Rand Paul Interview with George Stephanopoulos on GMA 5-21-10

[MourninGlory]

George got owned :D The bias was quite clear, and GMA got called out on it. GJ Rand Paul

[dmtcalendar]

rand paul is an idiot and a racist. he is not answering the questions. "oh poo

r me, i am being called out on my racist sh*t"

[LibertarianBrit]

Wow he just railed him. He was clearly pissed off.

In many respects he's right. I think it's almost impossible to have an intelligent, philosophical discussion in this country without being called racist. Especially among the Democrats.

You can't even argue welfare or health care without being called a racist.

Thomas Sowell, an African American free-market economist argued both, and even he was called a racist by those on the left who love to use race for political gain.

[rightsman123]

The letter Paul wrote to the Daily news was about the failure for the Federal Fair Housing Act to distinguish between private and public property. Rand simply brought up the fact that private entities like a bed and breakfast could decide whether or not to allow children. So Rand was pretty much on message, about the inherent danger of Federal laws that can infringe on a businesses right to discriminate based on their prerogative.

[Thrice13]

Stephanopoulos is a jerk off!

[DrRonPaul]

Yes putting a gun to someone's head and MAKING them accept you is what FREEDOM is all about.

This is America.

You have the right to associate or disassociate however you damn well please.

Got a problem with it get out.

[jfsfrnd]

Pt 1 - No one is "putting a gun" to anyone's head. And no one is making anyone "accept you".  The CRA, the ADA, and the states Human Rights Acts define private entities (private businesses) as "public accommodations" which means that the business which is engaged in commerce (trade) has to sell their goods and services on an equal basis and protects persons of race, color,

[jfsfrnd]

Pt 2 - religion, age, sex, national origin, gender, disability and sexual orientation, gender identity in some states from discrimination to equal acess of those goods and services.

[juan563]

@jfsfrnd - It might just be that you fail to recognize the fact that the Constitution was designed 1) to assign functions to the federal government and 2) to limit and control the actions of the federal government so that the federal government did not trample on state sovereignty. Read the Constitution more carefully, and if you want to read the actual Founder's intentions, read The Federalist Papers.

[muffman11111]

im just gonna say everyone discriminates everyday. listen hes saying let a private business do what it wants but when it gets out they wont let blacks gays what have ya no one will go there. hes not rasist because he owns a business his self an he lets everyone in. its all about gov. intrusion in private lives.

[jfsfrnd]

@muffman11111 So the "private lives" of people of race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin, gender, disability and sexual orientation, gender identity in some states don't count enough to give them equal access to goods and services. It's okay if those "blacks gays" are treated like second-class citizens and can't buy food, clothes, furniture, get medical care, for themselves and their families.

[DrRonPaul]

@jfsfrnd you have no concept of freedom at all...why am i not surprised...

like explaining rocket science to a poodle

[jfsfrnd]

@DrRonPaul Freedom to do what?  What about the freedom of an individual to the right to the purchase of goods and services and to not be barred from that purchase based on race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin, gender, disability and sexual orientation, and gender identity in some states.

[DrRonPaul]

@jfsfrnd Freedom to run YOUR business the way you want to.

Ownership = Freedom.

Who owns the business the owner or the customer?

Forcing someone to do business with someone gives that someone partial ownership of THEIR property, which means it isn't their property....it's everyones property.

You really don't understand the principles of liberty and freedom at all.

You're implying that a customer has some magical right to someone's property because they exist.

[jfsfrnd]

@DrRonPaul You do have the freedom to run our business the way you want to as long as you follow local, state and federal laws. 

[DrRonPaul]

@jfsfrnd So freedom to you is what local, state and federal laws tell you to do.

If they local, state and federal laws made freedom of speech illegal that would be freedom as well.

[jfsfrnd]

@DrRonPaul They can't. make freedom of speech illegal. It's unconstitutional. It is you that doesn't understand liberty and freedom. The discrimination laws are in place to protect the minority from the majority.

[DrRonPaul]

@jfsfrnd The discrimination laws are in place to blur the lines between public and private property.

They are unconstitutional.

The OWNER of his property IS the minority.

Everyone else is the majority.

That's the difference between idividualism and collectivism.

[jfsfrnd]

@DrRonPaul Yeah you're such a minority. The discrimination laws are in place in order to make sure that the public gets the equal right to to purchase goods and services and not be discriminated in those purchases based on race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin, gender, disability and sexual orientation, and gender identity in some states. So what are you losing? You get compensation for the sale of your goods and services. No one is taking anything from you.

[DrRonPaul]

@jfsfrnd You're taking away my right to OWN property, be an individual and be left alone.

The CONSTITUTION is in place to protect the INDIVIDUAL from the COLLECTIVE.

Society or the precious "public" do not own your property.

What part of OWN do you not understand?

[jfsfrnd]

". . .my right to OWN property, be an individual and be left alone. . ."

You have that right.

". . .to protect the INDIVIDUAL from the COLLECTIVE . . ."

Really. Where does it say that?

". . .What part of OWN do you not understand? . . ."

Owning a business does not give you the right to decide who gets purchase your goods and services.

[DrRonPaul]

@jfsfrnd "Owning a business does not give you the right to decide who gets purchase your goods and services"

BULLSHIT!

So you own your business but not the goods and services? You really are a moron and anti american piece of garbage.

The constitution is a document for LIBERTY not collectivism.

[jfsfrnd]

". . .a moron and anti american piece of garbage. . ."

Ad Hominem attacks are not a valid argument.

". . .constitution is a document for LIBERTY . . ."

Yeah, but not the liberty you seek. Read the pm I sent you.

[jfsfrnd]

Letter of Transmittal to the President of Congress

In Convention. Monday September 17th 1787

" . . .It is obviously impracticable in the Federal Government of these States to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all. Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. . ." George Washington

By your standard the Quakers would still be at rikt for getting murdered.

[jfsfrnd]

@DrRonPaul -- at rikt, I meant at risk.

[juan563]

@jfsfrnd - Here's a good book for you: "The Discovery of Freedom" written by Rose Wilder Lane in 1943 and still available from the Von Mises Institute. Great book!

[jfsfrnd]

@juan563 Sorry buddy, but there have been many laws and Supreme Court decisions made since 1943.

[juan563]

@jfsfrnd - You really do need to read some early documents regarding the founding of the American republic. This is not a set of social issues - it is a set of legal issues. In addition to reading The Federalist Papers, take the whole set of U.S. history courses at a local university.

[juan563]

@muffman11111 - Nice summary.

[nightmoves44]

No Rand, it's about what you said and wrote. Quit finger pointing. 

[juan563]

@nightmoves44 - So it would appear that you do not believe that Rand Paul did a very good job of stating and correcting the record.

I would disagree.

[jfsfrnd]

The CRA defining a private business as a "public accommodation" does not make the business a "public place". It accommodates persons based on race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin, gender, disability and sexual orientation, gender identity in some states to equal access to goods and services. It does not not accommodate gun carriers. Rand Paul is seriously ignorant about the CRA of 1964 and the states Human Rights Acts.

[juan563]

@jfsfrnd - It did not appear to me that Rand was connecting the right to bear arms to the CRA. 

[jfsfrnd]

"Then if you decide that restaurants are 'publically owned' and not 'privately owned' then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says, "Well no, we don't to have want guns in here".

The above is a direct quote from the video. He is clearly saying that the CRA could give gun owners "the right" to carry a gun into a restaurant.

[juan563]

@jfsfrnd - I don't think so.

Right to carry is a state thing, not a federal thing. Vermont, for example does not require a concealed carry permit, so anyone can carry a concealed firearm into a restaurant unless it is prohibited by the restaurant.

I think Rand Paul was being careful in his choice of words and didn't want to be misunderstood again by GMA.