Rand Paul

Krgrecw said:
I don't like the Paul's, but I imagine there's not to many people in Washington who would accept money from Stormfront and not return it and admit fault after the media finds out you accepted the funds except for the Paul's. Stormfront has no doubt that Paul was behind his 'racist letters' from years back.

Are they racist? I don't think they are racist as much as they just don't care for Blacks or Jews. there's a difference. I could never bang or date a 300lb chick. Does that mean I hate them? Nope. People like who they like. different strokes for different strokes. freedom of choice.
Click to expand...

You're confusing sexual preference with racial prejudice, aka, racism. The Paul Letters say things like "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." or "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day." or “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began.” or “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.” or saying that homosexual who contracts aids “enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick,"

The inability for adults functioning in society today to grasp what racism is, is sad. Racism isn't posting big signs or burning crosses exclusively. Racism shows up in many different functions. See sturg's racist example of picking the black guy to play basketball.
 
Julio3000 said:
I've got a couple of questions, which I'm curious to see how you—or anyone else who's inclined to . . . aces, Tapate, Bedell?—answer. This is not any kind of rhetorical question, or gotcha-game. I'm just curious.

Was the Civil Rights Act unconstitutional?

Was the harm to private property rights suffered by business owners greater or lesser than the harm suffered by citizens who were discriminated against on the basis of race? Did the simple existence of legal racial discrimination affect the rights of non-whites to enjoy liberty and pursue happiness? What was the actual harm suffered by business owners under Title II of the act?
Click to expand...

I believe it was unconstitutional because of the restrictions it put on private business owners. it gave the federal government power over the hiring and service offered of employers.

I don't know where the harm was worse, and frankly I don't care. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the Federal government can force a private business owner to serve someone, or to hire someone. It infringes on someone's right to be able run his/her business the way they see fit.

This is from Ron Paul's speech in 2004 on the 40th anniversary:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.
Click to expand...
 
Metaphysicist said:
tumblr_msor52jBvW1sx02dco1_400.gif
Click to expand...

So if I stereotype that women might be better at educating young children than men, that would make me racist? (note, I don't think that - just an example to your typical thought out GIF)
 
sturg33 said:
So if I stereotype that women might be better at educating young children than men, that would make me racist? (note, I don't think that - just an example to your typical thought out GIF)
Click to expand...

Do... do you think women are a different race from men?
 
zitothebrave said:
The inability for adults functioning in society today to grasp what racism is, is sad. Racism isn't posting big signs or burning crosses exclusively. Racism shows up in many different functions. See sturg's racist example of picking the black guy to play basketball.
Click to expand...

I think you just have a different interpretation of what racism is than I do. You don't know all - so you can get over that.

I believe that racism is thinking a person is inferior ONLY because of his race. Applying stereotypes based on real world data is just practical and common sense - as long as you understand that it could very well be wrong.
 
zitothebrave said:
No that would make you sexist.
Click to expand...

Oh I see - so we can NEVER assume one person is better at something based on real world data and experiences ever?

Is it "sexist" of me to say women are more emotional than men?

I would call that biological fact. You call it sexist and think i'm some horrible person for just being honest
 
sturg33 said:
Sure. What if I am selling something on Craigslist?
Click to expand...

Really? When you sell something on Craiglist, you open your doors for the general public to come in at their leisure? Or do you rather invite someone inside when it suits you? It makes a big difference.
 
sturg33 said:
Oh I see - so we can NEVER assume one person is better at something based on real world data and experiences ever?

Is it "sexist" of me to say women are more emotional than men?

I would call that biological fact. You call it sexist and think i'm some horrible person for just being honest
Click to expand...

It's sexist to see a woman and assume she's more emotional than a man. You're confusing statistics of a group vs qualities of an individual and it's quite sad.
 
sturg33 said:
Of course not, which is why I said it because stereotype does not equal racist

But it was really clever how you did that "do... do" bit. Nice!
Click to expand...

Just so I'm following your logic here: stereotypes about race are not racist because stereotypes can also be about things that are not race. That about right?
 
sturg33--on property rights--where does it stop? I agree that the Little Pink House lady in the Kelso case was right to fight eminent domain because I think the local government was clearly out to lunch, but what if the Little Pink House was sitting on a toxic waste dump and the house's existence threatened the rest of the community because it impeded clean-up? I try not to question motives because it's too difficult, so I leave my judgment to actions and I can't see why a business owner would want to limit consumers on a racial basis. I suppose they have their reasons. But we see signs limiting the number of kids that can be in a convenience store at a time or require shirt and shoes. Owners can still govern the behavior in their establishment. If a property owner feels threatened, there are avenues to lawfully alleviate that threat without bringing race into the picture. It's important to note that while the Declaration of Independence is not a governing document, Jefferson changed Locke's reference to "property" to "pursuit of happiness." I don't know if that solves anything here, but I've always found that interesting.
 
zitothebrave said:
It's sexist to see a woman and assume she's more emotional than a man. You're confusing statistics of a group vs qualities of an individual and it's quite sad.
Click to expand...

No. It's literally science. The face that you can't understand that is sad.

Can there be exceptions? Of course. But in general - why would I ignore science?
 
sturg33 said:
No. It's literally science. The face that you can't understand that is sad.

Can there be exceptions? Of course. But in general - why would I ignore science?
Click to expand...

Because every person is different? If Chris Johnson has a .333 BA does that mean every time he comes to the plate he gets a third of a hit? Or exactly every 3 times he comes to the plate he gets a hit? No anyone with an arbitrary amount of knowledge of statistics and biology would discuss the fact that generalities don't apply to individuals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top