Maddow: Do you think that a private business has a right to say that 'We don't serve black people?'
Paul: 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. Butdo discriminate.
But I think what's important in this debate is not getting 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 that freedom requires is that
we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it...
Paul argued that Maddow's questions weren't practical, but were instead abstract. She asked Paul to tell that to protesters who were beaten in their struggle for equal rights:
Maddow:... Howabout desegregating lunch counters?
Paul: Well what it gets into then is 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 a very practical discussion...
Maddow: Well, it was pretty practical to the people who had the life nearly beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen's lunch counters despite these esoteric debates about what it means about ownership. This is not a hypothetical Dr. Paul.
pax wrote:I'm interested in this Senate race. Looking forward to watching debates. The citizens of Kentucky will decide and I'm fine with that. I watched Paul's interview with Maddow. She spent the whole time trying to 'win' a constitutional argument instead of letting him explain what he intends to accomplish if he's elected. I want to hear more of how - on practical matters - both Paul and Conway envision operating in the Senate.
pax wrote:Hey gwen, I thought about what you said yesterday. Now I agree with you. At first I thought they were discussing esoteric theory. Now I understand they're talking about whether the public accommodations act of civil rights law should be overturned. Paul raised the issue. That's why Maddow asks. I respect Maddow for trying to get him to explain. He fails. Thanks for making me think about it more and to watch the full interview again.
yankee-in-france wrote:Yes, I think that anyone who is suggesting that businesses can select/refuse their customers in the 21st century is dangerous but if this is true, there are many dangerous people out there.
Between this guy and the Texas textbook debacle, it makes me wonder. Was America always like this or was it different? I think that it was different but maybe I am wrong. Maybe the hate was always there but I didn't see it. They don't like the Civil Rights law, they don't like Roe v. Wade, they don't want the holocaust to be taught .. geez, what is happening.
If you appear to be a Hispanic, scrap whether you're an American citizen, you better carry your birth certificate or naturalization papers with you or risk being detained by the police. This is bullshit, freedom it is not.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests