Rachel Maddow: Partisan Hack?

O there is!

You should pay more attention to the diversity of the State governments in this country, many of them are themselves akin to federal systems. With highly decentralized powers held by the county or City level.

Indeed speaking of city's in many states it has gone so far as to make the city's almost entirely autonomous. You should look into it, as there is a lot there to look into.

The problem is in many states that do, do this the state can't decentralized power it no longer holds. lol

Why did state and local governments even need to pass laws that prohibited white owners from having racially integrated businesses? Because obviously a significant number of white business owners would have treated their customers equally, without regard to race. So the bigots who didn't want to have to compete with them in the free market made sure that laws were passed to put a stop to it. The practice of racial discrimination would have died out on its own without federal mandates once people of color and enlightened white citizens voted for their state and local governments to stop subsidizing it!

If you're looking to Rachel Maddow (or any such TV show) for enlightened thought and objective news, you're seriously naive. She panders to the far left to get ratings and please her bosses. She's just like Glenn Beck and all the other talking heads in that sense.

The fact that some consider her a "media hero" and that her views are even considered relevant in this context of restoring constitutional government is a sad comment on the mind of the average American. If people don't have the intellectual horsepower to immediately recognize how biased and useless these TV shows are, we're screwed.

The problem with that is that the right to be a racist can not be denied to someone simply because all men are created equal. The freedom of thought of any one person can't be annulled by another because if you could it assumes one person could control the thoughts of another (there is no jedi mind trick in real life). To deny the freedom of thought is to deny the basic justification that makes all people equal to another which enables them to live free of the control of another person. This is why a store owner has the right to refuse service to someone. He has the right to live free of the control of other people even if his reasons are completely immoral.

Think of all the times this basic right allows some kind of healthy discrimination such as not allowing men to work as hooter's girls, not allowing non-blacks to join the NAACP, not allowing men to join an all girls reading club, not allowing men to use the woman's restroom at a public place. The free choice of individuals allows sanity to occur within society

In the context of the point in time the Civil Rights Act was passed, it was necessary for people of colour and their allies to have some form of recourse against all forms of institutional racism, public and private. 1964 wasn't that long ago. There's a reason some parts of the south took so long to integrate; because they didn't have to, and those who were trapped in a racially hostile environment didn't have the legal means to challenge their own oppression. And it's also kind of nice to live in a country that legally recognizes civil rights as necessary for all its citizens.

Hell, I'm just going to come out with it; I doubt that any of you would be crying for the individual freedom to discriminate based on race if you were the ones who couldn't get a job, couldn't get the same pay as a white man, could never even think about getting promoted, couldn't get medical treatment, couldn't get a decent home, couldn't open a bank account or get a loan, the list goes on. It's easy to argue for the right to use your racism as a reason to exclude and humiliate others when you have the privilege of not being affected by racism.

Besides that, the author of this post seems misguided; Rand and Maddow's discussion was not about federal vs. state government and what their responsibilities should be. It was an abstract public vs. private sphere debate; the author started by addressing one thing that he inferred from the debate, but then goes off on a tangent that had nothing to do with the thrust of their discussion: whether or not private businesses should have the right to discriminate based on race. It seems all too predictable that the author would accuse Ms. Maddow of being a partisan hack, when he's guilty of the same sin.

Exactly - and that is just the way it switched around when Bush gave way to Obama

If a Republican Congress and a Republican President were to be elected, you would be surprised how quickly Rachel Maddow and other hypocritical liberals would reverse their statist ideas.

Authoritarians must label individual freedom as bad and in this case they labeled it as racist therefore your freedom must be suspended. Sorry, Rachael, my freedom can't be suspended because I used it for something you didn't agree with.

BTW, they have been waiting for a moment like this to tag far right libertarians as racist. Personally, I don't care anymore because the freedom of thought implies we can be racist if we wanted to. This entire country can go racist if it wanted to because every person has the right to make whatever choice about what they believe they want.