Rand Paul LOL!!!

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

The race is on! The kooks in office have brought out a need for change . A change for Republicans.

teabagged

The race is on! The kooks in office have brought out a need for change . A change for Republicans.

I thought he was a conservative Libertarian/Tea Party guy- is that what Republicans are now?

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.

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. :idontno:

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.

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?

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! 😀

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.

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.

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. :cool:

G

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.

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.

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. :cool:

G

You are correct, and he uses the argument that if you aren't allowed to discriminate against certain races, then as a matter of consistency, you shouldn't be allowed to prohibit people from bringing their guns into your establishment. You know, gun owners, the oppressed minority??:roll:

Dwight just posted a video in the oil thread of this twit calling Obama unamerican for criticizing BP about the oil spill.

He's a tool IMO.

Dwight just posted a video in the oil thread of this twit calling Obama unamerican for criticizing BP about the oil spill.

He's a tool IMO.

....and Scooterbug.....

Paul seemed opposed to any additional regulation on offshore oil drilling companies. :confused:

Rand Paul calls President Obama 'un-American' for his criticism of BP over oil spill

OMG how can anyone NOT see that stricter regulations could have very likely prevented this entire CATASTROPHE! :idontno:

Just because there is too much government involvement in some areas doesn't mean we should just through it all out, strap on our holsters and yeeha it around.

G

Not according to a wide range of people who seem to think I have to use them to prove my identify for a variety of reasons - lotto tickets, liquor, plane travel, banking, voting, entering the country, going into a federal building etc.

They ask for driver's license because it is typical that people in the US drive. However, driver's license isn't required for anything other than driving. A legal photo ID is sufficient for most things. ;-)

You are correct, and he uses the argument that if you aren't allowed to discriminate against certain races, then as a matter of consistency, you shouldn't be allowed to prohibit people from bringing their guns into your establishment. You know, gun owners, the oppressed minority??:roll:

I didn't realize it was illegal to carry a gun into a business. Who made that law?

....and Scooterbug.....

Paul seemed opposed to any additional regulation on offshore oil drilling companies. :confused:

Rand Paul calls President Obama 'un-American' for his criticism of BP over oil spill

OMG how can anyone NOT see that stricter regulations could have very likely prevented this entire CATASTROPHE! :idontno:

Just because there is too much government involvement in some areas doesn't mean we should just through it all out, strap on our holsters and yeeha it around.

G

This a a very free-market laizez faire philosophy reminiscent of Ayn Rand. I don't know if he was named after her or what. I always agreed with most of what she had to say, but also came to the conclusion that her ideas were nothing more than a blueprint and not suitable to build a society in their purist form. Rand Paul is being a real purist idealist and thinking his ideas would work in the real world. They won't. I think Paul's view on catstrophes is to let the free market work it out after the fact. Eventually after enough catastrophes occur and enough companies are sued and enough people go to jail, companies will learn to self-impose better safety standards in the name of profit and self-interest. Never mind that one catastrophe could permanently destroy the ecosystem of the Gulf of Mexico. Regulation and safety standards punish companies before they've actually done anything wrong according to his philosophy.:roll:

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.

Race, color, gender, religion, physical characteristics, or personal association are also included. Oddly enough some personal choices have been excluded by the courts, such as smoking. The ambiguity should be obvious, clearly the civil rights act includes protections based on individual choice.

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.

No, it was idealistic. Libertarians are not naive about the realities of the political establishment and it's more intellectually shallow, socially palatable "politically correct" view.

Most political parties have their idealists, but most are permeated by realists. The libertarian party tends to be more idealist than most, which is something I personally respect about the party, but it can also be quite frustrating. (I often refer to myself as a realist libertarian for this reason.) Rand and his father are both idealists.

And, the spin continues~~~~~~~~

You are correct, and he uses the argument that if you aren't allowed to discriminate against certain races, then as a matter of consistency, you shouldn't be allowed to prohibit people from bringing their guns into your establishment. You know, gun owners, the oppressed minority??:roll:

.
This is what I took away from his interview. He said he favors 9 of the 10 parts of the Civil Rights Act. The one he didn't agree with is the one regarding not being able to discriminate in places of public accommodation. He mentions privately owned restaurants.

When you look at it as Here4Good has in the earlier post it makes more since than Rand Paul does in his being able to bring guns into a restaurant comparison.

"... in short, you can refuse service based on pretty much anything a person can control about themselves." - Here4Good



.

I didn't realize it was illegal to carry a gun into a business. Who made that law?

Watch the interview.

.
This is what I took away from his interview. He said he favors 9 of the 10 parts of the Civil Rights Act. The one he didn't agree with is the one regarding not being able to discriminate in places of public accommodation. He mentions privately owned restaurants.

When you look at it as Here4Good has in the earlier post it makes more since than Rand Paul does in his being able to bring guns into a restaurant comparison.

"... in short, you can refuse service based on pretty much anything a person can control about themselves." - Here4Good


.

Yes, and you can control whether or not you are carrying a gun, have a king cobra around your neck or whatever.