Originally Posted By Dabob2 Surely you recognize that the balance is wholly different from what it was. No one today who argues for superior/inferior is seen as anything but fringe. That was sadly not the case 50 years ago. Yes there are still racists if both the blatant and more subtle varieties around, but DAR is not one of them.
Originally Posted By dshyates "No one today who argues for superior/inferior is seen as anything but fringe." Let me show you around southern WV. I can assure you that racist businesses would suffer no negative consequences for their actions.
Originally Posted By Mr X I have to agree. Dabob, I don't think DAR is a racist...but I think you're both pretty naive as far as how the world works is concerned. Just go to ANY YouTube video which includes the President (or even his wife and family!), and count up all the racially vitriolic comments you find. Sadly, racism is hardly on the fringe nor, even, is blatant racism which seems to have made a strong comeback since we elected a black President.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Just go to ANY YouTube video which includes the President (or even his wife and family!), and count up all the racially vitriolic comments you find. >>> or go to ANY major newspaper's website that allows for per-story user comments and select ANY story that is about crime where the suspect has a Hispanic-sounding name. You'll see a long parade of anti-Mexican and anti-immigrant and anti-illegel posts that start almost immediately, even if there's no indication that the perpetrators were actually from Mexico or in the US illegally. It's just astounding how pervasive this is.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I don't deny any of that. In fact, I often point it out--- and did so on this very thread. I only insist on two other things though; DAR himself is not racist, and (to clarify) a public figure, as opposed to some website blogger, cannot advocate white supremacy and not be fringe today, which is in fact different than previously.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< DAR himself is not racist, >>> I don't think so either - I hope you didn't think I was implying he was. I have a lot more to say about this thread once I have time.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I didn't think you were implying he was. DAR himself thought ecdc was doing so (and I told him I thought that was itself unfair), and maybe Mr. X as well. My head is starting to hurt. I was the first one to point out (back in #9) the practical effects of the reasonable-sounding (to some) "businesses should be free to discriminate" philosophy of Paul and others, for which I got some hearty "hear hear"'s. When DAR expressed at least a certain sympathy with that point of view, I insisted that his view of customers "correcting" that via non-patronage would not work in practice. But I think DAR was guilty of naivety and nothing like racism. When others reiterated that the practical effect of such a policy would be racist, DAR misinterpreted that as being accused of racism. Are we square now? Meanwhile back more OT, I've searched in vain for some more recent KY polls that would take into account Paul's recent comments. I fear they won't hurt him much in KY, but it will be interesting to see. Rasmussen has Paul way up, but they always skew right, and it was before his comments had a chance to be talked about much.
Originally Posted By DAR Is it okay for an owner to refuse service to a group based on past behaviors of said group?
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Is it okay for an owner to refuse service to a group based on past behaviors of said group? >>> What do you mean by "group?" As in, the group consisting of the specific members of Boy Scout Troop 123 based on what they did last week at the establishment? Or, do you mean group as in "black people" as a group of customers based on past behaviors of certain members of that group?
Originally Posted By DAR Because a local mall here is essentially doing that. Anyone under 17 cannot be there unless accompanied by an adult due to unruly behavior a few years back. The majority of the teens that shop or hangout are black. It's all teenagers that can't be there, but still. Isn't that singling out a group and unfair? Or isn't it the owner of the mall trying to give the best possible experience for the rest of the customers, white black and otherwise.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 FWIW, adult/minor discrimination (if you want to call it that) has often stood up in court. Minors just don't always have the same rights as adults.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Rand Paul shakes up his staff after last week's ill-advised remarks. <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/05/26/staff-shake-up-at-rand-paul-campaign/" target="_blank">http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/...ampaign/</a> Memo to Paul: It ain't your staff that's the trouble, it's your bone-headed ideology. Here's an excellent piece by Eugene Robinson that sums it up nicely. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/24/AR2010052402991.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/...991.html</a> >>Not so fast, everybody. Rand Paul can't abruptly disavow the extremist views on civil rights that he's been espousing for years and expect us all to just move along. Was he lying then? Is he lying now? Or has the Tea Party movement's newly crowned Mad Hatter changed his mind? Republican crisis managers wisely didn't allow Paul to stray within range of the Sunday talk shows, but they can't keep him hidden away in some Kentucky cave until November. Sooner or later, the Senate candidate is going to have to answer a direct question: Was he being untruthful on the occasions when he said the federal government has no authority to outlaw racial discrimination in private businesses such as restaurants? Or is he being untruthful now in claiming he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?<< Good questions. I won't hold my breath expecting he'll ever answer them. $5 says his new mantra will be "My attention and focus is on the issues in Kentucky and that's where I will direct my attention." At least he will if his new advisers have anything to say about it.
Originally Posted By Mr X Yeah, I think it's pretty messed up that he canned his staff over his idiocy. What were they supposed to do, run on camera and slap a muzzle on him? ALTHOUGH, I might tend to agree that whoever recommended Rachel Maddow for his FIRST big interview should've been fired. That was a really dumb move (I think he assumed that because she's always nice to his Dad, she would go easy on him).
Originally Posted By gadzuux Not surprisingly, Gingrich and Palin are both saying that this is all Maddow's fault, and she was engaging in "gotcha" journalism. This is the same Gingrich that's saying the BP spill is a failure of the US Coast Guard in not having solutions in place to deal with the blowout. There's no such thing as accountability among republicans. It's always somebody else's fault.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Of course they're blaming Maddow, although if you look at the interview, all she did was insist on a simple answer to her question, which he kept evading. Maddow is always unfailingly fair and polite to her guests; she doesn't interrupt or even shout them down like the Fox hosts. Gingrich and Palin know she's a hot button to the right just because she's unapologetically left, so they just have to raise her name and their followers will accept that the interview must have been "unfair." Of course it wasn't. Note, however, that Paul's people pulled him from an already-scheduled appearance on Meet the Press the next Sunday. David Gregory will hector ANYONE much more doggedly than Maddow, right or left, like Tim Russert before him used to do, and they know that. They knew that Gregory would grill him on this matter till he was thoroughly cooked, and because he does that to Democrats too, he's harder to accuse of bias - hence the cancellation. That tells you that they are hoping the whole matter will just go away. As Robinson points out, it shouldn't.
Originally Posted By Mr X As always, it's best to go back to the source before passing judgement. So, here's the interview in question. <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#37244354" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26...37244354</a>
Originally Posted By Mr X To quote her first question verbatim, she asked "do you believe that private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people, or gays, or any other minority group as they (the Courier-Journal) said?" His answer was to side-step the question (complaining about the Courier-Journal and how liberal they are). If he'd been smart enough to answer the question directly in the first place (as he did on that long "walk back", he wouldn't have encountered such a media frenzy in the first place. But to claim that Maddow was UNFAIR? Was that question unfair? I'd LOVE to hear from some Conservatives on this one. Was this a "gotcha"?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Was this a "gotcha"?<< LOL, a gotcha question these days is any question that isn't a variation or "Why do you love America so much? or "Why do you think America is moving towards socialism under the Obama administration?" The new strategy is to focus attention on the person asking the question and hammer that home through the wingnut media. The true believers won't ever question it and accept that stuff as a valid response.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 <<< Is it okay for an owner to refuse service to a group based on past behaviors of said group? >>> Of course a business can refuse anyone based on their behavior...that is very different than refusing service based on skin color.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< It's becoming more and more evident that Doug was right about many of you and that you twist the arguments to fight your agenda's and simply make up lies about people. >>> Let me get this straight - DAR is complaining that others are twisting what he said, and in the process claiming that he said something that he didn't? That's about as rich as DouglasDubh saying he's going to stop posting because too many people are "dismissive" about his opinions. Oh brother. Getting back to the point, DAR, you seem to be saying that the free market will provide protection for minorities since once word gets out about a particular merchant, people will stop patronizing them because of their beliefs. Others have pointed out several problems with this, but let me add a few more: How exactly is this information supposed to be collected, tabulated, and disseminated? Perhaps in a small town things like this can be generally known, but those are precisely the situations where a "we don't like your kind here" situation is most likely to develop. In the big city, there are tens of thousands of businesses. How is anyone supposed to know which ones discriminate and on what basis? But there's a much more fundamental problem with what you suggest: even if bigoted treatment was somehow perfectly measured, tabulated, and disseminated, it doesn't protect against the situation where the discrimination is agreed to by the majority of the people. And the greater the agreement, the lesser any effect of "boycotts" or the like would have. Consider right after 9/11, if businesses were able to exclude people that were Arab, or looked Arab? It would not surprise me if a great many people would have agreed to that, so the effect of just letting the free market work its magic would not have protected Arab-Americans from overt discrimination. Remember what happened the previous time America was attacked, prior to the Civil Rights Act? We ended up with things like this: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/29f5vag" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/29f5vag</a> We've advanced a lot in the last 70 years, but it's precisely because of, and not in spite of, things like the Civil Rights Act. Now, I'm not going to take the cheap shot and say that you would have supported such discrimination. But, I think it fair to say that if the Civil Rights Act were to be repealed, that the "free market forces" would create such a situation again, just as soon as the next Pearl Harbor or 9/11 type event happens. And, widespread knowledge of the discriminatory practices will not prevent it if a majority of people agree with it. DAR, are you okay with this?
