Maddow Digs In On Charges Rand Paul Would Have Opposed Civil Rights Act

Medaite.com ^ | 5/20/10 | Frances Martel

[ExTxMarine]

I assure you my messages have given neither Texas nor Marines a bad name.

You need to re-read my entries. I have been very clear that many of the problems of today are being caused by the authorized, government backed racism that the Civil Rights Law of 1964 lead to. I am not against the law - it is a good law - its says we should all be treated EQUAL.

However, liberals like you think because I did not live during the Jim Crow-era I do not understand the problems back then. I understand them fine; however, if you think that allowing racism today is going to correct those errors, you are surely mistaken.

More importantly, you are creating racist, bigoted people because you are too ignorant to look at the problems of TODAY! You see, what I learned from the Jim Crow-era is that racism is bad and can lead to very hostile situations, so let’s do away with racism.

Apparently, all you learned was that people were mistreated! So their descendants are allowed to perpetrate upon others the very racism which their ancestors wanted to end. Do you also believe that some people are more equal than others?

[ex-snook]

They were talking about two different things. Maddow was talking about civil rights of the customer. Paul was talking about civil rights of the owner. Perhaps the courts have deemed customer rights are higher than owner rights. If so Paul might reconsider. However, if the courts have not decided, then Paul should keep pressing the point owner rights vs government overrides.

[Recon Dad]

drive among some libertarians to be the smartest people in the room,

Go on MSNBC and prove yourself wrong.

[Recon Dad]

He's from Bowling Green, Ky he's naive. (I lived in BG, KY for two and a half years trying to get out of college)

[PGalt]

BTTT! Great post. (Interesting thread also) Thanks for the ping.

[Ted Grant]

How does going to MSNBC prove that wrong? That other people advocating other philosophies have a similar drive doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

[ICAB9USA]

Rachel Maddow, the “Balki” of MSNBC

[Recon Dad]

It proves he as a libertarian will waste his time at a place where the chances of him getting on single vote is nil.
If Rand has the time to waste I'll give him an address of my brother in Louisville, he ‘s got about the same chance there for a vote.

Have you checked out the “other” philosophies? I'm at a loss when you say “doesn't mean it's wrong”?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Encourage racism? Espousing racism? Get a grip before you faint...you’re giving Texans and Marines a bad name.

Tell you what you do. You enquire over the phone to a government college about opportunities for education, and see if you don't get back in the mail a list of who you can be to get preferences or subsidies. And see if that list doesn't boil down to the fact that everyone else has preference over white (and possibly Asian) men.

That's a fact, Jack - and it doesn't matter if you are a Marine or, like me, not.

I was disappointed in the Connecticut firefighters' case, where SCOTUS held that white firefighters had been discriminated against. I was disappointed that only Antonin Scalia even mentioned the fact that at some point in the future, the idea that blacks have to be promoted artificially (in contravention of the plain language of the Civil Rights act of 1964) will have to be revisited.

In reality, discrimination in favor of blacks is now discrimination in favor of people because they look more like the president of the United States than my grandchildren do.

In logic, you - and Barak Obama - have no case.

[Ted Grant]

Have you checked out the “other” philosophies? I'm at a loss when you say “doesn't mean it's wrong”?

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I intended to convey that the propensity to be the smartest person in the room and alienate more people than they attract isn't limits to the libertarians. People that advocate all sorts of other philosophies have the same problem.