Rand on Maddow

[BenIsForRon]

This interview was a total ambush. .

No it wasn't. Maddow repeatedly said "Dr. Paul, this is an issue you will see come up again and again from your opponents". She was giving him the opportunity to clearly define his position.

It's not like if he had said "Yes", she would have said "Ok, that's all the time we have, thank you Dr. Paul". She was obviously willing to let him explain his position. He should have said "Yes, but it is then society's responsibility to boycott that business and insure it goes out of business or changes its policy."

 

[JamesButabi]

Those who were worried about Rand compromising his principles to appease would be very proud. I personally think he should have confronted it with explanation, but I support him for showing the historical irrelevancy of the question, and not compromising his real belief of freedom to appease the talking point.

 

[lx43]

Welcome to the forum New Momentum!

I'll wait to see the tube before I comment.

 

[BamaFanNKy]

Pike Co. in 2008 voted huge against McConnell for the Democrat. They even went bigger against Obama. That should tell you about the Kentucky democrats.

 

[cmasslibertarian]

Those who were worried about Rand compromising his principles to appease would be very proud. I personally think he should have confronted it with explanation, but I support him for showing the historical irrelevancy of the question, and not compromising his real belief of freedom to appease the talking point.

but if you're going to compromise on principles anywhere, i'd say that pretending to support the civil rights act would be the time to do it...

 

[sailingaway]

No it wasn't. Maddow repeatedly said "Dr. Paul, this is an issue you will see come up again and again from your opponents". She was giving him the opportunity to clearly define his position.

It's not like if he had said "Yes", she would have said "Ok, that's all the time we have, thank you Dr. Paul". She was obviously willing to let him explain his position. He should have said "Yes, but it is then society's responsibility to boycott that business and insure it goes out of business or changes its policy."

I agree kind of. He could send her the Courier Journal interview. She would not have phrased what he said as they did. However, he was the one under the gun, not us. We know what he means.

To someone above saying 'won't he be fine because kentucky is kind of racist', (paraphrase) that isn't it at all. The older folks grew up knowing that sort of freedom to serve whom you want was a private property issue. The 1960s wasn't before all of them were born, and that sort of government intrusion when first allowed went against all prior teachings on the limits of the federal government. Rand is saying what they grew up with as a matter of Constitutional law, not a matter of racism.

 

[BenIsForRon]

but I support him for showing the historical irrelevancy of the question, .

It wasn't historically irrelevant. There were many southern businesses that did not serve blacks, and there are still many today that don't (a country club near me wouldn't give Michael Jordan a membership because he was black). So it is a question that at least deserves a straight answer.

Rand needs to refine his strategy in dealing with these complex issues.

 

[mello]

Well that was brutal. You know that on just a theoretical argument Rand would have
said yes on first amendment grounds that a private business could be racist assholes
but that would be political suicide. Rand wouldn't support those racist businesses but
when you believe in the constitution you know that it protects the rights of everyone
including racist douche bags.

What makes this interview complete bullshit is that this all a theoretical argument
about 40-year old legislation. It's not like Rand or anyone else in their right mind is going to
introduce new legislation to remove the 10th part of the Civil Rights Act. He wants to
introduce laws like a balanced budget amendment, term limits, & etc. By introducing
this esoteric topic though it ends up being a negative talking point for his opponent to
repeatedly focus on due to Rand's belief that the first amendment protects everyone
from Rachel Maddow, climate deniers, anarchists, racists, & etc.

They did the same thing to his father during the presidential campaign when he was
asked that theoretical question about the Civil War.

 

[new momentum]

Definately, I'm proud of him for sticking to his principles. To me, it was almost like Maddow was trying to get him to flip-flop. I like Maddow overall. She's been pretty cool with Ron.

 

[itshappening]

Rand's answer to ANY question about the civil rights act:

"I prefer to discuss the debt and our fiscal issues, did you know that.... "

talk about something else. dont even address it. these people aren't interested in coherent answers and it's not a campaign issue so why trip yourself up

 

[AuH20]

Well that was brutal. You know that on just a theoretical argument Rand would have
said yes on first amendment grounds that a private business could be racist assholes
but that would be political suicide. Rand wouldn't support those racist businesses but
when you believe in the constitution you know that it protects the rights of everyone
including racist douche bags.

What makes this interview complete bullshit is that this all a theoretical argument
about 40-year old legislation. It's not like Rand or anyone else in their right mind is going to
introduce new legislation to remove the 10th part of the Civil Rights Act. He wants to
introduce laws like a balanced budget amendment, term limits, & etc. By introducing
this esoteric topic though it ends up being a negative talking point for his opponent to
repeatedly focus on due to Rand's belief that the first amendment protects everyone
from Rachel Maddow, climate deniers, anarchists, racists, & etc.

They did the same thing to his father during the presidential campaign when he was
asked that theoretical question about the Civil War.

That's exactly was she was digging for. An affirmative on letting racists do as they please, which would be played ad nauseum throughout the Kentucky airwaves. He did an admirable job fleshing out his argument under the circumstances.

 

[Cowlesy]

Remember that Rand said about eight times that he abhors racism and supported the use of laws to ban institutionalized racism.

So if anyone out there calls hims a racist, they're being dishonest.

Make the argument about property rights into a teaching moment, and how free speech can be use to penalize those who have such nasty policies.

 

[BamaFanNKy]

It wasn't historically irrelevant. There were many southern businesses that did not serve blacks, and there are still many today that don't (a country club near me wouldn't give Michael Jordan a membership because he was black). So it is a question that at least deserves a straight answer.

Rand needs to refine his strategy in dealing with these complex issues.

You just made the point that the legislation didn't do dick.

YouTube - Malcolm X Exposes White Liberal Jews

 

[itshappening]

Remember that Rand said about eight times that he abhors racism and supported the use of laws to ban institutionalized racism.

So if anyone out there calls hims a racist, they're being dishonest.

Make the argument about property rights into a teaching moment, and how free speech can be use to penalize those who have such nasty policies.

why even bother? it's nonsense.

Rand should just change the subject and ramble on about the debt. dont even address it. cable shows are limited for time and if he changes the subject and rambles on about the debt, finishes his point then the host has to move on, if she badgers him he can continue to talk about the debt or something else. dont even engage, steer the interview until time has ran out

it is stupid to get involved in a technical or theorectical artgument, change the subject and talk about something relevant to the election and the campaign

If Maddow asked me about the civil rights act i'd respond :

"You know what Rachel, I think what's more relevant today is the rights of those Afghans who are being assassinated by drones ordered by Obama, will you join me Rachel in condemning these drone attacks and will you be prepared to ask the tough questions of the president?"

 

[JamesButabi]

Make the argument about property rights into a teaching moment, and how free speech can be use to penalize those who have such nasty policies.

EXACTLY....they do this so effectively on Free Talk Live. I remember the other day this exact topic came up. They were telling the woman "Wouldn't you want to know if the business you were supporting was being run by bigots? Thats not the type of business I want to support, and I would never know that guy was a bigot unless he had the freedom to express it!"

 

[BenIsForRon]

You just made the point that the legislation didn't do dick.

I never said it did, I'm saying that it did have a reason for being there. People were tired of being treated as subhuman when they went to get a sandwich. Forcing private business to comply with the Civil Rights Act was their way of dealing with it.

They should have focused on public institutions, and I think the private problems would have faded over time. Besides, as Rand said, it sets bad precedent.

 

[pacelli]

Ha! Sorry I can't dedicate as many posts as most of you guys. I'm new to the whole liberty movement. I fully support the Pauls. I've sent money to Rand's campaign. I'm on here just trying to learn as much as I can.

Welcome. Post count means nothing.

 

[angelatc]

Ha! Sorry I can't dedicate as many posts as most of you guys. I'm new to the whole liberty movement. I fully support the Pauls. I've sent money to Rand's campaign. I'm on here just trying to learn as much as I can.

Welcome!

 

[itshappening]

Make the argument about whether Maddow supports Obama's drone attack policy, TURN IT ON THEM , dont address civil rights questions (memo to David Adams and the Rand Paul campaign)

do not get into technical dicussions on this, ask the hosts if they support drone attacks instead

 

[AuH20]

The vultures are circling. A victory will be all the sweeter:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2010/05/19/rachel_maddow_demolishes_rand_paul

Also, did I tell you that I really really loathe progressives?