[OAW]

Fresh off his victory in the GOP Senate primary Rand Paul, son of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, promptly stuck his foot in his mouth and further solidified the impression that many have that there are racist elements in the Tea Party movement.

Rand Paul, the Tea Party candidate who challenged the Republican establishment to win the party’s Senate nomination in Kentucky two days ago, criticized a landmark civil rights law on Thursday, landing himself in a potentially damaging dispute over civil rights and race.

In doing so, he provided Democrats an opportunity to portray him as extreme and renewed concern among Republicans that his views made him vulnerable in a general election.

Mr. Paul, in a series of television and radio interviews, suggested that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was too broad and should not apply to private businesses, such as luncheonettes. As his statements drew a swarm of attacks from his opponents, Mr. Paul issued a statement declaring that he would not support repealing the landmark 1964 statute and blaming political opponents for trying to distort his views by saying he favored repeal.

Then, as if that wasn't politically tone-deaf enough, he follows up by saying that President Obama's criticism of British Petroleum over the oil-spill in the Gulf is "un-American".

Taking another unconventional stand, Kentucky's Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul criticized President Barack Obama's handling of the Gulf oil spill Friday as anti-business and sounding "really un-American."

Paul's defense of the oil company came during an interview as he tried to explain his controversial take on civil rights law, an issue that has overtaken his campaign since his victory in Tuesday's GOP primary.

"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,'" Paul said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America." "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."

The Obama administration has used the "boot heel" phrase to describe its commitment to holding BP accountable for the spill and its cleanup.

Other Republicans have criticized the administration's handling of the oil spill, but few have been so vocal in defending BP, the company responsible for the deep well and offshore rig that exploded last month, killing 11 workers.

I think what we have here is a clear-cut example of rigid right-wing ideology run amok. It definitely raises questions about his political acumen. The Democrats will certainly have a field day over this in the general election. We shall see what the Kentucky electorate thinks about Mr. Paul's more "controversial" views in November I suppose.

OAW

[hyteckit]

Crazy Rand Paul.

He doesn't think the Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disability Act should apply to private businesses.

[BadKosh]

I never liked either Ron or Rand.

[Big Mac]

I'm mixed on the Pauls. I like a lot of their libertarian positions, but Ron is definitely out to lunch on the national security/terrorism debate. A person who blames any American policy for 9/11 doesn't really deserve to be in office, IMO. Yet, ultimately I still prefer them over most Democrats any day of the week.

[Shaddim]

Another non-issue. Rand Paul already stated that he would never try to repeal the Civil Rights Act, that it's an important part of US law. His concerns were for the rights of business owners to run their businesses as they see fit.

It is funny watching the Dems trying like mad to deflect towards this tiny thing, given the shit storm they're mired in right now.

[The Final Dakar]

His name sounds backwards.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Another non-issue. Rand Paul already stated that he would never try to repeal the Civil Rights Act, that it's an important part of US law. His concerns were for the rights of business owners to run their businesses as they see fit.

It is funny watching the Dems trying like mad to deflect towards this tiny thing, given the shit storm they're mired in right now.

Damn Democrats wanted to make such a big issue out of a tiny thing like civil rights.

If businesses don't want to sell their products/services to people of color, they should be allow to do that.

No Colors, No Gays, No Liberals!

/sarcasm

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

His name sounds backwards.

You must be a liberal elite, to confuse an iconic brand designer with this patriot.

Knowing he's a libertarian, I'm not surprised by his "fair market fairness" attitude towards civil rights/affirmative action etc. What does surprise me is the coddling of big business BP. Un-American? Huh.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

You must be a liberal elite, to confuse an iconic brand designer with this patriot.

Knowing he's a libertarian, I'm not surprised by his "fair market fairness" attitude towards civil rights/affirmative action etc. What does surprise me is the coddling of big business BP. Un-American? Huh.

And he supports the Federal drugs laws banning Marijuana.

Libertarian who thinks that marijuana should be banned.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

His concerns were for the rights of business owners to run their businesses as they see fit.

As he stated. And Mr. Paul (and you apparently) doesn't seem to comprehend just how broad that statement actually is. A review of the transcript is in order ...

PAUL: Thank you, Rachel, and thank you for that wonderful intro piece, quite a collection.

MADDOW: I know this must feel like frying pan and into the fire here, so soon after the election with really being the focus of this national storm right now. Everybody is trying to figure out what you meant by these things. But let's talk about it.

PAUL: Yes.

MADDOW: Was "The Courier-Journal" right? Do you believe that private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people or gays or any other minority group, as they said?

::::: Simple question .... :::::

PAUL: Well, I think to put things in perspective, when "The Courier-Journal" does not endorse a Republican, that's not something very unusual in our state. They typically don't endorse Republicans, and it's a very Democratic paper.

::::: So the issue isn't what YOU said ... it's the fact that the paper is "Democratic". Riiiggghhhhtttt. .... :::::

But with regard to racism, I don`t believe in any racism. I don`t think we should have any government racism, any institutional form of racism. You know, one interesting historical tidbit, one of my favorite historical characters is William Lloyd Garrison. And one of the interesting things about desegregation and putting people together, do you know when it happened in Boston?

::::: Tangent #1 .... :::::

MADDOW: What do you mean, the desegregation? In general?

PAUL: You know when we got -- you know, when we got rid of the Jim Crow laws and when we got rid of segregation and a lot of the abhorrent practices in the South, do you know when we got rid of it in Boston?

MADDOW: I -- why don't you tell me what you`re getting at?

PAUL: Well, it was in 1840. So I think it is sort of a stain on the history of America that 120 years to desegregate the South.

But William Lloyd Garrison was a champion and abolitionist who wrote about freeing the slaves back in the 1810s, '20s and '30s and labored in obscurity (ph) to do this. He was flagged, put in jails. He was with Frederick Douglass being thrown off trains.

But, you know, they desegregated transportation in Boston in 1840, and I think that was an impressive and amazing thing. But also points out the sadness that it took us 120 years to desegregate the South. And a lot of that was institutional racism was absolutely wrong and something that I absolutely oppose.

::::: WTF does this have to do with the question on the table? .... :::::

MADDOW: In terms of legal remedies for persistent discrimination, though, if there was a private business, say, in Louisville, say, somewhere in your home state, that wanted to not serve black patrons and wanted to not serve gay patrons, or somebody else on the basis of their -- on the basis of a characteristic that they decided they didn't like as a private business owner -- would you think they had a legal right to do so, to put up a "blacks not served here" sign?

PAUL: Well, the interesting thing is, you know, you look back to the 1950s and 1960s at the problems we faced. There were incredible problems. You know, the problems had to do with mostly voting, they had to do with schools, they had to do with public housing. And so, this is what the civil rights largely addressed, and all things that I largely agree with.

::::: No that's not the "interesting thing". It'd be real "interesting" if you just answered the question. .... :::::

MADDOW: But what about private businesses? I mean, I hate to -- I don`t want to be badgering you on this, but I do want an answer.

PAUL: I'm not -- I'm not --

MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?

PAUL: Yes. I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race.

::::: FINALLY!!!!! .... :::::

But I think what's important about this debate is not written into any specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question: what about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking?

I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it. I think the problem with this debate is by getting muddled down into it, the implication is somehow that I would approve of any racism or discrimination, and I don't in any form or fashion.

MADDOW: But isn't being in favor of civil rights but against the Civil Rights Act a little like saying you're against high cholesterol but you're in favor of fried cheese?

::::: You think? .... :::::

PAUL: But I'm not against --

MADDOW: I mean, the Civil Rights Act was the federal government stepping in to protect civil rights because they weren't otherwise being protected. It wasn't a hypothetical. There were businesses that were saying black people cannot be served here and the federal government stepped in and said, no, you actually don't have that choice to make. The federal government is coming in and saying you can't make that choice as a business owner.

Which side of that debate would you put yourself on?

PAUL: In the totality of it, I'm in favor of the federal government being involved in civil rights and that's, you know, mostly what the Civil Rights Act was about. And that was ending institutional racism.

MADDOW: When you --

PAUL: And I'm in favor of -- I'm opposed to any form of governmental racism or discrimination or segregation, all of the things we fought in the South, in fact, like I say, I think it's a stain on our history that we went 120 years from when the North desegregated and when those battles were fought in the North. And I like to think that, you know, even though I was a year old at the time, that I would have marched with Martin Luther King because I believed in what he was doing.

::::: Notice the distinction made. .... :::::

MADDOW: But if you were in the --

(CROSSTALK)

PAUL: But, you know, most of the things he was fighting -- most of the things he --

MADDOW: I`m sorry to interrupt you. Go on, sir.

PAUL: Most of the things he were fighting -- most of the things that he was fighting were laws. He was fighting Jim Crow laws. He was fighting legalized and institutional racism. And I'd be right there with him.

MADDOW: But maybe voting against the Civil Rights Act which wasn't just about governmental discrimination but public accommodations, the idea that people who provided services that were open to the public had to do so in a nondiscriminatory fashion.

::::: Bingo! .... :::::

Let me ask you a specific so we don't get into the esoteric hypotheticals here.

PAUL: Well, there's 10 -- there's 10 different -- there's 10 different titles, you know, to the Civil Rights Act, and nine out of 10 deal with public institutions. And I'm absolutely in favor of one deals with private institutions, and had I been around, I would have tried to modify that.

But you know, the other thing about legislation -- and this is why it's a little hard to say exactly where you are sometimes, is that when you support nine out of 10 things in a good piece of legislation, do you vote for it or against it? And I think, sometimes, those are difficult situations.

What I was asked by "The Courier-Journal" and I stick by it is that I do defend and believe that the government should not be involved with institutional racism or discrimination or segregation in schools, busing, all those things. But had I been there, there would have been some discussion over one of the titles of the civil rights.

::::: Yeah, the one that says that private businesses that are open to the public can't discriminate. .... :::::

And I think that's a valid point, and still a valid discussion, because the thing is, is if we want to harbor in on private businesses and their policies, then you have to have the discussion about: do you want to abridge the First Amendment as well. Do you want to say that because people say abhorrent things -- you know, we still have this. We're having all this debate over hate speech and this and that. Can you have a newspaper and say abhorrent things? Can you march in a parade and believe in abhorrent things, you know?

So, I think it's an important debate but should be intellectual one. It's really tough to have an intellectual debate in the political sense because what happens is it gets dumbed down. It will get dumb down to three words and they'll try to run on this entire issue, and it's being brought up as a political issue.

I think if you listen to me, I think you should understand that -- I think you do, I think you're an intelligent person. I like being on your show. But I think that what is the totality of what I'm saying -- am I a bad person? Do I believe in awful things? No.

::::: No you aren't a "bad person". You're just kind of an idiot. .... :::::

I really think that discrimination and racism is a horrible thing. And I don't want any form of it in our government, in our public sphere.

::::: But in the PRIVATE sphere ... well that's another ball of wax it seems. .... :::::

MADDOW: The reason that this is something that I'm not letting go even though I now realize it would make the conversation more comfortable to move on to other things and I think this is going to be a focus for national attention on you, I guess until there's at least clarity on it, is that issue of the tenth, not the nine, but the tenth out of the 10 portions -- proportions of the -- the tenth of the Civil Rights Act that you would want to have discussions about. As I understand it, what you`re saying, that's the portion of the Civil Rights Act that said you can't actually have segregated lunch counters here at your private business.

I mean, when Bob Jones University in the year 2000 --

PAUL: Well, it's interesting. Actually, it's even --

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW: Hold on just one second. Until the year 2000, Bob Jones University, a private institution, had a ban on interracial dating at their school, their private institution. If Bob Jones University wanted to bring that back now, would you support their right to do so?

PAUL: Well, I think it's interesting because the debate involves more than just that, because the debate also involves a lot of court cases with regard to the commerce clause. For example, right now, many states and many gun organizations are saying they have a right to carry a gun in a public restaurant because a public restaurant is not a private restaurant. Therefore, they have a right to carry their gun in there and that the restaurant has no right to have rules to their restaurant.

::::: More of your "interesting" attempts to change the subject. .... :::::

So, you see how this could be turned on many liberal observers who want to excoriate me on this. Then to be consistent, they'd have to say, oh, well, yes, absolutely, you've got your right to carry your gun anywhere because it's a public place.

So, you see, when you blur the distinction between public and private, there are problems. When you blur the distinction between public and private ownership, there really is a problem. A lot of this was settled a long time ago and isn't being debated anymore.

MADDOW: But it could be brought up at any moment. I mean, if there - - let's say there's a town right now and the owner of the town's swimming club says we're not going to allow black kids at our pool, and the owner of the bowling alley in town says, we're not actually going to allow black patrons, and the owner of the skating rink in town says, we're not going to allow black people to skate here.

And you may think that's abhorrent and you may think that's bad business. But unless it's illegal, there's nothing to stop that -- there's nothing under your world view to stop the country from re-segregating like we were before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 --

PAUL: Right.

::::: Woooooowwwwwwwww!!!!!!!! .... :::::

MADDOW: -- which you're saying you've got some issues with.

PAUL: Well, the interesting thing is, is that there's nothing right now to prevent a lot of re-segregating. We had a lot of it over the last 30 or 40 years.

::::: Yeah it is. It's called the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964!!!! .... :::::

What I would say is that we did some very important things in the '60s that I'm all in favor of and that was desegregating the schools, desegregating public transportation, use public roads and public monopolies, desegregating public water fountains.

MADDOW: How about desegregating lunch counters? Lunch counters. Walgreen's lunch counters, were you in favor of that? Possibly? Because the government got involved?

(CROSSTALK)

PAUL: Right. Well, what it gets into is, is that then if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant, even though the owner of the restaurant says, well, no, we don't want to have guns in here.

The bar says we don't want to have guns in here, because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each other. Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant?

These are important philosophical debates but not very practical discussion. And I think we can make something out of this --

::::: Now we realize that we've dug ourselves into a pretty deep hole. .... :::::

MADDOW: Well, it's pretty practical to people who were -- had their life nearly beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen's lunch counters despite these esoteric debates about gun ownership. This is not a hypothetical, Dr. Paul.

PAUL: Yes, but I -- yes. Well, but I think what you`re doing, Rachel, is you're conflating the issue.

MADDOW: No.

PAUL: You're saying that somehow this abstract discussion of private property has any bit of condoning for violence. This -- there's nothing in what I'm saying that condones any violence and any kind of violence like that deserves to be put -- people like that deserve to be put in jail. So nobody's condoning any of that.

MADDOW: Well, I understand that you're not condoning violence, but the people who were beating for trying to desegregate Woolworth`s lunch counters weren't asking to be beaten. They're asking --

PAUL: Those people should have gone --

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW: -- for private businesses to be desegregated by the government. You're saying those people should have gone to different places? Left them segregated?

PAUL: People who commit -- people who commit violence on other individuals should go to prison and go to jail. And there's nothing we should ever do to condone violence on other individuals.

::::: Steady ducking the question .... :::::

MADDOW: And should Woolworth lunch counter should have been allowed to stay segregated? Sir, just yes or no.

PAUL: What I think would happen -- what I'm saying is, is that I don't believe in any discrimination. I don't believe in any private property should discriminate either. And I wouldn't attend, wouldn't support, wouldn't go to.

::::: Really not interested in your platitudes dude .... :::::

But what you have to answer when you answer this point of view, which is an abstract, obscure conversation from 1964 that you want to bring up. But if you want to answer, you have to say then that you decide the rules for all restaurants and then you decide that you want to allow them to carry weapons into restaurants.

::::: Still want to talk about guns and not answer the question .... :::::

MADDOW: I can -- we could have a fight about the Second Amendment.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW: But I think wanting to allow private industry -- private businesses --

PAUL: It's the same fight. It's the same fight.

::::: Uhhhh ... not really. .... :::::

MADDOW: -- to discriminate along the basis of race because of property rights is an extreme view and I think that's going to be the focus nationally on your candidacy now and you're going to have a lot more debates like this. So, I hope you don't hold it against me for bringing it up. I think this is going to be a continuing discussion for a long time, Dr. Paul.

PAUL: Well, I think what you've done is you bring up something that really is not an issue, nothing I've ever spoken about or have any indication that I`m interested in any legislation concerning. So, what you bring up is sort of a red herring or something that you want to pit. It's a political ploy. I mean, it's brought up as an attack weapon from the other side, and that's the way it will be used.

::::: So again, you blame the person questioning you on YOUR WORDS instead of taking responsibility for saying some stupid sh*t. .... :::::

But, you know, I think a lot of times these attacks fall back on themselves, and I don't think it will have any effect because the thing is, is that every fiber of my being doesn't believe in discrimination, doesn't believe that we should have that in our society. And to imply otherwise is just dishonest.

::::: Yeah. The backlash has just been "overwhelming". .... :::::

MADDOW: Dr. Rand Paul, Republican nominee for the United States Senate in Kentucky, where he'll be representing not only his own views about how to live but what kind of laws we should have in America, sir, I enjoy talking with these things about you. I couldn't disagree with you more about this issue, but I do respect you for coming on the show, and for being able to have this civil discussion about it. Thank you.

PAUL: Thank you, Rachel.

So quite obviously (when pressed) .... Rand Paul's issue with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has to do with Title II, which states, "All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of any place of public accommodation as defined in this section without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion or national origin."

The bottom line with regard to this legislation is that any private business -- a hotel, a motel, a restaurant, a lunch counter, a theater, a concert hall, a stadium -- that offers services to the general public cannot discriminate. This is WHY we no longer have segregated facilities of this sort in the US. And Mr. Paul in his extreme right-wing worldview has explicitly said that he takes issue with the government telling private business owners that they can't do this. And now he's taking the heat for it. Deservedly so.

And the Tea Party people wonder why .....

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Another non-issue. Rand Paul already stated that he would never try to repeal the Civil Rights Act, that it's an important part of US law. His concerns were for the rights of business owners to run their businesses as they see fit.

It is funny watching the Dems trying like mad to deflect towards this tiny thing, given the shit storm they're mired in right now.

He is doing a fairly typical libertarian thing of not putting his philosophy through a reality check. I'm philosophically behind the idea of freedom of association, but the reality is those who have that freedom are those who have the wealth to pick up and move to wherever they want whenever they want. Unless he shows interest in addressing that with policy, he is, for all intents and purposes, proposing people who don't have the means to defend themselves can go **** off.

Likewise, as someone who has the means, and someone who never has and probably never will experience the downside to what he's proposing, there's an onus upon him to address that in his arguments.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

He is doing a fairly typical libertarian thing of not putting his philosophy through a reality check.

The inevitable conclusion when libertarians/Tea Partiers try to "out-conservative" the GOP. Their ideological rigidity eventually reveals itself to be nonsensical on certain fundamental issues.

OW

[turtle777]

I'm happy to see the resident liberals already shitting their pants.

Way to go, OAW and hyteckit

-t

[lpkmckenna]

I wanted to shoot myself every time he said "Well, the interesting thing is, you know..." It's Paulspeak for "now I'm gonna change the subject."

If libertarians ever got a hard-on for justice or common sense the way they have for property, they could become socially relevant.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

His concerns were for the rights of business owners to run their businesses as they see fit.

So should businesses be allow to do whatever they want? Sell toxic food? Have unsafe work conditions? Withhold wages as employee punishments for every little thing? Should they be allow to deny black employees as well as black patrons?

Here's a clue for all you libertarians and conservatives: private property doesn't trump every other social value in existence.

[hyteckit]

Rand Paul cancels on 'Meet the Press'.

WEAK!

Rand Paul Cancels On 'Meet The Press,' Only 3rd Guest To Do So In 62 Years

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I'm happy to see the resident liberals already shitting their pants.

Way to go, OAW and hyteckit

-t

it's almost comical.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

it's almost comical.

It's so funny, I peed in my pants.

Rand Paul - Don't blame BP, it's just an accident. Blaming BP is un-American.

[ebuddy]

The Pauls do this to themselves time and again and it seems Rand has picked up on what has become Ron's inability to attain any capacity greater than Senator. For example, if you're not going to move to repeal what you find distasteful in the Civil Rights Act, then... why the hell bring up the related political sh!t-storm of controversy over it?

Look, at the end of the day I get what Paul is saying. Had businesses continued to alienate black patrons for example and in light of a changing social climate, restaurants would've eventually opened up exclusively to this sector leaving other businesses the question; "how do we tap into this demographic like they did?". Blacks eventually being allowed to patronize businesses of their choosing would likely have been the outcome regardless of a Federal provision requiring it. Why? Profit is the life's blood of business and to leave a bunch of un-cashed checks lying around in the form of patronage is just stupid. This goes for restaurants serving toxic food and abusing employees as well, particularly in our age of communications and related activism.

That said, I agree with the act of ending the practice of segregation at the Federal level to hasten the acceptance of people we dragged into this country kicking and screaming because... well because they are people. For those who enjoy Paul, enjoy him while you've got him. For those who oppose Paul, worry not as he will get no further than Senator.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Haha wow did he get pwned in that interview. Yikes.

greg

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Look, at the end of the day I get what Paul is saying. Had businesses continued to alienate black patrons for example and in light of a changing social climate, restaurants would've eventually opened up exclusively to this sector leaving other businesses the question; "how do we tap into this demographic like they did?". Blacks eventually being allowed to patronize businesses of their choosing would likely have been the outcome regardless of a Federal provision requiring it. Why? Profit is the life's blood of business and to leave a bunch of un-cashed checks lying around in the form of patronage is just stupid. This goes for restaurants serving toxic food and abusing employees as well, particularly in our age of communications and related activism.

That's why we have companies who put out crappy products, and who discriminate, even today, right? Because they know that, eventually, people will come around to their way of thinking!

I mean, after several hundred years of discriminating, business owners eventually would come around right? Your principles are fine, but your reality is distorted.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

So should businesses be allow to do whatever they want? Sell toxic food? Have unsafe work conditions? Withhold wages as employee punishments for every little thing?

Strawman , as usual.

Here's a clue for all you libertarians and conservatives: private property doesn't trump every other social value in existence.

Here's a clue for all you socialists and liberals: It's not the government's job to legislate everything, and it's even worse today. If the Civil Rights Act were up for vote right now it would be 2000 pages long and have over $30B in pork and kickbacks. Take a look at your shitty healthcare reform bill for an example.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

That's why we have companies who put out crappy products, and who discriminate, even today, right? Because they know that, eventually, people will come around to their way of thinking!

I mean, after several hundred years of discriminating, business owners eventually would come around right? Your principles are fine, but your reality is distorted.

Name a business today that discriminates against customers of other ethnic groups.

other than Ebony, the NAACP, BET, and the makers of the hot comb?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Name a business today that discriminates against customers of other ethnic groups.

other than Ebony, the NAACP, BET, and the makers of the hot comb?

Whoosh.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Whoosh.

Nope, I see the issue much more clearly than you can hope to. Libs have been spreading FUD about civil rights for a long time now.

Time to be blunt. Know why blacks, Asians, and some other groups are more widely accepted now? Because they've been trying harder to integrate into society and be good little consumers. It doesn't have shit to do with what laws have been passed, people will ignore those at their convenience with little real consequence. The fact is, we fear and hate what's different, and they aren't as different anymore.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Nope, I see the issue much more clearly than you can hope to. Libs have been spreading FUD about civil rights for a long time now.

Time to be blunt. Know why blacks, Asians, and some other groups are more widely accepted now? Because they've been trying harder to integrate into society and be good little consumers. It doesn't have shit to do with what laws have been passed, people will ignore those at their convenience with little real consequence. The fact is, we fear and hate what's different, and they aren't as different anymore.

Your condescending "good little consumers" says a lot. It must be great to be so good that everyone is trying to be like you.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Your condescending "good little consumers" says a lot. It must be great to be so good that everyone is trying to be like you.

No, again you aren't grasping what I'm saying, I was being sarcastic, not condescending. People shouldn't need to change just to be accepted by the herd, but it's an unavoidable fact of life. Everyone buys stupid shit they don't need; you do it, I do it, little Asian grannies looking for a 46" High Def do it. At one point minorities were about family, neighborhood, and cultural identity. Now we're about keeping up with everyone else and maxing out our credit for useless crap. Anyway, the point is, minorities are more accepted by "society" because we're becoming more "white".

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

No, again you aren't grasping what I'm saying, I was being sarcastic, not condescending. People shouldn't need to change just to be accepted by the herd, but it's an unavoidable fact of life. Everyone buys stupid shit they don't need; you do it, I do it, little Asian grannies looking for a 46" High Def do it. At one point minorities were about family, neighborhood, and cultural identity. Now we're about keeping up with everyone else and maxing out our credit for useless crap. Anyway, the point is, minorities are more accepted by "society" because we're becoming more "white".

What Shaddim is saying is that if minorities wants to be more accepted, they need to be more white and respect the white people. Do stupid things only white people do, like buying stupid shit they don't need and maxing out their credit card. Little Asian grannies should start buying 46" High Def TVs even though they obviously don't need it, just to keep up with the Wongs Jones. Do what white people do.

Who needs the Civil Rights Act.

Just be 'white'.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Name a business today that discriminates against customers of other ethnic groups.

other than Ebony, the NAACP, BET, and the makers of the hot comb?

2 groups of people Shaddim obviously hates. Blacks and Muslims.

Shit! No wonder why Shaddim hates Pres. Obama so much. Shaddim believes Pres. Obama is a Black Muslim.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What Shaddim is saying is that if minorities wants to be more accepted, they need to be more white and respect the white people. Do stupid things only white people do, like buying stupid shit they don't need and maxing out their credit card. Little Asian grannies should start buying 46" High Def TVs even though they obviously don't need it, just to keep up with the Wongs Jones.

Who needs the Civil Rights Act.

Just be 'white'.

It's amazing how you torqued everything I said, must be your nature. Allah only knows where the "respect" thing came from. Anyway, quit being an imbecile and pay attention. I'm saying that since they're becoming more "white", "society" is more accepting of them. It's not right, it's not how it should be, but it is what's happened.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

2 groups of people Shaddim obviously hates. Blacks and Muslims.

Shit! No wonder why Shaddim hates Pres. Obama so much. Shaddim believes Pres. Obama is a Black Muslim.

Yeah, yeah, I hate blacks so much, ignore the fact that my first wife was black. Also ignore that my closest friend is a Sufi. You're just a sad little fella, aren't you?

Ok, back in the ignore jar you go. That's enough of you for this year.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

That's why we have companies who put out crappy products, and who discriminate, even today, right? Because they know that, eventually, people will come around to their way of thinking!

Why the stick? The crappy products are products you're buying because they're less expensive than the higher quality versions. You've chosen short-term needs over long-term reliability. There's a market segment for this as there should be.

With regard to discrimination, who's getting away with it? Any whistleblowers? Lawsuits? Bad pub? Or do you have a battery of anecdotes where the evidence is sketchy, the conclusion a stretch, and the result contrary to your argument? I'm guessing as usual, yes.

I mean, after several hundred years of discriminating, business owners eventually would come around right? Your principles are fine, but your reality is distorted.

What did business ever do to you that you're so embittered towards it? Give me some examples of what you're talking about and I'll show you monoliths the government chose as "winners".

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Yeah, yeah, I hate blacks so much, ignore the fact that my first wife was black. Also ignore that my closest friend is a Sufi. You're just a sad little fella, aren't you?

Ok, back in the ignore jar you go. That's enough of you for this year.

For real man, you call for some examples of what they're talking about and they simply can't provide anything other than vitriol, anger, and pessimism. Why on earth is the Progressive™ ideal so difficult to defend with sober reasoning?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What Shaddim is saying is that if minorities wants to be more accepted, they need to be more white and respect the white people. Do stupid things only white people do, like buying stupid shit they don't need and maxing out their credit card. Little Asian grannies should start buying 46" High Def TVs even though they obviously don't need it, just to keep up with the Wongs Jones. Do what white people do.

Who needs the Civil Rights Act.

Just be 'white'.

Yeah, we should adopt our own language, demean women, advocate violence and drug abuse in our music and culture and have a high drop-out rate, but still expect respect for being ignorant, yo!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What Shaddim is saying is that if minorities wants to be more accepted, they need to be more white and respect the white people. Do stupid things only white people do, like buying stupid shit they don't need and maxing out their credit card. Little Asian grannies should start buying 46" High Def TVs even though they obviously don't need it, just to keep up with the Wongs Jones. Do what white people do.

Who needs the Civil Rights Act.

Just be 'white'.

This has got to be the single most racist post I've seen in this forum. Seriously. Is it possible to defend one race without denigrating another?

All you're doing is convincing people that had they been born in your neck of the woods, a Civil Rights Act would've been necessary for them.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This has got to be the single most racist post I've seen in this forum. Seriously. Is it possible to defend one race without denigrating another?

All you're doing is convincing people that had they been born in your neck of the woods, a Civil Rights Act would've been necessary for them.

Really? I was just rephrasing Shaddim.

I knew it sounded racist. I expected no less from Shaddim though.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Yeah, yeah, I hate blacks so much, ignore the fact that my first wife was black. Also ignore that my closest friend is a Sufi. You're just a sad little fella, aren't you?

Ok, back in the ignore jar you go. That's enough of you for this year.

What happened to your first wife? She couldn't stand you preaching hate toward black people?

Or maybe this anger toward black people is the result of your wife leaving you.

Kanye West's girlfriend is white, but I'm not quite sure if he respects white people.

What do you have against Ebony, the NAACP, BET, and the makers of the hot comb? They are going after a target market.

If you want to subscribe to Ebony, watch BET, and buy the hot comb, no one is stopping you.

What are you going to attack next? Chinese restaurants, because it has the word Chinese in it?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Really? I was just rephrasing Shaddim.

I knew it sounded racist. I expected no less from Shaddim though.

Rephrasing? That's a new one even for the troll.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What happened to your first wife? She couldn't stand you preaching hate toward black people?

Or maybe this anger toward black people is the result of your wife leaving you.

If I were the reporting type, this would certainly pass the muster for a temp ban I'm thinking. You need to call on some of that Progressive mojo and calm down a bit hyteckit. You're way too emotionally involved here.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Rephrasing? That's a new one even for the troll.

Yes, I was rephrasing what Shaddim said.

I don't know what's more racist than telling minorities to act more 'white' if they wanted to be accepted and that Civil Rights Act was not needed.

[turtle777]

You're such a fuccing troll. Get lost.

-t

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You're such a fuccing troll. Get lost.

-t

I'm assuming it's directed at me?

I don't going from thread to thread harassing people like somebody called turtle777 does often.

2 post from you on this thread and nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

Who's the fuccing troll?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If I were the reporting type, this would certainly pass the muster for a temp ban I'm thinking. You need to call on some of that Progressive mojo and calm down a bit hyteckit. You're way too emotionally involved here.

I'm pretty calm. I'm merely trying to understand where Shaddim's anger comes from.

Kinda makes sense now.

His anger is a manifestation of his own personal failings in marriage with his first wife.

Look at Shaddim's list:

Ebony, the NAACP, BET, and the makers of the hot comb.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I'm pretty calm. I'm merely trying to understand where Shaddim's anger comes from.

Kinda makes sense now.

His anger is a manifestation of his own personal failings in marriage with his first wife.

Look at Shaddim's list:

Ebony, the NAACP, BET, and the makers of the hot comb.

Congrats, I think you're the first one I've reported in 7 years.

[Snow-i]

ebuddy,

Don't blame him too much. He's just trying to be fashionable and in his words "keep up with the Greenes."

Its unfortunate there is little discussion on the subject matter itself coming from the so-called enlightened bunch (save a couple of substantive posts early on, thank you OAW for at least trying) and more to do about the evils of true equality of opportunity. I think our political class has done quite nicely in indoctrinating a good portion of this country to cease focusing on the "means" of equality but instead the "ends." The distinction has become lost on far too many as can be seen in just about any political issue of the day and this sad fact will ultimately leave no one to innovate the means and instead just encourage screaming loudly for the ends hand delivered by Uncle Sam himself.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

ebuddy,

Don't blame him too much. He's just trying to be fashionable and in his words "keep up with the Greenes."

While I hope the mods agree with my reasoning for the report, I really don't care about the incessant trolling. I address the points I want to, bail when it becomes fruitless, and on to the reasoned arguments. For someone to offer something about their prior marriage and have another poster latch onto this as a character flaw by throwing the (in his words) "failed marriage" back in his face as racism and hatred is over the line. Plain and simple.

Its unfortunate there is little discussion on the subject matter itself coming from the so-called enlightened bunch (save a couple of substantive posts early on, thank you OAW for at least trying) and more to do about the evils of true equality of opportunity. I think our political class has done quite nicely in indoctrinating a good portion of this country to cease focusing on the "means" of equality but instead the "ends." The distinction has become lost on far too many as can be seen in just about any political issue of the day and this sad fact will ultimately leave no one to innovate the means and instead just encourage screaming loudly for the ends hand delivered by Uncle Sam himself.

Good point. I often look at the times of our greatest challenges in this country's past and saw people who did remarkably selfless, and incredibly effective things for one another. As a collective it seems we're getting lured into a false sense of security in a centralized authority to solve our problems ("they should just make a law against that") that we're not addressing the "ends" on our own. Instead, with every new law "created to address that", we become less apt to deal with problems on our own; all relegated to one singular class. Dependents.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

While I hope the mods agree with my reasoning for the report, I really don't care about the incessant trolling. I address the points I want to, bail when it becomes fruitless, and on to the reasoned arguments. For someone to offer something about their prior marriage and have another poster latch onto this as a character flaw by throwing the (in his words) "failed marriage" back in his face as racism and hatred is over the line. Plain and simple.

Indeed. I was simply hoping to add some perspective for others who may view this exchange, and offer some motive for such bigotry. By no means did I intend to justify Hyteckit's racist comments.

Good point. I often look at the times of our greatest challenges in this country's past and saw people who did remarkably selfless, and incredibly effective things for one another. As a collective it seems we're getting lured into a false sense of security in a centralized authority to solve our problems ("they should just make a law against that") that we're not addressing the "ends" on our own. Instead, with every new law "created to address that", we become less apt to deal with problems on our own; all relegated to one singular class. Dependents.

And, as an added detriment, the "laws they make to address that" such as healthcare are hardly effective (and often counter-effective), and serve not only to make us dependents but as well to, in the eyes of the gov't, reduce us to the least common denominator: Taxpayers. You already have the current top dogs testing the waters with tax evasion...I give it a few short terms along this path for it to be a foregone conclusion that politicians don't pay into the system.

Luckily, the American public isn't as stupid as the so called progressive's would have you believe, and you start to see various groups with similar ideas getting creative. America's destruction as an economic and industrial superpower is not yet complete, and our generation faces the most dire assault to our culture (which many even deny exists) it has ever seen. It will get worse before it gets better, but I promise you my kids will grow up to pursue their vision, not the government's.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What happened to your first wife? She couldn't stand you preaching hate toward black people?

Or maybe this anger toward black people is the result of your wife leaving you.

I explained this on the forum a few years ago, let me sum it up. She left when I was diagnosed with cancer, snuck out when I was at treatment one day. No note, no call, her shit was gone when I got home. Months later when she heard that I was going to be ok she tried to crawl back, but I told her that I didn't want her anymore. I still love her but she dropped me when I needed her most. That answer your question?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What happened to your first wife? She couldn't stand you preaching hate toward black people?

What evidence, if any, can you present to substantiate the vile allegation that Shaddim preaches hate toward black people? If you can't put any substance to that claim you should do the right thing and voluntarily leave these forums.

[Shaddim]

Meh, just let it go. I honestly believe he can't help himself.

[ThinkInsane]

I woud suggest everyone take a moment, pull their heads out of their asses, and debate the topic at hand and leave all the personal nastiness to some less public form of communication. It's not amusing, it's not helpful, and it certainly doesn't foster any enlightened debate.