« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Rand Paul Part II

By: jimbo51 (Diary)  |  May 19th, 2010 at 11:50 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I wrote a bit ago about how I think Rand Paul just self-destructed.  But let’s get ready for the next page in the Democrat playbook.  Every single Republican will be asked if they agree with Rand Paul’s position.  Clever politics.  “Senator Coburn, do you agree with Rand Paul’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act”.  Get ready.  Thursday will be a long day for every Republican and Conservative.  If you’re someone in a position to be asked, better have a response ready. Just as Democrats used their friends in the MSM to tar the Tea Party movement with phony claims of racial epithets, this will be used to further tar the Tea Party Candidate, and by extension, the Tea Party and all Republicans to push their false messaging that Republicans are racist.

Tags: , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • SIConservative

    Let’s have the debate. I haven’t been able to watch the video (in China), but I welcome the national debate. We’re on the right side of it.

  • rrreaganite

    I think that it is really a terrible gaffe. The Civil Rights Act was inspired very much because blacks could not sit at the same counters as whites could or go into the same bathrooms. Rand essentially said that private entities have the right to deny services to individuals based upon their race. Not good. I am still rooting for him but it won’t be a walk anymore. I

  • JamesSmith130

    This is the crux of what freedom is about, that one should have the choice of whom they want to serve in my business, even if it is decided by something as stupid and wrong as racism. A businessman has the right to make such decisions. I would also strongly oppose boycotts against businesses who do discriminate, because that would also be an affront to such a businessman’s freedom.

  • dvdmsr

    So only the business owner has property rights and the freedom of association?

  • singingcactus

    First of all, I doubt too many business owners would refuse to serve clients based on their own racist biases. In my experience, business-people are educated and fair-minded. If they refuse a client based on race, it would probably because they would lose other clients who are racist. Think of an inner-city area with gang violence, where the black grocery store refuses to sell to Hispanic residents, or the rural diner where the regular white clientele may have negative feelings towards black diners. The businessman in each case is trying to serve his clients the best he can; he is not inherently racist just because of his association with other racists. Otherwise, (insert Democrat’s name here) would be a racist.

    Laws like the Civil Rights Act just make what was once formalized now a ‘self-selection’. There’s a cigar shop down the street from where I live. I’ve never seen a white man there, nor have I ever seen a woman there. Does the shop owner prohibit white men from buying nicotene at his shop? No, it’s a cultural thing. The owner associates with black men, and his friends are the business’s clientele. There is nothing racist going on there. You can expand this principle to other libertarian issues as well: When a law prohibits something or makes something contraband, culture usually has a way to get around laws and end up with a pseudo-legal means of achieving the end that was trying to be prevented. The only real benefit (outside of ending discrimination by the government) of the Civil Rights Act (and drug prohibitions, anti-poaching laws, etc.) is the negative stigma it puts on people who are racist (use drugs, poach endangered species, etc.).

    As a libertarian conservative, I agree with Rand Paul wholeheartedly. As a realist, though, this is not the issue I want at the forefront of national debate right now. (It just goes to show how desperate the Democrats are in that they want 1960′s era legislation that their party opposed to be the issue of the day.) There are far worse policies that need to be reformed/recalled in this nation than Civil Rights legislation.

  • JamesSmith130

    only that I would strongly oppose them, and would probably “buycott” at such boycotted areas.

    But I see such a boycott as an a backdoor affront to property rights.

  • dvdmsr

    Please explain this because I couldn’t disagree more. The boycott is in my mind the epitome of property rights in action.

    I get that you’re not for outlawing boycotts, and that you may be against a particular boycott.

    I don’t always support a particular boycott, like in the case of the boycott of Walmart because Walmart chooses not to buy union labor, but I respect the right of others to choose to also spend their money elsewhere for whatever reason they see fit to give or not give. I also respect their right to speak and promote their call for a boycott, and to organize and assemble with others who share their opinions, and their right to pool their money together to purchase commercial time to further promote their cause.

    Libertarians don’t always like what other people do either, but if those people have a right to do it, they respect that right.

    Are you really opposed to the general practice of boycotts?

  • SIConservative

    That, in my view, would be racist. I agree that business owners have the right to refuse service to whomever they so choose. That said, consumers have a right to choose which businesses they patronize. This would be an excellent example of a case in which they should do so. Racism should be permitted legally but punished socially.