(10PM EST – promoted by Nightprowlkitty)
Rand Paul is the Republican, Tea Part nominee for the Senate seat in Kentucky that is being vacated by fellow Republican, Jim Bunning. This is Mr. Paul’s appearance last night on The Rachel Maddow Show:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Your thoughts
The rest of the interview
43 comments
Skip to comment form
Author
Bunning voted to kill my unemployment.
Also cleaning up horsemanure is easier in the summer months if it dries out in the sun. It is
the wars not ended, the war crimes not prosecuted, the bailouts of financial world criminals, the destroyment of the medical system, energy rationing, garden prohibiting, tazer grandma society the left is now pushing. Sorry but racist/PCisms goes way down on the list of priorities when looking at the prospects of living under a bridge abutment.
and compared to what Kentucky has now, Senator Bunning the Senile, he’s much smarter, prettier, and really dangerous.
Rachel is just brilliant at interviewing.
There’s nothing to prevent the country from re segregating.
Private enterprise vs. public, and the God given right to discriminate:
While Paul does not mention said “God given right to discriminate,” all the libertarians who are religious state that it is indeed God who has given them freedom, that only God can give them that, and to impinge on that freedom is to breach their relationship with their Creator.
Interesting he (Rand Paul) compares a private business owner not being able to legally discriminate against eliminating serving certain clientele, with then liberals couldn’t ban gun carriers from coming onto their private businesses…. he’s equating the right to carry weapons, firearms “wherever” with freedom of speech and freedom of thought.
Carrying a firearm says you think you have the right to kill something that you feel might endanger you, because you believe that your will supercedes that of society and order, which you believe is so broken down that it won’t protect you.
But God gave you freedom.
Geez, wait a minute, that’s exactly what we have today already, in both rural America and in the urban poor zones that have turned into drug dealing battlefields. (drug dealing done because we don’t have real jobs for a big segment of our society.) People carrying guns around and shooting at things that they don’t like. But they’re “free.”
People that live in these insular, wealthy, priveledged lives, who are brilliant and find it easy to make money, don’t mind other people living in racist hell holes, unemployed, with ongoing gun battles as long as it fits their political agenda.
Particularly, I disagree with the charge of “racism”. I just don’t see it. He’s being consistent with libertarian philosophy. As a communitarian I don’t agree with much of those ideas but I respect the libertarian philosophy particularly if you compare it to the ragtag notions favored by what passes for the left in this country.
I think he makes great points though he’s stepping into a conceptual framework that doesn’t allow for much diversity. He’s also a politician who has to be careful about what he says and, frankly, so is Maddow.
I think his points about public vs. private are good ones and worthy of discussion. Calling Paul a racist is like calling Obama a socialist.
I don’t think we are a whole lot better off as a result of forcing business owners to serve people they don’t want to serve. Better would be to convince them to serve them. Why this love of force? Paul said he opposed any institutional racism–he has an honorable disagreement that we ought not force people to not serve who they don’t want to serve for whatever reason. Now, pesonally, I largely agree with him. Are you calling me a racist? I have a daughter, son-in-law and grandchild who is black since mixed race in this culturally racist country is always “black.” On the other side I favor reparations for the descendants of slaves and those that suffered under Jim Crow laws in the South. Anyone who knows black people intimately knows the searing pain at the heart of all families who lived under that regime.
I also oppose aspects of the ADA largely for reasons Paul states though, on the whole, it was a good thing–it’s just too draconian for me. I think our reliance on government and moving away from the idea that government ought to be limited as indicated by the thoughts of the Founders is a good thing. You all obviously fail to see the connection between the excess of government power in National Security issues with the sorts of things Paul is discussing.
One of the things I like about the libertarian philosophy is the faith that people in communities can solve their own problems–a faith, in short in human abilities. The current status-quo wants everything regulated and controlled so that no positive human qualities will interfere with our vices and tendency to entertain and shop ourselves to death. Again, I say this as a communitarian and, fundamentally, a Democratic Socialist who believes government should exist for the benefit of the people and should insure that everyone has enough to eat, a place to live, a job, a chance at an education and medical care. I don’t think anyone should be forced to think any particular way or be forced to interact with people they don’t like. I believe people ought to be able to eat what they want, take whatever drugs or cures they deem works for them, practice whatever religion they like. I think people who act in ways that endanger society should be penalized–if you kill someone because you are drunk then prosecute the person (I also believe strongly in education and rehabilitation and second and third chances) not try to ban alcohol. Anyway you get the picture that I am not a libertarian.
So, if you are a real estate agent you can choose to not to have clients of a certain race. And if you happen to be the only real estate agent in a very small town?
His views would allow institutional racism to arise out of “property rights”.