• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rand Paul wins, and libertarians rejoice

They may have made the right decision in Kentucky by helping Rand Paul get elected but you have to admit that they messed up in the Texas primary by electing Rick Perry instead of the Libertarian candidate Debra Medina. One more fact is that in these two elections, Both candidates that won were endorsed by Sarah Palin so doesn't that bother you a bit because it seems as if they are leaning a lot where she leans?


that's not necessarily a bad thing as far as Americans are concerned.


j-mac
 
The Plum Line - Rand Paul spox: Fed gov't should bar businesses from discriminating

A spokesman for Rand Paul just clarified to me that the candidate does, in fact, believe that the Federal government should have the power to ban private businesses from discriminating based on race.

So much for sticking to his guns. Rand Paul went on several shows on several separate occasions and always danced around the question, but it was obvious that he thought a private business SHOULD be allowed to discriminate on a racial basis. Now his handlers are trying to backpedal for him.

I don't know the local politics but this seems like something that could sink his election run. Now he's either a "flip flopper" or he holds a backwards-ass view on civil rights.
 
“Do you support Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights bill which prohibited discrimination on the basis or race, religion, gender or national origin for private businesses providing public accommodations?”

That question should be asked of every candidate for high office.

Thank you, Rand Paul.

Excerpted from “The lesson of Rand Paul: libertarianism is juvenile” BY GABRIEL WINANT, Salon, FRIDAY, MAY 21, 2010 08:30 ET
… [[SIZE="+2"]T[/SIZE]]he best rap on libertarians isn't that they're racist, or selfish. (Though some of them are those things, and their beliefs encourage both bad behaviors, even if accidentally.) It's that they're thoroughly out of touch with reality. It's a worldview that prospers only so long as nobody tries it, and is too unreflective and self-absorbed to realize this. In other words, it's bratty. And that's bad enough.
 
Remember folks, everyone in the world (other than the enlightened liberals) are damn dirty racists and if you don't have mother government to watch over you and force them to be good then they're just going to be horrible racist heathens that will screw you all out of everything so give all your power to big mother government and be sure to insult anyone that says anything contrary as juvenile.
 
Remember folks, everyone in the world (other than the enlightened liberals) are damn dirty racists and if you don't have mother government to watch over you and force them to be good then they're just going to be horrible racist heathens that will screw you all out of everything so give all your power to big mother government and be sure to insult anyone that says anything contrary as juvenile.

Do you really think that's a fair characterization of our views?
 
It's terrible that Dr. Paul has fallen victim to the politics of the day. His position on the Civil Rights Act was principled and intellectually justified. It's too bad he's being smeared and his campaign jeopardized for speaking openly and honestly about his libertarian views on private property.
 
Do you really think that's a fair characterization of our views?

I think its an exaggeration, which is what I think many people are doing in regards to Paul's views and libertarians in general.
 
Do you really think that's a fair characterization of our views?

I think it absolutely is.

Every time someone dislikes legislation dealing with race, gender, etc. you guys crow like a bunch of banshees about how that person is racist, sexist, yada yada.

You guys somehow think that federal legislation is almost always the answer to life's problems.
 
It's terrible that Dr. Paul has fallen victim to the politics of the day. His position on the Civil Rights Act was principled and intellectually justified. It's too bad he's being smeared and his campaign jeopardized for speaking openly and honestly about his libertarian views on private property.

He's being "smeared" because his "principled and intellectually justified" position would have us rolling back civil rights about 50 years. Rand Paul seems to think property rights trump civil rights. No, sir, you do NOT have the right to run a whites-only restaurant. You don't have a right to steal, kill, or discriminate. Why? Because those things harm people.

His position doesn't even make sense. *Every* business benefits from public funds, via the country's impressive infrastructure, police protection, fire protection, etc.

And now his aides are trying to backpedal his "principled" position because it's extremist and nobody supports it.
 
Last edited:
He's being "smeared" because his "principled and intellectually justified" position would have us rolling back civil rights about 50 years. Rand Paul seems to think property rights trump civil rights. No, sir, you do NOT have the right to run a whites-only restaurant. You don't have a right to steal, kill, or discriminate. Why? Because those things harm people.

His position doesn't even make sense. *Every* business benefits from public funds, via the country's impressive infrastructure, police protection, fire protection, etc.

And now his aides are trying to backpedal his "principled" position because it's extremist.

Exactly why Zyphlin's post was justified.

You think that discrimination is only prevented by federal legislation.
Geesh. :doh
 
Exactly why Zyphlin's post was justified.

You think that discrimination is only prevented by federal legislation.
Geesh. :doh

No, I don't think that. Where did you get that idea?
 
Exactly why Zyphlin's post was justified.

You think that discrimination is only prevented by federal legislation.
Geesh. :doh

Should Black people have just waited patiently until the old white folks in the South changed their minds?
 
Should Black people have just waited patiently until the old white folks in the South changed their minds?

They didn't have to wait.

Adding that even with that legislation, these old people didn't have to serve them anyway.

Or do you honestly think that legislation is some magical cure all?
 
"He's being "smeared" because his "principled and intellectually justified" position would have us rolling back civil rights about 50 years."

Your words.

You're making a leap based on your preconception of liberal thinking, but you're wrong.

Discrimination is stopped by society as a whole. It's not acceptable on a personal OR federal level.

edit: or state or local
 
Last edited:
You're making a leap based on your preconception of liberal thinking, but you're wrong.

Discrimination is stopped by society as a whole. It's not acceptable on a personal OR federal level.

Really, so the moment that the civil rights act was passed, everyone stopped discriminating based on race?
 
Really, so the moment that the civil rights act was passed, everyone stopped discriminating based on race?

Once again making a leap based on preconceptions of liberal thinking.

I didn't say that.

If you're going to keep doing this there's no sense even trying to discuss the subject.
 
They didn't have to wait.

Adding that even with that legislation, these old people didn't have to serve them anyway.

Or do you honestly think that legislation is some magical cure all?

What is your suggestion? That's what I would like to know.
 
So what you're saying then is that society as a whole, IE the PEOPLE not the GOVERNMENT can not for the most part stop discrimination?

that it can ONLY be done with the governments help?
 
What is your suggestion? That's what I would like to know.

People were already slowly understanding that race is a poor reason to deny someone services.
If anything, the Civil Rights Act was a lagging effort behind what actual society was doing already.

People give it way more credit than it deserves.
 
So what you're saying then is that society as a whole, IE the PEOPLE not the GOVERNMENT can not for the most part stop discrimination?

that it can ONLY be done with the governments help?

For ****'s sake. This would be easier for you if you could think in something other than absolutes.
 
Once again making a leap based on preconceptions of liberal thinking.

I didn't say that.

If you're going to keep doing this there's no sense even trying to discuss the subject.

You have yet to prove how the Civil Rights Act prevented discrimination based on race, yet you are giving it the credit of helping end race discrimination.

It didn't do anything that wasn't already happening.
 
For ****'s sake. This would be easier for you if you could think in something other than absolutes.

Did you not just say this:

Discrimination is stopped by society as a whole. It's not acceptable on a personal OR federal level.

edit: or state or local

Implying that "society as a whole" for you combines the people and the government as one entity? And therefore means you're saying that it needs both portions to be able to be stopped?
 
You have yet to prove how the Civil Rights Act prevented discrimination based on race, yet you are giving it the credit of helping end race discrimination.

It didn't do anything that wasn't already happening.

Whatever. I'll play you guys' game.

So what you're saying, Harry, is that the Civil Rights Act DID NOT DO ANYTHING. You're saying THERE WERE NO CHANGES AT ALL in discrimination ANYWHERE in the ENTIRE country? EVERY bar, restaurant, or deli had ALREADY stopped kicking out black people?
 
Whatever. I'll play you guys' game.

So what you're saying, Harry, is that the Civil Rights Act DID NOT DO ANYTHING. You're saying THERE WERE NO CHANGES AT ALL in discrimination ANYWHERE in the ENTIRE country? EVERY bar, restaurant, or deli had ALREADY stopped kicking out black people?

Instead of kicking them out because of their color, they would do so for other, non race reasons.
Pretty easy to see.

Of course by that time, a lot of businesses weren't doing this as widespread as it is played out to be.
 
Back
Top Bottom