Rand Paul stumbles on Maddow show

Rachel Maddow put Rand Paul under a lot of pressure regarding his nuanced view on the civil rights act, and in my opinion Paul faltered. He didn't have a satisfactory answer to the meat of her question, about private business being allowed to discriminate.

A few people are going this angle on Paul, and it may well have an effect if Paul cannot offer anything better than his avoidance tactic of just repeating that he is against racism.

If I were Rand Paul, I think I would have answered it more like this:

The major problem that the Civil Rights movement addressed was government endorsed racism, such as school segregation. 9 of 10 parts of the Civil Rights Act addressed these issues, and stopped the government from being racist.

When the government endorses racism as it did in the early sixties, it has a normalising effect, and it was this that meant that private businesses were able to easily go along and be racist too.

Once the government racism was stopped, it was no longer normal in society to be racist, so it would have been much harder for small businesses to also do this. If we think to today, now that much of the racism is gone, if a large company such as Walgreens tried to segregate, the protests from both blacks and whites would be so large, they could never do it without destroying their business.

I think that is how anyone trying to segregate would be treated now. They would have the right to discriminate as the private owner, but society would treat them as outcasts, and their business would suffer, and possibly fail.

Sorry if that's a little rambling, but I hope you see where I'm going. I think there are many ways Rand Paul could have addressed this in a more satisfying way, while still keeping to his ideals.

He came across as a conventional politician on the Maddow show, dodging the question.

How would you have tried to get the point across more clearly, or defuse this argument?

I would have been more forceful. I would have asked Maddow if government should choose the employees for private business. Or asked if it is no longer private business if the government sticks it's huge nose into who private business hires.

Work the big government angle.

It is not about one's race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. It is about what is best for the company. Maybe use the MLK line about the content of one's character instead of the color of one's skin.

I know when I ran my business, if the government gave me guidelines to follow for diversity purposes, I would have nodded and hired who I wanted anyway.

We wouldn't want to have to start using government standards would we? Would not want a bunch of lying, narcissistic, amoral sycophants would we?

That wasn't a stumble.

He is staying true to the law and principles of the law.

Something that quite frankly most of you have no concept of.

That is why you sign away your freedoms over to gov.

If you knew the law,you would know that that he is correct in his philosophy.


You lose legal standing when you break the law and it doesn't matter what uniform they wear,what they call themselves,what elected position they hold,what color there skin is.

Also when you misuse law you create unintended consequences that can be bad for you.

If you start telling businesses what they can and cannot do, wheres the line? How far can the government go in controlling that business and telling them what they can and cannot do? I think that Rand might be subscribing to this concept.

Instead of choosing where to draw the line, why not just let the businesses have complete freedom over their own actions? Businesses that support racism would surely suffer.

I think that Rand did falter in answering the question, but that just means he's not as slick as the majority of politicians.

He knows that if he says "Yes, I would allow businesses to not allow blacks" that he would have a firestorm of controversy. However, he supports complete freedom and the option for businesses to make up their own minds.

This is a prime example of how the left works. They take this extreme hypothetical and use it to label the good doctor a racist. Why not allow him to talk about the philosophical issue of capitalism vs. socialism or, more directly, freedom vs. statism?

And I predict the right will be no different. Hannity will be attacking Rand Paul on national defense (aka: national OFFENSE) any time now, ignoring the real issue of whether or not America is constitutionally allowed to maintain a global military empire.


[edit on 5/20/2010 by Jabronie]

The sheer effort by MSNBC to portray Rand Paul as a racist just proves to me how frightened they are by his success. I hope the voters in Kentucky can realize how Paul is being smeared and will vote him in come November. MSNBC is so transparent they are laughable.

Originally posted by endisnighe
I would have been more forceful. I would have asked Maddow if government should choose the employees for private business. Or asked if it is no longer private business if the government sticks it's huge nose into who private business hires.

Government shouldn't, nor does it currently "choose the employees a private business hires"

It does tell businesses that making hiring decisions based on irrevelant factors specific to race, gender or religion is not acceptable in a country founded the principles of justice and equality.

So while the government affords private business the freedom to choose thier own employees, it does require them to not make those choices based on intolerance, ignorance and racism.

Work the big government angle.

It is not about one's race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. It is about what is best for the company. Maybe use the MLK line about the content of one's character instead of the color of one's skin.

If it is not about "race, thnicity, or sexual orientation" then anti-discrimination laws for private businesses are justified by all parties.

If descriminating by race, ethnicity and sexual orientation is good for business then that business has issue.

reply to post by The_Zomar

If you start telling businesses what they can and cannot do, wheres the line? How far can the government go in controlling that business and telling them what they can and cannot do?

You mean like REQUIRING they provide Healtcare? Or like hiring quotas for race? Or like all the Human Resource nightmares of what you can or can't ask in an interview?

I am currently battling a woman that was obviously pregnant when I interviewed her. Of course it would have been illegal for me to ask about her status, or make any hiring decision based on it. So instead, I told her that it was absolutely mandatory that every new employee complete the 6 week training session beginning on such and such date, without missing a day and I asked her if she would have any problem with that. She said no, and she is bilingual and had a decent interview, so I hired her. On her first day of training, she informed us that she would need to take off for her maternity leave almost immediately? My HR and Legal department tells me we have to honor it, and I can't fill this critical spot with someone else? What the hell? The training is mandatory, and she told me in the interview that she could complete the training? Why can't I let her go for misrepresenting her ability, or lying in the interview, or missing the mandatory training?

Plus taxes, signage, hours of operation, zoning and noise ordinance, etc, etc.

You think the government is not already running even the smallest of businesses? If you have a lawnmower in a pickup truck you better know your p's and q's of the law regarding commercial vehicles, insurance, taxes, and local licensing!

Originally posted by The_Zomar
If you start telling businesses what they can and cannot do, wheres the line? How far can the government go in controlling that business and telling them what they can and cannot do? I think that Rand might be subscribing to this concept.

Instead of choosing where to draw the line, why not just let the businesses have complete freedom over their own actions? Businesses that support racism would surely suffer.

I think that Rand did falter in answering the question, but that just means he's not as slick as the majority of politicians.

He knows that if he says "Yes, I would allow businesses to not allow blacks" that he would have a firestorm of controversy. However, he supports complete freedom and the option for businesses to make up their own minds.

Does he actually support the abolition of the FDA, FCC, FTC, BBB, etc?

I am asking because I honestly do not know.

reply to post by maybereal11


Have you ever worked in management?

There is a long list of things that you do not ask. Why, because otherwise you can be sued. Why? Because the government has decided certain things are a no no.

I would get into them but one comes to mind.

Are you a U.S. citizen?

Sorry, cannot ask THAT question!

It's such a ridiculous question. It would be like me saying I don't think should hold a gun to my bigot neighbors head in effort to cure him of his bigottedness then having everyone jump on me accusing me of being a bigot and by extension my entire family and my friends.

If I had any confidence at all in the American people I could jus dismiss this as a word game for idiots but since everyone in this country is a raging idiot of the highest order I am left with zero confidence.

Now Paul is going to waste months trying to explain away this non-issue to Neanderthals who don't understand the earth is round rather than use his air time to promote the message of liberty.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by maybereal11

 

Have you ever worked in management?

There is a long list of things that you do not ask. Why, because otherwise you can be sued. Why? Because the government has decided certain things are a no no.

I would get into them but one comes to mind.

Are you a U.S. citizen?

Sorry, cannot ask THAT question!

Yes I work in Management. Human Resources falls under my authority as a matter of fact.

Asking if someone is a US Citizen is virtually REQUIRED.
Have you read the want ads recently...Many ads plainly state US Citizens or those authorized to work in the USA ONLY.

Every offer of employment and application I have seen for multiple client companies includes a segment where you must swear you are a US Citizen or authorized to work here.

And most have background check services to verify the same. If you are on a work Visa, you must provide it.

What kind of business were you in? This is the craziest claim I have seen in a while.

reply to post by maybereal11


Construction.

I pulled up the list of questions I was given by my bosses to not ask.

Here are a few more on it-

* Race
* Color
* Sex
* Religion
* National origin
* Birthplace
* Age
* Disability
* Marital/family status

[edit on 5/20/2010 by endisnighe]

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
It's such a ridiculous question. It would be like me saying I don't think should hold a gun to my bigot neighbors head in effort to cure him of his bigottedness then having everyone jump on me accusing me of being a bigot and by extension my entire family and my friends.

Any private citizen or residence is entirely welcome to their racist views as we are constantly reminded.

If you are running a commercial enterprise that serves the public, then you are not entitled to make economic decisions that effect the public based on your racism.

In the civil rights act this was supported by the Commerce Clause.

Your analogy holds no water.

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by maybereal11

 

Construction.

I pulled up the list of questions I was given by my bosses to not ask.

Here are a few more on it-

* Race
* Color
* Sex
* Religion
* National origin
* Birthplace
* Age
* Disability
* Marital/family status

[edit on 5/20/2010 by endisnighe]

"given by your boses" is the key phrase there.

Most employers require US Citizens or those "Authorized to work in the United States" and then go as far as to require proof.

The fact that your bosses actually directed you NOT to ask that question makes me laugh a little. They were actually protecting themselves and were obviously looking to hire cheap illegal labor. If the question was asked and they hired them anyways, then they are culpable...

Not the Gov...Your bosses...for the reasons stated above

As for the rest, the only one that seems nonsense to me is disability as most applications include the phrase "Do you have any known disabilities that would hinder the performance of your duties or impair your ability to perform manual labor"...totally legal and legit.

reply to post by maybereal11


Really, since I was wondering about that, I did a quick perusal online for legal and illegal questions to ask.

Here they are-

What Questions Shouldn't I Ask in an Interview?

Maybe YOU should quit giving legal advice!

Sorry, you can ask if the possible employee could provide proof of the legal right to work in the US, BUT YOU CANNOT ASK IF THEY ARE A US CITIZEN!

Maybe you should go back and add a legal disclaimer, SINCE YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by maybereal11

 

Really, since I was wondering about that, I did a quick perusal online for legal and illegal questions to ask.

Here they are-

What Questions Shouldn't I Ask in an Interview?

Sorry, you can ask if the possible employee could provide proof of the legal right to work in the US, BUT YOU CANNOT ASK IF THEY ARE A US CITIZEN!

And what I posted was ...

Originally posted by maybereal11
Most employers require US Citizens or those "Authorized to work in the United States" and then go as far as to require proof.

Here is the first ad I could google up...Oracle, I suppose they have a less qualified legal staff than yourself?

This person MUST be a US Citizen. No exceptions.

Read more: cincinnati.ebayclassifieds.com...

Shall I continue?
Lets just do a search on Simplyhired...44,000 returns of jobs requiring US Citizenship...
www.simplyhired.com...

But I am sure they are just not as educated as yourself?

Edit to add: From your link:

Because surnames often reveal ethnicity, this question could be perceived as potentially discriminatory. The same is true of the question "Are you an American citizen?" even though the employee would have to furnish proof of citizenship upon being hired. You can ask whether this candidate could provide proof of the right to work in the U.S. instead.

Read this carefully. It is a suggestion by an HR wonk...Not a law, not the Gov....it is an opinion suggesting that some other attorney might think it was a prod at ethnicity. Not buying it and have never seen a legal case based on this question...

See above...Oracle, Microsoft etc all require US Citizens or Proof that they have a legal visa to work here and they CAN skip the Visa part and just require US Citizenship.


[edit on 20-5-2010 by maybereal11]

Originally posted by endisnighe
Sorry, you can ask if the possible employee could provide proof of the legal right to work in the US, BUT YOU CANNOT ASK IF THEY ARE A US CITIZEN!

Maybe you should go back and add a legal disclaimer, SINCE YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!

I have never once had a job where I was NOT asked to prove that I was legally allowed to hold a job inside the US. They have always not only asked me but made my supply a copy of my photo ID, and SS card.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by K J Gunderson]

Originally posted by maybereal11

If you are running a commercial enterprise that serves the public, then you are not entitled to make economic decisions that effect the public based on your racism.

Plenty of private businesses dont serve the public. Hell, gas stations claim they "reserve the right to refuse service."

If I ran a business out of my private residence does the shared zoning status mean I cant be a bigot in my own home?

If a business wants to be a racist enterprise let them. They wont survive.

Consider the worst case scenario. Say slavery is suddenly lawful. True slavery, not the wage and tax slavery we currently live under. Who the hell would do business with a "slave made" business? Certainly some folks would but enough to sustain a successful enterprise?

Then again, plenty of people still wear Nike so who knows.

Originally posted by maybereal11
If you are running a commercial enterprise that serves the public, then you are not entitled to make economic decisions that effect the public based on your racism.

In the civil rights act this was supported by the Commerce Clause.

I believe that clause is precisely why most libertarians would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act. Yank that sucker out of there and we can proceed with a rational view of private enterprise.

PS: EVERYTHING you do affects the public in one way or the other. It's a society for a reason. Whether or not you choose to serve the public makes no difference. You own your land and your business, if you want it to fail because you won't let a certain group make use of your service, that should be your choice. NOT the Fed's.