I'll defend to my death Mr. Paul's right to remain silent, but LMAO at his inability to do so.

That inability to remain silent is what I love about his father, even if I disagree with much of what he says.

It's tough to feel any affection for a man who would, as stated as far back as 2002, that it's OK with him for there to be no regulations on those who would refuse housing based on color of skin. That's stretching libertarian view to an ugly extreme I don't even like to think about.

Let's look at the staggering hypocrisy of Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, while we're at it.

For those of you who are open-borders, why don't you dust off the welcome mat and let 500,000,000 Chinese come on in?

You mean, you're not for it?

YOU RACISTS!!!!!! See how easy it is?

The problem with being more faithful to your dogma than you are your spouse or significant other is that you are going to run into contradictions like these.

The libertarian view places freedom as the highest attainable goal but has no understanding of the reality of human nature that requires the powerless to be watchful and hold those in power accountable. It ignores the idea that left to their own devices, banks will steal, meat will kill, and people will continue to oppress those NOT in power. But I don't believe that the libertarian philosophy is inherently racist.

Libertarian philosophy is seriously flawed in the sense that its foundation is the idea that those in power will simply do the right thing out of the goodness of their own hearts and that if left alone things will "work out". The idea that an "invisible hand" will make everything better is as absurd as the idea of praying for miracles as government policy - about the only thing that libertarians and Republicans have in common if you think about it.

Truly, Ed, the libertarian does not exist easily within the confines of either party as they are now configured. The Democrats want to micromanage our lives; the Republicans want to micromanage our bedrooms.

Ronald Reagan is credited with saying that "Protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing." I agree and particularly, when it comes to the Civil Rights Act and ADA. I have been discriminated against by Democrats in violation of the ADA, and find a lot of this whingeing amusing.

It would actually be better for the US economy to have Chinese laborers here in the states than to do all of our manufacturing in China and import everything. I say let em in. We would collect more taxes, have more manufacturing, and have less shipping expenses as well as reduced CO2 emissions.

It's funny that these so called free market republicans that want smaller government also want the government to enact stricter immigration laws. If you truly believed in smaller government, you would get rid of immigration rules and allow anyone to succeed (or not succeed) regardless of who they are or where they are from.

cruft - gop "free" traders do NOT want stricter immigration laws or they would've enacted them while they had majority bet 01-06. they support the cheap labour desires of the ag, construction, & hospitality sectors. the gop leaders just foam-up the wingnuts to fund-raise.

Thanks, Ed, for as succinct a description of the impossibility of a Libertarian society as I've ever read. It seems unimaginable that such a style of government could work for a population larger than 2000-3000 at most, because let's face it, people are no damn good.

Actually, a reality show where they send 2000 Libertarians off to live on their own island and try to create their utopian society would be must-see TV.

Survivor: Libertarian Paradise

It almost felt as if Rachel was channeling Glen Beck last night... she had it all working: Disingenuous talking points, vivid heart-tugging imagery, demonizing her political opponents for political gain... all that was missing was the Nazi imagery!

And as I succinctly pointed on on another thread: Who cares about Rand Paul. He is a naive politician and he certainly isn't a libertarian. But Rachel defaming a political philosophy for which she disagrees is way more interesting; Rachel being intellectually dishonest in said presentation is certainly worth noting as well.

That said, here are a few more planks that are championed by libertarians that Rachel somehow forgot to demonize... planks that are now apparently ready for the dust-heap:

Freedom of speech
Freedom of expression
Personal privacy
Sexual privacy
Sensible drug laws
Reigning-in our military empire
A peaceful approach to foreign policy

Just seeing the few items on this list, one has to wonder... what on earth are these libertarians thinking?! That stuff is CrAzY TAlk!!!!!11!1

Regards,
Harrison

PS, Can't wait to see Rachel's pending segment showing the theoretical negatives that exist when taking liberal or progressive philosophies to their extremes. Do we even get to own property in that utopia?? I'm making popcorn now... can't wait for this!!!!!11!!1

Maddow is becoming a serious hack. Rand is obviously wrestling with some complex issues which is government vs individual rights. I have not heard Rand preach any racism, but you would never know it from rachel's attempt at swiftboating him. It is becoming all too clear fair and balanced does not reside at msnbc either. Unfortunate America could use some unbiased reporting some place.

I think reporters should disclose personal prejudices prior to advocating a position. I was reading her bio and she is gay? Does that make her an automatice supporter of Kagan? To much advocacy based on personal bias not in the main stream.

That would make Survivor eminently more watchable and interesting.

What America has seen in the mutual bashing of Rand is actions by the two formal parties is to quelch any movement to errode their hold on power. That errosion is needed since both parties have demonstrated corruption.

There is a black owned barbecue restaurant in my town and I have to ask myself: If some KKK member walked in in full drab and demanded service should they have the right to kick him out, or do they have to serve him? They should have the right to boot that guy out, and it is the same as what Rand is saying.

should the police provide protection for klan & nazi marches?

Don't you think there's a difference between being deliberately inflammatory and just happening to be a white guy who wants some barbecue? The black men at Woolworth's lunch counters weren't trying to to make any point except that they were hungry and had the price of a blue-plate special.

Hey Rachel,

Should an African American owned dry cleaners be forced to wash the robes of a KKK member????? Will you analyze that question on the air?

Libertarianism is not a flawed philosophy as many on here have suggested but the only truly just philosophy by which to live. It's a philosophy of tolerance for all beliefs, races, creeds, etc. It's main maxim is that the LAW should protect the equal rights of every individual, i.e. that every man and woman is free to live how they desire so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. Property is simply an extension of the individual as it is labored for and gained by the individual and owned by the individual.

Now if someone refuses to give someone something of his, owned and produced by him, for whatever reason is that wrong? It could be because of race. It could be because of religion. It could be for a reason which we don't understand. Is that an infringement upon the right of the person denied? What gives that person the right to demand that someone give them their property (goods, services) against their will? Why stop with business? Should we be forced to allow anyone into our homes that wished to enter? Are both a home and a business not private property?

Look at the flip side. Should an african american be forced to serve a white supremicist? Should any man or woman be forced to serve a known child molester? What good would this accomplish? Since when does forcing someone to do something change their true feelings about an issue? If someone wants to be rascist then screw them. They will get a bad name from those who are not rascist and will not be patronized and will ridiculed and in many areas be forced out of business. Just as democracy and freedom are not spread by occupation and force, rascism is not eliminated by forcing rascists to serve people against their will.

Racial discrimination is wrong and is an ill of humanity but it will not end by government decree. It ends through education and voluntary social interaction and cooperation. It's also not fair to make this a White vs. Black issue. Discrimination is discrimination whether it's Jew vs. Muslim or Asian vs. Australian.

I guess I just have a little more faith in society that the majority of we the people would do what's right in our local communities and accept everyone as equals regardless of color or creed, even in the absence of Federal Regulation!!!

"For those of you who are open-borders, why don't you dust off the welcome mat and let 500,000,000 Chinese come on in?"

And who enforces the borders, I wonder?

Wait, would that happen to be the GOVERNMENT?

Aw, @!$%#.

Should a black person serve a KKK member? Should a Jew Serve a Nazi, blahblahblahblahblah......

Here's your answer: YES. YES YES YES YES AND YES. What part of civility do you not get? What part of tolerance do you not understand? You have to deal with jerks on a daily basis, thats part of joining society. If you want to be a functioning member of society you have to go out into the world and deal with people whom you would prefer not to deal with.

Those who advocate segregation: What about biracial people? You know, like the president. Is he black, or is he white? And how far are you going to take this: What about hospitals? Private schools? Planes? Utility companies?

Seriously? Really?

Thank you! Spot on!

It really makes for a smoother functioning society when we have the basics in place... you know, so we're all on the same page. There are plenty of other venues to piss and mark your territory. It's called home, family, friends, religion, clubs....

A lot of people keep asking - "Does a black-owned restaurant need to serve the KKK" - as if this question is somehow provide a mind-blowing rebuttal to Rachel's point of view. The answer is simple and obvious - yes, they are obliged to serve them, and there is nothing wrong with that policy.

I want to thank Soccer Mike for articulating the Libertarian position.

I profoundly disagree with the Libertarian philosophy, but until people understand what Libertarians actually believe, we cannot have a real discussion about how those beliefs might translate into the nature of our society.

I'd start with this: "If someone wants to be rascist then screw them. They will get a bad name from those who are not rascist and will not be patronized and will ridiculed and in many areas be forced out of business."

OK. And what about pharma marketing drugs that kill people? And what about tainted meat? Should we not have and FDA? Sure, eventually, assuming a free and active press, we might eventually learn to be extremely suspicious of new drugs and supermarket meat. But what of the people who died? Too late for them.

Or how about this? "Just as democracy and freedom are not spread by occupation and force, rascism is not eliminated by forcing rascists to serve people against their will."

I think most would agree that legislation cannot change people's minds and hearts. But since we can't do that, we do what we can. And eventually, as this whole brouhaha demonstrates, what has been legislated (demanding that a racist dry cleaner must serve those he detests, among other things) percolates through society and minds and hearts do change.

As SoccerMike says, Libertarianism counts on the goodness and rationality of human beings. Far too utopian, IMO.

What a black owned restaurant does NOT have to do, is tolerate the KKK ACTING like the KKK. They disturb the peace...to any degree, they can be arrested and sued for damages, if any.

Another problem with Paul's rhetoric is how he would decide which private businesses have the right to discriminate and how you would define that law. There are obviously private businesses that would not be allowed to discriminate under any circumstances - a hospital for instance. I doubt you would find many people that would think that it's ok for a hospital to turn away a dying person based on race. Then we run into gray areas. Like say a gas station refuses to serve customers based on race, but the customer has a child that needs to get to the hospital quickly. Or maybe a convenience store that refuses to sell a chocolate bar to a diabetic. The typical libertarian argument is that if you don't like the policy, you can set up your own 'lemonade stand' - but often, the damage will already be done which is why we have laws to preempt more serious situations.

limits on "free" speech are nothing new. one cannot; speak classified info publicly, speak inappropiately to children, knowingly speak false info which damages professional reputations, speak in violation of non-disclosure contracts, speak in a sexually-harassing way, etc

So, if someone were forced to associate with people with whom they did not wish to associate, would you say that might make said person...uncomfortable? Insecure, perhaps?

Since when did living in a free society include the right to be comfortable? There was that founding father guy who said something about it; what was it, again? Something about choosing security over freedom disqualifying a person from deserving either.

Paul's statements were simple, all right. Simply racist.

"Racist" is a term that is being thrown around far too loosely these days, which is the point of my earlier comment on this board.

Libertarianism is a philosophy -- beautiful in theory, but with some ugly edges in practice. The same can be said for socialism: it doesn't work particularly well in the real world. Rather than acknowledge that there are some ills which the invisible hand of Adam Smith cannot cure, Rand Paul stuck himself in a bit of a box. Problem is, the socialists and liberals among us can be caught with him, in one sense of the word.

First and foremost, Rachel is an advocate and, given her background, she knows exactly what she is doing when throwing around facile accusations of "racism." She knows that it isn't true, but since when has truth ever gotten in the way of politics?

Calling out racism is the new racism!

Since when did living in a free society include the right to be comfortable?

MechTrek, you have no idea what you are talking about, it's not about the right to be comfortable, its about the right to freely associate with who you choose.

Do you think a black store owner should be forced to serve a white supremeacist? White supremacy is practically a religion, they think they were created as superior beings by God. So can a black store owner kick them out of his store?

I'm not saying I'm against discrimination laws, I'm just saying there are logical reasons to be skeptical of some of them.

First things first: Rand Paul is setting up a "straw man" logical fallacy when he connects segregation of businesses with the First Amendment. The former has nothing to do with the latter. The CRA doesn't say that the business owner can't say "I hate ___— people." It simply states that (s)he cannot deny said people basic service. (S)He can complain about said group of people all (s)he wants in the process.

Second, like virtually all Libertarians, he ignores the spirit of the Constitution. Specifically, he ignores the fact that the rights of one individual end where the rights of the next individual begin. Thus, the rights of the business owner to discriminate end where the rights of the Black, Asian, Gay, etc. person to access goods and services begin.

"I'm not saying I'm racist; I just support the rights of racists to be racist." Is that it?

so what you're saying is you don't support equal protection under the law

thanks, thats all we needed to know.

"Rachel, once again you are being intellectually dishonest about the implications of Paul's position. He is not coming from the same ideological place that Buckley was, that "whites are the advanced race".

Ben, I think your comment here is a little unfair because you took your quote of the writings by Bill Buckley that Rachel used, out of context.

His beliefs were very much like Dr. Paul's, up to that point and it was intellectually honest of Rachel to leave them in there even though they distract from the real point.

BTW, the real point was, Bill Buckley rescinded on those comments later in his career.

"I'm not saying I'm racist; I just support the rights of racists to be racist." Is that it?

Yeah, it may seem unfortunate but that is exactly it MechTrek, that is what Dr. Paul is saying and I believe it to be his honest beliefs.

He himself does not appear to be racist and Rachel did not call him racist, he simply believes that allowing someone to run his/her business in a racist way is the right way for the government to function. He believes that market forces will look after the issue.

I think he is wrong, as apparently does Rachel, because I believe there is a role in government to interpret and apply the concepts of the constitution in a way that is fair to and protects all citizens and discrimination is one of those things that our government finally figured out needs to be enforced in order to protect everyone.

Rick,

You have to admit there is a line, though. There are some forms of discrimination that are OK, under law. Private country clubs for example. There are still many golf clubs that are white protestants only. Should we force them to allow black membership?

So I think what you should see here, is that Rand simply has a different idea of where the line is. Hardly a reason to throw a candidate out the window, when he is so great on more pressing issues.

The Contractors seem to be using Afganistan as the cash cow these days.

To Ben James:

By asking "Do you think a black store owner should be forced to serve a white supremeacist?" my assumption is that you feel most of us will reply "of course not!"

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me this is illustrative. I do not believe any store owner should be allowed to discriminate against anyone, including the equal-but-opposite scenario you describe. The black store owner has to serve the KKK just as much as the white store owner has to serve the african-american. My belief in non-discrimination doesn't falter when it gets inconvenient.

That being said, the KKK shopping in the black person's store has the responsibility to conduct thier transaction in a civil manner. If they are entering the store simply to harass the owner, damage his property, or defame him to other shoppers for instance, then he has every right to call the authorities and have them removed.

Awesome Kurt, at least you're consistent.

My main problem is that Maddow is conveying to her audience that Rand will have a dangerous legislative agenda. I don't think this is true. Fiscal responsibility, and a return to the constitution on the wars and civil liberties is not a dangerous agenda, it is what we need right now.

Yes, if another discrimination law comes up, Rand might not vote the way Rachel would like, but you never get anything you want from any single politician. It seems to me she's been way harder on Rand's ideology for the past 48 hours than she has been on Obama's for the past year.

I mean, crap, there are FBI agents still infiltrating anti-war organizations. Obama could undo this with an executive order! Why is Rachel not talking about this stuff?

Hey Kurt, so you support rights of the KKK? Very telling, quite the tuning-fork moment right there. I think your support of the KKK tells us everything we need to know. Next question, How long have you been a racist? It's a simple question, sir.

Do you see how quickly this can be turned around? Now you know how Rand felt.

Regarding the topic of whether a Black business owner ought to be required to serve a white supremacist:

Critical difference: the issue is behavior, not inborn quality. That is, if a white supremacist comes in and doesn't commence hate speech or other bad behavior (and doesn't have a known history of doing so), then I would fully expect the Black business owner to serve him without issue. However, I also don't know how, in the case where this person hasn't done anything to demonstrate his beliefs, the business owner would know whether this person was a white supremacist or not. If the business owner refused to serve all white people on the basis of a belief that all white people are more or less white supremacists and therefore are tainted, then we have a problem, but the right of a business owner to deny service based on behavior (no shoes no shirt, or, no cussing in my store, or whatever) is not the issue.

A white business owner is not required by the Civil Rights Act to tolerate out of bounds behavior by a nonwhite customer, either. If a nonwhite person enters a white-owned convenience store and engages in actions that are unacceptable in the space (actions, not states of being; being Black isn't an action), then it's not necessarily a racist act to remove that customer--I do concede it could be; routinely removing people for speaking Spanish, which is a behavior, is probably racist

Thanks for checking on that. I agree with you that Paul did not answer a clear "yes" to any question that Rachel asked as stated. He was mainstream political in that sense.

Someone above is connecting the Libertarians with Adam Smith's invisible hand. I think of the hand as a more economic approach. Libertarians seem to me to be about limiting government.... maybe the same idea, but it comes from a different direction. Smith is perhaps, the overlap between Libertarians and the GOP, but more at the heart of the GOP.

Like all of us, Libertarians want to talk about the advantages of their beliefs. "Limiting gov't gets them out of your life." is a nice sound bite in this country, until you consider (as the same commentor wrote above) that human nature is not so fantastic when left unchecked. I think this connects nicely with the health care debate. One side thought that corporate health care needed monitoring and the other thought the gov't couldn't do the job unmonitored. Both have people in them and need another check to promote honesty in a system.

Congress has legal authority to regulate interstate commerce (which the courts have gone nuts with, to be certain), and the authority to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. You can make an originalist argument for Rand Paul's position (see Raoul Berger, Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems (1972), but it is probably too late in the day to make it seriously.

We got to the right answer ... now, if we could just enforce those rights we have on paper....

Yes! Excellently put.

The geographical distance from me doesn't matter, as far as I can tell. My city councilman, my state representative or my senator in Washington can be equally corrupt and self-serving.

You are completely wrong here. It is easier for the citizens to control legislation at the local and state level, that's why we have a tiered government system, and that is why the federal government is constitutionally bound to a few roles. Any new significant role should be accompanied by a constitutional amendment

If the defense of Evil is evil then you must oppose free speech. If you believe the westboro baptist church has the right to carry "thank god for 9/11" and "god hates fags" signs then you must be as evil as them. We can't take away freedom of speech because some people say hateful things. We can't take away the freedom to choose whom you associate with just because of why they don't want to associate with someone. The law that says I can't refuse service to an asian is the same law that says you have to serve the westboro basptist church members if they show up with those signs. If you refuse to serve them then you've discriminated against them because of their religion and therefore violated their civil rights.

Fear of government is VERY healthy. And our Founders had it.

We should divorce the philosophy of libertarianism from racism, because the philosophy is most definitely not racist. It assiduously ignores the ugly reality of tribalism, thinking that Adam Smith's invisible hand is a magic wand.

I'm a libertarian, but laugh almost as hard at Rand Paul as I do Mrs. Paul. As a practical matter, government is the art of the practical. James Madison said it best:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

Federalist #51 (J. Madison).

Private property is an essential prerequisite of liberty. But you can take the prerogatives of private property too far and also, restrict them to the point where rights no longer exist.

At least, he isn't a politician -- you have to waterboard 'em to get 'em to admit that the sky is blue.

Shadowranger...I have trouble with your argument re Westboro Baptist Church. I think the conflation with private property with free speech is a weak argument also. You can't discriminate against someone for who they are: Black White, Klansmen, Westboro Baptist church member...that's true. If its a business, you serve them.

But because people are who they are, it is expected that they will act a certain way...it is ACTIONS which justly permit individuals to be barred from places. A black owner of a BBQ joint would have to serve Klansmen. He would NOT have to tolerate having himself, his other customers, or his establishment assaulted because the Klansmen decided to act like Klansmen. It would be most proper to call the police, press charges, and sue for damages.

In the instance of the Westboro Baptist church...they are famous for picketing funerals and claiming that its protected speech. Funerals are private, by invitation affairs. Their private nature absolutely trumps the church's right to free speech. Their actions are no different than Klansmen burning a cross at a black funeral. No way in hell would that be even remotely legal, much less protected. People enter private functions and institutions with the understanding that they will behave themselves. Disturbing the peace is against the law. Try this on for size, if what Westboro Baptist Church does is protected, then wouldn't going to one of their services with an ait-horn and heckling the minister be protected free speech too?

That would be amusing to watch the exploding heads, and boy would there be a lot of em.

Or... private colleges that want diversity will now give race-based scholarships to African Americans and Latino/as only.

Been there, done that, and still live there too. While I live in a pretty White state, I have always lived in the most diverse city in said state and live amongst the predominantly black and hispanic neighborhoods, but I wouldn't call them ghettos. I frequent them often, especially at night to get some damn good food usually. So I'd like to know your point. I'm beginning to believe that as often as you have stated in this forum that you are neither Proud nor Black. However if I am mistaken, then the term self-loathing comes to mind.

You know, we don't all like what he has to say. I agree, much of my state is less-than-progressive. However, there are many of us who are utterly and completely against what this man is espousing. Grouping the citizens of my state in with this man is insulting.

Problem is, there are a lot more in the certifiably frootloops category in Kentucky than in the rest of the country. You can't run from facts, KY Femme. ;-)

KY Femme,

You should look at the rest of Rand Pauls positions, he is more anti-war, pro-civil liberties, anti-bank than any democrat you know.

He's not perfect, but he's better than anything else you have.

I have a sneaking suspicion that most of the Kentuckian GOPers who pulled the lever for Mr Paul had NO idea where he stood on the Civil Rights Act, or the Fair Housing Act, until after the primary vote. Are they paying attention now?

Kentuckians, we are all watching.

Ben, the sad reality is that you're right.

Until we can figure out how to clone Bernie Sanders, I'd rather elect someone who agrees with me 80% of the time and in the other 20%, has ideas that are so whacked out that no one would ever seriously consider them, than the corporate courtesans we are saddled with now.

Michael Bennet (D-CO) wasted $300,000 of our money on a terrorism exhibit at the local museum. In essence, he is owned by Silverado Swindler Larry Mizel, who also owns Colorado's Mayflower Madam, Jane Norton. In 2011, the Senate will not recognize the new Senator from Colorado, but the Senator from Mizel.

I'll trade you whoever gets elected here for Rand Paul, and even throw in a player to be named later.

I tend to agree, yeah he may hold some nutty views on on property rights, but if he's anything like his father then he is as anti-war anti-imperialist, and a proponent anti-interventionist foreign policies then any Democrat currently in the federal Congress. That alone makes me kinda sad.

Kentucky is not the most backward state in the nation. I know we often have this reputation that is obviously endorsed by the media's representation of my home state. Anyone who has seen "American Hollow" on HBO or the more recent documentary style presentation done by Diane Sawyer (a native of the state) should understand what I mean. We're often portrayed as toothless, uneducated, and, at least lately, racist. I'm not denying it exists and that a demographic of our population likely fits that description. But it's unfair to characterize us as being one homogeneous group.

With all that said, perhaps Paul's characterization lately isn't true to his real beliefs. I have my doubts but I'll allow it could be true. But his association with the Tea Party makes me want to hurl, for lack of a better way of putting it. I believe he is playing to the extreme in an attempt to set himself apart from many of the wishy-washy middle of the road politicians we've dealt with here. It may serve him well. However, as things stand right now, I want no part of it.

Yes! They are just as protected as the rest of us. If I owned a restaurant, I shouldn't be able to turn them away (if they are there to conduct a transaction and have a piece of pie.) If they come into my restaurant to chant, disrupt my place of business, defame me baselessly, harass me or my customers, or damage my property, I can certainly call the police and have them removed. But until they cross that line, if all they want is pie, I have the obligation to serve them. That how freedom of speech and association work hand in hand with the rights of every one involved. It's not that difficult, folks.

Agreed, I think it would have been better if Rachel would have allowed him to hang himself with his own Ideology. Let him explain himself out of the dead end that strict constructionist libertarianism inevitably leads to. I mean Rachel is a not without her own political and intellectual heft. Doctor, Rhodes Scholar etc... I guess I would have preferred to see his Ideology debated (and probably torn asunder) like watching Noam Comsky and William F Buckley debate on Firing Line. That's good Television.

And say what you want about William F Buckley, the Views he expressed in why the South must Win, were not made on Libertarian arguments, they were made on purely racist terms. Terms he later disavowed publicly to his credit, and I think sincerely. How many people of that age ever retract worng-headed views that late in life. I know my dad never did. I think that says something, maybe.

Yomamma! First and foremost, Rachel is openly lesbian; the execs are male and besides, she doesn't come close to the raw weatherbabe appeal of the Faux Floozies. Second, Rachel's a Rhodes Scholar, which distinguishes her from the drop-outs that you take marching orders from like Drugs Limburger and community college beauty queens like Caribou Barbie.

And censors: leave this idiot's comments up, pretty please?

I second leaving that "comment" up. speaks for itself & provides (disturbing) insight into a segment of our pop.

I don't think garden variety misogyny is particularly rare such that this comment provides insight on it.

Yourmomma..

I'm guessing you are a big Glen Beck fan...

I think your doctor needs to increase your medication.... But unfortuneately there is no cure for ignorance...

In an ironic twist, this idiot commenter is providing a prime example of how the rights of everyone need protecting.

Good to see Anti-Semitism is still a key principle of the right wing. I find it interesting that one can throw out Jew as an epithet, and at the same time worry about the existence of Israel. Very curious.

because to a wingnut, jesus was white & not jewish. see how simple...!

Okay...let's see. Nazi= far left. KKK=Nazi. KKK=Far Left=Commies. KKK=Commie. KKK= unAmerican. I love your math Yourmomma. With all of your anti-semitic fervor, it sounds like your cheering for the wrong team. Besides everyone knows that you and all your militia bunker buddies are just a bunch of rotten pinko commies (my apologies to all the decent hardworking commies out there.)

Say, just who is right wing and left wing in this little morality play? And what's with all the cheerleading for wars two and more generations gone? Just how old are you? Does "Nazi" actually mean anything to you...or is it just a name you call people you've been told to hate? Did you ever sit through a history class? Look, I got my GED in prison - but I know enough to tell that all you are vomiting is word salad and poison.

To "Yourmommieisacommie" Get a history book out and do some research. The Nazi's were a far right wing party based on racism, violence and fear...sound familiar. To get want they wanted they resorted to propaganda making the people afraid. Sure they had Socialist in their name but that is just a name. Germany was in a bad way when they came along, high unemployment , food shortages and so on. Yes the Government gave people jobs but not out of the kindness of their hearts. The jobs were to build Hitlers war machine so he could fill his twisted thinking of controlling the world.

Calling Rachel names only shows your immaturity and your lack of knowledge. Using the words from others also shows you do not even take the time to research for the truth. By the things you said , you would probably not believe the truth or facts. I always feel sad for people with closed minds. Sure I like watching Keith and Rachel BUT, I also do my own researching and not take all said on T.V. as 100% true.

Go visit a Library someday. It will Open your Mind !!!!

As a Library worker I second that suggestion. Libraries are fun places.

Yourmommie... doesn't need all that fancy book learnin' stuff. Why would he when Glenn Beck and the Bible tell him everything he wants to know.

You have the right to freedom of association. What you do not have the right to is freedom to discriminate.

So shaktinah you're saying that I have the right to not talk to a hindu person as long as I have a reason other than him being hindu?

Your argument is the reason why I don't want to associate with someone. It's ok for me to not serve asians at my restaurant as long as I do it for a reason other than the fact that they are asian.

Of course I believe in freedom of association. I believe that minorities should be free to associate with the majority. Oh...that's not what you meant, is it?

The right to freedom of association is the right to discriminate. We all discriminate-I don't knowingly associate with thieves, liars and cheats. The question becomes-who sets the criteria for deciding with whom we will associate-free individuals or a coercive government.

No. Freedom of association goes both ways.

again, another conservative who does not support equal protection under the law.

so much for the constitution.

That of course assumes one has a competitor. From the Libertarian perspective the government breakup of a monopoly is an overreach as well. So then you could have a theoretical monopoly denying an essential good, say groceries/food to a particular group. What then? Perhaps, a competitor might spring up due to market forces to meet the demand, but in the mean time 100 people just starved to death.

I don't even know what your point is, do you want me to say that the Republican Party is and always has been the vanguard of Civil rights for Black folk in America? Who must be kidding right. Yeah maybe in the time of Lincoln, but not anymore. If you trying to convince anyone that the Republican haven't "switched sides" as you put it, then you're insane.

Yeah and Lincoln freed the slaves. You are talking about what "Tricky Dick" did during the Civil Rights Era? Seriously?

The whole problem with your argument is that you are making a rather incredible assumption that the Republicans now are the same as what they were 40 or 50 or 60 or 150 years ago. They are not. Not even close. While maybe what Nixon did was an altruistic political move, I would say that he was probably looking at the possibility of the Republicans alienating black voters for generations when they assimilated the Dixiecrats into the Republican Party, so he made a political move to try to mitigate the damage. Either way, it failed because his moves were a day late and a dollar short as they say. The Republicans and Dixiecrats were not on board with civil Rights Act when the chips were down and that alienated an entire generation of African Americans. Period.

Secondly, Eisenhower had to send the troops in because if a state were allowed to defy federal law, well, we saw what happened to the First Republican President now don't we? A President who allowed states to openly defy federal law would look incredibly weak, and Eisenhower was not weak.

So while what previous Republicans have done is all well and good, and commendable , I would argue that they are not the current incarnation of the GOP. Both of your Republican examples would be drummed out of the party as pinko commie radicals. Eisenhower maintained a top tax rate of 92%. If Obama did that poor white people would be inexplicably rioting in the street. He warned about the cozy relationship between the defense industry and government. Remember Military Industrial Complex? Eisenhower is one of the few things the Republican party can hang their hat on for the entire 20th Century. So While the GOP leadership may have done good things in the past, they are currently an all white party located mostly in the south who are still bitter about Brown V. Board of Education and the ending of Segregation. And Roe v. Wade but that's for a different time.

Just how much of the War on Drugs was focused on White folks? What about the stereotype of the "black welfare queen" propogated by Reagan and Bush the Elder? The disparity in sentencing between powder and crack cocaine? William Bennet himself had said that crack cocaine was in experiment on the effects of communities of affordable drugs. Therefore every crack baby every life destroyed by crack, by gang violance, every victim of a drive by is the legacy of the Reagan Administration. The importation of cocaine and the introduction of crack into inner city communities by the CIA to help fund Central American adventures...providing a third leg to the Iran Contra affair. You'll deny it...but look up Freedom of Information Act: Cocaine Iran Contra. Reagan era hero Olly North rode in a shipment himself. The perception that only blacks are on welfare and that any domestic spending is WRONG? The attack on public education through vouchers - destroying the educational systems of the inner-cites, which or the only way outside of prison, that people can escape them? Do you need more examples? Okay, where's the outrage over the meth epidemic...where are the madantory minimum sentences?

Oh yeah, Republicans just LOVE them some black folks!

Manuel Noriega was the person with drug cartel ties, during Reagan years he was tied to CIA and if you are interested, this happened in Reagan years. Bush 1 had him tried and convicted of drug trafficking.

http://www.answers.com/topic/manuel-noriega

Clearly you've never seen DemocracyNow. Amy Goodman would make your head explode. Do everyone a favor and go back to watching FOX.

moderator - this juvenile screed can be deleted since an earlier example is available for our examination.

another great conservative mind on display.

Wow, it only took a few months of this blog existing before it's starting to get trolled.

At least, I'd prefer to think of this poster as a troll rather than someone who actually believes this sort of thing....

Wow! Damn. Your just an incurably ignorant peckerwood aintcha? Historical fun facts: the Nazis nearly exterminated all the Jews in Europe. They were ANTI-JEWISH. They propagated the Zionist Conspiracy. Anti-Semitic means ANTI-JEWISH. You going on about Jews is Nazi propaganda. Do I need to use sock puppets to explain it better?

Next fun fact: Russia, or the USSR as it was called then, was Communist. Extreme Left Wing. Nazi Germany INVADED Russia (or the USSR). Russia sustained more casualties...by millions, than any other nation. If Nazism is so Left Wing, why did Germany attack another Left Wing Nation?

You are being lied to and are too lazy to know any better, on top of that, you are a slimy pinko commie (again, with apologies to all the Commies out there.)

...and now, a rag to wipe the foam from your face, plus your first dose of rabies vaccine. cheers.

I know some very nice anarchists who work out of an anti-oppression framework. I wouldn't insult them by lumping Paul in with them.

actually no. just because the french rev gave anarchy a bad name does NOT mean libertarians are the same.

In theory, in a world where everyone was generous, open-minded, able to share, able to reason, open to working together, etc, anarchy would be great: and I used to consider its merits very seriously a few years back.

HOWEVER: I do think anarchy sounds like what Rand Paul is advocating and it would probably give his tea party supporters pause to hear it. I doubt they realize how close they are to those ideas, yet the more I hear about right-wing anti-government conservative groups, it keeps coming back to me: are they advocating anarchy?

Maybe "business anarchy" is a better way to sum up Rand Paul's ideas?

The government protects and serves my business-really? They steal the fruits of others labor and deliver it to the parasitical political class to buy votes to support their corrupt power structure. Get a clue-property rights ARE human rights. What good is the right to free speech if the government owns all the printing presses? What good is the right to freedom of assembly if the government owns all the common spaces? What good is the right to any good or service if the political power structure can thru violent means control its distribution? The left needs to grow up and come to grips with the fact that if human rights are to be truly protected then the right to buy and sell stuff, as well as the right to freely associate, needs to become inviolate.

Depends on the sheet, what I'm serving and whether his money is U.S. Legal tender. If a white guy in a Klan costume walks into a black business expecting service with a smile, I'd probably offer him a seat just to listen to what the hell informed his thinking. Then I'd call the dog catcher.

morality cannot be legislated, conduct however can. hate thought is NOT against the law, hate actions are.

@hatenomor

I am not sure why you think I missed the point but that's ok, I might not have made myself clear.

But, I have to say that my beliefs on racism are very different than yours. You see, I don't believe that being American conveys me the right to be racist, or conveys to me the right to be anything else that is detrimental to our society as a whole.

I realize that is a pretty broad statement, but the reason I make it is because if, we as a society, stop believing that the constitution conveys to us rights to do things, that are detrimental to society then we are on the right road to building the society that I think we can and should build. Now, I also know that defining what is detrimental to society can be very complicated, but not when it comes to the issue of racism.

OhioOrrin makes a good point that morality cannot be legislated and that has clearly been proven, but what isn't pointed out is, that we all have the obligation to legislate morality in ourselves. But, as Orrin points out since we don't do that our government must legislate conduct or actions, which I wholeheartedly agree with.

Finally, yes I am aware that racism exists, as I think I pointed out in my comment, and I am also aware that bigotry exists, having been the recipient of of it myself. Bigotry is best described by ascribing characteristics that all humans can have to identifiable groups, like saying, it is especially true that homosexuals are promiscuous, or it is especially true that Asians are bad drivers, or;

This is especially true of liberals, who, if not being condescending, usually are disingenuous.