I'm glad Rand Paul said it...

[Lonestar_logic]

Spoken like a true segregationalist....Bull Connor would be proud

You can ignore the facts, we all already know you're an ignorant fuck.

Go to any lunchroom and see for yourself or perhaps visit a prison and see how each race segregates themselves. You have nothing but opinions while I have facts on my side.

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.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

I believe the line is already drawn. Nothing prevents one from holding a party and inviting who they please for whatever reason they please. But if one opens their business doors to the public (or offer their house up for sale), then it is simply the case that one person's money is as good as any other's.

That is determined by the person who owns the property. Sorry you have no say what other people do with their property.

So.............

I can kill someone on my property?

 

[Oscar Wao]

I believe the line is already drawn. Nothing prevents one from holding a party and inviting who they please for whatever reason they please. But if one opens their business doors to the public (or offer their house up for sale), then it is simply the case that one person's money is as good as any other's.

That is determined by the person who owns the property. Sorry you have no say what other people do with their property.

So.............

I can kill someone on my property?

You're taking away their life. Completely different topic.

 

[paperview]

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?

 

[geauxtohell]

Gee, I already miss the good old message board days when conservatives were constantly trying to blame opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act on liberals because of all those Southern Democrats that voted against it.

Now, most amusingly, we're finding how many conservatives actually AGREED with those Southern Democrats.

I guess when I told you people, REPEATEDLY, that those Southern Democrats were actually conservatives...

...oh well, you get the point.

Are the Teabaggers a reincarnation of the Dixiecrats?

Maybe "Segregation now, segregation forever!" should be their war cry.

 

[drsmith1072]

I agree, liberals don't understand what freedom really means. They want everyone to think and act the way they do. They're all about freedom of choice unless it's a choice they don't like.

Is that why the right is NOT expunging the more moderate republicans from the party and are so accepting of those who have differing opinons?? Oh wait, that is exactly the OPPOSITE of what the right is actually doing right now. LOL

Do you live in the real world or do you just make things up as you go along??

No, but apparently you do.

really?? what did i make up?? Please explain??

let's see, republicans are going with more rightwing candidates and voting out moderates (or RiNOs) which shows that "they want everyone to think and act the ay they do" so what did i make up?

In contrast to your argument the left has shown itself to be more accepting of dissenting voices and that is one reason the helthcare bill took so long to pass. So based on that your spin would seem to be wrong.

Furthermore the last few times i can think of it was the right who tried to get the federal government to intervene in other people's lives and force their rightwing views of "freedom" (or denial of freedom) onto others, for example the defense of marriage act and terri schiavo.

 

[geauxtohell]

Gee, I already miss the good old message board days when conservatives were constantly trying to blame opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act on liberals because of all those Southern Democrats that voted against it.

Now, most amusingly, we're finding how many conservatives actually AGREED with those Southern Democrats.

I guess when I told you people, REPEATEDLY, that those Southern Democrats were actually conservatives...

...oh well, you get the point.

Yeppers, indeed.

Who woulda thunk it.

The "future of the Republican party" turns out to be Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrats of 1948....

Dammit. Paperview always beats me to the witticisms.

 

[Samson]

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.

So it's OK to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater? By approving racist behaviour, you sow the seeds for dissension.

He also supports smoker's rights. And admitted that has been working. But he said he didn't like being told he couldn't smoke. What about the cost to society? What about my rights? I don't like the smell.

Carry it one step further. I don't like being told I can't drive at 125 mph. Or that my kid has to ride in a "safety seat".

For most of history, marriage has been a contract to consolidate wealth or power. Tell the truth now. Lying is unbecoming.

So are strawmen. For christssakes rdean, can you stay on topic for more than a page?

Unhappily, there was no quote in the OP, and a link to it, to explain WTF Rand Paul said:

I don't like the idea of telling private business owners - I abhor racism - I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time I do believe in private ownership.

But I think there should be absolutely no discrimination on anything that gets any public funding and that's most of what the Civil Rights Act was about to my mind

Who could possibly misconstrue the quote?

MSNBC and the Huffington Post find it "just stunning."

Frankly, I find it "Just stunning" that anyone other than rdean could twist this into 'it would be OK for Woolworth's to deny service to MLK.' CLEARLY, Paul says, racism is bad in and of itself, and it is bad business, and therefore it would BAD, not OK, for Woolworth's to deny MLK service.

I hope Rand Paul gets better at these interviews, and stops allowing the interviewers to twist him up.

 

[paperview]

Gee, I already miss the good old message board days when conservatives were constantly trying to blame opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act on liberals because of all those Southern Democrats that voted against it.

Now, most amusingly, we're finding how many conservatives actually AGREED with those Southern Democrats.

I guess when I told you people, REPEATEDLY, that those Southern Democrats were actually conservatives...

...oh well, you get the point.

Are the Teabaggers a reincarnation of the Dixiecrats?

Maybe "Segregation now, segregation forever!" should be their war cry.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I believe the line is already drawn. Nothing prevents one from holding a party and inviting who they please for whatever reason they please. But if one opens their business doors to the public (or offer their house up for sale), then it is simply the case that one person's money is as good as any other's.

That is determined by the person who owns the property. Sorry you have no say what other people do with their property.

So.............

I can kill someone on my property?

Yes, under the Castle Law you have the legal right to use deadly force.

Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used.

In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

• An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
• The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
• The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
• The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
• The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
• The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)

 

[paperview]

Gee, I already miss the good old message board days when conservatives were constantly trying to blame opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act on liberals because of all those Southern Democrats that voted against it.

Now, most amusingly, we're finding how many conservatives actually AGREED with those Southern Democrats.

I guess when I told you people, REPEATEDLY, that those Southern Democrats were actually conservatives...

...oh well, you get the point.

Yeppers, indeed.

Who woulda thunk it.

The "future of the Republican party" turns out to be Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrats of 1948....

Dammit. Paperview always beats me to the witticisms.

Great minds...

 

[geauxtohell]

That is determined by the person who owns the property. Sorry you have no say what other people do with their property.

So.............

I can kill someone on my property?

You're taking away their life. Completely different topic.

People here seem to think that personal property rights (which I guess they are also equating to first amendment rights) are paramount.

It's obviously not the case.

Rand Paul is going to do a great job of turning off every American who was interested in what the Tea Party stood but were on the fence about supporting it.

But hey, he's a "Paul", so the Paul people will support him no matter what crazy things he says.

 

[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.

 

[maineman]

so lonestar...if a person owns property and decides to open a restaurant on that property, does he, or does he not, in your opinion, have the right to determine who he serves at his restaurant?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Is that why the right is NOT expunging the more moderate republicans from the party and are so accepting of those who have differing opinons?? Oh wait, that is exactly the OPPOSITE of what the right is actually doing right now. LOL

Do you live in the real world or do you just make things up as you go along??

No, but apparently you do.

really?? what did i make up?? Please explain??

let's see, republicans are going with more rightwing candidates and voting out moderates (or RiNOs) which shows that "they want everyone to think and act the ay they do" so what did i make up?

In contrast to your argument the left has shown itself to be more accepting of dissenting voices and that is one reason the helthcare bill took so long to pass. So based on that your spin would seem to be wrong.

Furthermore the last few times i can think of it was the right who tried to get the federal government to intervene in other people's lives and force their rightwing views of "freedom" (or denial of freedom) onto others, for example the defense of marriage act and terri schiavo.

Everything you post is made up.

 

[geauxtohell]

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?

Absolutely not. It's private property!

You can also determine that you are base salary solely on gender, race, or sexual orientation.

"The Teabaggers, repealing 50 years of progress one law at a time."

 

[Oscar Wao]

So.............

I can kill someone on my property?

You're taking away their life. Completely different topic.

People here seem to think that personal property rights (which I guess they are also equating to first amendment rights) are paramount.

It's obviously not the case.

Rand Paul is going to do a great job of turning off every American who was interested in what the Tea Party stood but were on the fence about supporting it.

But hey, he's a "Paul", so the Paul people will support him no matter what crazy things he says.

Unless you are killing someone for the "right" reason, such as intent to use deadly force, taking a life is not a "right" on your property.

And the last sentence is the same talking point the neocons use.

And the only people who would be turned off are those who are offended at every little comment and don't look into matters further for themselves.

 

[drsmith1072]

You can ignore the facts, we all already know you're an ignorant fuck.

Go to any lunchroom and see for yourself or perhaps visit a prison and see how each race segregates themselves. You have nothing but opinions while I have facts on my side.

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.

 

[geauxtohell]

And the only people who would be turned off are those who are offended at every little comment and don't look into matters further for themselves.

I couldn't disagree more. I predict pictures of segregated lunch counters are going to start getting heavy play. It's no longer just minorities and civil rights activists who find that concept abhorrent.

You guys are so fucking screwed...............

 

[Oscar Wao]

Well, we have to ask those from Kentucky 5 1/2 months from now, won't we?

Remember, Kentucky usually manages to go Republican, despite its having more registered Democrats by default.

I'm from Indiana. What I think about RP is nil.