BOOM!!!! Rand Paul Wins

[NYcarbineer]

How does the desire to protect the right of someone to discriminate against a fellow American based on that person's race not translate into being racist? That would make one an accessory, wouldn't it?

There is no higher principle involved here; there is no explicit/implicit right to discriminate anywhere in the Constitution; there is if anything more of a prohibition of such discrimination. There is no legitimate claim to allegiance to some loftier principle here.

It's not "racist" because it's part of a larger philosophy that has nothing to do with race.

His belief that the law is not needed is obviously based on the fact that he believes profit is a more powerful motivator than other factors like racism.

Now, personally I believe that to be incorrect. And obviously I am a firm believer in the Civil Rights Act myself, always have been.

But that doesn't make him a "racist", it makes him naive and misguided.

You cannot say that a philosophy that in part is applied to race has nothing to do with race. That is flat out wrong.

Would you agree that he is, philosophically, an enabler of racial discrimination, and a defender of the right to racially discriminate?

 

[paperview]

Yeah, Byrd is former KKK. Rand Paul appears to be present and future KKK. I'd say that's a difference.

Yeah, Rand wants to burn crosses and kill black people? If you believe that then You're truly a fucking idiot bro. ~BH

Well, David Duke, Republican, did.

What does David Duke think about Rand Paul?

 

[Ravi]

How does the desire to protect the right of someone to discriminate against a fellow American based on that person's race not translate into being racist? That would make one an accessory, wouldn't it?

There is no higher principle involved here; there is no explicit/implicit right to discriminate anywhere in the Constitution; there is if anything more of a prohibition of such discrimination. There is no legitimate claim to allegiance to some loftier principle here.

It's not "racist" because it's part of a larger philosophy that has nothing to do with race.

His belief that the law is not needed is obviously based on the fact that he believes profit is a more powerful motivator than other factors like racism.

Now, personally I believe that to be incorrect. And obviously I am a firm believer in the Civil Rights Act myself, always have been.

But that doesn't make him a "racist", it makes him naive and misguided.

You cannot say that a philosophy that in part is applied to race has nothing to do with race. That is flat out wrong.

Would you agree that he is, philosophically, an enabler of racial discrimination, and a defender of the right to racially discriminate?

Rand Paul might be a racist. But I do not think his feeling in this instance makes him one. Instead it makes him someone that puts business "rights" above the rights of American citizens. Which is pretty much worse than a racist, IMO.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no explicit right to choose your friends anywhere in the Constitution, so does that mean we don't have the right to choose who we befriend? If a black man chooses only black friends is he in violation of anti-descrimination laws?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not apply to personal friendship. Freedom of association is a right. It is however distinct from doing BUSINESS in the United States.

You weren't talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 you were speaking about the Constitution. Wise up and read what you write.

The highlighted blue is not correct, even if you did drop my word implicit.

While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.

Freedom of association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can read on to see that choosing your friends is pretty much a right protected by constitution law.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Yeah, Byrd is former KKK. Rand Paul appears to be present and future KKK. I'd say that's a difference.

Yeah, Rand wants to burn crosses and kill black people? If you believe that then You're truly a fucking idiot bro. ~BH

Well, David Duke, Republican, did.

Great, He and Robert Byrd, (D) who is a former KKK member, can go bowling together. ~BH

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's not "racist" because it's part of a larger philosophy that has nothing to do with race.

His belief that the law is not needed is obviously based on the fact that he believes profit is a more powerful motivator than other factors like racism.

Now, personally I believe that to be incorrect. And obviously I am a firm believer in the Civil Rights Act myself, always have been.

But that doesn't make him a "racist", it makes him naive and misguided.

You cannot say that a philosophy that in part is applied to race has nothing to do with race. That is flat out wrong.

Would you agree that he is, philosophically, an enabler of racial discrimination, and a defender of the right to racially discriminate?

Rand Paul might be a racist. But I do not think his feeling in this instance makes him one. Instead it makes him someone that puts business "rights" above the rights of American citizens. Which is pretty much worse than a racist, IMO.

Well, if someone were to say they don't believe the federal government should have the authority to outlaw child pornography, and that someone defended the right of people who created and/or distributed child pornography, I guess, by the technicality of the semantics being engaged in here,

I wouldn't be able to call that person a pedophile. I'm not sure that anyone winning that semantic battle should do much celebrating.

 

[Ravi]

You cannot say that a philosophy that in part is applied to race has nothing to do with race. That is flat out wrong.

Would you agree that he is, philosophically, an enabler of racial discrimination, and a defender of the right to racially discriminate?

Rand Paul might be a racist. But I do not think his feeling in this instance makes him one. Instead it makes him someone that puts business "rights" above the rights of American citizens. Which is pretty much worse than a racist, IMO.

Well, if someone were to say they don't believe the federal government should have the authority to outlaw child pornography, and that someone defended the right of people who created and/or distributed child pornography, I guess, by the technicality of the semantics being engaged in here,

I wouldn't be able to call that person a pedophile. I'm not sure that anyone winning that semantic battle should do much celebrating.

hmmm...he is also saying that it is okay to engage in racial discrimination, in other words, to treat Americans as if they are not protected by the constitution.

It's hard to separate it because I do believe he would have no problem with a black business excluding whites. So, is that actual racism?

What ever we call him, he's dead wrong and doesn't really understand what the founding fathers wanted for the country.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's not "racist" because it's part of a larger philosophy that has nothing to do with race.

His belief that the law is not needed is obviously based on the fact that he believes profit is a more powerful motivator than other factors like racism.

Now, personally I believe that to be incorrect. And obviously I am a firm believer in the Civil Rights Act myself, always have been.

But that doesn't make him a "racist", it makes him naive and misguided.

You cannot say that a philosophy that in part is applied to race has nothing to do with race. That is flat out wrong.

Would you agree that he is, philosophically, an enabler of racial discrimination, and a defender of the right to racially discriminate?

Rand Paul might be a racist. But I do not think his feeling in this instance makes him one. Instead it makes him someone that puts business "rights" above the rights of American citizens. Which is pretty much worse than a racist, IMO.

I dubbed these guys Constitutional Fundamentalists. They are devout adherents to a very narrow specific and what they consider a literal and true interpretation of the Constitution. But their 'true' interpretation is one that believes the federal government should be all but impotent in all matters other than defense, and whatever few others they might believe in which don't come to mind offhand. They effectively want to Balkanize the U.S. into fifty little countries that are united by little more than a military alliance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rand Paul might be a racist. But I do not think his feeling in this instance makes him one. Instead it makes him someone that puts business "rights" above the rights of American citizens. Which is pretty much worse than a racist, IMO.

Well, if someone were to say they don't believe the federal government should have the authority to outlaw child pornography, and that someone defended the right of people who created and/or distributed child pornography, I guess, by the technicality of the semantics being engaged in here,

I wouldn't be able to call that person a pedophile. I'm not sure that anyone winning that semantic battle should do much celebrating.

hmmm...he is also saying that it is okay to engage in racial discrimination, in other words, to treat Americans as if they are not protected by the constitution.

It's hard to separate it because I do believe he would have no problem with a black business excluding whites. So, is that actual racism?

What ever we call him, he's dead wrong and doesn't really understand what the founding fathers wanted for the country.

Of course a black business refusing whites would be racist.

This may shift the topic slightly but I'd like to know if he or those who defend this view think that the states should have the right to ban discrimination in business, and if so why?

 

[Vast LWC]

You cannot say that a philosophy that in part is applied to race has nothing to do with race. That is flat out wrong.

Would you agree that he is, philosophically, an enabler of racial discrimination, and a defender of the right to racially discriminate?

By that standard, the entire Democratic system is inherently "racist", due to the fact that the majority always wins.

So, no, I am not going to say that he is a racist, because unless you're intentionally doing something to be racist, said act is not inherently racist.

If it promotes racism, then that is indeed something that needs to be corrected, but it does not make the originator "racist".

 

[Vast LWC]

And again, I believe Paul's philosophy is misguided, specifically because of problems like these.

But here is my problem with calling him a "racist":

The man is obviously not a racist. If we keep calling people "racists" because of things like this, the word will become meaningless, and when we call out real racists, no-one will pay attention.

 

[Vast LWC]

I dubbed these guys Constitutional Fundamentalists. They are devout adherents to a very narrow specific and what they consider a literal and true interpretation of the Constitution. But their 'true' interpretation is one that believes the federal government should be all but impotent in all matters other than defense, and whatever few others they might believe in which don't come to mind offhand. They effectively want to Balkanize the U.S. into fifty little countries that are united by little more than a military alliance.

Well, that is a good point. Much more accurate and effective than calling him a racist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You cannot say that a philosophy that in part is applied to race has nothing to do with race. That is flat out wrong.

Would you agree that he is, philosophically, an enabler of racial discrimination, and a defender of the right to racially discriminate?

By that standard, the entire Democratic system is inherently "racist", due to the fact that the majority always wins.

So, no, I am not going to say that he is a racist, because unless you're intentionally doing something to be racist, said act is not inherently racist.

If it promotes racism, then that is indeed something that needs to be corrected, but it does not make the originator "racist".

I am saying he is a defender of the right to racially discriminate. He doing so by taking issue with the portion of the 64 CRA that makes it illegal to discriminate. Maybe more precisely he is defending the right of states to keep discrimination legal. Now that he's flipflopped his position however, most of this debate has become moot.

 

[Political Junky]

Yeah, Rand wants to burn crosses and kill black people? If you believe that then You're truly a fucking idiot bro. ~BH

Well, David Duke, Republican, did.

Great, He and Robert Byrd, (D) who is a former KKK member, can go bowling together. ~BH

You won't find many Democratic members of the KKK, they all became Republicans after the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Johnson said when he signed the Civil Rights Bill that he knew the Democrats had lost the South, but he knew it was the right thing to do.

 

[Political Junky]

It's not "racist" because it's part of a larger philosophy that has nothing to do with race.

His belief that the law is not needed is obviously based on the fact that he believes profit is a more powerful motivator than other factors like racism.

Now, personally I believe that to be incorrect. And obviously I am a firm believer in the Civil Rights Act myself, always have been.

But that doesn't make him a "racist", it makes him naive and misguided.

You cannot say that a philosophy that in part is applied to race has nothing to do with race. That is flat out wrong.

Would you agree that he is, philosophically, an enabler of racial discrimination, and a defender of the right to racially discriminate?

Rand Paul might be a racist. But I do not think his feeling in this instance makes him one. Instead it makes him someone that puts business "rights" above the rights of American citizens. Which is pretty much worse than a racist, IMO.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLhyPnZgKgg&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Rand Paul: White House criticism of BP is "un-American"[/ame]

 

[saveliberty]

Well, David Duke, Republican, did.

Great, He and Robert Byrd, (D) who is a former KKK member, can go bowling together. ~BH

You won't find many Democratic members of the KKK, they all became Republicans after the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Johnson said when he signed the Civil Rights Bill that he knew the Democrats had lost the South, but he knew it was the right thing to do.

So the Civil Rights Act of 1964 just erased any racism on the part of the Democratic Party and its membership, while having the opposite effect on the Republican Party. Your argument is faulty at best. Inflamatory with little effort.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Well, David Duke, Republican, did.

Great, He and Robert Byrd, (D) who is a former KKK member, can go bowling together. ~BH

You won't find many Democratic members of the KKK, they all became Republicans after the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Johnson said when he signed the Civil Rights Bill that he knew the Democrats had lost the South, but he knew it was the right thing to do.

Hey, I could care less. Both Parties are corrupt in my opinion. I personally would not judge anyone based on their race, but I don't like the Government telling private business owners how to run their business. That's what this is about. Vast LWC seems to understand that. Labeling people like Rand a racist will only work against you guys. ~BH

 

[Political Junky]

Great, He and Robert Byrd, (D) who is a former KKK member, can go bowling together. ~BH

You won't find many Democratic members of the KKK, they all became Republicans after the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Johnson said when he signed the Civil Rights Bill that he knew the Democrats had lost the South, but he knew it was the right thing to do.

So the Civil Rights Act of 1964 just erased any racism on the part of the Democratic Party and its membership, while having the opposite effect on the Republican Party. Your argument is faulty at best. Inflamatory with little effort.

It's just the facts. Read about it.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

You cannot say that a philosophy that in part is applied to race has nothing to do with race. That is flat out wrong.

Would you agree that he is, philosophically, an enabler of racial discrimination, and a defender of the right to racially discriminate?

By that standard, the entire Democratic system is inherently "racist", due to the fact that the majority always wins.

So, no, I am not going to say that he is a racist, because unless you're intentionally doing something to be racist, said act is not inherently racist.

If it promotes racism, then that is indeed something that needs to be corrected, but it does not make the originator "racist".

I am saying he is a defender of the right to racially discriminate. He doing so by taking issue with the portion of the 64 CRA that makes it illegal to discriminate. Maybe more precisely he is defending the right of states to keep discrimination legal. Now that he's flipflopped his position however, most of this debate has become moot.

Actually, he is a defender of freedom of choice. You're too much of a racist yourself to understand that. You don't have much support on this one bro. ~BH

 

[saveliberty]

You won't find many Democratic members of the KKK, they all became Republicans after the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Johnson said when he signed the Civil Rights Bill that he knew the Democrats had lost the South, but he knew it was the right thing to do.

So the Civil Rights Act of 1964 just erased any racism on the part of the Democratic Party and its membership, while having the opposite effect on the Republican Party. Your argument is faulty at best. Inflamatory with little effort.

It's just the facts. Read about it.

Laws often don't change what is in a person's heart. You have a creative view of reality.