All of this talk about Rand Paul being a racist...

might have some validity, but it cheapens the entire situation.

I have yet to see anywhere where he donned white sheets, wore a Gestapo uniform, stood in front of a Confederate flag or a host of other things that could/would define him as a racist.

The point here is, every time the "racist" stuff pops out, w/o empirical proof of him being a racist, it actually shunts people away from the one obvious fact about Rand Paul, he is an idiot. Calling him a racist is the easy way out, but each time it is posted, or mentioned in the scheme of things, people almost immediately tune out of the discussion.

There is more to this that just the "Lunch Counter" stuff, each point this idiot makes is easily torn to shreds, but no one is doing that, they took the cheap way out, "we'll call him a 'racist'".

Why are people hung up on this "racist" idea...he can actually win if this is the "only thing" people are going to bring up about this idiot. I never saw him say he would deny blacks a seat at the table, that was all implied. To make matters worse, it has taken on a life of it's own at this point. What else has this guy got to say? Virtually everything this man speaks of is offensive and wrong...he may be a "racist", but for Pete's sake...enough, find the proof, post it, until then, take on the rest of this idiot's ramblings.

He wants to end the war and bring troops home.
He is against the Wall Street bail-outs
He is against the Patriot Act
He is concerned about the loss of constitutional freedom
He wants to balance the debt.

Yes - he is for a bunch of idiotic things. Not all, however.

(and noooooooo - I am not a Rand Paul supporter)

He reminded me of Lee Harvey Oswald, the mannerisms, the inflections, he even {i]looks a little like LHO...:scared:

yes indeedy. His idea of constitutional freedom is a far cry from mine, and likely a far cry from yours

talk.

He can't end the war, (I want it ended as well).
hate to say this, but w/o the bailouts, we'd be pretty well dead now, the answer to to break up the system and put in serious regulation.
So is everyone else.
He believes in the 19th Century aspect of the Constitution...scary.
It's balance the budget, so do I, but it won't happen w/Rand Paul in finance. He's a cut kind of guy, so his idea is to cut just about everything, including Social Security and Medicare. Easiest way to balance the budget...end the wars, but even that takes time.

It is the way he would go about these things that makes him dangerous. It's all about a return, a rollback if you will, to the 19th century...Monopolies would rule, everyone else would suffer.


Biggest thing, he is an idiot, it's actually painful to listen to him.

(my point, that is)

Greedy self centered corporatist.

I doubt he's keep his practice open.

But to be honest, I don't think he has a chance...the more he speaks, the further away from reality he seems...like I said, this man is an idiot.

They are saying his political views have repercussions that enable covert expressions of racism.

Half of the posters on DU are saying straight out that he's just a racist, period, and dismiss thusly what he's saying instead of substantively repudiating it- which needs to be, and can be, done.

Some people actually are racist. And many of them try to fly their racism under the radar. Very few people are going to admit they are a racist, especially if they are trying to be elected to public office.

Believe what you want. I believe Rand Paul is racist.

Should I not call a rat vermin? Sarah Palin a dolt? A racist a racist?

If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and poops in water, I'm not gonna call it a pony. If the behavior fits, it's appropriate to use a descriptive noun. Ron Paul talks racist. Therefore, he is racist.

but if you don't, it smacks of McCarthyism. Or, if you'd prefer, it reminds me of many teabaggers calling Obama a socialist, communist, fascist, etc. etc. It's meant as a character assassination, whether there is any truth there or not. And it leads others to believe you have no real rebuttal to their reasoning.

Me me! I'll say it. Right here: Rand Paul is a racist homophobic theocratic rightwing libertarian asshole.

'kay?

Exactly.

black and brown people being treated as second class citizens.

And frankly, I'm not at all interested in hearing the multitude of excuses people have for why Mr. Paul isn't a racist.

Anyone who thinks it's just fine to allow businesses to discriminate on the basis of race, is well, a racist.

He can try to dress that up all he likes in his notion of high-minded political ideology, but white sheet or no, the ideas he expresses are indeed racist.

you said

"The point here is, every time the "racist" stuff pops out, w/o empirical proof of him being a racist, it actually shunts people away from the one obvious fact about Rand Paul, he is an idiot."



Sorry but that isn't the point. Most conservatives are idiots. We have come so far down this road that it is simply accepted now. Shrub saw to that. Palin reinforces it.


The point here is that advocating for a system that would allow racism by our government is not acceptable. Not only is the system not acceptable but suggesting that system is preferable is simply not acceptable. Add to the fact that the person preaching this is running for a Senate seat and the unacceptable nature of those comments multiplies by the amount of influence on our system he may be able to achieve.


I know all about the first amendment and his right to spout this shit. I am not saying anyone does not have the right to be wrong. I am saying that in our society it is not something that is acceptable to advocate and the person or persons who are on that side of the issue need to be rejected.


That is the point.

The problem with just calling him a racist is that, by name-calling, those very real issues are avoided. It's demonization that misses that point.

libertarian theory is not racist, in the strictest sense -- although people who are racists latch on to libertarianism because it allows them to be racist if they want.

Libertarians believe that each person and/or business should have perfect freedom to associate or not associate with anyone. If I hate men and don't want them in my cafe, then men are out. If I hate Hispanics, they can't come in my cafe, etc. I had a college teacher who was a libertarian, and when I argued with him about, say, companies never wanting to hire women for "men's" jobs, he said that it would be the company's loss if they didn't hire the best people for the job, and they'd go out of business (this was in the early 70's.) Of course, historical fact being what it is, it seems to me that companies and businesses had been doing just fine discriminating not only against women, but a bunch of different races as well, and who the hell was going out of business back then cuz they didn't hire blacks or women? Nobody. And what about my life, I asked, during which no one would hire me for anything but low-paid "women's" work? My life was to be essentially impoverished, and I had to marry well or die, because white men didn't want to 'associate' with me except to have sex?

Their answer to that was that I could start my own business and hire only women if I wanted. Except, of course, bankers didn't want to 'associate' with women, either, or lend them money.

So, way back then, I saw right through that libertarian crap. It's just another way for white males to jerk everyone else around. But people are stupid enough to think that they will always come out on top, even when they are the dolts that are going to be crushed underfoot.

The man opposes marriage equality and abortion rights, and supports Gitmo--three MAJOR examples of government intrusion upon individual rights no true Libertarian would ever support. He is NOT a Libertarian. He's just a right-wing nut trying to use Libertarian arguments as an excuse to promote his racist, misogynist, homophobic, war hawk agenda.

I really wish people would stop trying to defend him as a Libertarian. He's NOT.

No it doesn't make any sense to me either.

Being against abortion and being against abortion RIGHTS are two different things. The vast majority of Libertarians are pro-choice, even if they *personally* consider abortion to be a bad thing, because one of the most basic Libertarian principles is the idea that the government should not infringe upon a person's most basic and sacred of ALL rights--their body autonomy. It's the difference between saying "I will not have an abortion because it's wrong" and saying "YOU cannot have an abortion because it's wrong". It's one thing to oppose it as part of your personal principles. It's quite another thing to support using the government to force YOUR principles down other people's throats via legislation. I have met many Libertarians who would never, ever choose to have an abortion, but I have never met a Libertarian who thinks the government should force that principle onto everyone else via the law.

There are a few self-identifying "Libertarians" who think that abortion should be illegal because they consider a fetus to be a person whose rights must supersede the rights of the woman carrying the fetus, but they are a very small minority, and frankly, their claims to the "Libertarian" name are hotly disputed by many in the larger Libertarian movement. It's kind of like Veganism--if someone eats honey and eggs from free-range chickens, and yet INSISTS that they are Vegan, should we recognize them as such just because that's the label they choose to self-identify with? Or should we respect the larger Vegan movement's definition of "vegan", which means NO voluntary consumption or cosmetic use of ANY animal products, regardless of whether or not they were obtained with or without cruelty?

Just as I respect my Vegan friends' positions that people who eat honey and eggs are NOT Vegan, I also respect my Libertarian friends' positions that people who support government intrusion into a person's reproductive rights and body autonomy are NOT Libertarian. Both examples are situations where people are claiming a descriptor while simultaneously violating one of the core principles OF that descriptor.

You may have "The Official Rule Book for Libertarians" but not everyone has to play by those rules. There are plenty of Democrats who don't support the entire Democratic platform yet they are Democrats.

Not all Libertarians carry their ideology beyond no taxes and no regulations of any sort for business.

Rand Paul may not be a purist but he is certainly a Libertarian and, in fact, he is a leader of the movement.

What letter, in what case, follows Ron and Rand Paul's name regarding party affiliation? They've soled their libertarian cred (if any existed--Ayn Rand would rip them to shreds) for political opportunity.

I guess there is a purity test.

You've only stated part of it i. To be fair, they recognize this to be the case, pre-MLK. However, from that movement forward (and the same could apply to the women as feminism gained traction) things were changing and that businesses would close as they continued to exclude beyond that point. They argue it wouldn't have been immediate but it would have occurred sooner rather than later due to rapid pace of societal changes. They argue that allowing the change to occur naturally, without the government intervention, you have change without being at the expense of any private property rights and liberties.

I think you're right, and one sees the same effect in many arguments and discussions.

People often reduce a complex issue to it's simplest analysis, but it's usually at the expense of the truth.

IE: Nuclear power = Bad. Discussion over.

Or: Guns = Bad. Discussion over.

Rand Paul himself, I have no doubt, uses this same form of dumbing-down rhetoric to make his points, but then so does someone like Rachel Maddow.

It's her job, and for most of the rest of us it's the easy way, if disingenuous, to get attention or to win an argument.

I love Rachel and she certainly got the better of him, but that wasn't a discussion really.

Television news interviews rarely are.

:donut:

And it appears Rand echoes everything Ron has espoused for the past 30 years, so it's more likely than far-fetched considering aynRand Paul's recent remarks about civil rights legislation.

when he was against Federal civil rights legislation. But, as insane as things were in the 60s, most people ignored it-- maybe because things were that insane back in the 60s and we all knew where the real fight was.

Goldwater made the point that true conservatism/liberarianisn is profoundly non-racist, but is also profoundly against the government interference. Segregated lunch counters are horrendous, but one merely compounds the problem when the government interferes and forces integration.

I disagree, but he made his case and the nation largely disagreed, too, electing Johnson. It's a fascinating phenomenon in American politics where you're honest about a position and you just end up pissing everyone off-- both sides of the civil rights struggle called him an asshole.

to all sectors of public life and get elected to the presidency?

to his tea party,he is only saying what they want to hear and what they truly believe in their contemptible hearts. People who have ever felt the sting of racism don't give a damn how soft you try to sell it,how you try and repackage it,or how you try and hide. We see,smell it,and feel it coming a hundred miles away. Which should let most people know this is an enormous problem that has not yet been eradicated.And when you have people trivialize this type of thinking you ultimately deny the bigger meaning that underlies the intent to claim a certain superiority over other human beings.

When someone brings up the Civil Rights Act in a negative light, that's usually a good clue.

It's not polite or wise to make it public, but every time there's a referendum--it surfaces and we surely do elect racist legislators in droves.

Smiling prettil;y and then hating the Mexicans who clean up the yard is almost as popular as sex behind closed doors here.

well we better not call him a racist there is no empirical proof -- PLEASE, that is why racism is so insidious. I am sick of this stuff being avoided on this website. He believes in policies that result in racism and he KNOWS it. I do not care what is in his heart -- he is promoting a racist agenda. I actually do not think screaming racism is the easy, or cheap, way out -- it is the tough way as evidenced by the complete fear of calling him on it on DU. Why is the other stuff he says more important than what he has to say about this topic?

Racism is everywhere and if we are too fearful to call it for what it is, then that is pretty pathetic. It is almost worse to be called a racist than to actually be one.

in which someone...or a few someones...said (quite rightly, I think) that everyone is a racist to some extent.

Yes, even the people who are foaming at the mouth accusing OTHERS of being racist.


People may not know it. They may not want to admit it.

But there are no perfect, pure, people on this earth. Few people are privileged enough to be called Saints.


I think there is truth to the saying, "We see things not as they are, but as WE are".

I often wonder about the inner lives of people who "see" racism, sexism, religious persecution, pornography, etc., everywhere they look.

While those things do exist, they are NOT everywhere.

varying groups of people but there is a legacy of racism against persons of color in this nation and its effects are still affecting our society. If it is not racist to believe that private businesses should be able to deny service to minorities and, based on that belief, not support the Civil Rights Act then I do not know what is. White privilege is present in the cultural norms and governing institutions of our society.

Edit: sentence structure

Not only is his family racist, but his friends likely are and he hasn't likely been challenged on it.

The fact that he could be so comfortable letting such a blatantly racist sentiment out, without a second thought means he's not going to think twice about voting for hate-motivated legislation.

I heard him say that it's not right to deny service to persons of color BUT private businesses should have the right to conduct business as they wish.


I think that, instead of deconstructing what he said, or might have meant, too many people are rushing in to connect the dots and make his statement "racist", and, by extension, Rand Paul himself.


What he said was clueless, from a political point of view, but I agree with the underlying sentiment of it.

Business owners should NOT have the right to deny service to persons of color, BUT they should have the right to conduct business as they see fit.

And the opposite is true as well, IMO. Business owners should be able to conduct business as they choose BUT they should not have the right to exclude persons of color.

The same sentiment...said two different ways.

Very few things in life are either/or. Much of it is disturbing shades of gray that people have to sort through. But many people find that too much trouble, so they latch onto one side and then run with it, never stopping to think that too many issues in life are way more complicated than either/or.

and went on to express a racist view with impunity.

Nobody has to make him out to be a racist. He does that all by himself.

Yes, Rand Paul's view of private property rights and federal intervention would allow exclusion but not solely against people of color or just women etc. His view cuts both ways. A black owned business could exclude whites if they chose. A women's establishment could exclude men. Paul's libertarian-esque philosophy disagrees with the idea that if one opens up their private property to the public that means they can't decide who can and cannot enter there based on any reason chosen by the owner. They believe as long as it's privately owned property it should be treated as private property and the same as private institutions exist today.

That's not racist. Paul is not a racist. He's just a libertarian leaning ideologue.

which you pretty much have to be white and male to do.

put forth echoes the legal arguments used to justify Plessy--

That Black people had the right to exclude, that Black people were freed from having to accommodate whites......

doesn't let blatant dog whistling racists like Paul off the hook.

I myself wonder about the inner lives of people who are living through this moment where the number of active hate groups has almost doubled since our president took office and who don't notice it. Especially when the Republicans are milking the hatred of their base for everything it's worth in this election cycle.

here that the term itself is being cheapened, IMO.


Some people are just kind of stupid and clueless. Some people say things that are totally taken out of context (and I'm including DU members here who have often been accused of being "racists" when they're not).

One little slip of the tongue...one clueless comment...one suspect word spoken without thought, and the alarms go off...the Word Police are jumping up and down accusing someone else of being a racist, or a troll. Or both.

It really gets sickening.

Not every thoughtless, stupid, or even misunderstood comment is "racist".

It gets sickening to see the Word Police running around pointing fingers at others. Just like it gets real sickening to see some of the RW religious nuts running around claiming that every single act they don't personally like is "Religious persecution".

I don't think Rand Paul is a "racist". I think he's just one of those people who suffer the misfortune of putting their feet in their mouths because they speak before they think.

If it just happened to be a highly admired Democrat who said those words, I'll bet at least 3/4 of the individuals who are trashing Rand Paul for what he said would be vigorously defending the Democrat.

Hypocrisy is not attractive.

before you call people hypocrites.

You are right that everything is not racism. But racism is racism. And if you can't spot the racism in a public official saying he wouldn't vote for the Civil Rights Act and whose communication director had to be let go for calling Dr. King's birthday "n***** day", then,respectfully, your radar needs tweaking.

These people make flying under the radar an art form but this one is not very coded.

who didn't even KNOW what the Civil Rights Act was in the first place.

It's possible.

Lots of people go into politics without a clue. Just look at George W Bush for a prime example. You think he's the only clueless oaf out there?

He says very clearly that he would be against desegregation. As another poster pointed out to me, the guys at Stormfront were probably high fiving each other over this one.

His disagreement with CRA, like that of libertarians, is only with Title II and not the rest of the law because it's about the federal government dictating to private business

The ones that forbid institutional segregation among other things.

Not in the least.

Get in bed with racist views, wake up with racist fleas.

He says he's not a racist, either.

If I could place a bet at DU, I'd bet that this is only the beginning of the ugly we're going to find out about Rand Paul, teaklanner darling.

racism when it's right in front of your nose that I have ever had the misfortune of seeing or reading.

Rachel Maddow didn't just happen to bring up the Civil Right Act. She brought it because of something he had said earlier to another interviewer. So if he didn't have his shit together then. (And I don't think that was the case at all.) He certainly should have had it together for Ms. Maddow's interview.

The fact is he knew exactly what he was saying and there's no way around it. Why you seem to feel the need to come up with possibilities no matter how ridiculous sounding as to how what he said could possibly NOT be racists is a question I'm not all that interested in exploring.

I was going to write more, but I think it would be lost on you.

as "arguments" do it because they're probably unable to form more complicated thoughts.

When you suggested that the publicly expressed opinions of a guy running for US Senator should be dismissed as foot in mouth, slip of the tongue errors, my first reaction was just as I stated it.

Some of us take his ideas as a more serious threat that should actually be challenged and opposed.

Regarding the overuse of the term racist, I don't have a problem with that part of your post.

is no reason to give him a pass on the ones that are wrong. If he could do everything that he wanted, would you support him even though it would bring back discrimination in a lot of places? There are millions of private entities that then could close their doors at a whim.

Some trade offs are not worth it. You don't get to take only the ones you like. Having him in any position of power with those views would give him a chance to gnaw at their foundations without a lot of notice.

In addition, the worst racists are the ones who aren't wearing obvious signs. They quietly undermine the progress that has been made.

and it is so prevalent that it is impossible to call out the oh-so-obvious racism when it surfaces, as it has so recently in November and just now.

And they hide their grandfather's Dixie flag but pull it out to share for its historic value.

They also work with African Americans and pretend to be their friends but secretly hope they are never invited over to their house because it's in that scary part of town.

And in their free time they read and post on free republic when they aren't at a tea party. :)

even begin to understand what racism even is.

Maybe Paul is a racist, maybe it makes him sick to his stomach and breaks his fucking heart, I don't know and don't grasp what difference it makes in real world application.

If you willfully set up a system that you know will result in people of color, gender, handicap status, unapproved sexual orientation, or anything else being excluded from public accommodation or disenfranchised then you have instituted bigotry and created second class citizens whether you really want it to go down like that or not.

:thumbsup:

I BEG OF YOU, PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE!!

"To understand Rand Paul's agonized contortions over America's civil rights consensus, let's review the tainted pedigree of the movement that reared him. Specifically, both the Kentucky Republican Senate nominee and his father, Ron Paul, have been closely associated over the past two decades with a faction that described itself as "paleolibertarian," led by former Ron Paul aide Lew Rockwell and the late writer Murray Rothbard. They eagerly forged an alliance with the "paleoconservatives" behind Patrick Buchanan, the columnist and former presidential candidate whose trademarks are nativism, racism and anti-Semitism.

Repeatedly during Ron Paul's political career, his associates used the same kinds of inflammatory rhetoric used by Buchanan in order to attract support and raise money, all while Paul himself pretended not to know what they were doing and saying in his name. Paul could always cover himself by saying, just as Rand Paul says now, that his opposition to civil rights statutes is purely constitutional and has nothing to do with bigotry."

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/05/21/racial

to a really virulent hate group. She's patient and pleasant to him while she lets him out himself. He swears up and down that he joined this group because he is concerned about the economy.

His part of this segment is near the end. Up front, she interviews a filmmaker who went inside a white nationalist group. It's about 5-7 minutes, iirc.

http://www.grittv.org/2010/01/07/white-nationalism-in-the-age-of-obama/

To propose bringing back those exclusionary signs is repulsive and only a racist would even suggest such a thing. And if he is clueless about the ramifications of what he is proposing he has no business running for office. Rand Paul's political career is doomed..

What sitting US senator will want to associate with him? He also won't get the support he needs from the RNC.

You know what's ironic? The guy who wants 'whites only' signs to go back into the windows of restaurants is being virtually 'blackballed' by members of his own party. It's almost funny.

What other political figure will want to associate with him and have to field questions about the Civil Rights Act of 1964? I doubt if any republican wants to be reminded their party was against the passage of civil rights in 1964. It's a wound that has been left virtually alone, until now.

No matter how loud the tea baggers yell this time they wont drown out the sounds of repulsion from normal people who are disgusted at the racism displayed by Rand Paul. Paul is an example of why "libertarianism" could never be used to govern. Libertarianism is a cult, not a political movement. While some of what they say sounds okay, practical application of libertarianism would not work in real life. Can you imagine a country void of regulations or laws? A libertarian or a conservative extremist United States would soon resemble a cross between Somalia and Haiti. It would be a disaster. And I wish leading democrats would remind people of that very simple and very true fact.

Rand Paul's career is doomed...

that ol' Rand prefers to let corporations run roughshod over consumers without oversight--I think as his direct opponent that's probably the smarter path to take.

of a confederate flag to be a racist. There are plenty of people who are straight up racist who do so behind the veneer of gentility and hide behind business suits. If your definition is that one has to do engage in the most obvious of racist behavior in order to be defined as racist I'd say 1. It's no wonder why there is often so much contention as to what or who is racist around these parts and 2. there is a huge flaw in your definition.

I will grant that for some people around here the idea of someone being a racist is not a big deal. Generally they are not the ones on the receiving end of racism either. It's easy to be magnanimous when it's someone else who is or has the potential to be victimized by racism you refuse to acknowledge. Some of us don't have that luxury.

Well said

this little prick also said Obama was "un-American".

If the dog whistle was louder, ears would be bleeding.

so I'm not at all surprised at the accusation.

My question would be what exactly is "American" about letting a British company drill wells while disregarding safety regulations that they would follow if they were in British waters, get the thing blown up and then lie as to how much crude is being dumped into the gulf.

And I would further inquire as to whether or not the prick realizes that we have officially become a third world country as that is the type of behavior corporations engage in in places like Somalia etc.

They aren't racists like KKK members might be. They don't mean to be racists. They just think the enlightened business person would serve all customers, which is rational - who is going to cut down on their customer base but an idiot? If I declare I don't serve black people, I've lost 15% of my customer base. Black people ready to spend money on my product and I turn them down - stupid.

Libertarians just don't get that some people WILL do that for their "ideals" such as they are.

Some racists will use libertarianism as an excuse - that freedom means you can serve whoever you want and it applies to all equally, so blacks can have blacks-only businesses too and somehow that makes it all even. Every racist is a libertarian on that - but not every libertarian is a racist.

and not his racism, he would have used a different example than the Civil Rights Act in the first place.

But a person doesn't have to be wearing white sheets or a Gestapo uniform to harbor ugly racist views.

The same group founded/dominated by Lew Rockwell and supported by his father and represents the notion that the right to earn money and for simple minded culturalism comes ahead of civil rights and liberties. They also believe that government intervention in 1964 over Civil rights represents an unwanted intrusion of big government. They also curiously are consistent in being the same group which also believes that Lincoln went a bit too far in freeing the slaves and ruining what they feel was a perfectly good economic system.

Welcome to the modern form of bigotry. They are not bigots because they make overt statements, they are bigots because they prefer policies which enable bigotry. You see it in much of the politics of RW Arizona and in the Christian Dominionism of the extreme RW'ers of Texas. This is not out-right bigotry like the KKK, but like David Duke's cleanup and mainstreaming of KKK's hate, Rand represents an even more modern and sanitized version of the very same politics that forged the Dixiecrats rejection of modernity.

So, while you might say he is an idiot who has drank from his father's koolaid, nonetheless, if he still is a clone of his father's dogma then he is no better than his father who is a racist.

L-

This guy stated his opposition to the most important civil rights law of the last century, one which reasonable people on both the left and right now recognize as an important step forward in America's history.

That's something that aids and abets racism at a substantive level, far more than flying a Confederate flag.

He's just an ideological extremest.

First i want to say it's my first post here, and i have been reading some post here for a while. I hope i'm not getting ban immediately haha.
I read a post earlier post by rasputin1952 on Rand Paul, and i agree with him. We should discuss if his argument is valid or not and not immediately dismiss him as a racist. It would be more interesting to debate and confront ideas. So in his libertarian view, he said that in your private property, you should have the right to discriminate.
And most people here say no. But isn't DU doing exactly that by not letting any republican posting here? Shouldn't DU let anyone post his opinions, regardless of personal belief , (in this case, political affiliation) as long as we remain courteous and respectful to each of other. Wouldn't it be more enriching to have different point view from all perspective? Or the goal of the creator of this website, here is to be with like minded individuals and to enjoy the company of people that share the same beliefs. Isn't what Rand Paul exactly advocate and doesn't he defend your right to do so?
Here people will tell me, wtf are you doing here, it's a democratic forum. If you're not happy, go elsewhere.
But isn't it the same thing if people refuse to provide a service to certain people ? Why would i want to go there? why give my money and support the business of a racist person that refuses to serve me. I could instead spend it to a business that is friendly-minded. Isn't a free society is all about? i can vote them out with my money.



ps: i'm not trying to troll, not a republican, democrat or libertarian for that matters. I just don't like label of any kind. I think it's limited us and only en-prison us in a certain ideologies instead of staying open to other ideas. I support a lot of progressive ideas,pro-marijuana,anti-wars, pro-choice ,but i also like conservative ideas about the economy, fiscally responsible (even though the GOP did a terrible job)don't believe in welfare programs. I also like the libertarians on their principles on liberty and the protection of civil rights.

SOME people and that by definition is not indicative of actual respect for freedom. It is in fact the opposite of freedom.

How much freedom do you think a black or brown person has if they cannot travel without worrying about being able to find accommodations for the evening because so many businesses turn them away because their kind isn't welcomed in that "private" business. How do black and brown people make sure they can get medical treatment when hospitals can turn them away for being the wrong color. Where do black and brown people make sure they can purchase food, clothing, or homes when stores or those who sell homes can turn them away for not being white? How exactly is this supposed to be freedom? Oh you mean it's freedom for you? Me and my kind need not bother our silly little heads with such notions? Is that what you're getting at? Because THAT is what you're advocating which is exactly why I (correctly) label asshats like Paul and his apologists as fucking racists!

You make an erroneous assumption about business and how "democratic" it is when you talk about voting with your money. Those with more money have more votes. By definition this is not democratic. The marketplace is not a substitute for civil society and trying to make such a substitution is idiotic fuckery. And that's the nicest way to put it.

but at the same time, i'm pro liberty. I want to let people decide their own choice or actions even if it's bad(as long as that doesn't imply any violence to others). It's like i support freedom of speech even if it means for racists.
And i think today, it would be impossible for an hospital or a business to segregate. The people wouldn't stand for it. Imagine the uproar it would cause today, any medium or large business would be boycotted and drive out of business very quickly. Not to say it's not very a good plan to voluntary exclude a part of your customer base.

Just asking.

Everyone already knows "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason". Strangely enough, skin color is not a legally defensible reason. Would you like it to be?

Well yeah. I know it seems outrageous. But for me it's freedom of association. If a white supremacist want to open a restaurant only for white supremacists. I say let him do it. But again, today who would want to be associate with them? No one want to be label as a racist. But it's up to the owner to make the rules. If a bar say for example only women here, or a man should be accompanied with a woman. It's discriminating by gender, but i'll be ok with that.
I know total Liberty can be scary and lead to ugly things. But let's look to the extreme opposite situation. For example if i lived in nazi germany, and they told me i couldn't serve Jews. I would say, you can go to hell, it's my business and i can serve anyone i want. Like Thomas Jefferson said "I would rather be exposed to the inconvenience attending too much Liberty than those attending too small degree of it."

While the rest of us have to bear the brunt of your "magnanimous" attitude. Easy to say you can let a white supremacist bar blacks from his restaurant. YOU aren't the one who will be turned away. Nor are you the one who will have a hard time trying to procure necessities when the bigots gather together to block anyone who is not white from buying what they need while they try to run all non whites out of town.

No one wants to be labeled as a racist? Only because the word is associated with some very ugly behavior and is synonymous with ignorance and hatred. If it becomes the norm again you think anyone will give a damn?

Screw your notion of freedom I have the right to be free too and I will NOT sacrifice my freedom on your altar of "freedom"

There's nothing worse than a coward who hides his racist views behind freedom as you and Mr. Paul so ineptly do.

I don't want to impose my idea of freedom on you, but you also can't impose yours on me. So where does freedom start?
Ok let put it that way, if a republican come here and start promoting conservatives ideas, and force the owner of DU to let him post here. Would it be ok for you?

Yet the rationalization is that said racism would be abhorrent.

Which begs the question, if something is so abhorrent why is it okay to subject parts of the citizenry to said treatment? I know of no way to answer that question in the affirmative that would not come across as racist. But it's always interesting to watch apologists twists themselves in knots making the attempt.

It's the same idea.
Most people here, would agree to let south park to make fun of Islam. Or be able to draw cartoon of Mahomet without being threaten of death. In a free country, we should be allowed to say whatever we want.But it also mean that i'll defend your rights to say the most abhorrent things, as long as it doesn't imply violence to others.

People have the right to speak. They don't have the right to use pubic roads, our public courts, our public police departments, fire departments, to provide services to the part of the public they like.

As I've said before, I have no idea what you think the word "freedom" means but I suspect it deviates from the accepted definition of the word.

is a pro-liberty position. It's a pro slavery position as there will be some people who are literally at the mercy of others because they cannot freely move about and conduct their business because they can be turned away.

You're arguing for apartheid and segregation neither are synonymous with freedom.

I suspect that your definition of liberty deviates greatly from the accepted definition.

I'm not arguing for apartheid or segregation. In school, bus, hospital,or any public funded services, everyone should be treated equally. The rest, you let people decide.
You're probably right that there still enough racist people that would just regroup between themselves. But if the idea of happiness for them is to live together in their own community, i say let them do it,as long as it doesn't imply any violence to other.
For me,liberty is the opposite of force. Force imply that you make some1 do thing that they don't like. I would rather let people get together voluntary. wouldn't it be more meaningful?
It's not the idea of equality in private business that bother me, ethically i think it's great and it should always be so. What bother me, is the use of force to get it.
I don't want someone who can tell me i can't smoke marijuana, or decide who i can marry.

A two tiered system where one group is free to discriminate against the other. What would you call it? Because you can make all the excuses you want it's still making excuses for perpetuating a racist system. And there's no bloody rationalization that makes that okay. None whatsoever.

For all your talk about not liking force you seem to have absolutely no problem forcing people of color to be treated as 2nd class citizens insofar as the dignity of being able to walk into a store and not have some asshat force them out at the point of a gun (or axe handle as was the case with Lester Maddox back in the 60's) because they're not welcomed there.

And you'd think that historical pictures of that era would awaken the consciousness of some folks.

But unfortunately, there are some who still "don't get it."

Then they have the nerve to think we're stupid enough to fall for their line of bull and will squeal like a stuck pig when called out on it. Not to mention cry foul and try to turn it around on you as though you accusing them of supporting (or being) racist was worse than actually supporting (or being) racist in the first place.

It's bizarre to say the least.

:D

Enabling, ignoring or somehow fostering racism is just as bad as donning the robes. It means you tolerate it, you accept it.

Angela Davis once said that a racist is simply anyone who knowingly and complicitly benefits from a racist system.

... definition of racism or racists.

Holding racist views does not require one to wear white sheets, etc. Many people who hold racist viewpoints are more sophisticated than the typical KKKer. He has expressed a number of beliefs that are certainly racist.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8406465

I think we're going to wind up knowing much more than we ever wanted to know about this individual.

many establishments if his spontaneously expressed views were reality (as opposed to his later retractions). It is hard not to put his words into reality (ala what would this mean in practice) - when it would affect you or a whole lot of people who are important to you and think that it is innocuous. Individually he may or may not be racist, but the policy he espoused on multiple occasions before backing after a larger audience heard it and reacted, the policy he espoused was per suggesting that Jim Crow - perhaps not laws (but no laws preventing) policies were okay.

Without federal intervention, Jim Crow would still be active and alive. Not racist? If not - than completely mindless - spouting ideology without considering what the reality of the implementation of that ideology would be - ala ignorant. So racist, or ignorant. Not impressed either way.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

What does it say about a man's soul if he takes this another step forward and votes in favor of legislation both justifying and bribing good men to do nothing through the marketplace and law ...?

Quite a bit, I would imagine.

Dr. Rand Paul has refused his services to, and whether they have since lost their eyesight due to his hatred of them?

Someone should check his standing with the BBB.

Why do you think David Duke traded the klan robes for suit and tie and well stated "code" words for screaming racist rhetoric? As long as "real" racists are those klan robe-wearing, cross-burning, confederate flag-waving, inbred uncouth yahoos, he won't be tagged as a racist. Since he's not considered a "real" racist, he doesn't get challenged on that category.

Also, it's easy to dismiss definitions of racism when you aren't its target.