INTERVIEWER: Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?Ah yes, he's so committed to freedom and the flag that he realizes that large parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act need to be removed. But he's not racist. He hates racism. He just wants to strip huge chunks out of civil rights legislation so that people can be more free to discriminate on racial grounds.As he goes on to explain, sometimes in a free society we have to tolerate "boorish people". "Boorish people" being sixties era Southern racists. Wonderful people they all were.
PAUL: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.
PAUL: You had to ask me the “but.” I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners—I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant—but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership.
Hey, no worries though. He's theoretically against racism and discrimination. Just tacitly against laws that do anything about them.
Hey, at least he didn't come off as a smug prick during a separate interview with Rachael Maddow where he expressed the exact same thoughts. Oh wait... At least there he had the class to reduce the struggle people went through fighting for civil rights as "not a very practical discussion" and a mere "philosophical debate". At least he realized his mistake today... talking to Rachael Maddow in the first place.
Stay classy, Rand. You and your "libertarian" tea baggers. We'll get those segregated lunch counters back, buddy. We'll get them back. Fuck those cripples too.