Civil Rights Act

577 Responses




On July 3, 2004, Ron Paul was the only Congressman to vote against a bill hailing the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In this speech to Congress, Ron Paul courageously spoke out on the often controversial issues of race relations and affirmative action. He explained why the Civil Right Act had failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society.

Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.


577 responses to “Civil Rights Act”

  1. Martina Providence

    To quote that as Ron Paul is a lie and misleading MMMDEE. You, like many others will stop at nothing to smear a good person who wants what is best for this country. You either benefit from this system or you are the system.

    Ron Paul doesn’t even talk like that. FACT CHECK: He voted no on MLK DAY the first time it was introduced ONLY because it was an additional Gov’t holiday that would cost the taxpayers money. When they reintroduced it by combining the two presidents and made it one day to add MLK Day he voted on that.

    Distorting facts, like you do, to smear a good person is exactly what got us into wars, racial tension and bankruptcy. You must get a gov’t paycheck, otherwise, why would you defend such tyranny?

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 38 Thumb down 20

    1. hello

      If his biggest concern was saving taxpayer money from being spent on an additional government holiday, shouldn’t he have voted NO both times? Why should white guys thrown in the mix be a reason for a more appropriate way to spend taxpayer money? Think logically.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9

    2. Wake Up!

      If Ron Paul’s major concern was that taxpayer money would be spent on an additional government holiday, shouldn’t he have voted NO to either proposed holiday? Why does throwing two white guys into the mix make it a reasonable holiday to spend taxpayer money? Sit back and think logically.

      »crosslinked«

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7

    3. Roland

      If you’re referring to President’s day. That was wrong. President’s day, as it is now called, is George Washington’s b’day, our greatest President.

      MLK is MKL Jr. and that’s not even his real name and he plagiarized most everything he wrote, INCLUDING, is dissertation. I do NOT celebrate his b’day, his life, or his fake accomplishments.

      Affirmative Action was a creation of JFK and it was to promote fairness, and like Ron Paul, I am all for that. I am not for preferential treatment to anyone over anyone else but it is not the federal government’s right to get into it or try to control/manipulate it. The US Constitution is to RESTRICT the federal government from tyranny over its people. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is tyranny and unconstitutional. If you even consider race as part of the subject, YOU are a racist and completely too ignorant and stubborn to debate this subject.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5

  2. LatanyaTyson

    This is one sick bastard speaking here. Is he really that dumb to believe that the point of that act was to improve race relations. No, that bill was to ensure some fair treatment of hiring minorities. Wake up. Was it constitutional, mabey, mabey not, but the point is many more minorities got a job where they wouldn’t have due to racism. Companies don’t want the government in their buisness because they don’t want to be forced to do things they don’t have to.
    Ooooh did I say forced. “like SLAVERY FORCED”
    Some of these candidates are off their rocker.

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 33 Thumb down 47

    1. JustinAnonymous

      Latanya, I would like to inform you that you are sadly misinformed about the quotas that have been forced upon businesses to help bring racial equality in the market for job OPPORTUNITIES. As a prime example, my father spent the better part of 10 years trying to enter the airlines business. He was an instructor, and he spent over 4,000 hours trying to build time in an effort to be noticed by major airlines. Now, I don’t know if you are familiar with the 1994 hijacking of a FEDEX airplane by an employee of theirs, but let me tell you the story. Auburn Calloway was a result of these quotas two times in his brief and fruitless flying career. Once, in the Navy, he was flunked in flight training multiple times, never able to land on a carrier by himself. Most pilots who cannot complete this are usually kicked out of training and assigned another job. However, these quotas imposed by the government made sure that Calloway was kept in the seat, seeing as he made a huge fuss about his being “racially profiled.” He was kept in the right seat of a Navy plane, and only given day clearance to fly. This means that he was essentially there for the ride, and only on one-in-a-million kind of days. After leaving the Navy, he applied to work at FEDEX, where, again, the quotas seemed to shuffle people into places where they do not belong. After lying about his hours, Calloway was hired, only for FEDEX to realize that he had little to know experience or ability behind the controls. This sort of quiet and forceful bureaucracy causes people, like my father, who spend their lives trying to achieve their goals, to be cut off by senseless and skill-less people like Calloway to get hired before them. So, before you jump to the false conclusion that these quotas allow for “minorities get a job… the wouldn’t have due to racism,” understand that it may not be due to racism, and the result of reverse racism can lead to disastrous results, such as this hijacking.

      Report this comment

      Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 46 Thumb down 15

      1. Lini

        For every story like this, there’s a story of a qualified minority (like my own mom & dad) getting jobs where they previously wouldn’t have been able to, becoming part of the middle class, and reversing stereotypes through positive interaction with non-minority co-workers.
        The Navy story sounds like the same thing as the Ft. Hood shooter, where extreme cowardice kept people from taking appropriate action when it became clear that he was becoming dangerous.
        There are bad apples everywhere. I’m sure there are many stories about incompetent people who had degrees from Ivy League schools that they only got into because of the legacy program, who got preferential treatment throughout their careers, and ended up with super high powered jobs due mainly to family connections and money…

        Report this comment

        Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 36 Thumb down 3

      2. Harris

        Public Law 82-352 (78 Stat. 241). Passed in 1964 did not include ANY quotas and did not include ANY mention of “Affirmative action.” The stated purpose was to establish if the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment ban always ban the use of racial, ethnic, or gender criteria. It did not mandate that less qualified people be given jobs they didn’t deserve. It simply said that everyone deserved the same chance and was designed to combat the very real istuitionized discrimination in the Southern who had instuitionized discrimination. It addressed important concerns that gave the federal government the right to get involved with discrimination at the local and state level. I am sure there are many indivual stories you could site that would support your point to view.
        MLK -April 16, 1963. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me.” This is the legislation Ron Paul voted againest, not statues from later rulings.

        1963- Medgar W. Evers murdered Jackson Mississippi June 12 1963
        Addie Mae Collins, age 10, murdered Birmingham Alabama September 15
        Denise McNairm age 11, murdered Birmingham Alabama September 15
        Carol Robertson, age 14, murdered Birmingham Alabama September 15
        Johnny Robinson, age 16, murdered Birmingham Alabama September 15
        Virgil Ware, age 13, murdered Birmingham Alabama September 15 1963
        Cynthia Wesley, age 14, murdered Birmingham Alabama September 15

        1964- Mrs. Johnnie Mae Chappell murdered Jacksonville Florida March 23
        Charles E. Moore lynched Jackson Mississippi May 2 1964
        Henry Dee lynched Jackson Mississippi May 2 1964
        James Earl Chaney murdered Philadelphia Mississippi June 21 1964
        Lemuel Augustus Penn murdered Colbert Georgia July 11 1964
        James Powell murdered New York City New York July 16 1964
        Jay Jenkins murdered New York City New York July 18 1964

        This is what the civil rights amendment was about EQUAL PROTECTION. The states weren’t doing their jobs so the Federal Govt had to.

        Report this comment

        Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 3

      3. Skillen

        JustinAnonymous; I’m sorry about what happened to your father but the law was not designed so that less qualified minorities could beat out whites for jobs so that the staff was racially mixed. The law was designed so that equally qualified minorities could get jobs that bigots would not have given them simply based on the color of their skin.

        Report this comment

        Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3

        1. done

          Unfortunately it doesnt work that way. Being in the hiring field I can tell you that quite a few companies submit to surveys asking specifically “total employees; total African-American employees; total other minorities”. I myself purchase these reports and consult for companies that want to make sure they are along the lines of the national average in diversity, even if that means turning a higher qualified person away.
          The Civil Rights act was to stop acts of racial discrimination in and out of the workplace. What I see is that it has actually caused more discrimination, only against whites. We are told in everything we do that blacks and other minorities are to be treated equal while never speaking about the fact that blacks and other minorities are to be treated differently in that they are to be looked at first for jobs, considered first for public aid, and allowed to say what ever they have on their mind no matter how discriminitory it may be.
          If you speak back your racist. If you retaliate youre a racist. But, if youre white you cant really expect to claim racial discriminstion because, well youre white.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    2. Joe

      The employer should be free to decide who he hires and who he doesn’t, the government should not be forcing anyone to hire certain people over others based on the color of their skin.

      Report this comment

      Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 47 Thumb down 10

      1. Harris

        The 1964 Act agrees with you
        -Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the “Civil Rights Act of 1964″.

        (j) NOTHING contained in this title SHALL BE INTERPRETED TO REQUIRE any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee subject to this title TO GRANT PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO ANY INDIVIDUAL OR TO ANY GROUP BECAUSE OF THE RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN OF SUCH INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP ON ACCOUNT OF AN IMBALANCE WHICH MAY EXIST WITH RESPECT TO THE TOTAL NUMBER OR PERCENTAGE OF PERSONS OF ANY RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN EMPLOYED BY ANY EMPLOYER.
        This is what Ron Paul voted against, not some quota or attack on property rights. The explanations you and many others have expressed are based on provisions that came after his vote. You can choose to disagree on his rational for the vote but not on the text he voted against and the facts surrounding that vote. Over 100 years of institutionalized racism had been the tradition in the south. Suggestions that after almost a century those states would have made those changes in the last 40 years without any Government intervention is not a responsible argument. As someone who comes from a mixed race family, I thank God the decisions were not left to the individual States because it’s hard to believe that I would have existed in Georgia and almost certainly would not have been admitted to the Law School at UNC. Thank God not everyone agreed with Ron Paul in 1964.

        Report this comment

        Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3

    3. Jen K.

      So you think it’s okay to hire someone into a position who isn’t quite qualified over someone who IS qualified… just because they have a racial quota to make? You want to be hired based on the color of your skin and not because of your capabilities? You want to earn respect based on the color of your skin and not based on your intelligence, ethics, abilities and so on? You would be a DISGRACE to MLK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7

      1. Jim

        Clearly, Jen, you do not understand how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 works or what it says. It did NOT require employers to hire unqualified workers because they were from an underprivileged background or racial minority. It applied the Substantial Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to private citizens who run public accommodations so that they could not discriminate based on certain criteria, e.g., race, religion, ethnicity. So if you think a business should be able to have one bathroom for whites and another for ‘coloreds’ then clearly you would be opposed to the Civil Rights Act. If you think a private business open to the public should be able to exclude people solely based on their sex or race or religion, then clearly you would be opposed to the Civil Rights Act. If you think that the ‘free market’ would’ve ended segregation and no legislation was needed, you are simply deluding yourself. Saying that things are worse because of the Civil Rights Act or that things have gotten better “in spite” of the Civil Rights Act is simply unhistorical. Anyone who thinks that the 10th Amendment trumps the 14th Amendment (or should trump it) does not understand the most basic principles of how the Constitution works and how the amending process works. Just as the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th, so the 14th limited the 10th. It would be chronologically (and plain logically) IMPOSSIBLE for the 10th amendment to curtail the 14th in those particular arenas for which the 14th was intended, that is, broadening the rights of citizens vis-a-vis the subnational state governments.

        Report this comment

        Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1

    4. AJ Prasad

      If a company does not want to hire a person based on race, religion, etc…why would the person want to work there? That is where the solution is. There are people hiring based on skill regardless of race and they have the diversified workforce and record profits. The ones that continue being racist will eventually fail because they are hiring based on skin color.

      His point is that you can not force someone to be something they are not but you can make it a harder world for them to live in. Change needs to come naturally not forced and Americans have been doing just that. Nowhere in the world will you see such diversity.

      Oh by the way I am a Pacific Isalnder and my wife is African American before you go thinking I am some old white racsist guy.

      Would you rather be around someone who hides his racism and secretly hate and undermines you or do you want to be around someone who is open so you can watch your back better.

      It is harder to catch a racist because we dont allow them to be themselves and be deceptive to our faces. If someone tells me they dont like a certain race then too bad for you but at least I know where you stand as opposed to smiling in my face secretly plotting to harm me.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      1. justme

        “If a company does not want to hire a person based on race, religion, etc…why would the person want to work there? ” Because they need to eat. Who the heck wants to go work the fields? Or clean bathrooms, or vomit and feces from a hospital? We do what we can to feed our young. As it is, so many companies keep violating worker’s rights, but people stay because jobs out of necessity.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  3. Ace81
    1. Martina Providence

      That article in the Little Red Umbrella is a very dangerous one. Let me explain. It is not very well researched. I will say, however, that it is VERY effective in getting sheep to follow and forward the message. Particularly those who can’t wait to get their hands on something negative because they already dislike Ron Paul. Not so easy to do, since he is very consistent and really doesn’t look to harm anyone.
      In a nutshell, Ron Paul wants the Federal Government to stay out of our lives. Even though he believes in the right to life, he doesn’t want to force his belief on you- hence what every other politician wants. That is why he wants to overturn Roe v Wade, so that each state can do what they people vote on-States Rights. Consistently, Ron Paul says the same thing with regard to the drug laws. He feels the States should regulate it like we already do with alcohol. Just because a president is pro choice, or pro life, shouldn’t have an effect on everyone, because the president isn’t supposed to be a King. If you believe in that, than you are equally oppressive, pushing your values or what is important to you on a person who might be religiously opposed.
      There is a deep misunderstanding of our Constitution in this country. This could be why there was a Civil Rights Act in the first place. If they just adhered to the Right to Private Property Act in 1787(I believe that is the 14th Amendment), minorities wouldn’t have needed the Civil Rights Act. We should have re-elected members of congress and changed a few judges and they would enforce the existing law that blacks are entitled to the same rights and property because that is their human right! Ron Paul deplored Jim Crow Laws, stating we are all better off without them. He voted Yes on MLK day to replace another paid Federal holiday, because he actually is one of his heroes. Check all of his Congressional Record, not just part of it. He admired MLK’s strength to stand up and demonstrate Civil Disobedience to an oppressive government. He sees the injustices in the legal system with regard to non-violent drug crimes and how it has jailed many of the blacks, doing more harm than good to their communities and families. This is why he would pardon all non-violent drug criminals and fix what now world-wide drug cartel is. He loves freedom, not just for white people! His position is that he has no right to determine who deserves freedom as per the Constitution that says it is your human birthright! He wants you to work at whatever your wage is, but keep all of it! He feels that they are the fruits of your labor the Government has no right to take it. What better way to help the poor and the minority? I don’t know a better liberal Democrat for Civil Rights, or a more Conservative Republican with sound Economic solutions. I don’t know a more Liberal Democrat is for peace and harmony as Ron Paul. Anyone who can attempt to say otherwise is merely lying. Perhaps they don’t care to see the truth and prefer to continue the lie that has become the bedrock of our crumbling free society.
      There is way to much that is distorted in this article, that I would have to re-write it. If you want to read something that explains “Reasons That Ron Paul suck”, read “Liberty Defined”, before you claim you know enough about Ron Paul’s positions to debate them. You may still disagree with him, but at least you can think critically for yourself. Otherwise, you are just another useful idiot perpetuating a parasitically, oppressive regime called the STATUS QUO.

      Report this comment

      Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 36 Thumb down 4

      1. Daniel

        Maybe all the states should just enlist huge armies and start attacking the states around them, like they did in ancient greece

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3

      2. Harris

        Ron Paul Newsletter Dec 1990″[King] was also a Comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration. King, the FBI files show, was not only a world-class adulterer, he also seduced underage girls and boys…. And we are supposed to honor this ‘Christian minister’ and lying socialist satyr…?” The bottom of the same page reads “My wife Carol and our children and grandchildren join me in wishing you and your family a wonderful Christmas…” This is not taken out of context it is from a scan of the newsletters as they were originally printed.
        Martin Luther King was not one of his heroes! He did not indicate that he admired King; there are a long list of statements he made and printed to the contrary. His opposition is part of the congressional record! 1964 civil rights amendment was about allowing the federal government to step in and offer protection to minorities in those states where they were not receiving equal treatment. It’s only had an affect on the property rights of those businesses that were participating in denying others their human rights and equal treatment as mandated by the constitution.
        The purpose of the Civil Rights amendment was to address States that were not adhering to the 14th amendment. That was the whole point!

        Ron Paul Newsletter—February, 1990:
        The Coming Race War and Shame of MLK Day
        “Boy, it sure burns ME to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day. Listen to a black radio talk show in any major city. The racial hatred makes a KKK rally look tame.”

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3

        1. b
      3. Jim

        Wow, lots of errors here. First let’s dispense with the most glaring:

        If they just adhered to the Right to Private Property Act in 1787(I believe that is the 14th Amendment), minorities wouldn’t have needed the Civil Rights Act.

        For someone who deplores the misunderstanding of the US Constitution, you show a lot of it yourself. The 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1868 after the Civil War to extend the rights of the Bill of Rights to all US Citizens, including the recently freed slaves. The US Constitution was not ratified and made the governing law of the land until 1788. It is true that the 14th Amendment was not followed early on, but that is not the same as saying that the Civil Rights Act was not necessary. Prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a private business owner could demand that whole classes of citizens could not enter his public accommodation (i.e., open to the public for business). If he was a Christian and thought you were a Jew, he could exclude you; if he was white and didn’t want any blacks to be served in his restaurant, that’s exactly what he would do, exclude blacks. Maybe you think that a free society should allow racists to discriminate in their businesses so that they are open to the public, except for x, y and z group. That is not my idea of freedom and liberty. Any democracy that does not have protections for minorities quickly turns into an okhlocracy, i.e., mob rule.

        Would somebody please explain to me how it would be a good thing for liberty to curtail the power of the federal government to restrain the state governments from violating the rights of citizens? Does Ron Paul really think that it should be up to the states to determine whether they can establish their own state religion? He seems to have a real problem with the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amend, so in other words he wants the state of say, Texas, to be free from the federal government’s power to prevent them from passing laws that would violate, for instance, freedom of the press. I think a lot of Paul followers need to study up on state’s rights vis-a-vis the 14th Amendment and the incorporation doctrine. Unless you want to see the possibility of the state government in Sacramento passing a law declaring the Church of Scientology to be the official state church of California, you don’t agree with Ron Paul. While this scenario is honestly highly unlikely, it would be Constitutionally permissible under Paul’s ideas of states’ rights and the 14th amendment’s incorporation doctrine. I can easily imagine state laws discriminating against Muslims. Without the 14th Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine, this would be absolutely legal – without the 14th the only guarantee that we have is that the “Congress shall pass no laws regarding etc” — state governments faced no such restrictions unless they had written them into their own state constitutions. So PLEASE stop equating states’ rights with individual or civil rights.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

        1. Roland

          Jim…

          You lost me when you said we were a democracy. You clearly do not understand the political spectrum. We are NOT a democracy, never have been and hopefully never will be, because democracies are bad, very bad and they lead to oligarchies, which are the worst.

          Freedom has no restrictions. Ever been to a Chinese restaurant? See any Mexicans, blacks, whites working there? Rarely.

          Free, in freedom, means just that. Free. From from ANY regulation. Not just free, except for this, that, oh and that too.

          What you want is tyranny. You want control over someone else’s hiring practices and property and that’s tyranny. Freedom means you have to respect that which you disagree or you are a hypocrite.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

        2. Sharon in VA

          You are saying that a State Constitution could override the Federal Constitution?

          I don’t belive that States could clearly violate anything that is in the Federal Constitution..even if they tried.

          In other words..they don’t need to “write in” “Freedom of Religion”, to be bound by it.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      4. justme

        please don’t forget that the US did try to have a weak central government, back when there were only 13 states. It didn’t succeed. Granted, the decision to have a strong central government wasn’t endorsed by the vast majority of the states, but even those that did oppose it decided it was more important to keep the union together.
        Also, how is Ron Paul gonna overturn Roe v Wade? Doesn’t the supreme court have the last say on legislation? What procedure would he use? And before you accuse me of being a troll or hater, this is a serious question. So if you have any knowledge then let me know. I don’t really like the supreme court to have absolute say on the law, but to change the checks and balances system is a frightening thought.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Sharon in VA

          I’m not a lawyer, but, RoeVs. Wade is a LAW, not a Constitutional Amendment.

          I don’t know the “hows”, but the “why” would be that it’s a law that violates the Constituion.

          Even an unborn baby is entitled to equal protection under the law to preserve it’s life.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

          1. Sharon in VA

            Whoa..sorry for the typos..but let me add,

            I am not sure we could/should even allow the States to violate the US Constitutional Rights of an innocent life…but that is just MY opinion.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. mmmdee

    Interesting quotes by Ron Paul part 2

    “Today’s current terminology describing rights reflects this sad change. It is commonplace for politicians and those desiring special privileges to refer to: black rights, Hispanic rights, handicap rights, employee rights, student rights, minority rights, women’s rights, gay rights, children’s rights, Asian-American rights, Jewish rights, AIDS victims’ rights, poverty rights, homeless rights, etc.”—Ron Paul, Freedom Under Siege

    The idea that a businessman must hire anyone and is prevented from firing anyone for any reason he chooses, and in the name of rights, is a clear indication that the basic concept of a free society has been lost. – Ron Paul, Freedom Under Siege

    The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim – frequently a victim of his own lifestyle – but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care- Ron Paul, Freedom Under Siege

    I also do an investment letter. It’s called the Ron Paul Survival Report, and I put that out on a monthly basis … which is a gold-oriented newsletter, but it’s also, uh, convening — expressing concern about surviving in this age of big government, where there’s a lot of taxes and regulations, and attacks on our personal liberties.” — Ron Paul http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/26/paul-in-1995-say-have-you-read-the-ron-paul-survival-report/

    “Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.” – Ron Paul News Letters that wasn’t written by Ron Paul but interesting thing is…Ron Paul Voted against MLK Day as a federal holiday http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/did-ron-paul-vote-against-creating-a-martin-luther-king-holiday/

    Ciao.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5

  5. mmmdee

    Interesting quotes by Ron Paul.

    To be noted by the way: Ron Paul is rated 39% by the NAACP and 38% by the HRC. These are two big civil rights groups.

    We quadrupled the TSA, you know, and hired more people who look more suspicious to me than most Americans who are getting checked… Most of them are, well, you know, they just don’t look very American to me.- Ron Paul http://www.salon.com/2007/06/02/ron_paul_6/

    WHY DON’T THEY QUIT ONCE THE SO-CALLED HARASSMENT STARTS? OBVIOUSLY THE MORALS OF THE HARASSER CAN NOT BE DEFENDED, BUT HOW CAN THE HARASSEE ESCAPE SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PROBLEM?”Ron Paul, in his book Freedom Under Siege

    “Every year new groups organize to demand their “rights.” White people who organize and expect the same attention as other groups are quickly and viciously condemned as dangerous bigots. Hispanic, black, and Jewish caucuses can exist in the U.S. Congress, but not a white caucus, demonstrating the absurdity of this approach for achieving rights for everyone.”—Ron Paul, Freedom Under Siege

    part 1

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7

    1. Roland

      and your point?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  6. ImAnyelina

    He is NOT isolationist. He is a NON-INTERVENTIONIST. And about the 911 attacks, it’s about BLOWBACK, and like it or not, it’s the reality. That’s why a lot of countries hate us, because we occupy other countries and police the world. So now, almost entire world hate us precisely because of our “friendly” foreign policy and you don’t like him because of his foreign policy?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  7. Patrick Henry2
  8. Mythic Mystic

    Isn’t individual liberty also about not discriminating based on Race, Creed, Color, or Sex? So therefore it would be unconstitutional to deny service based on those parameters alone, right? So the way I see it, it the Civil Rights Act is more redundant on rights that every human is endowed with (not just Americans if it is truly “God Given”, right?). I can see property rights being eaten away by legislation that masks what should already be claimed and realized. As freedom lovers we can not deny those that seek liberty as well, that would be counterproductive. Anyway, the whole argument becomes a muddled mess. Although I think with “race” being in the forefront more than in recent years, we should take advantage and start to talk about the wounds and triumphs we have had with American race relations. First and foremost, we must remember we are Americans first, everything else flows from that. Peace.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    1. Joe

      Wrong. Individual liberty means you cannot be forced to work with or associate with anyone based on a government decree. You get to make those decisions for yourself.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  9. Jacob9578

    this whole argument is ridiculous. If the Congressional vote was 434-1, then it doesn’t seem like it deserves this big of an argument. In a democractic society, the majority vote rules. Clearly, the majority vote was for the civil rights act.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

    1. Joe

      Ever heard the phrase “Tyranny of the majority”? If 51% of the people vote to kill the remaining 49%, would that be OK with you because it’s what the majority wants?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  10. Jacob9578

    can u please tell us what documentation you are talking about?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

    1. ImAnyelina

      @Jacob9578 Can you explain what happened to building 7 if it wasn’t attacked by a plane?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  11. mmmdee

    @David25 I never said whites were a minority. quote me correctly, thanks.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

    1. David25

      I’m the one who said whites were minorities in Texas, somewhat wrong but right in a way. Not sure what you’re talking about.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  12. JohnstonSequoia
  13. Patriot Dave

    Shawn,

    He doesn’t blame America, because he believes the way I do, YOU and I are America. He blames the establishment, crony, military-industrialist government and their 100 years of very bad foreign policy, for 9/11. People err when they equate the entrenched government with the American Republic. If you worked in a company that had exceptional and great employees, but very bad management and terrible policies that bankrupt the company, would you say it’s the employees’ fault for bad business, or management’s? Is it right that employees blame management for losing their jobs, when they could have kept their jobs if management had better policies? So, the Republican and Mainstream Media crams the word “isolationist” down our throats, when Ron Paul constantly says that he is open to trade, and diplomacy, and that waging endless, undeclared wars, which are against the Law, namely, the U.S. Constitution, and all such aggression isolates us from the world, so who are the real isolationist? Our Founding Fathers advocated for “Trade with all, Entangling Alliances with none.” So, you CAN support a man who advocates for the Founding Documents of this great country, and the Constitutional Republic and ideals of the Founders.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

    1. SamFox

      @Patriot Dave you are right on! Thanks.

      To those uncertain of Ron Paul’s foreign policy–

      Here is why we had 9-11–

      Did blowback cause 9-11

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjqGBBFiowE

      NY Times: http://tinyurl.com/6o3rlcb

      Ron’s ‘mind our own business’ ‘do to others what we would have them do to US’ nonintervention FP would have prevented 9-11. We would not have been POing the ME for decades before the attack.

      http://debrainwashing.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/what-would-ron-paul-have-done-with-911/#comment-57

      Is Ron isolationist? No.

      http://paulitifact.com/

      “Wiped off the map” rumor of the century- http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century

      Ron’s FP–

      Same as Founders

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul413.html

      Ron’s FP;

      Wise,

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/fisk5.html

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4zKzXFcLN4

      Same as Founders

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul413.html

      The Original US FP

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/fff-video.html

      http://www.examiner.com/conspiracy-in-denver/support-the-troops-by-supporting-ron-paul

      Back up for Ron Paul FP–

      Former CIA bin Laden expert, M Scheuer backs up Ron:

      http://ronpaulflix.com/2011/09/michael-scheuer-former-bin-laden-cia-expert-backs-up-ron-paul-on-911-sep-13-2011/

      This also backs up Ron–1 of 4 parts-

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSt4L43RbeA

      M Scheuer endorses Ron-

      http://lewrockwell.com/scheuer/scheuer12.1.html

      Jews who like Ron Paul–

      Ron is not against Israel-

      http://zionistsforronpaul.blogspot.com/

      http://www.americansforisrael.com/

      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2827219/posts

      Not attacking any one, just trying to get the truth our to combat fringe media propaganda spin & duplicity regarding Ron’s foreign policy.

      SamFox

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  14. orsigno

    @Deb Harris Lets stick to facts please. Ron Paul needs support from the non-conspiracy crowd too.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  15. Jacob9578

    do u have any idea how offensive that is to people who died in 9/11? The buildings didn’t implode, moron. They collapsed.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  16. Felipe21

    He argues that the free market would have eventually corrected these social injustices including child labor etc. Progressives argue that without government intervention child labor would continue to exist. This is not true because research shows that by the time child labor laws were enacted child labor was already on a steep decline because the standard of living for Americans had been increasing and Americans could afford to send their kids to school thanks to the market. Eventually If left alone child labor would have eliminated it self. Same for segregation eventually the American whites would have began to hire blacks because of demand for labor creating competition and eventually other business’s would have to hire blacks in order to keep up. When government forces things on the people it creates rebellion. By allowing the people’s public opinion to change on their own and to figure out that sending kids to work or  discriminating someone because of the color of their skin is idiotic, it creates a more pure society. The civil war was fought because of pressure from northerners who believed it was unfair that the south didn’t have to pay their workers. The norths economy was  mainly manufacturing while the south was agriculture so therefor they didn’t have a need for slaves. All of this was masked by the morality of slavery.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

    1. inaladeeda

      @Felipe21 This is ridiculous. So whites would “hire blacks” but still not let them live, eat, play, where they wanted to. People need laws to legislate their lack of morality, such as laws against murder, rape, assault, segregation and discrimination. It’s nothing new. I don’t know where Paul and supporters get any backing of their claim that left to their own, humans act with kindness! Especially when it’s market driven! There is nothing in the history of the world that supports that kind of thinking.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

      1. orsigno

        @inaladeeda @Felipe21 Where do you get backing for your claim otherwise? I don’t need laws to regulate my morality, do you?

        Maybe a good example could be seen in sports. It happened naturally without laws mandating it.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

        1. Felipe21

          @orsigno @inaladeeda There were many whites that marched in the civil right marches. Its not like every white at the time was racist. The people who were racist at the time continued to be racist after the civil right laws were put in place. People were already becoming tolerant and it wasn’t because of these laws. What these laws do is give the opposition reason to organize and isolate themselves such as the kkk. You can’t find support for this kind of thinking because there has never been a time where information was so readily available to people. In the past people were oppressed because they didn’t know any better this would not happen today also because there are people who would not let it happen such as non profit organizations that help people get on their feet. No one system can work in every nation. This type of system would not work in a third world country where the population is not educated. I also believe in socialism but eventually it could only progress a nation so far and eventually a free market system would be required. 

          What attracts me most to Ron Paul are his economic policies. He predicted the Credit crisis along with other economists like Peter Schiff. He argues that the economy has been declining even though some numbers don’t show it, ever since the Federal reserve was created no matter what party was in control of Washington. Politicians ever since have been covering up these holes until the next election season. They argued that inflation was good at some degree because it meant the economy was growing. This is not true and you can tell this by looking at how today people can not afford a college education while in the past people could work and be able to pay for college. 

          Both both political parties are big spenders and like war. I’m 16 and I like to engage in these debates to learn more and become a better citizen I am very open minded and am interested in what other people have to say.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

        2. ianqmacallister

          Inaladeeda’s comments perfectly exemplify a Machiavellian worldview that regards humans as inherently wicked, and that they must be controlled by their moral superiors (the state).

          >So whites would “hire blacks” but still not let them live, eat, play, where they wanted to.

          In 1947, when the Brooklyn Dodgers hired Jackie Robinson, why did racial discrimination by major league teams begin to drop like a hot potato? It wasn’t feelings of guilt by white owners, affirmative action or anti-discrimination laws. It was greed. Refusing to hire talented people due to one’s racial preference hurts the bottom line and places your firm at a competitive disadvantage relative to other firms which do not hire on the basis of race.

          Just because I hire you does not mean that I want to live next door to you, or socialize with you. Why is that a problem for you? People like you consider people like me to be evil old racists, so why on earth would you want to live next to me, socialize with me, or sit down for supper with me? Why does your happiness depend on whether I allow you into my club? And why must the law force us to be together when we clearly would rather be apart?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

        3. mpath1

          @ianqmacallister Baseball is an excellent example of why the “free market” does NOT work for sorting out social issues like this.

          Professional baseball got started in the mid-to late 1800s and didn’t ban blacks until AFTER a few had already played alongside whites! It took another 50+ years for Jackie Robinson to come along. So if that is your “hot potato”, I’d hate to see what a cold one looks like. (Or rather, we’ll all be long dead waiting to see it.)

          As for the rest of your post, well, it’s amusing to see that some segregationists are still around. But seriously, that particular policy’s not going to make a comeback. Nor will discrimination against women or any minorities for that matter. Never fear though, there are probably still a few groups left you can discriminate against (since that kinda thing seems to make you happy). You might have to look hard though now that all the good ones are taken. Find one and enjoy. Go nuts!

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

        4. SamFox

          @Felipe21 , glad to have you aboard. You give a ray of hope for the younger generation. You are going to inherit the big govt debt & police state.

          My son is 26 & he is not half as savvy on politics as you.

          Hang in there young blood! Thanks for a good researched post!

          SamFox

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        5. Jacob9578

          @Felipe21@orsigno@inaladeeda

          actually, the federal reserves were created during the great depression, so actually, the economy has improved quite a bit since.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        6. Jacob9578

          @orsigno@inaladeedathe existence of murder, rape, RACISM, and all other crimes prove that, in fact, there is a reason for laws regulating morality.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        7. Jacob9578

          @orsigno@inaladeeda

          being discriminatory in hiring practices DOES hurt people. It hurts people who need jobs but cannot get them because of the color of their skin.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

        8. mmmdee

          @orsigno@inaladeeda@Felipe21 you don’t need laws to regulate your morality but racists, sexists, and homophobes do. In the 1960s the racists had a more viscous voice and power than the oppressed, so if ever there was a time for the federal government to stand up for its citizens and as you say “regulate morality”, it was then.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        9. SamFox

          mmmdee–Like I said way back up in here somewhere :-) , once the Feds get a foot in the door…

          http://www.naturalnews.com/030799_food_freedom_Wickard_vs_Filburn.html

          Results of Fed law & ‘ war on [some] drugs’ leads to–

          http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2010/aug/16/grandmothers_death_botched_drug

          http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/botched.htm

          The above is only a few of the victims of the fed laws regarding drugs.

          Feds got the RICO Act, another foot in the door. It was supposed to only be for organized crime, now it’s every one.

          http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=215

          Look at the way the income tax laws have expanded. What a ‘Fed hand in our pocket’ has led to from what is was supposed to be.When first introduced it was supposed to be temporary & voluntary. What do we have now?

          So much for letting govt gain a nose under the tent…the road to hell the US is now on is said to be paved with good intentions…are those intentions really all that good?

          SamFox

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        10. SamFox

          @Jacob9578 . I didn’t know the ‘Federal’ Reserve was foisted on the US during the great depression. I coulda swore it came in 1913. Silly me. Letting facts get in the way of my imagination. :-)

          http://www.scionofzion.com/federalreserve.htm

          http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1095269452.php

          I take it you go to a government school, so it’s no wonder you have been misguided on this subject. Not making fun of you. I had to learn this on my own also. I went to govt schools as well.

          I was playin a bit at 1st, but not meaning to be nasty, hurtful or any thing.

          Thanks.

          SamFox

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        11. SamFox

          @mmmdee, We do need some laws. But the feds use every excuse they can to add new ones & gain more control over our lives.

          The CRA was not needed. There was already a Constitutional provision, the 14th amendment.

          Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

          That’s why I mentioned that the Feds could have enforced equal protection under the law in an earlier post floating some where in this part of cyber space.

          Thanks.

          SamFox

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        12. mmmdee

          @SamFox The 14th amendment applies to the state not business and the civil rights bill was as a result of harmful business activities under the jim crowe law that was supported by the supreme court plessy v ferguson ruling.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        13. SamFox

          mmmdee. , true, “The 14th amendment applies to the state…”. It forbids the state from discriminating with laws favorable to one group over another.

          To requote part of the 14 amendment:

          “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;…” The state could not pass a law that said whites could have privileges that blacks can’t.

          BUT a private business could decide who they wanted to serve.

          Plus, & let me clarify my original point, The FEDS could legally enforce ON the states what the 14th Amendment is some times called, Equal Protection Under The Law. The law in this case = the Constitution.

          Thus the CRA was not really needed, but did allow the fed govt another foot in another door.

          Let me be clear. I do NOT support racism. I think it’s a sick mental state that needs some kind of treatment. It’s IMO some kind of mental disease based on a very foolish assumption: one race is superior based on skin color.

          How stupid is that? VERRRRY!!!

          Also let me be clear: I am sick of the Fed govt expanding it self into every area of our lives. I gave a few examples of that in another reply I made to one of your other comments.

          I hope you understand where I am coming from. So called good intentions of the fed govt seldom lead to good policies. If the policy takes away my freedom or yours I don’t like it.

          That being said, a private business is another subject. Related to be sure, but not to be dictated to by fed laws. Private business owners are also “…Citizens of the United States”. A business owner is IN a state. They are not THE state.

          SamFox

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      2. SamFox

        @inaladeeda , actually, the free market has more power to ‘change minds’., so to speak than you realize.

        Here is why we did not need another Fed law.

        14th Amendment

        Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

        The Feds already had a law. They did not need a new one.

        SamFox

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      3. Joe

        The bad behavior of racism is corrected in truly free markets. A merchant who hangs a “whites only” sign in his window doesn’t hurt anyone but himself because eventually one of his competitors will hang a “all are welcome” sign in his window and all the non-whites will flock to his business to spend their money so the racist merchant will be forced to do the same or go out of business. The same with hiring. If two businesses in the same field are looking to expand their work forces and one hires only whites and the other hires any suitable applicant who applies regardless of race, then the one who hires without regard to race will grow his business faster and force the other out. Racism only continued in the south because the laws of the time allowed it to exist. The Jim Crow laws are a perfect example of bad behavior being allowed to thrive because of government intervention in free markets.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. mpath1

      @Felipe21 Sorry, but inaladeeda has it right. If not, there would have been little need for much of the legislation–in the form of Constitutional amendments, etc–since the emancipation of the slaves. After, all they were freed right?? The “free market” had 100 years since then to sort itself out! The CR legislation–not just for blacks, but women, and other minorities–would not have been needed if there were some great , unseen, equalizing force at hand that obviated it. Yet, RP supporters *still* say that the CR legislation was too soon? You’ve got to be kidding! These ideas are nice in theory, (in a society where there are no prejudices and minority rights can be implicitly respected by all) but in practice if the majority has little direct, immediate incentive to respect them they just don’t work. As the saying goes: “Hope is not a strategy!”

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      1. Joe

        Except that the south had the Jim Crow laws for all those years that allowed discrimination based on race. All that needed to happen was for the Supreme Court to strike down the Jim Crow laws as unconstitutional and that would have solved it.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  17. Felipe21

    He argues that the free market would have eventually corrected these social injustices including child labor etc. Progressives argue that without government intervention child labor would continue to exist. This is not true because research shows that by the time child labor laws were enacted child labor was already on a steep decline because the standard of living for Americans had been increasing and Americans could afford to send their kids to school thanks to the market. Eventually If left alone child labor would have eliminated it self. Same for segregation eventually the American whites would have began to hire blacks because of demand for labor creating competition and eventually other business’s would have to hire blacks in order to keep up. When government forces things on the people it creates rebellion. By allowing the people’s public opinion to change on their own and to figure out that sending kids to work or  discriminating someone because of the color of their skin is idiotic, it creates a more pure society. The civil He argues that the free market would have eventually corrected these social injustices including child labor etc. Progressives argue that without government intervention child labor would continue to exist. This is not true because research shows that by the time child labor laws were enacted child labor was already on a steep decline because the standard of living for Americans had been increasing and Americans could afford to send their kids to school thanks to the market. Eventually If left alone child labor would have eliminated it self. Same for segregation eventually the American whites would have began to hire blacks because of demand for labor creating competition and eventually other business’s would have to hire blacks in order to keep up. When government forces things on the people it creates opposition and riots by allowing people to figure out that they have no other choice it creates a more pure and humble society. The civil war was MAINLY fought over economic reasons and not necessarily to give blacks equal rights. Ask yourselves why is America the only country to have fought a war over slavery? The civil war was fought because of pressure from northerners who believed it was unfair that the south didn’t have to pay their workers. The norths economy was  mainly manufacturing while the south was agriculture so therefor they didn’t have need for slaves. All of this was masked by the morality of slavery.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. SamFox

    Mau, glad to help. Good legitimate Q.

    It’s not the text that contains what you inquire about. It’s the bill itself. It’s a false flag attack on personal liberty, in this case the liberty & rights of private business owners. Govt used the CRA to get it’s big foot in the door.

    If the govt cared about discrimination , they would end the discriminatory war on some drugs. Blacks get locked up a lot more than other groups. NYC has a ‘stop & frisk’ policy that targets blacks & Hispanics many times more than other ethnic groups.

    Hope that helps. Thanks.

    SamFox

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. inaladeeda

      @SamFox You neglect the rights of people of color to live a life free of discrimination, harassment, and the freedom to do what they want. Private business owners are doing just fine, the CRA has not hurt them, compared to what blacks and other people of color suffered in this country before it.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. SamFox

        @inaladeeda No I don’t. I don’t neglect any rights for any one.That’s why I said ” If the govt cared about discrimination , they would end the discriminatory war on some drugs. Blacks get locked up a lot more than other groups. NYC has a ‘stop & frisk’ policy that targets blacks & Hispanics many times more than other ethnic groups.

        I just understand that if the govt gets it’s foot in the door they go all freaky in their efforts to be the controlling factor in ALL our lives as they spread like cancer from one issue to the next.

        SamFox

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. Patriot Dave

        @SamFox@inaladeeda I like both of your comments, because you both make valid points. Personally, I agree with and endorse everything Ron Paul is campaigning on right now, but because of the history of advantaged White America, Slavery, Discrimination, Segregation, Sexism, etc., and because the Civil Rights Act was brought about by a Populist movement, I don’t agree with anything suggesting a repeal of the Civil Rights Act. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, libertarian IDEALS, are IDEAL in a country with either all the same ethnicity, or in a country where bigotry, racism, advantages, etc., don’t exist, and America is not that country.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      3. Jacob9578

        @SamFox@inaladeeda

        SamFox, your argument does not make sense. The discrimination by police should absolutely be stopped, but legalizing drugs so they cant arrest anyone will not stop the problem.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      4. SamFox

        @Jacob9578 ,Good legitimate Q in a reasoned reply.

        I did not say it would completely solve police discrimination. Or totally prevent discrimination & abuse by any other groups who are deluded by racist views or policy. But ending the drug war would stop much of the abuse by cops & others, especially in law enforcement.

        Copy & paste the following to a search–

        Marijuana laws once used by states to discriminate

        History of cannabis and industrial hemp prohibition

        War on drugs an attack on the Bill Of Rights

        War on drugs led to militarization of police agencies

        Hemp For Victory, YouTube video

        War on drugs is lost

        How much is the drug war costing in terms of money

        How many innocents have been killed because of the war on drugs

        Why does Law Enforcement Against Prohibition call for ending drug war, leap.cc

        How many die each year from Rx drug use

        How many die each year from illegal drug use

        I only put up a few topics, but there should be enough to give you an idea of where I am coming from & why Ron Paul says the war on [some] drugs should end.

        I do not advocate using drugs. I advocate that people own their bodies. not govt, & that people should be free to make their own choices. If they commit a real crime when using, they are then subject to prosecution.

        All prohibited drugs were once legal. There was no huge problem with addiction or crime then.Explore this one at leap.cc

        I say RE-legalize; take the profits from the cartels, end a lot of graft & bribes & save MANY lives. Let states, NOT feds, regulate distribution through dispensaries in conjunction with Consequences Of Use education based on truth, not Reefer Madness style propaganda.

        Drug use & related problems should be a medical issue, not a criminal one. Unless a real crime is committed when using of course. .

        Thank you.

        SamFox

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. ianqmacallister

          SanFox, I completely agree with you that we should re-legalize drugs. You and I both know that for most of this nation’s history we got along just fine without a DEA and a perpetual ‘war on (some) drugs.” However, speaking as a rightest, I condemn anti-drug laws on the grounds that they are wrong, not racist.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      5. mmmdee

        @Patriot Dave you are a smart man.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. mmmdee

      @SamFox stop and frisk and the war on drugs were not problems for the black community in the 1960s. Problem was discrimination and poverty as a result of this discrimination and the civil rights bill served as a way to begin the process of eliminating this problem. it was wideley accepted by the black communit and civil rights proponents and wideley discredited by racists.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. SamFox

        @mmmdee actually they were, though not nearly so much then as now.

        What I was saying you didn’t seem to grasp. No offence, not attacking.

        What I was illustrating is the point I made that if govt it gets a foot in the door in an arena they can’t be trusted to keep from taking more power from We The People. That once the feds get a toe hold they will try to own the whole mountain, so to speak.

        I was illustrating govt over reacah that defies the Constitution.

        SamFox

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. SamFox

    Shawn, a correction. Ron Paul does believe that it’s OK to amend the Constitution. After all, amending is part of the Constitution & Founder’s intent to deal with future issues.

    Your business is supposed to be YOUR BUSINESS! You own it. No one else’s.

    You call Ron’s FP ‘isolationist’. I challenge you to show me where Ron calls for the USA to close off from the rest of the world. If Ron is ‘isolationist’ so then were Washington & Jefferson. Ron has the same FP as they do. You should know that. You should be ashamed for being so easily tricked. Please do more research.

    Not attacking, correcting.

    “Isolationist” is a fringe media propaganda construct, NOT what Ron advocates.

    Ron’s FP; Wise,

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/fisk5.html

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4zKzXFcLN4

    The original US FP-

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/fff-video.html

    Same as Founders

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul413.html

    Is Ron isolationist? No.

    http://paulitifact.com/

    “Wiped off the map” rumor of the century-

    http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century/

    Links I posted regarding Ron & Israel, above, agree with the above link.

    Thank you for being open minded enough to check this our.

    SamFox

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Jacob9578

      @SamFox

      Jefferson and Washington were isolationists. They openly declared themselves to be isolationists. And the US isolation strategies in both World Wars led to far more people being killed

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. SamFox

        @Jacob9578 Would you please back that up. Not attacking or mocking, but I never heard that before.

        !st show us where ANY US Founders were isolationist.

        2nd show us what the US FP was before WWII.

        Thank you.

        SamFox

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. Jacob9578

        @SamFox

        The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is inextending our commercial relations to have as little politicalconnection as possible… Why, by interweaving our destiny with that ofany part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils ofEuropean ambition, rivalships, interest, humor, or caprice?… It is ourtrue policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion ofthe foreign world.” – george washington

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      3. SamFox

        Jacob9578. thanks Jake. You make my case.

        What you are talking about in your quote is not isolation. It’s a call for the USA to mind our own business. You can see from the following that I am correct.

        Here is more of what Washington & Jefferson & J Q Adams said–

        Tom J: ” Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none. – Thomas Jefferson”

        JQ Adams: [Goes along with Jefferson's quote.]

        I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. [We could insert "The Middle East" here & do the quote no injustice.] Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. – Thomas Jefferson (1823)

        America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom. – John Quincy Adams (1821)

        [Cont. next post. I hope. :-) ]

        SamFox

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      4. SamFox

        From G Washington Farewell Address- [Cont. from above post.]

        “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

        The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations [Like the ME] is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe [ME could go here as well.] has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her [As in the ME.] politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

        Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?[Again, the ME.] Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, [The ME] entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European [The ME] ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

        It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world [ME fits here.]; Wow! Ron Paul is so in line with what the Founders advocated!! Is not that a grand ideal?

        YES!! IT IS!!

        SamFox

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. Motov

    I figure someone needed to post this

    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Amendment II

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Amendment III

    No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

    Amendment IV

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Amendment V

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Amendment VI

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    Amendment VII

    In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

    Amendment VIII

    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    Amendment IX

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment X

    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.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. ROBfromMKE

    @Shawn- If a business is owned by a private citizen, which most are in our capitalistic society, then it is therefore private property. You should take a Constitutional Law class or two and learn how to read legal documents and contracts. Perhaps an MBA is in order? About Dr.Paul’s foreign policy… I am an Infantry Veteran by the way… The USA would not be “turning their back” on anyone. Israel and her allies are quite capable of defending themselves. Look at how fast they crush the opposition in a history book. We need to bring all of our boys and girls home. Close up shop.(Lock down the boarders) Decriminalize drugs.(not Legalize everything) Start growing cannabis for production of paper, clothing, smoking, and making bio-diesel. This would make the 10% unemployment rate in America drop quite a bit. Also, we need to re-industrialize the United States. I would do this by discontinuing outsourcing. Tap the Alaskan pipeline, drill for oil off the east coast, and drill for oil in North and South Dakota. Re-open old and make new oil refineries across the USA. All of these things would drastically increase productivity in the USA, decrease the unemployment rate, and basically liberate the people of our country again.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. ianqmacallister

    I didn’t write that NO non-Asian minorities are qualified for jobs requiring strong mental aptitude, but you will not find them in proportion to their population at large due the average black-white IQ differential. The average African-American IQ is 85 while the average European-American IQ is about 102. If the top professional and managerial jobs in this country require an IQ of at least 115 or thereabouts, then only about 2.5 percent of blacks appear able to compete for those jobs. The comparable figure for whites would be about 16 percent. Total black population with IQs over 115: 800,000. Comparable figure for whites: about 30 million.

    There’s simply no getting around this. See “Black-White IQ Differences” by Daniel Seligman. http://library.flawlesslogic.com/iq.htm

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  23. David25

    Paul foreign policy is Non-interventionist not Isolationist. Isolationist want to close off all trade with all countries and be self-reliant. Paul wants to open up free trade with nearly every country, all the other candidates have more isolationist policies than this. It is interventionist policies that let to 9/11. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo

    I agree public buildings should not be allowed to discriminate, privately they should be able to do what they want. I think he is referring to the EEOC part, but I might be wrong. My view is no amount of government can change someone’s morals, but the government is supposed to represent everyone so it cannot discriminate.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. SamFox
      1. David25

        Thank you for replacing it with some more, it was educational. Very good video with Jack Hunter, great job with the extensive research keep up the good work.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. David25

    Ok excuse me, whites are the biggest single ethnic group in Texas, combined the other ethnic groups outnumber non-hispanic whites. So the correct statement would be there are more minorities than whites, sorry.

    http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. ianqmacallister

      Depends on how one defines “white.” According to the US Census, white persons in Teas not Hispanic constitute 45.3% of the population. That’s a minority. Texas no longer has a majority. Whites are a minority in Texas just as we are a small minority worldwide.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. inaladeeda

      @ianqmacallister And this explains White Anxiety and support for Ron Paul. Fear of losing power and control.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    3. orsigno

      @inaladeeda Wow, who do you work for?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    4. ianqmacallister

      Actually Ron Paul has a decidedly pro-immigration stance, and does not appear to have a racially conscious bone in his body. I disagree with his stance on immigration, and cringed when I heard him praise Martin Luther King as his “hero.” Likewise when he described the criminal justice system as biased against blacks. That’s just foolishness.

      I’ll still vote for Ron Paul for his positions on the Constitutional, true civil rights, and sound economics. All other candidates are bought and paid for by Wall Street, the military-industrial-intelligence complex, and the Zionist Lobby.

      Regarding the decline of white majorities, yes, I do not like it. So what?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    5. SamFox

      @ianqmacallister , the criminal justice system IS biased against black people.

      http://www.fff.org/comment/com0303e.asp

      http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/64

      I usually post a lot of links, but 2 are enough for now.

      Thank you for a reasonable post. You make some very good points.

      SamFox

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. ianqmacallister

        From “Racism and the Drug War” by Jacob C. Hornberger.

        First, these days the word “racism” means so many different things that it doesn’t mean anything anymore. There’s racial prejudice, racial animosity, ethnic pride as a white person, preference for one’s own kind as a white person, the study of racial differences, criticizing a black president as a white person, etc. All these these things get shoehorned into the category “racism.” I recommend the book “Racism, Schmacism” by radio talkshow host James Edwards.

        Like the term “assault weapon” and “gateway drug,” the word “racism” simply has no fixed meaning.

        “In 1986, before the enactment of federal mandatory minimum sentencing for crack-cocaine offenses, the average federal drug sentence for African-Americans was 11 percent higher than for whites. Four years later, the average federal drug sentence for African-Americans was 49 percent higher.”

        This statistic might very well be true, but is it evidence of “racism” in the criminal justice system? Listen, I am old enough that I actually remember when the fedgov enhanced penalties for crack cocaine. Do you know who was pushing for those laws? The Black Congressional Caucus. Are they racist?

        Check out the arrest and conviction statistics generated in those cities where the local criminal justice machinery – which which carries almost all the burden of the w”war on drugs” – is run BY BLACKS. Do you still see the same patterns cited by Hornberger? Of course you do. What does that tell you? Do you really think that black cops, black prosecutors and black judges are are targeting black offender BECAUSE THEY ARE MOTIVATED BY ANTI-BLACK BIAS?

        Perhaps we should look around for other reasons why blacks are more likely to be ensnared by the drug war. The fact is that any given black defendant is more likely to have a prior criminal history than any given white defendant. The fact that these laws ensnare blacks is because blacks are more likely to violate them by dealing drugs or engaging in violence around commerce in drugs, not necessarily because all cops are racists.

        If you think that the criminal justice system is racially-biased against black, then you should read The Color of Crime by the New Century Foundation. Colorofcrime.com.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. Reality Check

    One remarkable thing is that a lot of people here are saying the government should do what is in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and say it should not do some of the things that are not in that law but still vociferously stand opposed to the law. One key thing not in the law is that there is *no* provision which would restrict private employers from discriminating. It primarily addressed public accommodations and voting rights. Paul has an issue with this? Does he miss the good old days where blacks could stay in certain hotels only if they happened to be sports stars traveling with their mostly white teammates but then still had to eat in the kitchen instead of the dining room?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    1. SamFox

      @Reality Check Paul has no problem with voting rights for all. I know of no words he has uttered that could lead to the conclusion that he is against any citizen voting rights.

      If by ‘public accommodations’ you mean govt offices & such, he says there should be no discrimination by govt in State of Fed buildings.

      Private businesses are a different matter. Those are owned by private citizens & should remain under their control.

      SamFox

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  26. David25

    This argument has been wonderful in bring a topic out that no one really wants to talk but is needs to be discussed. But the fact is that Paul only objects to the Federal mandate that was enforced and argues that the federal government in no way could figure out what motivated each case of racism, so they put in another one size fits all fix. This needs to be taken care of by the state and local governments to avoid someone coming in from 100′s of miles away thinking they know whats best for the locals but really just impresses their boss in hopes for a promotion.

    For the arguments that will come saying there is NO WAY this would work because the southern states are full of whiteys who hate everyone besides them, whites have been the minority in Texas for a few years now under Latinos. Plenty of Latinos get hired here with absolutely no involvement by the federal government (or any government) because they work harder than alot of white people, trust me I live here.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. mmmdee

      @David25 I live in Texas too. Latinos face discrimination here.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. David25

        @mmmdee I didn’t say they weren’t discriminated against, everyone gets it some time or another. Its a part of life for people to hate on you. That doesn’t mean they don’t get hired for positions they are qualified for anymore.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. SamFox

        @mmmdee , so why do Latinos, who know bias & prejudice when they see or experience it, keep electing Ron Paul?

        You think Ron is prejudiced? Since you live in Texas, why not call Nelson Linder, Austin chapter president of the NAACP, & see what he says.

        http://tinyurl.com/bnup9cq

        How about what these people say:

        http://tinyurl.com/29f3w6

        http://tinyurl.com/3znrsqx

        http://tinyurl.com/3gk69mhRon

        News Letter attack, racist accusations = lib smear campaign

        http://tinyurl.com/7o3dvcu

        I hope you are open minded & honest enough to at least check these out. IMO you are being conned by fringe media. Many ‘news’ outlets are owned or greatly influenced by Spooky Dude.

        SamFox

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      3. ianqmacallister

        Nonsense. Every other job I see advertised says something like “bilingual preferred.”

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      4. orsigno

        @mmmdee I’m from Texas too. Everybody of every shade faces some kind of discrimination.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. mmmdee

          @orsigno compared to white people, miorities face more discrimination in texas.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      5. ianqmacallister

        Not sure about that. Every time I look through the help wanted ads I see “bilingual preferred.” For some jobs it’s even now mandatory.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. mmmdee

          @ianqmacallister pics or it didn’t happen.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. SamFox

          @mmmdee@ianqmacallister

          iangmc, it’s kinda funny to see mmmdee asking for citations to prove a point.

          mmm never puts up ANY back up for statements mmm makes, so maybe mmm is showing another ‘progressive’ double standard, eh mmm???

          I have left m many challenges asking for m to prove what m says, but all I get in return is Rules For Radicals jive song & dance around the issue I challenge on.

          SamFox

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. mmmdee

          @SamFox @mmmdee @ianqmacallister I had finals last week. i already told everyone that. i’m in the process of replying to everyone today. after showing you my cited work, i’ll expect your citation as well. thanks. And please be mature, except you’re a 6th grader, then carry on with your “progressive double standards” hogwash.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        4. SamFox

          @mmmdee , cite some of my double standards would you please. Thanks.

          Hey, I got up to 6th grade already? Wow!! Thanks for the graduation! I thought you had me in 3rd grade, but who cares….

          Kinda funny you asking some one to be mature. After reading some of the cussing you do & the snarky names…

          You a comedian? Your posts are often gut busters! :-)

          SamFox!

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        5. mmmdee

          @SamFox you really are an idiot aren’t you?

          when i said “progressive double standards” did you not know i was just quoting what you previously said when you said? or don’t you remember saying “iangmc, it’s kinda funny to see mmmdee asking for citations to prove a point.

          mmm never puts up ANY back up for statements mmm makes, so maybe mmm is showing another ‘progressive’ double standard, eh mmm???” ? idiot.

          or don’t you see the quotes around my “progressive double standards” when i said it as a mockery towards your delusion?

          so why should i cite something you invented out of your delusion?

          how about you cite the progressive double standards you can’t shut up about. troll.

          I’m not going to be mature to a drone who calls people socialist/lib and other absurdities and accuses me of shit i don’t even know. If you were a more respectable person, i could have a proper and respectable conversation with you, but after reading all your nonsense and garbage shit on this site in response to my previous posts, that is not an option.

          I’d rather be a comedian than a delusional idiot that believes telling people to go to cuba makes you seem somewhat enlightened.

          fuck off dumbass.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        6. SamFox

          mmmdee. All you did in your ‘reply’ is call me what you are. That’s an old ‘progressive’ tactic of ‘ label the other guy with what I am’, just like you did by calling me what ya did. By using that tactic you hope to show the other person to be what they are not, but you are. “Racist” is one of the most terms deceptively bandied about by lib progs.

          When you said “I am not going to be mature…” you describe almost everything you have posted. Your next to last paragraph is just a dodge, a song & dance to excuse your lack of ability to factually respond that proves my assertion. As does your last sentence.

          My delusion? So show us. If that were true & you had any thing to substantiate that I am delusional I am sure you would have posted it right away. All you continue to do is post no substance jive, as in your above post that only obfuscates the issue as you attack me instead of what I say in defense of Ron.

          The issue most at hand is that you don’t like Ron Paul. You call him names & put him down, but you NEVER, as I challenged you to do, put up his own words, then show us what’s wrong with what he said or believes.

          I even left you links to his foreign policy which you can’t impugn so you sing & dance your way out of any substantive reply. That’s because you cannot take Ron’s foreign policy down with out going out side to fringe media &/or what spin master talking heads have spun to redefine what he said.

          Here AGAIN are 2 links to Ron’s FP. Show us where it’s wrong, bad or dangerous to the USA. You CAN”T, so you’ll post your signature song & dance as to why it’s not worthy of refutation. You will continue to say “Ron Paul is isolationist” or what ever you believe is wrong with his FP.

          http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul413.html

          http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/

          Prove your point, not with you immature screeds &/or media ‘analysis’; use Ron’s own words. You are deathly afraid to put up Ron Paul’s own words because you know you cannot prove by them he is nuts or what ever it was you said Ron is or was. You’ll again make up your own juvenile excuses why I am not worthy of reply & junk of that ilk.

          SamFox

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Reality Check

      @David25 This is what the real world looked like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Robinson. And that was for someone who had it fairly well off. “I see you are an officer willing to put your life on the line during wartime, now go sit down in the back of the bus!”

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    3. Patriot Dave

      @David25 That’s fine now, but this was fought for by the People and brought about by the Civil Rights Movement in 1964. There is nothing in this Act that disadvantages big businesses, and we’d be naive to think that big corporations with entrenched White CEO’s don’t still discriminate in discreet fashion. That said, Ron Paul, President 2012!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. David25

        @Patriot Dave True, if they are real pieces of crap anyone would, that is why we as a people have to wake up, watch and research these people and companies. A lot of CEO’s would screw anyone just to make a buck, a great example is Mitt Romney and his time at Bain Capital. Just as side note not all CEO’s are white most notable recently Herman Cain who is just as bad as Romney with his time serving a head of one of the Fed banks.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Patriot Dave

          @David25 Right, not all CEOs are White, and CEOs of other ethnicities aren’t always innocent either.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  27. ianqmacallister

    The truth hurts, doesn’t it hmmh. If what I saw is so false and wicked, then it should be easy to disprove. Instead of pointing out the flaws in my facts or logic, you simply throw a temper tantrum and resort to name calling. Resorting to name calling is a dishonorable way of admitting that you simply have no counter-argument.

    The fact is that Congress simply cannot pass any law which undoes that which Mother Nature has ordained. People can still be equal before the bar of justice, but the fact remains that due to the average black-white cognitive differential, the *average* European-American has a higher IQ than 85% of all African-Americans.

    Don’t accept my word for this. You can go read the scientific studies which have looked into the question. Go read Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn. Read the study that was just published August 2011 in the Journal of Molecular Psychiatry.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  28. mmmdee

    @JoshuaChavers@Ianjmacdonald@classicliberalism@ClintFitzgerald Is this a joke?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  29. classroom teacher

    That does it for me. I no longer am interested in Ron Paul. Our country must have laws or there would be no freedom for anyone especially libertarians.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    1. David25

      @classroom teacher There would be laws, just laws enforced by the state government instead of the federal. As long as they don’t keep others’ freedoms from them the people locally in the state would be free to rule themselves.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. SamFox

      @classroom teacher , you get in the corner & wear a dunce cap for an hour!

      “That does it for” you? Pray tell why? No citations?

      Don’t you do your own thinking & research? Or are you another easy to manipulate Homer Simpson who has been taken in by fringe media propaganda spewing talking heads.

      I am not attacking. Just trying to say YOU BEEN HAD!

      Can you show us where Ron has said he wants no laws? Where he advocates anarchy? What you posted reflects comments that came from biased news. Not what you would have said if you had looked up what Ron himself actually believes & advocates as opposed to malicious & deceptive purposely misinterpreted Ron Paul statements spun by fringe media.

      What Ron was expressing is what he says often when it comes to govt shoving it’s big foot in a door, don’t let them!

      Let fed govt getting involved in the civil rights thing & where do they go next? What will they call for controlling next? What Ron was saying don’t let the govt camel get it’s nose under your tent.

      Where were the Feds when it came to equal treatment under the law, an area they do have Constitutional backing for.

      SamFox

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Motov

        @SamFox@classroom teacher

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4

        If anyone has questions about Ron Paul being a racist

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. SamFox

          @Motov , GREAT VIDEO!! Thank you. I saw it on the side of another site & changed tabs & could not find it again.

          Ron is not now nor has he ever been a racist.

          SamFox

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Jacob9578

          @Motov@SamFox@classroom teacher

          My GOD! A BLACK PERSON! IN A VIDEO BY RON PAUL! I now realize how racially accepting he is.

          Anyone can put a minority in a video. It doesn’t mean they aren’t racist

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        3. Patriot Dave

          @Motov@SamFox@classroom teacher

          Exactly. I personally do not believe that Ron Paul is a racist. I do believe that he is strongly ideologically driven, however, to a fault. But, for all his faults, which aren’t many, he has way too many good things about his ideology and political philosophy to not support him and advocate and campaign for him.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        4. Patriot Dave

          @Jacob9578@Motov@SamFox Yes, anyone can put a minority in a video, but not everyone can get a TESTIMONIAL about being helped in a time before Ron Paul EVER thought about running for president. Nerd.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        5. mmmdee

          @SamFox@Motov because we can tell who is racist just by looking at them.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        6. mmmdee

          @Jacob9578@Motov@SamFox@classroom teacher show me at least 500 black supporters of ron paul and we can have a conversation on the black community’s support of ron paul.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        7. SamFox

          @Jacob9578 , that video was not done by Ron Paul. He was surpized by it in fact.

          Man., you have yer mind made up, dontcha. I’ll confuse you with some facts anyway. :-)

          These videos were also not made By Ron Paul. These people did them on their own FOR Ron.

          Defending RP from Racist label: Texas NACCP chapter Prez-

          http://tinyurl.com/bnup9cq

          http://tinyurl.com/29f3w6

          http://tinyurl.com/3gk69mhRon

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQkNABSM3fk

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PNKT20jSf4&feature=related

          NAACP agrees with Ron, also opposes war on some drugs

          http://www.naacp.org/press/entry/naacp-passes-historic-resolution-calling-for-end-to-war-on-drugs

          News Letter attack = lib smear campaign

          http://tinyurl.com/7o3dvcu

          Ron interview by W Blitzer on racism,

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKBlk1Vpeuw

          These are not really intended for you jake or mmm. I know you are close minded & more than likely working for some Soros funded internet hit squad that fears Ron Paul ending the intentional collapse of the USA.

          Rather these are intended for honest & open minded people.

          SamFox

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. Jacob9578

        @SamFox@classroom teacher

        Currently the most contraversial issue handled by state gov’ts is gay marraige, which is being handled in a biggoted and unfair manner.

        “Where were the Feds when it came to equal treatment under the law, an area they do have Constitutional backing for.”

        What the hell are you talking about?

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. SamFox

          @Jacob9578, why don’t you find out? What, we gotta hand feed you every thing? How about reading the document. “Equal treatment under the law” is in there. And it is mandatory.

          Sheesh.

          SamFox

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    3. orsigno

      @classroom teacher “He who can not protect themself without the law, is either a fool or a coward.” He who can not live without that law is both.”

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  30. DaveJannsen

    Forced integration is unconstitutional? I quite think that the forced integration of our schools after the end of segregation is a good thing.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. ianqmacallister

      Do you like how they’ve had to dumb down the curriculum?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. mmmdee

        @ianqmacallister It depends on which state you live in. In Vermont, the public school Education is awesome. The state government controls what teachers can teach, not the federal government.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. ianqmacallister

          Vermont demographics

          European-Americans: 95%

          African-Americans: 1%

          http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/50000.html

          How could the education there possibly be awesome with such a stunning dearth of diversity? Don’t those people understand that “diversity is our strength”?

          Must be the fresh Vermont air.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. mmmdee

          @ianqmacallister or it must be that Vermont is liberal not libertarian or conservative.

          I think The more liberal or less conservative/Libertarian the government of a city, regardless of diversity, the better the city (or even country in most cases) is in health (better environment laws, better health care polices), education, and living standards, because less conservative/Libertarian governments tend to invest more time into the livelihood of it’s people.It’s their liberal government, and mindset.

          For example Barbados has a great education system (99.7 Literacy rate) and it’s 90% black. And other majority black countries like Zimbabwe, South Africa, Kenya etc have good Literacy rates. South Korea also has a great education system, and it’s (99.0 Literacy rate), and it’s mostly non white. So this is clearly not a white/Black thing.

          And Although Norway, Canada, Germany and the U.S have more white people in them, Norway, Canada, and Germany (or less conservative that the U.S), have better education and health care.

          So there’s that.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. mmmdee

          @ianqmacallister And it might also be that a lot of people who live in Vermont don’t think like you. thank goodness.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        4. SamFox

          @mmmdee, problem is, all those things are not mandated in the Constitution for the fed govt to do. If you like big govt & lotsa nanny stateism & the control over the citizens it comes with, you could always move to Cuba.

          The problems we are having are because govt has illegally usurped power that is not given them in our founding documents.

          Big govt is not the solution. Big govt is the problem!! Many of the places that have all the great stuff you say they do, also have a lot more restrictions on freedom & liberty.

          Where does govt get the $ it ‘invests’? From the private sector.

          Problem with libs & the socialism they love to impose is that sooner or later they run out of other people’s $$.

          SamFox

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        5. SamFox

          @mmmdee , No, that’s not that. THIS IS!

          http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=HcBaSP31Be8&vg=medium

          The above is your 0-care, hope ya like it.

          Can’t say I do.

          SamFox

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        6. ianqmacallister

          “And other majority black countries like Zimbabwe, South Africa, Kenya etc have good Literacy rates.”

          Now there are some countries worth emulating. ;)

          (Do you really take their literacy statistics seriously?)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        7. Patriot Dave

          @SamFox@mmmdee Also, the more contracts for social programs the people enter into with their government, the more the government OWNS them, and laws that restrict the liberties of the people oppress them in other areas of life. I’m not an absolutist, and say that there is never a place or a time when socialism will not work, but it doesn’t work in the United States. Socialism would morph into communist dictatorship in the U.S. before you can say Soviet Union. The police state and the deterioration of our Constitutional liberties are tell-tail signs that a socialist state just won’t work in a country who’s tradition of Freedom and the MERIT system is still a flame that burns within many Americans. I can do for myself without the “Federal Government telling me which hand to use to wipe my ass.” Like Thomas Jefferson, I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences that come with Liberty, than to those that come with too small a degree of it.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        8. mmmdee

          @SamFox the constitution gives the national govt supremacy over the state governments. Under Justice Marshall, and following supreme court cases like mcculloch vs maryland etc, the national government’s supremacy over states was solidified. The original constitution was not a set in stone rule, it was meant to evolve as time passes. For example the original constitution allowed for slavery and today, it does not. Learn something about history.

          And since we are suggesting places for people to move to now, i suggest you move under a rock and live there forever.

          You like throwing out vague nonsense without explaining your reason behind this vague nonsense. “big govt is the problem” why? how? in what ways? etc etc. Is it a definite always thing? why is that? and so on. So if you are going to throw out vague nonsense, at least have an explanation ready for it or you are just wating everybody’s time.

          “problem with libs and…” *yawn* stop spitting out what you read on bumper stickers and use your brain. Your poorly thought out and mindless repetition only reveals how little you know about socialism. Word of advise, stop watching to much fox news and actually think for yourself.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        9. mmmdee

          @ianqmacallister good question. because european and american companies exploit the lack of labor laws in other countries and make people work for 75 cents and hour or lower while stacking up on profit, and then there are sweat shops. But most importantly is their lack of respect for the housing and living conditions of the people they exploit, their oil companies spill oil in villages, towns, etc, they use up all the resources that the natives would be using to make life more bearable. Watch yes men fix the world and educate yourself on these things. Also nice to note, these companies are 99.9% run by white people.

          and germany and norway both have one of the best gdp in europe and they are very liberal. I’m afraid now you will go and look up their demographics and say “aha! no blacks!”

          You can’t win it ignorance. It’s either the blacks are doing it or the liberals. how sad.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

          1. ianqmacallister

            Social democracy works as well as it does in Northern Europe because the societies are filled with Northern Europeans.

            Rhodesia was the bread basket of Africa when Europeans ran it. Now it is an economic basket case.

            South Africa under white rule a much more civilized country than it is now. In fact, it was so prosperous that blacks from the rest of the Africa flocked to South Africa for a better life, notwithstanding apartheid. The blacks took it over, and it’s gone down hill. The country experiences rolling blackout. Violent crime is through the roof. It’s the rape and murder capital of the world. Read Ilana Mercer’s latest book on the subject, Into The Cannibals’ Pot.

            Same old story all over Africa when the Europeans left. The Africans just could not even maintain the civilization and infrastructure that was left behind by the whites, and things just started going downhill.

            By the way, I hadn’t posed a question; I had simply observed the world around me.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        10. mmmdee

          @ianqmacallister you sound stupid. please stop.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. Jacob9578

        @ianqmacallister

        If ur saying that black kids being in schools dumb down the curriculums, you are a racist

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. ianqmacallister

          If you introduce a child who is in the 80 or so IQ range to reading at the usual age of six, he’s much more likely to fail than children with IQs of 100 or higher, and much more likely to be given up on by the time he’s at an age at which he could read with the same level of facility as the average six-year-old — that is to say, when he’s nine or ten. The average black entering first grade is about a year behind in level of development. A year is a crucial difference when it comes to readiness for reading and arithmetic.

          There is a huge academic literature on the gaps in cognitive test results, practically all of it converging on the fact that African American mean scores on cognitive tests fall below the white means by a tad more than one white standard deviation.

          You can’t face the fact that there are real differences between the various racial groups.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

        2. mmmdee

          @Jacob9578@ianqmacallister if you say that, yes you are.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. ianqmacallister

            I am a realist. Since you cannot handle the truth, you want to shoot the messenger. Why get mad at me? I didn’t design Africans to have a lower average IQ than anyone else.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    2. SamFox

      @DaveJannsen yes intergration is a good thing. But letting the fed govt camel’s nose under the tent is always a bad idea. They never know when to stop.That is why Dr. Paul says what he does about the CRA.

      We can’t trust govt to exercise any self control. Especially when the only control they want to exercise is over We The People.

      SamFox

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. David25

    For those who think Ron Paul a bigot who hates everyone not just like him, please google “the question was answered six years ago”. This is a blog from an openly gay candidate in Virginia who Ron Paul put his support behind.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. mmmdee

      @David25 okay? and? do majority of lgbt citizens support ron paul? do they? are they libertarian or republican? are majority of minorities libertarian/republican/ron paul supporters? are they? ask yourself these questions.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. David25

        @mmmdee Seem to be coming over more and more everyday. 6 years ago no one was talking about anything Paul was, now its mainstream.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. mmmdee

          @David25 because six years ago ron paul wasn’t a threat. He was a crazy old HARMLESS man. Now, it’s a different thing. He actually has a shot at running against Obama. So now, he’s a crazy old POTENTIALLY HARMFUL man, and any sane person can’t have that.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. mmmdee

          @David25 ps: I’ve always been politically active. Just never cared for Ron Paul, and still don’t actually, it’s just the absurdity of his followers on this page is amusing. Even regular republicans i engage in conversation with aren’t this openly delusional. What i’m reading here is the kind of thing I watch on Fox news, so…i’m pretty entertained.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. David25

          @mmmdee There is no difference between Republicans and Democrats or between the different news networks. Both parties want to spend alot of your money and either tax the poor or impose impossible fees and fines from regulations on small businesses. Both parties want endless war to save us from the “terrorist” who are pissed off because we’ve been bombing their families for years and just want us to quit occupying their country.

          And all the mainstream news networks are paid for by the banks which is obvious from barrage of commercials from BoA, Chase, and others. The banks hate Ron Paul because its his mission to take down the Fed who bails them out whenever they get in trouble for making bad investments (16 trillion at first glance from the audit). Which, if we didn’t have such corrupt regulating bureaucrats in D.C., the rich heads of these companies would be in jail by for fraud. Maybe get some of the money they got for stealing all their customers back since most of it didn’t exist to begin with thanks to our fractional-reserve banking system.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        4. David25

          @mmmdee Look up “the compassion of Dr. Ron Paul” to see how crazy and dangerous he is. Don’t just put someone down because some talking head told you so, especially when they are getting paid to do it.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        5. SamFox

          mmmdee. , It’s easy to call names, engage in negative generalities & make inane statements that you don’t back up. Your repetition of fringe media blather exposes you as one who is being led around by the nose by biased ‘news’ media talking heads.

          You are a good Homer Simpson it appears. Very easy to manipulate, as your posts show. They reflect no original thought. You do, however, mirror many fringe media talking points whose purpose is to deceive, misinform & manipulate. You got suckered badly & it shows!

          Why is it you who major in Ron Paul bashing do the Rules For Radicals personal attack thing rather than doing, say, “Here is Ron Paul’s foreign policy from his own words. See where it’s wrong”? & then point out the deficiencies. It’s not that you oppose Ron. That is your right & I support it.

          It’s that in your opposition to Ron you lie. That is NOT right. You should be ashamed.

          Why don’t you show us the smoking gun beyond reasonable doubt proof that absolutely proves Ron wrote any thing racist. That HE IS a racist. That he has ever been over heard saying such. How many videos have you found where people are saying “I heard Ron & here is what he said” or videos of Ron in his own words saying any thing racist.

          You can’t.

          The ONLY thing this ‘Ron is a racist’ lying, disingenuous media propaganda campaign has going for it is a weak attempt at guilt by association. Only shallow souls fall such easy to refute agendas.

          Oppose Ron all you want. You are free to have your own opinion. Just make sure it is based on verifiable facts lest you find media gotcha & you were conned & you continue to look foolish when you make unsubstantiated juvenile remarks. Above all, GET HONEST!

          Thanks.

          SamFox

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        6. Jacob9578

          @David25@mmmdee

          Actually, the last time there was no federal reserve bailing out banks, we had the Great Depression. That was bad.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        7. orsigno

          @mmmdee Harmful to whom? The paradigm that we need to force whites to hire non-whites in 2012?

          Let me attempt to shift yours. If you aren’t the most qualified, you shouldn’t be the one hired. Universities are no longer required to become qualified as people realize people aren’t really learning anything useful there other than how to socialize and how to owe a ton of money to people you’ve never met. As a matter of fact, you can get qualified to do pretty much whatever you want without ever stepping foot in a University. The internet is a beutiful thing.

          Want to work in the computer security industry? Go get your CISSP and/or Security+ certifications and demonstrate some technical ability (That you learned from tinkering on your personal computer) and I can get you a job tomorrow. You might not start at $100k/yr, nobody does.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        8. David25

          @Jacob9578@mmmdee The Fed act was passed in 1913 in a nearly empty congress near Christmas, well before the depression and it immediately began retracting the money supply and causing people to live with less. Speculators on Wallstreet made reckless investments that they knew they would get bailed out from with taxpayer money because of their cozy relationship with the Fed. When the stock market crashed people ran on the banks and thanks to our flawed fractional-reserve banking system everyone was stiffed and left with nothing. This caused the Great Depression.

          2 lies about the Fed- 1. Its not federal, this is a private bank that sold stocks to get started and has no govn’t oversight. 2. There are no reserves, all the gold for our country has been shipped seas into European banks and god knows where else. The Fed has NEVER been audited which is completely insane. Kind of a long movie but very informative,

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs&list=FLjqxoWx4rFgapNfLvVTjzzw&index=12&feature=plpp_video

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        9. mmmdee

          @SamFox I call people names? look who the fuck is talking? socialist? libs? go to cuba if you don’t like it here? progressive double standards? fuck off dumbass. you are stupid fuck and i’m not apologizing. I don’t even want to have a conversation with you because you disgust me.And you’re the same guy whose been running your mouth about citations right? and where are yours? seriously. I can’t even talk to you, you’re too fucked up to have a conversation with.

          I repeat liberal inane blah? coming from the fox news drone, that’s a fucking lot.

          Just reading your comments gave me a fucking headache.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        10. mmmdee

          @orsigno his harmful to sane people but thanks for pointing out that some white people like yourself are uncomfortable with being forced to do the right thing.

          If you aren’t the most qualified for a job you shouldn’t be hired, i agree and i’m sure everyone agrees but that is not what the civil right asks or civil right activists ask. They ask for whites to not be racist or discriminatory towards minorities in the work place. the end. somehow in your head (and in your head only ) this is equal to forcing people who aren’t qualified for a job to take that job over a qualified person, and how that makes any remote sense is beyond me.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        11. mmmdee

          @orsigno

          he’s harmful to sane people but thanks for pointing out that some white people like yourself are uncomfortable with being forced to do the right thing.

          If you aren’t the most qualified for a job you shouldn’t be hired, i agree and i’m sure everyone agrees but that is not what the civil right asks or civil right activists ask. They ask for whites to not be racist or discriminatory towards minorities in the work place. the end. somehow in your head (and in your head only ) this is equal to forcing people who aren’t qualified for a job to take that job over a qualified person, and how that makes any remote sense is beyond me.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. SamFox

        @mmmdee , why? These Q’s don’t take us any where. David25 is right. Straw man per chance…

        ron POaul’s liberty message IS quite catching! :-)

        SamFox

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. SamFox

      @David25 Thanks David! Great link!

      SamFox

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. ianqmacallister

    Affirmative action is nothing less than official, government-mandated discrimination against whites. It requires the lowering of standards overall in order to hire “enough” non-Asian whites. Read The Affirmative Action Hoax by Steven Farron.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. David25

    In an unregulated market you boycott any establishment that wants to deny someone services because of their race or anything else. This would make it much easier to point out racist and shun them for what they are instead of forcing people to hide the fact and letting it grow even greater in secret. Public opinion was already turning away from the appalling open racism and putting this tactic in action in 1964. If the government would a have stood up and protected Americans right to free speech instead of letting the local police beat them when they tried to protest much of the violence probably would not have happened.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Redmond J

      @David25 “In an unregulated market you boycott any establishment that wants to deny someone services because of their race or anything else.”Or, if all the political, social and economic power lies in the hands of the racists, you boycott (or firebomb) any establishment that breaks ranks and treats black customers fairly. You know, what actually happened in real life back when the South got to play by Ron Paul’s rules.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. mmmdee

        @Redmond J@David25 Exactly!

        lol just like I was saying to the other guy who was like “People would go down the road to the non racists shop and buy the same product without the government” really? because like time I checked, those people WERE the racists. Like…a horrible majority of white people in the south were racists, point blank.

        About this boycotting thing, Back then Whites/Racists had invented a society were blacks could not move forward on their own, blacks couldn’t just boycott white businesses, because back then, the white businesses were the best, and it was purposefully made that way so that Blacks HAD to depend on whites.

        But even then, take a look at Chick-fil-a today. Chick-fil-a is openly homophobic and funds organizations and political candidates that are also homophobic. LGBT activists have boycotted this organization for months now (almost a year), and that doesn’t mean anything, because well endowed homophobes still eat there, and Chick-fil-a is still up and running without a hitch.

        Back in the 1960s even if blacks boycotted these businesses, it wouldn’t do anything, because well endowed racists (which was pretty much everyone except Latinos, Asian, Native Americans etc) or well endowed non racists who liked the product regardless of it’s harmful policies, because it wasn’t directly harming them and it was cheap (hey i’m not racist, but this is some good shit and for less too!) would continue to buy from that business. (I mean, it even happens today, people still buy stuff from Walmart even though they don’t agree with it’s hurtful/horrendous working Policies. Things are just Cheaper there, so people buy things there).

        My problem with Ron Paul supporters is that they have a disconnect with reality. They keep offering present solutions to problems in the past, as if people today are the same people back then, and as if problems today are the same as problems back in those days. It’s a very unrealistic approach to things.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. David25

          @mmmdee@Redmond J This is why the size of the government must be reduced. When we give power to regulators they becomes corruptible, choosing to help those organizations who they like or can fill their pockets and heavily regulate those they want to be left behind.

          The reason the civil rights act was passed is the public outcry, which means the majority of the Americans were waking up the mistreatment of blacks. This outcry began to pressure government to stop looking the other way and stop giving favorable treatment to racist establishments. So for fear of losing their jobs, they began telling people what to do instead of stopping the local governments from enforcing jim crow laws that held minorities back and making sure the little guy could get things done just as easily as those who were already established and well known. Without the regulations helping racist, established businesses and the regulators guarding them, minorities would have a much easier time making just as good a product or service (if not better) as any other business around as long as they worked hard to do so.

          I do not disagree with what the civil rights act was trying to do or the good results it accomplished, I just believe that if left up to the the people this would have happened anyway through peoples’ common sense. Once the government is allowed by us the begin regulating one aspect of our lives they will use it to regulate others and gain more power. Just like they did when it helped them gain power by passing laws to hold back minorities, thankfully the country was still run by the people mostly and partially stopped them from doing this.

          All of this does require people to do their research before they spend their money blindly and to have a little dignity (which I believe most people do or we would still be a slave country). It may take longer to get things accomplished, but it is the only way to get real change and not force people to be fakes. People have been freed from oppression throughout history only to be held back by those who lust for power. We must pay attention to what people DO not just what they say will do.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. David25

          @mmmdee@Redmond J Actually looking at where our money is going is the number one topic of this election and something everyone (including me) needs to get better at, I for one will not eat at a chick-fil-a again. (Kinda off topic) This points out why the mainstream media is such a sham, because most Americans that I know and talk to have heard nothing of this and should. The news networks lean toward making their bosses money, not forward delivering fair and balanced news that is good for all.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. Redmond J

          @mmmdee@David25 Ron Paul is a throwback to the 1920′s when the Civil War was viewed as a tragic mistake, slavery as not really all that bad, America as an island that could divorce itself from the world and not be affected by what happened elsewhere, racism as natural, African Americans as completely undeserving of human or civil rights, and Hoovernomics as not yet fully discredited. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRx-trdMGtY

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        4. ianqmacallister

          And I suppose you consider the War Between the States a good thing? 600,000 American men killed not counting civilians. Large parts of the South devastated.

          It would have been far cheaper to just buy the slaves and then set them free. Lincoln wanted them sent back to Africa.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        5. SamFox

          @mmmdee , I see you didn’t answer my challenge to put up Ron Paul’s own words on subjects then refute them &/or show how he is wrong or bad or what ever.

          Whatamatta, you got nuttin you can show us?? Just as I thought. I note you ignore what I asked you to do & continue unsubstantiated propaganda attacks on Ron.

          I knda figured you’d do the ignore thing. Shows what you are, a shill troll working for one of Spooky Dude’s propaganda outlets.

          Thanks for nothing. But then again, that IS your posting style.

          SamFox

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        6. SamFox

          @Redmond J , you really hitting the propaganda over drive or what? All you have proven is that you have a biased opinion of Ron Paul. I note that you left no citations, no back up, no proof at all for your guilt by wishful association screed.

          I offer you the same challenge I gave mmmdee.I bet I get the same response from you.

          Show us in Ron’s own words where he says the USA should quit the rest of the world. How is is an isolationist as you so tacitly expressed in you tirade of lies.

          Put up Ron’s own words. Not media ‘analysis’, not Bill O’Reilly spin or other vapid talking head opinion. Only Ron’s words. Use videos, books he wrote, speeches…as long is it is what Ron himself expressed.

          I am betting you can’t prove any of your criticisims of Ron Paul this way.

          Prove me wrong. You can’t.

          SamFox

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        7. mmmdee

          @SamFox dude…chill the fuck out. I’m studying for my finals. I’m going to get back to everyone (not just you) when it’s over next week. I don’t live on this website, jesus.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        8. SamFox

          @mmmdee, chill yer own self. You have had plenty of time to lie all over the place about Ron Paul, that’s why I called ya out.

          Hope ya do well on yer finals.

          Hope also that you are an honest & open minded person. All I ask is an honest open minded evaluation of Ron. Not the repetition of fringe media analysis & the deceptive spin they put on Ron’s words & stances on issues as the establishment tries to torpedo the only true threat to the $ pig trough most in the fed govt feed from. Including the military industrial complex.

          OK, now we both B chilled, study hard do well & get back.

          Please know I am not trying to put you down, though it does seem like it at times I think. It is that I get frustrated when people attack Ron Paul but never prove their case using what Ron himself has said or written.

          My comments are directed at your words, not you. If I have attacked you personally I apologize. That is not a tactic I use on purpose.

          Good luck on yer tests. Always hated tests. :-)

          SamFox

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        9. mmmdee

          @ianqmacallister buy slaves from southerners who were unwilling to sell them and ship them back to africa were they will be re-enslaved by southerners under their new confederate country all over again. sounds like a perfect plan.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        10. mmmdee

          @SamFox what challenge?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        11. mmmdee

          @SamFox you are dumb.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. ianqmacallister

            mmmdee has to resort to insults because she can not refute the arguments of her opponents.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Reality Check

      @David25 That’s a very nice fantasy world to live in, but do you have time to boycott every single organization that discriminates. You finish with buses, but then what about trains, trolleys, mortgage lending, policing, jury selection. How do you boycott the court system? You say the government should have stood up and protected Americans’ right to free speech, but the fact is the Federal government did. Did you forget that little fact? When Americans were killed and police failed to investigate, Federal agents were sent to investigate. When Americans wanted to attend the public schools they had the full right attend, yep, the Federal government had to step in. Instead of putting out these fires one by one, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 sought to say enough is enough. If Paul has an issue with American’s being guaranteed the rights they were born with, then I have an issue with Paul claiming he stands up for the rights of all Americans.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      1. David25

        @Reality Check I could boycott the most of those services actually, especially since there are plenty of people who just want your money and don’t care what color your skin is. Jury selection should have some kind of regulation on it to keep a fair jury. The Civil Rights Act did nothing to stop police from racial profiling, which is still out of control so that failed and Paul is the only one who has the guts to take that on. And if you say letting people get hosed down and beaten is free speech I’m sure the Occupy people would disagree. Schools shouldn’t be public and tax credits should be available for homeschooling so parents are responsible for their kids education not the rest of us. If you want to change public opinion you have to get out change people’s minds by example. No amount of govn’t is going to change someone’s morals, it will just make them resent others more.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. JoshuaChavers

    @Ianjmacdonald@classicliberalism@ClintFitzgerald You can hire all the non-whites you want if they are more qualified. You get fined when you start hiring whites over more qualified blacks and can not even hide the fact you are doing it simply because they are black.

    White people have it soooo hard in America.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  35. ianqmacallister

    @Ianjmacdonald@jwpa13

    You will note that MacDonald didn’t use the phrase “degrade into a mostly ethnic student body”; jwpa13 did.

    Regarding the “current egalitarian view on race,” it’s anti-scientific bunk inspired by cultural Marxism. Peoples are not interchangeable, Negroes are not merely Caucasians wrapped in dark skin. Read Why Race Matters by Michael Levin (1997). I see that it has been updated and re-released November 2011. See also the works by Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton, and Richard Lynn. Also read Race: A Social Destruction of a Biological Concept, Biology and Philosophy 25 (2010), 143-162, by Neven Sesardic, professor of philosophy at Lingnan University, Hong Kong.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply