[Scape]

$1:

The second sit-in occurred on Thursday, February 18, when more than 200 students entered Woolworths, S. H. Kress, McClellan, and Grants. The lunch counters were immediately closed. The students remained for about half an hour and then left, again without incident.[21][22] The third sit-in occurred on February 20 when approximately 350 students entered the previous four stores and also the downtown Walgreens drugstore. As the students sat at the counters, crowds of white youths gathered in several of the stores. Police kept a watchful eye on all five locations, but no incidents of violence occurred. The students remained for nearly three hours until adjourning to a mass meeting at the First Baptist Church.[23][24]

I can see where the confusion comes about but Walgreens was a part of that as well.

As for the state requiring a store to adhere to a certain standard we do that all the time with food and drugs safety so this idea that the store has some special precedent here is spacious at best.

I know there are those who are politically correct but there is also those who think it's still cool to smoke. We shouldn't have trends dictate what is normal under the law. Otherwise lynchings will be the next fad.

[N_Fiddledog]

So you agree with Rand Paul then Scape. There is no problem with the American Civil Rights Act as it exists today.

[Zipperfish]

He doesn't seem to like government very much. Which begs the question as to why he wants to be a part of it. Is he not going to become that which he despises? I mena sure he says that he wants small government, but he's not being honest. He hates government. Period. He's got more in common with anarchists than with anyone esle on the political spectrum.

I don't think he says anything racist. All he saying is that the government can't be racist, but business and private citizens are welcome to be overtly racist--if they choose. As Scape implies, that is ideological to the point of wilful ignorance. Overt racism will engender violence--especially for blacks, given that they were once enslaved by white Americans and still probably a little sensitive to the issue. Violence will require a response by the government that this gentleman despises. What's more intrusive--a civil rights act or the National Guard standing on the corner with machine guns?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Touching a bit on your post Bart; I remember reading about German POWs in America.
Now, keep in mind that many German POWs in the US worked on family farms and were often allowed to go out WITH the family. One such instance took place at a diner somewhere in the South. A german POW was eating there with his "host" family. Yet, when a Black serviceman showed up, the owner of the diner DID serve him, but in the back alley.
THis German POW could NOT understand why he, the enemy, was allowed to eat INSIDE when a US serviceman was forbidden from doing the same.
As he put it, be couldn't comprehend how a nation that was fighting the world's biggest racist, could be so racist, especially to it's own soldiers.

[tritium]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/? ... ZkY2JjNDc=

So Tritium appears to want to debate something which is based on a lie.

You know the YouTube video says it all.

I hate when people get cought they come back to the media and say; "well this what I meat to say..." Bull$hit.

Under Rand Paul's idea, when you have signs pop up; No Black, No Mexican's, No Jews, No Gays or how about no Handicap or Retards.

Where do you daw this line that businesses would have.

Have we not as a progressive society moved past this era of narrow mindedness and indifference to one another.

[Scape]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

So you agree with Rand Paul then Scape. There is no problem with the American Civil Rights Act as it exists today.

He does have an issue with it.

$1:

Should we limit racists from speaking? I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things that freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it.

ACR would stop 'those people' from making whites only stores.

[Proculation]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

He doesn't seem to like government very much. Which begs the question as to why he wants to be a part of it. Is he not going to become that which he despises? I mena sure he says that he wants small government, but he's not being honest. He hates government. Period. He's got more in common with anarchists than with anyone esle on the political spectrum.

I don't think he says anything racist. All he saying is that the government can't be racist, but business and private citizens are welcome to be overtly racist--if they choose. As Scape implies, that is ideological to the point of wilful ignorance. Overt racism will engender violence--especially for blacks, given that they were once enslaved by white Americans and still probably a little sensitive to the issue. Violence will require a response by the government that this gentleman despises. What's more intrusive--a civil rights act or the National Guard standing on the corner with machine guns?

If he has the same ideology as his father (which I think), he is not AGAINST the government (ie. an anarchist). He believes that the federal/state governments should only play their role as stated in the constitution.

From what I understand of the American constitution (BartSimpson, correct me if i'm wrong), but if the constitution doesn't stipulate that's it is the federal government's responsability, then it is the state's. If the state doesn't take that role, then that role should be assumed by the citizens (ie. the people).

As the constitution says that there is not role for the federal government to get into the business of the private companies, then that Act is against what he thinks. He would want that each state decides if discrimination is legal or not. That's not racist. It's ideological that the federal government should do what the constitution intended it to do.

[BartSimpson]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Touching a bit on your post Bart; I remember reading about German POWs in America.
Now, keep in mind that many German POWs in the US worked on family farms and were often allowed to go out WITH the family. One such instance took place at a diner somewhere in the South. A german POW was eating there with his "host" family. Yet, when a Black serviceman showed up, the owner of the diner DID serve him, but in the back alley.
THis German POW could NOT understand why he, the enemy, was allowed to eat INSIDE when a US serviceman was forbidden from doing the same.
As he put it, be couldn't comprehend how a nation that was fighting the world's biggest racist, could be so racist, especially to it's own soldiers.

Interestingly, it was cases like this that led to the end of segregation. The contrast of enemy soldiers being treated better than men who were bleeding for their country ended up being too much to bear for the society.

[BartSimpson]

Proculation Proculation:

From what I understand of the American constitution (BartSimpson, correct me if i'm wrong), but if the constitution doesn't stipulate that's it is the federal government's responsability, then it is the state's. If the state doesn't take that role, then that role should be assumed by the citizens (ie. the people).

As the constitution says that there is not role for the federal government to get into the business of the private companies, then that Act is against what he thinks. He would want that each state decides if discrimination is legal or not. That's not racist. It's ideological that the federal government should do what the constitution intended it to do.

You're right. The 10th Amendment reserves to the states those rights not delegated to the Federal government in the Constitution.

But the Bill of Rights, which every state is subject to, applies to them all.

So the Federal government can outlaw the kind of mandatory segregation that was in place under 'Jim Crow' laws, but it did over-reach by mandating that businesses could not pick and choose their clientele - which is frankly a violation of the First Amendment right of association.

See, if the government can tell me who my private business MUST have as a customer then cannot that same principle be used to say who I must allow into my home? Can I be ordered to have black friends? If not, then why not? Because the legal precedent of telling me who in my private business I have to associate with has already been breached.

In principle, the Civil Rights Act should have outlawed discrimination by government agencies and it should have outlawed mandatory segregation being required in private business. But it should have stopped there.

[Public_Domain]

[Zipperfish]

Proculation Proculation:

If he has the same ideology as his father (which I think), he is not AGAINST the government (ie. an anarchist). He believes that the federal/state governments should only play their role as stated in the constitution.

If he said as much, I might believe that. But in the entire five minutes that tritium posted, it seems everything bad in the human experience was the fault of government. I've found this a popular philosophy in the Tea Party advocates in general. It's probably from reading to much Ayn Rand. In her books, the government is an inhernetly evil force; the only good comes from the private individual.

Don't get me wrong--I actually support some tenets of liberatarianism. But it's this underswell of animosity towards government, this inherent distrust of any collective entity, that is the fatal flaw in the philosophy for me.

$1:

From what I understand of the American constitution (BartSimpson, correct me if i'm wrong), but if the constitution doesn't stipulate that's it is the federal government's responsability, then it is the state's. If the state doesn't take that role, then that role should be assumed by the citizens (ie. the people).

It's called residual powers. In Canada residual powers rest with the federal government; in teh US they rest with the State.

$1:

As the constitution says that there is not role for the federal government to get into the business of the private companies, then that Act is against what he thinks. He would want that each state decides if discrimination is legal or not. That's not racist. It's ideological that the federal government should do what the constitution intended it to do.

It's not that simple though. Anything the federal government does--even if solely within its purview constitutionally--will affect private interests.

[Zipperfish]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

God the past was retarded.

The kicker is that the future will say the same thing about you one day. "You mean they used to burn puppies just see what happened to them?" "So, if she didn't wear something that covered her breasts they would put her in jail?" "So even though though they knew that CO2 was accumulating in the atmosphere they just kept going?" "So they just let them keep immigrating until they outnumbered the people who actually lived there?"

Who knows which one it'll be, but guaranteed we're doing something retarded right now.

[Scape]

What defines 'mandatory segregation' if it is implied?

IE if I am wheelchair bound and your business only has stairs are you within your rights as an owner to throw out my resume?

What if I am Jewish and want to rent your flat? Do you have a right as an atheist to deny my application?

Paul is saying is that the feds have no right to determine the difference not that the states should be setting up their own versions of the same law. That's foolish and reckless to think that if the ACR was done away with that society and market forces would keep this in check as clearly it doesn't.

[sandorski]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

God the past was retarded.

The kicker is that the future will say the same thing about you one day. "You mean they used to burn puppies just see what happened to them?" "So, if she didn't wear something that covered her breasts they would put her in jail?" "So even though though they knew that CO2 was accumulating in the atmosphere they just kept going?" "So they just let them keep immigrating until they outnumbered the people who actually lived there?"

Who knows which one it'll be, but guaranteed we're doing something retarded right now.

You'll have to pry the burning Puppy from my cold dead hands!!!

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Who knows which one it'll be, but guaranteed we're doing something retarded right now.

On so many levels, this is an exceptional comment. +1