Sarah Palin Endorses Clint Didier For Senate

[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.

[12thMan]

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.

My feelings and yours about Rachel Maddow aside for a moment, did you actually see the interview? All of it? Because I did. And I'm 100% sure no one cornered Rand Paul into doing an interview with Rachel Maddow. In fact the tone was civil and there were no gotcha moments or questions. Now If Paul wants to thrust himself onto the scene as a national candidate worthy of the electorate's consideration to lead the state of Kentucky, and perhaps the country one day, then he should account for his views and articulate his policy prescriptions. I think that's fair and reasonable. Prior to the Maddow interview he made some controversial statements on NPR that raised a few eyebrows. The Maddow interview was more or less a follow-up to simply dig in a little more and allow Mr. Paul to clarify a few points regarding the Civil Rights Act and previous statements.

But let's really cut to the chase where all of this is headed. Conservatives would like to paint this as some witch hunt by the "looney left" to bring down Rand Paul and portray him as a racist. For the record, I don't think he would stand a bat's chance in hell of winning a national election and I don't believe he's a racist. But his libertarian views, I feel, would open the door to racial tension and undo much of the progress we've made over the past several decades. So on one hand no one is really trying to infer, at least I'm not, that Rand Paul is racist but on the other the unintended consequences of some of his views could very well lead us down that road. And that's just dangerous and irresponsible if you ask me.

For the first time since the berth of the Tea Party movement, we now have a national candidate and a voice that we can reasonably assume espouse their views and sentiments. During his victory speech, he openly declared himself as the voice of the Tea Party (paraphrased). So from here on out, as the anointed spokesman for the Tea Party, we can look no further than Rand Paul to see what it is they believe. When they say things like "take my country back", how does that look in terms of actual policy? That's the big question Rand Paul and the Tea Party will have to answer in the coming days.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

My feelings and yours about Rachel Maddow aside for a moment, did you actually see the interview? All of it? Because I did. And I'm 100% sure no one cornered Rand Paul into doing an interview with Rachel Maddow.

Yes and agreed (and Maddow does have the same haircut as Matthews). What I mean by cornered is that he was completely off balance in the interview and should've had the "three word" answer to shoot down the inferences of racism ready to go.

In fact the tone was civil and there were no gotcha moments or questions. Now If Paul wants to thrust himself onto the scene as a national candidate worthy of the electorate's consideration to lead the state of Kentucky, and perhaps the country one day, then he should account for his views and articulate his policy prescriptions. I think that's fair and reasonable.

Prior to the Maddow interview he made some controversial statements on NPR that raised a few eyebrows. The Maddow interview was more or less a follow-up to simply dig in a little more and allow Mr. Paul to clarify a few points regarding the Civil Rights Act and previous statements.

Agree on the first para. On the ADA thing mentioned on NPR, I do a good amount of Fed work and I can tell you his point is spot on about the $ 100K elevator. The Fed requirements of Section 508 add ridiculous costs when there are often more cost effective and common-sense solutions to accomodate those with disabilities.

But let's really cut to the chase where all of this is headed. Conservatives would like to paint this as some witch hunt by the "looney left" to bring down Rand Paul and portray him as a racist.

But it's so fun and easy to do

For the record, I don't think he would stand a bat's chance in hell of winning a national election and I don't believe he's a racist. But his libertarian views, I feel, would open the door to racial tension and undo much of the progress we've made over the past several decades. So on one hand no one is really trying to infer, at least I'm not, that Rand Paul is racist but on the other the unintended consequences of some of his views could very well lead us down that road. And that's just dangerous and irresponsible if you ask me.

But seriously, I agree here with you and that's my concern with many conservative candidates that would be very helpful to the country in terms of fiscal responsibility and scaling back the size/scope of govt'. They often allow themselves by trying to be true to their core beliefs (limited gov't) to be drawn into a black & white discussion with no allowance for shades of gray.

For the first time since the berth of the Tea Party movement, we now have a national candidate and a voice that we can reasonably assume espouse their views and sentiments. During his victory speech, he openly declared himself as the voice of the Tea Party (paraphrased). So from here on out, as the anointed spokesman for the Tea Party, we can look no further than Rand Paul to see what it is they believe. When they say things like "take my country back", how does that look in terms of actual policy? That's the big question Rand Paul and the Tea Party will have to answer in the coming days.

I thought his statement clarifying his position was solid, but it should never even have been needed. He should've seen the attacks coming and been prepared. A simple response, "I completely support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While I advocate limited government there are extreme cases of gross injustice where the Federal government is required to act. However the Federal gov't attempt to privatize health care.....etc, etc. etc."

[saden1]

How about being against the 1964 Civil Rights Act? You know, the one that bared business from treating black folks like animals?

[tryfuhl]

She just can't stand to stay out of the spotlight. She didn't even govern a real state.. and didn't even stay her term. Fuck quitters.

[joethiesmanfan]

Didier was agood TE I remember him.

[joethiesmanfan]

WOO HOO after November the small government utopia begins. I am still waitng on the communism that was supposed come after the 08 election, oh well I guess now i can look forward to no taxes utopia!!!!

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time - Blogs from CNN.com

...and I really loved Clint as a Redskin.

Did you like Heath Shuler? How about now?

[joethiesmanfan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Did you like Heath Shuler? How about now?

I met Heath's cousin, they are some good people. He was bust though.

[SmootSmack]

Ok, got it

[over the mountain]

knock yourself out, i wasnt around in the '60s so I can only go by what i read. i really dont care either way, i was just passing along and interfusing this discussion with alil relevant law. i was not trying to revisit or reargue the law or SC opinions or findings.

kinda hard to argue with the facts the SC relied upon in reaching a unanimous opinion which has stood for over 40 years.

before you spend time fashioning a rebuttal, i suggest you read the actual court opinion. how can you argue with a SC opinion if you havent read that opinion yet? seems like you have a real interest in this kinda thing, i find it interesting too, so i think you will enjoy and learn some things as well.

[CRedskinsRule]

Where are Atlanta's Black-Owned Hotels?

Atlanta's Black - Owned Hotels - A History

The history of the industry that provides sleeping quarters is not totally devoid of Black hotel owners. Black-owned and operated hotels have existed since pre-turn of the century Atlanta.

• In 1895, Colonel Wesley Redding, a bank teller, entrepreneur and the first Black resident of Auburn Avenue east of Boulevard (where the MLK family home was located) opened the European Hotel in time to accommodate Blacks attending the Cotton States Exposition in Piedmont Park that year. The hotel opened three years after the Atlanta City Council passed an ordinance making segregation legal.

• In 1901, Katie McBride opened the Mackie Bee Hotel, said to be the "only colored hotel in the city." An advertisement indicates that rates are $1 to $2 per day and boasts of being "up-to-date and first class, completely furnished and meets every requirement of a strictly modern and first class hotel." It was located at 115 Houston St., at the corner Piedmont (Citizens Trust Bank is located on that corner today).

• In 1913, J.H. Hawk opened the Hawk Hotel near the Old Union Shed on Central Ave. Advertisements in The Atlanta Independent, a weekly-Black-owned Atlanta newspaper, boasted of the "hot-and-cold bath" features.

• In 1921, The McKay Hotel opened in the newly built Citizens Trust Bank Building on Auburn Avenue. In 1949, the name was changed to the Hotel Royal, which was purchased by entrepreneur Carrie Cunningham who also purchased the Top Hat Club in 1949 for $31,000 and renamed it the Royal Peacock.

• In 1924, Alonzo F. Herndon built and opened the three-story Herndon Building on Auburn Avenue at the corner of Butler Street. Among its offices and shops was the James Hotel, which was operated by Mary Walker James and her husband.

• In 1937, C.M. Pearson opened the Savoy Hotel in the Herndon Building after the James Hotel closed. It is said that hundreds gathered outside to see the Savoy sign light up on Auburn. The hotel’s ballroom became popular for its twice-weekly dances and was a favorite spot for club and fraternal functions.

• In 1951, developer Walter A. "Chief" Aikens opened the Waluhaje (a collection of the first letters of his children) building on West Lake Avenue in northwest Atlanta. The building was actually one of the first apartment-hotel sites and became popular for its ballroom featuring top jazz talent.

• In 1957, two new motels were established. O.T. Bell built the Bellview Hotel at the corner of Auburn and Piedmont (which later became the Palamont) and the University Motel on Northside Drive near MLK Jr. Drive. The hotel featured a small tavern, that became known as the Town Club. Rumor has it that the hotel was secretly financed by singer Ray Charles for a friend.

• In 1959, the three-story Danzig Motel opened on Chappell Road in northwest Atlanta.

• In 1967, James and Robert Paschal opened a five-story, 120-room Paschal’s Motor Hotel adjacent to their restaurant. In 1996, the complex was sold to Clark Atlanta University for $3 million.

• In 1975, a group of Black businesses formed the National Hotel Acquisition Corp. and purchased the 425-room Atlanta International Hotel for somewhere between $6 to $7 million. Within a year, the AIH owners were filing for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11.

• In 1979, the Empire Real Estate board unveiled plans to build a hotel at Interstate-20 and Ashby Street. The plan stalled due to lack of available financing.

• Feb. 8, 1995, The Atlanta Journal and Constitution carried a front-page story on plans by several African-American business leaders and the Vine City Housing Ministry to build a 225-room hotel on Northside Drive just across the street from the Georgia Dome. The story included an architectural rendering and costs of between $12 to $15 million. Listed as owners were developers Real Property Solutions, a Black-owned firm, the Vine City Housing Ministry and Johnny Moore, owner of the parcel where the hotel would be built. George Hawthorne, president of Real Property Solutions, told the newspaper that they envisioned the facility "would be under the downtown hotel market but less expensive, more quality and service oriented." The project never got beyond planning.

Long Road to Justice - Public Accommodations - Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

just information. Not sure what specific type links you were talking about jtf, but these seemed interesting to me.

[joethiesmanfan]

History of Black Owned Hotels

just saying there were hotels to go to, desegregation was the goal.

[joethiesmanfan]

We off topic sorry bout that.