Let me preface this by saying I’m not fan of the Paulies and some of their rude, pushy tendencies. With that, the recent email blast from MoveOn’s Steven Biel must be addressed as the deliberate race-baiting trash it is.
In recent weeks, Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul has repeatedly criticized the Civil Rights Act of 1964, saying that private businesses should not be banned from discriminating on the basis of race.
While his campaign spokesman said Paul believes the government should be able to ban racial discrimination, many observers are finding it impossible to draw that conclusion from statements made by Paul himself.
Now is a good time to either question Biel’s grasp of American history or his willingness to carry on the Democrat Party’s shameful tradition of pitting one race against the other for political gain.
I say MoveOn’s Biel may be ignorant of civil rights history because his Democrat Party is the last group of people who should be lecturing anyone on support of the 1964 Act:
It’s one thing for a single candidate to espouse such backward views. It’s something else for the leader of the Republican Party in the Senate to embrace them as well. We need to call Mitch McConnell out.
Can you sign the petition calling on Sen. Mitch McConnell to publicly reject Rand Paul’s criticism of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Hopefully Rand Paul has shed his naïveté when it comes to appearing on bear trap programs like the Rachel Maddow show where a followup blog entry on the segment in question is entitled, “Rand Paul on ‘Maddow’ fallout begins”. This implies the liberals were handed a gotcha on a question that would never be asked of Democrats (and with good reason).
When asked about whether he would have signed the 1964 Act, Paul responded…
“I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race,” Paul said on Maddow’s program. But when pressed on whether he supported aspects of what the Civil Rights law did, including desegregating lunch counters in privately owned restaurants, Paul gave a dodge-y answer: “Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion.”
A valid question. Should a 7-11 be able to deny people with no shirt or shoes to enter their stores? Can an employer deny a job at Hooters to an overweight woman? Does a person who worked hard to create a competitive business have the right to hire who he or she wants or does the government control that decision?
Obviously Rand Paul wasn’t talking about racial exclusion which the Act addressed, but give a liberal an opportunity to smear a Republican as a racist, he or she will every time while they have no claim to the passage of most civil rights legislation in this nation’s history.
June 9, 1964 – Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D, W. Va.), who still serves in the Senate
June 10, 1964 – Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R, Ill.) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore, Sr. (D, Tenn.) Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.
LBJ, Sen. Dirksen
August 4, 1965 – Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor
Democrats would allow blacks to vote for them even though they weren’t considered worthy enough to sit at a restaurant counter with them later.
Most liberals under the MoveOn umbrella are ignorant of American history because it’s been successfully whitewashed by revisionist progressive professors, and just because the left can successfully and racially ambush Rand Paul, doesn’t mean Klan-creating, sufferage-opposing, literacy-testing, poll-taxing, 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment-opposing, black-coding, Jim Crow Democrats ever had the moral high ground in this discussion.
Liberal Democrats can’t claim to be racially tolerant when they continue to lie to an entire people about their history. Steven Biel’s attempt to fund-raise based on a manufactured race controversy is something we’ve unfortunately come to expect of Democrats and MoveOn.org.
Just don’t expect it to go unanswered.
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
348 Comments
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Sherry Marquez, Cindy Cooper, Big Tweeting, Eric Baity and others. Eric Baity said: RT @BigJournalism: When Searching for Racists, Democrats Should Back Off Rand Paul and Look In the Mirror http://bit.ly/9J66Zb [...]
Excellent post, Mr. Parks. The progressives only desire to control everything by any means and each time they are called out, they behave like childish brats. They are cowards. Keep outing them for what they are.
Big government is not working out so well- we are practically bankrupt financially and our politicians are, for the most part, bankrupt morally. It is time to flush and start over by rigorously following our Constitution.
I agree with everything in this excellent piece except for one thing. Where does he get the idea that "Paulies" are rude and pushy? I have never seen any evidence of that. It's something that's made up by Rachel Maddow and all that ilk. Paul supporters may react to being constantly ridiculed, but that is more a reaction than anything else.
Dr. Ron Paul and most of his supporters are the most polite people you will ever meet. Look how much it took for even the "Bruno" character to get a rise out of him.
I hope the author will think before writing words down, otherwise you are just another Rachel Maddow.
The fact that the left can call conservatives racist and get away with it is an indictment on the ideological bias in our educational, MSM and entertainment institutions. Anybody who REALLY knows history knows that the left's template is based on revisionist history. Maybe this administration's clumsy and inane economic policies are helping to debunk the notion that big government helps minorities given that about one-third of black males are unemployed. Meanwhile, the conservative view that success can be achieved equally if intrusive government would stop choking the private sector has to be continually argued.
But Republicans must be the racists who want to keep the black man down. I mean, the left has been telling me that for years and why would they ever lie to the public? The Democrats are so squeaky-clean in the morals department that they can have KKK members in congress and STILL not be racist.
Sigh. What color is the racist rainbow in the Democrat's world?
Everybody has their own experiences with different groups. I happen to agree with a good portion of Paul's ideas, but I've run into a good number of his supporters that have been pretty abrasive and closed minded. Maybe that's been Mr. Parks experience too?
February 22, 2009
To The Editor:
Response to Mr. Geller’s Column:
The Great Depression did not end as a result of government largess; the Great Depression ended because the US went to war, and in so doing annihilated the enemies ability to produce goods, and thus wage war. By the wars end the only country with any manufacturing capacity was the good old USA. Admittedly, FDR’s policies might well have saved this nation from further erosion, but the birth of entitlement programs of that era, and those that followed, will in the next three decades combined with the interest on our debt, completely drain the productive resources of our nation. That is, our entire federal budget will be equal to those financial promises, and if the next forty-seven months of this administration are anything like the first one – those promises will buy me a cup of coffee, and a doughnut when I begin to rely on them.
As far as your apparent animus toward Republicans for trying to be, at long last, responsible with the funny money that is the American dollar; the toughest part of any fight is not deciding to do the right thing – it is doing it. Under Minority Whip Cantor the Republican party demonstrated that it is prepared to, at long last, stand for fiscal responsibility. Seven Democrats stood with Republicans on the last “stimulus” vote. While I do not have the responsibility of being director of any part of the Republican party; I am a registered Republican. My party provided the leadership, Abraham Lincoln, that preserved the Union and ended slavery. My party provided the leadership, Ronald W. Reagan, that pulled the United States, and the rest of the world out of the malaise of the 70’s. I’m proud of the Republican party and the spine it is showing against this self-destructive economic philosophy.
In so far as your assertion that the stimulus bill will create millions of jobs and provide for various forms of alternative energy. Sometimes when it snows I hire my teenage neighbor to shovel; my neighbor is a smart hardworking fellow, he once revealed he is saving it for college. Why? He wants to grow economically, maybe he will decide to sacrifice present wants for a matter of years and realize the goal of coming back to Katonah and raise a family – as I have. That is real job creation; make work projects do not create communities, they destroy them. As for alternative energy, there is only one, nuclear power. At present not one reactor is under construction in the entire United States. All other forms of alternative energy even if we max them out – wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass – do not have the horsepower to do the job. Even if they did we cannot transport enough power from those areas that create it to those that will consume it.
The only way out of our current situation is to determine what is absolutely necessary and to use the organs of the federal government to fix the damage it caused, and take the rest, and throw it away. In doing that we will end the constant cycle that creates one crises after another. In doing this we will be able to rebuild our banks, our military, our communities, and fund restructured entitlement programs via a vibrant and growing economy. Building modern nuclear power plants, using that clean power to convert domestically produced coal to domestically produced liquid fuel; and continue to support applied science to research solar panel technology to shrink the cost of production, and increase its capacity to generate power and batteries to store it on cloudy days.
I did not live through the great depression, and I am sorry you had to – I did however, with the help of my older sister, survive a violent alcoholic mother who thought the world owed her something – she was right, but it wasn’t a roof, or a drink – and it certainly wasn’t something a five year old or an eight year old could deliver. There are “eight million stories in the naked city” mine is no worse nor any better than anyones – it is just different. I survived that abuse, I and you, will survive this abuse. Betting against America or an American(especially me) is always a bad bet; especially when our collective back is against a wall. We did it before and we will do it again, I have not a single doubt in my mind as to our ability to overcome this manufactured fiscal disaster or any other for that matter, real or imagined. We know that when we harness everyday wisdom, and apply it to seemingly complex situations we solve them. Since this Nation’s founding we have overcome every single challenge that has been placed in our way – we innovate, we compete, we overcome. And at times go to war to restore the peace or our liberty, and families all across America bear the raw cost of those battles – including mine.
In fact, I think this nightmare will be fertile ground for any politician, Democrat or Republican, to advocate for fiscal soundness, insurmountable national defense, restructured entitlement programs, and individual State control of the rest. Sir, politics ought not to be about who wins and who looses, or what party prevails, it ought to be about who can best articulate, and promote our shared values, and principles and in doing that lift all citizens up, not a few at the expense of the other. Remember, as President Reagan said, “If we lower our standards we lower the flag.” I say we put the shovels away and grab a bull dozer and a half track and get to work. I say we take our eyes off the politicians and put them back on the business leaders, the engineers, the scientists and the service members who preserve this great country, and all those men and women that make this country move everyday without so much as a thank you. This is where our attention should be, this is where our hope will turn to reality, this is where change will hone the granite that is the impenetrable American spirit.
"What color is the racist rainbow in the Democrat's world?"
Easy. White.
Mr. Paul TRIED to turn the Maddow interview back onto her but failed… when she asked him to answer "yes or no" he should have asked HER: "The Congressional Black Caucus reserves the right to ban membership based on race, why can't a private business owner?"
Great article!
It is the progressives on the left who are absolutely obsessed with race. Only they go to a Tea Party and can only see the color of people's skin there. Only they relentlessly stir up racist sentiment for their own political gain. Race obsessed IS racist! I have said for a long time that if leftists are looking for racism, they only need to look in the mirror!
Well said, Mr. Parks!
[...] Read the rest. Posted by Kevin Myers at 8:14 AM Tagged with: Conservative Principles, Liberals/Liberalism, Racists/Racism [...]
the repub party has done more for blacks in this country than the dems ever could.the racist southern democrat made sure blacks traded thier old private master for the new government master.the new dems will keep the boot on the necks of blacks untill they are no longer needed.when the dems get all the illegals signed up to vote the black man will pay dearly. no longer will they need his vote and he will be at the back of the line agian.
Remember when businesses used to have a sign that read:
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." I remember my aunt having a restaurant. Occasionally, rowdies and miscreants would enter and be disruptive. She had a sign that read, "No shirt, no shoes, no service." Sometimes people would try to force their way and she would be forced to call the male help from the kitchen to eject them, or even to call the police. Imagine if she couldn't refuse service and demand that they leave.
I have a friend, now retired, who had a small concrete business. He once hired a person who would often leave the job and go find a tree under which to take a nap instead of working. It caused great discord among his other employees. He fired the man. The man argued that my friend couldn't fire him because he was a minority! My friend fired him anyway. The man sued my friend, and it cost him tens of thousands of dollars to defend himself. Should he be forced to retain someone as an employee BECAUSE of his race? I think not! But that man thought so! Best that the government keep its nose out of private businesses. If the public doesn't like the racial attitudes of the business' management, they won't patronize that business. That will be punishment enough!
What happened to freedom of assembly? Do we or do we not have the right to choose those with whom we associate?
The entire history of pre-civil war slavery pointedly shines the light of truth….the democrat party has and always will be the party of the "Rich White Man" The party democrat portrays itself as being for the little guy, yet they continually palce barriers in the path so he will always be the little guy. The abolish slavery party is the Republican Party, they were the owners of the safe houses on the "Underground railroad", they were the legislators who insured the 1964 civil-rights act became law. Democrats survive on lies and re-written history. They have branded themselves in many guises, the latest being progressives, they have co-opted the education system, they have re-segregated America with the institution of "Diversity studies" resulting in the "Hyphenated American". You will note the hyphenation only applies to minorities. Why is there a need for the Congressional Black, or Hispanic Caucus' notice they exist in the Democrat Party.
Hey SmarterThanLibs, that is an outstanding comment. Stop by my blog, we'd love to have that type intellect shared with our many regulars.
———————————————————————
The new symbol of the Democrat Party – The Money Grubbing Turd: http://bit.ly/csPVzj
I disagree. It's any color that opposes the dims current progressive agenda.
Before opening mouth and shoving in foot, dims really need to study actual American History. Somewhere along the line it was skipped in their "formal" education, unless classes on Alinsky, Carl Marx, and Che Chavara are acceptable substitutes. My bad. Forgot for a moment that dims don't let fact stand in the way of a good lie.
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky….
The above is a must read.
[...] » When Searching for Racists, Democrats Should Back Off Rand Paul … [...]
I know that I would rather have a man in office who has the stones to stand behind his moral convictions to represent the people of his district and make a verbal guffaw now and then than to have a career politician who will say anything to fit the conversation just to get out of it unscathed.
Anyone who has been under fire in public discussion will say something that comes out the wrong way now and then. Like they say, actions spreak louder than words. Let's let the newbies get their baptism by fire under their belts and they'll be fine.
Obama and people like him decide early on to be career politicians and thus learn very quickly how to dodge and deflect before they hit the national scene. It's aslo pretty easy to look smart when you don't take direct questions from harsh critics and only appear at staged events to handpicked crowds of adoring supporters!
It just does not matter, if you are not sipping Kool Aid with Hussein you're a Racist! If you are against anything that his Posse of Clowns attempt to impose on us, you're a Racist.
And the right wing spin machine continues to try and turn this on the journalists and rachel maddow and now the democrats. Rand Paul clearly stated how he felt about certain parts of the Civil Rights Act and not just on MSNBC but on NPR and in a Louisville newspaper.
Did Rachel Maddow tell Paul what to say? NO. Those are his beliefs and no matter how you try to spin and point fingers at everyone else for supposedly putting words in Paul's mouth, that is what he said. Is he a racist? No. But he has shown that libertarian orthodoxy is not what the country needs and he actually gives strength to the notion that we need government intervention in certain areas in our lives.
Madcow would have had a heart attack. To bad he never thought to use that as a comeback. It might have shut her up and knocked her out of her highchair.. Excellent point to use in an argument with the far left. Thanks.
Still doenst change the fact that Rand Paul committed a major blunder and stated a bit of Libertarian Orthodoxy that is way outside the American mainstream. I dont think anyone in their right mind believes a restaurant should be able to racially segregate people. Sorry.
All the spin in the world wont take back Paul's comments and how this November they will come back to haunt him and every other Tea Party candidate. Not only has he lost the minority vote but he lost a huge chunk of white votes. But then again Kentucky being what it is he will still probably win. And please please stop talking about Dixiecrats. They left the Democratic party when it became too liberal and mostly became Republicans or like Byrd saw the error of their ways.
So you're ok with businesss refusing service to people based on race? So for you the higher morality is based not on love for one's fellow man but on who own's what? Awesome! Spoken like a true mental slave.
You obviously don't own or have ever owned a business of your own and had some gubmint nimrod try to dictate to you how to run said business. The man said that a private business owner should be able to make decisions that affect his business. If he does not take government money the government SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TELL HIM WHAT TO DO. That is what he said, doesn't matter if it's a restaurant or a sh*&%t factory.
If the general public does not like the way he runs his business they will not spend money there and he will be in business no more, that's how the FREE MARKET works dipstick! You don't need some beuracratic a$$hole to tell you that.
How can somebody with NEGATIVE 62 rating still be spewing dumb $hit on here.
"I hope the author will think before writing words down, otherwise you are just another Rachel Maddow."
When you get a chance, check out my video "Attack of the Paulies", inspired my the many rude emails and comments on my site left by supporters angry that I wouldn't support his candidacy.
http://www.youtube.com/user/BlackAndRight#p/f/25/...
My experience as well. I completely agree with the Pauls on fiscal issues, and I fundamentally agree with them on foreign policy, but I think Ron's call (I find Rand more agreeable on this issue than his father) to immediately pull out of all inappropriate foreign engagements to be rather impractical and dangerous. In trying to argue these points with die-hard Paulistas whom I agree with on practically everything, they typically to treat me like I'm some uninformed warmonger yokel. I find arguing with Paulistas to be typically as grating as arguing with liberals, except that I rarely agree with a liberal on anything.
Libertarian Orthodoxy is not racist.
It's not that anyone believes a restaurant should racially segregate – It's how much of a role our government should play in producing the desired result…
Think beyond race and racism and it's easy to see that the point is valid enough to be discussed without being blindly attacked.
When do we get to the point that the act of talking about a subject is no longer detrimental to the act talking about a subject?
Thanks I will do that.
[...] » When Searching for Racists, Democrats Should Back Off Rand Paul … [...]
[...] » When Searching for Racists, Democrats Should Back Off Rand Paul … [...]
Love for one's fellow man cannot be mandated – moron.
In which certain areas do we need government intervention and in which do we not?
We have government intervention in the oil business and we have a well spewing oil thanks to we know now the Feds watching porn and doing meth and making deals with their buddies in the oil industry.
We have government intervention in matters of college admission and employment, yet minorities still lag behind.
We have government intervention in drugs and everybody is killing everybody else in Mexico and now even in Jamaica!
I just don't understand what good government intervention does in anything. I know it's a scary thought not to have it, but maybe it's scarier to live with it.
[...] Read Full Story >> Big Journalism [...]
I'm sure Robert Byrd and all of the former DEMOCRAT slave owners and Klan members had nothing but love for their fellow man in their hearts as they watched them hang from trees and railroad bridges. But, I guess that fact was just too inconvenient for Ms. Maddow to bring up when she deliberately tried to hang Rand up on his points.
I don't guess you can really blame her though, I'm sure she learned the same revisionist history that most of the current LSM members learned and obviously take as gospel. She's only spouting what she learned in school. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good harassing.
Predictable and right on cue, the liberal vomit spews in chunks. If you had one-tenth of a brain to register input, you’d realize that is NOT what was implied in this post. But your “inner entitlement child” exposed you for the true fool you are. You’ve shown us all how a TRUE racist REALLY thinks. Thanks for the heads-up.
If you voted for OBAMA because he is black, then you are a racist…..If you think illeagal latino imagrants need special rights, your a racist. Just because the racism helps your people doesn't make it right. YOUR STILL A RACIST. If you agree with affirmitive action YOUR A RACIST! Putting anyone above another because of location of birth, skin color, or DNA strain is racist…ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL! not the blacks get college preference, latinos get get-out-of-jail cards for certain laws THIS IS RACISM!
You have plus 62 and it hasnt stopped you from spewing dumb s***.
And you haven't substantially refuted my argument either.
I figured it out.
Conservatives want a large class of professionals who happen to be minorities.
Liberals want a tiny class of professional minorities.
Jessie Jackson, Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Al Sharpton. They are all professional black people. They have made good livings and attained the highest heights by playing "race". It does not matter to them that their good lives keep others down. It doesn't matter to them that blacks and other minorities will never get ahead. They are living the good life, the life of royalty from this scam.
They need an underclass of minorities in order to keep their scam going.
I would say, as with most people who want to live in a civil and just society, government intervention when it pertains to segregated lunch counters or bathrooms is absolutely necessary. I mean, in all seriousness, do you believe the highest ethics are ownership rights or equality under the law?
When it comes to matters like vice like with drugs and prostitution it should be up the individual what they do with their body. The war on drugs simply hasnt worked.
Do you think we would be a better society if we still had racial segregation?
That's because the hard core left are childish brats.
Personally I don't see a whole lot of difference between the modern democratic party and my middle school cafeteria, where the cool kids sit on one side hurling insults at the geeks on the other side.
A verbal guffaw? LOL! It wasnt a verbal guffaw. He clearly stated that as a part of his libertarian orthodoxy which we are beginning to see is not going to work and regulation is needed in numerous areas of our society, that business owners had a right to segregate lunch counters racially and/or refuse service to minorities based purely on their minority status. I know he said he was against racism and I believe him but what he's also saying is that ownership is the highest ethics when it isnt.
Shows what goofballs everyone always suspected libertarians of being too. I like his father to some degree but alot of what he advocates is just plain crazy.
Here's what drives Paul's stance on meddling in the affairs of other nations.
"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities." — George Washington, in his farewell address
"[P]eace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." — Thomas Jefferson in his inaugural address
Whether you agree with Paul or not, they have a solid foundation for their positions.
What a ridiculous, revisionist article. Comparing the Democratic Party of 150, or even 50 years ago to today's is absurd. It's like judging a modern Cadillac's performance by test driving a 1902 runabout. And blaming Rachel Maddow for Rand Paul's oligarchism is like faulting the media for revealing BP's oil spill. Her interview style doesn't make him any less an idiot. Lincoln would weep if he could see today's Republicans.
Mitch McConell did reject Paul's remarks yesterday on Fox.
Perhaps, but odds are it would have ended up on the edit room floor.
If your point is that a man who has put his whole life, blood, sweat, tears and money in to a private business and does not take a nickel of government money should not be able to run his business the way he sees fit then I would wholeheartedly disagree with you. As anyone who owns a business can tell you, there is more than enough government interference already. And when was the last time anyone has seen a segregated
" White's Only " restaurant anyway!
If that man chooses to be a racist and not let blacks or any other minorities into his business then he will either suffer the consequences financially and go broke or reap the benfits from the white community who is also racist and will support him.
I believe that on the whole as a society most people today are not racist and would not refuse anyone the
" RIGHT " to do business with them. Paul's comments where taken way out of context and skewed to try to make him look racist and that is the left's point, not whether he actually is a racist or not.
Paul's response had nothing to do with race, he was attempting to explain the concept of freedom of association. An extremely dangerous are for government to be playing around in. Ask Americans of Japanese dissent during WWII what happens when the feds decide who you must associate with, and so who they can't associate with.
News flash Larry, Jim Crow laws were government forcing segregation on the population.
If you think forcing people to associate is a good idea, Jim Crow is the flip side of that coin.
And from an economic standpoint its suicide for a business to arbitrarily reduce the pool of potential customers. I know I certainly wouldn't do business with any one who did it.
Byrd saw the error of his ways? More like he got caught. After he publicly threw the KKK under the bus he secretly rejoined them.
A little history education might make your posts more reasonable.
Your profile says Smartass, so I had to ablige. Rainbows are caused by the spectrum refracting from WHITE light.
Spin it all you want Larry. The MSM is running with this as a talking point, but they don't pull the same weight anymore. Americans are getting their news by going around them, and the truth will be learned.
Your insistence that this is some how racially motivated demonstrates to me the fear on the left of the rise of new ideas.
Tell me, did you cry a little when Scott Brown won?
Well larry, show me a Democrat or Republican career politician who is above reproach and I'll sell you some prime beachfront property in Southeast Louisiana that doesn't have a speck of oil on it, I swear!
There are so many political ideologies out there it'll make your head explode trying to keep up. I think everyone's point is what we've been doing ain't working and if you do just a little research you can surely find more than enough evidence of the extreme left wing Democrats, black and white, repression of minorities for political purposes. So who exactly are the bad guys here?
As a solid Ron Paul supporter, I must agree, many of his supporters can be quite pushy. I believe it comes from two basic thoughts. First, they've been laughing stocks for so long, considered the lunatic fringe, they have short fuses.
Secondly, the ideology calls for harsh restrictions on government's largess. And that appeals to few people.
When I was a kid I had an uncle who used to sneak us candy and money behind our parent's back, let us basically do what ever we wanted. My father, on the other hand said no quite frequently.
As a father myself, I know now which one was right.
I agree with you. I do not believe in segregation.
I agree.
Well we do have racial segregation as long as you are a minority you can segregate yourself all you want. You can have clubs and contests and tv networks. I wonder how they would like a court challenge to those private rights?
I think it would be a better society if we didn't have racial segregation because it's wrong, and we know it's wrong, not because we are forced to have it.
That is a difficult ; and if one does not have an open mind, impossible. Does madcow have an open mind? IMHO, no.
Why did Rachel have to change the transcript if she's so brilliant? If she "got him" why does she have to lie about it. I mean, other than that she's pathological and would lie even when the truth served the purpose better.
When politicians push to seize more freedom, they only talk about what they say are the good that will come from it.
We all need to be very aware of what the unintended consequences, and they are always there. Democrats who want "free" health care don't understand that when the government is paying the bills, they get control over everything that affects your health. Including what we eat, how much we exercise, everything.
Same thing with freedom of association. If the feds can say who we have to associate with, then they can tell us who we can't associate with.
Trying to bring larry along, you know some people are always trying to ice skate uphill
I couldn't have said it better myself……….guess I'm a racist then
Change the transcript? What are you talking about? You can watch the whole interview here:http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/rachel-mad...
It is what it is. Sorry if that makes it tough to spin.
As I said, fundamentally I totally agree. I was a staunchly against going to war in Iraq, didn't buy the line that Saddam posed any significant threat to us worthy of an invasion. That said, once we toppled his government, the US military became the de facto authority there. Simply pulling our troops out because we were wrong to go in in the first place would only serve to throw the region into further chaos. This is where my disagreement on foregin policy with Ron Paul stems from; he seems to think that we atone for our mistake by hastily pulling out, I think we exacerbate the problems caused by our mistake by doing that. My problem with the Paulistas who I've encountered is that they generally think I'm beating the drum of war by not being in total agreement with them. I don't mind that they don't agree with my position, I see people who agree with me 95 percent of the time as allies, but I get the distinct feeling from most of the die-hards that they don't see anyone who is "impure" in the same light.
My personal personal experience has been this: I've experienced a lot of rudeness and definitely a "pushy" approach from Paulians. In fact, I've never met one that was polite. The thing is, they are focused on the person of Ron Paul, like Representative Paul is the only one who we can rely upon. The website they direct me to without fail? "The Daily Paul"; the title reminds me of "The Daily Kos". Both are egocentric titles, IMHO.
I'm just stating the facts of my experience. What will happen now is that The Paulians will attack me and this comment, which is another thing that they do without fail whenever anyone does not blindly agree with what they see as The Way.
There's some Truth for you. Unbiased application of the facts without regard to demographics and/or social status. Refreshing.
Very reasonable and polite response, thank you.
Personally I was for the war in Iraq for one main reason, we'd already started it in 1992 and just never bothered to finish it. And it was not going to go away. it had to be finished sooner or later. This is the main reason I despise Bush 41. He left the job unfinished.
The impression I got from Paul wasn't that he wanted to abandon Iraq to chaos, but rather was attempting to explain his larger view on America's foreign policy and immediately the career politicians jumped him, preventing him from finishing.
One thing to remember about Paul's supporters, they come from every segment of the right, and that means you're going to get the nuts too.
One time he was doing a meat and greet, having pictures taken with people, and some guy shows up, gets his picture taken shaking Paul's hand. Turns out it was David Duke and he used that pic in some campaign literature.
Freedom is a big tent, room for wackos too. It doesn't necessarily mean we all agree on everything, only that individual freedom is highly preferable to government fiat.
I wholeheartedly agree with almost all of the above article, but you have to admit to defend Paul Rand in this interview is like trying to polish a turd. Seriously, he got owned!
Lincoln would indeed weep if he could see today's Republicans, after he got done tossing his lunch.
With zero morals or even a hint of a compass to guide them through life is it any wonder that those who live in the gray between right and wrong are such diastrous human beings? And talk of being ridiculous we have your typical unaccountable leftist such as jonpt who wishes to whitewash his parties hand in creating, festering and fostering racism in this country.
Maddcow… LOL . The epitomy of truth and honor. NOT!
It sure is interesting to experience the alternate, truth-and-fact-free universe you guys live in. What a weird and useless bubble. God really needs to do some redevelopment work here…
" I mean, in all seriousness, do you believe the highest ethics are ownership rights or equality under the law?"
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Yeah, you may be right about that. The impression I got from Ron during the primary debates was that he was for immediate withdrawal, but it could have simply been that he had more nuanced views making it easy for his voice to be drummed out by the conventional politicians and pundits. (Much like how his son is currently being treated…) I stand by my assertion that his supporters tend to hold those views though (my younger brother and several of his friends are big Ron Paul guys, that's where I get my basis for said assertion)
Absolutely agree however, if we'd simply finished the job in Iraq the first time through, this would never even have become an issue.
But anyways, I see the arguments on the right today to be much akin to those had some 220 some odd years ago between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. (I kind of see both groups somewhat as forebearers of today's Libertarians and Conservatives respectively) We don't always agree on what we want, but do always agree that an overbearing, top-down approach to government is what we're against.
Don't blame Bush 41 for not finishing Iraq. Blame Dick Cheney, who's on record as saying that toppling Saddam would make the region more unstable and get us involved in (yes, I'm quoting) "a quagmire." That was back in the mid-'90s.
And no matter how much folks want to say the situation is great now, it simply isn't. There are still bombings all the time, and there will more than likely be a civil war when (if ever) we decide to withdraw troops. And who will benefit a lot from that? Iran. If the only thing tamping down violence is the fact that we have to keep troops there forever, we haven't achieved anything at all.
The whole thing was a poorly-reasoned excuse to show we were going to be "tough" after 9/11. We should have spent all that energy going after Bin Laden instead. Rational people now recognize that truth, even if it happens to be in hind-sight, and it's a credit to Mr. Paul's previous statements and the wisdom of the men who founded this country.
I have no idea why so many folks think our government—the same government that can't even properly run the postal service—can create stable, democratic countries from scratch.
Let's see…Private Property vs "love for one's fellow man." A clear, concise principle that is one of the pillars of the Constitution, and part of the definition of freedom vs. some nebulous, feel-good, undefinable frothy bubble thought. Yep, think I'll take private property, and "love my fellow man" enough to allow him the same freedom!
Thr right to think and choose for oneself applies even to those who are not capable of same. You "love your fellow man" your way, and I will do it mine, then maybe we can ask the "fellow man" which way works out better for him. Are you familiar with the concept of "loving to death?" Read history for lessons in "love through control." It never works out well.
Cheney can say what ever he wanted, the call was the President's, and he blew it.
Cheney was right, it was a quagmire. But they were more concerned with the polls in America than the lives of the Iraqis.
John Adams once claimed his greatest political accomplishment was destroying his own career by preventing a war with France, which is why he was a 1 term president.
There are times that call for men to look beyond their own fortunes and do what needs to be done. Bush should have either finished it off in 1992 or never gotten involved in the first place. There is no part way when it comes to the hell of war. That's why I despise him. Politics over human lives.
Agreed, Iraq is still a very violent place. Iraqis have a long history of being extremely violent people, at least that's what I've heard. To me, when saddam ruled the place with an iron fist, the world didn't see that violence because he controlled the press, and his secret police carried out the attacks in the dead of night. But it still happened.
I remember reading an essay by an Iraqi Shiite female who remembers at school one day during the iraq-Iran war. Suddenly one afternoon, the Iraqi army showed up with some buses, and the school PA system announced there was a draft. The Iraq army started pulling male students out of the school, putting them on the buses, while blasting pro-saddam music over loud speakers.
And I agree Iraq was about proving how tough the US was, but I think it was a lot more than that. bin looser's first goal was to have the US invade Arabia, bingo he has his world war on Islam. Second goal was invade Pakistan, that would give his people a chance to grab their nukes. Third contingency was bog down the US in Afghanistan where he planned to wear them down like they did the Soviets.
I think it was pretty smart to not play into his hands by coming up with a fourth option.
I'm not going to attack you because I get what you're saying, and I say that as a supporter of Ron Paul.
The thing you've got to realize, though, is that a lot of people were "woken up" (and I know that phrase is overused) by his candidacy. A lot of people feel like they had been misled and used for a long time but Mr. Paul gave them a truly decent candidate to get behind. That's where some of the zealotry comes from. And to be honest, there really aren't that many people in Washington who hold similar beliefs—though that's changing on a daily basis.
Anyway, I suggest you try http://www.campaignforliberty.com instead. Less Paul-centric, more big picture when it comes to issues of individual liberty. It has excellent commentary from some really great libertarian writers like Judge Andrew Napolitano.
Actually, he's nicer than he used to be. I think we are talking some sense into him!
Yeah, that's where I'm gonna go to get the no spin truth about anything.
Go back to MSNBC Troll.
Having the current administration in place doesn't hurt in making our case, you know we shouldn't have to talk too much. It kind of speaks for itself!
That's hilarious. As if the government can force someone to love someone else.
Seriously, is that the best argument you've got? That love for our fellow man is something that can be brought about by the judicious application of more government? Because honestly, that's one of the stupidest things I've ever read.
Restaurants should be able to do whatever the hell they want when it comes to the people they choose to serve. Governments, on the other hand, should not. Jim Crow was government-sanctioned racism, and please never forget that fact. Private property rights are not the same thing at all.
More to the point, do you think people would frequent a business that racially segregates people? I don't, and I don't believe a business that did racially segregate people would last a week.
Equality under the law can only happen if ownership rights are respected. People have the right to be bigots. They don't have the right to physically harm people as an exercise of their bigotry, and they certainly don't have the right to codify their bigotry into law. You do realize Jim Crow laws came from the government, right? You do realize that forced segregation is a violation of private property rights, don't you?
And if we recognize that forced segregation is a violation of private property rights, it only follows that forced integration is also a violation of those same rights. As much as I may disagree with them, racists are entitled to the same private property and freedom of speech protections as the rest of us. And if you disagree with that statement, you don't actually believe in equality at all.
Why? Slumming here is so much more fun. Hilarious to see how the down side of the IQ curve operates.
On this site that's a badge of honor. I'm going for -1000 myself.
So? Mitch McConnell also endorsed Paul's opponent, so he probably feels a bit stung that the people of Kentucky went against his "superior" judgement. He'll try to use this as an I-told-you-so and get to watch his favorability ratings sink.
gb – I don't think they get it or care. If you ain't singing the same song they sing you're a racist and the truth be damned. Every person alive whether they want to believe it or not has at least some pride in their own race. Does that make us all racist, no, only proud of heritage.
I know personally I wouldn't know how to be a racist, If I tired to pick a side I'd go crazy. Started looking at the family tree and I'm a Heinz 57 mutt if you ever saw one.
Yeah, it seems with a lot of folks it's not "the Left versus the Right," it's "the Left versus the Racists." They simply believe you're a racist because you don't think the same way as them.
I've said this to a lot of people, but my kids didn't even realize Barack Obama was "black" until their teachers pointed it out one day. Up until that point, he'd just been a guy running for president. They never once had said a single thing about people being different races. They only saw people, and they had that way of thinking ruined for them by folks who apparently look at humans and see different races instead of unique individuals. I was so mad I could spit.
Exactly, and I think most people raise their kids that way. I don't think there are a whole lot of pure any race nowadays, there is so much inter-racial marriages going on it would make old Byrd's head spin.
I have always told my kids, don't ever have a problem with someone because of race, creed or religion, have a problem with the particular individual that caused the issue.
JFK would weep if he saw today's Democrats.
[...] When Searching for Racists, Democrats Should Back Off Rand Paul and Look In the Mirror Source:Big Journalism [...]
What did that strawman do to warrant such a thrashing?
Oh, I'm sorry. Am I not giving you the attention you so desire?
Btw, in my case I'd say I'm not okay with that concept and I'd express that dislike by…. not doing business with said business. If enough people make similar decisions the icky awful discriminating business will find itself out of business. All without a government watchdog.
Ah yes, Today's Democrat's the bastion of common sense, civility and peace and love for all God's creatures!
Spoken like a true father EdSki, my adult kids tell me I get smarter everyday now that they have to live in the real world. Sweet redemption!
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much he had learned in seven years. ~Mark Twain, "Old Times on the Mississippi" Atlantic Monthly, 1874
You must be logged in to post a comment.