The Tea Party might already be showing its true 'colors'

[foxpaws]

Rand Paul, the Republican/Tea Party backed Senate candidate in Kentucky (good guy foss?) was in hot water after his primary for a few things he has stated regarding civil rights vs private business owner's rights... Now, there is a big debate on the 'abstract' idea of allowing business owners to discriminate, but, I think the more interesting thing is that he obviously appears to have 'changed his mind' regarding the issue overnight.

I personally don't believe him, you don't reverse a stand like this in 24 hours. So, why do you think he is now coming out for Title II in the Civil Rights Act that states that private businesses may not discriminate, when he was quite clear that he thought that although he wouldn't support businesses that discriminate, he felt they had the right to do so, less than a day before.

April 25th…

The trouble with Dr. Paul is that despite his independent thinking, much of what he stands for is repulsive to people in the mainstream. For instance, he holds an unacceptable view of civil rights, saying that while the federal government can enforce integration of government jobs and facilities, private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people, or gays, or any other minority group.

He quickly emphasizes that he personally would not agree with any form of discrimination, but he just doesn't think it should be legislated.​

May 19th

But he said he doesn't agree with a provision in the bill that makes it a crime for businesses to discriminate on the basis of race.

It's a philosophical difference, Paul told Maddow: He doesn't believe the federal government should be able to intrude on how a private business operates.

If "you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says, 'Well, no, we don't want to have guns in here'?" Paul said. "Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant?"​

And then … May 20th

"Civil Rights legislation that has been affirmed by our courts gives the Federal government the right to ensure that private businesses don't discriminate based on race. Dr. Paul supports those powers."​

 

[04SCTLS]

With friends like these the Tea Party doesn't need enemies.

But then maybe it's code to get those of similar views to vote for him now.

He's an agent provocateur planted by those same hitler nazi dressing swastika sporting leftist infiltrators that are smearing mom and dad and the good folks of the movement or perhaps he's like his dad, mostly a cool guy but somehow a little funny in the head.

People can only discriminate on private property that is not open to the public for business.

Carrying a gun is a voluntary thing whereas no one has control over their skin color and origins.

 

[Calabrio]

 

[04SCTLS]

You're the one trolling here.
You don't have a good spin to retort what basically speaks for itself so you resort to changing the subject.
Funny how the apologists come out of the woodwork when the right embarasses itself.

 

[DieselDan]

04sctls, you fail at cleverness... Now go fall on a knife.

 

[04SCTLS]

That the first true Tea Party candidate embarasses himself on national television this way is better than anything than can be made up and speaks a lot to the skill of the candidate.

 

[Calabrio]

Actually, I was calling fowpaws a troll.
It was just coincidence that you happened to post seconds before I did.
But, if the label fits.

Rand Paul isn't a racist.
His comments aren't racist.
The Tea Party isn't racist.
And I'm just not going to give any creditability to this false charge by debating it.

If someone would like to have a discussion about what Rand Paul said and frame it in an honest way, that might be interesting. But that's not what was posted here, nor was that the purpose.

But, to quote foxpaws:

I don't think they [the tea parties] are racists - at all.

 

[foxpaws]

Actually, I was calling fowpaws a troll.
It was just coincidence that you happened to post seconds before I did.
But, if the label fits.

Rand Paul isn't a racist.
His comments aren't racist.
The Tea Party isn't racist.
And I'm just not going to give any creditability to this false charge by debating it.

If someone would like to have a discussion about what Rand Paul said and frame it in an honest way, that might be interesting. But that's not what was posted here, nor was that the purpose.

But, to quote foxpaws:

So, cal you didn't see where I wanted to send this discussion - not down the slippery path of the CRA Title II - which, most hard core libertarians will say that they are against - so it wasn't a surprise to be that Rand Paul said he too would have modified that part of the law if he was around at the time of the vote in 1964 -

I very carefully danced around the racism question -

What I was interested in was why suddenly he has changed his mind. He is now saying he backs the entire act. Up until the current backlash at this particular stand of his (well, now that he is in the public limelight), he stood his ground - he was libertarian to the core.

I don't think the tea parties are racist - however, whether individual members are racist, I don't have an answer to that, do you Cal.

So, Cal, rather than get into the racist debate, which I was studiously trying to ignore, I wanted to get into the is Rand Paul 'yellow' for not standing up and sticking to his guns. I don't think he changed his mind at all, I think his campaign handlers panicked and went into spin control when they released the statement that Rand Paul now supports Title II of the CRA.

But, do you think that he went from wanting businesses to have the liberty to discriminate to backing the Feds when it comes to private enterprise and cracking down on discrimination in less than 24 hours. Was he that ignorant of the history of the CRA, or maybe he just missed civics class in high school.

I think it is a legitimate question, and obviously one that you are not comfortable debating. Why else label it as trolling....

Because if this is trolling, where were you when...

Obama nominates dolt to SCOTUS
Dear Leftists...So Obama is not a Kenyan Huh?
Obama coarsens his own discourse with 'teabaggers'
What Kind of Socialist Is Barack Obama?
Obama cheating scandal
Is Obama a Muslim? You decide.
Michele not pleased with Barack tearing episode
Seig heil
Now we know what f*****s does in her spare time
Finally, someone willing to take on the Usurper
Death Panel claims its first victim

And hundreds more...

Oh I know - could it be that all the ones that pass your muster are on the right?

 

[Calabrio]

I very carefully danced around the racism question -

You know what you did.
You know how you presented it.

I don't think the tea parties are racist - however, whether individual members are racist, I don't have an answer to that, do you Cal.

I'd have to see a list of the "members."
To the best of my knowledge there isn't even a formal, recognized, organization, let alone membership.

But, to quote for emphasis:

I don't think the tea parties are racist....

 

[foxpaws]

You know what you did.
You know how you presented it.


I'd have to see a list of the "members."
To the best of my knowledge there isn't even a formal, recognized, organization, let alone membership.

But, to quote for emphasis:

I don't think the tea parties are racist.

I don't - so, are you going to answer whether or not you think that Rand Paul should stick by his no doubt 'true beliefs' regarding the CRA and Title II?

I am trying really hard to keep this out of the race issue - that would be easy Cal - Rand Paul handed it to the media on a silver platter, and there are lots of discussion about that out there.

I am far more interested in the fact that he changed his mind overnight, and whether or not we should now believe the 'new and improved' Rand Paul, or if he really is the hard core libertarian that his view points of only one week ago placed him as.

Because it is hard for him to be a true hard core libertarian. His stands on other issues places him elsewhere in the political spectrum.

So, only hard core libertarian on certain issues, and then, only at certain times...

I think he is a chicken... He would be a terrible senator. I think I will go write a check to Conway...

 

[04SCTLS]

It's hard to explain self inflicted wounds like this with a straight face.

 

[cammerfe]

Since I'm not a politician, I can simply say what I believe.

'Discrimination' is a knee-jerk dirty word, but if you remove the artificially applied taint it simply suggests 'choosy'. If I have a business, don't I have a right to choose who I'm willing to deal with? (I understand that it might not be good business to be unwilling to take money from everyone who waves it at me, but, even so, who has the right to tell me how to act?) The answer is complex, and I have no patience to expound at this point, but the question, I guess, is why the government can tell me what to do.
I expect the usual liberal S H I T, and a few thoughtful replies.
KS

 

[04SCTLS]

Actually, I was calling fowpaws a troll.
It was just coincidence that you happened to post seconds before I did.
But, if the label fits.

Rand Paul isn't a racist.
His comments aren't racist.
The Tea Party isn't racist.
And I'm just not going to give any creditability to this false charge by debating it.

If someone would like to have a discussion about what Rand Paul said and frame it in an honest way, that might be interesting. But that's not what was posted here, nor was that the purpose.

But, to quote foxpaws:

Yes and I was saying you were the troll.
She started the post to get your response and you responded by sticking out your tongue essentially and changing the subject to trolling.
Why didn't you give us an honest in context argument why it's right for private individuals to be able to discriminate when running a business open to the public?
I thought only the public was allowed to discriminate when it picks who to do business with not the other way around.

 

[foxpaws]

If I have a business, don't I have a right to choose who I'm willing to deal with?

KS - there has been a lot of court discussion regarding this, but a few things...

Private businesses are supported by public infrastructure. For instance - if you had a business that didn't allow Hispanics to enter - however, when your building caught fire, you would expect the fire department, which has dozens of hispanics in it, to put out your fire. Or if the riot that broke out in front of your establishment was because your sign also said that white women couldn't enter, the police that was dispatched to quell the riot would probably have white women responding. And then they could stand by and watch the mob torch your little business, and then the hispanic firemen could join them watching by the sidelines as your business became toast.

The interstate commerce law was also used...
Since the federal government built the highways that goods were shipped on and created tax laws favorable to businesses, it had jurisdiction over how businesses operated.

Men and women of every race and creed are in the military, and fight for you to feel safe in your endeavors. However, you feel comfortable saying that a black military man who lost his legs while fighting for your freedom shouldn't be allowed into your store because you can hang a 'blacks not welcome' sign?

Also, as 04 alluded to...

A private property owner is afforded a choice already - between opening up the property to the public or keeping it to private use. Once a property owner opens the property to public use, the law is able to impose conditions and liability.

It is a question of property rights trumping other rights. They all have issues. You have the freedom of speech - but you don't have the freedom to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater. You can say people can't smoke on your property (smoking is a 'choice') but you can't say that if you are black you can't enter my restaurant (being black is not a choice).

Even William F Buckley saw the light....
“I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow, I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary.”

 

[04SCTLS]

Since I'm not a politician, I can simply say what I believe.

'Discrimination' is a knee-jerk dirty word, but if you remove the artificially applied taint it simply suggests 'choosy'. If I have a business, don't I have a right to choose who I'm willing to deal with? (I understand that it might not be good business to be unwilling to take money from everyone who waves it at me, but, even so, who has the right to tell me how to act?) The answer is complex, and I have no patience to expound at this point, but the question, I guess, is why the government can tell me what to do.
I expect the usual liberal S H I T, and a few thoughtful replies.
KS

People already know where they're not welcome and usually don't patronize those places.

But we've become a more polite society and it would be counter productive for our society if a few placed openly hung up whites only or blacks only signs.

How would you feel about a major fast food chain advertizing a discriminatory racial policy on who they will serve?

 

[shagdrum]

People already know where they're not welcome and usually don't patronize those places.

Unless they are trolls looking to bait and start a flame war. Or as you put it:

I like to say novel controversial things sometimes to stir up the pot...

 

[shagdrum]

Private businesses are supported by public infrastructure. For instance - if you had a business that didn't allow Hispanics to enter - however, when your building caught fire, you would expect the fire department, which has dozens of hispanics in it, to put out your fire. Or if the riot that broke out in front of your establishment was because your sign also said that white women couldn't enter, the police that was dispatched to quell the riot would probably have white women responding. And then they could stand by and watch the mob torch your little business, and then the hispanic firemen could join them watching by the sidelines as your business became toast.

WTF is this supposed to explain? Because private businesses are "supported" by public infastructure, the interstate commerce clause applies? That is about the weakest justification for the tyrannical distortion of the interstate commerce clause I have ever heard.

You can repeat all the specious reasoning to expand the interstate commerce clause, but that doesn't change the fact that clause has been distorted and expanded more then any other clause in the constitution.

Your "justification" serve to circumvent the rule of law (the constitution). You are justifying tyranny.

Hitler would be proud.

 

[foxpaws]

WTF is this supposed to explain? Because private businesses are "supported" by public infastructure, the interstate commerce clause applies? That is about the weakest justification for the tyrannical distortion of the interstate commerce clause I have ever heard.

You can repeat all the specious reasoning to expand the interstate commerce clause, but that doesn't change the fact that clause has been distorted and expanded more then any other clause in the constitution.

Your "justification" serve to circumvent the rule of law (the constitution). You are justifying tyranny.

Hitler would be proud.

wtf - can't you read shag -

The interstate commerce part is this... you associated the first paragraph - which isn't interstate commerce - only the second part - clearly labeled as such...

The interstate commerce law was also used...
Since the federal government built the highways that goods were shipped on and created tax laws favorable to businesses, it had jurisdiction over how businesses operated.​

And that is exactly how it was used... You might need to check out the Supreme Court on this... the commerce clause was very important in dealing with the states and enforcing the Civil Rights Act.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States or Daniel v. Paul

Good try to label me again shag - how about looking at the real question here - do you think that Rand Paul changed his mind in less than 24 hours regarding a very important issue - or do you think he is being 'handled'?

shag, if you are really looking at becoming an attorney - one - really read, two - don't insinuate, and finally three - bone up a little on your SCOTUS landmark cases...

Scalia wouldn't be proud

 

[lincolnx2]

Since I'm not a politician, I can simply say what I believe.

'Discrimination' is a knee-jerk dirty word, but if you remove the artificially applied taint it simply suggests 'choosy'. If I have a business, don't I have a right to choose who I'm willing to deal with? (I understand that it might not be good business to be unwilling to take money from everyone who waves it at me, but, even so, who has the right to tell me how to act?) The answer is complex, and I have no patience to expound at this point, but the question, I guess, is why the government can tell me what to do.
I expect the usual liberal S H I T, and a few thoughtful replies.
KS

So what about the "Jim Crow" laws? Were they racist or just prefrences that people had?

 

[FIND]

This forum really demonstrates Godwin's law very well doesn't it?

Your "justification" serve to circumvent the rule of law (the constitution). You are justifying tyranny.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote general Welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Is it tyranny to make laws to keep people from violating those basic principles on which our country is founded? Was Hitler's Germany a nation where people were forced to recognize that they must treat all men as their equals?

Sure, I don't agree with equal opportunity programs forcing reverse discrimination. Discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or any other feature such as that are truly violations of everything this great nation stands for.

I expect the usual liberal S H I T, and a few thoughtful replies.

I'm sorry, but it looks to me like you are saying that unless someone replies in support of your view that discrimination is OK, it is just liberal :q:q:q:q..... Kinda closed-minded don't you think? Why even bother putting a thought up on a discussion board if you only want to see people agree? You are trying to justify racism by calling it something else. Would conservative christians be OK with abortion if we called it happy fetus fun vacuum time?

In response to your question however, the government has a right to tell you that you cannot discriminate because you live in THIS country, where our founding principles are equality for all. Sure, it may not have started out as equal for everyone, but we are darn well trying to get there, and anyone who tries to be "choosy" along the way is just stopping us from getting there.

Food for thought, those guys in the bedsheets and pointy hats just want us as a nation to be choosy. All those shop owners who used to put up "whites only" signs were just being choosy. Colored drinking fountains were for choosy people.

Why is it that people who want to violate another persons civil rights and freedoms, always try and say that we are violating their civil rights and freedoms when we tell them that they cannot?

 

[foxpaws]

This forum really demonstrates Godwin's law very well doesn't it?

Or, how fast can you label foxpaws nazi, socialist, marxist, etc.

It is a game... Shag usually wins, although Foss comes in a close second.

 

[cammerfe]

Discriminating

As I rather expected, I got a few thoughtful replies, and a lot of liberal S H I T. I didn't say anything about race---some of you did. I actually had a personal service thing---advisory---in mind as a business. No goods delivered. I also was thinking about denying access to some folk with tattooed faces and orange mohawks for hair, smelly unwashed, and, from their eyes, hopped up on 'recreational chemicals'. Rented premises, and the entirety of my personal and business equipment to be a laptop that I always take with me. Let the building burn. I hope it's insured.

It's well proven that the police have no duty to protect---read DeShaney 489 US 189, 1989. '...there is no duty to protect...' I always have a 1911 with me, and it's no great problem to take an Ithaca 37 and/or an Ingram M10 with me as I did in my landlord years.

Under the circumstances outlined above, I have no need of any services. Even though I've paid for them with my taxes.

Since you brought it up, on the other hand, this is Detroit. It's quite common, within the city limits, to see signs posted in black-owned businesses suggesting that Caucasians are not welcome. But, even though I'm the minority here, that's not frowned on. I guess, theoretically, that I just believe in the same sauce for the goose as for the gander.

KS

 

[FIND]

Ever hear the saying, two wrongs don't make a right?

Discriminating against someone based upon appearance is the same thing no matter how you justify it. Calling it liberal S H I T and spacing it out just so everyone knows what a big boy you are and don't have to guess what word you used doesn't change anything.

You were posting looking for someone to agree with you. Unfortunately others do not. This is America. If you want your right to think and feel what you want, then respect others right to do so as well.

Moving on though to one point you made. There is nothing in the law that says you cannot deny services to or tell people they are unwelcome if they are smelly, unwashed, or high on recreational drugs or chemicals. Going much further than that and denying people service based upon hair style, hair color, or tattoos, can get you trouble, and is a silly business practice.

Go to Sturgis some time and try and guess what many of those people there do for a living. You can't judge a book by its cover.

Now, I will admit, I assumed you were talking about a particular group or creed, but you did leave your statement very open, inviting that type of interpretation, and I can see from your response,

Since you brought it up, on the other hand, this is Detroit. It's quite common, within the city limits, to see signs posted in black-owned businesses suggesting that Caucasians are not welcome. But, even though I'm the minority here, that's not frowned on. I guess, theoretically, that I just believe in the same sauce for the goose as for the gander.

that you did have such things in mind, you were just waiting for someone to say something in relation to your VERY loose original statement, so that you could blame your racism on them. Sorry, not gonna work. Your plan there was pretty transparent. Honestly. I would have respected you more if you said you were a racist. The fact that you have to hide it and try and sneak it in like that just makes you that much less of a man. I am sorry, but your e-penis is now much smaller.

In the end though, it seems you are just whining because you think it is a violation of your civil liberties to say that you cannot violate someones civil liberties.

 

[foxpaws]

As I rather expected, I got a few thoughtful replies, and a lot of liberal S H I T. I didn't say anything about race---some of you did. I actually had a personal service thing---advisory---in mind as a business. No goods delivered. I also was thinking about denying access to some folk with tattooed faces and orange mohawks for hair, smelly unwashed, and, from their eyes, hopped up on 'recreational chemicals'. Rented premises, and the entirety of my personal and business equipment to be a laptop that I always take with me. Let the building burn. I hope it's insured.

And as was stated KS - if you have a choice - than the business owner does as well - if you smoke - you can be denied a seat in a restaurant, if you are carrying a gun - the business owner can deny access - it is a choice. If you are hopped up on drugs - the business owner can show you the door. No shirt - no shoes - no service. Orange hair and ink - well, if you want, you can deny, but you will be dancing in dangerous territory.

We didn't go just to race as you said - we were showing the difference between how things you can 'chose' are allowed to be used by business to deny services/goods. You didn't elaborate - so to answer your question, we needed to elaborate, to clarify how the law sees business owners' right to refuse.

Things that don't deal in choice - gender, race - you may not deny.

Or do you think you should be able to KS? It is a pretty textbook libertarian stand. Do you think that before Paul backed down, he was stating something you think should be the law of the land - that private businesses should be allowed to discriminate, their business, their 'right' to chose who they deal with - as you stated before. What do you really think KS - don't hide behind 'what ifs' just state this - as I said it is pretty much standard libertarian thought.

It's well proven that the police have no duty to protect---read DeShaney 489 US 189, 1989. '...there is no duty to protect...' I always have a 1911 with me, and it's no great problem to take an Ithaca 37 and/or an Ingram M10 with me as I did in my landlord years.

Under the circumstances outlined above, I have no need of any services. Even though I've paid for them with my taxes.

So you are more than welcome to shoot into an angry mob - good luck with that one KS... outside your property, you won't find any 'make my day' laws that will let you shoot some one on the sidewalk. And I am sure you don't need the protection of our armed forces - we will just let everyone come home.

Since you brought it up, on the other hand, this is Detroit. It's quite common, within the city limits, to see signs posted in black-owned businesses suggesting that Caucasians are not welcome. But, even though I'm the minority here, that's not frowned on. I guess, theoretically, that I just believe in the same sauce for the goose as for the gander.

So, do you have a link or photos of those signs - I would love to see one KS.

 

[foxpaws]

i am sorry, but your e-penis is now much smaller.

+1 ^