Rand Paul defeats Trey Grayson in KY primary

**Consultant** · 05-27-10, 02:23 PM

In my opinion, businesses who only started serving blacks because of a law would have been better off being put out of business over time by more socially conscious customers. Laws don't change feelings and opinions in and of themselves.

There was a package store down the road here in N. FL that was busted, as recently as 2001, for making blacks sit in a separate section.

http://myfloridalegal.com/newsrel.ns...256A01004AB2F0

In any case - Consistently espousing libertarian views like Rand is doing doesnt make him racist (didn't say anybody said he was racist, just sort of seems to be floating out there), and fairly applying them to all areas of "government intrusion into the private sector" might not be wise, but whatever...I don't live in Kentucky.

**~~hawgballs~~** · 05-27-10, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by Blakeman

What if's in the sense that you believe that if the exact wording of the civil rights bill had not passed, then nothing would be done. You do this a lot with your arguments with republicans too as well as politicians in general, if they didn't vote for X bill, then they wouldn't vote for anything similar that they could agree on and fit within their principles (party of no, etc).

Show me other legislation that was presented at that time that would have ended the discriminatory practices of Jim Crowe and I might concede a little ground. But until then, the fact remains that without that legislation, there would not have been anything to stop or even pressure Jim Crowe. My speculation is based on a lack of alternative legislation provided, your speculation, of the possibility that there would have been other better laws to stem Jim Crowe, is more based on what?

Originally Posted by Blakeman

My question to you though is if we still need it today, if we need a government law to say that there should not be exclusive things. See I would like to believe that if the law were reverted and power given back to business that the rare instances of some country club saying 'whites only' would be met with so much protest that the place would have to close down and the owners retreat in shame, or that the state it was in would either change the law to the will of the people.

So tell me why this must be in place as a federal law now, today, and not run at the state or lower level?

The law wasn't devised for such mundane things as making Country Clubs allow minorities to join their ranks(Although I believe you are confusing "members only" country clubs with public golf courses). Which is an ignorant example, considering country clubs are private entities in the sense that they aren't open to the public, when they have private membership, and can indeed be discriminate with their membership selection, Augusta Country Club comes to mind amongst many others that have "whites only deeds" that are completely legal. And none of these places are being shamed into inclusion. What the legislation addressed and affected were privately owned entities providing services to the public, like stores and privately owned transportation companies(trains for example). It nullified state laws that legalized and sometimes enforced segregation, like "whites only" water fountains in public places.

Given the times, switch the "devil dujour" from the black man of the 60's to the Mexican of present day or homosexuals, and I don't find it very far fetched of the possibility that discrimination and segregation would rear it's head again similar to the 60's, had civil rights legislation never occurred or was thrown out today. Not to mention Arizona......

Originally Posted by Blakeman

My Patriot Act comparison is one of federal government overstepping its bounds 'for the good of the people'. The good of the people is for government to stay within its bounds as set forth by the Constitution of the United States, "All men are created equal" is in the eyes of the government, you cannot force a KKK member to think otherwise, regardless of how much we all want them to, no more than we should try, or try and force any business to conduct itself privately as we want them to.

Civil Rights legislation is not overstepping it's bounds "for the good of the people", it is ensuring that American citizens are afforded some basic rights,... being treated like a human being, an equal one at that, is one of them. There are no similarities between Civil Rights legislation and the Patriot Act, whether you are talking about it's goals or reasons for inception.....

You are correct, you cannot force a KKK member to change his opinions of other ethnicities, but you can ensure that if his business is providing a public good, then it is a good for ALL of the public.

When a business is open to the public, then it is not "conducting itself privately". Now if it is a private business, like a private country club, private social club, dinner club then you are correct, the government should not and cannot force them to conduct themselves in any way. But as soon as there is public access, the government can be able to ensure that public has no exclusion.

Originally Posted by Blakeman

Overreaching federal regulation is the chain in which the United States is being drug into the murky depths of an ocean of oppression, recession, and condemnation

Sounds quite poetic, but makes no sense.

**Fovezer** · 05-27-10, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by Blakeman

Businesses do hire children, unless Hollywood is full of little people without my knowing or if McDonald's is full of college kids who just look like they are in High School....

I think you know what I meant...

Originally Posted by Blakeman

You missed something I said Fov... its a big point that seems to be glossed over, especially when libertarian ideas are put forth.... I never said a state government could not institute said laws on their own, in fact I would be in favor of it in all the various flavors different states would probably do it in.

OSHA gone? Yes please, again let the states dictate what is safe for their residents. California might think that all desk chairs should be ergonomic, whereas Florida might not have a stipulation on having a hard hat on when picking Oranges. Change can occur more readily and with residents having more of a say in what directly affects them.

I don't believe that the legislation was what changed society, I believe it was the voice of Civil Rights leaders that did that and the media coverage and events that took place at that time. Society is not defined by federal regulation, legislation or even jurisdiction.

No, I never glossed it over. I am well-aware that Libertarians advocate returning some powers to the state. The federal laws provide a base level for labor laws. Many states have already instituted stricter labor laws and higher minimum wages, among other things. These federal laws prevent some states from becoming havens for lax safety standards and poor pay. Not to mention with the massive increase of interstate commerce, there needs to be more federal regulation.

Originally Posted by Consultant

Consistently espousing libertarian views like Rand is doing

You mean also like being anti-choice and anti-gay marriage? Those are not libertarian views, so he is hardly consistant.

**Blakeman** · 05-27-10, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Show me other legislation that was presented at that time that would have ended the discriminatory practices of Jim Crowe and I might concede a little ground. But until then, the fact remains that without that legislation, there would not have been anything to stop or even pressure Jim Crowe. My speculation is based on a lack of alternative legislation provided, your speculation, of the possibility that there would have been other better laws to stem Jim Crowe, is more based on what?

I see we can go back and forth on this till the end of time, thus my 'what if' comment stands.

There was no alternative legislation because the one provided was voted on and passed, even though it overstepped the bounds in which the federal government can operate.

Now you say "There wouldn't have been any other legislation if that one wasn't there." and we can continue our back and forth.

Originally Posted by hawgballs

When a business is open to the public, then it is not "conducting itself privately". Now if it is a private business, like a private country club, private social club, dinner club then you are correct, the government should not and cannot force them to conduct themselves in any way. But as soon as there is public access, the government can be able to ensure that public has no exclusion.

At what point is the federal government allowed to dictate any of this under the Constitution? It isn't except stretching that paper thin commerce clause even further in order to gain powers that are reserved for the states. Rand is obviously espousing the Constitutionalists and Libertarian view here, in that the states have sovereign rights over anything not specifically laid out by the Constitution.

If Rand was full on libertarian with all this I would vote for him with no qualms, yet he backs no same sex marriage and anti-choice matters.

**Blakeman** · 05-27-10, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by Fovezer

I think you know what I meant...

I know, but couldn't resist, hope you don't mind indulging me my small jabs.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

No, I never glossed it over. I am well-aware that Libertarians advocate returning some powers to the state. The federal laws provide a base level for labor laws. Many states have already instituted stricter labor laws and higher minimum wages, among other things. These federal laws prevent some states from becoming havens for lax safety standards and poor pay. Not to mention with the massive increase of interstate commerce, there needs to be more federal regulation.

The base level for labor laws is actually against libertarian principles as well since those again should be managed by the state since it relates to their citizens wishes, not those of the nation as a whole who might not agree with what is agreed on at the state level.

Regulation of actual interstate trade is a right reserved to the Fed, as we both know is set forth in the Constitution. As for how much regulation, that is supposed to be decided from our representatives in Washington such as what Rand Paul wants to become for my state.

The fear of some states becoming some sort of 3rd world type nation is what many for more centralized government always fall back on, yet we didn't see this happening as badly as portrayed in the past. When a neighboring state has something you appreciate, you inevitably vote in folks in your state who change things to a similar level.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

You mean also like being anti-choice and anti-gay marriage? Those are not libertarian views, so he is hardly consistent.

He isn't a libertarian, though he does have some libertarian type viewpoints on certain issues. One of the things that makes the tea party is it's taking on of more conservative ethics issues.

He is still better than a hard line, GOP humping, right and tight republican though, even if only on certain issues.

We will see if he even wins, my state has historically run with republicans in DC even though our state legislature runs fairly 50-50 lately. With the tea party viewpoints fairly strong around here though, he has a good chance of winning so long as nothing drastic occurs between now and polling time.

**Fovezer** · 05-27-10, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by Blakeman

I know, but couldn't resist, hope you don't mind indulging me my small jabs.

Originally Posted by Blakeman

The base level for labor laws is actually against libertarian principles as well since those again should be managed by the state since it relates to their citizens wishes, not those of the nation as a whole who might not agree with what is agreed on at the state level.

Regulation of actual interstate trade is a right reserved to the Fed, as we both know is set forth in the Constitution. As for how much regulation, that is supposed to be decided from our representatives in Washington such as what Rand Paul wants to become for my state.

The fear of some states becoming some sort of 3rd world type nation is what many for more centralized government always fall back on, yet we didn't see this happening as badly as portrayed in the past. When a neighboring state has something you appreciate, you inevitably vote in folks in your state who change things to a similar level.

And this is a topic we are never going to agree on because we view the country completely differently. You see it as essentially 50 separate countries tied together for defense and trade purposes, much like the European Union. I see it as a country itself with 50 separate districts, so to speak, which should have a strong federal government.

Originally Posted by Blakeman

He isn't a libertarian, though he does have some libertarian type viewpoints on certain issues. One of the things that makes the tea party is it's taking on of more conservative ethics issues.

He is still better than a hard line, GOP humping, right and tight republican though, even if only on certain issues.

We will see if he even wins, my state has historically run with republicans in DC even though our state legislature runs fairly 50-50 lately. With the tea party viewpoints fairly strong around here though, he has a good chance of winning so long as nothing drastic occurs between now and polling time.

Looking at the last two Senate elections in Kentucky, the results have been pretty close. So while I do think this seat still leans towards Paul, if he keeps getting negative press and a third party candidate decides to run and siphons off some votes, who knows what could happen here?

**Blakeman** · 05-27-10, 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by Fovezer

This is a topic we are never going to agree on because we view the country completely differently. You see it as essentially 50 separate countries tied together for defense and trade purposes, much like the European Union. I see it as a country itself with 50 separate districts, so to speak, which should have a strong federal government.

Old school vs. New school.

Not as much separate countries as much as districts that form the majority of their local laws as they see fit with better representation of their residents needs.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Looking at the last two Senate elections in Kentucky, the results have been pretty close. So while I do think this seat still leans towards Paul, if he keeps getting negative press and a third party candidate decides to run and siphons off some votes, who knows what could happen here?

We will see, third parties don't do very well historically here. Normally the voter turn out is higher in the primaries for democrats and then they don't show up for the general vote, which is kinda odd. Republicans are the opposite.

Normally if there is a 3rd party candidate then you haven't heard of them unless you are a staunch supporter of said party.

It will be interesting to see the media spin against/for him, that's for sure.

**Silent_Crow** · 05-27-10, 09:57 PM

The reason Ron Paul was so popular with young people such as myself was his honesty. Simply put, he is honest and clear on all of his viewpoints, even when asked questions which would frame him in a negative light (such as the Civil Rights Act Question). Every interview the man gave had a straightforward and genuine tone which no other political candidate does for me. Also, consistency such as his response to the civil rights act also garners my respect. I just don't see how anyone can not like and respect Ron Paul. Even if you disagree with him, you have to admit that you respect his integrity and honesty.