[Hoot Gibson]

Racial discrimination was, de facto, the "law of the land" in the South, Hoot. The federal government finally intervened and suggested, it seems to me, that the fundamental rights called for in the Declaration and the Pre-Amble and the Constitution extended to ALL people and that the power of the federal government would be used to ensure that. Rand Paul, basically, suggested he didn't view it that way. Red Jello it all you want, Hoot, but, basically, you've confirmed what is a reality behind libertarians: they shrink from justice.

No, racial discrimination was literally the "law of the land"" in the South and the federal government was right to step in and stop states from codifying racial discrimination and coercing businesses into making it part of their standard operating procedure. The question that Rand Paul raised is whether the federal government went too far in prohibiting individual citizens and business owners from practicing discrimination as part of their freedom of association.

Raising the question or believing that citizens should have an absolute right to engage in business with whomever they choose, without government coercion, does not make one a racist. I am sure that Rand Paul believes as I do, that no business receiving federal, state, or local funds should be free to discriminate based on race, religion, or ethnicity.

Liberals say that they believe in individual freedom but there is no evidence of that being the case. If liberals sincerely wanted to help poor people in this country, they would stop loading our working men, women, children (current and future) with a debt that is going to destroy our economy. The best thing that can be done for the poor in this country is to create an environment where labor is in short supply and businesses must compete for good workers. Socialism creates nothing but misery.