If you reread my original post, we agree in regard to Paul. The issue that I had was Steven implying that Paul was racist and his position “intellectually dishonest.” My argument was actually similar to yours, that although it is wrongheaded it is a principled decision and consistent with his libertarian views.

It is also why libertarians hardly ever get more than a few percent of the vote.

Admittedly, your final paragraph gave me a guffaw. Are you serious? I hate to make assumptions about people, but I do have my doubts that you would be this dismissive if it was a Republican administration.

The DOJ has already dismissed any charges against NBP’s who stood in front of a Philadelphia polling location with billy clubs while calling a poll watcher a “race traitor” and telling him “there would be hell to pay if he came out.” Others wer called “white devil” and “cracker.” Witnesses saw many people walk away and even civil rights attorneys (Bartle Bull)from the 1960’s (these voter intimidation laws came from that era) have come forward. Video of much of this can be seen on all over the internet.

Yet the DOJ has not cooperated with the US Commission on Civil Rights. http://article.nationalreview.com/432583/voter-intimidation-new-black-panther-style/hans-a-von-spakovsky?page=1

Not to mention an African-American tea-party member getting severely beaten in Missouri by SEIU thugs.

Or 500 SEIU more thugs trespassing on the lawn of a BoA lawyer and terrifying a 14 year old boy inside home alone. Neighbor and reporter Nina Easton reports about it here: http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/19/news/companies/SEIU_Bank_of_America_protest.fortune/index.htm

Yet, you expect the administration to take seriously these allegations and thoroughly investigate? It comes down to this:

1) Sestak has said repeatedly that he was offered a federal position to pull out of the PA Senate primary.

2) Either a felony occurred or a candidate for US Senate fibbed.

3) Either way, this is a major scandal that is being swept under the rug.

To ignore it is either pure partisanship or a dismaying lack of integrity.

I’ll let you and Steven decide…

The ugliness of Paul’s stance is that we HAD those rules-for decades and decades before 1964, it was not only legal but permissible and advisable to have “Whites Only” businesses-anyone brave enough to allow desegregation would be shunned by the majority white population.

It took the Federal Government (along with Freedom Riders and concerned citizens from all over the country) to force free association as the law throughout the land.

There was a conflict at play here-the freedom of citizens to live free lives, patronizing who they wish, no better or worse than any other American-against the freedom of a property owner to do what he wishes with his own property.

The first sort of freedom won, and everyone benefitted from the results.

People did lose some freedom, too, but that happens all the time in a democracy. Your freedom to swing your arms ends at the bridge of my nose.

I’m sure Paul is a principled man, who believes strongly in what he believes. Paul’s beliefs of my guns, my gold, and my stuff over everything else don’t look so hot down here in the real world where actual people live.

And please, stop with the Sestak nonsense. In 2010, if a crime was committed, it will come out and be prosecuted. Until it is, I don’t think anyone is interested.

Dr. Paul’s stance is purely ideological. He is a libertarian and a fairly pure one at that. He believes in very strong property rights (common with libertarians) and that people should be able to do and say what they desire in their homes. For instance, he would freely state that any American should be able to have a Hitler memorabilia museum in their private homes. Although an overwhelming majority of citizens would find the practice reprehensible, most would also agree that it is an individual’s right to do.

Paul extends this to private businesses. He believes that we can abhor the practice but it is still a person’s property to do with what he or she pleases. I disagree with it but would state that his position is probably more intellectually consistent/honest, rather than “intellectually dishonest.” It is also more in line with the original intent of the constitution.

It seems that Steven is helping to create a bit of a tempest in a teapot, especially when you figure in the fact that no business would survive today with such practices. The beauty of free speech (protests) and free markets (boycotts) would rightly drive the owner into bankruptcy.

Besides, if Steven was TRULY concerned about “intellectual dishonesty” he would be rooting out ACTUAL scandal of all sorts from both parties.

Let’s see if there are any in the news today, perhaps in Pennsylvania. Oh, yes, another primary winner who previously accused the Obama Administration of bribing him with a high level appointment (likely Secretary of the Navy) and has now clammed up about it. So,…

1) He was either telling the truth and the Obama Administration committed a felony but is NOW clamming up to protect them and get their support; or

2) He was telling a big old fib in the first place and wrongly accusing another of a crime.

Steven,

In the interest of “intellectual honesty,” should Joe Sestak be the next Senator from Pennsylvania?

1. Can cross-burning be banned? In Virginia v. Black (2003), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a statute outlawing the public burning of a cross with intent to intimidate is Un-Constitutional unless the statute requires an additional showing of the intent to intimidate outside the burning itself.

2. Of course racial discrimination is wrong, but are there any limits on government action to prohibit racism? Would a law banning private race discrimination be Constitutional?

3. The 10th Amendment allows Federal Laws only to carry out duties specifially given to the Federal Government. Which specific Federal duty does the Civil Rights Law deal with?

4. Freedom of Speech means little unless it protects undesirable speech. Recall the quote attributed to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

5. Should any sort of discriminatory speech should be protected by Freedom of Speech? E.g., the Piss Christ artwork shows bigotry toward Roman Catholics. Yet, not only is it legal, the Courts held that New York City was required to fund that piece of art.