The destruction of Rand Paul
Appears to be well underway. From both sides of the aisle. Grab popcorn. And, Rand, I’d place guards by your trash bins. Once the media joins in, you’re getting the full-on Sarah Palin treatment.
68 Responses to “The destruction of Rand Paul”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
May 25th, 2010 at 11:52 pm
“Kinda hard for the black guy to leave his black at the house, wouldn’t you agree?”
Damned impossible for anybody but Michael Jackson.
May 26th, 2010 at 12:08 am
Nick, I apologize—you’re correct, I remembered the interview wrong. The yes or no question she asked him plainly five or six times that he refused to answer was whether or not he believed businesses should have the legal right to refuse to serve black people.
He refused to answer it because he knows that his true opinion is seen as completely insane by the vast, overwhelming majority of Americans.
Tam, Paul said
The one title that he would have had a discussion over—the one he disagrees with—is the one that says privately-owned businesses cannot refuse to serve black people. So like I said, either he supports the right of privately-owned businesses to refuse to serve Negroes, or he does not. And this is what Maddow asked him repeatedly, and what he refused to answer.
May 26th, 2010 at 12:37 am
what do you want to do…give up all of our shit and go back to being serfs in Ireland?
Not at all. I just want us to acknowledge that some wrongs will not magically go away by themselves, not even if — actually, especially not if — we return to “true” 200-year-old limited government idealism, as the Rand Paul types would have us do.
Basically, it seems to me that the Rand Paul types are arguing that the net result of the civil rights movement was less freedom. I just don’t see how anybody could look at the big picture and come to that conclusion.
May 26th, 2010 at 3:59 am
“…I just want us to acknowledge that some wrongs will not magically go away by themselves…”
Do all wrongs have to be righted? At what point does it become a “White Whale” ?
May 26th, 2010 at 7:27 am
Guav,
Do you support the legal right of privately-owned businesses to not serve males?
May 26th, 2010 at 8:45 am
Tam, you appear to be trying to disprove my statement that Paul’s position is seen as crazy by most Americans. If it’s not, and if his position is viewed as totally reasonable by most people, then why didn’t he just plainly answer the question?
“Yes, I think restaurants should be legally allowed to ban Teh Coloreds from their premises, and here is why …”
May 26th, 2010 at 9:24 am
@Guav:
Your’e right. To most Americans, it sounds crazy, which is why he couldn’t answer it directly (or at least is a secondary effect of him running for political office). However, just like different phrasing elicits different responses in polls, the same is true here. Ask Americans if segregation on private property is ok and they will say quite clearly, “NO!” Ask the same Americans if they like freedom of association and the answer will likely be different. The important point here is that allowing (as disgusting as it may be to do so) one to refuse to serve/associate with folks of other races/sexualities/genders/beliefs/whatevers is the philosophical end of freedom of association. That it is abhorrent to exclude from business/association folks based on that is not the same as using the force of arms of which only the government has legitimate use to counteract it.
Of course, I recognize that it is, to a degree, psychological projection (from someone such as myself that does not feel the need to refuse my association to those of different whatevers) that allowing full freedom of association would not result in some resegregation of private business.
May 26th, 2010 at 11:12 am
I agree—but most people don’t feel the need to either embrace one extreme or the other, which is why Paul’s position is crazy to them. They are comfortable with having some level of government involvement.
May 26th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Bobby:
Do all wrongs have to be righted?
No, but then nobody ever said they all did. If widespread unjustifiable discrimination against large subcultures of people isn’t a wrong that’s worth righting, then I don’t know what is.
Guav:
Agreed. On one extreme is your own home, where you can be as much of a racist bastard as you want to be, and the government can’t say a thing about it. On the other extreme is, say, the small town’s only supermarket, where commerce is clearly being engaged in, and arbitrary refusal to serve a group of people based on race does real harm, and thus such discrimination must be prohibited. The overwhelming majority of people — even libertarians — wouldn’t quibble with those two extremes. They just argue about where in the middle the line should be drawn. Rand Paul’s opinion is controversial because he doesn’t even accept that latter example as being legitimate, or the remedy justifiable.
May 26th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
tgirsch:
Only in some states. In states where they are not required to, some still do.
If they had done that, there would be no United States of America as we know it – if at all. The slave states were prepared to walk on that one. We would have had the Northern States of America (or something) and the Confederacy (or a collection of independent southern states) – at least until the War of 1812 (which probably would have happened sooner). Finagle only knows how that would have turned out with a divided country.
May 26th, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Jake,
“They should have stuck to their guns and banned it outright
If they had done that, there would be no United States of America as we know it – if at all. Finagle only knows how that would have turned out with a divided country.”
Well…the French would have kept the Louisiana Purchase, for lack of buyers…they eventually would have surrendered to the Indians and the Sioux would have occupied Paris. The Eiffel TeePee would have changed architecture forever.
May 27th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
If it wasn’t for the French, Britain would have beaten us in the War Of Independence.
And now we’d all be speaking … er … English.
May 27th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
The propaganda that is being pushed, is that Rand Paul wants to allow businesses to be allowed to refuse service to black people, as if that is the goal of his agenda.
The reality is that he would support the right of a private business to refuse service to anyone (white people included), but the debate revolves around black people to paint Paul as a crazy racist.
If this country doesn’t embrace libertarian principles soon, I suspect it’s bankruptcy may hurt black people more than the few private businesses that might ignorantly refuse them service.
May 27th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
No Bob, the discussion revolves around black people because the part of the CRA that Paul doesn’t like happens to be the part that made it illegal to bar black people from your establishment—because that was the reality of the time. Jeez.
May 27th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
As of today – 5.27.2010 Rand Paul holds a 4% lead over Democratic opponent. I guess telling the truth till it hurts appeals to the masses. Rand is no politicians, and never claimed to be, but he will shoot the people straight and tell the truth, no matter what the outcome. Although he clarified his thoughts, there; as always, are those that agree and that disagree, but the tactics attempted against him have utterly failed, and many people today see through the attacks and shams.
May 27th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Guav, the point of his disagreement was not because they were ‘black’, yet some people would like to characterize it that way. You perhaps?
May 27th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Bob, I KNOW the point of Paul’s disagreement isn’t because he wants black people discriminated against, or about black people at all—I stated that quite clearly at the beginning, way back up in comment #16—but you’re claiming that the reason this discussion is revolving around black people is BECAUSE people want want to paint Paul as a racist. I disagree, it revolves around black people because that’s what the original legislation revolved around, and his being painted as a racist is a RESULT of that.
People see that legislation as being the only thing that allowed black people to start being treated as equal human beings by business owners, so when you say you don’t agree with the legislation—regardless of what your motivations are—it’s going to strike a lot of people the wrong way.
And if he didn’t understand that before any of this transpired, then he’s an idiot.
May 28th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
“…regardless of what your motivations are—it’s going to strike a lot of people the wrong way.
And if he didn’t understand that before any of this transpired, then he’s an idiot.”
Yes, unfortunately he is a Quixotic idiot. We have no room for idealists or philosophical stalwarts, just lying self serving cynical bastards…and thank Shiva for that.
Otherwise, we couldn’t soundbite this shit to death.