I'm glad Rand Paul said it...

[geauxtohell]

I don't think the Paul's are racist, just clueless.

They are so into this "big, bad, government" mantra that they can't see that there are times when government intervention is necessary.

There are few instances where it was more necessary in our history than in 1964. I mean, maybe the states would have gotten around to it in the next 100 years considering that Lincoln emancipated the slaves in 1863 and the constitution was amended to give equal protection under the law to everyone regardless of race.

The fact is that civil rights was so successful that we now have the luxury of second guessing it.

The people that say this is only an issue for Kentuckians are dead wrong too. America is wondering what this whole "Tea Party" thing is really about.

If Rand Paul becomes viewed as the group's leader and spokesperson, you guys are fucked.

And you know it.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Dangerous when worried..... Democrats will eat their own.

I recall a time in the last election when Democrats even started to proclaim Bill (winded tally whacker) Clinton a racist to win the election for the chosen one... but... alas, they couldn't get his fat ass to fit under the bus, let alone Hillary's..

 

[Avatar4321]

You guys are going to regret making the government so powerful one of these days.

 

[mudwhistle]

Looks like the left has found a new target.

You're a dumb ass.

That's funny....cause I'm considering the source and it just doesn't cut it.

 

[mudwhistle]

This is exactly what you get for playing the political game. Your dad has already admitted on video that he was endorsing neocons (over "Ron Paul Republicans") for political gain, you take weaker stances than him, and then your wishy washy talking about this issue with the media. You then backtrack. What do you expect? If you and your dad have any souls left I just wonder if they will be worth enough to the guys pulling the strings to win the Senate seat.

I'm both sad and apathetic to all this Paul crap...

Looks like the left has found a new target.

Bush, Cheney, Palin, and now Paul.

You can have him. I hope you'all choke on him.

"Found"??? It's not we had to go looking.


Hell, these "targets" have all presented themselves on a silver platter with apples in their mouths and a sign saying "here I am, roast me!"

Not that I like the SOB myself.....but why do you folks need a target in the first place.

You've got some real pud-knockers in your own party to deal with. You should get them straightened out first before you waste your time trying to fuck with anyone else.

I mean look at these disorganized fuck-heads. Lying asshole like Obama going up in front of the cameras with the whimp Mexican Prez talking smack about one of our states nether even mentioning that the never read the law. The people of Arizona much be absolutely furious by now.

The Dems spent us into poverty and pretty soon they're gonna be taxing us into oblivion. I hope you're proud of them.

 

[MarcATL]

Rand Paul: 'I Abhor Racial Discrimination' - The Daily Beast

The apple does not fall far from the tree. The Tea Party folks love this guy!

Sure does.

I bet poppa and momma Paul are singing "This Rand is our Rand."

 

[Sarah G]

The Demos could not have written a better script. The racist Rand Paul is their opponent in November. The can scratch that one up as a win.

I just watched a Rachel Maddow I had recorded where she interviewed both Rand Paul and Sestak.

She really pounded on Rand and after it was over, Sestak came on and she asked him whether he wished he was running against Rand.. He said yeaaahhh.

Rand has said before that he supports private business the right to discriminate but that he thought people would rise up against this type of business and it wouldn't exist anyway. I don't think he's racist, I believe he is for civil rights and personal freedoms. If you accept personal freedoms for yourself, you also need to accept it for everyone, even racists.

Rand can never justify that one point so he's gonna have a tough time.

 

[Lumpy 1]

The Demos could not have written a better script. The racist Rand Paul is their opponent in November. The can scratch that one up as a win.

I just watched a Rachel Maddow I had recorded where she interviewed both Rand Paul and Sestak.

She really pounded on Rand and after it was over, Sestak came on and she asked him whether he wished he was running against Rand.. He said yeaaahhh.

Rand has said before that he supports private business the right to discriminate but that he thought people would rise up against this type of business and it wouldn't exist anyway. I don't think he's racist, I believe he is for civil rights and personal freedoms. If you accept personal freedoms for yourself, you also need to accept it for everyone, even racists.

Rand can never justify that one point so he's gonna have a tough time.

I liked your post but being a tad dull tonight, I'm unsure of your statement (Rand can never justify that one point so he's gonna have a tough time)

 

[California Girl]

Yet again, group think from the left. Sweet. Look at what he's actually saying, not what you're told he's saying.

He supports the Civil Right Act. Good. Me too.

He disagrees with the government telling businesses who they must do business with. Good. Me too.

Now, if a business refused to serve someone or employ someone based on their race, would I do business with that business? No. Absolutely, totally and completely not. Because I disapprove of racism. Difference is, we would KNOW who these business are and we - as customers - could bankrupt their asses. And, those businesses would be gone. And that would be a good thing. Now, they hide. Hiding is much worse. I would rather know who the racists are - because that way, I can confront them. All we do by legislating is allow them to continue in their racism without being able to see it.

 

[Sarah G]

The Demos could not have written a better script. The racist Rand Paul is their opponent in November. The can scratch that one up as a win.

I just watched a Rachel Maddow I had recorded where she interviewed both Rand Paul and Sestak.

She really pounded on Rand and after it was over, Sestak came on and she asked him whether he wished he was running against Rand.. He said yeaaahhh.

Rand has said before that he supports private business the right to discriminate but that he thought people would rise up against this type of business and it wouldn't exist anyway. I don't think he's racist, I believe he is for civil rights and personal freedoms. If you accept personal freedoms for yourself, you also need to accept it for everyone, even racists.

Rand can never justify that one point so he's gonna have a tough time.

I liked your post but being a tad dull tonight, I'm unsure of your statement (Rand can never justify that one point so he's gonna have a tough time)

The point where he says it's ok for private business to discriminate. It was a mistake to even bring it up. It is explosive and his opponent is going to relentlessly beat him up with it.

Rand says he agrees with 9 out of 10 points in the civil rights bill. That one point he disagrees with is going to hurt him.

 

[California Girl]

The Demos could not have written a better script. The racist Rand Paul is their opponent in November. The can scratch that one up as a win.

I just watched a Rachel Maddow I had recorded where she interviewed both Rand Paul and Sestak.

She really pounded on Rand and after it was over, Sestak came on and she asked him whether he wished he was running against Rand.. He said yeaaahhh.

Rand has said before that he supports private business the right to discriminate but that he thought people would rise up against this type of business and it wouldn't exist anyway. I don't think he's racist, I believe he is for civil rights and personal freedoms. If you accept personal freedoms for yourself, you also need to accept it for everyone, even racists.

Rand can never justify that one point so he's gonna have a tough time.

I agree with Rand.

And.... if I hadn't run out of rep, I would have repped your post because it's bang on accurate. Well said, Sarah. Seriously.

 

[Sarah G]

The Demos could not have written a better script. The racist Rand Paul is their opponent in November. The can scratch that one up as a win.

I just watched a Rachel Maddow I had recorded where she interviewed both Rand Paul and Sestak.

She really pounded on Rand and after it was over, Sestak came on and she asked him whether he wished he was running against Rand.. He said yeaaahhh.

Rand has said before that he supports private business the right to discriminate but that he thought people would rise up against this type of business and it wouldn't exist anyway. I don't think he's racist, I believe he is for civil rights and personal freedoms. If you accept personal freedoms for yourself, you also need to accept it for everyone, even racists.

Rand can never justify that one point so he's gonna have a tough time.

I agree with Rand.

And.... if I hadn't run out of rep, I would have repped your post because it's bang on accurate. Well said, Sarah. Seriously.

Thank you.

 

[frazzledgear]

I'm glad Rand Paul said what he said about desegregation because the state had no right to tell other people how to use their own private property. I know it is shitty to use it to showcase your racist views but don't you guys realize that freedom of speech is protected by the right to use your own property as you wish to express your racist views such as only serving 'whites only'. I know it is a sucky thing to do but why do we have the right to deny someone the use of their own property and subsequently the right of free speech. Where do we draw the line between good speech and bad speech in this society.

Just as anyone could deny anyone entry to their home or land for any reason, someone should be able to deny someone entry to their business for any reason. Private property is private property. Racism is a horrible thing, but people have the right to be racist. As for the Civil Rights Act in the here and now, that's not what's keeping us from devolving into a racist mass that segregates society. Attitudes have changed, if somebody tried to make their store "white only" then they'd inevitably be forced out of business by people refusing to shop there out of disgust.

It looks like there are plenty of people who'd be happy to enter businesses who discriminate against Mexicans for example.

How would you like to be on a long road trip and be refused entry to the rest areas? No where to go to the bathroom for example? No where to get some food along the way. Do you think America should be a place that allows this?

Public restrooms and rest areas are by definition PUBLIC and not privately owned. Public anything MUST be required by law from any kind of discriminatory practices because by definition all Americans have the identical rights because of their citizenship -not their race, religion or gender etc. Taxpayers foot the bill for public anything -therefore everyone has the right to access them. It also means if government allows concessions on publicly owned land, it can and must require all concessionaires from engaging in any discriminatory practice and enforce that. But I have no right to the goods or services of another person engaged in a private transaction taking place on his private property!

If you think without the use of government force in the private sector that blacks and Hispanics would not be able to sit down in a restaurant and eat a meal -you are dead wrong. You can't make MORE money by refusing to service entire segments of the population and the only reason people start a business is to make money, not for kicks. And you seem to think only whites would be running their own businesses or the only ones who might even refuse service to someone. There are plenty of black and Hispanic racists out there too. But I can't identify the racist business owners in this country unless they have the freedom to advertise that fact. If they can't, then government forcing people to use their private property as government orders them to do means they get to HIDE behind a law and I will never know what the owner really believes -while the freedom to openly advertise their nasty asses as racists means I can easily avoid giving them my money and contributing to their livelihood.

The picture someone posted here of that incident at a lunch counter while saying it appeared people did not remember the past -completely failed to mention that incident took place BECAUSE of the decision to use the power of government to FORCE people to use their private property as others saw fit. The way it was posted suggests the legislation was used to prevent such incidents when in fact it CAUSED them. It CAUSED the murders of civil rights workers, it CAUSED people to try and block doorways of schools to prevent blacks from entering and it CAUSED increased violence against blacks. Using the power of government to FORCE people to do something against their will in the stupid belief it would also force people to change their opinions -actually CAUSED violence and deaths when if we had used the power of FREEDOM instead, it would have taken a bit longer but without first increasing the ugliness of racism in this way AND that result would actually be on much firmer and more durable grounds because changing the opinion would have accompanied the change in behavior at the same time since it was voluntarily CHOSEN -not forced. And it is possible that the intensity of racism would be even less than exists today because of it. FORCE does not get a better result than what is voluntarily CHOSEN and using the power of freedom can and has been used to encourage others to a particular choice -without force. The reason the left wants to use the force of law instead of the power of freedom is because they want what they want right NOW and are unwilling to take the time and effort required to use the power of freedom instead. Instead they want the quick fix of government FORCING people against their will -and turning a blind eye to the unsatisfactory result that will only slowly improve than would have occurred with the use of freedom instead. We got the LAW faster, but not the desired outcome faster because using the force of government can never force people to change their opinions. It ended up increasing violence against the very people the law was intended to better protect.

Using the power of government to force on people what others want them to do instead of using the power of freedom to get them to realize the benefits of voluntarily CHOOSING to do it -all too often turns people into troglodytes and barbarians instead of mature people capable of accepting what is now expected of them by SOCIETY -not forced on them against their will by government.

 

[Lumpy 1]

I just watched a Rachel Maddow I had recorded where she interviewed both Rand Paul and Sestak.

She really pounded on Rand and after it was over, Sestak came on and she asked him whether he wished he was running against Rand.. He said yeaaahhh.

Rand has said before that he supports private business the right to discriminate but that he thought people would rise up against this type of business and it wouldn't exist anyway. I don't think he's racist, I believe he is for civil rights and personal freedoms. If you accept personal freedoms for yourself, you also need to accept it for everyone, even racists.

Rand can never justify that one point so he's gonna have a tough time.

I liked your post but being a tad dull tonight, I'm unsure of your statement (Rand can never justify that one point so he's gonna have a tough time)

The point where he says it's ok for private business to discriminate. It was a mistake to even bring it up. It is explosive and his opponent is going to relentlessly beat him up with it.

Rand says he agrees with 9 out of 10 points in the civil rights bill. That one point he disagrees with is going to hurt him.

The only counterpoint that I can find, if your interest is the election, is that the Democrats jumped the gun and played this card too early. They normally wait until closer to the election and it's proven far more effective. Rand has time to pull some rabbits out of the hat, perhaps even twist it to his advantage, have an epiphany.. who knows.. and diffuse the situation.

 

[paperview]

Just as anyone could deny anyone entry to their home or land for any reason, someone should be able to deny someone entry to their business for any reason. Private property is private property. Racism is a horrible thing, but people have the right to be racist. As for the Civil Rights Act in the here and now, that's not what's keeping us from devolving into a racist mass that segregates society. Attitudes have changed, if somebody tried to make their store "white only" then they'd inevitably be forced out of business by people refusing to shop there out of disgust.

It looks like there are plenty of people who'd be happy to enter businesses who discriminate against Mexicans for example.

How would you like to be on a long road trip and be refused entry to the rest areas? No where to go to the bathroom for example? No where to get some food along the way. Do you think America should be a place that allows this?

Do you think I should be able to stop at a perfect stranger's house and demand to use their bathroom? Private property is private property.

A business who opens their doors to the public is not private property like a home.

I know you know this. Why do you repeatedly make silly invalid comparisons?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It looks like there are plenty of people who'd be happy to enter businesses who discriminate against Mexicans for example.

How would you like to be on a long road trip and be refused entry to the rest areas? No where to go to the bathroom for example? No where to get some food along the way. Do you think America should be a place that allows this?

Do you think I should be able to stop at a perfect stranger's house and demand to use their bathroom? Private property is private property.

A business who opens their doors to the public is not private property like a home.

I know you know this. Why do you repeatedly make silly invalid comparisons?

So ownership of business is less than ownership of a home simply because you're "open to the public?" I know that many people believe this, but I reject it. I reject it because the term "open to the public" simply means that there is an implied invitation for people to come into your business and purchase your goods or services. If you're discriminating against a certain segment of society then that invitation towards those people obviously does not exist, and since it is their property I see no reason why a person can't invite whoever they wish onto it.

 

[paperview]

Do you think I should be able to stop at a perfect stranger's house and demand to use their bathroom? Private property is private property.

A business who opens their doors to the public is not private property like a home.

I know you know this. Why do you repeatedly make silly invalid comparisons?

So ownership of business is less than ownership of a home simply because you're "open to the public?" I know that many people believe this, but I reject it. I reject it because the term "open to the public" simply means that there is an implied invitation for people to come into your business and purchase your goods or services. If you're discriminating against a certain segment of society then that invitation towards those people obviously does not exist, and since it is their property I see no reason why a person can't invite whoever they wish onto it.

It's not "less" or "more" - but it is different. When you are open to the public, engaging in commerce with that public, there are, and have always been, different rules than for your private abode.

Kevin, in the Civil War threads, after much time and debate, I have given you the benefit of the doubt your neo-confederate sympathies were simply based on constitutional grounds; your recent forays into the Civil Rights Act aversions lead me to believe my initial conceptions about you may have been correct however.

Sadly.

What I am gathering from you now is you are more than content to return to these days:

 

[Ravi]

I don't think Kevin wants that. I also don't believe he's a racist. I do believe he is misguided when he elevates the rights of a business above the rights of an individual.

As far as I can tell the constitution is not about guaranteeing rights to business.

I think a business can and should be allowed to do whatever it wants as long as it does not violate someone's civil rights or cause harm to the populace.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Uh look up the two words "opinion" and "fact" and the try to see which definition truly applies to your statements.

You presented an OPINION that is only supported by your OPINON and then tried to claim it is fact when it is NOT. Please learn that there is a difference between your OPINIONS and the FACTS.

It is a fact left to their own devices people will indeed segregate themselves, It's human nature to be with those like yourself.

That is YOUR OPINION and to substantiate your opinion you are trying to use the general definition of segregation instead of the definition that actually applies to this argument.

People forming cliques with others who share similarites has NO bearing on the segregation that is being discussed in the thread. But thanks for being completely intellectually dishonest.

That's your opinion, I'm telling you that it's human nature for like people to group together especially along racial and ethnic lines and that is a fact.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I asked this earlier, but no one was able to answer it:

Do laws against sexual harassment that apply to private businesses infringe on employer/employee rights?

Stupid question, if you really have to ask that then you are truly a dumbass.

I noticed you still do not answer the question.


Do they or do they not? If so, why or why not?

I didn't answer the question because it was an asinine question. That would be like asking if murdering someone in you own home is infringing on your property rights. Applying the law does not infringe on anyones rights for the simple fact that infringing on someones rights is in itself illegal.