I honestly don't think Rand Paul is a racist.....

[KansasVoter]

I know this is not going to be popular here but......

I honestly 100% think he is a die hard libertarian who honestly thinks the government does not need to tell you how to run your business.

I really do not think he dislikes any minority.

He is just a nutty anti-government anything type of guy.

I imagine he would have no issue with a minority owned business telling him he was not welcome.

I bet he hates minimum wage, FICA taxes, overtime pay, etc.

I do not agree with him, but I think his motive is "no government control of the private sector", not "I hate Minorities".

[hobbit709]

1. Look up his father's association with Stormfront

[Clintonista2]

64. So because his father is a racist, that automatically makes him a racist? Sheesh, sometimes I think

there should be IQ tests for registering here.

[hobbit709]

65. When they spout the same BS it looks suspicious.

[Clintonista2]

66. Then link to HIS bs. Don't post about his father expecting it to represent his own views

[hobbit709]

67. i won't bother to argue.

Goodbye

[Clintonista2]

69. Damn right you won't.

People like you rarely win when they argue with me. And I'd like to reaffirm my belief that DU should require an IQ test for people like you.

[hobbit709]

75. OOH!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

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

[quakerboy]

115. I suspect that you are ironically correct.

"People like you rarely win when they argue with me"

Too funny. You have a great day, ya hear me?

[billh58]

120. +100

[verges]

111. See reply #2.

[monmouth]

2. I also think many of his "nutty" opinions were learned at his father's knee....n/t

[Pamela Troy]

3. I've known sooooo many racists who insist,

"I CAN'T be a racist! I don't hate minorities! I just think....well..."

A racist is someone who believes that a person's race renders them inferior in some fashion. Hatred doesn't have to enter into it.

I'd be very, VERY interested to learn Rand Paul's opinion on THE BELL CURVE.

[DrToast]

4. No, he's not racist. And we should make sure the debate stays where it belongs

The real issue is that Rand Paul basically doesn't believe in government for virtually anything.

[DrToast]

11. Actually, let me put it this way: He may be racist, but this isn't what makes him racist

The fact that he wants to repeal the ADA doesn't make me think he hates disabled people. Same thing with the Civil Rights Act.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

56. how do expect disable people feel about HIM?

[orwell]

And yet...

...he wants to be in it.

I've never understood the paradox.

[sui generis]

5. I don't believe he's a real libertarian

He's more of a "fair weather" libertarian than the real deal - and he is certainly more of a social conservative than a personal freedoms proponent.

No government control of private sector is interpretable as privatize everything. Just remember, the free market will not prevent people upstream from pissing in your water, and there is ALWAYS someone upstream.

Agreed, he is nutty, and not in a good way.

[Wickerman]

10. Yep, and he sure as heck couldn't articulate his views worth damn

on the Rachel Maddow show last night. First time I'd heard him speak. Is he always that inarticulate or is he aware we are onto how much of a nut he is and just not smart enough to talk around his insanity?

[rurallib]

19. he makes me think of Thom Hartmann's definition of a libertarian

'a republican who wants to smoke dope and get laid.'

[krabigirl]

122. He's not.

[still_one]

6. If he is anything like his father then he certainly is. His father's comments on slavery

implying that it was simply a case of state's rights during the civil war, at a minimum is blatantly immoral, and the consequences are definitely racist

[craigmatic]

7. I think his ideology can lead to institutional racism.

That's the major flaw with libertarianism it proposes to just let things happen. We did that from the 1800's until the 1960's. The result was that people of one race usually paid more for less goods/services from businesses. You're right Paul might not be racist but some of his followers might be because of what it would mean for their increased ability not to have to serve hispanics or blacks.

[louis-t]

8. Sorry, I watched him dance on RM last night.

He tied himself in a few knots trying to show how he "wasn't racist". No sale.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

9. I'm sorry but I don't agree that Paul isn't racist. They use sophisticated coded language

like "limited government" and "states rights". As a daughter of the American South, these were always considered coded words for racists who wanted to shield themselves from those very accusations. What they do is couch these terms cogently in their ideology. But when you strip down to the bottom and uncover the underlying message, they are racists. The Pauls' association with Stormfront isn't just a coincidence, either.

[Frances]

17. Liberal_Stalwart71, I grew up in the South

and I think you are right.

However, I don't think many of these people do not have the courage to face up to the fact that they are racists.

They were brought up this way and since they loved their families and their neighbors. They didn't want to think rationally because they didn't want to lose the warm, loving relationships they had with those closest and dearest to them.

[WinkyDink]

31. Yeah, maybe two generations ago this would fly.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

35. I grew up in Atlanta, and my grandparents would tell us stories. They refered to

civil rights activists as "communists" because they couldn't use the N-Word as it was becoming unfashionable at that time. So they called everyone who disagreed with them "communists" and "fascists" (sound familiar?), and praised people like Joe McCarthy. I cringe when I hear people claim that they are for "states rights". In the south, we know damn well what that means. We know what the Confederacy stood for. To claim that they were simply protecting their "10th Amendment" rights is a lie. These people insult our intelligence and we're supposed to believe that their intentions are noble. Ron Paul is smart, as is his son. They know damn well what they are saying.

[tledford]

43. Life-long NC'er here and yes, "states' rights" means something very specific here. eom

[SkyDaddy7]

110. The same as religion is carried down generation to generation.

[Warren Stupidity]

103. Coded? like "I'm against the Civil Rights Act"? Ah I get it.

It is "the case of the purloined letter" code, where the racism is so up front and out in the open that people trip over and fall flat on their faces in their efforts to deny it.

[DrDan]

12. agree - but

not all his ideas are "nutty"

he wants to end the war and bring troops home
he wants to balance the budget
he wants term limits
wants to do away with the patriot act
is concerned over loss of civil liberties
is against Wall-Street bailouts

Sure - many of his ideas are nutty - HCR, Social Security, income tax, abortion etc. But not all.

[KansasVoter]

18. You are correct......

I might have worded the nutty part wrong.

I should have said "extreme"

[jobycom]

13. Not sure it matters. His policies would empower racism and allow mob rule

and that's racist. Maybe at heart he loves everybody and rejects his father's disgusting views, but his policy ideas are racist enough that it's a distinction without a difference.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. That's it - he's happy for others to be racist or similarly bigoted, and he wants their votes

He doesn't want to force, or persuade, anyone out of their bigotry. A politician should be willing to lead on principles, as well as reflect the views of their voters.

[Empowerer]

92. Exactly!

I couldn't care less how Rand Paul personally feels about minorities. I DO care about how his views and philosophy would translate into policy. The "I am not a racist" is a typical red herring that many people use to distract attention from the heart of the matter. They toss around these reprehensible views and then insist that, unless someone can prove unassailably that they personally hate minorities, those views cannot be questioned.

We need to call them on this kind of bull. You just did. Thank you.

[Flying Dream Blues]

131. That's right, but he doesn't admit this is true. Which means he is

either very naive (highly unlikely), or knows that his "vision" for America would result in racism, and doesn't care. Either way you look at it, it makes him unqualified, and in the latter case, despicable.

[Perky]

14. I don't think so either

But his incredibly inarticulate on Rachel Maddow last night in trying to justify no government infringement the rights of private individuals to associate with who they want associate with and to exclude those they don't


Incredibly inarticulate to the point where I don't think he is electable. Not because of racism but because of a lack of substance behind his philosophy and a lack of charisma and polish. It come across as something shallow and wonkish and dull

[Hell Hath No Fury]

15. He is an extremist idealogue.

I think his views on the Civil Rights acts are just an extention of his extreme idealogy. This shows just how dangerous that idealogy is.

No government interference into private business? There goes worker protections, there goes minimum wage, there goes environmental protections, there goes a whole host of things that we really need as a country to be healthy, safe, and prosperous.

I wish he were just a fucking racist!

[jenmito]

16. He's a proud teabagger whose base is racist and homophobic. He wants

them to be allowed to continue their racist/homophobic ways LEGALLY.

[KansasVoter]

20. I agree a % of his supporters are racist! n/t

[jenmito]

24. I haven't ever seen one teabagger tell another teabagger to put down his racist sign portraying

Obama as a voodoo medicine man or a monkey or whatever. They all condone it publicly.

[LiberalFighter]

21. If he wants the government to not have any control of the private sector

Than people like him should have their businesses in locations designated as government free. Those government free sectors would not be provided access to water and sewer lines, roads, phone service, etc. Require a toll for anyone from the sector entering government control sectors. Fire and police would not be allowed in those sectors which would also result in higher insurance rates for those businesses. Any goods produced in those sectors could not be sold in the government controlled sectors.

[southernyankeebelle]

23. It doesn't matter this man has no business talking like that. Just because he

doesn't believe its right to tell businesses who they can allow in their establishment doesn't mean its right in the first place. I he gets elected he is suppose to represent everyone. Look what is happening in VA with the new governor and AG. They are trying to turn the clock back. They would like nothing better than to take away peoples rights. No thanks, today they try to take away civil rights for blacks, muslims, asians and women. Tommorrow they will tell us our right to vote is taken away unless you make over $200,000 a year. Where is democracy? This man is a racist and for him to say otherwise is a lie. I would like to know the country club he belongs to allow minorities there? Has he hired minorities on his staff? I bet if he has minorities they are working as janitors, yard gardens etc.

[JVS]

25. Racist or not, Rand Paul doesn't care about black people. Seriously, for him the businessman's...

rights trump all.

Frankly I think he is racist though.

[rasputin1952]

26. Racism, sexism and a host of other "isms" are tossed out on a

regular basis, most on pretty spurious evidence.

One thing I can see w/Rand Paul though, and so can almost anyone else w/any sense at all...he's an idiot.



He has the charisma of sphagnum moss and will lose his bid for the Senate.

[totodeinhere]

55. We will see if he loses or not.

The tea party movement in inherently racist IMO, and I suspect that most of the tea party people who voted for him in the primary will like his comments about the civil rights act just fine. And the freepers are just going nuts over him now. To them he is a Reagan/Goldwater hybrid reincarnated. Of course they are very conveniently forgetting his views on our involvement in the war, but nevertheless I expect that his father's fund raising prowess in the 2008 campaign will transfer to his son now. He may well turn out to be a formidable general election candidate, especially in a volatile political climate like this one.

[rasputin1952]

73. i'm not so sure...

D's turned out nearly 2:1 compared to R's, and that's for a Primary; in a General, if the same stays true...he'll leave the political stage in in a basket.

But, we shall see who actually shows up to vote.

[totodeinhere]

74. I don't mean to sound so pessimistic, but...

last time Bunning received less votes than his Dem opponents in the primary but he went on to win anyway. Remember that they have a closed primary, and Dems are forced to vote in the Dem primary and they have a big registration edge. But a lot of Kentucky Democrats are very conservative and might vote Republican in the general.

On edit - I just saw that Rasmussen has Paul with a 25 point lead over Conway. http://preview.tinyurl.com/yc7vqgj

Yes, I know it's Rasmussen but that is a pretty big number.

[rasputin1952]

76. I understand...

and no one really knows how these things will pan out...but just listening to Paul, I think he's a complete idiot, and I'm betting that most people in KY are thinking the same thing. I don't call him an idiot lightly, I really think that a bag of potatoes has more sense, and charisma, than this clown.

[woo me with science]

112. +1

Watching him speak is like watching the campaign for president of the high school audio-visual club.

[KingFlorez]

27. I would have to agree

His answer just didn't sound like he was racist. He's very bold, so if he actually was racist, I don't think he'd have put it the way he did. I've heard much worse from right-wingers, his answer was tame in comparison to what someone like Tom Tancredo would have said.

[Sky Masterson]

28. I don't think that he thinks that he is a racist.

..

[WeDidIt]

29. I think your assessment is a load of horseshit

1) The Paul family has long held associations with white supremacist groups.

2) Rand Paul is so anti-government that he wants the government to always intervene and stop every abortion even in cases of rape or incest.

[frazzled]

30. Defending private businesses' right to discriminate makes you, effectively, racist

or sexist or agist or whatever. It's about practical outcomes, not beliefs.

This libertarian argument about private business (or private individuals), etc. is completely specious. It doesn't matter how many black or gay friends you have. When you defend the right of a hotel to refuse to rent a room to a black person, even if you disagree with it, you are furthering racism and discrimination. If laws did not exist to prevent hotels from discriminating, they would still be turning away American citizens.

By Rand Paul's argument, btw, he should absolutely be for rescinding DADT, since the military is a public institution engaged in discriminatory action. Did anyone ask him that to test his public/private theories? I'd be damned interested.

Libertarianism is a dishonest intellectual exercise, and I think it is a danger whether it is right libertarianism or left libertarianism.

[stray cat]

32. Should a small coffee shop have the right not to serve Bush, Cheney or Rush Limbaugh?

Paul would say I did not have to serve them -

[frazzled]

34. No

You could refuse to serve them, but they could sue you. And they'd probably win. You shouldn't be able to discriminate against people because of their political beliefs. That would be a harm to society.

Where would you draw the line regarding a business's right to conduct itself as it sees fit, free from government regulation?

Could they ignore worker safety regulations if they don't feel they believe in them?
Could they serve you unrefrigerated mayonnaise or bug-infested rice because that's a good business model for them?
Should they refuse to pay workers' comp or taxes because they disagree with them?

They're private, after all. This type of thinking about "private business" is appropriate for junior high school level thinkers, not for people interested in a functioning, just, and civil society.

[jberryhill]

89. No, they would lose

Most businesses can refuse service to anyone for any reason, so long as it is not an impermissible reason. Refusal on the basis of race is one example of an impermissible reason.

To take one example, OJ Simpson has been refused service in restaurants. Not because he is black, but because he is OJ Simpson. That's a perfectly acceptable reason, as it has nothing to do with some inalterable aspect of OJ Simpson's status as a person.

[Bucky]

102. That's an interesting question. The Civil Rights Act protects certain classes of people

You can still hang a "No shoes, no shirt, no moral fiber, no service" sign out front and tell the monkey and his enablers to go get their java from Starbucks instead. That's not discriminating on the basis or race, creed, or color.

[Warren Stupidity]

104. Not a protected class.

Consequently an analogy in search of a topic and oddly lost here.

[treestar]

79. To be fair to them they honestly believe

That a smart business person would naturally not refuse customers for stupid reasons.

I don't think they are right. But there's that argument that if one business won't serve blacks, hell, I will and I've got a whole bunch of new customers that idiot racist, my competitor, doesn't have.

And they honestly believe that if the black person is the best one for the job, the smart and later ultimately successful business will pick that person.

they are insane, but they believe it.

[jberryhill]

90. They are incorrect, as you mention, further...

Paul went on about how he opposes "violence".

I wish Rachel would have asked him about how, as a practical matter, a racially discriminatory business would enforce its policy, if non-whites desire to enter and do business.

Taking Paul at his word, he must by necessity take the side of a business owner who is using physical force to remove trespassers.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[polichick]

36. Perhaps, but his stance if turned into policy would enable racists. nt

[Phx_Dem]

37. I don't either. I think he's an extreme anti-government wacko.

[Enrique]

38. I think some people have those extreme views because they're racist

they have a strong urge to discriminate, and there's these federal laws preventing them from doing it, and so they build up an ideology around opposing federal authority.

[grantcart]

39. I'll believe it when one of his sons brings home a beautiful AA girl friend and Rand is overjoyed.

Racists have learned that they can't express their own feelings and have to run under a 'false flag'.

[mstinamotorcity]

40. Bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes he can and yes he does. That double talk may have fooled you but if you believe that then I have this bridge off Jefferson Ave I would like to sell you for twenty dollars.:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Arkana]

41. Sorry, Paul's a social conservative.

He hates government intervention in private life, but supports banning abortion (even in the case of rape, incest, or when the health of the mother is at stake) and opposes gay marriage in ANY form.

Paul is a racist nutcase who does not deserve respect from anyone with a brain. He's his psychotic father in miniature.

[Flying Dream Blues]

91. Otherwise known as a hypocrite. nt

[NoGOPZone]

42. I do. nt

[Dawgs]

44. "I'm not a racist, but there are too many niggers on tv."

My racist grandfather in-law said this to me. Would you believe him too?

Geez!! Rand Paul is publicly supporting bringing back "Whites Only" signs, and you're saying he's not a racist.

Christ!

[Ter]

46. He doesn't want to bring back those signs at all

n/t

[Dawgs]

48. Really? He said that businesses should be able to allow 'whites only'.

How is that different than bringing back the signs?

[Ter]

53. You said "he" wants to do it

Mega difference, as he would not put up those signs in his business even if it were allowed. He's just so "private businesses can do whatever they want" it's scary.

[uponit7771]

58. LOFl!!!

[Ter]

45. Agreed 100%

This guy is not Jesse Helms. Hell, he's not even Pat Buchanan. I don't believe he has a problem being around minorities.

[msanthrope]

49. Is not having a "problem being around minorities" the new "But we have Black neighbors?" n/t

[uponit7771]

59. Nah, just thinking it's not the governments place that a bank would discriminate against us for ex

[Raine1967]

47. I do think he is.

What he is promoting is not very different from Jim Crow or the very things that brought about the civil war.

I understand what you are saying, and I appecriate it. Many libertarians like to revise history to fit what they want the world to be, instead of working with the reality -- he is throwing people under the bus for his political gain -- An awful lot of racists did and said the very same things.

[Aramchek]

50. sure, he's not a racist. He just thinks businesses should be able to throw African Americans out

if they want to.

:sarcasm:

[MgtPA]

54. He thinks businesses should be able to throw HIM out if they want to.

Libertarian 101

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. But he doesn't expect them too. Cause he's white.

Racism 101.

[uponit7771]

60. ...and if 99% of private banks throw out 99% of minorities it's ok with him.

[KansasVoter]

63. I bet he would think whites could be thrown out also.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[tishaLA]

51. So he only wants to enable racism...

And discrimination against people with disabilities?

[blueworld]

52. IMO that's the most irrelevant part of his whole position

Whether he is personally racist or not (and I agree with you he's probably not) his stance is that the Feds should not step in to help victims & underdogs, but rather let individuals & businesses fight it out. That's every bit as bad as being a racist.

What's the quote, "evil thrives when good men do nothing"? Is that it? I believe that Libertarian position is playing itself out in every third-world country on the planet. Think Rwanda, Haiti, Darfur, whatever.

This is the US. Our democracy is built on law. I would prefer the law stay out of my bedroom, my refrigerator etc. but security is one of the main functions of this stellar government. Everyone's security. We don't tolerate institutionalized repression here.

[Uzybone]

61. he wasnt wearing a white sheet was he? He cant be racist.

[BootinUp]

62. Sure, who knows, the only evidence is he uses the same

states rights, private business rights type of arguments as every racist apologizer and enabler these days. He specifically stated he had problems with the Civil RIghts Act, I couldn't care too much what his motiviations are, just the inevitable results of having dimwits like that in the US Senate.

[CBR]

68. If his policy positions result in/lead to racism then I do

not care about his personal opinions. That is racism enough for me.

[elleng]

70. Ditto, Kansas.

:fistbump:

Check my recent posts, and responses, when you have nothing better to do!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=433&topic_id=306581&mesg_id=306581


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=433&topic_id=306581&mesg_id=306581

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=466558&mesg_id=466658

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=466558&mesg_id=466661

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=466558&mesg_id=466815

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8376747&mesg_id=8377459

[Prism]

71. Even if he is not, his ideology is

And I'm not talking about the classical liberal forms of libertarianism or the utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill.

We're talking about how states rights became folded into the framework of modern, popular Libertarianism - the kind often embraced by college students before their political thinking becomes more complex. Rand seems possessed of this simplistic form, and it's within this form that the rollback of racial protections became popularized under the rubric of less government.

This kind of rhetoric is a racist poison pill buried in libertarian vernacular.

Does Rand know this? Maybe, maybe not. He doesn't seem alarmingly bright to me, and his libertarianism does seem of the simplistic variety. I could buy that he's clueless of the ideological heritage of his current beliefs. But that doesn't excuse his ignorance of the genesis of these ideas, which are firmly rooted in Jim Crow South put on the retreat starting in the 1960s and looking for escape routes well into our modern political system. Libertarianism is just one of the many host ideologies the old segregationist states' rights advocates use to fly under the radar.

Does that characterize all Libertarianism? No, not at all. And I'm sympathetic to the kind that seeks to halt the increasing nanny-statism of our government. But this whole "No racial protections ever!" is not, and should not be, tolerated or allowed the pretense that it isn't the heir of some seriously racist thinking.

[Hippo_Tron]

72. He's either a racist or he has no fucking clue how the world works

If he really in his heart of hearts believes that black people will not be discriminated against if we were to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964 then you're right he's not a racist. He's just fucking stupid.

[Karenina]

77. That just means you're unable to be truly HONEST.

But I DO understand WHY. It just makes me sad...

[TheKentuckian]

78. How much effective difference is there?

If the man supports policies that would end public accommodation and I have to assume hiring as well as housing discrimination then does it matter in any real sense what he believes in his heart?

The guy is running for Senate not for someone's friend or something.

[Egnever]

80. Me either

[JI7]

82. so why does he want to ban abortion rights ?

[Colobo]

83. You are probably right.

[saltpoint]

84. As Rachel Maddow pointed out to Rand Paul yesterday, a restaurant

privately owned would, under Paul's general approach, be able to hang a sign out front that read, "We do not serve people of color" or "No Asians, please," and so forth.

Discriminatory and polarizing on mere grounds that the restaurant is privately owned.

If that privately owned and discriminatory restaurant caught fire in the middle of the night, would it be Paul's position that the local fire station should not send a truck and crew to extinguish the blaze? Public tax dollars are involved in city and county services. Should the Fire crew be comprised only of white people?

Also, would Paul hold that small business benefits in tax and financial matters be withheld from a restaurant which, owing to its being privately owned, should not receive the benefits of the public sector in any form?

[Hansel]

85. I honestly don't care and it isn't the point.

The fact that he is pandering to racists in order to get votes and is giving a voice to them on issues that don't deserve a voice is enough for me to have absolutely no respect for him.

Maybe not everyone who uses racism to try rise to the top politically is a racist. In fact, for those who are not, if they are not, it is almost worse. Because theoretically they know better but just don't care as long as they get what they want. Sounds like a sociopath or narcissist to me.

[MadMaddie]

86. So many things to say and so little time so you keep believing

that little ditty.

He expressed exactly what his beliefs are and he can't take it back.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

87. I think there is a fine line between being racist and being completely unaware and obtuse about

white privilege. if you want to make the distinction, i suppose you can. i dont.

[Paladin]

88. He's Giving Public Aid And Comfort To Racist Sentiment In This Country.

Whatever his personal views are, they don't matter.......

[Raineyb]

93. Then I honestly think that you are blind.

Whether it is willful or not I haven't determined.

[golfguru]

94. Doe this make me a racist?

My heritage is east Indian. I think I am just as good as any
white European heritage person! I can say that because of achieving a
master's degree in Engineering from a big 10 university with close to
straight A average grades. In my working career, starting at the bottom,
I reached corporate management position by out working and out smarting
every "white" co-workers, most of whom I got along very nicely except
for the few who were jealous of an Indian being promoted ahead of them.

I do not think any "race" has superior brains. It is more individual
effort and characteristics.

As for Rand Paul, I am reserving my verdict on his racial views.
Just do not know enough of this dude yet. By November 2010, we should
all find out what his racial views really are.

[kiranon]

95. If the effect of his beliefs is to deny civil rights to a group of people based

on an immutable characteristic, he is a racist (minorities), sexist (woman), against the Americans With Disabilities Act (disabled persons) and so on. I imagine he covers a lot of ground and, in the days to come, more categories can be added. Apparently, he is also an anti environmentalist regarding BP's oil saturation of the tide lands, marshes and beaches. He has led a protected life and sees no reason to help anyone else. His beaches aren't covered with oil. He has never been denied service in a restaurant or admission to medical school. He is not disabled. So it is all not his problem.

[lunatica]

96. What's the difference between a racist and a racist enabler?

[Warren Stupidity]

105. 3?

[Skidmore]

97. His philosophical bend allows for systemic racism, and if he cannot or will not reconcile

his philosphy to reality then he is a racist in fact. Allowing for discrimination to occur because you are unwilling to consider a superseding role for government to legislate equality and justice is no excuse either. His philosophy permits the injustice of discrimination by race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and whatever other exclusionary criteria could be used against others. Giving this man a pass is opening the door for the devil.

[Dr Morbius]

98. You are not far off. Rand Paul's problem isn't racism.

It's a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom and government. He gets it wrong not because he is himself racist. He gets it wrong because he thinks freedom permits racism.

Freedom comes from ability and the acceptance of consequences. Your freedom to speak stems from your ability to speak. If you were made in such a way that you can string sentences together, you should be allowed to do so... provided you do not trod upon the freedom of another. The minute you open your mouth, however, you take ownership of whatever comes out. You take responsibility. So freedom and responsibility are linked.

Let me put it this way: suppose I slapped you across the face. Now, I'm sure you'd be quite cross and might even want to hit me back, but think of this: could you blame my hand? Could I get away with saying it was just my hand? Of course not, because my hand has no free will of it's own. My hand is the unthinking instrument of my mind; to be held accountable, my hand would have to possess free will. My hand would have to be able to decide. In the same way, if citizens are to be held accountable for their own actions, they must be free to act on their own choices.

Freedom, however, requires justice. Justice in this sense is defined as everyone getting what they deserve, and to be free to act on my own choices, I deserve to be left alone. Interference is the definition of injustice. Government shouldn't interfere with my life: Rand Paul gets this much. But where his ideology fails is that he doesn't see that no one else should interfere with my life either, and the prime function of government - the establishment of justice - is to defend me against this interference. Interference includes robbing me; I have earned my property and taking it from me is a violation of my rights. Crime is an interference. And also, segregation is an interference; it is an injustice to deny employment or commerce on the basis of race or gender preference or physical impairment. Government has laws designed to preserve freedom by limiting and punishing crime, and by trying to limit or even hopefully eliminate discrimination.

You can't have freedom without justice. Without law and enforcement systems behind it, the law of the jungle takes over. The bigger, the stronger, and the better armed get what they want. Only the predators are free in the jungle; everyone else is just food. Rand Paul's problem is that he doesn't understand this. He doesn't understand that freedom simply cannot exist in a society without government, and for some reason he thinks freedom includes the right to do harm unless specifically prohibited by law. Doing harm is the definition of abuse of freedom.

Freedom <> Justice <> Personal Responsibility. You can't truly have any of these without the other two.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[elana i am]

100. well, since libertarianism is an inherently racist

political philosophy then yes, i would have to say he is a racist by virtue of being a libertarian.

i can't wrap my mind around anyone thinking that actively discriminating is ok and not being a racist themselves. i draw the line at freedom of speech. certain types of hate speech are protected, and that's bad enough. but libertarians step over the line and allow for active discrimination. how is a person who believes in the right to actively discriminate (even if he may not discriminate himself) not still a racist?

[krabigirl]

123. is it really? All forms of it? of course it isn't.

I'm a left libertarian and both the power of government and corporations need to be limited. i guess i am a racist? LMAO...

[Bucky]

101. Here's another "I agree, but..."

He's lived a life sheltered by his profession. He's worked hard for his money, after his father pushed him to get a good professional background and a steady income. He just doesn't understand what cultural discrimination can do to people, how a "tyranny of the majority" to borrow Mr Madison's wording, can deprive people of basic rights.

The people of color he meets are either fellow professionals who don't encounter enough racial discrimination to be worth talking about or patients who are generally deferential to their eye doctor for the expertise and courtesy he shows them. He seems like a well mannered guy who just lacks the empathy to understand that not everyone has it as easy as him.

Because he hasn't experienced it, it can't imagine that it really exists. Therefor it's just a philosophical problem, not a concrete harm that happens to real people when they're economically vulnerable. But people who are economically vulnerable just don't ever go to see the ophthalmologist.

He's not a racist, sure, but he's a very bright guy who just happens to be stupid about what life is like for other people.

[Warren Stupidity]

106. Honestly I do. nt.

[ZombieHorde]

107. His desires are bigoted. nt

[era veteran]

108. He revels in his racist supporters

I am a white Southerner, I am past 50 and let me tell you. Rand fucking Paul is a racist. I know lots of guys like him. He may be a libertarian, whatever that may be, but he certainly is a racist.

[allincompassing]

109. + 1000

If Rand Paul is not racist, then neither was David Duke! I'm in my 50's as well, the link for Mr. Duke is as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke

In other words, don't let the smooth talk fool YA!

[Skip Intro]

114. Agreed. nt

[PopSixSquish]

116. He Most Certainly is Racist or is Perfectly Ok With Enabling Racism

and anyone who would defend him or cut him any slack needs to take a good long look in the mirror...

[CLANG]

117. Maybe not, but he's certainly an idiot

[KansasVoter]

118. I AGREE 100%

[TTUBatfan2008]

119. I fully agree...

The thing about libertarianism is that it sounds good in theory until you start asking the hard questions. Should there be regulation to keep Wall Street in check? Should there be regulation to keep the food companies in check? Should there be regulation to keep the car companies in check? Every one of these industries have a huge impact on American lives. Whether it's the derivatives mess, dangerous foods, lead poisoning, car safety issues, etc.

One might argue that the market will "take care of it," but at the cost of what? How many major fuckups have to happen before that company goes out of business and consumers choose their competitor? How many people would have to be harmed by a prescription drug or food product from a certain company before the market corrects the situation? Regulation is necessary, if for no other reason than preventing widespread problems for the American people before they have a chance to tell that particular company to screw off by not buying their product.

[krabigirl]

121. He's not. People who say that are reacting out of emotion imo. I don't agree with him on that but ro

he was trying to discuss a esoteric viewpoint but people hear that and recall years of discrimination and think he is advocating that.

[scrabblequeen40]

124. I honestly think he's a racist.

Supporting a racist system, policy or comment and then
covering your ass by saying things like "but I'm not a
racist. I would never condone such behavior..."  is a
tried-and-true, uncreative strategy.  So not only is Rand a
racist. He is uncreative.

[axxxel]

125. There is more to a society than the law

He's not supporting the racist businesses by not supporting a law against their behavior! You've got some loops in your logic.

Please compare his acting to the famous quote "I do not support your opinion, but I am willing to die for your right to express it"!

The racists must have their right to talk and run businesses the way they like (as long as they don't force or hurt anyone) or society ceases to be free. Anti-racism must not become as oppressive as racism or it's game over for liberty. Racism sucks and reality is going to make that very clear to the racists. We might not need a law for that.

Rand is not in favor of racist laws, he is against some laws that specifically target racism in business.

Racism is stupid and a cancer tearing the world apart, but these laws are not the best way to deal with the issue.

[DRoseDARs]

126. Even the President/CEO of the NAACP doesn't think he's a racist; said so on TRMS.

Rand is really more of your typical Libertarian: Their ideas for governance might sound good on paper, but really more akin to a bunch of drunk guys drafting their Fantasy Football picks. We already tried a libertarian form of governance, the founding document was called the Articles of Confederation (had nothing to do with the Confederate States of the mid-1800s). That government was non-functional and failed miserably to govern the former 13 Colonies. The US Constitution was drafted a few years later and has been with us ever since.

[opihimoimoi]

127. whadever he is...he stinks and cannot pass the smell test...Old Spice ain't working

[Blue_Tires]

128. if you're saying he wasn't pandering to racists, then WHY did he mention it?

with all the relevant libertarian issues being played out in current events, what is being accomplished by going after the Civil Rights Act?

can even the most extreme RW chambers of commerce in the reddest states argue with a straight face that being made to serve all people has actually been BAD for business over the decades?

Does that mean I think Paul wears a white sheet when not in public?? No... Is it still a shamelessly racist justification to rally his base? Yes

[cornermouse]

129. I don't care what he is or isn't for.

He's not on my list of people to vote for.

[DailyGrind51]

130. "Libertarians" are ideologically racists because they believe that "the market" is more important

than the the civil rights of minorities.