So Rand Paul is against the Civil Rights Act?

[Stephanie]

just insanity....

no kidding. lefties dish it out daily.

no steffie, i'm talking about you.

seek help.

awww, I'm glad you care so much, jilly dear.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It makes him a complete fuck-up moron because he doesn't believe in equal employment opportunity.

Affrimative Action isn't equal opportunity you stupid fuck

I doubt you know what either are.

Wow great response....... for a 12 year old.

 

[Truthmatters]

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself."
Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC)

Excellent quote. That's why the Tea Party needs to be stopped. They want their country back? Who says it's "their" country? It's all of ours. They say they want to go back to the good old days, but "good old days" for whom? There are many for whom today is much better than those days. I don't believe in living in the past. I guess that makes me a progressive!

I want my country to move forward and they want their country Back.

How I wish everyone took the time to KNOW why and how things work.

They jsut want to go back to an imagined time when they didnt have to think.

 

[Conservationist]

I want my country to move forward and they want their country Back.

How I wish everyone took the time to KNOW why and how things work.

They jsut want to go back to an imagined time when they didnt have to think.

America is different countries.

Liberals need one, conservatives need another.

The two views are incompatible.

 

[Stephanie]

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself."
Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC)

Excellent quote. That's why the Tea Party needs to be stopped. They want their country back? Who says it's "their" country? It's all of ours. They say they want to go back to the good old days, but "good old days" for whom? There are many for whom today is much better than those days. I don't believe in living in the past. I guess that makes me a progressive!

I want my country to move forward and they want their country Back.

How I wish everyone took the time to KNOW why and how things work.

They jsut want to go back to an imagined time when they didnt have to think.

barfer my dear.
the American people aren't as stupid as you lefties make them out to be, and I think most don't want what you Progressive are selling as, moving forward.
but don't let that stop you all from calling them all dumb, stupid, rednecks.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

In that same interview he said he wanted to get rid of the EPA. I guess because environmental issues aren't a national concern. Maybe he should put out a statement to all his followers who are also attacking the Obama administration for not doing enough about the oil spill; maybe he can explain to them that pollution is not the federal government's problem.

What part of the constitution states that the government is responsible for the environment?

The Congress's power to regulate pollutants derives from the Commerce clause.

It does? Perhaps you can point out the specific text that grants the federal government that power.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

 

[Immanuel]

For the record, being opposed to government interference in private affairs in no way signifies either acceptance or approval of segregation or racism. It appears to me that you must be taking the man's statements out of context... go figure!

Just as I can oppose President Obama's plans to take over the Health Insurance industry yet still be in favor of reform of the industry, I can be opposed to government mandates regarding forcing business to do business with people that they don't want to do business with.

That being said, I have mixed feelings about what I understand Rand Paul said. I have not yet listened to the video. I would like to believe that Americans have gotten passed our racism of the past and we would welcome anyone of any color into our places of business. Unfortunately, I don't believe that. I would also like to think that if some moron owned a place of business, say a restaurant, and refused to serve people of a different color, that the rest of us, would cease our patronage of the business until he went out of business. In other words, that the free market would rectify the situation. I am certain we are not there yet and I'm not certain we ever will be.

Something had to be done when the Civil Rights Act finally passed. To date we have not reached the ideal of the color blind society. So, whether I think the government should mind its own business or not, I certainly do not think we could eliminate the laws that provide for equal treatment of the races (or sexual preferences for that matter) either and actually continue to treat other people the way we would expect them to treat us.

Racism and segregation are wrong. It is a shame that we as Americans have not yet figured that out.

I would like to think we are better people than we really are.

Immie

 

[NYcarbineer]

For the record, being opposed to government interference in private affairs in no way signifies either acceptance or approval of segregation or racism. It appears to me that you must be taking the man's statements out of context... go figure!

That's nonsense. If you believe that a business has the right to discriminate based on race, you are accepting segregation or racism in business.

 

[Immanuel]

For the record, being opposed to government interference in private affairs in no way signifies either acceptance or approval of segregation or racism. It appears to me that you must be taking the man's statements out of context... go figure!

That's nonsense. If you believe that a business has the right to discriminate based on race, you are accepting segregation or racism in business.

Nonsense.

Believing that government has no right to force private business to do anything has nothing to do with believing that racism is wrong.

You are wrong... period.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

For the record, being opposed to government interference in private affairs in no way signifies either acceptance or approval of segregation or racism. It appears to me that you must be taking the man's statements out of context... go figure!

That's nonsense. If you believe that a business has the right to discriminate based on race, you are accepting segregation or racism in business.

I can believe that the business is wrong and has the right to be wrong.

Just as I believe that you as a liberal are wrong, yet, you have the right to be wrong.

And another thing: I don't grant it the right to discriminate. I simply believe that it is we, the customers, who have the right and obligation to enforce our beliefs rather than the Nanny State.

Immie

 

[NYcarbineer]

is there any part of "the guberment" that you don't worship?
man you lefties can't seem to live your lives unless you have a friggen nanny.

There it is people. Conservatism reduced to its essence. If you want a government that works to keep your environment clean, that goes after polluters, then you're a gubmint worshipper.

like I said, can you not make a FREE choice to help keep your environment clean without someone telling you to do it or expecting a part of a guberment body forcing people in what to do?. good gawd, do you people ever think freely for yourselves.

I just heard a news report that the EPA just ordered British Petroleum to use a less toxic dispersant on the oil spill. In your world, no one would have the authority to tell BP any such thing.

I wish Republicans would run on that principle...

...oh wait, they are! At least the ones the Tea Partiers most ardently support...

 

[NYcarbineer]

like I said, can you not make a FREE choice to help keep your environment clean without someone telling you to do it or expecting a part of a guberment body forcing people in what to do?. good gawd, do you people ever think freely for yourselves.

I like how you call polluting the air other people breathe and the water other people drink "free thinking". Its so retarded its cute.

LOL, oh I forget, it's you Liberals who care about the water, the earth, the air, the sun, hell I'm sure even the moon.

but the hell with them little babies that are "aborted" day in and day out.

Jeezus. Stupid and breathtakingly unattractive. You really have it going for yourself.

 

[NYcarbineer]

For the record, being opposed to government interference in private affairs in no way signifies either acceptance or approval of segregation or racism. It appears to me that you must be taking the man's statements out of context... go figure!

That's nonsense. If you believe that a business has the right to discriminate based on race, you are accepting segregation or racism in business.

I can believe that the business is wrong and has the right to be wrong.

Just as I believe that you as a liberal are wrong, yet, you have the right to be wrong.

And another thing: I don't grant it the right to discriminate. I simply believe that it is we, the customers, who have the right and obligation to enforce our beliefs rather than the Nanny State.

Immie

What if a black man's belief is that he ought to have the right to patronize a business, and the owner tells him he doesn't serve *******?

It's nanny statism to tell that business owner otherwise?

 

[NYcarbineer]

And dang it, the Tea Partiers came THAT CLOSE!!!! to convincing me they weren't racist.

Missed by THAT much!!!!

 

[Modbert]

Legally, people should have a right to refuse service to whomever they want and refuse to hire whomever they want. However, those same businesses should also make it well-known to their customers who exactly they refuse to hire. May it be someone of a certain age, race, religion, etc. We'll see how fast they stay in business.

Morally, racism is wrong and the Civil Rights Act was made in a time where racism was widely accepted. It's a reflection upon the time, and that should be noted before people go ahead and bash it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

That's nonsense. If you believe that a business has the right to discriminate based on race, you are accepting segregation or racism in business.

I can believe that the business is wrong and has the right to be wrong.

Just as I believe that you as a liberal are wrong, yet, you have the right to be wrong.

And another thing: I don't grant it the right to discriminate. I simply believe that it is we, the customers, who have the right and obligation to enforce our beliefs rather than the Nanny State.

Immie

What if a black man's belief is that he ought to have the right to patronize a business, and the owner tells him he doesn't serve *******?

It's nanny statism to tell that business owner otherwise?

No it's the black man's right to take his business somewhere else.

 

[Immanuel]

That's nonsense. If you believe that a business has the right to discriminate based on race, you are accepting segregation or racism in business.

I can believe that the business is wrong and has the right to be wrong.

Just as I believe that you as a liberal are wrong, yet, you have the right to be wrong.

And another thing: I don't grant it the right to discriminate. I simply believe that it is we, the customers, who have the right and obligation to enforce our beliefs rather than the Nanny State.

Immie

What if a black man's belief is that he ought to have the right to patronize a business, and the owner tells him he doesn't serve *******?

It's nanny statism to tell that business owner otherwise?

Did you read my entire first post or just the first paragraph?

I'm guessing you simply read the first paragraph and then decided to jump down my throat as so many people do.

I believe the man in question has every right to patronize that place of business. I do not believe the owner has the right to tell him he will not serve him because of his color. I also believe that his other customers should cease patronizing him.

However, since you did not read the entire first post, let me re-iterate the point I made initially:

Something had to be done when the Civil Rights Act finally passed. To date we have not reached the ideal of the color blind society. So, whether I think the government should mind its own business or not, I certainly do not think we could eliminate the laws that provide for equal treatment of the races (or sexual preferences for that matter) either and actually continue to treat other people the way we would expect them to treat us.

I do not like the government dictating all aspects of our lives, but there are times when some action needs to be taken to rectify wrongs and this would be one of those times.

Immie

 

[Granny]

Anything public funded he said he supports. He said Private business owners should be able to hire who they choose. It's called freedom of choice. Remember that one fuckO? ~BH

Go back and listen. He said it's a poor business decision to exclude someone from your restaurant, but he hated telling someone they couldn't do it. What do you think that means? And he wasn't talking about just restaurants, obviously.

Did that really need to be explained? Oh wait, you're confederate. Do you have the tats?

I did listen dick Lip. He spent most of the time talking bad about racism. He was honest because he doesn't want the Government telling people what they can or can't do with their business. It's not about race you dumb shits.

Tats? No not my thing. Never really found one that I would want to look at for the rest of my life anyway. A Confederate? Are you fucking stupid? While I do support States rights, I am a Yankee from occupied California.

Let me make this clear you fucks, You guys want to make it about race. I personally don't believe that anyone should not get a job because of the color of their skin, but some other reasons should be left up to the private owner. ~BH

Agreed. One TINY blurb is all that was brought up in the OP. Someone didn't listen to the surrounding words that put Rand's statements into context.

It's probably already been addressed here early on, but PUBLIC pertains only to governmental entities, whether local, state, or federal. PRIVATE means just that - it means some private citizen(s) own a particular entity. Just because they are "open to the public" does not make restaurants, grocery stores, gas stations, hotels, etc. "public."

Private entities should be able to hire whoever they want, black, white, or purple. Right now they have to hire a certain number of whatever race in order to meet all the quotas necessary. People should be hired on the basis of education, experience, their demeanor, presentation of themselves at an interview and other such factors - and race quotas should not even enter the picture.

 

[rightwinger]

For the record, being opposed to government interference in private affairs in no way signifies either acceptance or approval of segregation or racism. It appears to me that you must be taking the man's statements out of context... go figure!

That's nonsense. If you believe that a business has the right to discriminate based on race, you are accepting segregation or racism in business.

I can believe that the business is wrong and has the right to be wrong.

Just as I believe that you as a liberal are wrong, yet, you have the right to be wrong.

And another thing: I don't grant it the right to discriminate. I simply believe that it is we, the customers, who have the right and obligation to enforce our beliefs rather than the Nanny State.

Immie

And another thing: I don't grant it the right to discriminate. I simply believe that it is we, the customers, who have the right and obligation to enforce our beliefs rather than the Nanny State.

Here is where you are wrong. In the case of segregation, it was the customers enforcing their racist beliefs that they did not want to eat with Ni**ers. Businesess gave in to the larger customer base and refused service to blacks.

That is why the Nanny State had to step in

 

[NYcarbineer]

I can believe that the business is wrong and has the right to be wrong.

Just as I believe that you as a liberal are wrong, yet, you have the right to be wrong.

And another thing: I don't grant it the right to discriminate. I simply believe that it is we, the customers, who have the right and obligation to enforce our beliefs rather than the Nanny State.

Immie

What if a black man's belief is that he ought to have the right to patronize a business, and the owner tells him he doesn't serve *******?

It's nanny statism to tell that business owner otherwise?

Did you read my entire first post or just the first paragraph?

I'm guessing you simply read the first paragraph and then decided to jump down my throat as so many people do.

I believe the man in question has every right to patronize that place of business. I do not believe the owner has the right to tell him he will not serve him because of his color. I also believe that his other customers should cease patronizing him.

However, since you did not read the entire first post, let me re-iterate the point I made initially:

Something had to be done when the Civil Rights Act finally passed. To date we have not reached the ideal of the color blind society. So, whether I think the government should mind its own business or not, I certainly do not think we could eliminate the laws that provide for equal treatment of the races (or sexual preferences for that matter) either and actually continue to treat other people the way we would expect them to treat us.

I do not like the government dictating all aspects of our lives, but there are times when some action needs to be taken to rectify wrongs and this would be one of those times.

Immie

I read the last line of your post:

I simply believe that it is we, the customers, who have the right and obligation to enforce our beliefs rather than the Nanny State.

That means, as stated, that you do not believe the state has the right to enforce anti-discriimination measures, such as the right of a business to refuse to serve people of color.
If you're backtracking now, fine, but I can go by what you say.