Rand Paul Wants To Abolish The Americans With Disabilities Act!

[memphis]

The really awful part about this race is that the press is spinning it as a national referendum on the tea party. It's a GOP primary in Kentucky

[memphis]

He was interviewd on NPR this afternoon. They asked him if he'd support the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He evaded that question as hard as he could.
Interviewer: Would you have supported the Civil Rights Act if you were in Congress in 1964?
Paul: I'm against racism and would have been marching with Martin Luther King.
Interviewer: So you'd support the Civil Rights Act?
Paul: Well, it was passed so long ago that I haven't even read it....
Interviewer: So you don't know if you'd support the Civil Rights Act?
Paul: I'm against racism
Interviewer: Thanks for your time.

[memphis]

He was interviewd on NPR this afternoon. They asked him if he'd support the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He evaded that question as hard as he could.
Interviewer: Would you have supported the Civil Rights Act if you were in Congress in 1964?
Paul: I'm against racism and would have been marching with Martin Luther King.
Interviewer: So you'd support the Civil Rights Act?
Paul: Well, it was passed so long ago that I haven't even read it....
Interviewer: So you don't know if you'd support the Civil Rights Act?
Paul: I'm against racism
Interviewer: Thanks for your time.

Good job not falling for that obvious bait.

If by bait you mean answering a simple question plainly. I doubt you'd find any member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, who couldn't answer that question. Hell, even the old-timers who were against it in 1964 can now plainly say that they now support the law. Why can't Paul?

[memphis]

He was interviewd on NPR this afternoon. They asked him if he'd support the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He evaded that question as hard as he could.
Interviewer: Would you have supported the Civil Rights Act if you were in Congress in 1964?
Paul: I'm against racism and would have been marching with Martin Luther King.
Interviewer: So you'd support the Civil Rights Act?
Paul: Well, it was passed so long ago that I haven't even read it....
Interviewer: So you don't know if you'd support the Civil Rights Act?
Paul: I'm against racism
Interviewer: Thanks for your time.

Good job not falling for that obvious bait.

If by bait you mean answering a simple question plainly. I doubt you'd find any member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, who couldn't answer that question. Hell, even the old-timers who were against it in 1964 can now plainly say that they now support the law. Why can't Paul?

Because Paul has principles. Those other people don't.

He's going to have to answer the question sooner or later. It's not going away. Further evasion is only going to make it look like he doesn't know what he wants.

[memphis]

Do those principles include opposing civil rights?

Nope, they don't.

Ok, you've said it. Why can't Paul?

[memphis]

Do those principles include opposing civil rights?

Nope, they don't.

Then why can't he come out in favor of the Civil Rights Act?

Because he doesn't support ineffective, authoritarian, centralizing, anti-freedom legislation?

Fine. Then come out against the act. Again, the question's not going to go away until he answers it.

[memphis]

Regarding not being able to force people to respect civil rights: I live in what was at one time an extremely segregated city. I defy you to find me one restaurant, theater, shop, place of business, school, or church that would deny service to anybody based on their skin color.  Although I am not aware of any, it would even not be possible for a white supremicist political party to deny membership to anyone because of race.

[memphis]

You can't force people to respect the civil rights of others at federal gunpoint. Federal "civil rights" legislation has only increased racial tension and strife and increased centralized power over everyone's lives.

Sounds great in theory.....but what negative consequences do you feel the Civil Rights Act have caused in REALITY? Do you seriously believe conditions for racial minorities are worse as a result?

All of the things I mentioned. The "Civil Rights Act" of 1964 has not produced racial equality.

The centralization of power is the primary opponent of human liberty.

"Racial equality" was not the goal of the Civil Right Act. It was about access.

[memphis]

Isn't it kind of absurd that we're holding a debate on the merits of the Civil Rights Act? And it's not even just Libertas...Mechaman has similar feelings.

WTF people?

And this is exactly why Paul is going to crash and burn. This issue is electric. It gets people energized to the max and public opinion is not on the side of Paul and Libertas. You've done it again tea partiers. I look forward to Senator Conway.

[memphis]

You can't force people to respect the civil rights of others at federal gunpoint.

Actually, yes, you can. Why do you think Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock?

Respectfully, a temporary fix at best, brittain33, unless you think Little Rock has seen the light.

Show me one school in Little Rock (or anywhere) that will deny access based on race in 2010.

[memphis]

You can't force people to respect the civil rights of others at federal gunpoint.

Actually, yes, you can. Why do you think Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock?

Respectfully, a temporary fix at best, brittain33, unless you think Little Rock has seen the light.

Show me one school in Little Rock (or anywhere) that will deny access based on race in 2010.

State-enforced segregation and discrimination is not the issue here.

1. I was responding to Gramps, who claimed that Eisenhower sending troops to Little Rock was a "temporary" fix.
2. There are plenty of private schools out there that are covered under the 1964 law.

[memphis]

You can't force people to respect the civil rights of others at federal gunpoint.

Actually, yes, you can. Why do you think Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock?

Respectfully, a temporary fix at best, brittain33, unless you think Little Rock has seen the light.

Show me one school in Little Rock (or anywhere) that will deny access based on race in 2010.

Oh c'mon, memphis, you know I'm talking about the prevailing attitude of the local Arkansans.

Which is completely irrelavant because of the Civil Rights Act. FWIW, overwhelming majorities of folks in all states support Civil Rights. We're not in 1960 anymore.

[memphis]

You can't force people to respect the civil rights of others at federal gunpoint.

Actually, yes, you can. Why do you think Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock?

Respectfully, a temporary fix at best, brittain33, unless you think Little Rock has seen the light.

Show me one school in Little Rock (or anywhere) that will deny access based on race in 2010.

Oh c'mon, memphis, you know I'm talking about the prevailing attitude of the local Arkansans.

Which is completely irrelavant because of the Civil Rights Act. FWIW, overwhelming majorities of folks in all states support Civil Rights. We're not in 1960 anymore.

Tell that to the Arkansans.

I live about 10 miles from Arkansas. I've spent plenty of time there. I don't think you'll find many folks there who support institutionalized racial discrimination. It's taboo everywhere. Ask any of their four Congressmen or two senators if they support the Civil Rights Act. Hell, find me one local politician in the entire state who's against it. Paul (along with his father) is the only one in the whole damn country, and even he doesn't have the balls to admit it Prove me wrong.

[memphis]

Both of those titles should have been struck down as unconstitutional, and then the bill would have had unanimous support among non-racists.

Which means you would have still opposed it, as would every other Southern Senator.

Ralph Yarborough (D-TX) voted for it.

[memphis]

Regarding Hooters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooters#Legal_issues