I'm glad Rand Paul said it...

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This is very awesome. So why, again, were all you people pretending not to be racist?

Saying that people should be free to be racist on their own property doesn't make somebody racist.

 

[jillian]

A person's freedom to enter into a facility ends at the tip of the facilities's owners nose.

not when that facility owner is licensed to do business by the state, nutter.

Which is part of the problem.

yeah, because it's better when a restaurant can serve you month old meat that hasn't been refrigerated and is e-coli ridden.

yeppers.

*that* isn't part of the problem... the problem is people who can't tell the difference between when government is useful and when it isn't.

and the same loons who think government has no right to tell you that you can't segregate your lunch counter will tell you it's ok to tell women what to do with their own bodies or deny gays equal rights.

warped.

 

[paperview]

This is very awesome. So why, again, were all you people pretending not to be racist?

If it wasn't for those brave and noble republicans, we wunnta gotten the Civil Rights Act passed ya know!

 

[ihopehefails]

third grade? Then you are as stupid as I thought.

Where do you live? In Iowa?

You damn sure don't live in a southern state. If you do then I would say you're a lying piece of liberalist shit.

ah... i think you might have put your finger on it. you're in a 'southern state'. does it dawn on you that racism is passed down from generation to generation to generation and that someone who's heard his daddy call black people '*******' all his/her life isn't going to want to hang out with them and someone who's gotten the opportunity to see the good ole boys in the white sheets and maybe who's daddy told them about lynchings because some black kid made the mistake of looking at a white girl.. .maybe won't feel comfortable around white people.

you're right about prisons, though. prison culture is very segregated...

of course, perhaps you don't want to take your social cues from the lowest elements of society.

My father has never referred to blacks by that term and if you think that racism is just a southern thing and that those in the northern states have never called anyone a ****** or that blacks weren't taught at an early age about guys in white sheets then you are both naive and stupid.

It always gets me how people in the north condemn people in the south for racism. I can say that people in the north are far more racist than people in the south and I can say that because I am from the west so I am a neatral observer. In my experience, people coming from northern states are intense racist because they come to my state and immediatly point out how many mexicans are here as if that is a negative thing. I know a lot of hispanics live here but I feel insulted that people from other states can somehow think that is a negative.

I guess when you spend your entire life living in a self-rightious shield you never look at the man in the mirror very long which is probably why people in the north are intense racist.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

not when that facility owner is licensed to do business by the state, nutter.

Which is part of the problem.

yeah, because it's better when a restaurant can serve you month old meat that hasn't been refrigerated and is e-coli ridden.

yeppers.

*that* isn't part of the problem... the problem is people who can't tell the difference between when government is useful and when it isn't.

and the same loons who think government has no right to tell you that you can't segregate your lunch counter will tell you it's ok to tell women what to do with their own bodies or deny gays equal rights.

warped.

Of course, serving month old meat would be in the restaurant's best interest. Getting your customers sick and making it so they never come back to your restaurant would certainly be a genius business plan.

Abortion and allowing people to be racist aren't comparable in the least. Abortion has to do with whether the woman's right to her body trumps the right of the infant to its life, whereas racism is clear cut. The property owner should be able to deny entry to anyone that they don't want to on the basis of it being their property. Since this doesn't involve potentially killing somebody your analogy fails. As for gay rights, the government, once again, should not be involved in marriage in the first place. Allow the private religions to define marriage for themselves and the problem is solved.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I've been to my local school at lunchtime. There is no segregation.

And I speak to you at a level you appear to conduct yourself...somewhere around third grade.

third grade? Then you are as stupid as I thought.

Where do you live? In Iowa?

You damn sure don't live in a southern state. If you do then I would say you're a lying piece of liberalist shit.

Wow. I am totally surprised a southern stater sees segregation as a way of life.


Yeah. Just blown away by that.


LOL.

Rodkin and Wilson surveyed 757 kids at nine elementary schools scattered across central Illinois.The kids were quite young; most were in the third and fourth grades, with a handful in the second and fifth grades. This provided Rodkin and Wilson a chance to see how social forces interacted with racial identity at an early age, when it was still in the formation stage. While we think of popularity as a phenomenon of junior highs and high schools, it’s clearly measurable soon after elementary school begins.

The classrooms ranged in their diversity ─ in some, blacks were a small minority; in others, the clear majority. (Some of the classes also included Hispanic children; however, in their first analysis of the data, the scholars report only on the white and black children, since they make up most of the children surveyed.)

In each classroom, the researchers asked kids to name their best friends, to list who else was in their group of friends, and identify other kids who hung out in groups together. Then they asked kids to say who they liked to play with, who they didn't like. They got the lowdown on which kids in class were the most popular, and who were the outcasts. The kids told them who was really nice and helpful, and which kids were mean, spreading rumors or getting into fights all the time.

Importantly, none of Rodkin's questions had anything to do with the kids' race or ethnicity. There was nothing in study that should have primed the children to think about race ─ their own or the other kids. (The scholars learned the kids' ethnicity from school records; they didn't ask the kids.)

Nevertheless, the scholars are finding stunning racial patterns in the kids' responses.

They found that black kids who self-segregate ─ who only hang out with other blacks ─ are more popular than black kids who have white friends.

This means that an average black student could increase her popularity by hanging out with other black students. Meanwhile, if she chooses to have white friends, she could put her popularity at risk. Many kids don’t have the social capital or confidence to make this tradeoff.

When the scholars ran the analysis a second time,substituting how much kids were liked for how popular they were, a similar troubling pattern emerged. Black kids who self-segregated were liked by more black children. Having white friends decreased a black child’s “likeability” ─ at least in the eyes of other black children.

For white children, in contrast, self-segregating hurt their popularity.


By Third Grade, Black Students Who Self Segregate Are More Popular - NurtureShock Blog - Newsweek.com

You can see this self-segregation simply from looking at the living groups at MIT(Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Each dorm, fraternity, and sorority is known for its particular culture. These cultural distinctions can be obvious, as many of MIT’s racial and ethnic groups often choose to live in close proximity of one another. That being the case, they also exist in many slightly more subtle cases, such as socioeconomic and extra-curricular groups isolating themselves throughout campus. This is where the debate over the pro’s and con’s of self-segregation stems from. Is it a bad thing to choose to live near those people with whom you have things in common?
Diversity and self-segregation at MIT | MIT Inventing Our Future

This kind of blows a hole in the argument that self segregation only happens in the south.

 

[jillian]

Of course, serving month old meat would be in the restaurant's best interest. Getting your customers sick and making it so they never come back to your restaurant would certainly be a genius business plan.

Abortion and allowing people to be racist aren't comparable in the least. Abortion has to do with whether the woman's right to her body trumps the right of the infant to its life, whereas racism is clear cut. The property owner should be able to deny entry to anyone that they don't want to on the basis of it being their property. Since this doesn't involve potentially killing somebody your analogy fails. As for gay rights, the government, once again, should not be involved in marriage in the first place. Allow the private religions to define marriage for themselves and the problem is solved.

and after how many children die of e-coli does the restaurant act in its best intersts.

it doesn't work that way. thinking it does it naive to the nth degree.

the abortion issue has to do with WHEN does the governmental interest in protecting a potential life OUTWEIGH a woman's right to control her own body. Roe settled that issue and the loons still don't stop. BECAUSE THEY THINK GOVERNEMTN IS THERE TO DO ONLY WHAT THEY WANT IT TO DO.

why shouldn't government have anything to do with marriage when marriage is a creation of government and a means of disposing of property rights?

naive... unbelievably naive.

 

[ihopehefails]

This is very awesome. So why, again, were all you people pretending not to be racist?

If it wasn't for those brave and noble republicans, we wunnta gotten the Civil Rights Act passed ya know!

I wonder why it is illegal for private persons to discriminate against people of different races but then have the government turn around and issue tax breaks that also discriminate against people of different races such as white people, asians, and most non-black citizens?

 

[paperview]

This kind of blows a hole in the argument that self segregation only happens in the south.

It only blows a hole in it if I had actually said that.

The only blown hole is the one your diaper covers.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Fully one hundred years after the Civil War ended, it took a friggin Act of Congress to prohibit public establishments from discriminating, and the republicans parade all proud they helped to pass that legislation.

Now we get to the meat of the matter. Yup. They didn't reaaaalllly mean to do that.

Stings. Don't it boys?

And descrimination still exist.

And always will.

But, at long last, at least it is not institutionalized discrimination.

I'm gathering you are against the <sound republican trumpets> Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Am I right?

The only part that I have a problem with is Title II.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Of course, serving month old meat would be in the restaurant's best interest. Getting your customers sick and making it so they never come back to your restaurant would certainly be a genius business plan.

Abortion and allowing people to be racist aren't comparable in the least. Abortion has to do with whether the woman's right to her body trumps the right of the infant to its life, whereas racism is clear cut. The property owner should be able to deny entry to anyone that they don't want to on the basis of it being their property. Since this doesn't involve potentially killing somebody your analogy fails. As for gay rights, the government, once again, should not be involved in marriage in the first place. Allow the private religions to define marriage for themselves and the problem is solved.

and after how many children die of e-coli does the restaurant act in its best intersts.

it doesn't work that way. thinking it does it naive to the nth degree.

the abortion issue has to do with WHEN does the governmental interest in protecting a potential life OUTWEIGH a woman's right to control her own body. Roe settled that issue and the loons still don't stop. BECAUSE THEY THINK GOVERNEMTN IS THERE TO DO ONLY WHAT THEY WANT IT TO DO.

why shouldn't government have anything to do with marriage when marriage is a creation of government and a means of disposing of property rights?

naive... unbelievably naive.

Only in your hypothetical scenario does the restaurant use month old meat in the first place, however.

That's where the difference comes in on abortion, however. You think it's only a matter of when, whereas others would see it as a matter of if.

Marriage is a religious ceremony, the only part the government has to play is in defending the marriage contract. If the private religion wants to decide that two men or two women can get married then that's fine, all the government has to do is defend the contract that comes up. If the private religion decides that only a man and a woman can get married then the government's role remains the same.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

ah... i think you might have put your finger on it. you're in a 'southern state'. does it dawn on you that racism is passed down from generation to generation to generation and that someone who's heard his daddy call black people '*******' all his/her life isn't going to want to hang out with them and someone who's gotten the opportunity to see the good ole boys in the white sheets and maybe who's daddy told them about lynchings because some black kid made the mistake of looking at a white girl.. .maybe won't feel comfortable around white people.

you're right about prisons, though. prison culture is very segregated...

of course, perhaps you don't want to take your social cues from the lowest elements of society.

My father has never referred to blacks by that term and if you think that racism is just a southern thing and that those in the northern states have never called anyone a ****** or that blacks weren't taught at an early age about guys in white sheets then you are both naive and stupid.

It always gets me how people in the north condemn people in the south for racism. I can say that people in the north are far more racist than people in the south and I can say that because I am from the west so I am a neatral observer. In my experience, people coming from northern states are intense racist because they come to my state and immediatly point out how many mexicans are here as if that is a negative thing. I know a lot of hispanics live here but I feel insulted that people from other states can somehow think that is a negative.

I guess when you spend your entire life living in a self-rightious shield you never look at the man in the mirror very long which is probably why people in the north are intense racist.

I've lived in Oregon for a while and everyone seemed to be racist whites, blacks and hispanics alike. Being raised in Texas I learned to speak spanish about the same time I learned to speak english.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Of course, serving month old meat would be in the restaurant's best interest. Getting your customers sick and making it so they never come back to your restaurant would certainly be a genius business plan.

Abortion and allowing people to be racist aren't comparable in the least. Abortion has to do with whether the woman's right to her body trumps the right of the infant to its life, whereas racism is clear cut. The property owner should be able to deny entry to anyone that they don't want to on the basis of it being their property. Since this doesn't involve potentially killing somebody your analogy fails. As for gay rights, the government, once again, should not be involved in marriage in the first place. Allow the private religions to define marriage for themselves and the problem is solved.

and after how many children die of e-coli does the restaurant act in its best intersts.

it doesn't work that way. thinking it does it naive to the nth degree.

the abortion issue has to do with WHEN does the governmental interest in protecting a potential life OUTWEIGH a woman's right to control her own body. Roe settled that issue and the loons still don't stop. BECAUSE THEY THINK GOVERNEMTN IS THERE TO DO ONLY WHAT THEY WANT IT TO DO.

why shouldn't government have anything to do with marriage when marriage is a creation of government and a means of disposing of property rights?

naive... unbelievably naive.

E.coli still kills people so what exactly is the government doing to stop it? Your strawman is looking pretty weak.

 

[paperview]

And descrimination still exist.

And always will.

But, at long last, at least it is not institutionalized discrimination.

I'm gathering you are against the <sound republican trumpets> Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Am I right?

The only part that I have a problem with is Title II.

That's the part that prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment.

That's no small portion of it.

We'll put you down as being in favor of allowing legal discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Thanks!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

This kind of blows a hole in the argument that self segregation only happens in the south.

It only blows a hole in it if I had actually said that.

The only blown hole is the one your diaper covers.

I never said it was YOUR argument, I said in blows a hole in THE argument. And there ya go with another schoolyard insult. Lame..... really lame. You should really try to work on your insulting skills.

 

[Samson]

For white children, in contrast, self-segregating hurt their popularity.


Is it a bad thing to choose to live near those people with whom you have things in common?

Apparently, only for whites that are in public school?

These researchers were looking for something I suppose.

I've been in many more schools than the average American, most of whom only know the school they attended, and the schools their kids attended. From my observations, without exception, is that humans group together with other humans with similar interests, and this begins as soon as they are aware of other humans.


2nd grade:
Males sit together with Males (and they ALL HATE GURLS)

6th grade:
Hispanic males socialize with other Hispanic males (and they ALL FEAR GURLS)

12th grade
Mexican boys will eat not eat lunch with Honduran boys, but only with Mexican boys (and they ALL LURVE GURLS)

I could say the same for Females, Black Females, and Black Females from differing Social Strata.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

And always will.

But, at long last, at least it is not institutionalized discrimination.

I'm gathering you are against the <sound republican trumpets> Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Am I right?

The only part that I have a problem with is Title II.

That's the part that prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment.

That's no small portion of it.

We'll put you down as being in favor of allowing legal discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Thanks!

Why did you leave out "engaged in interstate commerce"?

Title II
Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."

I'd argue that not all establishments engage in "interstate commerce".

interstate commerce n. commercial trade, business, movement of goods or money, or transportation from one state to another, regulated by the federal government according to powers spelled out in Article I of the Constitution.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

For white children, in contrast, self-segregating hurt their popularity.


Is it a bad thing to choose to live near those people with whom you have things in common?

Apparently, only for whites that are in public school?

These researchers were looking for something I suppose.

I've been in many more schools than the average American, most of whom only know the school they attended, and the schools their kids attended. From my observations, without exception, is that humans group together with other humans with similar interests, and this begins as soon as they are aware of other humans.


2nd grade:
Males sit together with Males (and they ALL HATE GURLS)

6th grade:
Hispanic males socialize with other Hispanic males (and they ALL FEAR GURLS)

12th grade
Mexican boys will eat not eat lunch with Honduran boys, but only with Mexican boys (and they ALL LURVE GURLS)

I could say the same for Females, Black Females, and Black Females from differing Social Strata.

That's pretty much what my point was, people left to their own devices will self segregate.

 

[paperview]

The only part that I have a problem with is Title II.

That's the part that prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment.

That's no small portion of it.

We'll put you down as being in favor of allowing legal discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Thanks!

Why did you leave out "engaged in interstate commerce"?

Title II
Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."

I'd argue that not all establishments engage in "interstate commerce".

interstate commerce n. commercial trade, business, movement of goods or money, or transportation from one state to another, regulated by the federal government according to powers spelled out in Article I of the Constitution.

I suggest you look up Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964)

 

[drsmith1072]

Rand Paul is in deep doo doo.

I agree, just as the democrat who lied about his military service is in "deep doo doo" i think paul stepped in it too.

The sad thing is that defenders I saw on news programs last night were trying to define what the topics for the general would be and how he is going to try to focus the debate on those topics that he is most comfortable with.
That is just NOT realistic and i told a friend that here who is running as a tea party candidate for a local election. He is conservative fiscally but highly liberal socially and expects the debate to only be about what he believes are his strongest attributes while his "weaker" attributes for a tea party candidate won't be brought up. That is just not realistic.

Rand opened the door and now he has to deal with it and frankly on maddows program last night he didn't look like he could handle himself very well.