Historic and landmark civil rights legislation has been bothering you for how long now? The new Republican winner of the KY primary recently told MSNBC that private businesses should not have to abide by civil rights laws. Rand, who has strong Tea Party support, is known as a libertarian kind of guy. Just when Republicans have finally shed the skin of a largely undeserved imo racial reputation
DUDE, WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!?
Pretty funkadelic. Rand reminds me of that quirky member of your extended family, some relative down the line, say some aunt who's visiting. You're all sitting on the patio conversating on a nice day and Mamie goes "Hitler was a very intelligent man." Now you don't exactly know what she means by that but she says it loud enough so the guy bbq'ing next door freezes just for a nanosecond in the midflip of a burger and you're like "Mamie, can you lower your voice? You're not exactly part of the mainstream."
I know someone here is gonna strongly object but anyone else really wanna jump on this here Bandwagon?
If Rand's words are merely taken at the surface level then, just like the response given his father, it will begin and end there. Both Paul's are deeply philsophical men; intelligent men. The fundamental premise behind Rand's words on the matter is this: does man have a right to the use and disposal of his property? Does man have a right to voluntarily contract or not with his fellow man w\ out being compulsed? The reality is that everyone of us discriminates each and every day (albeit not necessarily on race but regardless we do discriminate). However, it is more closely identified as cognitive reasoning.
ReplyDeleteThe "racist" attacks are not going to work. You liberals/progressives keep up with the "racist" attacks against all conservatives, libertarians, tea partiers, and anyone who disagrees with Obama, and your losses in November will be greater than you can imagine. So please, continue.......
ReplyDeleteIt always amuses me when the leftwing guys try to tell us what the right thinks.
For those who've maybe forgotten, the fundamental premise posited by the elder Paul was and is this:
ReplyDeleteDid the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have congressional authorization as spelled out in the United States Constitution? Is there a Constitutional basis for the existence of the Federal Reserve Bank?
The overwhelming response to both was a mental BLANK OUT. On the former is was the whole "wrap yourself in a flag and call yourself a patriot and anyone failing to do so will be declared anti-American". On the latter it was, "oh here goes Paul again on the gold standard."
But he's gonna taint our gene pool.
ReplyDeleteWTF?? You can't be serious. What taints the gene pool are the pricks like Spector, Collins, Snowe, et al.
ReplyDeleteWhat taints the pool is individuals who are intellectually bankrupt. Individuals who've no capacity for mental processes which explains why they resort to generalities, platitudes, and 30 second sound bite talking points.
Taint nothing!! Let us engage in some honest intelligent and philosophical debate. And let us begin said discussion at once!
Should restaurants be allowed to not serve black folks?
ReplyDeleteI believe in free minds, free markets, and free people Z so yes I believe that private ownwership encompasses the right to dictate the use and disposal of said property provided that in so doing someone's rights are not infringed. And of course there exists no right to patronize or be employed by a private establishment. To be sure it is a privilege. Why we could inquire why the NAACP discriminates against white supremicists? Hyperbole they say. Really it's just two separate premises at play one of which is wrong.
ReplyDeleteSoapie that's a real brave statement to make, it took real cojones and there's no way that makes you or Paul a racist but Michael Steele's point is that this principle is really a minority libertarian principle outside the mainstream no longer in vogue and we're not going with it. I agree with Steele but interestingly enough on the flipside you can then have a black establishment that refuses to cater to whites. To me that is not social progress.
ReplyDeleteRand's no bigot, he just said something SO stupid and Rachel Maddow's eyes were shining like she saw getting her own hour on CNN for trapping him, it was disgusting on both sides. I say "stupid" because of the way it sounded and that very very fine line he draws between an owner's rights and a black American's rights...wow. THis is SUCH a tough one and it's impossible that we're still talking as if there would be a restaurant who had to be TOLD to serve blacks...makes me shiver.
ReplyDeleteThe way he answered that, it's hard to picture this man "smart", believe me....no matter how correct he was in reflecting his libertarian beliefs. "Think, Man, say it differently, say you're not into discrimination FIRST, then do your silly work in letting a Conservative-hating talkshow hostess feel like she's revealed all Republicans for what they are", which is exactly the sense she gave me. MAN, that made me MAD.
That's a good analysis Z. My feelings on people's original statements that somehow later get them in trouble is this and consider this a new Z-man Principle, call it the Principle of Original Intent:
ReplyDeletePeople's original statements most often represent their true feelings.
It's a moment of candor that only much later was taken out of context, clarified, apologized for. "For the record I'm..." but the original statement IS the original intent of the speaker only the consensus of opinion on the controversial topic in question has intimidated them (except the soapster).
"I agree with Steele but interestingly enough on the flipside you can then have a black establishment that refuses to cater to whites."
ReplyDeletePrecisely. Just as you can have the NBA refuse to draft a player of shorter stature.
"To me that is not social progress."
There's a bit of a presumption there that society would not have progressed to this point without civil rights legislation. That to me seems a rather brave statement. Lest we forget, the very government of the United States before it sought to pass historic civil rights legislation recognizing the right of existence of minorities is the same government that segregated said minorities within their military ranks.
Or an African American generated clothing line whose acronym morphed itself from Five Urban Brothers United to For Us By Us.
ReplyDeleteArchie Bunker vs. George Jefferson. Progress (not).
ReplyDelete