MSNBC finds Rand Paul's weak spot
-
Josh, you're not going to like this one, but just in case you missed it... CSS, you can safely watch this one... It has a video. Article at Gothamist.com[^] (New York City local news site). Alternate: Same video at the New York Times[^] First five minutes are introduction and backstory on Paul 05:00 is about when the actual interview starts Rand Paul was interviewed on the Rachel Maddow show (MSNBC), and though he was quite eloquent and well-spoken at first (Well, that's a bit redundant and also redundant :) ), she backed him into one hell of a tight corner, concerning the balance between private ownership and civil rights. Basically, Maddow brought up the Civil Rights Act, trying to see if Paul would have supported it, and while he does his best to sidestep the issue, he eventually admits that he would not have supported it without changes, because of the part that outlaws discrimination in private venues that are open to the public. From there, she goes in for the kill. Now, I understand Paul's position on this, and it's consistent with the Libertarian/Tea Party agenda. He opposes anything that puts limitations on private enterprise. In this case, that means he would support a privately-owned company's right to openly discriminate against the minority of their choosing. Again, I understand his point of view (I don't agree with it, but I understand it), but this is pretty much political suicide. For the entire 15 minutes of the actual interview, Maddow TRIES to get an honest answer about this issue (If a private company wanted to post a "No blacks allowed" sign, would you support their right to do so?) Obviously, his answer is "Yes," but he couldn't come out and say that. The Libertarian view here seems to pretty much follow the old quote... "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it." That, however, is just not going to fly with the general public... I think when it comes time for the general election in Kentucky, he's going to get completely vaporized.
Proud to
A black person doesn't want to walk into a racist restaurant anyways, what kind of service would he get? A black person would rather go to his jazz joint with his peers, or a non racist restaurant. The government doesn't have the right to tell anyone how to run their business.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Distind wrote:
One of the biggest holes in libertarian thinking, not realizing or acknowledging that some people are total assholes and will gladly stomp on other people's rights
You don't have a right to walk into a business and demand service.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
A black person doesn't want to walk into a racist restaurant anyways, what kind of service would he get? A black person would rather go to his jazz joint with his peers, or a non racist restaurant. The government doesn't have the right to tell anyone how to run their business.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
And you have the right to deny someone service based on nothing but your own whim? A legitimate reason, sure, you're brown is not a legitimate reason. You have the right to be an idiot, not the right to inflict your idiocy on others.
Distind wrote:
And you have the right to deny someone service based on nothing but your own whim?
Yes, I could close down shop and only serve two people of my choosing. I could kick everybody out if I want (so as long as they got the goods and serviced that they paid for). Here is an example, let's say I'm running a computer repair service down in my basement, and I decided to not fix a guys computer because the computer stunk or he was a jackass or he just plain annoys the hell out of me, or for any other reason that I can think of. I have that right.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
And about here is where I wonder if you've ever actually met a black person or if you operate solely off stereotypes.
Yes I have, I've worked with them. Perhaps instead of a jazz joint I should have said a The Pimpin' Club that plays Lil' Wayne.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Distind wrote:
And you have the right to deny someone service based on nothing but your own whim?
Yes, I could close down shop and only serve two people of my choosing. I could kick everybody out if I want (so as long as they got the goods and serviced that they paid for). Here is an example, let's say I'm running a computer repair service down in my basement, and I decided to not fix a guys computer because the computer stunk or he was a jackass or he just plain annoys the hell out of me, or for any other reason that I can think of. I have that right.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
Computer repair, why not. Not the problem case, but still stupid. Let's say you're the only pharmacy in the area, there's someone who may well wind up dead before reaching the next one but they fit your arbitrary race delimitation on who you will serve. Should I file the negligent homicide charges now, or can you see where allowing business to discriminate can get problematic?
-
Yes I have, I've worked with them. Perhaps instead of a jazz joint I should have said a The Pimpin' Club that plays Lil' Wayne.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Computer repair, why not. Not the problem case, but still stupid. Let's say you're the only pharmacy in the area, there's someone who may well wind up dead before reaching the next one but they fit your arbitrary race delimitation on who you will serve. Should I file the negligent homicide charges now, or can you see where allowing business to discriminate can get problematic?
Distind wrote:
Should I file the negligent homicide charges now
Perhaps, but you can't (or shouldn't) be allowed to file some racism charge.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Trafficing in stereotypes is what he does.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
I saw this yesterday and was going to say something but it doesn't really matter. Libertarian points of view make angels out of man and we all know that isn't true. Supposedly there is a difference between government employed citizens and private sector employed citizens when it comes to who is allowed to trounce rights or at least create a false sense of outrage by the citizenry. It's not okay for government, but its okay for companies to do it. So why is it okay for a company to discriminate and not the government? Companies aren't people. A friend of mine would routinely have a political donation subtracted from his paycheck for the company to send to it's Washington b@tch. As near as I can tell not illegal. The company would then give them the same amount as a bonus the next paycheck for some BS reason. I've worked for a company in the financial services sector who wanted to put a message to all their customers on whether or not they liked their service and to have it send a message to their congressmen and senators. Again not illegal, but certainly unethical. I've never lived in Kentucky before so I have no idea what kind of tolerance for this sort of thing is possible, but for people whose life is just fine they're not going to care.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
Supposedly there is a difference between government employed citizens and private sector employed citizens when it comes to who is allowed to trounce rights or at least create a false sense of outrage by the citizenry. It's not okay for government, but its okay for companies to do it. So why is it okay for a company to discriminate and not the government?
The differences? The government compels you to pay them so they have to provide the required services. The Constitution compels how gov can act, but generally not individuals. If I am a sole proprietor, I am the company. It is mine, the building is mine, the goods are mine. Are you saying that I don't have the right to control who I let on my property?
wolfbinary wrote:
Companies aren't people.
You got that right. Companies do not have freedom of political speech. Each of the owners and employees do.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
It at least brings his ignorant stereotypes up to date tho
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.