Rand Paul Taking Heat for Civil Rights Act Comments

WTF is going on in the USA??

Arizona Laws that enable profiling;

Now the public elects an open racist. LOL

(Private Businesses should be allowed to discriminate)



lesson_1_clip_image002.jpg

I don't believe he's racist. He's just a hardcore libertarian like his father who thinks the federal government should not interfere in those things.

His Daddy is from Texas, and Ron Paul lived during Texas segregation. I think the apple didn't fall far from the tree here.

Anyone with those views, in my opinion is suspicious.

I agree that the state should stay out of private businesses operations, however federal laws that protect everyones civil rights and equality has to be upheld no matter.

Rand Paul shames all those who fought and died for the USA, the fight of Freedom and Equality for All.

You dance with the one that brung ya.

He is in some hot water here that is for sure. Shame too because he announced his run on her show.

Paul makes a rhetorical point that makes sense. Does the government have a right to intrude on someone's private business?

Really, what is the problem with a business saying they don't want a certain class of customer on their premises? Peet's Coffee, for instance, discriminates against gun owners in states where concealed and open carry are allowed and has anyone sued them over the policy? No, they just go somewhere else, like Starbucks.

Businesses also discriminate against customers based on their credit scores. Given that blacks have the lowest average credit scores of any other group in the USA does that mean they are being discriminated against because, as a group, they have bad credit?

Paul makes a point that is better suited to a discussion forum, like this one, than for a public forum like a Senate race where you can count on people to use your words to make political hay.

You don't speak for me, okay?

Just in case there's confusion about what Paul actually said, he explains his statement in better detail here. There was no bigotry. Suggesting there was is a lie.

Nashville sit-ins



What is your take on the desegregation of Walgreen's lunch counters?

His point isn't Racist, it's just blindly Idealistic. Not sure which is worse, but in the US "Racist" has bad connotation, while "Idealistic" seems to have good connotation.

You don't speak for me, okay?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

I don't see his position as racist at all but he is married to the tea party platform which is ridgy idealistic to the point of being foolish. There needs to be some cold water splashed on the debate he has stirred up.

There should be no discrimination based on race, period!

If blacks on average have bad credit, that doesn't make every black a financial liability, as they are not one big monolithic block of clones but individuals with different levels of income and financial ability.

Discrimination based on race was wrong then, and is wrong now, no matter how people want to spin it.

Ask Brazilians and South Africans how historically unchecked discrimination has worked out for their societies in the long run.

To be fair, it was and not (a principally Jewish-owned firm with a pretty solid non-discrminatory history).

My take on the desegregation was that any laws that enforced discrimination were wrong. The South had laws on the books that forbade common dining areas for blacks and whites in private businesses and those laws were wrong and were eventually overturned.

It's not popular to say this, but Woolworth's was obeying contemporary local and state laws.

But Woolworth also could have refused to do business in states that required racial segregation. Many contemporary businesses stayed out of those states so Woolworth could have done the same.

They also could have strapped on a pair and challenged the Jim Crow laws in court by allowing common dining and telling the racists to go f... themselves.

Ultimately, Woolworth paid the penalty for their actions (or ) with the American consumer and they effectively went out of business in 1997. I could never get past their policies in the south and I never felt comfortable in the one Woolworth in Sacramento (on K Street at 10th) even in the 1980's and 1990's. I also knew no end of black folks who would never set foot in the place. We were not alone and the company folded, one store at a time.

What was wrong was a law requiring racial segregation and what Paul states, as an intellectual point, is that a law prohibiting discrimination in a business is really no more right than a law requiring it. What is right are businesses that make the right ethical choices on their own.

I'll shop at ethical places and would eschew places that barred blacks or etc. but would allow them the freedom to be bigots so I'd better know who they are.

The spin from the Rachel Maddow segment was Paul in some way opposed the Civil Rights Act. He does not, and has stated that clearly.



http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/? ... ZkY2JjNDc=

So Tritium appears to want to debate something which is based on a lie.