Poor Misunderstood Rand Paul....

[Pressing-On]

Statement by Rand Paul regarding interview:

"I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964."


"Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws."

"As I have said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts in the intervening years."

"My opponent's statement on MSNBC Wednesday that I favor repeal of the Civil Rights Act was irresponsible and knowingly false. I hope he will correct the record and retract his claims."

"The issue of civil rights is one with a tortured history in this country. We have made great strides, but there is still work to be done to ensure the great promise of Liberty is granted to all Americans."

"This much is clear: The federal government has far overreached in its power grabs. Just look at the recent national healthcare schemes, which my opponent supports. The federal government, for the first time ever, is mandating that individuals purchase a product. The federal government is out of control, and those who love liberty and value individual and state's rights must stand up to it."

"These attacks prove one thing for certain: the liberal establishment is desperate to keep leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign."

[Pressing-On]

Now they are trying to say he is against the Americans With Disabilities Act. Good grief. We aren't allowed to have some common sense to save money?!!!

Rand Paul's interview with NPR's All Things Considered last night was the first sign the the freshly-minted Kentucky Republican Senate nominee might have some explaining to do today. The blogosphere is already alight with Paul's interview with Rachel Maddow, but his interview on NPR shows that his libertarian views go deeper than just his take on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Speaking with NPR's Robert Siegel, Paul made the case for less federal involvement in workplace and environmental regulation, including his opposition to some components of the Americans With Disabilities Act. [...]


Here's the interview in a nutshell, from Paul's response to a question about whether or not he thinks the ADA is an example of federal "overreach":

"I think a lot of things could be handled locally," Paul told Siegel. "For example, I think that we should try to do everything we can to allow for people with disabilities and handicaps...I think if you have a two-story office and you hire someone who's handicapped, it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator. And I think when you get to solutions like that, the more local the better, and the more common sense the decisions are, rather than having a federal government make those decisions."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_583292.html

[Apocrypha]

Originally Posted by tstew

I'm confused. Is this about private companies hiring who they wish or refusing service to whom they wish based on ethnicity, etc...? In the former, qualifications and other things are certainly an issue. In the latter, I would think that the only qualification would be the ability to pay for the services.

The direction that Rand Paul comes from is essentially Libertarian. You have to understand WHO he thinks should regulate bad behavior, its not that he encourages the bad behavior, he just doesn't want governement to hold the stick when the business gets hit.. he wants the private market/individual consumers to do so by withholding their dollars.

In the libertarian universe, if someone wants to discriminate based on anything, they should be allowed to since its private business/private property.

HOWEVER, there is a steep punishment for that in the marketplace of dollars. A company that is friendly to everyone and goes out of their way to market their services to the maximum amount of customers will eventually put the smaller and more discriminatory company out of business if it is actually happening, and it actually is damaging.

You gotta realize that Rachel Maddow is gay. This is all a stalking horse to force business owners to be cool with hiring a tranny at the counter and having non-profits (which are incorporated as a type of business in most states) being forced to not discriminate against any minority group (which is now being pushed as the gay/lesbian/transgender/whatever groups). So when you preach on homosexuality in a church you are now in violation of "hate laws" like in Canada.

As a black man, if Walmart kicked you out because of your skin color, they would have a firestorm of bad publicity, it would cause them to lose dollars, and make Targets CEO shout "Praise the Lord". Plus they would have to put up with Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and everyone else picketing their front door as long as the TV cameras were there.

Rand Paul's real context is that the free market should decide, the government is free to regulate public institutions like schools, libraries, etc... but basically if a private business wants to force people to dress up as the easter bunny to enter their door, its their right, but if its a stupid move, the economic laws of darwin kick in eventually.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Apocrypha

The direction that Rand Paul comes from is essentially Libertarian. You have to understand WHO he thinks should regulate bad behavior, its not that he encourages the bad behavior, he just doesn't want governement to hold the stick when the business gets hit.. he wants the private market/individual consumers to do so by withholding their dollars.

In the libertarian universe, if someone wants to discriminate based on anything, they should be allowed to since its private business/private property.

HOWEVER, there is a steep punishment for that in the marketplace of dollars. A company that is friendly to everyone and goes out of their way to market their services to the maximum amount of customers will eventually put the smaller and more discriminatory company out of business if it is actually happening, and it actually is damaging.

You gotta realize that Rachel Maddow is gay. This is all a stalking horse to force business owners to be cool with hiring a tranny at the counter and having non-profits (which are incorporated as a type of business in most states) being forced to not discriminate against any minority group (which is now being pushed as the gay/lesbian/transgender/whatever groups). So when you preach on homosexuality in a church you are now in violation of "hate laws" like in Canada.

As a black man, if Walmart kicked you out because of your skin color, they would have a firestorm of bad publicity, it would cause them to lose dollars, and make Targets CEO shout "Praise the Lord". Plus they would have to put up with Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and everyone else picketing their front door as long as the TV cameras were there.

Rand Paul's real context is that the free market should decide, the government is free to regulate public institutions like schools, libraries, etc... but basically if a private business wants to force people to dress up as the easter bunny to enter their door, its their right, but if its a stupid move, the economic laws of darwin kick in eventually.

Good post!!!!!

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Apocrypha

The direction that Rand Paul comes from is essentially Libertarian. You have to understand WHO he thinks should regulate bad behavior, its not that he encourages the bad behavior, he just doesn't want governement to hold the stick when the business gets hit.. he wants the private market/individual consumers to do so by withholding their dollars.

In the libertarian universe, if someone wants to discriminate based on anything, they should be allowed to since its private business/private property.

HOWEVER, there is a steep punishment for that in the marketplace of dollars. A company that is friendly to everyone and goes out of their way to market their services to the maximum amount of customers will eventually put the smaller and more discriminatory company out of business if it is actually happening, and it actually is damaging.

You gotta realize that Rachel Maddow is gay. This is all a stalking horse to force business owners to be cool with hiring a tranny at the counter and having non-profits (which are incorporated as a type of business in most states) being forced to not discriminate against any minority group (which is now being pushed as the gay/lesbian/transgender/whatever groups). So when you preach on homosexuality in a church you are now in violation of "hate laws" like in Canada.

As a black man, if Walmart kicked you out because of your skin color, they would have a firestorm of bad publicity, it would cause them to lose dollars, and make Targets CEO shout "Praise the Lord". Plus they would have to put up with Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and everyone else picketing their front door as long as the TV cameras were there.

Rand Paul's real context is that the free market should decide, the government is free to regulate public institutions like schools, libraries, etc... but basically if a private business wants to force people to dress up as the easter bunny to enter their door, its their right, but if its a stupid move, the economic laws of darwin kick in eventually.

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by n david

I took it as sarcasm...

I agree with Rand on this. But of course, the media and his opponent will try to paint him as a racist.

They are scared to death of this man and his views, Why? Because they make sense they are constitutional and the vast majority of the people agree with it regardless of race.
they will attempt to demonize and or margianlize him in an attempt to besmirch others that wold agree with his message if the message got out with their "help/spin".

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by Light

Rand Paul wants the owner of a restaurant to have control of who eats there.If the owner wanted blacks & Mexicans to eat in the back he would have the right if Rand Paul had his way. Rand Paul is for whites only bathroom again.

Git fer real!

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Bowas

Git fer real!

Well that is where his thinking would lead folks.

In fact, he defends the rights of "private clubs" to have race restrictions as he makes clear his disdain for such policies.


Rand Paul isn't racist, but his way of thinking, if it were the law of the land, would codify racism under the guise, "individual liberties".


Though I understand where Rand Paul is coming from, the CRA would not have had any teeth if it had not addressed the prevalent racism of America's past (then America's present) ON ALL FRONTS.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Well that is where his thinking would lead folks.

In fact, he defends the rights of "private clubs" to have race restrictions as he makes clear his disdain for such policies.


Rand Paul isn't racist, but his way of thinking, if it were the law of the land, would codify racism under the guise, "individual liberties".


Though I understand where Rand Paul is coming from, the CRA would not have had any teeth if it had not addressed the prevalent racism of America's past (then America's present) ON ALL FRONTS.

As Rand Paul has stated, the majority of the Civil Rights Acts had nothing to do with private business. The Civil Rights Act was, almost, entirely about discrimination, by the government, in public institutions. Minorities had to pay taxes to support these government institutions which they were being excluded from and treated as second-class citizens.

On the other hand, private businesses have to submit to the will of the people. If any company won't hire someone because of race, they are only hurting themselves by cutting out the number of any potential clients they may gain. That would come from upsetting the community, which could potentially boycott the business. They are taking a chance of failing.

If their strategy was to keep out a certain race, is that the government's business to get involved? Companies discriminate all the time in the private sector for various reasons, i.e., age, weight, looks, gender, religion etc. There are private clubs/bars that exclude certain people. Some reasons are because of image or just preference, but it happens all the time.

So, the question begs the answer, who is to blame when any company discriminates? Businesses can't survive without customers. So, it's the customers fault for supporting them. That isn't something the government should get involved in and that is Rand Paul's point.

No one likes discrimination. But, discrimination exists, and it will continue to exist forever. Rand is not saying he thinks a business should discriminate, he is only saying that private business shouldn't be regulated by the Federal Government. That is not an endorsement for discrimination and his words are being taken, totally, out of context and not the true intent of "small government" intervention, which he is a big proponent of.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

.... Rand is not saying he thinks a business should discriminate, he is only saying that private business shouldn't be regulated by the Federal Government.

That is not an endorsement for discrimination and his words are being taken, totally, out of context and not the true intent of "small government" intervention, which he is a big proponent of.

I understand his point of view and his reasoning. I wholeheartedly disagree with him. I think limited Federal Government regulation helps to keep the United States a united country.


Though he does not endorse discrimination, if the CRA did not address what happened in the "private sector" at that time in our history, then change would have occurred much slower, and in some places maybe not even at all.


There are places just last year in America where HS "Proms" were segregated by race, with the approval of many in that local community. However nationally, behavior like that can not be tolerated-- esspecially in an open society where ALL AMERICANS are free to traverse.


There's nothing wrong with attempting to make certain things consistent around the country.

Thank God for our Federal , State and local governments.