Rising Hegemon
Should be the kiss of death...but God forbid anyone from the media harp on such a repellent point:
INTERVIEWER: But under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworths?
RAND PAUL: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part—and this is the hard part about believing in freedom—is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example—you have too, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things
Ah yes, but we're not talking saying awful things, we're talking doing awful things that deprive someone of their full rights as American citizens.
Race, Sex, Religious, Age, and Disability discrimination in employment and accommodations in private business are perfectly legal in Rand Paul's world. Because a ban on them would violate the First Amendment. That's the lovely quaint and bullshit argument the supported Jim Crow for generations. We had that little argument a long time ago, it's called the 14th Amendment, and not the Plessy v. Ferguson model you seem to love so much.
And when pressed he does nothing but weasel out on the answer.
In an interview with NPR today, Paul was asked three times about his position on the Civil Rights Act, but each time he dodged giving a declarative answer. “A lot of things that were actually in the bill I’m actually in favor of,” said Paul. Hinting at what he doesn’t “favor,” Paul added that “a lot of things can be handled locally.”
Ah, but you see Rand, if you believe such laws violate the First Amendment the State or City Council can't do shit about it either.
So let us just return to those glorious racist days of yesteryear.
And God forbid the Alaskan Mooch gets asked about that line of thinking (or any line actually):
“Rand Paul certainly represents that change that is needed”
(pic from here)
14 comments:
I watched the interview and Rand comes across as a double-talker much like his father. The problem with the libertarian position is that it's great for firing up the political juices but offers nothing in the way of the government being able to actively intervene in evil at the expense of its citizens.
The idea that he would speak out against the racial hatred and abuses occurring in the south means nothing. As a member of that community of haters he would merely have been marginalized or killed if he got too loud.
Rand Paul's ideas of absolute non-government interference even against state-government instituted or tolerated bigotry and discrimination is a picture into the future of Tea Bagger government.
Without federal intervention, without the federal government stepping in on behalf of its citizens against the tyranny of the white bigots of the south, we'd either still have a nation living with the evil institution of segregation and lynching.
That'll be the Tea-Bagger legacy if politically successful, getting the tyrannical federal government off the backs of the Tea Baggers in favor of local tyrannies against the powerless.
The idea that the federal government can't come to the aid of its citizens when state governments fail is absurd. Might as well dissolve the Union....gee, you don't think that's on anybody's mind do you?
And when I said, "...getting the tyrannical federal government" that should read created/perceived "tyrannical" federal government.
Thanks for letting me vent.
What a douche. So can the only local grocery store in a small town refuse to serve people based on race, hair color or shoe size? Can doctors and hospitals refuse patients? Can we start red-lining again? What a fucking douche.
Also, I don't think Rand Paul is a bigot - that is I don't believe he hates people who are not white - but I do think he qualifies as a racist. When you advocate for laws or circumstances that you know full well will lead to one racial group wielding political and financial power over another, that's just flat-out racist.
He's got his "look, I'm a reasonable guy" answer pretty memorized... used it verbatim on Rachel Maddow's show last night and would not answer the question, even after she asked him point blank to answer yes or no, "Is it ok for a business to refuse to serve blacks." She never did get him to answer the question with a non-weasley answer, so her wrap up to that segment was pretty brutal, as far as her show goes.
Ah, yes, the infallible invisible hand of the market fixes everything.
Guess these pseudo-intellectuals have conveniently forgotten that the default "free market" position for over two hundred years was fucking slavery.
The invisible hand's magic fingers weren't picking the locks on slaves' leg-irons. They were too busy counting the money at the slave brokerage.
Also, I don't think Rand Paul is a bigot -
I agree, but his philosophy of government the derides involvement in actively protecting the interests of the otherwise powerless against the inevitable abuse of consolidated power in the hands of sociopaths, bigots and/or "neutral"corporations driven only by profit is detestable. There are reasons that we have MSHAs, OSHAs, FDAs, civil-rights laws and all the rest of the safeguards, as imperfect as they may be, to provide for the safety and welfare of the citizens.
The Pauls would dismantle them or let them rot away by neglect.
Of course, think of all the children that could then find employment in the mines and factories or floating oil rigs. Why a family of ten could conceivably have ten income producers, many with only 2-3 jobs, in order to survive. And the odds are some of them would survive.
There is an argument that free speech that limits and insults the rights of others is not a good thing to be tolerated.
The courts are full of furious folks suing the Fred Phelps of the world for their disgraceful rants at veteran's funerals against gays and anyone they decide god hates.
Calling for a military coup, that sounds treasonous to many, is being done "freely" on hate blogs.
Besides having a national health program that has worked since around 1960, Canada has also got hate speech laws that make many of the comments of the hatemongers against the law and subject to prosecution.
Paul dissimulates his views but essentially he is advocating the very hate he supposedly is against.Vox
“a lot of things can be handled locally.”
With axe handles and fire hoses.
la jolla (ca) used to have "no jews allowed" signs, as late as the 70s.
isn't a racist a bigot, danf?
like billy graham's son is a bit toxic, so is ron paul's spawn. twisted little acorns.
i welcome his coming inority staus w/ glee.
Guessed- I've always thought a bigot was an asshole who hated other races but didn't really do anything about it. An Archie Bunker type. To be racist requires taking action. Most racists are bigots to be sure, but there's room to be a bigot and not be a racist (harbor feelings of hatred or disdain of the other without acting on it), and be a racist without really being a bigot (like Paul). The position he advocates would clearly lead to inequality. His policies are inherently racist.
Guessed- I've always thought a bigot was an asshole who hated other races but didn't really do anything about it. An Archie Bunker type. To be racist requires taking action. Most racists are bigots to be sure, but there's room to be a bigot and not be a racist (harbor feelings of hatred or disdain of the other without acting on it), and be a racist without really being a bigot (like Paul). The position he advocates would clearly lead to inequality. His policies are inherently racist.
Post a Comment