Rand Paul: Racist

[Jagger69]

Libertarian, tea-partier and new Kentucky republican senatorial nominee Rand Paul (eye-doctor son of the celebrated Ron Paul) showed his racist colors in flaming red on the Rachel Maddow show last night. It's in 2 parts and takes almost 20 minutes to watch but it's worth it, believe me. If you have any sense of the principle of equality for all, you'll be appalled like I am:





If it were up to Dr. Paul, segregated lunchcounters and restrooms would be back in vogue. Businesses would be allowed to arbitrarily refuse service to anyone they choose for no reason other than perhaps the color of their skin, their ethnic background or their religious beliefs. :eek:

Staunch party stalwarts like Mitch McConnell and Dick Cheney supported his opponent but the right wingnuts overran them. They have subsequently been silent on this issue. I wonder how Michael Steele feels about Dr. Paul's views. :dunno:

This is the new direction of the republican party? I'm sure there will be some here who welcome this trend. Personally, I see the proliferation of this type of political philosophy as not only morally wrong but, in fact, suicidal to the GOP. In some type of knee-jerk reaction to what they perceive as the left-wing extremism of the Obama administration, the republican party, led by banner-wavers like Wasilla Sarah and Rand Paul, is pushing their agenda further and further to the right. Rather than reaching out to centrists and moderates who may also share some trepidations about the direction the country is taking (like me, for instance), they choose to huddle around their hard-core right-wing base. Huge mistake.

How did this acorn (oops....bad word maybe? ) fall so far from the tree? Or, perhaps a better question is, did it? :dunno: Leads me to some serious doubts about his father now....whom I previously had held in the utmost esteem.

I'm a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. There is no one who speaks for me in this political process anymore. The democrats want to spend-spend-spend and give everyone a free ride regardless of their contribution (or lack thereof) to the cause and the republicans want to return this nation to the early 19th century.

Beam me up, Scotty!

 

[roronoa3000]

lol. His name is Rand.
...what terrible parents.

 

[titsrock]

This is the darkside of Libertarianism. It would absolutely protect racism under the guise of "private enterprise"

Maddow was right to follow Dr Paul's logic to the conclusion that segregation would, in fact, return to America in an open manner.

It's interesting that Dr. Paul tries to automatically attach the right of business to segregate their customer base with the right for (white) men to bear arms :eek:

That's the trump card. Whenever the Tea Party or the Libertarians face a difficult, squeamish moment like protecting racism, they will quickly deflect to some sort of gun rights issue :crash:

I think the GOP will be ending its courtship of the Loonatarians and the Tea Baggers sooner than I thought.

 

[PirateKing]

Lol. Ron and Rand. They're both off their rockers. Why do Libertarians always go out of their way to criticize the intervention of government policies, even when it comes to the Civil Rights act?

 

[titsrock]

^Because they subscribe to a philosophy that was en vogue back in the 1800s when there wasn't a Federal Gov't to watchdog over the corruption of the big "Trust" companies and Robber Barons.

If Rand and Ron Paul would vote against Civil Rights they also won't support any law which impedes the free movement of labor and capital. That means open them borders. :yesyes: If no Gov't can tell you what to do, it sure can't tell you where you can and can't go. Citizenship is not necessary because there is no need for a census, for identification, etc.

 

[ChuckieB]

Please explain how he showed his true racist colors. He said numerous times throughout the interview that he abhors racism and would not do business with any establishment that practiced racism. He clearly stated that he supports 9 out of 10 parts of the Civil Rights Act. He clearly stated that he is against any form of government based racism. What Rand Paul believes that the federal government has no business telling others how to run their PRIVATE business. Rand believes if a black person wants to serve only blacks in their restaurant they should have the right. This is not condoning racism, he just believes the government should stay out of PRIVATE business.
At the end he did say he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act. You may disagree with his belief that te government should not interfere with private business, but don't call someone a racist who clearly is not.

 

[titsrock]

^
Don't you see how you're advocating Segregation? It is discriminatory and allows for all sorts of things like 1 price for blacks, a different price for whites.

You can not say you're against something and than pave the way for it to happen. :dunno:

 

[Hoodoo]

Going into what the thread starter said. Don't have any second thoughts on what Ron Paul's views are.They are not the same person so if your going to have second thoughts on ron paul then let them be off of his own merit and not his sons. now with taht said i will say i'm not that sure on what ron pauls views actually are in regards to this but still let it be from his own merit

 

[ChuckieB]

Explain how it advocates segregtion? That's like saying believing in free speech no matter how abhorrent it may be, is an advocation of hate speech.

 

[PirateKing]

Explain how it advocates segregtion? That's like saying believing in free speech no matter how abhorrent it may be, is an advocation of hate speech.

Because it encourages discrimination and would increase racial tension. It doesn't matter whether its public or private, giving private business the freedom to discriminate based on race is a bad idea.

 

[YMIHERE]

Typical Libertarian who wants the government off their backs so they can stick it up somebodies ass.

 

[Hoodoo]

Explain how it advocates segregtion? That's like saying believing in free speech no matter how abhorrent it may be, is an advocation of hate speech.

it advocates segregation becuase it gives private buisness owners the opportunity to put a "no blacks or mexicans allowed" sign in their restaurant window.

Will most places actually do this? no it won't like Rand Paul said its bad marketing...but will there be someoen who does it..you bet your ass there will be.

Why do you think people are so against the AZ immigration laws????

 

[titsrock]

Here's how. Business 1 in a town decides to stop serving asians. Business 2 follows suit. Business 3 decides to stop serving whites. Business 4 decides to open and only serve blacks.

Racism fosters a community of violence. Haven't we learned that lesson or do we need to revisit it again?

I disagree with Dr. Paul's belief in tolerating hate speech as well.

 

[ChuckieB]

Because it encourages discrimination and would increase racial tension. It doesn't matter whether its public or private, giving private business the freedom to discriminate based on race is a bad idea.

By your logic then free speech encourages hate speech and increases racial tenion.
Besides any business that openly had a policy of serving "only whites" or "only blacks" would not stay in business for very long.

 

[ChuckieB]

Here's how. Business 1 in a town decides to stop serving asians. Business 2 follows suit. Business 3 decides to stop serving whites. Business 4 decides to open and only serve blacks.

Racism fosters a community of violence. Haven't we learned that lesson or do we need to revisit it again?

I disagree with Dr. Paul's belief in tolerating hate speech as well.

But in the United States you have right to be an ignorant racist. So do you believe the government has a right to censor hate speech?

 

[YMIHERE]

By your logic then free speech encourages hate speech and increases racial tenion.
Besides any business that openly had a policy of serving "only whites" or "only blacks" would not stay in business for very long.

Well "white only" business only lasted for over 120 years in the Jim Crow south. It would still be going on if it wasn't stopped by the Civil Rights Act.

 

[Hoodoo]

By your logic then free speech encourages hate speech and increases racial tenion.
Besides any business that openly had a policy of serving "only whites" or "only blacks" would not stay in business for very long.

It does encourage hate speech and racial tension. You are correct on that. But does free speech in the form of hate actual infringe on anyone else's rights though? that is where the line is drawn. A person's free speech can never infringe on another person's rights. And when you excersice your "free speech" to never serve minorities at your restuarant then you just tossed this country back into the 1950s my friend

 

[PirateKing]

Well "white only" business only lasted for over 120 years in the Jim Crow south. It would still be going on if it wasn't stopped by the Civil Rights Act.

Exactly. Just because racism is frowned upon in today's society doesn't mean it can't become prevalent again. If people have the freedom to discriminate then there's guaranteed to be a larger racial divide.

 

[titsrock]

But in the United States you have right to be an ignorant racist. So do you believe the government has a right to censor hate speech?

You have a right to be an ignorant racist in the privacy on your own home, not out for public display.

 

[ChuckieB]

You have a right to be an ignorant racist in the privacy on your own home, not out for public display.

You are completely wrong on that. Nazi and other white suprmecists groups due to freedom of speech have always held public marches to express their views. Freedom of speech protects even the most abhorrent views.