I'm glad Rand Paul said it...

[MarcATL]

The FOOL was in here talking about going to prisons and schools at lunchtime and whats not to see how people naturally "segregate themselves" as The FOOL put it.

I suggest you observe children age 5 and under of any and all and of mixed races together...they are all over each other...naturally.

Thats nature.

What you're talking about was nurture.

FOOL!!!

 

[MarcATL]

These are the same sons-and-daughters of bitches that will scream bloody-murder that blacks and other minorities do NOT get discriminated against in the workforce and that Affirmative Action is NOT necessary, because America Is No Longer a racist country.

Also these are the same guttersnipe who believe there's no such thing as being stopped, harassed, pulled over etc. for driving-while-black and/or shopping-while-black.

WoW!!

 

[MarcATL]

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.

"Found"??? It's not we had to go looking.


Hell, these "targets" have all presented themselves on a silver platter with apples in their mouths and a sign saying "here I am, roast me!"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!

Good one.
*wipes away tears*

 

[geauxtohell]

Do you understand the difference between self-segregation and institutionalized segregation?

From your post, it appears you don't.

The difference is you want to use violence to stop self-segregation. Hint: that has hindered progress, not helped it. People who would segregate before still do. People who wouldn't then still wouldn't.

People like to pretend things are going to be solved by acts of congress. Until everyone grows up and realizes mommy government isn't going to make the bad guys go away this problem will never cease.

Why would anyone discriminated against now want to go to a private business that treated them like crap before? Why would a racist shop owner now want someone they deplore on their property? Well, just pass a law and all is solved.

Wrong. It just pissed off the racist business owners, and those who were discriminated against are shoving the governments gun in the businesses face forcing them to be there. It's just a bad situation all around, and is not helpful in educating people...

Yeah.

Best we not piss off those racist business owners.

God that picture makes me sick.

We've come a long ways in 55 years or so. So far that now people have apparently forgotten.

I liken it to the vaccination paradox.

We've done such a good job with vaccines, that people have forgotten how bad polio is and want to start skipping out on vaccination.

 

[frazzledgear]

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

Bullshit -I made no such argument. Instead you just reaffirmed what I said -you flunked the only test that matters when it comes to individual rights. Knock off this absolute LYING ASS CRAP of yours insisting that unless others agree with you about how it should be handled, it means they are all racists themselves. That is a filthy but very typical liberal tactic. But it is total BULLSHIT and you know it. I dealt with this very same tactic in college when someone insisted that unless I signed a petition demanding the university cancel a speaking engagement by a group of neo-Nazis it meant I was a neo-Nazi sympathizer. BULLSHIT. I believe in people having the FREEDOM to openly tell us all about what decent people they are or what totally vile people they are and OPPOSE forcing the vile ones underground where you not only don't know what they are saying so you can defend against it -but where they will pretend they are the real victims instead of those they seek to victimize. I can't make an informed judgment unless others have the freedom to TELL ME what assholes or saints they are. So I didn't fall for this same bullshit stunt then that unless I want to silence those with vile opinions it meant I shared those opinions -and I'm not falling for it now. Save the racist bullshit for the restaurant owner who would refuse service to blacks and not for those who disagree with you about how that situation would best be handled -and learn how to engage in reasoned debate with a rational argument for a change. Now that would be something new for a liberal to do instead of their typical stunt of resorting to trying to use emotionally charged words and character attacks and smears of those who disagree with them -all in order to avoid debate entirely.

I gave you the way true freedom lovers would handle the problem of someone who wanted to refuse to serve blacks in his restaurant. MY way he feels the pain of knowing what a low opinion his neighbors and community have of him for his business practices and watching his neighbors turn up their nose at his restaurant while going down the street instead. He would feel the pain of watching them demonstrate outside his restaurant to make sure everyone else in the community knows what this guy's business practices are. His choice would be to either change his business practices or watch his business go down the drain. Other business owners could easily refuse him service as well because of it and force him to go outside his community for his own goods and services. He has the FREEDOM to continue with his racist business practices as is his right -but everyone else who is offended by that business practice has the FREEDOM to make him feel real PAIN for it.

YOUR way only allows him to claim the role of victim being persecuted by government for having a politically incorrect opinion, something that might actually draw sympathy from those who deplore government having that kind of power to punish someone for their opinions. MY way it is PEOPLE punishing him and in a personal way, YOUR way it is a faceless bureaucracy he will claim is "victimizing and persecuting" him for politically incorrect opinions. Worst of all, YOUR way with government forcing him to serve blacks against his will - you will have SAVED HIS BUSINESS but without once inflicting the emotional pain PEOPLE can inflict on him for having such an offensive business practice. PEOPLE can bring him to the point of forcing him to make a CHOICE - his racism over his business or his livelihood over his racism. I don't want government to save this guy's business. If he refuses to voluntarily change his practices, he deserves to LOSE IT and when he does, he will feel the full force of community disapproval which will have also sent a message to ALL current and future business owners that any similar business practices in their community will NOT be welcome here. When community disapproval and rejection makes him re-evaluate and voluntarily change his business practices - EVERYONE benefits. When you give government the power to IMPOSE it on him against his will, we all lose real rights and less freedom for everyone. The bigot never had to re-evaluate his opinions and business practices, he learned nothing, he never felt the pain of the community rejection of him and his business. Instead government actually saved his business by hiding his racism from the community while he will whine and play the role of victim.

MY way the people of a community know this man is a racist bigot and for that reason alone would refuse to give him their business. YOUR way actually HIDES the fact he is such a racist. If I KNOW a business owner was such a racist that he didn't even want the money of a black person, that is more than enough for me to refuse to give him my own money. But I can't KNOW that unless he has the RIGHT to advertise that fact. By using the force of government instead of using the rights and freedoms of people, you are actually choosing the one option that HIDES this man's bigotry from the community that would reject him if they just knew. MY way only the person with the offensive opinion and business practices feels the pain -YOUR way is a demand that we all must suffer for it by the loss of real rights -while protecting and hiding the bigot and people end up patronizing a business they would NEVER do if they just knew about this guy!

We all either have real rights, including the right of free speech -or none of us do. It isn't free speech if the only allowed speech is whatever the majority doesn't mind hearing. You don't use the force of government to punish someone for an offensive opinion. We use the freedoms and rights of EVERYONE ELSE to do it! This is not a hard concept except to those who are DELIBERATELY trying to deceive others into believing that it is impossible to support the freedom of speech and private property rights and be a good person. This is exactly the kind of LIE freedom-hating liberal extremists tell us. They insist that unless we agree with them that government should restrict the free speech and private property rights of anyone who would use those rights in a way THEY don't like, you can't possibly be a decent human being. BULLSHIT BIG TIME -because that isn't a right then, it is merely government granted privilege that government can rescind at any time. Rights are what the people have CLAIMED for themselves and ordered government to leave those rights alone. Rights are NOT handed out by government. So what you are REALLY saying is that you don't place any real value on your own freedom and rights -and like a typical liberal, ARROGANTLY believe that gives you the right to insist no one else can be allowed to value theirs either.

History has proven time and again that YOUR way all too often leads to a government that ends up being FAR more dangerous to human life than the odious personal opinion of an individual.

I prefer using freedom -it is powerful, it is personal in a way a faceless bureaucracy can never be - and it teaches a far better and more long lasting lesson to the racist than your way ever could. But you go ahead and tell yourself that all freedom loving people are actually racist at heart -and it will do nothing but insure people write you off as the true kook and whacko you are showing yourself to be. As is YOUR right too.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

I'm guessing then that you are not happy that he has completely and unequivocally reversed his position:

Rand Paul on CNN earlier this evening:

He said he would have voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act if he were in the Senate at the time, calling the racial climate at the time "a stain on the South and our history."

"There was an overriding problem in the South that was so big that it did require federal intervention in the Sixties," he said. "The Southern states weren't correcting it, and there was a need for federal intervention."

He managed to go from Barry Goldwater to Lyndon Johnson in one hilarious leap!!!!

He read my post!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2328044-post154.html

Don't worry, Rand, I'll be your Spin Doctor.

 

[geauxtohell]

Governments never do anything through knowledge, charity and peace.

Oh yes. Government is inherently evil. So evil that you should just unplug yourself. Why even bother to support Rand? He's only going to disappoint you..........

People like you are the worst. You think it's vogue to sit here and say "they all suck" without having any workable alternative.

If you want to go move out to a cabin in the woods and have to deal with minimal government intervention, no one is stopping you. Society will function just fine in your absence.

There still is and you damn well know it.

There is still murder too. No one is talking about legalizing it for that reason.

 

[2Parties]

Oh yes. Government is inherently evil.

Correct. Something that exists solely on violence and oppression is evil.

Why even bother to support Rand? He's only going to disappoint you..........

I do not support Rand. He hasn't disappointed me, but his father has.

People like you are the worst. You think it's vogue to sit here and say "they all suck" without having any workable alternative.

I do not have government solutions. I am not going to tell people to leave their religion of statism (including conservatives and libertarians). That's a decision they have to make themselves. The only "solution" I have is a personal one.

If you want to go move out to a cabin in the woods and have to deal with minimal government intervention, no one is stopping you. Society will function just fine in your absence.

What you think I believe sounds like it came from the Sean Hannity Show or Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Society functions best when people aren't attacking or threatening each other. I don't believe that "we all just need to stop killing each other and be nice". Mankind is fallen and will not be perfect. What I do not believe in is that a government body creates more good than harm.

Do I support a complete abolishment of government? Sort of, but I know it won't happen as long as humans exist. It's the nature of mankind...

There is still murder too. No one is talking about legalizing it for that reason.

Fox News Alert: Racism is legal.

 

[geauxtohell]

Correct. Something that exists solely on violence and oppression is evil.

So what is your proposed solution? The way I see it, you can become a Monk and spend your life in the third world helping the poor and needy and follow no government.

I do not have government solutions. I am not going to tell people to leave their religion of statism (including conservatives and libertarians). That's a decision they have to make themselves. The only "solution" I have is a personal one.

So, admittedly, you are just here to blow smoke?

What you think I believe sounds like it came from the Sean Hannity Show or Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Society functions best when people aren't attacking or threatening each other.

Dear Lord. I haven't threatened you. My point is, no matter what happens or who is elected, you are going to be unhappy. You are one of those "political hipsters" who likes to talk about how bad everyone else it while not having any real solution to whatever problem you want to address. That's your perrogative, it's just completely uninspiring.

As for me, I am more pragmatic. I recognize that I am never going to get a 100% solution. So I roll with the punches, as opposed to throwing temper tantrums and acting like a snotty teenager at the mall.

Fox News Alert: Racism is legal.

Yeah, no shit. Fox News Alert: Segregated businesses are not.

What's your deal? You bitch about violence, but you want to relegate African Americans to the back of the bus again?

 

[oreo]

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.

Rand Paul is NOT a racist--but in his defense of private property the left has made him out to be racist. After explaining that he would have voted for civil rights in the 1960's he believes that today--anyone sticking up a sign that says "whites only" is probably going to be out of business the very next day. Americans of every color and culture simply wouldn't tolerate it.

The implication here--is that government has their sticky fingers into everything. In fact they are the NUMBER 1 reason this economy hasn't started to rebound yet. Restrictions on this, restrictions on that--tieing our hands so badly we can't even turn-around anymore without permission from them.

 

[oreo]

Rand Paul: 'I Abhor Racial Discrimination' - The Daily Beast

The apple does not fall far from the tree. The Tea Party folks love this guy!

In your link--it clearly states his intent--and YES the government has overreached in about every single thing in our lives.

Just because you disagree with this administration's policies doesn't automatically confirm that you're a racist---

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

Rand Paul is NOT a racist--but in his defense of private property the left has made him out to be racist. After explaining that he would have voted for civil rights in the 1960's he believes that today--anyone sticking up a sign that says "whites only" is probably going to be out of business the very next day. Americans of every color and culture simply wouldn't tolerate it.

The implication here--is that government has their sticky fingers into everything. In fact they are the NUMBER 1 reason this economy hasn't started to rebound yet. Restrictions on this, restrictions on that--tieing our hands so badly we can't even turn-around anymore without permission from them.

Oh please. As lame as the "race card" is the right's penchant to accuse everyone of "playing the race card" so as to avoid the political issue of race is even more lame.

I haven't heard anyone claim Rand is racist. The issue at hand is policy and his take on it, which is germane considering that he want's to be 1/100th of a vote that determines the laws of this country.

 

[2Parties]

So, admittedly, you are just here to blow smoke?

Pretty much. What are internet forums for?

Dear Lord. I haven't threatened you.

Political action is threatening.

My point is, no matter what happens or who is elected, you are going to be unhappy.

I'm actually pretty happy.

As for me, I am more pragmatic.

I don't think I will ever be the advanced intellectual like yourself. You are one of those more evolved "pragmatists", they really got their shit together.

Yeah, no shit. Fox News Alert: Segregated businesses are not.

But yet many businesses do segregate and discriminate. I worked at a place I know would never hire women. They didn't have to give a reason. They discriminated. And this was in 2010.

What's your deal? You bitch about violence, but you want to relegate African Americans to the back of the bus again?

Your deal is that you want to tell the owner of the bus how to run his bus, and you will put a gun to his head and send him to jail if you don't agree with how he runs his bus. That's the problem.

And just so you know, the African Americans sent to the back were riding on the benevolent GOVERNMENT bus.

 

[Queen]

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.

Just as anyone could deny anyone entry to their home or land for any reason, someone should be able to deny someone entry to their business for any reason. Private property is private property. Racism is a horrible thing, but people have the right to be racist. As for the Civil Rights Act in the here and now, that's not what's keeping us from devolving into a racist mass that segregates society. Attitudes have changed, if somebody tried to make their store "white only" then they'd inevitably be forced out of business by people refusing to shop there out of disgust.

It looks like there are plenty of people who'd be happy to enter businesses who discriminate against Mexicans for example.

How would you like to be on a long road trip and be refused entry to the rest areas? No where to go to the bathroom for example? No where to get some food along the way. Do you think America should be a place that allows this?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

He's approaching this topic from an aspect of the Federal government's scope of power and effectiveness in regulating hiring practices, and thinks it can be much better regulated at the local level with private citizens. Whether or not I agree with him is irrelevant, my point is that it doesn't seem racist, it seems like libertarian-ish 'small government' dogma.

I mean, he keeps saying he supports the CRA, and that racism is abhorrent and shouldn't be funded with public dollars, etc. It seemed he was pretty unequivocal in all that.

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.

He's an anti federal government extremist. He, like not a few around here, think they understand the Constitution, but in their zeal to apply an extremist limitation of power on the federal government, they astoundingly overlook one of the primary functions of the Constitution (and the government it forms) which is to protect civil rights.

To them, the federal government, and it's power to function as a federal government, is nothing more than a bombing target and the occasional civil right that gets blown up in the process,

well, that's just unfortunate, unavoidable collateral damage.

There's a reason that James Madison believed that the central federal 'big' government was a better formula for protecting the rights of the citizens than to transfer that power to the states:

""The smaller the society the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party and the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression." Extend the size of the republic, Madison argued, and the country would be less vulnerable to separate factions within it."

Dead on. Note how precisely that applies to Southern segregation and the need for the federal government to end it.

Constitution of the United States - A History

And they did such a good job of it to. After the Civil War it only took the federal government a little over 100 years to end the segregation they institutionalized.

 

[Queen]

start the thread, but never give the quote:

I don't like the idea of telling private business owners - I abhor racism - I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time I do believe in private ownership.

But I think there should be absolutely no discrimination on anything that gets any public funding and that's most of what the Civil Rights Act was about to my mind

Who could possibly misconstrue the quote?

MSNBC and the Huffington Post find it "just stunning."

Frankly, I find it "Just stunning" that anyone other than rdean could twist this into 'it would be OK for Woolworth's to deny service to MLK.' CLEARLY, Paul says, racism is bad in and of itself, and it is bad business, and therefore it would BAD, not OK, for Woolworth's to deny MLK service.

I hope Rand Paul gets better at these interviews, and stops allowing the interviewers to twist him up.

Now, let's await rdean's arrival to scatter around strawmen:

So it's OK to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater? By approving racist behaviour, you sow the seeds for dissension.

He also supports smoker's rights. And admitted that has been working. But he said he didn't like being told he couldn't smoke. What about the cost to society? What about my rights? I don't like the smell.

Carry it one step further. I don't like being told I can't drive at 125 mph. Or that my kid has to ride in a "safety seat".



For most of history, marriage has been a contract to consolidate wealth or power. Tell the truth now. Lying is unbecoming.

So are strawmen. For christssakes rdean, can you stay on topic for more than a page?

Rand Paul is against this:

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.

Civil Rights Division Home Page


But he's backed away from his stance. The Republican party told him to quit it.

So today, he did.

Now, instread of just being a jerk who doesn't care if Americans are protected from discrimination, he's a pathetic hypocrite who's traded his soul for a postion of power.

You can't trust these assholes. They say what they are told to say. They tow the party line.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Just as anyone could deny anyone entry to their home or land for any reason, someone should be able to deny someone entry to their business for any reason. Private property is private property. Racism is a horrible thing, but people have the right to be racist. As for the Civil Rights Act in the here and now, that's not what's keeping us from devolving into a racist mass that segregates society. Attitudes have changed, if somebody tried to make their store "white only" then they'd inevitably be forced out of business by people refusing to shop there out of disgust.

It looks like there are plenty of people who'd be happy to enter businesses who discriminate against Mexicans for example.

How would you like to be on a long road trip and be refused entry to the rest areas? No where to go to the bathroom for example? No where to get some food along the way. Do you think America should be a place that allows this?

Do you think I should be able to stop at a perfect stranger's house and demand to use their bathroom? Private property is private property.

 

[Political Junky]

The Demos could not have written a better script. The racist Rand Paul is their opponent in November. The can scratch that one up as a win.

Find somewhere where he said "I support racism" or show that he was a klan leader...wait...wasn't that one of you guys and isn't he still in the democratic party to this day?

No, David Duke is a republican.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Rand Paul is not a racist. Why, some of his best friends are black...

Like his maid, his driver, and his gardener? the Dems will definitely get a win here! FUNNY! I hope the Tea Party picks all the GOP candidates. They have such....unique taste.

Democrats are funny.. just how many times did they return Robert (clansman) Bird to the Senate?

 

[Political Junky]

start the thread, but never give the quote:

I don't like the idea of telling private business owners - I abhor racism - I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time I do believe in private ownership.

But I think there should be absolutely no discrimination on anything that gets any public funding and that's most of what the Civil Rights Act was about to my mind

Who could possibly misconstrue the quote?

MSNBC and the Huffington Post find it "just stunning."

Frankly, I find it "Just stunning" that anyone other than rdean could twist this into 'it would be OK for Woolworth's to deny service to MLK.' CLEARLY, Paul says, racism is bad in and of itself, and it is bad business, and therefore it would BAD, not OK, for Woolworth's to deny MLK service.

I hope Rand Paul gets better at these interviews, and stops allowing the interviewers to twist him up.

Now, let's await rdean's arrival to scatter around strawmen:

So it's OK to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater? By approving racist behaviour, you sow the seeds for dissension.

He also supports smoker's rights. And admitted that has been working. But he said he didn't like being told he couldn't smoke. What about the cost to society? What about my rights? I don't like the smell.

Carry it one step further. I don't like being told I can't drive at 125 mph. Or that my kid has to ride in a "safety seat".



For most of history, marriage has been a contract to consolidate wealth or power. Tell the truth now. Lying is unbecoming.

So are strawmen. For christssakes rdean, can you stay on topic for more than a page?

The Woolworth lunch counters were private businesses too. The Civil Rights act put a stop to their segregation.