75 votes

Ron Paul on Hardball - 5/13/11

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Way to fire back! This is what brings people to the message of liberty! Very principled and didn't take any crap from Matthews!

Fresno, CA

did he even realize he said that?

let me goooo! let me gooo! dont do this to me i'm ooold. let me goooo! put me down! i wan to be president and this is my last shot. let me gooo! dont do this to me. lets dodge the questions and shift over to something else. you got me squirming in the corner. please chris...let me goooo!
felt sort of sorry for the little feller.

states right.

he should of said what he really believes
stay true to libetarian principle. if its your property you let only who you want come on it.
if he didnt want to do that he should have talked about states rights. and how people can move freely or stay freely.
let me gooo! let me gooooo! your ruining everything. let me off the hook. let me gooo!

Breitbart pushing story

Ron Paul Accuses MSNBC's Chris Matthews of Playing Race Card

Nice to see some fierce push back against Mr. Matthews' tactics.


04 Ron Paul Accuses Chris Matthews of Making Him Look Racist
by Bringing Up Civil Rights Act

Sound Bite For the Day: Quit with the Gimmick

“This gimmick Chris, it’s off the wall when you say ‘I’m for property rights and states rights and therefore I’m a racist.’”
“Segregation was created by government laws … let me go. Segregation in the military, by government laws. So what we want to do as libertarians is repeal all those laws and honor and respect people with private property.”


Mediaite's attack on Ron Paul


I was just over at Mediaite and found this critique of Ron Paul's interview on Hardball. Below is a short passage from the article:

"Matthews and big government types like him love to brandish the “Civil Rights Act card” at libertarians as if to prove that the entire philosophy is untenable, and certainly with as staunch a libertarian as Rep. Paul, the issue becomes severely problematic. Doubting that legislation that permanently changed the social psyche of America in such a positive way is a blemish on either Paul’s record. But it is difficult to believe that there is a contingent of Republican primary voters out there that would vote for either the younger or elder Paul based on their mostly philosophical pseudo-objection to a universally accepted law from half a century ago. Similarly, it’s difficult to believe that President Paul would have any time to waste passing executive orders to repeal the Civil Rights Act instead of recalling troops all over the world or ending the Federal Reserve– both of which would do far more to potentially negatively impact the daily lives of Americans, and both of which merit far more criticism than this seemingly arbitrary non-topic."

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

The simplest soundbite answer BOTH Pauls can give:

Here's the simplest soundbite answer BOTH Pauls can give to Chris Matthews and others on this ridiculous Civil Rights Act nonsense:

"Cultural changes ALWAYS precede legal changes."

Our culure was already accepting integration by 1964. The law was behind the times, and basically targeted holdouts in the south.

Just like with homosexuals: today there are campaigns for federal hate laws and equal marriage laws, but our culture already accepts homosexuals.

Oftentimes, the law is FAR behind the rest of the population in codifying and criminalising certain behavior.

Both Ron Paul and Rand Paul ought to simplify this idea for the neoliberal extremists who try to catch them like this.

"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"

I've been trolling some

I've been trolling some liberal sites just to see the spin that is out there. Anyway a lot of the liberals are saying of course that Ron is a racist and discrimination is a more important issue then property rights. Do the liberals remember how much credit they gave Dr. Paul for saying that Muslims had a right to build a mosque close to ground zero? And that he did that by standing by property rights??? Hope some one tells Dr. Paul to pull that issue back up when they start implying he's a racist and on what grounds he defended them. Because I think it makes both points, he's not a racist and property rights are important.

One of the best ...

One of the best interviews by Ron Paul.
Making some hard hitting points.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/youownyou (quotes)
Website: http://www.own-yourself.com

This just makes me smile

I love how spunky the good Dr. has been in recent interviews. When he calls out Chris for demagoguing ... and when Paul tells Matthews that he's "coming around" --- I love it.

This might be the first time I wished more people watched Hardball because from what I hear, it's a ratings disaster.

The media is attacking Ron Paul

The media is attacking Ron Paul, they are trying to discredit him before any of the Neoconservative candidates make the spotlight. They know very well those other guys do not stand up to Ron Paul. Everyone now see's that Ron Paul has a better chance of winning so they are all ganging up on him and demagoging every thing that he is saying. They are not going let go of this heroin issue. If you say a lie enough times it becomes truth. George Bush and the media fed WMD's down out throat till thats all we thought about. We need to do what we do best and shout "Ron Paul!" "Ron Paul!" "Ron Paul!" in every way we can. Everyone in the world has heard his name but its not enough till we say it so loud it becomes more popular.

No inherent evil in government or private entities

I think the main point that keeps coming up is that there is no inherent evil in either government or private entities. It ultimately comes down to individuals and the evil that spawns within each person. this evil knows no boundaries. The evil in individuals does not look at public office and say "nope, can't use government for my sinister plans." Similarly, the evil in individuals does not look at private entities and say, "nope, can't use private entities for my sinister plans."

The fact is that evil transcends these institutions and can inhabit both (today, there is evil in government AND massive corporations who are in bed with the government). This is part of Ron's point, where a large part of slavery was enforced by the government to begin with (slave laws, segregation, etc.)

Its not a matter of whether or not the government is involved, its a matter of the substance of the characters of each individual in society. Racist people will attempt to enforce their views and perception of society in numerous ways, whether it is through government or private businesses / entities.

I always say, when it comes to getting rid of negative social ideals like racism, "you have to win hearts and minds, not laws and regulations." No matter how much you enforce equality through the government, racism will still exist in the individual. when you're trying to change society, I think government is the easy way out, the lazy way out. Instead, use speech, and persuasion, and common sense to convince the masses of your views.

My two cents...

Take the Red Pill at www.redpillphilosophy.com New Videos, Articles, and More!

Property Rights

You have the right to discriminate as it applies to your dating habits.

a) You decide who you want to date. Right? That's you are discriminating.

You have the right to discriminate who you invite into your home. In other words chose your friends. Right?

a) You are having a party and you make up a list of friends you want to invite. Its your party and its your home and property

You run a business out of your home. You have the right to refuse service to whom ever you want. It is your property and your business. Right?

a) You own a cafe or bar and grill, someone comes in drunk, so you call the police and have him removed if he won't leave when asked. Right? You are discriminating against drunk or unruly people. Its bad for business.

The basis of property rights is that it is yours and you can invite or refuse to allow them onto your property or business.

** Caveat : You wouldn't stay in business long if you discriminated based only on race, color, creed or national origin. It would make no sense to refuse anyone while operating a business. The object to running a business is to serve the public need and also to make a living. Right?

Matthews is an idiot. His aim was to get Ron Paul to admit he was a racist. Any moron could see his agenda here. Wake up people, this is what the MSM does to people that are not approved by the establishment.

Ron Paul made his point and Chris Matthews looked foolish. Matthews knows Ron Paul isn't a racist, However, Matthews has his orders from PMSNBC to destroy Ron Paul and his candidacy.

Matthews thinks he is an expert in defaming and accusing others of wrong behavior. His ratings are terrible, because he is a lying degenerate hypocrite. he is just a fast talking operative who has no real journalistic experience or intelligence. He was a hitman for one of the San Francisco newspapers. He quit the police force because he couldn't hack it.

The key to handling people is to not play their game. The way you respond or react makes all the difference.

Ron Paul played it perfectly and Matthews and his cronies lost..

Great interview

I hope he opened a lot of people's eyes.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

I wouldn't be surprised

...if Mathews called his MSNBC buddies for backup.

Jim Crow

I have always been under the impression that the Jim Crow laws mandated segregation. If this is the case Jim Crow laws violated property rights in the same way the Civil Rights Act did. Both empowered the government to dictate the terms for admission onto private property. Can anyone out there confirm this about the Jim Crow laws. Did they force business or property owners to segregate?


When the free-market is allowed to function, racism is naturally punished and eliminated because the business owner is turning away good paying customers to his competitors. These competitors now have more profit with which they can lower their prices or expand. In capitalism, the customer is king because if you don't satisfy the customer you're history. But the market hasn't been allowed to function in the US. As stated here:


For almost a century before 1964, governments in many southern states forced segregation on the people. Government prohibited companies from providing racially integrated facilities for their employees or customers. Whites and blacks were forbidden by government to sit together in restaurants or to use the same restrooms and drinking fountains – and in many cases were forbidden to shop together or work together.

Civil rights advocates fought to repeal these state Jim Crow laws, but they failed. So they appealed to the federal government, which responded with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But this didn't simply repeal state laws compelling segregation. It prohibited racial segregation – voluntary or otherwise. Overnight, what had been mandatory became forbidden. Neither before nor after the Civil Rights Act were people free to make their own decisions about whom they would associate with.

"I hate government as much as government hates freedom, and that's a lot." - Mike Malin

Check out my PowerPoint: http://www.slideshare.net/anarcholibertarian/why-do-they-hat...

And my Ron Paul vs. Lincoln video:


damn, good question.

and I could use an answer myself.

Can you recommend some

Can you recommend some reading to get started on this subject?

"The Most Dangerous Superstition"

By Larken Rose is a good read.


Do a search at LewRockwell.com which is the most read libertarian website in the world and is the one that Ron Paul reads first thing in the morning. And if what you want isn't there try Mises.org

My quick search brought these good ones up:



"I hate government as much as government hates freedom, and that's a lot." - Mike Malin

Check out my PowerPoint: http://www.slideshare.net/anarcholibertarian/why-do-they-hat...

And my Ron Paul vs. Lincoln video:


Politically incorrect guide to Capitalism

It's a great primer. Others in this series are very good too.. like "Politically Incorrect guide to the Great Depression".

Chris said...

"You may well win this thing." He sounded nervous! Haha!
Go Ron ;)

I have to be honest

Paul really mangled his answer to the Civil Rights Act.

He seemed to want it both ways: 1) people should be free to discriminate against other races in public accommodations and 2) it is absolutely crazy and absurd to ask whether people should be allowed to discriminate against other races in public accommodations.


The word "public" is a government term (ie. public library) which is paid for by tax money.

If you owned a restaurant, it's not paid for by the public, so how can the government mandate who you serve or not? You CAN have it both ways...No government laws telling you who you can serve, or not, on your property, and the free market will handle the rest.

You have to be honest with yourself. What sign do you see when walking into a restaurant? "We have the right to refuse service to anyone". Really? The government will let us discriminate in other ways, as long as it's not race based. What's wrong with this picture? The direct cause of the race war is the federal government!

Classic mangling of the definition of 'public'

If you understand that a restaurant, bookstore, etc...is private property - just as much as your home - and NOT public then you can understand his answer.

Is your home a 'public accommodation' because you let friends into it? No. It's private, and you can decide who gets to enter it for any reason you like. Business is just the same, because it's just as private. The only things that are 'public' are those which are funded by tax dollars. Period.

Paul's stance was that if a business wants to limit itself, especially in this climate, they won't be in business very long. And THAT is the free market working. And even if that business did manage to limp along, in a free market nothing would stop someone from opening up a competing business that didn't discriminate.

** Addition **
"Rights" don't come from wanting something. 'hey, I want to eat in that restaurant." They are derived from private property. You only have a right to what you own (including your own body) or have through contract gained a right to.


ended that great. Maybe Chris will get it. One package.

Does Chris honestly believe

Does Chris honestly believe what he is arguing here, or is this what MSNBC expects him to do????

I was here to support RON PAUL in 2008 and never left his side, back for RON PAUL 2012, Revolution is stronger than ever!!! Go Ron Go

MSNBC (well mostly Ratigan)

is funny. Ratigan says some great things AND has his kommie keepers on the show to keep things in line for the network.

opposing the State can be

opposing Goverment can be noble or scary, depends where you live:

Iran - activists
Syria - freedom fighters
Russia - opossition
N Korea - dissidents
Libya - rebels


Egypt - extreme religious group
Iraq - terrorists
Yemen - radical Islamists
Greece - violent crowd
England - hardcore anarchists
Germany - anti-globalists, Neonazis.
France - angry mob
USA - birthers, truthers, anarchists, extremists, racists, skeptics, teabaggers, conspiracy theorists.

We gotta email Chris Mathews

We gotta email Chris Mathews and give hi ma piece of our mind. This is ridiculous. Chris is ALWAYS trying to demagogue an issue. I have been saying this for a long time, Chris Mathws is the most EVIL and manipulative big fore-headed pundits on national television TO DATE! He is worse than Bill O'reily, worse than George Stefen-Hippopotamus--blah blah or whatever his family name is. Mathew's needs to be grilled!!!

hardball@msnbc.com <-------Chris Mathews' email

- Brennan