Rand Paul Wants To Abolish The Americans With Disabilities Act!

[??????????]

States, political opinions are subjective....I see no reason not to feel contempt for a position that would affect a family member directly like Nym said.

By that thought I should oppose all drug legalization because my father died partially as a result of drugs and alcohol. Not that I don't honestly feel sympathy for Nyms plight, I really do, but should someone be a prohibitionist because their parent, sibling, spouse died of alcoholism?

It's not quite the same thing. You aren't forced to buy alcohol or drugs if they're legal....whereas you are being denied a right if you're disabled in this case.

The problem with the media is when someone opposes points in a popular bill they scream that the opponent wants to eliminate the entirety of the bill. Randi Rhodes was claiming yesterday that Rand Paul is a segregationist who hates the disabled, etc. I highly doubt Paul would want to get rid of the entire bill. I know I certainly wouldn't but I am sure their are problems with that bill, like any other.

[angus]

he completely misunderstood the specifics of the law.

Perhaps.  He certainly chose a poor example for illustration, since the law specifically exempts the majority of buildings three stories and under from any requirement to install elevators.

And perhaps he was also misunderstood.  Some say that his philosophy is being intentionally misrepresented, since folks make huge intellectual leaps (from his antipathy for state control to antipathy for anyone who is not like himself).  His detractors seem to defy rules of logic and syllogism, and and his supporters accuse them of taking Paul out of context, or deliberately misrepresenting him in order to discredit him and therefore cause his defeat this November.  It's a tried and trusted plan, and, sadly, we've become accustomed to political enemies engaging in smear campaigns, so why not?  Some will recognize that he that he is simply exploring the small-government philosophy, taking it to its logical extremes, the sort of thing most folks only do at cocktail parties but never in public, especially in our hypersensitive society, but some appreciate his honesty.  It's refreshing to meet a politician who is the same whether at a cocktail party or in a nationally-distributed interview.  There are few politicians, Republican or Democrat, about whom you can say that. 

A major difference between the right and the left is that the right generally limits the powers of the federal government to those specifically enumerated in the constitution, while the left often does not, and because we have evolved into a society in which it is unimaginable to most that someone might feel that the government really has no right to tell private business what to do, whether their office buildings are one story or one hundred stories, those who are predisposed to disagree with the right will not hear that this is actually what he is saying because they are busy looking specifically for evidence with which to discredit him and his ilk.  They may simply be misunderstanding, just as he misunderstands the specifics of the ADA.

Thus you do make a good point:  in our haste to claim the moral high ground, each side is are talking past the other instead of trying for some understanding of what the other side actually thinks.

[Badger]

I'm going to try an exercise here for those actually claiming the government oversteps its bounds in "regulating private contracts" between people by disallowing segregation in public accommodations such as businesses.

Scenario 1: I have a restaurant and refuse admission to anyone of a certain race. If they come in I (nonviolently) throw them out.

#2 I falsely accuse someone (in a noncriminal setting) of being a child molester harming their reputation.

#3 I threaten to bash someone's head in with a baseball bat.

#4 I hit someone in the head with a baseball bat.

My question: If the government has no right to legally prohibit the first act, on what basis can it prohibit any/all of #2-4?

I'm perfectly serious.

In the first circumstance, there is no lasting harm that is done by that specific act, while circumstances 2 and 4 inflict lasting harm, and circumstance 3 threatens to do lasting harm.  I'll grant that the first circumstance causes some emotional harm, but so does a head cheerleader turning down a dweeb from the chess club.  Are you going to legislate that cheerleaders have to go out on a date with any other student who asks them?

Yes, the cheerleader example is ridiculous, but I don't think that anyone would seriously argue that if Title II of the CRA 1964 were revoked that the pervasive denial of accommodations to Negroes that was the case in many locations in 1964 would resume now in 2010.  Denial of accommodations now would inflict a little emotional harm and some slight inconvenience.

Ernest, I suggest that if you asked any African-American of a certain age in your community whether segregation caused "no lasting harm"---economically, socially, culturally, legally--I guarantee you the answer would be universally "heck yes".

Segregation caused infinitely more damage--to blacks and whites--then simple "hurt feelings" or the inconvenience of having to go to another restaurant, and you know it.

For segregation that occurred in 1964, you'd be correct.  For the segregation in public accommodations that would occur in 2010 if Title II were repealed, I don't think so. Any business that attempted to would still get tried in the court of public opinion, so I can't see any chain or franchise operation tolerating open discrimination, even without Title II, while subtle discrimination would be difficult to prove even under existing law.

That isn't to say that there aren't a few idiots who would do that.  Heck there are those who do so now under the pretext of running a private club.  But the sort of blatant discrimination that happened then wouldn't happen now, at least not on the Black/White divide.  Might could see some businesses willing to put up "Americans Only" signs.

I think you are being vastly over-optomistic about the state of racism in 2010, both in the South asn elsewhere. Not to pick on Dixie, but remember in Alabama only 10 years ago about half of whites voted against a state referendum to eliminate the (long unenforcable) state constitution provision against interracial marriage. As whites still own most businesses, you can just imagine how many would switch back to whites only if allowed. More importantly, by changes the law that changes the social acceptability for such acts dramatically. That would only increase the number of restaurants doing so and highten social (and economic) divsions between races.

Regardless, modifying the law to allow even one business to discriminate on the basis of race is too many, and represents a horrible backsliding of a perfectly valid, worthwhile, and--when passed--long overdue law.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I think you are being vastly over-optimistic about the state of racism in 2010, both in the South and elsewhere. Not to pick on Dixie, but remember in Alabama only 10 years ago about half of whites voted against a state referendum to eliminate the (long unenforceable) state constitution provision against interracial marriage. As whites still own most businesses, you can just imagine how many would switch back to whites only if allowed. More importantly, by changes the law that changes the social acceptability for such acts dramatically. That would only increase the number of restaurants doing so and heighten social (and economic) divisions between races.

Regardless, modifying the law to allow even one business to discriminate on the basis of race is too many, and represents a horrible backsliding of a perfectly valid, worthwhile, and--when passed--long overdue law.

The law already allows discrimination in public accommodations under the guise of "private clubs".  Those who want to cater to whites only already make use of that exemption.  As I said, I think the additional discrimination that would result would not rise to the level of being economically impairing.  I'll admit that I could be wrong, in which case, reenacting Title II would be appropriate, but it isn't government's concern to deal with individual actions unless collectively such actions impair the economy.   The "even one" standard you advocate is gross overkill.

[Badger]

I think you are being vastly over-optimistic about the state of racism in 2010, both in the South and elsewhere. Not to pick on Dixie, but remember in Alabama only 10 years ago about half of whites voted against a state referendum to eliminate the (long unenforceable) state constitution provision against interracial marriage. As whites still own most businesses, you can just imagine how many would switch back to whites only if allowed. More importantly, by changes the law that changes the social acceptability for such acts dramatically. That would only increase the number of restaurants doing so and heighten social (and economic) divisions between races.

Regardless, modifying the law to allow even one business to discriminate on the basis of race is too many, and represents a horrible backsliding of a perfectly valid, worthwhile, and--when passed--long overdue law.

The law already allows discrimination in public accommodations under the guise of "private clubs".  Those who want to cater to whites only already make use of that exemption.  As I said, I think the additional discrimination that would result would not rise to the level of being economically impairing.  I'll admit that I could be wrong, in which case, reenacting Title II would be appropriate, but it isn't government's concern to deal with individual actions unless collectively such actions impair the economy.   The "even one" standard you advocate is gross overkill.

The private clubs lophole is very different from public accomodations of course. And it certainly makes it much harder to operate (though oviously not impossible). On the depth of "overkill" in prohibiting any legal segregation in public venues, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Sbane]

he completely misunderstood the specifics of the law.

Perhaps.  He certainly chose a poor example for illustration, since the law specifically exempts the majority of buildings three stories and under from any requirement to install elevators.

And perhaps he was also misunderstood.  Some say that his philosophy is being intentionally misrepresented, since folks make huge intellectual leaps (from his antipathy for state control to antipathy for anyone who is not like himself).  His detractors seem to defy rules of logic and syllogism, and and his supporters accuse them of taking Paul out of context, or deliberately misrepresenting him in order to discredit him and therefore cause his defeat this November.  It's a tried and trusted plan, and, sadly, we've become accustomed to political enemies engaging in smear campaigns, so why not?  Some will recognize that he that he is simply exploring the small-government philosophy, taking it to its logical extremes, the sort of thing most folks only do at cocktail parties but never in public, especially in our hypersensitive society, but some appreciate his honesty.  It's refreshing to meet a politician who is the same whether at a cocktail party or in a nationally-distributed interview.  There are few politicians, Republican or Democrat, about whom you can say that. 

A major difference between the right and the left is that the right generally limits the powers of the federal government to those specifically enumerated in the constitution, while the left often does not, and because we have evolved into a society in which it is unimaginable to most that someone might feel that the government really has no right to tell private business what to do, whether their office buildings are one story or one hundred stories, those who are predisposed to disagree with the right will not hear that this is actually what he is saying because they are busy looking specifically for evidence with which to discredit him and his ilk.  They may simply be misunderstanding, just as he misunderstands the specifics of the ADA.

Thus you do make a good point:  in our haste to claim the moral high ground, each side is are talking past the other instead of trying for some understanding of what the other side actually thinks.

And yet if Paul had his way, those with disabilities would have a much harder time going about their day. Some may try to smear Paul and say he doesn't care about the disabled or doesn't like them or whatever. I would never do that, just like I don't think he is a racist for opposing certain parts of the civil rights bill. That being said, regardless of Paul's motives, the consequences of his actions in the real world, not the fantasy world he seems to live in, would be just as devastating to the disabled. I do think Paul can be criticized for that, don't you think?

[Derek]

Then don't vote for him.

[angus]

And yet if Paul had his way, those with disabilities would have a much harder time going about their day. Some may try to smear Paul and say he doesn't care about the disabled or doesn't like them or whatever. I would never do that, just like I don't think he is a racist for opposing certain parts of the civil rights bill. That being said, regardless of Paul's motives, the consequences of his actions in the real world, not the fantasy world he seems to live in, would be just as devastating to the disabled. I do think Paul can be criticized for that, don't you think?

Certainly he can be criticized.  If Paul had his way, those with disabilities may very well have a harder time going about their days.  Or they may not.  Folks not forced to take certain steps often take them willingly, and in any case internalized values are stronger and harder to change than enforced ones.  Consider capital punishment:  in the sixties support for the death penalty was on the wane, and likely the people would have decided to do away with it.  But the supreme court ruled in 1967 that it was cruel and therefore unconstitutional.  Another court in 1976 overturned that decision and it came back with a vengeance.  It's sad really.  As an opponent of capital punishment under any circumstances I feel that the court set the cause back several decades, perhaps centuries.  Then again, we really don't know how the wavefunction collapses in some other version of the universe, since any other universe is orthogonal to our own and cannot communicate with ours.  I can't say what would have happened if the court had not decided to legislate from the court, just like you can't say would would happen in a world in which businesses were not forced by law to make certain accommodations.

What we can say is that none of that is relevant to Rand Paul.  That's the point.  Remember the scene in the movie "The Fugitive" when Harrison Ford cried out "I didn't do it.  I'm innocent."  And Tommy Lee Jones replies, "I don't care."  Beautiful answer.  It goes really to the heart of the matter.  He was saying, "I'm not a jury.  I know the newspapers will say that I'm a bad guy, that I want to see you hang, that I think you committed a crime and that I stubbornly refuse to believe your story or even to look for a one-armed guy.  But that's not it at all.  I'm simply trying to catch you.  I do so without passion or prejudice."

Rand Paul wants business free to operate on their own terms.  He does not want to live in a world where crippled folks and black people and women and foreigners are treated less human than those in power.  He has said as much, and I believe him.  I have no reason not to, since it does not follow from his desire for freedom, personal and business freedom, to have a higher priority than protectionism.  And I think he's being misinterpreted.  I don't think the misinterpretation is necessarily malicious or intentional, for the most part, but it's misinterpretation.  Sure, there are some who are smart enough to keep the concepts separate in their minds, and should be more honest and basically criticize his views as being unrealistic or misinformed, as you have--and you may be right.  Or you may not.  We just don't know how things would play out if such laws were revisited and revised in order to give businesses more freedom--but the majority of the criticism comes from folks who obviously cannot keep the concepts separate in their minds, and who either intentionally or intentionally misinterpret him.  I tend to think the majority of the misinterpretation is unintentional, driven by a herd mentality and perhaps by a few very clever malicious types who want to see him lose.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Then don't vote for him.

Thanks God, I'm not from Kentucky.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

When Libertas tried to defend Rand Paul

[Suburbia]

I agree with Sen. Paul on some issues, but he is crazy.

[pbrower2a]

Someone revived a thread inactive for seven years.

Does Rand Paul still believe this?

Handicapped people deserve a chance.  Nobody would go blind, become a paraplegic, or get cancer by choice.  Nobody chooses to have a deformed hand or a clubfoot. Asperger's syndrome can mess a life up badly; because of Asperger's I have had difficulty getting and holding jobs and having a satisfying family life.

Had I known about Asperger's I might have done things very differently. I would have used the ADA to get aid in getting and holding a job. I can follow instructions to the letter; I have a good work ethic. What I am bad at is non-verbal communications. I get tripped up by office politics, so maybe I should have never sought an office occupation. (Like most handicapped people I am extremely cautious, which is a good quality in some workplaces).

I could have been a productive member of society. Because like attracts like I would probably end up married to someone with Asperger's.  So we would be wise to adopt instead of  bear...
and we could be a poster case for adoption. I might tend toward the pro-choice side, but at least a wife and I would be giving a child who might otherwise be aborted a chance. Win-win, wouldn't you say?

What would life be like without Asperger's? Who knows. I would have probably done better in college and gone onto success in almost anything. But even with it I might deo something very well. Nobody can have it all, and I would rather have Asperger's than an evil personality, delusional tendencies, or a decidedly-lower IQ. My intelligence is practically the sum of my personality. 

 

[dead0man]

Someone revived a thread inactive for seven years. 

to make fun of a banned poster.

[Badger]

Someone revived a thread inactive for seven years.

Does Rand Paul still believe this?

Almost certainly. Just because he opposes the Patriot Act plus to a degree the drug war , and on paper at least claims to be less interventionist, does it change the fact that he is as hardcore a radical reactionary as his crazy ass father. He just sees that with Trump in office now is not the time to try promoting crazy because there's too much other s*** for Republicans to deal with as opposed to 2010

It's also very cool to see how far Ernest has come in his views.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Which isn't far. The only things changed in my views here by the rise of Trump are to that I doubt we'll reach the point in my lifetime where more than the repeal of Title II can be considered and that until Trumpism is defeated we'd be better off not touching even Title II lest the racists think it happened because society as a whole is starting to agree with them than because Title II isn't needed now anywhere close to as much as it was needed in 1964.