Jump to content

Is this radical

acemona
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

PepRock01

PepRock01

Posted
Posted

The question I am curious about though is whether they asked him if he would have supported Jim Crow laws and institutionalized segregation. Those came about due to legislation as well. There are two halves to that coin. Should he have answered that better? Probably, however I do not see how someone who wouldn't have voted for that act as inherently racist.

 

That is as logical as saying those who were Anti-Iraq Conflict are pro-terrorist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
acemona

acemona

Posted
  • Author
Posted
The question I am curious about though is whether they asked him if he would have supported Jim Crow laws and institutionalized segregation. Those came about due to legislation as well. There are two halves to that coin. Should he have answered that better? Probably, however I do not see how someone who wouldn't have voted for that act as inherently racist.

 

That is as logical as saying those who were Anti-Iraq Conflict are pro-terrorist.

 

 

I think the article gives him some cover on the racist front, the comments certainly do not. What about the question I posed: government regulation vs white only lunch counters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PepRock01

PepRock01

Posted
Posted
I think the article gives him some cover on the racist front, the comments certainly do not. What about the question I posed: government regulation vs white only lunch counters?

 

 

Considering they were in force because of government regulation shouldn't you reframe the question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
acemona

acemona

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Considering they were in force because of government regulation shouldn't you reframe the question?

 

They were not in force because of government regulation. The government did not tell Woolworth's that they could only serve whites. Now, of course there were some Jim Crow laws but the white only lunch counters were not among them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PepRock01

PepRock01

Posted
Posted
They were not in force because of government regulation. The government did not tell Woolworth's that they could only serve whites. Now, of course there were some Jim Crow laws but the white only lunch counters were not among them.

 

 

Jim Crow laws required "separate but equal" facilities in all public places. This clearly includes the segregation of those as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fastbreak

Fastbreak

Posted
Posted
I think the article gives him some cover on the racist front, the comments certainly do not. What about the question I posed: government regulation vs white only lunch counters?
You need to expand your information base. The story as reported on the site you linked is patently false, presenting spin 180 degrees out of phase with the facts.

 

Here's Paul's response as posted on his website ( I found the link on LBBC's post by that title...)

 

In response to liberal media attacks, Dr. Rand Paul today released the following statement:

 

“I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.

 

More at the following link: http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/05/rand-paul-sets-the-record-straight/

 

I'm so tired of disingenuous ideologues spinning their tails off just trying to push their singular point of view. It's dishonest garbage like this that will take what for all practical purposes is a marginal candidate and sweep him in with a landslide. I don’t care that you disagree or have a different set of values… just be honest about it PLEASE.

 

"...cover on the racist front?" Ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoachBuckett

CoachBuckett

Posted
Posted
You need to expand your information base. The story as reported on the site you linked is patently false, presenting spin 180 degrees out of phase with the facts.

 

Here's Paul's response as posted on his website ( I found the link on LBBC's post by that title...)

 

In response to liberal media attacks, Dr. Rand Paul today released the following statement:

 

“I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.

 

More at the following link: http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/05/rand-paul-sets-the-record-straight/

 

I'm so tired of disingenuous ideologues spinning their tails off just trying to push their singular point of view. It's dishonest garbage like this that will take what for all practical purposes is a marginal candidate and sweep him in with a landslide. I don’t care that you disagree or have a different set of values… just be honest about it PLEASE.

 

"...cover on the racist front?" Ridiculous.

 

This happens daily by the leader of the Republican Party "Mr. Rush on to of the EIB network!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoachBuckett

CoachBuckett

Posted
Posted

I understand what Paul is trying to say. Basically if a business doesn't recieve federal dollars they should be allowed to refuse service to who they want.

 

I agree with him. As long as they do not use government to help with things like, trash collection, fire protection, police protection. Because all of those use federal funds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
woodsrider

woodsrider

Posted
Posted
I understand what Paul is trying to say. Basically if a business doesn't recieve federal dollars they should be allowed to refuse service to who they want.

 

I agree with him. As long as they do not use government to help with things like, trash collection, fire protection, police protection. Because all of those use federal funds.

 

Does that mean he also shouldn't have to pay federal tax? If he doesn't get the benefits his tax money pays for then why should he have to pay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
acemona

acemona

Posted
  • Author
Posted
You need to expand your information base. The story as reported on the site you linked is patently false, presenting spin 180 degrees out of phase with the facts.

 

Here's Paul's response as posted on his website ( I found the link on LBBC's post by that title...)

 

In response to liberal media attacks, Dr. Rand Paul today released the following statement:

 

“I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.

 

More at the following link: http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/05/rand-paul-sets-the-record-straight/

 

I'm so tired of disingenuous ideologues spinning their tails off just trying to push their singular point of view. It's dishonest garbage like this that will take what for all practical purposes is a marginal candidate and sweep him in with a landslide. I don’t care that you disagree or have a different set of values… just be honest about it PLEASE.

 

"...cover on the racist front?" Ridiculous.

 

The Story is not false. SPIN it all you like. He is back pedalling.

 

If you notice, you have posted Paul's response to the comments he made on the Maddow show and the subsuquent grief he received because of them. This was not his original statement. I can post the Maddow interview if you like. I think he is trying to spin now that he realizes what a stupid statement he made to the national media on two different occasions.

 

The reason we don't have the same kind of institutional racism now as we had prior to '64 is BECAUSE of the '64 Civil Rights act. "Ayn" Rand Paul libertarian capitalism would not have produced the goals of the 14th amendment on their own. It is only through progressive legislation that we made it through Upton Sinclair's "Jungle" and the Jim Crow culture of "To Kill A Mockingbird". It is easy to go back and say we don't need it now, but our society would be vastly different than it is - in a very negative sense - if progressives had not stepped up. I can't imagine living in a world dominated by Joseph "I have list in my hand" McCarthy and Bull Connor and Orval Faubus or Ross Barnett. I AM NOT ASSOCIATING RAND PAUL WITH THESE GUYS what I am saying is that his brand of libertarianism allows these guys to prosper because they have the POWER.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.

  I accept