Rand Paul

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by Krimson X

Denny's wasn't that long ago, and it wasn't an isolated incident. Do your own research. You'll be surprised at how much you don't know.

I haven't been back to a Denny's since.

Exactly so did it really make a difference what laws or lawsuits were filed? You haven't been back. You didn't need government interference.

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by blktoptrvl

Denny's was sued again in 2005. That time by Arabs.

The fact that it may be happening less is not (IMO) attributable to the fact that they have "seen the light and redeemed themselves." It is only the fact that they are constantly being sued and FORCED to change their practices that makes them change.

That is why anti-descrimination laws are needed. Pretening it is not a problem because it doesn't happen to you is not a solution.

Not pretending, it isn't a rampant problem that force federal government intervention. You could achieve the same result by socializing and boycotting a chain of stores. Did the lawsuit change Dennys, no, public knowledge did...seems people are just happier to have the "government" do it. Funny you carry the signature you do and you're in favor of the government dictating terms to business owners.

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by Krimson X

I never said (or thought) that Rand Paul was a bigot or racist. However, I do think that he is naive to think that, in 2010, it is ok to allow private businesses to discriminate.

You do realize you've made the assumption that business would discriminate by default.

[Quicksilver]

What I found entertaining was Rand Paul's insistence on not
answering questions about the comments he made.

Originally Posted by Wagner

Now back on topic if you'd care to understand Paul's comments in more than a sound-byte:

Paul Remarks Have Deep Roots - WSJ.com

[blktoptrvl]

Originally Posted by Wagner

Not pretending, it isn't a rampant problem that force federal government intervention. You could achieve the same result by socializing and boycotting a chain of stores. Did the lawsuit change Dennys, no, public knowledge did...seems people are just happier to have the "government" do it. Funny you carry the signature you do and you're in favor of the government dictating terms to business owners.

It isn't a rampant problem BECUASE the laws ARE in place. Now here is what would have happened in the real world where the rest of us live...

1. A guy goes into a Denny’s in Bumfuck, West Virginia, a “Sundown Town” and would not be waited on because “hey, we just don’t like your kind around here.” This is because in your “everything is honky dory” world we don’t need those pesky civil rights public accommodation laws.
2. When he grumbled and got mad, as he was walking out the door because he could not get service, he would be arrested by the cop who was sitting at the counter because “he didn’t like his attitude.” This is because in your “everything is honky dory” world there are no uniform laws and no one to enforce them except the local sherrif who basically does whatever he feels like doing.
3. After spending a night or two in Jail because his pocket money had disappeared and that made him a “vagrant” he would have been hauled before the judge. This is because the government is not needed to enforce any “due process” laws.
4. Of course there are no lawyers in Bumfuck – who are not related – so none of them would take his case and he would stand for all kinds of crimes as the sheriff decided to “clean up his unsolved crime book.” “Wait, wasn’t little Suzy – the town slut – raped last night?” I bet this SOB did it. We may not have any tangible proof, but since there is no one to report this crime statistic to and because there are no State agencies watching to make sure that everything is on the up and up, there is nobody to interfere with us so we gonna string this MF up.

That will teach his kind from being where we don’t want him.

Sound pretty far fetched doesn’t it? No, not to anyone older than 40 because when we were kids this kind of “justice” was laid on people all the time. This IS American History.

Civil rights and government “interference” are not just isolated incidences of the state of feds minding other peoples business, they are a SYSTEM OF LAWS, PRACTICES, AND PROCEDURES that have been developed because it has been established and proven that the people, and towns, and businesses cannot be relied on to do what is right.

You may want chaos – especially when you are in the majority, but living as a minority you know that these laws are REQUIRED. The only other alternative is to have anarchy and to have everyone armed to the teeth and walking around doing whatever they want to whoever they want and getting away with it (or not) based on their relative strength.

Mad Max is an entertaining movie but would you want to have to live in that world – and if you would, I doubt you could.

[JCL]

I would have thought that the civil rights act (and the disabled persons act) helps to establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for all citizens. In contrast, not supporting the need for it is proposing that there would be more tranquility, liberty, etc, without the laws in place. I personally don't think that would happen. That was why I called him naive, and not a racist.

Interested in all the sports analogies that have been offered up, but I am not sure why they are focusing on employees, when the focus should be on customers. It isn't about whether there are enough black or white players in a league, but rather whether black fans or white fans should pay different ticket prices to attend such games, based only on the colour of their skin. That gets back to the businessman analogy. Sure, it may be a stupid policy for that business. But if they did it, would you have more tranquility in society? I think not. The laws send a signal about what is right, what is expected, because you can't expect hundreds of millions of people to think the same way.

[Krimson X]

Originally Posted by Wagner

You do realize you've made the assumption that business would discriminate by default.

Nope. I live by the assumption that all people are good and decent. However, I realize that the Act of '64 is still necessary.

[blktoptrvl]

Originally Posted by JCL

I would have thought that the civil rights act (and the disabled persons act) helps to establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for all citizens. In contrast, not supporting the need for it is proposing that there would be more tranquility, liberty, etc, without the laws in place. I personally don't think that would happen. That was why I called him naive, and not a racist.

Interested in all the sports analogies that have been offered up, but I am not sure why they are focusing on employees, when the focus should be on customers. It isn't about whether there are enough black or white players in a league, but rather whether black fans or white fans should pay different ticket prices to attend such games, based only on the colour of their skin. That gets back to the businessman analogy. Sure, it may be a stupid policy for that business. But if they did it, would you have more tranquility in society? I think not. The laws send a signal about what is right, what is expected, because you can't expect hundreds of millions of people to think the same way.

"Libertarians" believe that the g is interfering and holding them back, and somehow stopping them from fulfilling their destiny. They claim that all would be better off if everyone believed what they believe.

But I believe that they are blinded by the false notion that things used to be so much better back when... ...when in fact that is a lie.

The reality of “back then” was that many suffered and were inconvenienced at the whim of the rich who ran roughshod over the entire population. They were the ones who made the laws and they were the one who ignored those same laws with impunity.

Now, If they were all mountain men who each had 100,000 acres of their own to hunt and survive on and did not see another human but once in a blue moon, that's one thing; but they live in a community, a state, a country with three hundred million other souls and a world with 6 billion and the sooner they realize that their selfish thoughts and concerns have to be made subservient to the "will of the people," and to “what is best for most people,” the sooner we will all be better off.

[Krimson X]

Originally Posted by Wagner

Exactly so did it really make a difference what laws or lawsuits were filed? You haven't been back. You didn't need government interference.

So if I punch you in the face, does it really make a difference if I am arrested and prosecuted for criminal battery so long as you learned not to cross my path anymore? I'm just saying... you don't need government interference.

[Quicksilver]

OK I must have missed it. Did you answer this question? You tell me what's preventing white people from playing basketball.
I don't get how their being shut out of the game.....

With all the countless programs in colleges across the country
what the excuse???

Originally Posted by FSETH

And what is stopping minorities from being good stock car racers? Are minorities not allowed to practice racing cars?

Bill Lester has been floating around NASCAR for years and hasn't won anything. Juan Pablo won 7.5% of the F1 races he started, yet he has 1 win in 119 starts in NASCAR'S top series and that was on a road course. Someone I know once said, you better come with it otherwise
athletically your going to get run over like a freight train. Maybe they are just getting run over.