It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by DJMSN
reply to post by eLPresidente
...he will not even come close to winning the nomination and since he has already said he will not run for POTUS as an independent then its all moot because he is done before even starting.
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.
Originally posted by DJMSN
reply to post by eLPresidente
As much as I would like to see him in the office of POTUS its not going to happen and that my friend is the bottom line. I still believe that even if he did win it would be a worthless win and nothing would change
Originally posted by moonzoo7
So, states rights are the end-all-be-all? That's it? States rights will solve all of our problems? States like Arizona?
Mississippi? Where racsim and racial profiling run rampant?
Originally posted by moonzoo7
reply to post by eLPresidente
Right and Left.The system keeps on keeping on. Ron Paul can't, and won't change a damn thing. If he were elected, the 2 party corrupt system would shut him down.
Originally posted by moonzoo7
reply to post by eLPresidente
Yeah, I do give up. You just don't get it. Thanks for playing.
Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Funny that you call others psychopaths to defend a sociopath.
America has lots of both because our culture has come to the point where "empathy" is about as naughty a word as "motherf-r" used to be.edit on 16/11/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by davereality
I seriously don't get why America has so many psychopaths?
Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by davereality
Funny that you call others psychopaths to defend a sociopath.
America has lots of both because our culture has come to the point where "empathy" is about as naughty a word as "motherf-r" used to be.edit on 16/11/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)