Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 81354

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

Ron Paul, Capitol Hill Blue 35 Comments [5/18/2011 3:43:37 AM]
Fundie Index: 17
Submitted By: jsonitsac
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
Percy Q. Shunn

Hey, Ron; that picture of your election-night celebration is ready...


5/18/2011 3:57:21 AM



I agree with the second part; racial harmony is nowhere near being achieved. As for the first part, yeah that's stupid. But not really racist.

5/18/2011 4:19:05 AM

gaijinlaw

Nonsensical, but not racist. And I don't recall the CRA having the "stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society." I thought the point was to outlaw racial discrimination against actual American citizens by government and businesses.

5/18/2011 5:24:38 AM



bloodclaat

5/18/2011 6:31:17 AM

Doubting Thomas

How can it violate the Constitution when it guarantees no discrimination based on race? You know, that whole "all men being created equal" thing our country is supposed to be founded on?

5/18/2011 6:46:54 AM

aaa

@Doubting Thomas: Libertarians in the US aren't exactly known for their consistency.

5/18/2011 7:44:33 AM

Brendan Rizzo

Proof positive Ron Paul is a racist. I guess he wants to go back to the days of lynching and Jim Crow laws?

This, by the way, is proof that libertarians are just fascists by another name. Nothing at all "libertarian" (with a small L) about them.

5/18/2011 8:01:16 AM

Nicole

Yeah, it actually is racist. It's all in the subtext.

"Violated the Constitution" = "The Founding Fathers never meant for people of different colors to actually have to MINGLE!"

"Reduced individual liberty" = "People can't discriminate against skin colors they don't like! It's unfair!"

5/18/2011 8:14:10 AM



Surely, it raised the liberty of the Black people, so?

5/18/2011 8:14:59 AM

Veras_the_Brujah

Wow... well, so much for there being a Republican elected official that I actually respect.

5/18/2011 8:31:29 AM

Lucilius

This is part and parcel with 20 years of racist and neoconfrderate screeds that emanated from Paul's office as newsletters to his supporters. When confronted about them in 2008, he claimed he had no idea what his congressional office had been publishing under his name for two decades.

5/18/2011 9:27:14 AM

werewolf

Depends on what Constitution we're discussing. And, yes, I understand that the CRA of '64 does violate the Constitution of the Confederate States of America.

5/18/2011 12:40:43 PM

Berny

Mostly because of racist fuckheads.

5/18/2011 2:27:36 PM

BeemerRefugee1990

This fuckwipe also wants to deport my 6-3/4-year-old niece "back to" Mexico. Never mind she was born in DENVER COLORADO, and my sister is an American citizen. Nope, my X-BIL is Mexican, therefore the kid goes "home" with Daddy.

(And Mommy goes to prison for treason for "fornicating with a foreigner." Or "being an enemy of God" because she walked out on her "lawful Christian husband" when he started exercising his due Christian right to discipline her defiant, disobedient behaviorsmacking her around. Whichever they get around to convicting her of, first.)

5/18/2011 2:40:43 PM

Fpqxz

There was nothing "unconstitutional" about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld it multiple times against constitutional challenges.

Now, I suppose one could argue that the Court got it wrong, but you would find no precedential support and few, if any, modern lawyers or legal scholars who would agree with you.

5/18/2011 9:47:40 PM

Balthazar The Wise

You know, I do wonder sometimes if it'd be possible for some sort of law or amendment to make feeling racist illegal.

5/19/2011 2:52:50 PM

derpmaster

People who oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violate my concept of human decency and reduce my respect for them; they also fail to achieve their stated goal of convincing me that the entrenched, institutional racism that existed for decades after the end of slavery is somehow not incongruous with the concept of a base level of individual liberty to which we are all entitled.

God bless the PaulTards-enemies of federal tyranny but relentless advocates of the local/state variety.

5/19/2011 8:16:23 PM

LadyJafaria

Goddamnit, the Constitution was written by human beings, not God. Human beings who disagreed on things themselves and MADE THE CONSTITUTION AMENDABLE.

Stop sucking its cock, you'll only get a papercut.

5/19/2011 9:23:47 PM

meatwad52

Right, you guys. Because the constitution grants every American citizen a right not to be offended, which, should there ever be a conflict, will supercede the right to free speech.

Whetever happened to "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."?

5/20/2011 1:05:38 AM

meatwad52

Right, you guys. Because the constitution grants every American citizen a right not to be offended, which, should there ever be a conflict, will supercede the right to free speech.

Whetever happened to "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."?

5/20/2011 1:08:23 AM

derpmaster

Nobody here has said anything about a "Constitutional right to not be offended". That's not even what the CRA is or does and that's not even what Saint Ron is arguing against, so sorry if I see right through your South Park style straw man debate strategy.

Here, I'll say it again: the well known institutionalized racism of the pre-CRA days (that is to say, local/state governments stacking the deck against minorities) is 100 fucking percent incompatible with the concept of individual liberty pushed by Paul and his followers. The only area where they have a shred of something resembling an argument is in the area of employment/business practices, and as others have mentioned, the USSC has held up the CRA multiple times. The caveat to the concept of individual liberty is that it does not include the right to infringe upon the liberty of others.

As for your last sentence, that is what this site is about. We love our Constitutional right to mock idiots, just as much as they love theirs to spout insanity. We don't want either to ever go away.

5/20/2011 4:48:34 AM

nazani14

So, any law that can't be enforced 100% should be repealed, right?
You're not a libertarian, you're an anarchist.

5/20/2011 8:44:26 AM

meatwad52

"The caveat to the concept of individual liberty is that it does not include the right to infringe upon the liberty of others."

I agree. That's fair enough. It's also probably the libertarian thing to say anyway.

5/20/2011 8:08:10 PM

EuropeanLibertarian

@nazani14

Heh. I suppose the ironic thing there being, orginally, libertarian 'did' mean anarchist.

5/20/2011 9:10:55 PM

Adeimantus

I don't know anything about the rants or comments the articles cite, but this brief comment alone does not make him a racist, nor is it a racist position.

I believe the idea at work here is not that segregation or racism are moral- no one in their right mind could think so- but that the government is wrong in forcing individuals to participate in a belief against their own will. What I presume is that Paul is saying that if the laundromat owner wants to be an idiot and drive off half his customers, fine, let him destroy himself. All the other laundromats with the brains and the ethics to serve all customers will gladly take up the extra business.


5/21/2011 12:06:50 AM
1 2