• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Paul jokes about age discrimination - opposes anti-discrimination laws

misterman

misterman

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
12,913
Reaction score
2,096
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I know he was joking, but he should stop and think about it.

Paul also had the crowd cheering in response to a question about releasing his medical records.
Paul, who at 76 would be the oldest president of the United States if elected, said he is willing to make his medical records public, noting that "it's about one page, if even that long."
"I'm willing to challenge any of these gentlemen up here to a 25-mile bike ride any time of the day in the heat of Texas," he continued, "But, you know, there are laws against age discrimination, so if you push this too much, you better be careful."
Click to expand...

Florida debate's most buzz-worthy moments - CNN.com

Rep. Ron Paul kicked off his third run for president on Friday, but not without inciting controversy. Shortly after calling for abolishing FEMA on CNN, the latest Republican presidential candidate told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that he would not have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the landmark piece of legislation that outlawed major forms of discrimination against blacks and women.
Staying true to his brand of extreme libertarianism, Paul said he objected to the Civil Rights Act because of its infringement on private property rights. He said that while he would favor repealing Jim Crow laws, the United States “would be better off” without government intruding on and policing personal lives. When Chris Matthews pressed the issue, asking if it should be legal for shop owners to not allow blacks, Paul responded, “That’s ancient history. That’s over and done with.”
Click to expand...

Ron Paul Says He Would Have Voted Against Civil Rights Act - COLORLINES
 
Have you considered that the existence of such laws is part of the joke?
 
Demon of Light said:
Have you considered that the existence of such laws is part of the joke?
Click to expand...

Barring businesses open to the general public from racial discrimination is a joke?
 
haymarket said:
Barring businesses open to the general public from racial discrimination is a joke?
Click to expand...

Maybe to Ron Paul.

Paul won't learn from his own joke, that's the larger point.
 
haymarket said:
Barring businesses open to the general public from racial discrimination is a joke?
Click to expand...

Private business should be allowed to discriminate as they see fit. Consumers reward or penalize companies through their consumerism.
 
misterman said:
Staying true to his brand of extreme libertarianism [...]
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Opposition to applying discrimination laws to businesses is not extreme libertarianism, it is simply libertarianism.

Libertarian Ron Paul's libertarian associate Lew Rockwell (founder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute) is an ardent admirer of libertarian Murray Rothbard, who advocated the right of parents to sell their children.

In the Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard explores in terms of self-ownership and contract several contentious issues regarding children's rights. These include women's right to abortion, proscriptions on parents aggressing against children once they are born, and the issue of the state forcing parents to care for children, including those with severe health problems. He also holds children have the right to "run away" from parents and seek new guardians as soon as they are able to choose to do so. He suggested parents have the right to put a child out for adoption or even sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract, which he feels is more humane than artificial governmental restriction of the number of children available to willing and often superior parents.

He also discusses how the current juvenile justice system punishes children for making "adult" choices, removing children unnecessarily and against their will from parents, often putting them in uncaring and even brutal foster care or juvenile facilities.[61][62]

Wikipedia
Click to expand...
 
Ikari said:
Private business should be allowed to discriminate as they see fit. Consumers reward or penalize companies through their consumerism.
Click to expand...

Yet that didn't work for a hundred years.

Most companies were rewarded for discriminating, not punished.
 
haymarket said:
Barring businesses open to the general public from racial discrimination is a joke?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.

If there is a business that doesn't want to serve me, because of fill in the blank, then I don't want to give them my goddamn money, anyway.
 
apdst said:
Yes, it is.

If there is a business that doesn't want to serve me, because of fill in the blank, then I don't want to give them my goddamn money, anyway.
Click to expand...

Suppose 99% of the businesses didn't want to serve you. You could only use the one really crappy business in town. In some towns, you couldn't use any at all - you had to keep moving.

Yeah, you'd change your tune fast if you lived in the real world of racial discrimination rather than your imaginary one.
 
misterman said:
Suppose 99% of the businesses didn't want to serve you. You could only use the one really crappy business in town. In some towns, you couldn't use any at all - you had to keep moving.

Yeah, you'd change your tune fast if you lived in the real world of racial discrimination rather than your imaginary one.
Click to expand...

Your scenario is un-realistic, but if that were the case, I would open my own business to serve me and my kind.

Even in the Jim Crow days, discrimination typically occured in resturants, more than any other type of business. Hardware stores, grocery stores, etc. didn't refuse to serve black customers.

Even racists know that a dollar is a dollar and it doesn't much matter whose pocket it came from.
 
apdst said:
Your scenario is un-realistic
Click to expand...

My scenario was REALITY for millions of blacks in the deep South for a century.

, but if that were the case, I would open my own business to serve me and my kind.
Click to expand...

Yet virtually no white businesses did that for a century in the deep South.

Actual history proves you wrong.

Even in the Jim Crow days, discrimination typically occured in resturants, more than any other type of business. Hardware stores, grocery stores, etc. didn't refuse to serve black customers.
Click to expand...

You tend to make up utter bull****. This is one of those times.

Even racists know that a dollar is a dollar and it doesn't much matter whose pocket it came from.
Click to expand...

Stop making up crap.
 
misterman said:
Yet that didn't work for a hundred years.

Most companies were rewarded for discriminating, not punished.
Click to expand...
Sometimes in a free society people do things you don't like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom