[quote]Rockscar wrote:
I’m saying get over it, everyone. I don’t agree that any business should discriminate against customers based on race, but as far as employees, hell yes, and they should…otherwise they are MORONS!
[/quote]
So, hell yes, they should discriminate against hiring people based on race?
Another example of racial discrimination…
I have to question Paul’s intelect ? he has to understand he is running for Pres. not King. That Washing post piece makes him look bad .
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I agree with him 100%… on all sides. If Louis Farrakhan wants to establish a privately owned restaurant open only to blacks more power to em. If some idiot doesn’t want black people in his business he should have the right to be an idiot.
I wouldn’t go there and I hope nobody else would either, effectively bankrupting the place, but he or anybody else has the right to hire and or cater to, or not, whoever they want. The alternatives are much worse. [/quote]
Hahaha. Man you’re unbelievable.
So do we go back to segregated bathrooms and water fountains as well? Only taxis for white people?
Hell, let’s just bring back slavery so at least the blacks know where they stand.
This is not an admirable idea you have. Every once in a while it’s nice to be reminded that the people on this forum are, indeed, the extreme right wingnuts, and I’m not actually crazy.[/quote]
So you want the government to determine who business owners cater to?[/quote]
That wasn’t so hard was it? See, Dustin here, who I disagree with alot, gets it. Too bad Irish’s PC hangover hasn’t cleared up yet.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
That wasn’t so hard was it? See, Dustin here, who I disagree with alot, gets it. Too bad Irish’s PC hangover hasn’t cleared up yet.[/quote]
I see. And for the country’s sake, I’m glad that you’re among the tiniest of tiniest minorities who “get it.”
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
<<< I’m asking you. And you won’t answer. >>>[/quote]
Then I’ll answer… again.
[quote]I wrote:
If Louis Farrakhan wants to establish a privately owned restaurant open only to blacks more power to em. If some idiot doesn’t want black people in his business he should have the right to be an idiot. I wouldn’t go there and I hope nobody else would either, effectively bankrupting the place, but he or anybody else has the right to hire and or cater to, or not, whoever they want. The alternatives are much worse. [/quote]
What about this is mystifying to you. I’m pretty sure the congressional black caucus has no white members and I know that they denied JC Watts membership despite being black himself because he was conservative. I think that is abominably un-American. Actually I think having a “black” (or any other race) caucus at all is a terrible idea, but I recognize their right to do it.
If some jackass wants to have a blacks only (or any other race) business, I hope he fails miserably but recognize his right to do it with his own money. People do and say things all the time I think are stupid, counterproductive and unfair, but being unwilling to live in a police state I shake my head and go on. How this has anything whatever to with historical segregation can only be understood by somebody attempting to recover from a critical head injury.
I think there’s a social externality that makes such laws justifiable (though it causes me to cringe) within a small and limited degree. Like air-pollution. Certainly charities, religious associations, etc., should be protected. Associations, should basically be exempt. But businesses, to some degree, should be subject to some “civil rights” laws.
Edit: However, to believe otherwise doesn’t not make one a racist. Private property issues are too important to start pulling the cheap stunt of calling someone a racist.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
I’m saying get over it, everyone. I don’t agree that any business should discriminate against customers based on race, but as far as employees, hell yes, and they should…otherwise they are MORONS!
[/quote]
So, hell yes, they should discriminate against hiring people based on race? [/quote]
No, again, you bring in race. I discriminate based on Qualifications!! However the government does discriminate against whites intheir hiring practices namely Affirmative Action.
It really is an interesting topic though. Especially when you look at the principle of it (the sanctity of prive property) through consideration of a mundane example. How about restaurants that advertise as authentic Chinese, or Indian, or Mexican, or whatever. You go in and the cooks and the staff certainly fit the claim. Yet, you never even think about it. Is there really a complete absence of other ethnicities applying? Doubtful. They probably just hire with the intention of keeping the atmosphere (Authentic!) intact. Do we want the state to come rushing in with fines and other punative measures? Would we stand up for the owners? Do we want our local “authentic” restaurant? The principle is the same, no matter how harmless it seems. Just something to think about.
You know Rand is the right guy when liberals have to go to the race card this early into the debate.
[quote]John S. wrote:
You know Rand is the right guy when liberals have to go to the race card this early into the debate.[/quote]
No, it’s more like he’s extremely radical in criticizing the Civil Liberties Act for granting more freedom to everyone.
If anything, if he wants to really stick to his constitutional grounds, he should criticize the existence of the Air Force. No where in the Constitution does it say the Government has the authority to maintain an Air Force. The Constitution explicitly mentions the Army and the Navy and that is all the authority the Federal Government has, according to a (severely) restricted reading of the Constitution, which it seems the Tea Party types want to do.
I think any debate or discussion about race should be avoided at all costs.
[quote]0mar wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
You know Rand is the right guy when liberals have to go to the race card this early into the debate.[/quote]
No, it’s more like he’s extremely radical in criticizing the Civil Liberties Act for granting more freedom to everyone.
If anything, if he wants to really stick to his constitutional grounds, he should criticize the existence of the Air Force. No where in the Constitution does it say the Government has the authority to maintain an Air Force. The Constitution explicitly mentions the Army and the Navy and that is all the authority the Federal Government has, according to a (severely) restricted reading of the Constitution, which it seems the Tea Party types want to do.[/quote]
I promise you had there been human flight in the 18th century an air force would have been mentioned as well as part of providing for the common defense.
[quote]0mar wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
You know Rand is the right guy when liberals have to go to the race card this early into the debate.[/quote]
No, it’s more like he’s extremely radical in criticizing the Civil Liberties Act for granting more freedom to everyone.
If anything, if he wants to really stick to his constitutional grounds, he should criticize the existence of the Air Force. No where in the Constitution does it say the Government has the authority to maintain an Air Force. The Constitution explicitly mentions the Army and the Navy and that is all the authority the Federal Government has, according to a (severely) restricted reading of the Constitution, which it seems the Tea Party types want to do.[/quote]
You are kidding right? You do know that only birds were able to fly at the writting of the Constitution. Your history is really crappy.
Look, I saw Paul further explain this last night and his view on this is exactly the view I’ve held for years. Institutionalized discrimination is both abhorrent and inhuman and it’s utter elimination from our national fabric was a moral imperative.
However, attempting to force private citizens in a private non criminal context to accept and love each other is both outside the authority of government and doomed to failure, the evidence of which is beating us in the forehead as I type this.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]0mar wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
You know Rand is the right guy when liberals have to go to the race card this early into the debate.[/quote]
No, it’s more like he’s extremely radical in criticizing the Civil Liberties Act for granting more freedom to everyone.
If anything, if he wants to really stick to his constitutional grounds, he should criticize the existence of the Air Force. No where in the Constitution does it say the Government has the authority to maintain an Air Force. The Constitution explicitly mentions the Army and the Navy and that is all the authority the Federal Government has, according to a (severely) restricted reading of the Constitution, which it seems the Tea Party types want to do.[/quote]
You are kidding right? You do know that only birds were able to fly at the writting of the Constitution. Your history is really crappy.[/quote]
Still, my point stands. A strict reading of the Constitution would mean that a separate branch consisting of the Air Force would be unconstitutional. Congress only has the powers to maintain an Army and a Navy. It’s right there, clear as day. Legislating an Air Force is above and beyond the duties delegated to Congress by the Constitution. You cannot win this point if you follow the Constitution to the letter. If, by going on what Paul has said, each point of legislation needs to reference where the Constitution grants Congress the power to do so, then the Air Force should not exist. The Constitution does not grant the power to form an Air Force. It specifically and wholly says “land and naval forces.”
Thankfully, our system of government has decreed that the Constitution is a framework and not a cage, as most in the Tea Party would like it. If you believe that the CRA is an overstep by the Federal Government, then to be absolutely consistent, the Air Force is also an overstep by the Federal Government.
Oh my…
The Constitution explicitly grants the power to raise and SUPPORT Arm[IES]. The Air Force is nothing more a specialized air army. This argument should’ve been immediately recognized as silly simply through asking oneself, “Self, if the Air Force was called the Air Army, would it then be constitutional? Of course, cause now it’s THE Army!” C’mon…
[quote]0mar wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]0mar wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
You know Rand is the right guy when liberals have to go to the race card this early into the debate.[/quote]
No, it’s more like he’s extremely radical in criticizing the Civil Liberties Act for granting more freedom to everyone.
If anything, if he wants to really stick to his constitutional grounds, he should criticize the existence of the Air Force. No where in the Constitution does it say the Government has the authority to maintain an Air Force. The Constitution explicitly mentions the Army and the Navy and that is all the authority the Federal Government has, according to a (severely) restricted reading of the Constitution, which it seems the Tea Party types want to do.[/quote]
You are kidding right? You do know that only birds were able to fly at the writting of the Constitution. Your history is really crappy.[/quote]
Still, my point stands. A strict reading of the Constitution would mean that a separate branch consisting of the Air Force would be unconstitutional. Congress only has the powers to maintain an Army and a Navy. It’s right there, clear as day. Legislating an Air Force is above and beyond the duties delegated to Congress by the Constitution. You cannot win this point if you follow the Constitution to the letter. If, by going on what Paul has said, each point of legislation needs to reference where the Constitution grants Congress the power to do so, then the Air Force should not exist. The Constitution does not grant the power to form an Air Force. It specifically and wholly says “land and naval forces.”
Thankfully, our system of government has decreed that the Constitution is a framework and not a cage, as most in the Tea Party would like it. If you believe that the CRA is an overstep by the Federal Government, then to be absolutely consistent, the Air Force is also an overstep by the Federal Government.[/quote]
You are clueless beyond words.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh my…
The Constitution explicitly grants the power to raise and SUPPORT ArmIES. The Air Force is nothing more a specialized air army. This counter-argument is immediately rendered silly by simply asking oneself “Self, if the Air Force was called the Air Army, would it then constitutional? Of course, cause not it’s THE Army!” C’mon…
[/quote]
The Constitution specifically says “land and naval” forces. No where does it say air forces. Sure, you can spin it as armies, but then the Constitution is redundant, because there would be no need for the phrase “sea armies”. Thus, the original intent of the founders was to specify land and naval armies.
I’m not arguing that the Air Force is unconstitutional, I’m showing that reading the Constitution in such a strict light is absurd. However, that is precisely what Paul and people like him want to do.
And it doesn’t stop with the Airforce. Off the top of my head, the following agencies would be unconstitutional:
NSA
CIA
NASA
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
The National Laboratories
Mineral Mangement Authority
TSA
FAA
FDA
FCC
National Science Foundation (NSF)
With Paul’s brand of ideology, we would not have a functioning country.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh my…
The Constitution explicitly grants the power to raise and SUPPORT Arm[IES]. The Air Force is nothing more a specialized air army. This argument should’ve been immediately recognized as silly simply through asking oneself, “Self, if the Air Force was called the Air Army, would it then be constitutional? Of course, cause now it’s THE Army!” C’mon…
[/quote]
roflmao.