georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: You get one guess what color Oteil is, not that that should even be relevant, though....
Purple? Green? See there, I took two guesses.
Oteil did a much better job of articulating his position than Rand did. That's why I said Paul needs to practice. Comparing it to freedom of speech (protecting the freedom of speech requires tolerating speech considered offensive), as he's done elsewhere, also is more effective than talking about not being able to keep people from bringing guns into bars.
(05-20-2010 09:16 AM)moe24 Wrote: Adding fuel to the fire is what he said about the Civil Rights Act.
Quote:Rand Paul thinks private business should be allowed to segregate if they choose with no govt interference....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul explained that he backed the portion of the Civil Rights Act banning discrimination in public places and institutions, but that he thinks private businesses should be permitted to discriminate by race.
"I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that," he said. "I don’t like the idea of teling private business owners...."
Most of us on here understand why he said what he did from a Constitutional standpoint. However, most voters allow perception to trump reality and will simply assume he was being racist in his remarks instead of understanding he was really talking about the government with regards to the regulation of private business.
No matter how lucid and principled his reasoning may be, which it is to an extent, this stance is an extremely difficult one to promote. The most non-racial, tamest positions can be twisted out of shape into a "you're racist!" charge, let alone this one.
His equating a private business to a private home (i.e. you allow who you want into your privately-owned 'space') is generally a reasonable one and is very consistent ideology-wise.
But it's a minefield for libertarian purists. Even slightly suggesting - for whatever reason - that a restaurant owner can have the legal right to once again put up a Whites Only sign on the window is playing with the hottest fire. Personally, anyone hoping to achieve some national respected position should let this one go, imo. I support sticking to your guns even if an opinion is unpopular. But this is one of those rare positions that should avoided. Even if it appears inconsistent with the absolute pure ideology of private and personal liberty.
(05-20-2010 12:26 PM)mlb Wrote: To be totally fair, many of the "supporters" for Ron Paul are crazy. I went to a couple of rally's in Dayton during the Republican Primary 2 years ago and came away shaking my head. I knew he had no shot to win due to the fact that his grass roots supporters were anarchists.
I went to 3 myself. There were anarchists in attendance. But they were a very small minority. You have to admit ... more than any other political rally in modern history .... Ron Paul's were diverse. It's exemplifies how the liberty message brings people together. There were easily 10 fold higher numbers of black people than your typical Republican rally, for example.
Anarchists are MONEY in my book. Anyone that wants to live free without having a violent coercive government running their lives is a friend of mine as long as they are non violent themselves.
(05-20-2010 07:45 PM)ETSUfan1 Wrote: Rand Paul is a TT on twitter and most of the comments aren't good.
Twitter, like Digg, is a majority of moochers. That, btw, is my new label for far left fiscal liberals or people who simply fight for their agenda with an "ends justify the means" method. It's from Atlas Shrugged. It's fresh. And it's accurate.
Now if you'll excuse me I'm late for the Taggart Transcontinental.
(05-20-2010 12:06 PM)RobertN Wrote: Democrats aren't scared of R. Paul. The Republicans are the ones that should be(and are) affraid if anyone is affraid. Both sides think he is a nut. But nuts like him take away voters from "true" Republicans thus making it more likely a Democrat will win.
You realize it's going to be Paul vs. ONE Dem, right? That's kind of why they have the primaries.
And what exactly is a "true" Republican?
A true Republican:
Small government, pro big business, lower taxes(so far so good for Paul). Socially they are anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-religion(as long as it is not Islam). Those are some of the biggies. I am sure there are more that I missed.
(05-21-2010 01:14 AM)RobertN Wrote: A true Republican:
Small government, pro big business, lower taxes(so far so good for Paul). Socially they are anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-religion(as long as it is not Islam). Those are some of the biggies. I am sure there are more that I missed.
I guess that makes a true democrat: Big govt., anti business, higher taxes. Pro gay, pro abortion, anti religion (as long as its not islam). . .
(05-20-2010 03:08 PM)jh Wrote: Before I criticize the general population, he's going to need to get a whole lot better at explaining his position. The clip I saw this morning was a disaster. I didn't see the full interview, but his explanation for why he was concerned about laws integrating lunch counters ended up being little more than because otherwise people would be able to bring guns into bars. I've seen he has better explanations elsewhere, so he needs to get practicing.
Quote:Rachel,
I am a 45 year old Black American male who loves your show but I strongly disagree with you about your position on Rand Paul. Just so you know I voted for Obama and Kerry because I was horrified by both Bush and Palin respectively. Here's where I disagree with you.
1. If someone in the Klan owns a restaurant and doesn't want to serve me, why on earth would I want to support him by giving him my money? I don't want my money going to buy little Klan baby clothes. I'd rather the privately owned establishments wear their racism on their sleeves so I know who to support. If they want to lose my money, and the money of all other minorities and people with brains and a conscience, then fine. Racism is bad business.
2. There's two facts none of us can get around. Churches are still the most segregated places in America every Sunday morning. Its called freedom of religion. There are still restaurants where you can't go in D.C. and I can't go in Georgia. That's called tribalism. Integration cannot be forced privately, only publicly. Tribalism cannot be defeated by legislation. Freedom of speech and of religion means also freedom of @!$%#s. I prefer them with their hoods off.
3. I respectfully say that I think you're wrong to imply that Rand Paul is a racist for believing that
Woolworth's should be allowed to be segregated. I will go on the record right now and state that I believe that Woolworth's and any other privately owned business should be allowed to be segregated. We Black's have a choice now that we didn't back before the Civil Rights Act. Why would I want to support cracker *** Woolworth's if that's who owns the store? I'll take my money elswhere. If you had your way, I wouldn't know one from the other. I hope we can one day agree to let Woolworth's be free to take off its Klan Hood so you and I both know where to spend our money. Its not like and oil company. We all "have to" buy gasoline for now. We blacks have a choice which lunch counter we want to sit at in 2010. Rand Paul stated that when violence occurred it was wrong. He said it was morally reprehensible and he would never support it? He shouldn't be smeared as a racist.
I love you to pieces and as a person of color I identify with your pain, but I'm glad these racists and homophobes want to come out into the open now. I don't think Rand Paul is one of them.
Oteil Burbridge
Bassist Allman Brothers Band
Lawrenceville, Georgia
You get one guess what color Oteil is, not that that should even be relevant, though....
Why do I have to guess? It says right in the letter.
(05-21-2010 01:14 AM)RobertN Wrote: A true Republican:
Socially they are anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-religion(as long as it is not Islam). Those are some of the biggies. I am sure there are more that I missed.
I question the legitimacy of this. Go watch anything on Barry Goldwater. Though I'd rephrase pro-religion as pro-freedom of religion.
Goldwater was pro-choice. One of his daughters had an abortion.
Goldwater was pro-gay rights. One of his sons was gay.
Goldwater stood with the Arizona NAACP for public integration.
Goldwater famously stated "You don't need to be straight to be in the military, you just need to shoot straight."
This Civil Rights gaffe by Paul is going to haunt him and the republicans until election day. The MSM will not let this go and will continue to hammer it.
No matter how well stated the position is, the majority of people in this country don't believe any business should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race.
It's my opinion that Rand's general election campaign will be the first truly national test of the libertarian platfom even though it's not a national election.
It will be interesting to see how this impacts his run.
(05-21-2010 06:31 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote: This Civil Rights gaffe by Paul is going to haunt him and the republicans until election day. The MSM will not let this go and will continue to hammer it.
No matter how well stated the position is, the majority of people in this country don't believe any business should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race.
It's my opinion that Rand's general election campaign will be the first truly national test of the libertarian platfom even though it's not a national election.
It will be interesting to see how this impacts his run.
You are correct....Rand Paul is done. I totally agree with him on this issue...but...I know damn well it will not be accepted by vast majority of statists that support either of the gangs. To bring this out as his first real comments on the national stage was maybe the dumbest thing a politician has ever done. By the general election he will painted a racist and anyone that votes for him will also receive a stroke from that brush.
The curse of being one that believes in a more voluntary society is that very few people around you have courage enough to let go the bonds of the state. They think that you are a nut if you believe that the marketplace is capable of being the organizational force for society.
(05-21-2010 06:31 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote: This Civil Rights gaffe by Paul is going to haunt him and the republicans until election day. The MSM will not let this go and will continue to hammer it.
No matter how well stated the position is, the majority of people in this country don't believe any business should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race.
It's my opinion that Rand's general election campaign will be the first truly national test of the libertarian platfom even though it's not a national election.
It will be interesting to see how this impacts his run.
You are correct....Rand Paul is done. I totally agree with him on this issue...but...I know damn well it will not be accepted by vast majority of statists that support either of the gangs. To bring this out as his first real comments on the national stage was maybe the dumbest thing a politician has ever done. By the general election he will painted a racist and anyone that votes for him will also receive a stroke from that brush.
The curse of being one that believes in a more voluntary society is that very few people around you have courage enough to let go the bonds of the state. They think that you are a nut if you believe that the marketplace is capable of being the organizational force for society.
Rasmussen polled 24 hrs after the "gaffe" and came up 59/34/3 for Rand. Rand will win. He will win by double digits. And he will get a huge share of the independents in the process.
(05-21-2010 06:31 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote: This Civil Rights gaffe by Paul is going to haunt him and the republicans until election day. The MSM will not let this go and will continue to hammer it.
No matter how well stated the position is, the majority of people in this country don't believe any business should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race.
It's my opinion that Rand's general election campaign will be the first truly national test of the libertarian platfom even though it's not a national election.
It will be interesting to see how this impacts his run.
You are correct....Rand Paul is done. I totally agree with him on this issue...but...I know damn well it will not be accepted by vast majority of statists that support either of the gangs. To bring this out as his first real comments on the national stage was maybe the dumbest thing a politician has ever done. By the general election he will painted a racist and anyone that votes for him will also receive a stroke from that brush.
The curse of being one that believes in a more voluntary society is that very few people around you have courage enough to let go the bonds of the state. They think that you are a nut if you believe that the marketplace is capable of being the organizational force for society.
Rasmussen polled 24 hrs after the "gaffe" and came up 59/34/3 for Rand. Rand will win. He will win by double digits. And he will get a huge share of the independents in the process.
Very short sighted view GTS. The MSM hasn't done their work yet. The DNC hasn't done their work yet. They both have over 5.5 months to hammer him on this, and they will. It's his "macaca" moment as it were. They will play his comments from Madcow's show over and over.
I'm not saying he will lose, he may still win. But he's already having to backtrack, now saying he supports the Civil Rights act "in full." Clearly he understands the stupidity of saying what he did, or else he wouldn't now be tacking away from it.
(05-20-2010 04:49 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: I went to 3 myself. There were anarchists in attendance. But they were a very small minority. You have to admit ... more than any other political rally in modern history .... Ron Paul's were diverse. It's exemplifies how the liberty message brings people together. There were easily 10 fold higher numbers of black people than your typical Republican rally, for example.
I'd say they were the craziest rallies I have ever seen... when the rally organizer gets up on stage and starts talking about anarchy you lose a lot of support. The Ron Paul campaign should have done a better job of choosing people to run their local rallies.
(05-21-2010 08:04 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote: Very short sighted view GTS. The MSM hasn't done their work yet. The DNC hasn't done their work yet. They both have over 5.5 months to hammer him on this, and they will. It's his "macaca" moment as it were. They will play his comments from Madcow's show over and over.
I'm not saying he will lose, he may still win. But he's already having to backtrack, now saying he supports the Civil Rights act "in full." Clearly he understands the stupidity of saying what he did, or else he wouldn't now be tacking away from it.
I think it won't matter. I should denote Reagan and Goldwater both have this stance. And Reagan was grilled about it when he ran, and it's where the birth of "Teflon Reagan" came from. Reagan wouldn't get upset, he'd just calmly explain his position and move on. I'm seeing some teflon in Rand.
(05-21-2010 08:04 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote: Very short sighted view GTS. The MSM hasn't done their work yet. The DNC hasn't done their work yet. They both have over 5.5 months to hammer him on this, and they will. It's his "macaca" moment as it were. They will play his comments from Madcow's show over and over.
I'm not saying he will lose, he may still win. But he's already having to backtrack, now saying he supports the Civil Rights act "in full." Clearly he understands the stupidity of saying what he did, or else he wouldn't now be tacking away from it.
I think it won't matter. I should denote Reagan and Goldwater both have this stance. And Reagan was grilled about it when he ran, and it's where the birth of "Teflon Reagan" came from. Reagan wouldn't get upset, he'd just calmly explain his position and move on. I'm seeing some teflon in Rand.
Neither Reagan or Goldwater ran in the age of the internet and 24/7 cable news.
The biggest problem is the comment feeds the narrative that the Tea Parties are just a bunch of right wing extremists. To date there hasn't been an opportunity for the MSM to perpetuate that effectively because there was no real evidence of it. Now they can hold up Rand's comment as the "proof" they've so been longing for.
Will it work? Don't know. I hope not. If the economy continues its slide that will drown out any attacks on him in my opinion.
(05-21-2010 08:50 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote: Neither Reagan or Goldwater ran in the age of the internet and 24/7 cable news.
The biggest problem is the comment feeds the narrative that the Tea Parties are just a bunch of right wing extremists. To date there hasn't been an opportunity for the MSM to perpetuate that effectively because there was no real evidence of it. Now they can hold up Rand's comment as the "proof" they've so been longing for.
Will it work? Don't know. I hope not. If the economy continues its slide that will drown out any attacks on him in my opinion.
I still don't think it will matter. Only MSNBC is perpetuating this ... and not even Chris Matthews is on board over there. All the other networks it has been a non-issue and they've sided with Rand. Keep in mind Bunning won re-election in KY doing far far worse.
(05-21-2010 08:50 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote: Neither Reagan or Goldwater ran in the age of the internet and 24/7 cable news.
The biggest problem is the comment feeds the narrative that the Tea Parties are just a bunch of right wing extremists. To date there hasn't been an opportunity for the MSM to perpetuate that effectively because there was no real evidence of it. Now they can hold up Rand's comment as the "proof" they've so been longing for.
Will it work? Don't know. I hope not. If the economy continues its slide that will drown out any attacks on him in my opinion.
I still don't think it will matter. Only MSNBC is perpetuating this ... and not even Chris Matthews is on board over there. All the other networks it has been a non-issue and they've sided with Rand. Keep in mind Bunning won re-election in KY doing far far worse.
I think you are underestimating the forces at play here. The GOP does not want ANY Paul to succeed. The GOP has as much at stake maintaining big government as the Libs do......The Paul's actually believe in small government.
He better watch his back at all times because it may well be his friends that end up stabbing him in the back.
Now THERE'S an angle that will shut the Democrats up .... "If you want to discuss this, bring out Senator Byrd who was actually there and actually filibustered the act, instead of trying to skew hypothetical situations of mine on legislation that was passed more than 40 years ago."
/
Democrats scared sh*tless of Rand Paul
