- This topic has 17 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3O2rBz9gwo
Okay REGARDLESS of the source of this video, i just wanted to get your take on Rand Paul. I don’t need to be reminded this is an interview from msnbc, it’s clear from the 5 minute intro they are making him out as a straight up racist. It’s obvious MSM is scheming and twisting him to try and answer their question. But regardless of all that, take the content and answers he has given (or lack there of). I don’t think he’s a racist, but his stance on civil rights is just a little to 1800’s. I mean seriously, if you believe it’s okay from private businesses to discriminate, that makes you look pretty *edited* bad. He has a huge chance of losing now, and NOT because of MSM but because of his very odd views on civil rights. Still, he’s in Kentucky where people are just as nutty as him.
Not going to pretend like I know much about him, but from what I’ve heard, buddy is *edited*ed. Didn’t he say small business owners should have the right to deny service to blacks? That’s *edited*ed. I lol’d pretty hard when he criticized Obama for being too hard on BP. As far as I’m concerned, the BP executives should be publicly executed (but thats a different subject).
NuRayZ said:
Okay REGARDLESS of the source of this video, i just wanted to get your take on Rand Paul. I don’t need to be reminded this is an interview from msnbc, it’s clear from the 5 minute intro they are making him out as a straight up racist. It’s obvious MSM is scheming and twisting him to try and answer their question. But regardless of all that, take the content and answers he has given (or lack there of). I don’t think he’s a racist, but his stance on civil rights is just a little to 1800’s. I mean seriously, if you believe it’s okay from private businesses to discriminate, that makes you look pretty *edited* bad. He has a huge chance of losing now, and NOT because of MSM but because of his very odd views on civil rights. Still, he’s in Kentucky where people are just as nutty as him.
The MSM is afraid of this guy because he’s a 100% pure free-business conservative which is going to resound VERY strongly with small business owners across the country. It’s obvious they want to destroy this guy because instead of focusing on his views on MODERN topics they can’t get past his interpretation of events that occured when he was in diapers.
Like you said, he’s not a racist but he does think that businesses should have the right to do exactly what they want without interference from the government. If you listen to his NPR interview, he wasn’t talking specifically about “serving” as much he was about “hiring” and this is a 100% common-sense argument. If you have a white person that is perfect for the job and a black person that barely meets the minimum requirements for the job, why should the government have the right to tell you that you have to hire the black person over the white just to meet your racial quotas? Doesn’t it make more sense to just let the business hire the person best suited for the job? This is a double-edged sword and I’ll gladly take the cuts for it because when I get hired I want it to be because I’m most qualified or the hiring supervisors felt me the best pick, not because I’m white.
You’ll notice that when Rachel Maddow started drilling him on his stance on allowing restaurants to segregate their counters he made an extremely compelling counter-example in reference to gun-rights in restaurants and is typical for MSNBC she completely ignored it. You have the constitutional right to take your firearm anywhere you so desire yet restaurants have the authority to bar you from possessing a gun if they so desire. If restaurants have the ability to bar you based on what you wear or are carrying why is it magically not ok to bar you entry based on what you look like? It’s an extremely slipery slope and the point I think he was trying to make is that if you empower restaurants to refuse service based on some criteria you have to allow them to refuse based on all possible criteria. If a restaurant wants to refuse service to a chunk of the local population, let them, it will undoubtably hurt their sales and will destroy their reputation in town but it’s their right to do so. If a company wants to hire the best and most qualified employees regardless of race, let them.
Government controls should only affects businesses that receive government funding.
restaurants are already against nudists
no shirt
no shoes
no service
they can do whatever the hell the want
would they not allow blacks or anyone to work/dine at their place? it’s their right, it’s also your right not to eat there
rainefardreamer said:
would they not allow blacks or anyone to work/dine at their place? it’s their right, it’s also your right not to eat there
Exactly. If a restaurant was racist about who they allowed to dine there I know I certainly wouldn’t eat there. Having policies like that would destroy a business.
you guys need to say the *edited* you are typing outloud.
Banning guns is different than banning a person for the sole reason of race.
Banning a person for dressing inappropriately is different that banning them because of their skin color.
this was a moral stance we took as Americans. Segregation was morally wrong and shouldn’t be tolerated at any level, public or private.
Anne Rand’s manifestos of totally free markets and morally just corporations are nice and all, but total fantasy. It could have worked 200 years ago, but to try and applying it to America today would just not work.
MasterP said:
rainefardreamer said:
would they not allow blacks or anyone to work/dine at their place? it’s their right, it’s also your right not to eat there
I know I certainly wouldn’t eat there Having policies like that would destroy a business.
NuRayZ said:
you guys need to say the *edited* you are typing outloud.
Banning guns is different than banning a person for the sole reason of race.
Banning a person for dressing inappropriately is different that banning them because of their skin color.
this was a moral stance we took as Americans. Segregation was morally wrong and shouldn’t be tolerated at any level, public or private.
Anne Rand’s manifestos of totally free markets and morally just corporations are nice and all, but total fantasy. It could have worked 200 years ago, but to try and applying it to America today would just not work.
i can read my *edited* just fine, can you read yours?
lol @ NuRayz
You missed the entire point of what he said just like your liberal friend Rachel Maddow. Instead of actually listening to what he’s saying you’re getting caught up in the race-baiting.
Just wait for Fox News to interview him, then you’ll actually see him answer questions that relate to his stance on modern issues. Hate to say it but it’ll take Fox News interviewing him before he actually gets a fair interview that isn’t ENTIRELY about his stance on 1960s legislation.
Hell, they don’t even quiz supreme court nominees on race-related legislation like they’ve been doing with this guy.
i know what he said, and as i said before i don’t think he’s a racist. But the mainstream majority will not give a *edited* is what i’m saying. If you want to win in politics today, you don’t say *edited* like “I’m not sure if i would have voted for the civil rights because blah blah.” People aren’t going to care what the *edited* you have to say, the fact that you said you may not have voted for CR *edited*s you over bad. It’s politics.
rainefardreamer said:
MasterP said:
rainefardreamer said:
would they not allow blacks or anyone to work/dine at their place? it’s their right, it’s also your right not to eat there
I know I certainly wouldn’t eat there Having policies like that would destroy a business.
NuRayZ said:
you guys need to say the *edited* you are typing outloud.
Banning guns is different than banning a person for the sole reason of race.
Banning a person for dressing inappropriately is different that banning them because of their skin color.
this was a moral stance we took as Americans. Segregation was morally wrong and shouldn’t be tolerated at any level, public or private.
Anne Rand’s manifestos of totally free markets and morally just corporations are nice and all, but total fantasy. It could have worked 200 years ago, but to try and applying it to America today would just not work.
i can read my *edited* just fine, can you read yours?
that’s the thing, it’s not their right to refuse someone for race.
anyway, we are arguing about the wrong thing. Business ethics should be upholded at some point, including equal rights to everyone. Private businesses have no right to refuse for race, but they still can for anything else. why is that a problem? Unfortunately if you believe private businesses should have the right to refuse anyone for any reason (including race), well you are unfortunately *edited*ed.
NuRayZ said:
Private businesses have no right to refuse for race, but they still can for anything else.
Explain why and where their rights to refuse service end? Is it JUST race?
MasterP said:
NuRayZ said:
Private businesses have no right to refuse for race, but they still can for anything else.
Explain why and where their rights to refuse service end? Is it JUST race?
okay not ANYTHING else. Things like race, disability, religion, etc. I can tolerate private clubs and such for refusing people based on economic status, referrals, private invitations and such.
But if it were up to me, their rights to refuse service would end if the person they are refusing doesn’t pose any direct (and in some cases indirect) threat to others or the business. no threat? no refusal in my mind.
I mean you’ve already said it’s ok to discriminate based on religion, and you didnt’ even realize it. I was just curious how much more you’d allow.
MasterP said:
I mean you’ve already said it’s ok to discriminate based on religion, and you didnt’ even realize it. I was just curious how much more you’d allow.
lol touche, i think i (hopefully) cleared up any discriminating circumstances. was in edit trying to straighten out what i said. thanks for pointing that out tho, religion shouldn’t be discriminated against.
Quote:
okay not ANYTHING else. Things like race, disability, religion, etc. I can tolerate private clubs and such for refusing people based on economic status, referrals, private invitations and such.
But if it were up to me, their rights to refuse service would end if the person they are refusing doesn’t pose any direct (and in some cases indirect) threat to others or the business. no threat? no refusal in my mind.
society dictates what is acceptable
could restaurants discriminate against people? sure, would they find themselves in a world of *edited* if they did? *edited* yeah they would
they are only racist when it is profitable to do so, or socially acceptable
ask smokers how they feel about all this no smoking in restaurants horse*edited*
Allowing restaurants to choose whether or not to allow smokers would be much better than giving state, county, and local governments the ability to bar it.
- The forum ‘Political Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.