Mr. Paul won in a landslide on Tuesday in the state of Kentucky for the GOP nomination for Senator.

The left winged blog sites have gone ballistic because Paul thinks business owners have the right to decline service to certain customers.

My opinion is that Paul is not a racist. Just as it is very hard to legislate morality issues, it is just as hard to legislate one being a business owner asshole.

Thoughts?

Video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/

Leftists crying racism?

The hell you say.

He's just a hardcore libertarian, which isn't all that appealing to most Americans, even the ones who claim to be.

No way, the liberals claiming someone is racist? Well call me a monkey's uncle I would have never guessed that!

Thoughts:

1) Your link doesn't work

2) I'm glad that people like Rachel Maddow are so upset that private business owners don't always provide elevators, particularly given that my office is on the second floor of a walk-up.

3) Rachel Maddow is an idiot.

Nope, just a dude who has really odd looking hair and reminds me of a recovering drug addict who lived across the street from me in Ann Arbor.

LJ wrote: He's just a hardcore libertarian, which isn't all that appealing to most Americans, even the ones who claim to be.

Apparently the Kentucky constituency begs to differ.

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: Thoughts:

1) Your link doesn't work

I didn't post a link. The mods did. But while I got you, was my spelling OK?

They left is totally spinning his comments out of propotion. They are taking something that is one thing and painting it as something else. All of this is stemming from his interview on the Rachel Maddow Show. He clearly told Maddow he is not in favor of discimination in any form. His point was the government, in a supposedly "free country", has no business telling a store owner who can enter their place of business.

The fact of the matter is a store owner who refuses services to someone based on the color of their skin is only shotting themselves in the foot. They are losing out on business that will go to a competitor. The marketplace will eventually cause that person to not succeed and likely have to close shop if they don't change their practices.

We will never achieve racial harmony in this country if people can't stop trying to see everything as a racist comment. It is really pathetic.

Footwedge wrote:

LJ wrote: He's just a hardcore libertarian, which isn't all that appealing to most Americans, even the ones who claim to be.

Apparently the Kentucky constituency begs to differ.

Since when does Kentucky = most Americans?

LJ wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

LJ wrote: He's just a hardcore libertarian, which isn't all that appealing to most Americans, even the ones who claim to be.

Apparently the Kentucky constituency begs to differ.

Since when does Kentucky = most Americans?

better yet, Kentucky Registered Republicans

The American Civil Liberties Union compartmentalizes their thinking process in the same fashion as Rand Paul...because the Constitution protects the freedom of action and thoughts ....whether they be positive for society or not.

Put it another way. If the ACLU makes certain that a child rapist is granted his constitutional rights in the court of law through due process procedures, does that make the ACLU pro pedophilia? Of course not.

It is a "where do I draw the line" issue in our freedom loving American society.

We have choices to be a warm hearted, a well loved person..and we also have the right to be an asshole...as long as we don't break any laws. If we choose to be an asshole, then we will reap the "benefits" of doing so. If a business owner elects to ban certain ethnic groups, certain sexual identity people, Amish people, handicapped people, rich people, ugly people, skinny people, fat people...and so on, then their place of business will not stay open for very long. It's that simple.

Libertarians view this as...well...if your freedoms enable you to be stupid...then you have that right to be stupid. If you don't use "street smarts", then you will never be successful in running your own company...that in America, you have a right to choose..and if you choose the wrong ideals, then one will reap what they sow.

To summarize...libertarians view homophobia and racism to be choices in a free, liberty driven, society. Just as morality to a large degree cannot be legislated, neither can inbred hatred for certain ethnic groups.

Left winged people will not agree with me on this issue, but I think it's important to at least share the reason behind Rand Paul's thought process here....and the position of most libertarians.

And as for my take on the personal views of Rand Paul....he does not have an ounce of racist blood in his veins. And neither does his father.

I posted the link and it works fine for me.

This is no biggie for me. He is not a racist, far from it I'm sure.
I haven't paid attention to his campaign in Kentucky, but from the little I've heard and read from him, I actually kinda hope wins. I'm quite intrigued on how he would interact with the rest of the Senate.

derek bomar wrote:

LJ wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

LJ wrote: He's just a hardcore libertarian, which isn't all that appealing to most Americans, even the ones who claim to be.

Apparently the Kentucky constituency begs to differ.

Since when does Kentucky = most Americans?

Let me rephrase then. The republican base in Kentucky have overwhelmingly selected a candidate that have many views far different than those of the main stream Republicans across the country.

This election has brought to the forefront that many Republicans are seeing the light, and have switched their views on many traditional GOP views that are hypocritical in fundamentals.

Just because your own political views do not allign with those of libertarians, it doesn't change the fact that the GOP is in fact drawing to the overall message presented by the LP.

And it's great to see.

The interesting thing about that interview was that he repeatedly answered her questions, sometimes with questions of his own, and she didn't like it; and so she kept asking the same thing over and over again in sort of hoping that his answer would be the one that she was looking for.
That's a big problem with todays media in all markets.
By the way, I love it when media types are disappointed and frustrated with their interviews.

As for the subject matter of the interview, I couldn't agree more with the idea that the civil rights movement was excellent and made progress of leaps and bounds.
However, that doesn't mean that I'm (personally) interested in nit-picking "ideas" to death. For example, there's clubs and institutions right now that I as a female do not have access to joining. And I don't give a damn. I don't feel singled out or that my gender as a whole is singled out. Why? Because there's institutions and clubs that are female oriented that men cannot belong to. I don't give a damn about those either. But, they fit the mold of what's good for one is good for the other, and not every single damn thing wants or needs to be the same.
It's called diversity. And I know there are going to be people that detest that, but so what? That's diverse, too. lol

What's the difference between barring somebody from an activity based on gender or barring somebody based on race? (there certainly are people who detest the other gender, male/female) At what point do people decide to be offended? At what point does legislation come in?

Those are the questions that I think that Rand Paul is asking. At what point does it become a governmental and legislative issue? How far do those questions need to go?
Does a blanket ruling solve every single one of those problems? At what point are we satisfied socially?

I think those are very good questions. I think there is a happy medium there, but it's never really been discussed to such an extent to find it. I think it will happen when laws are dissected as well or just as much as ideas.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I posted the link and it works fine for me.

This is no biggie for me. He is not a racist, far from it I'm sure.
I haven't paid attention to his campaign in Kentucky, but from the little I've heard and read from him, I actually kinda hope wins. I'm quite intrigued on how he would interact with the rest of the Senate.

He will not get along very well with other Senators. And he will not get along with those that want to expand the miltary around the globe.

He'll get along with other Senators as well as i get along with my poop when it ends up in my shorts and not the toilet.

Footwedge wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

LJ wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

LJ wrote: He's just a hardcore libertarian, which isn't all that appealing to most Americans, even the ones who claim to be.

Apparently the Kentucky constituency begs to differ.

Since when does Kentucky = most Americans?

Let me rephrase then. The republican base in Kentucky have overwhelmingly selected a candidate that have many views far different than those of the main stream Republicans across the country.

This election has brought to the forefront that many Republicans are seeing the light, and have switched their views on many traditional GOP views that are hypocritical in fundamentals.

Just because your own political views do not allign with those of libertarians, it doesn't change the fact that the GOP is in fact drawing to the overall message presented by the LP.

And it's great to see.

I don't agree with most Republicans either, so it doesn't really matter. I think the majority of Americans are too moderate to buy into the Libertarian way of thinking. Besides, most Libertarians I have ever met are extreme hypocrites, deciding where they think the constitution applies and where it doesn't.

I don't agree with everything the LP party stands for either. But they are by far the least hypocritical in their party platform.

cbus4life wrote: Nope, just a dude who has really odd looking hair and reminds me of a recovering drug addict who lived across the street from me in Ann Arbor.

You lived in Ann Arbor .......... so that explains your warped political views.

" If a business owner elects to ban certain ethnic groups, certain sexual identity people, Amish people, handicapped people, rich people, ugly people, skinny people, fat people...and so on, then their place of business will not stay open for very long. It's that simple."

2 things,

1) Much of the interview had nothing to do with "banning", but rather accomodation. There are plenty of businesses that offer services to people of specific persuasions, it isn't that they are "banning" people but rather don't offer services that many other people find useful. My thoughts go back to the eHarmony lawsuit thread that was here a few months ago, which IMO was an inglorious debacle (the lawsuit, not the thread).

2) CenterBHSFan is 100% correct, Maddow came off looking like a dullard trying to get Paul to admit to something that she projected into his opinion. I mean Sweet Santa Clause shit, Maddow can go to a Curves gym or join the Junior League, I can't do either of those. I'm not griping about it.

Footwedge wrote: The American Civil Liberties Union compartmentalizes their thinking process in the same fashion as Rand Paul...because the Constitution protects the freedom of action and thoughts ....whether they be positive for society or not.

Put it another way. If the ACLU makes certain that a child rapist is granted his constitutional rights in the court of law through due process procedures, does that make the ACLU pro pedophilia? Of course not.

It is a "where do I draw the line" issue in our freedom loving American society.

We have choices to be a warm hearted, a well loved person..and we also have the right to be an asshole...as long as we don't break any laws. If we choose to be an asshole, then we will reap the "benefits" of doing so. If a business owner elects to ban certain ethnic groups, certain sexual identity people, Amish people, handicapped people, rich people, ugly people, skinny people, fat people...and so on, then their place of business will not stay open for very long. It's that simple.

Libertarians view this as...well...if your freedoms enable you to be stupid...then you have that right to be stupid. If you don't use "street smarts", then you will never be successful in running your own company...that in America, you have a right to choose..and if you choose the wrong ideals, then one will reap what they sow.

To summarize...libertarians view homophobia and racism to be choices in a free, liberty driven, society. Just as morality to a large degree cannot be legislated, neither can inbred hatred for certain ethnic groups.

Left winged people will not agree with me on this issue, but I think it's important to at least share the reason behind Rand Paul's thought process here....and the position of most libertarians.

And as for my take on the personal views of Rand Paul....he does not have an ounce of racist blood in his veins. And neither does his father.

I agree with you for the most part. However what if you have the situation in which you have a small town with only one pharmacy (hypothetically) and the next closest one is over an hour drive's away in the next town. Now let's say the pharmacy owner chooses not accept blonds as customers. He would certainly lose a lot of business, but I'm sure there would be enough brunettes, redheads, etc. to keep him in business. The problem is the blonds no longer have access to a pharmacy (a vital service). So what do they do? Should they just deal with driving over an hour to the next one? (and who knows what kind of policy they will have).

Let's take it further and apply that same scenario to a privately-funded hospital. According to this line of thinking the owners of that hospital would have the right to refuse patients with certain traits.

I agree with the idea in theory. I just think in practice it could potentially be dangerous.

An interesting article for LJ to read. Granted, it's from the Cato Institute...but like all biased sources, things stated can in fact be independently sourced and confirmed.


"....We note that libertarian voters started to swing against the Republicans in 2004, before most Republicans did. Then independents swung hard to the Democrats in 2006 and 2008. By 2008, though, libertarian voters had apparently recoiled against the prospect of an Obama-Pelosi-Reid government at a time of financial crisis. By November 2009 and January 2010, a majority of independents had followed the libertarians in turning against the Democrats’ big-government agenda. We go on to say:

So, if many of these centrist, independent voters are indeed libertarians, why aren’t libertarians better recognized?

First, the word “libertarian” is still unfamiliar — even to many who hold “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” views. Pollsters rarely use it….

Second, libertarian voters have traditionally been less likely to organize.

In the past three years, however, libertarians have become a more visible, organized force in politics — particularly as campaigns move online. Ron Paul’s campaign demonstrated that libertarians can organize and raise large sums of money on the Internet...."

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/04/19/libertarians-independents-and-tea-parties/

I dont believe that he is a racist, but he is certainly pandering to them. Its politics, and its Kentucky for gods sake.

Websurfinbird wrote:

Footwedge wrote: The American Civil Liberties Union compartmentalizes their thinking process in the same fashion as Rand Paul...because the Constitution protects the freedom of action and thoughts ....whether they be positive for society or not.

Put it another way. If the ACLU makes certain that a child rapist is granted his constitutional rights in the court of law through due process procedures, does that make the ACLU pro pedophilia? Of course not.

It is a "where do I draw the line" issue in our freedom loving American society.

We have choices to be a warm hearted, a well loved person..and we also have the right to be an asshole...as long as we don't break any laws. If we choose to be an asshole, then we will reap the "benefits" of doing so. If a business owner elects to ban certain ethnic groups, certain sexual identity people, Amish people, handicapped people, rich people, ugly people, skinny people, fat people...and so on, then their place of business will not stay open for very long. It's that simple.

Libertarians view this as...well...if your freedoms enable you to be stupid...then you have that right to be stupid. If you don't use "street smarts", then you will never be successful in running your own company...that in America, you have a right to choose..and if you choose the wrong ideals, then one will reap what they sow.

To summarize...libertarians view homophobia and racism to be choices in a free, liberty driven, society. Just as morality to a large degree cannot be legislated, neither can inbred hatred for certain ethnic groups.

Left winged people will not agree with me on this issue, but I think it's important to at least share the reason behind Rand Paul's thought process here....and the position of most libertarians.

And as for my take on the personal views of Rand Paul....he does not have an ounce of racist blood in his veins. And neither does his father.

I agree with you for the most part. However what if you have the situation in which you have a small town with only one pharmacy (hypothetically) and the next closest one is over an hour drive's away in the next town. Now let's say the pharmacy owner chooses not accept blonds as customers. He would certainly lose a lot of business, but I'm sure there would be enough brunettes, redheads, etc. to keep him in business. The problem is the blonds no longer have access to a pharmacy (a vital service). So what do they do? Should they just deal with driving over an hour to the next one? (and who knows what kind of policy they will have).

Let's take it further and apply that same scenario to a privately-funded hospital. According to this line of thinking the owners of that hospital would have the right to refuse patients with certain traits.

I agree with the idea in theory. I just think in practice it could potentially be dangerous.

Again, the discussion has turned to providing a service refusing a class (in your hypo, blondes, as if they needed any more help), as opposed to providing a service that isn't useful for a class, or a business being forced by the government to extend their services to accomodate various classes.

Your hospital analogy is very appropriate, given that a lot of bickering hin the past has been about whether federal money should be extended to hospitals that won't provide abortions (namely, many catholic hospitals). They aren't discriminatory in their practice, they just don't provide certain services.