Rand Paul

So you're telling me I should be forced to serve anyone. That I have NO RIGHTS as to who I allow in my restaurant. So I can't say "no gang members" or "no children" or "no soliciters"... Or is it only african americans that I must allow in? Even if they are in a gang, or a soliciter, or a child.

Why don't you allow me to put up a "no blacks allowed" sign - and let's see how long I stay in business. Maybe a month or two.

You are not forced to serve anyone. You are free to discriminate against anyone you like. Provided you are willing to pay the penalty decided on by an overwhelming majority of citizens. Just like the Castro guy in Cleveland - he was perfectly free to hold those women in his house / his property -- but there were consequences for flaunting the norms of society. Just like holding people against their will we as a nation decided discrimination based on color is unacceptable.
The Drs Paul have no problem with racial discrimination. I don't think the word that applies is racist but rather bigot

Admit, the Drs Paul jokes and lightweights with no chance of ever being in a position of governance
 
Jack Hunter and Rand Paul ‘playing the game’
By Jennifer Rubin, Published: July 12 at 12:25 pmE-mail the writer

This week we learned that Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) had hired Jack Hunter, an avowed secessionist with a history of anti-minority statements. Not only does Paul continue to employ him and refuse to renounce or even to comment on Hunter’s views but, according to Hunter, Paul was fully aware of his views and reputation when he first hired Hunter to co-write a book.
Rand Paul
Sen. Rand Paul (James Crisp/Associated Press)

Even worse for Paul was Hunter’s accusation that his extremism has found a home with the senator, who has “learned to play the game,” such as declaring that an attack on Israel would be an attack on the United States. With a few “rhetorical flourishes,” he said, Rand Paul is more respectable than his father, Ron, and can thereby get farther in politics. That is precisely the concern that many center-right observers had in trying to decipher Rand Paul: namely, that he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
What is interesting is the reaction of those who supported, cheered and hired Hunter for his avowed views — views from which he is now trying to distance himself.
The Washington Free Beacon first reported that Hunter wrote for Taki’s Magazine, a Web site, then edited by Richard Spencer, that was open to harangues against minorities (one of which, by John Derbyshire, got him canned from his more prominent perch at National Review Online)

In reviewing Hunter’s Southern Avenger Web site today, we found a number of podcasts with such titles as “a discussion on the 9-11 Truth movement, John Birch Society, populism and the ‘conspiratorial’ Right’ ” from 2009. However, none of the podcasts can be accessed, leaving us in the dark as to Hunter’s most candid views. What remains are a few written pieces: for example, decrying neoconservatism (a favorite target of Rand Paul). Where are the rest?
Spencer now heads the avowedly white supremacist National Policy Institute. Yesterday he put up a long, rambling video, discussing his long association with Hunter and relating that he produced “hundreds” of pieces and podcasts for Taki. Where those are now available, he does not say. But for nearly half of his diatribe, Spencer picks up on Hunter’s “playing the game” theme in relation to both Hunter and Paul. He is none too pleased about it. In his mind, people who cloak their real beliefs are “cowards” and should come right out and spell out their views, as did Paul’s father, who dabbled in conspiracy theories and put out a racist newsletter under his name. Spencer declares, “Rand Paul does play the game. He tries to alienate traditional conservatives a lot less.” But he deplores Rand Paul’s efforts at getting along as “ham-fisted.”
Others who peddle in these views appear to be equally dismayed. We see out on Twitter a smattering of racist tweets bemoaning Hunter for backing away from his previous views.
What does this tell us? Hunter and people who know him the best have told us what many long suspected: Under Rand Paul’s veneer of respectability is another, far more radical figure, not inside the mainstream of conservatism but one who is “playing the game.” The fact that Hunter is still in Paul’s employ and that Paul won’t repudiate any of his aide’s views suggests they are on to something.
Paul is not only taking heat from the media; Jewish groups whom he tried to woo are castigating him. So much for his pro-Israel campaign.
At the very least, Rand Paul owes it to voters to explain himself and his relationship with Hunter. This also suggests he’ll be a poor ambassador to minority communities, whom he said he’ll reach out to, given not only his past criticism of the Civil Rights Act but also his embrace of the Southern Avenger.
 
For my job, if I do a presentation for a client, it is me who prepares the deck and information. My boss is busy with other clients.

I go present to the client, and there is incorrect stuff in there.

Of course, my boss wouldn't have put that stuff in there. But he was doing other things, so it went through. He still is held responsible for it though.

It's the same situation. Dr. Paul's staff was an unregulated staff that wrote without him paying close attention. Ultimately, he gets held responsible for it, which he has accepted. But that doesn't mean he wrote, believed, or condoned what was published.

Hahah more bad comparisons.

Ron Paul had years to fix that issue, and orginally didn't deny writing it and supported some of the racist things in odd ways (such as saying you aren't gonna catch someone who steals your purse)
 
This.

Meanwhile: I'm loving these University of Chicago references.

I also love Mr Kashyap's specific response: "Love of the G.S. implies macroeconomic illiteracy."

Edit: Damn the Booth guys are killing it. Here's Thaler: "Why tie to gold? why not 1982 Bordeaux?"

I figured you'd notice the multiple U of C refs.

I found that survey to be a hoot.
 
For my job, if I do a presentation for a client, it is me who prepares the deck and information. My boss is busy with other clients.

I go present to the client, and there is incorrect stuff in there.

Of course, my boss wouldn't have put that stuff in there. But he was doing other things, so it went through. He still is held responsible for it though.

It's the same situation. Dr. Paul's staff was an unregulated staff that wrote without him paying close attention. Ultimately, he gets held responsible for it, which he has accepted. But that doesn't mean he wrote, believed, or condoned what was published.

Nobody's that disengaged. It beggars belief.
 
personal property rights --- states rights ---- what kind of world do you see where it is "the correct side of the issue" to be able to deny service to another human being because of the pigment of his/her skin.

That in a nut shell is why we have a government -- to protect the rights of the weak from the tyranny of the powerful.

One of the implied meanings of our existence as a nation

Guessing States Rights is a viable argument to enslave people to you--- is it?

An extreme interpretation of your idea personal property rights would involve the Castro man of Cleveland. What right does the government (police -law enforcement) have to tell him he can't keep young women chained in his back yard. His yard --- right?

I'm surprised comparisons czar Zito didn't jump on this one
 
Hahah more bad comparisons.

Ron Paul had years to fix that issue, and orginally didn't deny writing it and supported some of the racist things in odd ways (such as saying you aren't gonna catch someone who steals your purse)

I dunno...

If I go to a basketball court and am asked to pick up a player to play with - my bias would lead me to picking the black guy over the white guy - because it seems to me that black people's athletic abilities are more suited for basketball than white players.

I don't consider that even remotely racist - but just honest.
 
You are not forced to serve anyone. You are free to discriminate against anyone you like. Provided you are willing to pay the penalty decided on by an overwhelming majority of citizens. Just like the Castro guy in Cleveland - he was perfectly free to hold those women in his house / his property -- but there were consequences for flaunting the norms of society. Just like holding people against their will we as a nation decided discrimination based on color is unacceptable.

The Drs Paul have no problem with racial discrimination. I don't think the word that applies is racist but rather bigot

Admit, the Drs Paul jokes and lightweights with no chance of ever being in a position of governance

I can't even reply to your post anymore because you have now twice compared not serving someone in a resturant to chaining someone up against their will.

It is clear you don't understand property rights.
 
Nobody's that disengaged. It beggars belief.

That's fine that you believe that. I truly do not believe he wrote them or condoned them. I have a whole career to look at that drives me to my belief.

You are certainly welcome to call me naive. It's been done before.
 
Jack Hunter and Rand Paul ‘playing the game’

By Jennifer Rubin, Published: July 12 at 12:25 pmE-mail the writer

This week we learned that Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) had hired Jack Hunter, an avowed secessionist with a history of anti-minority statements. Not only does Paul continue to employ him and refuse to renounce or even to comment on Hunter’s views but, according to Hunter, Paul was fully aware of his views and reputation when he first hired Hunter to co-write a book.

Rand Paul

Sen. Rand Paul (James Crisp/Associated Press)

Even worse for Paul was Hunter’s accusation that his extremism has found a home with the senator, who has “learned to play the game,” such as declaring that an attack on Israel would be an attack on the United States. With a few “rhetorical flourishes,” he said, Rand Paul is more respectable than his father, Ron, and can thereby get farther in politics. That is precisely the concern that many center-right observers had in trying to decipher Rand Paul: namely, that he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

What is interesting is the reaction of those who supported, cheered and hired Hunter for his avowed views — views from which he is now trying to distance himself.

The Washington Free Beacon first reported that Hunter wrote for Taki’s Magazine, a Web site, then edited by Richard Spencer, that was open to harangues against minorities (one of which, by John Derbyshire, got him canned from his more prominent perch at National Review Online)

In reviewing Hunter’s Southern Avenger Web site today, we found a number of podcasts with such titles as “a discussion on the 9-11 Truth movement, John Birch Society, populism and the ‘conspiratorial’ Right’ ” from 2009. However, none of the podcasts can be accessed, leaving us in the dark as to Hunter’s most candid views. What remains are a few written pieces: for example, decrying neoconservatism (a favorite target of Rand Paul). Where are the rest?

Spencer now heads the avowedly white supremacist National Policy Institute. Yesterday he put up a long, rambling video, discussing his long association with Hunter and relating that he produced “hundreds” of pieces and podcasts for Taki. Where those are now available, he does not say. But for nearly half of his diatribe, Spencer picks up on Hunter’s “playing the game” theme in relation to both Hunter and Paul. He is none too pleased about it. In his mind, people who cloak their real beliefs are “cowards” and should come right out and spell out their views, as did Paul’s father, who dabbled in conspiracy theories and put out a racist newsletter under his name. Spencer declares, “Rand Paul does play the game. He tries to alienate traditional conservatives a lot less.” But he deplores Rand Paul’s efforts at getting along as “ham-fisted.”

Others who peddle in these views appear to be equally dismayed. We see out on Twitter a smattering of racist tweets bemoaning Hunter for backing away from his previous views.

What does this tell us? Hunter and people who know him the best have told us what many long suspected: Under Rand Paul’s veneer of respectability is another, far more radical figure, not inside the mainstream of conservatism but one who is “playing the game.” The fact that Hunter is still in Paul’s employ and that Paul won’t repudiate any of his aide’s views suggests they are on to something.

Paul is not only taking heat from the media; Jewish groups whom he tried to woo are castigating him. So much for his pro-Israel campaign.

At the very least, Rand Paul owes it to voters to explain himself and his relationship with Hunter. This also suggests he’ll be a poor ambassador to minority communities, whom he said he’ll reach out to, given not only his past criticism of the Civil Rights Act but also his embrace of the Southern Avenger.

Ah yes, ol Jennifer Rubin. I'm hoping she finally gets fired now that Bezos is in charge. She is trash.

Meanwhile, I hope Paul is "playing the game" because if he means some of the things he supports today, then I wouldn't be able to support him.
 
I dunno...

If I go to a basketball court and am asked to pick up a player to play with - my bias would lead me to picking the black guy over the white guy - because it seems to me that black people's athletic abilities are more suited for basketball than white players.

I don't consider that even remotely racist - but just honest.

That is the definition of being a racist.
 
rac·ist
/ˈrāsist/
noun
noun: racist; plural noun: racists1. a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

Wouldn't that mean I'm a racist against white people?

No, and cool definition cherry picking bro

a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
 
If I go to a basketball court and am asked to pick up a player to play with - my bias would lead me to picking the black guy over the white guy - because it seems to me that black people's athletic abilities are more suited for basketball than white players.

I don't consider that even remotely racist - but just honest.

It's called "benevolent" racism, and while I personally don't think it's ultimately all that benevolent, it's still racism.

Sort of like how some stereotypes can be "positive" (for instance: all Asians are math-wizards), but are nonetheless still instances of stereotyping, with similar and nonetheless potentially negative ramifications.
 
Ah yes, ol Jennifer Rubin. I'm hoping she finally gets fired now that Bezos is in charge. She is trash.

Meanwhile, I hope Paul is "playing the game" because if he means some of the things he supports today, then I wouldn't be able to support him.

So what about the substance? I'm from SC. I'm very familiar with the LoS.
 
No, and cool definition cherry picking bro

a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

How is that selective? I literally pulled it straight from the page.

It's not racist - it's sterotypical. Stereotypes aren't racist.

It's like asian women are bad at driving? Do you disagree? If so, then you are a racist!

What is wrong with our society that we can't be honest about our feelings.

Am I wrong to assume that black athletes may be better at certain sports than whites, or asian?

If I'm wrong, why do I see so many black athletes in the NBA and at the skill positions in the NFL? Is that just a coincidence?

Whatever the reason - whether it is biological, cultural, or pure randomness, it has driven me to assume that, knowing nothing else - a black person would be better at bball than a white person.

There is nothing racist about assuming a person is better or worse at something based on years of data and analysis. Heck, I will say with absolute certainty that overall, asian people are better at math than black people and white people.

You can call me a racist for saying that, but I'll call you delusional for not admitting it.
 
I can't even reply to your post anymore because you have now twice compared not serving someone in a resturant to chaining someone up against their will.

It is clear you don't understand property rights.

No I probably don't understand property rights
or state rights
or ------
I understand property rights perfectly well. They extend to breaking a law on said property. By discriminating a person at a restaurant you are as liable to legal scrutiny as you would be if you are caught with a girl chained in the back yard,half a marijuanna farm in your restaurant kitchen area or discriminate seating / serving someone at your restaurant.

Law trumps property rights. The law is set by our elected representatives (government) . Our elected representatives voted overwhelmingly that discrimination over color is unacceptable. Under any circumstance
It is the law -- not quite sure what there is you can't understand or even worsegrasp why it is a law
 
Back
Top