of it so that they might fix the problem. That has never happened in this country’s history. Never. Of course there were those who put pressure on the government, but they were not overall representative of society. The fact is, when it comes to bigotry, the government has to play the role of dictator. That’s what protects the rights of the minority from the democracy of the majority. The framers of the constitution recognized this. You can get all hyperbolic with your accusations of totalitarian dictatorships, but the fact is that if everything were left up to the good will of the people there would be no need for laws, or the constitution itself.

 Henry Wood

 Did you bother going to the link:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-624

 Which says:

TO AMEND H.R. 5461, MARTIN LUTHER KING HOLIDAY, BY DESIGNATING THE THIRD MONDAY IN JANUARY  RATHER THAN JANUARY 15 AS THE LEGAL HOLIDAY.

 How exactly is Monday a Sunday?

You need to do some research.

Did your mother teach you to spell?

Paul believes in the freedom to discriminate.  So personal discrimination is okay, and legislated “discrimination” to tip the balance back just a little, is bad. Got it.

By this rationale, since cigarettes murder and poison millions more than heroin and coke, then the later two should be legal? (I do none of the 3). I CAN stay away from all 3 (and do) but what of more naive or innocent folks who get offered heroin as a kick? And the tobacco industry is paying such taxes, but not to pay for the rehab of their customers. They also have vigorous restrictions as to who can grow tobacco… funny situation, huh?

 ”Chill out, fanatic.”

Guilty as charged I am a fanatic for freedom. Much better than being a fanatic for fascism who openly admits he is happy with a dictatorship.

I quote” “the government has to play the role of dictator.”

 That you think that is a positive statement in regards to anything is scary and sad. I was using hyperbole when talking of a totalitarian dictatorship but after reading your sad rationalization I am not so sure. The Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves if your views reflect the average citizen.

“If the two races are to meet upon terms of social equality, it must be the result of natural affinities, a mutual appreciation of each other’s merits and a voluntary consent of individuals.”

What “catch phrase” best accompanies this statement?
a. “We shall overcome”
b. “I have a dream”
c. “Separate, but equal”
d. “A day that will live in infamy”

Bonus points: name the source.

David, you miss the point. The CRA was put in place after decades of resistance to granting equality to a significant number of human beings in our country. It may not have been perfect in the eyes of libertarians but it was the only means to an end that worked. If it was your family, and you were born in the Deep South, you’d probably have a hard time swallowing someone telling you to just suck it up and let the “Invisible Hand” of the market figure it out at some point in the future, especially after decades of your family being treated like subhumans. 

Paul’s idea that people would be able to pick up and leave the state they are born in if they face discrimination there (just like someone can buy another brand of dish washing detergent) is ridiculous. It would mean abandoning their families. And if you don’t think there are some counties that would revert to segregation given the chance, you’re mistaken. Trust me. I grew up in the South. 

Paul is arguing that we should reinstitute a system that allows for racial bias–just so it would “protect” property laws. I know Paul disagrees, but I think equality is a right (certainly  one I value above the right to own property) even if it isn’t enforced well. 

Yeah, Ellen, keep posting comments that you can then “like” under different names as if everyone here is too stupid to notice. 

How much $$ are you making driving traffic to that piece of sh*t you call a website? Hopefully enough to pay for the pills you should be taking. 

P.S.–Big Brother has just ordered a raid of your home. We must suppress the truth. Orders by the NSA and Obama’s banking masters. Don’t worry, ObamasOsama. This just applies to Ellen, not you. (wink)

Somewhere in a box in Ron Paul’s attic is an old, dusty hood and white robe and hood.

Yeah, Castro = Eisenhower. The ignorance of these sheeple on here is astounding. I guess the microwave signals aimed at the brains of every man, woman and Lizard Person in this country is really working. Thanks for cluing us in, ObamasOsama. 

Have you spoken to your doctor about this as well? He/She may be able to help you before the Obamobot army arrests you. 

The fact that you support him is further evidence that nobody should be voting for Paul.  

http://www.webcitation.org/5vnLjow8L

“The following day, December 5, the special rule (H. Res. 497) was easily adopted by voice vote. The debate then began on the Conyers bill (H.R. 5461), this time with an hour of general debate allowed before amendments would be considered. Congressman Robert McClory (R-Ill.) first offered an amendment to the committee bill to change the holiday from January 15 of each year to the third Monday in January. He was countered by Rep. Robin Beard (R-Tenn.) who offered a substitute for the committee bill to change the holiday to the third Sunday in January. The first vote occurred on the McClory amendment which was adopted 291 to 106. Because Beard had a substitute amendment, its adoption would vitiate the effect of the McClory amendment, and he succeeded, 207 to 191.”

Ron Paul is voting on amendments in 1979 to change the day.  In one case he votes to change it from Jan 15th to the third Monday, after which he voted to move it to the third Sunday.

NEITHER OF THESE VOTES are votes to make the day a national holiday.  They are votes to move the day.  RP could not possibly have voted for the MLK holiday in 1979 BECAUSE THERE WAS NO FULL HOUSE VOTE.

In 1983, THERE WAS A FULL HOUSE VOTE and RP VOTED AGAINST THE BILL.

Are you kidding? Not only do Paul’s newsletters include rants about how we shouldn’t celebrate the life of a pinko philanderer like MLK (Paul’s characterization), but he definitely voted AGAINST the holiday. 
http://www.dailypaul.com/196197/martin-luther-king-day-ron-pauls-vote

As for his being a constitutionalist, one thing that Paulites fail to understand is that (1) his idea of constitutionality is entirely based on his subjective interpretation and (2) the Founding Fathers made it extremely clear that the constitution was meant to be loosely interpreted and built upon so as to better meet future needs of people (such as the generations that ended child labor and slavery and granted equal rights to women). Jefferson himself suggested it be rewritten every 15 years. 

Notice that Paul never gives a concrete answer?

All his answers are “magical”.

Well, we could have done it a better way or another way.

What a BS artist he is.

That said, he is right about the bias in the Court system and the war on drugs. But that has nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act.

Ron Paul wants to allow segregation. There is no other way to spin that.

What an idiot he is.

So what one man believes should be forced upon all women? Regardless of whether they agree with him or not? Or whether it’s even scientifically proven, or provable? Doesn’t sound much like freedom and liberty to me.

And yet, Paul thinks abortion should be illegal?

“That particular amendment may have failed while another bill passed but that does not mean he was against the holiday.”

In 1979 he voted for amendments to the bill.  That is not the same as voting for the bill.  He could not have voted for the bill in 1979 because it never came to a final house vote.

In 1983 he had the opportunity to vote for MLK day, and he voted against it.  If he wasn’t opposed to it, then why did he vote against it?

And according to the Constituition, the government has the right to protect the WELFARE of all it’s citizens, which it is doing when banning harmful toxins in enclosed areas.

Okay.  Good luck with that.

Sounds like multiple personality disorder to me.  ObamasOsama/Ellen Woods, get it together.  If you keep it up, we’re going to see you on an A&E show in the near future.

Only this doesn’t apply to women? If their bodies are their property, then anything inside their bodies would be by definition their property, and theirs to decide upon. In other words, his stance on abortion is in clear violation of his own beliefs.

So you think if there wasn’t government enforced integration anymore people would just stop caring about segregated businesses? The way people didn’t care about what Michael Richards did even though it isn’t illegal to call black people the “n” word?

Oh, wait…

Paul believes states should decide the issue, not the Federal
Government.

And how do you make yet another fantastical and idiotic leap in logic  when I clearly wrote “The Government Can’t Fix Everything?” Are you really that dim? Never mind . . .

Or like how wrong things are only wrong because the government tells you they’re wrong, right? After all, without the super-powered angelical holders of the absolute truth in government, we mere mortals wouldn’t know WHAT to do!!! Because they aren’t just as human as Michael Richards, they’re GODS!

We’re too stupid, Mr. Government! Show us the way!

Or, rather, “I’m an enlightened individual, but everyone around me is stupid and DOESN’T THINK LIKE ME, Mr. Government!!! Reign them in! Don’t let the vicious barbarians take hold!!!”

Masterful.

No one is perfect. I disagree with him on that too.

 There is also no right to murder people. Do you think the termination the day before the scheduled birth date of a healthy baby, with a healthy mother, that could survive outside the womb is akin to murder? I do and believe most rational people would also, therefore, the question of when life begins is the central question as far as this issue goes. The rights of a woman and her liberty do not override another human consciousness. Now saying that life begins at conception seems like a stretch because that is a collection of cells with no human consciousness, therefore, somewhere in the middle of conception and viability outside the womb lies a rational answer to this question but to pretend this is a black and white issue with no grey areas where rational people can disagree is disingenuous.

If that’s true, how do you suppose it is that the vast majority of America has NEVER been segregated?

Racism still exists. It goes in various directions and it will probably never cease to exist. But it doesn’t fly in polite company. It isn’t socially acceptable. That’s the market of ideas at work, not the law.

That boat? Sailed before recorded history. Time to move on.

When I say society recognizing racism, I mean the vast majority of
society actually recognizing racism AND the repercussions of it so that
they might fix the problem. That has never happened in this country’s
history. Never.

That is utterly ignorant. All of America is not the South.

If Rep. Ron Paul was in World War I I, was he fighting with the allies or axis side?

I’m not going to go to far with this comment because it probably flies over the heads of most people who read and post on this site. HOWEVER, Paul’s point is valid only because the ACT itself included a ton of stuff (our government’s way of handling MANY issues) that did not address the reason for the act in and of itself. HE is correct in that the way the ACT was written it allows for a lot of gray-area interpretation that ISNT in the interest of ALL Americans. Sure it did a LOT of things for Civil Rights of women and minority Americans but Ron Paul looks at the details and within the details of ACTS such as the Civil Rights Act there are things that could be -and have been- abused for the purpose of a BIG GOVERNMENT.
SO, anything said in a derogatory manner regarding Paul in this case is just plain off base. HE is an old cagey dude who doesnt realize his intelligence is centuries ahead of the common American. 
SO lets post an inflammatory headline that will lead to the average idiot saying “What the hell is wrong with Ron Paul, is he some sort of racist?”.
This always makes me think of a few other acts that were “good” but were passed with stuff dovetailed within that when read on their own all you can say is “WHAT THE HELL” !

Yup. It’s also what the Supreme Court was referring to when they decided Citizens United.

Are you in favor of Cap and Trade or not?

So you’re saying equality under the law is special treatment?

I’m pretty much pro-gay rights EVERYTHING because its none of my business what two adults agree to and who they find to love so long as everyone involved is consenting. HOWEVER, I’m waiting for the “gay rights” person who stands up and says without any fear or without any smiles that GAY people are an ETHNICITY, a biologically distinct SEX and/or a RACE. WHEN we can get to the point where gay people have no issue with such a distinction, then I’ll wonder why its so hard to “get rights” for the homosexual community. Till then, for all my gay friends out there who dont know me and who have never heard this argument, understand your battle is VERY difficult because of this hard to tie down distinction, and its the reason why any and all arguments which rely on “civil rights” laws can and do generally fail. Gay people are not a check-box on any forms (yet?) because its a lifestyle. Some people like huge breasted blond chicks, some like small little legged bald headed girls, some like big armed tight butt men.. in the end, these are things you like. They are choices and to force another person to behave favorably will take time because if they dislike “your choice” they may hold prejudice and it will be difficult to change this.

  Government is of, by and for the people. If an elected official doesn’t act with the will of his or her constituents, he or she can be voted out. Which groups do you think LOBBIED for Jim Crow laws, and why were those who put those laws in effect re-elected time and time again?

–Cobra

It’s not the Drug Laws that are racist. It’s the application and enforcement.

 “Among 18-to-25 year olds, the 2009 National Survey of Drug Use and
Health reports that 39 percent of whites used an illicit drug in the
past year. For blacks, the rate was 34 percent. Some of these youth are
experimenting with illicit drugs, and some are fairly regular users. The
estimates for regular users are 23 percent for whites and 21 percent
for blacks. This age group has the highest rate of illicit drug use.

What this means a bit more concretely is that there are about 5
million white 18-to-25 year olds who are regular illicit drug users
compared to about 1 million black users.“

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/algernon-austin/white-privilege-and-illic_b_804130.html

 So if there are five times as many White Drug users as Black, why are half the people in jail for drugs Black?
 
  Racial Profiling. If the predominantly White police forces deep college campus sweeps, frat party raids, and summer house check points, you’d see those numbers balance out…but you don’t.

 Ask yourself why.

–Cobra

Who is on this Fantasy Island with you?  Who is the “us” in those “Let us” proclamations?

–Cobra

 It is not 1964 anymore and the reason racism and bigotry are less common is not because of Federal laws it is because a new generation who came to personally know minorities and could no longer dehumanize them replaced a generation that did dehumanize them. The fact that the people put a stop to segregation through protests and sit ins indicates the Federal laws are redundant and do nothing more than infringe on free will increasing the likelihood of more rationalizations to continue coercively infringing on individual free will, these same justifications can be applied to every area of personal life undermining personal responsibility and have been for the last century.

It’s probably because users generally don’t get locked up.

So, when you ask a pretty girl out and she laughs in your face, you’ve been harmed and your rights have been violated?

Fool.

“You know, apologetic about”? I have yet to hear Paul say the words, “I’m sorry”, in relation to those newsletter­s. He’s been defiant and dismisive, but not apologetic­.

Thank goodness this guy has finally been outed as a racist. Repealing Jim Crow, and continuing to allow discrimina­tion because of race, would have done nothing but cast the onus of suing everyone under the sun upon aggrieved African-Am­ericans and others. Since that would have been beyond the means of most of us, and few white attorneys would have been willing to pursue those lawsuits, little would have changed.

All the “private” institutio­ns, where all the money and influence lies, would have continued to exclude African-Am­ericans and non-Christ­ians. We’d be somewhere close to the years after the Emancipati­on Proclamati­on, which, obviously, also didn’t guarantee many rights for African-Am­ericans.

Progress would have been exceedingl­y slow. More generation­s would have fallen further behind. One can only suggest otherwise with a wink and a nod.

This old guy is going nowhere.

Hey Rushy, don’t blow our cover. We’re supposed to be ordinary citizens. I think this ObamasOsama guy is on to the fact that we’re government goons trying to manipulate the masses through microwave signals and fluoride in public drinking water. So SHHHHHH. Don’t worry though, Obamabot Squad 5215 is taking care of this guy soon enough. 

“The vast majority of America NEVER was segregated”?

See Plessy v. Ferguson. Segreagtion was the law of the land until 1954. The Cotton Club, in an African-American community called Harlem, barred African-American patrons. We could perform there, but we couldn’t sit at the bar or have dinnner. How do you suppose there are STILL so many “first” in this country, if not for segregation and discrimination?

Do you know what a covenant is? These were agreements home buyers signed that they would not sell there homes to African-American, Latinos or Jews. They existed all over America, legally. Do you know what the terms de jure and de facto mean?

Based on your rank ignorance of American history, you must be a Tea Partyer.

And a hood, too, right?

Bzzzzzzt!

Sorry, Bill… a real RP fan would’ve ended that sentence with a preposition.

Plessy v Fergusion.

Wonder what the good doctor thinks of Barry Goldwater’s position on race relations.

People certainly would eat at restaurants that say ‘no blacks allowed’, ‘dogs and indians not allowed’, ‘women not allowed’, ‘jews not allowed’.  The reason you and I wouldn’t, is because it is unacceptable in this society and that unacceptability has come about because a law was passed against it.

The only things that the Civil Rights Act did, is make it so that no laws can be written that will undermine the fact that all people are equal.. and it makes it illegal to treat people differently, when it comes to hiring and voting. 

Only a racist would consider the CRA unjust. 

We should call Ron Paul Coffee – he’s Chock full of Nuts!

When his son Rand Paul appeared on the Rachel Maddow show and said the same type of thing, I concluded at that time that the “acorn doesn’t fall from the old oak tree”. 

The very first bill that President Obama signed when he came into office was the Lily Ledbetter Bill which assured women of the same pay for doing the same job as men.  The Republicans opposed this bill.  They want to keep women as second class citizens and apparently some, want to keep people of color as third class citizens.

If it is a private company, I take it that Ron and Rand Paul would say yes.  I emphatically say NO WAY.

I think it rather hypocritical that he thinks we should have civil rights and yet, he believes the government should be able to tell a woman when she can or can’t have an abortion or – as some of the extreme right wing want  – the right to even use contraception.

Ron Paul said “…if you…then you will have the government coming into your bedroom….” Has this man been hiding in a cave? In Texas they just recently got rid of some of those “bedroom” laws. And, what about the abortion/antiabortion thingy? That law does not get into the bedroom? Oh my dear people, how little this man knows and has learned. He is running for PRESIDENT OF THE USA! Let us put an end to his nonsense before he puts an end to our form of government!

Then your former statement is incorrect, right?

@slider123456: “…Do you think the termination the day before the scheduled birth date of a healthy baby, with a healthy mother, that could survive outside the womb is akin to murder?” I know of no instance in which this happened. If you do, please share. You antis sometimes exaggerate, do you not? Just sayin. In some socities life is thought to begin at birth. Of course you know that. I believe it is so stated in the Bible. I am not in favor of abortion as a means of birth control. But, then, I am also not in favor of not allowing birth control.So, it’s quite complicated, isn is not?

I suppose it should come as no surprise to any fair minded person that those who advocate unchecked and limitless liberty are also the very people (e.g., Ron Paul) who support unckecked and limitless capitalism.

Their common refrain seems to be, “Wall Street doesn’t need any more regulations because the free market will weed out  the evil doers.”

WHAT??? I don’t even follow that line of logic. My statement is incorrect because Ron Paul doesn’t believe the exact same thing I do? WHAT?

Well, if that’s the case, he’s still the closest one out there of having a clue, and the best chance to not explode the entire world.

Listen, if you vote for anyone else, I want you to explain to the next hundreds of thousands of slaughtered middle-easterner children, to the hundreds of thousands of non-violent drug offenders being butt-raped in federal prison, to all the inner-city communities being unfairly targeted by a corrupt and pointless war on drugs, to all the Americans being spied on, being indefinitely detained without charges or right to a lawyer, to every American standing to lose all their savings and wealth due to the rotting economy, and to the thousands to be groped by TSA agents why their suffering must continue because you want to be able to abort babies.

Oh, OK, so if a politician is completely evil, I can suffer for for four years until I can vote for someone else I don’t know to take complete control over my life, and if that doesn’t work out either, well, it’s just another four years!

“If government is the people, then the Jews in Nazi Germany must have committed suicide.”

To gorgegirl below:  Exactly!!!

*than, not “then.”  Dick.

  My point was it is complicated. If termination is not acceptable, on a philosophical level, in the last trimester then the reasonable course of action is to determine when it becomes acceptable. I do not hold the extreme belief that life begins at conception, which is an organization of cells without human consciousness. My main point was that the issue of the life of a baby vs the liberty of the mother is extremely complex and that there is a large grey area where reasonable people can disagree. That issue is in no way comparable to the issue of liberty that is concerned with keeping the fruits of ones labor where there is no possible direct conflict.with another human consciousness, though, so those two issues are so far separated and incomparable that I accept Ron Paul’s views on both issues as genuine and non contradictory.
 I agree that birth control and even plan b are reasonable methods of dealing with unwanted pregnancies but believe that termination where viability outside the womb or where human consciousness can be said to exist is wrong. Whether that should be enforced as illegal by law, left to the conscience of the individuals involved, decided through an unbiased scientific assessment or some other method , I do not know. I do not like the idea of anyone coercively imposing their will on anyone else unless it is defensive but this particular issue is not as clear cut, in my view, as many other issues, where liberty is concerned.

  Exactly the arrogant indignation and hypocrisy is deafening. Essentially the subtext of big government types that want to enforce morality through the Government and legislation is a mirror image of racists who want to control minorities, that they believe are lesser than them, through dehumanization and stereotypes. Both stereo type and dehumanize those that they believe are lesser than them thinking they are superior and need to control those that are “less than” except one does it directly with complete arrogance and disregard while the other attempts to do the same while also hiding behind their favored tool of oppression, Government.

If they voted for the Nazi Party in 1933, what would you consider it?

–Cobra

Are we living in the sixties, no we are not and I went to an all black school in Detroit before forced busing and I would have preferred to stay in that school instead of ripped out of it to go school with a bunch of white kids just for the sake of integration. Step into the 21st Century Grandma, its 2011.

Actually I would not be going in at all because I would not be begging a bunch of racist to take my money. It is 2011, act like it.

Baloney.  You sure need to do some studying on History and particularly the way the black people were treated.  I hear from Ron and Rand Paul that they aren’t racist, but for private property and to have a business owner make the determination of who can sit in their restaurant or use their bathrooms.
Imagine this, because it has happened.,  A black US Marine Corp officer was being transferred to another base down south.  His wife was pregnant and as most women will tell you, that means lots of trips to the bathroom.,  As they were driving through the south, they were denied use of bathrooms by these restaurants and service stations in the small towns.  Here is a guy serving his country and they can’t even allow his wife to use the bathroom.

I don’t kinow about you, but I don’t want to live in such a country.  I’m sure there is broad support among republicans for racists who would refuse his right to facilities if they could.

Really?  The Jim Crow laws were the free market?

Actually, in this case a business opportunity is created because there is a customer base that is in need of service.  A new pharmacy could open up and better serve the community by serving everyone and the old owner will have to compete with the new pharmacy directly to keep his business going.

Actually, Jim Crow is still happening now in the form of the “War on some Drugs”.  After Jim Crow went down in the 60′s the government just switched gears to the Drug War which is the justification currently used by the government to intimidate, harass, and incarcerate minorities by a much greater proportion than whites.  That is why Ron Paul is against it and he is actually promising to release non-violent drug offenders from Federal prisons whereas he has never claimed that he is running to repeal CRA.

The harm done to minorities under the institutionally racist guise of “The War on Drugs” is considerably more than not being served at a lunch counter somewhere in Mississippi.

There is nothing hard to deduce here. Ron Paul is not saying he is unhappy with the discrimination that Jim Crow laws abolished at all. He wouldn’t want anyone subject to that. Don’t let media guide your thinking. So in effect Ron Paul is saying though he is glad for the good aspects that the Jim Crow laws brought about, He is unhappy about the bad aspects it brings about. The bad aspect is intrusive government. The reason for concern is that this serves the purpose of the government getting their foot in the door to do more good deeds for us and create more mandates into our daily living. Now no one would argue that certain regulations that would deal with extremes such as prohibiting cultivation of illegal drugs or stockpiling potential weapons of mass destruction are necessary regulations. Beyond this it is just intrusiveness masked in good for all humanity. These concepts are not hard folks. The concept of a wolf in sheeps clothing is ancient. the problem is that political correctness thinking is rotting our brain away to the point we can’t think beyond these atrocites that must be abolished. Anyone would agree that indeed they need to be abolished. The question is how are we going to do it and yet still maintain the freedoms that empower us as a people and makes this nation so great. But Americans today have this tunnel vision in their objectives and have forgotten that there is still a need to defend liberty even domestically. That is what is meant by the terms such as “we will be attacked from the inside”. If you can’t watch TV and your thinking not be swayed by the media, for Gods sake turn it off.

He talks against the Civil Rights Act’s because of the emanate domain parts, not the racial parts. 

Did you not listen to the video that goes along with this article?

Integration worked insidiously, by design or by chance, to “divide” the growing power of the black community.  They were getting too strong for the establishment, becoming successful business owners, being well education in black universities etc.  Forcing integration took that power away by dividing blacks from the support and strength of their unity, and pushed them into the folds of the white community.  We see the result today.

I wonder just how powerful the black community would be today if they were left alone to continue their upward climb to success — without the aid, and therefore the strings — of the white “establishment”.