Ron Paul: I Would NOT Have Voted For The 1964 Civil Rights Act

Run time: 02:05 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26sprb4Vi44   Posted on YouTube: May 13, 2011 By YouTube Member: tpmtv Views on YouTube: 305   Posted on DU: May 13, 2011 By DU Member: Tx4obama Views on DU: 1843

 

Article here: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/ron-paul-i-would-not-have-voted-for-the-1964-civil-rights-act-video.php?ref=fpblg

No, Mr.Paul, the free market created slavery and some people used the government to protect it.

Just as the free market creates slaves today.

It was a small chance to begin with and boy did he undo himself on Hardball.

help. "Hey, Galveston, Texas rebuilt itself after the 1900 hurricane without FEMA"

What a nutter.
Course, he sounds almost sane compared to his idiot son Rand.

convinced me that it is a 'father like son'situation.

But then what can you say about someone that thinks Ayn Rand had a brilliant philosophy.

divorced from reality. I suppose he would have been against women's rights as well. Now I have to catagorize him as a wacko.

Discouraging, ain't it?

stance is a plus for him, not a disadvantage.

over time if the government had not stepped in to ban it, and his evidence is that no business would dare put up "No Blacks Allowed" signs today for fear of losing customers and going bankrupt.

But the reason why public attitudes have changed to the point that businesses would lose customers over blatant discrimination is precisely that federal law made such discrimination illegal. Such discrimination would still be common today if it had not been banned, so to claim that the facct it is not common today proves that the laws that banned it were enver really necessary is an example of the logical fallacy known as begging the question.

A recent poll done down South showed that something like 46% of the population still believe that interracial marriage should be outlawed. Those people would be hanging "No Blacks Allowed" and "Whites Only" signs in their businesses right now if they could, and only its illegality prevents them from doing so!

He's floated up so high in the rarefied air of his LAISSEZ FAIRYLAND that his brain cells died from anoxia.

views now.

kind of language if you ask me. Is he a racist? Not to his way of thinking. He just ever-so-sweetly maintains property owners' rights; butter wouldn't melt in his mouth.

Under his philosophy, neighbors across the road better watch out because we can be sure you are gonna commence shooting at us if we so much as set foot on your property. Or think of doing it. We are going to need to surround our perimeter with barbwire and razor wire trenches and sandbags to defend our home stone from your machine gun towers.

And I guess what you are saying is that it doesn't matter what race we are, you are gonna shoot libertarian ammo at us all if you feel like it?

This man is dangerous.

link where this is featured.

People out there justifying property rights over human rights. Bunch of idiots with really bad education in history and a poor sense of ethics. Air-heads, most of them, just plain stupid and selfish.

Very scary people out there.