The fatal & revealing racist flaw in Rand Paul's "private restaurant" analogy made to Rachel Maddow.

[David Zephyr]

Rand Paul, in an attempt to explain his problem with The Civil Rights Act, foolishly presented a half-baked 'analogy' that if liberals are intent on forcing a private restaurant to accept patrons regardless of their race, then the same restaurants could be forced into allow patrons to carry guns inside the establishment, too.

But just like all racist subterfuge, his weak attempt through 'analogy' to justify his jaw-dropping, 'rationale' for his non-support of the Civil Rights Act, it fails on every account.

A customer can leave his or her gun outside the eatery. A person can not leave the color of their skin outside. Big difference.

Mr. Paul, who un-artfully dodged Ms. Maddow's repeated questioning of him why he would support preventing African-Americans to eat at a lunch counter at a Walgreen's, coughed up the pathetic 'analogy' described above to her.

Mr. Paul, you give yourself away.

A white man can leave his gun outside the restaurant.

A little black girl can not leave her pigment or her gender outside.

Big difference, Mr. Paul.

Mr. Paul, you are a sick racist.

[WeDidIt]

1. He's also a misogynistic bastard

He clings to his "Libertarian philosophy" coat when it supports institutionalized racism, but immediately takes it off when it comes to a woman's right to control her own body.

The misogynistic bastard opposes abortion in ALL cases.

You heard that right, ALL cases. HE just plain does not give a fuck. HE wants big government out of a restaurant and into a woman's womb.

[Kitty Herder]

4. Yes, he is.

Wanting to control what another allows or does not allow within their own body is as anti-libertarian as it gets.

[David Zephyr]

8. Yeah. So much for his anti-big government phony rhetoric.

"He wants big government out of a restaurant and into a woman's womb."

He's a just another fascist pretending hiding under the label of libertarian.

Even his first name is the first clue that he'll never have a clue.

[tabatha]

2. Rachel deserves another Oscar

for unraveling Rand Paul.

Her contributions have been outstanding.

[DesertFlower]

3. i'm a white woman.

many years ago before i met my husband i dated a black man. the thought that came to my mind was. what if we had walked into a restaurant together which we did many times. imagine if the owner said to me "you can eat here, but he can't."

[guitar man]

5. It's this simple

If you run a business that serves the public, and want to be licensed and permitted to run that business (something else I'm sure he doesn't believe in), then you serve the public....the whole public. If you want them to wear shirt and shoes and behave themselves in your establishment, sure, no problem. But the "whites only" days died a long time ago, shortly after I was born.

If he doesn't get it he has no business being a US Senator. This is 2010 and this society has no need for this kind of bullshit...that war was fought and won, and although we are still working in social progress in the area of bigotry and discrimination, there can be absolutely NO reason to revisit the legal arena in regards to it. the end

[aikoaiko]

6. Yes, it was a bad analogy for the reason you state.

I said this in a another thread: Rand Paul was not trying to advocate that restaurants be forced to serve armed folks. He was really advocating the opposite. He thinks restaurants shouldn't be forced to served people carrying guns, people of certain races, etc.

[jmowreader]

7. There's another counter to Rand's argument

Samuel L. Jackson walks into a restaurant. He eats, drinks five bottles of wine, pays and leaves. The worst that can possibly happen is some of the other patrons' children will expand their vocabularies in ways their parents don't like--because I am certain Mr. Jackson is sick of these motherfucking snakes in this motherfucking restaurant. None of the patrons will leave black.

Mike Jackson, average citizen from the next town over, walks into a restaurant with a pistol under his jacket. He eats, drinks five bottles of wine, gets pissed at another patron and shoots him dead. He then realizes his shit's weak and shoots himself dead. Now we've got two dead people, the rest of the patrons have PTSD, there's a huge blood stain on the white carpets and the restaurant owner sees an immediate 20-percent drop in business because no one wants to get killed at dinner.

There is a difference between the two. It is too bad Rand can't understand this.

[NotThisTime]

9. Problem with his analogy is that it is already legal in some places to bring your gun into a bar ie:

Arizona's new law several months back

[Bigmack]

10. Jeeezus...Hispanic man walks into a bar in Arizona....

Zealous citizen thinks he looks "illegal".... he's got a gun.....

Holy shit.

[jgraz]

11. Like father, like son.

[smoogatz]

12. Exactly.

Business owners can and do regulate behavior inside their establishments. They can require certain kinds of dress, prohibit certain kinds of language, etc. What they cannot do is refuse admittance or service to someone based on race, religion or place of origin--those things that are inherent parts of our identity. You can leave your gun in the damn car. You can't leave your skin in the car.

And yes, he's a segregationist throwback to the Goldwater era.