Rand Paul

[MercuryJones]

Some thoughts:

1. He certainly makes things lively.

2. It's kind of amazing in 2010 to have someone running for office say businesses should be free to discriminate based on race. Of course he's almost guaranteed to win, and the kind of statement that would cost him dearly in NY or CA will probably help him there.

3.

4. Claims to want to keep govt from intruding into the personal lives of its citizens, but is against same sex marriage. (So, a restaurant has the right to refuse to let blacks or Jews in, but the restaurant owner doesn't have the right to marry the willing adult citizen of his choice.)

5. He's a lot hotter than many Republicans and Teabaggers.

6. He likes to act tough but cries like a little girl when his answers to questions get him in trouble. Man up, dude, you're going to win anyway. Probably.

 

[desmond]

I can't stop thinking about his dad in Brüno.

 

[Pangelboy]

Not impressed. I also don't think he's all that attractive.

Now, Rep. Aaron Schock, yes.
Rand Paul? Big No.

If he's a libertarian (as I've heard him being called) his pro-life and anti-marriage equality beliefs are contradictory to his stated political philosophy.

From his campaign website:

America can prosper, preserve personal liberty, and repel national security threats without intruding into the personal lives of its citizens.

Unless it's the government telling consenting adults who they can marry or legislating pro-life morality.




I also agree that he needs to stand up for whatever misguided principles he holds. If you're going to argue libertarian political viewpoints then stick up for those viewpoints when they're going to be inevitably criticized.

 

[MercuryJones]

I also agree that he needs to stand up for whatever misguided principles he holds. If you're going to argue libertarian political viewpoints then stick up for those viewpoints when they're going to be inevitably criticized.

He's just a politician. He got caught saying he thought businesses should have the right to deny services or otherwise discriminate, and then when that got attention he went running around like a little bitch, crying that Maddow said he "believed in beating up people that were trying to sit in restaurants in the 1960s" -- something she never alleged.

He then went on to gripe about the "Loony Left", despite the fact that he chose Maddow's show to announce the launch of his candidacy last year.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

It's truly sad that "arch-conservatives" have hijacked the libertarian label.

 

[poolerboy]

2. It's kind of amazing in 2010 to have someone running for office say businesses should be free to discriminate based on race. Of course he's almost guaranteed to win, and the kind of statement that would cost him dearly in NY or CA will probably help him there.

What's so outrageous about that position?

I've yet to hear a compelling argument as to why private entities should not have the freedom to be discriminatory (and I'm an ethnic minority, mind you). I know that statement may seem shocking (You approve of discrimination?!) but I feel it is akin to allowing other people's odious beliefs and opinions to be expressed without necessarily endorsing said beliefs and opinions a la Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Nothing in Voltaire's or Paul's comments suggest any cognitive dissonance in their positions whatsoever.

 

[MercuryJones]

^^

I won't argue it with you at this time because I have an early morning, but for the moment will say I do not equate the two, as free speech is merely words but denial of public accommodation has far more damaging real impact.

Whether you find it compelling or not is immaterial to me.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

What's so outrageous about that position?

I've yet to hear a compelling argument as to why private entities should not have the freedom to be discriminatory (and I'm an ethnic minority, mind you). I know that statement may seem shocking (You approve of discrimination?!) but I feel it is akin to allowing other people's odious beliefs and opinions to be expressed without necessarily endorsing said beliefs and opinions a la Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Nothing in Voltaire's or Paul's comments suggest any cognitive dissonance in their positions whatsoever.

There is nothing about a person that should affect their right to hold a job other than their ability and performance of that job. If a business owner wants to discriminate for any reason outside of job performance, they should lose their business license and seek employment elsewhere. No business should have the right to dictate what an employee does or who that employee is outside the workplace, unless it directly impacts the workplace. They should NEVER be allowed to discriminate for reason of color or ethnicity because accepting that in the workplace reinforces bigotry everywhere.

 

[Kulindahr]

^^

I won't argue it with you at this time because I have an early morning, but for the moment will say I do not equate the two, as free speech is merely words but denial of public accommodation has far more damaging real impact.

What's "public" about a private business?

There is nothing about a person that should affect their right to hold a job other than their ability and performance of that job. If a business owner wants to discriminate for any reason outside of job performance, they should lose their business license and seek employment elsewhere. No business should have the right to dictate what an employee does or who that employee is outside the workplace, unless it directly impacts the workplace. They should NEVER be allowed to discriminate for reason of color or ethnicity because accepting that in the workplace reinforces bigotry everywhere.

So you believe that the government is a part owner in all businesses, and one with the authority to set policy?

BTW -- what's the rational premise for business licenses?

 

[poolerboy]

There is nothing about a person that should affect their right to hold a job other than their ability and performance of that job. If a business owner wants to discriminate for any reason outside of job performance, they should lose their business license and seek employment elsewhere. No business should have the right to dictate what an employee does or who that employee is outside the workplace, unless it directly impacts the workplace.

So you believe the business owner is essentially not the sole proprietor of his own property. Why is that?

They should NEVER be allowed to discriminate for reason of color or ethnicity because accepting that in the workplace reinforces bigotry everywhere.

I believe people shouldn't discriminate either, but I'm not going to have the government dictate the terms of a private entity either. Unless they cause some negative externality that spills over to the public, the private business owner is free to discriminate just like the hilly billy redneck is allow to call me a racial epithet. That is the price of liberty. Apparently you don't value it all that much.

 

[Kulindahr]

So you believe the business owner is essentially not the sole proprietor of his own property. Why is that?


I believe people shouldn't discriminate either, but I'm not going to have the government dictate the terms of a private entity either. Unless they cause some negative externality that spills over to the public, the private business owner is free to discriminate just like the hilly billy redneck is allow to call me a racial epithet. That is the price of liberty. Apparently you don't value it all that much.

I can see government rules applying to corporations getting government contracts, and that's about it. If I want to open a bookstore for people with blue eyes and no one else, that should be my business.

 

[NickCole]

There is nothing about a person that should affect their right to hold a job other than their ability and performance of that job. If a business owner wants to discriminate for any reason outside of job performance, they should lose their business license and seek employment elsewhere. No business should have the right to dictate what an employee does or who that employee is outside the workplace, unless it directly impacts the workplace. They should NEVER be allowed to discriminate for reason of color or ethnicity because accepting that in the workplace reinforces bigotry everywhere.

Problem is, more and more people with lousy job performance get to keep their job and too many who would be the best in the job aren't hired or are let go.

Obviously discrimination like race and gender is bad but the truth is it works both ways, like the top scientist homophobe hired to help with the oil spill that ObamaCo just fired. It's easier to fire the homophobe than to repeal DOMA; it's not fair, it's not reasonable, it's not the best choice, but it's the easiest even though it helps nothing and nobody.

Also there's discrimination in favor of certain people and very often today lousy job performers get and keep the job. Whether it's race or age or likability or looks or who's friends with whom, a lot of our most competent are getting screwed in favor of a different kind of discrimination, and in the process so is America. We have become a nation lousy with corruption, by no means only in Washington, of unearned trophies or cheered-on revenge, and it will only get worse because too many Americans revel in it.

We don't know Rand Paul and know little about him or his positions, so it's interesting watching Democrats tear him apart. Knowing practically nothing about him, agreement or disagreement isn't enough anymore, there's only adoration or smackdown. And of course the BushRepublican ObamaNation favorite, ridicule, as found in the OP of this thread: "He likes to act tough but cries like a little girl when his answers to questions get him in trouble."

 

[Kulindahr]

We don't know Rand Paul and know little about him or his positions, so it's interesting watching Democrats tear him apart. Knowing practically nothing about him, agreement or disagreement isn't enough anymore, there's only adoration or smackdown. And of course the BushRepublican ObamaNation favorite, ridicule, as found in the OP of this thread: "He likes to act tough but cries like a little girl when his answers to questions get him in trouble."

Except that he stated his position on this. While he had good reasons for dodging the question from Maddow, he was still dodging it.

An interesting aspect to me was that no one raised the issue of the distinction between companies confined to one state and those which straddle state lines. Arguably, the commerce clause slaps a line between those, so arguably the FedGov might legitimately make regulations for one but not the other.

More, Paul didn't make the point that in today's America, except in certain places, a business which posted a "No Blacks" or "No Asians" or "Whites Only" sign is going to suffer -- and in today's economy, that could mean death.

 

[MercuryJones]

What's "public" about a private business?

Access.

As I think you probably know, public accommodation is the term used in the Civil Rights Act, hence my usage.

So you believe that the government is a part owner in all businesses, and one with the authority to set policy?

I believe no business should decide who will be a second class citizen.

I don't believe a small town with one pharmacy should decide that a certain minority will not have access to pharmaceuticals, or that another minority can only enter the back door like a dog.

If you wish to defend a business owner's right to do so, it's up to you.

And if Rand Paul wants to defend it, he should. But he was rather a big pussy about the whole Maddow thing, and it's fun to see how for all his bluster he's not above spinning the events so that he can avoid saying what he really thinks.

It's also interesting to see how like many of his fellows he has no discomfort with government intruding into the most personal choices a person can make about his or her own life.


Edit to add, for the record:

TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 2000a, (AKA, the definition of "public accommodation" in the United States Code as pertains to services operated by private entities):

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subchapter if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment
(A)
i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or
ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and
(B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
(e) Private establishments
The provisions of this subchapter shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b) of this section.

 

[MercuryJones]

We don't know Rand Paul and know little about him or his positions, so it's interesting watching Democrats tear him apart. Knowing practically nothing about him, agreement or disagreement isn't enough anymore, there's only adoration or smackdown. And of course the BushRepublican ObamaNation favorite, ridicule, as found in the OP of this thread: "He likes to act tough but cries like a little girl when his answers to questions get him in trouble."

He was ridiculed for crying like a little girl, as he did. All my observations were based on what is known about him. If you have evidence to the contrary, ball up and present it.

But speaking of not knowing what you're talking about, I was not a supporter of Bush or Obama, so you're making shit up.

 

[NickCole]

He was ridiculed for crying like a little girl, as he did. All my observations were based on what is known about him. If you have evidence to the contrary, ball up and present it.

Lots of grown men cry and lots of little girls don't.

And there's nothing wrong with crying.

Your using "crying like a little girl" is pejorative to both Mr. Paul and girls, and is typical of the ObamaNation brand of riducule.

But speaking of not knowing what you're talking about, I was not a supporter of Bush or Obama, so you're making shit up.

"Was" not.

Cute.

 

[palemale]

What's so outrageous about that position?

I've yet to hear a compelling argument as to why private entities should not have the freedom to be discriminatory (and I'm an ethnic minority, mind you). I know that statement may seem shocking (You approve of discrimination?!) but I feel it is akin to allowing other people's odious beliefs and opinions to be expressed without necessarily endorsing said beliefs and opinions a la Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Nothing in Voltaire's or Paul's comments suggest any cognitive dissonance in their positions whatsoever.

Aren't private establishments protected by the police department and fire department? Doesn't the city pick up their garbage and pave the streets in front of their establishment? Does not the proprietor of the establishment get tax breaks for certain things, like for providing employee health benefits or depreciation of plant and equipment? Are not all of these things funded by tax dollars? Don't racial and ethnic minorities, or members of the LGBT community, pay taxes? Don't they serve their country in the military? Does a just society permit business owners who benefit so much at tax payer expense permit those businesses to discriminate against some of the people whose tax dollars made the operation of the business possible? I think the question answers itself.

 

[MercuryJones]

Lots of grown men cry and lots of little girls don't.

And sometimes people ball up and own their actions and words. Paul didn't, for all his bluster.

Your using "crying like a little girl" is pejorative to both Mr. Paul and girls, and is typical of the ObamaNation brand of riducule.

And what is your use of terms like "ObamaNation"?

 

[palemale]

We don't know Rand Paul and know little about him or his positions, so it's interesting watching Democrats tear him apart. Knowing practically nothing about him, agreement or disagreement isn't enough anymore, there's only adoration or smackdown. And of course the BushRepublican ObamaNation favorite, ridicule, as found in the OP of this thread: "He likes to act tough but cries like a little girl when his answers to questions get him in trouble."

How can you say we know little about him, he's been running for office for close to a year? He expects to be a U.S. Senator. If he has been so good at hiding his beliefs when he is running for office, he can hardly complain if others fill in the blanks. His job as politician is to set the record straight.

I saw the Maddow interview, she was not unfair at all. He tried to squirm and weasel out of answering the question. She wouldn't let him. All journalists should be like that instead of licking the assholes of whomever they are interviewing.
(My apologies to weasels and asshole lickers, did not intend my comments to be pejorative to you in any way).

 

[MercuryJones]

Aren't private establishments protected by the police department and fire department?

And in Paul's dream world in which a pharmacy can tell a black woman she can't come in, if the woman resists, who will remove her?

Are our tax dollars to pay for police to enforce racial discrimination?