I'm glad Rand Paul said it...

[paperview]

I asked this earlier, but no one was able to answer it:

Do laws against sexual harassment that apply to private businesses infringe on employer/employee rights?

Stupid question, if you really have to ask that then you are truly a dumbass.

I noticed you still do not answer the question.


Do they or do they not? If so, why or why not?

 

[geauxtohell]

Well, we have to ask those from Kentucky 5 1/2 months from now, won't we?

Remember, Kentucky usually manages to go Republican, despite its having more registered Democrats by default.

I'm from Indiana. What I think about RP is worth nil.

No, you are wrong and you know it. This race is about more than Kentucky. It's about what the Tea Party stands for and their is going to be a ton of money coming in from out of state.

Until now, I thought Paul had it locked up because of all the tea party donations he'd get.

Now he's just de facto dumped a ton of money into his opponents war chest (if his opponent is astute enough to play this correctly).

The nice thing about the Paul's is that they'll continue to say crazy things even if unpopular. So we can only wonder how many more times Rand will shoot himself in the foot.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Gee, I already miss the good old message board days when conservatives were constantly trying to blame opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act on liberals because of all those Southern Democrats that voted against it.

Now, most amusingly, we're finding how many conservatives actually AGREED with those Southern Democrats.

I guess when I told you people, REPEATEDLY, that those Southern Democrats were actually conservatives...

...oh well, you get the point.

Are the Teabaggers a reincarnation of the Dixiecrats?

Maybe "Segregation now, segregation forever!" should be their war cry.

Provide the names of those "Dixiecrats" that you claim became Republicans. It shouldn't be hard since there were only three.

 

[Oscar Wao]

Well, we have to ask those from Kentucky 5 1/2 months from now, won't we?

Remember, Kentucky usually manages to go Republican, despite its having more registered Democrats by default.

I'm from Indiana. What I think about RP is worth nil.

No, you are wrong and you know it. This race is about more than Kentucky. It's about what the Tea Party stands for and their is going to be a ton of money coming in from out of state.

Until now, I thought Paul had it locked up because of all the tea party donations he'd get.

Now he's just de facto dumped a ton of money into his opponents war chest (if his opponent is astute enough to play this correctly).

The nice thing about the Paul's is that they'll continue to say crazy things even if unpopular. So we can only wonder how many more times Rand will shoot himself in the foot.

Believe me, I think he'll measure his words a bit more carefully from this point on.

I don't think he wants to become another Debra Medina...

 

[Samson]

I'm glad Rand Paul said what he said about desegregation because the state had no right to tell other people how to use their own private property. I know it is shitty to use it to showcase your racist views but don't you guys realize that freedom of speech is protected by the right to use your own property as you wish to express your racist views such as only serving 'whites only'. I know it is a sucky thing to do but why do we have the right to deny someone the use of their own property and subsequently the right of free speech. Where do we draw the line between good speech and bad speech in this society.

So it's OK to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater? By approving racist behaviour, you sow the seeds for dissension.

He also supports smoker's rights. And admitted that has been working. But he said he didn't like being told he couldn't smoke. What about the cost to society? What about my rights? I don't like the smell.

Carry it one step further. I don't like being told I can't drive at 125 mph. Or that my kid has to ride in a "safety seat".

For most of history, marriage has been a contract to consolidate wealth or power. Tell the truth now. Lying is unbecoming.

So are strawmen. For christssakes rdean, can you stay on topic for more than a page?

Unhappily, there was no quote in the OP, and a link to it, to explain WTF Rand Paul said:

I don't like the idea of telling private business owners - I abhor racism - I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time I do believe in private ownership.

But I think there should be absolutely no discrimination on anything that gets any public funding and that's most of what the Civil Rights Act was about to my mind

Who could possibly misconstrue the quote?

MSNBC and the Huffington Post find it "just stunning."

Frankly, I find it "Just stunning" that anyone other than rdean could twist this into 'it would be OK for Woolworth's to deny service to MLK.' CLEARLY, Paul says, racism is bad in and of itself, and it is bad business, and therefore it would BAD, not OK, for Woolworth's to deny MLK service.

I hope Rand Paul gets better at these interviews, and stops allowing the interviewers to twist him up.

Damn, I'm glad I posted in this thread.

 

[geauxtohell]

Well, we have to ask those from Kentucky 5 1/2 months from now, won't we?

Remember, Kentucky usually manages to go Republican, despite its having more registered Democrats by default.

I'm from Indiana. What I think about RP is worth nil.

No, you are wrong and you know it. This race is about more than Kentucky. It's about what the Tea Party stands for and their is going to be a ton of money coming in from out of state.

Until now, I thought Paul had it locked up because of all the tea party donations he'd get.

Now he's just de facto dumped a ton of money into his opponents war chest (if his opponent is astute enough to play this correctly).

The nice thing about the Paul's is that they'll continue to say crazy things even if unpopular. So we can only wonder how many more times Rand will shoot himself in the foot.

Believe me, I think he'll measure his words a bit more carefully from this point on.

I don't think he wants to become another Debra Medina...

Whoops. Paul now admits he stepped in it.

Paul admits political slip in civil rights remarks - Politics- msnbc.com

Maybe he can say he was against segregation before he was for it?

 

[drsmith1072]

No, but apparently you do.

really?? what did i make up?? Please explain??

let's see, republicans are going with more rightwing candidates and voting out moderates (or RiNOs) which shows that "they want everyone to think and act the ay they do" so what did i make up?

In contrast to your argument the left has shown itself to be more accepting of dissenting voices and that is one reason the helthcare bill took so long to pass. So based on that your spin would seem to be wrong.

Furthermore the last few times i can think of it was the right who tried to get the federal government to intervene in other people's lives and force their rightwing views of "freedom" (or denial of freedom) onto others, for example the defense of marriage act and terri schiavo.

Everything you post is made up.

How typical I ask you to explain and all you can offer are lame vague generalities. Got any specifics?

Are republicans voting for more right wing candidates and getting rid of the Rinos?? Facts show that they are based on who is winning republican primaries but let's see how you spin it.

Does the democratic party have more dissention and disagreement within their party than do republicans?? Facts show that to be the case based on the healthcare debate but let's see how you spin it.

Did republicans support the involvement of the federal government with the DOMA as they interfered or limited other people's freedoms based on their own beliefs?? Facts show that they did but let's see how you spin it.

Just a few simple questions, can you answer them and support your answers or not.

 

[paperview]

Are the Teabaggers a reincarnation of the Dixiecrats?

Maybe "Segregation now, segregation forever!" should be their war cry.

Provide the names of those "Dixiecrats" that you claim became Republicans. It shouldn't be hard since there were only three.

Yep, the whole dern south just turned from dixiecrat demo to connie pub in the blink of a few 'lections, and Miss Scarlett, I jes cain't figger it out, cause only three of them Dixies 'ackchewally changed pawties.

Oh! Fiddle-de dee!

 

[geauxtohell]

Provide the names of those "Dixiecrats" that you claim became Republicans. It shouldn't be hard since there were only three.

Yep, the whole dern south just turned from dixiecrat demo to connie pub in the blink of a few 'lections, and Miss Scarlett, I jes cain't figger it out, cause only three of them Dixies 'ackchewally changed pawties.

Oh! Fiddle-de dee!

LMAO!

And that whole "Southern Strategy" thing by Nixon.....

 

[paperview]

No, you are wrong and you know it. This race is about more than Kentucky. It's about what the Tea Party stands for and their is going to be a ton of money coming in from out of state.

Until now, I thought Paul had it locked up because of all the tea party donations he'd get.

Now he's just de facto dumped a ton of money into his opponents war chest (if his opponent is astute enough to play this correctly).

The nice thing about the Paul's is that they'll continue to say crazy things even if unpopular. So we can only wonder how many more times Rand will shoot himself in the foot.

Believe me, I think he'll measure his words a bit more carefully from this point on.

I don't think he wants to become another Debra Medina...

Whoops. Paul now admits he stepped in it.

Paul admits political slip in civil rights remarks - Politics- msnbc.com

Maybe he can say he was against segregation before he was for it?

Aw, C'mon. The flip flop card is soooo 2004.

 

[Oscar Wao]

He never was "for" or "against" segregation in that statement he originally made to Rachel.

 

[paperview]

Provide the names of those "Dixiecrats" that you claim became Republicans. It shouldn't be hard since there were only three.

Yep, the whole dern south just turned from dixiecrat demo to connie pub in the blink of a few 'lections, and Miss Scarlett, I jes cain't figger it out, cause only three of them Dixies 'ackchewally changed pawties.

Oh! Fiddle-de dee!

LMAO!

And that whole "Southern Strategy" thing by Nixon.....

Well, since Michael Steele came out and 'pologized for that nasty ole Southern Strategy (like his predecessor Mehlman did), the Tea Party ain't none too happy with the "It was raining Oreo's" Man.

 

[geauxtohell]

Believe me, I think he'll measure his words a bit more carefully from this point on.

I don't think he wants to become another Debra Medina...

Whoops. Paul now admits he stepped in it.

Paul admits political slip in civil rights remarks - Politics- msnbc.com

Maybe he can say he was against segregation before he was for it?

Aw, C'mon. The flip flop card is soooo 2004.

Oh, and of course he has to go on Ingraham and play the victim to the well worn "liberal media attack complex" as if he hasn't been on record about these remarks on multiple occasions. As if he didn't announce his candidacy on the Rachel Maddow show originally and as if Rachel Maddow didn't give him ample opportunity to explain his views.

Whether you agree with Maddow politically or not, she's a fair host. She didn't trip Paul up. Many of Paul's views are vastly out of touch with mainstream America and she just gave him a forum to put it out there.

Case in point, he made these statements months ago. We are talking about it today. She didn't trip him up. He just stated his actual views.

 

[geauxtohell]

He never was "for" or "against" segregation in that statement he originally made to Rachel.

The larger notion Paul supports is problematic too.

The whole "remove the federal government" from everything is absurd.

If state's had done the right thing with civil rights, there would be no need for a federal civil rights act.

 

[paperview]

Whoops. Paul now admits he stepped in it.

Paul admits political slip in civil rights remarks - Politics- msnbc.com

Maybe he can say he was against segregation before he was for it?

Aw, C'mon. The flip flop card is soooo 2004.

Oh, and of course he has to go on Ingraham and play the victim to the well worn "liberal media attack complex" as if he hasn't been on record about these remarks on multiple occasions. As if he didn't announce his candidacy on the Rachel Maddow show originally and as if Rachel Maddow didn't give him ample opportunity to explain his views.

Whether you agree with Maddow politically or not, she's a fair host. She didn't trip Paul up. Many of Paul's views are vastly out of touch with mainstream America and she just gave him a forum to put it out there.

Case in point, he made these statements months ago. We are talking about it today. She didn't trip him up. He just stated his actual views.

Agreed. I watched her interview with him last night, and she gave him all the rope he needed, and let him speak at length.

It was like watching a fresh caught flounder flapping frantically on the wet bottom of the dingy.

 

[drsmith1072]

Aw, C'mon. The flip flop card is soooo 2004.

Oh, and of course he has to go on Ingraham and play the victim to the well worn "liberal media attack complex" as if he hasn't been on record about these remarks on multiple occasions. As if he didn't announce his candidacy on the Rachel Maddow show originally and as if Rachel Maddow didn't give him ample opportunity to explain his views.

Whether you agree with Maddow politically or not, she's a fair host. She didn't trip Paul up. Many of Paul's views are vastly out of touch with mainstream America and she just gave him a forum to put it out there.

Case in point, he made these statements months ago. We are talking about it today. She didn't trip him up. He just stated his actual views.

Agreed. I watched her interview with him last night, and she gave him all the rope he needed, and let him speak at length.

It was like watching a fresh caught flounder flapping frantically on the wet bottom of the dingy.

Yeah i saw that too and IMO he did not perform or come across very well.

 

[ihopehefails]

So it's OK to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater? By approving racist behaviour, you sow the seeds for dissension.

He also supports smoker's rights. And admitted that has been working. But he said he didn't like being told he couldn't smoke. What about the cost to society? What about my rights? I don't like the smell.

Carry it one step further. I don't like being told I can't drive at 125 mph. Or that my kid has to ride in a "safety seat".

What about the rights of the people who like to smoke and don't mind the smell? Who said you can trample their rights in favor of yours and what is the cost to society when no one has any freedom? When no individual can do what they want and execute the rights that they have?

You can smoke but you have to be considerate of those around you. Unless you can control the smoke and prevent it from drifting towards someone else who doesn't like it or it's smell then it's YOU who is trampling someone else's rights. however, nice attempt to flip it. Too bad you failed.

I don't have to be considerate of other people around me and I suppose that the waffling smoky air does trample on other people's rights but what about the barowners rights? Doesn't he have the right to decide if he wants to allow smoking or not? His decision over how his business operates nullifies any partron's rights and if other people feel that their 'rights' will be trampled on then they are free to go to another bar.

 

[geauxtohell]

Aw, C'mon. The flip flop card is soooo 2004.

Oh, and of course he has to go on Ingraham and play the victim to the well worn "liberal media attack complex" as if he hasn't been on record about these remarks on multiple occasions. As if he didn't announce his candidacy on the Rachel Maddow show originally and as if Rachel Maddow didn't give him ample opportunity to explain his views.

Whether you agree with Maddow politically or not, she's a fair host. She didn't trip Paul up. Many of Paul's views are vastly out of touch with mainstream America and she just gave him a forum to put it out there.

Case in point, he made these statements months ago. We are talking about it today. She didn't trip him up. He just stated his actual views.

Agreed. I watched her interview with him last night, and she gave him all the rope he needed, and let him speak at length.

It was like watching a fresh caught flounder flapping frantically on the wet bottom of the dingy.

She didn't press him on the Bob Jones' University issue. At the same time, she didn't let him slip away from a peculiar notion.

I am willing to bet that that interview was more fair handed then the one he got today from Ingraham.

 

[geauxtohell]

Oh, and of course he has to go on Ingraham and play the victim to the well worn "liberal media attack complex" as if he hasn't been on record about these remarks on multiple occasions. As if he didn't announce his candidacy on the Rachel Maddow show originally and as if Rachel Maddow didn't give him ample opportunity to explain his views.

Whether you agree with Maddow politically or not, she's a fair host. She didn't trip Paul up. Many of Paul's views are vastly out of touch with mainstream America and she just gave him a forum to put it out there.

Case in point, he made these statements months ago. We are talking about it today. She didn't trip him up. He just stated his actual views.

Agreed. I watched her interview with him last night, and she gave him all the rope he needed, and let him speak at length.

It was like watching a fresh caught flounder flapping frantically on the wet bottom of the dingy.

Yeah i saw that too and IMO he did not perform or come across very well.

Well, in fairness to Dr. Paul, it's pretty hard to advocate for a policy that perpetuated segregated lunch counters.

 

[geauxtohell]

What about the rights of the people who like to smoke and don't mind the smell? Who said you can trample their rights in favor of yours and what is the cost to society when no one has any freedom? When no individual can do what they want and execute the rights that they have?

You can smoke but you have to be considerate of those around you. Unless you can control the smoke and prevent it from drifting towards someone else who doesn't like it or it's smell then it's YOU who is trampling someone else's rights. however, nice attempt to flip it. Too bad you failed.

I don't have to be considerate of other people around me and I suppose that the waffling smoky air does trample on other people's rights but what about the barowners rights? Doesn't he have the right to decide if he wants to allow smoking or not? His decision over how his business operates nullifies any partron's rights and if other people feel that their 'rights' will be trampled on then they are free to go to another bar.

I think banning smoking in a bar is an over-step (and one that is at the local level so not applicable to this issue). People go into a bar with the reasonable expectation that there will be booze, drunks, and smoke.

That being said, smoking, wearing a tie, and any other of a number of non-sequiturs that have been tossed about on this thread is not a civil right.