Rand Paul LOL!!!

[LuciferSam]

Well, I haven't seen where he was so unclear. Regardless, he was very explicit with Wolf Blitzer.

He's clear as day, that's what I'm saying. His ideas are just totally warped. So with Blitzer after his arm has been twisted he comes out in favor of the civil rights Act and says he would have voted for it. Doesn't mean much. He already showed his hand and it's not good.

 

[Lynnie]

I saw a little bit of what Y'all are talking about. He did side-step the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He's trying to demarcate public vs. private and I suspect public means 'tax payer funding' in this respect.

 

[30ashopper]

His point is that in a true free society (something we do not have here in the states) you tolerate both the good and the bad. Whether it's a form of protest, speech, or personal expression, nothing should infringe individual freedom. Particularly when those freedoms are harmlessly expressed in the privacy of one's home or other private property.

Certain political parties do not share this ideology in our country, they prefer to put limits on personal freedom if and when they find certain forms of expression offensive, or simply "unfair". These groups also fully admit that what constitutes "unfair" is entirely subjective and open to differing interpretations and abuse. Libertarians draw a line in the sand in order to protect against those abuses. It's understandable however that some are incapable of understanding the point Paul is trying to make, especially when it's wraped around something as "hot button" as the civil rights.

 

[30ashopper]

I'm also quite sure Mrs. Maddow understood Paul's position, and chose here subject matter carfully. I wonder how people would feel about Paul's position if the subject were different, like say for example, flag burning or denouncing religion?

 

[Lynnie]

I understand completely what his point is and it occurred to me that someone will spin this one very ugly, which is what has occurred. There are private clubs everywhere. A friend of mine who owns a restaurant reserves the right to refuse anyone for any reason. It's private property. You're right 30a, he is talking about freedoms and being able to choose for oneself.

I think it's going to get uglier, however. I love a good political climate, though!

 

[30ashopper]

I understand completely what his point is and it occurred to me that someone will spin this one very ugly, which is what has occurred. There are private clubs everywhere. A friend of mine who owns a restaurant reserves the right to refuse anyone for any reason. It's private property. You're right 30a, he is talking about freedoms and being able to choose for oneself.

I think it's going to get uglier, however. I love a good political climate, though!

Exactly, the freedom to choose - you won't ever see a democrat complain when a black student group restricts access to other races, or when affirmative action discriminates against a perfectly capable non-minority worker. Because it's "fair". Many dictators have used the concept of "fair" to overthrow nations and destroy democracies. Libertarians recognize the potential for abuse, and gaurd against it.

 

[Here4Good]

Wow, you guys don't understand the law as it applies to public vs. private businesses, do you?

If your business is open to the public - does not require membership, etc - it is illegal to refuse service to a customer based on race or gender. Everything else is pretty much open territory. You can refuse to serve someone because of their clothing, their method of payment, the way they smell, their height (based on safety requirements), their credit rating - in short, you can refuse service based on pretty much anything a person can control about themselves. You can't refuse service just because of who they are. This seems very, very American to me - we believe that we are all born equal, and then it's up to us whether we turn into the sort of person that would be a good customer.

Perhaps this is an infringement of your right as a shopkeeper to be a jackass, but there are still many, many ways that you can express your jackassedness.

Again, in absolute theory, I suppose Rand Paul has a point. We do not live in an absolutely theoretical world, however.

 

[Gidget]

It is my understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong because I am still learning what this guy and The Party stands for, that yes, we can have and do have private clubs that can exclude certain groups of people. But I think Rand was saying that a privately owned place, that serves the public (such as a burger counter) should be able to hang a sign saying "NO _______ allowed." Fill that in with blacks, fat people, white men, women, children or robots.

Am I correct and if not, tell me. I hope I am not correct.

G

 

[Gidget]

Wow, you guys don't understand the law as it applies to public vs. private businesses, do you?

If your business is open to the public - does not require membership, etc - it is illegal to refuse service to a customer based on race or gender. Everything else is pretty much open territory. You can refuse to serve someone because of their clothing, their method of payment, the way they smell, their height (based on safety requirements), their credit rating - in short, you can refuse service based on pretty much anything a person can control about themselves. You can't refuse service just because of who they are. This seems very, very American to me - we believe that we are all born equal, and then it's up to us whether we turn into the sort of person that would be a good customer.

Perhaps this is an infringement of your right as a shopkeeper to be a jackass, but there are still many, many ways that you can express your jackassedness.

Again, in absolute theory, I suppose Rand Paul has a point. We do not live in an absolutely theoretical world, however.

You must have posted at the same time I was writing. Good post.

 

[LuciferSam]

Wow, you guys don't understand the law as it applies to public vs. private businesses, do you?

If your business is open to the public - does not require membership, etc - it is illegal to refuse service to a customer based on race or gender. Everything else is pretty much open territory. You can refuse to serve someone because of their clothing, their method of payment, the way they smell, their height (based on safety requirements), their credit rating - in short, you can refuse service based on pretty much anything a person can control about themselves. You can't refuse service just because of who they are. This seems very, very American to me - we believe that we are all born equal, and then it's up to us whether we turn into the sort of person that would be a good customer.

Perhaps this is an infringement of your right as a shopkeeper to be a jackass, but there are still many, many ways that you can express your jackassedness.

Again, in absolute theory, I suppose Rand Paul has a point. We do not live in an absolutely theoretical world, however.

Exactly, Rant Paul's pedantic ranting was hopelessly naive. This is the stuff of drunken college freshman dorm room ramblings, not the words of a policy maker. His apologists will never understand. The head of the NAACP on Maddows show reminded us of the days when certain minorities traveling through the south had to pee in a jar because they weren't allowed to use the gas station restrooms.