Rachel Maddow Corners Rand Paul On His Extremist Views Of Civil Rights
Normally, I'd cut this video down from its full 19 minutes, but truly, to appreciate the wonderfulness of Maddow's approach and the sidestepping Rand Paul attempts to avoid the corner Maddow in which deftly places him, you really must watch the whole thing.
And boy, does Rand Paul squirm under the surgical questioning of Rachel Maddow. He never answers her questions, and how can he? His stance makes no sense. Taylor Marsh:
It's the nakedness and naïveté of Mr. Paul's views on civil rights laws, that legislation should not impact businesses, that is not only evidence that he's unfit for Congress, but that he's actually dangerous. To think that the United States would no longer require laws to protect minorities is just ignorant and lacking in experience in the real world.
As for his anti-women's rights views, especially on individual freedoms, it's absolutely discriminatory against women. It's appalling in this day and age that a doctor would believe that women should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will. The editorial board found his views "repellent" and they are correct. To say that the unborn has "equal" rights to the woman is simply wrong.
I think Taylor hit it on the head: his naïveté is dangerous. Like many--if not most--"isms", libertarianism may make sense on an academic level, but only when conceived in vacuum of intellectual exercises. In the gritty friction of the real world, the exercise falls apart. To say that only publicly owned entities should be legislated from discriminating ignores centuries of oppression and injustice. Glibly dismissing any real examples such as the Woolworth's lunch counter by claiming his "abhorrence of racism" and saying that people would vote with their dollar to not patronize those business is laughably naive.
Obviously, the tea party adulation, in all its authoritarian and uncritical glory, did not prepare Rand Paul for prime time. He's clearly uncomfortable with follow up questions and being confronted with his own stances. Even though he brought it on himself by telling the Louisville Courier-Journal and NPR that he thought the Civil Rights Act should be done away with, Paul whines about "red herrings" and that the act is forty years old, so why is anyone asking him about it? Joan Walsh:
You've got to watch the whole interview. At the end, Paul seemed to understand that he's going to be explaining his benighted civil rights views for a long, long time – but he seemed to blame Maddow. "You bring up something that is really not an issue…a red herring, it's a political ploy…and that's the way it will be used," he complained at the end of the interview. Whether the Civil Rights Act should have applied to private businesses – "not really an issue," says Tea Party hero Rand Paul.
Methinks Paul better get used to having to answer for his tacit endorsement of racism and oppression of minorities, especially if Tweety's outrage is any indication of the larger media response. That may play well with the teabaggers, but they're not going to win Paul the elections. If I was Jack Conway, I'd be smiling right now.
UPDATE: John Amato:
My own quick and not quite perfect transcript of 'Baby Paul' trying refusing to answer Rachel Maddow.'s simple questions..
Maddow: Do you think a private business has the right to put up a 'Blacks Not Serverd Sign?'
Baby Paul: Well the interesting thing is if you look back to the 1950's, 1960's, that the problems we faced, there were incredible problems. The problems had to do with voting...blah, blah, blah.
Madow: I don't want to badger you, but I do want an answer on this sir, do you think a private business has the right not to serve black people?
Baby Paul: I'm against all discrimination of any kind, I wouldn't join a club .(my golf club is cool, though) but I think what's important about this debate is not to get into any gotcha on this but asking the question. What about freedom of speech. Should we limit speech. Should we limit racists from speaking?
Maddow: I'm asking straight you forward questions. Do you realize that businesses wouldn't let black people use the bathroom?
Baby Paul: I abhor racism. Am I a bad person because I hate racism?
Maddow: I'm asking you a yes or no question, Baby Paul. What about lunch counters? It's not a hypothetical.
Baby Paul: I'll give you a hypothetical. What about the owner of the restaurant? Should the government tell him that AK-47's aren't permitted in his place of business? That's when we're in a slippery slope, Rachel.
Maddow: This isn't a debate about the second amendment. People were beaten to death trying to stand up against racism at Woolworth's.
Baby Paul: I think you're conflating the issue...
exposing bullshit to the light of day makes it decay faster
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1hnwvWhbJw
Thank you, Dean Wormer.
will spin this today. Gonna be fun!
Wanna bet the trolls are silent as well?
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
or heavily edit it and hope no one goes to Maddow's site to watch the interview.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
He wants to appeal to racist Kentuckians by saying he objects to the Civil Rights Act applying to private businesses. Yet he says he would have marched with Martin Luther King Jr. and finds racism abhorrent -- and that he supports the Civil Rights Act as it applies to government institutions. This apparent contradiction is perhaps an attempt to appeal to Kentuckians of color. His way-out statements will definitely be a campaign issue, as Rachel says.
Not a real issue just politics. Recognize it for what it really is. I don't go to businesses that make me stand outside to be served. It is just as discriminatory to make people in certain neighborhoods Stand outside after dark and be served through a drawer.
smoking? Private business making everyone stand outside because there is no room inside is entirely different than if they did so because the people weren't the right 'kind'.
The guy is a contortionist. At least he's a bit more creative than Palin, but pretty much on the same political intelligence level as that guy in New Jersey. Uneducated.
Speaking of Palin, I wonder what she thinks about all this.
"I'm hungry."
Shoot a bear from a helicopter!
Palin can get all her racist bonafides with her lame immigration BS. We're all Arizooonians NOW. I don't think she wants to get anywhere near this argument.
are still trying to digest this crap and figure out how to regurgitate it in a form she can use. Expect delays.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
"gotcha" questions. With all her big talk, PaYlin lacks the courage/guts to appear on The Rachel Maddow Show..
There's three ways to look at this, generally. First, you can say racism is bad, and whatever the government needs to do to eliminate it is justified. Aside from its moral underpinnings, this argument is difficult to defend. Second, you might argue that business is already regulated on a number of fronts, e.g., OSHA, ADA, etc., and this additional regulation is justified under the Commerce Clause. Third, you might argue that the Commerce Clause is too expansive, and that the federal government doesn't have the right to regulate private businesses to the extent it's deciding which customers a business might choose to serve. That's Paul's point, and I think what many are missing is the underlying philosophical argument he's making. Essentially, he's challenging the proposition that the government has the right to force private businesses to adopt social policies contrary to the manner in which they wish to operate.
Paul uses the gun argument, but I think the better argument is cigarettes. A number of cities around the country have passed laws making it illegal to smoke in a bar. Now, I don't smoke, with the exception of a bi-annual cigar, and I don't like smoking, but it seems to me that bars are where people go to smoke and drink and that's how bar owners like it because the more people smoke and drink the better time they have and the more money they spend. And I know that, so if I'm at a bar, I either leave/move if the smoke gets too heavy, or I ask the person to smoke in the other direction (and I know there are arguments concerning employee health concerns, but let's stay on point). So the issue is whether the government should be able to tell a bar, a place where people except smoking and drinking, that its patrons can't smoke, because smoking is "bad." Paul, I'm sure, would say something like, "the government doesn't have the right, and if you want a smoke-free environment a smoke-free bar will open, or an existing bar will change its policies to capture the non-smoking market." This is a fair argument, I think, and there's room for disagreement.
The problem arises, however, when we apply this principle to the pernicious issue of race. Most right-thinking people recognize racism as the refuge of the ignorant. But Paul would argue, I suspect, at least in private, that being ignorant isn't against the law, and those ignorant cusses who choose to discriminate should be free to discriminate on their own property. Theoretically, the ignorant will be punished by the marketplace in the form of lost revenues from customers who'd rather go elsewhere.
None of this means I agree with Paul's reasoning -- I sit solidly in the camp that believes the Commerce Clause is expansive. But I do understand his argument for what it is.
Here is the problem with the "smoking" argument...
All that happens to smokers is that they told to "put their cigarette out or leave". I can extinguish my cigarette. I can't change my race.
Paul doesn't get that, as do most Libertarians.
* There are two types of Republicans: millionaires and suckers.
"Mugsy's Rap Sheet": Recording history for those who seek to rewrite it.
The argument is that the federal government doesn't have a right to tell private property owners what they must do with their property.
I don't agree with the argument, personally, and I think its practical application ignores the obvious, i.e., civil society requires a certain amount of intrusion by government in order to avoid objectively bad outcomes. But the claim that "[h]is stance makes no sense" is plainly false.
when it comes to measures of safety.
The cig arguments is about government overreach in the arena of safety.
The race argument is about fundamental human rights in America.
They do not equate at all.
Virtually everyone in this country agrees that the right to keep your property is fundamental to this country's social fabric. The Constitution prohibits the government from taking your property without compensation. The legal argument has been made, successfully, that forcing regulations on a private enterprise that puts it out of business constitutes a taking.
Civil rights is about a bit more than property rights.
But, of course in the libertarian world..there is no color, or bigotry.
We're all happy snowflakes interacting with one another for the betterment of all.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
Cigarette smoking is an OSHA issue. That is, second-hand smoking is a safety hazard that is regulated. It is NO different than any other carcinogen.
One can argue that there are different ways to mitigate the smoke hazard. OK ... but, you have to deny the scientific evidence to make a smoking/private prop argument.
Rand is right, it is a better analogy with guns.
Carrying- or not carrying- guns is a behavior, a conscious decision that an individual can make. An individual's ancestry and/or skin color is not a decision made by that individual.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
prove that the regulation itself actually caused the business failure.
Even then, it would not be a taking as the property would revert back to the deed holder or go up on the market.
You know, capitalism.
But I still have a question.
In the instance(s) you know of where the government regulations have forced a business closure and this has been legally deemed a taking, what amount of money from the public government did the private enterprise receive?
Fair market value, although even that is subject to evidentiary showing, and thus is susceptible to change depending on circumstance.
satisfactorily answered the question.
If you run a business badly and saftey regulations cause you to spend more money than you have left, and it causes you to lose your business, it doesn't constitute a "taking". I see that you site no example, probably because you don't have one?
And you missed the Supreme Court's decision on emminent domain, didn't you?
that most busuinesses, such as retail and food service, don't actually "own" the property their businesses occupy; they lease the space from a developer or other landlord, including local governments, in some cases. So the decision by a shop-owner to discriminate could be countered by the developer refusing to lease the space.
The horror story would be that most devlopers and such would condone such discriminatory practices, and even codify them into their lease agreements, which would prevent business owners who are not bigoted to either become so in order to open their shop, or look elsewhere for locations.
The social justice reasoning is the only true response to Rand's argument: government's responsibility is to enforce equal justice for all, regardless of race, creed, color or other bias. To do so, regulations preventing bias must be enacted and enforced.
"Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati" - Red Green
Freedom Ain't Free - Pay Your Share
One, "property" isn't just real property. A business enterprise is property, legally speaking.
Two, I suspect Rand would respond to the social justice argument by countering that your social justice is another man's tyranny, and that government has no right to force social justice on non-government institutions.
Two, I suspect Rand would respond to the social justice argument by countering that your social justice is another man's tyranny,
Which is why libertarianism falls apart. It exists in a world where everyone's interests are assumed the same, that social strata is determined solely by talent and skill, and that prejudices, greed, avarice...all those little human nuances that turn libertarianism on its head, don't exist.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
And again, I don't agree with libertarianism -- indeed, I just terminated a 10-year friendship with a guy I used to work with based on his politics, which he characterizes as libertarian.
But I understand Paul's point, alibeit it only works on paper.
animal cruelty laws, on the basis of property rights.
to defining social justice.)
If the business owner doesn't actually own the real property his business resides in, he has no legal standing to determine who can enter said property; that would be his landlord's fiat, since he is the owner of record.
And of course Rand would counter the "social justice" aspect, because his ideology can't grasp the concept. In his (and most libertarians) mind, there is no need for outside enforcement, since "laissez faire" economics relies on consumers' patronage or avoidance to determine a business's success.
"Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati" - Red Green
Freedom Ain't Free - Pay Your Share
have the right to tell you that you can't injure another person which is what smoking has proven to do. As does discrimination in the public, and in public businesses. Hence, they can write laws that say that you can't do that. Period.
When stump stupid inbred birther, deather, neo nazi, hate mongers can't get it through their thick heads about how to live in civil society, the government should come in and show them how to be better citizens. They need help. A lot of help.
It isn't their fault they're so ignorant and anti social.
but if he REALLY doesn't, he has no business holding office. *either way*
discriminates against blacks. The problem is that it would be all businesses that would discriminates against blacks. Then blacks would be excluded from society with all of the problems that would entail including genocide. A reasonable person would see that it is good to have a few laws that keep society from falling apart. We don't like when the government interfere with us, but we definitely wouldn't like a society were groups of people are trying to kill each other all the time.
It's like Father Knows Best, Leave It To Beaver, or the Brady Bunch. Sure we may have conflicts, and things may get tense for a while, but goodness will triumph before the half-hour is over. It always does. The free market is just that magical.
My point is that Paul, et al.'s philosophy is
consistent. I didn't say it was practical, or desirable.
And I'll go you one further -- years ago, during law school, a very prominent Jewish law professor who considers himself a libertarian made an argument during a debate that employment discrimination laws should be abolished because the market would punish firms that discriminated. I countered with two points: (1) why should I, as an African-American, have to wait for the market to remedy itself in order to secure what you already have; and (2) according to that reasoning, Jews should have left Germany in they wished to avoid persecution. He was not happy, hemmed and hawed. He also never called on me in class again.
His bullshit argument assumes that you can always get what you need somewhere else. It's not ture of hospitals, it's not true of towns not big enough to support two stores of a kind one bigotted and the other not. He's full of shit, in any real world, and so are you.
What about when we apply this reasoning to renting an apartment? So, owners of the property can refuse to rent to people because of the color of their skin?? Rand Paul said he was 1 years old when the Civil Rights act was passed. No wonder it is an "intellectual" discussion. He wasn't around and doesn't have a CLUE what the world was like then.
he's just wrong. I get the nuance of what he's trying to say, but its obvious he hasn't thought the whole thing out. If he and his dad had their way with government there would be total chaos. Things are chaotic enough right now with relaxed regulation and government regulators not doing their job.
I'm sure the Libertarian point of view is that people, generally, are good, and will sort things out without huge problems. That's not the case, and certain people will look to screw others. Libertarian society is a chaotic society, and Republicans, who aren't Libertarians, look to screw up government to their own benefit.
"Never got over the fact they weren’t the illegitimate children of Robert Heinlein and Ayn Rand; currently punishing the rest of us for it. Unusually smug for a political philosophy that’s never gotten anyone elected for anything above the local water board. All for legalized drugs and prostitution but probably wouldn’t want their kids blowing strangers for crack; all for slashing taxes for nearly every social service but don’t seem to understand why most people aren’t at all keen to trade in even the minimal safety net the US provides for 55-gallon barrels of beans and rice, a crossbow and a first-aid kit in the basement. Blissfully clueless that Libertarianism is just great as long as it doesn’t actually involve real live humans."
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2002/03/22/i-hate-...
And if you take the same reduction ad absurdum approach to logic that leads him to believe that supporting desgregation at lunch counters means you have to support guns in restaraunts, I'd like to point out that anyone that takes his position clearly must support allowing private business owners to decide whether rape and murder are ok within thier restaraunts, because we can't limit the freedom of people on thier own property. These sorts of positions require a fundemental divorce from reality.
Even a common-law marriage would require a sustained relationship.
Refusing to serve a patron is different from subjecting a patron to a tangible harm. In the former, I'm refusing to give you something; in the latter, I'm actively taking it from you.
I don't disagree with the spirit of your post, but I do disagree with the analogy.
Sorry, but people WERE being subjected to "tangible harm" before the law Paul questions was instituted.
* There are two types of Republicans: millionaires and suckers.
"Mugsy's Rap Sheet": Recording history for those who seek to rewrite it.
Assuming you mean slavery, or cross burnings, or lynchings, a libertarian, if principled, would argue that these activities violate the fundamental principle of freedom.
I'm referring to beatings, dogs and firehoses.
All done by people fighting against desegregating private businesses.
* There are two types of Republicans: millionaires and suckers.
"Mugsy's Rap Sheet": Recording history for those who seek to rewrite it.
though TLW is saying that the specific act of denying entry caused no tangible harm.
Psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists would differ with his assessment.
But as to your point regarding "[p]sychologists, sociologists and anthropologists," one might argue that racists experience unnecessary psychological trauma by being forced to associate with those they'd rather avoid. Unfortunately, at that point, it becomes an argument as to who is justified. Most would say the non-racist, but that's because we're sitting here today with the benefit of hundreds of years of experience dealing with the vestiges of American segregation. Forty years ago you'd probably get a different answer.
That's why I limited the comment to "tangible harm."
but hopefully we don't write laws to avoid hurting the feelings of POS racists.
And quite honestly, the "trauma" that a racist feels when he is forced to associate with people he would rather avoid is the price he pays to live in a world that also protects him from the same racism he initiates and supports.
You know, when he brings his white son with the gunshot would into the ER and the black doc says, "Fuck off, cracker."
He enjoys the same protections and poor little feelings are a tiny price to pay for the benefit these laws provide ALL of us.
I'm done.
Refusing to serve a patron is different from subjecting a patron to a tangible harm.
Really? What if that service is medical care?
If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders.
George Carlin
Remember George Bush? Being a "good person" is pretty much irrelevant. What counts is how he will vote and his views are repugnant. But for the record, at least from this interview, he seems like a rather smug little jerk to me. Reminds me of George Will or Bill Kristol. They think they are deep thinkers and intellectuals when they are actually ignorant and not all that bright.
HE'S A RACIST -- PERIOD!!!!!!
I don't think Paul is an out-n-out Klan-esque racist, but he is definitely an ideologue, who consistently put their ideology ahead of common sense.
* There are two types of Republicans: millionaires and suckers.
"Mugsy's Rap Sheet": Recording history for those who seek to rewrite it.
The new face of racism is Rand Paul.
Anyone who's naive (or stupid) enough to believe this could stand to take a class in social psychology sometime -- it's a real eye-opener, and not in a good way. There are any number of social psychology experimental studies demonstrating that when people are offered the freedom to choose with complete impunity between fairness and self-interest, an overwhelming majority of people (even those who follow certain religious beliefs and/or view themselves as morally upright people) choose self-interest. Anyone who's a student of human nature can tell you that people in general are neither inherently good nor inherently evil as such, but instead rationalizing rather than rational creatures who are for the most part ethically pretentious but behaviorally amoral -- all too often, they end up choosing whatever course of action which they judge (rightly or wrongly) to be the most personally beneficial and/or most expedient one without much thought for whether it's fair to or beneficial for other people.
Never trust anyone who insists that patriotism requires you to blindfold yourself with the flag.
We are curious, as a species.
The very fact that we don't live in total chaos proves that people are more inclined to do good rather than harm.
Plenty of people have done experiments... such as leaving a wallet on the ground to see if they return it. And FAR more often than not, they do.
* There are two types of Republicans: millionaires and suckers.
"Mugsy's Rap Sheet": Recording history for those who seek to rewrite it.
With all due respect, the fact that we don't live in total chaos is largely due to the fact that we have things which you may have heard of called laws, not because people "lean good"! Since most people do not perceive being arrested and subjected to penalties as in any way personally beneficial or expedient, the law is in most cases enough to keep society intact (or at least enough to keep most people from committing serious crimes). Without laws, we probably would have total chaos because the only justice would be a form of arbitrary vigilante justice based heavily on revenge.
Within the framework of a real-world community, people often do not have the opportunity to act with total impunity anyway since most people realize that how we behave in the presence of other people can (and often does) affect how they will regard us and in turn how they will treat us -- actions have consequences, most of which have nothing to do with any formal legal system but rather with the unspoken social contract. The fact is that most people voluntarily choose to go along with the social contract in public because they have reason to believe that doing so will be personally beneficial and expedient -- but the fact that many of them do not follow it in private (when they believe themselves to be unobserved) suggests that they do not view virtue as being its own reward and do not see the social contract as having much (or even any) particular inherent value. They do good because they hope to gain a reward in some way, even if only in a roundabout manner. It's the fairly rare individual who consistently does good purely for its own sake without any expectation of reward.
Never trust anyone who insists that patriotism requires you to blindfold yourself with the flag.
So without the laws in place you would rape, murder and steal?
The laws do not stop people from committing crimes for the most part, it punishes people that do break them.
...because I at least try to be one of those people who sees virtue as its own reward and inherently valuable for its own sake (even though I'd be lying if I claimed that my own behavior always reflects that). In my opinion, actions like rape and murder and theft are just as wrong when nobody finds out about them as they are when everybody finds out about them. However, results from behavioral studies suggest time and time again that the majority of human beings apparently do not necessarily see it this way and are more prone to indulge in personally beneficial yet unethical behavior when they have reason to think that nobody's watching or that they won't get caught.
Never trust anyone who insists that patriotism requires you to blindfold yourself with the flag.
And most of the people I know, wouldn't either imo.
The people that would do them, will do them regardless if there is a law against it. How many murders/rapes/thefts are there everyday in this country.
...if you read my posts more carefully, I think you'll realize that I already made allowances for that argument. There's no denying the fact that on some level -- even if it's unconscious -- people who commit crime clearly perceive whatever they hope to gain from it as more important than both the desire to maintain the social contract and the fear of retribution. There's also no denying the fact that there are people -- thankfully, comparatively few -- who literally have no regard either for the law or the social contract (these are the people whom we call sociopaths or psychopaths). However, I think it's a fallacy to assume that the reason why most people don't commit crimes is because they feel no temptation to do so. I think anyone who says they've never been tempted is being dishonest, perhaps with themselves as well as other people -- but in many cases, what prevents them is the possibility of discovery and fear of the retribution that would result.
Since you asked the question, it might interest you to know that according to one source I found, it's estimated that in this country:
* an aggravated assault is committed every 34 seconds
* a rape is committed every six minutes
* a murder is committed every 34 minutes.
Still think "people, generally, are good"?
Never trust anyone who insists that patriotism requires you to blindfold yourself with the flag.
Basically you are getting what you ask for. Nannying, air-head laws that police the community, destroying any chance of personal responsibility and real community building. You don't have the faintest idea what it takes to build a tolerant society. You are morally and intellectually bankrupt.
...you- and I mean YOU- live in a country that's almost all white and northern European. You haven't the faintest idea of what it's like to live in a diverse society.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
with your truth-telling smears...re-outing smotviddy as a Strine.
He pissed off out of here for nearly 2 months after that.
:P
me-oww!
. . . without laws punishing the offenders.
You might try "Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes.
Bluestocking; you stated it perfectly, I have not responded to comments in a long time; your thoughts motivated a reply. I appreciate reality; "THANKS"
Don't tell me RACISM isn't a real issue, that it's 'just politics'.
Google the Chinese Exclusion Act, for starters. That's SIXTY YEARS of racism codified into law, and the same rhetoric that your teabagging hero Rand Paul doesn't seem to mind fueled that travesty.
A good person? My mother was a good person, too, but she lived through WWII and never really lost an anti-Japanese bias. There’s a difference between being a good person with antiquated ideas and being a good person who tries to foist them on a world that no longer finds them palatable. If he finds racism abhorrent to the very fiber of his soul, would he really defend the rights of people to maintain and practice it. Sorry Rand, your hood is showing.
As a white woman who has had to deal with Randian *ssholes, I assure you he is not.
to government institutions. He also wants to downsize government and privatize as many government institutions as possible.
Presumably, the civil rights laws would NOT apply to the newly privatized gov't institutions if Mr. Paul has his way.
is "simple sarah", with a better education. ordinarily, he should be the democrat's dream republican opponent; he shoots himself in the foot he isn't sticking in his mouth.
these, however, are not ordinary times.
The idea that individual property and its owners live in social and political vacuums and can make personal decisions as though no systems bigger than themselves were in operation is, of course, fantasy.
If I were Jack Conway, I would not be smiling just yet; the stupidity of the average voter - especially in a Southern state - must never be underestimated.
My thoughts exactly.
her response (after the "against cholesterol and for fried cheese") was brilliant. Too bad it'll go over the tea partier heads... I just hope that most Kentuckians have more sense.
Talk about an oxymoron. Youre talking about a state that elected mitchy mcconnell.
from a liberal kentuckian whose parents and grand parents were liberal...up yours.
now go jump in a lake or oil spill.
the security this website has for registration is goofy.
Hit a nerve, did I??
?????????????
IS JUST AS STUPID AS ALL CAPS.
the security this website has for registration is goofy.
all caps means youre shouting. Dont be so sensitive!!!!!
Rand Paul is the same brand of racist his daddy is.
I wonder, back when the Ron Paul's racist newsletters were being published was Rand and his mom doing the typing/printing? It is my understanding it was a family business.
We can count on Maddow to ask the important questions.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
Ron Paul Survival Report:
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action"
"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal"
"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."
"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
yikes! How did that not come up in the presidential primaries?
It did and people just pretended it wasn't true even though it is in print.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
It did and Ron Paul said it was published without his knowledge or approval. He stated he was out of politics and in private practice at the time that was published, he denounced it and said he fired the guy that wrote it.
is that it appears he still associates with the author(s) of this outrageous crap.
"Unfortunate" is not the word I would use.
The people of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." J.K. Galbraith
Please don't make me say it again. I'm beggin' ya. The truth of my statement is evident in all of Ron Paul's writings and quotes. One need only to check his record, as well as the record of every other libertarian.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
nose growing?
"Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."
He says this and it is true.
But this is where the Libertarian stance stops.
The humanist then asks, "Why"? and begins working to understand the reasons and providing guidance to mitigate this as a norm.
The crumbling decay of the American Dream and its failure to uphold the standard of itself through the actions of its citizens and representatives is a good place to start.
When people have next to nothing today and no idea of anything more tomorrow, they resort to base acts of survival and control of their immediate environment.
It's the fallback position of racists to say that blacks disproportionately commit crimes.
I bet if you interview people, you'll find that maybe a disproportionate number of people committing crimes ate a sugary snack within 24 hours of committing that crime. Or drank beer. Or ate french fries. Or drove on a freeway.
The fact is that violent crimes are committed by a disproportionate number of people living at or below the poverty level. Guess why? It's not about race, it's about opportunities.
We do a disservice to the black community when we ignore that statistic.
What about Twinkies?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense
If a drone kills a child in Kandahar, do the crying parents make a sound?
my final paragraph meant.
The numbers are factual. The reasons why are left to spin in the wind.
I just read an article in the local Tampa paper about a poorer, ragtag, predominantly redneck community here with one of the highest incidents of police calls in the county.
Judging from the pics of Confederate flags on trailers in the article, I doubt that many blacks call the place home.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
i was raised in a white housing project before deseg. our neighborhood and the mirror image black project had the same problems...theft, fighting, drunkeness and lots of visits from the sherrif and police.
the security this website has for registration is goofy.
A white man named Dick Cheney has been responsible for killing thousands of Iraqi civilians. Far more than the average black perp.
The difference is they go to the slammer and he doesn't.
"The fact is that violent crimes are committed by a disproportionate number of people living at or below the poverty level. Guess why? It's not about race, it's about opportunities."
And guess what, the proportion of individuals per capita with African heritage who are considered poor far exceeds that of most other ethic groups.
http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/
"The poverty rate for all persons masks considerable variation between racial/ethnic subgroups. Poverty rates for blacks and Hispanics greatly exceed the national average. In 2008, 24.7 percent of blacks and 23.2 percent of Hispanics were poor, compared to 8.6 percent of non-Hispanic whites and 11.8 percent of Asians."
In other words, 1/4 of all black people in the United States are considered poor versus less than 1/10 of all white people.
Ron Paul, not so sure about Rand, has pointed out, on several occasions, that the welfare state and the war on drugs has impacted minorities (primarily blacks) at a disproportional rate in comparison to other ethic groups. Hence why he is against the war on drugs and the welfare state unlike all the politicians you guys apparently love so much.
No mention of Rand working on the racist newsletters just his wife and daughter:
from here
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
Rachel is wrong on this one. Rand Paul is not advocating discrimination. I am disappointed in her for not really sticking with the substance of his argument. Businesses should be able to serve anyone they want. If we don't agree with that business then we won't go. The market will decide in the end.
segregation should be given another shot.
Not entirely convinced I agree though.
The declaration and the constitution already provide wording that that establishes "All men (and women too) and precludes any arbitrary demarcation based upon the current anti-discriminatory statute.
Paul's position, it appears to me, is that there shouldn't be a separate class of federal law protecting specific groups, as all groups are automatically protected by the constitution. People in business can not be forced to NOT do offensive things on a federal level. In a perfect world, that discriminatory Wolworths lunch counter would pay a price for their discriminatory practices when rational people vote with their wallets.
I can buy into the theory, but...
We all know we don't live in a perfect world.
with a restaurant in the middle of some remote area in freezing weather, Paul thinks they should have the right to refuse service to any minority on their hate list? There are some life and death consequences to his logic.
We all know we don't live in a perfect world. The exact same imperfections make the Libertarian vision of free markets impossible to implement.
People are, all too often, irrational fools and assholes.
That is the purpose of government in an organized society. To protect the population from the above mentioned irrational fools and assholes. If said fools and assholes would act civily, we would not need the government to intervene to protect the victims of their hatred. Since the states would not do it, the feds had to. So don't blame the feds (as libertarians are wont to do).
The people of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." J.K. Galbraith
It's also why deregulation doesn't work.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
Yeah, and the government steps in and makes things better. My god you idiots are naive.
The Sun is always shining in Libertyland. You're free to do what you want, I'm free to do what I want, the restaurant owner is free to do what he wants, and we all live happily ever after.
INTERVIEWER: But under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworths?
PAUL: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part—and this is the hard part about believing in freedom—is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example—you have too, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things. . . . It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior.
HERE
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
Looks like I was wrong...
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
In principle that's great, but the problem is that Rand Paul is ignoring what reality is like. The reality is that in a lot of towns in the US, this will lead to entire parts of town discriminating against certain people. We can say, well if you don't agree with it, you shouldn't go, but in certain parts of the country, this would happen with support of the majority of the community.
"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important."
Martin Luther King Jr.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
it can punish the people that do, but it doesn't stop them from doing it. He was assassinated wasn't he?
joking.
To negate the right of an inhabitant of this country to engage in trade in an equal manner is to abrogate all responsibilities of government to ensure the base tenets of a free, capitalistic society.
Let us separate the public from the private.
Any private business owner can set up any rules he wants for his business as long as he receives no public funds.
To take his logic game to its conclusion, the business owner then opts out of access to public roads, public water, public fire and police service, etc.
Go for it.
But they don't really want this.
They want all the benefits of being part of society but none of the responsibility.
Public costs and private profits.
The "self-made man" is a myth designed to consolidate power.
This is the best comment that I've read on this topic so far.
...and the one business within reasonable distance of your home which offers the service you need decides that it doesn't want your business due to the color of your skin or your religious beliefs? Since that person essentially holds what amounts to a monopoly within that area, how will the market "decide" in that situation? If that's the only business in the area which provides a needed service to the people in the surrounding area, it seems at least somewhat unlikely that the majority of people in that community will be inclined to boycott that business for the sake of the few who are being excluded.
No, wait...don't tell me! I think I can guess what you're going to say. You're going to say that nobody's forcing the few who are being excluded to live there, and that perhaps they should simply move somewhere else (even though this would oblige them to sacrifice money and effort all because one person refuses to be reasonable).
Never trust anyone who insists that patriotism requires you to blindfold yourself with the flag.
And the only hospital is staffed with bigots and racists. A nurse was bragging to my step daughter the other day about throwing french fries at black people out of the car window in a city 45 minutes from here.
She married a man of Pakistani descent and has been living in fear ever since she started her job. She's at HR today to speak about the intolerance and bigotry. I wish her well.
People are, all too often, fools and assholes.
Probably doesn't see himself as an extremist, but I do. If I was Black or brown I wouldn't vote for him or his father.
Enjoy, Bud
The funniest part was when he repeatedly accused Rachel of conflating. Rand's major point was conflating banning acts (carrying a weapon into a bar) as being the same thing as banning people -- in essence 'the gun can come in but not the black or gay gun owner'
"extreamist"
lol
Or what if the market is so small that one viewpoint predominates over all others? You're assuming that consumers always have a choice, but the reality is that isn't always true.
Here's a little hypothetical for you. Suppose you're a black person traveling through a small village in the deep south. You pull up to a stop light and are immediately confronted by three toothless locals who announce that they don't take kindly to colored folks stirring up trouble in their nice, quiet little town. Before you can respond that you're just passing through, one of them pulls out a knife and proceeds to stab you in the chest, and the three of them run off cackling, "That'll teach 'em!"
Bleeding profusely, you drag yourself from the car and stumble to a nearby doctor's office, only to be confronted by a sign that says, "Whites only." You then flag down a cab driver and tell him you need to get to hospital right away. He tells you there's one about a mile down the road, but when you ask him to take there, he responds, "Sorry, but this cab is all I own, and I don't let no darkies ride it."
Still bleeding heavily, you stagger down the street toward the hospital, but when you finally arrive some thirty minutes later at the privately-owned, non-government funded facility, you're told by the guard at the door, "Sorry, but we don't cater to your kind." He shoves you out on to the street, where you collapse on the pavement, weakened from exhaustion and loss of blood. And at that moment, you realize that the free market has indeed determined your fate. All of these privately owned businesses were merely exercising their God given, all-American right to run their businesses as they saw fit, and you can take comfort in the fact that their freedom to discriminate has been carefully preserved by Rand Paul and his libertarian pals as you lie bleeding to death on the sidewalk.
PS: As the local TV station broadcasts the news of your sad demise the following morning, newly-elected Congressman Paul (Ky-R) issues a statement condemning racism.
Watching this left me yelling at the TV "he's not answering the question!!"
It was like the same word salad Palin uses when shes trying not to answer.
Paul obviously believes that restaurant owners should have the right to refuse to serve black people, but he's too chickenshit to actually come out and say those words.
If a drone kills a child in Kandahar, do the crying parents make a sound?
He was too busy trying to "prove" that he isn't racist. I was waiting for him to pull out the "I have a lot of black friends" line.
Ron Paul calls MLK a "Gay Pedophile"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22545...
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
racists on here today.
Gotta LOVE the "ignore" button!
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd30JESdb9o
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Another question to ask Rand Paul is what his position on Medicare and social security are? His father has made disparaging remarks about the legality of medicare and social security in the past. In his own medical practice Ron Paul did not accept Medicare. I suspect that Rand holds similar views. Democrats need to focus on this issue. If blue haired little old ladies learn of Rand's position on medicare it will hurt him immensely.
Get it, Titanic, because it could sink him. I've already come up with a few campaign commercials for his opponent. Show a private business with a sign that says "Now Hiring", then slowly pan down to to another sign below it that reads "Blacks Need not Apply" with a voice saying this is Rand Paul's vision for America.
is intended to be a factual statement
I read somewhere this morning that Rand has about 24 hours to clear up his mistaken words or he will be toast.
I'm hoping for toast!
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
is burned.
It depends on the racist turn out in November. If all the racist Kentuckians turn out he'll win. We need to hope for rain. The KKK stays home when it rains, it ruins their hoods.
is intended to be a factual statement
But I think the cows are already out of the barn. Or the oil is already out of the well.
Good luck on the damage control, dear doctor.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
That pretty much characterizes libertarianism in general. It's simplistic and childish. "Give me freedom and no taxes. You're not the boss of me."
Then what?
At some point, responsible adults have to delve much deeper and make real-world public policy decisions.
They say freedom but then want to control a womans choice?
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYFhWV8--io
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
You are absolutely correct in your assessment of Libertarianism. What they believe is that by removing all rules and regulations people will ultimately be happier but fail to understand that it was rules and government that brought about an appreciable level of equality.
Because people were exceedingly happy when there wasn't a 40-hour work week, paid vacation, or any other workplace regulation.
Sweatshop labor is fun!
To the Libertarians, the right to property and to do with it as you wish is the most important. No one should be able to take your property from you, including by taxation. You should be free to do whatever you please with it.
Of course, they'd still expect the cops to keep someone from boosting their cars. Unpaid volunteer cops, of course.
He claims that only one title in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title II) deals with discrimination outside of government. Title VII deals with discrimination in private sector hiring. I'd love hear his opinion about that.
webmaster, Fox News Lies ( http://foxnewslies.net )
I think he also wants to eliminate public education.
And sell off all federal land to private interests including our fine national parks and beaches.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
True and true.
He also wants to completely eliminate Social Security and all other social programs.
Oh, but he does believe that government should pay for defense. Of course, I'm sure that if the logistics could be worked out, he'd like a way for only the gifted to be protected. Everyone else would be on their own.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
So does this mean that the Democrats pick up another Senate seat?
Comments are closed on this entry