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: 6
3
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaDe_
I am sorry, but if I have a business I should be able to hire who I want when I want. I should not be held to some standard that I would be required to have an ethnic, religious, or gender mixture of any percentage. If they aren't qualified for the job then you shouldn't be forced to hire them based on ethnicity, religion, or sex period!
There is nothing wrong with what he is saying. No more favors for drooling morons looking for a handout or a leg up based on some fictitious "handicapped" system.


I am totally in agreement with you on this. Private companies should have the right to employ who they will. Period. Any good business will want to hire the best people for the job. To do anything less is not in their best interest. If people don't like their policies, let them do their business elsewhere. My spouse has worked for a church for over 30 years, and is required to be a "good" member to remain employed. My DIL works for a company where being a "Christian" is required. This is allowed now and should be allowed in the future.




posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter
 


Thanks for that. Humor can open the eyes.


"Yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, ding".



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   
the smear campaign they're running against him is only affective on the ignorant. i don't think it'll hurt him too much, hopefully



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


As a black man, I certainly can understand why people are leery about the idea of permitting private businesses to deny access to products and services based on ethnic background, religion, etc.

However, I feel that the private nature of a business establishment entitles the proprietor(s) to do business or NOT do business with whomever they see fit. A lunch counter can choose not serve blacks, and blacks and more enlightened members of other backgrounds can choose to picket the # out of the place and eat elsewhere. It'll sort itself out in a great many cases... business owners who turn down money and make wildly unpopular decisions wind up in the poorhouse.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 


I guess the question then becomes: Does eating at Denny's or Cracker Barrel in fact fall under the umbrella of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"? Is anyone going to die, starve, lose their freedom, or languish in oppression because they can't eat there and have to go to IHOP or Applebee's instead? (or heaven forfend a "mom and pop" establishment
)?



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   
We are still fighting the freaking civil war, aren't we?

We should have let the South go their own way.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 
Well, that may be your OPINION, everyone has one, but let the people decide what he REALLY SAID!



Hey, found this NICE interview with Stephanopoulos.






ABC interview

[edit on 5/21/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaDe_
I am sorry, but if I have a business I should be able to hire who I want when I want. I should not be held to some standard that I would be required to have an ethnic, religious, or gender mixture of any percentage. If they aren't qualified for the job then you shouldn't be forced to hire them based on ethnicity, religion, or sex period!
There is nothing wrong with what he is saying. No more favors for drooling morons looking for a handout or a leg up based on some fictitious "handicapped" system.


I can only imagine the humility of going into say, a restaurnat and having the owner shout..."WE DON"T SERVE YOUR KIND" why would we want any citizen to be scared of the reception at any clothing store or fast food place?


We have a small business and I used to get upset because we went through so much to comply with the handycap laws in CA but then my niece had a pregnancy ending neglent drs letting the baby suffucate and she has never been able to walk, it is hard for them. If it happens to you and yours you understand and are glad of the laws.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Wow, if THAT GUY is the new hope of the Tea Party Movement then I'd say they are likely to fall flat on their face. Seems like the TPM is always carting out a fresh shiny new poster child. Like Palin, Scott Brown etc. They look real good at first blush and seem to offer potential until they open their mouth and speak.

Reminds me of that old saying, "Everyone seems normal until you get to know them." I think he seeks some sort of utopian unattainable ideology like his father. Kinda like going to Vegas and betting against the house and playing by your own fantasy rules. A surefire recipe for failure.

Like it or not, the EPA, FDA and OSHA (all governmental agencies) protect American citizens. Just like the Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act.

If you want to see examples of unregulated business run amok, look no further than the BP Gulf Oil spill.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
for all of you who think its ok to let business owners to deny employment or services to any ethnic or religous group, what happens when if it were to go into effect? there would be race riots, stores on fire, racial divisions, it would increase racial tension. now tell me how would this help our country?



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 11:53 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?


Wrong.



Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
It's about freedom.


No it is not. Being free doesn't mean you can do anything you like (Shouldn't you have learned this as a child???
). You are not free to rob a bank. You are not free to commit murder. And among many other things which you are quite reasonably not free to do, you are not free to discriminate against equal citizens.



Originally posted by thisguyrighthereIf 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?


When was anyone ever forced at gunpoint to hire someone he hated?



Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
That'll make for a healthy work environment I'm sure.


Where I work we have people of many different ethnicities, etc. all working and getting along with one another. We are professionals and being professional we leave our personal likes and dislikes at the door. Seems healthy to me. What's your problem hmm?

[edit on 22-5-2010 by Lilitu]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


Do you even know anything about the agencies?

Let us take a look at OSHA. How does OSHA receive funding? They get funding strictly by fines they impose on business.

Being in construction I have had about 10 OSHA site inspections. For your information, I have a mantra that my people and subcontractors are made to learn while working for me. There are three things to know, Safety, Safety, Safety. There are more people out there like me than there are of the other sort. Yes, there are the other asshats out there that circumnavigate the safety of their workers. Who are these you might ask, well let us look at the one in the news now.

British Pacific. Have you seen the interview where BP forced their view on the gasket material found and made their subcontractor continue? Where the foreman for BP told the Transocean foreman that he was the boss.

Enforcement of regulations in some acedemic discussion always works. But in the real world it never does.

Here is the SOLUTION. Jail people that negligently cause harm. Seize the assets of companies that cause harm.

After a FAIR TRIAL.

I would like for you to understand one thing and one thing only. Libertarians are not just about the freedom to do anything they want. They are about the TRUE RULE OF LAW.

Not some bull# where the government has all the solutions, especially when they have their partners in crime(BP) and other mega corps screwing over the citizens.

Let us just take a frelling look at the partners in crime to the government shall we.

Banks.
Auto Companies now.
Oil Companies.
Mega Ag like Monsanto.
etc etc etc.

Why in the hell do people not understand this. You do not need 600,000+ statutes to penalize people and companies that do harm.

You need 600,000+ statutes to be able to have the lawyers remove responsibility from your partners in crime, in your courtrooms.

See how that works? The government is the control mechanism used by the very companies and corporations that you love to demonize.

If I was the president, I would have a prosecutor up and running collecting evidence of the criminal behavior of BP, GS, and the other companies and banks that have brought us to this point. I would at the same time be setting up a congressional panel to begin a listing of all people and other entities harmed.

Sorry to tell you this, but LAW and FREEDOM is all about Libertarianism.

So, if you want the status quo of today, keep backing the two party paradigm.

For those of us not brainwashed, we will continue on bringing down the tyrants the best we can. It is just hard with the ignorant that keep getting in the way.

One last thing, how do you separate or defend your party and your president's complicit behavior with the mega corps?



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 01:23 AM
link   
d

[edit on 23-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Lilitu
 



Where I work we have people of many different ethnicities, etc. all working and getting along with one another. We are professionals and being professional we leave our personal likes and dislikes at the door.


I often hear this said. And while it is undoubtedly a good idea for the workplace, it tells me that your prejudices and biases will be there waiting for you to slip back into them at quitting time...



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I don't see his views as racist. All that he's saying is that if someone is a private property owner they have the right to make whatever business decision they desire when allowing people onto their property. No matter how dumb their opinion may be or how much you may not agree with them, as private property owners they still should reserve the right to make whatever decisions they want regarding their business. It still happens today. Go to any upper class night club. They only let certain type of people in and the guy at the door reserves the right to deny anyone entrance based solely on their appearance. That's straight up discrimination, but since the club is considered private property the owner has the right to make rules as to who's allowed inside.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join