Rand Paul LOL!!!

Here4Good, please refer to post #52. Thanks, Gidget, for explaining exactly what I said previously.

I think, and I might be wrong, that Lynnie meant there would be a lot of folks screaming if a new station was started called WHITE Entertainment Network.

Is that what you are saying L?

Yeah but this discussion is in the context of Rand Paul's view of a particular chapter of the 1964 Civil Rights act. This has nothing to do with the court of public opinion.

The take I am supporting and operating on regarding the Tea Party affiliation, is that it will not become a party in its own right. As I interpret and understand it, it will support any candidate, regardless of party affiliation, that promotes and adheres to the values and principles expressed by those in the Tea Party movement. Admittedly, this usually does not lend itself to support of Democrat candidates, as a rule, because their goals are usually different from those I mentioned previously. There are some "Blue Dog Democrats" who might certainly qualify for support, however. These are only my opinions of what I have garnered from my association with the movement. Also, they are, to a great degree, anti-incumbent. They would like to see fresh faces in office...everywhere. Any others who have associated with the Tea Party movement, feel free to chime in and correct me where I am wrong.

Yeah but this discussion is in the context of Rand Paul's view of a particular chapter of the 1964 Civil Rights act. This has nothing to do with the court of public opinion.

I realize that. I just thought the response was a tad heavy -- I mean "WTF"? :idontno:

We are all throwing ideas out left and right (hee hee) so that we might understand our neighbor better :wave: - so it isn't always vital to stay 100% on track is it? I got what L meant easily and it is an interesting question = along same lines as - there is a Miss Black America but not very pc to have a Miss WHITE America. Again, it is an interesting question and fits in with the discussion.

G

I'm not sure it does fit in with the discussion, and I apologize for any heavy-handedness, but throwing the concept of being made uncomfortable by the pc police in with the concept of being denied access to a business which serves the public because of your race or gender cheapens the discussion.

This is not about being pc or non-pc, or the fact that there is no Miss White America contest (and by the way, I am almost sure there is - it's just not nationally televised because no advertiser will pay for it - which is the point of liberatarianism, right?) it's about a politician who thinks that part of the civil rights laws are wrong and why he thinks they are wrong, and therefore whether or not someone should support him.

Mr. Paul has made his views clear - he thinks that part of the laws are wrong. I disagree with him.

.
Each accuses the other of over-reacting. ?I said, ?We?re Muslim; this is the way we dress,?? Aimaq recalls having told Perez. ?He did not care.?
Aimaq said Perez made it clear why he wanted her out. ?He said, ?I don?t want the Muslims to shop here.??
Perez disputed that account. ?Muslims are probably 40 to 50 percent of my business,? he said. ?I?m not turning them away.?
Terence Ali, a frequent customer at Cooper Street Farmers Market, overheard the explanation from Perez and joined in.
?If you?re shopping in a store, obviously they?re going to want to see your face, or want to be able to see your face to protect other customers,? Ali said. ?I don?t think it?s wrong for a business owner to say that.?
Ali ? who is a Muslim ? said he has shopped here every week for years, and shopkeepers know he is a Muslim. ?There?s never been a problem,? he said.
But Latifa Aimaq said she has never had a problem like this before ? not at the airport, at the bank or even when getting her driver?s license photo.
She is urging Muslims and others to boycott the store.
?I began to cover fully three years ago,? she said. ?It?s not mandatory to cover your face, but it?s highly recommended.?

.
There was a call for a boycott of the store, but I don?t think it went anywhere because as I remember other Muslim customers had a good enough relationship with the store owner that they didn?t feel he singled her out for any reason other than the almost total coverage.

It is an intriguing kind of situation. Perfect opportunity for a criminal mind. I guess in this case my opinion would be that she would need to uncover her face if she wanted to shop there or if that wasn?t something she felt she could do, she would need to have someone do her shopping for her.
.

Thanks Rita. That must have been a difficult situation for many and frightening for the woman. I understand though why the owner made the request.

I wonder what it would have been like if the owner had just walked up and said "We don't want Mexicans to shop here so you'll have to leave" Skin is something one can't change like a head cover. I wonder how that would have gone over with the other patrons. :idontno:

Lots of good discussion.

Done for the day :wave:

G

I realize that. I just thought the response was a tad heavy -- I mean "WTF"? :idontno:

We are all throwing ideas out left and right (hee hee) so that we might understand our neighbor better :wave: - so it isn't always vital to stay 100% on track is it? I got what L meant easily and it is an interesting question = along same lines as - there is a Miss Black America but not very pc to have a Miss WHITE America. Again, it is an interesting question and fits in with the discussion.

G

That may be a valid point, but in my opinion that's a tired old question that's been thrown around for ages :yawn:. When's the last time a high profile figure has questioned this chapter of the Civil rights Act on intellectual and philosophical grounds pertaining to the rights of business in the free market? Maybe somebody like William F. Buckley back in the 60s??? I don't know. The implications of minorities being denied vital services necessary for survival are far more serious than exclusivity in the entertainment industry, and they have nothing at all to do with each other in the eyes of the law.

Thank you for the apology, Here4Good. It certainly fits the discussion, but if one chooses to believe that it doesn't fit, that is his or her prerogative.

Those are private organizations who chose their title, marketing, platform, etc. based upon their freedoms this country affords them.......and, you. Some see it as discrimination; some see it as their right.

I've had this discussion many times among family and friends regarding a television station called WET. Maybe because I reside in a largely discriminating City, we feel the slant more than most. I walked into a client's office about 18 years ago - a very highly respected CEO. He was black and every employee was black. They had a picture in the conference room of black Jesus and explained to me their reasoning was that in the Middle East, there weren't any white people; therefore, there was no way possible Jesus was white as depicted by most historians, artists throughout the world, etc. I told them, the Middle East is mostly comprised of Middle Easterners, not black people, but concurred that Jesus was most likely not white. Was this CEO running a company on discrimination? I certainly thought so then and I absolutely, unequivocably believe so today.

I do not think the storeowner was wrong.

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ISLAMIC RELIGION THAT DICTATES THAT WOMEN MUST COVER THEIR FACES WITH A VEIL.

Modest clothing (which is left open to interpretation and so varies) and a headscarf that covers most of your hair are all that is required.

The degree to which a woman is covered will tell you a great deal about her level of education and her life.

That is why I wholeheartedly support rules like that - and the current law they are discussing in France that makes it illegal to wear a veil - from both a criminal and equality standpoint.

Your son is brilliant! ;-)

Had a quick nap - back for a sec 😀

He is, about certain things, but he and I disagree a lot when it comes to many policies, etc...So I try to focus on what we agree on. That seems to work. He's not a nut about it thank goodness.

********
@ LuciferSam

That may be a valid point, but in my opinion that's a tired old question that's been thrown around for ages :yawn:. When's the last time a high profile figure has questioned this chapter of the Civil rights Act on intellectual and philosophical grounds pertaining to the rights of business in the free market? Maybe somebody like William F. Buckley back in the 60s??? I don't know. The implications of minorities being denied vital services necessary for survival are far more serious than exclusivity in the entertainment industry, and they have nothing at all to do with each other in the eyes of the law.

I agree - but that was the point trying to be made in another's post and I just gave another example. The reason it has been thrown around for ages is that many feel their rights are overlooked and that is why many think the govt should butt out.

I'm not one to feel that way and I'm not standing up for Rand Paul - I question Rand and am trying to understand the Tea Party movement and what it is that made Rand Paul an overnight google craze. I think I have a pretty clear understanding now.

G

PS This talk of being denied facilities etc... reminds me of the great book "Black Like Me" one of my favorites.

Had a quick nap - back for a sec 😀

He is, about certain things, but he and I disagree a lot when it comes to many policies, etc...So I try to focus on what we agree on. That seems to work. He's not a nut about it thank goodness.

********
@ LuciferSam



I agree - but that was the point trying to be made in another's post and I just gave another example. The reason it has been thrown around for ages is that many feel their rights are overlooked and that is why many think the govt should butt out.

I'm not one to feel that way and I'm not standing up for Rand Paul - I question Rand and am trying to understand the Tea Party movement and what it is that made Rand Paul an overnight google craze. I think I have a pretty clear understanding now.

G

PS This talk of being denied facilities etc... reminds me of the great book "Black Like Me" one of my favorites.

I think it's debatable how much of a role government should play in trying to reduce certain racial inequities. Where I think there is no room for discussion is in the government's elimination of Jim Crowe laws. Just my opinion of course.

Where I think there is no room for discussion is in the government's elimination of Jim Crowe laws.

Of course! I totally agree.

I think it's debatable how much of a role government should play in trying to reduce certain racial inequities. Where I think there is no room for discussion is in the government's elimination of Jim Crowe laws. Just my opinion of course.

I don't think the government needs to reduce racial inequities, but I do think we truly need all these laws and regulations to keep people from discriminating.

The fact that people still want to join clubs that exclude certain groups boggles the mind.

Even with laws in place, people continue to discriminate - imagine what it would be like if there were no building codes or legal basis for having to treat people fairly.

what the hell do you all think fraternities and sororities are training grounds for?

You can't handle the truth!

LS, that is truly an amazing piece of video. It is one of the reasons I enjoy SoWal. I do not puruse the internet but it is really interesting to see what kooks there are out there when such amazing video is posted here.

LS, that is truly an amazing piece of video. It is one of the reasons I enjoy SoWal. I do not puruse the internet but it is really interesting to see what kooks there are out there when such amazing video is posted here.

Right, and you can't refute anything in it whatsoever. Go back to reading you chain emails so your buds can shape your opinions for you with 5 year old news stories that everybody else laughed off and discounted long ago.

Right, and you can't refute anything in it whatsoever. Go back to reading you chain emails so your buds can shape your opinions for you with 5 year old news stories that everybody else laughed off and discounted long ago.

I'm not sure I would refute his points, but I might justify what the lefty seems to take issue with. But, would there be any point? The political forums are an endless stream of two sides ignoring each other.

I'm not sure I would refute his points, but I might justify what the lefty seems to take issue with. But, would there be any point? The political forums are an endless stream of two sides ignoring each other.

I wouldn't ignore anybody defending Paul's stance. There's a John Stossel interview out there. I've always been on the fence about him. After listening intently to his very negative opinion of the '64 Civil Rights Act, I fell off the fence.😱 Nevertheless I will be paying even closer attention to what he has to say from hereon. I do like to know where people stand whether I like it or not.

I do like to know where people stand whether I like it or not.

Exactly the reason I have been interested in this thread.

G

Right, and you can't refute anything in it whatsoever. Go back to reading you chain emails so your buds can shape your opinions for you with 5 year old news stories that everybody else laughed off and discounted long ago.

My, my, my. The truth got to you didn't it?

My, my, my. The truth got to you didn't it?

:floor::floor:Yeah Andy,:roll: that's it. :floor::floor:

Op-Ed Columnist - The Principles of Rand Paul - NYTimes.com

The idealist in Rand Paul. Interesting article, Douthat comes down a little hard on him, but it sums up nicely the differences between the idealist libertarian and a more realistic view of things. All the same, I'm glad we have people like Rand involved in the discussion.

Again, seriously? BET is discriminatory? You're not allowed to watch it? WTF? I just went and checked, and my clicker let me click right over there.

Oh, because they mostly show black people? So is ESPN discriminating against the uncoordinated? Is Playboy discriminating against flat chested women? All of those Bollywood music videos, are they discriminating against non-Asians who can't dance?

Do you even know what discrimination IS, from a legal standpoint? Do you seriously, seriously think that a business marketing to a group you don't belong to is discrimination? How do you feel about Cialis commercials, since you can't get ED? How do you feel about commercials for beer, if you don't drink beer?

You pose interesting questions to think about. Many people say that it is discriminatory to not have a mix of races in a business, equal to the make up of the population in that particular geographical area. eg- if an area has 50/50 mix of whites and blacks, a business is discriminating if it doesn't have a proportional mix of races employed.

Personally, I don't think there should be an equal mix of such things as race, nationality, sex, age, etc. Hiring should be based on skills and abilities. I certainly don't want an incompetent doctor operating on me, or an incompetent mechanic working on my car. When we base employment on anything other than skills and abilities, we are in fact discriminating on abilities!

What do you think about the company "FUBU?" You may have never heard about it unless you've been around the hip-hop scene. It was started by a black man who thought that black people were left out of the fashion world, so he started For Us, By Us, aka - FUBU. "for blacks by blacks" would be another way of saying it. The clothing is supposedly made (designed) by blacks and intended for black people to wear, though I would almost bet money that the products are actually made by Chinese people. I guess there are examples of clothing lines made from Confederate Flags which would be very similar. Is either wrong, or just socially unacceptable to some people?