Rand Paul - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-20-2010, 03:49 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:40 PM
Maddow is clever, she knew how to exploit this Libertarian.

there is no one advocating doing away with the 1964 Civil Rights law,
and this guy would also like to relax pot laws, being a true Libertarian

Quote:
Paul admits political slip in civil rights remarks
Kentucky Republican Senate hopeful faces storm after questioning '64 law

msnbc.com
updated 11:50 a.m. PT, Thurs., May 20, 2010

In the wake of Rand Paul’s comments on MSNBC’s "Rachel Maddow Show" Wednesday night questioning provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Kentucky Republican Senate nominee said Thursday he supported the law and would not favor its repeal.

Paul also said that appearing on Maddow’s show "was a poor political decision.”

In an interview with radio talk show host Laura Ingraham, Paul implicitly acknowledged that he’d given his opponents ammunition to assail him.

It was a turnabout from Wednesday night, when Paul told Maddow, “You’re an intelligent person; I like being on your show."

In a statement released by his campaign Thursday Paul said, “Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

Voices support for 1964 law
He added, “I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.”

In his 15-minute interview with Maddow, Paul repeatedly declined or sidestepped opportunities to endorse the provisions of the 1964 law which require hotels, restaurants, and other businesses to accept all customers without discriminating on the basis of race or ethnicity.

He repeated several times that he opposes racial discrimination. “I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form, I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race,” he said. At the end of the interview, Paul added, “I don’t believe that any private property (owner) should discriminate either.”

But he did not say whether he supported using federal law to enforce non-discrimination in privately owned businesses. He said “had I been around” in 1964 “I would have tried to modify that.”

He also said the debate over the civil right law’s limits on rights of private property owners “is still a valid discussion.”

Parallel with gun owners
He explained, “When you blur the distinction between public and private ownership, there really is a problem.” He used the hypothetical example of a gun owner who takes his firearm into a restaurant whose owner objects to having weapons on the premises.

Referring to his foes, Paul told Maddow, “They’ll try to run on this entire issue and it’s being brought up as a political issue.”

The Kentucky ophthalmologist easily won Tuesday’s GOP primary, defeating Secretary of State Trey Grayson, the candidate supported by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the state's senior senator.

Paul will face Democrat Jack Conway in the November election.

Conway said in a statement Thursday that Paul has a "narrow political philosophy that has dangerous consequences for working families, veterans, students, the disabled and those without a voice in the halls of power."

Paul's comments seem likely to spur fund raising for Conway and may increase Democratic turnout in the November election.

In 2008, Republican John McCain won the state with 57 percent of the vote. Exit poll interviews indicated that 11 percent of the 2008 electorate in Kentucky was black and that 90 percent of African-American voters in Kentucky cast their ballots for Democrat Barack Obama.

Complaining about 'an abstract, obscure' issue
By engaging in a prolonged debate with Maddow of the 1964 law, Paul revisited an issue that GOP presidential candidate Barry Goldwater contended with nearly 50 years ago.

Goldwater voted against the law, arguing that its provisions dealing with public accommodations and employment were unconstitutional. He lost the 1964 election in a landslide to Democratic President Lyndon Johnson.

Paul complained Wednesday to Maddow that the question of private property owners' rights under the law was “an abstract, obscure conversation from 1964 that you bring up … You bring up something that really is not an issue,” — but this came after he'd already engaged in an extensive discussion of the topic for 15 minutes on national television.

Although Kentucky is a Republican-leaning state and has not elected a Democratic senator since 1992, it’s not impossible for a Democrat to win there: in 2004, Democratic Senate candidate Daniel Mongiardo came within one percentage point of defeating Sen. Jim Bunning, who is retiring this year.

Democrat Bill Clinton carried the state in the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 05:29 PM   #17
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 01:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
you are absolutely correct.

the Democrats wanted this Rand Paul to win
so they can go against him in the General Election in November

The GOP establishment lined up behind the other GOP candidate

this is what happens when you ride the Tea Party tiger. Rand might just be at the beginning of his self-imposed destruction. however, what's also interesting is that he goes very much against many GOP orthodoxies, and he'd be a pain in the ass for them were he in the Senate, not just for being insane, but also for refusing to tow the line as much as they'd like. for the Dems, Paul is a win-win. add this to Meg Whitman's collapse in CA, as well as the clear victory in PA-12 (a McCain district), and you've got the makings of a party that might retain it's majority in both houses of Congress.



Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
He should just stop answering these sorts of questions as its too easy for the MSM to tie him in knots, given that they have no interest in actually exploring or properly critiquing libertarian ideology for better or worse (and, yes, there's plenty of it that can be critiqued and found wanting), or in anything that can't be explained in 5 second soundbites.
that's been his response. that he regretted the conversation, not what he said. and that's what politicians do -- they blame the messenger rather than their message. the fact remains that he believes that freedom is freedom from the 1964 Civil Rights Act. thus, it's a greater evil to require people not to kick blacks out of their restaurants than it is to allow blacks to be able to enter and be served at any restaurant they so choose. to Rand Paul, refusing entrance to blacks might be awful and terrible, but it's really no different than "no shoes, no shirt, no service." which is easy to say when you're a white guy who's never going to have to actually deal with segregation. it also seems to escape libertarians that it takes government to actually discriminate -- be it marriage equality or Jim Crow. it's not like the magical market just willed these things into existence.

i guess my fear is that being pro-segregation is going to help him in KY.



Quote:
I'll refrain from assuming he's a bigot until he is found pushing a black kid around or painting homophobic slogans on a gay bar.
it's not that i think he's a bigot himself. he just seems unconcerned when others are victimized by bigotry, legalized segregation, etc.


Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
Maddow is clever, she knew how to exploit this Libertarian.
this is certainly true. she's too smart for cable TV.


Quote:
there is no one advocating doing away with the 1964 Civil Rights law, and this guy would also like to relax pot laws, being a true Libertarian

no, but he's expressing sympathy for the rights of whites to oppress blacks.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 05:33 PM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 07:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
no, but he's expressing sympathy for the rights of whites to oppress blacks.
But you're not being consistent, are you. He is also 'expressing sympathy' for the right of black people to start up, say, blacks-only bars or restaurants. Or for the right of, say, Oprah Winfrey to employ only black staff, if that was her wish (which I'm not suggesting it is).
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 05:38 PM   #19
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 01:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
But you're not being consistent, are you. He is also 'expressing sympathy' for the right of black people to start up, say, blacks-only bars or restaurants. Or for the right of, say, Oprah Winfrey to employ only black staff, if that was her wish (which I'm not suggesting it is).


i wouldn't feel any sympathy for anyone who wishes to do such things, black, white, or whatever. Ron Paul would agree with you and say how he's just being consistent and that everyone should be able to shit on everyone and that's true freedom.

this, of course, ignores the last 400 years of history and the rights of minorities to be free from the tyranny of the majority.

perhaps there is a small infringement upon the rights of people to oppress others, but i suppose that's the price of civilization, not to mention the freedoms gained by actually not being discriminated against.

is your freedom to deny me the right to marry more important than my freedom to get married?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 06:10 PM   #20
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 12:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
Maddow is clever, she knew how to exploit this Libertarian.

there is no one advocating doing away with the 1964 Civil Rights law,
and this guy would also like to relax pot laws, being a true Libertarian
Yet he's against gay marriage, so if by "true" libertarian, you mean picking and choosing what roles the government plays in our lives then you are correct.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 06:13 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:40 PM
I blame Bruno for that.


__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 06:17 PM   #22
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 12:40 AM
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 07:07 PM   #23
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,886
Local Time: 01:40 AM
Dr. Paul has a gift. Maybe he would do more good fixing eyes...

rather than be another politician.
__________________
Bluer White is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 07:12 PM   #24
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 12:40 AM
As long as he doesn't touch a whole lot of social issues, he can actually help quite a bit. He'll piss off the GOP, he'll expose more of the contradictions of the Tea Party, and could possibly make it difficult for them in general to get anything done.

Only time will tell.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2010, 07:58 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 01:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
depends on the issue. they want to abolish the Department of Education, and that's pretty fringe. actually coming out and saying that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was bad because it reduced the freedom of whites to discriminate is pretty fringe. and yet, you get the sense that most of these guys share the same generalized indifference towards others.

Abolishing the Department of Education has been a Libertarian Party idea for decades.

As a public school teacher, I agree.

And a Libertarian
__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2010, 08:09 PM   #26
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 12:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post

As a public school teacher, I agree.
Why?
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2010, 08:41 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 01:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Why?

Why do you think the Federal government should have the power to dictate what a local school district should do?
__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2010, 09:08 PM   #28
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 12:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
Why do you think the Federal government should have the power to dictate what a local school district should do?
Do you ever just answer a question?

I think there should be some kind of checks and balances and regulations. Some sort of standard, otherwise you'll be able to teach YOUR version of history, YOUR version of political science, etc...

And I don't want you teaching my children YOUR version.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2010, 12:01 AM   #29
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 01:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
Why do you think the Federal government should have the power to dictate what a local school district should do?


so that kids in Mississippi get an education as good as the kids in Westchester County?

because it's way, way easier for local politicians to scam their constituents than it is for politicians in DC?

because it's a good way to prevent a teacher with an agenda to teach bad facts?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2010, 12:22 AM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:40 PM
Just look at the teaching of creationism in US schools (and the revisions to the Texas curriculum) to see why national standards are necessary.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com