Ron Paul Suggests We'd Be 'Better Off' Without The Civil Rights Act

[democracy1st]

Run time: 03:37 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSQc5gcAGLQ   Posted on YouTube: May 14, 2011 By YouTube Member: aseitzwald Views on YouTube: 764   Posted on DU: May 15, 2011 By DU Member: democracy1st Views on DU: 1415

 
Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-TX) presidential campaign is already living up to the far-right brand of libertarianism he’s come to symbolize for his followers. In one of his first interviews after announcing his 2012 bid yesterday morning, he called for eliminating FEMA, even as much of the country suffers from devastating natural disasters, suggesting that people who happen to be in the path of a tornado or wildfire are “dumb.”

But in an an interview just minutes later yesterday evening, Paul outdid himself by telling MSNBC host Chris Matthews that he wouldn’t have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act because it was unfair to property owners. When Matthews asked if Paul thought it should be legal for a store to refuse to serve African Americans, Paul dodged, saying, “that’s ancient history.” Finally, when asked if he thought we would be better off without the Act and other government programs like Social Security, Paul replied we would be “better off” if government stayed out of such matters:

MATTHEWS: You would have voted against that law. You wouldn’t have voted for the ’64 civil rights bill.

PAUL: Yes, but not in — I wouldn’t vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws.

MATTHEWS: But you would have voted for the — you know you — oh, come on. Honestly, Congressman, you were not for the ’64 civil rights bill.

PAUL: Because — because of the property rights element, not because it got rid of the Jim Crow law.

MATTHEWS: Right. The guy who owns a bar says, no blacks allowed, you say that’s fine. … This was a local shop saying no blacks allowed. You say that should be legal?

PAUL: That’s — that’s ancient history. That’s ancient history. That’s over and done with. <...>

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you this. We have had a long history of government involvement with Medicare, Social Security, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. And I think you are saying we would have been better off without all that?

PAUL: I think we would be better off if we had freedom, and not government control of our lives, our personal lives, and our — and policing the world.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/14/ron-paul-civil-rights-act/

[FarLeftFist]

1. And so the unraveling of Ron Paul's campaign begins....

Its funny how all these idiots that hate Govt have a job WITH THE GOVT! Who wants a President that views Govt as a problem. Psssst, Mr. Paul, Govt CAN be used for GOOD too. i.e. Here's a hint: Vaccinations.

[chelsea0011]

2. Libertarians can't be honest and truthful about their beliefs, because they

are effin' crazy. Ancient history, my ass. Alexander the Great...that's ancient history.

[Cant trust em]

3. Who is this "we".

Only if "we" includes white people.

[Avant Guardian]

4. Ideologies make people into morons

[BumRushDaShow]

5. During the last Presidential election cycle

he was smooth as silk and only emphasized the "anti-war", "pro-choice", "pro-GBLT" slant, and many DUers sucked it right up. Finally the other side is coming out. Oddly enough, his son is more blunt about their true lunatic fringe agenda. :puke:

[Larry Ogg]

6. The problem is not government,

It's the incompetent venal politicians to whom corporate donations flow; aka whacked out delusional conservatives who have taken over both political parties in order to do their corporate masters bidding.

We don’t need smaller government, we need honest intelligent leaders who will stand up to and dethrone the rich and powerful predators that are using the government to destroy peoples faith in government.

[silenttigersong]

7. well

thats rather teabaggery of him