Last week, in their infinite wisdom, Kentucky Republicans selected Tea Party toady Rand Paul as their candidate for the Senate seat being vacated by senile gasbag Jim Bunning. Immediately thereafter, Mr. Paul went on national TV and said he opposed key provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, on the grounds that the government shouldn't be allowed to tell a hypothetical racist business owner who he can serve.
I was willing to give Rand a slight benefit of the doubt and cast him off as a nutty ideologue instead of a racist, mainly because of a Barry Goldwater documentary I saw a few years ago.
Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 back in 1964, when it was actual news. In the aforementioned documentary, survivors of the civil rights movement, one after the other, stated that Goldwater wasn't racist at all, but was a fervent supporter of state's rights to the detriment of common sense. If black men who lived through segregation are telling me Barry Goldwater wasn't racist, I'm going to believe them. Maybe Rand was a Libertarian version of Barry Goldwater.
But I did some research (googling, which takes one second) and found that Rand Paul opposes gay marriage. So, for those of you scoring at home, Rand Paul is against the government telling a guy he has to sell a sandwich to black people, but all for the government telling a guy who he can and cannot marry. Oh, he also thinks it's fine for the government to prohibit women from having abortions. He's Libertarian when it's convenient for him.
I don't trust people who say they hate government but desperately want to get elected to a government position. It's like a woman saying "I hate prostitution, so I'm going to go to Nevada and get a job at a brothel and sell my pussy the right way." A whore is a whore. And I'm not talking about the prostitute.
Rand Paul, a Libertarian who wants the government to limit certain rights, is a perfect candidate for the Tea Party, whose main constituents are people on medicare who oppose government controlled health care. These contradictions give me a fucking headache, but all of this talk obscures the main question:
WHY ARE WE STILL DEBATING THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 19FUCKING64 IN 2010?
It was passed in 1964, people; HENCE THE NAME. Can we move on? I wasn't born yet, and I'm old as fuck. Rand was in diapers at the time. We have real problems in this country and Rand Paul is upset because some inbred fuck who won a general store at a cock fight is being forced to sell a black guy a watered down cup of bean soup. It's been the law for over 45 years. I think that's plenty of time for bigots to have adjusted their business model.
I was willing to give Rand a slight benefit of the doubt and cast him off as a nutty ideologue instead of a racist, mainly because of a Barry Goldwater documentary I saw a few years ago.
Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 back in 1964, when it was actual news. In the aforementioned documentary, survivors of the civil rights movement, one after the other, stated that Goldwater wasn't racist at all, but was a fervent supporter of state's rights to the detriment of common sense. If black men who lived through segregation are telling me Barry Goldwater wasn't racist, I'm going to believe them. Maybe Rand was a Libertarian version of Barry Goldwater.
But I did some research (googling, which takes one second) and found that Rand Paul opposes gay marriage. So, for those of you scoring at home, Rand Paul is against the government telling a guy he has to sell a sandwich to black people, but all for the government telling a guy who he can and cannot marry. Oh, he also thinks it's fine for the government to prohibit women from having abortions. He's Libertarian when it's convenient for him.
I don't trust people who say they hate government but desperately want to get elected to a government position. It's like a woman saying "I hate prostitution, so I'm going to go to Nevada and get a job at a brothel and sell my pussy the right way." A whore is a whore. And I'm not talking about the prostitute.
Rand Paul, a Libertarian who wants the government to limit certain rights, is a perfect candidate for the Tea Party, whose main constituents are people on medicare who oppose government controlled health care. These contradictions give me a fucking headache, but all of this talk obscures the main question:
WHY ARE WE STILL DEBATING THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 19FUCKING64 IN 2010?
It was passed in 1964, people; HENCE THE NAME. Can we move on? I wasn't born yet, and I'm old as fuck. Rand was in diapers at the time. We have real problems in this country and Rand Paul is upset because some inbred fuck who won a general store at a cock fight is being forced to sell a black guy a watered down cup of bean soup. It's been the law for over 45 years. I think that's plenty of time for bigots to have adjusted their business model.
7 Comments:
I'm sharing this one on Facebook and I'm sending the link to Crooks and Liars. Brilliant job, as usual.
Well said! The guy lost me with both of his names. Rand Paul. Because you know he's both a Rand acolyte and Ron Paul's son. Also, his wife's gorgeous. But all this too? It's like peeling layers and layers of suckitude, not knowing when you'll hit the pit. Maybe never.
As for anti-government types, I think they run just to take power, govern incompetently and then fulfill their own diseased prophecies. With little effort to boot. Groan.
Well said.
I believe I love you.
'I don't trust people who say they hate government but desperately want to get elected to a government position.'
This pretty much bottom lines it...and is indicative of why I come to read your blog, with anticipation, always...
As I understand this. Rand Paul despises racism. He does question the federal governments imposing its will on private business. A view that his longstanding Libertarian views correlate with. Unfortunately this opens him up to criticism that he would allow racial discrimination.
I actually believe that Rand Paul is not really a racist so much as he is a privileged bastard that never really encountered any examples thereof, nor known anyone who was impacted by pre-1964 conditions (many of which still exist sub rosa). However, the only legit Libertarian position on marriage should be either that it is not a function of government to marry anyone or the government should permit legal marriage to any two consenting adults. Most Libertarians I know support (mostly through indifference) gay marriage. Still, after all this time, one should realize that politicians and clergymen are opportunists who have no fixed beliefs other than that they should have whatever they want and fuck the rest.
Post a Comment
<< Home