Seriously. On Rachel Maddow.
This race is going to be amazing.
The more Rand Paul says on national television that non-whites shouldn’t be afforded the same as whites? Hoo, boy. Yeah.
KEEP IT UP, holmes.
Also, did you know there’s a scary black man in the white house?
Oh, hey, looky here:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Yeah. About that.
Remember Chris Hightower (here, here, here)? Yeah. That scandal pales in comparison to accepting discrimination at lunch counters on the basis of race.
Something tells me Mitch McConnell isn’t going to like standing beside Liberty Christ at that fancy unity rally. Unless he, too, supports segregated lunch counters.
25 responses so far ↓
1 Strangeite // May 19, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Damn you!!! I really wanted to go to bed early tonight and now you have made me stay up to watch the 11 airing of the Maddow show.
Damn you. Damn you to hell.
2 ChristopherM // May 19, 2010 at 10:19 pm
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3 Dan Canon // May 19, 2010 at 10:39 pm
I hear he just said all those things to impress Jodie Foster.
4 Taylor // May 19, 2010 at 11:08 pm
“The interesting thing is…”
…Rand Paul doesn’t believe in the government discriminating against people because he doesn’t believe in the government providing any public services from which to discriminate people.
5 spinnikerca // May 19, 2010 at 11:41 pm
” The more Rand Paul says on national television that non-whites shouldn’t be afforded the same as whites ”
Except he never said anything remotely like that. He said just as freedom of speech means we have to tolerate speech we don’t like, freedom means we have to tolerate, if denounce at our pleasure, private actions we don’t like. On segregated private business the situation could as easily arise with non-whites refusing service to whites. He is against racism, but for freedom.
And if you have to lie about what he says, and obviously means, you lost the argument.
6 jake // May 19, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Yup. I’m totally making it up. Fabricating that Rand Paul said on national television that he supports segregated lunch counters.
I’ll let readership watch the video above and judge for themselves. And, no, out-of-state Paultards don’t count.
Protect our white women! Kick the foreigns outta the Subway and McD’s!
7 William Summer // May 19, 2010 at 11:48 pm
the carrying a gun into a restaurant is a vacuous argument. Serving a sandwich to a black person poses no risk to anyone. Having several people with guns strapped to their hips does.
8 ChristopherM // May 19, 2010 at 11:51 pm
@Spinnikerca: If you can’t see the difference between speech and actions like segregating a business that avails itself of public protection (you know, like with police or asking courts for redress when someone does the business wrong), then you really need to consider a remedial civics course.
9 jake // May 19, 2010 at 11:56 pm
Can’t the free market solve this?
The free market solves everything!
10 spinnikerca // May 20, 2010 at 12:03 am
ChristopherM, individuals ‘avail themselves of public protection’ too, but it doesn’t mean they can’t be honorable or dishonorable as suits their nature. I understand your position, it was that of the supreme court ruling on the civil rights act. However, it overturned generations of prior law which was not ‘race based’ but ‘private property/public property’ based.
11 Josh // May 20, 2010 at 12:22 am
“Fabricating that Rand Paul said on national television that he supports segregated lunch counters.”
Yes you are.
Rand does not support segregated lunch counters. He supports the freedom of private property owners.
That’s like saying because Rand Paul supports freedom of speech he also supports whites who use the word nigger.
12 ChristopherM // May 20, 2010 at 12:23 am
Well of course they do, but individuals aren’t inviting the public into a public accommodation. A hotel or a restaurant is. How is this even debatable in this day and age? Rand Paul is absolutely batshit crazy if he really believes this insane notion that private business offering public accommodations cannot be held accountable for discriminatory acts. Funny how he doesn’t mind government involvement in the Medicare that gives him half his salary.
13 Lucas // May 20, 2010 at 12:54 am
As someone in a minority, I don’t want to financially support bigots. If I know someone is a bigot, I won’t support him by eating at his restaurant; I would eat somewhere else. But discrimination laws makes it impossible for to tell apart whether someone is a bigot or not, so I probably support bigots without even knowing, thanks to the government.
14 Donna Mattingly // May 20, 2010 at 1:01 am
The “deficits don’t matter” mantra has just reached a whole new level. I can’t believe this. And to think just a mere few hours ago I was concerned only with Rand Paul’s “bad manners” in not connecting on the traditional conciliatory phone call from his opponent!
15 ChristopherM // May 20, 2010 at 1:10 am
With all due respect Lucas, bullshit. If you want government protection, then you don’t get to discriminate in your public accommodation. This is not complicated. You may be supporting bigots. I may be supporting bigots. But we aren’t supporting bigots who get to blatantly discriminate against people.
16 Dustin // May 20, 2010 at 1:17 am
Rachel I think made the argument best for Rand. Desegregating these lunch counters very much was dangerous for people. There were fights and violence as a response. We knew this would happen when we pass the laws. The gun argument is extremely valid and the guns don’t assure us that there will be violence in response.
The problem with people is that they want to pick and choose and then do it again and again and again over and over until nothing makes sense. You need to define was is and isn’t private property and go from there. I disagree strongly with Dr Paul on many of his stances. His views on abortion, military trials, and many other things are issues I really have a hard time getting past. This did lack one final thing from him. I really wish he had stated firmly that when 1/10 of a bill is wrong, the whole thing needs to be rejected. Sadly he didn’t go that final step, but hopefully he will soon. I’m so sick of poorly written and thought out laws being passed.
17 AttentionWhore // May 20, 2010 at 2:14 am
I remember Chris Hightower! Nice guy! Wait, maybe that is Andy Hightower….?
18 Lucas // May 20, 2010 at 2:15 am
ChristopherM.
I prefer to have the option to not support bigots.
19 Buster Brown // May 20, 2010 at 6:44 am
Lucas,
I prefer to have the option of NOT allowing discrimination. I like eating at restaurants where I know – that regardless of the owner’s views – I can invite my black, gay, mexican, Iranian or Jewish friend to dine with me without being beaten up.
Interesting that Rand is against big government yet supports the government telling gays they can’t marry the person they fall in love with if that person is the same gender.
Or be against big government yet be Anti-Choice
20 Joey Wilson // May 20, 2010 at 7:38 am
Conway’s challenge is to get Kentuckians to care about the goofy Paul positions. Grayson couldn’t do it.
For a guy who wants to “take back the government and not mince words,” Paul can sure talk in circles with the best of them. I’m not sure he really knows what he’s saying either.
21 Buster Brown // May 20, 2010 at 7:57 am
Dustin,
You should go read a “REAL” history book.
1. The fights at the lunch counters did NOT take place because laws were written.
The fact is: the law was written BECAUSE blacks were getting beaten up while sitting at lunch counters.
2. The gun analogy from Rand was ridiculous and illustrated his simple-minded approach to macro management of the laws (as opposed to micro management of laws.)
- Gun laws prevent people from walking down the street with loaded pistols …
- Gun laws allow certain people to carry pistols
- Civil rights laws underscore that “separate but equal” is unconstitutional.
Therefore, IF: an owner of a restaurant is AGAINST their patrons carrying guns & the law allows that person to carry a gun – THEN: the owner has a legal right to say, you must take your heat off before you can enter my restaurant.
However, IF an owner is a bigot and a minority they don’t like enters their restaurant – and SINCE: that minority cannot take off their skin color – or change their gender – or change their sexual preference THEN: That owner cannot tell that person to leave their “minority” at the door.
The owner can tell minorities how they are to behave in their restaurant … but they cannot tell that minority to leave.
3. The “reason” Rand Paul did NOT say “that when 1/10 of a bill is wrong, the whole thing needs to be rejected” Is because he is TOO CHICKEN to say that and he wants to HIDE that very position from the voting public.
Bottom line: Rand Paul is a k00k who is ok with living amongst bigots but wants to HIDE that part of himself from the voters because – like all bigots – he is too CHICKEN to admit his own bigotry in public …
22 Nancy Hoover // May 20, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Paul is for private owners’ rights like the Civil War was about states’ rights.
23 Ken Smith // May 20, 2010 at 7:10 pm
Wow. It’s like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Rand Paul is a kook. He thinks it is OK for private businesses to discriminate against people. That is unacceptable in American society today, and Paul’s sophistry is pathetic.
Libertarians, listen up: you cannot have it both ways. You can’t say you you think it’s wrong to criminalize discrimination by private businesses yet claim to be against discrimination.
If you think that government taking away the “right to discriminate by private businesses” is bad AND that the suffering by victims of discrimination by private businesses is horrible, then you speaketh with forked tongue. Either the suffering of the discriminated is sufficiently bad that it justifies a law against it, or it is not sufficiently bad to justify a law against it.
If you think it does not, then you (1) care more about the private businesses’ rights than those businesses discriminated victims, or (2) think discrimination is OK.
In case 1, you don’t care about victims of private discrimination because you don’t think it is important enough for a law; in case 2, you don’t care about victims of private discrimination because you don’t think discrimination is important at all. Don’t pretend that you are so much against discrimination when you are not.
24 Debbie Linnig Michals // May 20, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Mr Rand says that a private business person has the right to exclude anyone he wants from their business. That would be like my family’s restuarant, “Mike Linnig’s” excluding people of race, sexual orientation, ethic origin and religious orientation from sitting and enjoying a fish sandwich and cold beer. I am so glad that I am supporting Jack Conway who believes that everyone has a seat at the tables. Rand represents the kind of government that is exclusive and not inclusive, I hope he is a better doctor than politician.
25 Laurence Topliffe // May 23, 2010 at 12:02 am
I’m not sure if everyone gets to the real issue here. People who discriminate do so because they think that the person or people they discriminate against are not as good, worthwhile, human or something as they themselves are and therefore they have the right to treat them as less than human. I would say that anyone who thinks that way is not as good a person as those they feel they have the right to discriminate against.
Leave a Comment