100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Rand Paul condones racism? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
You have no say in Alabama voting. You live in Colorado. I do not feel it was a racist statement. I feel it was an accurate statement as to the serperation of private industry and federal rule. Private industry if you go back to industrialism age, worked children in hard labor situations often killing their employee with work overload. Also, to abolish discimination of agism, gender, race, religion, and unfortuantely the law had to be made controlling that. In controlling that expenses, skyrocketed, in our new multi-dimensional government. They placed this on private industry, as well as, government agencies. What Paul says is that it was ignorant of the private industry to behave that way and lose money over a behavior like that, and that institution of that remains ridiculous because of private industrial stupidity. To me that is far from racist. Racist is my natural father, I aint never heard so many jigaboos out of one person in my life. I am not prejudice and I look at him and said I guess your a better kind of white trailer trash I guess dad and walked away. My point being is that some words get twisted and I heard what he said. What he said resembled nothing like what you typed. Paul Non-Racist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But what right has anyone to tell something like a "Boys club" or Boy Scouts to include girls?
Could you see boys in the Girl Scouts? I sure can't! There are limits to any thing and times where a pursuit becomes overzealous! Affirmative Action was more of a knee jerk reaction to a problem of legal enforcement. There is too much occlusion and paraphrasing of the real issues at hand. Too much loaded passions and self righteousness. Everyone is so right. But then discrimination rears its ugly head in unexpected ways. I cannot see this issue not having terrible consequences because of some desire for liberally applying something without evaluating the effects it will have in the future. Hypocritical policies do not answer anything. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But what right has anyone to tell something like a "Boys club" or Boy Scouts to include girls? Could you see boys in the Girl Scouts? I sure can't! There are limits to any thing and times where a pursuit becomes overzealous! Affirmative Action was more of a knee jerk reaction to a problem of legal enforcement. There is too much occlusion and paraphrasing of the real issues at hand. Too much loaded passions and self righteousness. Everyone is so right. But then discrimination rears its ugly head in unexpected ways. I cannot see this issue not having terrible consequences because of some desire for liberally applying something without evaluating the effects it will have in the future. Hypocritical policies do not answer anything. They do include girls, BTW. You do have women Cub/Boy Scout Leader, volunteers and girl would not be excluded if asked to join. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Right or wrong people can believe anything they want.Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.There is certain people I don't want to associate with,hang around,or be a part of.This should be my right.It doesn't mean I hate people it just means I have a preference on the kind of company I want to be around.I don't know where we got this idea that you have to tolerate everyone and accept everyone like it or not.To be that is more like slavery instead of freedom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But what right has anyone to tell something like a "Boys club" or Boy Scouts to include girls? Could you see boys in the Girl Scouts? I sure can't! There are limits to any thing and times where a pursuit becomes overzealous! Affirmative Action was more of a knee jerk reaction to a problem of legal enforcement. There is too much occlusion and paraphrasing of the real issues at hand. Too much loaded passions and self righteousness. Everyone is so right. But then discrimination rears its ugly head in unexpected ways. I cannot see this issue not having terrible consequences because of some desire for liberally applying something without evaluating the effects it will have in the future. Hypocritical policies do not answer anything. They do include girls, BTW. You do have women Cub/Boy Scout Leader, volunteers and girl would not be excluded if asked to join. Women cub scout and weebaloes yes, I have yet to see female boy scout leaders. I never seen a girl in the Boy scouts as in one of the scouts. The Explorers is different. I have NEVER EVER heard of or seen a man running a brownie or girl scout troop either. Do you not think that would raise an eyebrow or two? And I got to agree with this sentiment! Right or wrong people can believe anything they want.Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.There is certain people I don't want to associate with,hang around,or be a part of.This should be my right.It doesn't mean I hate people it just means I have a preference on the kind of company I want to be around.I don't know where we got this idea that you have to tolerate everyone and accept everyone like it or not.To be that is more like slavery instead of freedom.
Why should I be forced to live with, work with, or be around anyone I don't want to be around? Just because I have to tolerate them does not mean I have to fraternize with them! Some of the rhetoric being spewed seems to make people who think like this racist when that is an unfair assessment! |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kings_Knight
on
Thu 05/20/10 10:41 PM
|
|
" ... Why should I be forced to live with, work with, or be around anyone I don't want to be around? Just because I have to tolerate them does not mean I have to fraternize with them! Some of the rhetoric being spewed seems to make people who think like this racist when that is an unfair assessment! ... " We still (for the moment, anyway) have 'Freedom of Association' ... enjoy it while y' have it, 'cuz the Libs / Progressives / Communists all want to tell you who you can/must associate with, when, where, why, how, etc etc etc ... 'Hope' and 'Change You Can Believe In' ... ain't it effin' great ... ? I may, of necessity, HAVE to associate with some people I would normally not hang with when I'm at work, but when I'm off, I'm the one who decides who I associate with and when. Working with 'em doesn't a social bond create ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is up with the racism or willingness to allow racism in this country???
I guess some folks just don't grow intellectually as they should I was holding my opinion of Rand Paul but I have now learned pretty much all I need. I like Rand Paul and if he can remain true to himself amidst all of the crap people throw at him and criticize him for, I will continue to like him. They will probably destroy a good man because they fear him. You can make laws and try to force policy on people and businesses about "racism," and hiring minorities, but you cannot "allow racism" or "forbid racism." Racism is an individual thing. It involves how people feel and the personal choices they make. Its like "intent." Its not so easy to prove what is in a person's heart or mind. Even if a person is a racist, he has a right to be as long as he does not commit a crime against another person. How he feels is his own business. How much will you allow your government to regulate your life and your business? If you had a business how would you like the government to tell you that you had to hire a certain percentage of 'minority' people? What if these people aren't qualified? There are both pros and cons about that kind of government control, and it can go against our personal freedom. You can't force people to like each other, or not fear each other. That same government will still go to great lengths to incite Americans to hate the enemy with whom they want us to go to war. They do this by manipulating the media and scaring the hell out of everyone about "terrorists." It is a fact that Mossad and the CIA have dressed up like 'terrorists' and committed terrorist actions for the soul purpose of inciting public opinion against certain groups. Its all about teaching us who to hate this time. 2nd world war, it was the Germans and the Japanese, then there was a witch hunt for communists and anyone who even knew a communist. That same government once fought to keep slaves, did not want to give black people the right to vote and were even slower giving women the right to vote. It has always been a battle between freedom and trying to force people to do what someone thinks is right. Racism aside, I think people should just treat a crime as a crime and go after the real criminals no matter who they are. Their are criminals in high places too. They think they are above the law. There is no gray where racism and discrimination is concerned. Either discrimination and racism is wrong or it ain't. If I have a business I will be following the laws to hire a percentage of people that represents what the government thinks it should. Freedom in this country is a false premise anyway. People only fight for faux freedoms that represent what they want to do in their lives. Not freedom for everyone. Because freedom actually is responsibility and noone wants it. Or freedom is nothing left to lose and in that scenerio there isn't anything to fight over. Individual Liberty vs Collectivism I want the right to make my own choices good or bad. I don't want you or anyone else telling me what choices I have to make. This country was founded on the right of the individual to make their own choices. You can't count on the government to make the right choices for you because they are in the pockets of special interest groups. So if you want Goldman Sachs and George Soros telling the government what it wants YOU to do, then go right ahead. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kings_Knight
on
Fri 05/21/10 08:13 AM
|
|
" ... There is no gray where racism and discrimination is concerned. Either discrimination and racism is wrong or it ain't. If I have a business I will be following the laws to hire a percentage of people that represents what the government thinks it should. ... " "What we have heah ... is a failure ... to c'mmunicate" ... This is SO confused ... It mixes 'discrimination', 'racism', 'business', 'hiring', 'percentage of people', 'what the government thinks' ... Holy crap, Batman ... where's the connexion ... ? It don't exist. Critical thinking and rational analysis just ain't in da house here ... First, whatever 'discrimination' or 'racism' is in effect today is a product of the LEFT and the 'progressives'. Major practitioners ... ? The 'JustUs Brothers' (Sharpton et jackson), the 'Democratic Party' [sic], 'democratic operatives' (SEIU, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, etc), individual 'democratic leaders' (Reid, Pelosi, Frank, Dodd, Hoyer, Durbin, etc), and 'useful idiots' like the 'reverend' Jerry Wright, Farrakhan, the Black Panthers, et al ... They play the 'Race Card' and the 'Discrimination Card' 'cuz it's all they got. They can't win the argument with logic and reason, so they resort to cheap-shotting their opposition - the debate equivalent of Tanya Harding knee-capping Nancy Kerrigan 'cuz she knew she couldn't win in a fair competition ... Moving on ... 'hire a percentage of people that represents what the government thinks it should' ... This is just a complete abdication of responsibility and a 'roll-over-and-play-dead' / 'good doggie' mindset. 'Government knows best'. Bullschit. They'd let government dictate their hiring practices based on someone's skin color, language, or race 'cuz 'government knows best' ... ? Holy crap. What ever happened to HIRING THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB? If they can't do what the job requires to serve your customer base, YOU'RE OUT OF BUSINESS. And we wonder how 'The ONE' got elected ... ? Wonder no more ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like Paul Rand very much and he certainly does not promote racism. He could probably sue you for slander for even suggesting it..... if he cared.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like Paul Rand very much and he certainly does not promote racism. He could probably sue you for slander for even suggesting it..... if he cared. Not. I have the right to free speech and to voice what I see. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe the man's making a big mistake in siding with discrimination as a personal business choice.
To me that is like saying that racism is okay as long as you get away with it. Not. Rand Paul appears to be a closet racist who has let a foot out of the closet. If he goes for higher office I will be there to put effort to stop him. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Fri 05/21/10 09:12 AM
|
|
I like Paul Rand very much and he certainly does not promote racism. He could probably sue you for slander for even suggesting it..... if he cared. ya know what? Your post got me to thinking how much of a CASH COW politicians would have if this were true,,,so I looked it up , and it seems that there isnt much a public official can do about negative press or opinions,,,,, from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel+and+Slander Since Sullivan, a public official or other person who has voluntarily assumed a position in the public eye must prove that a libelous statement "was made with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard to whether it was false or not" (Sullivan). The actual-malice standard does not require any ill will on the part of the defendant. Rather, it merely requires the defendant to be aware that the statement is false or very likely false. Reckless disregard is present if the plaintiff can show that the defendant had "serious doubts as to the truth of [the] publication" (see St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 88 S. Ct. 1323, 20 L. Ed. 2d 262 [1968]). too bad though, with the internet and trash magazines out there,, if politicians could collect monetary awards for defamation , they would no longer have to rely on extended retirements to maintain their lifestyle after service,,,,lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I here racism here, but not from Paul Rand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rand Paul does not side with racism. He sides with freedom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rand Paul does not side with racism. He sides with freedom. I disagree. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like Paul Rand very much and he certainly does not promote racism. He could probably sue you for slander for even suggesting it..... if he cared. ya know what? Your post got me to thinking how much of a CASH COW politicians would have if this were true,,,so I looked it up , and it seems that there isnt much a public official can do about negative press or opinions,,,,, from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel+and+Slander Since Sullivan, a public official or other person who has voluntarily assumed a position in the public eye must prove that a libelous statement "was made with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard to whether it was false or not" (Sullivan). The actual-malice standard does not require any ill will on the part of the defendant. Rather, it merely requires the defendant to be aware that the statement is false or very likely false. Reckless disregard is present if the plaintiff can show that the defendant had "serious doubts as to the truth of [the] publication" (see St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 88 S. Ct. 1323, 20 L. Ed. 2d 262 [1968]). too bad though, with the internet and trash magazines out there,, if politicians could collect monetary awards for defamation , they would no longer have to rely on extended retirements to maintain their lifestyle after service,,,,lol I agree. I was just kidding. Politicians don't go around suing people. They wouldn't have the time or resources. 
Its a good thing they can't too, because people might be intimidated about speaking out against corrupt politicians like George Bush who was a moron and a war criminal. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Fri 05/21/10 09:15 AM
|
|
" ... There is no gray where racism and discrimination is concerned. Either discrimination and racism is wrong or it ain't. If I have a business I will be following the laws to hire a percentage of people that represents what the government thinks it should. ... " "What we have heah ... is a failure ... to c'mmunicate" ... This is SO confused ... It mixes 'discrimination', 'racism', 'business', 'hiring', 'percentage of people', 'what the government thinks' ... Holy crap, Batman ... where's the connexion ... ? It don't exist. Critical thinking and rational analysis just ain't in da house here ... First, whatever 'discrimination' or 'racism' is in effect today is a product of the LEFT and the 'progressives'. Major practitioners ... ? The 'JustUs Brothers' (Sharpton et jackson), the 'Democratic Party' [sic], 'democratic operatives' (SEIU, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, etc), individual 'democratic leaders' (Reid, Pelosi, Frank, Dodd, Hoyer, Durbin, etc), and 'useful idiots' like the 'reverend' Jerry Wright, Farrakhan, the Black Panthers, et al ... They play the 'Race Card' and the 'Discrimination Card' 'cuz it's all they got. They can't win the argument with logic and reason, so they resort to cheap-shotting their opposition - the debate equivalent of Tanya Harding knee-capping Nancy Kerrigan 'cuz she knew she couldn't win in a fair competition ... Moving on ... 'hire a percentage of people that represents what the government thinks it should' ... This is just a complete abdication of responsibility and a 'roll-over-and-play-dead' / 'good doggie' mindset. 'Government knows best'. Bullschit. They'd let government dictate their hiring practices based on someone's skin color, language, or race 'cuz 'government knows best' ... ? Holy crap. What ever happened to HIRING THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB? If they can't do what the job requires to serve your customer base, YOU'RE OUT OF BUSINESS. And we wonder how 'The ONE' got elected ... ? Wonder no more ... I actually wonder how Bush got elected,,,,but AFfirmative Action occurs on many more bases than race( social status, economic status,,,etc,,) and as long as the one hired for the job does it well,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 05/21/10 09:17 AM
|
|
Rand Paul does not side with racism. He sides with freedom. I disagree. That is your right but you are wrong. You have a right to be wrong. Its a free country. 
Thanks to people like Rand Paul.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The faux freedom stance is rampant in the political arena.
They do not fight for everyone's freedoms. How do we know that? Because to be truly free there would be no government at all. So anyone who stand on freedoms is not to be trusted at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rand Paul does not side with racism. He sides with freedom. I disagree. That is your right but you are wrong. You have a right to be wrong. Its a free country.
Thanks to people like Rand Paul.
wait now jeannie, I love ya, but how is Rand responsible for our right to be 'right or wrong' ...he is a doctor,,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
