Anyone who thinks that Rand Paul is not a racist...

[Hepburn]

...is out of his/her mind.

This portion of the interview by RM says is all:

"MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?

PAUL: Yes."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/rand_paul_telling_the_truth.html

Yes, he want on to say more after he said, "Yes."

But...WTF...nothing explains his position that it is OK for a business to refused to serve black people except the fact that he is a racist?

What a fucking asshole...!!!

[bluestateguy]

1. Looks like a campaign ad to me

"MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?

PAUL: Yes."

Question is will that actually hurt him in Kentucky.

[Hepburn]

2. Good question...

...might actually help him in some parts of Kentucky.

Unbelievable that he actaully thinks that it is OK for ANY establishment "open to the public" can refuse service based on race.

[ecstatic]

93. I think so. Both dem candidates got more votes than Rand Paul

That means that even in KY, voters have REJECTED the racist/batshit insane antics of the tea party.

[WeDidIt]

4. You might see the hghest turn out of African Americans in history

if you ran that.

Fuck, that should be a national ad. Make Rand Paul the poster child of the Tea PArty movement and the New Republican Party and run that ad non stop nationwide.

[Hepburn]

10. Oh, I love it!!!

Use him against all of those assholes! :hi:

[mmonk]

15. I agree. Since Paul is nationalizing the Kentucky race, I really think

we should oblidge him and really nationalize it.

[bluestateguy]

26. And does that ad up to much in Kentucky?

This is Kentucky, not North Carolina.

[WeDidIt]

81. That race went national during the primaries

Rand Paul is now a national issue. The ad would be directed at a national audience.

[DrDan]

3. not trying to start a war-of-words here - just curious

If he had responded - "I think a business has a right to serve or not serve anyone they choose within the limits of the Civil Rights Act" - would that have made a difference?

If I owned a restaurant - I would like the option to refuse service to Repubs. Not sure if that is too arbitrary to be legit.

[bullwinkle428]

7. If I owned a restaurant, I'd still be more than happy to take their

filthy lucre. However, if any of them had the nads to demand that Lush Rambo or one of his minions be broadcast on the sound system, I'd throw them out on their fucking ear!

[Hepburn]

8. Yes...

...in some respects.

Because service can be refused for certain OK reasons under the act. However, RM asked re a specific class of people ~~ black people ~~ being refused serve and refused becuase of their race. That is prohibited.

For example, it is not offensive to the CR Act to have "senior" communities. This is not considered "age" discrimination.

[Caliman73]

119. Businesses already have that right.

They can refuse service based on behavior, dress, etc... that they feel is disruptive. They cannot do it in a way that discriminates based on ethnic background, gender, or other protected status. If Republicans came into your restaurant and started talking loudly about their politics, you could probably ask them to leave. I don't think you could bar republicans from entering just because they are republican, though I may be wrong.

[DrDan]

121. well . . . I said it facetiously of course

[Caliman73]

123. Ha ha ha..

My facetiousness detector is off.

[Warren Stupidity]

146. 'republican' is not a protected class

so a business is free to discriminate against republicans.

[el_bryanto]

5. He is libertarian isn't he?

While he is defending racists right to be racists that is a logical outgrowth of us underlying beliefs.

Bryant

[DrDan]

9. true - but he still must recognize the legitimacy of the Civil Rights Act

[stray cat]

16. He does for government but not for private businessess and households

I disagree with his position but its libertarian all the way

[el_bryanto]

19. Yep.

I suspect that like most libertarians he believes that businesses who choose to be racist will be less effective than businesses who choose to be open and tolerant. In that manner the market will punish bad businesses; no need for he government to do it.

It's pretty pie in the sky to me.

Bryant

[DrDan]

21. probably depends on the locale - openly racist restaurants may flourish in some locations

and I am not necessarily referring to the South - I live in the South.

[el_bryanto]

23. That could be. A libertarians faith in market forces is a little naive. n/t

[DrDan]

20. he must for "public accomodation" - that's the law, isn't it?

[unblock]

28. substitute "own slaves" for "refuse to serve black people" THEN tell me it's libertarian all the way

protecting the right to be an obnoxious, boorish, asshole jerk is libertarianism.
protecting the right to inconvenience others is libertarianism.

BUT

protecting the right to oppress other is NOT libertarianism. you're simply not enhancing freedom by permitting the suppression of freedom.


besides, tell me that in 50 years when whites are only 25% of the country that paul will be singing the same tune if businesses refuse to serve whites.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

40. Yes. And that's why such beliefs are toxic. -nt

[el_bryanto]

45. Libertarianism you mean? n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

56. Yes. A pipe-dreamish, poorly thought-out, one-way road to Hell.

Much like Soviet-style Communism.

[KharmaTrain]

6. To The Great Unhinged, He's Singing Their Song...

Remember, rushpublicans are selfish to the core. They feel they are the party of privilidge and superiority and all these laws discriminate against them. Yep...evening the playing field means tilting it against their long time position of domination (especially in the "old South"). They supposedly don't trust government...don't want to pay taxes (but still want their roads smooth) and want "gubermint" out of their lives. That is except when they get their hands on the tax money and decide to use "gubermint" as their patronage machine.

Paulbot Jr. is the first of the "next" generation of rushpublicans...even more racist, sexist and self center as ever. These are the kids who grew up during the "Raygun revolution"...totally brainwahsed into the talking points and constantly told they are being discriminated against. Watch Paulbot Jr. become the darling of the unhinged...especially if he's continually questioned about his positions. He didn't mispeak on Rachel's show...nor was he reprentant...he's echoing the talking points he knows will get him elected.

[SocialistLez]

14. +1 NT

[EFerrari]

39. +2

[political_Dem]

89. +10000 Bravo. This is succinctly the point.

[BootinUp]

11. So the Washington Post's Weigel is defending the position, how nice.

Lets have all the teabaggers expose themselves like this. I am definitely in favor of Mr. Weigels free speech rights 100%. I might question the Washington Post's wisdom in letting their paper be used to print garbage though.


And...furthermore I am absolutely sure the majority will be ready to take their views seriously once they are known. :sarcasm:

[Gidney N Cloyd]

12. This will just open the door. Expect even more brazen comments from his admirers.

Whatever nuance or hair-splitting Rand Paul attempted will be beyond the abilities of the rest of this crowd.

[stray cat]

13. He is a very consistent Libertarian fighting for your right to not hire

an evangelical christian conservative republican in your small business.

Agree or disagree - he is honest and consistent. His view is that the government should not legislate who you let in your house, who you let in your privately owned store and who you hire to baby sit your kids or more broadly to work in your private company. The government can't discriminate consistent with the civil rights act, however Paul thiks you should have the right to if its your house or business even though your choices may be abhorrent.

Thats a strong libertarian position consistent perhaps to the extreme. However, I don't want the government telling me who to hire in my small business of three - I'm not sure I would want to hire an obnoxious Rush Limbaugh even if he were the best person for the job on paper.

[BootinUp]

18. He avoided answering the direct questions, in that way he was most consistent

I think you mis-characterize him when you say that is honest. Both Paul and the writer of the article disconnect their "positions" from the real world consequences. It is typical politician two stepping only we don't usually see it used these days to support racism.

[GoneOffShore]

25. Sorry - he may be consistent, but I doubt that he's honest.

Libertarians are never honest in my opinion and they have no sense of community or the social contract.

[redqueen]

27. He's not even consistent FFS... he's anti-choice.

Why anyone would want to heap praise on this jackass is way beyond me.

[BootinUp]

35. It seems some posters today

wish to tout a touch of libertarianism. Pardon me while I throw up.

[redqueen]

38. I know right? LIke it's admirable...

"well he may be a complete dumbass, but hey, at least he's consistent!" :wtf:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

50. "He has the courage of his convictions!"

Like David Duke!

[donco6]

134. There are more here than you might think.

I've seen these arguments before, though not nearly so blatant.

[Recursion]

152. I'll say I prefer it to triangulation

I would most prefer an activist government that protected me from large corporations.

Failing that, I would prefer outright libertarianism to a situation where the corporations essentially take over the government and take my money to give to themselves. That's why I at least find him refreshing.

[krabigirl]

78. Yes. Some libertarians are pro choice, others are not. He is the not kind unfortunately.

[redqueen]

85. Yes, like Paul, some of them aren't so consistently Libertarian. (nt)

[MellowDem]

138. Many anti-choice libertarians...

are consistent because they believe the fertilized egg is a human being. It's all about the idea of when a person becomes a person with all of those individual rights that libertarians believe in to the utter extreme in many cases.

[Recursion]

151. People like him because he's anti-war and anti-corporate. Well, his dad is.

Rand said he would have voted for a declaration of war against Afghanistan and against one against Iraq.

The choice bit is an interesting dilemma the libertarian "movement" faces. Some say the state's intrusion into a woman's bodily automonomy is unacceptable. Others say a fetus has liberties too and protecting those is one of those few justified uses of government power.

But, to your "why", the reason people are interested in him is because he speaks truthfully about the collusion between corporations and the government, and because he opposes an interventionist foreign policy.

[katandmoon]

44. But he is afraid to outright state that position. He may be consistent but he's a coward.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. He is a very consistent racist, fighting for the right to be racist.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

68. And so are his supporters. -nt

[LanternWaste]

90. honesty and consistency do not require...

"he is honest and consistent..."

I believe that honesty and consistency do not require that one both pre- and post-qualify the answer to each question. Rather than honesty and consistency, I perceive that as being disingenuous and vague.

[Ikonoklast]

125. "your privately owned store" needs public customers.

Once you put out your shingle, whoever walks in with money is a customer, no matter what race, age, religion.

Unless you want to stay 'private' with customers by invite only, that argument is null.

[Warren Stupidity]

147. protected classes: race, color, religion, sex or national origin

you can discriminate against conservative republicans, but not evangelical christians. Your privately owned store is operating in the public commons and that is where rightwing libertarianism falls apart, it has no valid construction or theory of a public commons. The people can decide that in the commons discrimination against protected classes is forbidden, and your business must comply if it wishes to do its business with the public.

Note that truly private 'clubs' remain free to discriminate as they wish.

[Quantess]

163. Not consistent at all!

He opposes gay marriage and abortion.

[Recursion]

17. Umm

But...WTF...nothing explains his position that it is OK for a business to refused to serve black people except the fact that he is a racist?

I don't think I see the logic of that. A libertarian can say "I hate racists but a business has the right to be racist if they want to." Sort of like how I hate neonazi's but I support their right to have rallies here in the US.

(PS I am neither confirming nor denying Paul's racism*; I don't know.)

** PPS "racism" in the sense of a racially prejudiced attitude; I realize there are other definitions.

[BootinUp]

22. allowing the exclusion of persons from a market based on race

is real harm to their livelihood, not the same as speech/rallies. If this is Paul's philosophy it carries more wait than any statement about his personal belief. Name it however you want to.

[Javaman]

34. like I said in another thread...

"he is the, "look, I believe in equal rights for everyone, but individuals should have the right to violate peoples civil rights because I WANT GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY LIFE" type racist.

he uses the half assed belief of, "I am not racist, but the government forces me to be one"."

just a retro fit of the usual libertarian screed of stupidity, only this time, it's done with the obvious racist flare.

paul will crash and burn soon.

[sinkingfeeling]

24. He may not be a racist on a personal level, however, he is a libertarian who doesn't think the

government has any business telling businesses nor individuals what to do.

[AngryAmish]

29. He is not a racist.

He just hates black people.

[spanone]

30. randy the racist

[scrinmaster]

31. If you support a Nazi's or a KKK's right to free speech, does that make you a Nazi or KKK member?

Or just someone who supports free speech?

[BootinUp]

33. why do you seem to accept his free speech argument?

You think businesses practicing blatant race segregation discrimination is just their right to free speech? absurd. Tell me that is not what you really think.

[Hepburn]

36. Hate to pee on your parade...

...but the Freedom to Speech has NOTHING to do with allowing public access. One may advocate ~~ there are exceptions to that as well ~~ but one may NOT take certain actions. There is a diffrence in the two forms of conduct.

[cark]

46. U missed the point.

I believe the point he was making is that if you support free speech, then you support the right for people say dumb ignorant stuff. This is not in any way saying that you condone, accept, agree with or believe in that speech. You simply believe that government regulation of speech is worse than any potential benefit.

Now just apply this concept to property rights. What do you value more? The right you use your property as you wish or the rights of others not to be treated unfairly by others. Once you start giving government the say on how you may use your property there is no end in what they can do and you essentially lose control over it. I think this was his point with the gun thing.

I just wish there could be an intelligent honest discussion about issues instead of what I saw on the Maddow show. I wish it would have been a debate over the rights of minorities vs the rights of property owners. Instead we got - You are a racist aren't you?, now defend yourself. I was very dissapointed in this interview.

[Hepburn]

55. I wish there were intelligent responses...

...your point?

[cark]

63. My point is your OP

From your orginal post....nothing explains his position that it is OK for a business to refused to serve black people except the fact that he is a racist?



I was trying (and apparently failed) to show you that he did provide a reasonable explaination. People around here would just rather jump up and down screaming racist! racist! instead of debating the real issue in an intelligent manner.

[Hepburn]

120. Maybe if I type slowly, you will get the point:

T-H-E-R-E

I-S

N-O

A-C-C-E-P-T-A-B-L-E

O-R

I-N-T-E-L-L-I-G-E-N-T

E-X-P-L-A-N-A-T-I-O-N

F-O-R

R-A-C-I-S-M.

[hfojvt]

160. which came first though

the chicken or the egg?

"There is no acceptable or intelligent explanation for racism."

But go back to the free speech argument. If I defend the right of racists to have free speech does that thereby make me a racist? Does he have a defensible position that you refuse to listen to or argue against because you'd rather shout 'racist'?

Most people would say it does not. In a similar way, if I defend the right of a racist business owner to run his business as he sees fit, does that make me a racist? According to you and Maddow it does.Does he have a defensible position that you refuse to listen to or argue against because you'd rather shout 'racist'?

Then instead of discussing your point of view you spend all your time shouting 'racist' in a crowded theatre. Which is how we lose elections. http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh051010.shtml

"On Saturday, the Tea Party movement took its biggest scalp yet; that scalp belonged to a white Utah Mormon. But on the very day Bennett was thus turned out, Charles Blow wrote his latest paint-by-the-numbers column about the Tea Party, in the New York Times. Let’s face it—Blow knows only one song. This was the start of his column:

BLOW (5/8/10): Racist. Tea Party.

If it weren’t for his colleagues Rich/Collins/Dowd, Blow would be making a case for himself as perhaps the most hapless major columnists in American journalism. He seems to know only one song—and he sings it incessantly, even on the day when the whitest pol in the land is getting blown away.

This is one of the obvious ways the “liberal world” keeps conspiring to lose—now that it has emerged from the decades-long hibernation in which it engaged until the war in Iraq.

Like many other pseudo-liberals, Blow has accused the Tea Party movement of racism, again and again. He rarely finds anything else to discuss about this potent political movement. If he isn’t making direct accusations, he gives us the thrill of insinuation."



Heck, if McDonald's was racist why would I want the government to force them to take my business? I'd much rather goto a non-racist restaurant and put that racist SOB out of business, even though I am white.

[MicaelS]

71. You want an honest debate?

There are no rights that are unlimited. Not on Free Speech, not on the RKBA. The notion that private property rights are, or should be, sacrosanct, is a viewpoint based in feudalism. It says that one is lord and master on one's property, and no outside interference will be tolerated. Frankly, many Libertarians, Teabaggers, and Conservatives, strike me as closet Feudalists.

IMO, the Rights of Property owners do NOT override the rights of minorities. The Founders recognized the concept of public good, when they limited patents. If they wanted to embrace the idea of unlimited private property rights, then they would have stated that patents are good for all eternity. If they wanted unlimited private party rights, they would have prohibited eminent domain. Once you start making property rights unlimited, then there is no end in what evil property owners can do, and you essentially lose control of your country.

We tried the concept of limited government under the Articles of Confederation, and it didn't work. Every state wanted to act like it's own Feudal Empire. That is why we have a Constitution, and a Federalist form of government.

So, yes, I think government has every right, and every responsibility to prohibit discrimination by private property owners. And I think whites who have Paul's ideology ARE racists. I guarantee you that if someone, put up a sign, saying "No Anti-Choice White Christians Wanted", he would be screaming his head off.

[redqueen]

74. Oh so very well said.

It's such a kind thing to do, educating others. Thank you. :)

[calimary]

122. Excellent points! Thank you!

The god property.

[Deep13]

102. It doesn't matter what his personal beliefs are if he won't vote...

...for civil rights legislation in the Senate. I don't care how he is at home. As a legislator he would be a racist.

[rasputin1952]

128. Well, you make a point about people saying dumb, ignorant stuff

And apparently, Rand Paul has that in spades.

He is an idiot, (I don't know if he's a racist).

So far, his statements on just about everything have been extraordinarily stupid, not matter what he is talking about. Except fort bush, he appears, at least to me, to be about the dumbest individual in the political sphere....oh, wait, I don't want to leave out JD Hayworth.

Just watching this talking wet mop is physical torture, and causes great mental anguish. The man is an idiot. His speech patterns are devoid of any passion, he even looks like an idiot, nothing says political confidence like that endearing, "deer in the headlights" look he does not appear to be able to shake.

Everything I've seen of this man points directly to idiot.

[political_Dem]

96. That hits the nail on the head. Thank you very much for saying that.

People can believe whatever they like. However, they may run into problems when practicing certain beliefs--such as the right to refuse someone service based on race. That runs in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And if he's running a business and refusing Black folks service, he still gets arrested for violating the law no matter what he purports.

So, I believe that Rand Paul was committing double-speak on Rachel Maddow's show. He could have simply took a moral position on this issue and be done with it. But he let his political values (especially when dictated by Teabag-ist notions) speak instead. In turn, those political values provided a mirror on his attitudes concerning race.

That says a lot about his principles.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. If you support a Nazi's right to gas Jews or a KKK's right to lynch black people...

does that make you a Nazi or KKK member?

Yes.

[BootinUp]

124. rofl. nt

[charlesg]

32. Does Rand Paul accept new black patients on Medicare/Medicaid?

Just wondering...

[Hepburn]

37. Only if the money is the right color...

...green.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

41. OK. Anyone who carries water for this psycho goes to my shit list instantly. With one exception:

Those who are already there.

[PavePusher]

42. Gosh, the disingenuousness around here is astonishing.

First, private property owners can make any rule they want. This is what lets them ban fireams on their property, or do you think that Constitutional right should be enforced against private property as well? You know, just to be intellectually consistent and all...

Second, he said he believed it was a right, but I have seen nothing to say that he advises/encourages such actions, or would give his patronage to such a private business.

But feel free to jump to any conclusions you want. I suppose it's good exercise...

[katandmoon]

48. So you are equating prohibiting gun toting patrons with prohibiting black patrons? Yes?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

51. Nah, he probably thinks only the former is inadmissible.

[PavePusher]

79. I am equating two Civil Rights.

Perhaps you missed the memo.

http://www.usconstitution.net/

I do not endorse anyone who would discriminate based on skin color. But I also can not deny that it is their legal right to do so... on private property.

Liberty can be a pesky thing at times.

[Hepburn]

57. So is the stupidity. Your point? n/t

[EFerrari]

60. There's goes another irony meter.

[msanthrope]

62. Guess what? Private property owners DON'T get to "make any rule they want."

Start with Shelley v. Kraemer, and once you've apologized to the ghost of Thurgood Marshall, you can go read Heart of Atlanta and its progeny.

Once you have an appreciation for just how private property owners can, and are obligated to follow the dictates of the 14th amendment, (and the later FFHA) and once you recognize the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce through the Commerce Clause, you come back here and tell me why you think Rand Paul and the GOP get to override 60 years of jurisprudence that people fought and died for.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ichingcarpenter]

69. You want orange juice and coffee with your maple syrup and waffles?

How about a napkin ? The list is endless

[msanthrope]

70. Go read Katzenbach.

If that doesn't answer your freeper 101 talking point, go read Wickard, Lopez, Morrison and finally, Raich.

Once you've read those cases (or, really, just Wickard, Katzenbach, and Raich...) then you can come back to me and pose a question that hasn't been asked by racists and their attorneys and answered by SCOTUS long 'ere this.

We all know there is some lunch counter somewhere, that uses only local products and serveware, never uses checks to pay for anything, never places an order across state lines, doesn't employ anyone, and never serves anyone who is travelling....you know, that poor lunch counter that was forced to serve Negros, and therefore, was oppressed by the federal government.

[cark]

118. Katzenback

was one of the worst decisions of all time.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

84. I am not endorsing discrimination...

so I will apologize for nothing.

I simply aknowledge multiple Civil Rights, despite some peoples use of them in distasteful ways.

I would never support a business that discriminates based on skin color.

Get it?

[RedCloud]

91. His line of thinking greatly enhances racism and others.

I suppose this orgasm some have when babbling about business is mind boggling. A lot of them are up to no good and need to be stopped, not worshipped.

Can they pollute our air or water?

Can they have prositution?

What about cannibalize the next patron?

In fact I would say, if they are private, stay private. Put up a sign,

"We are private. Public not welcome."

But don't go around kidnapping willy nilly from the public and cherry picking which public they can privately deal with. They live in a fantasy world where the public walks in and they get to pick and choose.

Private "businesses" that do not respect the public, should be banned from dealing with all members of the public. And stay away from public roads too.

[msanthrope]

127. Let me tell you what I get about you.....

You think that because you wouldn't discriminate, but you would make it legal to do so, isn't an endorsement of discrimination.

It reminds me of white southerners who told themselves they weren't personally racist--as they walked past segregated drinking fountains, and segregated schools, and sat in the front of the bus....they merely lived in, supported, and tolerated systemic racism....right???

Ever consider that it's your civic duty to fight racism? Not merely refrain from endorsing it?

Thurgood Marshall wept.

[PavePusher]

129. You don't seem to understand the difference in public and private venues.

I don't think I can help you.

[msanthrope]

132. You don't seem to understand what a 'public accomodation' is.

And no--I wouldn't take your help.

[Ignis]

88. "Facts?! Noooo, I'm mellllllllllltiiiiiiiiiiiing!"

:thumbsup:

[BootinUp]

100. Conclusions? What about fucking history?

Libertarianism is really a fucked up philosophy once you try and think it through.

[Deep13]

105. "First, private property owners can make any rule they want."

I guess you've never had a run-in with the local zoning board. If you had, you would know that a property own is not free to make any rule he or she wants.

Property rights are and have always been subservient to the needs of society generally. I person cannot commit murder in his own house or shop and he cannot refuse to do business with Black people. The '64 act is not just targeted at segregation mandated by law. It also targets the culture of racism. "Whites only" did not exist in a vaccuum. If you had a business in the South and wanted the business of the well-heeled white majority, you had to exclude minorities or you would have no business. The '64 act was designed in part to end that social norm. It is explicitly authorized by the 13th and 14th Amendments as acts of Congresses designed to end all vestiges of slavery.

[PavePusher]

130. Build a few more strawmen.

If you have any bales left over...

[Deep13]

148. Please explain. Or are flippant remarks all you have in your quiver? nt

[Warren Stupidity]

149. "First, private property owners can make any rule they want" - nope.

Not when they are conducting business in the public commoons. Do try again.

[Ichingcarpenter]

43. His top aide had to quit when his racist website was discovered

His Top Aide!


This was back in December the huffington post and others have the story

[redqueen]

58. ...

[PavePusher]

136. Link? n/t

[Ichingcarpenter]

139. 'Rand Paul Top Aide Quits Over MySpace Racism'

'Rand Paul Aide Quits Over MySpace Racism'

After an investigation into Hightower’s MySpace racism, by Paul campaign manager David Adams, Hightower’s resignation was immediately accepted. Hightower denied that he had a MySpace page, casting himself as a victim of a political attack. Hightower said he was attacked because opponents can’t find “any dirt” on Paul.
But yesterday, Hightower managed to log on to the MySpace account that he didn’t have, to delete the offensive posts about his KKK mall outing, but he inexplicably left the lynching image on his wall. Hightower has since deleted his MySpace profile.
Paul issued a statement, saying that he never heard Hightower make racist comments, but accepted his resignation to prevent the controversy from overshadowing his campaign issues.

http://chattahbox.com/us/2009/12/18/rand-paul-aide-quit... /


Also in the huffington post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/18/rand-paul-spok...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. Anyone that thinks Rand Paul is not a racist...

eat shit and die, you stupid racist fucks.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

53. Anyone that PRETENDS TO think Rand Paul is not a racist...

FTFY.

Oh, and: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8375833

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. Good point.

[krabigirl]

80. Really? No i don't think he is racist...just very naive and has crappy ideas.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

87. I'm sorry...

was I unclear?

[Recursion]

161. Not unclear, just wrong

I have no idea if he's a racist or not (unless you're talking about racism as a social and political relationship to the powerless rather than as an attitude).

He thinks legislation is an ineffective way of ending institutionalized racism. I think he's wrong. He may be a racist. But if he is, his wrongness about how effective legislation is wouldn't be what makes him one.

[KamaAina]

59. He held his victory party at a fancy country club

When ABC's Robin Roberts called him on it, he replied:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/05/rand-paul-kentucky-country-club-tiger-woods.html

Responding to Robin Roberts' question if his choice of venue sent a "mixed message," Paul's wheels fell off.

"I think at one time people used to think of golf and golf courses and golf clubs as being exclusive," Paul said. "But I think in recent years now you see a lot of people playing golf. I think Tiger Woods has helped to broaden that in the sense that he’s brought golf to a lot of the cities and to city youth, and so no, I don’t think it’s nearly as exclusive as people once considered it to be."

:eyes:

[Hepburn]

61. Some times....

...I just want to smack some people up side the head. Rand Paul is at the top of this list.

Hits me like the following: "Some of my best friends are <-fill in the blank->..."

:puke:

[EFerrari]

76. LOL.

[crazyjoe]

64. sorry, that's not really fair. it is not against the law to be a racist asshole.

once we go down that road we are in trouble.

[LanternWaste]

95. cting upon those beliefs outside of the confines of the law...

As in all things, it is not against the law to hold any belief. However, acting upon those beliefs outside of the confines of the law is an entirely different matter.

"is not against the law to be a racist asshole..."
It's not against the law to fantasize about rape, acting upon though it an entirely different matter. 'Once we deny that we are in trouble...'

[Duer 157099]

65. I'm not convinced that he personally is racist (although he may be, I just don't know)

It's just that he doesn't want to do anything about *other* people being racist and acting in a racist way.

So he's a racist-enabler, imho.

[EFerrari]

67. No, this is what modern racists sound like in public.

They sound exactly like Rand. They will swear up and down that they abhor racism and give you a legalistic argument that sounds good but makes no sense.

[msanthrope]

73. You forgot "But my (insert relationship) is (insert group)!" n/t

[EFerrari]

92. I've been giving people this link to a Laura Flander's segment on white power

to watch because she interviews a guy who just joined the hate group Conservative Citizens Council and he sounds just like your average teaklanner dad. So do the younger neo nazis in the film. I think it runs about 7 minutes and Laura Flanders is awesome at letting these people reveal themselves.

http://www.grittv.org/2010/01/07/white-nationalism-in-the-age-of-obama/

[msanthrope]

99. Great link! Thank you! n/t

[EFerrari]

106. That film "White Power USA" is also on youtube

in its entirety w/ a 1:50 minute intro by Al Jazeera. My pleasure. :hi:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sQ7JCgbYc4

[malaise]

72. Clyburn on Andrea Mitchell now

answering 14th amendment questions with 1st amendment answers - brilliant.

[bridgit]

75. Paul is an unabashed Libertarian, this is what untethered Libertarianism looks & sounds like...

If Dems say they don't like it then Dems have to start organizing against Libertarianism right now! Cause these people think they *are* all that and the bag of chips they refuse to sell to black folk. But these are Libertarianism's opening bids with respect to how free they feel businesses should be while the rest of us work beneath the yolk of such privatized oppressions

Ultimately, extrapolated outward: if your business is to thwart the dreams the colors of others, or the Constitution - then Rand Paul says that's your business and you should be allowed to conduct it without having to say you're sorry

End Libertarianism before Libertarianism ends you!

[krabigirl]

82. Not all libertarians are like that. There are left libertarians, moderate ones, and so on.

And their position on foreign interventionism and the war on some drugs is vastly preferable to our current system. Any ideology taken to the extreme basically sucks.

[redqueen]

86. Yes, and they're all idiot libertarians, moron libertarians, etc.

Extremism doesn't come into play when your basic premise is completely devoid of any and all rational thought.

[bridgit]

98. As a political party my husband canvassed for them when they started up in the 70's

But soon parted with their irresponsible stances on as little as the need to maintain America's infrastructure as a civil obligation. Their position on war is predicated upon their inert response to American defense as a shared civil obligation that they don't want to have to contribute to with either blood or treasure due to thei exceptionalism and their claim they have better things to do with their money - even where such matters may be clearly required...so I find them more than a tad light in the penny loafers over that one and for confirm ask Mitt Romney what his plans are for his sons, ask the Bush twins, Scott Brown and now Rand Paul

[krabigirl]

77. He is not a racist..he is a rw libertarian. I don't agree with him but i don't think he is racist.

[JerseygirlCT]

83. Chip off the old block

Just as racist; just as crazy.

[Decoy of Fenris]

94. All right, let's jump in, headfirst, and see what happens.

The inherent right of a business to serve or decline service to anyone is something I unconditionally support. Having been kicked out of a few places of business (for one reason or another...), I can say that those businesses not only should have that right, but patently -need- that right. It is a method of regulating business and regulating trade, oftentimes ensuring some (admittedly arbitrary) set of conditions or needs and allowing the business to continue to function smoothly, without an individual or a group of individuals disrupting the normal flow of business.

Take DU, for instance. We (I say "we" hesitantly at the moment, given the precarious nature of this post) have the right to turn away those who would actively disrupt the community here, for the betterment of the forum (Business?) as a whole. Likewise, a private business owner should be able to retain the right to refuse to serve... say... a rowdy group of folk who, day in and day out, simply sit outside the front of the business, smoking, only ever coming in to buy a stick of gum. If that group of folk is actively hindering the activities and progression of the business day for the private business, that business owner should have the right to ask them to disperse.

With that said, I think that the distinction between my own views and those of Paul must be made crystalline-clear; this is not something that should be universal, based on completely arbitrary, on-the-spot decisions, biased against something that a person cannot change about themselves. Reserving the right to refuse service should not be based on sexual orientation, skin color, or sex, as these would be discriminatory and violate the basic principles outlined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

I think that above all, Paul is, in this instance, defending the unconditional right of a private business to regulate it's own trade. This statement, in and of itself, I do not believe is racist. Unless my poli-sci knowledge is incorrect, Paul is simply defending one of the more base of his beliefs against government control, being that a private business should never be forced by the government into doing anything. Sort of... What is the phrase... Laissez faire? (Forgive my spelling.)

Ultimately, Paul is not making the statement "I hate blacks, hurp durp!" or "I hate brown folk, hurp durp!", but instead is exposing, up-front and forthrightly, his belief in a separated private business and it's associated rights from the governmental control that Libertarians tend to avoid. In this statement, I think I would dare to say that I do not believe he is being racist, but defending his viewpoints, and he happened to step on a fairly loaded question, which brings me to my next point.

If one were to analyze the interview and in particular, the question being brought up by Maddow, I think that one could find that this was a loaded land-mine of a question. Essentially, a cursory analysis of Paul's viewpoints would find that private business control is a staple of Paul's platform. If the question that Maddow asked were to be "fair" (I know, the world isn't fair), I believe it would have been phrased as "Do you think that a private business has the right to refuse service to any person for any reason?" Instead, the phrasing (and specific emphasis on "black people") leads what could be a fairly benign question into a true land-mine; Paul has only three choices at that point.

A.) Obfuscate or evade
B.) Answer truthfully (what I believe he did)
C.) Answer falsely, going against his beliefs.

While I can't say that, in the form given, I agree with what Paul said, I think that he walked into a rather nasty bear trap here, and I believe that instead of a two-sentence soundbite, we should examine the situation at hand. Statements such as this...

"Yes, he want on to say more after he said, 'Yes.'

But...WTF...nothing explains his position that it is OK for a business to refused to serve black people except the fact that he is a racist?"

... eliminate meaningful dialog about an option, and only lead to preconceived notions. While I cannot say that I agree unconditionally with Paul given the nature of the question he answered, I think he deserves at least a smidge of "benefit of the doubt", at least for now.


Whew. Thanks for sticking with me, folk. I'll be happy to clarify any points of contention. Just give me some time to get my coffee and vodka first. :P

[redqueen]

97. Did you read the thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8374784&mesg_id=8376551

[Decoy of Fenris]

107. Aye, I did.

I saw that, and as a general rule, I agree with that post. More than anything, I was attempting to look beyond the "shock value" of the OP, and instead try to analyze the situation to more thoroughly attempt to understand Paul's viewpoint. It's an old habit of mine; nothing is ever as it seems, and I was half thinking aloud, and half randomly musing. I agree that the right of a business ends when they tread on the rights of other humans, specifically on the basis of ethnicity or gender, or other immutable things.

I will confess that I am not fully understanding what you're getting at by linking me to that post in particular, however. I tend to agree with that poster, and I thought I outlined it in my own.

[NNN0LHI]

101. If you had a business as described it would be perfectly fine to hang a sign that read No Loitering

But it would not be fine to hang a sign that read No Blacks Allowed To Loiter.

See the difference?

Don

[Decoy of Fenris]

108. Aye, I understand that. What I'm getting at, though

... is that I think Paul was rather pushed into a corner with a loaded question. Being a Libertarian, he was pretty much obligated to say "Yes", whether it had said "Blacks", "Mexicans", "Jews", or "Whites." If he had said "No", he would be exposed as either a liar or a non-Libertarian. If he does believe in the unconditional right for a business to regulate their own trade, how could he answer anything but "Yes"? That doesn't categorically mean that he is a racist. Instead, it shows that he has a certain set of beliefs (however misguided) that he sticks to. I guess I'm just failing to see why this is immediately considered racist, given the context of his beliefs and the nature of the question asked of him.

[redqueen]

110. So he was forced to expose the idiocy of Libertarian philosophy.

I guess I'm just not seeing the problem here. :shrug:

[Decoy of Fenris]

112. Agreed unconditionally.

Aye, the philosophy itself is horridly flawed, and deserves ridicule for it's simple-minded thought process, and deserves to be exposed. There's no problem there. The problem I have, more than anything else, is the kneejerk "He's a racist".

"All businesses have the right to any action without government intervention" does not equal "I hate blacks." I guess that's all I'm getting at.

[redqueen]

115. Here's how I see it:

A non-racist would immediately disavow their libertarian label with respect to that particular issue, upon realizing that their cherished world-view would enable / encourage racism.

The fact that he didn't... well...

Like the post I linked to earlier says - there are limits to freedoms, and we accept them. Unless we have some reason not to, of course. Such as wanting there to be some way that racists would be allowed to engage in their ugly discrimination, just like they could in the 'good old days'. I dunno if you're from the south, but down here, the idea that slaves weren't so bad off, and really it isn't fair that whites can't discriminate... and really we should be able to discriminate against gays too, cause you know, they're just ugh... that kind of mindset is really not so rare. This guy is from down here, so... I'm pretty sure that's the reason he won't disavow his philosophy...

And please note: he absolutely does disavow that label when the subject is abortion. That issue he's willing to bend on. The racist one? Not so much.

So... yeah... IMO he's a racist.

[Decoy of Fenris]

116. ... Hm.

I don't think that we will agree on the racist angle at the moment, though you do make a valid point, especially about "A non-racist would immediately disavow...". That's something that should be a post on it's own.

As I said, I know little about the man, so the abortion issue caught me a little off guard. See, it's little tidbits of knowledge like that which shine light on the character of the man and cast the "benefit of the doubt" into shadow. Most assuredly something to consider.

[EFerrari]

103. No, he doesn't. Racial discrimination is illegal in the United States.

[Decoy of Fenris]

109. Granted.

I really don't have much to say to that, as I'm in complete agreement with you, ultimately. No matter a benefit of the doubt, racial discrimination is not something that is up for debate.

[EFerrari]

114. But, that is exactly what this POS is doing: putting it up for debate.

That is the bottom line, no matter how he frames it.

Most decent people like to give other the benefit of a doubt. But as The Magistrate once said, we shouldn't leave our minds so open that our brain falls out.

[Decoy of Fenris]

117. "An open mind is like a fortress with it's gates unbarred and unguarded."

You speak the truth of it. I do tend to give most people a certain amount of leeway when examining motives and statements, but as more and more of this guy makes itself known (and as I do a bit of side-research), the more I am inclined to cease that leeway in regards to him.

For now, I will remain cautiously neutral on the point, but I no longer think it impossible that his statement was blatantly racist.

[Recursion]

159. And he thinks making it illegal hasn't stopped it

Look, the way to defeat the libertarian argument is to address it, not to pretend it's something it isn't.

Libertarians like Rand Paul think that the Civil Rights Act hasn't worked, and can't work because it's a law that's trying to make people moral. Yes, people of any race can get served in a coffee shop now (though there's a question of how well even that works -- see the Denny's case a few years ago, or try to go into a fancy restaurant being black and looking poor), but most of the underclass is still stuck as an underclass, and things are actually getting worse for them in a lot of ways.

Their (wrong) argument is that racial inequality exists because of government regulation. There are instances where they are right (Jim Crow was, after all, government regulation). But calling someone racist simply for having the opinion that legislation is not an effective tool for addressing racism is a) factually wrong and b) doesn't get us anywhere.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JCMach1]

111. Libertarian logic to its bitter end- we should all be free to be racist as we want to be

I wouldn't call him a racist, but an idiot libertarian to the 10th power.

[KonaKane]

131. That's Reaganism 101: making people comfortable with their prejudices again.

.

[guitar man]

113. Geez Louise

Haven't we already been here and solved this? Wasn't there a Civil Rights Act in 1964 that settled this? Who the fuck are these people and where do they come from?

Ok, it's this simple. If you want to run a business, be licensed, and permitted to run a business that serves the PUBLIC, then that's what you do, you serve the PUBLIC. And the PUBLIC is white, black, hispanic, asian, and so on and so forth. If you wish to operate a business and profit from the bounty that this society produces you can serve all equally or go find something else to do.

If customers are rude, abusive, offensive etc, sure, you should absolutely have the ability to refuse them service and show them to the door, but this country ended the "white" and "colored" distinction in business that serve the public a long time ago. These people really need to get over it, it's 2010, not 1950, get with it or get the fuck out! :grr:

[KonaKane]

133. A billboard I'd like to see.... (pic)

[Hepburn]

135. OMG....

...:applause:

[Recursion]

154. Please get somebody to put that up in Kentucky. Please.

That is awesome.

[MellowDem]

137. No, just smart/logical...

On the other hand, anyone who uses accusations of racism as a distraction from the actual argument is using a tired old tactic that, while sometimes effictive, is logically a fallacy.

"Do you think the KKK has a right to march through a Jewish town to show their hatred?"

"Yes"

This situation is different, because it involves free speech and not property ownership. That is Rand Paul's fallacy. But someone could quite easily call a person who said "yes" in this situation a racist as well. And why not? It makes just as much sense.

Rand Paul very well could be racist, but this doesn't "prove" it. It just "proves" he's an insane libertarian who wants the government out of everything, to the extent that is obviously harmful to society.

I understand why people are quick to label him with such a thing, because it is a great way to destroy a person's credibility. But it's bad argumentation and really just stupid.

[Raineyb]

140. And like clockwork there are people who come out to declare that someone isn't a racist.

The depths to which people will go to pretend someone isn't a racist never ceases to amaze me.

[MellowDem]

141. And like clockwork you're here...

to distract, obfusticate, make up stuff, and generally bullshit around. I didn't declare he wasn't a racist. I just said this doesn't prove he is. READ.

[Raineyb]

157. The only person making shit up is you. As per usual you make excuses while

pretending not to see what's right in front of you. Your see no evil attitude is tiresome.

Because allowing a situation where people can be discriminated against because of their race is certainly not perpetuating racism. If you help perpetuate it by tacitly allowing it you're as racist as the asshole with the whites only sign on the door. What part of that are you having trouble understanding?

[MellowDem]

165. It's pretty simple...

"Because allowing a situation where people can be discriminated against because of their race is certainly not perpetuating racism."

Allowing such a situation could indeed perpetuate racism, but it doesn't necessarily make one a racist. The law does actually allow certain situations that could be seen as perpetuating racism as a matter of free speech. I don't agree with Rand Paul, but his reasoning is extreme libertarianism. You could just assume he's a racist if you want to, but it's only an assumption and not an effective counter to his actual line of reasoning, which is what needs to be done.

[athenasatanjesus]

142. Not racist,just self serving,to each his own means every man for himself in libertarian talk.

[AnArmyVeteran]

143. He looks different without his white hood on. I almost didn't recognize him...

[upi402]

144. still hoping the IS a hell -n/t

[Quantess]

145. I can't believe registered DUers are defending Rand Paul and his viewpoint.

You actually think it's okay for businesses to discriminate based on race?

Get your racist right wing asses back to Free Republic, or whatever other conservative message board you belong to.

[Recursion]

150. People mean different things by "racist"

My "defense" was saying that there's a libertarian argument for allowing businesses to discriminate against whomever they want to, even if you know that's a horrible thing for them to do.

If you look at racism as an attitude about people of certain races, then his argument doesn't tell us if he's racist or not. If you look at racism as a relationship to political and economic power, then it does.

[Quantess]

156. Maybe he isn't racist, but it is a big red flag. He supports allowing racism,

not just racist speech.

If he is not racist himself, then at the very least, he has not thought it through sufficiently. And, there is evidence that he hasn't thought it through, when he seemed stumped by Rachel Maddow's questioning.

[Recursion]

158. If he's like most libertarians I know, he's thought it through

And he's concluded that the civil rights act hasn't actually helped minorities all that much when you look at how things are today (which is something a lot of people on our side say too). But while we say we need more programs to bridge the gap, he says we need less corporate and government influence in our lives and we'll be able to work the rest out.*

I don't know that he was "stumped" so much as he knew that his answer was going to sound bad and he was trying to come up with a reply that wouldn't be too damaging.

* Yes, I do mean that thing about less corporate influence. Libertarians have a point when they say that corporations only have the kind of power they have in the US because of the government. They're wrong about what that means and how to fix it, but they're right about that.

[Quantess]

162. Funny how he's libertarian when it comes to the Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act

but he opposes gay marriage and abortion. That doesn't sound very libertarian to me, when you add it up.

Go ahead and make your point about how libertarians feel about government influences, but I don't think it necessarily applies to Rand Paul. I'm beginning to think that Rand Paul is only libertarian when it suits his RW beliefs.

[Recursion]

164. Yeah, he's less consistent than his dad

And he seems a lot more willing to placate the GOP.

[uponit7771]

153. Yeap, they include private hospitals in that mix too because...like Paul...they haven't thuoght

...through this position.

[Quantess]

155. That's why it's important there are people like Rachel Maddow

who take him to task on this. It is very hard to defend this position without seeming racist. And, unlike what Rand Paul was trying to argue, these are not hypothetical situations or merely an intellectual exercise. These things really happened, such as the Woolworth's counter. Rand Paul is fine with that. Sure, let's go back to those days.


This is not comparable to protecting racist free speech, at all.

[Sigh]

166. Rachel Maddow Show: NY Times get Rand Paul quote wrong

Rachel Maddow Show: NY Times get Rand Paul quote wrong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg5zOQ05b9E

Rand didn't say "Yes"