Thursday, May 20, 2010

The Trouble With Paul: Corporate Scum Ought to Be Able to Discriminate

Most TEABAGGERs vehemently oppose the notion their movement is a racist, bigoted, mob of fat-pissed-off-old-white people, clinging to the 1950s with the death-grip on yesterday. And yet, the highly backed Tea Party Favorite Rand Paul who Won the Senate GOP Primary in Kentucky has stated in several interviews that he disagrees with several provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

While in full denial, racist euphemisms swirl about in the vestibule of a teabagger's mouth; caught between the lips and teeth are the excruciatingly painful words nigger, faggot, and spic a.k.a. illegal aliens; coiled like a fucking rattlesnake ready to strike with hate-filled venom.

The problem with Paul...

The under-current of Paul's policy seems harmless enough as he uses humor, and the well-known "Paul family snicker" to implicitly brush off the notion he is okay with discrimination, and the institutional foulness of racism. But as we see it, he is a lily-white corporations wet-dream...come true...opposing the Federal enforcement of laws that protect U.S. citizens from being categorized as employees, customers, or suppliers on the basis of their race, cast, color, or creed.

Standing by corporations right to profile, Paul thinks it's only fair that minorities may be perceived in a negative way as compared to other races because he believes it is within a company's natural right to do so. theGOPisDEAD finds it hard to believe the likes of one famous Brit, John Locke would agree with his interpretation of "natural rights" in terms of property. While we understand that ownership gives certain rights, we don't believe a corporation is a person but an institute that relies on a market of diversity. IF you sell shoes, whose feet belong in them? When do we step with those same shoes, on the natural rights of others? IS ownership a ticket to discriminate as you see fit? It's a hard question. But we think out there in the cosmos where ideology meets truth...we think it's larger than simple ownership that determines the fate of discrimination. IF ownership were the end-all to do whatever one pleases to others...the U.S. would still have slaves as a natural right, and generations of families that were thought of as commodity could not drink from the same fountain as our white counter-parts. We could be dead wrong...but fuck that. Maybe he thinks all LAW stops at the threshold of any corporation's door? IF a corporation is able to practice deserves to disappear forever like the scum-sucking racist Tea Party movement that is so giddy over Paul.

Paul will deny he is racist, but does not deny he disagrees with keeping racial profiling or otherwise in our dark & dismal U.S. past where it belongs.

There is no room for his kind of thinking and his slight of hand on the subject reveals the underlying tone of a movement in denial. The Tea Party is nothing more than a movement trying to shed the stigma it deserves, and would give anything to roll back the clock to an era of hate.

The trouble with Dr. Paul is that despite his independent thinking, much of what he stands for is repulsive to people in the mainstream. For instance, he holds an unacceptable view of civil rights, saying that while the federal government can enforce integration of government jobs and facilities, private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people, or gays, or any other minority group.

Mark our words...this is NOT going to go away.
Sphere: Related Content