I got 2 things out of this….

First, Rand Paul says “What’s interesting…” waaaaay too much.
Second, he never did answer the question with a Yes or No, never gave a straight answer.

I believe him when he says he doesn’t agree with racism, I just wish he’d have given a straight forward answer and not continuously try to spin it around to other topics.

I agree with Mr. Paul. Racism is not illegal, just abhorrent. There is a difference.

If someone owned a restaurant with “whites only” posted on the door, most people would be appalled. Even most racists would be too ashamed to be seen eating there. The restaurant owner would be forced out of business due to a lack of customers.

Golf clubs can exclude women from memberships. Single-sex schools and colleges continue to operate in our society.

The NAACP would be foolish to consider a white candidate for its presidency.

Of course he’s against discrimination and racism. He simply just supports the US Constitution which gives everyone, no matter how disgusting, the right to free speech.

The theory of Libertarianism ran up against it’s stark implementation, and the result was ugly as usual. Equating sanctioned discrimination with imposing on Second Amendment rights is a weak analogy to say the least.

Rand Paul had better find a better argument.

Great job as always, Rachel.

I don’t think he was spinning at all, he was trying to explain what he meant in a way that would leave the libs no way to define him as a racist. Silly Rand, they will do that no matter what you say. I hope people can have an open debate about this without resorting to the racism talk. He clearly isn’t one and I think he makes some valid points. I especially like when he ask if you like 9/10 things in an otherwise good bill, do you vote for it or hold out for perfection. I think that’s worthy of a debate.

MichelleF writes:

” I hope people can have an open debate about this without resorting to the racism talk.”

Of course you have to discuss racism. You either believe that movie theaters, resturaunts, banks, hotels and other private businesses should be able to discriminate based on race, or they should not. It’s a simple yes or no question.

–Cobra

I am totally impressed with Rand Paul for having the courage to come on the Maddow show. His problem is that being a libertarian he has both right wing and left wing views. Either side will find it easy to take issue with some of his positions. But how great it is that Rand brings those issues out into the open for discussion. I hope he does well in the general election.

DC Dems dont like him, DC Repubs dont like him, I think we have a winner here.

Rex
——–

Maddow and the media will try like hell to land a “gotcha” moment with him and tie him to his dad’s whacky behavior but it won’t matter. Kentucky will elect him easily.

RexKramer says:
May 20, 2010 at 10:12 am
DC Dems dont like him, DC Repubs dont like him, I think we have a winner here.

Rex

Well said!

Rand Paul, based upon three different interviews, would NOT have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and believes that hotels, resturaunts, banks, insurance companies and other private businesses have the right to discriminate based on race.

Can anybody show me, with citation, where I’m wrong here?

–Cobra

Its funny how believing in the U. S. Constitution makes you a Racist, or a homophobe. Any business should have the right to be able to serve or not to serve who they want. When I was in the Navy Serving in Florida many business signs said Dogs and Sailors keep out. Others would not let me bring my black friend into the establishment. I didn’t go running to the Government for a solution, I just went to an establishment that was sailer and black friendly. Why would I want to be were I, or my friends were not welcome? Even if they were forced to welcome me they would still resent us. That is their right. I understand that. It is also alright for me to not recommend or advertise these establishments. This is America. We have the right to decide who we want to patronize, serve, or associate with..

Should we really embrace a candidate who thinks that a PRIVATE business should have the RIGHT to say “NO BLACKS ALLOWED”?

Rand Paul says he wouldn’t like it at all, but he believes, with great certainty, that private businesses do have that right and that government should not get in the way if a business wants to do that! 

You see, folks on the Right want to “take us back” to a time where the Private Sector could do whatever they want without government interference. This insane adherence to Free Market ideology twists their minds to rationalize that a private business even has the RIGHT to discriminate.

This provides an ugly example of their flawed logic, and exposes Conservatism, Tea-bagism and Libertarianism as unworkable political models. 

It’s so sad to see Rand Paul try to dodge the question until finally admitting that his ideology would allow for private businesses to practice discrimination if that’s what they wanted to do.

Wish this was just some nutty fringe group but they are planning a big, big come back. It’s just incredible how they embrace an ideology with such complete devotion that they disregard how it effects real people in the real world. All they care about is their own ideological purity. Frightening for sure!

The article in the Civil Rights Act is just glitter anyway…

If a community rejects the racism then said community would not allow a discriminative business to operate. This makes voting for representatives to pass legislation to regulate businesses redundant. If the community affected is against this type of behavior then the problem would be solved by those in question.

More importantly, if you, like most others appalled by Rand Paul’s position, think that when the local community majority is accepting of discriminatory behavior it should still not be allowed within the United States, I’d suggest you take a nice long drive down to a rural Texas “country” bar and take a head count of African-Americans. You see, people will exercise their will regardless.

The prior-mentioned racist community is STILL segregating itself at this very moment, nearly 50 years later, and there is nothing we can do about it. We can’t cure everyone’s ignorance and the idea of mandating a harmonious percentage of patrons of different color would make all parties involved miserable and probably cause more trouble than its worth. All that ends up being accomplished is an infringement on ALL business owners rights.

There are all black fraternities, student unions, and other such groups. I think what Paul was getting at is, does the government always have the right to step in and say such things aren’t allowed.

I agree Writer. He’s not talking race at all, his whole argument is based on how much power he is willing to give the gov’t. The race part is merely a smoke screen.

Yeah, Michelle. Paul kept trying to give other examples of government intrusion, but once race is mentioned, all bets are off.

writer writes:

“There are all black fraternities, student unions, and other such groups. I think what Paul was getting at is, does the government always have the right to step in and say such things aren’t allowed.”

Those aren’t businesses.

Ben Barber writes:

“More importantly, if you, like most others appalled by Rand Paul’s position, think that when the local community majority is accepting of discriminatory behavior it should still not be allowed within the United States, I’d suggest you take a nice long drive down to a rural Texas “country” bar and take a head count of African-Americans. You see, people will exercise their will regardless.”

The difference being, that in that rural Texas “country” bar, there may not be a whole lot of African-American patrons, but they wouldn’t be DENIED ACCESS to that bar. The Rand Paul argument is that the rural Texas Country bar should be able to put up a sign reading “No Blacks allowed.”

Is that YOUR argument as well?

burnnotice writes:

“Even if they were forced to welcome me they would still resent us. That is their right.”

People have the right to personally discriminate based on race. You can no longer do that in business or public accommodation. You understand that, right?

–Cobra

No, Cobra. All black fraternities and student unions aren’t businesses. But most are operating under the control of state universities. State universities are partially funded by everyone’s taxes, and that’s why they must admit anyone who has the grades and can pay tuition. No discrimination allowed. So the question is, does the government have the right to step in and say that all black organizations functioning at a state funded institution are not allowed?

writer says:
May 20, 2010 at 10:40 am
Anybody can enter into a black fraternity or student organization. One of my school’s on campus organization, Black United Students, actually has a number of hispanic and caucasian members. I was part of a hispanic organization on campus. What he is saying is that people should be able to say that this is not allowed, which is unconstitutional.

Rand Paul : “I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life.
I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion.
I believe in a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act as a federal solutions to the abortion issue. I ”

So Rand Paul abhors both racism and abortion, but only has a problem with “federal solutions” when they are used to regulate small businesses that may wish to engage in discriminatory practices based on a persons race, religion, sexual orientation or disability. He will gladly regulate those small medical clinics if they are engaging in a medical practice that the social conservatives of Kentucky disapprove of.

Just another hypocritical piece of sh*t that is bending his principles to in order to pander to the social conservatives.

If Paul couldn’t even get more votes then the Dem who lost to Conway, how the hell is he going to win easily?

Grayson 35%
124,710

Paul 59%
206,812

KY-SEN (D) Votes

Conway 44%
228,531

Mongiardo 43%
224,989

The numbers don’t add up folks and with his full on wingnut speak,last night he’s toast!

MichelleF says:
May 20, 2010 at 10:46 am
He also says that they should be able to discriminate towards the disabled. The bottom line of this is that it contradicts a line in the declaration of independence that all men are created equal. If a business has the right to say otherwise, then that makes the argument moot. It’s not so much a race issue as it is a human rights issue. All people are guaranteed equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by the constitution, and what he wants to do is make that null by allowing businesses to say otherwise. It’s not an encoroachment of government, it’s government doing its job.

Discrimination is illegal in this country so if you want to open a “private business” in this country you’ll have to obey the laws or open your business OUTSIDE OF THE US!

roxsteady says:
May 20, 2010 at 11:33 am
Paul will win, Kentucky is a Republican stronghold, and this, which can be perceived as racist, will garner him further support in that area, Kentucky has always had a big problem with race relations.

roxsteady..heh, people like you are precisely why businesses would prefer to locate outside the U.S.

Reasonable, while I do wonder why a Caucasian would care to join a group called Black United Students, I won’t go into that. Back in 1964, Barry Goldwater was blasted for the same thing. He was labeled a racist because he had constitutional questions about some aspects of the civil rights bill. The question is just how much power should the government have over private businesses. I think that’s what Paul is getting at.

He also wants to get rid of the FDA. Now, with the recent ecoli scare in lettuce, only an idiot teabagger would say something like that.

The_Reasonable_Lib says:
May 20, 2010 at 11:34 am
He also says that they should be able to discriminate towards the disabled.

Really, what I heard is that if you have a business, and have say 100 employees, and have a 2 story building, isn’t it sufficient to put them on the first floor rather than put in a $100,000 elevator. Man, that it outrageous!

tim, rox wouldn’t be banned because of her color. She’d be banned for her personality.

Actually, Timzank it’s the tax breaks and loopholes courtesy of the GOP that makes it profitable for businesses to move outside of this country but, that’s another story. You can’t defend this wingnut so you attack me? Go right ahead because you prove the point of many on this post today, which is that you can’t defend stupid! And I’ll ask again, for someone to explain to me how Paul will win when he got less votes than the Democrat who lost to Conway? Math is a science. It’s not subjective.

The left doesn’t seem to be taking the ‘that’s the law and you can’t question it” approach when it comes to Arizona.

Writer is also pathetic! Where do they ban people for their personality? More jibberish from toothless idiots! Your inability to coherently defend that wingnut is just sad. What you don’t get is that in attacking me, you’re exposing yourself as someone who has more in common with Paul, which really doesn’t say much. Rachel gave this loon plenty of rope to hang himself. Well done Ms. Maddow!

Have you read what Rand Paul actually said about the Civil Rights Act? Because the media and left are out saying Rand Paul would have opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

He never said he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act. In fact, he said he supported key provisions in the Civil Rights Act.

SIEGEL: You’ve said that business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, and that the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA, was an overreach by the federal government. Would you say the same by extension of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Dr. PAUL: What I’ve always said is that I’m opposed to institutional racism, and I would’ve, had I’ve been alive at the time, I think, had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism.

SIEGEL: But are you saying that had you been around at the time, you would have – hoped that you would have marched with Martin Luther King but voted with Barry Goldwater against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Dr. PAUL: Well, actually, I think it’s confusing on a lot of cases with what actually was in the civil rights case because, see, a lot of the things that actually were in the bill, I’m in favor of. I’m in favor of everything with regards to ending institutional racism. So I think there’s a lot to be desired in the civil rights [act]. And to tell you the truth, I haven’t really read all through it because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn’t been a real pressing issue in the campaign, on whether we’re going for the Civil Rights Act.

The media, playing the useful idiot of the left, is now in a full tizzy that Rand Paul would have opposed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Not once did he say that. In fact, in the entire transcript, the only thing Rand Paul said he was opposed to was institutional racism and he favored the Civil Rights Act’s eradication of institutional racism.

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/05/20/the-press-and-left-are-lying-about-rand-paul/

writer says:
May 20, 2010 at 11:40 am
I’m not calling him a racist, I’m not calling Goldwater one. What I am saying is that this is a human rights issue, and a constitutional issue. I happen to like Goldwater for the most part.

rox, they don’t ban people for personality. It was a comment on your always sunny and pleasant disposition.

Oh, and SB1070 isn’t law until June unless there’s an injunction but, that’s another story. You folks have adapted the GOP tactic of pivoting very well. It’s both impressive and ineffectual.

roxsteady says:

” Math is a science. It’s not subjective.”

“The statistic cited by Kaine is correct: Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo – the Democrat who lost the Senate nomination to Attorney General Jack Conway – garnered more votes than did Rand Paul, the Tea Party-backed Republican who won the GOP’s Senate nomination. Mongiardo’s vote total was 221,269; Paul’s vote total was 206,159.

Although the vote total statistic is correct, it is not the whole picture.

Registered Democrats in Kentucky outnumber Republicans by 573,139 voters.

Turnout, as a percentage of registered party voters, was actually higher in the Republican contest than in the Democratic contest, 33.6 percent as compared to 31.8 percent.

In November, elections in Kentucky come down to independent voters and substantial numbers of registered Democrats who vote Republican in the general election,” said Benton. “Despite having a nearly two-to-one registration advantage for Democrats because of family history, Kentucky went 57-to-41 percent for John McCain over Barack Obama in 2008 and that was a bad cycle for Republicans.”

Later ” Fordam”

So in Arizona’s case, the left also believes that adherence to the law is paramount?

I”d love to stay for more verbal sparring but, this is like shooting fish in a barrel and I’m heading to my health club for an hour of swimming. So long dumbasses!

rox is this generation’s answer to Mary Tyler Moore. “Who can turn the world on with her smile?” Everybody sing!

MichelleF says:
May 20, 2010 at 11:44 am
That may be his argument, but that is not how it will be employed, and you know that, well no, may be you don’t, since in your fantasy world racism and other types of violations don’t occur. The problem here is that this bill prevents people from barring the disabled from jobs, he wants to allow that, and yes, that is the argument.

Are you people serious? It’s Fordham. I’ve kicked your stupid asses and each time, one of you mental midgets pulls up a previous typo as some kind of come back? I give up. You can’t fix stupid and one more time, the numbers don’t add up. I’m not asking you about 2008, I’m asking you about the day before yesterday. Thanks for proving my point. You’re a bunch of dopes! Now, don’t forget to check my spelling while I’m gone you maggots!

rox, now do that thing where you toss your hat up in the air.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say Rox is single.

The devil you say!

If Paul is so against Government applying its long arm to private citizens, what about private bodies….

“Paul would support a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, even in cases of rape, incest, or when the pregnant woman’s life is endangered, and opposes federal funding for abortion.”

Is this a fundamental slip or religion creeping in?

The_Reasonable_Lib says:
May 20, 2010 at 12:02 pm
MichelleF says:
May 20, 2010 at 11:44 am
That may be his argument, but that is not how it will be employed, and you know that, well no, may be you don’t, since in your fantasy world racism and other types of violations don’t occur. The problem here is that this bill prevents people from barring the disabled from jobs, he wants to allow that, and yes, that is the argument.

To be clear RL, I’m not saying I necessarily agree with him, I just think it’s an interesting debate. The problem I have with this whole thing is the left is trying to paint him as a racist just because he may have a different view of the civil right act and what it does or doesn’t do.

Do you disagree that is what most on the left are trying to do?

The law is the law and should always be obeyed. (Except in Arizona)

roxsteady says:
May 20, 2010 at 11:33 am

Roxy… your still with that tired line? Even though I showed you yesterday that the polls don’t reflect that? That even the KOS poll has Paul ahead of any available Democrat?

Really? Still going with that non-logic, huh?

writer says:
May 20, 2010 at 12:04 pm

Hey now… be nice to Roxy. She never says anything mean or nasty… except when she posts here. So don’t say anything unkind to her… just because she does it all the time.

Actually, I think Roxy needs a hug. Everyone… big hug for Roxy.

***********HUG***********

Look look look http://www.tnta.us/index.asp

Hello,everybody,the good shoping place,the new season approaching, click in. Let’s facelift bar!
===== http://www.fashionclothe.com ====

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33

UGG BOOT $50

Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $33

Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $33

Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $12

New era cap $9

Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $18

FREE SHIPPING

So Black Organizations allow whites to join”

What about The Congressional Black Caucus?

Black Caucus: Whites Not Allowed
By JOSEPHINE HEARN

As a white liberal running in a majority African American district, Tennessee Democrat Stephen I. Cohen made a novel pledge on the campaign trail last year: If elected, he would seek to become the first white member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Now that he’s a freshman in Congress, Cohen has changed his plans. He said he has dropped his bid after several current and former caucus members made it clear to him that whites need not apply.

“I think they’re real happy I’m not going to join,” said Cohen, who succeeded Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., in the Memphis district. “It’s their caucus and they do things their way. You don’t force your way in. You need to be invited.”

Cohen said he became convinced that joining the caucus would be “a social faux pas” after seeing news reports that former Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-Mo., a co-founder of the caucus, had circulated a memo telling members it was “critical” that the group remain “exclusively African-American.”

Other members, including the new chairwoman, Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich., and Clay’s son, Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., agreed.

“Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. … It’s time to move on,” the younger Clay said. “It’s an unwritten rule. It’s understood. It’s clear.”

Mr. Paul refuted the stupid charges that Maddow was trying to put upon him to satisfy her own agenda. After all was said and done, he handed her her lunch. Once again, Maddow proves she is out of her league.

Once again, liberals react to what they WISH someone had said. Not what they really said.

I thought VIDEOTAPE was the absolute Bible to conservative in making determinations about topics?

“Rachel Maddow: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don’t serve black people?

Rand Paul: Yes. I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race.”

Sara in Italy…Silkworm…BR…were you watching the same video that I was? Rand Paul SAID THAT.

You can spin any which way you want. I watched those very words pop out of his mouth.

–Cobra

Racist, racist, racist….it’s all you get from MSNBC, the network with the whitest line-up in prime time and beyond.

Maddow trying to make headlines, will back-fire on her, as it should.

“Do you serve black people here?”

“We do, but I’d recommend the veal.”

Badda bing! Thank you. I’ll be here all week.

TfT,

Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don’t serve black people?

–Cobra

Cobra:

Rachel Maddow: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don’t serve black people?

Rand Paul: Yes. I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race.”

And? Private clubs can do whatever they want and neither you nor the government can change that. Heard of a “Women’s Club?” A “Christian Club?”

Now I saw where liberals were trying to make a college Christian group admit atheists, but I don’t think that is going to work.

Sorry, Cobra, you and your fascist government have no right to tell private associations what they can do.

And while you are at it, why won’t the The Congressional Black Caucus allow whites in?

A Private BUSINESS, notsofast.

BUSINESS.

Do you believe that a resturant can put a sign in the window saying “Blacks Not Served Here?”

And yes, the Ku Klux Klan has a right to exclude non-white members. They’re NOT a “business.”

–Cobra

Rand Paul isn’t naieve or stupid. What he was trying to pull off made NO SENSE. It’s the kind of thing Maddow just COULDN’T let go…how could she, what Paul was saying jsut didn’t size up mathematically. At least cop to it, Paul…you’re a biggot, a country club racist.

Rachel exposed Rand Paul for what he really is…..he lost ALOT of votes by showing up at Rachel’s place!

If $arah Palin endorses you, you know you’re an a**hole….now, WE know. Thanks, Rachel.

Rand Paul is right! We citizens should have the right to run our private businesses without government interference!

As of right now, the government is allowed to interfere with your business in the following ways:

can’t pay less than minimum wage
can’t sell liquor to kids
can’t sell tainted meat
can’t keep a dirty kitchen
can’t keep coloreds out
can’t keep adultresses out
can’t keep savages out
can’t keep jews out
can’t let in more customers than the fascist fire marshal says my business can hold
can’t block fire exits
can’t serve heroin
can’t hire children
can’t beat the employees

Damn liberals have trampled all over the constitution! Freedom ain’t free! If a black person can’t eat here, that’s the sacrifice he should have to make so that I can speak free! And if he has something to say about it, well, he should maybe open up a business for blacks only. And then when I find out, perhaps through a grand opening announcement in the paper, I will figure out a way to say “message received”. Possibly through some other form of discrimination. Or a sale. I haven’t decided yet. Then, if he has something to say back, then he can… well, he can figure that out for himself, I’m still trying to figure a way of telling him the first thing. You get my point people!

The free market will fix all things that don’t work. Just like it did before we ruined it with title 2 of the so called Civil Rights Act! Every other form of free expression I have access to is kind of hard for me to figure out. Except comment boards, I got that down! But that’s all I got… comment boards and discriminatory business practices.

Freedom of Association is basic to Freedom of Speech. Without one there isn’t another.

Lool lool look http://www.tnta.us/

I’m an advocate of free markets, but Mr. Paul’s confidence seems unjustified. Markets were free in the 50′s and 60′s, but those markets didn’t eliminate segregated schools and lunch counters. It took private bravery and government intervention to do that. And free markets didn’t prevent the financial meltdown either.

>> Roxsteady: “If Paul couldn’t even get more votes then the Dem who lost to Conway, how the hell is he going to win easily? The numbers don’t add up folks and with his full on wingnut speak last night he’s toast!”

Actually, all Kentucky polls show — as of today — that Paul is still ahead by a wide margin in a head-to-head competition. In fact, most Democratic strategists admit openly that he’ll most likely win the election in November.

15 minutes in a debate that got nowhere.