Posted on 05/23/2010 10:45:29 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
This whole fiasco boils down to three parts:
1.) Tea Party-backed Rand Paul needs to win the Senate seat, not engage in philospohical debates - at least not now. Do that later after the seat is won (which it will be). Why will it be won, regardless of the hit job on Rand Paul?
Because most people saw the establishment media pouncing on him simultaneously like a well organized machine - from both the left and the right - and they know that they were out to get him.
2.) Rand Paul himself has said that he is personally against racism, but he knows (as do most Americans) that laws cannot end racism. People are too mean? Pass laws that say that people must be nice to each other!? Not gonna work.
3.) Liberals like the Civil Rights Act not so much because it helps to end institutional racism, but because it is a law that empowers the federal government. It gives power to The State. Liberals reason thta The State can make us and force all to be one big happy family - even if we don't want to be.
As George Will said, the Civil Rights Act legislates morality, but in this case, liberals like this kind of morality being legislated.
But, as we all know, liberals don't like the states (or the feds for that matter) legislating on issues like marriage (saying no to same-sex marriage) or saying no to abortion being legal.
What say you?
The isssue isnt what the Rino said, the issue is the Rino revealed himself to be a Rino by going from winning the KY GOP primary to sucking up to MSMediots on MS-NBC the next morning. It reveal him to be an untrustworthy Rino who thinks the MSMedia can be his friend.
I wish that somebody would ask these libs who they think passed all the Jim Crow laws in the south.
I’ll add that depending on the law it can make racism worse.
Ad Homienm attacks from you or anyone else immediately undermine and derail your arguments.
Rand Paul learned quickly (and is still learning) to be super clear on his statements.
If he is a RINO, then who isn’t?
We've seen many, many lawsuits because "they cried they didn't get promoted" or "whitey was mean"....They learned to play the game...
We need to stick to the issues.
Please, no Ad Hominem attacks. That is something that liberals like to engage in.
Why would a black man want to eat in a restaurant owned and operated by a white supremacist? Why would a major PR-obsessed franchise want to permit a policy of discrimination? I seem to remember reading that boycotts were an important weapon in the 60’s civil rights battles. But does that have to do with the Bull Connors of the world? Those people were guilty of either violating existing criminal laws or constitutional law.
This should be an easy win for the GOP. Unfortunately, Rand Paul will probably lose it.
Not to mention if the real goal is ‘end racism’ and not destroy Western Culture then why do we have multiple government sponsored race groups?
I have a friend who describes himself as being "considerably to the right of Attila the Hun". I asked him if he could name anyone who wasn't a leftist, and he couldn't do it -- everybody is to the left of him.
Hank, is that really you? :)
There is no moral or racial component to this question, and allowing it to be framed as one is merely a fault, not a tactic. However, if the arguer insists that it's a moral issue... then frame it thusly: "Since when is the discussion over federalism and the role of the federal vs state governments in regulating private enterprise a matter of race?"
The arguments the left has are vacant, intellectually dishonest, and the media's so slavishly dogmatic it fails to recognize its own role. Point it out, do it for them.
Many Freepers will argue that the government can and must legislate morality.
He’s, in effect, giving the exact same reason Barry Goldwater gave for voting against the so-called, Civil Rights Bill and Goldwater was actually running for president when he did it.
I have many reasons for not being a big fan of Goldwater, especially when he was older-but the guy had one huge set voting against that bill knowing how the media would savage him for it.
Agree!
I think that Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) in which the Supreme Court said the federal government can stop you from growing wheat for your own consumption because it might affect interstate commerce was an outrage that needs to be overturned.
As for the Civil Rights law of 1964, I think it is more plausible for the feds to claim they have a right to require non-discriminitory access to public accommodations in order to facilitate interstate commerce. It’s not quite as ridiculous.
The point I was making is that liberals will argue for the federal gov’t to legislate morality, but never the states.
Libs will say that the feds can and should force the people and the states to accept that abortion is legal (and with ObamaCare that they must pay for abortions with their tax dollars) and will say that the federal gov’t (in this case SCOTUS) can and should force the people to have to accept same-sex marriage as being the law of the land, but libs will never say that these issues must be left up to the states (which is the constitutional position).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.