Rand Paul: Racist
- Thread starter Jagger69
- Start date
PirateKing
█▀█▀█ █ █
I lol'ed at this.
Racism and Discrimination amount to someone getting their feelings hurt. Should the government be so powerful that it can intrude into a private business to make sure nobodys feelings are hurt? Should the government be so powerful that it can force you to have good manners inside your own house? This issue has nothing to do with race, it has to do with the government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, it has to do with tyranny. You want to live in a police state where its a crime to offend anyone? You want to live in a government work camp? Is it better to be free but with the chance of some people getting their feelings hurt, or a slave but your feelings will not be hurt? With freedom comes responsibility, if you live in a padded room you will never skin your knee, if you go outside and run free you may fall down and hurt yourself. The size of the government is out of hand, people should have the common sense to police themselves, only babies need everything regulated and taken care of by the government.
Supafly
Retired Mod
Freedom is allowing racism, if it stays in small business and only allowing people to scream that shit on the streets?
I am glad here in Germany we do not allow any fucked up racists to do shit like that - and the people are standing up a lot more against those haters now.
Rand Paul hopefully will not get so many votes... but if he does - you know America has a serious problem
I am glad here in Germany we do not allow any fucked up racists to do shit like that - and the people are standing up a lot more against those haters now.
Rand Paul hopefully will not get so many votes... but if he does - you know America has a serious problem
Reality stands in stark contrast to your belief.
We had that kind of "freedom" from 1865 to 1965.
It led to generations of americans being second class citizens, at best.
The election of a black president is an indication most of us have made great strides, but there's no question whatsoever that the astounding level of irrational hatred for this president is at least in part racially inspired.
Excuse me? :rofl:
A perfect example of how the rabid anti PC crowd can completely lose touch with reality flylicker
Yes, damn the tyranny of the federal government. How dare they abolish slavery, and institutionalized discrimination
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Send me a private message if you want to discuss that post, Scott. I'm not hijacking my own thread.
No....I'm not saying your sister is racist. Your sister made a personal choice that does not affect the rights of others so the analogy is moot. Business owners who would arbitrarily ban people from patronizing their establishments due to race, ethnic origin or religion are racist. It's really that simple, Scott.
Rand Paul thinks it's perfectly fine for private businesses to be run as they see fit....including the barring of person's based on the bigoted justifications I just listed. If that isn't, at the very least, condoning the practice of racism, I don't know what is.
I'm against politicians who want to encourage the practice of racism and that's exactly what Rand Paul intimated. Perhaps he is not personally racist in a overt fashion as many have mentioned here, but he indicated unequivocally that he would be quite willing to sit idly by and let discriminatory practices be conducted by private businesses since he believes the government has no right to tell them what to do in that regard. Back in the days of the Third Reich, there were many who turned a blind eye to the atrocities of the holocaust....they were patently aware that is was happening and did nothing to try to stop it. Their inaction was a tacit affirmation that the practice of slaughtering millions of innocent people was OK by them. Does that not make them culpable?
A question for all of you who would defend Dr. Paul's position:
Do you support the right of individual business owners to use discriminatory practices to bar individuals of certain racial, ethnic or religious backgrounds from entering or patronizing their businesses?
If the answer is yes, your are a RACIST.
If the answer is no, then you cannot support Dr. Paul's position.
It does NOT make one a racist if they believe that private businesses have a right to practice segregation. To say otherwise is completely illogical. It is the equivalent of saying people who believe in freedom of speech which allows for hate speech are advocates of hate speech and are also racist. You can not make a blanket statement like that.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
The Civil Right Act of 1964 prohibits such practices. Your right to spew hate speech is protected under the first amendment. There is no comparison between the two situations.
Again, if you condone the empowerment of private business owners to use discriminatory practices to ban people of certain racial, ethnic or religious backgrounds, that is a racist position. To argue otherwise is simply incorrect....I'm sorry, Chuckie. I don't know how more plain it could be. I'm assuming that you do condone it since you seem to arguing so vociferously on its behalf here. :dunno:
It is not a racist position though. The position is based on a belief that gov't does not have a right to intrude on how private businesses are run. I don't know how more plain it could be. You may disagree with me and say we need these type of laws because they are beneficial to society as a whole which can lead to intelligent debate. However, when you say you are racist if you believe that private businesses do have a right to conduct there own affairs then you are simply trying to intimidate someone to believe your way and if they don't brand them as a racist. Doing this does not allow for intelligent debate about the subject.
Of course you are correct but as someone who is probably on the other side of you politically let me ask this?
Is this issue really one of the more vital ones in america today.Personally I don't think one of the big problems in america is whether or not lunch counters should have the right in theory to discriminate racially.The mere mention of it by Rand Paul makes me think there is some sort of racial pandering going on here on his part.He may not be racist but he is giving voice to racist sentiments on the part of some whites by such.
And to those who have mentioned things like the election of Obama or having sex with a minority or the worst one "some of my best friends are black":1orglaugh as examples of a lack of racial bias really need to think some more as none of those prove any such thing.
Obama was elected in spite of his race due to yes some less amount of racism in the country but also just because the country (voters) were feeling turned off enough by the republicans to cast the vote for the black guy.But make no mistake their is still a lot of white racism in the country it may go more unheard these days due to so called political correctness (is that really a bad thing though) but we whites know how prevelant it still is.Even Glenn Beck once said he was shocked at a function he was at of all whites in a southern state how racist the talk was among themselves when they were in a place they thought the talk was OK
And just having sex with someone doesn't prove you think their race is equal.White masters had sex all the time with slaves for example.
And the old being friends line doesn't show lack of racial bias eitheir.Just cause your friendly with someone doesn't mean you see them as an equal.
People can talk about how Paul and the Tea party aren't being racist but I think there is alot of underlying racism being heard from both.
It's all nothing new, the republicans have used race as a wedge issue since the 60s and at times done well with that stragedy.But the country (demographics) and times (racism is less tolerated) have changed,places like Kentucky are just still more backward yet apparently.Good ole Dixie. :1orglaugh
What I gathered from the video is that Rand Paul is apparently not a racist himself and doesn't think the government should be either (ie laws etc) but he does believe that individual people (inc business owners etc) should be allowed to refuse to serve/sell/accomodate whoever they wish to exclude even if that is in terms of race or sexual orientation. This implies he is happy to let the individual be racist or homophobic, which I think is quite dangerous in a country that quite frankly filled with racists. I don't even know why the country is called the United States Of America as United is one word the people are not. This is something I've never understood from what is effectively a nation of immigrants whose roots of any group (ex native indians) cannot exceed 400 years at the most (give or take 50-100 years I dunno). Best split now and become smaller nations based on race or political beliefs before you pass that law as it will produce the same outcome anyway.:fight:
A similar story we had in the UK where a gay couple were refused entry to a hotel as the owners said it infringed on their religious beliefs, it was both illegal according to our equality legislation and caused outrage amongst the public and politicians here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/21/gay-couple-refused-hotel-room
A similar story we had in the UK where a gay couple were refused entry to a hotel as the owners said it infringed on their religious beliefs, it was both illegal according to our equality legislation and caused outrage amongst the public and politicians here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/21/gay-couple-refused-hotel-room
I completely agree with you that it is not one of the more important issues that the US is dealing with right now. I even concede some points that have been made that the law against private businesses practicing segragation is good for the country as a whole. I just firmly disagree with labeling someone a racist who believes that private businesses do have a right to practice segragation as a racist. Once the conversation takes that route we can no longer debate the real issue of private rights versus the good of society as a whole.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
I am certain that your have never been to Louisiana then. :1orglaugh
Dude....one more time and then I'm going to quit banging my head on a wall.
Liberty does not mean you have complete freedom to do anything you please. That's why we have laws. It prevents us from falling into anarchy and from violating the human rights of our fellow citizens. This is true even as it applies to your ongoing example of the 1st amendment. The use of freedom of expression is not as unrestricted as you have been pontificating in this thread. Are you familiar with the Schenck v. United States decision by the US Supreme Court back in 1919? If not, I suggest you take a look at it. Contrary to what you may believe, you are not free to express yourself in any manner you wish. There are limitations. Look it up.
Likewise, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discriminatory practices by both public and private institutions. If you do not agree with the provisions of the Act ....if you condone the practice of racism....if you believe that businesses have the right to discriminate based on race, ethnicity or religion....that is a racist position. Perhaps you are not a practicing racist as far as overt actions may be concerned but your belief system regarding such matters is unquestionably racist. There's really no room for argument (at least not a rational one).
You may continue to disagree and maintain otherwise if that is your predilection (your right to free speech!) but the facts of this matter remain nonetheless unaltered by any subjective assertion that You Might make to the contrary.
You are correct, I have never been to Louisiana.
I never said that you have the right to free expression in any manner, certainly not when it comes to insubordination, I said free speech protects hate speech. As far as the "facts of the matter remain", what facts are you talking about. It is simply your OPINION that believing in private rights in regards to segregation is unquestionable racist. As I have said numerous times that is akin to saying that a person has a right to say racist things is in of itself racist. Do you believe a person has a right to say racist things?
Reality stands in stark contrast to your belief.
1)We had that kind of "freedom" from 1865 to 1965.
It led to generations of americans being second class citizens, at best.
2)The election of a black president is an indication most of us have made great strides, but there's no question whatsoever that the astounding level of irrational hatred for this president is at least in part racially inspired.
3)Excuse me? :rofl:
A perfect example of how the rabid anti PC crowd can completely lose touch with reality flylicker
Yes, damn the tyranny of the federal government. How dare they abolish slavery, and institutionalized discrimination
1) oh really. I bet the demonstrations in little rock in 1965, were not enough. Because there are those who contribute to the country and those who are like parasites or scum.
2) Great stride???? You have elected a guy with a more than questionable personality and questionable beliefs. A community organizer who was only good for uniting the america of the poor, the ghetto crowd, oprah, reverend jesse jackson and all. Yet, you still think it is an America like that real patriotic Americans wanted. That is completely false. Plus he is trying to implement socialism in the USA, wondering how it is not anti American
3) Tyranny? Look at the healthcare system and don't tell me it is not a tyranny. Paying for unwilling to work and lazy parasites is a tyranny.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Not analogous situations. Of course someone can say racist things. Someone saying racist things does not prevent anyone from eating lunch where they choose, riding in the front of a bus or living in any neighborhood they wish. Big difference.
You haven't said so but I'm going way out on a limb here and guess that you are Caucasian. Am I correct? If so, do you think it's OK for a black shopkeeper to tell you that you are unwelcome in his store? How about neighborhood management companies preventing white people from buying homes and living there? Do you think that to support someone's right to block Caucasians from entering a place of business or prevent them from living where they choose is not a display of racist tendencies? If so, it can only be deduced that you believe that it's "OK" for someone to be a racist. Racism is going to exist (on every side of the racial spectrum). However, to acknowledge or condone its right to exist is in and of itself a racist attitude.
Do you think it is acceptable for someone to defend another's right to be a child molester? Now there is an analogous situation.
You criticize my comparison of freedom of speech to freedom to segregate private business and then say defending someone's right to be a racist is similar to defending someone's right to be a child molester. Very weak argument.
I do believe a black shopkeeper has the right to say I am not welcomed in his store because it is HIS store. I don't think the gov't has a right to interfere in private business. Saying someone has the right to be a racist does not mean I believe it is "OK" to be a racist. You keep on trying to make this connection that does not exist. I believe that people have a fundamental right in this country to be racist if they want to, DOES NOT MEAN I CONDONE IT. What don't you understand about this?
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
No, no you're not defending someone's right to be a racist. Hell, I'll defend someone's right to be a racist....I have no right to tell someone how to think. However, you (and Dr. Paul) are defending someone's right to deny rights guaranteed by the Civil Rights Act because they are a racist. Huge difference. I used the child molester analogy because it is totally appropos....that is, both activities are illegal, are morally and ethically abhorrent and deny human beings of their human rights.
You don't believe government has the right to "interfere" in private business huh? OK....how about some recent events that have been promulgated by the lack of regulation of....oh, let's just pick the banking industry and the oil industry for two examples? How's that laizzez faire philosophy of yours working out for us all right now, Chuckie? Saying the government doesn't have a right to regulate private enterprise is akin to saying they have no right to regulate individual behavior either. Somewhere along the line, there have to be some limits on what anyone in the public or private domain can or cannot do. I know it sucks but that's how society operates.
You're the one making the connection for me. You just said the black shopkeeper has the right to throw you out of his store for no other reason than he doesn't like white folks. The black shopkeeper is displaying racist qualities in that regard (wouldn't you agree?). You defend his "right" to deny you your rights under law. Is that not an affirmation from you....a signal that it is acceptable for him to behave in that manner as far as you are concerned??? If that were indeed not the case, would you not be predisposed to protest these injustices? Just because you express indifference doesn't mean you aren't giving tacit approval.
I must turn your question back around, Chuckie. What is it that you don't understand about this? You seem like a bright enough fellow so maybe we are just totally misunderstanding each other here because it is so easy to see as to be patently absurd from my viewpoint.
Similar threads
