Rand Paul stumbles on Maddow show

reply to post by K J Gunderson


That is AFTER you have been hired. Not when giving an interview for the job.

There is a difference.

If you ask if someone is a US citizen, that is giving the impression that you would discriminate against those that are here legally for work. Which is ILLEGAL and you can be sued for it.

For maybereal to say they are in Human Resources and does not know this, seems like they may not know their job too damn well.

Madow should have concentrated on giant private corporations and institutions not only lunch counters, in challenging Paul's bad thought out ideas.

I imagine that private companies like AT&T, General Motors, [ when they were private] Ford, Chrysler, the other Auto giants, and other huge corporations could discriminate against minorities if Paul and a lot of people on this thread had their way.

Paul may not personally be a racist, in fact, some of his foreign policy views— like his fathers—are admirable, but on this issue he needs to think it out more and understand that there are huge PRIVATE corporations and institutions in this country that if they were allowed to discriminate freely would negatively affect millions. They discriminate now [ there have been thousands of lawsuits against them] imagine what they would do if they had a free pass.


[edit on 20-5-2010 by inforeal]

[edit on 20-5-2010 by inforeal]

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

That is AFTER you have been hired. Not when giving an interview for the job.

Funny, how often do you hire people and THEN have them fill out an application? That is where that question first shows up.

There is a difference.

If you ask if someone is a US citizen, that is giving the impression that you would discriminate against those that are here legally for work. Which is ILLEGAL and you can be sued for it.

That is not what was said or is being said though. You are conveniently editing it for your own purpose. They are allowed to ask if you are a US citizen OR otherwise authorized to work in the US. To ONLY ask if you are a citizen is inappropriate but I do not see anyone saying otherwise.

For maybereal to say they are in Human Resources and does not know this, seems like they may not know their job too damn well.

Maybe you should try reading what he actually posted again then.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Say slavery is suddenly lawful. True slavery, not the wage and tax slavery we currently live under. Who the hell would do business with a "slave made" business? Certainly some folks would but enough to sustain a successful enterprise?

Then again, plenty of people still wear Nike so who knows.

Who would do business with them? EVERYONE....Just ask China, India, Thailand...or any other third world nation where kids are sold to factories.

Originally posted by inforeal

Madow should have concentrated on giant private corporations and institutions not only lunch counters, in challenging Paul's bad though out ideas.

I imagine that private companies like AT&T, General Motors, [ when they were private] Ford, Chrysler, the other Auto giants, and other huge corporations could discriminate against minorities if Paul and a lot of people on this thread had their way.

Paul may not personally be a racist, in fact, some of his foreign policy views— like his fathers—are admirable, but on this issue he needs to think it out more and understand that there are huge PRIVATE corporations and institutions in this country that if they were allowed to discriminate freely would negatively affect millions. They discriminate now [ there have been thousands of lawsuits against them] imagine what they would do if they had a free pass.

So this is the political machines plan?

Label anyone not for big government as racist.

At least you people are consistent.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/64ddaddbe9e6.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by endisnighe


So this is the political machines plan?

Label anyone not for big government as racist.

At least you people are consistent.

From reading your posts in other threads, I have been lead to believe you can read. This thread seems to belie that. Inforeal specifically stated that they did NOT believe Paul was racist. The point of the post was that Paul advocated bad policy that, among other things, would allow racism to flourish. Are you purposely trying to distort the conversation or are you really having trouble following along?

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Yes, that part I bolded, JUST FLEW RIGHT OVER MY HEAD.

Yep, I am a numbskull. I do not understand english.

Thanks Gunderson, I appreciate your remark and you carefully reading my post. I only hope others read closely before they comment, so we could have an honest useful dialogue.

reply to post by endisnighe


So, am I to assume that what you're saying is that private industry does not have to abide by the laws of the land?

So if I choose, I can allow shooting up heroin in my private place of business?

I mean, if anti discrimination laws don't apply to private business, who's to say that any other laws do?

Rand Paul may very well be a closet racist and he just hasn't realized it yet, and you sir may be in the same boat.

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Yes, that part I bolded, JUST FLEW RIGHT OVER MY HEAD.

Yep, I am a numbskull. I do not understand english.

Apparently not. You seem to think it is calling Paul a racist. It clearly states that what Paul is advocating COULD ALLOW RACIST PRACTICES. It does not say anything about Paul being a racist. So uh...yeah you obviously missed that.

Thanks for all the comments so far guys. My personal view of Paul is mixed. I'm kind of more a lefty overall, but I really appreciate that he seems very honest, and a lot of what he says is pretty common sense. I feel that his more 'out there' views will be tempered anyway by others in the Senate, so I don't worry too much about him as some do.

I don't think he's a racist or anything wild like that, even coming from my more left-libertarian/socialist leanings, I can understand his position, I think it is a fine position, even though I don't always agree.

[edit on 20/5/2010 by harpsounds]

reply to post by Flatfish


If it was up to me I'd say go for it. Prohibition is a failed cause anyway.

reply to post by endisnighe


FYI I said HR is under my authority, a function that reports to me....and yes I am back-peddling. I talked to my HR guy.

You can't GENERALLY ASK the precise question while sitting across from someone,
"Are you a US Citizen?"

You can ask that precise question if it relates to the Job, Security Clearance, Government contractor etc.

You can always ask if they are a "US Citizen or authorized to work in the US"

You can require US Citizenship while advertising for a position.

You can require US Citezenship and ask the question via an application prior to interviewing.

You can ask for proof of the same.

I still say that the construction firm you work for could have easily have asked "are you a US Citizen or authorized to work in the US"...and for some reason chose not to.

Someone here mentioned that this is just how the left works.

I would like to make a distinction here, between what I call the 'honest left' and the 'loyal left'.

People such as Rachel Maddow, and the Young Turks, to name a couple of media lefties, I consider to be more on the 'honest left' in general. They are quite happy to admit that they do agree with someone like Paul on issues such as the Patriot Act, on the way wars are conducted and so on. The Young Turks even went so far as to describe Paul as the 'progressive candidate' in the Kentucky Primary, because they find him far more acceptable than many candidates. These people seem to make their judgements on policy, on the issues that matter to them. Sometimes I might disagree, but if those are their genuine opinions, I can't be too harsh on them.

The ones I can't stand are the 'loyal left'. These are people who support someone like Obama, just because he's running on a Democrat platform. They are the ones playing party politics. They'll vote against something, just because a Republican suggested it, disregarding if it's useful or not.

I think with 2010 being the year of the anti-incumbent, we'll see more and more characters, on both the left and right, who actually believe what they are saying, and vote for what they believe in, regardless of what their party tells them to do.

[edit on 20/5/2010 by harpsounds]

Paul played the role of a consummate politician.

I want you all to consider something very - very - very carefully.

What would all other politicians have done in Paul's situation?

They would have lied.

That's what they would have done.

How easy would it have been for Paul to say he supports something he really doesn't?

----------

Now, on to the issue of federal laws prohibiting racism in private industry:

If Mike the racist homophobe decides he's going to exclude blacks and gays from his restaurant, while Joe, his competition across the street does not, who is going to make more money?

Who will be able to offer cheaper meals due to economy of scale?

What would prevent blacks and gays from picketing outside of Mike's establishment in protest?

Would customers want to dodge a bunch of angry blacks and gays outside of Mikes door to eat there?

Would customers want to be seen eating in a known racists restaurant?

Freedom works these problems out by itself without the need for government laws or regulations.










[edit on 20-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by harpsounds


A teabagger is exposed to be a dirty racist? Oh say it ain't so!

reply to post by mnemeth1


Now, on to the issue of federal laws prohibiting racism in private industry:

If Mike the racist homophobe decides he's going to exclude blacks and gays from his restaurant, while Joe, his competition across the street does not, who is going to make more money?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

History tell us otherwise.
You think things have changed because, what? People became nicer?
No, it's because of the law. Interesting that so many of you just don't like the idea of equal rights. What does that say? Hmmmm

reply to post by OldDragger


Things did change because people became 'nicer.' Laws didnt force protesters to march in the streets. You've got the process all backwards. The laws came in after people got fed up with the situation.

To push the point further no law or collection of laws made any one racist stop being a racist. They still exist to this day despite all the laws in the world.

The 'law' came in way after the fact, claimed it made all the difference, yet is still incapable of turning a bigot into a non-bigot.

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to see it, did it really fall?

We are talking about PMSNBC here people. Does anyone even watch this show?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by OldDragger

 

Things did change because people became 'nicer.' Laws didnt force protesters to march in the streets. You've got the process all backwards. The laws came in after people got fed up with the situation.

To push the point further no law or collection of laws made any one racist stop being a racist. They still exist to this day despite all the laws in the world.

The 'law' came in way after the fact, claimed it made all the difference, yet is still incapable of turning a bigot into a non-bigot.

I agree completely.

Let us also consider this:

Because we now have laws that prevent Mike from discriminating against blacks and gays, the blacks and gays that are eating at Mike's restaurant are now contributing profits to a racist bigot without knowing about it.

Irony?

I think so.


[edit on 20-5-2010 by mnemeth1]