- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
You have no doubt lately heard from many talking heads, who are calling Rand Paul a racist. And not long ago, Paul backed down from his original position on the Civil Rights Bill. But guess what? I agree with Paul's original position. Does that make DanaRhea a racist, as well as Rand Paul? Let me explain why it does not.
First of all, let's be clear on something. When it comes to public owned facilities and land, Paul is in favor of the Civil Rights bill. This means no separate bathrooms, drinking fountains, no back of the bus, etc, etc, etc. This is good.
Where Paul differs is on private property, where, even if someone is a complete douche bag, the property belongs to him, and he can use it as he sees fit. So, what makes this racist? It doesn't. He might be a racist, but the idea of your property being your property is not.
Personally, I feel that racists are the worst ignorant, knuckle dragging morons to ever infest the United States. But, as inbred, drooling, mouth breathing, and utterly stupid as they are, they are still Americans, and just as entitled to property rights as anybody else. And, Constitutionally speaking, our rights are based on property. If they don't want to allow someone at their lunch counter because they are either black, gay, female, or Jesus Christ himself, that is their right.
Now I have detailed what I believe to be the rights of the knuckle dragging morons. What, then, are the rights of everybody else, particularly blacks, gays, females, or even Jesus Christ (who is probably shaking his head and laughing his ass off at the racist imbeciles)? They have the right to protest. And don't downplay the power of protest. It was protest, more than government, which ended Jim Crow in the South. More than a few lunch counters and privately owned bus companies went belly-up due to them.
So let the racists have their lunch counters, and let the protesters continue to send them to the poor house. Works better than government intervention ever did. We need government to come in when KKK members blow up churches and lynch people for wanting to vote. That IS a Federal issue. Who does what with their own property, no matter how insane, is none of the Federal government's business.
Therefore, in regard to whether Rand Paul is or is not a racist, I will say this - He is not. But is Rand Paul a whore, who does not stick with his beliefs, in the face of stiff opposition? He certainly is. He was right before he changed his mind, but now he attempts to talk around the Q. Me thinks he wants the Senate too damn bad, and that is breaking his political compass.
Discussion?
You have no doubt lately heard from many talking heads, who are calling Rand Paul a racist. And not long ago, Paul backed down from his original position on the Civil Rights Bill. But guess what? I agree with Paul's original position. Does that make DanaRhea a racist, as well as Rand Paul? Let me explain why it does not.
First of all, let's be clear on something. When it comes to public owned facilities and land, Paul is in favor of the Civil Rights bill. This means no separate bathrooms, drinking fountains, no back of the bus, etc, etc, etc. This is good.
Where Paul differs is on private property, where, even if someone is a complete douche bag, the property belongs to him, and he can use it as he sees fit. So, what makes this racist? It doesn't. He might be a racist, but the idea of your property being your property is not.
Personally, I feel that racists are the worst ignorant, knuckle dragging morons to ever infest the United States. But, as inbred, drooling, mouth breathing, and utterly stupid as they are, they are still Americans, and just as entitled to property rights as anybody else. And, Constitutionally speaking, our rights are based on property. If they don't want to allow someone at their lunch counter because they are either black, gay, female, or Jesus Christ himself, that is their right.
Now I have detailed what I believe to be the rights of the knuckle dragging morons. What, then, are the rights of everybody else, particularly blacks, gays, females, or even Jesus Christ (who is probably shaking his head and laughing his ass off at the racist imbeciles)? They have the right to protest. And don't downplay the power of protest. It was protest, more than government, which ended Jim Crow in the South. More than a few lunch counters and privately owned bus companies went belly-up due to them.
So let the racists have their lunch counters, and let the protesters continue to send them to the poor house. Works better than government intervention ever did. We need government to come in when KKK members blow up churches and lynch people for wanting to vote. That IS a Federal issue. Who does what with their own property, no matter how insane, is none of the Federal government's business.
Therefore, in regard to whether Rand Paul is or is not a racist, I will say this - He is not. But is Rand Paul a whore, who does not stick with his beliefs, in the face of stiff opposition? He certainly is. He was right before he changed his mind, but now he attempts to talk around the Q. Me thinks he wants the Senate too damn bad, and that is breaking his political compass.
Discussion?
Dan, I have not seen one talking head call him a racist, not even on MSNBC. They called him essentially nutty and out of touch, which I agree with. They called him badly unprepared to answer a simple question, and he certainly was that. They did not that I saw call him a racist.
But go ahead and build that strawman.
Thanks for that, because I've not seen him accused of being racist once. It may have happened, but I haven't witnessed it in any of the media that I take in.
But, the biggest point is hit upon by Geo Patric: when your private business is a public accommodation, you have opted to create a contract with the general public.
You'll note that churches and private member-only clubs are exempt from any of the laws that prevent discrimination in public accommodations.
So - if you want to discriminate, then you simply make your business a member-only club instead of a public accommodation. If you open your business to the public, you've entered into an implied contract with me. You can set rules within your business that I must follow (thus no "whipping it out" as Geo Patric states); but those rules cannot discriminate based upon race, gender, age, veterans status, etc.
You have the freedom to have a racist business if you'd like: just make it members only.
Dan, I have not seen one talking head call him a racist, not even on MSNBC. They called him essentially nutty and out of touch, which I agree with. They called him badly unprepared to answer a simple question, and he certainly was that. They did not that I saw call him a racist.
Edit: forgot one: they have called him whiny for his reaction the the Maddow interview top, and good god he has been.
But go ahead and build that strawman.
Dan, I have not seen one talking head call him a racist, not even on MSNBC.
Paul tried to walk the fine line between the inherently racist effect of libertarian policies and being a racist. And he didn’t do a very good job of it.
Hullabaloo
the libertarian philosophy of Rand Paul and the Supreme Court of the 1880s and 1890s gave us almost 100 years of segregation, white supremacy, lynchings, chain gangs, the KKK, and discrimination of African Americans for no other reason except their skin color.
Rand Paul is No Barry Goldwater on Civil Rights | Capital Gains and Games
That he supports racist policies is something that we the opposition should highlight without caveats about ideological rigor that is frankly lacking. Giving him the benefit of the doubt that he’s a principled man is counterproductive and missing the point.
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/this_aint_no_foolin_around/
That is the nutty and out of touch part. I should not be allowed to tell black people they cannot eat at my restaurant, I should not be allowed to not hire blacks and gays. These are not complicated or draconian rules.
Anderson Cooper 360: Blog Archive - What's behind Rand Paul's confusion? - CNN.com Blogs
Apparently Anderson Cooper has heard the racism talk too...
Washington (CNN) - The caricatures have been flying from left and right since Tea Party Senate candidate Rand Paul started talking about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That Rand Paul is a racist. That his nomination proves the Republican Party is, too. That MSNBC host Rachel Maddow is a man-eating sorceress. That the liberal media ... you get the idea.
But, the biggest point is hit upon by Geo Patric: when your private business is a public accommodation, you have opted to create a contract with the general public.
theatres and malls routinely post their own version of rules...for example...it is constitutional to own and carry a firearm...yet in virtually every theatre you see they post signs declaring their right to refuse to serve you should you be in possession of a firearm, legal or not.
I think it does the opposite of what they intend it to do.
Rand Paul is like his nutty daddy in that he speaks in code. Those supporting the code applaud it silently. Those on the receiving end of the code struggle against it right out in the open.
Unfortunately, there are a good many people either unable or unwilling to recognize the code, and so they support it, too.
Young mister Paul wishes to return us to a time when minorities had little access to basic services in some areas, since they did not OWN these services. What a shame that here it is the 21st century and people actually think it's a good idea to regress society back to more primitive days.
well.... perhaps not the mainstream, but it is certainly out there.
and if the actual accusation is missing, the suggestion is certainly there. and it is valid.
racism is a problem not in how joe bigot THINKS, it is a problem in how we BEHAVE, regardless of what we think or feel. Policies enacted out of an adherence to ideological premises that result in racial exclusion are racists - period. That the guy who supports them doesn't hate black folk doesn't change that.
geo.
you are entitled to the opinion, of course, but i think you misuse the term "think".
geo.
Moderator's Warning: |
The fallacy of looking back and blaming one thing while ignoring economic growth. The reason that blacks have better access to services today is not because segregation is illegal: it is because by and large they are richer. No blacks are stuck being sharecroppers anymore. With a growth in wealth comes better service.
And in the greater context...it really bears asking...HAS the federal government done anything to IMPROVE race relations by passing these acts? I think it does the opposite of what they intend it to do.
It's a big world out there Some one will say just about anything. It does not make it an issue. I am sure there are a couple people who have called him a racist, but the "not in the mainstream" is key.
Anderson Cooper 360: Blog Archive - What's behind Rand Paul's confusion? - CNN.com Blogs
Apparently Anderson Cooper has heard the racism talk too...
Thanks for that, because I've not seen him accused of being racist once. It may have happened, but I haven't witnessed it in any of the media that I take in.
What I heard by a media member (sorry, but I don't remember which one) was the comment that he "opposes civil rights". That statement will automatically get one branded as a racist, regardless of context or fact.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?