HE1FiNEARTiST
Banned
Rand can't watch though, unless he pays $100
Rand Paul: Racist
- Thread starter Jagger69
- Start date
freedom of speech only goes so far. they have the right to say i hate blacks, mexicans, asians, gays and anything else these insecure individuals my come up with. But they can't infringe on anyone elses rights though.
A person has the right to hate..but that person does not have the right to execute their hate towards someone.
* First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, Freedom of Religion, and of assembly; right to petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
ChuckieB-
No duhLet's change it then. And if Dr. Paul's views about tolerating hate speech and overturning the Civil Rights Act come to fruition than we, as a society, should reject this sad loophole and close it. :wave2: Hell, we should close it now.
Did you listen to the entire interview? He clearly said he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act, its just there would have been more discussion involving the governments role in interfering with private business.
You may disagree with that his idealogy about government's role in how private businesses can be run but don't label someone a racist who clearly is not.
PirateKing
█▀█▀█ █ █
Of course he's not racist, he's just willing to encourage racism if it means less government intervention.
It doesn't encourage racism though anymore than the First Amendment encourages hate speech. The price of freedom means that unfortunately we as a society have to put up with hateful speech. Saying you have a right to be a racist doesn't mean that you are encouraging racism.
I don't know if he is a racist because I suspect he has racist followers who would open segregated businesses which he would patronize. :dunno:
I did listen to the interview. He said he agreed with 9 out of 10 provisions in the Civil Rights Bill. The 10th provision would allow for private enterprise to segregate. I didn't hear him actually say he would have voted for the Act because he seemed to say that he wouldn't vote for a piece of legislation if he didn't agree with it completely. He does not agree with the Civil Rights Act completely.
He said he would not tolerate the diners who instituted the sit-in getting beaten, but he seems oblivious to the inciting incident which caused the violence in the first place--segregation.
I don't think he can have it both ways.
PirateKing
█▀█▀█ █ █
Freedom of speech is a different matter. What's the point in giving businesses the freedom to discriminate based on race. That's the question.
He clearly stated that he would never patronize a business that practiced segregation. He said this numerous time throughout the interview.
Like I said any business that practices segregation in this day in age would go out of business soon.
It's drawing an unacceptable distinction and perhaps it's time our society addresses these loopholes. If Dr Paul is against racism in Gov't but wants to restrict Gov't's influence, it seems like he and the Libertarians don't actually believe in anything worthwhile to me. Our society would regress under this kind of thinking.
Would the tea party movement exist if Obama was a white president?
It is a belief that the government does not have a right to interfere with private business. We can argue about the role government has in private business. However, to label someone as racist for this belief as the original poster did is illogical especially after Rand Paul stated numerous times he is against racism in any form.
Why does something need to be protected if it is flawed?
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
i watched it, but i was distracted by the delicious fried chicken, greens and watermelon that i was eating at the time ( that was a bone, go fetch it boy ).
If it were up to Dr. Paul, segregated lunchcounters and restrooms would be back in vogue.
????
thats just not true.
how many times does he have to say he is against racism and segregation and thinks its terrible for you to get it through your head?
what did he say that was racist?
this was just a twenty minute exercise of trying to snag the guy in a racial trap.
his last words said it all.
hes against racism but also against gov regulation of private business.
he only said he would have, if he was a politician at the time, change the way some things were worded in the act and all of a sudden "ooh he's a racist"...c'mon.
admit it, you guys like politicians that have no balls, no values but a million dollar smile.
I just loves those pearly whites!
I don't know which is worse, actual racism or trying to make something that isn't racist appear racist.
So many are worried about illegal mexicans getting asked for ID when they get arrested but none have a problem with the fact that they have to watch every fucking word they say in order to not get accused of racism, sexism and predjudice in that shell of its former self country.
If it were up to Dr. Paul, segregated lunchcounters and restrooms would be back in vogue.
????
thats just not true.
how many times does he have to say he is against racism and segregation and thinks its terrible for you to get it through your head?
what did he say that was racist?
this was just a twenty minute exercise of trying to snag the guy in a racial trap.
his last words said it all.
hes against racism but also against gov regulation of private business.
he only said he would have, if he was a politician at the time, change the way some things were worded in the act and all of a sudden "ooh he's a racist"...c'mon.
admit it, you guys like politicians that have no balls, no values but a million dollar smile.
I just loves those pearly whites!
I don't know which is worse, actual racism or trying to make something that isn't racist appear racist.
So many are worried about illegal mexicans getting asked for ID when they get arrested but none have a problem with the fact that they have to watch every fucking word they say in order to not get accused of racism, sexism and predjudice in that shell of its former self country.
I think you have a very negative view of the American public then if you think that we would automatically regress if this ONE PART of the Civil Rights Act was overturned. You really think "Whites Only" or "Blacks Only" signs would start appearing in restaurants all over the place. I highly doubt it.
And seriously, are we really getting into the whole if Obama was white would the tea party movement exist area? Most people in the tea party or not racist and are truly concerned about government spending. Yes there are idiots like Beck and Palin and other fringe elements just like in any other movement.
Besides Obama is half CAUCASIAN.
The history of America is built on racist acts committed against Native American Indians, whom we still practice segregation against today, and against african-americans, and chinese rail workers, and japanese-americans, among a whole lot of other things. The melted pot metaphor has a lot of tarnish on it.
The Civil Rights Act was meant to address institutional injustice. A politician advocating for separate standards between public enterprise and private enterprise opens the door for all kinds of slippery slopes which would move the nation backward, not forward.
The Civil Rights Act was meant to address institutional injustice. A politician advocating for separate standards between public enterprise and private enterprise opens the door for all kinds of slippery slopes which would move the nation backward, not forward.
But how would Obama prove that to a business in Kentucky that happens to choose to practice segregation?
i watched the first seven minutes of the first video... and saw NOTHING that was even remotely racist...
in fact... the whole time Rand Paul talks about how awful racism is and how is should be removed completely from society!
in fact... the whole time Rand Paul talks about how awful racism is and how is should be removed completely from society!
True but the history of every country is based on the exploitation of another race, ethnicity, or religious belief. But we have made great strides to correct these dark periods in our history.
We do not still practice segregation of Native Americans. Not sure where you came up with this. We have given them their ancestoral native land.
As for slippery slopes, some believe letting government dictate how privat businesses can be run is also a very slippery slope. We just need intelligent dabate on which slope is more slippery and not go down the road of calling someone a racist.
The free market will decide that very shortly when that place goes out of business.
Similar threads
