Rand Paul, racist and tea party supporter, has mysteriously changed his position on

  • Thread starter Thread starter 7960
  • Start date Start date
In other words that makes him an unrealistic, ideological crack pot. Like his father.
 
must say i was shocked as i watched on maddow while he steadily took his overwhelming campaign and imo threw his incumbent campaign down the crapper in his attempt to philosophically degenerate the gains that have been made in civil rights by returning us to a legally divided country once again.

as for his argument that private businesses have every right to determine who they will and will not do business is legally unfounded. the federal government, through proving that interstate commerce has taken place involving the given private business, provides government ample legal footing to "influence" the scope of people the business serves. unless the business owner can prove that all materials used in their business came from within the state, they have little say about who they will do business with.

if you see loop holes in this argument, i welcome your clarifying tid bits. there are always complicated details involving the law; my aim was to sketch a picture of what is wrong with Dr. Paul's argument, not create a detailed masterpiece that accounts for every imaginable detail.
 
Well, since he has very clearly pointed out, even to the less advantaged intellectuially, that he was foursquare against Jim Crowe laws, you obviously aren't referring to Paul. As it relates to private business, that was yet another government imposition on freedom when businesses were required to forbid blacks and whites mixing.

I believe another Paul will be very beneficial to the legislative process. Constitutional positions are needed.
 
to discriminate based on whether someone can pay or not is the only scenario i can imagine the government allowing.
 
I understand he is 100% against the Jim Crowe laws. I do not for a moment believe he is racists. I do believe he is an idealists.

Agree to disagree.

Respect.
 
let me clarify:

pro private property rights is the same as being racist

if those pro private property rights allow discrimination that is manifested based on race

the kicker of the debate is how the discrimination is manifested
 
appeal to emotion

so basically your argument is "since something in the store comes from another state, the federal govt has the right to enforce interstate commerce rules/laws which include forcing a business to serve anyone"?



I see flaws in yours.

the govt shouldn't be forcing private business to accommodate anyone....not because of color, or handicap, or gender...nothing. if someone wants to have an 8" step to get in the only 17" front door for their "cafe for skinny non-handicapped people" then i hope someone comes along next door and opens a handicapped-accessible cafe with wide doors for fat people and puts them out of business. but the govt shouldn't be doing it.
 
it's hard to not authorize what is coming out of one's own mouth.
he said that a private business person should be a allowed to discriminate who they do business with. he finds the fact that the 1964 civil rights act does not allow a private business complete control/ownership to be a direct violation of the rights of the privatized business. the simple fact remains that to neglect regulation of business at all, leads to the slippery slope of negative outcomes for society as a whole. this all based on what i witnessed on the maddow show last night.
 
I can't say I respect your position, because it is obviously on the level of EC, which we all realize is brainless trolling. It's unfortunate you have come to emulate him.
 
I'm going to do tom a favor and tell you to fuck off, because he's too nice a guy to do it. What a piece of shit you are. Get any douchier and you'll be a Rand Paul level douche.
 
wtf.

how is it unrealistic? why should the govt have a say in whether I allow smoking in my bar? or whether I have a handicapped-accessible bathroom? or whether I will serve food to white people?
 
How can you call a society free if a group of people aren't allowed to spend their money in places just on the basis of their skin?

You can associate with anyone you want. You can also choose not to associate with anyone you want as well. But unless it is in a private club, if commerce is being engaged in you can not nor should you be able to discriminate based on one's color.
 
What does the commerce clause have to do with deciding how a private business runs it's affairs in terms of discrimination?
 
So hang on a second...you feel you are in a free society if I am not allowed to exclude you from my own business establishment? I would do it on the basis that I dislike male nurses.
 
The government interfering in the business decisions of companies leads to the slippery slope of negative outcomes. I'm not sure what the long term negative outcome of letting businesses serve whom they choose would be.
 
please read AND UNDERSTAND what you're replying to before you hit reply.

the quote I WAS DISCUSSING did not come from his own mouth, it came from a spokesperson.

nobody said there should be no regulation of business at all.

again, either read and understand and accurately portray the argument, or leave.
 
Back
Top