Rand Paul on racism in business...

[Specterx]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

He was asked about race you goof...and he implied that it is okay for a business (a restaurant open to the public---not a private club) to practice racism...

Your straw man is sooooo off the important point Maddow was making.

The "important point Maddow was making" is transparently obvious: trying to trap a Republican with gotcha questions into saying 'the wrong thing' on the air.

Fact is, one's personal opinion on whether open racism or discrimination is "ok" is entirely different from one's opinion on whether, and to what extent, the federal government has a right to dip its oar in the matter. Or for that matter, whether it should.

Government regulation increases costs, restricts freedom, and brings on undesirable side-effects. There are law firms that specialize in suing businesses for millions under the ADA for things like having the bathroom mirror set two inches too high. Having someone in Congress who promises to take a hard look at regulation, and not in the reflexive sheep-like manner of 99% of existing politicians, would be incredibly refreshing and is something we desperately need.

I hope Rand Paul wins and I hope he doesn't compromise his principles. He's only one guy so far, not a dictator - and his presence can only be to the good (just like his dad in the House). America is the only place in the world that can be burdened with such crushing problems as we have, and the popular response is to elect guys like Rand Paul rather than riot in the streets for more government handouts. Their brand of libertarianism may well be an alternative to the existing system (god knows we need one).

Unfortunately he's becoming a major threat to the establishment in both parties, so we'll have to see how strong the storm gets by November.

 

[phenomena]

Imagine that, rights for everyone... crazy idea huh???

Quote from OPTIONAL777:



It is just so ridiculous that Rand was suggesting he would have marched with Dr. King, then defended a cracker's greasy spoon the right to serve on the basis of the race of the customer...

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Trapped by what exactly?

How can he say the wrong thing...unless he is wrong?

Quote from Specterx:

The "important point Maddow was making" is transparently obvious: trying to trap a Republican with gotcha questions into saying 'the wrong thing' on the air.

Fact is, one's personal opinion on whether open racism or discrimination is "ok" is entirely different from one's opinion on whether, and to what extent, the federal government has a right to dip its oar in the matter. Or for that matter, whether it should.

Government regulation increases costs, restricts freedom, and brings on undesirable side-effects. There are law firms that specialize in suing businesses for millions under the ADA for things like having the bathroom mirror set two inches too high. Having someone in Congress who promises to take a hard look at regulation, and not in the reflexive sheep-like manner of 99% of existing politicians, would be incredibly refreshing and is something we desperately need.

I hope Rand Paul wins and I hope he doesn't compromise his principles. He's only one guy so far, not a dictator - and his presence can only be to the good (just like his dad in the House). America the only place in the world that can be burdened with such crushing problems as we have, and the popular response is to elect guys like Rand Paul rather than riot in the streets for more government handouts.

Unfortunately he's becoming a major threat to the establishment in both parties, so we'll have to see how strong the storm gets by November.

 

[omegapoint]

Quote from PatternRec:

Not sophistry in the least. It's core to the issue of defining what a private business can and can't do. Hence why you have lawsuits of all sorts claiming discrimination not originally intended to be protected by the law. And in my opinion, are a slap in the face to civil rights laws.

But these lawsuits set precedent. And they happened because of the slippery slope that ensues when the law isn't narrowly or concretely defined.

Of course precedents are made reference to in court but the opposing attorneys arguments would attempt to isolate the
uniqueness of the issues relative to the case at hand. Two things that arent the same thing will have details that differ.
That slippery slope is what courtrooms are for. From where we sit we can only hope fairness and justice prevail. We can't standardize, the way doctors seem to have evolved towards, each case, but in the case of discriminating on the basis of color alone, if thats all there is to it, that ought not be precedent setting.


Precisely WHY we need laws to objectively define the line(s). Being a decent citizen and operating on good faith are subjective and have to be assessed on a case by case basis with no real guidance to fall back on - only how well a lawyer can sway a jury.

And in cases where there is congruency between precedent and the case at hand it should serve to speed things along. Agreed they are subjective, thats where the good faith comes in.



I'd rather make a rational plea and not an emotional one.

If we could Booleanize differences of opinion Microsoft would have come up with "Appeals Court in a Box" and we could get rid of all the lawyers. Even our attempts at rationalization, when we plumb them to their depths, are based on emotions.


Sorry for the lack of formatting skills.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Good to see the baggers supporting racism...and supporting Paul...

Once again, another Paul appeals to and aligns himself with the right wing extremist crowd...and vice-versa.

 

[Hello]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Good to see the baggers supporting racism...and supporting Paul...

Point me to a single quote where someone on this thread has supported racism.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

R U serious?

Have a reading comprehension problem, do U?

Quote from Hello:

Point me to a single quote where someone on this thread has supported racism.

 

[Hello]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

R U serious?

Have a reading comprehension problem, do U?

So show me a quote then, where someone is coming out, on this thread, supporting racism. Or are you lying again?

 

[OPTIONAL777]

"It's not the government's place to make decisions for businesses as to who they will serve or who they will not serve. Period."

Quote from Hello:

So show me a quote then, where someone is coming out, on this thread, supporting racism. Or are you lying again?

 

[Specterx]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Trapped by what exactly?

How can he say the wrong thing...unless he is wrong?

Because 24-hour TV news soundbytes with a hostile interviewer aren't a good way to explain difficult or unfamiliar concepts. It's the same problem folks had trying to explain why conquering and owning Iraq might be a bad idea, it's why Ron Paul tends to sound like a hopeless crackpot (or alternatively tries to present a dissertation on the nature of money and a history of U.S. monetary policy, till the anchor cuts him off), and on and on.

I mean, just look at the reaction: even when it's laid out and they can view the video as many times as they want, most people won't get (or won't care about) the difference between personal and policy views on an issue. All most people see is that a commandment of the Liberal Bible has been infringed.

What will be interesting to see is whether anyone in the voting public, rather than the coastal chattering-class elite, actually cares. My guess is not; certainly, they didn't care in Arizona despite the hysterical reaction of liberals, the media, and political elites to AZ's immigration law.