Ron Paul Says Criticism Of His Son

Below is a snippet of Congressman Paul's latest outbreak of Category 5 fail. You can find the full monty here courtesy of cqpolitics.com.

Quote :

Rep. Ron Paul said Thursday the criticism of his son Rand Paul’s comments regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act is “unfair” and dismissed the fracas as an attempt by the left to hurt his son’s Senate campaign.

“I think it’s contrived because he’s done so well and the left has to knock him down,” the Texas Republican said.

Rand Paul, the GOP nominee in the Kentucky Senate race, ignited a political firestorm this week by suggesting he disagrees with the landmark civil rights law’s prohibition on segregation at privately owned facilities open to the public.

“It’s not fair,” Ron Paul said, adding that as a parent it was hard to see his son pilloried on the national stage and to see his libertarian views characterized as racist.

“Politics can sometime be nasty and I think there is a lot of resentment because he all of a sudden became a star,” he said.

Except that, if he's making it a parallel to the above, he seems to be supporting the owners' right to refuse guns on the premises. "If it's his place, shouldn't he be allowed to refuse service (to those with guns or to those of whatever race)? Why should the government be telling him he can't say no?" The flaw, of course, is that restaurants are already subject to all sorts of laws that only the most radical of libertarians would ever want to see repealed, laws that apply to all businesses and those specific to restaurants (like, say, health codes). Nobody's gonna be pushing for "If it's his restaurant, shouldn't he be free to let the rats run around the kitchen?" So at this point it's just where the line is, and that line's way past requiring that they serve customers regardless of race.

Dear Congressman Paul:

If you want your son to not be criticized for saying stupid shit, get him to stop saying stupid shit.

Thanks and have a nice day.

In the last 48 hours, Rand Paul has:

- Made the argument that while institutional racism is bad, m'kay, private businesses should be able to discriminate because otherwise you are violating that business owner's First Amendment Rights.

- Claimed that he would not support a repeal of the Civil Rights Act (which isn't anywhere close to the issue).

- Griped that he wasn't given a "honeymoon" as a winning candidate and that the liberal media is blowing it all out of proportion.

- Defended BP over the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, saying that the President was being un-American by criticizing BP and that it's not their fault because "sometimes accidents happen".

- Reasserted his position that the Americans with Disabilities Act should be repealed because the requirements under it harm small businesses and that "common-sense" free market solutions will protect those with disabilities.

- Became just the 3rd person (and 1st politician) to cancel an appearance on "Meet The Press" in its 62-year history, with his spokesman claiming that Paul is "exhausted" and that there would be "[n]o more national interviews on the topic."

Calling this a trainwreck would be an insult to trainwrecks.

Well, that apple didn't fall far from the tree.

Also, I think there are some people out there who simply can't get a handle on the fact that the current president is a black man. It goes against everything they were ever taught growing up, and they just can't wrap their tiny brains around the fact that the majority of the American people voted a black man into the White House.

Rand Paul has taken his father's brand of crazy and quadrupled it. He's practically Lyndon LaRouche 2.0.

Oh come on, don't flubb about the past discriminations you could have had, and focus on the ones you can take part in now! There's plenty to be had, and it's not even hard to find. There's still plenty of segregation to embrace and fill yourself with pride in. Discrimination, too!

If you're going to be a politician, of course everybody's going to tear your words apart to destroy you.

Spotts1701 wrote:

the President was being un-American by criticizing BP

It's un-American to criticize British Petroleum?

Just the question I was going to ask.

Ron Paul Says Criticism Of His Son what? It just trails off.

Especially considering the mess BP is making with their oil spill.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Ron Paul Says Criticism Of His Son what? It just trails off.

He said it was unwarranted and the press was picking on him unfairly (as I said, the apple didn't fall far from the tree). Rand made the remark that refusal to serve black person should be up to whoever owns the establishment. Then someone asked him if that meant he disagreed with the sit-ins at Woolworth's lunch counters that occurred during the civil rights movement, and he couldn't come up with any sort of answer that didn't make him sound like a racist asshole.

Note: Most businesses were segregated because it was the law. They had to be segregated, or else. Those laws are known as Jim Crow laws, and they were a form of institutionalized racism. Paul opposes this. On the other hand, I don't see how any of this is in any way relevant to any sort of modern political discourse.

(As an aside: a business has the right to refuse service to any person at the owner's discretion. In theory, a racist could kick out any non-white person [or vice-versa]. It isn't "illegal" until he says why he's doing it. How much sense does that make?)

thebonerules wrote:

Note: Most businesses were segregated because it was the law. They had to be segregated, or else. Those laws are known as Jim Crow laws, and they were a form of institutionalized racism. Paul opposes this. On the other hand, I don't see how any of this is in any way relevant to any sort of modern political discourse.

It's simple - it's relevant because Paul himself made it relevant. He discussed his feelings on the Civil Rights Act during an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal a month ago (the Courier-Journal asked the question because in 2002 Paul had written a letter to the Bowling Green Daily News saying that a free society must tolerate discrimination by private businesses).

Cyberwulf wrote:

Ron Paul Says Criticism Of His Son what? It just trails off.

The full title was supposed to be "Ron Paul Says Criticism Of His Son Is 'Contrived' and 'Unfair'". For some reason the second half of the thread title got clipped off.

Make shorter titles, damn it.

Chris91 wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Ron Paul Says Criticism Of His Son what? It just trails off.

The full title was supposed to be "Ron Paul Says Criticism Of His Son Is 'Contrived' and 'Unfair'". For some reason the second half of the thread title got clipped off.

In other words, "Bawww...they're picking on my pwecious little boy, who just wants everyone to worship him for being Edgy!Conservative!"

Lady Anne wrote:

Chris91 wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Ron Paul Says Criticism Of His Son what? It just trails off.

The full title was supposed to be "Ron Paul Says Criticism Of His Son Is 'Contrived' and 'Unfair'". For some reason the second half of the thread title got clipped off.

In other words, "Bawww...they're picking on my pwecious little boy, who just wants everyone to worship him for being Edgy!Conservative!"

Wasn't Ron Paul the Libertarian poster-boy?

Princess wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

Chris91 wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Ron Paul Says Criticism Of His Son what? It just trails off.

The full title was supposed to be "Ron Paul Says Criticism Of His Son Is 'Contrived' and 'Unfair'". For some reason the second half of the thread title got clipped off.

In other words, "Bawww...they're picking on my pwecious little boy, who just wants everyone to worship him for being Edgy!Conservative!"

Wasn't Ron Paul the Libertarian poster-boy?

Yep.

Actually, some people still adore Ron Paul...I was driving back to southern California from Las Vegas week before last when I saw a billboard advertising Ron Paul in eastern San Bernardino County. Granted, the billboard was weathered and falling down, but when I stopped at a convenience store a few miles further down the road, there was a big sign in front of the store talking about Ron Paul and a love revolution.

Ron Paul wouldn't know love if it walked up and bit him.

Drabbler wrote:

Except that, if he's making it a parallel to the above, he seems to be supporting the owners' right to refuse guns on the premises. "If it's his place, shouldn't he be allowed to refuse service (to those with guns or to those of whatever race)? Why should the government be telling him he can't say no?" The flaw, of course, is that restaurants are already subject to all sorts of laws that only the most radical of libertarians would ever want to see repealed, laws that apply to all businesses and those specific to restaurants (like, say, health codes). Nobody's gonna be pushing for "If it's his restaurant, shouldn't he be free to let the rats run around the kitchen?" So at this point it's just where the line is, and that line's way past requiring that they serve customers regardless of race.

Also it's even more an invalid parallel, because I can't bar you from my restaurant for what you are, only for what you do. I can't bar you from my restaurant for "being a gun owner" -- I can't even know whether you own a gun or not. I can, however, bar you from my restaurant while you're carrying a gun -- basically barring you for your act, not your status. So if you want to come into Wren's Gunfree Burger Bar, you'll have to put your gun aside or check it at the door.

But if a person of color wants to come into Johnny Whitebread's Cream Of Mayonnaise On Wonder Bread Whites Only Restaurant, he can't put his color aside or check it at the door.