Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's odd that you are concerned about racists having to associate and service with black people in public.
What is odd about that? Not everyone is politically correct. Some people are concerned with freedom as a principle. What's odd to me is people who cannot seem to comprehend the constitution. Ever heard of the saying "I don't like what you're saying but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?
Equality under the law is fine. Trying to Thought Police people by forcing them to treat others equally in private affairs is not fine.
If someone else wants to be a racist it is not my job to stop them. Liberals like to rail against conservatives about imposing morality on people but are fine with imposing their own. I am fine with living among and working with the black people in my community. If someone else isn't, that's their business not mine.
If someone wants to lose sales by not selling to black people, or white people, or conservatives, or liberals, or hispanics, or men, or women, or whatever - then that's their choice. I'm not going to make a law to force them.
I fully support the 14th amendment that everyone is treated equally under the law. Extending that to private individuals I do not support. And that is absolute. If someone wants to discriminate against me I am fine with that.
Both Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul are an embarrassment when it comes to rights for gays and minorities - this is their reason for opposing the Civil Rights Act:
Paul said he would vote against the law because it imposed unfair rules on what private business owners can and can’t do on their own property. Essentially, they should be free to discriminate if they wish, Paul says, however distasteful that may be.
Paul:
I believe that property rights should be protected. Your right to be on TV is protected by property rights because somebody owns that station. I can’t walk into your station. So right of freedom of speech is protected by property. The right of your church is protected by property. So people should honor and protect it. This gimmick, Chris, it’s off the wall when you say I’m for property rights and states rights therefore I’m a racist. That’s just outlandish.
Essentially their view is that if a private property owner wants to discriminate, they should be able to do so. Couple this with the racism filled filth in the RON PAUL NEWSLETTERS and you have a father and son duo who are filled to the brim with a overflowing racist character..
Property rights are also a very important part of natural law theory. Jefferson's "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was simply an expansion of Locke's "life, liberty and property".
Yes, my wife and son are minorities and a business should have the right to discriminate against them, myself, or anyone else they wish just as they would in their private home.
Do you believe private homes should be desegregated? Is it racist to hold a position that government should not be able to force someone to desegregate his own home?
What we are really getting to is a discussion of negative rights versus positive rights. Libertarians are believers in negative rights, liberals positive rights.
The classically liberal position on government was best defined by George Washington, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master."
I find him much more appealing than his dad, but I also see some serious drawbacks that might hurt his chances of being a serious candidate: Of course his civil rights comment is number 1 and he is an isolationist, which is still not main stream Republican. I am not taking sides on isolationist versus world involvement, I am simply stating what I see as serious drawbacks.
Rand Paul is an idiot who said that he would have voted against the 1964 civil rights act. He said this over 40 years after the bill had passed and drastically improved America.
I know for conservatives a person coming out in 2009 against the civil rights act is normal and ok, but to sane people such a stance disqualifies a person from holding elected office.
He was only against one section of the civil rights bill.
Lol yep but a good amount if politics was based and came into existence due to race.
I tried to watch it and its what I expected the right wants their freedom and to limit yours. Take away all the laws and let them so what they do which isn't gonna benefit you if you're not one of them.
Just like his dad, he is a racist throwback to the 18th century. I also love the fact that his idea of liberty and freedom doesn't include allowing women to choose to have an abortion or let gay people get married. Rand Paul is just another racist authoritarian peddling his snake oil brand of faux liberty.
This post proves how uninformed you are, he is not against abortion as such, just believes it should be decided by the individual states, his personal beliefs are another matter. Don't comment until you actually know what you are talking about!
Like his dad, he is probably a racist too. I've been saying he's a chip off the old racist block, and now it's confirmed in the OP,
Just like Obama is womanizing alcoholic, just like his dad. Chip off the old block.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
