Sarah Palin Endorses Clint Didier For Senate

[12thMan]

Yeah after Rand Paul's latetest blunder, I have a feeling that the Tea Party and it's candidates will start to finally come under more scrutiny. But again, that's not what this thread is about

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Yeah after Rand Paul's latetest blunder, I have a feeling that the Tea Party and it's candidates will start to finally come under more scrutiny. But again, that's not what this thread is about

What was Paul's blunder?

I was about to say that with his win the other night, that's a sure sign that the national parties no longer get to dicate to the voters who the candidates will be -- and that's a good thing.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

What was Paul's blunder?

I was about to say that with his win the other night, that's a sure sign that the national parties no longer get to dicate to the voters who the candidates will be -- and that's a good thing.

From the Rachel Maddow show:

Maddow: Do you think that a private business has a right to say that 'We don't serve black people?'

Paul: I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race. Butdo discriminate.
But I think what's important in this debate is not getting into any specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question 'What about freedom of speech?' Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent. Should we limit racists from speaking. I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things that freedom requires is that
we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it...

[Beemnseven]

Oh good christ. They're after him because of what he said about legislation passed over 40 years ago when he was a year old?

It looks as though he has problems with the idea of government forcing private businesses to accept customers they don't want to accept -- much like the reasons Barry Goldwater was against the law. Not because he was a racist or that he hated blacks. Mainly that it was not an area where the federal government has any constitutional jurisdiction.

From a strictly libertarian point of view -- can anyone articulate what the difference is between being forced to allow a customer into your private business and being forced to allow someone into your home?

At what point does the question of freedom of association come into this?

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Oh good christ. They're after him because of what he said about legislation passed over 40 years ago when he was a year old?

It looks as though he has problems with the idea of government forcing private businesses to accept customers they don't want to accept -- much like the reasons Barry Goldwater was against the law. Not because he was a racist or that he hated blacks. Mainly that it was not an area where the federal government has any constitutional jurisdiction.

From a strictly libertarian point of view -- can anyone articulate what the difference is between being forced to allow a customer into your private business and being forced to allow someone into your home?

At what point does the question of freedom of association come into this?

I'm going to pretend I did not read that.....Big Brother not welcome...must be a racist?

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Hog1

I'm going to pretend I did not read that.....Big Brother not welcome...must be a racist?

Yep, this is one of those touchy areas where someone can offer a genuine, reasoned argument that's completely devoid of any racism whatsover, who lays out a case against certain portions of what happens to be a historically popular piece of legislation that signified the end of one of our darkest points, -- and yet still be labelled a racist.

If you speak up for the property rights, speech rights, or freedom of religion of a hated group or individual, then inevitably you become part of that hated group or individual.

Gotta love the Democratic Party -- playing to the nuanced views of their voters.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Yep, this is one of those touchy areas where someone can offer a genuine, reasoned argument that's completely devoid of any racism whatsover, who lays out a case against certain portions of what happens to be a historically popular piece of legislation that signified the end of one of our darkest points, -- and yet still be labelled a racist.

If you speak up for the property rights, speech rights, or freedom of religion of a hated group or individual, then inevitably you become part of that hated group or individual.

Gotta love the Democratic Party -- playing to the nuanced views of their voters.

Stay on the sideline until you're strong enough and ready to enter a game that requires critical thinking. We wouldn't want you to get a concussions now would we?


p.s. No wonder Libertarians never win any elections...what bunch of silly people.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Oh good christ. They're after him because of what he said about legislation passed over 40 years ago when he was a year old?

It looks as though he has problems with the idea of government forcing private businesses to accept customers they don't want to accept -- much like the reasons Barry Goldwater was against the law. Not because he was a racist or that he hated blacks. Mainly that it was not an area where the federal government has any constitutional jurisdiction.

From a strictly libertarian point of view -- can anyone articulate what the difference is between being forced to allow a customer into your private business and being forced to allow someone into your home?

At what point does the question of freedom of association come into this?

The law was passed in part b/c black people could not find any hotels or motels that would allow them to stay in Florida and the southern states as they traveled down I-95. A florida state case was the case that was brought up to the SC. The SC used the "interstate commerce clause" to stretch the Federal arm into state's rights to regulate their own businesses and laws.

IIRC If florida or any other state wants to allow their hotels and motels to discriminate based upon race, the can but will not recieve any of the federal to state funding for their raodways, etc.

[joethiesmanfan]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

The law was passed in part b/c black people could not find any hotels or motels that would allow them to stay in Florida and the southern states as they traveled down I-95. A florida state case was the case that was brought up to the SC. The SC used the "interstate commerce clause" to stretch the Federal arm into state's rights to regulate their own businesses and laws.

IIRC If florida or any other state wants to allow their hotels and motels to discriminate based upon race, the can but will not recieve any of the federal to state funding for their raodways, etc.

Wrong again, black poepl had their own nationwide chains before desegregatio, own baseball league which made more revenue than the majors, own everything. that is no way to run a country though, that is stupid. Small government is another way of saying sepearation. Funny how they want to seperate after black people made this country rich from hard labor. Wasn't no talk about sepeartion while they were making all those windfall profits selling Europe things that are not European like cotton, sugar, etc. Keep local will Balkanize this country.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by joethiesmanfan

Wrong again, black poepl had their own nationwide chains before desegregatio, own baseball league which made more revenue than the majors, own everything. that is no way to run a country though, that is stupid. Small government is another way of saying sepearation. Funny how they want to seperate after black people made this country rich from hard labor. Wasn't no talk about sepeartion while they were making all those windfall profits selling Europe things that are not European like cotton, sugar, etc. Keep local will Balkanize this country.

let me quote Saden

Originally Posted by Saden1

Someone as absent minded as you doesn't deserve more in a response. Check yourself, most of your post on this thread are pretty retarded dude...and this thread isn't the only thread where your post are wanting. Cut the crap and fix your thinking gaps...like Captain Planet says, "only you have the power."

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by joethiesmanfan

Wrong again, black poepl had their own nationwide chains before desegregatio, own baseball league which made more revenue than the majors, own everything. that is no way to run a country though, that is stupid. Small government is another way of saying sepearation. Funny how they want to seperate after black people made this country rich from hard labor. Wasn't no talk about sepeartion while they were making all those windfall profits selling Europe things that are not European like cotton, sugar, etc. Keep local will Balkanize this country.

Correct me if I'm wrong here. Are you saying that the Negro League was preferred by black people? That they preferred to have their own league than play in the major leagues?

[joethiesmanfan]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

What was Paul's blunder?

I was about to say that with his win the other night, that's a sure sign that the national parties no longer get to dicate to the voters who the candidates will be -- and that's a good thing.

That my friend is called reaching.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Yeah after Rand Paul's latetest blunder, I have a feeling that the Tea Party and it's candidates will start to finally come under more scrutiny. But again, that's not what this thread is about

Paul's blunder was blindly walking into a trap. He should've never been on Maddow. She's been throwing race-bombs at the Tea Party for some time. She's Chris Matthews on steriods....with the same haircut. Nothing good could come from him being on that show. He should've foreseen that coming, and not allowed himself to be cornered like he was.

I don't know the man, but I'd bet a good sum of money he's not a racist. He was trying to stay true to his stance of very limited gov't at the expense of what is practically right (no reasonable person believes businesses should be allowed to discriminate against people based on the color of their skin). There are some cases where Fed intervention is needed, the Civil Rights Act was one of them.

Paul better get used to these type of attacks and playing on the big stage with big boy gloves or he won't make it to DC.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Paul's blunder was blindly walking into a trap. He should've never been on Maddow. She's been throwing race-bombs at the Tea Party for some time. She's Chris Matthews on steriods....with the same haircut. Nothing good could come from him being on that show. He should've foreseen that coming, and not allowed himself to be cornered like he was.

I don't know the man, but I'd bet a good sum of money he's not a racist. He was trying to stay true to his stance of very limited gov't at the expense of what is practically right (no reasonable person believes businesses should be allowed to discriminate against people based on the color of their skin). There are some cases where Fed intervention is needed, the Civil Rights Act was one of them.

Paul better get used to these type of attacks and playing on the big stage with big boy gloves or he won't make it to DC.

You can't be tricked into saying something that dumb...he spoke his mind and it seems that he is against "The" Law that banned systematic institutional racism in America. I don't know why you blame Maddow for his short comings.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

You can't be tricked into saying something that dumb...he spoke his mind and it seems that he is against "The" Law that banned systematic institutional racism in America. I don't know why you blame Maddow for his short comings.

C'mon now. The left would never try to paint a Republican candidate in a bad light. Since any link from Fox, Heritage, etc. would just be seen as blind defense of Paul, here's one from your Favorites List:

Rand Paul On Civil Rights Controversy: I Shouldn't Have Talked To Rachel Maddow [UPDATED]

Paul's statement from the link:

"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."

"As I have said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts in the intervening years."

"My opponent's statement on MSNBC Wednesday that I favor repeal of the Civil Rights Act was irresponsible and knowingly false. I hope he will correct the record and retract his claims."

"The issue of civil rights is one with a tortured history in this country. We have made great strides, but there is still work to be done to ensure the great promise of Liberty is granted to all Americans."

"This much is clear: The federal government has far overreached in its power grabs. Just look at the recent national healthcare schemes, which my opponent supports. The federal government, for the first time ever, is mandating that individuals purchase a product. The federal government is out of control, and those who love liberty and value individual and state's rights must stand up to it."

"These attacks prove one thing for certain: the liberal establishment is desperate to keep leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign."

The dude is no racist.