Paul admits political slip in civil rights remarks

[WillowTree]

it took all of ten nanaoseconds for the left to start the race baiting game. that's gotta be an all time record. whooop whoop

As I stated in a separate thread, if Rand Paul had not poured fuel on the flame, it would have gone out. Fuckin' rookie....

always on the ready with an excuse huh race baiter?? that's vewy good.

 

[rightwinger]

I watched the Rachel maddow interview of Rand Paul and she did exactly what he said the media would do with his comments about keeping the government out of private businesses.

Instead of having an intellectual debate the media will turn it into a 3 word phrase and use it against him politically

Which is exactly what they did

and some of you just follow right along.
Because it's easier for simple minds

It was a massive blunder by Rand Paul.

It was laid out on a platter for him. All he had to say was "Yes, I would have voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act" and it all would have been over.

He could have explained the Libertarian issues with the act as long as he acknowledged the critical issue of Civil Rights at that time.

 

[VaYank5150]

I watched the Rachel maddow interview of Rand Paul and she did exactly what he said the media would do with his comments about keeping the government out of private businesses.

Instead of having an intellectual debate the media will turn it into a 3 word phrase and use it against him politically

Which is exactly what they did

and some of you just follow right along.
Because it's easier for simple minds

It was a massive blunder by Rand Paul.

It was laid out on a platter for him. All he had to say was "Yes, I would have voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act" and it all would have been over.

He could have explained the Libertarian issues with the act as long as he acknowledged the critical issue of Civil Rights at that time.

But, if he had, the Tea Baggers would have been upset with him!

 

[Misty]

"What is often misunderstood about the media's portrayal of race is the subtle manner in which race is used when disseminated information.

Whether its implicit or explicit, everything in the media either challenges or re-affirms our own perceptions about people who are different from us.

The media is not in the business of challenging citizens. It is, instead, in the business of propping up our biases.

*Consequently, this polarized media is perpetuating divisions as opposed to eliminating them while contributing to our collective inability to consider a divergent perspective and our tendency to dismiss that perspective."

loop21.com

 

[rightwinger]

I watched the Rachel maddow interview of Rand Paul and she did exactly what he said the media would do with his comments about keeping the government out of private businesses.

Instead of having an intellectual debate the media will turn it into a 3 word phrase and use it against him politically

Which is exactly what they did

and some of you just follow right along.
Because it's easier for simple minds

It was a massive blunder by Rand Paul.

It was laid out on a platter for him. All he had to say was "Yes, I would have voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act" and it all would have been over.

He could have explained the Libertarian issues with the act as long as he acknowledged the critical issue of Civil Rights at that time.

But, if he had, the Tea Baggers would have been upset with him!

Only the Liberal Plants

 

[uptownlivin90]

The "Ideal" (like the ideal gas law) Libertarian position would approve of the Civil Rights Act when it comes to government or public area interaction. Where it would differ would be on private property. Here property rights would outweigh societies interest in enforcing the more abstract aspects of the 13th-15th amendments. By abstract I mean the concrete foundings of no slavery etc could not even be done on private property as they would be in general illegal. The right to interact in a contractural nature, however with who you want to would be as long as all aspects of it took place on private property.

Note I do not beleive in this nessisarily, I'm just trying to think out a libertarian perspective on civil rights legislation.

For a non racist libitarian, I would think thier view would be the market would solve the issues of "whites only buisnesses" as they are first of all restricting thier customer base by not only the rule, but by the secondary loss of business from people of thier own color not wanting anything to do with them.

Exactly, personally with most issues when it comes to private property I'd agree with Paul. Like I've said before I don't think the guys racist, just believes in the overall good nature of the free market and the American people. Of course that's an easy argument to make in the face of 50 years having the Civil Rights Act in place and 40 years of forced integration.

However, if you were on the other side of the civil rights struggle and were the ones who might have to drive an extra ten miles to find a diner in Alabama that would serve you, you might have a different perspective in that. The question is here is do I as a small business owner have a "right" to treat people differently based solely on race? Personally I'm considered a social libertarian and an economic moderate. I'm pro-gun, pro-choice, pro-school choice, anti-drug war, very pro-free speech, against heavy taxation, against government intervention in most cases and against foreign interventionism. Again on the property rights issue I'd more then likely side with the business owner in most cases. In this case I'd have to say that I'm not, simply because this isn't comparable to (like Rand Paul asserted during the Maddow interview) business owners deciding whether or not they wanted customers with guns in their restaurant.

This is them making a decision about who they do business with based solely on color. If in this nation we recognize color as a reasonable discriminatory agency based on the first amendment we are rolling into dangers waters. As someone who largely does subscribe to the libertarian theory I like to think that society best operates when individuals are looked upon as individuals and not classified by racial and ethnic identities. We ALL should be looked upon as individuals who have the right to be treated equally with other individuals. If you don't want individuals in your restaurant with guns, that's that. But you have to treat all individuals black and white equally. It's not a hard concept, and it is a shame that we need laws to enforce this, but that's the history of this nation.

One thing I will say about Rand Paul the gun argument was VERY VERY amateurish and disappointing, especially considering the history of this nation. Comparing black people being let into diners with people with guns is not the best comparison to make and it brings back those stereotypes of people of color being some how dangerous, and gives legitimacy to white white business owners might not want "them" in their stores. That was a BIG mistake.