I'm glad Rand Paul said it...

[Samson]

Why is this even a big deal? I don't get it.

.......

But I guess if you're looking for something, you'll find it. This seems like a leap to paint him a racist or promoting racist sentiments.

Yes, you do get it....at least by he time you got to the end of the post.

 

[geauxtohell]

TRY FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE YOU LIBERAL NUTJOBS!

Well this liberal nutjob passes the test. I think the KKK should be allowed to march down the streets of Skogie if they wish.

I think the KKK should march down South Central Los Angeles.

And that the police should turn their radios off.

 

[paperview]

TRY FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE YOU LIBERAL NUTJOBS!

Well this liberal nutjob passes the test. I think the KKK should be allowed to march down the streets of Skogie if they wish.

I think the KKK should march down South Central Los Angeles.

And that the police should turn their radios off.

 

[geauxtohell]

Well this liberal nutjob passes the test. I think the KKK should be allowed to march down the streets of Skogie if they wish.

I think the KKK should march down South Central Los Angeles.

And that the police should turn their radios off.

I mean. You notice how brave those guys are with their hoods and police protection?

 

[paperview]

I think the KKK should march down South Central Los Angeles.

And that the police should turn their radios off.

I mean. You notice how brave those guys are with their hoods and police protection?

They're pussies.


Why do you think they wear bed apparel?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are the Teabaggers a reincarnation of the Dixiecrats?

Maybe "Segregation now, segregation forever!" should be their war cry.

Provide the names of those "Dixiecrats" that you claim became Republicans. It shouldn't be hard since there were only three.

Apparently, Rand Paul.

Except, and this too funny for words, but I'll use words anyway, Rand was just on CNN saying he WOULD have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Straight up question and he gave a straight answer, lol,

the politicos advising him must have really worked him over overnight.

It was almost funnier than last night.

So, with that, all you clowns who stampeded to his defense thinking he was FOR allowing segregation to continue can now attack him for being against it. lol

 

[paperview]

Provide the names of those "Dixiecrats" that you claim became Republicans. It shouldn't be hard since there were only three.

Apparently, Rand Paul.

Except, and this too funny for words, but I'll use words anyway, Rand was just on CNN saying he WOULD have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Straight up question and he gave a straight answer, lol,

the politicos advising him must have really worked him over overnight.

It was almost funnier than last night.

So, with that, all you clowns who stampeded to his defense thinking he was FOR allowing segregation to continue can now attack him for being against it. lol

Holy shit! He said that.

LOLOLOL.

Now he is just fucking with their heads.

The connies are gonna have to sport flip-flops the size of OkLAbamAhoma now.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm glad Rand Paul said what he said about desegregation because the state had no right to tell other people how to use their own private property. I know it is shitty to use it to showcase your racist views but don't you guys realize that freedom of speech is protected by the right to use your own property as you wish to express your racist views such as only serving 'whites only'. I know it is a sucky thing to do but why do we have the right to deny someone the use of their own property and subsequently the right of free speech. Where do we draw the line between good speech and bad speech in this society.

You tell them!

Who wants to eat next to them darkies anyway?

Hard to believe there are people like you in the 21st century

This is the kind of thing that forces you to think about whether you really believe in individual rights or not. I think this guy's opinions and the way he wants to use his private property are incredibly offensive -but there is NO right to not be offended by whatever you choose to be offended about. I also know there are (way too many) people who place no real value on our freedoms and those with such superficial understanding and support of our freedoms that what they REALLY mean when they claim to believe in free speech and the freedom to use one's private property as the owner sees fit -is nothing more than "I believe in free speech as long as you only say things I am comfortable with and I believe in private property rights only as long as you use your property the way I think you should." That isn't free speech and that is not private property rights though -it is the opposite.

Either you believe in free speech or you believe government should have the power to control what comes out of people's mouths, what they write and what opinions they are allowed to express - and punish those who have the "wrong" ones. Who decides what is 'wrong" will always be someone else, not the individual with that opinion. This has led to "re-education camps" in communist countries where government ends up going so far as to try and forcibly control even what a person THINKS. Is that really your idea of free speech? You really want a government with the power to punish you for what you say and power to FORCE you to use your private property the way IT sees fit instead of the way YOU see fit? You ever read the Federalist Papers about what the founders said about what free speech rights and when defending it the most vigorously was most critical? Because it is NOT when what someone said made you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Your snide comments about "darkies" and "can't believe people like that exist" is REALLY saying that unless someone wants to restrict the freedoms of this person like you do -it MUST mean they actually share his personal opinions as well. Are you for real? YOU haven't the intellectual capacity to differentiate between someone's desire to uphold our free speech rights for EVERYONE as guaranteed under the Bill of Rights with HOW someone else may personally choose to exercise that right?

THAT IS ACTUALLY A TYPICAL STUNT OF LIBERALS to try and equate one's stronger belief and defense of individual rights with the offensive manner someone else may choose to exercise that right. WHAT BULLSHIT BUDDY. If you only have the "right" to free speech if its speech everyone likes -then YOU DON'T HAVE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS AT ALL! Free speech means a person may say things a lot of other people think are offensive, repulsive and may make them angry -but he does NOT have to first get government approval or YOUR approval before he is allowed to say it! That is what makes it a RIGHT in the first place!

The real test of whether you believe in FREEDOM and INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS is ONLY when someone else chooses to use them in a way you personally find offensive and thoroughly disagree with. And YOU flunked that test big time. How un-American of you. Its easy to claim to support free speech when its speech you like, isn't it? But YOU proved that you and people like you can NEVER be trusted to protect and safeguard MY rights because you have just told us all that the only "free speech" and "property rights" you will support are for those who think and opine exactly the same way you do.

TRY FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE YOU LIBERAL NUTJOBS! It really does work, it is not just limited to those who say things you don't like but exists for us as well - and does NOT require we forfeit our real rights to government when doing so means never getting them back -at least not peacefully.

This is how someone who believes in FREEDOM handles something like this instead of demanding we all forfeit rights to government so it can have the power and force to squash those for failing to express only politically correct opinions. I find this guy's racist views and desire to refuse to serve blacks to be so incredibly offensive that I choose to exercise MY right to never EVER enter the premises at all and will NEVER give him one dime of mine. Instead of demanding government squelch the use of his free speech, I will use MY free speech rights to encourage others to avoid his business entirely. I may even get a group together and hold a protest on the street outside his business. Because doing these things are MY rights - and if enough people share that same opinion and choose to exercise THEIR rights in this way, the guy will have to decide which is more important to him then. Staying in business and keeping his racist views to himself and out of his business practices - or having his business go under while stubbornly allowing his prejudice to destroy his business. Then his racism becomes HIS choice to personally reaffirm for himself whether or not it should dictate his business practices to the point of financially destroying himself.

Have you really never heard the saying "I disagree with what you said but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."? Any clue what that even means? All you told us is the exact opposite -essentially "If I disagree with what you said, I will demand government use its force and power to destroy you." But FREEDOM can do that in a far more meaningful way and doesn't require that the everyone else forfeit their freedoms in the process!

It truly is a sad state of affairs that you use the same tired arguments as the racists and segregationists of the 50s and 60s......The "I'm not racist....its the principle of the matter"

Thankfully, this country has moved past the twisted logic of segregationists and closet racists who try to justify their outdated positions

 

[American Horse]

i gotta say when i heard this i was sad. this guy is a loon. i'm tired of people saying he is this or that this man is as right wing as u come smh


also he's a dummy, he was talking about the civil rights act but said he never read it, well then stfu

Here in Bloomington, Indiana we have a Libertarian Party; even what would be called a strong one, which always has candidates up and down the ticket. They seldom win because they have a tendency to shoot themselves in the foot. Occasionally they do get elected, never get re-elected. Sadly their ideas verge on the bizarre to the point that serious voters don't put up with them for very long.

I hoped that Rand Paul would be different but that was too much to hope for considering his dad is Ron Paul; the fruit didn't fall far from the proverbial tree.
I fear his nomination will not figure positively in this election cycle.

 

[Foxfyre]

It truly is a sad state of affairs that you use the same tired arguments as the racists and segregationists of the 50s and 60s......The "I'm not racist....its the principle of the matter"

Thankfully, this country has moved past the twisted logic of segregationists and closet racists who try to justify their outdated positions

The thing is, once you scrape away the innuendo and ad hominem from the member's comments, he is right.

We either believe that it is a person's right to be racist if that is where his heart lies, or there is no right to be non racist. We cannot use racism or any other conviction to violate the rights of others with impunity and that is as it should be. But it is our right to be racist. And it is our right to be non racist.

A person has a right to be opinionated or hateful or judgmental or some kind of nutjob or there is no right to be open minded, kind, just, and accommodating.

And the point made in the OP--it was made in a rather convoluted way that triggered all sorts of indignant and sometimes self-righteous responses--but it was accurate that rights extend to us having the right to use private property in ugly or hateful ways or there is no right to use private property at all.

But we don't have the right to demand that people approve of our ugliness or hatefulness. We don't have a right to demand that people support it either with their taxes or commerce. And we don't have a right to demand that anybody else conduct their business on their private property as we would deem to be correct or right.

You scrape all the sludge off those comments, and there is no way that the OP is advocating or approving racism. It is an accurate observation that if any of us are free, we have to allow people freedom to be wrong, stupid, ignorant, hateful, or whatever. We don't owe them our business and usually that is enough to prompt at least a change of behavior if not a change of heart.

But when we presume to punish them in material ways for their wrong headedness, we violate their rights and are no better than the Inquisition or other thought police who demand that everybody be like us.

 

[paperview]

If I own a shopping mall, for example, I am not allowed to discriminate on who can enter those doors based on color, creed, religion or national origin.
As a business owner of that mall, I received tax breaks to build there (as most do).
That means the rest of the community is supporting it with their taxes.
Doesn't that mean they should have a say in its use?

 

[rightwinger]

It truly is a sad state of affairs that you use the same tired arguments as the racists and segregationists of the 50s and 60s......The "I'm not racist....its the principle of the matter"

Thankfully, this country has moved past the twisted logic of segregationists and closet racists who try to justify their outdated positions

The thing is, once you scrape away the innuendo and ad hominem from the member's comments, he is right.

We either believe that it is a person's right to be racist if that is where his heart lies, or there is no right to be non racist. We cannot use racism or any other conviction to violate the rights of others with impunity and that is as it should be. But it is our right to be racist. And it is our right to be non racist.

A person has a right to be opinionated or hateful or judgmental or some kind of nutjob or there is no right to be open minded, kind, just, and accommodating.

And the point made in the OP--it was made in a rather convoluted way that triggered all sorts of indignant and sometimes self-righteous responses--but it was accurate that rights extend to us having the right to use private property in ugly or hateful ways or there is no right to use private property at all.

But we don't have the right to demand that people approve of our ugliness or hatefulness. We don't have a right to demand that people support it either with their taxes or commerce. And we don't have a right to demand that anybody else conduct their business on their private property as we would deem to be correct or right.

You scrape all the sludge off those comments, and there is no way that the OP is advocating or approving racism. It is an accurate observation that if any of us are free, we have to allow people freedom to be wrong, stupid, ignorant, hateful, or whatever. We don't owe them our business and usually that is enough to prompt at least a change of behavior if not a change of heart.

But when we presume to punish them in material ways for their wrong headedness, we violate their rights and are no better than the Inquisition or other thought police who demand that everybody be like us.

You still have a right to be as racist as you want....its when you exert your racism in the conduct of business that you run afoul of common decency. The government has the right to regulate commerce.......if you choose to openly discriminate in the course of doing business, the government has the right to step in.

This was settled 50 years ago

 

[Foxfyre]

If I own a shopping mall, for example, I am not allowed to discriminate on who can enter those doors based on color, creed, religion or national origin.
As a business owner of that mall, I received tax breaks to build there (as most do).
That means the rest of the community is supporting it with their taxes.
Doesn't that mean they should have a say in its use?

The community has a say in its use through zoning laws and any other laws dictating community standards, so the people might have a say in what sort of stores would be acceptable. As far as who is allowed to rent the property, anti discrimination laws should apply. Nobody should be denied economic opportunity because of race, creed, gender, etc.

But when you get to the shops themselves, if somebody wants a 'white only' or 'black only' or "Hispanics only" bar and grill or whatever, that should be their right. Such would be a really racist and ugly concept, but it would not violate anybody's rights, livelihood, opportunity, or whatever. It should also be your right to establish a policy banning that sort of business from your shopping mall if you wanted a different kind of environment.

But the guy with a shop he owns on his own land should have the right to do anything he wishes on that land that do not infringe on anybody else's rights.

The fact is, American culture has evolved to the point that I can't imagine any business would survive with a racist policy these days. People just wouldn't stand for it. And shouldn't. But it is our right to be racist if we happen to be wired that way and that is our choice.

 

[rightwinger]

42 U.S.C. §2000a


(a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
42 U.S.C. §2000a(b)


(b) Each of the following establishments is a place of public accommodation within this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence.

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment, or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of any such covered establishment.

 

[Foxfyre]

I know what the law is. And I don't oppose most of it.

But I also know that if we do not have the right to be racist, we have no rights at all. I further think that if most people agreed with that, racism would be disappearing from the national scene a whole lot sooner.

 

[paperview]

If I own a shopping mall, for example, I am not allowed to discriminate on who can enter those doors based on color, creed, religion or national origin.
As a business owner of that mall, I received tax breaks to build there (as most do).
That means the rest of the community is supporting it with their taxes.
Doesn't that mean they should have a say in its use?

The community has a say in its use through zoning laws and any other laws dictating community standards, so the people might have a say in what sort of stores would be acceptable. As far as who is allowed to rent the property, anti discrimination laws should apply. Nobody should be denied economic opportunity because of race, creed, gender, etc.

But when you get to the shops themselves, if somebody wants a 'white only' or 'black only' or "Hispanics only" bar and grill or whatever, that should be their right. Such would be a really racist and ugly concept, but it would not violate anybody's rights, livelihood, opportunity, or whatever. It should also be your right to establish a policy banning that sort of business from your shopping mall if you wanted a different kind of environment.

But the guy with a shop he owns on his own land should have the right to do anything he wishes on that land that do not infringe on anybody else's rights.

The fact is, American culture has evolved to the point that I can't imagine any business would survive with a racist policy these days. People just wouldn't stand for it. And shouldn't. But it is our right to be racist if we happen to be wired that way and that is our choice.

So you would have been behind Robert Byrd's filibuster of the CRA.

Hey hey ....whaddya say. The connies turn into Byrdians.

 

[Foxfyre]

If I own a shopping mall, for example, I am not allowed to discriminate on who can enter those doors based on color, creed, religion or national origin.
As a business owner of that mall, I received tax breaks to build there (as most do).
That means the rest of the community is supporting it with their taxes.
Doesn't that mean they should have a say in its use?

The community has a say in its use through zoning laws and any other laws dictating community standards, so the people might have a say in what sort of stores would be acceptable. As far as who is allowed to rent the property, anti discrimination laws should apply. Nobody should be denied economic opportunity because of race, creed, gender, etc.

But when you get to the shops themselves, if somebody wants a 'white only' or 'black only' or "Hispanics only" bar and grill or whatever, that should be their right. Such would be a really racist and ugly concept, but it would not violate anybody's rights, livelihood, opportunity, or whatever. It should also be your right to establish a policy banning that sort of business from your shopping mall if you wanted a different kind of environment.

But the guy with a shop he owns on his own land should have the right to do anything he wishes on that land that do not infringe on anybody else's rights.

The fact is, American culture has evolved to the point that I can't imagine any business would survive with a racist policy these days. People just wouldn't stand for it. And shouldn't. But it is our right to be racist if we happen to be wired that way and that is our choice.

So you would have been behind Robert Byrd's filibuster of the CRA.

Hey hey ....whaddya say. The connies turn into Byrdians.

I have no clue what the CRA or Senator Byrd's filibuster of it has to do with a concept of whether a person has a right to be racist. At the time it was passed, I had no problem with the CRA. In hindsight, since it was a key factor in our current financial mess, I would have have wanted stronger safeguards built into it so that it could not have been misued in the way that it was.

 

[kyzr]

He's being railroaded by the PC MSM. I hope the voters don't fall for their crap in November. That race should be a good indicator how PC voters are feeling.

 

[mudwhistle]

This is exactly what you get for playing the political game. Your dad has already admitted on video that he was endorsing neocons (over "Ron Paul Republicans") for political gain, you take weaker stances than him, and then your wishy washy talking about this issue with the media. You then backtrack. What do you expect? If you and your dad have any souls left I just wonder if they will be worth enough to the guys pulling the strings to win the Senate seat.

I'm both sad and apathetic to all this Paul crap...

Looks like the left has found a new target.

Bush, Cheney, Palin, and now Paul.

You can have him. I hope you'all choke on him.

 

[kyzr]

Those KY folks won't fall for the MSM hype. This should be fun to watch.