Oteil Burbidge nailed it. Why would we want to support private businesses that may be funneling their money towards racism anyways? Great point, about allowing private businesses to wear their ignorance on their sleeves. But something tells me Maddow won't have Oteil and Rand on at the same time. It discredits her whole belief system.
Wow, Just watched the vid and its pretty damn obvious to me he isnt racist. He trying to stand for freedom and she was tryin to make freedom=racism=rand. Thats a pretty screwed up equation if you ask me.
Im on Rand's side here. I mean to bring it up as a topic is one thing. To take up the ENTIRE segment on this one thing is kinda rude. I never really liked this chick though. She annoys me.
Conservative/liberal...bah its a label. I have conservative views AND liberal views. What does that make me? I think its more of a rich/poor thing than it is a rep/dem thing.
I mean that 'conservative' connotes one who is conservative in all respects, and right now, the Paul's aren't exactly social conservative morality preaching nuts. Sure they are conservative in more traditional ways, but not how society currently deems one to be so (usually social views). It is more or less a compliment saying that although they have the cute label, they cannot be pigeonholed by current standards. Or am I way off?
No you're right, which is why people have to differentiate between fiscal and social conservative now adays. Social conservatives that want the government to ban things they deem amoral are not really conservative at all though, because conservative should at least mean in favor of limited government. Political jargon is all fucked.
Rand Paul would properly be described a state's rights libertarian on most issues, both social and fiscal. On the matter of what he thinks his state should do, he would then properly be described as a social and fiscal conservative... but your state should be free to do what it wishes. But, in regards to national matters, state's rights libertarian seems to fit best. EDIT: As an addendum, if you read his words closely you see he's making a very precise point. He by and large agrees with both the ideas and principles in the CRA'64, but he is essentially saying that some of those should have been matters left to the state, not the federal government, and additionally the right of private property should be as equally protected as the right of free speech.
Rand Paul's campaign has released his official statement on this. Bold is in the original: For those that might be confused about the series of "quoted" statements, that's standard practice when releasing a statement on something that will get press coverage. It allows reporters to write their articles with full and actual quotes from the individual as opposed to paraphrases, etc. It's a standard practice. Corporate press releases do it a little differently by releasing their 'press statement/releases' as actual articles, that many newspapers just run word-for-word, or with only minor modifications.
Let the brainwashing begin! Think Progress: Rand Paul wants to abolish Americans with Disabilities Act, citing "fairness" Comments: These people probably vote! HuffPo: Can Obama sit at Rand Paul's Lunch Counter? Comments: DailyKos: Rand Paul is also stupid (or thinks we are) I feel like the commenters on these sites represent the majority of young American voters. So yea, we're fucked.
Just a liberal circle jerk going on. It seems that Rand will be a favorite target of the left due to his principled positions based off the Constitution.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PikkjYRRgTw&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Liberals Freaking Out About Rand Paul Untouchable Topic[/ame]
Good clip there. I agree 100% that a business should have the right to refuse service to anyone they want.
Since some of you don't seem to 'get it', look at it like this. You own a popular restaurant in your town, but you don't have a Handicap accessible ramp, or Handicap parking spots. Perhaps you don't want handicapped people in your restaurant? For whatever reason. You chose to discriminate against handicapped people. On that principle alone, you might be outraged, but when you look at the bigger picture (eg, not letting your emotions get the best of you) you'll see that you're the one who is ultimately losing, because by discriminating against potential business, you have just hurt your bottom line, you've given your competitors business, and in all likeliness, you're going to outrage your local community, which will lead to boycotts, etc., of your business. When people like Rand say private businesses should be allowed to discriminate, it's implied that, yes, they should make their own decisions, but if they chose to discriminate against potential customers, it will come at great expense to themselves. It's not profitable to discriminate. However, some of you get all crazy when race is injected into the discussion.
So basically it gives us the freedom to choose? Holy shit. Thats some crazy progressive talk there. Oh wait. Thats not progressive at all... Im stoned.
I think whether or not it's "profitable" to discriminate is up for debate. Obviously there's the basic idea that if you choose not to serve X, then you stand to lose money for the deal. However, what if the business is still sustainable, even without that revenue? What if they actually make more money because they attract customers who hate group X? I can easily see that happening in some areas of the South. Of course, you could turn this around and say that people would be morally outraged to the point where they wouldn't support the business. I dunno. Lots of hypotheticals. I do agree with him on the idea of using 'sensible' solutions; his example of making a business handicapped-accessible by giving handicapped folks room to work on the first floor instead of requiring an expensive, special-needs elevator was good.
So what? Those white supremacists or whoever would still be spending their money somewhere to aquire some sort of substitute for what ever product the "racist" bussiness would be offering. Hell Bill Gates or Steve Jobs might be a huge racist and by buying all those Computers and Ipods we were supporting racists! oh noes! And in turn don't you think that non-racist bussinesses would profit from all the additional customers who are refused service from the racist bussiness? It's not like it would be legal for racist bussiness owners to beat and kill minorities like rachel madow tried to insinuate.
Good businesses cater to the largest demographic in their market. Do you think racists represent a majority in any market in the US? Is there a way to determine this? I could see KKK bars popping up that people travel good distances to, but other than that the heterogenous majority would gain the favor of businesses, not the racist minority. (This is assuming that racists are the minority). Any racist establishment would suffer lots of blowback, namely vandalism.