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: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Just checked out that site....it looks as if even some of his supporters are at odds with what he said.

Interesting.




posted on May, 20 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


I think that Rand Paul would politely decline your support, if he knew how you apparently jumped the gun with a knee-jerk reaction over something that showed on CNN. Where is the video, so we can all watch it and make up our own minds?

And the way you accuse the entire TPM of these same phantom views shows that you really have a closed mind. You say you won't have anything to do with them (TPM)? Once again, I think they also would politely decline your support. And that's a good thing.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 



So it's fine to just put up a sign, "No Coloreds", "No Jews" "No Japs".


That's not what Rand said, or meant, at all. Not even close, and you know it. You're just being disingenuous.

The example he gave was a good one. If a disabled person is hired, the employer should be allowed to give him a desk on the first floor instead of being forced to install a $100,000 elevator. That is the type of goverment intervention he opposes.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


Again, another ignorant poster that would not know which country he is standing in unless there was a person who told him this is the United States.



Can we get common law taught in elementary please?

Everyone knows the law we just pervert it as we grow older.

We all know theft is wrong but government says hey its ok to take from some one if you are doing nice things with it.

Its theft. Its criminal treat them accordingly.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 



I think you misunderstood what Rand said. He was supporting employers rights. What he was talking about would have no affect on your mother's access to restaurants or shopping.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


This probably has to do with government enforced equilibrium. They probably mean supporting a businesses' right to manage their well being as they see fit.

On a technical level that IS libertarianism at its core. And personally, as long as they don't say "you're black, get out", I have no problem with it. For example, if a family restaurant doesn't want to higher a flamboyant homosexual due to their desire to keep certain standards, then that is their right. If they don't want to hire a perfectly normal gay man, then that is wrong.

I think at least. mmkay?



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   
I don't really see this as racist. Business' should be able to hire or serve whoever they want. I see no problem with this.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
I have a few questions for all you Libertarians.

If you own a restaurant should you have the right to refuse service to anyone based on whatever criteria you please?

If so, then does that mean that your criteria can be applied consistently, and therefore in a discriminating manner, toward identifiable populations?

For example, imagine that you don't trust black people and you don't want them on your premises, which you own. Should you be able to exclude them (not should you, but should you be able to)?

Can you not see that despite what Paul says, his position is tantamount to reinstating Jim Crow/segregation laws in parts of the U.S.?

Do you really think our government does not have a legitimate interest in protecting all citizens against the prejudices of a few?



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 01:22 AM
link   
I have some questions for the Libertarians
and TPM.

If we agree that a business can descriminate
in hiring employees or serving customers, what
is the benefit. I feel it os wrong, not that my
opinionatters in the grand scheme of things and
that business would fail. Who would end up
paying for that? The taxpayer would because
someone that stupid would qualify for disability
benefits.

If that business owner recieved a Small Business
Loan or Federal Tax Credit would they still be
allowed to play that game? What about local
and state benefits? Since those are not federal
would they still be allowed.

One of the funniest (or saddest) things that happened
to me when I was looking for work awhile back
was being descriminated against. I am white,
the business owner was white. The reason I didn't
get the job was because I am an Atheist. The guy
should not have even asked the question but what
the hell.

The really ironic part of this was that fact the
position was for Auto Sales.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Hey, this whole discussion brought up a question.

Wasn't there a dentist that put up a sign that said People that voted for Obama please do not use this business? Or something like that.

Can I put up a sign that says "All idiot Repubs and Dems need to read the Constitution before entering this store"?

Would that be discrimination?



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


Is it really that easy for you to be brainwashed by the crap you see from big corporate media?



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by kinda kurious
 



I think you misunderstood what Rand said. He was supporting employers rights. What he was talking about would have no affect on your mother's access to restaurants or shopping.


Uhmmmmm. Scuse me? Under his warped premise, if a small business owner did want wheel chairs in their "private property" they could forbid access. I think I clearly understand his intentions. Perhaps no veteran amputees because they frighten the children. Get real. His views cast a pall on the TPM and that drives you crazy. :shk:



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


KK, you do know that a lot of the problems with flooding nowadays is because of the ADA requirements?

Because of ADA requirements, an undinteded consequence of low slope neighborhoods has developed.

Maximum slopes, in and out of neighborhoods on the very sidewalks required to be placed around these neighborhoods.

Being in building construction as a site super, I have a in the thick of it viewpoint. Building almost completely flat communities is a major problem in any place that gets even normal rainfall. I have seen in cities getting just 1 or 2 inches of rain in 12 hours get completely flooded due to the inability of the storm drainage to handle even small amounts of rain.

Where as older communities getting 6-12 inches of rain in a 12 hour period do get flooding but the water is removed quicker because people in the old days knew better than to live on a flat plane next to damn rivers. You lived on the hills.

In the beginning of the ADA movement, they allowed builders to alot a percentage of the properties or apartments for compliance. This way the residences that were needed for the disabled, were there.

Now, every facility for residence, approximately 50% need to be ADA compliant. I do not know for sure how this works. The last large place I built was a huge apartment complex. We were allowed to build two story apartments so the second floor were not ADA compliant and only the first floors were. So I am assuming the requirement is 50%. But, it being that the first floors were all ADA compliant and everything has to be tied together, the place was like a damn big pool table. Flat as a hell.

This one was in Fresno. Now, the architect and engineers had all these drainage areas installed and I knew for a fact they were not going to work. I convinced my bosses, the land developers, to install a few more drainage lines throughout the project. Even with these, we had a pretty good rain for Fresno of about .5" in an hour. I knew we were going to have problems. The grade on some of the land was so low to almost be non existent. Some flooding occurred in some of the apartments from a damn 1/2 inch of rain. Amazing.

Unintended consequences.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Rain causes flooding not handicapped people. What a streeeetch.

Weak sauce endie. You are slipping.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


That is not stretching, I was just referring to ADA codes and a unintended consequence.

I could post a pic of the site I was talking about. I had to completely redesign the sidewalk elevations and the landscape drainage/elevations to try and get it to work.

Also had to add in several ramps with handrails and such, that the engineers and architects missed. A couple spots I could not solve the problems. The code is on access, as long as one path is available, it is fine.

One spot, I could not put in a ramp, too much slope, had to install stairs. To get around the code, we had to add 200 feet of sidewalk to go all the way around this building to the other side of the stairs. What a waste of money.

Now, if you were allowed to just not make that one unit non ADA compliant, costs would go down. Hence lower prices, but NOPE.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 






Uhmmmmm. Scuse me? Under his warped premise, if a small business owner did want wheel chairs in their "private property" they could forbid access.


Now I'm certain that you misunderstood him. Or else, you're just being cantankerous, which is a distinct possibility.

First off, I'll assume you meant "did not want".

Next, can they forbid access? I suppose they could....at their own peril. However, Rand never supported that choice.


I think I clearly understand his intentions. Perhaps no veteran amputees because they frighten the children. Get real. His views cast a pall on the TPM and that drives you crazy.


And I think you're being obtuse. I thought you were smarter than that. But here you are, twisting words just to start a fight.

Grow up, KK. You're smarter than that. You're old enough to know better. Who do you think you are going to sway with that kind of BS? Some newbie tween?



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
if employement is a right then you believe in that stupid Affirmative Action BS.

Study, work hard, updgrade your skills and go career hunting!

Personal responsibility!!!!!!!!


That's the issue study, work hard, upgrade your kills and go career hunting becomes harder when employers don't hire you just cos you're the wrong colour.

As others have said small concerns aren't covered by racial equality rules anyway.

About thirty years ago I was working in a tube handling plant, cutting, coating, bagging and bending, anyway a job came up, there were about 130/150 employees all white three people were shown around the shop floor, a girl a black guy and an out of condition slow looking white guy. A buzz went around the workplace people saying they weren't gona work with a black, the girl had excused herself because she didn't like the environment, all the racist workers needn't have worried the slow fat white guy got the job and lasted less than three weeks.

That is why society as a whole decided through democratic means that minority racial groups needed some work place protection and improved work rights.

let's not go back to a generation of open racial prejudice especially in the name of "Freedom".



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I'm looking forward to the massive reset button being pushed and it returning to survival of the fittest.
This puerile devolving spiral of logic loss and political correctness has sterilized and stalled human progress.
It seems every bit of government and media has merged into a constant onslaught of microscopic legalese opinion with nothing but cyclic distraction as its goal.
It truly has become 100% consumption of time, energy and emotion without contribution.
Imagine a world without electricity, or at the very least television, radio, and internet.
At least for a few years.
Hard reset.



[edit on 21-5-2010 by HappilyEverAfter]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Businesses are private property, and those business owners should have a right to include and exclude whomever they wish for whatever reason. It's really that simple. If you don't want to let black men and women into your store, expect to see that business falter and shut down rather quickly. The only regulation needed is from consumers, who will revolt and destroy that business rather quickly.

The idea that this is bringing back Jim Crowe Laws is ridiculous. Nobody is forcing segregation or separate schools and water fountains. Rand just wants business owners to have the right to use the property they own as they see fit, and accept the consequences of such.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
I didn't read very many posts, its a waste of my time.

Rand supports freedom.

If a hilljack wants to keep blacks out of his store, so be it. His loss.


Its upsetting over people being frightened over freedom.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join