Rand Paul and racism

[FilmFestGuy]

Most businesses are a public accommodation. If you don't like the way that they do business, go somewhere else. The property owner should get to decide what he wants to do with the place.

Rand Paul is not a racist. I fully support his views on this issue.

AND I DIDN'T SAY HE WAS RACIST so don't say that I did.

I honestly think that what's happened here is that Paul supporters are running around saying people called him racist when no one did.

But there is MUCH legal precedent that if your business is a public accommodation, you have entered into a contract with the public. The "just go somewhere else" argument holds no water at all.

You, as a business owner, have the option to make your business a private club. If you want the benefits of the public, you have to follow the rules. If you don't want to follow the rules, then you can create a members-only club and skirt those rules - because you've not entered into a contract with the general public.

Proof: The Boy Scouts were ruled NOT to be a Public Accommodation, therefore not required to follow the rules. Augusta Country Club? Not a Public Accommodation? That all-nude strip club that people can't figure out how they get around certain laws? Members-only; that's how.

If you open your doors to the general public, then you follow the rules set forth (and upheld by multiple Courts) for public accommodations.

End of story. Your rights aren't restricted. Just turn your business into members-only establishments. You have an option. The one option you don't have is to take advantage of an implied public contract while sending certain members of the public away.

 

[phattonez]

You're not so good on cause and effect, are you?

You might want to back up your claim there, buddy. We were already seeing the problem resolve itself during the 20th century. Blacks migrated en masse to the north to seek better opportunity and freedom from the Jim Crow Laws of the south. They were able to do this because of increasing wealth. Reversing this law would not mean that segregation would come back right away. If you think that then you don't understand competition.

 

[phattonez]

AND I DIDN'T SAY HE WAS RACIST so don't say that I did.

I never said that you did. I just said that Rand Paul is not a racist.

 

[Redress]

You might want to back up your claim there, buddy. We were already seeing the problem resolve itself during the 20th century. Blacks migrated en masse to the north to seek better opportunity and freedom from the Jim Crow Laws of the south. They were able to do this because of increasing wealth. Reversing this law would not mean that segregation would come back right away. If you think that then you don't understand competition.

Actually, you made the initial claim, so it would be up to you to back it up.

 

[phattonez]

Actually, you made the initial claim, so it would be up to you to back it up.

I think I just did. He made the claim that I don't understand cause and effect. I wanted him to prove THAT.

 

[Geo Patric]

You're not so good on cause and effect, are you?

for comment, please go to binky.

geo.

 

[Redress]

I think I just did. He made the claim that I don't understand cause and effect. I wanted him to prove THAT.

No, you made more claims.

 

[phattonez]

What have I not shown evidence for?

 

[Geo Patric]

What have I not shown evidence for?

how does one not show evidence?

geo.

 

[Redress]

What have I not shown evidence for?

Umm...anything. You have just made claims with no sourcing.

 

[phattonez]

Umm...anything. You have just made claims with no sourcing.

Be specific! What do you want evidence for?

 

[Redress]

The fallacy of looking back and blaming one thing while ignoring economic growth. The reason that blacks have better access to services today is not because segregation is illegal: it is because by and large they are richer. No blacks are stuck being sharecroppers anymore. With a growth in wealth comes better service.

You might want to back up your claim there, buddy. We were already seeing the problem resolve itself during the 20th century. Blacks migrated en masse to the north to seek better opportunity and freedom from the Jim Crow Laws of the south. They were able to do this because of increasing wealth. Reversing this law would not mean that segregation would come back right away. If you think that then you don't understand competition.

Be specific! What do you want evidence for?

Those.

~10 characters~

 

[phattonez]

Originally Posted by phattonez
The fallacy of looking back and blaming one thing while ignoring economic growth. The reason that blacks have better access to services today is not because segregation is illegal: it is because by and large they are richer. No blacks are stuck being sharecroppers anymore. With a growth in wealth comes better service.

I don't think I need to prove that with more growth comes better service. So I guess all I need to prove is more wealth?

Swivel | Per Capita Income by Race

Originally Posted by phattonez
You might want to back up your claim there, buddy. We were already seeing the problem resolve itself during the 20th century. Blacks migrated en masse to the north to seek better opportunity and freedom from the Jim Crow Laws of the south. They were able to do this because of increasing wealth.

Great Migration (African American) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reversing this law would not mean that segregation would come back right away. If you think that then you don't understand competition.

Competition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The stores that did not segregate would see more business (obviously) but also would get sympathy from those who would be disgusted to shop at the segregated stores.

 

[lizzie]

I think the actual quote was "opposed the Civil Rights act", which is a significantly different meaning.

Yes, it does have a different meaning, but it's not what I heard a commentator say on the news.

 

[Jerry]

You have no doubt lately heard from many talking heads, who are calling Rand Paul a racist. And not long ago, Paul backed down from his original position on the Civil Rights Bill. But guess what? I agree with Paul's original position. Does that make DanaRhea a racist, as well as Rand Paul? Let me explain why it does not.

First of all, let's be clear on something. When it comes to public owned facilities and land, Paul is in favor of the Civil Rights bill. This means no separate bathrooms, drinking fountains, no back of the bus, etc, etc, etc. This is good.

Where Paul differs is on private property, where, even if someone is a complete douche bag, the property belongs to him, and he can use it as he sees fit. So, what makes this racist? It doesn't. He might be a racist, but the idea of your property being your property is not.

Personally, I feel that racists are the worst ignorant, knuckle dragging morons to ever infest the United States. But, as inbred, drooling, mouth breathing, and utterly stupid as they are, they are still Americans, and just as entitled to property rights as anybody else. And, Constitutionally speaking, our rights are based on property. If they don't want to allow someone at their lunch counter because they are either black, gay, female, or Jesus Christ himself, that is their right.

Now I have detailed what I believe to be the rights of the knuckle dragging morons. What, then, are the rights of everybody else, particularly blacks, gays, females, or even Jesus Christ (who is probably shaking his head and laughing his ass off at the racist imbeciles)? They have the right to protest. And don't downplay the power of protest. It was protest, more than government, which ended Jim Crow in the South. More than a few lunch counters and privately owned bus companies went belly-up due to them.

So let the racists have their lunch counters, and let the protesters continue to send them to the poor house. Works better than government intervention ever did. We need government to come in when KKK members blow up churches and lynch people for wanting to vote. That IS a Federal issue. Who does what with their own property, no matter how insane, is none of the Federal government's business.

Therefore, in regard to whether Rand Paul is or is not a racist, I will say this - He is not. But is Rand Paul a whore, who does not stick with his beliefs, in the face of stiff opposition? He certainly is. He was right before he changed his mind, but now he attempts to talk around the Q. Me thinks he wants the Senate too damn bad, and that is breaking his political compass.

Discussion?

Rand Paul is not a racist.

He's a radical kook, but not a racist.

Opposing the wars and legalizing all hard drugs gives us plenty of reasons not to support him. The left doesn't need to play the race card.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Rand Paul is not a racist.

He's a radical kook, but not a racist.

Opposing the wars and legalizing all hard drugs gives us plenty of reasons not to support him. The left doesn't need to play the race card.

I agree with everything you say except for one thing.

So far, nowhere has it been shown, except at the fringes, that the left is doing such a thing. I think what happened here is that some people expected the left to do that and went ahead and acted as if they did.

 

[Jerry]

Be specific! What do you want evidence for?

Everything you've said on this thread.

Go back to your first post on this thread and link to a source for each claim you've made, point by point.

 

[VanceMack]

I assume you are referring to this paragraph.



I think its pretty weak as it is essentially what Redress is saying, people are making the accusation that certain people are saying things, but in no case (that I have been able to find) can we find someone who has actually said this. Perhaps some blog in the butthole of the blogosphere, but nothing legitimate or with any real following or influence.

TELL me that you dont think thats what they are infering and why they asked the question in the first place. Go ahead...

 

[Slartibartfast]

TELL me that you dont think thats what they are infering and why they asked the question in the first place. Go ahead...

There is no way to tell where he got his source since he does not cite it. As such, it is not useful evidence.

Lets take another look.

Washington (CNN) - The caricatures have been flying from left and right since Tea Party Senate candidate Rand Paul started talking about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That Rand Paul is a racist. That his nomination proves the Republican Party is, too. That MSNBC host Rachel Maddow is a man-eating sorceress. That the liberal media ... you get the idea.

He is speaking to people's emotional accusations that are flying around. At no point does he name a legitimate new org or anything of the kind as the source. So really, it could mean it comes from anywhere.

 

[Deuce]

Yeah I've honestly never seen anyone actually call him a racist.

 

[FilmFestGuy]

You might want to back up your claim there, buddy. We were already seeing the problem resolve itself during the 20th century. Blacks migrated en masse to the north to seek better opportunity and freedom from the Jim Crow Laws of the south. They were able to do this because of increasing wealth. Reversing this law would not mean that segregation would come back right away. If you think that then you don't understand competition.

So your solution is to have segregated states?

Because all the blacks were leaving the South, the market was right?

And you've still not addressed the fact that there is already massive legal precedent regarding public accommodations that you can't simply overturn by writing or overturning a law.

 

[FilmFestGuy]

There is no way to tell where he got his source since he does not cite it. As such, it is not useful evidence.

Lets take another look.

He is speaking to people's emotional accusations that are flying around. At no point does he name a legitimate new org or anything of the kind as the source. So really, it could mean it comes from anywhere.

Your source (in this case, Anderson Cooper) is merely stating that someone somewhere said "that he is racist" without citing a source himself.

Thus, all we have are assertions - no proof.

An assertion quoting an assertion is not in and of its self a fact.

I can quote to you that I've heard people say that they believe in aliens - that doesn't mean I've proven aliens exist.

 

[phattonez]

So your solution is to have segregated states?

Because all the blacks were leaving the South, the market was right?

And you've still not addressed the fact that there is already massive legal precedent regarding public accommodations that you can't simply overturn by writing or overturning a law.

No! Segregation by the government is bad and should be illegal. Rand Paul made this point. Segregation by private businesses? Well that corrects itself.

 

[phattonez]

Everything you've said on this thread.

Go back to your first post on this thread and link to a source for each claim you've made, point by point.

See post 38.

 

[Glinda]

I don't know enough about the man to suggest he's a racist, but I've seen enough to assure me that he's a nut, just like his dear old dad.

I think there might be some sort of requirement that politicians from Texas must fit this description.