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: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I can see what you mean regarding larger business and vast corporations. It's kind of hard to conceal bigotry when you have 5,000 employees and all of them are white or black or Jewish or whatever. But, as I pointed out in my last post, what about smaller businesses? It's much harder to tell if the owner is biggoted.




posted on May, 20 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
This is reminiscent of Sam Crow and these views have no place in either Congress, The Senate, or at any level of Government or views of any private or public person, or at any business.



Sam Crow.....


any relation to Jim?




posted on May, 20 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


lol...you have a point. It makes sense. I'm still on the fence, but I think the main concern is one of empathy. I can't imagine what it would be like to NOT acquire/accomplish something simply because your 'different' in a way that you cannot help.

What I'm saying is, I think those who push for these anti-discrimination laws in regards to employment had their hearts in the right place. Where their brains were is another matter and up for debate.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldDragger

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.


The Constitution doesnt delegate any power to the federal government to dictate who private business owners may hire/fire/do business with.

You may want to get educated on a topic before choosing to debate it.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by brainwrek
 


Oh Good God!
You people are just....too much.
thanks Mr Constitution!



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by brainwrek
 


Oh Good God!
You people are just....too much.
thanks Mr Constitution!


Typical response from someone who has no knowledge of something, yet think they know better than everyone else.

Instead of proving me wrong (which you cant), you avoid the issue with a pathetically laughable response.

Way to uphold the stereotype sir



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
I tend to agree with Rand Paul on this issue.

I don't support quotas, affirmative action, or anti-discrimination legislation aimed at private business.

Any privately held business can certainly make the choice for itself who and who it does not want to serve, hire, or deal with as a choice for itself.

While these views might not have been pragmatic in days past, these days I'd suggest that we could easily remove these systems and allow the consumer to make the choice on their own.

I do have one caveat though. Any company that chooses to be publicly traded must conform to same anti-discrimination laws that apply to the government. This wouldn't remove freedom, as any company has the right to be privately held or publicly traded.

Freedom isn't always the prettiest picture, but it's the model that affords us the ability to grow as needed and to make the choices we would like to as free people.

Seems rather simple to me and NOT inherently racist, sexist, or bigoted in any way.

I have not seen anyone show evidence that it is bigoted, and I doubt we will.

Peace
KJ



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Rand Paul sets the record straight::



In response to liberal media attacks, Dr. Rand Paul today released the following statement:

“I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.
www.randpaul2010.com...


This is what happens in politics
damn Politics man!!!



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by KrazyJethro
 


I think what you say about private companies vs. publicly traded makes perfect sense and is more than fair. You kinda said what I was saying without even realizing that is what I was saying!



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
He had too. It doesn't matter if what he states is the Libertarian belief, he has no chance of ever winning a seat saying that he wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights Act.

NO CHANCE.

He did the right thing...and yes..to one of the previous posters...

His father is on the record stating the same thing on the Civil Rights Act (that he would have been against it).


Libertarians believe it infringes on property rights.

Anyway, there IS A REASON why this didn't come out BEFORE he won the Primary...the left will now try to crucify and paint him as a racist to win a seat that was held by a former Republican.

RON PAUL quoted:



"...contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty."




"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."


news.gather.com...

So yes, Ron Paul has the same stance.





[edit on 20-5-2010 by David9176]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
In addition to fervor over Paul's perceived "racists" comments I take great issue to his stance on ADA. (American's with Disabilities Act) I walk with a cane due to partial leg paralysis resulting from a stroke. I also have a Handicap parking placard. (I've never divulged that before on here.)

My elderly mother is confined to a wheelchair as well and we frequent many restaurants, retail shops and grocery stores. Without proper parking or access, her life would be further severely hampered. I find Mr. Paul's stance on this topic troubling.

thinkprogress.org...

BTW, I am also a small business owner and welcome any potential client / employee without regard to race, religion, color creed or mobility.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


I understand your position on the ADA, and while I certainly get why you might be adverse to his views I would venture a guess Ron and Rand's views would be similar to mine (not sure on the publicly traded business part) in terms of government and public works.

I, personally, have seen some really ridiculous things come from the ADA guidelines having opened a number of retail outlets. Many of them, depending on location, can be rather cost prohibitive.

In terms of privately held business I would not foist that on them unless they chose to (which I'd imagine most would) and would prefer to work on the individual level to petition business to pay for handicapped access.

This empowers people rather than compounding the already extensive red tape (which as a business owner I'm sure you are familiar with). Small business is already troublesome in the States, so I'd be more inclined to reduce liberty-diminishing regulations rather than keep them and/or add new ones.

Peace
KJ



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
Rand Paul is being quoted on CNN at this moment (in video) saying that he supports the idea of private businesses being able to discriminate based on religion, race, sexual orientation or for any other biased reason that they please.


The alternative is government being able to mandate that private businesses hire according to quotas for every conceivable biased reason. That is the tyranny of the nanny state. The employer is assumed to be biased whether he is or not. This is morally wrong and ethically wrong.

In most of the United States, employment is "at will" - except for a few "protected groups," what Rand Paul advocates is the law. What he advocates is removing the "protection" which in all too many cases has given mediocre candidates for jobs and positions in schools an unfair edge over more deserving candidates.

For forty years government and business have acted affirmatively to remove the consequences of discrimination and racism. There is abundant evidence to indicate that barriers to equal employment have been removed to the greatest extent possible. Most of the people who argue to the contrary have an incentive to retain what is an unjust and racially discriminatory edge over members of non-protected classes - in other words, they are engaging in rent-seeking behavior by asserting that significant discrimination is a still a barrier to equal employment opportunity - and they (and their descendants) will always argue that there is discrimination that prevents equal employment.

Federal law - the Civil Rights Acts - flatly ban affirmative action as it is and has been practiced. The Civil Rights Acts also ban discrimination as it touches Federal contract activity and availability of housing. Nothing forbids purely private organizations from hiring and promoting according to their own criteria in most jurisdictions - except for the "protected classes." You seem to be confusing Canadian law with the laws of most of the United States.

I find bigotry to be repugnant, but too many self-appointed advocates of members of protected classes engage in openly bigoted behavior themselves - the African-American activist community assembled firmly behind the Jena Six - six football players who beat one white schoolmate badly enough to require hospitalization.

It's time to stop pretending that the members of protected classes are uniformly put upon by prospective employers and will require perpetual preference in hiring and promotion over non-protected classes. It's an absurd pretense.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Unbelievable, Chris Matthews actually defends Ran


Also here is the CNN bit


It seems like there is an all out war on Rand Paul!!!



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
You understand that government mandating a private business employ or not employ certain people for any reason isnt exactly not racist, right?

It's about freedom. If that means some jerkwad isnt going to hire a guy because he's Methodist then so be it. Is it really better to force the jerkwad at gunpoint to hire a guy he hates? That'll make for a healthy work environment I'm sure.

One of the great myths of current years is that laws against discrimination actually prevent discrimination.

I once was told by a head hunter that another candidate for a job and I did not get an interview with Nokia, because we "were too experienced." Of course, that was just a way of getting around age discrimination. I thought about filing an age discrimination lawsuit, but decided against it, because I figured they would offer a job as part of a settlement and I didn't want to work for such a stupid company. It would have been a waste of time to file a lawsuit, since the plant closed about a year later, confirming my analysis of their intelligence.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 





It seems like there is an all out war on Rand Paul!!!


And just happened to start right after he won the Republican primary!!

Wow...no hidden agenda there. It doesn't change the horrid interview he did...nor his stances...but I think it's pretty obvious what really happened here.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by David9176]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


His stance is sound!
He is not choosing one side or another
he is chosing impartiality



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I'm guessing, since you post many Ron Paul videos (as I have), that you are a regular visitor to Campaignforliberty.com. It's a huge Paul supporter and Libertarian website...in case you didn't know about it.

There isn't a single mention of this entire issue anywhere on the site...except for a comment I made in one of the threads there.

www.campaignforliberty.com...

I take that back, there is one blog post on it...but no vid and they usually post every vid of either Paul when they are on television.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by David9176]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Pretty tough issue to debate, this one!

On one hand, capitalism is the panacea to all evils in the world. If a company refuses to hire certain people, then they will suffer economically as they have a sub-standard workforce, and will not be able to relate to certain demographics etc. That's why most good companies will look to increase diversity in their workforce of their own volition. Government has NO business interfering in this matter.

On the other hand, people with disabilities are unlikely to be hired due to the costs that may be involved. Imagine you're a small business owner and you would like to hire a handicapped person because they are good for the job. Would you be able to afford to install specialised equipment for their use on the job, a wheelchair ramp etc?

Again I don't believe that government dictats are the right way to tackle this. Capitalism will smooth the playing field.

There's a great example of a Danish company that employs only autistic people for software coding. They find that autistic people have very intense focus and concentration, which is great for software coding. Their business is doing very well, and they are providing employment and livelyhoods to numerous disabled people! It's a great example of the positive aspects of capitalism that are rarely shown by the media, or the government (since both those two would be out of a job if people realised that they are useless compared to the market forces!)



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


i've seen the website once or twice but I don't visit it unfortunately because I am not at all fond of the navigation of the site.

I do go to dailypaul.com once in a while however
I don't have a username or a login but I just watch videos there at times



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join