[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VGdP2mNPeo]YouTube - RAND PAUL vs RACHEL MADDOW pt.1[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ61qYT3Pe8]YouTube - RAND PAUL vs RACHEL MADDOW pt.2[/ame] Totally ambushed by Rachel Maddow, She was trying to deem him a closet racist since he believes in private property. I have a feeling this will be the main smear used by Democrats on both the Rand/Ron Paul Revolution.
What a racist racist. Realy, 17 minutes of asking about the same thing Rand looked pissed at the end their. Paul revolution! He will become president one day if he wins this race.
She must've asked that same question (about the lunch counters being segregated) at least 5 times. Quite the "civil discussion"...
Well she just didn't want to admit that he was staying consistent in his argument. His gun argument was great. If private businesses aren't allow to decide who is is able to gain entry onto their private property, then why can other businesses discriminate against those who are exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. Rand has frequented Rachel's show many times but I have a feeling not anymore. I honestly believe she was told to do the ambush. You could see the look of regret on her face starting at 8 minutes in on the 2nd video.
I thought they were fair questions. The reason that she kept asking the question is that he never really answered: he dodged that shit like Bruce Lee. Honestly, I would've had a lot more respect for him if he simply added that businesses that discriminated against people would eventually go out of business, or anything else to really directly justify his tacit admission of being in favor of allowing private businesses to discriminate. I don't think it was her intention at all to portray him as a racist at all, but rather that he's simply in favor of allowing private businesses to discriminate, which is a view that a lot of people (myself included) disagree with and totally valid to bring up.
What ^ said. I know saying anything remotely negative about the Paul political family is heresy around these parts--but I couldn't have said it any better.
He answered the question the best way he could. If he stated "Yes I supported private businesses to discriminate against blacks, gays, and disabled people" it would be on every 30 second political attack ad by Jack Conway. One sound byte like that would end a politicians career He is not in favor of businesses discriminating against people but rather business owners able to manage their own property by their own beliefs and first amendment rights. Edit: if you are against discrimination, then why in certain states private businesses are mandated to discriminate against smokers? It should be up to the owner on what kind of customers are allowed on his property
So then why do you criticize her for just trying to get him to flat out say what you just said out in the open? If that is what he supports, then he should be able to say it clearly so that every American can understand. He is not in favor of businesses discriminating amongst people, but he believes that they should be able to? Kind of like 'I don't want you to kill somebody, but hey I think you should be able to'? Or did I understand wrong? Please tell me if so because I am asking only because I'm shocked any politician would voice these views. Who said that that poster is in favor of that?
The point Rand was trying to make, was that businesses should be free to disallow whoever they want from using their services. The idea stems from a puritanical view of property rights. As Rand pointed out, businesses already can, and do, discriminate against people they don't want in their business, but when it comes down to race, every flips out. The thing is, businesses who discriminate end up losing. The point of being in business is to make money, and if you're going to disallow black people to shop at your store, that's your prerogative. Guess what. You not only lost that sale, you gave your competitors money, and perhaps most devastatingly, you'll prevent future customers from even considering shopping at your store, because once a person is discriminated against by a store owner, based on the color of your skin, you betcha the local media will help the victim get their story out. Of course, this would only really be possible in a society that realized property rights are one of the principal economic foundations in market capitalism, where there wasn't institutionalized racism. I think my example above would be perfectly applicable today. Anyways, this is why I don't watch Maddow. She's basically turned into a McCarthy-ite.
i do wish he would have gone further into the effects on a business that supported descrimination. a restaurant or whatever that tried such things nowadays, as opposed to the 1960s or earlier, would be met with national attention and a large drop in customers (both black and white). rand paul made his point clearly and intelligently, bringing up the gun topic was perfect for the conversation, and really nailed msnbc in the face at the end of the 2nd video. im thinking rand paul/ron paul 2012
Really? He said private businesses should be allowed to discriminate by citing freedom of speech. How does freedom of speech turn into discrimination based on inherent traits? To me, that just doesn't make sense. Furthermore, he showed absolute no integrity. If he is so sure of himself, then he should say 'I wouldn't have forced those lunch counters to be desegregated' or 'I would support that private educational institution, the university you, Rachel, mentioned, to be able to ban interracial dating'. He wouldn't, and if he wants to represent his constituents he should be honest and upfront, and not dodge the question time and time again. You said he showed his point? Almost every time Rachel asked him if he supported private businesses being allowed to discriminate, he completely dodged the question with 'I do NOT support discrimination, I would have been marching right there with MLK'. He showed no intelligence at all, just that he has views appalling to the majority of the American people and that he doesn't have the integrity to admit it to them when he is running to represent them (and when, hypothetically, this view could have ramifications in the course of his political career. Unlikely, but possible). I feel that anyone here praising him is nuts, and how you can turn this into Rachel trying to make him look racist is just laughable (she was all too cordial when he couldn't answer a single question honestly and upfront).
i do not support discrimination, but i support the property owners right to discriminate if he so chooses too thats what it basically boiled down to, imo
Paul basically told maddow to shove it.. and shut her up.. she couldn't force him to admit he is a racist like she wanted and that's why she asked the same question 8 times and wouldn't move on until he admitted he was in favor of segregation.. However, this is just another play by the left to discredit another strong candidate that will pick up the congressional nomination.. Does she really think that a business will want to segregate?? i mean honestly is she really that dumb? There was no point for her to bring up the Civil Right Act unless she, like i said, wanted to discredit him.. the left is at a desperate time and is looking to do anything and everything to try and smear any conservative candidate.. However because nobody watches MSNBC and her show people won't buy into it and Paul will win the senate seat.. And more importantly the republicans will take majority in one, if not both houses..
If you don't understand what he is trying to say you must be pretty thick. Like mentioned before he feels private business owners have the right to choose who they serve because it's THEIR business. He isn't promoting racism or even agreeing with it in the slightest way. It's like freedom of speech. Should we abolish freedom of speech because someone has the ability to promote hate and intolerance? No, because freedom of speech is FAR to sacred and the idea of freedom of speech is much more important than the chance of how it can be misconstrued.
You completely missed the point. He is saying this. The government has no right whatsoever to intervene on how any private business is ran. He said anything that is public or anything the government funds can not be inherently racist because the government is here to serve the people. A private business is there to serve who the business owner chooses. She was trying to get him in a corner to say what she (and obviously you) wanted him to say. He wasn't budging because your misconstruing what he was trying to say. He believes in free choice and that business owners can run their business as they please without any repercussions from the government. He isn't saying by any stretch of the imagination that if he owned a private business that he wouldn't serve blacks, which is what your trying to shove down his throat. Irony. Once again, what she was trying to get him to say would have been career suicide. Other than that, this is redundant. Like I said before, he did answer the question, it's just not what your wanting to hear or your too thick to understand.
I'm not sure he was ambushed by Rachael on the subject since he was just as deceptive earlier on NPR. He had to know this would be brought up and came up with a position either for discrimination or against discrimination by private businesses. One can infer that Rand is either a racist or that he is pandering to the right wing racist tea party.
We have only one thing to give up. Our dominion. We don't own the world. We're not kings yet. Not gods. Can we give that up? Too precious, all that control? Too tempting, being a god?
First off, I want to make it clear that it's obvious that Rand Paul is NOT a racist nor does he support others discriminating based on race. Nevertheless, he just as clearly DOES support the right of private businesses to discriminate - including on the grounds of race. This does not fly with me. Kylesa and others in this thread use the logic that "well, a business that discriminates is likely to lose patrons and eventually go out of business; the system will correct itself". This is obviously true for cities or towns that are very mixed, racially speaking. For example, you could never open up a 'Whites-Only' bar in NYC (even if it was legal to do so) and expect your business to survive the public backlash. But what about areas of the country in which there is more racial homogeneity? No, I'm not suggesting that a town full of whites or a town full of blacks must be racist simply because they're a gathering of people that have the same race in common, but it is dishonest to purport, for example, that there are not some towns across America, especially in the rural South, that would make little hubub if a private business were to (again, in a situation where this was legal) only accept white patronage. I do not think it's okay to have anyone in the United States to have to think, "well, I don't have the right to patronize this establishment" because civil rights bow down to private property rights. This is an important issue and though I don't watch Maddow - or MSNBC for that matter - I think she was right to harp on it; this is not some witch-hunt to unmask Rand Paul as some closet racist which he's obviously not, it's a philosophical question as to whether we as a people choose to allow discrimination in our society in the name of private property rights... I believe that a person has the right to say whatever they want as protected by the 1st amendment, but I do not believe a person should have the right to bar another from their establishment on the basis of their skin color.
Its black and white if you ask me.. Paul said he is not racist himself but respects business owners right to be racist. So he is endorsing business owners right to discriminate who they serve on colour, sexuality, disability etc.. He is endorsing racism...