It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rand Paul's Controversial Racist Views

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


So it's fine to just put up a sign, "No Coloreds", "No Jews" "No Japs".
You are a hypocrite, and very simplistic as well.
Having a business takes "personal responsibility", you have no right to sell defective or dangerous products, etc. Don't give me your "free market" BS!
Also you have no right to be successful.
Society has rules of civil behavior, you want to be exempt.
This is why I despise the mindless worship of clowns like Paul. I don't think we should return to 19th century ethics and Jim Crow.




posted on May, 20 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
I feel a business should be able to hire whomever they want. It is not who they hire, it is the way that they treat the customers that will ultimately decide the business fate.

IMO, a racist business would have limited customers(like-minded people) or no business. Either way, it fails.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Funny how the Constitution lovin' ATS crowd only like freedom when it benefits them! You crow about it constantly, yet despise equal protection!
Sad. Guess that's why the fringe is the fringe!

Most Americans see through this.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 


When I have ever said anything hypocritical? Personal and unfounded attack so soon?

Say I put up a "no japs" sign. What then? A whole mess of people around town come and protest about. Destroying my business. My racist position has effectively ended my business. With absolutely no help whatsoever from the government. Amazing how things can work out without a jackass in a suit and a $3,000 tax payer paid first class ticket and swarms of media showing up.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldDragger

Funny how the Constitution lovin' ATS crowd only like freedom when it benefits them!


Example?

For starters this whole "hire who you want" deal would have easily cost me several of my past jobs. I still support what Paul is saying to my own detriment.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
The hiring of people should be based solely on MERIT. Any employer should search for the best fit candidate. They should not be regulated to hire someone who simply fills a quota.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Funny how some people will do anything to destroy someone's reputation they don't like. Saying Rand Paul is a racist is outrageous, he is in favor of letting private business owners hire whoever they wish, which means a private business could higher the most qualified applicants for a position. The qualified applicant could be black, white, Hispanic, or whatever, he is simply saying that you should not be forced to higher someone on the basis of their ethnicity. I completely agree with that, say you own a private business and you have two applicants, one is qualified for the position and has good references to back up his qualifications, the second of a different skin color who is not as qualified to work the job applied for; how would you feel if you had to hire the person with less qualifications based on their ethnicity? That is a ridiculous notion. You also failed to mention in that same CNN piece you watched Rand Paud also said and I quote "I abhor racism." But, you probably missed that because that idiot on CNN was dogging him so hard. This is not racism, quit letting cnn or whoever you watch put these ideas in your head, actually why don't you think a little deeper and realize how much of a sham this is. They did the same thing to Ron Paul in the primaries this past election and trashed his reputation and now they are doing the same with his son. This is an outrage.

EDIT to add: I am still watching this same guy on CNN right now and he is taking his words totally out of context and this agenda is outrageous, he just said that Rand Paul doesn't agree with the civil rights act, and said that he is against the government telling people who they can allow in his store. That was never said by Rand, Rand clearly is specifically talking about hiring people not who is allowed in the store. Things like these taken out of context need to be recognized and corrected it is obvious there is a clear smear campaign out on Rand.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by FearfulButInterested]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   
despite olddraggers constant rambling about the constitution, which he clearly does not understand, anybody preforming a service, reserves the right to refuse service to whomever he or she pleases.

forcing ANYBODY to preform service for ANYBODY, is TYRANNY .

and it is certainly not the job of a constitutional government, to regulate tyranny.

silly old dragger, trollings for kids!



i think a few of you need to look up the definition of capitalism too while were on the subject, employment a right? lmfao maybe in china...

good one folks

[edit on 20-5-2010 by LurkerMan]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I agree with Rand. And I'll tell you what's racist, what's racist is and employer having to hire peoples based on there skin color over qualified candidates in order to meet their quota. The same goes for the testing to be a police officer or fireman, to name a few, where people of color are awarded more points than caucasians and Asians. And, no, I am not a racist, I am a race realist. Anyone with intelligence would know the difference between the two. GO RAND PAUL!



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by FearfulButInterested
 


Sure, because the Pauls are dogmaticly revered on ATS as perfect beings.
ATS posters tolerate no cricism of the Sainted annoited Pauls, none.
The fact that RP has been in Congress 30 years means he's an outsider to
you! ALL other polititions are liars and scum, but the Pauls, like Washington cannot tell a lie. They wear halos! They don't wheel and deal like other pol's. They are paragons of virtue!
Yeah right!


[edit on 20-5-2010 by OldDragger]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 


I would love for you to point out where I said they were saints or incapable of wrong doing. Please show me. That's right you can't. I'm was exposing this slanted agenda against the two. It is obvious and clear, and your sarcastic post shows how you cannot prove anything you have just stated. Sarcasm is the last thing you should be resorting to. So please show me where I said they were the greatest etc... Please I'm waiting...



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by FearfulButInterested
 


Uh, did I even mention you?
I said "ATS posters".



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I don't think his comments make him a racist/biggoted. He's basically saying if a racist/biggoted SOB employer doesn't doesn't want to hire someone for some ignorant reason such as skin color, belief or lifestyle, then they shouldn't be forced to work in an environment that will make them uncomfortable. That doesn't mean he AGREES with the racist's/bigot's views, he just doesn't think they should be FORCED to accept these people as employees.

However, that isn't to say that he's right. I'm really on the fence about it. I can see this working for small businesses where the hiring manager is usually the owner, but not in large business and vast corporations. It was made illegal to discriminate most likely because of the slippery slope factor where if you have a few bigotted hiring managers denying anyone they are prejudice against jobs, you'll have a large demographic of unemployed people who are of color, a certain religion, or homosexual.

So, while I can see how the argument makes perfect sense. It's also not very practical in the grand scheme of things. It's really a fine, blurred line, isn't it?



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 


Well, considering I am posting on ATS you were talking to me....So i suggest you back off your sarcastic blanket statements and add something constructive.
Edit:
And as Nunya has pointed out below you were replying to my post specifically.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by FearfulButInterested]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 


To be fair, you did reply specifically to Fearful's post. I'm sure you can see how it would seem you were directing those comments not only at ATS, but also at him/her.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
so if a black man opens a business and decides to hire only black people, you will be ok with this? i think that people should be hired soley on merit, ability & qualification. race, sex, creed should have nothing to do with it. i do think there should be some sort of regulation, otherwise we will have a lopsided workforce. in chicago there is a lot of complaining about the police and fire departments hiring practices. i also hear a lot of complaining about people saying they cant get a job because they hire only mexicans, well it works both ways and i dont think its right.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
 


I can see that concern.

But what are the chances that small business would grow very large at all if everyone knew Pete over there only hired WASP's?

Or, in the case of an already established corporation, would WalMart fair very well year over year if they only hired militant Blank Panthers?

Their errors and penchant for bigotry would and do correct themselves. As it is when word gets out of institutional biases there is general outrage and protest. When has the 'law' had to step in and play parent to make things right? The outrage and string of protest (more importantly patronage boycott) bring about the desired correction.

It may be easy for people to turn a blind eye to the inhumane conditions of overseas slave labor because, well, it's happening overseas. Let's see Nike get away with cramming 100 9 year olds into a shack for 16 hours a day to sew shoes in Oregon.

On the flip side, if my 9 year old wanted to do that for some extra cash over, let's say mowing lawns in the neighborhood, then he should have that option available. Why not? If he can quit anytime and enjoys what he's doing and his nickle-a-day pay more power to him. Not that I would let him do that but you get the point.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Let's be realistic, how many people are going to air out their dirty laundry that they are a racist? Even if you were just being facetious and simply meant that a racist employer will eventually have answer to the community, you are first assuming that one would even be able to tell that the business owner has biggoted views. Most racists are "in the closet", so to speak.

My office doesn't have any people of color working here. Does that mean my boss is a racist? No, just means we've NEVER had a person of color apply OR be a good candidate for the job.

But, just so you know. I'm on the fence with this one because I can see the valid points on both sides of the issue.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by conspiracy nut
 


Arent entire regions of the nation 'lopsided' in this respect? Why not collect up a bunch of white people from Maine and a bunch of black people from Michigan and bus them off to the others state?

We all want 'equality' and 'fairness' right?



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13
My office doesn't have any people of color working here. Does that mean my boss is a racist? No, just means we've NEVER had a person of color apply OR be a good candidate for the job.


Hmmm.... how do I know that?

Overtime word spreads. A couple of non-hires here, a few overheard comments there and a pattern can be deduced.

It wouldnt be terribly difficult at all to tell if a business is practicing bigoted hiring at all. Especially in this day of infinite cameras and Twitter.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join