Paul's argument is conservative, not libertarian though we do see many conservative libertarians make his argument. While the argument preceded Barry Goldwater's seminal book, "Conscience of a Conservative", it was Sen. Goldwater and his book that made it most popular within the conservative movement in the post-Civil Rights era. A rational libertarian can easily discern that the right of consumers to gain equal access to goods and services shouldn't be impeded by a business owner's bigotry regarding race or sexual identification.

That is not true we have freedom of association. If I don't want to trade with some one I am in every right to refuse. You can't even prove that the motivation is racist it is not enforceable and only distracts from real issues such as the economy. Rand said he is against institutional racism and will fight privately against any other type of racism. He simply refuses to abridge individual rights.

I hope she shows journalistic integrity and asks his opponent how he feels about the rights of private business owners.

Will she ask Conway if a private business owner has the right to refuse people who are carrying guns in a bar?

Surely she will be fair and balanced in that regard, and hold strong to her stance that private business must conform to public restrictions, such as allowing people to carry weapons.

While I do encourage the RMS to be balanced and bring on Paul's general election opponent, the questions you suggest are, in Rand's words "a red herring". As many other comments on this website have pointed out, there is a fundamental difference between not allowing someone into a business because they are holding a weapon and not allowing them in because they have non-white skin. Both debates can and should happen, but they are not two sides of the same coin. One speaks to a right of choice: do we as Americans have the choice to carry firearms anywhere we want; do business owners have the choice to refuse to allow said weapons inside their premises. The Civil Rights issue is not the same, as only one half of the debate is about choice, as minorities do not have the choice to change.

Looks like the Birchers are here.

Interstate Commerce Clause, Federal Supremacy Clause, Necessary and Proper Clause, Federalist 44.

This Neo-Libertarianism is a debatable point, and Maddow did not bring it up first, the Louisville Courier Journal did in their interview with Rand Paul as he sought THEIR endorsement.

Property rights are hardly absolute. In fact they removed direct mention of them in the Preamble of the Constitution that Birchers do not agree with at all.

Birchers are just todays Anti-Federalists. They do not believe in law. Natural Law advocates like Scalia and Thomas have this disease too. It's a mental illness.

These issues were all settled law. The fact that the "Libertarians" do not accept settled law when Senators must advise and give consent to Judicial Appointments just shows their ignorance of process. Disgusting racists, ignorant of what America is, and what it means to be a Nation of Laws.

William F. Buckley ran these people off decades ago. Republicans, where is your Buckley today?

Look this is really very simple. Rand did not say he would NOT vote for the act today. He is saying he would have had a debate over government's right to dictate what private property owners can and cannot do.

Rand beleives the government should be very careful about telling private property owners what they can do on their property, regarldess of how deplorable it may be to society at large even if he himself disagrees with the behavior. That being, said he still NEVER SAID he would NOT vote for it and he certainly did not say he would be in favor of REPEALING it.

The establishment on both sides just does not like the idea of someone who doesn't bow to political correctness. Rand is obviously not a racist, nor is he discriminatory. Trying to connect the dots on his belief in limited government to him being a racist is disingenuous at best, and out right dishonest at worse.

If the debate is about the civil Rights act, it is IRRELEVANT because nothing is going to change this.

If the debate is about CHARACTER, then CLEARLY Rand is not a racist or a bigot.

IF the debate is about how far the government can and should go on regulating private property owners then that is a debate worth having.

It is too bad, we have someone up and coming who:

Believes in Term Limits

Believes in REALLY reducing the power of Special Interest

Believes in limiting the power of banks to rob from Americans

Believes that Congress should live under the SAME LAWS and RULES as the people

Won't play politics by saying one thing for votes and changing his mind for more votes later

We finally get close to getting someone like this in office, and all the ESTABLISHMENT on both sides want is to destroy him by TWISTING a debate into something UGLY.

How VERY typical. I don't think the voters in KY will fall for it. I hope they do not.

Rogers, I don't think Paul's a racist, but Paul does believe that the government has no right passing a law that prohibits the owner of a restaurant from refusing to serve blacks or people who look like Mexicans. I'd be interested in Paul's opinion on whether he thinks the government has a right to prevent my neighbor from starting a pig farm. Paul's blind adherence to his personal ideology over established law and notions of fairness and social justice is disturbing. The Tea party is looking more and more similar to religious fundamentalists... blind believers of orthodoxy, a shared disdain for those with other views, a smug self satisfaction that their belief system provides all the answers, and a gross overestimation of their own importance.

The America I believe in does not allow businesses to discriminate based on race, gender or sexual orientation. Rand Paul does not believe in protecting those rights. Rand Paul is not my kind of guy. If you support Rand Paul you are not my kind of American.

Good points, Mr Rogers. There is a trend towards people being labled as racists simply because they don't agree with The President or because they support immigration enforcement. The real travesty will come when the over use of the racist accusation gets so watered down that no one will care anymore in REAL cases of racism.

Jess

Allowing racial discrimination under the veil of "free speech" IS racism.

Negative. "Free speech" is just that...it's free. If you limit it...then it is "Limited Speech" Dumb people have every right to say what's on thier mind, too. I'm not defending racists, I'm defending thier right to say what they want.

FIRE!!!!!!!!

Like that?

Exactly like that.

BTW....before anyone starts jumping on ME for being a "racist"...

I am white...high income earner...member of the Tea Party...anti-repub & anti-dem...and I'm in an interracial marriage. So good luck with the "racist" accusations...

Rogers, I don't think Paul's a racist, but Paul does believe that the government has no right passing a law that prohibits the owner of a restaurant from refusing to serve blacks or people who look like Mexicans.

I think that is another mis-characterization. Paul is not singling out civil rights. That is just the "getcha" angle being played. Paul is saying that the government should be careful in regulating what private business owners can and cannot do outside of stealing, killing, and defrauding REGARDLESS of the issue. It is a classic libertarian point of view, and to some extent a traditional conservative/republican point of view.

Now taking that and saying he is against women/minorities/disabled people is just ridiculous.

Now let's flip this, What if a private business wanted to operate a restaurant where Christians were NOT welcome and COULD not be served. I think Rand would be on the SAME side of deploring such a concept, but wanting to allow the business owner to "dig his own grave".

Allowing racial discrimination under the veil of "free speech" IS racism.

Illogical and naive. Allowing Christians to worship God doesn't make you a Christian.

Also your use of the word "VIEL" implies he is indeed a racist using a "false" argument to defend racism. This is just plan INCORRECT. Rand simply believes we should allow people to be stupid, ignorant, and dumb as a part of freedom, even when we don't like it.

Paul himself might not be a "racist".

However, he is basically condoning racism, which is just as bad if not worse. But then again he is representing the baggers, who are complicit with racism in their own ranks.

@Michael Heath

Paul's argument is conservative, not libertarian though we do see many conservative libertarians make his argument.

Wrong, saying the government cannot legislate private thought or conduct is straight out of libertarian ideology. You might need to get educated on current theory. Goldwater was 40 years ago and has little or nothing to do with conservative thought today. Some people can't tell the difference between history and current time, shees.....

Govt' already tells storeowners what they can or can't do on their property. They can't have, take, or sell drugs on private property. Rand, as an anti-choicer, wants to do away with Roe v. Wade; presumably he'd have no problem telling a woman she can't give herself an abortion on private property. How about health laws? Is he okay with the idea of getting gov't out of the business of ensuring public safety as far as food goes, or is he okay with letting employees with festering wounds and a habit of not washing their hands after defecating prepare his food?

As far as I see it, if a business owner wants a LICENSE to do business, he needs to open his business up to access from all TAXPAYING CITIZENS.

It's rather amusing, isn't it? The Teabaggers' voting for Rand Paul as anti-politician??? Ha Ha hahaahahah. His interview with Maddow and his lack of specific answers to questions prove that HE is one of the best WAFFLERS EVER.

Way to GO, Rand, you'll fit RIGHT IN with the best of the political WAFFLERS!

(Bottom line is: Rand Paul BELIEVES in a business owner's right to be prejudiced. He just couldn't say it in so many words. Nevertheless, we know where YOU stand, Rand. Pointy white hoods are okay in your book.)

The issue isn't whether he is or isn't racist. It goes to whether a future law which may be against his full set of beliefs of the Federal Government's power may need his vote for passage.

Nevertheless, we know where YOU stand, Rand. Pointy white hoods are okay in your book.)

Would you be in favor of rounding up KKK and putting them in prison on the basis of their beliefs alone?

Paul sees it as a 1st amendment issue. While many, even libertarians in some cases, may disagree with it being a 1st amendment issue, he is clearly not a racist nor would he associate with known racists.

Rand, as an anti-choicer, wants to do away with Roe v. Wade; presumably he'd have no problem telling a woman she can't give herself an abortion on private property.

Even libertarians disagree on abortion. It boils down to this:

If you BELIEVE a fetus is a CHILD BEFORE birth, then you are probably pro-life because, by that definition, you shouldn't have the CHOICE to KILL people legally. By defending the "child" you are defending the very CORE of freedom and liberty, life.

If you BELIEVE the fetus is "just another organ" or just a "piece" of the mother, then you are probably pro-choice because the government shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot do with their own body.

The end result is based on your "VIEW" of the fetus. To say that one is "pro life" but against freedom, is to oversimplify the issue at hand, and that is, what is the "life" status of the fetus.

It goes to whether a future law which may be against his full set of beliefs of the Federal Government's power may need his vote for passage.

Or to flip the coin, it may come down to a vote where the federal government was going to restrict freedoms and we need his non-vote to stop it. (not talking about civil rights here)

Paul sees it as a 1st amendment issue. While many, even libertarians in some cases, may disagree with it being a 1st amendment issue, he is clearly not a racist nor would he associate with known racists.

You know what? I have to go with you on this one. That does seem to be what he said and it's not entirely crazy (although I think it's not First Amendment per se). I don't like it and I don't like what I believe would be the results of repealing Title II of the Civil Rights Act but I think what you say here is accurate.

My answer would be that maybe, when women, gays, people of color and those who have disabilities are on equal economic footing with white men, we can talk some more. Right now, white men are still benefiting from centuries of inequality from which they are way too far ahead of the game.

I don't understand these responses. You CAN'T equate carrying firearms into a business with discriminating against people because of color or sexual orientation. Bringing a gun into a bar THREATENS public safety. Are you going to tell me walking into a bar while black threatens public safety? Also, it is a choice - a customer can bring a gun in a public place or not. You can't leave your color at the door.

And about just choosing to not to patronize a business that practices discrimination. How about if you don't know, and in the middle of your meal the owner tells you he doesn't like your type and demands you to leave just because your sitting too close to your same-sex partner? Or if the only gas station on the highway late at night refuses to sell you gas. Or you're forced to sleep in your car because a hotel operator won't rent you a room to you and your girlfriend because you have an accent?

Rand Paul's statement confirms that the Tea party is racist and bigotted (some blatantly, some with Rand Paul's politically correct racist and bigotted spin).

My answer would be that maybe, when women, gays, people of color and those who have disabilities are on equal economic footing with white men, we can talk some more. Right now, white men are still benefiting from centuries of inequality from which they are way too far ahead of the game.

Well see this is where it has been blown out of proportion.

Rand DID NOT SAY he would REPEAL the act.

Rand DID NOT SAY he would have VOTED NO for the act.

Rand Paul's statement confirms that the Tea party is racist and bigotted (some blatantly, some with Rand Paul's politically correct racist and bigotted spin).

Which statment is that you are referring to? Do tell....

Now let's flip this, What if a private business wanted to operate a restaurant where Christians were NOT welcome and COULD not be served. I think Rand would be on the SAME side of deploring such a concept, but wanting to allow the business owner to "dig his own grave".

Mr Rogers

In a perfect world what you say and claim Mr Paul to stand for, when in reality only Mr Paul knows what he stands for, would be ideal. But as we have seen throughout history that just isn't the case.

The only reason the the Civil Rights Act was brought about was because of people who discriminated against non-whites. Many people in this country would love for that law to disappear so that they could go back to the ways of the past and discriminate once again legally. We as a nation are only 50 years or so removed from this horrible practice and many would be happy to patronize a business that discriminates to this very day. So saying that removing this law and allowing owners to decide who they wish to serve based on skin color or sexual identity would be alive and well in no time where racists can feel as though they have "taken their country back" as they will put it.........

The fact that Mr Paul doesn't say that is his reason doesn't matter as that would be the end result wouldn't it?

The establishment on both sides just does not like the idea of someone who doesn't bow to political correctness. Rand is obviously not a racist, nor is he discriminatory. Trying to connect the dots on his belief in limited government to him being a racist is disingenuous at best, and out right dishonest at worse.

Mr. Rogers.....

If you want to be a POLITICIAN as Dr. Rand has become (and asked to be), you must be POLITICALLY correct at all times. I have much respect for this father as I frankly think he is a brilliant and pratical person. But he is also a very good POLITICIAN! If Dr. Rand cannot "bow" to POLITICAL correctness (more like honor and believe in the laws of the country), than he certainly should not be a POLITICIAN.

I am sorry....his non-answer speaks for itself. You cannot have one without the other. To say or imply a private business owner should not have follow human rights laws is like saying they can rape and murder as long as it is on their own private business property! Yes, that is ridiculous, as is implying they have the right to discriminate just because they are private business owners!

If this is this guys frame of mind, he simply picked the wrong occupation. He needs to remain a private business owner (a doctor) so he can continue with his backward thinking. NO, he cannot be an elected official collecting a salary based on my tax money with this type of "dark age" train of thought!

This guy is scary!!

Signed,

A very concerned tax paying citizen of the United States of America!

In a perfect world what you say and claim Mr Paul to stand for, when in reality only Mr Paul knows what he stands for, would be ideal. But as we have seen throughout history that just isn't the case.

Well you see, I doubt you know very much about the libertarian view points. This is a fairly standard libertarian view point and they generally apply to all sides of the same issue.

The idea is that the government needs to be careful trying to regulate ideas and actions that are not socially acceptable, or fair, when the don't particularly harm other people (in the case of theft murder, rape ect.)

@ Mr. Rogers- You "BLEW IT OUT OF PROPORTION" all by yourself. I didn't say anything about Paul saying he would repeal the act. I said "repealing Title II of the Act" which is the section of the Act that prohibits discrimination in public accommodations--the section he said he thought was problematic--and, reasonably would therefore be interested in repealing. Otherwise, why didn't he just say, "I would leave the CRA just the way it is"? Come on, now.

I'll assume you realize that second quote you included (in the same reply to my comment) was not from me. Perhaps you don't include a reference to specific the person to whom you are responding to so no one can check the accuracy of your arguments.

say or imply a private business owner should not have follow human rights laws is like saying they can rape and murder as long as it is on their own private business property! Yes, that is ridiculous, as is implying they have the right to discriminate just because they are private business owners!

A restaurant that were to discriminate based on race, religion, or height, would most likely only harm itself. If I was not allowed to eat in a restaurant because my kids are bi-racial, I don't think it would harm me or my family quite like one of us being murdered or raped.

That's a fairly standard libertarian view point, to limit government intervention except in the cases where somone is being harmed. That is why most libertarians would repeal all drug use prison sentences, because in drug use, the user is not harming anyone else.

He needs to remain a private business owner (a doctor) so he can continue with his backward thinking.

It's not backward thinking to be concerned about the abuse of government power. He is NOT out to repeal these laws and never said he would NOT have voted for them given the choice. He simply said he would have debated some of the points. Not because he is against these people, he is careful not to give the government TOO much control over how people think and what they CHOOSE to do. This is REALLY a good thing considering some people would use the government to enforce STRICT moral laws (anti gay, pro religion) and a libertarian like Rand would oppose such a thing.

This guy is scary!!

Well you must not be vary aware of what is going on in this country some of the laws both dems and pubs support in congress if you think Rand is scary.

We as a nation are only 50 years or so removed from this horrible practice and many would be happy to patronize a business that discriminates to this very day.

Less than 1%... In fact, living in Texas, I know of NO PERSON that I can think of that would do such a thing.

I'll assume you realize that second quote you included (in the same reply to my comment) was not from me. Perhaps you don't include a reference to specific the person to whom you are responding to so no one can check the accuracy of your arguments.

I assume people will recognize their own quotes and sometimes consolidate into one reply to save time. Several people on Newsvine do this.

Do you assume malicious intent in everything when people don't hold your same views?

I want the government to prevent businesses from discriminating based on race, religion, and sexual orientation. I don't care whether Rand Paul is a racist or not. I don't care whether those people who support Rand Paul's decision are racist or not. Whatever you might call them, they do not contribute to what I think America should be. When they will allow some of our citizens to lose some of their freedoms they should not, in my opinion, be in the Senate, where they would be in a position to vote on what kind of America we have.

My kind of American is one who worries a little less about their own rights when their rights infringe on the freedom of others.

My kind of American is one who worries a little less about their own rights when their rights infringe on the freedom of others.

I agree in general, however, this line is one that seems to be blurring. For instance, should a traditional baptist preacher who believes homosexuality to be a sin, be required to allow a gay couple to marry in his church? Should he be required by law not to discriminate and have to perform the ceremony himself?

In this case whose rights are being infringed upon? People see this issue today in very different ways.

That being said, Rand is NOT in favor of repealing the civil rights act. He never said that.

Church and state should remain separate. Gays would not choose a church where they were not welcome anyway. Business discrimination is another matter. And Rand Paul is a realist ..... he knows he doesn't have a chance in hell of repealing civil rights. I would never vote for a person like him because I want a Senator who will FIGHT for civil rights.

he knows he doesn't have a chance in hell of repealing civil rights. I

He never said he would or even wanted too. That is misleading.

We as a nation are only 50 years or so removed from this horrible practice and many would be happy to patronize a business that discriminates to this very day.

Less than 1%... In fact, living in Texas, I know of NO PERSON that I can think of that would do such a thing.

Mr Rogers

You must be kidding me and the rest of us when you throw that number around. Seriously, I lived in Houston when I went to school just 12 years ago and trust me racism is very alive and well there my friend.

I always love how people who live in an area that just as recently as the 60's had places of business that discriminated against non whites and try to convince us that would never happen now.

So you say you know not one person who would patronize an establishment that discriminated huh? Don't you know anyone over the age of 60? Because if you do then I can almost guarantee you know people who in fact went to businesses that did in fact discriminate .....

I think you misunderstood my post earlier. I also lean to Libertarian views at times like private property uses. I don't like the fact that the Government can tell you what you can build or use your land for esp in wetland cases or some eminent domain cases that aren't for public uses but private use that gererate more taxes for the community. Drug laws that I feel just make dealers rich as prohibition did in the 30's. I think it is more a jobs/manufacturing deal what with all the spending on prisons and enforcement then anything about the ills of drug use. Afirmative action that I don't feel we need to get into right now ,etc...

But as I said we don't live in a perfect world we live in reality and that means we have to account for that with laws that make people treat others as equals.

I am tired of agenda ridden media personalities. As an example the illegal issue: For most Americans it is a question of economics. Rachel portrays it as racial but in actual fact many americans recognize illegals have a large economic impact on our country. They entered illegally but she bates and labels racism. Mighty elitist when you have a job that pays hundreds of thousands if not millions.

Most of Americas current problems can be traced back to corrupted media personalities that promote special interest agenda at the expense of america.

Kim

What you really mean is that you are tired of agenda ridden media personalities that don't fit YOUR views......

What does this have to do with illegals did you read something that wasn't in the story the rest of us read? Because it was about racism and segregation.

Yeah your right high unemployment,the oil spill in the gulf and the war in Afghanistan is all the MEDIA'S fault...........

Take your head out of your ass lady...

Besides the false red herring of free speech, Mr. Paul's arguments that protecting the right of consumers from bigoted business owners led restricting owner's rights to to decide on possession of guns by consumers in their establishment was also defective. His dishonest argument that businesses are no longer private when the government defends the superior rights of consumers from bigoted business owners was also absurdly wrong.

John Rocker. Remember him?

Paul has an abiding faith in the free market. Most of us do not.

"Waitdaminute...you are defending the point of view that the "tenth title of the Civil Rights Act" is some small issue that could have been left out?! I can positively draw two conclusions about YOU from your comment...

1) You are NOT one of the millions of Americans whose life would be profoundly impacted by any change to that "tenth title", and

2) Your ignorance on the subject is only matched by your rank stupidity.

Lucky for you "ignorance" is simply 'a lack of knowledge'... but, stupidity is to the bone." That's your excuse... what's Rand Paul's?

Paul has an abiding faith in the free market. Most of us do not.

Well, this is because you are misled. We DO NOT HAVE A FREE MARKET. We have a CORPORATIST mess empowered by REGULATION and CORRUPTION in congress.

Take for instance banking. This is not a free market. The banks through the Federal Reserve, get to ARBITRARILY set the cost of money to WHATEVER they want. For the past 20-30 years they have set this at 0 so that they can borrow unlimited funds for almost nothing, and lend that money to consumers, and lend it back to the government, for endless deficit spending. So you see, the people who make the product (the banks) are the ones RIGGING the cost at 0 (through the Fed).

That is not a free market.

Coop da' Scoop, I am not positive you are replying to my comment or someone else's but just in case it is mine.

Please read it more carefully.

Based on Rand Paul's "logic", government could do anything about a restaurant that had it's customers getting sick and dying from e coli, because it is a "privately owned" restaurant and, according to him, beyond government regulation. Public health laws are government regulations of "private" business for the good of the people, which, apparently, Rand Paul opposes.

//
//

Based on Rand Paul's "logic", government could do anything about a restaurant that had it's customers getting sick and dying from e coli, because it is a "privately owned" restaurant and, according to him, beyond government regulation.

Well, under the Constitution, and its BUILT IN REGULATION, the patrons who were sick would sue and recover massive damages. If there was INTENTIONAL poisoning, criminal charges would put the guilty in prison. Also, it is unlikely a restaurant that poisons its guests would stay open.

The government need not save us from everything. Sometimes we can save ourselves.

Regulations are not always the answer, and sometimes they are the problem. Take, Madoff, who was REGULATED by the SEC who IGNORED him. The SEC never brought Madoff to justice. In fact, because of the relationship between the regulators and the ones they regulate, often times regulation fails because of the corruption that follows such a relationship.

Madoff went to prison not because of the SEC, or any fancy financial regulation, but under good old fashion fraud and theft.

Well, under the Constitution, and its BUILT IN REGULATION, the patrons who were sick would sue and recover massive damages. If there was INTENTIONAL poisoning, criminal charges would put the guilty in prison. Also, it is unlikely a restaurant that poisons its guests would stay open.

Just like the BUILT IN REGULATION that "All men are created equal"??? Regardless of the fact that "Oh, just sue" isn't EVER an answer to ANYTHING, those "criminal charges" people would bring are possible BECAUSE OF LAWS. And, in case you forget, LAWS = REGULATION. And I don't F**ing care how "unlikely" it is that a restaurant that POISONS IT'S PATRONS would remain open, that kind of action SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. PERIOD. Views like yours, and Rand Paul's, where "Oh, everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want and things will work themselves out" are demonstrably wrong, and have been shown to be demonstrably wrong time and time again. And not only are they wrong, but they are dangerous, because they ignore the difficulty and struggle it has been to get to the point we are at today where there is more equality than at any point in the history of humanity. IT HAS BEEN HARD. If it was as simple as "let people do what they want and we'll all be fine" this would have been solved a thousand years ago. Unfortunately, the reality is far from that golden image.

The government need not save us from everything. Sometimes we can save ourselves.

The whole point of these kinds of laws is to create a more civilized society. The fact that you're arguing that we don't need these laws 'cause all that civility stuff will work itself out is ludicrous and ignorant of history.

Regulations are not always the answer, and sometimes they are the problem. Take, Madoff, who was REGULATED by the SEC who IGNORED him. The SEC never brought Madoff to justice. In fact, because of the relationship between the regulators and the ones they regulate, often times regulation fails because of the corruption that follows such a relationship.

Ok, a few things. 1) The regulations weren't the problem, the enforcement of them was - i.e. the PEOPLE were the problem. The laws were there, on the books, being ignored. Do you seriously think that the fact they were not being used means we don't need them? Or, worse, that the fact that the regulation is there MADE that relationship corrupt?? That is absurd. No, I will agree that regulation often fails because there is corruption. But that corruption should mean we need BETTER KINDS OF REGULATIONS, not none at all. "If we get rid of the regulations, there will magically be no corruption!" Again, that is absurd and intellectually dishonest, because:

Madoff went to prison not because of the SEC, or any fancy financial regulation, but under good old fashion fraud and theft.

So, he didn't go to jail because of "any fancy financial regulation" just "good old fashion fraud and theft".... which is illegal... because of LAWS against that... Laws that are called REGULATIONS.

Perhaps our terminology is different. What exactly do you think "regulations" are?

ATTENTION... ATTENTION... ATTENTION ...ALL READERS... MAJOR CORRECTION AND A PUBLIC APOLOGY IS IN ORDER !!!!!

To: RICK LORD, CA (the lead blogger in THIS section, box #2)

From: Blogger, COOP da' SCOOP (box#2.3) [who wrongly critisized your comments and wrongly attacked you, personally]

Dear Mr. RICK LORD, CA,

Upon reading YOUR response to MY response to your original blog, which read: "Coop da' Scoop, I am not positive you are replying to my comments or someone else's...but, just in case it is mine... Please read it more carefully." (unquote)

Well, I did just that...Immediately! And to my horror and thorough EMBARRASSMENT, I had to write to you and correct my error, post haste! You were right. I did NOT intend to critisize your very well written and carefully thoughtout, not to mention intellegent response to the "Rand Paul/anti-civil rights controversy". I, indeed, intended my critical reponse to be directed to blogger #4 BEN JAMES, NC (notice my exact same responds in box #4..11)... Realizing my mistake it was to late to correct, i.e. NO DELETE BOTTON! ...

Once again, please accept my apologizes. I rather enjoyed reading your blog...TWICE! LOL And...

to blogger #4 BEN JAMES, NC (below) I say to you, "I WHOLE HEARTEDLY MEAN EVERY WORD I WROTE TO YOU!!" (read box #4.11) in response to (box #4).

LOL, ok, I got it Coop. Your comment didn't seem to jibe with my entry so that is why I asked.

Your apology is most graciously accepted, now you need to buy me a drink!

R

Well I am no paul but I think Rachel is attempting to emmulate swiftboaters a little too closely. I did not get a sense Rand Paul was racist at all but you would never know it from Rachel.

Rachel has a few interest groups she fronts for. I really don't think her brand of journalism can be called that when if comes to those groups.

Whether or not he's a racist is beside the point.

He is anti-civil rights.

He's for ending segregation in schools, ending segregation of other government services, and repealing Jim Crowe laws.

Not to mention, he is for repealing the patriot act, repealing the Military Comissions Act, and ending immunity for spying telecom corporations (all issues Obama has not adressed).

He is very pro-civil rights.

Ben#4.2 There is a large space between addressing an issue,and repealing one.

It's not "pro-civil rights" to promote the federal government re-initiate its prior failure to defend the far superior individual rights of consumers seeking equal access to goods and services opposed by the bigotries of some business owners. This is a competing rights issue where constitutional legitimacy is at stake and where that government obligation is clearly defined in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights and why the demand by individuals that government defend their rights is such a big historic deal. I.e., if the government stopped defending the constitutionally protected rights of some individuals, than all our liberties are at risk.

Mr. Rand clearly stands against the federal government defending those rights in spite of the fact this obligation is a requirement to sustain the government's constitutional legitimacy; this issue certainly deserves our consideration and I'd argue our condemnation as well. Rather than Mr. Rand's support that the U.S. continue to "perfect the union", he instead seeks to take us back to at least the days of Jim Crow when conservative Southern Senate Democrats were successful filibustering the federal government from defending the rights of blacks and others for seventy-five years.

Is he for ending DODT? Is he for repealing DOMA? Is he for the rights of gays to marry? If not then he is not very pro-civil rights.

He is against government intervention in private marriages, so he should be against DOMA. His father is for repealing DADT, so I assume he holds a similar position.

Besides, I think government spying on anti-war protesters and others is one of the most pressing issues of the day. Rand Paul has taking a strong stance against the patriot act, and should be commended by the left.

Not as pressing as maintaining the gains made by the civil rights movement to insure that minorities are not treated as second class citizens.

"Is this really so terrible?" Answer :yes. Protesting discrimination would not have worked in the pre-Sixties South or anywhere else. Citizens' right to equal protection must have priority.

I see what you're saying about his other positions, but that doesn't mean he should get a free pass for this one: it's unbelievably regressive. And that's the problem with libertarianism: some of it makes sense, but when it doesn't, it can be inhumane.

Rand never said he wants to repeal CRA he said he does not like parts of it. Lets be honest and not put words in his mouth.

Rand never said he wants to repeal CRA he said he does not like parts of it

The part that gives equal rights to minorities.

"Waitdaminute...you are defending the point of view that the "tenth title of the Civil Rights Act" is some small issue that could have been left out?! I can positively draw two conclusions about YOU from your comment...

1) You are NOT one of the millions of Americans whose life would be profoundly impacted by any change to that "tenth title", and

2) Your ignorance on the subject is only matched by your rank stupidity.

Luck for you "ignorance" is simply 'a lack of knowledge'... but, stupidity is to the bone." That's your excuse... what's Rand Paul's?

Dr. Paul needed to just answer the question-have the courage of his convictions. And when he finally did, Rachel needed to debate him on that issue. Not sure either of the latter happened. Man did he go 'round and 'round. What a waste of time. I have the distinct sense that he doesn't know if he really thinks that either. Maybe he should have said so.

Paul knows what he thinks, he just didn't want to say it on national television.

Why shouldnt Paul be called on to express his opinions, in detail, about such an important matter??? After all, he IS running for United States Senator and people should KNOW what he stands for! As a leader of the Tea Party movement, that gives us insight as to what THEY stand for!! Nice job, Rachel, keep up the good work!! More of this sort of questioning is in order so that voters can have clear rather than muddled choices!!

PS--- Can ANY republican make a political statement without MENTIONING GUNS??? We all know that they've been lying about Democrats' "plans on guns" ! God, Guns, Gays......... GOP platform!

I agree that yes or no questions are often used to "trap" an interviewee with quick sound bites. People always take politician's comments out of context to appeal to the simple folk. There is a terrible ad here in Florida, that says the President thinks immigration is a joke, then it shows him making a joke at the correspondent's dinner.

But Rachel's questions were softballs. Every politicians knows the right answer.

"Should Woolworth's be allowed to resegregate its lunch counter?"

"No, Absolutely no. Of course not. I cannot stress enough, how much my answer is no."

I watched the interview last night, and what was so amazing was that he just would not answer the easy questions. We could be seeing the biggest turnaround of a Senate nominee here.

Reply to Ben James,

Ben, you are not taking into consideration some important points here.

1. As a potential public servant Dr. Paul should be able to communicate his beliefs on any issue in a way that is clear and concise, yet too many journalists don't force that to happen.

2. As a potential public servant, this many years after the passage of that bill, Dr. Paul should have been able to articulate the benefits of the law, while voicing his concerns about the impact on free speech.

3. It should never be the job of a journalist to defer to a public servant who will not answer a question, the public relies on them to do a good job of getting answers.

Rick,

I see your point, that journalists shouldn't defer to public servants. However, Rand did give an answer, and Rachel had to make a decision on which direction was a better option to take the interview, from a journalistic perspective. Would her audience be better served to get further clarification on Rand's perspective on the CRA, or would they be better served to see his stance on other issues?

I'm thinking the latter would be the better option, but she decided to go with the former, which is more of a political hot button. Sadly, it will also end up helping Rand's generic, rank and file opponent.

Fantastic reply, Renee. Simply fantastic.

They consider personal property to be the supreme right.

That used to be those pesky 3/5ths people too. They were property.

They do not get McCullough v. Maryland (1819) or the Civil War.

No, Republicans, Conservatives, and Tea Baggers like Paul are all for "self regulation". You send in your taxes if you want to, and nobody can make you. Of course they don't want to increase the deficit, yet want "self regulation" of whether you send in your tax money or not. This shows how out of touch Republicans, Conservatives, and Tea Baggers like Paul are.

Frank, thank you for a brilliant comment. We depend on the gov't to not discriminate against any one of us in access to water, plumbing, roads, electricity, trash collection, the right to sign a lease on a building in order to conduct business, phone access (right now debating how we can require equal access to the Internet in new housing developments!). What if the phone company decided that only whites could have phones? Or let's flip it around: how about companies refuse to serve white men? What then?

The position Paul holds is one that can only be held by a person whose very being is so accustomed to privilege, he can't imagine adequately what it's like on the other side.

Gun ownership - red herring because owning guns is not inherent to a person's identity (much more like driving a car - public safety is at stake).

If the phone company refused to serve me I would go to another phone company who would. Then I would protest against that company and try my best to get others to protest against them and put them out of business. I believe that is all that is being said by Paul, there is a better way to get things done than to have the government forcing policy on you. Public outcry is what makes change in society.

Your philosophy won't work fairly for numerical minorities, since they will suffer many more instances of discrimination than the numerical majority. Furthermore, it's inefficient and inconvienient to leave all change to open-ended "public outcry"; who has the time for this rabble-rousing nonsense? Ban it upfront, and you solve the problem cheaper and quicker.

Without public outcry the civil rights bill never would have happened. people, for the most part, know what is right and wrong, and I believe in the end the right usually prevails.

Karen, you're disgusting. A lot of people got hurt, harrassed, spit on, for those public outcries, and You're saying THEY have to fight and cause a riot and organize, while YOU WOULDNT have to.

Thats disgusting. Who do you think you are, saying a group of citizens only recourse is marching in the streets? Seriously, if you said that to me in person, Id be really sick of you..

AND, you tea baggers say this with A STRAIGHT FACE, and wonder why a minority would NEVER join your movement!

Frank, I would imagine that your home is supplied by 'public' water and accessed via 'public' roads as well? Does that give me the right to enter your house when I want to? What if you were having a big party, would it be ok to discriminate against people who weren't invited? Why?

Lisa - where in my statement do you see where I said "THEY have to fight and cause a riot and organize, while YOU WOULDNT have to" and where do I say I am a tea bagger? - whatever that is

Why wouldn't I have to fight? If I was being treated unjustly, why wouldn't I have to stand up for myself? And what is disgusting about believing that public outcry is the way to change? It is a fact, without it you get nothing.

"Rachel may have misspoke...she corrected herself later in the interview.

Ironically, you may have very well lived through the "Woolworth-era", however, we are living with a "Walmart/Walgreen era", today!

I suspect that the family that owns Walmart would agree with Rand Paul and the 'Tea-K.K.' Party, since Walmart & Walgreens are privately own companies that feels that they should, indeed, be able to discriminate against their minority workers, as well as "bust" any efforts by their workers to unionize.

Paul should be looking in his mailbox for a fat donation check in the near future!"

How easily it is to excuse poor Rachel for having MISPOKE, but let a republican do it and there's always hell to pay.

Hypocrits....Love the way MSNBC & Rachel throw out sound bites and tidbits of the interview, wouldn't want everyone to hear the entire thing and then see that poor disgusting Rachel steered it purposefuly in the direction she did for the sound bites....Nothing new here.

I think that Rachel Maddow may be a lesbian. She wears hardly any makeup, no earrings, and wears suit coats and pants, with t shirts.

she has been quite open about it.

May I ask why on earth you would care?

Hypocrits....Love the way MSNBC & Rachel throw out sound bites and tidbits of the interview, wouldn't want everyone to hear the entire thing and then see that poor disgusting Rachel steered it purposefuly in the direction she did for the sound bites....Nothing new here.

If you'd bother and really want to see the whole thing it is on her site. You can also access it from the MSNBC website.

There was nothing done to make this look like anything. From the beginning to the end of the interview he refused to answer a yes or no question. He refused to state what it is he thinks.

He knows people won't like it and he didn't want to say it out loud. Rand Paul is just more of the same.

"YO' ... 'millerz',box #9.2 ... meet me at Box # 2.3 ...I wrote a special comment JUST 4 U !"

And the most the owner could do is call the cops to arrest the person for tresspassing.

Let someone call the police because someone of $race walked in; see how that does for their business.

"I don't personally think that it should be legal to refuse service based on racism or prejudice, but I think there is a valid argument to be made that maybe government shouldn't be telling private businesses how to choose their customers."

The problem with your line of thinking is that it IGNORES the reality that these businesses in the course of operating use PUBLIC services (police, fire, sanitation, etc.) that those being discriminated against are paying for!

You should caveat your statement with the condition that the businesses who want to discriminate use ZERO PUBLIC services and have ZERO PUBLIC access.

Preach it Frank!

Good point, Frank.

Private citizens are allowed to refuse entry to their homes for any reason they choose

Private citizens can refuse entry into their homes for any reason up until they start charging admission. Once they become "public," that exemption disappears.

@ Frank From NJ 11.1

Although I agree with both of you. Public services is paid for by property taxes. Which makes it impossible to opt out of those public services. And in many cases depending on the size of your commercial business building, it can be more expensive than residential property taxes, which then gets into another can of worms.

This issue, although settled in my view through CRA, raises some fundamental philosophical questions about potential discrimination and property rights. How can we equate, under private property rights/laws, the "severity" of discrimination on race/color vs. affiliation? And the argument that one can remove such property and get the services from such location, while a person of color cannot is also vague. As the discriminated party can also go to a friendly establishment to get his or her goods and services. In the end its all discrimination. Being as it may I repudiate all racial discrimination as I myself am a minority. Not only is it a bad business model, but I believe that as a society this is a non issue in our current time, and communities deal with these kinds of issues pretty well now days.

My solution would be to fragment property rights to make discrimination of race/color a separate and independent legislative issue, but how that could be done is why I stay away from politics. And worse how it can be enforced, as from what I understand any business holds the right to refuse service, as long as they do not breach the customers civil rights, but I could be wrong?

"Property taxes are imposed by counties, municipalities, and school districts, where the millage rate is usually determined by county commissioners, city council members, and school board members, respectively. The taxes fund budgets for schools, police, fire stations, hospitals, garbage disposal, sewers, road and sidewalk maintenance, parks, libraries, and miscellaneous expenditures."

ok, mr. intellectualizing in a very real racist society:

We already know that discrimination will exist in THIS society more so than other, and with the creation of our government and municipality, the question over privacy has been well established - live with it.

We are not going to rewrite the constitution, eminent domain is a REAL thing, and wishing for the US of 1776 where that was a non-issue...well, there is a lot of things wrong for reaching for that era, as you should know, as a minority.

It is not that the government cannot make it illegal to be racist, of course that cannot happen. The issue is when a persons commits an act which infringes on another persons rights, and the reason person A commmited the act is based on their racism or some other form of discrimination. Thats what should be and is illegal.

You can hate indian people and say it publicly, but if you own a company and you refuse employment to an indian person because they are indian, then you are infringing on their rights.

So the government has a duty to protect the right of ALL citizens. You would think Rand Paul would support that idea...

According to Rand Paul's "logic", a restaurant should be free to serve tainted, deadly meals to it's customers because it is a "private" business.

According to Rand Paul's "logic", Medical Insurance companies should be free to discriminate against people with "preexisting conditions" and those who are sick enough to cut into the insurance company's bottom line, because it is a "private" company.

According to Rand Paul's "logic", a car dealer can sell cars with defective brakes because it is a "private" business.

there is a big difference between causing physical harm, and refusing service to someone.

there is a big difference between causing physical harm, and refusing service to someone.

Yes, there is. But both should be illegal. The rights of individuals outweigh the rights of businesses. Rand Paul, and anyone else who claims to be in support of liberty ought to be 100% behind that.

Playing devil's advocate here:

There's a continuum. On the one side, government for the people by the people should not take part in any discriminatory practices. On the other end, the government should not (even if it were technologically possible) make it illegal to have racist beliefs. In between, there's a balance that needs to be struck between the imperative not to be racist and the imperative not to impinge upon personal liberty. Go too far in one direction, you get anarchy. Go too far in the other direction, you get a police state. Either way, you get too much of a good thing. Somewhere in the middle, a line needs to be drawn.

There's another, related continuum: from private to public. Roughly speaking, it goes like this: personal thoughts/beliefs, personal property, private business, public business, government-subsidized business, government. Government's role in this context changes as you move from one end to the other.

Elle said that a business owner refusing to employ Indian people is impinging upon the rights of Indians. But (again, playing devil's advocate) no individual has the right to be employed - only the right to seek employment. On the other side of things, a business owner does have the right to choose his or her employees from the pool of available applicants.

It's wrong to make that decision based on racial prejudice, but should it be illegal? If so, how? What should the law say? Should quotas be mandated? Affirmative action made a requirement? What counts as discrimination? How can it be proven? I think there's legitimate room for debate, on both philosophical and practical terms.

Similarly, back to Dr. Paul's point - It's wrong to deny service to customers based on race, but should it be illegal? If you genuinely believe in small government, there's an argument to be made.

It's legislating morality. It's taking the nebulous idea of our society's moral views and codifying it into enforceable law.

So how about we look at another case, just as serious? Murder is wrong. It's about as seriously wrong as you can get. (Except when it's in self-defense. Or there are certain extenuating circumstances. As decided on a case-by-case basis in court. Because theory always hits snags when presented with the unlimited variables of the real world.) Well, there's a large section of our society which believes that the taking of a human life is always murder, even if the human in question has yet to be born. (Again, not a viewpoint I agree with, but one I can understand and respect.) They say it's deeply wrong. A very serious crime. Should we make it illegal? There's a debate to be had. Other things to consider. Other people involved, other rights to protect (individual rights as well as the rights of the business which makes the procedure possible). But in fighting to keep it legal, you're defending murder.

I'm not equating the two situations. But I'm trying to point out that legislating morality isn't always as clear-cut as it seems, even when you're talking about what, from your perspective, is a strong moral position.

What Dr. Paul said is, as I read it, what I said above: It's wrong for a business to deny service to its customers based on race, but is it really the role of government to step in and make it illegal? Remember that his general stance is one of small government and strong protections for individual rights and freedoms.

What about private clubs that deny membership based on race? As Dr. Paul pointed out, they still exist.

What about that guy who set up an all-White basketball team? (And got a reality show out of it?)

Wrong? Yes. Illegal? Apparently not.

There are lines to be drawn. Messy gray areas to deal with. I disagree with Dr. Paul's position, and I wish he'd been gutsy enough to state it clearly (even in the face of the political reality that goes with doing so), but I can understand what he's saying, and I think there's a legitimate argument to be made. I personally think he's on the wrong side of it, but I can respect his point of view.

Why didn't he answer the question and prove whether he's a racist or not? If it quacks...

His answers sounded as straightforward as the questions, in my opinion.

Maybe I missed something. Tell me at what point on the video did he answer the question about going back to the days of businesses refusing to serve someone because they're black.

I use to wonder why his name was 'Rand', now I know that it's short for 'Rancid', as in "Dr. Paul's answers to Rachel's questions were Rancid! After witnessing Mr. Paul spew that bile from his mouth regarding whether he was a "fulltime-racist" or just a "part-time bigot", he made his views on civil rights CHRYSTAL clear, i.e. Racist policies, practices and segregation laws get his approval for legislation only IF there are federal dollars involved. But, ...

...government has NO RIGHT to FORCE private businesses and schools, etc. to practice non-discremination! And, had HE been a Senator during the Congressional debate on civil rights in the '60s, he says that he would have fought to keep the Jim Crow Laws in tact, ensuring that he and his proud racist 'Tea-party' types could freely practice their hatred without 'GOVERNMENT' interference! Mr. Paul may think the ducked Rachel's question, on the contrary, his "double-speak" spoke volumes!! Oooooh...

...soooo, that's what RAND PAUL and the TEA-BAGGERS mean by "Taking back THEIR government" and "I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!" The Republican Tea Party long for the "good ole days" before civil rights laws... before Blacks and women had the right to vote... Hell, I believe that most still long for the days before slavery was outlawed!! THANK GOD I DO HAVE A VOTE and so do YOU, and we MUST use our votes to keep Rand Paul and his ilk far from the halls of Congress! WHERE DO I SEND MY DONATION CHECK to his Democratic challenger!

I always figured Ron named his son Rand after Ayn Rand. Probably just coincidence though,

Actually Rand was named after Ayn Rand which didn't give him much chance to be any other way then the way he is.

I wish RM had asked him more questions about how libertarians or Tea Partiers propose to deal w/ corporate greed. The mine disaster in WVA, the oil blowout will be commonplace if business regulations are removed. There are some percentage of folks in all businesses that are willing to screw over the public in order to make an extra billion or so. That's why we have govt. regulations: to protect us from those who put their own well being above the welfare of all to such an extent they we the public are actually harmed. I've asked this question on these forums before requesting the Libertarians/Tea Patry folk to address this issue and have never gotten a response. I also made this request on Poppa Paul's website and never heard a word.

Didn't abide cover? He wishy washed his answers to disguise his real beliefs! What a joke!

Didn't abide cover? He wishy washed his answers to disguise his real beliefs!

And did a total flip flop on the Anderson show last night. Obviously, Paul is not a man of conviction who stands by his beliefs. He still hasn't answered the question as to whether business should be allowed to refuse service based on race.

Rand's positions is well thought out. He's just very aware that any short answer will be used by his opponents as a sound bite in attack ads.

He simply has a different opinion on when government should be able to interfere in the private affairs of individuals. If some diner owner doesn't want to serve black people, fine, let him be a racist. There are other diners to choose from, and hopefully whites, blacks, and hispanics would all choose to support the non-racist diner with their money.

But Ben, those black patrons are paying the taxes that pave the road in front of the diner, and pay the police who patrol the diner's neighborhood. If I own the local utility company, can I choose to not supply power to the diner because I don't want to serve bigots? This would lead to anarchy. Non-discrinimation is a public good that serves us all, and is a statement of societal values. There is no room for discrimination in a civilized society.

I'd argue Mr. Rand's position is not well thought-out and can't stand the light of day. His red herrings about speech, gun rights, and defending the rights of consumers over owners somehow mutates private businesses into government ones was both incoherent, in no way creates constitutional difficulties on these unrelated matters, and are all logical fallacies. I'd argue his attempt to avoid answering this simple question in spite of having more than ample time is another example of a conservative suffering from epistemic closure, i.e., living in a cocoon. This condition is now rampant within the conservative community, including among some conservatives who claim they are libertarians.

Unfortunately what Mr. Paul's failure on Ms. Maddow's show might do is motivate more conservatives to hide from scrutiny like we see by Sarah Palin and thereby amplify the results of epistemic closure and the increased divorce from reality we see from cocooned conservatives like Ms. Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News' entertainers.

You know, there are lots of libertarian views I agree with, but they need to learn to factor reality into their positions.

I live in a very small town and realistically, there AREN'T other diners to choose from. And even if there were, in a town with only one resturant that will serve diversity, how long before that place gets firebombed? The first step in creating a conflict is to make your opponent the 'other'. When you allow racism to grow, it reinforces segregation and that means fewer and fewer people are exposed to the reality that we're ALL humans. The civil rights act might not have been perfect, but it was correcting a situation that was untenable.

Kurt, I understand you argument, but the actual property that the diner is on is private. Every time you go into a diner to purchase a burger, that is a voluntary agreement between you and the owner of that diner. When the government can get involved in that private action, that creates a real challenge to the idea of freedom of association.

Anyways, think about what would have happened if we had still passed the CRA, but left out the private business part. You would have still have integrated schools, roads, and other public services. After a decade or so of public integration, where blacks and whites are mixing in their public lives, how much longer would racist businesses be tolerated? How comfortable would a white person, who went to school with and rides buses with black people, be going into a place with big sign that said "No coloreds"? In my view, these businesses wouldn't have survived long in that environment.

All this said, I think issue is distracting from how Rand really is a leader on civil liberties issues of the day, including the patriot act, military commissions and the like.

but the actual property that the diner is on is private

And police and fire department protection for that property are paid for by everyone. Sorry, it doesn't wash.

Rand really is a leader on civil liberties issues of the day,

Just not for minorities where it concerns discriminatory practices by business. I guess Paul believes that its okay to deny someone housing based on race too.

And police and fire department protection for that property are paid for by everyone. Sorry, it doesn't wash.

Ok, but so did the business owner. The patrons also have protection for their personal property. The issue here is to what level the government can intervene in the affairs of private property owners. Honestly, I don't really have that much of a problem with your point of view, I'm just saying there is a logical basis for Rand's point of view.

Hell, maybe we should just have constitutional amendment that when it comes to race, gender, and sexual identity, then government can protect from discrimination in the private sector. Until then, this part of the CRA doesn't quite jive with the first amendment.

Just not for minorities where it concerns discriminatory practices by business. I guess Paul believes that its okay to deny someone housing based on race too.

You don't think this already happens all the time? Have you ever seen a gated community? Laws dealing with private property are not the only way to deal with these kinds of things.

You don't think it would happen a lot more if it weren't illegal to discriminate where it concerns housing etc?

Telling a black person you don't like the color of his skin is freedom of speech. Refusing to sell that person a hamburger because of their black skin is discrimination. They are not equivalent.

To blogger BEN JAMES, NC (boxes #15.1, 5, 7)

I have read must of your blogs on this subject, and feel I can fairly draw two conclusions about YOU...

1) You are NOT one of the millions of Americans whose lives would be profoundly impacted by any changes to that "tenth title" of the CRA, you need to read the law...it's on Rachel home page. And...

2) Your ignorance on the subject is only matched by your rank stupidity.

Lucky for you "ignorance" is simply 'a lack of knowledge'... but, stupidity is to the bone." That's your excuse... what's Rand Paul's?

You are a text book case for why there is currently vigorous opposition to the Texas school board being the sole arbitrators of what should and should not be left out of the new high school HISTORY books! They recently voted to omit important fact, individuals, and the civil rights movent in Black history. Reading your comments is the best argument as to why we MUST fight to educate ALL students, K. thru 12, about the important contributions of African Americans since the Mayflower; the import and impact of teaching what the civil rights movement and laws were (are) all about!

Well, you, Rand Paul, the 'Tea-K.K.' Party and all those who share your views can be sure of one thing, :

The ONLY way that you can dream of "TAKING YOUR COUNTRY BACK"... back to the Stone Ages, or back to the 'good ole days' of segregation and legal discrimination against all GAY, LESBIAN, TRANSGENDER, and DISABLED, ASIAN, JEWISH, MUSLIM, and all MEXICAN, LATINO, HISPANIC and AFRICAN--Americans, would be to take a trip to your nearest library and read all the history book, starting with A thru Z. And, while you are living "assbackwards", the rest of the country will continue to move forward!

It's the same issue

No its not. One chooses to be a member of the KKK, and the hood is removable. Thanks for playing though.

All due respect sir, people are born white, black, brown... people are not born KKK. Not the same issue.

trm2008#16.1--One chooses to be a member of the KKK, and the hood is removable. Thanks for playing though.

Good one trm, LOL

LOL! Well, currently, a black resturant owner IS required to serve a member of the KKK. As the racist hillbilly is also required to serve black families who come to his resturant. And both are required to put a muzzle, at least in public, on any prejudices they may have.

The ones who are ignorant are those who think that removing laws that require that both resturant owners serve everyone won't instantly lead to even more racism and prejudice than is still endemic in our society. Look how much of it oozed out of the woodwork after we elected a half-African American president? If you think that removing those laws would make things better, I'm afraid it's you who are showing your colors, my friend.

, a black resturant owner IS required to serve a member of the KKK

A KKK member is not protected by the civil rights act. I'm pretty sure a business can legally refuse to serve him.

Why is a KKK member not protect? Is he not a person? Does he not have equal rights like all of us? Yes I disagree with racism and oppose it but what right do I have to abridge other people's rights?

He is protected from discrimination on the basis of race, not on the basis of being an a$$hole. You can refuse to serve someone who smells really bad too.

He is protected from discrimination on the basis of race, not on the basis of being an a$$hole. You can refuse to serve someone who smells really bad too.

"No shirts, no shoes, pointy white hoods, no service."

Also - you can as a business require that gun owners check their guns at the door. Used to play in a band throughout SD and ND where all of the bars had a room at the entrance where you have to leave your guns before they would let you in to drink.

a) the KKK member (like the American Nazis - stormfront.org 'White Pride World Wide') wouldn't be caught dead eating nig*er chow or supporting Jew-bankers/ZOG) so... not much chance of that happening (like many/most of the lilly-whites gun-toting fear-mongerers WAY too afraid of food 'adulteration').

b) because of an assortment of 'fears', there aren't many KKK members that are going to show up, dressed up (including the hood) to dine in a 'black' establishment. it's just NOT in their chickensh*t DNA. perhaps as a mob, but not alone. Big mouths, little balls y'all, is where these low lifes are 'at'.

you now stop patting yourself on the back, Dick.

Really? Imagine following the constitution? What a concept!

That's the issue that worries me about the Pauls, the whole 'abolish the fed' position. I think skirting around the entrapment issues paints Rachel in an ugly light.

zac - ur idea of "following the constitution" resulted in financial market dereg. care to defend the result of that?

The argument for "following the constitution" seems to suggest we turn the clock back on legislation, like the Civil Rights Act, that has been passed since the writing of the Constitution. Now maybe I am ignorant of some nuanced constitutional debate here, but I am reasonably certain that the Constitution has a whole section on legislating new laws not found in the Constitution. They even set up a whole branch of government to do so.

Sarcasm aside, the Fed was created in 1913 by elected legislators through a Constitutional process, not in violation of the Constitution, so I do not understand a "the fed is unconstitutional" argument.

I think I'm finally understanding what the extreme right means by "taking our country back". They mean "backwards".

Dr. Paul's glib comment about how he wished he was old enough to march with Dr. King because he would have, came across so feeble, false and hypocritical. I don't know if the above clip includes that part, but it was truly embarrassing to watch.

The only Republican who is feeling pretty good right now seems to be Mitch McConnell, who is wearing an "I told you so" half-smile.

I'm sure he's a good eye doctor, but his lack of political experience is showing after less than 24 hours.

He has to pander to his bigoted, racist base.

Hear hear!

Rand Paul is a potential point of unity where this new American Revolution can emerge...

As a black person, I can't regard anyone who is against the Civil Rights Act as a "point of unity". You can afford to do that, but I can't.

"Americans have to unite on an understanding that the American middle class is under assault and being destroyed"

Why is it only the middle class that is under assault? The poorest 20% have it harder, and have not reaped any of the benefit of 20 years of out-of-control growth. Aren't they under assault?

The new American Revolution? Really?

btw, why are you complaining about American capitalism being destroyed by corporate interests?? capitalism is BASED on corporate interests!

Manuel,

You seem to be missing a basic point. You state that "the American middle class is under assault and being destroyed along with American Capitalism by virtue of a corrupted political process selling out to corporate interests." You should have said: the American middle class is under assault and being destroyed BY AMERICAN CAPITALISM by virtue of a corrupted political process selling out to corporate/CAPITALIST interests!!!! It's capitalism that's the source of the destruction - capitalists fighting with capitalist to screw the middle and the poor by virtue of legislation and loop holes that serve their capitalist interests. I'm astonished that you're unable to see that!

I see a fundamental difference between mega financial corporations like GoldmanSachs that have become dominant in our GDP while creating nothing but fraudulent investment scams instead of supporting creative technology and manufacturing development as the antithesis of genuine American capitalism that's brought us economic prospertity up until the Wall Street crime syndicate took over the Washington establishment. Todays failure of the Senate to break up the Wall Street too big to fail fraudulent investment scam artists is a case in point. Ofcourse there's been a tension between greedy capitalist interests and economic benefit to the rest of us, but that struggle was balanced by government regulation that prevented the worst of the consequences of unfettered capitalist interests and directed capitalist development towards ends useful to Americans in general. Since the Washington establishment has become a wholey owned subsidiary of Wall Street and oil corporations and the mililtary industrial complex, this balance is gone and we as Americans are suffering the consequences of this political sellout.

Really, Bigot? What part of "I don't support any type of racism or discrimination" (paraphrasing) - makes Dr. Paul a bigot?

The part where he believes you should be able to turn blacks away from your water fountain, just because it's inside your diner, even though it's supplied with water that is cleaned at a treatment plant paid for by tax dollars that came from that black patron.

Mr. Paul is a racist because he seeks the end of the federal protection of rights of black people seeking equal access to goods and services like they suffered during the Jim Crow era. Paul instead argues that the right of business owners to have bigoted prohibitions regarding access to their goods and services should be defended by the government instead.

Not understanding that the Jim Crow laws were by definition racist has to be the biggest logical fail I've encountered since last listening to Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin project their own failures onto their opponents.

No matter how many times he says those talking points, he's still supporting positions that ARE bigoted.

There is active support and there is passive support. While Dr. Paul may not actively take part in discrimination he would however seem be content to sit idly by and allow it to occur. In my mind this is just as bad or perhaps worse. As had been said, all evil requires to flourish is for good men to do nothing.

Dr. Paul seems to want us to understand that his is a high level philosophical position that has many nuances. In this I agree but we are not talking about appointing him to an academic position where the advantages can be debated and discussed ad naseum. We are looking to elect him to an office where theory must be applied and there are real consequences.

Im Not Racist. But I dont like chinks....

Does that explain how this works? It means Im a DUMBASS.

But it happens everyday.

You can't trust general boycotts of diners and stores to correct the poor decisions of bigoted business owners (as Rand suggests) but you think it's a viable strategy to limit his campaign earnings? Wouldn't you prefer a federal law refusing Senate seats to people who don't support the CRA?

Paul came off as the thoughtful, serious-minded adult of the two.

That's your opinion. He came off as totally disingenous to me. Why didn't he answer the question?

He didn't answer the question bc he knew his answer would give opponents ammunition as INDEED IT SHOULD! Your voters have the right to know your views before you take office. If that is what you believe, then make sure voters know it, and stand up for it. Rand Paul knows it will be the death of him bc the average voter wouldn't agree with him. He is playing politics. "Take our government back" he says, yet he is no better than the rest of them.

"Take our government back" he says, yet he is no better than the rest of them.

Actually he's far worse than most. His argument is consistent with those Southern conservatives who promote a return to the days of Jim Crow where a large portion of that group also advocates secession from the U.S. if they fail.

Nest, I have to disagree about your example of Paul giving a "thoughtful, serious-minded" interview.

As you point out, Paul responded to a question with a question. This was not an answer to her question. Where you see nuance, I (and many others if comments on this page are any judge) see obfuscation and diversion. As has been pointed out through out these comments, there is a insurmountable difference between being refused entry and service for carrying a gun and for being black (or any other minority). These are separate issues, and one is not an argument for the other. To my ears, Paul was trying to use a gun-rights argument to answer an anti-discrimination question. Not only did I never hear an overt answer, I was left with the opinion that Rand Paul does not want his views on the Civil Rights Act discussed. As he is running for Public Office, I maintain that any of his views on any matter are subject to question, whether he likes it or not. You then accuse Maddow of failing "to respond in any meaningful way" to this point, but as Paul had not answered her original question, she passed on his proffered argument and returned to the original question she had asked.

Not sure I agree that that's a comparable example. There's no law that says you can't attend college without belonging to a sorority or fraternity.

I keep reading this "political landmine" excuse for Paul's deflection on this issue. Where is this landmine? Would it really be a landmine to say you support the Civil Rights Act? Are his chances of winning the General Election in Kentucky made better by not saying "I support the Civil Rights Act"?

I would suggest that this issue is only a landmine if Rand Paul is taking a position that will keep him from getting elected.

Also, I couldn't care less what Maddow's views are on fraternities or sororities. I care about the views of the candidate, not his interviewer. You raise interesting questions, but Paul is the one running for office.

....so what goods or services do sororities / fraternities sell?

Elasg in PA

Not sure I agree that that's a comparable example. There's no law that says you can't attend college without belonging to a sorority or fraternity.

There's no law that says you have to buy goods from any particular private business either.

Elasg's response is like saying, why don't men's basletball teams allow women?

Its just not comparable. There are gentlemen's cigar cubs and there are ladies' reading clubs.

That is quite different from barring someone from receiving a service based on their demographics.

What is Rand Paul's definition of a public business VS a private business.

Incoherent.

I hereby nominate andrews116 and Micheal Heath for the best question/answer comment of the day.

Koch Industries would be his "Private Business" and if you look up their characteristics and history, it will be self-explanatory.

Rachel mentions this issue is going to be a focus and it will be. Mainstream media had already brought it up before she did on her show. Rand Paul will be questioned about this again. You can blame the media if you like, but Rachel is not the only one asking him. Besides, you know very well if it was a Democrat or other Republican, any politician regardless of party identity would be treated the same way.

This is more than just a "race card." This is showing Paul's views on gov't involvement in private sector that happens to include the issue of race and sexual orientation.

I'm very curious about that as well. Fair is fair.

Love the interview but here is what I want to know: What is Rand Paul's definition of a public business VS a private business.

I think his definition of a "public business" is a governental entity. I don't know why people are so schocked by this. It's the same stance his father takes. Here's Ron Paul in Dec. 2007:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about race, because I, I read a speech you gave in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. And you said this: "Contrary to the claims of" "supporters of the Civil Rights Act of" '64, "the act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of" '64 "increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty." That act gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters, and you seem to be criticizing it.

REP. PAUL: Well, we should do, we should do this at a federal level, at a federal lunch counter it'd be OK or for the military.

What interesting here is that he says "we should do this at a federal level. What does he (and/or his son) think we should do at the state level? Does his/their conception of "states' rights" allow for Jim Crow type laws?

Well, when you agree with someone on some issues and disagree with them on others, you try and get them to change their mind on the issue you disagree with them on.

Seriously? I don’t think Rand Paul would ever be able to pass any legislation on his extremist views even if he did make it to the senate – they wouldn’t pass – and he’s a good vote to regulate banks and stay out of wars we’ve got no business in – so I don’t have as much against him as I would some others who could have won – but, as with other libertarians of my acquaintance, I wish he’d recognize the logical outcomes of his positions. They seem to reach a point in their discourse after which they have to abandon reason to keep their to their veiw.

liberty planet

> i know, it's difficult for ditto-heads and Fox Noise fans to conceive of independent thought/action, it's just NOT in your LIV [low information voter] genetics (too many strands of that DNA carrying too many Neanderthal chromosomes).

The 'seed' for Rachel reaping this 'harvest' was 'planted' by KY paper of record, The Louisville-Courier editorial board (ez to google, but again that would involve 'reading' ... but wiat! THIS JUST IN...!! There's video too, so even you can come up to speed. Oh...that's right, a 'LIV', not so inclined [to get educated].

The seed planted by the paper's ed board (who called his policy notions racist, btw - backing neither of the reThugs) was picked up and expanded in an NPR interview where Paul '9/10' Rand danced around the question again. Saying HE deplored discrimination, thought PUBLIC institutions should not discriminate, BUT [and it's a BIG BUT] that the government shouldn't interfere w/private business [eg discriminate if they so choose]. Combined with the fact that the libertarian Rand '9/10' Paul wants to eliminate MANY/MOST of the government agencies that protect against discrimination (Housing Eduction the Fed etc) and it's ez to see what that delivers: no govern oversight/regulation and 'taking back control of their country' (19th century white [small 'c'] christian male dominated AmeriKa.

unh-uh, NOT gonna do it . no way. you, or your kids need to understand that the melting pot that IS America IS getting darker all the time and within a generation your [white majority] 'country' won't exist here, but will instead involve emigrating to Finland or Iceland. (Socialist economies, btw > but that's another whole basket of WTF for you, now isn't it?)

the good news is you'll actaully be 'living' the screen name, liberty planet cuz you'll be free to roam this rock to find some 'white[r]' corner.

Who sent you the memo to relentlessly attack Rand Paul with the race card?

Actually, Rand sent the invitation when he exposed his extremist views about civil rights.

"Waitdaminute...you are defending the point of view that the "tenth title of the Civil Rights Act" is some small issue that could have been left out?! I can positively draw two conclusions about YOU from your comment...

1) You are NOT one of the millions of Americans whose life would be profoundly impacted by any change to that "tenth title", and

2) Your ignorance on the subject is only matched by your rank stupidity.

Lucky for you "ignorance" is simply 'a lack of knowledge'... but, stupidity is to the bone." That's your excuse... what's Rand Paul's?

i'll make this short and comprehensible for you. Paul was using what we in the business call a "hypothetical" to explain government control of your life and business. it does not in any way refer specifically to segregation but rather to how far gov't. can and will go in limiting or eliminating your liberties which is what LIBERTARIANS do. do you understand now or are you still lost on planet stupid.

knoman-Maybe you should be in charge of PR for Paul. You really know how to spin it.

All I know from reading all these post is that we have an organized effort by Rand's people or supporters to rehabilitate his comments. Ok folks we hear you, he is not a racist....but he supports people 100 per cent to be one. To discriminate against anyone they see fit. To be allowed by all the people of this country to operate a company but only serve those he thinks are the right ones. Its a shame a perfectly good white boy acting so foolishly and trying to convince every one he's a libertarian.

Organized efforts by Rand's people. You underestimate just how diverse and spread out Rand Paul supporters are. The Tea Party is a Fox news joke, I'm talking about small unnamed group and individual supporters. Maddow didn't even show the interview, she cut out a few statements and made out of context emotional connections. She did not logically address Rand Paul's beliefs, she attacked them. Yes I agree with Paul. Yes I agree the civil rights act is a violation of business and property owners' rights. No I am not racist. Yes I believe a Racist's civil rights should be defended. Yes I have have brown skin and have personnel dealt with racism from whites and blacks. I might be turned away from a business for whatever reason but at least I can start a business without fear of being sew for refusing services or employment to someone that may accuse me of being racist. Remove the private business portion of the civil rights act and I fully support it. Maddow for one episode stop using straw man and slippery sloop tactics and logically address an issue for just one episode.

Maddow didn't even show the interview, she cut out a few statements

Proof please. They didn't even go to commercials during that part of the interview.

Remove the private business portion of the civil rights act

It's the public accommodations portion of the Civil Rights Act.