Am I the only one here who doesn't think Paul's comments make him evil?

[uberllama42]

His position (WRT the Civil Rights Act of 1964) doesn't seem racist on its face. Libertarians believe that it is not the place of the federal government to interfere with private business. The prevailing jurisprudence on federal powers was similar to Paul's position until 1937, when the Supreme Court upheld powers expanded by the New Deal. The federal government is only supposed to be able to regulate interstate commerce, and the National Labor Relations Board decision in 1937 expanded that to apply to anything that had a "substantial impact" on interstate commerce.

There was another decision immediately after the passage of the Civil Rights Act which challenged the power of the government to prevent discrimination by businesses that neither used public funds nor dealt in interstate commerce (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States). The Court was unanimous in upholding the government's authority in that case, primarily on the grounds that the motel served patrons from out of state. But I still think that you can make an argument that it is not the government's place to prevent discrimination by those businesses.

It is not an endorsement of racism to say that racist speech is protected speech under the First Amendment. Similarly, it is not an endorsement of discrimination to say that the government doesn't have the power to prevent some forms of discrimination. I was invited to play tennis at a whites-only country club a couple of years ago. I declined, since I think that kind of discrimination is despicable, and I think considerably less of the person who invited me than I did before I found out that the country club (which the person is very proud of) didn't allow black people. But I am not convinced the government is within its rights to prevent every act of discrimination.

Certainly Paul has shown himself to be a weasel with his subsequent vacillation on this. He seems to think less of his own argument than I do, since he won't stand by it.

[Turbineguy]

1. His comments seem to indicate that he

is not satisfied with the amount of damage done by the Bush administration. I don't know if that makes him "evil".

[Taverner]

2. No, you're the only one

He's a fucking racist shitbag appealing to an out of work white populace.

He is trying to blame everything on "the other" - which is anyone not white

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Unfortunately, no.

[elehhhhna]

60. woot ! ding ding you win !!!1!!

[Iggo]

98. oops.

[Iggo]

99. Score yourself 5 bonus points.

:applause:

[secondwind]

4. his position is not racist IMHO. He believes that a business owner has the RIGHT

to discriminate, if it is his OWN PROPERTY. He is a Libertarian to the last number. But he misses the big picture.

Because minorities have rights also, and one of those, is to be able to walk into a restaurant and be served.

He wants to take us back to the "whites only" days.


What a clown. And now he's cancelled his appearance on Meet the Press on Sunday, saying he is exhausted! He is telling them on FRIDAY that he will be EXHAUSTED on Sunday! :rofl:

[uberllama42]

18. Like I said, he's a weasel

If he really believed what he said in the first place, he would stand by it. Not necessarily racist, but certainly chickenshit.

[Bluebear]

5. Yes, you are the only one.

[pinboy3niner]

43. What Bluebear said

[Karenina]

53. Not the ONLY one. Accompanied by many in deep denial

of what core American values are, wishing they just applied to WHITE PEOPLE.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

74. The other posters in this thread agreeing with the OP suggest that this is not in fact the case...

N.T.

[UndertheOcean]

6. I sure hope you are the only one n/t

[OregonBlue]

7. He's a fake Libertarian. He has no problem with outlawing abortion because he claims it violates the

right of the unborn child. Real Libertarians believe that the government needs to get our of our bedrooms and our doctor's offices. this guy is just another evil tea bagger, racist.

[Still Sensible]

16. Bingo! That is the correct characterization.

While he is certainly some degree of libertarian, he suffers from the traditional republican disease... that is the selective application of conservative principles. We stand for a, b, and c... unless we don't like the result.

[kiranon]

21. Agree. n/t

[Quantess]

25. He also opposes gay marriage.

He wants government sniffing our crotches. That's not libertarian.

[Still Sensible]

78. He;s a Libertarian that needs fundamentalist money

for his campaign... so he panders on DADT, marriage equality, and abortion, the holy trinity of current issues for the largest grass roots funding source the GOP has.

[treestar]

106. this is true

Libertarians are for keeping government out regardless, so waffling on this shows he's a Republican, not a Libertarian.

Libertarians are with the right on economics and with the left on social questions.

[joeybee12]

8. I sure as hell hope you're the only one...n/t

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[louis-t]

10. Racist? Nah. Ignorant, backward, clueless, disturbed?

Yeah, I'll go with that.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

11. You should be, but sadly, you aren't. -nt

[dkf]

12. Ironically his position seems to support repeal of dadt and gay marriage.

He just could be a wonderful advocate for non discrimination by the government.

The biggest "you are not allowed" sign is that which the government puts on our military. Ironic that no one else sees this.

[uberllama42]

24. I haven't heard him say anything one way or the other on gay rights.

It would certainly be a ghastly display of hypocrisy if he thought it was okay for the government to discriminate against gay people. Somehow his damage-control tap dance in the last two days doesn't give me much confidence in him.

[dkf]

34. Consistency demands it.

I don't know why Rachel didn't ask him about this.

The thing is we can laugh at his outlandish comments but promote what we agree with. He wants us uninvolved in adventuring around the world and I'm all for that.

[Lyric]

70. Oh no--he opposes both choice and gay marriage rights.

As per Mother Jones: http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/05/how-libertarian-rand-paul

Believe me, this fuckstick is NO libertarian.

[The Straight Story]

13. Will NOW ever have a man at the helm, or will the NAACP ever hire white guy to lead them?

;)

[oberliner]

54. Both of those things have happened

Perhaps that was your point?

[WeDidIt]

14. Wrapping a racist viewpoint in a Libertarian blanket doesn't make it any less racist. n/t

[havocmom]

39. Yep. Real Libertairans don't promote state control of women's reproductive organs and life

And real DUers don't go around trying to score points for RW ideologues pretending to be libertarians.

:WTF: is up with OPs defending Paul on DU? Are you as confused as I am about that?

[WeDidIt]

42. Every bit as much as you are, havocmom.

Every last bit.

[cliffordu]

92. I am NOT confused.

Defending that scumbag speaks for itself.

[JerseygirlCT]

Yup. I'm afraid putting a "nice" name on it

doesn't clean it up.

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. There's not much difference between being evil and being stupid enough to facilitate it. n/t

[spanone]

17. i would venture a guess that you are.

[blondeatlast]

62. If only, but sadly, not even close. nt

[cali]

19. I don't give a flying fuck if he doesn't have a racist bone in his body

His support for allowing racism is horrendous whatever his excuse.

[uberllama42]

27. How do you feel about racist speech?

Do you agree that it should be protected speech? I believe the First Amendment allows racism in the form of hate speech. That is the cost of living in a free society.

[cali]

85. yes, I believe that in most cases racist speech is protected speech

that is NOT what title X or the Civil Rights Act is about.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. "doesn't seem racist on its face" - sure it does, because it is. nt.

[BootinUp]

22. Its so very convenient though if one does happen to be

racist and a libertarian with these views. Ever notice that? Ever notice that states rights nutballs often deny the terrible wrongs of slavery? Some will say how well slaves were treated, really! I have.

[uberllama42]

37. If I've had one insight about constitutional law, that's it

On paper, I think that the federalist argument is compelling. But in practice, it only ever seems to be used to defend discrimination. After a while, you have to wonder if that's what it's really all about. I can think of perhaps one exception, in which the Rehnquist Court tried to set some kind of a rational limit on the Interstate Commerce power (United States v. Lopez, 1995).

If the states' rights argument is valid on its own merits, then perhaps discrimination is an unavoidable result that has to be accepted under our Constitution. But if "states' rights" is a facade that people construct for no other reason than to protect discrimination, then it seems more like something we can safely ignore. The more I see, the more I am convinced that it is the latter.

[WinkyDink]

58. Didn't we already have a Civil War?

[uberllama42]

67. Yes, and the outcome did not abolish the sovereignty of the states

It settled the question of secession, but it did not change standing Supreme Court jurisprudence on a number of issues of federal power. In fact, it raised important constitutional questions about habeas corpus, for instance.

[pnorman]

23. I'll agree with you to a large extent..

I believe that there are very few people who are truly EVIL, and that we derange rational thinking when we use that term too carelessly.

[NoNothing]

32. It's a hard topic to discuss

True freedom includes the freedom to be wrong as well as the freedom to be right. It's a hard, fine line to walk to support the *freedom* to be wrong without supporting *wrong* itself. And it is in my experience depressingly easy for someone crusading against the *wrong* to forget that there is any value at all to having the freedom to be wrong. In other words, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Biker13]

59. +1

[cliffordu]

93. I dunno, in my simplistic and juvenile world you can be as wrong as you want

to be as long as it doesn't interfere with my rights.

[uberllama42]

41. To be fair, "evil" was pretty much my characterization

I don't know that anyone else threw that word out there. But I think you can give Paul the benefit of the doubt, to a certain extent. Even if you do, his subsequent weasel words don't speak very highly of him.

[Tempest]

26. Even under a Libertarian view private businesses can't discriminate

Since every business has government provided utilities at their premises, they can't discriminate because they are receiving a government subsidy in effect.

Unless the business wants to provide its own sewer, water and electricity.

[NoNothing]

33. The same is true of your home

You still need a principle to distinguish the two, unless you believe the government can legitimately tell you who you must allow in your home.

And keep in mind that businesses are taxed too, so it's not automatically a true subsidy.

[Tempest]

47. You can't equate a home with a business

One is a sanctuary the other is to provide a public service.

Businesses may be taxed, but they are provided specific tax exemptions and breaks provided by the government.

A true Libertarian would want the elimination of those benefits businesses receive.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Jeroen]

29. Sure, one can argue that condoning racism isn't racism in itself

One can also argue that it's even worse

[Duer 157099]

30. The question is not whether he is evil, but whether what he advocates is WRONG

Yes, it is WRONG. Especially in light of how so much privatization of public resources has been occurring over the past several decades!

What if the only hospital in town is a private hospital that does not treat people of certain races? Can you really defend that?

Just think about it a little more.

[KG]

31. i think it's groovy that rand paul gets a fair shake on DU.

:eyes:

[Blue_Tires]

79. his old man had a LOT of well-known admirers on DU and Kos a couple years back

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[uberllama42]

44. And there it is.

I wondered how long it would take before someone suggested with ever-so-much subtlety that I am a freeper.

You win one Internet. Congratulations.

[bigwillq]

36. I am just so sick of hearing about Paul

He's the new Sarah on DU.

kick&unrec'ed&hide

Ah, I feel better! :rofl:

[iamjoy]

38. No, You Aren't The Only One

Paul is not necessarily a racist or evil because he believes private businesses should have the right to discriminate. However, by not accepting that the federal government has a role in making sure all citizens have equal access (to services of private enterprise as well as government) a person is enabling racism.

All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men (and women) to do nothing.

[uberllama42]

49. Not every nail needs a government hammer

A person can do material things to oppose racism without advocating government intervention, though I tend to think that governments should prevent discrimination. I didn't articulate this in the OP (though I should have), but I think state governments have a strong claim on things like regulating hotels and motels. The state police power encompasses defending public morals, and hotels/motels fall under that category. Unfortunately, the state of Georgia wasn't going to do anything about the problem in 1964. This is where I'm ambivalent about the whole question.

I shouldn't have used the country club example in the OP, because it's not quite the same. Whether a hotel owner discriminates is an issue of public morals, while country clubs are, by their nature, more private.

[Zynx]

40. His opposition to the Americans with Disabilities Act makes him evil.

His stance on the Civil Rights Act is even worse than that, so I'm not sure what that makes him.

[political_Dem]

45. The ones to fear aren't the mouthbreathing racists.

It's the god-fearing, common-place, everyday folks who quietly lap up what Rand Paul says and believes this garbage. They are the ones who defend him and continue the spread the filth of his ideas.

And it is in spite of him, there are others who believe that "Rand is not racist nor evil".

They are the scary ones because they spread his word like missionaries without even critically thinking about what he is saying in his diatribe to push back the time to "1963" (i.e. before the Civil Rights act of 1964, before the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and right deep in the Jim Crow era.).

But Paul is going to get a rude awakening when he discovers that there are a whole bunch of folks who don't want time rolled back to 1963.

I, for one, refuse to pay poll taxes and take a literacy test to vote. And I won't go through a back door to be served at a restaurant.

[CBR]

63. +1 nt

[pundaint]

46. I was there on the words, but Rachel gave a better explanation of the title he was having problems

with. The words don't match the law. I cannot distinguish him from a racist. The words sound all personal freedom, but in reality the freedom sought is really both theirs and yours.

[damntexdem]

48. Yes. I don't give a damn whether he is motivated personally by racism.

His position is effectively racist. If it flows from his idiotic libertarian ideology that is in effect no better than if it flowed from racist desires -- the effects would be the same.

[alfredo]

50. He's just saying out loud what main line Republicans are too cowardly say in public.

[JerseygirlCT]

64. Probably. And expects "libertarian" to give it acceptable cover

in polite society.

[alfredo]

75. Wrap shit in lace and it is still shit.

[JerseygirlCT]

81. And still just as odorous. nt

[alfredo]

87. McConnell thinks his smells like roses, and nobody in the party dares say otherwise.

[treestar]

107. And he is too, since he would not come out and say it

at least in the Rachel interview, he would not say Yes/No, but "that's interesting, and blah, blah, blah," deflecting.

[alfredo]

108. He wasn't challenged by the media when he was running against Grayson.

He had no idea what he was to face.

[DefenseLawyer]

51. Is you is, or is you ain't my constituency?

[Iggo]

101. 'See, I belong to a certain secret society...'

'...I don't believe I gotta mention its name...'

[DavidDvorkin]

52. You're not the only one

Hateful speech needs to be protected.

Hateful discrimination is harder to swallow, but I'm ambivalent about outlawing it.

[Blue_In_AK]

55. Ideologically I understand where he's coming from,

but I think he's completely wrong.

[depakid]

66. All he did was publicly espouse the big "L" Libertarian line

My guess is that quite a few of the posters expressing outrage don't understand where he's coming from, but would hastily agree with other big "L" positions.

[EFerrari]

100. No, there's more than that. Remember his communications director had to step down

for putting up an image of a lynching with the caption "happy nword day" on Dr. King's birthday? This was a gentleman who had been with Paul from the beginning.

[Ter]

56. Very well spoken

The hysteria isn't going to work.

[WinkyDink]

57. Oh, yes; it's MUCH better to have a society with separate fountains, schools, buses, ...Signs in

store windows.
No Blacks. No Irish. No....Come to think of it, I'd like to open a restaurant and declare, "NO G-D REPUBLICAN LIBERTARIAN A**HOLES ALLOWED."

I'm beginning to see the merits of Paul's stance!

[uberllama42]

68. Do you understand the difference between public facilities and private businesses?

The distinction is important with respect to what Paul actually said, and indeed was important in a series of Supreme Court decisions dealing with civil rights.

[stanwyck]

86. OK. But will he answer questions about minimum wage, overtime, child labor,

health and safety standards, etc? Should private business be exempted from all regulation? Do you want to buy food which receives no federal oversight? No FDA? What about car safety? Should private business be allowed to put cars which explode on impact on the roads? It's easy for Libertarians to spout simple answers. However, legislating is complex. We need to know more than sound bites from Mr. Paul. Apparently, he doesn't have his answers ready yet. He's cancelled his appearance on Meet the Press.

[blondeatlast]

61. I do so hope so, but I know better. nt

[Rex]

65. His comments don't make him evil, they expose him as a limited thinker and a freedom hater!

Why would he deny We The People the right to eat at a restaurant, just because say we have a mustache or blonde hair? Really? Is that the crazy shit you agree with? That is what he is saying.

[johnaries]

69. I don't believe in "evil". It's a man-made term.

Nothing and no-one is inherently "evil".

Rand Paul is just Stupid. And in my book, that's much worse for someone in a position of power and/or decision making.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[cliffordu]

95. Dayum...!! That was FAST!!!!

Thanks mods!!

[Lyric]

71. He opposes choice and gay marriage rights, and he supports Gitmo.

Rand Paul is NOT a Libertarian.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/05/how-libertarian-rand-paul

[uberllama42]

72. Thanks for the info.

More and more, this guy is looking worse than his father.

[EFerrari]

73. Yes, his position is racist on its face. n/t

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[MicaelS]

76. The only one?

No, but there are few who agree with you. I'm not one of them. I think Paul is evil. I posted this in another thread, but I'll repeat it, and amplify it a bit.

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.

So private businesses, which are served by public streets, roads and highways, paid for by everyone's tax dollars, protected by police and fire departments, again paid for by everyone's tax dollars, should be allowed to discriminate against some of those very same people paying to keep that business open, and making a profit for the business owners. That is an evil mindset.

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 to what evil that property owners can commit, 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.

[political_Dem]

102. +1

[Unvanguard]

77. They don't make him evil. They just make him crazy. n/t

[Blue_Tires]

80. I'm going to start calling the Paul boys "selective libertarians"

i.e., they only want total deregulation and elimination of 'big gummitt' JUST in their most favored areas so that a tiny minority of nutbars reap the most benefit while the rest get fucked...

Not that I'd like him any better, but I'd at least have a modicum of respect for him if he were consistent in his "freedumb-loving pseudo-constitutional libertarianism" across the board...

And I agree with posters upthread who said skilfully tying up a racist position in a seemingly harmless political philosophy is still racist...(and Paul isn't even original in his argument -- I had a college classmate spewing this in our campus paper a decade ago) Not only that, it's the answer to a question nobody asked -- Unless someone trying to argue that the Civil Rights Act alone is making every business go broke...

[JerseygirlCT]

82. Paul has no problem with government interference in a woman's

personal medical choices, for instance.

It's a fraud, all around.

[jpak]

83. Am I the only one here that thinks Rand Paul is an asshole

:shrug:

[donco6]

97. I'm beginning to wonder.

Wow. I had no idea there were this many racist apologists on DU.

[Decoy of Fenris]

84. Paul's comments may not immediately make him evil or racist.

What does, however, is the damning evidence of his other viewpoints, largely regarding DADT and gay rights. If he stuck to the "Libertarian" line completely in regards to those, then aye, you could probably pass off the potentially racist comments. However, as it stands, he has proven that he can and will cherry-pick, meaning he seems to pick the positions that he is in favor of. In this light (and in my opinion, this light alone), I (with roughly the same line of thought as you) think that he's exposed himself for the racist that he is.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[Junkie Brewster]

91. His comments don't make him evil

But they do indicate he is unsuited for office.

[donco6]

94. They should.

If they don't, then you're just as evil as he is.

[Frank Booth]

96. Robert Scheer had an interesting column on Rand Paul

Here's part of it:

"Count me as one lefty liberal who is not the least bit unhappy with the victory by Rand Paul in Kentucky’s Republican primary for the U.S. Senate. Not because it might make it easier for some Democratic Party hack to win in the general, but rather because he seems to be a principled libertarian in the mold of his father, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and we need more of that impulse in the Congress. What’s wrong with cutting back big government that mostly exists to serve the interests of big corporations? Surely it would be better if that challenge came from populist progressives of the left, in the Bernie Sanders mold, but this is Kentucky we’re talking about."
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/whos_afraid_of_rand_paul_20100518/


Personally, I don't think his comments with respect to the Civil Rights Act necessarily evidence any racism. Many racists say that government shouldn't interfere with them, just so they can continue being racist. But there are also principled libertarians. Whether a libertarian society would actually work is another question, but simply because you believe in libertarian principles does not make you racist.

[EFerrari]

103. Right. Being a racist makes you a racist. As other posters noted above,

Paul has no problem with being anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage and in supporting Gitmo, which puts his libertarian cred at issue.

Parry also points out that he called Obama "un-American" -- which, btw, is exactly what Palin did at her Klan rallies during the campaign.

[Spirochete]

104. The comments don't make him evil

it's the other way around - the evil that is him caused him to make the comments.

[treestar]

105. I don't that that it is evil, just over idealistic

also it is legally just wrong, since the Civil Rights Act has long been upheld. That ship has sailed and the libertarians need to get a grip. But one can always debate and argue endlessly and if it amuses people, OK.