Rand Paul Wants To Abolish The Americans With Disabilities Act!

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

That's a liberty according to Paul followers: if you don't have a money, you can go eat s**t and die. Because helping you is wrong.

Viva la liberte!

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

OMG freedom, how scary!!!1

I would rather call that a freedom, but only for business to make greater profits.

Who cares if you lack coverage, disability benefits?

That evil government!

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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.

Long live the state's rights, right?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

ITT: Implying that opposing an unconstitutional bill means you hate disabled people.

Yes, that what dixiecrats used to say. "No, I don't hate nigras, just state's rights, constitution, liberty..."

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

ITT: Implying that opposing an unconstitutional bill means you hate disabled people.

Yes, that what dixiecrats used to say. "No, I don't hate nigras, just state's rights, constitution, liberty..."

And you would know this because you fantasize about being one?

Fail to adress the truth.

When you can't make a point, you're going personal. Typical.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It is exactly because I consider the real world consequences that I must sacrifice my own popularity to oppose the anti-freedom "Civil Rights Act" of 1964.

Not much of a sacrifice, trust me.

Let me ask one question.

Would keeping entire Southern Black population away from voting rights and forcing segretation on them have anything to do with freedom?

You're talking about the state's rights. But if your own state would pass a law that would strip you off the rights to vote and force to use different rooms than some other group, how would you feel? Of course you would say that violates your freedom.

Curious of your response, Libertas.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It is exactly because I consider the real world consequences that I must sacrifice my own popularity to oppose the anti-freedom "Civil Rights Act" of 1964.

Not much of a sacrifice, trust me.

Let me ask one question.

Would keeping entire Southern Black population away from voting rights and forcing segretation on them have anything to do with freedom?

You're talking about the state's rights. But if your own state would pass a law that would strip you off the rights to vote and force to use different rooms than some other group, how would you feel? Of course you would say that violates your freedom.

Curious of your response, Libertas.

I'm waiting. Let's have normal discussion on that issue.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It is exactly because I consider the real world consequences that I must sacrifice my own popularity to oppose the anti-freedom "Civil Rights Act" of 1964.

Not much of a sacrifice, trust me.

Let me ask one question.

Would keeping entire Southern Black population away from voting rights and forcing segretation on them have anything to do with freedom?

You're talking about the state's rights. But if your own state would pass a law that would strip you off the rights to vote and force to use different rooms than some other group, how would you feel? Of course you would say that violates your freedom.

Curious of your response, Libertas.

I'm waiting. Let's have normal discussion on that issue.

Again, ignoring questions

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It is exactly because I consider the real world consequences that I must sacrifice my own popularity to oppose the anti-freedom "Civil Rights Act" of 1964.

Not much of a sacrifice, trust me.

Let me ask one question.

Would keeping entire Southern Black population away from voting rights and forcing segretation on them have anything to do with freedom?

You're talking about the state's rights. But if your own state would pass a law that would strip you off the rights to vote and force to use different rooms than some other group, how would you feel? Of course you would say that violates your freedom.

Curious of your response, Libertas.

I'm waiting. Let's have normal discussion on that issue.

Again, ignoring questions

Right, I only have like six or seven people here all demanding immediate responses.

As for your question, that is not the issue here, as I have never once voiced approval for the state taking away one's individual rights.

Still, you seems to think ignoring such things in name of "state soverignity" as more pro-freedom, than interventing in order to ensure a natural and, for sure, constitutional rights of citizens no less than whites.

Interesting.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

As for your question, that is not the issue here, as I have never once voiced approval for the state taking away one's individual rights.

Of course, easiest thing to dodge any question is say "non-issue", esspecially when I'm asking specifically.

So, you wouldn't voice but in name of state's rights you'd be perfectly OK with violating of civil rights of citizens equal to you?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It is exactly because I consider the real world consequences that I must sacrifice my own popularity to oppose the anti-freedom "Civil Rights Act" of 1964.

Not much of a sacrifice, trust me.

Let me ask one question.

Would keeping entire Southern Black population away from voting rights and forcing segretation on them have anything to do with freedom?

You're talking about the state's rights. But if your own state would pass a law that would strip you off the rights to vote and force to use different rooms than some other group, how would you feel? Of course you would say that violates your freedom.

Curious of your response, Libertas.

I'm waiting. Let's have normal discussion on that issue.

Again, ignoring questions

Right, I only have like six or seven people here all demanding immediate responses.

As for your question, that is not the issue here, as I have never once voiced approval for the state taking away one's individual rights.

Still, you seems to think ignoring such things in name of "state soverignity" as more pro-freedom, than interventing in order to ensure a natural and, for sure, constitutional rights of citizens no less than whites.

Interesting.

No, I have never approved of using force against any group of people under any circumstances.

So keeping people under opression is still less horrible than enforcing the act of law?

Oh, it wasn't like LBJ send army to shoot every segregationist, ftr.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It is exactly because I consider the real world consequences that I must sacrifice my own popularity to oppose the anti-freedom "Civil Rights Act" of 1964.

Not much of a sacrifice, trust me.

Let me ask one question.

Would keeping entire Southern Black population away from voting rights and forcing segretation on them have anything to do with freedom?

You're talking about the state's rights. But if your own state would pass a law that would strip you off the rights to vote and force to use different rooms than some other group, how would you feel? Of course you would say that violates your freedom.

Curious of your response, Libertas.

I'm waiting. Let's have normal discussion on that issue.

Again, ignoring questions

Right, I only have like six or seven people here all demanding immediate responses.

As for your question, that is not the issue here, as I have never once voiced approval for the state taking away one's individual rights.

Still, you seems to think ignoring such things in name of "state soverignity" as more pro-freedom, than interventing in order to ensure a natural and, for sure, constitutional rights of citizens no less than whites.

Interesting.

No, I have never approved of using force against any group of people under any circumstances.

So keeping people under opression is still less horrible than enforcing the act of law?

Oh, it wasn't like LBJ send army to shoot every segregationist, ftr.

Strange, where I did I say I approved of "keeping people under oppression"?

Well, since you support right of states to impose vote disefrachement and segregation on a large part of population (without of course giving them representation during whole process or natural right to oppose), yes, you support keeping them under opression just due to your hatred to government.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

This shouldn't be argument of whether government oversteps its boundaries.  All of us can admit that it does.  Instead, we should be arguing whether the government needs to play some role in business, in order to help the downtrodden in certain situations.  The main idea of this law is to protect disabled persons from discrimination against business owners.  Should the government enforce such laws?  Yes. Most rational people would agree that this is a fair and important concept.  Businesses are always looking toward profits in the free market, and they will discriminate against people if it cost less money.  History is riddled with examples of this. 

However,  Rand Paul lives in a fantasy world in which businessmen always do what's right, because of free market principles and the kindness of their heart.  The problem with his theory is that its almost always more profitable to neglect accomodations for disabled persons.  Profitability doesn't always mean your going to receive positive results.   

No he doesn't.

Providing for the disabled is a community responsibility.

Do communities not have the right to enact legislation to meet their community responsibilities? Or are they simply left to the market as Great One noted Paulites apparantly believe?

Communities can decide for themselves what legislation they wish to enact.

Including legislation prhibiting discrimination against the disabled and requiring reasonable accomadation for the disabled in public facilities and employment?

Provided it is a government crafted by voluntary consent of all involved parties.

What the hell does that mean? Do you believe the states and US government consittute such a structure? If not, what do you envision?

Of course I don't the consider the U.S. government a legitimate governing body; I thought that was common knowledge.

How is U.S. government illegitimate?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

How is U.S. government illegitimate?

Because Ron Paul isn't leading it.

Oh yes, how could be I so stupid!

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Libertas, I have one more question.

Is the government which refuses a large part of citizens population a right to representation a legitimate one?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Libertas, I have one more question.

Is the government which refuses a large part of citizens population a right to representation a legitimate one?

No.

So why do you defend rights of governments like Alabama state government during Jim Crow days, if this government itself was according to your philosophy illegal?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Libertas, I have one more question.

Is the government which refuses a large part of citizens population a right to representation a legitimate one?

No.

So why do you defend rights of governments like Alabama state government during Jim Crow days, if this government itself was according to your philosophy illegal?

Sorry, I never defended Alabama state government during Jim Crow days; you are lying again.

Have you forgot your previous posts, Lib? You clearly sits with segregationis state authorities in a name of freedom from federal government in issue of imposed desegregation, yet you just responded that government which refuses a fair rights to citizens is illegal, so according to your logic, why should we care about their rights against federal government?

Contradiction?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Libertas, I have one more question.

Is the government which refuses a large part of citizens population a right to representation a legitimate one?

No.

So why do you defend rights of governments like Alabama state government during Jim Crow days, if this government itself was according to your philosophy illegal?

Sorry, I never defended Alabama state government during Jim Crow days; you are lying again.

Have you forgot your previous posts, Lib? You clearly sits with segregationis state authorities in a name of freedom from federal government in issue of imposed desegregation, yet you just responded that government which refuses a fair rights to citizens is illegal, so according to your logic, why should we care about their rights against federal government?

Contradiction?

No, there is no contradiction. You lied about my positions, so I would expect an apology.

Adress the question please and stop dodging questions like little baby.

From your words I assumed you would sit with the Deep South governments on the issue.

(btw, be careful with apology thing, because you offended and called many posters in this thread)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It's irrational because human rights are something that need to be protected, period. There's no reason someone living in Alabama should be at a comparative disadvantage because Alabama doesn't protect him from discrimination, whereas a similar person living in, say, Tennessee, enjoys all the freedoms and rights other citizens do because his state does offer protection.

There's no reason to protect a state's right to discriminate just for the sake of "states' rights".

I never protected a state's right to discriminate.

By opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act you are.

No I'm not.

So I have suggestion. Put your position regarding this specific issue so we may finally try to understand that. 

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Then don't vote for him.

Thanks God, I'm not from Kentucky.