Don't get stuck on the restaurant issue. It's a FREE MARKET issue. Over time, people would go to restaurants that did not discriminate. Cutting off a large portion of your customer base is bad economic practice and a free market would dictate that. Would YOU go eat at a restaurant that practiced this type of inexcusable behavior? Point made.
Should I have the right to keep a pedophile away from my day care? Or, ask some homosexuals who were kissing in my restaurant in front of children,to leave my estabishment . Can I ask a known criminal to leave my store?
Voltaire said " I may disagree with what you have to say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it "
Malcolm X borrowing from Barry Goldwater said " Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"
Forgetting the collectivistic ideology of grouping an individual with another individual on a arbitrary characteristic like shade of skin.Does any american citizen have the freedom of choice in terms of who he trades with ? Yes or No.
Anyone who thinks rand's ideas will bring back racism or segregation really believes racism and segregation still exists on a large scale.So really these rules are just meant to hide racists and segregationists.Now if a racist wants to make it known that he hates white people say on his property say his business should he have that right.Or a dark skinned lady who thinks her children should not be near any wicked white child at school should she have a right to speak that freely?
I think that an open gay bar in West Hollywood should be forced to serve NAZI SKINHEADS who have "Kill Fags" tattoos on, we wouldn't want to discriminate, and what could possibly go wrong?
@RandomShellAccount: You wouldnt discriminate any girl from being your wife either? You would take anyone? Everyone is equal? Don't you not see the crucial downer with forcing people?
rachel fucking maddow is so terrible. Bill O'REilly x a fucking billion on terms of politcal slant and spinning shit. i give her maybe a year or so before she is cancelled becasue of how fucking terrible her show is.
The question isn't whether it's right or wrong to exclude certain races from our businesses; the question is whether the government has the right to tell those businesses what to do. Naturally, if a business discriminates based on race it will lose all it's customers and be out of business. Problem solved.
poeple are idiots and buy into what she interprets, he meant the idea of government determening what is public and what is private or own business. that's is the whole concept of the arguing she just doesn't get it. if the government says all buisiness dealing with some consumer good is public then they can control that stablishment with more rules. if its private then they can't. stupid people can't grasp that idea that that legislation simply gives the goverment power over businesses.
@ilcvmvm, Actually, she does get it. She gets that Rand Paul refuses to answer a question directly, and voice his feelings directly, despite repeatedly being asked.
And no, he did Not just mean the idea of "determining what is publica and what is private"....
@MaskedMarvyl fuck you idiot. Should gays be allowed to get married? Yes? becasue its a free country adn the government cant tell the no right? Why is it illegal? Bc its morally wrong? yes. YOUR FUCKING RETARDED HEAD CANT UNDERSTAND THAT THE SAME REASON GAYS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED IS THE SAME FUCKING REASON SOOMEONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DISRCIMINATE. FUCK YOU AND FUCK RACHEL FUCKING MADDOW AND HER SHITTY ASS TELEVESION SHOW. YOU BOTH NEED TO GROW UP AND QUIT TRYING TO SMEAR PPL.
Uh, I don't know whether to recommend lithium or a good sanitarium to you.
I don't think anyone, including you, can make sense of what you just said.
You say "That the same reason gays should be allowed to get married is the same fucking reason soomeone (sic) should be allowed to discriminate". You're right, my retarded head can't understand that, and doesn't Want to understand your schizo reasoning.
Half your words are curse words: please do grow up...
@MaskedMarvyl /sigh it was really spelled out for you in that paragraph. Free country for speech and personal beliefs--> gays can practice their belief of being gay and getting married regardless of how anyone feels about it. free country for speech and personal beliefs----> racists can practice theif belief of racism and discriminating regardless of how anyone feels about it. Both are morally wrong but as long as they arent raping or hosing ppl down noone should tell them no in this country.
@ilcvmvm, Actually, she does get it. She gets that Rand Paul refuses to answer a question directly, and voice his feelings directly, despite repeatedly being asked.
And no, he did Not just mean the idea of "determining what is public and what is private"....
@ilcvmvm I officially believe that every time MSNBC "news" anchors play the race card they get a bonus. The way that things seem to be going they might actually be getting payed on commission. Tar and feathers come to mind...unfortunately its always the people I tend to agree with that get it. Ron and Rand Paul 2012.
@hob976 , yeah.... getting someone to be honest about what they are implying to their base in a backhanded, dishonest way is petty. Hey, it worked... he won.
At least Ron Paul was honest; now his sleazoid lizard of a son is in office. I doubt we'll hear much honesty (or compassion) while he's there.....
@MaskedMarvyl Wow. I've never had a reply to something I wrote so long ago... Thanks for the dialogue.
.'
You're right. Rand Paul has half the integrity of his father ...That said, I think he has more than anyone else.
.
If you don't understand that this topic was just a petty smear, you didn't follow the facts. Rand Paul never once implied that he had any intention of revisiting the Civil Rights act of 1964. It was a non-topic that was conjured to put him in a spot and smear him.
@hob976, he put himself in the spotlight saying that businesses should decide for Themselves who they want to serve or not; and this slob is now a Senator for his remarks. Nice. One wonders what protections he will try to roll back, or protections for people he will block in the future. At least his father is honest. Rand is slimy and downright malicious.
(continued) In fact, he pointed out that he'd have voted for the 90% of the bill that focused on Federal Segregation laws.
.
And he's right. In a profit and loss system, losses offer as much direction (and correction) to the market as profit does. Before segregation laws were removed, the private sector had already widely desegregated. It was too profitable not to employ them and sell to them. The Federal government changed policy to mirror them. They couldn't afford not to.
@hob976, the Federal government changed policy to Mirror what the private sector was already doing?
Do YOU really believe what you just said? Because it has no logic. You're saying the Private Sector (i.e., business) led the way, and the poor, backward Feds followed them.
If the private sector had already "self-corrected" by desegregating itself, the Federal government would Never have past such an explicit bill in 1964. You're either being extremely dishonest, or your logic is deranged...
(continued) ...If you can pardon the vulgarity... just ask yourself this: Would you walk into a restaurant with a sign on the door that says "NO NIGGERS...!!!" or one that says "WHITES ONLY"... Would you?
.
Do you have ANY friends that would? Even if you did, do you think they'd suffer the humiliation and ridicule for walking by protesters with camera phones into the restaurant...? I don't think you do and I don't think that establishment would stay open...
@hob976, you're talking to the wrong person. I come from the deep south; there are plenty of white people that would LOVE to eat at a restaurant that says "whites only". In fact, they'd get sell-out business, because of all the rednecks and rubes that would eat there. Especially if it was All You Can Eat.
There are a lot of good Southern folk who have fought hard for minority rights; but there are Plenty of the other kind still there; I lived with them.
@MaskedMarvyl so what? Same can be said of blacks. and guess what, don't care, wouldn't want to eat in a racist restaurant anyway. I say let them have the right so the bigots come out of the closet and be seen
(continued) ...Lastly. If you're the type of political animal that just throws around the "RACIST" label at everyone to the right of you. Or you find yourself blaming policy problems on "GREED".... Then I've been wasting my time trying to reason with you. You're not here to think critically, you're hear to repeat what you're told.
.
Otherwise, I'd love to keep chatting with you. Thanks again.
the rights of businesses are more important than the rights of individuals & businesses should be allowed to do what the hell they want.
Even though it would be a poor business (financial) choice to exclude the people (potential customers) based on their skin color or heritage, businesses should be allowed to discriminate other races.
It would be hard for me to buy food, fuel, & medicine from the stores owned by people who hate Asians.
But that doesn't matter, because Asians anly make up a small percent of potential consumers anyway and it doesn't equate to an economic crisis to this fair fre capitalist nation!
This isn't just specifically about the bill. This is about Paul's stance on property rights, which he was trying to avoid admitting that he finds more important than any other constitutional right or any other civil right, for that matter. He cites the constitution, which he fails to use as good support because nothing in the constitution says that property rights can not be compromised. Actually, it says they CAN be compromised. Look up eminent domain and the takings clause.
ohhhh Rachel, you're so smart in with your analogies
wait...wasn't Dr. Paul exaggerating when he said the Journal doesn't back Rep candidates. Isn't exaggeration, overstating, hyperbole your whole act? Don't you mock the Right with exaggeration all the time Rachel?
and...you don't make a statement for conversation sake and miss a fact ever in any of your conversation rachel?
nitpicking and gotcha....law of the Liberal
anyone with common sense these days DOES NOT BELIEVE in Racism
here is a fine example as to why America is crumbling. avoid the real issue - the failure of socialism - by diverting to issues such as race that have long ago been dealt with. unreal and very, very sad.
Rachel Maddow has just stooped to the level of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity by attacking somebody who's not there to speak for themselves. Even if she had interviewed him a day earlier, it doesn't give her the right to distort his words and his views and foolishly associate him with pro-white power politicians of the 1950's and 60's. I find her particularly despicable and annoying when she starts talking really fast with anger in her voice, as if Rand Paul was some sort of KKK leader.
this isn't modern American history Rachel this is several generations removed. And yes Private Property should be allowed to deny business to whomever. Rachel Maddow has effectively joined O'Reily, Hannity, Beck, and Olbermann in feeding America fear and propaganda. I do enjoy how she will make these accusations and retorts to him, when he is not there to provide feedback. The state of our media is sad indeed.
"Civil Rights" only implies public dealings not those between private individuals (however "social justice" fits both). If you follow Maddow's logic, I, as a male, should have the "civil right" to, use a the women's restroom in a private establishment! Also, last I checked, the Congressional Black Caucus doesn't allow white Congresspeople to join their membership (which should be against "civil rights") ... even when their districts are 60% black. Wiki it if you don't believe me.
at the 2010 WSOP (poker), men are allowed and can not be denied access to entering the LADIES tournament because equal means equal. common sense tells us this is ridiculous. but the government tells us...YOU MUST ALLOW ALL TO ENTER....so they do. hhmmmmm?? To me it is still unclear if Rand Paul is a racist. He might be. But is he protecting us from finding him out. Or is he merely stating his views on less government control. I leave that for you to ascertain. Seek the truth.
This is a typical libertarian view. I think he made his views pretty clear, I don't think he's a racist at all. If you know anything about libertarians you know this view comes from their anti-gov views and not racism. Rachel Maddow seems to just be angry that she couldn't make him say a good sound bite that would make him sound racist. I don't even agree with libertarians including Rand or Ron but this is just a pathetic attempt at a smear job.
@02Geezy You mean the same free market that has increased inequality and iniquity hugely?
The same market that lobbies to feed kids trash food, rapes the environment, dumps workers when they are not needed into dire unemployment, pollutes, divides people, smashes unions to drive wages and conditions down? self regulation that sold junk as AAA, ripped off pensioners.
Grow a brain. myopic profiteering has syphoned off the USA economy to Dubai with tax evasion schemes.
if you sell things you are doing a public thing? but why? what else makes your action public automatically? buying? talking loudly? soliciting? being solicited? eye contact? why does selling your shit make the action public? it must, because if it is private then it is your own fucking business, that's what private means.... check this, they wait 50 years after the act(6 years to go?), change it private owners can do whatever and then help black and white and mexican racists to start a race war.
@02Geezy I'm pretty sure if you can prove a business did not serve you over your race, you can sue them. Proving it was your race that got you kicked out would just take a recorder of saying we don't serve _____.
@02Geezy When I read your comment, I thought at first it was a parody of US right-wing attitudes, what with so many words in all-caps like they're being shouted by a salesman or something. It's weird that so many Americans sincerely believe this stuff. With all the damage deregulation etc has done over the past three decades, all over the world, you'd think Americans would have wised up by now. Apparently not. Reaganite/Randian craziness and callousness has become a religion.
While I see many youtube posters running to defend Paul ducking the question, I wonder what the reaction would have been if the debate was based around Irish Ancestry? Paul, who's supposed to be a principled politician, ducked an obvious question-can Tea Party people actually expect this guy to represent their views in office if he can't answer a simple question?
What Paul "should" have done, as I see it, was have the guts to divulge his belief that business should be able to discriminate. He made it obvious that this is what he believes, so why the cowardice? He feels that business rights are greater than individual rights.OK, so say it.
As always Rachael is clear and concise. Too bad ppl have stuck teabags in their ears so as not to be able hear anything other than justifications for their innate racism. ARTAFOX says, " No argument, just emotion.". Perfect example of someone who chooses not to hear the facts clearly stated. Just the position to which they are opposed.
People try to make this out to be something that would bring us back before the civil rights movement by making examples of black people being discriminated against. Do they not realize that the same thing could happen to white people being discriminated against?
As far as the examples of government regulations outlawing lead in toys, underage drinking, and enforcing safety technologies... Why are these laws in place? To protect the welfare of the environment and the health of our fellow citizns
i don't think rand paul is a racist. i think he's an ideologue who's just not connected to reality. which is the great problem with libertarianism. it reads nicely in atlas shrugged and sounds great in theory, it just ends up sounding insane in practice. that maddow was able to back him into this issue and he lacked the political savvy to answer it reasonably says everything about his judgment.
She forgets the violence that was instigated by those in favor of the Civil Rights Act. The opposing side may or may not have been driven by racism. Some may have been fighting for their individual rights as business owners. I don't condone racism but cannot condone the violation of individual rights either. When Maddow went on her rant about fire and building codes I would say a resounding "NO!" The gov't does NOT have the constitutional right to interfere with private property.
In a political world of double speak, deception, and hidden agenda's, here we have a newbie politician explaining exactly what he believes, and she uses a tuning analogy? How much more straight forward can he be? If the "tuning device" was asking him a question, it's really not that complex.
She is obviously frustrated not being able to get the answer she wanted from him. This airing manipulates the viewer into thinking he's for 60's violence against freedom of speech, and assumed views.
@flex280 I believe he did answer the question, which is what she is following up on and asking again. Now if he is double speaking, can you quote the contradiction?
"did not go as I expected" = Maddow's code words for "I failed to successfully paint Rand Paul as a racist, which is why I'm going to try again now while he's not here to defend himself"
@epilp88 Huh? She was actually giving the guy a chance to make himself seem LESS racist. Maybe he was so concerned about getting the "less government" point across that he wasn't so worried about appearing racist??? Either that or he actually IS racist because he couldn't give a simple "yes" or "no" answer to a really basic question. I know politicians rarely give simple answers but he should have this time because he came across as a closet racist by dodging it so many times.
@ElroyMcDuff look fag. Rachel asking that question was her way of attempting to smear the guy and distract from whhat he was really doing which was upholding the constitution. Paul is not a racist and you are really childish for saying that. Just like he doesn't think gay people should be told they can't get married even though its morally wrong he htinks racists shouldnt be allowed to be racist just because its morally wrong. Its america and you and rachel maddow are terrible and petty people
@pplus0440 As I said before she was trying to get him to answer the questions and NOT appear racist but he just couldn't do it. It's not a smear. It's information that people need to know about their elected leaders. Watch the entire video and LISTEN.
How are we terrible? I don't recall Liberal media misquoting people or quoting out of context very often. Watch The Young Turks. They have plenty of evidence of Conservatives doing just that.
That is a false equivocationg lady. You make the contention that somehow discrimination is the opposite of freedom, but that is simply false...You discriminate every day, you choose this to eat over that to eat, to talk to this person rather then that person, to watch this video and not that one. If we don't have the ability to choose between options (descrimination) we can't even be said to be free...So if anything, discrimination IS freedom...
@gtkpaladin Not all discrimination is equal. Some discrimination has much bigger, more harmful consequences than others. If you own the only grocery store in town, and you don't allow blacks to buy food from your store, you will hurt the black community in the area (especially since in the 60s, very few blacks had the capital to open their own stores). "Freedom" for minorities means having the freedom to have access to all the same businesses as whites/straight people/men/able bodied people do.
@thecactusjanice I understand what you mean, but it is un unfair reaction... One can take the most extreme circumstance (like a doctor not serving a black), and then use it to justify forcing all doctors to serve anyone and everyone if they want to or not? Is that "fair"? Again, the principle of the matter is that you nor i should be forced to work for those whom we do not wish to work for. It is a matter of freedom, and with freedom, people can get to do what you don't like.
@thecactusjanice Furthermore, it is unsound buisness policy to not allow this group or that to buy from you...You automatically lose buisness...Which makes it much less attractive... To address you comment about "equall access" how far can that be take? The poor don't have the same access to luxury resorts...Should those resorts be forced to let them in at cheaper rates? Should Roles Royce be forced to sell their cars to poorer people? Wouldn't that be "equality"? This makes no sense good sir.
@thecactusjanice Where in America can you show me where you can only get something to eat from one location? I lived in the middle of the Mojave desert and I had options, with nothing but my 2 feet and 140 degrees outside mind you. THIS ISN'T THE 60S. We live in an age of instant global communication, the Internet, fast food, and a general distaste for discrimination. Please pull your head out of your ass and take a look around every now and then.
@Piercedblood Wow, so hostile. I'm a city girl, of course I know there are always more than one place to shop, lol.
My uncle owns his own business, I get how hard it is. But the law is a balancing act. You have to weigh business interests against the harm done to minorities/women/the disabled. Perhaps we just have different experiences when it comes to racism, but I believe this law is still necessary. I imagine that Maddow, being a gay woman, feels the same way.
@thecactusjanice Furthermore, you and many others seem to be confusing freedom = individual liberty with freedom = collective power over circumstance. Equality and liberty are not the same thing. "The best things and best people rise out of their separateness. I'm against a homogenized society because I want the cream to rise." - Robert Frost
@Piercedblood Well I guess we just have fundamentally different views on what "freedom" means, which is fine. I think that equal opportunity is the best way to ensure a free society. Like I said, I understand where you're coming from. But my own experiences -- as well the experiences of my family and friends -- tell me that the CRA still needs to be in place to make sure all the progress we've made since the 60s don't get turned back.
I notice those that think discrimination in a business serving the public always use a restaurant example.
What if it is food store and there isn't another around for many miles as happens out West?
How about a gas station where there isn't another around for many miles? What about a doctor's office, a pharmacy, an emergency clinic, a hospital that was privately owned? Would that be okay?
Discrimination, harmful and downright hypocritical for a nation built on 'all men are created equal.'
Now, to explain the ramifications of unjust discrimination. If you own a fastfood place, and you don't allow blacks in, that means you automatically loose all that buisness, which means, you are hurting yourself by doing so. Then, in addition to that, you also loose the buisness of all the peole that think it is immoral to discriminate in that manner...The simple fact is that his concern about discrimination is unfounded, and counterproductive...
@sophiemarie49 Can you let me know where that town is please? I'd like to set up a non-discrimnating food store\gas station\hospital\pharmacy there. I'll make a killing! At least until other entrepreneurs catch on and start opening their own non-discriminatory buisnesses....that damn free market got me again. Maybe I can lobby the government to pass some burdensom regulation to cripple my non-discriminating competitors or give me monopoly priveledge for these services...equal not = entitled.
Yes we get it he doesn't support the government forcing private business to serve a certain group of people, if said restaurant is too pig headed to do so. He has faith that the majority of people will do the right thing. Freedom demands that abhorant beliefs also be tolerated. He personally does not support it. Who cares what Buckley says.
You are correct, it is wrong to own people. I never said it is correct to do so. I said it is wrong to allow a business to segregate because racism is wrong.
Also, The left isn't fascist or communist. Please stop trying to insult the left because it really doesn't get you anywhere. It is very closed minded to be hateful of something you know very little about. I know it is just the way you were raised but please think before you act. Can you describe true freedom?
"Naomi Wolf, a former progressive tending towards libertarianism, attacked the police state under Bush, and she does not spare Obama. Indeed the spying, rendition, torture, and militarism may be worse under the Democrats."
"Naomi Wolf, a former progressive tending towards libertarianism, attacked the police state under Bush, and she does not spare Obama. Indeed the spying, rendition, torture, and militarism may be worse under the Democrats."
"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." -- Lyndon B. Johnson [in reference to the 1964 Civil Rights Act] to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler's Book, "Inside The White House"
This issue should not be political. It just so happens Rand is a Republican.
What he said is concerning because I know he is not the only person in this country that thinks like this, There is nothing wrong that anyone can get elected but the fact that people elect just anyone bothers me greatly. The people hold the power in this country and it is the people who should reform their thoughts and actions. Not the government. The people hold the power because they are the ones who vote.
I see a lot of idiotic comments on this video. It's hard for me not to start an argument but I'll try to put this as nicely as I can. More than 90% of the people in this country have ancestors that immigrated to America. Different races came to a new unexplored place to build a country free of many things including tyranny. Do you want someone to tell you you can't go into their building because of your color? Your gender? Your sexuality? It is wrong and should never be allowed.
I believe you and I and most people are on the same page as far as thinking it is immoral to ban people just because of their race. However, that isen't just what is being discussed here. We are talking about the Fed FORCING one group of people to serve another group of people, against their will...That isen't freedom, that is more like slavery...
@gtkpaladin, you've got to be kidding when you said, "We are talking about the Fed FORCING one group of people to serve another group of people, against their will...That isen't freedom, that is more like slavery... "
Slaves didn't get paid. They couldn't set their own hours. They couldn't decide to own or sell a business. Their spouses & children were sold away from them.
Racists shouldn't own businesses that serve the public if they want to live here.
"slaves didn't get paid" What is "getting paid"? It is recieving something for work done. Slaves got food and shelter...That is "payment". You attempt to dissproove my arguement just failed royally..
As far as "racists shouldn't own business that serve the public" Says who? Who are you to decide who should and shouldn't own a buisness? Do you even realize that when you say "racists" shouldn't own buisness, you are discrimnating against racists? lol
Now, what also must be understood, is that a buisness that descriminates in an unpleasant way, will suffer the conequences. No, honestly, if someone opend a fastfood place and they had a sign outfrong that said "no blacks" then guess what? They automatically loose all the buisness they would have gained from blacks, then they loose all the buisness of indignant people that think it is wrong to not serve blacks....Understand?
Yes, buisness has the right to serve whom they wish. A buisness transaction is a mutual accord. If one party is forced to serve another, how is that fair? If a black blumber dosen't want to work for a white guy, that is his choice, or the other way around. That is called "freedom", even if you don't like it.
Now, as to your question about "what if!?!?!", we can just as easily take that in all areas of life. What if a Mommy dosen't feed their kid right? We should have government agents watching over all parents... What if you use a kitchen knife to hurt someone? Knifes should be taken from all people, except government appooved agents... See how far paranoia can be taken? Your contention seems to be that without discrimanation laws, everyone would be discriminating.....Really?
first several minutes of this interview was talking about a tuning fork which I know shes trying to make a comparison but goodness she beats the point to death... Whats wrong with small business having the final say on who to serve and not serve it happens in Texas many stores as a white man or black man you cant go to thats on the Border..
Does Rachel think the Federal government should should be telling women they cannot kill their preborn children? Isn't abortion discrimination, deprivation of civil rights and violence all rolled into one? If Rachel favors legalized abortion doesn't that mean she favors all these evil things? It's so easy to play these gotcha games the Liberals think they are so good at!
Yes I do think a private business should be able to discriminate. This does not mean I agree with it. I do not want the federal government telling people how they should use their own property. If someone wants to open a business which serves only redheaded people with freckles that should be their choice. What ever happened to freedom?
@JoanofArck We have a different idea of what freedom is. It's an interesting point of view, but I really thought americans were on the same page when it came to civil rights. I guess you learn something new everyday.
@JoanofArck My Dear, no offense but you obviously have this view because you have not suffered the outcome of REAL discrimination within modern history, not One thinking they didn't get a job because a company had to make a quota, but more like no more than 2/3 generations ago, not being allowed to go to college, get a bank loan, buy a house, pay 4 your children to attend college, eat somewhere because you're hungry, etc.I guess One would want ALL freedoms when they've always had it.
Paul was merely saying that he is against descrimination, but he isn't in favor of absolute federal government rule... Has this chick ever heard of limited government? No, since she thinks descrimination is bad (except the kind she approves of) well then, the fed should just make everything all better....
Ah, so much nonsense... First this fool lied about Paul saying the paper "never" endorses etc" He didn't say "never"... look up the video "Dishonesty of Rachel Maddow"...She also released a false transcript of the video..
In addition, this fool is a hypocrite. She pretends to be against discrimination yet at the same times supports affirmative action, which is whole RACE based.. And she supports the racist Zionist regime in Israel...
I could care less if Rachel Maddow is a jew or just a white person, I am sick to death of the criminal rapes of my white race by any other race. THIS IS CRIMINAL and ignored by the media, whties are 8% of the world population which clearly means extinction levels. If they can protect extinct breeds of animals, they are NOW LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO PROTECT THE WHITE BREED OF HUMAN .
I think we should just re colonize america....by breeds and states :O) and I don't need your negative opinion on keeping my race safe so keep it to yourself.
@yuppyguitar1, but in reality living in a libertarian country we would all have less freedom. Without government intervention products, food and medicine would be less safe. Unscrupulous employers would reduce their workers freedom to have a safe, adequately paid job. Without any kind of regulation, electric, oil and gas companies could charge as much as they want. This would cascade down to higher prices for everyone.
@sophiemarie49 Ignorant. Why does one assume that "libertarianism" means a complete and total lack of all government oversight, safeguards, and regulations? Libertarians understand where government is needed and necessary and where it is not.
Discrimination means one group is inferior. This goes against the idea that 'all men are created equal.' When a business open to the public excludes, that's inequality.
Think about what a sign like 'no blacks' means. The owner is saying he views a whole group of people, without knowing the individuals, as not worthy of his establishment.
And what message does that send to every black or white child about race equality?
i don't think she understands the difference between private and public. she plays on emotions with the history of segregation, but the logic behind the situation is the free market determines the success of businesses. Those businesses violently attacking blacks would not have lasted. I would rather know that a business discriminates against me, so i can mindfully avoid their services. interesting philosophical discussion; one in which i do not see anyone changing their perspective.
@billybob101013, so you think the business owners who violently attacked blacks stopped being racist, or stopped discriminating against others? the violent attacks are illegal and always have been, not being racist. people should be allowed to be as ignorant and lame as they please, but when they become violent that's when the law intervenes. read the constitution, please. all of you who want limitless govt should think about the imminent repercussions.
@sophiemarie49, sorry you feel the govt needs to take care of you to such an extent that it tells you who you can and cannot associate with. govt interference in private affairs is a slippery slope. maddow's agenda is to divert people from listening to paul's logic and get them side-tracked on this fallacious red herring that has no weight in paul's campaign. never did he say he wishes to repeal the act.
@mcgivrballet, you are confusing things. You wrote: 'sorry you feel the govt needs to take care of you to such an extent that it tells you who you can and cannot associate with. govt interference in private affairs is a slippery slope.'
A business that serves the public is not a 'private affair'. Civil rights is not telling people who amongst their customers they must be friends with, just who they must serve if the business serves the public.
Is it a good thing or a bad thing that Israel bans marriage been Jews and Non-Jews in order to preserve Israel as a Jewish state ? Is it a good thing that there are entire towns , roads and schools where only jews are allowed access and arabs are not ??
Answer that Rachel Maddow , you pro Israel, Jewish Zionist Hypocritical Lesbo Freak !
Rachel Maddow is a JEWISH Zionist supporter of Israel who see's nothing wrong with Israel banning marriage between a Jew and a Non-Jew in order to preserve Israel as a "jewish State". She supports Israel despite entire towns, roads and schools being constructed for Jewish use only, where arabs are not allowed & yet this Jewish Zionist Freak Bitch HYPOCRIT Rachel Maddow is offended by any segregation of White(european american) and blacks in the canteens of American workplaces.
Okay, jackass Rachel Maddow - At the local lesbian bar in which you twitch your manly eyebrows flirtatiously at the local bull dykes- should that privately owned bar be REQUIRED BY LAW to allow Fred Phelps and his 'God Hates Fags' loonies into their establishment? Should a black, family-owned restaurant be REQUIRED BY LAW to serve the local KKK or neo-nazis? Just answer 'yes' or 'no' Maddow - that will tell us all about your HATE we need to know.
@TulliusVII I can't believe we are still having to conversation. We have a black president for God sakes. This country should be passed this. Can you imagine the president not being allowed in a resturant? That makes me sick to my stomach.
Okay. First of all, calling anyone a commie cunt is generally a bad idea if you want to make a point that actually sticks with the person you are arguing with. Secondly, Jack Conway lost because he supported an old mining industry that people are losing interest in and then he played the religion card...
...and made an ass of himself because the man he accused of being an atheist is married to a deacon and the only evidence he had for his claim was an obscure and irelevant college prank.
It's amazing the similarities between the mainstream right buffoons and the mainstream left buffoons. Maddow isn't so much like the hysterical Glen Beck (and without his drama doesn't have his numbers) She's more like the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh - arrogant, presumptuous and dogmatic. This is such a partisan smear campaign against Paul. She says "just 'yes' or 'no'"
@LegendaryFLA I learned to use the "love it or leave it" way of debating from rightwingers such as Palin who says people who disagree with her aren't real Americans. I enjoy the justice of turning the rightwing argument back towards rightwingers. Capitalism of late 19th century to early 20th century involved child labor, dangerous work conditions, oppressive mining towns, and government land grants. Industrialization did have benefits, but it sucked to be working class back then.
If a private buisness wants to not serve blacks it is their buisness and not the goverments---quit trying to make him into a racist u douchebags----eaither ALL of us are free or NONE of us are........it should be our right to not serve racists too
@catman1062 ah yes we need more morality on the part of the people as taught by preists, ted haggard, jimmy swaggard, jim baker, craig, foley, vitter, ensign & the rest o them republicans who've "god on their side".
we need less government oversight of off shore oil rigs, hospitals, auto makers, banks & our agra industry.
but we do need govt to look into the bedrooms of regular citizens, telling em who can & can't be married, adopt & live loving productive lives. you're so right, idiot.
Answers Rachel? Try Murray Rothbard: Human Rights are Property Rights. Full of Propaganda playing the fear mongering card as usual. Must be amazing basing facts from emotional appeals...
I wish this debate included an analysis of the injustice in the distribution of property titles. Those who rely upon either private criminal aggressions or the organized criminal aggressions of the state for the acquisition or maintenance of their property titles, are not legitimate owners. Due to the radical distortions by the state of property title distribution, many, perhaps even most/all, of those segregated lunch counters were illegitimately owned.
First, he's a constitutionalist, not a libertarian. Libertarianism is anarchism; we don't do politics (the LP is an absurdity).
Second, he's right insofar as legitimately private owners have the right to refuse service on any criteria; forced association is no less evil than forced dissociation, and involuntary servitude is just plain evil as well.
Third, he's wrong insofar as he fails to consider the high probability of illegitimate ownership; the state distorts property title distribution.
Where in the Constitution is it?? I'm not arguing, I'm just trying to grasp it better. Both sides misrepresent the Constituion so much, I have trouble. Is it the Commerce Clause?
Where is what in the Constitution? I care only for justice, for the fundamental equality of authority by virtue of which we have rights, I don't care about worthless pieces of paper.
"Do you think the Cato Institute conforms to this definition of Libertarianism?"
No. They have some overlap with libertarians, and have even hosted a few articles by libertarians (e.g. Roderick Long's "Corporations vs the Market"), but they are not libertarians.
Brilliant analysis and supporting points; too bad others resort to logical fallacies to attempt to debunk her (and similar) arguments. Rock on Rachel!
@RandPaulOpponents wheres the risk in electing one whose platform is to consistently vote against racist/contradictory/bad federal laws? the beauty of that stance is the candidate COULD BE a racist, evil, martian phlebotomist transvestite whathaveyou and never show it in their legislation. that candidate is better than the hundreds writing up reasons for new federal departments/buildings/employees who accomplish nothing greater than enforcing the taxes to pay for them.
@RandPaul damn it, man, how hard is it to say "that federal law has actually created legal racism"? it's not like you can't give evidence to support the theory, if not immediately prove it; it takes a thick head not to figure it out if you're told where to look for it. the problem is those listening to the "tuning fork" (as it is interpreted by people like maddow) hear what the law says and don't critique it by its results.
@RandPaul letting someone like rachel maddow get you nervous about telling her audience what drove your campaign just because you were afraid everyone would say "the stance is racist". smooth, because now the opposition has this atrocious and no less effective propaganda to throw around without any shadow of doubt cast within; when the explanation was as simple as explaining the REAL consequences of extraneous federal legislation.
@1111norton Again, I already answer to you. That scholarship was not racist because it provides aids to the mostly underprivileged individuals. The points of this schor. is to help minorities to prevail and prosper in a society that usually favor the majority. It doesnt equal the practice to exclude ethnic background off the clientele list. I guess that you are white. This issues never occur to you so you don't understand how important it is for people like me. U n Rand Paul hold a racist point.
Oh, so what you are saying, is that there is no under privileged individuals who are white, or asian who need help? That discrimination against a majority is ok? Discrimination is wrong period.
Oh how about programs that help single mothers, that exclude men. There are single fathers who struggle too.
How about the company Curves. Men can't join, or use their facility.
The point is, Rand Paul is trying to have a philosophical debate.
Don't get stuck on the restaurant issue. It's a FREE MARKET issue. Over time, people would go to restaurants that did not discriminate. Cutting off a large portion of your customer base is bad economic practice and a free market would dictate that. Would YOU go eat at a restaurant that practiced this type of inexcusable behavior? Point made.
SteveOLish 5 months ago
This wacko and others do not hear the whole story just what they want to hear.
Go Rand Go
Go Paul Go
they are not racists you jerks.
johnnycmajor 6 months ago
you.all kiss my ASS
mizzfoxy9 6 months ago
msnbc, missinformed national bullshit comedy
BorgKing001 6 months ago
This cunt is so self righteous it's sickening. Go fuck yourself you short haired cunt, you have no idea what REAL freedom is.
EdMan2012 7 months ago
Should I have the right to keep a pedophile away from my day care? Or, ask some homosexuals who were kissing in my restaurant in front of children,to leave my estabishment . Can I ask a known criminal to leave my store?
michael32768 9 months ago
Who cares if something is against the law then the law itself is discussed? Aint the law based upon something? This is circle-argument.
larsiemannen 9 months ago
Voltaire said " I may disagree with what you have to say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it "
Malcolm X borrowing from Barry Goldwater said " Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"
Forgetting the collectivistic ideology of grouping an individual with another individual on a arbitrary characteristic like shade of skin.Does any american citizen have the freedom of choice in terms of who he trades with ? Yes or No.
TheTruthgeneral 9 months ago
Comment removed
TheTruthgeneral 9 months ago
Comment removed
TheTruthgeneral 9 months ago
Anyone who thinks rand's ideas will bring back racism or segregation really believes racism and segregation still exists on a large scale.So really these rules are just meant to hide racists and segregationists.Now if a racist wants to make it known that he hates white people say on his property say his business should he have that right.Or a dark skinned lady who thinks her children should not be near any wicked white child at school should she have a right to speak that freely?
TheTruthgeneral 9 months ago
I agree with Rachel Maddow.
I think that an open gay bar in West Hollywood should be forced to serve NAZI SKINHEADS who have "Kill Fags" tattoos on, we wouldn't want to discriminate, and what could possibly go wrong?
RandomShellAccount 10 months ago
@RandomShellAccount: You wouldnt discriminate any girl from being your wife either? You would take anyone? Everyone is equal? Don't you not see the crucial downer with forcing people?
larsiemannen 9 months ago
@SurlyCalifornia, that's just it; it's under the cloak.
And guess what? It worked! Rand Paul is now a Senator. God help us.
His father is OK, but Rand is a slimy weasel.
MaskedMarvyl 10 months ago
@SurlyCalifornia oh so governments can stop racism
BorgKing001 10 months ago
guess what all business's can refuse service to anyone they want.
enlighteningshockras 1 year ago
rachel fucking maddow is so terrible. Bill O'REilly x a fucking billion on terms of politcal slant and spinning shit. i give her maybe a year or so before she is cancelled becasue of how fucking terrible her show is.
pplus0440 1 year ago
The question isn't whether it's right or wrong to exclude certain races from our businesses; the question is whether the government has the right to tell those businesses what to do. Naturally, if a business discriminates based on race it will lose all it's customers and be out of business. Problem solved.
dusred 1 year ago 2
poeple are idiots and buy into what she interprets, he meant the idea of government determening what is public and what is private or own business. that's is the whole concept of the arguing she just doesn't get it. if the government says all buisiness dealing with some consumer good is public then they can control that stablishment with more rules. if its private then they can't. stupid people can't grasp that idea that that legislation simply gives the goverment power over businesses.
ilcvmvm 1 year ago
@ilcvmvm, Actually, she does get it. She gets that Rand Paul refuses to answer a question directly, and voice his feelings directly, despite repeatedly being asked.
And no, he did Not just mean the idea of "determining what is publica and what is private"....
and you know that.
You are as dishonest as he is.
MaskedMarvyl 1 year ago
@MaskedMarvyl fuck you idiot. Should gays be allowed to get married? Yes? becasue its a free country adn the government cant tell the no right? Why is it illegal? Bc its morally wrong? yes. YOUR FUCKING RETARDED HEAD CANT UNDERSTAND THAT THE SAME REASON GAYS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED IS THE SAME FUCKING REASON SOOMEONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DISRCIMINATE. FUCK YOU AND FUCK RACHEL FUCKING MADDOW AND HER SHITTY ASS TELEVESION SHOW. YOU BOTH NEED TO GROW UP AND QUIT TRYING TO SMEAR PPL.
pplus0440 1 year ago
@pplus0440,
Uh, I don't know whether to recommend lithium or a good sanitarium to you.
I don't think anyone, including you, can make sense of what you just said.
You say "That the same reason gays should be allowed to get married is the same fucking reason soomeone (sic) should be allowed to discriminate". You're right, my retarded head can't understand that, and doesn't Want to understand your schizo reasoning.
Half your words are curse words: please do grow up...
MaskedMarvyl 1 year ago
@MaskedMarvyl /sigh it was really spelled out for you in that paragraph. Free country for speech and personal beliefs--> gays can practice their belief of being gay and getting married regardless of how anyone feels about it. free country for speech and personal beliefs----> racists can practice theif belief of racism and discriminating regardless of how anyone feels about it. Both are morally wrong but as long as they arent raping or hosing ppl down noone should tell them no in this country.
pplus0440 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ilcvmvm, Actually, she does get it. She gets that Rand Paul refuses to answer a question directly, and voice his feelings directly, despite repeatedly being asked.
And no, he did Not just mean the idea of "determining what is public and what is private"....
and you know that.
You are as dishonest as he is.
MaskedMarvyl 1 year ago
@ilcvmvm im seriosly glad the world isnt full of idiots like the people that watch fucking maddow. Thumbs up
pplus0440 1 year ago
@ilcvmvm I officially believe that every time MSNBC "news" anchors play the race card they get a bonus. The way that things seem to be going they might actually be getting payed on commission. Tar and feathers come to mind...unfortunately its always the people I tend to agree with that get it. Ron and Rand Paul 2012.
beckyfuge 11 months ago
Excellent and profound analysis by Rachel Maddow. As usual.
shaynapunim1 1 year ago
Petty. This is petty, Rachel.
hob976 1 year ago
@hob976 , yeah.... getting someone to be honest about what they are implying to their base in a backhanded, dishonest way is petty. Hey, it worked... he won.
At least Ron Paul was honest; now his sleazoid lizard of a son is in office. I doubt we'll hear much honesty (or compassion) while he's there.....
MaskedMarvyl 1 year ago
@MaskedMarvyl Wow. I've never had a reply to something I wrote so long ago... Thanks for the dialogue.
.'
You're right. Rand Paul has half the integrity of his father ...That said, I think he has more than anyone else.
.
If you don't understand that this topic was just a petty smear, you didn't follow the facts. Rand Paul never once implied that he had any intention of revisiting the Civil Rights act of 1964. It was a non-topic that was conjured to put him in a spot and smear him.
hob976 1 year ago
@hob976, he put himself in the spotlight saying that businesses should decide for Themselves who they want to serve or not; and this slob is now a Senator for his remarks. Nice. One wonders what protections he will try to roll back, or protections for people he will block in the future. At least his father is honest. Rand is slimy and downright malicious.
MaskedMarvyl 11 months ago
(continued) In fact, he pointed out that he'd have voted for the 90% of the bill that focused on Federal Segregation laws.
.
And he's right. In a profit and loss system, losses offer as much direction (and correction) to the market as profit does. Before segregation laws were removed, the private sector had already widely desegregated. It was too profitable not to employ them and sell to them. The Federal government changed policy to mirror them. They couldn't afford not to.
hob976 1 year ago
@hob976, the Federal government changed policy to Mirror what the private sector was already doing?
Do YOU really believe what you just said? Because it has no logic. You're saying the Private Sector (i.e., business) led the way, and the poor, backward Feds followed them.
If the private sector had already "self-corrected" by desegregating itself, the Federal government would Never have past such an explicit bill in 1964. You're either being extremely dishonest, or your logic is deranged...
MaskedMarvyl 11 months ago
(continued) ...If you can pardon the vulgarity... just ask yourself this: Would you walk into a restaurant with a sign on the door that says "NO NIGGERS...!!!" or one that says "WHITES ONLY"... Would you?
.
Do you have ANY friends that would? Even if you did, do you think they'd suffer the humiliation and ridicule for walking by protesters with camera phones into the restaurant...? I don't think you do and I don't think that establishment would stay open...
hob976 1 year ago
@hob976, you're talking to the wrong person. I come from the deep south; there are plenty of white people that would LOVE to eat at a restaurant that says "whites only". In fact, they'd get sell-out business, because of all the rednecks and rubes that would eat there. Especially if it was All You Can Eat.
There are a lot of good Southern folk who have fought hard for minority rights; but there are Plenty of the other kind still there; I lived with them.
MaskedMarvyl 11 months ago
@MaskedMarvyl so what? Same can be said of blacks. and guess what, don't care, wouldn't want to eat in a racist restaurant anyway. I say let them have the right so the bigots come out of the closet and be seen
BorgKing001 10 months ago
(continued) ...Lastly. If you're the type of political animal that just throws around the "RACIST" label at everyone to the right of you. Or you find yourself blaming policy problems on "GREED".... Then I've been wasting my time trying to reason with you. You're not here to think critically, you're hear to repeat what you're told.
.
Otherwise, I'd love to keep chatting with you. Thanks again.
hob976 1 year ago
so, we're going to listen to a woman that thinks she's a man?, OK.
rickster348 1 year ago
@rickster348
Why is that relevant to that fantastic point she is making?
DarkAngel0125 1 year ago
This is Rand's view:
the rights of businesses are more important than the rights of individuals & businesses should be allowed to do what the hell they want.
Even though it would be a poor business (financial) choice to exclude the people (potential customers) based on their skin color or heritage, businesses should be allowed to discriminate other races.
It would be hard for me to buy food, fuel, & medicine from the stores owned by people who hate Asians.
KimInLosAngeles 1 year ago
@KimInLosAngeles
But that doesn't matter, because Asians anly make up a small percent of potential consumers anyway and it doesn't equate to an economic crisis to this fair fre capitalist nation!
Well, at least we know where his priorities lie.
DarkAngel0125 1 year ago
Rand Paul 2012
DanielDamascusKimery 1 year ago
@DanielDamascusKimery YES.
pplus0440 1 year ago
Comment removed
Demosthenes0725 1 year ago
@Demosthenes0725
This isn't just specifically about the bill. This is about Paul's stance on property rights, which he was trying to avoid admitting that he finds more important than any other constitutional right or any other civil right, for that matter. He cites the constitution, which he fails to use as good support because nothing in the constitution says that property rights can not be compromised. Actually, it says they CAN be compromised. Look up eminent domain and the takings clause.
DarkAngel0125 1 year ago
@Demosthenes0725 thumbs up
pplus0440 1 year ago
ohhhh Rachel, you're so smart in with your analogies
wait...wasn't Dr. Paul exaggerating when he said the Journal doesn't back Rep candidates. Isn't exaggeration, overstating, hyperbole your whole act? Don't you mock the Right with exaggeration all the time Rachel?
and...you don't make a statement for conversation sake and miss a fact ever in any of your conversation rachel?
nitpicking and gotcha....law of the Liberal
anyone with common sense these days DOES NOT BELIEVE in Racism
DodgyDrifter7 1 year ago
here is a fine example as to why America is crumbling. avoid the real issue - the failure of socialism - by diverting to issues such as race that have long ago been dealt with. unreal and very, very sad.
cgreenw9 1 year ago
Comment removed
cgreenw9 1 year ago
Rachel Maddow has just stooped to the level of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity by attacking somebody who's not there to speak for themselves. Even if she had interviewed him a day earlier, it doesn't give her the right to distort his words and his views and foolishly associate him with pro-white power politicians of the 1950's and 60's. I find her particularly despicable and annoying when she starts talking really fast with anger in her voice, as if Rand Paul was some sort of KKK leader.
SickerThanThou 1 year ago
this isn't modern American history Rachel this is several generations removed. And yes Private Property should be allowed to deny business to whomever. Rachel Maddow has effectively joined O'Reily, Hannity, Beck, and Olbermann in feeding America fear and propaganda. I do enjoy how she will make these accusations and retorts to him, when he is not there to provide feedback. The state of our media is sad indeed.
rhslinebacker33 1 year ago
actually Rand Paul said they tend to vote less Republican than Democrat, but good redirect there Maddow.
rhslinebacker33 1 year ago
"Civil Rights" only implies public dealings not those between private individuals (however "social justice" fits both). If you follow Maddow's logic, I, as a male, should have the "civil right" to, use a the women's restroom in a private establishment! Also, last I checked, the Congressional Black Caucus doesn't allow white Congresspeople to join their membership (which should be against "civil rights") ... even when their districts are 60% black. Wiki it if you don't believe me.
MerlinYoda 1 year ago
valid point. Another valid point will dealing with private ownership, what is to keep the government from telling who can enter your private home?
rhslinebacker33 1 year ago
at the 2010 WSOP (poker), men are allowed and can not be denied access to entering the LADIES tournament because equal means equal. common sense tells us this is ridiculous. but the government tells us...YOU MUST ALLOW ALL TO ENTER....so they do. hhmmmmm?? To me it is still unclear if Rand Paul is a racist. He might be. But is he protecting us from finding him out. Or is he merely stating his views on less government control. I leave that for you to ascertain. Seek the truth.
Bblackjackk 1 year ago
This is a typical libertarian view. I think he made his views pretty clear, I don't think he's a racist at all. If you know anything about libertarians you know this view comes from their anti-gov views and not racism. Rachel Maddow seems to just be angry that she couldn't make him say a good sound bite that would make him sound racist. I don't even agree with libertarians including Rand or Ron but this is just a pathetic attempt at a smear job.
ArchNME 1 year ago
@02Geezy You mean the same free market that has increased inequality and iniquity hugely?
The same market that lobbies to feed kids trash food, rapes the environment, dumps workers when they are not needed into dire unemployment, pollutes, divides people, smashes unions to drive wages and conditions down? self regulation that sold junk as AAA, ripped off pensioners.
Grow a brain. myopic profiteering has syphoned off the USA economy to Dubai with tax evasion schemes.
Rand is KKK with gloss.
marsCubed 1 year ago
if you sell things you are doing a public thing? but why? what else makes your action public automatically? buying? talking loudly? soliciting? being solicited? eye contact? why does selling your shit make the action public? it must, because if it is private then it is your own fucking business, that's what private means.... check this, they wait 50 years after the act(6 years to go?), change it private owners can do whatever and then help black and white and mexican racists to start a race war.
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
@02Geezy I'm pretty sure if you can prove a business did not serve you over your race, you can sue them. Proving it was your race that got you kicked out would just take a recorder of saying we don't serve _____.
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
@02Geezy When I read your comment, I thought at first it was a parody of US right-wing attitudes, what with so many words in all-caps like they're being shouted by a salesman or something. It's weird that so many Americans sincerely believe this stuff. With all the damage deregulation etc has done over the past three decades, all over the world, you'd think Americans would have wised up by now. Apparently not. Reaganite/Randian craziness and callousness has become a religion.
colibri1 1 year ago
While I see many youtube posters running to defend Paul ducking the question, I wonder what the reaction would have been if the debate was based around Irish Ancestry? Paul, who's supposed to be a principled politician, ducked an obvious question-can Tea Party people actually expect this guy to represent their views in office if he can't answer a simple question?
d0tax2 1 year ago
What Paul "should" have done, as I see it, was have the guts to divulge his belief that business should be able to discriminate. He made it obvious that this is what he believes, so why the cowardice? He feels that business rights are greater than individual rights.OK, so say it.
scottmotown 1 year ago
As always Rachael is clear and concise. Too bad ppl have stuck teabags in their ears so as not to be able hear anything other than justifications for their innate racism. ARTAFOX says, " No argument, just emotion.". Perfect example of someone who chooses not to hear the facts clearly stated. Just the position to which they are opposed.
flex280 1 year ago
Rachel Maddow he's right about what he said, now go and suck a dick !
HectorElCapitan 1 year ago
I'm disappointed. Maddow does not give any real argument, and justs appeals to emotion.
artafox 1 year ago
People try to make this out to be something that would bring us back before the civil rights movement by making examples of black people being discriminated against. Do they not realize that the same thing could happen to white people being discriminated against?
As far as the examples of government regulations outlawing lead in toys, underage drinking, and enforcing safety technologies... Why are these laws in place? To protect the welfare of the environment and the health of our fellow citizns
anoxae 1 year ago
Rachel is da bomb! She is so cool!
padude64 1 year ago
i don't think rand paul is a racist. i think he's an ideologue who's just not connected to reality. which is the great problem with libertarianism. it reads nicely in atlas shrugged and sounds great in theory, it just ends up sounding insane in practice. that maddow was able to back him into this issue and he lacked the political savvy to answer it reasonably says everything about his judgment.
WikeddTung 1 year ago
She forgets the violence that was instigated by those in favor of the Civil Rights Act. The opposing side may or may not have been driven by racism. Some may have been fighting for their individual rights as business owners. I don't condone racism but cannot condone the violation of individual rights either. When Maddow went on her rant about fire and building codes I would say a resounding "NO!" The gov't does NOT have the constitutional right to interfere with private property.
ncerione 1 year ago
In a political world of double speak, deception, and hidden agenda's, here we have a newbie politician explaining exactly what he believes, and she uses a tuning analogy? How much more straight forward can he be? If the "tuning device" was asking him a question, it's really not that complex.
She is obviously frustrated not being able to get the answer she wanted from him. This airing manipulates the viewer into thinking he's for 60's violence against freedom of speech, and assumed views.
thejokerspeaks 1 year ago
@thejokerspeaks he could answer the question and not employ the double speak of which you speak.
flex280 1 year ago
@flex280 I believe he did answer the question, which is what she is following up on and asking again. Now if he is double speaking, can you quote the contradiction?
thejokerspeaks 1 year ago
wow a racist to stupid to lie about it ,,its over for this guy
if i am not wrong thats how hitler started with racism
sillycandie007 1 year ago
How the hell did this racist jerk get to become a doctor?
raydeo 1 year ago
wow. shes amazing
juniorjay001 1 year ago
"did not go as I expected" = Maddow's code words for "I failed to successfully paint Rand Paul as a racist, which is why I'm going to try again now while he's not here to defend himself"
epilp88 1 year ago
@epilp88 Huh? She was actually giving the guy a chance to make himself seem LESS racist. Maybe he was so concerned about getting the "less government" point across that he wasn't so worried about appearing racist??? Either that or he actually IS racist because he couldn't give a simple "yes" or "no" answer to a really basic question. I know politicians rarely give simple answers but he should have this time because he came across as a closet racist by dodging it so many times.
ElroyMcDuff 1 year ago
@ElroyMcDuff look fag. Rachel asking that question was her way of attempting to smear the guy and distract from whhat he was really doing which was upholding the constitution. Paul is not a racist and you are really childish for saying that. Just like he doesn't think gay people should be told they can't get married even though its morally wrong he htinks racists shouldnt be allowed to be racist just because its morally wrong. Its america and you and rachel maddow are terrible and petty people
pplus0440 1 year ago
@pplus0440 As I said before she was trying to get him to answer the questions and NOT appear racist but he just couldn't do it. It's not a smear. It's information that people need to know about their elected leaders. Watch the entire video and LISTEN.
How are we terrible? I don't recall Liberal media misquoting people or quoting out of context very often. Watch The Young Turks. They have plenty of evidence of Conservatives doing just that.
Grow up and leave out the name calling eh?
ElroyMcDuff 1 year ago
Rachel Maddow is awesome. She and Bill Maher are the best.
Tube2488 1 year ago
@Tube2488 Like many people, she has good intentions that lead to not-so-good results.
serfdomthwart 1 year ago
That is a false equivocationg lady. You make the contention that somehow discrimination is the opposite of freedom, but that is simply false...You discriminate every day, you choose this to eat over that to eat, to talk to this person rather then that person, to watch this video and not that one. If we don't have the ability to choose between options (descrimination) we can't even be said to be free...So if anything, discrimination IS freedom...
gtkpaladin 1 year ago
@gtkpaladin Not all discrimination is equal. Some discrimination has much bigger, more harmful consequences than others. If you own the only grocery store in town, and you don't allow blacks to buy food from your store, you will hurt the black community in the area (especially since in the 60s, very few blacks had the capital to open their own stores). "Freedom" for minorities means having the freedom to have access to all the same businesses as whites/straight people/men/able bodied people do.
thecactusjanice 1 year ago
@thecactusjanice I understand what you mean, but it is un unfair reaction... One can take the most extreme circumstance (like a doctor not serving a black), and then use it to justify forcing all doctors to serve anyone and everyone if they want to or not? Is that "fair"? Again, the principle of the matter is that you nor i should be forced to work for those whom we do not wish to work for. It is a matter of freedom, and with freedom, people can get to do what you don't like.
Best wishes sir.
gtkpaladin 1 year ago
@thecactusjanice Furthermore, it is unsound buisness policy to not allow this group or that to buy from you...You automatically lose buisness...Which makes it much less attractive... To address you comment about "equall access" how far can that be take? The poor don't have the same access to luxury resorts...Should those resorts be forced to let them in at cheaper rates? Should Roles Royce be forced to sell their cars to poorer people? Wouldn't that be "equality"? This makes no sense good sir.
gtkpaladin 1 year ago
@thecactusjanice Where in America can you show me where you can only get something to eat from one location? I lived in the middle of the Mojave desert and I had options, with nothing but my 2 feet and 140 degrees outside mind you. THIS ISN'T THE 60S. We live in an age of instant global communication, the Internet, fast food, and a general distaste for discrimination. Please pull your head out of your ass and take a look around every now and then.
Piercedblood 1 year ago
@Piercedblood Wow, so hostile. I'm a city girl, of course I know there are always more than one place to shop, lol.
My uncle owns his own business, I get how hard it is. But the law is a balancing act. You have to weigh business interests against the harm done to minorities/women/the disabled. Perhaps we just have different experiences when it comes to racism, but I believe this law is still necessary. I imagine that Maddow, being a gay woman, feels the same way.
thecactusjanice 1 year ago
@thecactusjanice Furthermore, you and many others seem to be confusing freedom = individual liberty with freedom = collective power over circumstance. Equality and liberty are not the same thing. "The best things and best people rise out of their separateness. I'm against a homogenized society because I want the cream to rise." - Robert Frost
Piercedblood 1 year ago
@Piercedblood Well I guess we just have fundamentally different views on what "freedom" means, which is fine. I think that equal opportunity is the best way to ensure a free society. Like I said, I understand where you're coming from. But my own experiences -- as well the experiences of my family and friends -- tell me that the CRA still needs to be in place to make sure all the progress we've made since the 60s don't get turned back.
thecactusjanice 1 year ago
I notice those that think discrimination in a business serving the public always use a restaurant example.
What if it is food store and there isn't another around for many miles as happens out West?
How about a gas station where there isn't another around for many miles? What about a doctor's office, a pharmacy, an emergency clinic, a hospital that was privately owned? Would that be okay?
Discrimination, harmful and downright hypocritical for a nation built on 'all men are created equal.'
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49
Now, to explain the ramifications of unjust discrimination. If you own a fastfood place, and you don't allow blacks in, that means you automatically loose all that buisness, which means, you are hurting yourself by doing so. Then, in addition to that, you also loose the buisness of all the peole that think it is immoral to discriminate in that manner...The simple fact is that his concern about discrimination is unfounded, and counterproductive...
gtkpaladin 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49 Can you let me know where that town is please? I'd like to set up a non-discrimnating food store\gas station\hospital\pharmacy there. I'll make a killing! At least until other entrepreneurs catch on and start opening their own non-discriminatory buisnesses....that damn free market got me again. Maybe I can lobby the government to pass some burdensom regulation to cripple my non-discriminating competitors or give me monopoly priveledge for these services...equal not = entitled.
happinessisnowhere 1 year ago
Many of the anti-regulatory remarks she makes have nothing to do with what Rand Paul stands for. And the ones that do, she does not offer the side.
bcbobbie 1 year ago
Yes we get it he doesn't support the government forcing private business to serve a certain group of people, if said restaurant is too pig headed to do so. He has faith that the majority of people will do the right thing. Freedom demands that abhorant beliefs also be tolerated. He personally does not support it. Who cares what Buckley says.
bcbobbie 1 year ago
@sugarysweet100
You are correct, it is wrong to own people. I never said it is correct to do so. I said it is wrong to allow a business to segregate because racism is wrong.
Also, The left isn't fascist or communist. Please stop trying to insult the left because it really doesn't get you anywhere. It is very closed minded to be hateful of something you know very little about. I know it is just the way you were raised but please think before you act. Can you describe true freedom?
booksbooks 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lewrockwell Podcast
05/26/2010
TITLE: 152. Obama’s Satanic Rogue Empire
"Naomi Wolf, a former progressive tending towards libertarianism, attacked the police state under Bush, and she does not spare Obama. Indeed the spying, rendition, torture, and militarism may be worse under the Democrats."
You Lefties are TOTAL shills.
SugarySweet100 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lewrockwell Podcast
05/26/2010
TITLE: 152. Obama’s Satanic Rogue Empire
"Naomi Wolf, a former progressive tending towards libertarianism, attacked the police state under Bush, and she does not spare Obama. Indeed the spying, rendition, torture, and militarism may be worse under the Democrats."
You Lefties are TOTAL shills.
SugarySweet100 1 year ago
RAND'S MISTAKE:
Thinking the fascistic/communistic Left is interested in, or even capable of, discussing this issue like sane, rational, adults.
SugarySweet100 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." -- Lyndon B. Johnson [in reference to the 1964 Civil Rights Act] to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler's Book, "Inside The White House"
SugarySweet100 1 year ago
This issue should not be political. It just so happens Rand is a Republican.
What he said is concerning because I know he is not the only person in this country that thinks like this, There is nothing wrong that anyone can get elected but the fact that people elect just anyone bothers me greatly. The people hold the power in this country and it is the people who should reform their thoughts and actions. Not the government. The people hold the power because they are the ones who vote.
booksbooks 1 year ago
I see a lot of idiotic comments on this video. It's hard for me not to start an argument but I'll try to put this as nicely as I can. More than 90% of the people in this country have ancestors that immigrated to America. Different races came to a new unexplored place to build a country free of many things including tyranny. Do you want someone to tell you you can't go into their building because of your color? Your gender? Your sexuality? It is wrong and should never be allowed.
booksbooks 1 year ago
@booksbooks
YOU...DON'T...OWN...OTHER...PEOPLE...
You are a control-freak LOSER to suggest you have the right to force people to interact w/others they'd prefer not to.
SugarySweet100 1 year ago
swso2000
I believe you and I and most people are on the same page as far as thinking it is immoral to ban people just because of their race. However, that isen't just what is being discussed here. We are talking about the Fed FORCING one group of people to serve another group of people, against their will...That isen't freedom, that is more like slavery...
gtkpaladin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gtkpaladin, you've got to be kidding when you said, "We are talking about the Fed FORCING one group of people to serve another group of people, against their will...That isen't freedom, that is more like slavery... "
Slaves didn't get paid. They couldn't set their own hours. They couldn't decide to own or sell a business. Their spouses & children were sold away from them.
Racists shouldn't own businesses that serve the public if they want to live here.
'All men are created equal'.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49
I just noticed this one.
"slaves didn't get paid" What is "getting paid"? It is recieving something for work done. Slaves got food and shelter...That is "payment". You attempt to dissproove my arguement just failed royally..
As far as "racists shouldn't own business that serve the public" Says who? Who are you to decide who should and shouldn't own a buisness? Do you even realize that when you say "racists" shouldn't own buisness, you are discrimnating against racists? lol
gtkpaladin 1 year ago
Now, what also must be understood, is that a buisness that descriminates in an unpleasant way, will suffer the conequences. No, honestly, if someone opend a fastfood place and they had a sign outfrong that said "no blacks" then guess what? They automatically loose all the buisness they would have gained from blacks, then they loose all the buisness of indignant people that think it is wrong to not serve blacks....Understand?
gtkpaladin 1 year ago
Yes, buisness has the right to serve whom they wish. A buisness transaction is a mutual accord. If one party is forced to serve another, how is that fair? If a black blumber dosen't want to work for a white guy, that is his choice, or the other way around. That is called "freedom", even if you don't like it.
gtkpaladin 1 year ago
@gtkpaladin, that's not 'freedom', that's discrimination.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49
Now, as to your question about "what if!?!?!", we can just as easily take that in all areas of life. What if a Mommy dosen't feed their kid right? We should have government agents watching over all parents... What if you use a kitchen knife to hurt someone? Knifes should be taken from all people, except government appooved agents... See how far paranoia can be taken? Your contention seems to be that without discrimanation laws, everyone would be discriminating.....Really?
gtkpaladin 1 year ago
first several minutes of this interview was talking about a tuning fork which I know shes trying to make a comparison but goodness she beats the point to death... Whats wrong with small business having the final say on who to serve and not serve it happens in Texas many stores as a white man or black man you cant go to thats on the Border..
greenbeenie60 1 year ago
@greenbeenie60 And you agree this is acceptable?
4Peace4All 1 year ago
Does Rachel think the Federal government should should be telling women they cannot kill their preborn children? Isn't abortion discrimination, deprivation of civil rights and violence all rolled into one? If Rachel favors legalized abortion doesn't that mean she favors all these evil things? It's so easy to play these gotcha games the Liberals think they are so good at!
JoanofArck 1 year ago
@JoanofArck The quwstion is..... Do you believe private business should have the right to not allow blacks in? Yes or no?
swso2000 1 year ago
@swso2000
Yes I do think a private business should be able to discriminate. This does not mean I agree with it. I do not want the federal government telling people how they should use their own property. If someone wants to open a business which serves only redheaded people with freckles that should be their choice. What ever happened to freedom?
JoanofArck 1 year ago
@JoanofArck We have a different idea of what freedom is. It's an interesting point of view, but I really thought americans were on the same page when it came to civil rights. I guess you learn something new everyday.
swso2000 1 year ago 11
@JoanofArck My Dear, no offense but you obviously have this view because you have not suffered the outcome of REAL discrimination within modern history, not One thinking they didn't get a job because a company had to make a quota, but more like no more than 2/3 generations ago, not being allowed to go to college, get a bank loan, buy a house, pay 4 your children to attend college, eat somewhere because you're hungry, etc.I guess One would want ALL freedoms when they've always had it.
anna7770 1 year ago
Paul was merely saying that he is against descrimination, but he isn't in favor of absolute federal government rule... Has this chick ever heard of limited government? No, since she thinks descrimination is bad (except the kind she approves of) well then, the fed should just make everything all better....
gtkpaladin 1 year ago 3
Ah, so much nonsense... First this fool lied about Paul saying the paper "never" endorses etc" He didn't say "never"... look up the video "Dishonesty of Rachel Maddow"...She also released a false transcript of the video..
In addition, this fool is a hypocrite. She pretends to be against discrimination yet at the same times supports affirmative action, which is whole RACE based.. And she supports the racist Zionist regime in Israel...
gtkpaladin 1 year ago 2
I could care less if Rachel Maddow is a jew or just a white person, I am sick to death of the criminal rapes of my white race by any other race. THIS IS CRIMINAL and ignored by the media, whties are 8% of the world population which clearly means extinction levels. If they can protect extinct breeds of animals, they are NOW LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO PROTECT THE WHITE BREED OF HUMAN .
SpringChatty 1 year ago
I think we should just re colonize america....by breeds and states :O) and I don't need your negative opinion on keeping my race safe so keep it to yourself.
SpringChatty 1 year ago
Rachel believes it is the government's duty to limit your reedom. Rand is for increasing your freedom.
yuppyguitar1 1 year ago
@yuppyguitar1, but in reality living in a libertarian country we would all have less freedom. Without government intervention products, food and medicine would be less safe. Unscrupulous employers would reduce their workers freedom to have a safe, adequately paid job. Without any kind of regulation, electric, oil and gas companies could charge as much as they want. This would cascade down to higher prices for everyone.
The U.S. needs to move forward, not backward.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49 Ignorant. Why does one assume that "libertarianism" means a complete and total lack of all government oversight, safeguards, and regulations? Libertarians understand where government is needed and necessary and where it is not.
SgtFluffyMcFay 1 year ago
She should just be a lawyer and leave all the mind fucking on the court.
mormacfey 1 year ago
I've said this before but it bears repeating.
Discrimination means one group is inferior. This goes against the idea that 'all men are created equal.' When a business open to the public excludes, that's inequality.
Think about what a sign like 'no blacks' means. The owner is saying he views a whole group of people, without knowing the individuals, as not worthy of his establishment.
And what message does that send to every black or white child about race equality?
Discrimination is b.s.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
i cant believe my america would bring back hitlers world view of order
dear god Rand Paul is pure evil pure racist if the REP party backs him
obama will win for sure an be re elected ,,,the REP party will show its true
color if they stand by him at last
billybob101013 1 year ago
i don't think she understands the difference between private and public. she plays on emotions with the history of segregation, but the logic behind the situation is the free market determines the success of businesses. Those businesses violently attacking blacks would not have lasted. I would rather know that a business discriminates against me, so i can mindfully avoid their services. interesting philosophical discussion; one in which i do not see anyone changing their perspective.
mcgivrballet 1 year ago
@mcgivrballet you talk big but your were not beaten in the 60s
billybob101013 1 year ago
@billybob101013, so you think the business owners who violently attacked blacks stopped being racist, or stopped discriminating against others? the violent attacks are illegal and always have been, not being racist. people should be allowed to be as ignorant and lame as they please, but when they become violent that's when the law intervenes. read the constitution, please. all of you who want limitless govt should think about the imminent repercussions.
mcgivrballet 1 year ago
@mcgivrballet, I don't think you understand the difference between privately owned that serves the public and privately owned clubs.
Think about how many small towns there are. What if a small town has only one store or health clinic and that one excludes blacks?
People forget how many businesses did exclude blacks. Everything from drug stores to restaurants to doctors to hospitals.
Bringing back discrimination would weaken our country. United we stand, divided we fall.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
@sophiemarie49, sorry you feel the govt needs to take care of you to such an extent that it tells you who you can and cannot associate with. govt interference in private affairs is a slippery slope. maddow's agenda is to divert people from listening to paul's logic and get them side-tracked on this fallacious red herring that has no weight in paul's campaign. never did he say he wishes to repeal the act.
mcgivrballet 1 year ago
@mcgivrballet, you are confusing things. You wrote: 'sorry you feel the govt needs to take care of you to such an extent that it tells you who you can and cannot associate with. govt interference in private affairs is a slippery slope.'
A business that serves the public is not a 'private affair'. Civil rights is not telling people who amongst their customers they must be friends with, just who they must serve if the business serves the public.
Civil rights is too important to dismiss lightly.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
Is it a good thing or a bad thing that Israel bans marriage been Jews and Non-Jews in order to preserve Israel as a Jewish state ? Is it a good thing that there are entire towns , roads and schools where only jews are allowed access and arabs are not ??
Answer that Rachel Maddow , you pro Israel, Jewish Zionist Hypocritical Lesbo Freak !
Achilles1389 1 year ago
Rachel Maddow is a JEWISH Zionist supporter of Israel who see's nothing wrong with Israel banning marriage between a Jew and a Non-Jew in order to preserve Israel as a "jewish State". She supports Israel despite entire towns, roads and schools being constructed for Jewish use only, where arabs are not allowed & yet this Jewish Zionist Freak Bitch HYPOCRIT Rachel Maddow is offended by any segregation of White(european american) and blacks in the canteens of American workplaces.
Achilles1389 1 year ago
Okay, jackass Rachel Maddow - At the local lesbian bar in which you twitch your manly eyebrows flirtatiously at the local bull dykes- should that privately owned bar be REQUIRED BY LAW to allow Fred Phelps and his 'God Hates Fags' loonies into their establishment? Should a black, family-owned restaurant be REQUIRED BY LAW to serve the local KKK or neo-nazis? Just answer 'yes' or 'no' Maddow - that will tell us all about your HATE we need to know.
TulliusVII 1 year ago
@TulliusVII I can't believe we are still having to conversation. We have a black president for God sakes. This country should be passed this. Can you imagine the president not being allowed in a resturant? That makes me sick to my stomach.
swso2000 1 year ago 7
@swso2000 Yeah it's called private ownership. He won and Jack Conway lost. Get over it you commie cunt.
DanielDamascusKimery 1 year ago
@DanielDamascusKimery
Okay. First of all, calling anyone a commie cunt is generally a bad idea if you want to make a point that actually sticks with the person you are arguing with. Secondly, Jack Conway lost because he supported an old mining industry that people are losing interest in and then he played the religion card...
DarkAngel0125 1 year ago
@DanielDamascusKimery
...and made an ass of himself because the man he accused of being an atheist is married to a deacon and the only evidence he had for his claim was an obscure and irelevant college prank.
DarkAngel0125 1 year ago
@swso2000 I wouldn't let him in mine, lol.
rickster348 1 year ago
It's amazing the similarities between the mainstream right buffoons and the mainstream left buffoons. Maddow isn't so much like the hysterical Glen Beck (and without his drama doesn't have his numbers) She's more like the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh - arrogant, presumptuous and dogmatic. This is such a partisan smear campaign against Paul. She says "just 'yes' or 'no'"
TulliusVII 1 year ago
@LegendaryFLA I learned to use the "love it or leave it" way of debating from rightwingers such as Palin who says people who disagree with her aren't real Americans. I enjoy the justice of turning the rightwing argument back towards rightwingers. Capitalism of late 19th century to early 20th century involved child labor, dangerous work conditions, oppressive mining towns, and government land grants. Industrialization did have benefits, but it sucked to be working class back then.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
If a private buisness wants to not serve blacks it is their buisness and not the goverments---quit trying to make him into a racist u douchebags----eaither ALL of us are free or NONE of us are........it should be our right to not serve racists too
WONDOCTORJ 1 year ago 3
@catman1062 ah yes we need more morality on the part of the people as taught by preists, ted haggard, jimmy swaggard, jim baker, craig, foley, vitter, ensign & the rest o them republicans who've "god on their side".
we need less government oversight of off shore oil rigs, hospitals, auto makers, banks & our agra industry.
but we do need govt to look into the bedrooms of regular citizens, telling em who can & can't be married, adopt & live loving productive lives. you're so right, idiot.
wntoply6 1 year ago
Paul PERSONALLY would not support
private discrimination but would not legally oppose.
Buckley took the side of the south b/c
he wanted them to leave the democratic party. He then,
when it was convenient, retracted, after the
republican party received all those southern converts.
That said, Buckley would puke at what goes on at
his old magazine Nat'l Review but at least he had the
good sense, behind the scenes, to get rid of Ann Coulter.
Today, that wouldn't happen.
danger0usknowledge 1 year ago
Answers Rachel? Try Murray Rothbard: Human Rights are Property Rights. Full of Propaganda playing the fear mongering card as usual. Must be amazing basing facts from emotional appeals...
BIackOp 1 year ago
To whoever keeps flagging comments with which they disagree as spam: stop being a fucking child.
Libertarian333 1 year ago
I wish this debate included an analysis of the injustice in the distribution of property titles. Those who rely upon either private criminal aggressions or the organized criminal aggressions of the state for the acquisition or maintenance of their property titles, are not legitimate owners. Due to the radical distortions by the state of property title distribution, many, perhaps even most/all, of those segregated lunch counters were illegitimately owned.
Libertarian333 1 year ago
First, he's a constitutionalist, not a libertarian. Libertarianism is anarchism; we don't do politics (the LP is an absurdity).
Second, he's right insofar as legitimately private owners have the right to refuse service on any criteria; forced association is no less evil than forced dissociation, and involuntary servitude is just plain evil as well.
Third, he's wrong insofar as he fails to consider the high probability of illegitimate ownership; the state distorts property title distribution.
Libertarian333 1 year ago
@Libertarian333
Where in the Constitution is it?? I'm not arguing, I'm just trying to grasp it better. Both sides misrepresent the Constituion so much, I have trouble. Is it the Commerce Clause?
TLydon007 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TLydon007 "Where in the Constitution is it?"
Where is what in the Constitution? I care only for justice, for the fundamental equality of authority by virtue of which we have rights, I don't care about worthless pieces of paper.
"Do you think the Cato Institute conforms to this definition of Libertarianism?"
No. They have some overlap with libertarians, and have even hosted a few articles by libertarians (e.g. Roderick Long's "Corporations vs the Market"), but they are not libertarians.
Libertarian333 1 year ago
Brilliant analysis and supporting points; too bad others resort to logical fallacies to attempt to debunk her (and similar) arguments. Rock on Rachel!
belladsenso 1 year ago
preach it rachel!!! Kick these segregationists into history!!
josh3103 1 year ago
I'm still LMFAO @ that cheesy tuning rod shctick.
Oh Rachel how deep!
STFU bulldyke shill.
ashane77 1 year ago
I love Rachel Maddow
Malphar 1 year ago
@RandPaulOpponents wheres the risk in electing one whose platform is to consistently vote against racist/contradictory/bad federal laws? the beauty of that stance is the candidate COULD BE a racist, evil, martian phlebotomist transvestite whathaveyou and never show it in their legislation. that candidate is better than the hundreds writing up reasons for new federal departments/buildings/employees who accomplish nothing greater than enforcing the taxes to pay for them.
TheRealMeaney 1 year ago
@RandPaul damn it, man, how hard is it to say "that federal law has actually created legal racism"? it's not like you can't give evidence to support the theory, if not immediately prove it; it takes a thick head not to figure it out if you're told where to look for it. the problem is those listening to the "tuning fork" (as it is interpreted by people like maddow) hear what the law says and don't critique it by its results.
TheRealMeaney 1 year ago
@RandPaul letting someone like rachel maddow get you nervous about telling her audience what drove your campaign just because you were afraid everyone would say "the stance is racist". smooth, because now the opposition has this atrocious and no less effective propaganda to throw around without any shadow of doubt cast within; when the explanation was as simple as explaining the REAL consequences of extraneous federal legislation.
TheRealMeaney 1 year ago
@RyanNHoang
Oh yes, if you want to get technical, like most people do when something is convenient to do so.... Yes, that scholarship is racist!!
But that is a private issue, that the government has not encroached on yet. Yet violates the civil rights act..... But thats ok.
1111norton 1 year ago
@1111norton Again, I already answer to you. That scholarship was not racist because it provides aids to the mostly underprivileged individuals. The points of this schor. is to help minorities to prevail and prosper in a society that usually favor the majority. It doesnt equal the practice to exclude ethnic background off the clientele list. I guess that you are white. This issues never occur to you so you don't understand how important it is for people like me. U n Rand Paul hold a racist point.
RyanNHoang 1 year ago
@RyanNHoang
Oh, so what you are saying, is that there is no under privileged individuals who are white, or asian who need help? That discrimination against a majority is ok? Discrimination is wrong period.
Oh how about programs that help single mothers, that exclude men. There are single fathers who struggle too.
How about the company Curves. Men can't join, or use their facility.
The point is, Rand Paul is trying to have a philosophical debate.
Both sides have issues that are wrong.
1111norton 1 year ago
Clearly biased woman with a political agenda.
tbg0o 1 year ago