Apparently, the role of the government is to let a show of hands determine whether or not African Americans can go to the University of Mississippi, of Alabama, and whether or not a private business like Woolworths can exclude folks based on color from eating at their lunch counter. Down deep, Right Wing Flirties, I wonder how many of you agree with him. I always thought there was more to wrong and right than a show of hands.
thecavemaster Wrote:Apparently, the role of the government is to let a show of hands determine whether or not African Americans can go to the University of Mississippi, of Alabama, and whether or not a private business like Woolworths can exclude folks based on color from eating at their lunch counter. Down deep, Right Wing Flirties, I wonder how many of you agree with him. I always thought there was more to wrong and right than a show of hands.
As I understand what Paul said, I totally agree with him. There is a big difference in allowing individuals to freely decide with whom they want to associate and conduct business and having governments mandating that racial discrimination is the law of the land. Certain businesses and schools in the South had no legal right to serve African-Americans or to treat them equally. Had the legal requirements for businesses to discriminate on the basis of race simply been eliminated, the profit motive would have pressured businesses to stop discriminating.
Rand Paul never said that he supported allowing the majority to decide whether businesses should or should not discriminate on the basis of race. In fact, he said just the opposite - he said that it was wrong for state and local governments to mandate racial discrimination.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:As I understand what Paul said, I totally agree with him. There is a big difference in allowing individuals to freely decide with whom they want to associate and conduct business and having governments mandating that racial discrimination is the law of the land. Certain businesses and schools in the South had no legal right to serve African-Americans or to treat them equally. Had the legal requirements for businesses to discriminate on the basis of race simply been eliminated, the profit motive would have pressured businesses to stop discriminating.
Rand Paul never said that he supported allowing the majority to decide whether businesses should or should not discriminate on the basis of race. In fact, he said just the opposite - he said that it was wrong for state and local governments to mandate racial discrimination.
Racial discrimination was, de facto, the "law of the land" in the South, Hoot. The federal government finally intervened and suggested, it seems to me, that the fundamental rights called for in the Declaration and the Pre-Amble and the Constitution extended to ALL people and that the power of the federal government would be used to ensure that. Rand Paul, basically, suggested he didn't view it that way. Red Jello it all you want, Hoot, but, basically, you've confirmed what is a reality behind libertarians: they shrink from justice.
thecavemaster Wrote:Racial discrimination was, de facto, the "law of the land" in the South, Hoot. The federal government finally intervened and suggested, it seems to me, that the fundamental rights called for in the Declaration and the Pre-Amble and the Constitution extended to ALL people and that the power of the federal government would be used to ensure that. Rand Paul, basically, suggested he didn't view it that way. Red Jello it all you want, Hoot, but, basically, you've confirmed what is a reality behind libertarians: they shrink from justice.
No, racial discrimination was
literally the "law of the land"" in the South and the federal government was right to step in and stop states from codifying racial discrimination and coercing businesses into making it part of their standard operating procedure. The question that Rand Paul raised is whether the federal government went too far in prohibiting individual citizens and business owners from practicing discrimination as part of their freedom of association.
Raising the question or believing that citizens should have an absolute right to engage in business with whomever they choose, without government coercion, does not make one a racist. I am sure that Rand Paul believes as I do, that no business receiving federal, state, or local funds should be free to discriminate based on race, religion, or ethnicity.
Liberals say that they believe in individual freedom but there is no evidence of that being the case. If liberals sincerely wanted to help poor people in this country, they would stop loading our working men, women, children (current and future) with a debt that is going to destroy our economy. The best thing that can be done for the poor in this country is to create an environment where labor is in short supply and businesses must compete for good workers. Socialism creates nothing but misery.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:No, racial discrimination was literally the "law of the land"" in the South and the federal government was right to step in and stop states from codifying racial discrimination and coercing businesses into making it part of their standard operating procedure. The question that Rand Paul raised is whether the federal government went too far in prohibiting individual citizens and business owners from practicing discrimination as part of their freedom of association.
Raising the question or believing that citizens should have an absolute right to engage in business with whomever they choose, without government coercion, does not make one a racist. I am sure that Rand Paul believes as I do, that no business receiving federal, state, or local funds should be free to discriminate based on race, religion, or ethnicity.
Liberals say that they believe in individual freedom but there is no evidence of that being the case. If liberals sincerely wanted to help poor people in this country, they would stop loading our working men, women, children (current and future) with a debt that is going to destroy our economy. The best thing that can be done for the poor in this country is to create an I environment where labor is in short supply and businesses must compete for good workers. Socialism creates nothing but misery.
We are currently "engaged" in two countries, without any sacrifices being called for, any reductions in spending (sacrifice for somebody), or any strategy for increased revenue. Is it any wonder our debt is increasing? As for a "cut and slash" approach to federal funding/programming: good luck staying elected when the homefolks feel the pinch. It isn't "pork" when the spending employs you...it's bread on the table. The American public's schizoid love/hate with "do away with this program, do away with that program...oh crap, they've cut my program" continues....
thecavemaster Wrote:We are currently "engaged" in two countries, without any sacrifices being called for, any reductions in spending (sacrifice for somebody), or any strategy for increased revenue. Is it any wonder our debt is increasing? As for a "cut and slash" approach to federal funding/programming: good luck staying elected when the homefolks feel the pinch. It isn't "pork" when the spending employs you...it's bread on the table. The American public's schizoid love/hate with "do away with this program, do away with that program...oh crap, they've cut my program" continues....
The worst user and consumer of "Pork politics" in Congress is a man by the name of Hal Rogers, but I bet he will carry every county in his district by a large margin. Heck, he will even get my vote.
OrangenowBlue Wrote:The worst user and consumer of "Pork politics" in Congress is a man by the name of Hal Rogers, but I bet he will carry every county in his district by a large margin. Heck, he will even get my vote.
Rogers backed Greyson and Paul won rogers home county.
OrangenowBlue Wrote:The worst user and consumer of "Pork politics" in Congress is a man by the name of Hal Rogers, but I bet he will carry every county in his district by a large margin. Heck, he will even get my vote.
I am not sure that Hal Rogers is the worst offender but I agree that he makes frequent trips to the hog trough. He is the last national Republican that I have voted against. I read quotes from a Rogers Paintsville campaign stop and realized that he could just as easily be a Democrat when it comes to wasteful federal spending. I voted against Rogers once, but then I realized the damage that a Democratic president with a Democratic Speaker of the House can do, and vowed never again to vote for another Democrat in a national race.
The most important vote that any representative or senator casts is the one that determines which party sets the national legislative agenda. Otherwise, I would not hesitate to vote to send some Republicans packing for home. Unfortunately, nearly all of the truly fiscally conservative members of Congress are in the Republican Party - and there are not many of them.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:I am not sure that Hal Rogers is the worst offender but I agree that he makes frequent trips to the hog trough. He is the last national Republican that I have voted against. I read quotes from a Rogers Paintsville campaign stop and realized that he could just as easily be a Democrat when it comes to wasteful federal spending. I voted against Rogers once, but then I realized the damage that a Democratic president with a Democratic Speaker of the House can do, and vowed never again to vote for another Democrat in a national race.
The most important vote that any representative or senator casts is the one that determines which party sets the national legislative agenda. Otherwise, I would not hesitate to vote to send some Republicans packing for home. Unfortunately, nearly all of the truly fiscally conservative members of Congress are in the Republican Party - and there are not many of them.
Turn that around, add Bush, and you will see why I will never vote for another Republican in a National race.
The whole context of Pauls has been misunderstood.
While it was obviously a stupid thing to say politically. I understand his point.
To make his point on how he feels about government intrusion in private businesses, he said he felt it was not the federal governments place to intervene with a private business, even if it came to discrimination, and that it should be handled at the local level.
TheRealVille Wrote:Turn that around, add Bush, and you will see why I will never vote for another Republican in a National race.
Sure. Things are going so great under Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, it is hard to understand why everybody is not bowing at their feet. I expect the unemployment rate to drop back down to 9.7 or 9.8% any time now. I am also certain as soon as Obama approves the perfect words the his staff will be firing up the teleprompter for a scathing scolding of Kim Jong Il for North Korea's deadly attack on a South Korean ship. With such bold leadership and resolve on display in Washington for a change, it is hard to understand why Democrats are losing election after election and are in danger of losing control of both the Senate and House of Representatives. People just do not understand how lucky we are to have a courageous agent of change like Comrade Obama in charge. :eyeroll:
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Sure. Things are going so great under Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, it is hard to understand why everybody is not bowing at their feet. I expect the unemployment rate to drop back down to 9.7 or 9.8% any time now. I am also certain as soon as Obama approves the perfect words the his staff will be firing up the teleprompter for a scathing scolding of Kim Jong Il for North Korea's deadly attack on a South Korean ship. With such bold leadership and resolve on display in Washington for a change, it is hard to understand why Democrats are losing election after election and are in danger of losing control of both the Senate and House of Representatives. People just do not understand how lucky we are to have a courageous agent of change like Comrade Obama in charge. :eyeroll:
Are you proposing yet another battle with a foreign country? I for one say, let SK take care of SK. that's not our fight.
notamoocher Wrote:Rogers backed Greyson and Paul won rogers home county.
Hal is from Cumberland or Clinton? However he resides in Pulaski County.
Well I voted for Grayson I'm still not sure about Paul.
my 2 cents
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did nothing to "open up" the lunch counters at Woolworth's but the free market system did. I think Rand was trying to make a philosophical statement that the market will change with societal changes. More toward a laissez-faire approach vs regulatory approach
nky Wrote:my 2 cents
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did nothing to "open up" the lunch counters at Woolworth's but the free market system did. I think Rand was trying to make a philosophical statement that the market will change with societal changes. More toward a laissez-faire approach vs regulatory approach
In the United States of America, no human being should have to wait on the "free market" so that they can eat lunch at Woolworth's or stay in a Holiday Inn. Federal troops in Alabama and Mississippi sent a clear signal that the "Jim Crow" days were over. Some nebulous concept of the deity of free markets certainly didn't.
Pretty sad this day and age we cant even get 1 decent candidate from anywhere in this state to run for office.
thecavemaster Wrote:In the United States of America, no human being should have to wait on the "free market" so that they can eat lunch at Woolworth's or stay in a Holiday Inn. Federal troops in Alabama and Mississippi sent a clear signal that the "Jim Crow" days were over. Some nebulous concept of the deity of free markets certainly didn't.
FYI The students were refused service on Feb. 1, 1960 less than 6 months later Woolworth reversed it's policy. It took the Federal government another three and half years to pass the Civil Rights act of 1964. Which entity moved faster?
nky Wrote:FYI The students were refused service on Feb. 1, 1960 less than 6 months later Woolworth reversed it's policy. It took the Federal government another three and half years to pass the Civil Rights act of 1964. Which entity moved faster?
I don't doubt the negative publicity of sit ins and Rosa Parks activism moved Woolworth's. I don't doubt that John F. Kennedy was, to an extent, cautious as he moved on civil rights. I don't doubt that the bottom line often proves powerful motivation. My modest suggestion was this: human beings in the United States of America should not have to wait on market forces to be granted basic civil and human rights. We're better than that.
thecavemaster Wrote:I don't doubt the negative publicity of sit ins and Rosa Parks activism moved Woolworth's. I don't doubt that John F. Kennedy was, to an extent, cautious as he moved on civil rights. I don't doubt that the bottom line often proves powerful motivation. My modest suggestion was this: human beings in the United States of America should not have to wait on market forces to be granted basic civil and human rights. We're better than that.
We are but legislative change is slow and in many cases creates more animosity than than evaluational change.
TheRealVille Wrote:Are you proposing yet another battle with a foreign country? I for one say, let SK take care of SK. that's not our fight.
Your youthful ignorance is no display again. South Korea's dispute with North Korea is our fight.More than 30,000 US troops are stationed in SK, in addition to thousands of their family members and thousands more contractors.
We are not at peace with SK. The "hot war" was suspended with a truce but a treaty has never been signed between any of the combatants. The only thing that has kept anything resembling peace on the Korean Peninusla is the North's belief that an attack on SK would bring quick decisive action from the US.
Condemning the slaughter of South Koreans would not be an act of war. Torpedoing a South Korean ship that was no threat to NK was. Appeasement invites conflict and Obama has a gift for appeasing enemies and condemning friends.
Hoot we have no business in the Korean war, we didnt then when we were fighting communism, we sure dont now.
Pull our troops out, and let those people fend for themselves, Im tired of treating our soldiers like they are the worlds babysitters, these brave men and women are willing to put their lives on the line, if they are going to be sent to do so, atleast make sure its something worth while.
Beetle01 Wrote:Hoot we have no business in the Korean war, we didnt then when we were fighting communism, we sure dont now.
Pull our troops out, and let those people fend for themselves, Im tired of treating our soldiers like they are the worlds babysitters, these brave men and women are willing to put their lives on the line, if they are going to be sent to do so, atleast make sure its something worth while.
"El Idioso" in North Korea let his own people starve rather than allow foreign aid. Think about that. North Korea is dangerous because "El Idioso" is crazy... I don't mean eccentric... I mean certifiable.
Beetle01 Wrote:Hoot we have no business in the Korean war, we didnt then when we were fighting communism, we sure dont now.
Pull our troops out, and let those people fend for themselves, Im tired of treating our soldiers like they are the worlds babysitters, these brave men and women are willing to put their lives on the line, if they are going to be sent to do so, atleast make sure its something worth while.
In general, I agree that American troops need to be brought home but South Korea is a unique situation. Asia will only be stable as long as the US provides balance to China and North Korea. If we withdraw our troops from South Korea, both South Korea and Taiwan's days as independent nations will quickly draw to a close and Japan will face heavy pressure to go nuclear - if they have not already done so.
The US needs a credible threat of force in South Korea and the Obama regime is not credible. Credible threats are cheaper than all out war, and we should have learned that lesson in WW II.
I do agree that there is no need for NATO or US troops to be stationed in western Europe. The EU does not need our protection from the Russians and they need to be paying for their own defense.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:As I understand what Paul said, I totally agree with him. There is a big difference in allowing individuals to freely decide with whom they want to associate and conduct business and having governments mandating that racial discrimination is the law of the land. Certain businesses and schools in the South had no legal right to serve African-Americans or to treat them equally. Had the legal requirements for businesses to discriminate on the basis of race simply been eliminated, the profit motive would have pressured businesses to stop discriminating.
Rand Paul never said that he supported allowing the majority to decide whether businesses should or should not discriminate on the basis of race. In fact, he said just the opposite - he said that it was wrong for state and local governments to mandate racial discrimination.
I heard him say the exact opposite. According to his interview on All Things Considered on NPR the Wednesday afternoon after the election he basically said it was wrong for the Federal Gov't to mandate the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act and that those matters were handled better through state and Local Gov't.
Here is the exact quote and link to the transcript.
SIEGEL: But it's been one of the major developments in American history in the course of your life. I mean, do you think the '64 Civil Rights Act or the ADA for that matter were just overreaches and that business shouldn't be bothered by people with a basis in law to sue them for redress?
Dr. PAUL: Right. I think a lot of things could be handled locally. For example, I think that we should try to do everything we can to allow for people with disabilities and handicaps. You know, we do it in our office with wheelchair ramps and things like that. 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.npr.org/templates/story/story...=126985068
DevilsWin Wrote:I heard him say the exact opposite. According to his interview on All Things Considered on NPR the Wednesday afternoon after the election he basically said it was wrong for the Federal Gov't to mandate the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act and that those matters were handled better through state and Local Gov't.
Here is the exact quote and link to the transcript.
SIEGEL: But it's been one of the major developments in American history in the course of your life. I mean, do you think the '64 Civil Rights Act or the ADA for that matter were just overreaches and that business shouldn't be bothered by people with a basis in law to sue them for redress?
Dr. PAUL: Right. I think a lot of things could be handled locally. For example, I think that we should try to do everything we can to allow for people with disabilities and handicaps. You know, we do it in our office with wheelchair ramps and things like that. 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.npr.org/templates/story/story...=126985068
A case of hearing what you want to hear. He has stated clearly that when it comes to anything publicly funded the govt has the right and responsibility to ensure there is no discrimination. However, he feels the govt should have no say when it comes to the rights of private ownership. While in a perfect world that would be fine, which brings me to my biggest dislike of Libertarianism, its overly idealistic. A lot of the principles of the it would be fine in a perfect world, but a perfect world is not the real world we live in.
DevilsWin Wrote:I heard him say the exact opposite. According to his interview on All Things Considered on NPR the Wednesday afternoon after the election he basically said it was wrong for the Federal Gov't to mandate the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act and that those matters were handled better through state and Local Gov't.
Here is the exact quote and link to the transcript.
SIEGEL: But it's been one of the major developments in American history in the course of your life. I mean, do you think the '64 Civil Rights Act or the ADA for that matter were just overreaches and that business shouldn't be bothered by people with a basis in law to sue them for redress?
Dr. PAUL: Right. I think a lot of things could be handled locally. For example, I think that we should try to do everything we can to allow for people with disabilities and handicaps. You know, we do it in our office with wheelchair ramps and things like that. 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.npr.org/templates/story/story...=126985068
I think that Paul has made some contradictory statements on this issue and I disagree on his statement here. One can make a libertarian argument against any government involvement in banning racial discrimination for individuals purely operating in the private sector. However, if you accept the premise that a person's right of freedom of association is trumped by a right not to be shunned by another person or private business, then the federal government is logically the correct entity to enforce that right. We saw what happened when state and local governments in the South legislated on this issue. Civil rights do not change when your cross state or local jurisdictional boundaries.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:I think that Paul has made some contradictory statements on this issue and I disagree on his statement here. One can make a libertarian argument against any government involvement in banning racial discrimination for individuals purely operating in the private sector. However, if you accept the premise that a person's right of freedom of association is trumped by a right not to be shunned by another person or private business, then the federal government is logically the correct entity to enforce that right. We saw what happened when state and local governments in the South legislated on this issue. Civil rights do not change when your cross state or local jurisdictional boundaries.
Thomas Jefferson, a paraphrase: "Human beings would rather suffer the consequences of their own evil actions and thoughts and habits, even though they are perfectly capable of changing, than to put forth the effort that it takes to change." ("We would rather suffer evil, while evils are suffrable, than to right ourselves to the forms to which we have become accustomed.") With that view of human nature, you going to tell me Jefferson trusted "the public," had great faith in "private enterprise," to ensure human and civil rights in this nation? Give me a break. In other words, Hoot, you and I may be close to agreeing here... did the earth just move? In this vein, BP isn't alone to blame in all this. Each time I turn the ignition in my car, I, too, participate. It's so easy for Anderson Cooper and the like to simply blame BP, blame the President, etc. We, the public, eat that up, right up our alley. However, there's a boomerang in all of it... and it turns and flies right back at our foreheads.
Captain Backdoor Wrote:Hal is from Cumberland or Clinton? However he resides in Pulaski County.
I don't know where he was born, but his home base has been Somerset and Pulaski County for a long, long time. For all purposes Pulaski is Roger's "home" county. To lose it to Paul in the Primary had to be a big blow to his ego.
LOOKAYANNER Wrote:I don't know where he was born, but his home base has been Somerset and Pulaski County for a long, long time. For all purposes Pulaski is Roger's "home" county. To lose it to Paul in the Primary had to be a big blow to his ego.
Rand Paul is running for Senate. Hal is a congressman.