People HAVE A RIGHT to Choose who they Want on THEIR OWN PROPERTY, and Who they do Business with. If they Choose not to do Business with certain people, THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO FORCE THEM TO DO BUSINESS WITH CERTAIN PEOPLE. You have THE RIGHT to Choose who you let Enter in Your House, Business or Private Property. Rand is saying EXACTLY THAT, he is saying that HE DOES NOT SUPPORT RACISTS, Ron & Rand Respects property rights and they also have the choice of not doing business with racists.
Seems to me that Rand makes a great point. Obviously he is against racism or segregation of any kind as he sated many times, BUT if you start to say what private owners can and cannot do then you're walking a fine line. I think thats all he is saying and it doesn't seem that radical to me.
I for one would like to know if a business was racist....I would shop somewhere else. People who are crying about this need to take their heads out of their asses and use their brains and think this through.
Im curious, the Ron Paul comment in his whatever claim that he was a bigot however I wonder if it is an honest mix up with Rand Paul. I can see how the confusion might happen since both are republicans with simeral names...as much as I love to listen to politics, it can get quite confusing. Giving the benefit of a doupt often does that. Or being open-minded to both parties and points of views.
This is not a complex issue. A transaction between a business owner and a customer is a MUTUAL association. If the business owner does not want to be part of the transaction, then they don't have to.
rand is not a racist, he is defending the right of businesses to have freedom. even if it means posting racist things! (which btw will in most cases hurt the business itself). i dont want gov telling me what and what i cant do with my business! rand is right, this is an obscure argument from ages ago
There is an issue of semantics which makes this debate confusing.
"Private" and "public" can have different connotations. What the Civil Rights Act of 1964 refers to when it says a "public institution" is anything that is open to the public, a.k.a. something that doesn't require specific invitation or membership.
Institutions open to the public can be privately owned, and they can ban the carrying of arms in their business. But the fact that they are open to the public means they can't discrim
He is defending his political beliefs. He's not a racist. Rand Paul was trying say that no one has the right to tell anyone else how to conduct themselves in regards to their private business. He's a stone cold libertarian.
@gulbirk he also wants to end the fed, end the war on drugs, stop devaluation of the currency, stop corporatism, etc. And he's actually against over-fishing and pollution because those are property rights issues that the government should enforce.
@gulbirk not necessarily land, but yes, fish are a scarce resource and be treated as such. If you somehow owned a population of fish and chose to take them all, then you are the one who suffers the loss.
Because in my life time, I can overfish and fuck, and become rich. And the people who come after me will have to face the quansequenses.
Its the same with CO2. We can choose to pollute as much as we want, and its the "future" people who will have to face it.
Overfishing forexample IS A PROBLEM. Because we can exterminate the fish. I for once will not let that happen just because we accept the idea of bying land.
@gulbirk If you destroy your own property, it's your own loss, what is so hard to understand about that? YOUR children might not inherit as much, but so what? Not even everyone has children to begin with.
@gulbirk "We shouldnt be able to just BUY lakes and parts of the sea, and then use that as an excuse to overfish." Why not? Property rights are always necessary over scarce resources. Everyone accepts this, including you, the only difference is you want the government to own it. Why do you think the government has supreme authority over arbitrary forms of property by default?
@Houshalter No, no one is suposed to OWN it. I have a problem with people bying it and exploiting it. I have the exact SAME problem with governments owning it and exploiting it.
We need to HAVE REGULATIONS. Thats my point. We need to have laws on how much you are allowed to fish for example. This is called substainability, and if you dont like it then you can kiss humanity and progress goodbye.
@gulbirk the authority to make decisions about the use of a resource is by definition ownership. The government shouldn't be given a monopoly over fish populations just because someone on the internet thinks all private property owners prefer to irrationally destroy their property just to sabotage future generations, as if the government doesn't anyways.
@Houshalter Oh ok, so lets take a look at the facts here shall we. EVERY time regulation are passed, who complains about it?
Well, to be fair, I dont know about america, but I certaintly know enough about Norway. The last time Norway passed a regulation on fishing, who complained? Il tell you who, the fishers.
Now this tellls me that if the fishers were in charge, they wouldnt have these regulations. Its not that I have a problem with the private. I have a problem with the un-substainable.
@gulbirk "HUMANITY" isn't a person. I never said anything about making animals go extinct either. And you have yet to justify why government arbitrarily gets monopoly ownership of fish populations.
@Houshalter Removing regulations is DOING EXACTLY THAT.
You are claiming that its ok to buy land and then do whatever the fuck you want to do with that land.
ERGO: You are claiming that killing of animals is FINE as long as you pay for it.
How many times do I need to tell you libertarians that I only support social democrasy. That I ONLY suport a government that is responsible and does what benefits us, the people? Why dont you get that.
@gulbirk "You are claiming that its ok to buy land and then do whatever the fuck you want to do with that land." That's what ownership is, and there's nothing wrong with that.
@gulbirk no, because "humanity" is not a person. People have rights, not some made up abstract concept. Of course, it is sustainable because everyone has a strong incentive to maintain the value of their own property. But even if in some bizarre backwards world where that wasn't the case, it still wouldn't matter because with property rights, gains and losses are localized to the property owner. If I destroy my own property no one else is poorer.
@gulbirk "If everyone is just allowed to do whatever the fuck they want as long as they can pay for it, then humanity is pretty much screwed."
That's such a strawman. Everyone should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want as long is it doesn't harm anyone else or their property. Can you give me one reason why that shouldn't be the case? How could it be wrong if a person does something that doesn't harm anyone else?
@gulbirk that's a completely unlikely scenario because presumably a population of fish is worth more in the long-term alive than to be taken and consumed all at one time. If that's not the case, then the net-economic benefit of overfishing would actually be good.
1. HIS fish will be gone. Not yours. If you valued fish you would be free to buy a some.
2. On the contrary, the opportunity cost of the lost fish is only beared by the person who owned them.
Do you realise that this is why no one can take you seriously?
""here's nothing unsustainable about property rights over scarce resources""
Ok, so there is nothing unsustainable to emptying the sea as long as I own it. There is nothing unsustainable about letting hundreds of millions of liters of CO2 out in the atmosphere, LOL.
YES DUDE THERE IS. THERE IS SOMETHING UNSUSTAINABLE ABOUT THAT.
@gulbirk Why would anyone with enough money to buy an entire sea have any incentive whatsoever to empty it? Even assuming they did, which I stress is an extremely absurd and unlikely premise as it is, how is it "unsustainable" in terms of everyone else? No else is any worse off by what you do with your property, regardless what the property is, and if they are, then it is because you are violating their property rights.
Pollution is a violation of property rights as well.
@Houshalter Ok, you need to go back to high school.
What do you think people live on? Food,water and air.
If private owners are allowed to do whatever they want, the earth will be ruined.
Lets take CO2 for example. Anyone who went to high schools KNOWS that increasing the amount of CO2 can be bad. Temperature increase for example will lead to less oxygen in because the water is heated.
This ruins for EVERYONE. You dont live in a fucking boble dude.
@gulbirk "If private owners are allowed to do whatever they want, the earth will be ruined." Because you don't get to tell other people what to do, the earth will just rip off it's axis and go tumbling towards the sun. That makes perfect sense.
And the atmosphere at best is public property because everyone uses it.
And because people use he atmosphere there must be regulations on big business to keep the air clean. A business' first concern is to make money. Everything else comes after. History shows us this quite clearly and it's why we have government regulation in the first place so the common man doesn't get trampled on because their bossess wanna make an extra dollar.
@NUTCASE71733 pollution used to be illegal and people could sue you if your pollution affected them or damaged their property. But then this idea came around that we need to allow a certain amount of pollution for the sake of progress, and so government started letting businesses get away whatever they wanted without any compensation at all. We shouldn't be "regulating" things that should be outright banned to begin with.
@Houshalter Nah, government just gets to choose WHICH parties are ok to pollute; Winners & Losers; Crony Capitalism. After all, Who has the Power of the Gun?
@ownersedge The problem with Air Pollution and with Over-Fishing is that no one has the Responsibility of Ownership.
There is underway an experiment in fencing off parcels in the sea, with "Ownership" kinds of responsibility granted to individual "operators" to promote wiser use of the sea's natural resources that have been so abused under a communal form of exploitation. I hope we will see some good results.
Less class warfare = 2012 presidential candidate, Ron Paul, says he doesn't believe cutting entitlements to the poor is the way to balance the budget. He has GREATER ideas. Check him out! I love how Ron Paul doesn't pit groups against one another. VOTE RON PAUL 2012! I almost fainted last night when Bill OReilly said that Paul's idea of ending FEMA had merit (since FOX tends to ignore Paul).
When Rand says "any specific gotcha" he means that her suggestion coinsides with his beliefs but that hardly defines his stance so its pointless to agree with her. Why is it wrong for someone to have private ownership and to conduct personally. A person can act in many ways in his personal space and racist certainly is warranted if no harm is committed. Ever seen the sign in a business when it says that they reserve the right to refuse ANYONE business? Having rand's stance is not at all racist
Rand Paul never opened this debate, this was a pathetic ambush interview to get an unthinking sound byte in a conversation that can only be understood intellectually.
The Civil War was never fought to end racism. If the video author gets that wrong, there's no way this person can be taken seriously.
The video author lies by implying property rights means the right to violate the rights of others by citing sweat shops.
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.
For every conservative politician or group that has a racist stance on something, there's at least one liberal politician or group with an equally racist doctrine, with the intent to exclude the majority and treat a specific group of people differently. It happens everyday, right in front of us, we're just too afraid of being called "racist" to admit it. 90% of laws created now are designed to scale back the average American's rights and push the agenda of special interest leeches.
Wow, this is like a Fox media channel for liberals. Come on, don't strawman the guy here. All he said is he doesn't like the fact the government forces places to do things. If a place dosen't allow a certain race or creed it is up to the people to boycott is until they go out of bussiness. Just like his father said he would legalize heroin if the states so wished it, it doesn't mean everyone is going to become a junkie. Let the people do what they want and suffer the consequences they deserve.
The Federal Government shouldn't intervene in private business, even if they're run by a bastard who discriminates based on some arbitrary physicality. Rand Paul would not be opposed to the Greensboro sit-ins, and I'm quite certain that he would fight against Jim Crow laws.
The fact of the matter is, discrimination from the state was far more prevalent than discrimination from private businesses. It was the government who decreed separate sections in restaurants in Greensboro and elsewhere.
Nice; it makes it quite a lot easier when you make blank and blanketed statements with absolutely no solidly based meaning so you don't have to think that much harder, isn't it?
@americasucks100 im nothing like my dad because that would mean i have to hurt 3 year olds and be a republicunt and actually like rand paul but rand paul is just like his father and i can prove that just compair what they say in their speaches and thats exactly why ben from TYT calls rand paul ron paul you fucking prick and if you want me to prove all this info about rand paul and ron paul i can after all its well known racism is taught and that has been proven
@americasucks100 500 charaters is the limmit thats why and that link doesnt go to anything educational it just shows how much of a dumbass you are and i can prove what i say can you prove what you say
@americasucks100 it could have been a mistake and i didnt see anything flagged as spam but you probably turned it to not spam and i am the same i believe in equal rights for all gay straight women and man
@americasucks100 to bad ron paul doesnt agree with the last part of the statement he is to much of a women hater as well and he used to write news articles about sexist stuff as well
@americasucks100 there is to evidence to ron pauls newsletters and everything i wish my aunt kept her copy since she used to live around his area and she would just throw them out and they where worse then what got out online and the prefect example of ron paul being a racist prick is rand paul because he taught rand paul his idiologys but you would have to actually be intelligent to understand that and i also have links of rand paul being racist other thing this one
no they werent and if you are that stupid to believe that he knew what was in his own news letters and he still printed them you are just a nieve idiot and he actually had his named signed to a lot of them like i said my aunt had the news letters she saw his name by his hand writing in it and he had his name on every single one of them he had to keep switching newsletters/papers because of the shit he was writting and allowing others to write there is even one where his wife wrote something
If I were to write a newsletter titled Obama's newsletter, and stuck in a bunch of racist comments, it would look every bit as legitimate as those, then I could call you a stupid, nieve (Yes, spelled like that), idiot for believing he isn't racist.
All of his friends, and even a black (gasps!) supporter all say that that writing isn't even his style
@americasucks100 ron paul was one of the people passing them out ron paul was the owner of the newsletters and newspapers thats why he kept switching the names and it was ron paul who taught rand paul his son how to be a racist and that is some guy who wasnt even born when ron paul was passing them out my aunt got those newsletters he wrote his name to certain articles and specifically said they where by him
And fake articles can point specifically to Obama, and can have his signature printed on it as well
IDK about the "switching names", what do you mean by that?
As for the other past, he does take responsibility for not keeping a closer watch on the internet (He's really old), as it was the first medium on which the newsletters were published, and people using his name
@americasucks100 they werent fake and he is a lieing prick of coarse he is going to make up this BS but they werent fake or else he wouldnt have had his signiture not foraged on those news letters in articles where he specifically said he wrote it in the news letters but you would have actually had to of gotten one of those sexist biggoted newsletters and he is still open about being a sexist and rand paul proves that he is a racist becaue he taught rand to be a racist
@americasucks100 most of ron pauls supporters where from the KKK and other groups like that he didnt have many black supporters especailly after they found out he was a racist and he still proves he is a women hater in his speeches even to this day i can prove that he is a gay hater and women hater easily the racist stuff rand paul proves easily enough because ron paul taught rand to be a racist
@kazooga1234 *EPIC FACEPALM* You know what? So is Obama So is Obama one everything you just said! In his own words: "F****** n****** m*******, man they are so bad" -B. Obama I even have printed copy with his signature on it Paul has publicly come out in support of gay rights more than most liberals, he want's the gov't entirely out of marriage! How does this vid prove Rand is racist in any shape, way or form? You know what? Fuck this cat-fight, I'm starting to get a bit pissed I need sleep too
no hes not his mother is white and is father is black unless you are saying he hates his mother then you r completely fucked up ron paul taught rand paul to be racist the stuff rand paul said is completely racist and if you cant see that then you are a racist yourself and obama isnt a women hater he got women equal pay and i can prove that ron paul is a women hater he claims to be for the consitution but wont allow women to choose what to do with their own bodies and the vid is selfexplainitory
Have you read any of these letters, listened to any of his speeches, or read any of his books?
If you haven't, how can you prejudge his style to the point where you are certain that those letters are his despite it only having his name on it, which is so easily forged that I can do it?
You yourself have denounced your father, so even if, despite all the facts, Ron is a racist, how does that instantly make Rand a racist?
@americasu i did read the newsletters that where posted online but i got even better my aunt read some of the news letters/articles that came to her house and he was really sexist in the ones he made absolutely sure he wanted everybody to know he wrote and i have seen his speeches and thats why i no he is a women hater and a gay hater and he still lets that be known now and i can prove that from his speeches if you want me to and it wasnt forged and he used to love to take credit for them and
@americasucks100 (continue) its what rand said in this upload that are direct quotes from him that make him racist and just prove that ron paul is a racist because he taught his son to be a racist
@TheDukeljk You are the uneducated moron. You put an s at the end of moron. What he states is facts. You can't say that he is wrong. Those quotes where exactly what Rand Paul said and not taken out of context. He is also not wrong with the history of the bills.
Uh oh, you attacked Rand Paul, be ready for a relentless attack from the Paul base of neocons, er, um, Libertarians I mean.
For the record no, I don't think he's racist, I think he just thinks like his dad, that the free market is the solution to everything and any government intervention destroys that
This is where it gets tricky for Libertarians though, we lose votes when we say we want a more traditional style of government, but this excludes the segregation. It is more about having a free market and a capitalist system. I find it very funny that free market capitalism is now a radical idea in America. Liberal media, you are not being a watch dog for democracy and I would argue that you are being a safeguard for tyranny. You're using free speech to slander pure ideals sir.
Wow, good job of putting words into peoples mouths. I am beginning to question who is worse: people like you who will do whatever you can to keep the people in the dark or the people who you work for. His stance is that he is for states rights and freedom and against the federal government regulating commerce. I assure you that if I had the slightest notion that Ron or Rand were racist. The problem is that Republicans do want to roll back the clock on many things, but without the racist past
LiberalViewer, your ability to attack Rand Paul is pathetic. So you want to tell businesses who they have to serve regardless of their will. It's just like you to want to run other people's lives because you think you can do it better for them.
The name for you is perfect. Incredible. I'd like to "agree to disagree" with you, but in your case if you can't convince me you have no problems using government force and extortion to make me do what you want. Barbaric.
im gonna not invite you in my club because your a liberal, sounds silly dont it? your making a mountain out of a mole hill, besides that news ancher would loose alot of power if she were to admit the civil war was fought for more than just slavery. heck, she would disagree with nolification but nolification which in the cival war also ment succession. nolification makes medical weed in california legal, i think i could stomp that ancher in a debait
I hate to say to agree with a tea-bagger on anything, but if Rand Paul is saying a private business ought be able to discriminate, I agree. SCOTUS had the right to K stuff all wrong until '37 (wasn't that the change in 1 that saved 9?), but Atlanta Motel and others got it wrong. Though the feds do have the authority to tell states and local govts they cannot have seg laws on the books, and that was the majority of the problem anyways.
Rand Paul never claims that the federal government should be "powerless" to desegregate restaurants and motels. In fact, he shows just the opposite by recognizing congress' powers determined by SCOTUS cases dealing with the commerce clause. He just thinks that the government should not (not cannot) regulate private businesses in this manner. His view, in short, is that just because the government can do it, doesn't mean it should.
Rand Paul looks to be a racist..through and through! With a President whose mother was verywhite and his father black irunning WashingtonDC . this man is saying"protect a business first", and protact the rights of a black or other minority to go into a restaurant of motel last!
@reachhigh10 He said nothing of the kind! My question is if a restaurant is racist WHY in the heck would you sit down there and eat anything they prepared for you? Had you known, would that right have been your choice? So glad you feel protected! Bon Appetite!
To remind everyone, as an owner, he or she has worked to attain/maintain his/her private property and does not want it to be wrecked. And to do this, it's just a matter of whom you TRUST.
To remind everyone, as an owner, he or she has worked to attain/maintain his/her private property and does not want it to be wrecked. And to do this, it's just a matter of whom you TRUST.
cont.) When you invite a person in your car, you are RISKING your LIFE so by choosing the white person, the driver reduces his CHANCES of becoming a victim. So by discriminating, the driver is forcing black customers to force other blacks to not commit crimes, which can explain all of these 'black' cites, like Compton, CA. Thus, this repeal may lower the CRIME RATE and race relations can improve. So, using Woodrow Wilson's adage "War to end all wars", I say RACISM TO END ALL RACISM.
cont.) When you invite a person in your car, you are RISKING your LIFE so by choosing the white person, the driver reduces his CHANCES of becoming a victim. So by discriminating, the driver is forcing black customers to force other blacks to not commit crimes, which can explain all of these 'black' cites, like Compton, CA. Thus, this repeal may lower the CRIME RATE and race relations can improve. So, using Woodrow Wilson's adage "War to end all wars", I say RACISM TO END ALL RACISM.
I used to think that racism was just plain wrong but I find it maybe a pragmatic tool, depending on the circumstances. For example, if you were a white taxi driver in the Big Apple, and there were two customers, one white and the other black. Under that law you can't discriminate but with the repeal you can. As for the reason, that driver may know that statistically blacks commit more crimes than whites. Yes, not all blacks commit crimes but do you KNOW that PARTICULAR person? (cont.)
This is a non-issue. If a non-government businessman chooses to conduct business in a selective manner, that is his American right. Equally, American consumers have the freedom to choose which businesses and clubs they support. Anti-racists are not being forced to support discrimination, no more than can they infringe the guaranteed freedoms of association and speech of others. This duality is the backbone of America, and if either party does not like it they are additionally free to emigrate.
Yes,I agree with Rand Paul on everything including what he couldn't say.Private businesses can exclude whomever they want (the race card is just the liberal card brought out to prevent debate of the issues).The market will decide if they are wise to do so.
I think racism is pig ignorant but so is trying to embarrass a guy making him out to be racist to the public when he's clearly not. I'm left leaning and think Paul Rand's Libertarian views are naive but I hate this arsehole method of trying to silence a discussion by politically killing him with sound bites.
@roryc89 I'm with you on how it was unethical to try to use the strong dichomatic issue of racism when his opinion isn't related to either side, but liberalviewer is usually right on point with his videos. Personally I feel no openly racist business can succeed in todays society. Consider a homogeneous population of racists, how would they do trade with the rest of civilized america? they couldn't, they'd lose so much. commerce, medicine, technology, culture, etc. Let the morons suffer.
One more thing, Civil Rights don't place homosexuals in a protected class. Almost every state has a law that places homosexuals in a protected class. Society has changed. Its best to have things on a federal level to ensure all rights are protected by all states, but if all states individually were doing something that the federal government later tries to do it is possible that you don't actually need it on a federal level. Example would be SCHIP which existed on state levels before federal
One more thing, Civil Rights don't place homosexuals in a protected class. Almost every state has a law that places homosexuals in a protected class. Society has changed. Its best to have things on a federal level to ensure all rights are protected by all states, but if all states individually were doing something that the federal government later tries to do it is possible that you don't actually need it on a federal level. Example would be SCHIP which existed on state levels before federal
Also based on a bonafide operating quotient, there are situations when an employer can legally discriminate in the employment process. Not everything is quite so black and white as you are presenting the facts, once again please stop talking over everything and inserting your belief, its nauseating.
I don't like the idea of telling private business owners, “I abhor racism I think its a bad business decision to exclude anyone from your restaurant, but at the same time I do believe in private ownership”, but I think there should be absolutely no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding. This statement taken into context means that he doesn't want to seem hypocritical for his libertarian beliefs, but he believes in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which conflicts with that belief.
I believe in a narrow definition of the commerce clause, and therefore I don't think that the Federal government has the right to interfere in private business. The Federal government does have the power to ensure that states are not violating the rights of their citizens. I don't think Rand Paul is a racist, though he might be.
I don't think he's a racist, he's a pseudo-intellectual. He can't win contemporary debates so fishes up ones from the past that noone even remembers and re-hashes the views of others that are so old he can effectivly pass them off as his own. He's a hack trading off the "grass is greener" view a lot of people have of the past.
Racism has dire negative effects in society. Allowing businesses open to public (not discussing private membership) to discriminate only exacerbate tensions among residents. We are talking about preventing a business owner from allowing a butt naked customer roaming in his shop but rather a fundamental factor, and that is the race or ethnicity. Racism is wrong, and nobody argues against that, so why is it anti-freedom to prohibit the companies from engaging in such practices?
I find his views progressive. If you need a keeper like government involved to make sure you kids play nice. You're more regressive than anything.
Institutions generally keep people apart and create class systems and a hierarchy of power. If we need to be looked after or use leviathan superintendence. We're probably less advanced than most "Progressives" think and will ever be.
True progression would be amending the constitution to include laws that protect governed from
business, unions, government, finacial institutions, individuals and trying those who break the law by the Constitution which should act as social contract between the governed and the governing.
More government is not progress,less government and better protection of natural law, that would be the direct definition of progressive politics.
Just like you can use your body to say whatever you want, you can use your private property any way you want to, also, as long as you don't violate their private property.
I also believe that we can learn a lot from economists like Thomas Sowell, who have seen what the effects are of the Civil Rights laws.
...to allow anyone in the year 2011 to discriminate based on skin color makes about as much sense as discriminating based on hair length or eye color. Ascribed characteristics are just that...making them the deciding factor in any decision regarding a human being's right to be treated equally is ignorant and morally wrong. If you're offended by people of other races simply for reasons that boil down to them being unfamiliar, something is wrong with you.
There seems to be an implicit assumption here that any law that is passed is necessarily 'good'. So turning back the clock makes him necessarily an anarchist. Although his views may be outside the political mainstream, they are not outside a first principals economic framework. Watch Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman's 1980 series 'Freedom to Choose'. The whole thing is on youtube.
Everyone should remember, that the civil rights law goes both ways. If the leader of the Klu Klux Klan wants to enter a bar owned by a black man, the owner of the bar has no choice but to serve the Klan leader. Does that seem right? How about the rights of the owner of a gay bar to not serve say Pat Robertson? I think those people should have the right to refuse service to those people he is offended by. Would you allow those people into your home? It´s the trade off we make for freedom.
this guy is a radical racist...cut and dry...this country shoul be moving foward....not backwards...the republicans should be ashamed to fosture such notions....just having this talk is evidence +hat republicans have only their own selfish agenda being used and manipulated by the very group they think they're manipulating.....fools.
If he gives a yes or no answer to Maddow's question, he will be judged poorly. If he says yes then people will brand him a racist and if he says no then people will say he is a hypocrite or he is inconsistent.
Am I listening to the voice of a person or a robot? This is propaganda. Rand Paul is a good guy. He says clearly that he abhors racism. He simply values property rights, as do I. For example, in many cities you can not have a smokers only bar. Every bar is non-smoker. Even if you own the place you can not have a smoke. btw I don't smoke but I think that is BS. Anyway it is a non issue as segregation will never come back. And quit putting words into Rand's mouth that he did not speak!
Hmm. I'm not sure repealing that kind of legislation would be wise. Theoretically, I agree with Rand, but there are too many variables that could really screw things up. Sometimes, people make bad business decisions, but they still can be successful. How did the businesses in the South before the 1960's stay open? Because they had enough white people to sustain them!
You know what the cops told me when I was asked to leave a restaurant because the owner didn't like my long hair and summer beard? Find another place to eat. I've also been asked to leave places for wearing my black trench coat, but this isn't wrong in any way because I'm white I suppose.
When you mentioned that the US fought a Civil War to settle the issue of States' Rights, I believe you significantly misunderstood the issue of States' Rights as it applied to that period. Everyone is told today that States' Rights = Racism, but if you actually look back at how nullification was used, you'll note that it was predominantly used on the abolitionist side of the debate.
I'd like to request that you take a few minutes and watch "Interview With a Zombie" here on YT.
Any private institution should be able to serve who they want, and suffer the consequences of failed business. I don't think this makes Rand Paul racist. Just pro freedom. I am most certainly not racist, and I believe it is immoral to force private owners to abide by my views. I would have a problem with a restaurant that refused to serve whites like me, but I would not think it's pro freedom to force them to. Likewise with a restaurant that refused to serve any race or group.
@hippydude89 You're pretty stupid. The businesses don't fail for discriminating in the south. The business fail for not discriminating. If you serve blacks, you lose the white customer base who has the money. Rand Paul is a supporter of the neo-confederate movement and he has plenty of morons like you fooled because he cloaks his support for racism in Hayke's obsolete theories. .
The primary problem with you argument is you are debating on whether the government has the right to do something, which they have the right to do anything really, and whether they SHOULD do something.
Wow, thanks for the two options that leave him still tainted: Radical or Rascist? Jackass!
If FREE-MARKETS were allowed to stay free rascism would have continued to erode. YOU CAN"T LEGISLATE THOUGHTS, the federal gov. didn't stamp out rascism, it stamped out overt signs of rascism in PRIVATE establishments. Why would any person of tolerance and love want to SUPPORT A BUSINESS where Bigots operate and CONTINUE TO OPERATE, even after legislation?? Answer that LiberalViewer.
Good video, but are you sure that the civil rights act says you can't deny service based only on RACE? What about belief system? I think that's included. Because you have to ask the question, should the homosexual proprietor of a gay bar be forced by the feds to serve Pat Robertson if he comes in? You can't have it both ways you know.
This guy is very wrong about what he says at 3:32. America did not have to fight a civil war to fix the problem. and it did not fix the problem, the hatred from that war still lingers today. What makes Rand Paul a radical? That he does not support segregation? But thinks the Government should not have the right to tell a business who they can and cannot serve. I just don't get it, if a restaurant owner hates a certain race why would anyone even support that business anyways?
@studmuffin234able Do you believe the government should come into your home (private property) and tell you act or what movies you should watch? Why then should the government control a business I own (private property)?
@greatgatsb90210 No i don't believe the government should be able to do that. I'm a little confused by the last part of your comment, do you think im saying the government should be able to control a business/property that you own?
"No Shoes, No Service"?
"No Prostitution Allowed"?
"No Cheating At Cards"?
ownersedge 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
People HAVE A RIGHT to Choose who they Want on THEIR OWN PROPERTY, and Who they do Business with. If they Choose not to do Business with certain people, THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO FORCE THEM TO DO BUSINESS WITH CERTAIN PEOPLE. You have THE RIGHT to Choose who you let Enter in Your House, Business or Private Property. Rand is saying EXACTLY THAT, he is saying that HE DOES NOT SUPPORT RACISTS, Ron & Rand Respects property rights and they also have the choice of not doing business with racists.
halcyon0830 1 month ago
Seems to me that Rand makes a great point. Obviously he is against racism or segregation of any kind as he sated many times, BUT if you start to say what private owners can and cannot do then you're walking a fine line. I think thats all he is saying and it doesn't seem that radical to me.
nealattacktheater 1 month ago
I for one would like to know if a business was racist....I would shop somewhere else. People who are crying about this need to take their heads out of their asses and use their brains and think this through.
trippplefive 2 months ago
Im curious, the Ron Paul comment in his whatever claim that he was a bigot however I wonder if it is an honest mix up with Rand Paul. I can see how the confusion might happen since both are republicans with simeral names...as much as I love to listen to politics, it can get quite confusing. Giving the benefit of a doupt often does that. Or being open-minded to both parties and points of views.
AstroMen2911 2 months ago in playlist More videos from LiberalViewer
This is not a complex issue. A transaction between a business owner and a customer is a MUTUAL association. If the business owner does not want to be part of the transaction, then they don't have to.
Dirge987 2 months ago
rand is not a racist, he is defending the right of businesses to have freedom. even if it means posting racist things! (which btw will in most cases hurt the business itself). i dont want gov telling me what and what i cant do with my business! rand is right, this is an obscure argument from ages ago
elahi2006 2 months ago
you talk too much, would u shut up and let me listen to what rand was saying
elahi2006 2 months ago
@weetoy69 Wow you are clueless. By your logic anyone that is for the right of free speech is for KKK rallies andwestboro baptist church protests.
666or999 3 months ago in playlist More videos from LiberalViewer
There is an issue of semantics which makes this debate confusing.
"Private" and "public" can have different connotations. What the Civil Rights Act of 1964 refers to when it says a "public institution" is anything that is open to the public, a.k.a. something that doesn't require specific invitation or membership.
Institutions open to the public can be privately owned, and they can ban the carrying of arms in their business. But the fact that they are open to the public means they can't discrim
nafaidni 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He is defending his political beliefs. He's not a racist. Rand Paul was trying say that no one has the right to tell anyone else how to conduct themselves in regards to their private business. He's a stone cold libertarian.
politicalmyincorrect 5 months ago
Comment removed
politicalmyincorrect 5 months ago
The only difference between Ron Paul and the rest of the republicans is
Ron Paul wants to stop the war
Cut back on CIA
Seperating government from industri (that means you are allowed to overfish and over pollute)
Really, that is really a good future for ya.
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk he also wants to end the fed, end the war on drugs, stop devaluation of the currency, stop corporatism, etc. And he's actually against over-fishing and pollution because those are property rights issues that the government should enforce.
Houshalter 5 months ago
@Houshalter No, they arent property right issues at all, because do you know what that means?
That means that if I have money, i can BUY an area, and then FISH THE SHIT OUT OF IT.
That doesnt solve the problem at all.
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk not necessarily land, but yes, fish are a scarce resource and be treated as such. If you somehow owned a population of fish and chose to take them all, then you are the one who suffers the loss.
Houshalter 5 months ago
@Houshalter No, I am not, thats the problem.
Because in my life time, I can overfish and fuck, and become rich. And the people who come after me will have to face the quansequenses.
Its the same with CO2. We can choose to pollute as much as we want, and its the "future" people who will have to face it.
Overfishing forexample IS A PROBLEM. Because we can exterminate the fish. I for once will not let that happen just because we accept the idea of bying land.
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk If you destroy your own property, it's your own loss, what is so hard to understand about that? YOUR children might not inherit as much, but so what? Not even everyone has children to begin with.
Houshalter 5 months ago
@Houshalter Your own property IS THE PROBLEM.
We shouldnt be able to just BUY lakes and parts of the sea, and then use that as an excuse to overfish.
For crying out loud, we need to have some kind of intergrity. Do you even care about society at all, because I do.
I wont accept overfishing just because a piece of paper says that it is okay. Because that IS RETARDED.
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk "We shouldnt be able to just BUY lakes and parts of the sea, and then use that as an excuse to overfish." Why not? Property rights are always necessary over scarce resources. Everyone accepts this, including you, the only difference is you want the government to own it. Why do you think the government has supreme authority over arbitrary forms of property by default?
Houshalter 5 months ago
@Houshalter No, no one is suposed to OWN it. I have a problem with people bying it and exploiting it. I have the exact SAME problem with governments owning it and exploiting it.
We need to HAVE REGULATIONS. Thats my point. We need to have laws on how much you are allowed to fish for example. This is called substainability, and if you dont like it then you can kiss humanity and progress goodbye.
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk the authority to make decisions about the use of a resource is by definition ownership. The government shouldn't be given a monopoly over fish populations just because someone on the internet thinks all private property owners prefer to irrationally destroy their property just to sabotage future generations, as if the government doesn't anyways.
Houshalter 5 months ago
@Houshalter Oh ok, so lets take a look at the facts here shall we. EVERY time regulation are passed, who complains about it?
Well, to be fair, I dont know about america, but I certaintly know enough about Norway. The last time Norway passed a regulation on fishing, who complained? Il tell you who, the fishers.
Now this tellls me that if the fishers were in charge, they wouldnt have these regulations. Its not that I have a problem with the private. I have a problem with the un-substainable.
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk If it's not your property, it's none of your business whether something is sustainable or not.
Houshalter 5 months ago
@Houshalter Sorry sorry, that is just plain wrong. I care too much about HUMANITY to think like that.
You are basicly saying that its ok to make all animals go extinct as long as you pay for it.
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk "HUMANITY" isn't a person. I never said anything about making animals go extinct either. And you have yet to justify why government arbitrarily gets monopoly ownership of fish populations.
Houshalter 5 months ago
@Houshalter Removing regulations is DOING EXACTLY THAT.
You are claiming that its ok to buy land and then do whatever the fuck you want to do with that land.
ERGO: You are claiming that killing of animals is FINE as long as you pay for it.
How many times do I need to tell you libertarians that I only support social democrasy. That I ONLY suport a government that is responsible and does what benefits us, the people? Why dont you get that.
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk "You are claiming that its ok to buy land and then do whatever the fuck you want to do with that land." That's what ownership is, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Houshalter 5 months ago
@Houshalter Ok, then you dont care about humanity, I do.
This is why libertarianism is rejected by me, because thats how un-substainable it is.
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk no, because "humanity" is not a person. People have rights, not some made up abstract concept. Of course, it is sustainable because everyone has a strong incentive to maintain the value of their own property. But even if in some bizarre backwards world where that wasn't the case, it still wouldn't matter because with property rights, gains and losses are localized to the property owner. If I destroy my own property no one else is poorer.
Houshalter 5 months ago
@Houshalter Humanity is all the people.
If that was the case? IF, hahahah. So who complains about regulations? Who wants to remove them? The OWNERS of companies. Thats who.
Ok, so if I buy a part of the sea, and I kill of a certain type of fish, thats only bad for me?
haahahah.
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk and all people have rights.
Ok, so some companies want to remove some regulations. So what?
Yes.
haahahah. «Greatest argument evar.
Houshalter 5 months ago
@Houshalter So what? so what?
ok, I do now consider you mentally ill and I am ending this debate.
If everyone is just allowed to do whatever the fuck they want as long as they can pay for it, then humanity is pretty much screwed.
So I hope now that you realise why people dont support your libertarian views. Because they cannot build a better society, they can only ruin it.
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk "If everyone is just allowed to do whatever the fuck they want as long as they can pay for it, then humanity is pretty much screwed."
That's such a strawman. Everyone should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want as long is it doesn't harm anyone else or their property. Can you give me one reason why that shouldn't be the case? How could it be wrong if a person does something that doesn't harm anyone else?
Houshalter 5 months ago
@Houshalter Because its not your property to begin with.
Let me put it this way.
If you BUY enourmeous parts of the sea and you overfish, it wont be your problem. Because you will be rich. It will be everyone elses problem.
Nr1: The fish will be gone
Nr2: You will be responsible for exterminating all the fish and you wont be held responsible for it.
Nr3: It harms EVERYONE else.
The fish might not be a perfect example. but things like CO2 and pollution are.
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk that's a completely unlikely scenario because presumably a population of fish is worth more in the long-term alive than to be taken and consumed all at one time. If that's not the case, then the net-economic benefit of overfishing would actually be good.
1. HIS fish will be gone. Not yours. If you valued fish you would be free to buy a some.
2. On the contrary, the opportunity cost of the lost fish is only beared by the person who owned them.
3. No, because it wasn't their property.
Houshalter 5 months ago
@Houshalter YOu know what, I am tired of this.
In your world, if I buy the ENTIRE earth, I am free to bomb it because its my property.
Stop responding because you are an idiot.
1: The fish is still fish, its an IMPORTANT PART OF BIOLOGICAL LIFE THAT NEEDS TO BE THERE RETARD.
Oh, and btw, THIS HAPPENED IN THE PAST SO SHUT UP. This was actually going on before the government stepped in and stopped it.
I am sorry, but I actually want a substainable world, not a dead one.
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk Stop responding because you are an idiot.
Good luck buying the entire Earth. Totally a practical idea you've got there.
1. If you "need" it to be there, why don't you buy it?
2. So far as I know there have never been any property rights over fish stocks. Source please.
3. There's nothing unsustainable about property rights over scarce resources, and what you want is irrelevant to the rest of society.
Houshalter 5 months ago
@Houshalter Are you just kidding?
Do you realise that this is why no one can take you seriously?
""here's nothing unsustainable about property rights over scarce resources""
Ok, so there is nothing unsustainable to emptying the sea as long as I own it. There is nothing unsustainable about letting hundreds of millions of liters of CO2 out in the atmosphere, LOL.
YES DUDE THERE IS. THERE IS SOMETHING UNSUSTAINABLE ABOUT THAT.
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk Why would anyone with enough money to buy an entire sea have any incentive whatsoever to empty it? Even assuming they did, which I stress is an extremely absurd and unlikely premise as it is, how is it "unsustainable" in terms of everyone else? No else is any worse off by what you do with your property, regardless what the property is, and if they are, then it is because you are violating their property rights.
Pollution is a violation of property rights as well.
Houshalter 5 months ago
@Houshalter Ok, you need to go back to high school.
What do you think people live on? Food,water and air.
If private owners are allowed to do whatever they want, the earth will be ruined.
Lets take CO2 for example. Anyone who went to high schools KNOWS that increasing the amount of CO2 can be bad. Temperature increase for example will lead to less oxygen in because the water is heated.
This ruins for EVERYONE. You dont live in a fucking boble dude.
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk "If private owners are allowed to do whatever they want, the earth will be ruined." Because you don't get to tell other people what to do, the earth will just rip off it's axis and go tumbling towards the sun. That makes perfect sense.
And the atmosphere at best is public property because everyone uses it.
Houshalter 5 months ago
@Houshalter
And because people use he atmosphere there must be regulations on big business to keep the air clean. A business' first concern is to make money. Everything else comes after. History shows us this quite clearly and it's why we have government regulation in the first place so the common man doesn't get trampled on because their bossess wanna make an extra dollar.
NUTCASE71733 5 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 pollution used to be illegal and people could sue you if your pollution affected them or damaged their property. But then this idea came around that we need to allow a certain amount of pollution for the sake of progress, and so government started letting businesses get away whatever they wanted without any compensation at all. We shouldn't be "regulating" things that should be outright banned to begin with.
Houshalter 5 months ago
@Houshalter Nah, government just gets to choose WHICH parties are ok to pollute; Winners & Losers; Crony Capitalism. After all, Who has the Power of the Gun?
ownersedge 1 month ago
@ownersedge The problem with Air Pollution and with Over-Fishing is that no one has the Responsibility of Ownership.
There is underway an experiment in fencing off parcels in the sea, with "Ownership" kinds of responsibility granted to individual "operators" to promote wiser use of the sea's natural resources that have been so abused under a communal form of exploitation. I hope we will see some good results.
ownersedge 1 month ago
@NUTCASE71733 Believe it or not, the common man also wants to make an extra dollar.
ownersedge 1 month ago
@ownersedge Why is it then that most big retailers' worst pilferage loss is usually due to employee pilferage, not due to public shoplifting?
ownersedge 1 month ago
Comment removed
Houshalter 5 months ago
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH RAND PAUL...FUCK YOU LIBERAL VIEWER
paulstroie 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
VOTE RON PAUL 2012
paulstroie 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Less class warfare = 2012 presidential candidate, Ron Paul, says he doesn't believe cutting entitlements to the poor is the way to balance the budget. He has GREATER ideas. Check him out! I love how Ron Paul doesn't pit groups against one another. VOTE RON PAUL 2012! I almost fainted last night when Bill OReilly said that Paul's idea of ending FEMA had merit (since FOX tends to ignore Paul).
vechorik 6 months ago
When Rand says "any specific gotcha" he means that her suggestion coinsides with his beliefs but that hardly defines his stance so its pointless to agree with her. Why is it wrong for someone to have private ownership and to conduct personally. A person can act in many ways in his personal space and racist certainly is warranted if no harm is committed. Ever seen the sign in a business when it says that they reserve the right to refuse ANYONE business? Having rand's stance is not at all racist
pureaggression 6 months ago 11
@pureaggression well said my friend
elahi2006 2 months ago
Rand Paul never opened this debate, this was a pathetic ambush interview to get an unthinking sound byte in a conversation that can only be understood intellectually.
The Civil War was never fought to end racism. If the video author gets that wrong, there's no way this person can be taken seriously.
The video author lies by implying property rights means the right to violate the rights of others by citing sweat shops.
This is nothing more than partisan dogma.
Deadwind002 7 months ago 9
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 2
For every conservative politician or group that has a racist stance on something, there's at least one liberal politician or group with an equally racist doctrine, with the intent to exclude the majority and treat a specific group of people differently. It happens everyday, right in front of us, we're just too afraid of being called "racist" to admit it. 90% of laws created now are designed to scale back the average American's rights and push the agenda of special interest leeches.
snoopyd80 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Racist or intelligent? Before you post, check out this YouTube video about poverty/immigration
"Immigration by the Numbers -- Off the Charts"
it's short and easy to understand. Then let me know what you think.
vechorik 6 months ago
roll it back 235 years! Ron Paul 2012!
jeffersonfdavis 8 months ago
Wow, this is like a Fox media channel for liberals. Come on, don't strawman the guy here. All he said is he doesn't like the fact the government forces places to do things. If a place dosen't allow a certain race or creed it is up to the people to boycott is until they go out of bussiness. Just like his father said he would legalize heroin if the states so wished it, it doesn't mean everyone is going to become a junkie. Let the people do what they want and suffer the consequences they deserve.
TheKenTerry 8 months ago
Liberal Viewer is a total cunt after this one - total socialist
kielmoreau13 9 months ago
@kielmoreau13 -You are truly ignorant. Sad.
theworldwillknowme 9 months ago
Liberal Viewer is a total cunt after this one
kielmoreau13 9 months ago
The Federal Government shouldn't intervene in private business, even if they're run by a bastard who discriminates based on some arbitrary physicality. Rand Paul would not be opposed to the Greensboro sit-ins, and I'm quite certain that he would fight against Jim Crow laws.
The fact of the matter is, discrimination from the state was far more prevalent than discrimination from private businesses. It was the government who decreed separate sections in restaurants in Greensboro and elsewhere.
flash3780 9 months ago 4
republican=KKK
fleiva30 9 months ago in playlist lib viewer
@fleiva30
Nice; it makes it quite a lot easier when you make blank and blanketed statements with absolutely no solidly based meaning so you don't have to think that much harder, isn't it?
americasucks100 8 months ago
rand paul is a radical racist just like his father
kazooga1234 9 months ago
@kazooga1234
Your an idiotic muthafucka just like your father
...
See what a meaningless one liner is like?
americasucks100 8 months ago
@americasucks100 im nothing like my dad because that would mean i have to hurt 3 year olds and be a republicunt and actually like rand paul but rand paul is just like his father and i can prove that just compair what they say in their speaches and thats exactly why ben from TYT calls rand paul ron paul you fucking prick and if you want me to prove all this info about rand paul and ron paul i can after all its well known racism is taught and that has been proven
kazooga1234 8 months ago
@kazooga1234
/watch?v=YpuRcmPnSTM
Who apparently can't be bothered to spell or have good grammar either...
americasucks100 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@americasucks100 500 charaters is the limmit thats why and that link doesnt go to anything educational it just shows how much of a dumbass you are and i can prove what i say can you prove what you say
kazooga1234 8 months ago
@kazooga1234
I apologize for whomever marked your comment as spam
I value all input and detest censorship
americasucks100 8 months ago
@americasucks100 it could have been a mistake and i didnt see anything flagged as spam but you probably turned it to not spam and i am the same i believe in equal rights for all gay straight women and man
kazooga1234 8 months ago
@kazooga1234
Alright! We agree some something ;)
Thanks pal
americasucks100 8 months ago
@americasucks100 to bad ron paul doesnt agree with the last part of the statement he is to much of a women hater as well and he used to write news articles about sexist stuff as well
kazooga1234 8 months ago
@kazooga1234
Chill man, no needed to all edgy and defensy, I never meant to attack your family views or preset political mind
Try sarcasm, it helps when you feel like exploding in anger, but really don't feel like it
Objectively speaking, all the racist accusations are bullshit and the evidence has no solid base
Now, I could go on a longish unpleasant debate about this, or let time and evolution take care of this and force stupid people to adapt or die
Yes, the second option sounds more pleasant
americasucks100 8 months ago
@americasucks100 there is to evidence to ron pauls newsletters and everything i wish my aunt kept her copy since she used to live around his area and she would just throw them out and they where worse then what got out online and the prefect example of ron paul being a racist prick is rand paul because he taught rand paul his idiologys but you would have to actually be intelligent to understand that and i also have links of rand paul being racist other thing this one
kazooga1234 8 months ago
@kazooga1234
*Sighs*
This again?
Those newsletters were written by a ghostwriter, conveniently during the time in which Paul took a break from politics to deliver babies.
I can just as easily write a whole bunch of shit and put Obama's signature on the bottom and call him a racist
Hey! Your spelling improved from last time! We are making progress!
Now, about that grammar...
americasucks100 8 months ago
no they werent and if you are that stupid to believe that he knew what was in his own news letters and he still printed them you are just a nieve idiot and he actually had his named signed to a lot of them like i said my aunt had the news letters she saw his name by his hand writing in it and he had his name on every single one of them he had to keep switching newsletters/papers because of the shit he was writting and allowing others to write there is even one where his wife wrote something
kazooga1234 8 months ago
@kazooga1234
No need for unpleasant language or name calling!
If I were to write a newsletter titled Obama's newsletter, and stuck in a bunch of racist comments, it would look every bit as legitimate as those, then I could call you a stupid, nieve (Yes, spelled like that), idiot for believing he isn't racist.
All of his friends, and even a black (gasps!) supporter all say that that writing isn't even his style
But I guess they are all just racist too, huh?
/watch?v=lrM6R5fyzqA
americasucks100 8 months ago
@americasucks100 ron paul was one of the people passing them out ron paul was the owner of the newsletters and newspapers thats why he kept switching the names and it was ron paul who taught rand paul his son how to be a racist and that is some guy who wasnt even born when ron paul was passing them out my aunt got those newsletters he wrote his name to certain articles and specifically said they where by him
kazooga1234 8 months ago
@kazooga1234
Actually, he was retired at the time.
And fake articles can point specifically to Obama, and can have his signature printed on it as well
IDK about the "switching names", what do you mean by that?
As for the other past, he does take responsibility for not keeping a closer watch on the internet (He's really old), as it was the first medium on which the newsletters were published, and people using his name
/watch?v=5CoQWAXuUyI&feature=related
americasucks100 8 months ago
@americasucks100 they werent fake and he is a lieing prick of coarse he is going to make up this BS but they werent fake or else he wouldnt have had his signiture not foraged on those news letters in articles where he specifically said he wrote it in the news letters but you would have actually had to of gotten one of those sexist biggoted newsletters and he is still open about being a sexist and rand paul proves that he is a racist becaue he taught rand to be a racist
kazooga1234 8 months ago
@kazooga1234
how is it being real any less, if not more, BS than it being faked?
All of the people close to him and a black supporter (and every other supporter for that matter) agree that this does not match his style.
There is no video or audio of him saying this, these letters have not affected any of his bills, nor is this style apparent in any of his books.
The only evidence is some sketchy newsletters published when he was retired from politics
americasucks100 8 months ago
@americasucks100 most of ron pauls supporters where from the KKK and other groups like that he didnt have many black supporters especailly after they found out he was a racist and he still proves he is a women hater in his speeches even to this day i can prove that he is a gay hater and women hater easily the racist stuff rand paul proves easily enough because ron paul taught rand to be a racist
kazooga1234 8 months ago
americasucks100 8 months ago
no hes not his mother is white and is father is black unless you are saying he hates his mother then you r completely fucked up ron paul taught rand paul to be racist the stuff rand paul said is completely racist and if you cant see that then you are a racist yourself and obama isnt a women hater he got women equal pay and i can prove that ron paul is a women hater he claims to be for the consitution but wont allow women to choose what to do with their own bodies and the vid is selfexplainitory
kazooga1234 8 months ago
@kazooga1234
Have you read any of these letters, listened to any of his speeches, or read any of his books?
If you haven't, how can you prejudge his style to the point where you are certain that those letters are his despite it only having his name on it, which is so easily forged that I can do it?
You yourself have denounced your father, so even if, despite all the facts, Ron is a racist, how does that instantly make Rand a racist?
americasucks100 8 months ago
@americasu i did read the newsletters that where posted online but i got even better my aunt read some of the news letters/articles that came to her house and he was really sexist in the ones he made absolutely sure he wanted everybody to know he wrote and i have seen his speeches and thats why i no he is a women hater and a gay hater and he still lets that be known now and i can prove that from his speeches if you want me to and it wasnt forged and he used to love to take credit for them and
kazooga1234 8 months ago
@americasucks100 (continue) its what rand said in this upload that are direct quotes from him that make him racist and just prove that ron paul is a racist because he taught his son to be a racist
kazooga1234 8 months ago
this is the best thing that explains how racist rand paul is and it shows that he is just like his father
kazooga1234 9 months ago
Liberal Viewer uneducated morons.
TheDukeljk 9 months ago
@TheDukeljk You are the uneducated moron. You put an s at the end of moron. What he states is facts. You can't say that he is wrong. Those quotes where exactly what Rand Paul said and not taken out of context. He is also not wrong with the history of the bills.
kazooga1234 9 months ago
my store for 28 years, I refuse to sell food to people now and then, and the FED/s can shove laws.
if any person says naughty words around my van, NO SALE
mr bill's snow cone van.
donze52 9 months ago
Uh oh, you attacked Rand Paul, be ready for a relentless attack from the Paul base of neocons, er, um, Libertarians I mean.
For the record no, I don't think he's racist, I think he just thinks like his dad, that the free market is the solution to everything and any government intervention destroys that
zzyzx0788 10 months ago
@zzyzx0788 in other words from the other racists
kazooga1234 9 months ago
This is where it gets tricky for Libertarians though, we lose votes when we say we want a more traditional style of government, but this excludes the segregation. It is more about having a free market and a capitalist system. I find it very funny that free market capitalism is now a radical idea in America. Liberal media, you are not being a watch dog for democracy and I would argue that you are being a safeguard for tyranny. You're using free speech to slander pure ideals sir.
Strapnigga 10 months ago
Wow, good job of putting words into peoples mouths. I am beginning to question who is worse: people like you who will do whatever you can to keep the people in the dark or the people who you work for. His stance is that he is for states rights and freedom and against the federal government regulating commerce. I assure you that if I had the slightest notion that Ron or Rand were racist. The problem is that Republicans do want to roll back the clock on many things, but without the racist past
Strapnigga 10 months ago
LiberalViewer, your ability to attack Rand Paul is pathetic. So you want to tell businesses who they have to serve regardless of their will. It's just like you to want to run other people's lives because you think you can do it better for them.
The name for you is perfect. Incredible. I'd like to "agree to disagree" with you, but in your case if you can't convince me you have no problems using government force and extortion to make me do what you want. Barbaric.
xanas3712 10 months ago
im gonna not invite you in my club because your a liberal, sounds silly dont it? your making a mountain out of a mole hill, besides that news ancher would loose alot of power if she were to admit the civil war was fought for more than just slavery. heck, she would disagree with nolification but nolification which in the cival war also ment succession. nolification makes medical weed in california legal, i think i could stomp that ancher in a debait
libertytooth 10 months ago
I hate to say to agree with a tea-bagger on anything, but if Rand Paul is saying a private business ought be able to discriminate, I agree. SCOTUS had the right to K stuff all wrong until '37 (wasn't that the change in 1 that saved 9?), but Atlanta Motel and others got it wrong. Though the feds do have the authority to tell states and local govts they cannot have seg laws on the books, and that was the majority of the problem anyways.
itpduder 11 months ago
Rand Paul never claims that the federal government should be "powerless" to desegregate restaurants and motels. In fact, he shows just the opposite by recognizing congress' powers determined by SCOTUS cases dealing with the commerce clause. He just thinks that the government should not (not cannot) regulate private businesses in this manner. His view, in short, is that just because the government can do it, doesn't mean it should.
JumpShotHero 11 months ago
Rand Paul looks to be a racist..through and through! With a President whose mother was verywhite and his father black irunning WashingtonDC . this man is saying"protect a business first", and protact the rights of a black or other minority to go into a restaurant of motel last!
reachhigh10 11 months ago
@reachhigh10 Yep...you're an idiot.
evolutionist101 10 months ago
@reachhigh10 He said nothing of the kind! My question is if a restaurant is racist WHY in the heck would you sit down there and eat anything they prepared for you? Had you known, would that right have been your choice? So glad you feel protected! Bon Appetite!
CentrlFlagrl 10 months ago
At 5:12 why cant he answer the question? I would say no I dont support that. Whoever this Rand Paul dude is he is a dodgy fuck.
BraniusBalki 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To remind everyone, as an owner, he or she has worked to attain/maintain his/her private property and does not want it to be wrecked. And to do this, it's just a matter of whom you TRUST.
unknownunknowns 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To remind everyone, as an owner, he or she has worked to attain/maintain his/her private property and does not want it to be wrecked. And to do this, it's just a matter of whom you TRUST.
unknownunknowns 11 months ago
cont.) When you invite a person in your car, you are RISKING your LIFE so by choosing the white person, the driver reduces his CHANCES of becoming a victim. So by discriminating, the driver is forcing black customers to force other blacks to not commit crimes, which can explain all of these 'black' cites, like Compton, CA. Thus, this repeal may lower the CRIME RATE and race relations can improve. So, using Woodrow Wilson's adage "War to end all wars", I say RACISM TO END ALL RACISM.
unknownunknowns 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
cont.) When you invite a person in your car, you are RISKING your LIFE so by choosing the white person, the driver reduces his CHANCES of becoming a victim. So by discriminating, the driver is forcing black customers to force other blacks to not commit crimes, which can explain all of these 'black' cites, like Compton, CA. Thus, this repeal may lower the CRIME RATE and race relations can improve. So, using Woodrow Wilson's adage "War to end all wars", I say RACISM TO END ALL RACISM.
unknownunknowns 11 months ago
I used to think that racism was just plain wrong but I find it maybe a pragmatic tool, depending on the circumstances. For example, if you were a white taxi driver in the Big Apple, and there were two customers, one white and the other black. Under that law you can't discriminate but with the repeal you can. As for the reason, that driver may know that statistically blacks commit more crimes than whites. Yes, not all blacks commit crimes but do you KNOW that PARTICULAR person? (cont.)
unknownunknowns 11 months ago
This is a non-issue. If a non-government businessman chooses to conduct business in a selective manner, that is his American right. Equally, American consumers have the freedom to choose which businesses and clubs they support. Anti-racists are not being forced to support discrimination, no more than can they infringe the guaranteed freedoms of association and speech of others. This duality is the backbone of America, and if either party does not like it they are additionally free to emigrate.
WN4723 11 months ago
Is the narrator's voice computer generated ?
YManCyberDude 11 months ago
Yes,I agree with Rand Paul on everything including what he couldn't say.Private businesses can exclude whomever they want (the race card is just the liberal card brought out to prevent debate of the issues).The market will decide if they are wise to do so.
jonnyy40 11 months ago
Rachel Maddow wants to force black businessowners to serve white supremacists with the threat of jailtime.
Sivels 11 months ago
I think racism is pig ignorant but so is trying to embarrass a guy making him out to be racist to the public when he's clearly not. I'm left leaning and think Paul Rand's Libertarian views are naive but I hate this arsehole method of trying to silence a discussion by politically killing him with sound bites.
First LiberalViewer video I've watched and last.
roryc89 11 months ago
@roryc89 I'm with you on how it was unethical to try to use the strong dichomatic issue of racism when his opinion isn't related to either side, but liberalviewer is usually right on point with his videos. Personally I feel no openly racist business can succeed in todays society. Consider a homogeneous population of racists, how would they do trade with the rest of civilized america? they couldn't, they'd lose so much. commerce, medicine, technology, culture, etc. Let the morons suffer.
papatheophilopolous 11 months ago
its called Libertarianism
SylvanCyborg 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
One more thing, Civil Rights don't place homosexuals in a protected class. Almost every state has a law that places homosexuals in a protected class. Society has changed. Its best to have things on a federal level to ensure all rights are protected by all states, but if all states individually were doing something that the federal government later tries to do it is possible that you don't actually need it on a federal level. Example would be SCHIP which existed on state levels before federal
fudan6262 1 year ago
One more thing, Civil Rights don't place homosexuals in a protected class. Almost every state has a law that places homosexuals in a protected class. Society has changed. Its best to have things on a federal level to ensure all rights are protected by all states, but if all states individually were doing something that the federal government later tries to do it is possible that you don't actually need it on a federal level. Example would be SCHIP which existed on state levels before federal
fudan6262 1 year ago
Also based on a bonafide operating quotient, there are situations when an employer can legally discriminate in the employment process. Not everything is quite so black and white as you are presenting the facts, once again please stop talking over everything and inserting your belief, its nauseating.
fudan6262 1 year ago
I don't like the idea of telling private business owners, “I abhor racism I think its a bad business decision to exclude anyone from your restaurant, but at the same time I do believe in private ownership”, but I think there should be absolutely no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding. This statement taken into context means that he doesn't want to seem hypocritical for his libertarian beliefs, but he believes in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which conflicts with that belief.
fudan6262 1 year ago
Mmmm Tea Party!
Do they have jam & scones and Belgian buns? :P
NormanAngle 1 year ago
I believe in a narrow definition of the commerce clause, and therefore I don't think that the Federal government has the right to interfere in private business. The Federal government does have the power to ensure that states are not violating the rights of their citizens. I don't think Rand Paul is a racist, though he might be.
kandilynn03 1 year ago
So following the constitution is now considered radical?
whothaplaya 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
aparrently riding the dog like its a small horse is.. FROWNED UPON IN THIS ESTABLISHMENT Ride Rand Ride
dependentonunclesam 1 year ago
I don't think he's a racist, he's a pseudo-intellectual. He can't win contemporary debates so fishes up ones from the past that noone even remembers and re-hashes the views of others that are so old he can effectivly pass them off as his own. He's a hack trading off the "grass is greener" view a lot of people have of the past.
korona3103 1 year ago
Racism has dire negative effects in society. Allowing businesses open to public (not discussing private membership) to discriminate only exacerbate tensions among residents. We are talking about preventing a business owner from allowing a butt naked customer roaming in his shop but rather a fundamental factor, and that is the race or ethnicity. Racism is wrong, and nobody argues against that, so why is it anti-freedom to prohibit the companies from engaging in such practices?
ninuxy 1 year ago
everyone is lil racist cmon !! no one is a saint
Maratrushka 1 year ago
I find his views progressive. If you need a keeper like government involved to make sure you kids play nice. You're more regressive than anything.
Institutions generally keep people apart and create class systems and a hierarchy of power. If we need to be looked after or use leviathan superintendence. We're probably less advanced than most "Progressives" think and will ever be.
True progression would be amending the constitution to include laws that protect governed from
leftrightliars 1 year ago
business, unions, government, finacial institutions, individuals and trying those who break the law by the Constitution which should act as social contract between the governed and the governing.
More government is not progress,less government and better protection of natural law, that would be the direct definition of progressive politics.
leftrightliars 1 year ago
America is full of liberal bias.
timd941 1 year ago
Imho:
Just like you can use your body to say whatever you want, you can use your private property any way you want to, also, as long as you don't violate their private property.
I also believe that we can learn a lot from economists like Thomas Sowell, who have seen what the effects are of the Civil Rights laws.
museofive 1 year ago
...to allow anyone in the year 2011 to discriminate based on skin color makes about as much sense as discriminating based on hair length or eye color. Ascribed characteristics are just that...making them the deciding factor in any decision regarding a human being's right to be treated equally is ignorant and morally wrong. If you're offended by people of other races simply for reasons that boil down to them being unfamiliar, something is wrong with you.
JNDarkness 1 year ago
There seems to be an implicit assumption here that any law that is passed is necessarily 'good'. So turning back the clock makes him necessarily an anarchist. Although his views may be outside the political mainstream, they are not outside a first principals economic framework. Watch Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman's 1980 series 'Freedom to Choose'. The whole thing is on youtube.
dmg46664 1 year ago
Everyone should remember, that the civil rights law goes both ways. If the leader of the Klu Klux Klan wants to enter a bar owned by a black man, the owner of the bar has no choice but to serve the Klan leader. Does that seem right? How about the rights of the owner of a gay bar to not serve say Pat Robertson? I think those people should have the right to refuse service to those people he is offended by. Would you allow those people into your home? It´s the trade off we make for freedom.
Beeffyviolin 1 year ago
The only good conservative is a dead one.
MrBishopWalters 1 year ago
@MrBishopWalters I don't like the conservatives either, but wishing death on them is extreme and immature. Grow up.
xoy71 1 year ago
this guy is a radical racist...cut and dry...this country shoul be moving foward....not backwards...the republicans should be ashamed to fosture such notions....just having this talk is evidence +hat republicans have only their own selfish agenda being used and manipulated by the very group they think they're manipulating.....fools.
sucker1966a 1 year ago
If he gives a yes or no answer to Maddow's question, he will be judged poorly. If he says yes then people will brand him a racist and if he says no then people will say he is a hypocrite or he is inconsistent.
cokey1337 1 year ago
Am I listening to the voice of a person or a robot? This is propaganda. Rand Paul is a good guy. He says clearly that he abhors racism. He simply values property rights, as do I. For example, in many cities you can not have a smokers only bar. Every bar is non-smoker. Even if you own the place you can not have a smoke. btw I don't smoke but I think that is BS. Anyway it is a non issue as segregation will never come back. And quit putting words into Rand's mouth that he did not speak!
mrjon75 1 year ago
i hate her fuckin facial expressions.....
Bren565 1 year ago
It is fun to see these mainstream media Liberals losing their mind when the conservatives kick azz
BSS14285 1 year ago
Liberal viewer do you respond to any of the comments or rebudles to your flawed statements?
Typical Liberal, cannot argue unless he's looking at a teleprompter of preconceived answers.
And I thought Sarah Palin was dumb, well done Liberal viewer, well done.
baihbalm 1 year ago
Hmm. I'm not sure repealing that kind of legislation would be wise. Theoretically, I agree with Rand, but there are too many variables that could really screw things up. Sometimes, people make bad business decisions, but they still can be successful. How did the businesses in the South before the 1960's stay open? Because they had enough white people to sustain them!
LaughingMage 1 year ago
Kill the racist!!!!!!!!!
saxmanian 1 year ago
Wow he's so Racist and look at his eyes, he's so evil
Crashmagnet2 1 year ago
You know what the cops told me when I was asked to leave a restaurant because the owner didn't like my long hair and summer beard? Find another place to eat. I've also been asked to leave places for wearing my black trench coat, but this isn't wrong in any way because I'm white I suppose.
RoboticsNShenanigans 1 year ago
LiberalViewer,
When you mentioned that the US fought a Civil War to settle the issue of States' Rights, I believe you significantly misunderstood the issue of States' Rights as it applied to that period. Everyone is told today that States' Rights = Racism, but if you actually look back at how nullification was used, you'll note that it was predominantly used on the abolitionist side of the debate.
I'd like to request that you take a few minutes and watch "Interview With a Zombie" here on YT.
JETZcorp 1 year ago
Any private institution should be able to serve who they want, and suffer the consequences of failed business. I don't think this makes Rand Paul racist. Just pro freedom. I am most certainly not racist, and I believe it is immoral to force private owners to abide by my views. I would have a problem with a restaurant that refused to serve whites like me, but I would not think it's pro freedom to force them to. Likewise with a restaurant that refused to serve any race or group.
hippydude89 1 year ago 34
@hippydude89 You're pretty stupid. The businesses don't fail for discriminating in the south. The business fail for not discriminating. If you serve blacks, you lose the white customer base who has the money. Rand Paul is a supporter of the neo-confederate movement and he has plenty of morons like you fooled because he cloaks his support for racism in Hayke's obsolete theories. .
worldnewsbbc1 1 year ago
@worldnewsbbc1 Oh wow.
1: I do not support rand paul
2: you call me racist but say whites would automatically leave if blacks are served
3: And you fail to put any argument forth as to why business owners shouldn't have the freedom to serve who they want.
I'm the stupid one? I think not, dumbass.
hippydude89 1 year ago
@hippydude89 Well clarified good sir!
Cheilaboi360 10 months ago
When all else fails, play the race card, attack ad hominem, anything to distract from the real issues. Jerkoff.
pretorious700 1 year ago
The primary problem with you argument is you are debating on whether the government has the right to do something, which they have the right to do anything really, and whether they SHOULD do something.
miloinindo 1 year ago
Wow, thanks for the two options that leave him still tainted: Radical or Rascist? Jackass!
If FREE-MARKETS were allowed to stay free rascism would have continued to erode. YOU CAN"T LEGISLATE THOUGHTS, the federal gov. didn't stamp out rascism, it stamped out overt signs of rascism in PRIVATE establishments. Why would any person of tolerance and love want to SUPPORT A BUSINESS where Bigots operate and CONTINUE TO OPERATE, even after legislation?? Answer that LiberalViewer.
bdmenne 1 year ago
What do progressives see as the limits of government power?
MooseOfReason 1 year ago
Good video, but are you sure that the civil rights act says you can't deny service based only on RACE? What about belief system? I think that's included. Because you have to ask the question, should the homosexual proprietor of a gay bar be forced by the feds to serve Pat Robertson if he comes in? You can't have it both ways you know.
Beeffyviolin 1 year ago
Rand Paul is not radical. He is mainstream. It is the media that is radical.
666sigma 1 year ago
This guy is very wrong about what he says at 3:32. America did not have to fight a civil war to fix the problem. and it did not fix the problem, the hatred from that war still lingers today. What makes Rand Paul a radical? That he does not support segregation? But thinks the Government should not have the right to tell a business who they can and cannot serve. I just don't get it, if a restaurant owner hates a certain race why would anyone even support that business anyways?
studmuffin234able 1 year ago 13
@studmuffin234able Do you believe the government should come into your home (private property) and tell you act or what movies you should watch? Why then should the government control a business I own (private property)?
greatgatsb90210 1 year ago
@greatgatsb90210 No i don't believe the government should be able to do that. I'm a little confused by the last part of your comment, do you think im saying the government should be able to control a business/property that you own?
studmuffin234able 1 year ago