Rand Paul stumbles on Maddow show

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by 4nsicphd

 

That goes back to the difference between "slavery next door" and "slavery in another country." It's much easier for people to turn a blind eye to children in a Nike shop in China or children having their arms lopped off because dad didnt pull enough iPod material from the mine in Africa or lines of thirsty and hungry pickers in a Mexican field than it is to turn away from the same situation a few towns over.

I have no idea what a 'Publix' is but I imagine their use of 'slave' labor is no different than any other supermarket. This is an issue with globalism and 'free trade'. Not local 'anti-discrimination' law.

Publix is a large supermarket chain in the Southeast US. The other large buyers of Florida tomatos like McDonalds, Yum Brands, etc., have taken steps to see that their suppliers pay a penny a pound more to pickers and to comply with humane employment practices. And this is not happening in some 3rd world country. It is in Lee County, Florida. You probably supported slavery in the South because all the cotton plantations did it.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by 4nsicphd]

Originally posted by TaxpayersUnleashed
reply to post by maybereal11

 

The commerce clause only effects state to state commerce.

It does not effect a business privately owned.

Now if a Multi state corporation trades between the states then yes.

However everything else is left up to the individuals themselves or the states.

Wrong!!!! Look at Gibbons v. Ogden, 221 U.S. ; United States v. E. C. Knight Company, 156 U.S. 1 (1895) and the hundreds of other cases that followed.

Reply to post by 4nsicphd

If the purchasers are making the growers comply with humane employment practices the. Where are the kids chained to trucks inthe US? Am I reading you wrong? Maybe since I'm apparenlty 300 years old and a bigot.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
If that was a fact, how in the world did legislators, listening to their constituents, pass the civil rights act?! Are politicians more moral and just than the rest of the population....History tells us a different story.

So the civil rights act was passed after it was no longer needed?

Please explain to me why they would pass laws that were no longer needed.

If the majority of people were racist, then, by statistics, the majority of politicians were racist. How then did the bill pass?!?!!?!?

What I'm saying is, obviously there were racists, by that herd was already thinning, and getting smaller. After all, slavery was no longer allowed near 100 years before the Civil Rights Act was instantiated.

There are just as many racists today as there would be without the law. The only difference now, is that people hide their racism (so as to not be fined or go to jail).

The Civil Rights Act was passed BECAUSE people's views were changing. They didn't change because of it.