Rand Paul Wants To Abolish The Americans With Disabilities Act!

[Marokai Backbeat]

Given the rarity of disabled people, it was not really bad business to discriminate. Losing one customer out of 100 was not going to change your bottom line. This was especially true when bigotry against the disabled was strong enough that refusing to allow the disabled in might increase your abled customers (a little more applicable to race, ethnic origin, gender and sexual orientation there, though).

This is actually critically important point to remember in many other things in relation to the market and why protections are necessary for many things. Those that act as if the free market can correct itself rests on the leap of faith that people would react badly to abuses by businesses and thus it's a self-correcting system.

This may be true in a larger sense, where if thousands upon thousands of people are directly harmed by a business, people might turn their backs on them, but when one person here and there is discriminated against or harmed by a business, people don't take notice, especially if it's an often overlooked segment of society; it's a much different situation that will not correct itself, it must be corrected by another force.

This applies to things like discrimination laws, but it's perfectly applicable for things like safety regulations or labeling laws as well.

[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?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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.

[Franzl]

Do those principles include opposing civil rights?

[Badger]

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 ducking that question.

Particularly as if Paul answered it honestly the answer would've been politically quite embarrassing, even in KY.

It's one thing to have a single congressman in an overwhelmingly conservative district and who is widely considered a fringe eccentric (Paul Sr.), but actively supporting a senate candidate that supports repeal of the Civil Rights Act would prove problematic for national GOP figures and the Party itself. Wouldn't help in black, Latino and other minority voter outreach, plus trying to convince moderate whites the Republican Party isn't a haven for racists.

So Paul "would've marched with King" if he was old enough? Unlikely considering King, Lewis and others were specifically marching in support of federal laws against desegregation.

I wonder if he would've been able to invite King to his country club for a victory celebration?

BTW, Grumps, this isn't my specialized area of law, but I'm familiar enough with the ADA and its history to say Verily summed it up quite well.

[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.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Do those principles include opposing civil rights?

Nope, they don't.

[memphis]

Do those principles include opposing civil rights?

Nope, they don't.

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

[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?

[Franzl]

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?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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?

[Free Palestine]

Opposing the Civil Rights Act ≠ opposing civil rights.  If he had answered that he doesn't support the act, that would have been jumped on as a sound bite, ignoring whatever justification he may have.

[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..."

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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?

[Franzl]

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?

Care to explain what's ineffective about the act?

[Free Palestine]

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..."

Dixiecrats used state's rights as a cop-out for their own racism.  People like Rand and Ron genuinely believe in the Constitution (Well, only sort-of for Drug War-supporting Rand).

[Marokai Backbeat]

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..."

Quite true, really. No one actually said they were racist freaks, they hid that behind the issue of the day.

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?

This is a ridiculous situation. Does anyone here have a clue what large sections of the country were like pre-Civil Rights Act? This is another one of those issues where the law is opposed simply because it's a law. It's a highly unrealistic fantastical utopianistic mindset that doesn't care about the effects of the law whether they're positive or not. It's the fact that it's a law that they oppose, consequences be damned.

[Free Palestine]

This is a ridiculous situation. Does anyone here have a clue what large sections of the country were like pre-Civil Rights Act? This is another one of those issues where the law is opposed simply because it's a law. It's a highly unrealistic fantastical utopianistic mindset that doesn't care about the effects of the law whether they're positive or not. It's the fact that it's a law that they oppose, consequences be damned.

[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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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?

Would you please actually contribute something to this discussion instead of the entirety of your responses being "NO I SUPPORT FREEDOM. FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM. FREEDOM FREEDOM. LIBERTY FREEDOM. LIBERTY. YOU'RE WRONG."?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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?

Care to explain what's ineffective about the act?

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.

[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.

[Franzl]

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?

[Marokai Backbeat]

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?

Care to explain what's ineffective about the act?

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.

Most of the South was never ever going to get over their racial issues and stop discriminating and suppressing minority vote unless forced to. It might've stopped on their own, decades and decades down the road, without them being forced, but certain areas would still be discriminating and legislating against minorities (mainly because state legislatures still actually are doing this).

To pretend that the South would've magically gotten over their racial problems in insanity and any proof to that effect is anecdotal at best.

[Brittain33]

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?