Rand Paul Wants To Abolish The Americans With Disabilities Act!

[Marokai Backbeat]

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?

What's hilarious here is that Libertas is expressing a "liberty for the largest group" sentiment. Even though, as a Libertarian, he puts liberty and individual rights above all else (in theory) his attitude here seems to be that blacks should've just sucked it up and waited another generation or two, since heaven forbid we force the white people to do anything, which would seem to me to be decidedly anti-freedom.

[Oakvale]

Patriot defending liberty from federal tyranny or racist asshole?

[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?

What's hilarious here is that Libertas is expressing a "liberty for the largest group" sentiment. Even though, as a Libertarian, he puts liberty and individual rights above all else (in theory) his attitude here seems to be that blacks should've just sucked it up and waited another generation or two, since heaven forbid we force the white people to do anything, which would seem to me to be decidedly anti-freedom.

Why do you hate freedom, Marokai? Don't you know that legislatures representative of a majority have to initiate civil rights and other protections of minorities? Judicial activism needs to die a painful death! Power to the people!!! Ron Paul for President!

[Badger]

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.

Seriously. These laws were hardly created (nor fought tooth and nail by segregationists) in a vacuum. There were real flesh and blood reasons for these laws. "Social pressure" and "the free market" utterly failed in preventing segregation, and in much of the South both actually enabled its perpetuation (to economic detriment actually).

And for the love of God quite trying to say such laws are "unconstitutional". The US Supreme Court unanimously held over 45 years ago that such exercise of federal authority is fully authorized under the Commerce Clause, and based their opinion in large part on an 1824 ruling from that radical judicial activist, John Marshall.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=379&page=241

I wish Paultards would just drop their grossly inaccurate mantra about everything they don't like being "unconstitutional" and honestly just say "its something I don't personally agree with".

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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?

Actually, no, you can't.

And Eisenhower was a big-government centralist who took ideas from his buddy Hitler in Germany.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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?

Actually, no, you can't.

And Eisenhower was a big-government centralist who took ideas from his buddy Hitler in Germany.

Yeah, the highway system.

What a Nazi.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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.

[Holmes]

God, if this thread is an indication of what's to come for the next six months...

I will say that freedom is subjective, though. Who's to say someone's legal freedom to discriminate against a disabled person is more valuable than that disabled person's right to live in a society where being discriminated against is legally not tolerated?

Libertas, you're white, blond, probably middle-class, heterosexual, university educated, American, and not of Muslim or Jewish descent, am I correct? You'll never understand why it is important to have legislation that protects everyone. You're privileged. It's petty for you to advocate getting rid of such things in the name of "freedom".

It's one thing to say you're against racism, or any discrimination. It's another thing to understand why it's bad.

[Brittain33]

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

It was a massive step toward racial equality from what existed before.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...of some white people.

[Badger]

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.

Wow. If I also had such a fundimentally ignorant, factually erroneous, bass-ackward misunderstanding of 101 level modern American history, I'd probably agree with you.

[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?

Actually, no, you can't.

I gave you "Little Rock" as a clue. Will you refute that example, or just say "FREEDOM!"

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

For the umpteenth time, you have not answered what was posed to you.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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

It was a massive step toward racial equality from what existed before.

No, it was a massive step toward the centralization of federal power under the deceptive guise of "civil rights."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, of all of humanity.

[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.

[Lief 🗽]

Are you saying that you believe that tens of millions of people having equal rights, the right to vote, the right to live their lives without facing institutionalized, state-supported discrimination and harassment, all of that liberty, is not worth the liberty that some (and, until you give us concrete examples, hypothetical) white business owners had to surrender?

[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.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

God, if this thread is an indication of what's to come for the next six months...

I will say that freedom is subjective, though. Who's to say someone's legal freedom to discriminate against a disabled person is more valuable than that disabled person's right to live in a society where being discriminated against is legally not tolerated?

There is no right to not be discriminated against.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And you know all this how?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Racism is bad. Violating individual freedom is just as bad.

[Oakvale]

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.

It's done a much better job than leaving things to the "market" did. I kinda like the fact that black Americans aren't forced to sit at segregated lunch counters. I mean, Jesus, the whole Civil Rights movement existed for the very fact that the "market" allowed for legal segregation.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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.

It's done a much better job than leaving things to the "market" did. I kinda like the fact that black Americans aren't forced to sit at segregated lunch counters. I mean, Jesus, the whole Civil Rights movement existed for the very fact that the "market" allowed for legal segregation.

Segregation was enforced by the state in many cases and that is an entirely different issue.

[Lief 🗽]

God, if this thread is an indication of what's to come for the next six months...

I will say that freedom is subjective, though. Who's to say someone's legal freedom to discriminate against a disabled person is more valuable than that disabled person's right to live in a society where being discriminated against is legally not tolerated?

There is no right to not be discriminated against.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And you know all this how?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Racism is bad. Violating individual freedom is just as bad.

You've still not given us a SINGLE CONCRETE EXAMPLE of an individual's freedom that the Civil Rights Act violated.

[Franzl]

BUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS MORE POWER!!!!! OMG OMG !!!

[Marokai Backbeat]

Yes or no questions for Libertas:

Is preventing the ability for a white business owner to refuse to hire black people as bad as a black person getting a job because the government bans hiring discrimination that would otherwise prevent that?

Is punishing an employer for paying women less than men for the same job as bad as a woman getting equal pay because the government mandates equal pay for equal work?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

God, if this thread is an indication of what's to come for the next six months...

I will say that freedom is subjective, though. Who's to say someone's legal freedom to discriminate against a disabled person is more valuable than that disabled person's right to live in a society where being discriminated against is legally not tolerated?

There is no right to not be discriminated against.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And you know all this how?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Racism is bad. Violating individual freedom is just as bad.

You've still not given us a SINGLE CONCRETE EXAMPLE of an individual's freedom that the Civil Rights Act violated.

Any private business that has ever been sued by the EEOC has had it's rights violated.

Here's a list.

[Brittain33]

Statement.
Platitude.
Statement, repeated. Question referencing statement specifically.
Platitude. Platitude.
Anger. Statement. Demand that statement be addressed.
Mocking restatement of platitude. Indignation. Repeat of earlier platitude.

rinse and repeat.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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.

It was about subjugating private entities under the yoke of federal power.