Rand Paul LOL!!!

[LuciferSam]

It is my understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong because I am still learning what this guy and The Party stands for, that yes, we can have and do have private clubs that can exclude certain groups of people. But I think Rand was saying that a privately owned place, that serves the public (such as a burger counter) should be able to hang a sign saying "NO _______ allowed." Fill that in with blacks, fat people, white men, women, children or robots.

Am I correct and if not, tell me. I hope I am not correct.

G

You are correct, and he uses the argument that if you aren't allowed to discriminate against certain races, then as a matter of consistency, you shouldn't be allowed to prohibit people from bringing their guns into your establishment. You know, gun owners, the oppressed minority??:roll:

 

[scooterbug44]

Dwight just posted a video in the oil thread of this twit calling Obama unamerican for criticizing BP about the oil spill.

He's a tool IMO.

 

[Gidget]

Dwight just posted a video in the oil thread of this twit calling Obama unamerican for criticizing BP about the oil spill.

He's a tool IMO.

....and Scooterbug.....

Paul seemed opposed to any additional regulation on offshore oil drilling companies.

Rand Paul calls President Obama 'un-American' for his criticism of BP over oil spill

OMG how can anyone NOT see that stricter regulations could have very likely prevented this entire CATASTROPHE!

Just because there is too much government involvement in some areas doesn't mean we should just through it all out, strap on our holsters and yeeha it around.

G

 

[Em]

Not according to a wide range of people who seem to think I have to use them to prove my identify for a variety of reasons - lotto tickets, liquor, plane travel, banking, voting, entering the country, going into a federal building etc.

They ask for driver's license because it is typical that people in the US drive. However, driver's license isn't required for anything other than driving. A legal photo ID is sufficient for most things. ;-)

 

[Em]

You are correct, and he uses the argument that if you aren't allowed to discriminate against certain races, then as a matter of consistency, you shouldn't be allowed to prohibit people from bringing their guns into your establishment. You know, gun owners, the oppressed minority??:roll:

I didn't realize it was illegal to carry a gun into a business. Who made that law?

 

[LuciferSam]

....and Scooterbug.....

Paul seemed opposed to any additional regulation on offshore oil drilling companies.

Rand Paul calls President Obama 'un-American' for his criticism of BP over oil spill

OMG how can anyone NOT see that stricter regulations could have very likely prevented this entire CATASTROPHE!

Just because there is too much government involvement in some areas doesn't mean we should just through it all out, strap on our holsters and yeeha it around.

G

This a a very free-market laizez faire philosophy reminiscent of Ayn Rand. I don't know if he was named after her or what. I always agreed with most of what she had to say, but also came to the conclusion that her ideas were nothing more than a blueprint and not suitable to build a society in their purist form. Rand Paul is being a real purist idealist and thinking his ideas would work in the real world. They won't. I think Paul's view on catstrophes is to let the free market work it out after the fact. Eventually after enough catastrophes occur and enough companies are sued and enough people go to jail, companies will learn to self-impose better safety standards in the name of profit and self-interest. Never mind that one catastrophe could permanently destroy the ecosystem of the Gulf of Mexico. Regulation and safety standards punish companies before they've actually done anything wrong according to his philosophy.:roll:

 

[30ashopper]

Wow, you guys don't understand the law as it applies to public vs. private businesses, do you?

If your business is open to the public - does not require membership, etc - it is illegal to refuse service to a customer based on race or gender. Everything else is pretty much open territory. You can refuse to serve someone because of their clothing, their method of payment, the way they smell, their height (based on safety requirements), their credit rating - in short, you can refuse service based on pretty much anything a person can control about themselves. You can't refuse service just because of who they are. This seems very, very American to me - we believe that we are all born equal, and then it's up to us whether we turn into the sort of person that would be a good customer.

Perhaps this is an infringement of your right as a shopkeeper to be a jackass, but there are still many, many ways that you can express your jackassedness.

Again, in absolute theory, I suppose Rand Paul has a point. We do not live in an absolutely theoretical world, however.

Race, color, gender, religion, physical characteristics, or personal association are also included. Oddly enough some personal choices have been excluded by the courts, such as smoking. The ambiguity should be obvious, clearly the civil rights act includes protections based on individual choice.

Exactly, Rant Paul's pedantic ranting was hopelessly naive. This is the stuff of drunken college freshman dorm room ramblings, not the words of a policy maker.

No, it was idealistic. Libertarians are not naive about the realities of the political establishment and it's more intellectually shallow, socially palatable "politically correct" view.

Most political parties have their idealists, but most are permeated by realists. The libertarian party tends to be more idealist than most, which is something I personally respect about the party, but it can also be quite frustrating. (I often refer to myself as a realist libertarian for this reason.) Rand and his father are both idealists.

 

[Lynnie]

And, the spin continues~~~~~~~~

 

[Rita]

You are correct, and he uses the argument that if you aren't allowed to discriminate against certain races, then as a matter of consistency, you shouldn't be allowed to prohibit people from bringing their guns into your establishment. You know, gun owners, the oppressed minority??:roll:

.
This is what I took away from his interview. He said he favors 9 of the 10 parts of the Civil Rights Act. The one he didn't agree with is the one regarding not being able to discriminate in places of public accommodation. He mentions privately owned restaurants.

When you look at it as Here4Good has in the earlier post it makes more since than Rand Paul does in his being able to bring guns into a restaurant comparison.

"... in short, you can refuse service based on pretty much anything a person can control about themselves." - Here4Good



.

 

[LuciferSam]

I didn't realize it was illegal to carry a gun into a business. Who made that law?

Watch the interview.