@keltik21912 well guess what genius, the supreme court, founding fathers AND the constitution SAYS ur wrong ..it doesnt matter what u "think" becuz US LAW says ur wrong : )
@Davidsternsucks that WAS the law until the civil rights act, EVERY ethnic minority WAS descriminated against ...and NONE of the racist establishments (which were ALL businesses at the time) EVER went out of business.... U CANT rewrite history just becuz ur an idiot blinx supporter or this rand paul wacko ...ur not bright
If a business discriminates against people, it will usually fail. If a private business wants to discriminate against a certain group, it should be allowed to do so but at the same time it will probably fail too.
America picks and chooses what it wants Uncle Sam to monitor and regulate. Some people want Uncle Sam to decide issues like gay marriage and abortion but they could care less on things like casinos and drug laws.
Private clubs practice discrimination all the time but no one ever says anything about it.
Why do people just love to hate on Ron Paul and his son?
Do you like America wasting money on nation building and policing the world? What about homeless and poor people in America? Don't they deserve some help?
isn't being able to chose really what liberty and freedom are all about? I think if you are a private business, you have the right to chose whom you want to serve, and whom you want to hire.
@ArtieLangeXM You mention law. Well, the law in Delaware for example once said that it was illegal for a black to marry a white and now the law in some states says that two dudes can marry. Freedom of choice is what America should be about.
@keltik21912 no actually the supreme coury ruled it unconstitutional and order interracial marriage statewide lol ..ron paul supporters appatently dont know their history
@ArtieLangeXM I am not a Ron Paul supporter. And I am well aware that the Supreme Court would find those kinds of laws unconstitutional. However, I still think that a private business has the right to choose its employees and its customers.
@Davidsternsucks is that why every business failed in american when they refused ti serve jews, blacks, spics, niggers, kikes, micks, greesball italians, faggots ...ohhhh u live in fantasy land where ur applying hundreds of years of equality and civil rights to ur demented reimagining of US history
@sinistar99: You can only make your argument on asinine hypotheticals. If there were "whites only" bars they would be boycotted from existence, as PROVEN by MLK. By forcing racist people to serve you, you only enable racist people an easy time by enabling them to continue working, since you are putting your money in institutions with racists. Still, this position is not racially motivated making you guys a bunch of a**holes
@squamish4244: Under libertarian philosophy you have the right to defend your life from aggression because you have a right to your life. You don't have a right to another person's store, no matter what beliefs they have. Self defense is the only justified moment of force. I said "the immorality of force," not the morality of it. The only way id*ots can argue against libertarianism is to simply be an id*ot or make sh*t up. You should think before posting nonsense.
As an English guy I have to say your American Tea Party politicians are insane. They are far more interesting to watch than our normal, sane, consensus seeking politicians. Such a spectacle.
@thecraftybee >>> Yeah those politicans of yours have done an outstanding job with your country's finances. Your economy is doing so well over there thanks to them. No wonder there's never any riots there.
@naes342: "There's no such thing as the "immorality of force".
Yes there is. Force is immoral when it is not in self defense. If you disagree, you imply the moral right to cause violence towards another when no threat is posed to you. By extension, the police can rape your wife and kill you since "there's no such thing as the immorality of force." Calling someone racist is not an intelligent response. Half my family speaks Spanish and were born in Ecuador. You're just a liberal asshole.
I don't get it, what's so awesome about this? It's just Rachel Maddow behaving contemptibly.
Einstein can help shed some light on this.
"Peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through understanding." -Einstein
Government force (violence) hasn't cured racism, but it has compromised the ability of business owners to make bad choices. More and more the government is telling us what we can and cannot do, say or think. Where do YOU draw the line?
@AtheistDaddy: "Mr. King did not march to be walking up and down the street. He marched, with others, to bring attention to authorities (and a nation) on the civil rights violations occurring. Libertarians are only against force when it suits their arguments. I am sure you would support force to protect your property but you don't support force to ensure millions of black Americans have equal rights. Shameful."
You don't have rights to force people to serve you.
@Bloodline0000 let the majority make moral decisions like refusing housing, education and the like to minorities?! Sorry, that is not sound policy for a nation.
@AtheistDaddy: Your basing your cry for injustice on things that aren't rights to begin with. You don't have a right to housing, jobs, cell phones or even food. You shouldn't be talking about homes, since it was central economic planning that allowed us to have a housing boom and bust.
It would appear that libertarian philosophy needs to find a way out of this dilemma. Holding property rights as absolute doesn't work in the real world. The right to property was granted (originally by the sovereign) as an attempt to maximize efficiency and fairness and minimize conflict in society. If and when it does not fulfill that function, it is the right of the people to alter the arrangement so that it does. Of course, it has to be done wisely, and it appears that the CR Act did so.
What a bigoted, shitheaded Right wing hypocrite. Rand Paul: "I don't condone any form of violence"...BUT it's OK if it's done by thuggish campaign supporters of mine as they STOMPED on the head of a petite, defenseless female protester last October during my KY Senate debate. Wow. In the words of the Bard: Physician, heal THYSELF !!!!!!
@Sharky165: You're making things up. He believes one has the right to be abhorrent, not violent. Libertarians believe in individual rights, this means not corporate or individual entity has the right to enact aggression towards you. It's sad how many stupid people are involved in the election process.
No he is not a rascist, but the man is an idiot... Wonder if that woman who got attacked by his thugs during tthe campaign will or is sueing him and those thugs of his...
As much as I disagree with Maddows views, it's interesting to look at the sheer difference
between msnbc and fox, where these two are able to disagree and still end on a positive note. Whereas a fox debate of disagreeing points would end with yelling and the host calling the guest a pinhead.
i was just pointing that this interview looked a little like something from fox news. sorry rachel. i love your show. just felt this was a lil out of character for u. leave the ill tempered interviews to bill oreilly. your ideals and rationality are enough to win these types of debates.
dont mistake my explanation of his side as me agreeing with him though. i dont. the civill rights act is much better than the alternative. cureently u cant just refuse a person service as an act of hate. that person has to cause a problem in order to be refused service.
this is weird but i actually didnt like the way this interview was conducted. while i do side with rachel i think she failed to see the man's point. he was saying that allowing the govt to impose desegregation law would mean that same law would protect the right of a white supremacist, or NRA member to be served. a desegregation law would effectively force a minority owned business to serve ppl who hate them like white supremacists so long as they dont break another law while there.
he fails to finish defining the results of his views. if a privately owned business has policies that segregate or discriminate the idea of free markets comes in. the community is offended, they spend their money elsewhere, work elsewhere and the business does not survive. any acts of violence are to be taken care of like any other crimes. this is a continuation of the Libertarian view of strong State and Local Government. a scale that allows locals more involvement.
Rand Paul expressed his point quite well and didn't fall into her trap. He believes in privacy and the right to own and disagreed with any segregation but wanted to make sure the govt does not intrude into individual privacy. I agree with him, hey do you think there are some places in East Saint Louis where you aren't welcomed if you are hispanic or white? Door swings both ways folks..
His argument is that virtually any law placed against a corporations practices somehow transfers ownership to the government. Republicans and teabaggers never think about what doors that would open. You run a powerplant and want to save money by dumping your waste in the river, in his mind thats ok. You want to experiment on food and not test the side effects thats just fine. It will only lead to more corruption and shady activity that will hurt the public.
@gdogg2000: A claim not backed up by the facts. The definition of Libertarianism means that no entity, corporate or individual, has a right to infringe upon the property or life of another entity. This includes polluting the lands of others or toxins in foods. You are describing corporatism and not free enterprise. If you want to preach about toxins in food, ask Obama why he appointed Monsanto CEO as the food safety CZAR or why he is okay with limited liability for BP.
@gdogg2000: Dumping waste "in the river" violates the libertarian principle of individual liberty. In a free market economy and not a corporatist one, individuals are protected by the government's only legitimate role of protecting the individual from fraud or violence. This means that no entity, corporate or individual, has the right to pollute your lands or your body. In his mind this is not "ok" as it goes against his philosophy. Do research before you post nonsense.
How is a public river, water, land etc individual property?! Try to have a clue before you attempt to sound smarter than you think you are! Of course they can't do that to private property which wasn't even what I was talking about..
@squamish4244 how can he say "yes" or "no" when the whole point is just to paint him as a racist, he's trying to show that it is much more nuanced answer than the deceptively simple, do you support the Civil Rights Act or not?
He says "Return to Racism is ok". And he compares gun ownership with human rights. What a stupid comparison. One has NOTHING to do with the other. And he successfully avoids answering the question over and over again. Another Professional Political Liar.
Does not listen as she trys to just trap this guy. He believes in "freedom" and is not going to walk into her trap so a sound byte can take him out of context. He explicitly said he does not condone segregation. He is sticking to his principals in regards to freedom and Rachel is just looking for a sound byte answer.
Lol, someone said that Rand Paul is a 'non-issue and won't be reelected'. I can see him saying this before he was elected and saying that he is "a non-issue and won't be elected". Ridiculous.
Rand Paul is against the Patriot Act and Obama reauthorized it. Obama zombies cannot compare Rand Paul's support of Civil Rights based off of property issues when our supposed 'change' president tramples them like a hypocrite.
@Helotes420: So you want to fund a discriminative business by forcing them to serve you. Maybe we should let these scumbags be openly vocal about this, so that we know where to shop? I'm not gay but if you think boycotts don't work then you're going against the teachings of MLK, am I right? Discrimination does not entitle you to someone else's property and aggression is just as immoral as racist views.
What the fuck are you stupid ? If you think people who support them are racist then your a dumbass. Everyone is racist in some form or fashion. You know damn well theres some people you dont like. By the way you have a constitutional right to be racist if you want it may not be the smartest thing to do but you still have that right
@ATLHAWKSMAN Nice idiotic response there, so let me explain what I meant, though it should be obvious. RACISTS support Ron & Rand Paul. Plenty of non-racists support him too. Liberals & conservatives support him, in addition to libertarians, but google any racist sight. They ALL support Ron & Paul.
Watching this video... NOW I know why.
Now if you still don't understand my statement, then you ARE an idiot. If you do understand it, then try not say stupid shit anymore. Got it? : )
@ATLHAWKSMAN Oh SHIT! You're a highly intelligent human & I'm a Zionist piece of shit. DAM!
There's no heaven or hell? Shit! Are you certain of that? I mean, seriously, since you're an (what did you call it, audio dac dick) or something like that, I figured you must know if there's a heaven or a hell.
I sure hope there's a heaven, but if there's a hell, holy fuck. Are you certain dude? Dam. FUCK! WTF!!!
A hell? Holy shit dude. So who goes to hell dude? Is it a real lake of fire?
@Lightmane321: It sounds as if you want to keep parading this fallacy that racism somehow fuels his campaign, so that you can keep calling Ron Paul supporters "racist." Racist people support Barack Obama too, if we imply your logic. Can you say with a straight face, that black people didn't vote for him because he was black? Boasting with unverifiable bold statements like "all" is a sure sign that you simply spew rhetoric. Paul simply believes in tolerance and boycotts as MLK did, to end racism
@Dickfuck420 OMG! I didn't say that his supporters are ALL racist!!! I didn't say that racism is fueling his campaign. Jesus Christ people. What I said is obvious. If you don't get it, I can't help you, since I already explained it too, which I should'nt have had to. But, oh well....
wow your grasp upon the english language is superb. i am perplexed as to why you made such an imbecilic comment but im astounded as to why you would inquire about my yearning to make more repugnant comments. By the way im in no way "uneducated" im in fact extremely autodidactic.
@ASeventhSign and how in the fuck did you figure out that I'm a zionist piece of shit? I have my anti-zionist piece of shit protector. I just fucking bought it. Shit! If this thing doesn't work, I'm SCREWED!!!
Now EVERYBODY is going to know that I'm a ZIONIST PIECE OF SHIT.
i was assuming based on your comments that your a zionist. now you probably dont know what that is so im not going to mention it anymore. there is a heaven and a hell its clearly stated in the bible. autodidactic means one who is self taught by the way
@ATLHAWKSMAN Phew. I live in Illinois & there's a Zion Illinois, so I was really getting nervous there for a sec. So you know there's a heaven & a hell because it's clearly taught in the bible?
Well that settles it then huh? See... If I were a dia dac dick, I would've realized this logical infurment that ur mackin. Too bad for me I'm a dumb fuck & not a di-da-dic like you.
So what exactly is hell & how can I avoid it. Is it really fire, cause someone told me it's fire
@lintsniffer: Bringing this issue up is pure political desperation, done so on the very day of his Senate primary victory. I agree, this is totally for the purpose of taking the attention off of the debt that will destroy ALL Americans of any race.
@Dickfuck420 Finally let me pose this scenario for you. Lets say you are housing contractor and your construct houses for a living and you are a minority. You are good at what you do and deliver quality work but others do to. So you go to John Smith after this law is modified and try to by some lumber and he agrees to sell you some but at the price of $50.00 per 16 foot 2x4. You notice that he just sold Bill Hensley your rival the same thing for $10.00. When asked he said that's the white price
@Dickfuck420 I would never consider this because it has no positive offering to society. Guns do, African Americans and other minorities do. I would compare this do trying to give an American the free right to murder in cold blood which is in no way positive. Would you argue that people have that right? We do ban things by law because is not for the good of the nation and this is no different. To argue otherwise without pointing out any positive merits means there must be some underlying agenda.
To say that a business would go under for not serving Blacks is not at all true. There are still enough racist supporters both private and public that would patronize such businesses just for that cause. In hard times like the one we may be about to face the ability to get a job would be slanted economic prosperity could be manipulated to benefit one race. Seeing that even today most business private or public is ran by whites today you can guess what the outcome would be like in ten years.
@modivated1: That's because the population is predominately white. This does not mean, however, that because the majority is Caucasian that somehow they are all against minorities. Your statement that most business is "white" is very misleading.
What you say is true, that racism will still exist. This will exist no matter what legislation comes to pass. The same can be said about guns, drugs, etc. Truth is, an employer can simply lie about why you weren't hired.
@Dickfuck420 I understand what you are trying to say and I am not implying that every caucasian is racist. I am implying however that there are people in high and key places that will discriminate for racial or even just to thin the field of competition in business. The fact is that why would a person like me ever be for subjecting myself to the possibility of people high places weeding out minorities in business because they can conceivably customize prices in favor of a certain race ?
@modivated1 If in effect this is such a moronic and outlandish suggestion to take advantage of then the law that stand hurts nothing and there is no effective reason to remove or modify it. The only reason to modify this is for this to potentially happen. A gun by the way serves multiple purposes according to the user but this freedom only offers a dubious outcome that will cause contention in society. I don't trust anyone who is focused on a law like this when others need immediate attention.
@Dickfuck420 What would happen to that business if he was the only viable vendor in the area? Caucasians still control all of the raw material resources in America. I know you don't think this is a accident? If so I can direct you to documentation that shows that since freedom from slavery many in white society have impeded our progress. My scenario shows you the potential for all business to belong to Caucasian society. Just the potential possibility of that takes that option off the table.
These emotional issues are easy to use against the opposition. He is not saying he supports racism, he supports freedom as long as it doesn't infringe on the freedom of others. This is what would happen. In today's society if a business hung a sign that said whites only or blacks only. It would go out of business. It is not profitable to do that. He is not saying he agrees with it just that the gov't shouldn;t prohibit it. If you stand for freedom then you dont pick and choose.
@sill6800 should there be no limit on freedom? no responsibility or accountability for the causation of someone else's rights being infringed upon? who's rights are more important than another citizen who doesn't want their child to see a 'no black's allowed' walking with his white friends
I gotta say, this guy is one of the best gobbledigookers and blatherskite I've ever heard in my life and I'm 58. Does he ever actually answer any question instead of trying to sell us a car? And Rachel you should be a little more forceful with the demand that one answer a question... O that's right you're on Faux Noose
Martin Luther King was for civil disobedience and never for the initiation of force. Racism is terrible but it does not mean that one is entitled to the property of another, be it residential or commercial. "Open to the Public" is not a valid argument. You do not have a right to someone else's property, no matter what function it possesses.
You cannot eliminate the immorality of racism with the immorality of force.
That is the fundamental difference between liberals and Libertarians.
@Deadwind002 Apparently you have the ability to say something Mr. Paul couldn't say in 20 minutes. That's because he's not very bright, and he's a phony politician that doesn't talk straight.
@leavantgarage: If Rand Paul said what that bitch wanted him to say, the media would have a fiesta with that sound byte and he knew that. All thinking people know that and that's why, unfortunately since we live in the age of obnoxious political correctness, where people can't speak their mind and let human beings intellectually fill in the gaps. That's why he answered the way he did. He answered the question but he didn't say it in a neat little package that she was foaming at the mouth for.
@Deadwind002 If a couple of skinheads know they will be arrested (that would require force) if they beat a black guy, and sent to prison (also force), they will probably be less likely to beat the black guy, wouldn't you agree?
@squamish4244 Thats not what this debate is about though. The debate is about whether or not private businesses should be able to create their own rules. Rand is not condoning violence. Is it not better when people are allowed to express how they feel? Would you really want to eat at a place that is talking about how much they dislike you behind your back, but is forced to serve you due to law?
I tend to feel that because of the end of public segregation we have moved past allot of racism.
@squamish4244: Are you brain dead or just plain stupid? The right to your life, liberty and property end when it infringes upon the life, liberty or property of others. As in, you simply do not have a right to other people's services or property or, in the case of your argument, the right to someone else's life. Force is justified in self defense and is the only moral moment for force. Why don't you educate yourself on what Libertarianism actually means before posting nonsense?
@Deadwind002 right! it's all about being free to choose and responsible for the results of your choices. but you do yourself or any other Libertarian a disservice by acting like a devolved tea party tool. be productive.
@squamish4244: Under libertarian philosophy you have the right to defend your life from aggression because you have a right to your life. You don't have a right to another person's store, no matter what beliefs they have. Self defense is the only justified moment of force. I said "the immorality of force," not the morality of it. The only way liberal and conservative idiots can argue against libertarianism is to simply be an idiot or make shit up. You should think before posting nonsense.
@squamish4244: Under libertarian philosophy you have the right to defend your life from aggression because you have a right to your life. You don't have a right to another person's store, no matter what beliefs they have. Self defense is the only justified moment of force. I said "the immorality of force," not the morality of it. The only way liberal and conservative idiots can argue against libertarianism is to simply be an idiot or make shit up. You should think before posting nonsense.
@squamish4244: @squamish4244: Under libertarian philosophy you have the right to defend your life from aggression because you have a right to your life. You don't have a right to another person's store, no matter what beliefs they have. Self defense is the only justified moment of force. I said "the immorality of force," not the morality of it. The only way idiots can argue against libertarianism is to simply be an idiot or make shit up. You should think before posting nonsense.
@squamish4244: Under libertarian philosophy you have the right to defend your life from aggression because you have a right to your life. You don't have a right to another person's store, no matter what beliefs they have. Self defense is the only justified moment of force. I said "the immorality of force," not the morality of it. The only way id*ots can argue against libertarianism is to simply be an id*ot or make sh*t up. You should think before posting nonsense.
@Deadwind002 MLK was for the colored man being given the same respect as a white man based on character not on skin color. He used civil disobedience and non violent resistance to push the majority (read: white folks) to recognize that a democracy cannot function properly when one group is made to feel inferior to another. In order to have a republic we (the People) decided that it was in our collective best interest to prevent the marketplace from excluding certain groups of people..
@Deadwind002 Civil disobedience to propel the government to act. Mr. King did not march to be walking up and down the street. He marched, with others, to bring attention to authorities (and a nation) on the civil rights violations occurring. Libertarians are only against force when it suits their arguments. I am sure you would support force to protect your property but you don't support force to ensure millions of black Americans have equal rights. Shameful.
@Deadwind002 There's no such thing as the "immorality of force.". If you don't like it, you can move to a more homogenous country where you won't have to worry about diversity.
Rachel sees the goverment intervention into desegregation as a progressive victory when it is nothing more than the peoples right to choose :"right from wrong..." or even "wrong from right"...it's a free county bitch.
Rand schools Rachel. Of course he is right. And any business owner stupid enough in 2011 to disallow customers based on race would be run out of town on a rail. She is contributing to the dumbing down of America...what a liar!
Rand schools Rachel. Of course he is right. And any business owner stupid enough in 2011 to disallow customers based on race would be run out of town on a rail. She is contributing to the dumbing down of America...what a liar!
Rachel Maddow is such a conniving shrew. Rand Paul clearly and completely argued his position, yet Maddow framed the conversation as if he was not answering her question. Neither yes nor no was the truth. If he said, "no, I don't believe the Woolworth's lunch counters should have stayed segregated," he is implying that the government should have stepped in. If he said, "yes," he is implying he is racist. Neither of these implications is a true picture of his position on the issue.
@999JPETZ Yes, and everyone is surely going to respect your opinion of who is intelligent or not when you can't even spell correctly. P.S. - That was sarcasm. I was uncertain you would have picked up on that.
Does someone have the right to discriminate against someone on the sole basis of their race? Absolutely. Does someone have the right to violate the God-given rights of another solely because of their race? Absolutely not. Is it right, good and just to discriminate against someone on the sole basis of race? Absolutely not. Freedom means I don't agree with you, but I won't control you.
@Helotes420 ??? You should be allowed to get married. I think you've heard a bit too much disinformation and lies. You should be supporting people like Ron Paul and Rand Paul. Ron Paul has said he wants to make gay marriage State's rights and get the Federal Government out of it. Why wouldn't you support that? Most places nowadays wouldn't choose to not serve gays or other minorities. Want to know why? They'd lose business and money. Be careful, you're choosing FORCE over freedom my friend.
@skypilot805 Ron Paul thinks we live in 1792. We can't look at the Constitution like a bible, but rather as a guiding document. We're allowed to add amendments to the Constitution as well, proving the Founding Fathers predicted that times will change and the Country will have to change with it.
In regards to private enterprise banishing Slavery, it doesn't work. Since Lincoln's Emancipation abolished the draconian practice, the Market has aided and abetted discrimination and humiliated blacks.
@Helotes420 "Big Government" is just a phrase us people use, who think that government is stepping over their bounds with all of the things they are running and regulating today in America. I agree that there are many people in America that are stupid and don't realize the problem, but government is WAY to large at this point and they are doing things that are blatantly unconstitutional. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are suppose to be the law of the land.... Also, I despise Sean Hannity.
The idea of liberty and freedom should allow PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS to make their own rules in regards to their own property. If it is government subsidized or funded, then government may impose conditions. That is the essence of Sen. Paul's argument. But for Maddow, even private enterprises must be FORCED to comply with the state's (her) idea of political correctness. Every golf range I go to has a wheelchair ramp. I have never seen it used in the 30 years I've been going to one.
@Helotes420 The "grid" is run by people demanding products and services and people providing those products and services. Don't confuse the government with "we the people." The government is a separate entity that usually fails to provide properly for "we the people." Hospitals should be allowed to refuse anyone, but they won't turn down a heart attack patient... that's not the point. You seem to have inconsistent logic. Some "adult" you are, shouting personal attacks at whom you think is a kid
This guy makes sense about private business and what they can do - in Canada a gym owner got fined $15,000 for not allowing a man thinking about a sex change, had not had the operation, to go in the ladies room and change. An Asian cafe owner called some Turkish men who hung around `Gypsies`and got fined $15,000. A Chinese grocer got put in jail for catching a shop lifter and keeping him in a room until the police arrived. That is Canada working with the private business owner.
@Helotes420 Ask johnsurs22 about this privately owned business. You know, the one that didn't start with an SBA loan using the Federal Reserve; that doesn't accept payment using currency; doesn't use the internet; wouldn't call the police if it was robbed by an illegal alien; wouldn't call the fire department if some ethnic type lit it on fire; doesn't socialize risk by buying insurance, don't plan on collecting SS/Medicare, don't deduct mortgage on line A-13; & generates it's own power & water
@Helotes420 Umm... we pay for internet, electricity, water, and health care. And if I couldn't afford healthcare, I very much doubt that hospitals would turn me away in an emergency situation. You continue to lose this argument. Society functions because we all do something productive and are paid for that in return. If racists don't allow blacks into their restaurant, they lose business. It's not a difficult concept...
@Helotes420 No see you don't understand libertarianism. According to libertarianism, you can do what you want as long as it does not physically harm someone else or violate their property rights. That means that you can't shoot me without being punished. Just because we live in a society doesn't mean that we have to provide for society through the government. Why don't you stop resorting to personal attacks and actually use some logic.
@Helotes420 I don't understand- you seem to be coming off as a racist? Separate IS inherently unequal, and that is why public facilities like public water fountains and bathrooms must be for both blacks and whites. However, it is not your right to buy groceries from a store if the people don't want to sell them to you. They own the groceries; they own the store. They shouldn't have to sell anything to you. It is their loss because it is bad business.
@johnsurs22 The 14th amendment recognizes blacks as citizens; that is why they should be treated equally under the government. Learn your history. No part of the constitution states that the government can force private businesses to integrate. The interstate commerce clause is a huge distortion that Congress has used for numerous ridiculous laws. If you think that private businesses have to integrate, that's your opinion, but you simply don't believe in freedom then. Refer to my KKK example...
@Helotes420 So you can impose your moral standards on other people in society? I thought we live in a free country. By the same CRA law, you ARE REQUIRED to let a hood wearing Klan member in your restaurant AGAINST YOUR WILL. Do you want that to happen? If you don't want that to happen, then you have to protect everyone's rights, including those that don't let blacks in. Your senator point is off point. I didn't say that his life is hard. I said that you should understand why he's dodging
@Helotes420 I agree; I'm a libertarian and Ron Paul supporter, but I was very frustrated that Rand Paul didn't outright say that he was against government forcing lunch counters to include blacks. But I think he was afraid of people misunderstanding him. Look at what you just said "He's a hillbilly" Why? You don't have to let anyone into your house- why do restaurants have to? If they don't, it's their loss, but they shouldn't have to. Yes he should have been clearer, but give him a break
If a private business says no blacks aloud then that business and all who attends it are racist.. it would actually make things better so we know exactly where everybody stands in such a matter.. WHY ON EARTH WOULD I WANT TO BUY ANYTHING FROM SOME PRIVATE STORE OWNER THAT WAS RACIST????? I dont need big brother telling some racist he has to sell to me when he knows deep down he doesnt want to!!
@Hulksmashyellowman: Thanks man ... is true. Let these scumbags out in the open and let's see all the cry babies who whine about a racist apocalypse put their money where their mouths are.
Maddow is such a fool does she not understand anything about the constitution or his argument, classic progressive, not understanding the law and calling someone you disagree with a racist.
This is the problem... Discrimination is obviously wrong, but the government has NO RIGHT to dictate morality. IT CAN'T. It's a slippery slope. It is up to the PEOPLE to decide what they feel is socially unacceptable, not the government. If you leave this sort of thing up to the government, WHO decides? If a private place doesn't service someone based on race, color, or creed, the public outcry would be so massive that the place would NEVER profit.
@mbutler920 Not true. Places that served only white people were very profitable. When sit-ins took place at Woolworth, it was one of the most successful chains. The law changed that. and now most people would be outraged if a large business discriminated to that scale. Odd argument that says you could dictate morality if you enter the DMV but not if you enter a private hospital.
@hellopendejos I can see your argument, but what really changed race relations in this country was the attitude of the people, the law is only a reflection of that... and my argument is that the legislating is a slippery slope when it impedes on personal liberties, such as property rights.
Let's say that the law was repealed, and a diner somewhere wanted to stop serving African Americans. The ensuing media hype would put the place on the map within a day. Maybe this diner is popular, maybe
@hellopendejos it serves a bunch of racists and making this change doesn't affect it's bottom line directly... hell, let's even say that every racist in the state decides that they now want to frequent this place. Here's their problem though... There's a huge media outcry over this obviously racist stance. The owners don't care but it takes more than owners to run a business. They have to partner with, say... Aramark to get their potato salad, and say... Tyson to get their chicken (I'm pulling
@hellopendejos this out of my ass, but you get the idea). These companies realize that if they support this diner, THEY risk losing business, so they pull out. Also that advertisement the diner had in the paper and on the side of route 561 to Racistville? The media outlets pull out as well. And guess what? The food suppliers and media outlets are privately owned, so it's THEIR RIGHT to do this. Now you've got a diner with no food, no advertising, and a dwindling racist clientele... how long
@deegan45 3 black dudes are republicans??!? whaaat your wrong though! Lawrence (a black guy i know) is a republican.. so there are actually four black republicans! ahh.. you are such a simple person :)
@deegan45 how the hell would segregation return? Any thing lives only if it's taking in money.. name any business man or woman that would spend so many thousands a month to rent a place for a business and choose to exclude blacks? Even if someone chose to loose money to get his white only "lunch counter" the people wouldn't be quiet about it lol
Rand Paul is great. He could have said that he believes in the Civil Rights act and nothing would have come from it but he stuck to his principles like an honest politician. He said plenty of times that he abhors racism on every level but he also doesn't want the government controlling private businesses (remember that government were major proponents of racism).
I believe in Ron and Rand Paul who are trying to end the social racism and tyranny that exists very subtly in our current society
@deegan45 so your argument is with Disney? have you heard of reverse racism? do you even realize that surface differences cause a small difference in genetics? even the minorities are racist cause they are sucking off the racism card tit. but yet here you are bitching about race; most likely cause you have a weak mind and are very stupid. another side effect of individual liberty... allowing people who dont deserve a voice to speak their retarded bullshit.
@frivosold I agree with you and I agree with Rand, and even I had a hard time listening to "the only f***ing point he's making". "Wweellllll, tthhheee innnterrreeessssttiiinnngg thhhiiiinnngg hhheeeeeerreeee.........1850........hypothetical......metaphor.....some shit nobody cares about........" He really needs to work on his delivery! He could learn a thing or two from Poppa Paul there. He has the substance but not the style. Ron keeps it interesting without dumming it down.
You right wingers suck dick! Your Reagan was a dick and Clinton had a surplus because every republican fucked the USA up and if you big macho pussies want to go there with brains, then debate me, or shut your fucking mouth!
Rachel's calm facade broke down when Rand used her reasoning to make the case that liberals must support the idea of people carrying guns into bars and restaurants against the owner's wishes. That threw a spanner in her works. His closing remarks nailed the coffin shut.
@JoeJC The problem with that is that asking someone not to carry a gun into a restaurant is not discrimination. The same person can walk into said restaurant without the gun. A black person cannot change the color of his skin in order to be allowed into a restaurant.
@DannyHiggs If I want to carry a gun into your business and you refuse me service because of that, you are discriminating against me. Just because I could eat in the restaurant if I compromised my rights, it doesn't stop it from being discriminatory. We want the same thing, a world without racial bigotry. But I have no moral authority to meddle in your private property. That's not what a free society is about. Ending government racism and boycotting racist business owners is the solution IMO.
Rachel Madcow acted like an immature college activist with tunnel vision, who simply could not see the point to Rand Paul's discussion. This was made clear @7:33 where Paul explains the dangers of blurring the distinctions between private and public business ownership decisions, like allowing firearms in restaurants. Madcow believed it was about the 2nd amendment, when again, it was about the ability of private business owners to to have a say in the rules of their own establishments.
also, this debate is sort of useless as you can walk into any establishment and most places I've ever walked into have signs in plain sight that read: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" --this includes blacks, whites, indians, people that smell bad, people not dressed appropriately, etc... so I don't understand why this debate requires a talk show on national tv as it's a useless discussion
the thing is this, and it's just a fact: law or no law, if you're gay, or a tranny, or you are not well-received by any group that happens to hang out at a certain bar or restaurant --you're going to not be welcomed there anyway and will end up not staying there. If you're black and you walk into a white biker bar with hells angels, and the bar is required by law to admit you in --you're going to get your ass kicked and thrown out or worse. That is just a fact of life regardless of any talk show
@keltik21912 well guess what genius, the supreme court, founding fathers AND the constitution SAYS ur wrong ..it doesnt matter what u "think" becuz US LAW says ur wrong : )
ArtieLangeXM 1 week ago
@Davidsternsucks that WAS the law until the civil rights act, EVERY ethnic minority WAS descriminated against ...and NONE of the racist establishments (which were ALL businesses at the time) EVER went out of business.... U CANT rewrite history just becuz ur an idiot blinx supporter or this rand paul wacko ...ur not bright
ArtieLangeXM 1 week ago
If a business discriminates against people, it will usually fail. If a private business wants to discriminate against a certain group, it should be allowed to do so but at the same time it will probably fail too.
America picks and chooses what it wants Uncle Sam to monitor and regulate. Some people want Uncle Sam to decide issues like gay marriage and abortion but they could care less on things like casinos and drug laws.
Davidsternsucks 1 month ago
Private clubs practice discrimination all the time but no one ever says anything about it.
Why do people just love to hate on Ron Paul and his son?
Do you like America wasting money on nation building and policing the world? What about homeless and poor people in America? Don't they deserve some help?
Davidsternsucks 1 month ago
Woah ron paul supporters dont even know that the supreme court decided for interracial marriage ..dude u guys really are stupid fucks lol!
ArtieLangeXM 1 month ago
isn't being able to chose really what liberty and freedom are all about? I think if you are a private business, you have the right to chose whom you want to serve, and whom you want to hire.
keltik21912 1 month ago
@keltik21912 the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT would disagree with u ..u shud be ashamed of urself u pig fuking idiot lol
ArtieLangeXM 1 month ago
@ArtieLangeXM You mention law. Well, the law in Delaware for example once said that it was illegal for a black to marry a white and now the law in some states says that two dudes can marry. Freedom of choice is what America should be about.
keltik21912 1 month ago
@keltik21912 no actually the supreme coury ruled it unconstitutional and order interracial marriage statewide lol ..ron paul supporters appatently dont know their history
OWNED.
ArtieLangeXM 1 month ago
@ArtieLangeXM I am not a Ron Paul supporter. And I am well aware that the Supreme Court would find those kinds of laws unconstitutional. However, I still think that a private business has the right to choose its employees and its customers.
keltik21912 1 month ago
What about businesses and clubs that only allow rich people? Isn't that discriminatory?
If a private club or private business is racist, it will either changes it ways or will fail miserably because people will boycott it.
Davidsternsucks 1 month ago
@Davidsternsucks is that why every business failed in american when they refused ti serve jews, blacks, spics, niggers, kikes, micks, greesball italians, faggots ...ohhhh u live in fantasy land where ur applying hundreds of years of equality and civil rights to ur demented reimagining of US history
Ur a fukn joke...
ArtieLangeXM 1 month ago
@Davidsternsucks true
keltik21912 1 month ago
um...seriously??Why is this lady not getting it!!!!!
musicloverofall 5 months ago
@sinistar99: You can only make your argument on asinine hypotheticals. If there were "whites only" bars they would be boycotted from existence, as PROVEN by MLK. By forcing racist people to serve you, you only enable racist people an easy time by enabling them to continue working, since you are putting your money in institutions with racists. Still, this position is not racially motivated making you guys a bunch of a**holes
Deadwind002 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@squamish4244: Under libertarian philosophy you have the right to defend your life from aggression because you have a right to your life. You don't have a right to another person's store, no matter what beliefs they have. Self defense is the only justified moment of force. I said "the immorality of force," not the morality of it. The only way id*ots can argue against libertarianism is to simply be an id*ot or make sh*t up. You should think before posting nonsense.
Deadwind002 5 months ago
As an English guy I have to say your American Tea Party politicians are insane. They are far more interesting to watch than our normal, sane, consensus seeking politicians. Such a spectacle.
thecraftybee 5 months ago
@thecraftybee >>> Yeah those politicans of yours have done an outstanding job with your country's finances. Your economy is doing so well over there thanks to them. No wonder there's never any riots there.
JBourneID 5 months ago
i just want to smack that fucking smile off this bitches face...
asdfGeist 5 months ago
@naes342: "There's no such thing as the "immorality of force".
Yes there is. Force is immoral when it is not in self defense. If you disagree, you imply the moral right to cause violence towards another when no threat is posed to you. By extension, the police can rape your wife and kill you since "there's no such thing as the immorality of force." Calling someone racist is not an intelligent response. Half my family speaks Spanish and were born in Ecuador. You're just a liberal asshole.
Deadwind002 5 months ago
Comment removed
Deadwind002 5 months ago
Comment removed
Deadwind002 5 months ago
I don't get it, what's so awesome about this? It's just Rachel Maddow behaving contemptibly.
Einstein can help shed some light on this.
"Peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through understanding." -Einstein
Government force (violence) hasn't cured racism, but it has compromised the ability of business owners to make bad choices. More and more the government is telling us what we can and cannot do, say or think. Where do YOU draw the line?
VotePaineJefferson 5 months ago
@AtheistDaddy: "Mr. King did not march to be walking up and down the street. He marched, with others, to bring attention to authorities (and a nation) on the civil rights violations occurring. Libertarians are only against force when it suits their arguments. I am sure you would support force to protect your property but you don't support force to ensure millions of black Americans have equal rights. Shameful."
You don't have rights to force people to serve you.
Deadwind002 5 months ago
And this idiot went on to be elected as a senator.
MTAydogdu 5 months ago
@Bloodline0000 let the majority make moral decisions like refusing housing, education and the like to minorities?! Sorry, that is not sound policy for a nation.
AtheistDaddy 5 months ago
@AtheistDaddy: Your basing your cry for injustice on things that aren't rights to begin with. You don't have a right to housing, jobs, cell phones or even food. You shouldn't be talking about homes, since it was central economic planning that allowed us to have a housing boom and bust.
Deadwind002 5 months ago
you draw one and only ONE conclusion
and that is LIBERALS ARE ANTI-WHITE!!!
fucking ugly bitch.
concussedcarneous 5 months ago
@concussedcarneous The other conclusion is that liberals are anti-you. Probably more accurate.
AtheistDaddy 5 months ago
@AtheistDaddy that all you could come up with, you atheist freak? that liberals are anti- me
what the fuck does that even mean?
go follow Pen Gillette and other atheist leaders because everything will be fine.
concussedcarneous 5 months ago
It would appear that libertarian philosophy needs to find a way out of this dilemma. Holding property rights as absolute doesn't work in the real world. The right to property was granted (originally by the sovereign) as an attempt to maximize efficiency and fairness and minimize conflict in society. If and when it does not fulfill that function, it is the right of the people to alter the arrangement so that it does. Of course, it has to be done wisely, and it appears that the CR Act did so.
mnhsty 5 months ago
What a bigoted, shitheaded Right wing hypocrite. Rand Paul: "I don't condone any form of violence"...BUT it's OK if it's done by thuggish campaign supporters of mine as they STOMPED on the head of a petite, defenseless female protester last October during my KY Senate debate. Wow. In the words of the Bard: Physician, heal THYSELF !!!!!!
Sharky165 6 months ago
@Sharky165: You're making things up. He believes one has the right to be abhorrent, not violent. Libertarians believe in individual rights, this means not corporate or individual entity has the right to enact aggression towards you. It's sad how many stupid people are involved in the election process.
Deadwind002 5 months ago
Rachel Maddow hates republicans and doesn't treat them well on her show. Does that make her a bigot?
themaxptob 6 months ago
No he is not a rascist, but the man is an idiot... Wonder if that woman who got attacked by his thugs during tthe campaign will or is sueing him and those thugs of his...
AngeLsLuv 6 months ago
Rand Paul must be a disgrace to his father...
AngeLsLuv 6 months ago
And now Senator Paul...the interview had no effect.
gombis666 6 months ago
As much as I disagree with Maddows views, it's interesting to look at the sheer difference
between msnbc and fox, where these two are able to disagree and still end on a positive note. Whereas a fox debate of disagreeing points would end with yelling and the host calling the guest a pinhead.
Thycid 6 months ago
i was just pointing that this interview looked a little like something from fox news. sorry rachel. i love your show. just felt this was a lil out of character for u. leave the ill tempered interviews to bill oreilly. your ideals and rationality are enough to win these types of debates.
laparis27th 6 months ago
dont mistake my explanation of his side as me agreeing with him though. i dont. the civill rights act is much better than the alternative. cureently u cant just refuse a person service as an act of hate. that person has to cause a problem in order to be refused service.
laparis27th 6 months ago
this is weird but i actually didnt like the way this interview was conducted. while i do side with rachel i think she failed to see the man's point. he was saying that allowing the govt to impose desegregation law would mean that same law would protect the right of a white supremacist, or NRA member to be served. a desegregation law would effectively force a minority owned business to serve ppl who hate them like white supremacists so long as they dont break another law while there.
laparis27th 6 months ago
he fails to finish defining the results of his views. if a privately owned business has policies that segregate or discriminate the idea of free markets comes in. the community is offended, they spend their money elsewhere, work elsewhere and the business does not survive. any acts of violence are to be taken care of like any other crimes. this is a continuation of the Libertarian view of strong State and Local Government. a scale that allows locals more involvement.
catayl 6 months ago
Rand Paul expressed his point quite well and didn't fall into her trap. He believes in privacy and the right to own and disagreed with any segregation but wanted to make sure the govt does not intrude into individual privacy. I agree with him, hey do you think there are some places in East Saint Louis where you aren't welcomed if you are hispanic or white? Door swings both ways folks..
64bolts 6 months ago
I wonder if he'd still feel that way if he were black.
TanaCooker 6 months ago
His argument is that virtually any law placed against a corporations practices somehow transfers ownership to the government. Republicans and teabaggers never think about what doors that would open. You run a powerplant and want to save money by dumping your waste in the river, in his mind thats ok. You want to experiment on food and not test the side effects thats just fine. It will only lead to more corruption and shady activity that will hurt the public.
gdogg2000 6 months ago
@gdogg2000: A claim not backed up by the facts. The definition of Libertarianism means that no entity, corporate or individual, has a right to infringe upon the property or life of another entity. This includes polluting the lands of others or toxins in foods. You are describing corporatism and not free enterprise. If you want to preach about toxins in food, ask Obama why he appointed Monsanto CEO as the food safety CZAR or why he is okay with limited liability for BP.
Deadwind002 6 months ago
@gdogg2000: Dumping waste "in the river" violates the libertarian principle of individual liberty. In a free market economy and not a corporatist one, individuals are protected by the government's only legitimate role of protecting the individual from fraud or violence. This means that no entity, corporate or individual, has the right to pollute your lands or your body. In his mind this is not "ok" as it goes against his philosophy. Do research before you post nonsense.
Deadwind002 5 months ago
@Deadwind002
How is a public river, water, land etc individual property?! Try to have a clue before you attempt to sound smarter than you think you are! Of course they can't do that to private property which wasn't even what I was talking about..
gdogg2000 5 months ago
He won't actually say yes or no. Why won't he just say yes or no?
squamish4244 6 months ago
@squamish4244 how can he say "yes" or "no" when the whole point is just to paint him as a racist, he's trying to show that it is much more nuanced answer than the deceptively simple, do you support the Civil Rights Act or not?
usol35 6 months ago
He says "Return to Racism is ok". And he compares gun ownership with human rights. What a stupid comparison. One has NOTHING to do with the other. And he successfully avoids answering the question over and over again. Another Professional Political Liar.
VideoExpostulations 6 months ago
Does not listen as she trys to just trap this guy. He believes in "freedom" and is not going to walk into her trap so a sound byte can take him out of context. He explicitly said he does not condone segregation. He is sticking to his principals in regards to freedom and Rachel is just looking for a sound byte answer.
killedmyfd3 6 months ago
Rachel was like a little child trying to pick a fight. You can just feel her anger...that's no way to live her life.
PMorphy65 6 months ago
Judge: How do you plead, guilty or not guilty?
Defendant: Well, you know what's interesting...
Tomsfilipsons 6 months ago
Lol, someone said that Rand Paul is a 'non-issue and won't be reelected'. I can see him saying this before he was elected and saying that he is "a non-issue and won't be elected". Ridiculous.
Rand Paul is against the Patriot Act and Obama reauthorized it. Obama zombies cannot compare Rand Paul's support of Civil Rights based off of property issues when our supposed 'change' president tramples them like a hypocrite.
Deadwind002 6 months ago
@Helotes420: So you want to fund a discriminative business by forcing them to serve you. Maybe we should let these scumbags be openly vocal about this, so that we know where to shop? I'm not gay but if you think boycotts don't work then you're going against the teachings of MLK, am I right? Discrimination does not entitle you to someone else's property and aggression is just as immoral as racist views.
Deadwind002 7 months ago
Remind me again, who won?
ASeventhSign 7 months ago
Well. NOW I know why racists ALL support the Paul's
Lightmane321 7 months ago
@Lightmane321
What the fuck are you stupid ? If you think people who support them are racist then your a dumbass. Everyone is racist in some form or fashion. You know damn well theres some people you dont like. By the way you have a constitutional right to be racist if you want it may not be the smartest thing to do but you still have that right
ATLHAWKSMAN 7 months ago
@ATLHAWKSMAN Nice idiotic response there, so let me explain what I meant, though it should be obvious. RACISTS support Ron & Rand Paul. Plenty of non-racists support him too. Liberals & conservatives support him, in addition to libertarians, but google any racist sight. They ALL support Ron & Paul.
Watching this video... NOW I know why.
Now if you still don't understand my statement, then you ARE an idiot. If you do understand it, then try not say stupid shit anymore. Got it? : )
Lightmane321 7 months ago
@Lightmane321
your a dumbass and a zionist piece of shit who probably doesnt believe in heaven or hell
ATLHAWKSMAN 7 months ago
@ATLHAWKSMAN Oh SHIT! You're a highly intelligent human & I'm a Zionist piece of shit. DAM!
There's no heaven or hell? Shit! Are you certain of that? I mean, seriously, since you're an (what did you call it, audio dac dick) or something like that, I figured you must know if there's a heaven or a hell.
I sure hope there's a heaven, but if there's a hell, holy fuck. Are you certain dude? Dam. FUCK! WTF!!!
A hell? Holy shit dude. So who goes to hell dude? Is it a real lake of fire?
Lightmane321 7 months ago
@Lightmane321: It sounds as if you want to keep parading this fallacy that racism somehow fuels his campaign, so that you can keep calling Ron Paul supporters "racist." Racist people support Barack Obama too, if we imply your logic. Can you say with a straight face, that black people didn't vote for him because he was black? Boasting with unverifiable bold statements like "all" is a sure sign that you simply spew rhetoric. Paul simply believes in tolerance and boycotts as MLK did, to end racism
Dickfuck420 7 months ago
@Dickfuck420 OMG! I didn't say that his supporters are ALL racist!!! I didn't say that racism is fueling his campaign. Jesus Christ people. What I said is obvious. If you don't get it, I can't help you, since I already explained it too, which I should'nt have had to. But, oh well....
Lightmane321 7 months ago
Comment removed
ATLHAWKSMAN 7 months ago
@ATLHAWKSMAN
I nominate your comment as a distinguished entry in annals of uneducated thought.
Should we leave this paragon of thought to continue his discussion with himself or draw more salacious tidbits of critical thinking from him?
ASeventhSign 7 months ago
@ASeventhSign
wow your grasp upon the english language is superb. i am perplexed as to why you made such an imbecilic comment but im astounded as to why you would inquire about my yearning to make more repugnant comments. By the way im in no way "uneducated" im in fact extremely autodidactic.
ATLHAWKSMAN 7 months ago
@ATLHAWKSMAN
Are you addressing me sir? It can be difficult to converse with one who calls himself a fag and a Zionist piece of shit.
ASeventhSign 7 months ago
@ASeventhSign
well i never said anything about myself so nice try. you yourself are probably a zionist
ATLHAWKSMAN 7 months ago
@ASeventhSign and how in the fuck did you figure out that I'm a zionist piece of shit? I have my anti-zionist piece of shit protector. I just fucking bought it. Shit! If this thing doesn't work, I'm SCREWED!!!
Now EVERYBODY is going to know that I'm a ZIONIST PIECE OF SHIT.
Seriously.... there's a fucking hell? dam
Lightmane321 7 months ago
@Lightmane321
i was assuming based on your comments that your a zionist. now you probably dont know what that is so im not going to mention it anymore. there is a heaven and a hell its clearly stated in the bible. autodidactic means one who is self taught by the way
ATLHAWKSMAN 7 months ago
@ATLHAWKSMAN Phew. I live in Illinois & there's a Zion Illinois, so I was really getting nervous there for a sec. So you know there's a heaven & a hell because it's clearly taught in the bible?
Well that settles it then huh? See... If I were a dia dac dick, I would've realized this logical infurment that ur mackin. Too bad for me I'm a dumb fuck & not a di-da-dic like you.
So what exactly is hell & how can I avoid it. Is it really fire, cause someone told me it's fire
what happens there
Lightmane321 7 months ago
Rand Paul just has a stance that is in effect in conflict with the Civil Rights Act. But lol at Rachel Maddow 7:15 "Sir, just yes or no".
BenjaminBixby 7 months ago
Racial Maddoff at her best.
jag10 7 months ago
their black child**
00sparkleandshiiine 7 months ago
one thing we learn from him..."he doesnt believe in discrimination"..lmao..
hes a fucking broken record...he goes around the issue in answering a simple fucking question...Damn
blackvenomnicole 7 months ago
"Let's not get into esoteric hypotheticals." The entire interview is about him voting on a bill from when he was 1 year old.
lintsniffer 7 months ago
@lintsniffer: Bringing this issue up is pure political desperation, done so on the very day of his Senate primary victory. I agree, this is totally for the purpose of taking the attention off of the debt that will destroy ALL Americans of any race.
Dickfuck420 7 months ago
@Dickfuck420 Finally let me pose this scenario for you. Lets say you are housing contractor and your construct houses for a living and you are a minority. You are good at what you do and deliver quality work but others do to. So you go to John Smith after this law is modified and try to by some lumber and he agrees to sell you some but at the price of $50.00 per 16 foot 2x4. You notice that he just sold Bill Hensley your rival the same thing for $10.00. When asked he said that's the white price
modivated1 6 months ago
@Dickfuck420 I would never consider this because it has no positive offering to society. Guns do, African Americans and other minorities do. I would compare this do trying to give an American the free right to murder in cold blood which is in no way positive. Would you argue that people have that right? We do ban things by law because is not for the good of the nation and this is no different. To argue otherwise without pointing out any positive merits means there must be some underlying agenda.
modivated1 6 months ago
To say that a business would go under for not serving Blacks is not at all true. There are still enough racist supporters both private and public that would patronize such businesses just for that cause. In hard times like the one we may be about to face the ability to get a job would be slanted economic prosperity could be manipulated to benefit one race. Seeing that even today most business private or public is ran by whites today you can guess what the outcome would be like in ten years.
modivated1 7 months ago
@modivated1: That's because the population is predominately white. This does not mean, however, that because the majority is Caucasian that somehow they are all against minorities. Your statement that most business is "white" is very misleading.
What you say is true, that racism will still exist. This will exist no matter what legislation comes to pass. The same can be said about guns, drugs, etc. Truth is, an employer can simply lie about why you weren't hired.
Only tolerance can end racism.
Dickfuck420 7 months ago
@Dickfuck420 I understand what you are trying to say and I am not implying that every caucasian is racist. I am implying however that there are people in high and key places that will discriminate for racial or even just to thin the field of competition in business. The fact is that why would a person like me ever be for subjecting myself to the possibility of people high places weeding out minorities in business because they can conceivably customize prices in favor of a certain race ?
modivated1 6 months ago
@modivated1 If in effect this is such a moronic and outlandish suggestion to take advantage of then the law that stand hurts nothing and there is no effective reason to remove or modify it. The only reason to modify this is for this to potentially happen. A gun by the way serves multiple purposes according to the user but this freedom only offers a dubious outcome that will cause contention in society. I don't trust anyone who is focused on a law like this when others need immediate attention.
modivated1 6 months ago
@Dickfuck420 What would happen to that business if he was the only viable vendor in the area? Caucasians still control all of the raw material resources in America. I know you don't think this is a accident? If so I can direct you to documentation that shows that since freedom from slavery many in white society have impeded our progress. My scenario shows you the potential for all business to belong to Caucasian society. Just the potential possibility of that takes that option off the table.
modivated1 6 months ago
These emotional issues are easy to use against the opposition. He is not saying he supports racism, he supports freedom as long as it doesn't infringe on the freedom of others. This is what would happen. In today's society if a business hung a sign that said whites only or blacks only. It would go out of business. It is not profitable to do that. He is not saying he agrees with it just that the gov't shouldn;t prohibit it. If you stand for freedom then you dont pick and choose.
sill6800 7 months ago
@sill6800 should there be no limit on freedom? no responsibility or accountability for the causation of someone else's rights being infringed upon? who's rights are more important than another citizen who doesn't want their child to see a 'no black's allowed' walking with his white friends
00sparkleandshiiine 7 months ago
I gotta say, this guy is one of the best gobbledigookers and blatherskite I've ever heard in my life and I'm 58. Does he ever actually answer any question instead of trying to sell us a car? And Rachel you should be a little more forceful with the demand that one answer a question... O that's right you're on Faux Noose
JstNEarthling 7 months ago
Martin Luther King was for civil disobedience and never for the initiation of force. Racism is terrible but it does not mean that one is entitled to the property of another, be it residential or commercial. "Open to the Public" is not a valid argument. You do not have a right to someone else's property, no matter what function it possesses.
You cannot eliminate the immorality of racism with the immorality of force.
That is the fundamental difference between liberals and Libertarians.
Deadwind002 7 months ago 22
@Deadwind002 Very well said.
sill6800 7 months ago
@Deadwind002 Apparently you have the ability to say something Mr. Paul couldn't say in 20 minutes. That's because he's not very bright, and he's a phony politician that doesn't talk straight.
leavantgarage 7 months ago
@leavantgarage: If Rand Paul said what that bitch wanted him to say, the media would have a fiesta with that sound byte and he knew that. All thinking people know that and that's why, unfortunately since we live in the age of obnoxious political correctness, where people can't speak their mind and let human beings intellectually fill in the gaps. That's why he answered the way he did. He answered the question but he didn't say it in a neat little package that she was foaming at the mouth for.
Deadwind002 7 months ago
@leavantgarage: So then we agree that he's not racist.
Deadwind002 6 months ago 2
@Deadwind002 Well said!
duhg599 7 months ago
@Deadwind002 exactly right thank you
tonyteb 6 months ago
@Deadwind002 If a couple of skinheads know they will be arrested (that would require force) if they beat a black guy, and sent to prison (also force), they will probably be less likely to beat the black guy, wouldn't you agree?
squamish4244 6 months ago
@squamish4244 Thats not what this debate is about though. The debate is about whether or not private businesses should be able to create their own rules. Rand is not condoning violence. Is it not better when people are allowed to express how they feel? Would you really want to eat at a place that is talking about how much they dislike you behind your back, but is forced to serve you due to law?
I tend to feel that because of the end of public segregation we have moved past allot of racism.
aristurtle1 6 months ago
@squamish4244: Are you brain dead or just plain stupid? The right to your life, liberty and property end when it infringes upon the life, liberty or property of others. As in, you simply do not have a right to other people's services or property or, in the case of your argument, the right to someone else's life. Force is justified in self defense and is the only moral moment for force. Why don't you educate yourself on what Libertarianism actually means before posting nonsense?
Deadwind002 6 months ago
@Deadwind002 right! it's all about being free to choose and responsible for the results of your choices. but you do yourself or any other Libertarian a disservice by acting like a devolved tea party tool. be productive.
catayl 6 months ago
@Deadwind002 Whatever dude. It's not like these question are going to go away and not everyone who will be voting thinks the way you do.
squamish4244 6 months ago
@squamish4244: Under libertarian philosophy you have the right to defend your life from aggression because you have a right to your life. You don't have a right to another person's store, no matter what beliefs they have. Self defense is the only justified moment of force. I said "the immorality of force," not the morality of it. The only way liberal and conservative idiots can argue against libertarianism is to simply be an idiot or make shit up. You should think before posting nonsense.
Deadwind002 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@squamish4244: Under libertarian philosophy you have the right to defend your life from aggression because you have a right to your life. You don't have a right to another person's store, no matter what beliefs they have. Self defense is the only justified moment of force. I said "the immorality of force," not the morality of it. The only way liberal and conservative idiots can argue against libertarianism is to simply be an idiot or make shit up. You should think before posting nonsense.
Deadwind002 5 months ago
@squamish4244: @squamish4244: Under libertarian philosophy you have the right to defend your life from aggression because you have a right to your life. You don't have a right to another person's store, no matter what beliefs they have. Self defense is the only justified moment of force. I said "the immorality of force," not the morality of it. The only way idiots can argue against libertarianism is to simply be an idiot or make shit up. You should think before posting nonsense.
Deadwind002 5 months ago
@squamish4244: Under libertarian philosophy you have the right to defend your life from aggression because you have a right to your life. You don't have a right to another person's store, no matter what beliefs they have. Self defense is the only justified moment of force. I said "the immorality of force," not the morality of it. The only way id*ots can argue against libertarianism is to simply be an id*ot or make sh*t up. You should think before posting nonsense.
Deadwind002 5 months ago
@Deadwind002 MLK was for the colored man being given the same respect as a white man based on character not on skin color. He used civil disobedience and non violent resistance to push the majority (read: white folks) to recognize that a democracy cannot function properly when one group is made to feel inferior to another. In order to have a republic we (the People) decided that it was in our collective best interest to prevent the marketplace from excluding certain groups of people..
SteppingstoneOH 6 months ago
@Deadwind002 Civil disobedience to propel the government to act. Mr. King did not march to be walking up and down the street. He marched, with others, to bring attention to authorities (and a nation) on the civil rights violations occurring. Libertarians are only against force when it suits their arguments. I am sure you would support force to protect your property but you don't support force to ensure millions of black Americans have equal rights. Shameful.
AtheistDaddy 5 months ago
@Deadwind002 There's no such thing as the "immorality of force.". If you don't like it, you can move to a more homogenous country where you won't have to worry about diversity.
naes342 5 months ago
Rachel sees the goverment intervention into desegregation as a progressive victory when it is nothing more than the peoples right to choose :"right from wrong..." or even "wrong from right"...it's a free county bitch.
Parkpony1 7 months ago
Rand schools Rachel. Of course he is right. And any business owner stupid enough in 2011 to disallow customers based on race would be run out of town on a rail. She is contributing to the dumbing down of America...what a liar!
Parkpony1 7 months ago
Rand schools Rachel. Of course he is right. And any business owner stupid enough in 2011 to disallow customers based on race would be run out of town on a rail. She is contributing to the dumbing down of America...what a liar!
Parkpony1 7 months ago
Rachel Maddow is such a conniving shrew. Rand Paul clearly and completely argued his position, yet Maddow framed the conversation as if he was not answering her question. Neither yes nor no was the truth. If he said, "no, I don't believe the Woolworth's lunch counters should have stayed segregated," he is implying that the government should have stepped in. If he said, "yes," he is implying he is racist. Neither of these implications is a true picture of his position on the issue.
snoski 7 months ago
@snoski your a moron
sjackson622 7 months ago
@sjackson622 My a moron? What is an "a moron"? Oh, I get it! You were trying to say "you are." That's "you're." FAIL!
snoski 7 months ago
@snoski: Typos aren't an indication of grammar skills, mooroon.
Deadwind002 7 months ago
@999JPETZ Yes, and everyone is surely going to respect your opinion of who is intelligent or not when you can't even spell correctly. P.S. - That was sarcasm. I was uncertain you would have picked up on that.
snoski 7 months ago
Does someone have the right to discriminate against someone on the sole basis of their race? Absolutely. Does someone have the right to violate the God-given rights of another solely because of their race? Absolutely not. Is it right, good and just to discriminate against someone on the sole basis of race? Absolutely not. Freedom means I don't agree with you, but I won't control you.
billionaireby16 7 months ago
@Helotes420 ??? You should be allowed to get married. I think you've heard a bit too much disinformation and lies. You should be supporting people like Ron Paul and Rand Paul. Ron Paul has said he wants to make gay marriage State's rights and get the Federal Government out of it. Why wouldn't you support that? Most places nowadays wouldn't choose to not serve gays or other minorities. Want to know why? They'd lose business and money. Be careful, you're choosing FORCE over freedom my friend.
skypilot805 7 months ago
@skypilot805 Ron Paul thinks we live in 1792. We can't look at the Constitution like a bible, but rather as a guiding document. We're allowed to add amendments to the Constitution as well, proving the Founding Fathers predicted that times will change and the Country will have to change with it.
In regards to private enterprise banishing Slavery, it doesn't work. Since Lincoln's Emancipation abolished the draconian practice, the Market has aided and abetted discrimination and humiliated blacks.
Seedofwinter 7 months ago
@Helotes420 "Big Government" is just a phrase us people use, who think that government is stepping over their bounds with all of the things they are running and regulating today in America. I agree that there are many people in America that are stupid and don't realize the problem, but government is WAY to large at this point and they are doing things that are blatantly unconstitutional. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are suppose to be the law of the land.... Also, I despise Sean Hannity.
skypilot805 7 months ago
what if the bowling alley, skating rink, and restaurants say "no white people"?????
it isnt a one way street!
zaerrz 7 months ago
@Littlelemon31 No worries; good luck to your fight as well. This guy is tiresome
johnsurs22 7 months ago
And Rachel goes for the emotional argument @6:10
TheDougass 7 months ago
Rachel Rocks! Screw the tea Party! We are going to have much trouble regarding these freaks down the road! Just wait and see! I am 100 percent right!
padude64 7 months ago
The idea of liberty and freedom should allow PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS to make their own rules in regards to their own property. If it is government subsidized or funded, then government may impose conditions. That is the essence of Sen. Paul's argument. But for Maddow, even private enterprises must be FORCED to comply with the state's (her) idea of political correctness. Every golf range I go to has a wheelchair ramp. I have never seen it used in the 30 years I've been going to one.
jcomd 7 months ago
@Helotes420 The "grid" is run by people demanding products and services and people providing those products and services. Don't confuse the government with "we the people." The government is a separate entity that usually fails to provide properly for "we the people." Hospitals should be allowed to refuse anyone, but they won't turn down a heart attack patient... that's not the point. You seem to have inconsistent logic. Some "adult" you are, shouting personal attacks at whom you think is a kid
johnsurs22 7 months ago
This guy makes sense about private business and what they can do - in Canada a gym owner got fined $15,000 for not allowing a man thinking about a sex change, had not had the operation, to go in the ladies room and change. An Asian cafe owner called some Turkish men who hung around `Gypsies`and got fined $15,000. A Chinese grocer got put in jail for catching a shop lifter and keeping him in a room until the police arrived. That is Canada working with the private business owner.
Chilililabombwe 7 months ago
@Helotes420 Ask johnsurs22 about this privately owned business. You know, the one that didn't start with an SBA loan using the Federal Reserve; that doesn't accept payment using currency; doesn't use the internet; wouldn't call the police if it was robbed by an illegal alien; wouldn't call the fire department if some ethnic type lit it on fire; doesn't socialize risk by buying insurance, don't plan on collecting SS/Medicare, don't deduct mortgage on line A-13; & generates it's own power & water
Bolgernow 7 months ago
@Helotes420 Umm... we pay for internet, electricity, water, and health care. And if I couldn't afford healthcare, I very much doubt that hospitals would turn me away in an emergency situation. You continue to lose this argument. Society functions because we all do something productive and are paid for that in return. If racists don't allow blacks into their restaurant, they lose business. It's not a difficult concept...
johnsurs22 7 months ago
@Helotes420 No see you don't understand libertarianism. According to libertarianism, you can do what you want as long as it does not physically harm someone else or violate their property rights. That means that you can't shoot me without being punished. Just because we live in a society doesn't mean that we have to provide for society through the government. Why don't you stop resorting to personal attacks and actually use some logic.
johnsurs22 7 months ago
@Helotes420 I don't understand- you seem to be coming off as a racist? Separate IS inherently unequal, and that is why public facilities like public water fountains and bathrooms must be for both blacks and whites. However, it is not your right to buy groceries from a store if the people don't want to sell them to you. They own the groceries; they own the store. They shouldn't have to sell anything to you. It is their loss because it is bad business.
johnsurs22 7 months ago
@johnsurs22 The 14th amendment recognizes blacks as citizens; that is why they should be treated equally under the government. Learn your history. No part of the constitution states that the government can force private businesses to integrate. The interstate commerce clause is a huge distortion that Congress has used for numerous ridiculous laws. If you think that private businesses have to integrate, that's your opinion, but you simply don't believe in freedom then. Refer to my KKK example...
johnsurs22 7 months ago
@Helotes420 So you can impose your moral standards on other people in society? I thought we live in a free country. By the same CRA law, you ARE REQUIRED to let a hood wearing Klan member in your restaurant AGAINST YOUR WILL. Do you want that to happen? If you don't want that to happen, then you have to protect everyone's rights, including those that don't let blacks in. Your senator point is off point. I didn't say that his life is hard. I said that you should understand why he's dodging
johnsurs22 7 months ago
@Helotes420 I agree; I'm a libertarian and Ron Paul supporter, but I was very frustrated that Rand Paul didn't outright say that he was against government forcing lunch counters to include blacks. But I think he was afraid of people misunderstanding him. Look at what you just said "He's a hillbilly" Why? You don't have to let anyone into your house- why do restaurants have to? If they don't, it's their loss, but they shouldn't have to. Yes he should have been clearer, but give him a break
johnsurs22 7 months ago
If a private business says no blacks aloud then that business and all who attends it are racist.. it would actually make things better so we know exactly where everybody stands in such a matter.. WHY ON EARTH WOULD I WANT TO BUY ANYTHING FROM SOME PRIVATE STORE OWNER THAT WAS RACIST????? I dont need big brother telling some racist he has to sell to me when he knows deep down he doesnt want to!!
Hulksmashyellowman 7 months ago
@Hulksmashyellowman: Thanks man ... is true. Let these scumbags out in the open and let's see all the cry babies who whine about a racist apocalypse put their money where their mouths are.
Deadwind002 7 months ago
im watching this and they both seem right..
dvzqz87 8 months ago
Sounds like exactly what we need, thanks Rand Paul, nothing like common sense to make liberals sound like idiots.
t3chk4 8 months ago
Maddow is such a fool does she not understand anything about the constitution or his argument, classic progressive, not understanding the law and calling someone you disagree with a racist.
theonemanparty7 8 months ago
@deegan45 way to have a real handle on what he's saying. he's arguing public vs private sector and the interstate commerce clause.
theonemanparty7 8 months ago
This is the problem... Discrimination is obviously wrong, but the government has NO RIGHT to dictate morality. IT CAN'T. It's a slippery slope. It is up to the PEOPLE to decide what they feel is socially unacceptable, not the government. If you leave this sort of thing up to the government, WHO decides? If a private place doesn't service someone based on race, color, or creed, the public outcry would be so massive that the place would NEVER profit.
mbutler920 8 months ago
@mbutler920 Not true. Places that served only white people were very profitable. When sit-ins took place at Woolworth, it was one of the most successful chains. The law changed that. and now most people would be outraged if a large business discriminated to that scale. Odd argument that says you could dictate morality if you enter the DMV but not if you enter a private hospital.
hellopendejos 8 months ago
@hellopendejos I can see your argument, but what really changed race relations in this country was the attitude of the people, the law is only a reflection of that... and my argument is that the legislating is a slippery slope when it impedes on personal liberties, such as property rights.
Let's say that the law was repealed, and a diner somewhere wanted to stop serving African Americans. The ensuing media hype would put the place on the map within a day. Maybe this diner is popular, maybe
mbutler920 8 months ago
@hellopendejos it serves a bunch of racists and making this change doesn't affect it's bottom line directly... hell, let's even say that every racist in the state decides that they now want to frequent this place. Here's their problem though... There's a huge media outcry over this obviously racist stance. The owners don't care but it takes more than owners to run a business. They have to partner with, say... Aramark to get their potato salad, and say... Tyson to get their chicken (I'm pulling
mbutler920 8 months ago
@hellopendejos this out of my ass, but you get the idea). These companies realize that if they support this diner, THEY risk losing business, so they pull out. Also that advertisement the diner had in the paper and on the side of route 561 to Racistville? The media outlets pull out as well. And guess what? The food suppliers and media outlets are privately owned, so it's THEIR RIGHT to do this. Now you've got a diner with no food, no advertising, and a dwindling racist clientele... how long
mbutler920 8 months ago
Rand Paul sucks me dick! Right wing pussy!
padude64 8 months ago
Rand Paul sucks me dick!
padude64 8 months ago
@deegan45 3 black dudes are republicans??!? whaaat your wrong though! Lawrence (a black guy i know) is a republican.. so there are actually four black republicans! ahh.. you are such a simple person :)
overshotfilms08 8 months ago
@deegan45 how the hell would segregation return? Any thing lives only if it's taking in money.. name any business man or woman that would spend so many thousands a month to rent a place for a business and choose to exclude blacks? Even if someone chose to loose money to get his white only "lunch counter" the people wouldn't be quiet about it lol
overshotfilms08 8 months ago
Rand Paul is great. He could have said that he believes in the Civil Rights act and nothing would have come from it but he stuck to his principles like an honest politician. He said plenty of times that he abhors racism on every level but he also doesn't want the government controlling private businesses (remember that government were major proponents of racism).
I believe in Ron and Rand Paul who are trying to end the social racism and tyranny that exists very subtly in our current society
tek510 8 months ago
@deegan45 so your argument is with Disney? have you heard of reverse racism? do you even realize that surface differences cause a small difference in genetics? even the minorities are racist cause they are sucking off the racism card tit. but yet here you are bitching about race; most likely cause you have a weak mind and are very stupid. another side effect of individual liberty... allowing people who dont deserve a voice to speak their retarded bullshit.
jherther86 8 months ago
@frivosold I agree with you and I agree with Rand, and even I had a hard time listening to "the only f***ing point he's making". "Wweellllll, tthhheee innnterrreeessssttiiinnngg thhhiiiinnngg hhheeeeeerreeee.........1850........hypothetical......metaphor.....some shit nobody cares about........" He really needs to work on his delivery! He could learn a thing or two from Poppa Paul there. He has the substance but not the style. Ron keeps it interesting without dumming it down.
ayaytc 8 months ago
Rachel rocks and Rand Paul is a dizzy dick!
padude64 8 months ago
fuck allof you right wing turds! I am not voting for you!
padude64 8 months ago
You right wingers suck dick! Your Reagan was a dick and Clinton had a surplus because every republican fucked the USA up and if you big macho pussies want to go there with brains, then debate me, or shut your fucking mouth!
padude64 8 months ago
Madcow is a Soros flunky
vincentkjones1 8 months ago
Rachel's calm facade broke down when Rand used her reasoning to make the case that liberals must support the idea of people carrying guns into bars and restaurants against the owner's wishes. That threw a spanner in her works. His closing remarks nailed the coffin shut.
JoeJC 9 months ago
@JoeJC The problem with that is that asking someone not to carry a gun into a restaurant is not discrimination. The same person can walk into said restaurant without the gun. A black person cannot change the color of his skin in order to be allowed into a restaurant.
DannyHiggs 8 months ago
@DannyHiggs If I want to carry a gun into your business and you refuse me service because of that, you are discriminating against me. Just because I could eat in the restaurant if I compromised my rights, it doesn't stop it from being discriminatory. We want the same thing, a world without racial bigotry. But I have no moral authority to meddle in your private property. That's not what a free society is about. Ending government racism and boycotting racist business owners is the solution IMO.
JoeJC 8 months ago
Seriously, 20 minutes later, you've never answered the one question she asked you in various different ways the entire time.
jmwatson2490 9 months ago
Rachel Madcow acted like an immature college activist with tunnel vision, who simply could not see the point to Rand Paul's discussion. This was made clear @7:33 where Paul explains the dangers of blurring the distinctions between private and public business ownership decisions, like allowing firearms in restaurants. Madcow believed it was about the 2nd amendment, when again, it was about the ability of private business owners to to have a say in the rules of their own establishments.
MatthewRider1 9 months ago
well the interesting thing is I'm going to avoid answering all of your questions
Ybfog 9 months ago
also, this debate is sort of useless as you can walk into any establishment and most places I've ever walked into have signs in plain sight that read: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" --this includes blacks, whites, indians, people that smell bad, people not dressed appropriately, etc... so I don't understand why this debate requires a talk show on national tv as it's a useless discussion
bonzelite 9 months ago
the thing is this, and it's just a fact: law or no law, if you're gay, or a tranny, or you are not well-received by any group that happens to hang out at a certain bar or restaurant --you're going to not be welcomed there anyway and will end up not staying there. If you're black and you walk into a white biker bar with hells angels, and the bar is required by law to admit you in --you're going to get your ass kicked and thrown out or worse. That is just a fact of life regardless of any talk show
bonzelite 9 months ago