What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Rover said:
From politico, Rand Paul thinks private business should be allowed to segregate if they choose with no govt interference....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul explained that he backed the portion of the Civil Rights Act banning discrimination in public places and institutions, but that he thinks private businesses should be permitted to discriminate by race.

"I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that," he said. "I don’t like the idea of teling private business owners...."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...

This position is logically consistent, and it does not mean there is no redress against bad behavior. Say a restaurant segregates. Not only would it be boycotted out of business, but people who patronized it would also face social pressure.

From a strict Constitutional perspective, it frankly probably is overreach to ban segregated private businesses. That's one reason why a strict Constitutional perspective is too narrow to be functional outside a classroom. Being a Marsgriffin was a fine purist experience, but reductio ad absurda like that kept cropping up. The world is messy.

Anyway, Paul is going to run aground as soon as he speaks against some of the main Republican talking points like the Forever War. When he can't be labeled on the simple left-right dichotomy, the voters heads will asplode.
 
Last edited:
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Kepler said:
This position is logically consistent, and it does not mean there is no redress against bad behavior. Say a restaurant segregates. Not only would it be boycotted out of business, but people who patronized it would also face social pressure.

From a strict Constitutional perspective, it frankly probably is overreach to ban segregated private businesses. That's one reason why a strict Constitutional perspective is too narrow to be functional outside a classroom.
Click to expand...

I think you are absolutely correct here (oh the humanity, I just agreed with Kepler). Those of us who don't let perception trump reality can see he's talking about government regulation of a private business and not race (not that I agree with his position either way in this example). Unfortunately for most voters in modern politics all they'll see is a race issue and will completely ignore what he was really talking about which is a legitimately debatable topic.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Kepler said:
This position is logically consistent, and it does not mean there is no redress against bad behavior. Say a restaurant segregates. Not only would it be boycotted out of business, but people who patronized it would also face social pressure.

From a strict Constitutional perspective, it frankly probably is overreach to ban segregated private businesses. That's one reason why a strict Constitutional perspective is too narrow to be functional outside a classroom. Being a Marsgriffin was a fine purist experience, but reductio ad absurda like that kept cropping up. The world is messy.

Anyway, Paul is going to run aground as soon as he speaks against some of the main Republican talking points like the Forever War. When he can't be labeled on the simple left-right dichotomy, the voters heads will asplode.
Click to expand...

Social pressure might not work if the area in question is overwhelmingly in favor of the practice. People's basic rights aren't dependent on the whims of who's in charge. Its no different than how private business can't treat its workers however it pleases.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Rover said:
Social pressure might not work if the area in question is overwhelmingly in favor of the practice. People's basic rights aren't dependent on the whims of who's in charge. Its no different than how private business can't treat its workers however it pleases.
Click to expand...
Yes, but there is no "basic right" to a job at specific private company XYZ, inc.

I'm not sure where I'd fall on this one. The logical consistency and limited government aspects certainly appeal to me, but on the other hand, it does seem to be a bit, well, icky.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

LynahFan said:
Yes, but there is no "basic right" to a job at specific private company XYZ, inc.

I'm not sure where I'd fall on this one. The logical consistency and limited government aspects certainly appeal to me, but on the other hand, it does seem to be a bit, well, icky.
Click to expand...

There's no basic right to a job, but once hired they can't start demanding that you do sexual favors for example in order to keep it. That's illegal. Following Paul's view of govt non interference in business, the company would be free of any legal sanctions for doing this. Its just the public sector that would be prohibited.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Rover said:
There's no basic right to a job, but once hired they can't start demanding that you do sexual favors for example in order to keep it. That's illegal. Following Paul's view of govt non interference in business, the company would be free of any legal sanctions for doing this. Its just the public sector that would be prohibited.
Click to expand...
Nice straw boogeyman on a slippery slope with a side of fear-mongering.

Coerced sexual contact is straight-up illegal - you DO have a basic right to be free from that.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Yeah but you also have a right to not be held down in a job because of the color of your skin or which god you believe in.

And while you can say "Go find another job" what is to stop EVERY business from doing that? What if it is, say a down economy and jobs are tough to come by?

In theory he is right, problem is "in theory" doesn't always work in the real world where greed and exploitation cloud the issue.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Handyman said:
In theory he is right, problem is "in theory" doesn't always work in the real world where greed and exploitation cloud the issue.
Click to expand...

And where there is an enormous difference in leverage between an employer and an employee. The "free contracts freely entered into" argument hypothesizes that all power relations have the same reciprocal weight, which is absurd in the real world.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

I suspect this discussion is something that the Paul campaign will need to figure out how to manage. Think of Lynah as a stand in for the candidate. He's trying to defend the indefensible by saying "but technically I'm right " in regards to segregation. Good luck running with that is my response.

WeWantMore said:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/ky_2010_sen_rasmussen_519.php

I usually defend Rasmussen, but Paul +25 seems a little over the top.
Click to expand...

Well, in Scottie's defense, he IS only calling conservatives, so what would you expect? ;)
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

As for the Civil Rights Act thing, aren't you guys doing the same thing you allege is being done to Blumenthal in CT?
Let's take a look at the full transcript, eh?
SIEGEL: You’ve said that business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, and that the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA, was an overreach by the federal government. Would you say the same by extension of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Dr. PAUL: What I’ve always said is that I’m opposed to institutional racism, and I would’ve, had I’ve been alive at the time, I think, had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism.

SIEGEL: But are you saying that had you been around at the time, you would have - hoped that you would have marched with Martin Luther King but voted with Barry Goldwater against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Dr. PAUL: Well, actually, I think it’s confusing on a lot of cases with what actually was in the civil rights case because, see, a lot of the things that actually were in the bill, I’m in favor of. I’m in favor of everything with regards to ending institutional racism. So I think there’s a lot to be desired in the civil rights [act]. And to tell you the truth, I haven’t really read all through it because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn’t been a real pressing issue in the campaign, on whether we’re going for the Civil Rights Act.

SIEGEL: But it’s been one of the major developments in American history in the course of your life. I mean, do you think the ‘64 Civil Rights Act or the ADA for that matter were just overreaches and that business shouldn’t be bothered by people with the basis in law to sue them for redress?

Dr. PAUL: Right. I think a lot of things could be handled locally. For example, I think that we should try to do everything we can to allow for people with disabilities and handicaps. You know, we do it in our office with wheelchair ramps and things like that. I think if you have a two-story office and you hire someone who’s handicapped, it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator. And I think when you get to the solutions like that, the more local the better, and the more common sense the decisions are, rather than having a federal government make those decisions.
Click to expand...

His answer's a little stuttering perhaps, but really I doubt it's anything too nutty.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

WeWantMore said:
As for the Civil Rights Act thing, aren't you guys doing the same thing you allege is being done to Blumenthal in CT?
Let's take a look at the full transcript, eh?


His answer's a little stuttering perhaps, but really I doubt it's anything too nutty.
Click to expand...

Ah yes..."local control."

Look, we fought a war about this. No, you can't own slaves.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

WeWantMore said:
As for the Civil Rights Act thing, aren't you guys doing the same thing you allege is being done to Blumenthal in CT?
Let's take a look at the full transcript, eh?


His answer's a little stuttering perhaps, but really I doubt it's anything too nutty.
Click to expand...

Can't speak for everybody, but for me its not that I think the guy supports private company segregation. What I think is this is just one of many instances where he'll have to explain away certain anti-govt doctrine that up to this point he's probably spoken about unchallenged. What Paul's appeal seems to be is his convictions to honest to goodness libertarianism. In this race libertarian thought is essentually on trial, in that this contest is more about Paul than his opponent. I'm not saying the guy is wacky, nutty, etc. What I'm curious about is if he can win on a pretty much 100% libertarian platform.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Rover said:
Can't speak for everybody, but for me its not that I think the guy supports private company segregation. What I think is this is just one of many instances where he'll have to explain away certain anti-govt doctrine that up to this point he's probably spoken about unchallenged. What Paul's appeal seems to be is his convictions to honest to goodness libertarianism. In this race libertarian thought is essentually on trial, in that this contest is more about Paul than his opponent. I'm not saying the guy is wacky, nutty, etc. What I'm curious about is if he can win on a pretty much 100% libertarian platform.
Click to expand...

It's an electoral debate worth having, rather than the three thousand and first rerunning of "values voters" or "law and order" or "liberal activism" or "class warfare" or the other vacuous, exhausted themes of the last thirty years.

Put it this way: I can imagine situations in which I might vote for Paul, which at least gives me a choice. 99 times out of a 100, the Republican candidate is not even a serious choice.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

I tell you what, I think Rand Paul would have opposed the Bush agenda a whole heck of a lot better than some Democrats did.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

WeWantMore said:
I tell you what, I think Rand Paul would have opposed the Bush agenda a whole heck of a lot better than some Democrats did.
Click to expand...

That goes without saying. The Democrats are very very weak, even when in power. Democrats hold both houses in Minnesota and Tim Pawlenty ran right over them in the last session.

The Democrats are a joke.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

When the Democrats win by a landslide they govern like it was by a hair and when the Republicans win by a hair they govern like it was by a landslide.

That's the only positive thing to be said for the GOP since Eisenhower. But it's important and laudable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top