Dr. Sebi Jr.
Trust Me
Y'all just want to keep living under maritime law, huh? Paul knows we're sovereign citizens and freemen on the land like Cliven Bundy.
Can Rand Paul save the Republican Party?
- Thread starter theworldismine13
- Start date
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Have you accepted Rand Paul as your personal savior?
Dr. Sebi Jr.
Trust Me
Fard Muhammad Malachi York Nasheed Hotep Polite is my personal savior, AGENT.
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
You'll be sorry when the IRS audit you, MOOR!
theworldismine13
God Emperor of SOHH
why is that retarded, do you not watch election results? there were a bunch of states that were won or lost by a few hundred thousand votes
Yeah bruh. Rand Paul and his supporters are a pretty fascinating study. The civil rights is movement is a moral no brainer. How did reviewing its "merits" even become a conversation? The sins of the father shouldnt be visited upon the son, but when a father believes that a certain category of humans are diseased mongrels, and his son also believes that said group doesnt deserve access to public accommodation establishments then its time to start asking some questions.
Just unpack his opinion on civil rights: black people were beaten unmercifully, and killed in a fight to not live under tyranny and terrorism --- and this fukk cant appreciate that? He knows damn well that individual freedom is not an absolute, and that in a rational society there has to be an idea of a morally based greater good. Does he really think that restaurants having signs that say "no nikkers allowed" is a bastion of freedom???? No his idea goes way beyond simply privileging "private business ownership"
He's just cynically using our social and legislative blind spots with respect to drug laws, and the prison industrial complex to try and reinvent himself. He doesnt like black people ---- he almost has to clench his teeth when talking about the rights of Ferguson protesters and Micheal Brown.
I think his black supporters around here are just pissed they werent born rich white boys with the ability to abuse others. Their skin is an inconvenience to their aims.
Robert Siegel
You've said that business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, and that the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA, was an overreach by the federal government. Would you say the same by extension of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
Rand Paul
What I've always said is that I'm opposed to institutional racism, and I would've, had I've been alive at the time, I think, had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism.
Robert Siegel
But are you saying that had you been around at the time, you would have hoped that you would have marched with Martin Luther King but voted with Barry Goldwater against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
Rand Paul
Well, actually, I think it's confusing on a lot of cases with what actually was in the civil rights case because, see, a lot of the things that actually were in the bill, I'm in favor of. I'm in favor of everything with regards to ending institutional racism. So I think there's a lot to be desired in the civil rights. And to tell you the truth, I haven't really read all through it because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn't been a real pressing issue in the campaign, on whether we're going to vote for the Civil Rights Act.
Rachel Maddow
Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?
Rand Paul
I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form; 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, 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. I think the problem with this debate is by getting muddled down into it, the implication is somehow that I would approve of any racism or discrimination, and I don't in any form or fashion.
PAUL
I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.
INTERVIEWER
But?
PAUL
You had to ask me the "but." I don't like the idea of telling private business owners — I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant — but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.
INTERVIEWER
But under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworth’s?
PAUL
I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part — and this is the hard part about believing in freedom — is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example — you have to, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things and uh, we're here at the bastion of newspaperdom, I'm sure you believe in the First Amendment so you understand that people can say bad things.It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior, but if we're civilized people, we publicly criticize that, and don't belong to those groups, or don't associate with those people.
From this you guys have gotten he want ni**ers to be slaves?
Wow...
You've said that business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, and that the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA, was an overreach by the federal government. Would you say the same by extension of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
Rand Paul
What I've always said is that I'm opposed to institutional racism, and I would've, had I've been alive at the time, I think, had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism.
Robert Siegel
But are you saying that had you been around at the time, you would have hoped that you would have marched with Martin Luther King but voted with Barry Goldwater against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
Rand Paul
Well, actually, I think it's confusing on a lot of cases with what actually was in the civil rights case because, see, a lot of the things that actually were in the bill, I'm in favor of. I'm in favor of everything with regards to ending institutional racism. So I think there's a lot to be desired in the civil rights. And to tell you the truth, I haven't really read all through it because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn't been a real pressing issue in the campaign, on whether we're going to vote for the Civil Rights Act.
Rachel Maddow
Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?
Rand Paul
I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form; 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, 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. I think the problem with this debate is by getting muddled down into it, the implication is somehow that I would approve of any racism or discrimination, and I don't in any form or fashion.
- I do defend and believe that the government should not be involved with institutional racism or discrimination or segregation in schools, busing, all those things. But had I been there, there would have been some discussion over one of the titles of the civil rights. And I think that's a valid point, and still a valid discussion, because the thing is, is if we want to harbor in on private businesses and their policies, then you have to have the discussion about: do you want to abridge the First Amendment as well. Do you want to say that because people say abhorrent things — you know, we still have this. We're having all this debate over hate speech and this and that. Can you have a newspaper and say abhorrent things? Can you march in a parade and believe in abhorrent things, you know?
PAUL
I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.
INTERVIEWER
But?
PAUL
You had to ask me the "but." I don't like the idea of telling private business owners — I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant — but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.
INTERVIEWER
But under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworth’s?
PAUL
I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part — and this is the hard part about believing in freedom — is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example — you have to, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things and uh, we're here at the bastion of newspaperdom, I'm sure you believe in the First Amendment so you understand that people can say bad things.It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior, but if we're civilized people, we publicly criticize that, and don't belong to those groups, or don't associate with those people.
From this you guys have gotten he want ni**ers to be slaves?
Wow...
Broke Wave
The GOAT
@DEAD7 he said racism is bad business so he wouldn't do it... What about places in which it would be good business? Black people could be excluded from participating in whole swaths of the economy as they were 50 years ago and perhaps more so. He is either a dishonest racist or juvenile idealist. Both are intolerable in 2014.
Personally I think letting integration occur naturally over however much time it took, would have been better than what we have now in the wake of forced integration.
...but that's not the point, how is his position inconsistent with opposition to the state? and where is the jump to he wants to hang blacks being made?
You can have the luxury of saying this in 2014. You would have been singing a different tune in the 50s and 60s when you couldn't even attend a state university that your tax dollars pay for.
It's like you've joined a cult.
Broke Wave
The GOAT
Natural integration in the South? If anything, things had gotten worse from reconstruction where there were black congressmen. Can you name a single voluntary improvement from the hundred years following emancipation in the South with regards to race relations? Are you making the assertion now that race relations improved noticably for a hundred years? That my friend is wholly untrue but I'll accept any evidence that supports this linear view of history.
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
Libertarianism does have a lot of cultish qualities to it--which is ironic because it holds individualism in such high regard.
Notice how the homie @DEAD7 and other internet libertarians use the same pre-packaged responses, often using the same verbiage, that they plug into various issues and arguments. It's like there's some libertarian matrix database they're all plugged into that spits out shyt like "free market, individual rights, non-aggression."
Like you said, if dude was trying to go to college in the 60's, he'd feel different.
The world is complex and strange, and often makes no sense. It's okay to contradict your ideals sometimes.
Cant argue, things definately would have got worse before they got better, but I still hold that things would better had we let it occurred naturally...
and this excludes public facilities/goods like hospitals and schools. A point clearly made over and over again by Paul...
Last edited:
and you all dodged the question. How are his comments inconsistent with opposition to the state, and how do they translate into "I hate black people"?
Broke Wave
The GOAT
Because opposition to the state in the last 50 years is usually aasociateda with hating black people, who are seen as (erroneously) the main benefactors of the modern state.