I'm glad Rand Paul said it...

[ihopehefails]

You're claiming that a business should be allowed to racially discriminate on the grounds of a right of PRIVACY?

I'm saying people are free to do what they want and have any beliefs that they choose to have in their own life. This freedom gives them the right to do what they want with their own property because what is the point of having the freedom of the press if the government tells you how to use your own property by telling you what to print.

Nice strawman, it's just too bad that it really has NO bearing on the debate. LOL

It does have a lot of bearing on this argument because any right we have only exist in reality because we have property rights. Tell someone how to use their media outlet and they are infringing on their freedom of the press. Tell someone who they may or may not serve is infringing on their right to hold onto whatever beliefs about who they think should be served at their resturuant.

 

[paperview]

I'm saying people are free to do what they want and have any beliefs that they choose to have in their own life. This freedom gives them the right to do what they want with their own property because what is the point of having the freedom of the press if the government tells you how to use your own property by telling you what to print.

Nice strawman, it's just too bad that it really has NO bearing on the debate. LOL

It does have a lot of bearing on this argument because any right we have only exist in reality because we have property rights. Tell someone how to use their media outlet and they are infringing on their freedom of the press. Tell someone who they may or may not serve is infringing on their right to hold onto whatever beliefs about who they think should be served at their resturuant.

I suppose you may have a point - If you live in a vacuum and IGNORE THREE HUNDRED FUCKING YEARS OF AMERICAN HISTORY.

 

[ihopehefails]

The Demos could not have written a better script. The racist Rand Paul is their opponent in November. The can scratch that one up as a win.

Find somewhere where he said "I support racism" or show that he was a klan leader...wait...wasn't that one of you guys and isn't he still in the democratic party to this day?

 

[Oscar Wao]

And his Dad isn't racist either.

 

[drsmith1072]

What about the rights of the people who like to smoke and don't mind the smell? Who said you can trample their rights in favor of yours and what is the cost to society when no one has any freedom? When no individual can do what they want and execute the rights that they have?

You can smoke but you have to be considerate of those around you. Unless you can control the smoke and prevent it from drifting towards someone else who doesn't like it or it's smell then it's YOU who is trampling someone else's rights. however, nice attempt to flip it. Too bad you failed.

I don't have to be considerate of other people around me and I suppose that the waffling smoky air does trample on other people's rights but what about the barowners rights? Doesn't he have the right to decide if he wants to allow smoking or not? His decision over how his business operates nullifies any partron's rights and if other people feel that their 'rights' will be trampled on then they are free to go to another bar.

Nice flip flop but based on YOUR own spin as you try to claim that others are trampling on your right to smoke (not sure where that is in the constitution) because they don't want to breath in your toxic chemicals then yes you do have to be considerate of other people around you because you expect them to be considerate of you and your unhealthy habits that affect those around you.

Then you change your focus away from the smoker and try to spin your bar owner argument. Why can't you even stay on the topic of your own argument?? LOL

 

[paperview]

The Demos could not have written a better script. The racist Rand Paul is their opponent in November. The can scratch that one up as a win.

Find somewhere where he said "I support racism" ...

That's kinda like saying "find me somewhere where Bob Packwood said "I support sexism."

 

[paperview]

And his Dad isn't racist either.

And everyone at Stormfront agrees! Even his biggest fan: David Duke.

 

[drsmith1072]

I'm saying people are free to do what they want and have any beliefs that they choose to have in their own life. This freedom gives them the right to do what they want with their own property because what is the point of having the freedom of the press if the government tells you how to use your own property by telling you what to print.

Nice strawman, it's just too bad that it really has NO bearing on the debate. LOL

It does have a lot of bearing on this argument because any right we have only exist in reality because we have property rights. Tell someone how to use their media outlet and they are infringing on their freedom of the press. Tell someone who they may or may not serve is infringing on their right to hold onto whatever beliefs about who they think should be served at their resturuant.

No it doesn't because no one is telling anyone how to use their media outlet and what they can or cannot print. So it's a strawman that does not apply. However, thanks for the spin.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I think both Ron and Rand are fucking jokes.

But I don't think they're racist.

 

[geauxtohell]

How smart would Dr. Paul have looked if he would have only said this:

"You know Rachel, I realize I am on the record as saying I would have opposed one section of the civil right's act that prevented discrimination by private businesses. In retrospect and in light of the history of the civil rights movement, I now realize that was a silly thing to say. I was trying to make a larger point about the federal government, but it wasn't a good example. While I am opposed to federal government intervention on principle, I acknowledge that there are times when the federal government needs to step in to protect citizen's from abuse. That would be a classic example of that. However, I believe those instances are few and far between, and I believe the federal government has become too powerful and over-reached past the point of common sense and the tenth amendment on certain issues. Let me provide you with a better example (insert softball issue here). So, I would like to retract my earlier statements about the civil rights act. I know it's rare for a politician to admit they goofed, but I have never considered myself a politician. I am an outsider and that is one reason we were so successful yesterday."

The only reason he would stick to his guns (Because he knew he was going to get the question) is if he still believes in businesses being able to have segregated lunch counters. That means his statement today to Ingraham wasn't a retraction, but a lament that he stated his views on national television.

Well, he's going to have to answer a lot more questions in the next five and a half months.

 

[ihopehefails]

You can smoke but you have to be considerate of those around you. Unless you can control the smoke and prevent it from drifting towards someone else who doesn't like it or it's smell then it's YOU who is trampling someone else's rights. however, nice attempt to flip it. Too bad you failed.

I don't have to be considerate of other people around me and I suppose that the waffling smoky air does trample on other people's rights but what about the barowners rights? Doesn't he have the right to decide if he wants to allow smoking or not? His decision over how his business operates nullifies any partron's rights and if other people feel that their 'rights' will be trampled on then they are free to go to another bar.

Nice flip flop but based on YOUR own spin as you try to claim that others are trampling on your right to smoke (not sure where that is in the constitution) because they don't want to breath in your toxic chemicals then yes you do have to be considerate of other people around you because you expect them to be considerate of you and your unhealthy habits that affect those around you.

Then you change your focus away from the smoker and try to spin your bar owner argument. Why can't you even stay on the topic of your own argument?? LOL

Their are not rights granted to any citizens in the constitution. Nowhere will you find a sentence that says 'a person has this right' but you will find that government has certain rights given to it upon its creation.

BTW, I've stayed on topic but you guys can't see that a person has whatever rights they want over themselves and their property which includes the right to have a racist policy or an irritating smoking policy. The bottom line is that we don't have any rights whatsoever unless we have the right of property because what stops other people from violating our rights? The fact that they can't decide what to do with our own property which lets our own free-will to be enacted onto that property. This is the ability of property rights to protect our freedom from other people and the government.

 

[Avatar4321]

I think both Ron and Rand are fucking jokes.

But I don't think they're racist.

That's because you try to look at things honestly.

 

[geauxtohell]

Their are not rights granted to any citizens in the constitution. Nowhere will you find a sentence that says 'a person has this right' but you will find that government has certain rights given to it upon its creation.

At this point, I just have to question how ignorant you are of our constitution:

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Count how many times the word "right" is used in the "Bill Of Rights".

BTW, I've stayed on topic but you guys can't see that a person has whatever rights they want over themselves and their property which includes the right to have a racist policy or an irritating smoking policy. The bottom line is that we don't have any rights whatsoever unless we have the right of property because what stops other people from violating our rights? The fact that they can't decide what to do with our own property which lets our own free-will to be enacted onto that property. This is the ability of property rights to protect our freedom from other people and the government.

Where are "property rights" covered in the constitution and what is the wording?

 

[Samson]

start the thread, but never give the quote:

I don't like the idea of telling private business owners - I abhor racism - I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time I do believe in private ownership.

But I think there should be absolutely no discrimination on anything that gets any public funding and that's most of what the Civil Rights Act was about to my mind

Who could possibly misconstrue the quote?

MSNBC and the Huffington Post find it "just stunning."

Frankly, I find it "Just stunning" that anyone other than rdean could twist this into 'it would be OK for Woolworth's to deny service to MLK.' CLEARLY, Paul says, racism is bad in and of itself, and it is bad business, and therefore it would BAD, not OK, for Woolworth's to deny MLK service.

I hope Rand Paul gets better at these interviews, and stops allowing the interviewers to twist him up.

Now, let's await rdean's arrival to scatter around strawmen:

So it's OK to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater? By approving racist behaviour, you sow the seeds for dissension.

He also supports smoker's rights. And admitted that has been working. But he said he didn't like being told he couldn't smoke. What about the cost to society? What about my rights? I don't like the smell.

Carry it one step further. I don't like being told I can't drive at 125 mph. Or that my kid has to ride in a "safety seat".



For most of history, marriage has been a contract to consolidate wealth or power. Tell the truth now. Lying is unbecoming.

So are strawmen. For christssakes rdean, can you stay on topic for more than a page?

 

[Sheldon]

Why is this even a big deal? I don't get it.

He's approaching this topic from an aspect of the Federal government's scope of power and effectiveness in regulating hiring practices, and thinks it can be much better regulated at the local level with private citizens. Whether or not I agree with him is irrelevant, my point is that it doesn't seem racist, it seems like libertarian-ish 'small government' dogma.

I mean, he keeps saying he supports the CRA, and that racism is abhorrent and shouldn't be funded with public dollars, etc. It seemed he was pretty unequivocal in all that.

But I guess if you're looking for something, you'll find it. This seems like a leap to paint him a racist or promoting racist sentiments.

 

[2Parties]

This is exactly what you get for playing the political game. Your dad has already admitted on video that he was endorsing neocons (over "Ron Paul Republicans") for political gain, you take weaker stances than him, and then your wishy washy talking about this issue with the media. You then backtrack. What do you expect? If you and your dad have any souls left I just wonder if they will be worth enough to the guys pulling the strings to win the Senate seat.

I'm both sad and apathetic to all this Paul crap...

 

[frazzledgear]

I'm glad Rand Paul said what he said about desegregation because the state had no right to tell other people how to use their own private property. I know it is shitty to use it to showcase your racist views but don't you guys realize that freedom of speech is protected by the right to use your own property as you wish to express your racist views such as only serving 'whites only'. I know it is a sucky thing to do but why do we have the right to deny someone the use of their own property and subsequently the right of free speech. Where do we draw the line between good speech and bad speech in this society.

You tell them!

Who wants to eat next to them darkies anyway?

Hard to believe there are people like you in the 21st century

This is the kind of thing that forces you to think about whether you really believe in individual rights or not. I think this guy's opinions and the way he wants to use his private property are incredibly offensive -but there is NO right to not be offended by whatever you choose to be offended about. I also know there are (way too many) people who place no real value on our freedoms and those with such superficial understanding and support of our freedoms that what they REALLY mean when they claim to believe in free speech and the freedom to use one's private property as the owner sees fit -is nothing more than "I believe in free speech as long as you only say things I am comfortable with and I believe in private property rights only as long as you use your property the way I think you should." That isn't free speech and that is not private property rights though -it is the opposite.

Either you believe in free speech or you believe government should have the power to control what comes out of people's mouths, what they write and what opinions they are allowed to express - and punish those who have the "wrong" ones. Who decides what is 'wrong" will always be someone else, not the individual with that opinion. This has led to "re-education camps" in communist countries where government ends up going so far as to try and forcibly control even what a person THINKS. Is that really your idea of free speech? You really want a government with the power to punish you for what you say and power to FORCE you to use your private property the way IT sees fit instead of the way YOU see fit? You ever read the Federalist Papers about what the founders said about what free speech rights and when defending it the most vigorously was most critical? Because it is NOT when what someone said made you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Your snide comments about "darkies" and "can't believe people like that exist" is REALLY saying that unless someone wants to restrict the freedoms of this person like you do -it MUST mean they actually share his personal opinions as well. Are you for real? YOU haven't the intellectual capacity to differentiate between someone's desire to uphold our free speech rights for EVERYONE as guaranteed under the Bill of Rights with HOW someone else may personally choose to exercise that right?

THAT IS ACTUALLY A TYPICAL STUNT OF LIBERALS to try and equate one's stronger belief and defense of individual rights with the offensive manner someone else may choose to exercise that right. WHAT BULLSHIT BUDDY. If you only have the "right" to free speech if its speech everyone likes -then YOU DON'T HAVE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS AT ALL! Free speech means a person may say things a lot of other people think are offensive, repulsive and may make them angry -but he does NOT have to first get government approval or YOUR approval before he is allowed to say it! That is what makes it a RIGHT in the first place!

The real test of whether you believe in FREEDOM and INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS is ONLY when someone else chooses to use them in a way you personally find offensive and thoroughly disagree with. And YOU flunked that test big time. How un-American of you. Its easy to claim to support free speech when its speech you like, isn't it? But YOU proved that you and people like you can NEVER be trusted to protect and safeguard MY rights because you have just told us all that the only "free speech" and "property rights" you will support are for those who think and opine exactly the same way you do.

TRY FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE YOU LIBERAL NUTJOBS! It really does work, it is not just limited to those who say things you don't like but exists for us as well - and does NOT require we forfeit our real rights to government when doing so means never getting them back -at least not peacefully.

This is how someone who believes in FREEDOM handles something like this instead of demanding we all forfeit rights to government so it can have the power and force to squash those for failing to express only politically correct opinions. I find this guy's racist views and desire to refuse to serve blacks to be so incredibly offensive that I choose to exercise MY right to never EVER enter the premises at all and will NEVER give him one dime of mine. Instead of demanding government squelch the use of his free speech, I will use MY free speech rights to encourage others to avoid his business entirely. I may even get a group together and hold a protest on the street outside his business. Because doing these things are MY rights - and if enough people share that same opinion and choose to exercise THEIR rights in this way, the guy will have to decide which is more important to him then. Staying in business and keeping his racist views to himself and out of his business practices - or having his business go under while stubbornly allowing his prejudice to destroy his business. Then his racism becomes HIS choice to personally reaffirm for himself whether or not it should dictate his business practices to the point of financially destroying himself.

Have you really never heard the saying "I disagree with what you said but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."? Any clue what that even means? All you told us is the exact opposite -essentially "If I disagree with what you said, I will demand government use its force and power to destroy you." But FREEDOM can do that in a far more meaningful way and doesn't require that the everyone else forfeit their freedoms in the process!

 

[2Parties]

I love how the elitist twats think they are so caring.

They show their love down the barrel of a gun.

Instead of reversing racism through knowledge, charity, and peace we should just point guns at people who don't agree with us. That's going to work.

I'm sure some of you are going to say "look at the progress" but it's the same people who think FDR or World War 2 improved the economy, The Patriot Act saved us, and Obama is creating jobs. They don't believe that anything can happen IN SPITE of government action and instead choose to believe that everything happens BECAUSE of government action.

Government is their God and their creed is that good things don't happen absent of it.

 

[geauxtohell]

I love how the elitist twats think they are so caring.

They show their love down the barrel of a gun.

Instead of reversing racism through knowledge, charity, and peace we should just point guns at people who don't agree with us. That's going to work.

I'm sure some of you are going to say "look at the progress" but it's the same people who think FDR or World War 2 improved the economy, The Patriot Act saved us, and Obama is creating jobs. They don't believe that anything can happen IN SPITE of government action and instead choose to believe that everything happens BECAUSE of government action.

Government is their God and their creed is that good things don't happen absent of it.

Oh sod off.

If the state's were doing an adequate job of reversing racism through knowledge, charity, and peace there would have been no civil rights act of '64.

In reality, if there had been no civil rights act of '64 there would still be segregated lunch counters and you damn well know it.

The emancipation only happened, what, 100 years before?

 

[paperview]

TRY FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE YOU LIBERAL NUTJOBS!

Well this liberal nutjob passes the test. I think the KKK should be allowed to march down the streets of Skogie if they wish, I think Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage et al, should be allowed, nay, promoted even - to be given the loudest bullhorn they have to spew their bile hatred, I think even the bastard God Hates Fags people should be allowed to protest funerals, marriages and fungi, whoever they want...

I don't believe any book, paper, periodical or media should be banned - outside of a danger to our national safety or a compelling personal privacy & safety issue and I think any law that inhibits Free Speech is unconstitutional, including any and all pornography [that does not involve minors].

I have found though, it is often conservatives who appear to be the ones who practice moral relativism more than liberals.

Just my experience.