Rand Paul
 

Epic FAIL!!!:thud:

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - TRENDING: Paul takes heat for Civil Rights comments - Blogs from CNN.com

Following his primary victory on Tuesday, Paul said he supports the 46-year old measure except for the provisions that outlaw private businesses from discriminating on the basis of race.

Fox Business' John Stossel agrees:

KELLY: But that's not what Rand Paul said. Rand Paul agreed that if it's run by the government, yes intervention is fine. He took issue with the public accommodations, with private businesses being forced to pony up under the discrimination laws.

STOSSEL: And I would go further than he was willing to go, as he just issued the statement, and say it's time now to repeal that part of the law

KELLY: What?

STOSSEL: because private businesses ought to get to discriminate. And I won't won't ever go to a place that's racist and I will tell everybody else not to and I'll speak against them. But it should be their right to be racist.

I watched the Maddow interview. She demolished him when he wouldn't answer the questions. He didn't come across to me as a racist, just incredibly naive.

One of the funnier responses on the web:

Hmmm. "Great positions on social issues." Guess she didn't get the memo. The Democrats must be loving this. Their strategy seemed to be to sit back and let the Tea Party implode. Appears to be working.

It's a bit naive to think the Tea Party will implode, and if that is the Democrats strategy then they will be shocked in November when they lose the Senate and much of their majority in the House. :thumbup:

I don't know if they will implode, and I don't think it will happen by November, but I do think that them trying to govern should be interesting to watch.

Rand Paul..... Very funny guy typical politician won't answer the question.

Rand Paul Fires Back at Critics of Civil Rights Act Comments - ABC News

The Maddow interview is very interesting as well.
The Rachel Maddow Show - Rachel Maddow's interview with Rand Paul 5/19

Pretty straight forward answer if you ask me, feels that governments role in private business should be minimal and can't see how it is in any businesses best interest to minimize its patronage. And excludes any business that receives any amount of government money.

Whether you agree or not is a different topic, but the answer is clear. Media is clogging his response.

The only gray area I see is how he feels about a business being told it can't exclude a race or gender by the federal government, though I would hazard to guess his answer is they can't because they report a federal payroll and state payroll for taxing purposes.

And the only naive attribute I see is expecting a polarized media and culture to understand a Libertarian view point, small government essentially. The media and culture are so very politically correct that if you say anything aside from "I love everyone" you must hate someone and be bias in some form or fashion. Really sad.

Ask yourself this, would you go to a store that right out front wrote "No Asian Children allowed!" My hope and guess would be no. I'm also not getting the implication that all business owners must be inherently racist? What the hell is wrong with this country where everything has to be dribbled down to a color? Epic fail on the folks older than I :) (w/some exclusions)

If you really care, click the image below and you will understand Libertarians.

What is The Libertarian Party? | Libertarian Party

"Private" businesses serve a public function, and are part of interstate commerce, which is an interest of the federal government. Exempt from the law are "private clubs" that do not serve a public function.

Re: your comment about Asin children; that was not the case when the law was passed. Woolworth, the largest and most powerful retail chain in the country at the time, would not desegregate its lunch counters until this law was passed (that is like WalMart not allowing hispancis to shop at their stores today.) Even after the Civil Rights Act of '64 passed, business in the south still practiced de-facto segragation by not allowing blacks and other minorities into their businesses.



There are still certain business and enterprises in America that discriminate are are segregated:

Well that is in keeping with current US doctrine, regulate the masses because there are still unnamed businesses that discriminate. See this isn't the 1960's, in fact it is half a century later, considering the US isn't even 300 years old, that is a serious chunk of time (over a quarter of the age of the country actually)....lets move on. Not all businesses to state-to-state transactions.

America is clinging to a past it needs to move on from.

You do not understand interstate commerce. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". . Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served interstate travelers.

America is clinging to a past it needs to move on from? Like I said, there are still certain businesses and enterprises in America that discriminate and are segregated:

[IMAGE REMOVED AS IT BECAME A DISTRACTION FROM THE OVERALL INTENT OF THE THREAD- Krimson]

Agreed, I don't follow it in detail. However that clause I read before I posted earlier, sounds like a huge government intrusive loophole, kind of like what Paul is talking about. Govt big fat finger in private business.

OT, but again, please name a business that is wearing shirts like that guy. I'll say it again, this "racism" thing is hanging on by a freaking string.