Dr. Paul's Horrible Horrible Views On Racism!

[JimH52]

We seem to all be mssing the point here. The Tea Party postion is:

"If you are not as far right as we are, then you are wrong." Oh yeah, being white does not hurt.

Moderates in the GOP are being systematically removed. Paul is the first major tea party victory, but how far will his extreme views carry him? We will see...

 

[The Rabbi]

Rand Paul needs to fuck off.

He's an asshole racist.

That;s what I like about reading your posts. They're so thoughtful and well expressed. They are based on irrefutable facts and well researched.
Nah.
I would say you're the biggest most ignorant asshole on this board. But you have lots of competition.

 

[editec]

The Left is absolutely into seeing people as simply members of some group or other rather than individuals. You see it here all the time. Especially in the insane thread that Truthmatters has going where she finds no difference between conservatives, pro gun rights people and homocidal maniacs. It's all the same group.
Perhaps Rand Paul's election will allow some straight dialogue on race in this country.

The left is no more of one mindset than the right is.

This desire to simplify things down to some ficticuous black hat v white hat formula is the mistake that sincere partisans make, Rabbi.

And this mistake is the result of deccades of simplitic propaganda designed to set us one against the other.

You want to bet the bastards, Rabbi?

Give up hate.

They thrive on it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where did he flip his position? You are imagining things again.

When he went from saying that the CRA wasn't the federal government's business to saying it was.

Which is now common knowledge and as such need not be cited repeatedly to wingnuts who are trolling.

Link?

Wonk Room What Does Rand Paul’s America Look Like? Multiple primary source links provided.

The flip flop:

Paul: PAUL: I think that there was an overriding problem in the south, so big that it did require federal intervention in the 1960s, and it stemmed from things that I said, you know, have been going on really 120 years too long, and the southern states weren't correcting it, and I think there was a need for federal intervention.

CNN.com - Transcripts

 

[NYcarbineer]

The "racist" attacks are not going to work.

You liberals keep up with the "racist" attacks against all conservatives, libertarians, tea partiers, and anyone who disagrees with Obama, and your losses in November will be greater than you can imagine. Please, continue.......

Oh no, I must be a racist for saying that!!!

The only ones using the "racist" argument are those who think on emotion instead of facts and logic.

He isn't against the CRA, he's raised arguments in terms of Title 2. BIG Diff.

Yeah the part that prohibits discrimination based on race. How in the world could opposing that be racist? lolol

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

"His position is not racially inspired. It's libertarian inspired," he said. "He is welcome to that view."

If the consequence of your view is that racial discrimination is facilitated, if the consequence of your view is that the law of the land is impeded or prevented from prohibiting racial discrimination,

it's an extremely hollow rationale to insist that the inspiration is not racial.

 

[The Rabbi]

[

"His position is not racially inspired. It's libertarian inspired," he said. "He is welcome to that view."

If the consequence of your view is that racial discrimination is facilitated, if the consequence of your view is that the law of the land is impeded or prevented from prohibiting racial discrimination,

it's an extremely hollow rationale to insist that the inspiration is not racial.

It isn't racial. Race is completely incidental to the discussion, which is about the limits of federal power over private citizens.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

"His position is not racially inspired. It's libertarian inspired," he said. "He is welcome to that view."

If the consequence of your view is that racial discrimination is facilitated, if the consequence of your view is that the law of the land is impeded or prevented from prohibiting racial discrimination,

it's an extremely hollow rationale to insist that the inspiration is not racial.

It isn't racial. Race is completely incidental to the discussion, which is about the limits of federal power over private citizens.

Race cannot be 'incidental' to a discussion specifically about racial discrimination.

 

[Coyote]

"Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism."

I guess Rand Paul's point was that 100 years of non-government interference was too short a time for that individualism to kick in? Eliminate "group thinking", yeah right. Imagine all those we wouldn't have to kick around just by inference: Jane Fonda, Dick Cheney, Nancy Pelosi, Sarah Palin, Al Gore, etc.

We are a social species - we would be fighting our biological imperetives to think we can get rid of "group think" - even the so called supporters of "individualism" are themselves guilty of group thinking by promoting their cult of individualism.

 

[The Rabbi]

If the consequence of your view is that racial discrimination is facilitated, if the consequence of your view is that the law of the land is impeded or prevented from prohibiting racial discrimination,

it's an extremely hollow rationale to insist that the inspiration is not racial.

It isn't racial. Race is completely incidental to the discussion, which is about the limits of federal power over private citizens.

Race cannot be 'incidental' to a discussion specifically about racial discrimination.

It isn't a discussion about racial discrimination. That is the point. To have a discussion about racial discrimination you would need two different views. Rand Paul's view is that racial discrimination is always and everywhere bad. No one disagrees with that.
What is being discussed is the limit on federal power.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It isn't racial. Race is completely incidental to the discussion, which is about the limits of federal power over private citizens.

Race cannot be 'incidental' to a discussion specifically about racial discrimination.

It isn't a discussion about racial discrimination. That is the point. To have a discussion about racial discrimination you would need two different views. Rand Paul's view is that racial discrimination is always and everywhere bad. No one disagrees with that.
What is being discussed is the limit on federal power.

If you are arguing for a limitation on federal power whose primary effect would be to facilitate racial discrimination, I'm sorry, I refuse to accept any claim that racial discrimination isn't the topic.

btw, Rand Paul has no constitutional grounds here anyway:

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The law was challenged and the challengers lost.

 

[The Rabbi]

Race cannot be 'incidental' to a discussion specifically about racial discrimination.

It isn't a discussion about racial discrimination. That is the point. To have a discussion about racial discrimination you would need two different views. Rand Paul's view is that racial discrimination is always and everywhere bad. No one disagrees with that.
What is being discussed is the limit on federal power.

If you are arguing for a limitation on federal power whose primary effect would be to facilitate racial discrimination, I'm sorry, I refuse to accept any claim that racial discrimination isn't the topic.

btw, Rand Paul has no constitutional grounds here anyway:

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The law was challenged and the challengers lost.

You just admitted it is not the topic but ancillary to the topic. Whether Paul is right or wrong is irrelevant here. The topic is federal power. You could equally use Raich and the gov'ts power to regulate marijuana. The topic is not drugs but federal power. Drugs are ancillary to the issue. So here too race is ancillary.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It isn't a discussion about racial discrimination. That is the point. To have a discussion about racial discrimination you would need two different views. Rand Paul's view is that racial discrimination is always and everywhere bad. No one disagrees with that.
What is being discussed is the limit on federal power.

If you are arguing for a limitation on federal power whose primary effect would be to facilitate racial discrimination, I'm sorry, I refuse to accept any claim that racial discrimination isn't the topic.

btw, Rand Paul has no constitutional grounds here anyway:

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The law was challenged and the challengers lost.

You just admitted it is not the topic but ancillary to the topic. Whether Paul is right or wrong is irrelevant here. The topic is federal power. You could equally use Raich and the gov'ts power to regulate marijuana. The topic is not drugs but federal power. Drugs are ancillary to the issue. So here too race is ancillary.

That is headache inducing malarkey. The only reason the Civil Rights act of 1964 came about in the first place was because of racial discrimination. It was not proposed as some sort of academic intellectual exploration of the powers of the Federal government. It came about because real life Americans were being discriminated against because of their color by other real life Americans. To pretend that race is some afterthought in the history and present of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is ludicrous.

The fact is, conservatives like Rand Paul, and presumably you since you're defending him, believe that racial discrimination is an acceptable consequence of the higher calling, the greater good,

of limiting the power of the federal government.

But as Rand Paul demonstrated, with his 24 hour flip flop, it is also a politically untenable position in modern America.

 

[The Rabbi]

You are positing the original reason. The original reason is irrelevant to the discussion, which concerns the extent of federal power.
I haven't seen where Paul flip-flopped on this issue. Nor have you provided any links despite being challenged to do so.

 

[paperview]

You are positing the original reason. The original reason is irrelevant to the discussion, which concerns the extent of federal power.
I haven't seen where Paul flip-flopped on this issue. Nor have you provided any links despite being challenged to do so.

Yes, he did provide links.

Maybe you missed it:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...e-horrible-views-on-racism-3.html#post2339193

 

[paperview]

More:

Rand Paul's progression on the issue over ... 24 hours:

• Paul on Maddow, circa 9 p.m. Wednesday: I don't agree with the Civil Rights Act, but I don't believe in racism.
• Paul statement, noon Thursday: I wouldn't support repealing the law.
• Paul campaign statement, 2 p.m. Thursday: I support the law and the government's power to enforce it.
• Paul on CNN, 5 p.m. Thursday: "I would have voted yes" for the law. "There was a need for federal intervention."

REVERSAL: Paul Now Backs Ban On Discrimination By Businesses | TPMDC

 

[The Rabbi]

You are positing the original reason. The original reason is irrelevant to the discussion, which concerns the extent of federal power.
I haven't seen where Paul flip-flopped on this issue. Nor have you provided any links despite being challenged to do so.

Yes, he did provide links.

Maybe you missed it:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...e-horrible-views-on-racism-3.html#post2339193

The only thing he seems, maybe, to have flip flopped on is the issue of private property and CRA.
Frankly if that's the best the Left can do with Paul he will be Sen.Paul after the election.

 

[paperview]

You are positing the original reason. The original reason is irrelevant to the discussion, which concerns the extent of federal power.
I haven't seen where Paul flip-flopped on this issue. Nor have you provided any links despite being challenged to do so.

Yes, he did provide links.

Maybe you missed it:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...e-horrible-views-on-racism-3.html#post2339193

The only thing he seems, maybe, to have flip flopped on is the issue of private property and CRA.
Frankly if that's the best the Left can do with Paul he will be Sen.Paul after the election.

Title II is a pretty big provision of the CRA, and Paul flopped like Flipper on it after the republican shit hit the fan and the mainstream tophatters in the party said "noooooooo! Back that truck up Chuck! Quick!"

And he did.



Hil
AiR
E
Ous.

 

[The Rabbi]

Again. If that's the biggest thing you can throw at Paul you'll be calling him "Senator Paul" come November.

 

[saveliberty]

Let's see, 0bama had a racist pastor. The left said not relevant. Okay.

0bama is associated with a known terrorist, Bill Ayers. Free pass.

0bama has no executive experience. Doesn't matter.

Paul has a problem with a law that he cannot change on his own. Big deal.

Bottomline, the Democratic majority cannot help but launch attacks on anyone who isn't under the seal of the ass. Remember that next time they want bipartisan support. The party of hate is not a conservative group.