Rand Paul - supports ' no coloreds' signs

[Aquacide]

Apparently the 1964?civil rights act is wrong, and businesses should be allowed to refuse to employ blacks.

 

But he's not racist

 

Like father like son

[Potomacduck]

Guernseybass wrote: Rand Paul - supports ' no coloreds' signs

 

 

Prove it, show us exactly where he stated these words.

 

.

[Aquacide]

Google news rand Paul

 

Perhaps he is hoping that the Aryan Nation will donate to his senate campaign, like they do for his dad

[Connetquot]

The expected attack from the left and leftists.

 

Jeff B.

[Jonesy]

GB- he already recanted. This guys not very smart. the opposition is likely to pick him apart. Libertarianism is not a governing philosophy, it's for kooks. Reporters start asking questions and he's gonna look pretty bad when he says the governemtn should not regulate safety equipment on oil rigs, shouldn't regulate what goes into our foods and kids toys. That governement shouldn't ban people from getting abortions etc etc etc.

 

In the space of a few hours today, Rand Paul first hedged, then reversed, then, finally, repudiated his previously stated opposition to a key section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

It began with the Kentucky senate candidate issuing a statement saying he would not favor repeal of the Civil Rights Act. But the statement fell short of supporting the power of the government to ban racial discrimination by private businesses.

Then, a couple hours later, his campaign issued a statement (via Greg Sargent) saying that Paul does in fact support the power of the federal government "to insure that private businesses don't discriminate based on race."

That was a walk back of Paul's comment on Rachel Maddow Wednesday night that, referring to the section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that bars private institutions from race-based discrimination, "had I been around, I would have tried to modify that."

Said Paul spokesman Jesse Benton (who, by the way, was also a spokesman for Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign):

"Civil Rights legislation that has been affirmed by our courts gives the Federal government the right to insure that private businesses don't discriminate based on race. Dr. Paul supports those powers."

Finally, Paul went on CNN late this afternoon and told Wolf Blitzer of the Civil Rights Act: "I would have voted yes ... There was a need for federal intervention."

So, by our reckoning, here's Paul's progression on the issue over the past 24 hours:

• Paul on Maddow, circa 9 p.m. Wednesday: I don't agree with the Civil Rights Act, but I don't believe in racism.

• Paul statement, noon Thursday: I wouldn't support repealing the law.

• Paul campaign statement, 2 p.m. Thursday: I support the law and the government's power to enforce it.

• Paul on CNN, 5 p.m. Thursday: "I would have voted yes" for the law. "There was a need for federal intervention."

[epanzella]

Apparently the 1964?civil rights act is wrong, and businesses should be allowed to refuse to employ blacks.

 

But he's not racist

 

Like father like son

 

Your accuracy, while not at all accurate, is, at least, consistant.

[New_Caster]

i support private companies hiring of the right person for the job.

 

I oppose the federal government dictating who should be hired by any private company.

 

If there are 2 people that are applying for a job and candidate 1 is the most qualified then hire candidate 1 even if candidate 2 is the color of the month and you don't have any employees that are the color of the month.

 

of a private company want to hire all orange woman that are between 3'6" and 4'2" from umpa lumpa land and a 4'3" guy from Mars was denied he does not have recourse.

[Aquacide]

Your accuracy, while not at all accurate, is, at least, consistant.

 

Yeah, that's why he already recanted his statements.

 

 

Duh.

 

 

He is now whining that scrutiny of his own words is ' trash talk'

[JimP]

Do you - with equal ardor - hold the democrats in disdain ?? After all, it was the democrats who fililbustered against the civil rights act. They even have a Grand Kleagle in the Senate (Byrd).

 

Nice try GB - fish elsewhere....

[Knight771]

What he said was that he agreed with the CRA of 1965 in general but that the government's role of enforcing racial laws on private companies should be revisited. Got no argument with that at all.

 

guernseybass is for racial, gender, homosexual and transgender quotas on all of us and forcing private companies and private citizens to take unqualified and even dangerous people into our businesses and homes, at gunpoint.

 

It worked so well in the Soviet Union, right GB???

[FishAgain]

GB, please get a job, you have way too much time on your hands. If you already have a job, consider a second occupation, something to absorb the time you waste beating dead horses.

The political fringe is just that, the fringe. It is ignored by almost everyone except the other fringe players

[Potomacduck]

Guernseybass wrote: Rand Paul - supports ' no coloreds' signs

 

 

Prove it, show us exactly where he stated these words.

 

.

 

 

 

Will your proof be forthcoming? Or maybe this was just made up?

 

.

[Little]

Rand Paul holds the exact same position on the Civil Rights act as all the Democrats that voted against it, and the only people that don't or are unwilling to understand the position of their OWN PARTY are the Northeast Corridor "beautiful people". Ergo, non sequitor. Carry on, nothing to see here.

[fish'nmagician]

Rand Paul holds the exact same position on the Civil Rights act as all the Democrats that voted against it,

 

 

it's funny because it's true.

there were a LOT of Souther Democrat Racists that voted against it.

 

that's really not a great defense of Randy.

[Jonesy]

Rand Paul holds the exact same position on the Civil Rights act as all the Democrats that voted against it, and the only people that don't or are unwilling to understand the position of their OWN PARTY are the Northeast Corridor "beautiful people". Ergo, non sequitor. Carry on, nothing to see here.

 

 

 

more nonsenical babbling. Dems JFK and then LBJ passed Civil Rights with northern Dems and Republicans, beating the southern Democrats who promptly bolted the party and went Republican.

 

the "beautiful people" in the northeast fully understand history. it's very clear that you do not.