#Rand Paul crying bitterly over being disassembled by Rachel Maddow
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
By David Edwards and John Byrne
Thursday, May 20th, 2010 -- 9:10 am
[Zeppnote: I don't think Paul is a racist; I think he's a custardhead who
is incapable of believing that malicious business owners can subvert
peoples' rights.]
Update: Paul says it was 'poor decision' to do Maddow show, slams 'loony
left' for making civil rights fuss
2nd update on bottom: 'I unequivocally state that I will not support any
efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964...we are sure to hear more
wild, dishonest smears during this campaign,' Paul campaign statement says
Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul, fresh off his primary victory in
Kentucky, defended his criticism of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in an
interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Wednesday night.
Paul said that while he supported the overall goals of the Civil Rights
Act -- a monumental measure that outlawed discrimination against African
Americans in various forms after a decades-long struggle for equality --
he opposed a provision that banned private businesses from discriminating
based on race.
"Do you think that a private business has a right to say that 'We don't
serve black people?'" Maddow asked.
Story continues below...
"I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form," Paul replied. "I
would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still
do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race.
"I think what's important in this debate is not getting into any specific
"gotcha" on this, but asking the question 'What about freedom of
speech?'" Paul countered. "Should we limit speech from people we find
abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking? I don't want to be
associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech
in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior
because that's one of the things that freedom requires is that we allow
people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of
it."
"How about desegregating lunch counters?" Maddow later asked.
"Well what it gets into then is if you decide that restaurants are
publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should
have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner
of the restaurant says 'well no, we don't want to have guns in here' the
bar says 'we don't want to have guns in here because people might drink
and start fighting and shoot each-other?'" Paul replied. "Does the owner
of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his
restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very
practical discussion."
"Well, it was pretty practical to the people who had the life nearly
beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen's lunch counters
despite these esoteric debates about what it means about ownership,"
Maddow responded. "This is not a hypothetical, Dr. Paul."
Rand Paul says it was 'poor decision' to do Maddow show, slams 'loony
left' for making civil rights fuss
At Huffington Post, Sam Stein reports, "The morning after he declined to
endorse the totality of the Civil Rights Act in his much-discussed
appearance on the Rachel Maddow Show, Dr. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) copped to
feeling regret -- not over his comments, but rather his decision to be
interviewed by Maddow in the first place."
"Why the heck would you go on the Rachel Maddow Show?" Ingraham asked
Paul. "What do you think you're going to get when you go on Rachel
Maddow's show?"
"It was a poor political decision and probably won't be happening
anytime in the near future," the Tea Party endorsed Senate candidate said
on the Laura Ingraham show on Thursday morning. "Because, yeah, they can
play things and want to say, 'Oh you believed in beating up people that
were trying to sit in restaurants in the 1960s.' And that is such a
ridiculous notion and something that no rational person is in favor of.
[But] she went on and on about that."
Blaming the messenger is a tactic often used by politicians when the
message itself is to blame. And Paul's appearance on the Maddow show on
Wednesday night was anything but bland. For 15 minutes, he and the host
went back and forth in debating where there should be limits to
government efforts to desegregate private institutions (Paul was
skeptical that the government should play any role at all). But the
notion that the MSNBC host was somehow unloading liberal hostilities on
him doesn't jibe with the fact that Paul got the same type of treatment
during an NPR interview earlier that morning -- or, for that matter, that
a conservative voice on MSNBC, Joe Scarborough, seemed aghast at his
answers. "He needs to come up with an answer today, or Kentucky will be
Arizona: a battleground for ugly, racial politics," Scarborough said. "He
has 24 hours."
Stein adds, "Paul, in fact, chose Maddow's show to initially launch his
Senate candidacy a year prior to last night's appearance."
"I’ve never really favored any change in the Civil Rights Act," Paul told
Ingraham. "They seem to have unleashed some of the loony left on me."
At Politico, Ben Smith adds, "Paul called the Civil Rights Act 'settled'
but suggested he does view federal regulation of private business on
matters of racial discrimination as fundamentally unconstitutional."
"The problem with Rachel and most people from the left is they want
to make this an issue about you supporting abhorrent practices which I
don't support," he said, again pronouncing himself a foe of
"institutional racism."
"There was a need for federal intervention to say we can't have
segregation," Paul told Ingraham, referring to the elements of
segregation that were linked to government services and federal funding.
Billary
wrote:
I wonder if her vibrating chair made her more venomous than usual?
Rand is no racist. But he does understand the the right of people to
freely associate and to own and dispose of property as they see fit.
That's true freedom. So if a black man wants to keep white people out
of his store will you stop him Zippy? Or do the rules apply to the
majority only?
ArmyOfDorkness
"5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09" <de...@dead.com> wrote in message
news:l6idnWlBrcPof2jW...@posted.carinet...
> Rand Paul hedges on support for 1964 Civil Rights Act
>
> By David Edwards and John Byrne
> Thursday, May 20th, 2010 -- 9:10 am
>
> [Zeppnote: I don't think Paul is a racist; I think he's a custardhead who
> is incapable of believing that malicious business owners can subvert
> peoples' rights.]
>
> Update: Paul says it was 'poor decision' to do Maddow show, slams 'loony
> left' for making civil rights fuss
>
> 2nd update on bottom: 'I unequivocally state that I will not support any
> efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964...we are sure to hear more
> wild, dishonest smears during this campaign,' Paul campaign statement says
Is anyone suggesting repealing it? Is that one of the other teabagger
platforms?
Billary
> "5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com> wrote in messagenews:l6idnWlBrcPof2jW...@posted.carinet...
NO idiot.
Not Sure
wrote:
> Rand Paul hedges on support for 1964 Civil Rights Act
This is what has your dipshit ass in a tizzy, isn't it? Continue
panicking, idiot :)
>
> By David Edwards and John Byrne
> Thursday, May 20th, 2010 -- 9:10 am
>
> [Zeppnote: I don't think Paul is a racist; I think he's a custardhead who
> is incapable of believing that malicious business owners can subvert
> peoples' rights.]
>
> Update: Paul says it was 'poor decision' to do Maddow show, slams 'loony
> left' for making civil rights fuss
>
> 2nd update on bottom: 'I unequivocally state that I will not support any
> efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964...we are sure to hear more
> wild, dishonest smears during this campaign,' Paul campaign statement says
>
> Rand Paul says it was 'poor decision' to do Maddow show, slams 'loony
> left' for making civil rights fuss
>
Dänk 4425
reposted:
> Rand Paul hedges on support for 1964 Civil Rights Act
>
> Rand Paul says it was 'poor decision' to do Maddow show, slams 'loony
> left' for making civil rights fuss
Since segregation has long been abolished, I see no reason for Rachel
Maddow to ask Rand Paul his opinion on ancient history. Unless, of
course, she is trying to set him up, to trick him into giving a poorly-
worded response that Maddow and other leftists will twist to claim
Paul is a card-carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan.
Leftards are pretty pathetic; unable to defend their positions in any
coherent way, they resort to turning everything into a racial issue,
allowing them to claim the moral high ground by portraying their
opponents as racists. It does not matter what the subject is -
everything from interest rates to foreign policy to offshore drilling
to sewage treatment can be turned into a racial issue by the left,
stopping all debate on the subject, as those with dissenting views are
chased away by rampaging mobs of Internet trolls with torches and
pitchforks.
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
Black man would be discriminating, and should be fined for it.
Does that surprise you, oh self-pitying racist?
Sid9
"D�nk 4425" <dan...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:1a62d4ed-b6b2-4947...@a16g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
.
Rand Paul is a jerk, an amateur.
He's trying to be a politician.
He hasn't clue as to how he should have answered Maddow.
Now he's back peddling As fast as he can.
What's going to do when he debates his opponent in October?
Lose the seat for the Republicans?
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
Teabaggers are far too disorganized to have any platforms, but as you can
see right here on Usenet, some of them would be delighted to repeal the
CRA.
Mitchell Holman
81d370...@a16g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> On May 20, 7:31�pm, "5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
> reposted:
>> Rand Paul hedges on support for 1964 Civil Rights Act
>> ...
>>
>> Rand Paul says it was 'poor decision' to do Maddow show, slams 'loony
>> left' for making civil rights fuss
>
> Since segregation has long been abolished, I see no reason for Rachel
> Maddow to ask Rand Paul his opinion on ancient history. Unless, of
> course, she is trying to set him up, to trick him into giving a poorly-
> worded response that Maddow and other leftists will twist to claim
> Paul is a card-carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan.
Conservatives never blame their answers, they
always blame the questions that prompted them.
If Palin cannot tells us what magazines or
newspapers she reads, well, it was an unfair
question to begin with. If Bush claims God told
him to run for president, well, it is the fault
of the reporter for asking him for his motivation.
Some things never change..................
wy
What you don't get is that once you allow businesses to discriminate,
then it would only encourage other businesses to do the same and
before you know it, you're back in the 1950s when only bleach-white
folk got the good jobs and could go anywhere they wanted to without
any problems. And who is the majority, anyway? Would it also include
Italians, Greeks, Arabs, Asians? Define "majority".
Milt
>
> By David Edwards and John Byrne
> Thursday, May 20th, 2010 -- 9:10 am
>
> [Zeppnote: I don't think Paul is a racist; I think he's a custardhead who
> is incapable of believing that malicious business owners can subvert
> peoples' rights.]
>
> Update: Paul says it was 'poor decision' to do Maddow show, slams 'loony
> left' for making civil rights fuss
>
> 2nd update on bottom: 'I unequivocally state that I will not support any
> efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964...we are sure to hear more
> wild, dishonest smears during this campaign,' Paul campaign statement says
I did a piece on this yesterday, as well.
Rachel Maddow v Rand Paul: How Journalism is Supposed to Work
(The piece includes the video of the entire exchange.)
She didn't bring it up out of thin air. She was responding to
interviews Paul did with a Louisville paper and NPR, in which HE
suggested that he had problems with portions of the CRA. Whether or
not he's a racist is almost irrelevant. He's a (capital L)
Libertarian, who simply cannot grasp that a business that has a public
license and is open to the public isn't entirely a PRIVATE enterprise,
and has to conform to all sorts of rules. He specifically mentioned
that he had no problem with banning "institutionalized racism," but he
refused to define banning blacks from the Woolworth lunch counter as
"institutional." His addled brain could only see "institutional
racism" as being "government racism."
Is he a racist? Depends on the definition. But the issue in that
interview -- which he still can't grasp -- isn't about race, and she
never made it about race. It was about how Paul sees our government
and its role. He actually defended a "private" business owner's
alleged "right" to decide whom he gets to do business with based on
arbitrary criteria such as skin color and sexual orientation. He
doesn't get that the business owner freely chooses to go into
business, he freely chooses to purchase a license for that business,
he freely chooses to accept and follow the rules that all businesses
must follow, and that he freely chooses to accept all of the rules.
Not only that, but what about the freedom of the black man or gay
woman to walk the public streets of the public city and enter the
doors of any business that chooses to open its doors to the public?
This is the problem with these (capital L) Libertarian loons; they
only see the business owners "right" to do whatever he wants with his
"private" business; they don't see how anyone else's rights fit into
this at all. It's an amazing tunnel vision that has always fascinated
me.
The fact that he keeps thinking she insinuated that he was a racist
just speaks to his cluelessness. She didn't show him as a racist; she
showed him as a loon, who is incapable of seeing how the government in
which he's running for high office is actually supposed to work.
Kevin Cunningham
And billary shows us his racist ass.
It's going to be a real problem for the repugs, first you have gutless
scum like billary then you elect racists like Paul.
Face it, he made a racist remark. He did it knowing he was on the
air. But he made his racist remakes anyway because he is a racist.
African-Americans were enslaved for over 350 years, then there was a
hundred years of segregation. Of course Paul doesn't acknowledge
that. He just hates black people.
Kevin Cunningham
So we should just forget that our African-American citizens were
enslaved, right? We should forget about segregation and the last left
overs of segregation.
That's a real racist proposition.
Milt
> reposted:
>
> > Rand Paul hedges on support for 1964 Civil Rights Act
> > ...
>
> > Rand Paul says it was 'poor decision' to do Maddow show, slams 'loony
> > left' for making civil rights fuss
>
> Since segregation has long been abolished, I see no reason for Rachel
> Maddow to ask Rand Paul his opinion on ancient history. Unless, of
> course, she is trying to set him up, to trick him into giving a poorly-
> worded response that Maddow and other leftists will twist to claim
> Paul is a card-carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan.
HE brought it up. She was referring back to a newspaper interview and
an NPR interview in which he suggested that the government shouldn't
have the right to tell "private" businesses who they have to allow
into their establishments. HE turned it into a spectacle when he
refused to answer the question at least five times, and she did what
journalists are supposed to do, and made him answer it. HE's the one
who made this into an issue because he knew he couldn't answer the
question in his (capital L) Libertarian loon manner and not come off
looking like an idiot. So, he tried to answer by saying he wasn't a
racist, which was never the question. She never asked him if he was
racist, she never implied that he was racist, and the issue wasn't
about race, it was about government policy.
> Leftards are pretty pathetic; unable to defend their positions in any
> coherent way, they resort to turning everything into a racial issue,
> allowing them to claim the moral high ground by portraying their
> opponents as racists. It does not matter what the subject is -
> everything from interest rates to foreign policy to offshore drilling
> to sewage treatment can be turned into a racial issue by the left,
> stopping all debate on the subject, as those with dissenting views are
> chased away by rampaging mobs of Internet trolls with torches and
> pitchforks.
Once more, she didn't insinuate that he was a racist, and she didn't
bring up race; HE did. He simply refused to ask a simple question
about whether or not the government has or should have the power to
tell a business owner that he has to do business with everyone. Paul
simply thinks that businesses are "private," and that "the market"
should be able to stem the tide of discrimination, not government. He
apparently has no concept of the fact that businesses are only partly
"private" and that they file for a "public" business license in order
to open their doors. In other words, the Looneytarians think only the
business owner has rights; no one else does.
Milt
> Dänk 4425 <dank...@rocketmail.com> wrote in news:1a62d4ed-b6b2-4947-8053-
> 81d370fe5...@a16g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On May 20, 7:31 pm, "5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
> > reposted:
> >> Rand Paul hedges on support for 1964 Civil Rights Act
> >> ...
>
> >> Rand Paul says it was 'poor decision' to do Maddow show, slams 'loony
> >> left' for making civil rights fuss
>
> > Since segregation has long been abolished, I see no reason for Rachel
> > Maddow to ask Rand Paul his opinion on ancient history. Unless, of
> > course, she is trying to set him up, to trick him into giving a poorly-
> > worded response that Maddow and other leftists will twist to claim
> > Paul is a card-carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan.
>
> Conservatives never blame their answers, they
> always blame the questions that prompted them.
Paul's problem is, he's not a "conservative." He's a Looneytarian.
Milt
Black business owners can't throw out white people, either. And gay
business owners can't throw out straights. And Koreans can shoo Arabs
from their stores, either. Businesses with a public license are
PUBLIC, not private. That's where the Looneytarian Rand Paul fucked
up. He thought the interview was about race and it's not.
Billary
You misspeak every time you open your pie hole CUNTingham. Billary is
one of the few conservatives on usenet who freely acknowledges that
this "great free country" was built on the back of millions of African
slaves and rotting Native America corpses. All the "freedoms" we have
were paid for by the pain and suffering of many millions of other poor
and wretched souls.
Now back to your point. Rand Paul believes that ALL people have
private property rights and the freedom to associate with whomever
they please. THAT'S FREEDOM. And to my knowledge he is not
advocating the repeal of the civil rights act. So eat shit and die you
stupid turd.
Milt
Just one problem, genius. The question isn't about PRIVATE property
rights. It's about the right of a business holding a PUBLIC business
license to discriminate against a significant portion of the
population. If that business owner doesn't want to do business with
the entire public, he doesn't have to open. But if he's going to get a
license to do business in the community, he willingly gives up the
right to pick and choose with whom he associates with during that
business day.
Why do Looneytarians acknowledge the right of business owners to
associate with whomever THEY want, but deny the right of everyone else
to associate with whomever THEY want? I've never understood that.
People who own businesses have more rights than the rest of us now?
Phlip
wrote:
> Rand Paul hedges on support for 1964 Civil Rights Act
>
> By David Edwards and John Byrne
> Thursday, May 20th, 2010 -- 9:10 am
>
> [Zeppnote: I don't think Paul is a racist; I think he's a custardhead who
> is incapable of believing that malicious business owners can subvert
> peoples' rights.]
> "Do you think that a private business has a right to say that 'We don't
> serve black people?'" Maddow asked.
How about an HMO that denies coverage to blacks more often than whites?
ArmyOfDorkness
"Mr.B1ack" <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:ggs6v5l8uk58ehmj2...@4ax.com...
> Hardly matters ..... he's IN. She isn't.
>
> Tell the bitch to suck his dick.
>
He's in what? You don't think he's going to win do you?
Billary
No Milty. In fact there are several REDNECK businesses here in the
Tampa Bay area that I DO NOT do businesses with. And that's MY RIGHT.
You starting to get the point?
Phlip
> On May 20, 6:31 pm, "5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Rand Paul hedges on support for 1964 Civil Rights Act
>
> This is what has your dipshit ass in a tizzy, isn't it?
Let's hear all about how the people who now won't vote for him should
not be allowed to vote, k?
Billary
wrote:
> On Thu, 20 May 2010 20:36:40 -0500, ArmyOfDorkness wrote:
I call Bullshit Zippy. Name someone who wants to repeal CRA. Post your
answer right here ===>>>
Milt
Read what you just wrote and ask yourself the same question.
How come you have the right to choose which businesses you frequent
and which ones you don't? Oh, wait! According to Rand Paul and the
rest of the Looneytarians, you shouldn't have that right, if the
business owners -- all of whom have to ask US permission to even open
their doors -- decide you shouldn't have the right to do business with
them because you're an inch too short, or because you have an
overbite.
Phlip
to ask him questions that he might answer wrong!!
Besides, she's a WOMAN!!
BACK TO THE KITCHEN WITH HER!!!
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
Right wingers are such fucking crybabies...
Milt
> On May 20, 9:35 pm, Billary <billaryclinton2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 20, 9:31 pm, "5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > I wonder if her vibrating chair made her more venomous than usual?
> > Rand is no racist. But he does understand the the right of people to
> > freely associate and to own and dispose of property as they see fit.
> > That's true freedom. So if a black man wants to keep white people out
> > of his store will you stop him Zippy? Or do the rules apply to the
> > majority only?
>
> Black business owners can't throw out white people, either. And gay
> from their stores, either. Businesses with a public license are
> PUBLIC, not private. That's where the Looneytarian Rand Paul fucked
> up. He thought the interview was about race and it's not.
There... fixed it.
Billary
You are most definitely missing the point as usual Milty. No one is
advocating racism or demanding that it be institutionalized. However
there are black only social clubs here in the Bay area that I cannot
go to. What are you going to do about hit? "Hip Hip Soda Shop" is one
of them. When are you going to come here and walk in and demand a
drink with me? Time to put up or shut up moron.
Boycott Arizona&Kentucky
"Phlip" <phli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a597b6ba-99d2-4435...@11g2000prv.googlegroups.com...
===========
Republican Bizarroland wants America in the Dark Ages.
Boycott Arizona&Kentucky
"D�nk 4425" <dan...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:1a62d4ed-b6b2-4947...@a16g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
reposted:
> Rand Paul hedges on support for 1964 Civil Rights Act
>
> Rand Paul says it was 'poor decision' to do Maddow show, slams 'loony
> left' for making civil rights fuss
Rachel Maddow is a professor with a Doctorate. Limbaugh is a perverted
junky.
Enjoy your decision.
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
Oh, let's see: Topaz. Way Back Jack. Knickers. Fauxtrot.
That's just for starters.
Probably you.
Milt
See above. I used examples of being too short or having an overbite.
If a business is open to the public, and has a business license, guess
what? We ALL have a right to frequent it and do business with it, or
not as we so choose.
That's the part that Looneytarians like Paul will never understand.
Maddow wasn't calling him a racist; she was pointing out the vacuous
logic that somehow, business owners should be able to choose who they
get to do business with, based on arbitrary criteria.
> However
> there are black only social clubs here in the Bay area that I cannot
> go to.
They're not businesses with public licenses. People are allowed to
create their own clubs. That is not the same as organizing a business
and obtaining a license to operate that business as open to the
public. If you are open to the public, you don't get to choose whom
you're open to, at least based on arbitrary criteria.
> What are you going to do about hit? "Hip Hip Soda Shop" is one
> of them. When are you going to come here and walk in and demand a
> drink with me? Time to put up or shut up moron.
I have no interest in private clubs. The CRA doesn't address private
clubs. It addresses public businesses.
Milt
Rand Paul wasn't asked that. But he did say that he agrees with 9 of
the 10 provisions, but that he might not have supported the bill
because of the 10th, because it involves government telling "private"
business people that they must allow people of color into their
establishments if they're open to the public.
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
In the world of libertarian thought, shopkeepers are the masters, and we
are there to serve them.
Billary
Milty we agree. If a business is open to the public. Then anyone
should be able to spend their green there. But like I said. "Hip Hop
Soda Shop" is a public club. Yet you or I cannot go there. What are
you going to do about it?
ArmyOfDorkness
"Billary" <billarycl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:89c8923b-9cac-451f...@m4g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Why can't you? Because you're scared to go in?
First Post
And don't forget that if you're white and the cops spot you driving
through the "hood" you'll likely get pulled over and searched because
the cops suspect you are there buying drugs or soliciting a hooker.
All you have to do is watch an episode or two of COPS to witness that.
I used to give a black guy I worked with a ride to and from the shop
when his car broke down for a while. I got stopped several times by
black officers asking what I was doing in his neighborhood. I had to
take them to his house so they could verify my story a couple of
times.
The same hypocrites bitching about Paul's statements as well as those
bitching about the Arizona law would never raise an eyebrow over that.
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
Bubbles, a "social club" isn't a business, isn't open to the public, and
thus is exempt from most discrimination laws. That includes the country
clubs that Paul was moaning aren't as "exclusive" as they used to be.
Billary
Sorry Zippy. I used the word "social club" when I should have used
"Bar" or "nightclub".
Hip Hop Soda Shop Check it out: http://www.hiphopsodashop.com/
Gandalf Grey
"RightWingShill" <billarycl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aa6106da-cb86-41fc...@c11g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
^ I wonder if her vibrating chair made her more venomous than usual?
Sounds like Shitlery is more jealous than usual. What's the problem, Shill?
No getting off on your usual pornography?
Phlip
> And don't forget that if you're white and the cops spot you driving
> through the "hood" you'll likely get pulled over and searched because
> the cops suspect you are there buying drugs or soliciting a hooker.
So, legalize drugs, and criminalize pimping instead of hooking.
Problem solved.
Oh, what was that? The drugs that whites use (alcohol & tobacco)
should remain legal? But the drugs from the tropics (coca & cannabis)
should remain illegal?
(But, seriously dude; glad to hear u had a "black friend". A lot of
the racist posturing around here is, indeed, just role-playing...)
Gandalf Grey
^ You are most definitely missing the point as usual Milty. No one is
advocating racism or demanding that it be institutionalized.
Who do you think you're kidding, Shill? You're one of the most notorious
racists on the groups.
Billary
wrote:
> "Billary" <billaryclinton2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Of course I'm scared. I'm also not stupid. Should a black man be
scared to go into a Redneck North Florida (aka South Georgia) Gun
Store? Or should he have the right to enter without fear?
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
Not a word there saying "no whites allowed". And hip-hop may have
started in the black community, but like so many such fads, it spread
well beyond those areas. Just like Jazz, do-wop, Motown and rap did
before hip-hop.
I sometimes wonder if it weren't for blacks, Jews, and Canadians, if
America would have any culture at all.
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
You have the right to sue and if you can show discrimination, you
should get a pretty good award, and the feds would be all over those
"hip-hop clubs".
Milt
In all fairness, there are some private clubs that do discriminate.
But Maddow wasn't asking about those. She was asking about companies
that operate PUBLIC businesses. That's the part (capital L)
Libertarians don't seem to grasp. When Joe's Bar and Grill applies for
a business license, his business becomes a PUBLIC entity to a certain
extent. If businesses want to deal with the public, they have to deal
with the entire public, especially since, without the public, he
wouldn't have a business.
Milt
Show me Hip Hop Soda Shoppe's business license, and whether they are
registered as a private club requiring membership, or a night club
open to the public. Also, what is their criteria for getting inside.
Would we be denied entry because the place is already full with people
who actually get into that shit, and we're incapable of "bustin a
rhyme" better than William Shatner? I know of a lot of clubs that
restrict entry because they can't violate code and there are people
lined up to get inside. But I have never seen one in which the
distinction between getting in and not was race, religion or sexual
orientation. Usually, it's based on lameness. There are clubs I used
to walk into with no problem that I'm sure I'd never get into anymore.
But it's not because I'm white; it's because I'm 52 and wear polo
shirts... Yes, as nerdy as I was in my 20s, I am much nerdier now.
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
wrote:
Billary called them social clubs, but then realized and corrected his
error. As far as I can tell, all three of us agree that public
businesses should not be allowed to discriminate. Billary claims that
he can't go to these hip-hop clubs, although he stops short of
claiming it's a result of discriminatory practices. If he's just
under the impression that hip-hop is a black phenomenon only, and that
as a white he wouldn't be comfortable there that's not discrimination.
The bar for proving discrimination is set fairly high, and it's not to
accomodate racism, but simply so businesses have a legal right to
target specific consumer groups. Thus you have stores that specialize
in women's clothing. Obviously that's a benign form of
discrimination, but unless they utterly refuse to serve a male who
walks in and wants to buy a dress, they aren't violating the CRA.
There are hair products, clothing and even cigarettes that target
African-Americans, just as the ads on the evening news target
middle-aged white guys. All legal, and not to be confused with the
third restroom at gas stations that you used to see in the South.
Milt
Yeah, that could be it. A few months ago, I took another white guy
with me to this incredible rib joint in Baltimore; it's right off the
subway, and when you get off the subway, it's just a sea of black
faces, and he tensed up like you wouldn't believe. He even muttered
something about getting stabbed or some bullshit, which I pretended
not to hear. We sat down, had the most delicious pulled pork I have
ever had in my life, but he was nervous as shit through the whole
meal. Yet, the whole time, no one looked at us funny, or said anything
nasty or muttered to us. The guy behind the counter took our order and
joked with us, just like every other customer in the place, and he
stopped by every table and asked how the food was. We got back on the
subway, and my friend seemed shocked that no one had bothered us the
whole time we were there. This is a guy who usually hasn't a racist
bone in his body, but he has these media-borne preconceptions about
how things are.
Now, that is not to say I would cruise the neighborhood at 11 at
night, mind you. But it's not because they're black, it's because the
gangs run the neighborhood at night. There are also white areas I
wouldn't set foot in after dark, too...
Milt
The latter, of course.
But bottom line is, why do you assume you're "not allowed" in the Hip
Hop Soda Shop" because you're white?
By the way, I looked it up.
http://www.hiphopsodashop.com/
If they don't allow whites, why are there so many featured on their
web site? Looks like a Hard Rock Cafe knockoff to me...
Billary
A restaurant is lot different from a night club. One is full of hungry
people of all ages. The other is full of young, high as a kite,
testosterone full gangbangers looking to make a name for themselves.
Your friend was following his instincts NOT the media fool. You on
the other hand have no clearly demonstrable survival instinct. Other
than that you don't cruise black neighborhoods at night looking for
hookers.
Milt
> On Fri, 21 May 2010 07:50:36 -0700 (PDT), Billary
>
>
>
>
>
I'd do more than raise an eyebrow; I'd consider suing. "Driving while
White" is just as bad as "Driving while Black."
Here's the deal; we either abide by constitutional principles or we
stop calling ourselves a "free country." NO ONE should be stopped by
police without "reasonable suspicion" that a crime has been committed,
and that the person they're stopping might have some relation to it.
Doesn't matter if the subject is White, Black, Brown or purple with
green polka dots. The Arizona law is purely wrong, and so is what you
experienced. Period. No exceptions.
Milt
The "social club" he's talking about is a fricking chain restaurant
that was started when some guys won a contest sponsored by Bank of
America. Here's the web site:
http://www.hiphopsodashop.com/
Note the large number of white and Asian kids in the photos, and the
menu that doesn't include Okra, Chitlins, Ham Hocks or Blackeyed Peas.
It's a fricking clone of the Hard Rock Cafe designed for the hip-hop
crowd. There's nothing in that site that even suggests it's blacks
only. If it was still open, I'd walk in there gladly, if only to buy a
t-shirt.
Milt
Um, dude? Did you notice the white people playing video games and shit
in the photos on the site? It's a knockoff of the Hard Rock, that's
all. It's not a "social club," and there is no indication that it's
not open to the general public OR that it's restricted.
Strangely, the place advertises itself as "family friendly."
http://www.youtube.com/user/h3hiphopsodashop#p/u/10/2wSzwcB8tHY
That doesn't sound like a "social club" at all.
ArmyOfDorkness
"Billary" <billarycl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:010a7b81-2dc5-4637...@c7g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
You're a pussy
ArmyOfDorkness
"Billary" <billarycl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a5610486-c435-424e...@p17g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
That's what you're scared of? Jeez, you are a pussy. You'd shit your pants
going to some of my favorite Blues clubs in Chicago. What a little girl you
are!
ArmyOfDorkness
"Milt" <milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:82f65114-445e-49bb...@q13g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
Racist Shillary would never dream of going into a "black" business so in his
sick mind he turns it around into a place that he's not welcome. The dude is
twisted
Billary
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 May 2010 11:14:14 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com>
Hey Zippy try this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWhDLn2rJdE
Chi-Town Commie
>Rand Paul hedges on support for 1964 Civil Rights Act
>
>By David Edwards and John Byrne
>Thursday, May 20th, 2010 -- 9:10 am
>
>[Zeppnote: I don't think Paul is a racist; I think he's a custardhead who
>is incapable of believing that malicious business owners can subvert
>peoples' rights.]
Your problem is you don't have faith in the consumer.
>
>Update: Paul says it was 'poor decision' to do Maddow show, slams 'loony
>left' for making civil rights fuss
>
Maddow was set to destroy Rand Paul because he got the endorsement of
the Tea Party. You on the other hand do not understand the philosophy
of a libertarian.
>2nd update on bottom: 'I unequivocally state that I will not support any
>efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964...we are sure to hear more
>wild, dishonest smears during this campaign,' Paul campaign statement says
>
>Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul, fresh off his primary victory in
>Kentucky, defended his criticism of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in an
>interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Wednesday night.
Maddow probably liked Paul because libertarians do have some hard left
stances.
#####
A year into Obama's first term in office,
unemployment is higher, the national debt
is higher and there are more soldiers
serving in Afghanistan. When asked about
it, Obama said,
"Well, technically that is change."
Chi-Town Commie
>On May 20, 9:35�pm, Billary <billaryclinton2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 20, 9:31�pm, "5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I wonder if her vibrating chair made her more venomous than usual?
>> Rand is no racist. But he does understand the the right of people to
>> freely associate and to own and dispose of property as they see fit.
>> That's true freedom. �So if a black man wants to keep white people out
>> of his store will you stop him Zippy? Or do the rules apply to the
>> majority only?
>
>What you don't get is that once you allow businesses to discriminate,
>then it would only encourage other businesses to do the same and
>before you know it, you're back in the 1950s when only bleach-white
>folk got the good jobs and could go anywhere they wanted to without
>any problems. And who is the majority, anyway? Would it also include
>Italians, Greeks, Arabs, Asians? Define "majority".
A business owner should be operate his business the way he wants to. A
libertarian believes the market should dictate a business owner's
policy, not government.
Chi-Town Commie
>On May 21, 8:07�am, Billary <billaryclinton2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 21, 7:56�am, Kevin Cunningham <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 20, 9:35�pm, Billary <billaryclinton2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 20, 9:31�pm, "5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> > > I wonder if her vibrating chair made her more venomous than usual?
>> > > Rand is no racist. But he does understand the the right of people to
>> > > freely associate and to own and dispose of property as they see fit.
>> > > That's true freedom. �So if a black man wants to keep white people out
>> > > of his store will you stop him Zippy? Or do the rules apply to the
>> > > majority only?
>>
I want to open a hamburger joint. The neighborhood where I opened my
restaurant has demographic of meat eaters and vegans. Should I be
forced to offer soy burgers?
>
>Why do Looneytarians acknowledge the right of business owners to
>associate with whomever THEY want, but deny the right of everyone else
>to associate with whomever THEY want? I've never understood that.
>People who own businesses have more rights than the rest of us now?
Using my restaurant analogy, a group of ten people come inside, one of
the ten wants a soy burger. Does that person have the right to be
served a soy burger in my restaurant?
Doesn't a person have the right not to go into a business?
Everything's a right. Give me a break.
Chi-Town Commie
>On Fri, 21 May 2010 06:58:55 -0700, Phlip wrote:
>
>> Rand Paul is just the victim here! Rachel shouldn't have been allowed to
>> ask him questions that he might answer wrong!!
>>
>> Besides, she's a WOMAN!!
>>
>> BACK TO THE KITCHEN WITH HER!!!
>
>Right wingers are such fucking crybabies...
Why don't you just admit it? You are ignorant of libertarians.
Chi-Town Commie
>On Thu, 20 May 2010 18:35:40 -0700, Billary wrote:
>
>> On May 20, 9:31�pm, "5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I wonder if her vibrating chair made her more venomous than usual? Rand
>> is no racist. But he does understand the the right of people to freely
>> associate and to own and dispose of property as they see fit. That's
>> true freedom. So if a black man wants to keep white people out of his
>> store will you stop him Zippy? Or do the rules apply to the majority
>> only?
>
>Black man would be discriminating, and should be fined for it.
Why should be fined, it's his business?
Chi-Town Commie
>Rand Paul is just the victim here! Rachel shouldn't have been allowed
>to ask him questions that he might answer wrong!!
>
Rand Paul is not a victim. He is just guilty of trying to explain a
libertarian concept to an absolute moron.
Chi-Town Commie
>On May 21, 9:09�am, Billary <billaryclinton2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 21, 9:00�am, Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 21, 8:07�am, Billary <billaryclinton2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 21, 7:56�am, Kevin Cunningham <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On May 20, 9:35�pm, Billary <billaryclinton2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On May 20, 9:31�pm, "5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
>> > > > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > > I wonder if her vibrating chair made her more venomous than usual?
>> > > > > Rand is no racist. But he does understand the the right of people to
>> > > > > freely associate and to own and dispose of property as they see fit.
>> > > > > That's true freedom. �So if a black man wants to keep white people out
>> > > > > of his store will you stop him Zippy? Or do the rules apply to the
>> > > > > majority only?
>>
>> > Why do Looneytarians acknowledge the right of business owners to
>> > associate with whomever THEY want, but deny the right of everyone else
>> > to associate with whomever THEY want? I've never understood that.
>> > People who own businesses have more rights than the rest of us now?
>>
>> No Milty. In fact there are several REDNECK businesses here in the
>> Tampa Bay area that I DO NOT do businesses with. And that's MY RIGHT.
>> You starting to get the point?
>
>Read what you just wrote and ask yourself the same question.
>
>How come you have the right to choose which businesses you frequent
>and which ones you don't? Oh, wait! According to Rand Paul and the
>rest of the Looneytarians, you shouldn't have that right, if the
>business owners -- all of whom have to ask US permission to even open
>their doors -- decide you shouldn't have the right to do business with
>them because you're an inch too short, or because you have an
>overbite.
That is the dumbest interpretation of a libertarian I've read.
Rand Paul would say you have the right to be a moron.
ArmyOfDorkness
"Chi-Town Commie" <BHus...@CCCP.com> wrote in message
news:m0kdv5hjjb41uq72o...@4ax.com...
> "5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09" <de...@dead.com> wrote:
>
>>Rand Paul hedges on support for 1964 Civil Rights Act
>>
>>By David Edwards and John Byrne
>>Thursday, May 20th, 2010 -- 9:10 am
>>
>>[Zeppnote: I don't think Paul is a racist; I think he's a custardhead who
>>is incapable of believing that malicious business owners can subvert
>>peoples' rights.]
>
> Your problem is you don't have faith in the consumer.
>>
>>Update: Paul says it was 'poor decision' to do Maddow show, slams 'loony
>>left' for making civil rights fuss
>>
> Maddow was set to destroy Rand Paul because he got the endorsement of
> the Tea Party. You on the other hand do not understand the philosophy
> of a libertarian.
She destroyed him by asking him questions and letting him answer. What a
beast she is.
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
He's certainly exercising his right to be a moron.
Now he's saying that pressuring BP to clean up their mess is
"un-American".
Not Sure
> On May 20, 6:38 pm, Not Sure <fred1321...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 20, 6:31 pm, "5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Rand Paul hedges on support for 1964 Civil Rights Act
>
>
> Let's hear all about how the people who now won't vote for him should
> not be allowed to vote, k?
There are none. Any of the idiots and dipshits who would be influenced
by these hysterical lies wouldn't vote for a Republican with a gun to
their heads.
Milt
> "5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 21 May 2010 06:58:55 -0700, Phlip wrote:
>
> >> Rand Paul is just the victim here! Rachel shouldn't have been allowed to
> >> ask him questions that he might answer wrong!!
>
> >> Besides, she's a WOMAN!!
>
> >> BACK TO THE KITCHEN WITH HER!!!
>
> >Right wingers are such fucking crybabies...
>
> Why don't you just admit it? You are ignorant of libertarians.
>
Libertarians. EVERYONE should have the same liberties. Got it?
Milt
> >Rand Paul is just the victim here! Rachel shouldn't have been allowed
> >to ask him questions that he might answer wrong!!
>
> Rand Paul is not a victim. He is just guilty of trying to explain a
> libertarian concept to an absolute moron.
>
His premise is that a business that is open to the public should be
allowed to discriminate, because the government should be able to
"force" him to do business with people based on their race or
religion.
The problem is, though the company the businessman owns is private,
the business itself is PUBLIC. Its entry is on a public sidewalk, its
customers have access to the roads leading up to it, and the business
must apply for a license, at which time the businessman CHOOSES to
enter into an agreement with the people of that city -- ALLof the
people of that city, not just the subset of people he approves of --
to provide services or do business in that area.
In other words, clown, in order for you assholes to believe that
businessmen should have the ultimate right to not do business with
anyone he or she doesn't approve of, based on arbitrary factors such
as race or religion, you have to believe that no one else in the
equation has any rights at all. And you completely disregard the FACT
that the business owner CHOSE to open his business to the public,
CHOSE to apply for a permit, and CHOSE to AGREE to abide by all of the
laws on the books.
If a businessman doesn't want "those people" entering his business, he
can choose to open up on eBay, or not do business at all. But if he
agrees to open a PUBLIC business (again; company and money are
private; business itself is public), then he has to be open to
everyone who pays taxes to provide him with fire and police services
and protection from unfair competition, among many other things.
Oh, believe me; I understand (capital L) Libertarianism quite well,
because I am actually a (small l) libertarian. Everyone should be
allowed to do anything they want, as long as it doesn't harm anyone
else or infringe on another's rights. And you'll find that the vast
majority of liberals agree with me. But I also believe that liberty
brings responsibility, and (capital L) Libertarianism doesn't have a
stomach for that.
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
wrote:
>On May 21, 3:48�pm, Chi-Town Commie <BHuss...@CCCP.com> wrote:
ANYONE, regardless of race, color, or religion, has the right to
patronize a public market. Closing off access to those markets based
on race violates their rights.
Chi-Town Commie
>On May 21, 3:48�pm, Chi-Town Commie <BHuss...@CCCP.com> wrote:
>> �Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Rand Paul is just the victim here! Rachel shouldn't have been allowed
>> >to ask him questions that he might answer wrong!!
>>
>> Rand Paul is not a victim. He is just guilty of trying to explain a
>> libertarian concept to an absolute moron.
>>
>It's a (capital L) Libertarian concept, and it makes no sense.
The concept is not exclusive to the Libertarian Party. It is of
libertarian thought.
>
>His premise is that a business that is open to the public should be
>allowed to discriminate, because the government should be able to
>"force" him to do business with people based on their race or
>religion.
The business that chooses to discriminate may do so at their own
peril. The government shouldn't be in the position to force a private
business to do anything.
>
>The problem is, though the company the businessman owns is private,
>the business itself is PUBLIC. Its entry is on a public sidewalk, its
>customers have access to the roads leading up to it, and the business
>must apply for a license, at which time the businessman CHOOSES to
>enter into an agreement with the people of that city -- ALLof the
>people of that city, not just the subset of people he approves of --
>to provide services or do business in that area.
>
Government should control the roads and sidewalks since they were
built on public land, but once a person gors through the door, it is
private property. You could argue the roads and sidewalks can be
blocked off to a business, but that would violate the 14th Amendment.
>In other words, clown, in order for you assholes to believe that
>businessmen should have the ultimate right to not do business with
>anyone he or she doesn't approve of, based on arbitrary factors such
>as race or religion, you have to believe that no one else in the
>equation has any rights at all. And you completely disregard the FACT
>that the business owner CHOSE to open his business to the public,
>CHOSE to apply for a permit, and CHOSE to AGREE to abide by all of the
>laws on the books.
The government doesn't own the public. A libertarian believes in the
strict translation of the Constitution. The Constitution does not give
rights, it tells what rights government can't take away.
>
>If a businessman doesn't want "those people" entering his business, he
>can choose to open up on eBay, or not do business at all. But if he
>agrees to open a PUBLIC business (again; company and money are
>private; business itself is public), then he has to be open to
>everyone who pays taxes to provide him with fire and police services
>and protection from unfair competition, among many other things.
The market should decide how a business operates, not the government.
>
>Oh, believe me; I understand (capital L) Libertarianism quite well,
>because I am actually a (small l) libertarian. Everyone should be
>allowed to do anything they want, as long as it doesn't harm anyone
>else or infringe on another's rights. And you'll find that the vast
>majority of liberals agree with me. But I also believe that liberty
>brings responsibility, and (capital L) Libertarianism doesn't have a
>stomach for that.
Liberalism and libertarianism are not synonymous. Libertarians put
responsibility on the individual. If government is out of the
equation, the onus is on the individual himself.
Chi-Town Commie
You certainly have exceeded your quota.
Chi-Town Commie
You contradict yourself when you said EVERYONE that includes business
owners. They don't have liberty if the government tells him how he
should operate his business.
Liberals are going nuts over the Civil Rights Act. If your a
libertarian you'd know the Civil Rights Act was not Constitutional. It
was something that should have been decided by the individual states.
From what I've read, Paul launched his Senate candidacy on Maddow's
show. She probably had him on her show last year because a libertarian
believes in decriminalizing drugs, pro-abortion and has no qualms with
deviants. The Tea Party endorsed Paul because he is for a limited
government, a decentralized government and low taxes. Having the Tea
Party endorsement put her strap-on in a bunch. Having a cordial
relationship with Paul she decided to set him up because she saw her
chance to set him up and discredit the Tea Party.
Chi-Town Commie
No one has the right to enter private property unless invited.
Wexford
> On May 20, 9:35 pm, Billary <billaryclinton2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > wrote:
>
> > I wonder if her vibrating chair made her more venomous than usual?
> > Rand is no racist. But he does understand the the right of people to
> > freely associate and to own and dispose of property as they see fit.
> > That's true freedom. So if a black man wants to keep white people out
> > of his store will you stop him Zippy? Or do the rules apply to the
> > majority only?
>
> And billary shows us his racist ass.
>
> It's going to be a real problem for the repugs, first you have gutless
> scum like billary then you elect racists like Paul.
>
> Face it, he made a racist remark. He did it knowing he was on the
> air. But he made his racist remakes anyway because he is a racist.
>
> African-Americans were enslaved for over 350 years, then there was a
> hundred years of segregation. Of course Paul doesn't acknowledge
> that. He just hates black people.
Paul is trying to play it both ways. "I'm for freedom," he says, "the
freedom to operate a business as you choose.""But I'm not a racist,
although I know damn well that allowing segregation might encourage
it, and I know damn well that this appeals to the darkest sentmients
harbored in hearts and minds of the wingnuts who support me." He wants
to roll back civil rights laws under the cover of freedom, when he
knows damn well that he's catering to every racist in the crowd. He's
an asshole, anyway. Kentucky is a largely agricultural state. When it
dawns on its citizens that Paul is against farm subsidies, educational
subsidies, and social security, they'll ride him out on a rail.
Wexford
wrote:
> On Thu, 20 May 2010 20:36:40 -0500, ArmyOfDorkness wrote:
> >news:l6idnWlBrcPof2jW...@posted.carinet...
> >> Rand Paul hedges on support for 1964 Civil Rights Act
>
> >> Thursday, May 20th, 2010 -- 9:10 am
>
> >> [Zeppnote: I don't think Paul is a racist; I think he's a custardhead
> >> who is incapable of believing that malicious business owners can
> >> subvert peoples' rights.]
>
> >> 'loony left' for making civil rights fuss
>
> >> any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964...we are sure to
> >> hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign,' Paul campaign
> >> statement says
>
> > platforms?
>
> Teabaggers are far too disorganized to have any platforms, but as you can
> see right here on Usenet, some of them would be delighted to repeal the
> CRA.
If they're actually aware of its existence.
Wexford
> Dänk 4425 <dank...@rocketmail.com> wrote in news:1a62d4ed-b6b2-4947-8053-
> 81d370fe5...@a16g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On May 20, 7:31 pm, "5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
> > reposted:
> >> Rand Paul hedges on support for 1964 Civil Rights Act
>
> >> Rand Paul says it was 'poor decision' to do Maddow show, slams 'loony
> >> left' for making civil rights fuss
>
> > Maddow to ask Rand Paul his opinion on ancient history. Unless, of
> > course, she is trying to set him up, to trick him into giving a poorly-
> > worded response that Maddow and other leftists will twist to claim
> > Paul is a card-carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan.
>
> Conservatives never blame their answers, they
> always blame the questions that prompted them.
>
> If Palin cannot tells us what magazines or
> newspapers she reads, well, it was an unfair
> question to begin with. If Bush claims God told
> him to run for president, well, it is the fault
> of the reporter for asking him for his motivation.
>
> Some things never change..................
They are the most pathetic collection of whiny bastards, aren't they?
You ever notice how much they cry about persecution? Everyone is
always on their case about something. One minute they're mouthing
slurs like "bed-wetting Liberals," the next they're sitting in the
corner pouting because some Liberal beat them up and called them
names. I've called them "adolescent" in the past, but I have to
apologize for that. They're really just a clutch of overgrown bratty
children.
Wex
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
Check this latest out from the Rand Paul saga:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/99245-rand-paul-cancels-
meet-the-press-appearance
[I think we can forget about Rand Paul after this. Teabagger hits hot
water, Teabagger sinks. Such is the destiny of Teabaggers.]
Rand Paul cancels spot on 'Meet the Press'
By Jordan Fabian - 05/21/10 04:54 PM ET
Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul (R) canceled his upcoming appearance
on NBC's "Meet the Press," according to multiple reports.
The cancellation comes two days after Paul found himself in hot water
after he questioned the legitimacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which
ended sanctioned racial discrimination.
Paul is only the third guest to cancel his appearance in the 62-year
history of the show. The other two are Nation of Islam leader Louis
Farrakhan in 1996 and Saudi Prince Bandar in 2003.
Paul's campaign had scheduled the appearance on Wednesday, but informed
NBC that it wanted to back out Friday, according to "Meet the Press"
producer Betsy Fischer.
Cross-posted to Ballot Box.
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
We -are- talking about people who think rights should be subject to
majority vote (but not taxes!) and that Jesus wrote the constitution.
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
Teabag hits water.
Teabag sinks quickly.
This is the way of teabags.
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
> "5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09" <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 21 May 2010 13:17:54 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt....@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On May 21, 3:48 pm, Chi-Town Commie <BHuss...@CCCP.com> wrote:
>>>> "5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Fri, 21 May 2010 06:58:55 -0700, Phlip wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> Rand Paul is just the victim here! Rachel shouldn't have been
>>>> >> allowed to ask him questions that he might answer wrong!!
>>>>
>>>> >> Besides, she's a WOMAN!!
>>>>
>>>> >> BACK TO THE KITCHEN WITH HER!!!
>>>>
>>>> >Right wingers are such fucking crybabies...
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you just admit it? You are ignorant of libertarians.
>>>>
>>>No, we're not. We ARE libertarians. What we are NOT is (capital L)
>>>Libertarians. EVERYONE should have the same liberties. Got it?
>>
>>ANYONE, regardless of race, color, or religion, has the right to
>>patronize a public market. Closing off access to those markets based on
>>race violates their rights.
>
> No one has the right to enter private property unless invited.
The act of opening one's doors to conduct public business is an
invitation.
ArmyOfDorkness
"Mr.B1ack" <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:g5f9v51tse2m4h8a3...@4ax.com...
> "ArmyOfDorkness" <DorkAs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Mr.B1ack" <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
>>news:ggs6v5l8uk58ehmj2...@4ax.com...
>>> Hardly matters ..... he's IN. She isn't.
>>>
>>> Tell the bitch to suck his dick.
>>>
>>
>>He's in what? You don't think he's going to win do you?
>
> Yea ... he is.
You poor bastard
Mitchell Holman
news:035f9ddc-25e8-4c61...@r9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com:
> On May 20, 10:33�pm, Mitchell Holman <nom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> D�nk 4425 <dank...@rocketmail.com> wrote in
Modern Conseravative: Someone who can take time
out from whining about the liberal media and secular
education and the "war on Christmas" and activist
judges and how no one respects their "values" to claim
that liberals are obsessed with victimhood.
Mitchell Holman
news:e6ydna1F_OTB9mrW...@posted.carinet:
> s- meet-the-press-appearance
>
> [I think we can forget about Rand Paul after this. Teabagger hits hot
> water, Teabagger sinks. Such is the destiny of Teabaggers.]
>
> Rand Paul cancels spot on 'Meet the Press'
> By Jordan Fabian - 05/21/10 04:54 PM ET
>
> Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul (R) canceled his upcoming
> appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," according to multiple reports.
>
> The cancellation comes two days after Paul found himself in hot water
> after he questioned the legitimacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
> which ended sanctioned racial discrimination.
>
>
> Paul is only the third guest to cancel his appearance in the 62-year
> history of the show. The other two are Nation of Islam leader Louis
> Farrakhan in 1996 and Saudi Prince Bandar in 2003.
>
> Paul's campaign had scheduled the appearance on Wednesday, but
> informed NBC that it wanted to back out Friday, according to "Meet the
> Press" producer Betsy Fischer.
>
Next week Paul will be complaining that the press
isn't covering him enough, just watch and see.
Chi-Town Commie
You don't get it?
Rand Paul did say in his interview with Maddow he is against racial
discrimination and segregation especially institutionalized
discrimination. He also professes the right of any individual or
private entity to discriminate. Just like freedom of speech.
Government shouldn't be able to regulate thought.
Chi-Town Commie
You live a sheltered life, don't you? You don't why the Tea Party
movement threw its endorsement of Rand Paul. Rand Paul, like his
father, is a Constitutionalist libertarian Republican.
Confusing, eh?
Chi-Town Commie
>On Fri, 21 May 2010 20:41:25 -0700, Chi-Town Commie wrote:
>
>> "5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09" <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 21 May 2010 13:17:54 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt....@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On May 21, 3:48�pm, Chi-Town Commie <BHuss...@CCCP.com> wrote:
>>>>> �"5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >On Fri, 21 May 2010 06:58:55 -0700, Phlip wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >> Rand Paul is just the victim here! Rachel shouldn't have been
>>>>> >> allowed to ask him questions that he might answer wrong!!
>>>>>
>>>>> >> Besides, she's a WOMAN!!
>>>>>
>>>>> >> BACK TO THE KITCHEN WITH HER!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> >Right wingers are such fucking crybabies...
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't you just admit it? You are ignorant of libertarians.
>>>>>
>>>>No, we're not. We ARE libertarians. What we are NOT is (capital L)
>>>>Libertarians. EVERYONE should have the same liberties. Got it?
>>>
>>>ANYONE, regardless of race, color, or religion, has the right to
>>>patronize a public market. Closing off access to those markets based on
>>>race violates their rights.
>>
>> No one has the right to enter private property unless invited.
>
>The act of opening one's doors to conduct public business is an
>invitation.
A welfare office conducts public business.
A private enterprise has it target demographics, government does not
and should not design a business's business plan.
Chi-Town Commie
Didn't I tell you used your quota of stupid statements?
Chi-Town Commie
>On Thu, 20 May 2010 20:36:40 -0500, ArmyOfDorkness wrote:
>
>> "5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09" <de...@dead.com> wrote in message
>> news:l6idnWlBrcPof2jW...@posted.carinet...
>>> Rand Paul hedges on support for 1964 Civil Rights Act
>>>
>>> By David Edwards and John Byrne
>>> Thursday, May 20th, 2010 -- 9:10 am
>>>
>>> [Zeppnote: I don't think Paul is a racist; I think he's a custardhead
>>> who is incapable of believing that malicious business owners can
>>> subvert peoples' rights.]
>>>
>>> Update: Paul says it was 'poor decision' to do Maddow show, slams
>>> 'loony left' for making civil rights fuss
>>>
>>> 2nd update on bottom: 'I unequivocally state that I will not support
>>> any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964...we are sure to
>>> hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign,' Paul campaign
>>> statement says
>>
>> Is anyone suggesting repealing it? Is that one of the other teabagger
>> platforms?
>
>Teabaggers are far too disorganized to have any platforms, but as you can
>see right here on Usenet, some of them would be delighted to repeal the
>CRA.
That's a flat out lie. Did they teach that in your government school?
The Civil Rights Act nor the repeal of has never been discussed by
the Tea Party movement. The Civil Rights Act has been disused in
libertarian circles.
Asked by Maddow if a private business had the right to refuse to
serve black people, Paul replied, �Yes.�
�I�m not in favor of any discrimination of any form,� Mr. Paul
continued. �I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for
race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate
based on race. But I think what�s important about this debate is not
written into any specific �gotcha� on this, but asking the question:
what about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we
find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking?�
�I don�t want to be associated with those people,� he said, �but I
also don�t want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we
tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that�s one of the
things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and
uncivilized, but that doesn�t mean we approve of it.�
The ironic thing is Liberals can find a common ground with
libertarians but they cannot find a common ground with conservatives
and conservatives can find a common ground with libertarians. Rand
Paul ran as a Conservative Republican.
Phlip
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> ANYONE, regardless of race, color, or religion, has the right to
> patronize a public market. Closing off access to those markets based
> on race violates their rights.
Don't the Free Market zealots point out that competition can only
improve the standard of living if the playing field is level?
Bert Hyman
news:0bcdd39b-3165-4807...@z15g2000prh.googlegroups.com
Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Don't the Free Market zealots point out that competition can only
> improve the standard of living if the playing field is level?
The "level playing field" metaphor is only meaningful in the context of
government actions that favor one individual or group at the expense of
another.
In a free market, the "players" are free to use any legal means to
obtain advantage over their competitor. Here, "legal" would mean acting
without the use of force or fraud.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
...which is a bit like saying you're against slavery, abhor it, but feel
that businesses should have the right to own people.
Which, now that I think about it, is the basic Libertarian platform.
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
Well, you're a bit of a challenge. How do I dumb something down far
enough that you can understand it?
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
> "5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09" <de...@dead.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 21 May 2010 20:41:25 -0700, Chi-Town Commie wrote:
>>
>>> "5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09" <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 21 May 2010 13:17:54 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt....@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On May 21, 3:48 pm, Chi-Town Commie <BHuss...@CCCP.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >On Fri, 21 May 2010 06:58:55 -0700, Phlip wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> Rand Paul is just the victim here! Rachel shouldn't have been
>>>>>> >> allowed to ask him questions that he might answer wrong!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> Besides, she's a WOMAN!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> BACK TO THE KITCHEN WITH HER!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >Right wingers are such fucking crybabies...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why don't you just admit it? You are ignorant of libertarians.
>>>>>>
>>>>>No, we're not. We ARE libertarians. What we are NOT is (capital L)
>>>>>Libertarians. EVERYONE should have the same liberties. Got it?
>>>>
>>>>ANYONE, regardless of race, color, or religion, has the right to
>>>>patronize a public market. Closing off access to those markets based
>>>>on race violates their rights.
>>>
>>> No one has the right to enter private property unless invited.
>>
>>The act of opening one's doors to conduct public business is an
>>invitation.
>
> A welfare office conducts public business.
It deals with the public. Oh, and it's not allowed to discriminate. Nor
is it a business.
Other than that, you got one part right: it's in an office.
>
> A private enterprise has it target demographics, government does not and
> should not design a business's business plan.
Thinking is a bit of a burden for you, isn't it?
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
So you're claiming the Teabaggers are libertarians? Oh, Kaye. Fine.
Now: what is the platform of the Teabag Party?
>
> Asked by Maddow if a private business had the right to refuse to serve
> black people, Paul replied, “Yes.”
And they don't. They do business on public sufferance, and may not
exclude segments of that public arbitrarily.
>
> “I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form,” Mr. Paul
> continued. “I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for
> race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate
> based on race. But I think what’s important about this debate is not
> written into any specific ‘gotcha’ on this, but asking the question:
> what about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find
> abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking?”
>
Yeah. He's not a racist. He's just a custardhead. We get that. He's
not a bigot; he's a fool.
> “I don’t want to be associated with those people,” he said, “but I
also
> don’t want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we
> tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the
> things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and
> uncivilized, but that doesn’t mean we approve of it.”
>
> The ironic thing is Liberals can find a common ground with libertarians
> but they cannot find a common ground with conservatives and
> conservatives can find a common ground with libertarians. Rand Paul ran
> as a Conservative Republican.
>
>
Yeah, and you may have noticed that not many minorities support those sex-
crazed old creeps.
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
> Teabag hits water.
>>Teabag sinks quickly.
>>This is the way of teabags.
>>
> You live a sheltered life, don't you? You don't why the Tea Party
> movement threw its endorsement of Rand Paul. Rand Paul, like his father,
> is a Constitutionalist libertarian Republican.
>
> Confusing, eh?
Not at all. Daddy combines good ideas with utter lunacy, too.