To torture a cliche i would say it caused a prosperity which floated all boats higher. I am not sure when you think the disparity became comic.... but I know it has been more comic since since progressive ideas like income tax an big government have allowed big business owners to use their money to curry favor and create loopholes and shape wealth re distribution policies. And since it has allowed government workers to vote for democrats who give them far too larger benefits.
"Evidence of a psychosis. That is psychotic behavior. Which is to say, you hold delusional beliefs of your own superiority over everyone else such that you have no need to prove or substantiate anything you assert. You're so great in your own mind that you believe that everyone should just take you word as stated." The above is fully ad hominem. "Additionally, you can't claim you won any argument unless there is a third party impartial judge or impartial panel of your peers that deems it as such." Where did I claim that I won any particular argument? What a false claim... Of course, try to prove me wrong in calling you a <strike>liar</strike> person making a false claim, by posting a link supporting your claim... Figures you would fall for the fallacy of a false dilemma, it is nearly epidemic here at ET for people to implement that flawed thinking in their "reasoning" process...
The only real legitimate principle to ban businesses practising racism is to claim that there is a "right" to be treated "fairly" and/or with respect. Discriminating on grounds of skin colour or other superficial non-relevant factors is grossly unfair and disrespectful, after all. And I have a lot of sympathy for that view. However, this right is not recognised in other spheres of modern liberal societies. It is perfectly legal to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality, attractiveness, intelligence, and race in many spheres of life such as choice of sexual and marriage partners, personal friends, even relatives (e.g. by refusing to talk to relatives who are of different background). For example, many american women discriminate against men of asian ethnicity (so does hollywood) yet that is not illegal. Ditto for many american men against black women. Isn't deny someone's right to reproduce, find love and start a family far more harmful and morally wrong than refusing to serve them a burger? If it is immoral to unfairly and disrespectfully discriminate in business, it must also be wrong in private life. It's either one or the other. You can't have it both ways. Lozzer and the PC mainstream are total hypocrites who legally sanction grotesque racism as long as it stays indoors and doesn't frighten the horses i.e. fits some totally aribtrary definition of what is "acceptable" racism and what isn't. This public/private distinction is not justified by anything other than arbitrary delineation. And if you ban private racism, it requires a degree of control and thought-policing that would be positively Orwellian. Thus the only morally and logically consistent position is to legally not act against non-violent racism, but rather to attack it through social/peer pressure. Most racist businesses will go broke pretty quick, this is not 1950s Alabama any more.
It is perfectly legal to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality. Not in a business open to the general public in civilized states... It may be legal in Mississippi...but I am talking about civilized society. "If it is immoral to unfairly and disrespectfully discriminate in business, it must also be wrong in private life." I think it is wrong across the board... However, it is legal to discriminate personally on the basis of sex, race, religion, etc. or in a private club, etc. Legal is not always moral, nor is immoral always illegal. Two different issues. Racism is a practice. You can't ban nor legislate what people should believe or enforce how to think... However you can legislate actions and measure actions... I don't think the blacks in America thought that because they were legally protected to enjoy the same rights as whites...that they believe the racists would not continue to hate blacks...they just knew that they would enjoy the same freedoms when it came to behaviors in society. Someone can be a racist in their thinking, and never actually practice racism nor violate any laws which prohibit racism... "Most racist businesses will go broke pretty quick, this is not 1950s Alabama any more." Whites only private clubs have not suffered, so why would whites only businesses suffer? They might actually get more business in Mississippi or Alabama than if they were serving all people... It is understood and accepted that some people only want to be around their own "kind" and they can join clubs that only admit their own kind, have private places, etc. The issue that Rand would not deal with was a public restaurant owned by a private individual refusing to serve a black man...which he would not condemn.
Rand never said that. For all I know he might believe that but he didn't say it. He said the federal government overstepped it's boundaries, starting with the civil rights act.
The Tea Party hero said he thought the Civil Rights Act was fine when it came to desegregating public institutions, but not private businesses. He called the issue of desegregating lunch counters "obscure," and implied the First Amendment gave business owners the right to be racist. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2010/05/19/rachel_maddow_demolishes_rand_paul
That alone will sink him, as he will draw every KKK and skinhead to him like moths to a flame. The rest will take care of itself.
Guess you didn't hear that he was already elected to the United States Senate in a landslide election.
All a senator has to do is carry his own state, which he will do considering his stance on civil right in the great confederate state of Kentucky....... He has guaranteed that he will get nowhere near the levers of power with that statement in a national election. He just lost all large cities, the west and the east coasts. He is already a thing of the past.
He will be just like his daddy...a favorite sun of his home state, and a legislator who will vote no on most everything...just like his daddy.