About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Stossel calls for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights Act

"Private businesses ought to get to discriminate"

May 20, 2010 2:41 pm ET

From the May 20 edition of Fox News' America Live:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

KELLY: Rand Paul is a libertarian. You are a libertarian. He is getting excoriated for suggesting that the Civil Rights act -- what he said was, "Look it's got 10 parts, essentially; I favor nine. It's the last part that mandated no discrimination in places of public accommodation that I have a problem with, because you should let businesses decide for themselves whether they are going to be racist or not racist. Because once the government gets involved, it's a slippery slope." Do you agree with that? 

STOSSEL: Totally. I'm in total agreement with Rand Paul. You can call it public accommodation, and it is, but it's a private business. And if a private business wants to say, "We don't want any blond anchorwomen or mustached guys," it ought to be their right. Are we going to say to the black students' association they have to take white people, or the gay softball association they have to take straight people? We should have freedom of association in America.

KELLY: OK. When you put it like that it sounds fine, right? So who cares if a blond anchorwoman and mustached anchorman can't go into the lunchroom. But as you know, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came around because it was needed. Blacks weren't allowed to sit at the lunch counter with whites. They couldn't, as they traveled from state to state in this country, they couldn't go in and use a restroom. They couldn't get severed meals and so on, and therefore, unfortunately in this country a law was necessary to get them equal rights. 

STOSSEL: Absolutely. But those -- Jim Crow -- those were government rules. Government was saying we have white and black drinking fountains. That's very different from saying private people can't discriminate.

KELLY: How do you know? How do you know that these private business owners, who owned restaurants and so on, would have said, "You know what? Yes. We will take blacks.

STOSSEL: Some wouldn't.

KELLY: We'll take gays. We'll take lesbians," if they hadn't been forced to do it. 

STOSSEL: Because eventually they would have lost business. The free market competition would have cleaned the clocks of the people who didn't serve most customers.

KELLY: How do you know that, John?

STOSSEL: I don't. You can't know for sure.

KELLY: That then was a different time. Racism and discrimination was rampant. I'm not saying it's been eliminated. But it was rampant. It was before my time, before I was born, but obviously I've read history, and I know that there is something wrong when a person of color can't get from state to state without stopping at a public restroom or a public lunchroom to have a sandwich. 

STOSSEL: But the public restroom was run by the government, and maybe at the time that was necessary.

KELLY: But that's not what Rand Paul said. Rand Paul agreed that if it's run by the government, yes intervention is fine. He took issue with the public accommodations, with private businesses being forced to pony up under the discrimination laws. 

STOSSEL: And I would go further than he was willing to go, as he just issued the statement, and say it's time now to repeal that part of the law

KELLY: What?

STOSSEL: because private businesses ought to get to discriminate. And I won't won't ever go to a place that's racist and I will tell everybody else not to and I'll speak against them. But it should be their right to be racist.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by MiniTru (May 20, 2010 2:43 pm ET)
      29  
      There are no words...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by papa bear3 (May 20, 2010 2:46 pm ET)
        18  
        . . .Kentucky fried turkey
        Report Abuse
        • Author by progressivevoicedaily (May 20, 2010 3:11 pm ET)
          28 1
          He's trying to take the heat of of Rand Paul. Blur the craziness a little bit. Right wing wack jobs will to take one for the team. Stossel's a tool, always has been always will be.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by worrierking (May 20, 2010 3:22 pm ET)
            22 1
            You're right. All of the wingnut talk heroes will kick this one down the road a little before backing off. And in the end we'll be that much closer to repealing civil rights laws.

            The game plan seems to be to whittle away the laws and programs they don't like. Namely anything enacted to protect people from the abuses of business or to keep more people in poverty.

            Report Abuse
        • Author by DeirdreFlanagan6 (May 20, 2010 6:18 pm ET)
          9  
          Is Stossel a German name?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by HeeNow (May 20, 2010 8:39 pm ET)
          11  
          Unfortunately, only the people of Kentucky have the ability to resolve this. Or maybe fortunately...let's take a look at that commonwealth:

          The turnout for this primary was about two-to-one democratic primary vs. republican primary. That's probably what will happen in November. No contest.

          Having said that...

          Kentucky, although a slave state, never seceded from the Union during the Civil War. A shadow government formed in Bowling Green attempted to do so, even going so far as scaring away the legitimate government in Frankfort, but they were crushed by Union soldiers before they could gain control.

          The state was especially brother against brother. The Louisville Courier (pro Union) and the Louisville Times (pro Confederacy) were literally across the street from each other.

          Both presidents, Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis, were native Kentuckians. Davis even said the middle star on the confederate flag was for "his" Kentucky, although he could never win them over. Talk about a state torn asunder.

          But cooler heads prevailed and Kentuckians embraced the Emancipation Proclamation.

          Kentucky went on to produce eminent scholars, including Louis Brandeis, the first Jewish member of the Supreme Court, Edwin Hubble, John C. Breckinridge, Harvard's James Baker, and Princeton's Richard Gott, among significant others. The Mayor of Louisville for 21 of the last 25 years has been Jewish. It's not Alabama.

          Kentucky is not a racist state. Blessed with some of the most beautiful scenery in the USA, the state has produced wonderful people who know what to do this fall.

          Tea Party be damned.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by christopher howard (May 20, 2010 9:11 pm ET)
            9  
            Who are you and what have you done with the real HeeNow?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Onyxcat (May 21, 2010 10:29 pm ET)
            2  
            Its great to be from Kentucky when a person of your intell says just nice things. Thanks.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Lord of Light (May 20, 2010 4:12 pm ET)
        23 2
        "Taking our country back" is wingnut shorthand for "taking our country backward."

        Any idiots left to argue that there's no racial element to the Tea Party now?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by afriend (May 20, 2010 5:07 pm ET)
          14  
          "Taking our country back"

          And here we have it...the "good old days" for Teabag America...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by txthinker (May 20, 2010 5:22 pm ET)
            17  
            "Taking our country back"
            That was the underlying theme of this movie:

            [http://www.projectpast.org/jcbrandon/uploaded_images/BirthofaNationBegin-712343.jpg]
            Report Abuse
        • Author by mk3872 (May 20, 2010 6:52 pm ET)
          12 1
          It is the same as "state's rights" from the civil rights movement era. It means, we are bigots and want to be free to be bigots if we want to.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by tuersm3856 (May 21, 2010 5:38 am ET)
          1 20
          Lay off Rand Paul. All he is saying is that if a business (that receives no government funding) wants to hold a discriminatory policy, fine. We all can simply boycott that business.

          And I agree that it's healthier to let racism run it's course (but a crime is a crime) and fizzle out naturally than for the government to say, "private business can't discriminate." The latter approach tends to create even more resentment and race consciousness for the establishment to feed off of and play upon.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (May 21, 2010 7:32 am ET)
            14  
            Lay off Rand Paul. All he is saying is that if a business (that receives no government funding) wants to hold a discriminatory policy, fine. We all can simply boycott that business.

            Does that business make use of public roads paid for by the citizenry? Does it use water and sewage paid for by the citizenry? Does it enjoy police and fire-department protection paid for by the citizenry? Does it use the public sidewalks for its access? Only if they don't use any of these can it be honestly said that said business receives no government funding; in reality, the government's funding of all the above is literally what enables that business to exist!...
            Report Abuse
            • Author by jediknight65 (May 21, 2010 9:53 am ET)
              8  
              actually thats a really good point.

              i think if a private business wants to dsicriminate then they should have their own security force and fire protection
              Report Abuse
            • Author by goonhee9633 (May 21, 2010 5:04 pm ET)
              6  
              Extremely well put. Let's let these short-sighted idiots form their own communities, where they provide all the services government now provides, and see their "business" thrive.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by egb (May 23, 2010 2:17 am ET)
                4
              Everyone uses public roads. Does that mean everyone has a right to come into your house? If you are a store owner, can you refuse service to anyone you choose? E.g. your Ex-Wife's boyfriend? Stossel's message is that there is nothing in the Constitution that enables a government to force someone to serve a particular class of people. There is nothing personal or racist about such an observation.

              This is a nation that operates under the Rule of Law. If we don't do that, all bets are off -- murder would sometimes be OK. Find where in the constitution the Federal Government can force the Congressional Black Caucus to accept a white Congressman. Either we are a nation of laws or not.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by Lord of Light (May 21, 2010 7:49 am ET)
            9  
            If a business wants to discriminate on the basis of race, I don't think they have a right to be in business at all. Bigots don't deserve freedom to practice hatred. Among other domino effects, it would just fan the flames of bad race relations (which still exist, contrary to some on the right). Paul and Stossel are probably not racists, but they have their heads in the sand of ignorance.

            We heard similar arguments when Ronnie Reagan deregulated the banks in the 1980s -- private sector inherently good, can't happen, only a few bad apples, etc. Well ... guess what. By strange coincidence, every modern banking scandal and crisis has come under loosened regulations. Guess it's just a coincidence.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by egb (May 23, 2010 2:24 am ET)
                5
              And it's also just a coincidence that half of all the inflated home loans are owned by two government created and controlled "lending institutions" -- F&F. Their growth coincides remarkably well with the growth of the housing bubble. Was that just a coincidence? Could F&F - in other words, the federal government -- have been contributors to the housing bubble?

              Big banks didn't create any more loans that all the little banks, so if your going to attack the big banks, you should attack the little ones also. You'll note that as soon as the NINJA loans were consummated, they were sold (by big banks and small banks) to F&F. Have you researched who actually invented CDO's? I think if you do your research, you will be in for some surprises.

              Report Abuse
          • Author by jediknight65 (May 21, 2010 9:39 am ET)
            8  
            you are assuming that it would fizzle out rather than fester and remain. considering how long it took to free slaves and then for the civil rights act.

            jim crow wasn't going to go away unless it was MADE to go away by law.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by angels4light (May 21, 2010 10:53 am ET)
            5  
            44 years later, now that it is not a crime to be a skin color other than pale, it might work. Then again, given how -NOT- far we have come as a nation, it probably wouldn't.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by MiddleLeft (May 22, 2010 6:26 pm ET)
            1  
            Lay off Rand Paul. All he is saying is that if a business (that receives no government funding) wants to hold a discriminatory policy, fine. We all can simply boycott that business.

            Oh good grief. According to that argument you could deny housing, bank loans, and employment on the basis of race. Don't think so.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by diamonds (May 21, 2010 7:34 am ET)
            18
          You seem to be confusing civil rights with civil liberties. Since when were individual rights--civil liberties--"radical?" If someone does not wish to do business with someone they must not be forced to.
          Are we going to say to the black students' association they have to take white people, or the gay softball association they have to take straight people? We should have freedom of association in America.
          Absolutely. But those -- Jim Crow -- those were government rules. Government was saying we have white and black drinking fountains. That's very different from saying private people can't discriminate.
          These are good points, care to argue them?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Lord of Light (May 21, 2010 8:11 am ET)
            11  
            You seem to be confusing civil rights with civil liberties. Since when were individual rights--civil liberties--"radical?" If someone does not wish to do business with someone they must not be forced to.

            Nice non-sequitur. This has nothing to do with what Stossel said.

            As far as Stossel's idiocy:

            1) Unlike the institutionalized racism that the Civil Rights Act outlawed, black student associations and gay softball associations are not an impediment to a white man's success. And to imply they don't take white people and straight people is a lie. The black student associations at my high school and college both accepted whites, and I doubt there are many exceptions.

            2) Jim Crow being pushed by the government is also a lie. You think all those businesses with segregation policies would have done that had they disagreed with it? If you do, you're a fool.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by diamonds (May 21, 2010 5:43 pm ET)
                13
              If you think it has nothing to do with what he said, then read it again and take time to digest why I may have said those words. Even if you don't agree try and figure out what I am saying, please.

              Any racial discrimination simply is impractical, and is plain really bad press, plus today it only serves to invite frivolous lawsuits. A business that discriminates will not only be bad for business but isn't likely to be an impediment to the affected groups anyways. Why do we still need the law, it seems like all it is doing is creating negatives for society and polarizing it in allegations of racism. I've seen someone cut a line accusing everyone of being racist... and it worked (simply appalling though absolutely not typical).

              The people have a way of getting their way with businesses through government. Do you think businesses would just go along with environmental, civil rights, and regulation legislation if they disagree with it? Of course they would, there is a threat of violence otherwise. Obviously it wasn't only the government, Jim Crow laws were created based on existing sentiment, but surely you can't argue that they had positive effect. It encouraged and reinforced segregation in society and non-business settings.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by congero6189599 (May 22, 2010 1:27 pm ET)
                5  
                That is some of the most muddled thinking i've ever read. What does someone cutting a line have to do with the Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act creates racism? Your thinking justifies and excuses racism. You present the same arguments that the Southern crackers presented when forced to desegregate. jim Crow laws existed until they were overturned with the full weight of Federal apparatus to ensure that those who were harmed by them be protected. They had to be overturned they didn't just go away. How dare you forget the battles it took to do so.

                Cutting a line...WTF!
                Report Abuse
                • Author by onementalgiant (May 23, 2010 12:21 pm ET)
                    7
                  Is "crackers" not a racist term? Oh, and wasn't it the Democrats who voted against the CRA while it passed only because of Republican support in Congress?

                  Again, typical hypocrisy from the left.
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (May 21, 2010 8:19 am ET)
            11  
            That's very different from saying private people can't discriminate.

            When that "private person" establishes a business--which by its nature depends on government-provided roads, sewers, sidewalks, police and fire-department protection in order to exist, the business is not private, but at least quasi-public, which means that you're arguing that bigots should be able to discriminate against minorities on my dime--the taxes I pay to subsidize the infratructure which allows that business to exist at all...
            Report Abuse
            • Author by diamonds (May 21, 2010 5:51 pm ET)
                10
              Those "government-provided roads" and such are skunk costs. They were funded with forcefully taken tax dollars, and therefore there is no implication that the people who use them have any obligation to do anything at all. By your logic the government can tell anyone who uses any government provided utility or subsidized product to do anything they want.

              Just because the government provides these things doesn't mean they wouldn't exist without government, many roads, sewers, water, police, even fire protection are privately owned and provided for today. Plus, nothing in the constitution allows for the theory of this "quasi-public" business, therefore the government has no legitimate power in that area.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by congero6189599 (May 22, 2010 1:33 pm ET)
                5  
                How old are you?
                Report Abuse
              • Author by tman418 (May 22, 2010 5:10 pm ET)
                6 1
                Diamonds,

                Discrimination causes, at the very least, an inconvenience. I believe one of the reasons that Brown v. Board of Education even came about was because a black man's daughter had to ride the bus far away to a black school rather than go to the school, which is all white, very close to her house.

                If your only local supermarket discriminated against your race, religion, or whatever, and it was the only one in town with a product you needed, and you didn't have any convenient way of getting to the next supermarket in the next town, what would you do? Discrimination can restrict a customer's freedom of choice.

                I don't believe that you support discrimination, at all. But I'm trying to explain that it is necessary, by law, for businesses not to discriminate. It helps capitalism.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by srichardson (May 22, 2010 5:19 pm ET)
                4  
                What do you mean "funded by forcefully taken tax dollars"? I don't mind my tax dollars going to fix roads and infrastructure. I also don't mind my tax dollars going to help those less fortunate than I am. And I would mind my tax dollars going to help "private" business discriminate against minorities, the disabled and others. Get a clue, diamond.
                You make it sound like the government puts a gun to your head and steals your last dime.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by MiddleLeft (May 22, 2010 6:30 pm ET)
                  3  
                  What do you mean "funded by forcefully taken tax dollars"?

                  As if there are any other kind. Try to run any government on voluntary taxes. Hilarious.
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by SMTDL (May 21, 2010 1:42 pm ET)
            10  
            Many black organizations exist because of exclusion from existing white organizations or as a way for a minority voice to be heard by combining individual voices.Most white people have never worked or gone to school (or much else)where they were an overwhelming minority.In my experience many get uncomfortable being in the minority for even a short period of time.Be reminded of Sarah Palin's angst at so many Asians at her Hawaiian college so she left the school because of how uncomfortable this made her.I bet the white population at the school was a lot higher than the 10-12% national Black polulation. Easy to see why she endorsed Rand Paul isn't it!? She could have shown leadership and founded a white students association to feel more included on the campus if there wasn't one!!
            Stossel would never have made such a backwards comment when he was on a Network news show.He was quite comfortable expressing this extreme position on Fox News..not surprising!
            Jim Crow laws were local government laws and obviously unconstitutional since they deprived black citizens of personal freedoms.The so called separate but equal laws were anything but equal.Go to towns in the south and you can see the side and rear entrances that still exist .I guess it was such a freedom to have only the choice of the great view from the balcony(only seating for blacks) at the same price as whites paid .Or the wonderful view from the back of the bus ..same price again.So if these businesses were privately owned,Paul and Stossel are saying they should be able to still do this RIGHT??.They wouldn't even have to hire qualified minorities if they didn't want to right?But what about theose public roads,public utilities,etc those businesses have access to?
            How about a more subtle one ..Blacks couldn't try on clothes or shoes before buying ...just go someplace else to buy right...oh sorry, too bad, its the only shoe store in town..tsk tsk, how far we've really come!!!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by congero6189599 (May 21, 2010 2:06 pm ET)
              5  
              Well said and I agree. Post racial society my arse. The good thing is that it's out in the open so that people can see how fringe these ideas are.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by CatsRBigLuv (May 23, 2010 3:14 am ET)
            6  

            Diamonds... those are really stupid points.

            The Black Student Association and the Gay Softball Team are not private businesses. They are not places of public accommodation.

            They are social groups in which people with common cause can interact with one another. Its not for them to decide who joins, its for those who actually want to join and make an effort to do so.

            The question is also absurd because it supposes that, for instance, there actually are straight people out there just dying to join the local gay sports team.

            As an openly gay person myself, i can honestly tell you that this does not happen.

            (On the other hand, when I was in college, our GALA community DID, in fact, have a few straight members... they are the PF in PFLAG, and we value them dearly. Nobody in GALA discriminated against them. They came to our clubs and our parties and participated in our projects at considerable risk to themselves, since, when I was in school, things were not as safe for gay people as they are now.)

            Trying to compare Stossels lousy example with the historical experience of minorities in America (ESPECIALLY Black America) demonstrates just how absolutely out of touch and ignorant both Stossel and Randy Rands are with respect to the living memory of this country.
            I’m sorry that you have fallen for that non-sense.

            I am surprised to see Kelly taking Stossel to task for his arrogance (she usually seems to play his side), but I have to credit her for doing just that.

            For the record, if one assumes that the free-market can offer the cure for everything, then one knows next to nothing about how the Free Market works, or how it HAS worked.

            The 1950's represented a period of hyper-capitalist idealism in America, and the free market completely exacerbated racial cruelty rather than neutralizing it.

            The free-market also pressed the US government to take an invasive posture in Latin America, and this resulted in the bloody atrocities which devastated Central America throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s.

            (Betcha never heard of El Mozote, or the Contradoras, or Efrain Rioss Mont, eh Diamonds? And thanks to the Texas State Board of Education, you never will. For the sake of folks like you, Rands and Stossel, they murdered Oscar Romero all over again.)
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Lizinbklyn (May 20, 2010 4:15 pm ET)
        16  
        KELLY SHOWED THE WRONG INTERVIEW!!

        The blogs are all referring to Paul's remarks made on Maddow's show; remarks like 'the diners should have gone to another restaurant' . .
        Report Abuse
        • Author by dogbreath (May 20, 2010 4:43 pm ET)
          17  
          Media Matters - you need to show the Rachel Maddow interview with Paul from last night. If you all haven't seen it go watch it now. Holy cow! This guy is a nutbag.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by txthinker (May 20, 2010 5:36 pm ET)
            13  
            I was watching that interview last night. I couldn't believe it.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by liberalXtian (May 20, 2010 6:37 pm ET)
            12  
            Rand Paul must be going for the world's record for campaign self-destruction.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Tunasafeart (May 21, 2010 2:19 am ET)
            13  
            You would think by now people would think twice before lying or making generalizations with Maddow, because she's just gonna come back the next night with well-researched counterpoints that always stops opponents cold. She is one of the best journalists out there right now and I respect her greatly; she is the real "fair and balanced" force out there.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (May 21, 2010 7:34 am ET)
              15  
              Not to put too fine a point on it, but actually, she is one of the only journalists out there, as opposed to mere talking heads and animated dictation machines...
              Report Abuse
      • Author by dogbreath (May 20, 2010 4:33 pm ET)
        15  
        What the H is going on with this country?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jonesjax2374 (May 21, 2010 12:22 am ET)
          6  
          The new trend is all government is bad. Or as my conservative friend put it - the more government, the dumber the people. Alas.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (May 21, 2010 7:35 am ET)
            8  
            The new trend is all government is bad. Or as my conservative friend put it - the more government, the dumber the people.

            At least whenever the government is headed by a Democrat, I imagine...
            Report Abuse
            • Author by kalentros (May 21, 2010 3:36 pm ET)
              5  
              Of course, because when government is run by the Republicans/corporatist factions of "conservatism" any dissent is equal to high treason and should automatically be punishable by death.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by einreb (May 20, 2010 7:39 pm ET)
        10 1
        Oh, there are words. "Open a book on the civil rights movement, John."

        Followed by, "you're a nincompoop, John."

        Followed by, "you're fired, John."
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jediknight65 (May 21, 2010 9:51 am ET)
          6  
          umm you are talking about an outfit run by roger ailes....you really think that would happen?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by kalentros (May 21, 2010 3:38 pm ET)
            6  
            Books? Do you honestly think any of them have ever read one that isn't titled "The Bible: As edited by Rush Limbaugh"?
            Report Abuse
      • Author by davemccarthymusic9410 (May 20, 2010 10:17 pm ET)
        7  
        I believe it's time for Mr. Stossel to get slapped upside his head by a "professional" wrestler again. I'd pay to see that!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by manndan (May 20, 2010 11:05 pm ET)
          7  
          Dave Schultz, where are you now when we need you.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (May 21, 2010 8:21 am ET)
            5  
            Unfortunately (in this case), The Hammer has foresworn fighting...
            Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (May 21, 2010 6:39 am ET)
        10  
        Ah, so that's how they're going to frame it. It was government that made people discriminate back in the 50s...

        You know, of course, that these clowns are going to get away with this lie.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (May 21, 2010 7:37 am ET)
          9  
          It was government that made people discriminate back in the 50s...

          Indeed--just like it was the beaten wife who made her husband beat her...
          Report Abuse
      • Author by mari2jj (May 21, 2010 5:35 pm ET)
        8  
        Right. Well, there are consequences for this racist occassion. Today I reregister as a Democrat. Although a life long Republican because of the historic Southern Democratic Racism it seems the tide has totally changed and now the Republican Party fails to disown the raists. My how the party has departed from the Lincoln legacy. Approving racism is the party is at a new low. Of course it is couched in the "free enterprise" garbage, but smart people understand pure racism when they see it. And this load of BS is pure racism. Look for the party to lose a bunch of moderate who are Christians and who undersstand that all are God's children! So there is no other choice for me. On religious grounds I shall re-register. This drivel out of Paul fits right in with the garbage Republicans are throwing out about Obama.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Buzzramjet (May 22, 2010 12:51 am ET)
        3  
        I can think of plenty of words but MM won't allow them...I'm pretty sure.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by txthinker (May 20, 2010 2:44 pm ET)
      37 3
      Txthinker calls for the immediate reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, and its expansion to cover cable and satellite TV.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by The_Cat (May 20, 2010 3:08 pm ET)
        17 3
        I'll second that. It's only been gone for 25 years or so. St. Ronnie of the Raygun killed it, and the fallout has given us Rush Limbaugh, Hate-M radio, Glenn Beck, and FOX Propaganda, all outlets we can easily afford to lose.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (May 20, 2010 3:23 pm ET)
          5 10
          I, for one, don't want to see the FD come back in any way, shape, or form.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by The_Cat (May 20, 2010 3:32 pm ET)
            13 1
            Truly? It seemed to serve fairly well while it was in force. Any particular objections, magnolialover?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by magnolialover (May 20, 2010 3:37 pm ET)
              9 1
              I guess, I just don't like the theory of it, or the practice of it when it was around. I know that it is not impingment of someone's freedom of speech, but, I just don't see a need for it these days. In the days when we had 13 TV stations, and no way for people to react to, or respond to someone else's opinions, I could see it, and that's why it did work for a long time.

              These days, with websites like MMFA, and other personal outlets for people to respond to teh crazy, and the lies, it's just not needed.

              Just my opinion.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by The_Cat (May 20, 2010 3:39 pm ET)
                9  
                Ah, I see. Yes, I have a tendency to live in the 20th Century. I've lived there most of my life. Only been in the 21st Century for about ten years ;)

                There are many more outlets for differing opinions, it is true. Besides which, any law handing power to the Federal government will still be around when the other side takes power back. Excellent point, magnolialover, thanx for the reply!
                Report Abuse
                • Author by txthinker (May 20, 2010 3:43 pm ET)
                  12 1
                  There may be many more outlets today, but with the majority of them spewing right-wing drivel no one is gatting a balanced view of anything.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by magnolialover (May 20, 2010 3:59 pm ET)
                    11  
                    I was thinking more like the left wing netroots, which, even though the right wing has most of the radio and TV locked up, we have the internet, which, I think is more powerful.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by txthinker (May 20, 2010 5:00 pm ET)
                      12 1
                      The Internet is (and should remain) wide-open. The Fairness Doctrine should apply to radio, broadcast TV, cable TV, and satellite TV.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by riverdog (May 20, 2010 6:14 pm ET)
                        2 6
                        bad idea on the fairness doctrine. it should stay away.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (May 20, 2010 6:53 pm ET)
                          9  
                          In which case, media conglomerates should be forced to deconsolidate their holdings in order to allow real debate on issues. I rather suspect you'll be against that, too, since you looooooove your corporations so much...
                          Report Abuse
                • Author by Stretch 85 (May 20, 2010 4:03 pm ET)
                  10 1
                  While there are more media outlets (cable, online blogs, talk radio, etc.) for people to express their opinions, the problem is that corporations now own news organizations (network news, newspapers, cable news) and gobble up smaller, independent outlets, creating larger and larger monopolies, lessening the chances of differing voices to be heard.

                  The Fairness Doctrine would ensure that ALL voices have equal opportunity at being heard, not just those with money behind them.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by magnolialover (May 20, 2010 4:19 pm ET)
                    13  
                    I would be all for repealing media consolidation laws that are in place, and have contributed to this.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by blk-in-alabam (May 21, 2010 8:51 am ET)
                      6  
                      Media consolidation is the real problem.republican party media would not,and cannot exist with out it.Large numbers of radio stations have had to carry momey losing,and run money away republican party media because they are owned by a few supporters of the republican party.A news paper,tv station,and news paper can not give independent news when all 3 are owned by one person.
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 20, 2010 3:44 pm ET)
                10 2
                But it does no harm. And it encorages open and honest discussion of the given topic, particularly of contentious issues. There may not be a NEED - I agree with you there - but would there not be a BENEFIT? A benefit to ANY point of view, on ANY issue? Is that not enough to justify it?

                -------------------------------------------
                It's not perfect, but I'm liking it better than NOTHING.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by magnolialover (May 20, 2010 3:58 pm ET)
                  6 1
                  True enough, there may be a benefit, but I just don't see it personally. That might just be me. Also, the way that I read it, from the time it was enacted, in order to give rebuttal time, a show, like say, Limbaugh, would only have to afford someone of an opposing view of his like 2-5 minutes per week to rebut, which really would have little to no impact.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 20, 2010 4:08 pm ET)
                    10  
                    Hey, at this point I'd settle for 5 seconds just so Joe Pesci can walk on and say, My Cousin Vinny-style, "Everything that guy just said was b*llsh!t."

                    But yeah, I see your point.

                    ----------------------------------------------
                    IMHO
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by magnolialover (May 20, 2010 4:20 pm ET)
                      5  
                      "Uh, Mr. Gambini; what are you wearing?"

                      "I had a suit, but it got muddy. So I'm wearing this, ridiculous thing, for you judge."
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by jediknight65 (May 21, 2010 9:56 am ET)
                        2  
                        i dont like your attitude.

                        what else is new.

                        im holding you in contempt.

                        there's a f##king suprise

                        i love that movie
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 21, 2010 10:38 am ET)
                        3  
                        Believe it or not, my wife and I saw that movie on our first date.

                        ---------------------------------
                        LOL
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by jediknight65 (May 21, 2010 11:23 am ET)
                          3  
                          jerry gallo....jerry gallo's dead.

                          i am aware of that!
                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by mjh (May 20, 2010 4:50 pm ET)
                      4  
                      "Hey, at this point I'd settle for 5 seconds just so Joe Pesci can walk on and say, My Cousin Vinny-style, 'Everything that guy just said was b*llsh!t.'"



                      At this point, I'd settle for Joe Pesci to walk on and kick Stossel in his nutz, "Half-Nelson"-style . . .

                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by Lord of Light (May 20, 2010 6:33 pm ET)
                      4  
                      Hey, at this point I'd settle for 5 seconds just so Joe Pesci can walk on and say, My Cousin Vinny-style, "Everything that guy just said was b*llsh!t."

                      For some reason I'm envisioning more the enraged Pesci as a mobster threatening physical violence. (Limbaugh and others aren't civil, so why should we be?)
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by Space-Pedestrian (May 20, 2010 8:34 pm ET)
                1 1
                Well said, and I am enlightened to hear this view in opposition to the FD. I have been opposed for other reasons, but you've given me another angle.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Jurgan (May 21, 2010 3:42 pm ET)
                1  
                My problem with the FD is that it assumes every issue has two sides and only two sides. Now, some issues are more complicated than that- why not also give time to someone representing the Green Party, or the Libertarian Party? And then some are less complicated, and there's only one reasonable side. Would the FD require global warming or evolution deniers be given equal time as legitimate scientists? Maybe that's not really how it would work, but I don't know. Until then, I think this is one area where the free market is the best way to deal with it. I realize the point isn't to force ideas on people, but to give them a fair chance. But, as has been said, with all these new avenues of communications, I think we can win in a fair fight without relying on government intervention.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by carlileb5935 (May 21, 2010 6:41 am ET)
              3  
              It worked very well back then. All it did is require stations to have balanced viewpoints-- it did NOT censor individual DJs.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by MiniTru (May 22, 2010 6:06 pm ET)
                   
                Actually, it didn't work that well. Back in the days when TV stations signed off every night, the FD dissenting opinions were aired right before the "Reached out and touched the face of God" poen before the national anthem played and the station went off the air.
                Report Abuse
      • Author by louee (May 20, 2010 3:41 pm ET)
        9  
        I believe the Fairness Doctrine only would apply to broadcast television, not cable.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by txthinker (May 20, 2010 3:45 pm ET)
          4 1
          I believe the Fairness Doctrine only would apply to broadcast television, not cable.
          That's why I said it should be expanded to cover cable and satellite, because that's the only way many people can get TV reception in many parts of the country.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by louee (May 20, 2010 3:47 pm ET)
            5  
            But I don't believe cable is a franchise granted by the government. So I don't know what the basis for that would be.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by txthinker (May 20, 2010 3:56 pm ET)
              4 1
              Cable TV is franchised by each town. The federal government would be able to act on behalf of the town so that a uniform standard would apply to all.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by carlileb5935 (May 21, 2010 6:44 am ET)
              5  
              What it did is regulate stations that used the airwaves. But since cable stations use satellite frequencies, or microwave, it should and COULD apply to them as well.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by riverdog (May 20, 2010 6:16 pm ET)
              14
            grat ideas bx, we need a rebuke for keith and rachel.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (May 21, 2010 7:40 am ET)
              7 1
              grat (sic) ideas bx, we need a rebuke for keith and rachel.

              You mean like Paddy Buchanan, Joe Scarborough Willie Geist, Ron Christie, etc. etc. etc.?...
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Lord of Light (May 21, 2010 8:13 am ET)
                7 1
                Hey, hey! Don't tread on this guy's delusion that poor, helpless Republicans have no media voices.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by John Paradox (May 21, 2010 3:53 pm ET)
                  3  
                  Insert 'sane' between 'helpless' and 'Republicans' and he's right.

                  /snark
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by jediknight65 (May 21, 2010 9:57 am ET)
              3  
              thats what fox news is for
              Report Abuse
          • Author by kalentros (May 21, 2010 4:22 pm ET)
            1  
            "That's why I said it should be expanded to cover cable and satellite, because that's the only way many people can get TV reception in many parts of the country."

            I have to disagree with your rational simply for one reason. If you expand the FD to include cable channels, than by rational the FCC can claim that network standards would also be forced to apply. Hence shows like "The Sopranos" or "Dexter" or any other premium cable series would fall under FCC guidelines and have to cut out the majority of their adult content.

            Granted I consider the word "f*(&" and seeing bare breasts on my screen less offensive than listening to Limbaugh's hate speech. But I don't know if I want to open the door to a possibility that the next time the morality police have a chance they can dictate more of what I can see and hear.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by Brian Griffith (May 20, 2010 2:44 pm ET)
      15  
      Er, the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court on the basis of congress not having the power to enact it. Thus, it was superseded by the 14th amendment to the constitution, which does have the power to mandate that.

      The law he's talking about was struck down in 1883. You're over a century too late, Stossel.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by congero6189599 (May 20, 2010 2:48 pm ET)
      10  
      Don't ever forget this!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by soze169880 (May 20, 2010 2:49 pm ET)
      22  
      He'll be singing a different tune when businesses start putting up "No Mustaches Need Apply" signs.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© (May 20, 2010 2:51 pm ET)
        20  
        "Pornstaches Will Not Be Served"
        ~
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Brian Griffith (May 20, 2010 3:04 pm ET)
          10  
          You are being patently unfair to Stossel's well-worn "Magnum P.I." DVD collection.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by The_Cat (May 20, 2010 3:34 pm ET)
          6  
          "Pornstaches Will Not Be Served"


          I'm gonna hang one of those in my shop TODAY!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bodhi057 (May 20, 2010 4:04 pm ET)
            6  
            You may need a parenthetical (copstaches still okay). It's a fine line but you don't want to offend our men in blue.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by afriend (May 20, 2010 5:06 pm ET)
          6  
          now don't go insulting pornstars by comparing them to this dirtbag...at least their motives are transparent.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by louee (May 20, 2010 3:48 pm ET)
        6  
        Lol. I was thinking the same thing. He's a mealy mouthed little weasel who's just shown his true colors.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (May 20, 2010 2:49 pm ET)
      13  
      This must be another instance of a Constitutional "originalist" wanting to bring it back to 1789.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mjh (May 20, 2010 2:58 pm ET)
        12  
        Yep.

        Next up: Stossel calls for the reinstatement of slavery . . .


        Report Abuse
        • Author by JimmyCraghorn (May 20, 2010 3:10 pm ET)
          17  
          Yes, but only if its a private business. Private business ought to be able to use slave labor. If the free market decides its bad, they'll go out of business.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by txthinker (May 20, 2010 5:39 pm ET)
          4  
          Next up: Stossel calls for the reinstatement of slavery . . .
          And a repeal of the Third Amendment so we can go back to Quartering of Soldiers....
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Johaely (May 20, 2010 9:25 pm ET)
          3 1
          wasn't he the guy who once made an editorial about how slavery wasn't really that bad in human events. i only remember a pornstache so it was either him or that jewish guy.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by bintx (May 20, 2010 2:53 pm ET)
      11 1
      Wow . . . Rush is playing to the racist, bigoted base today, Beck is playing to the bat-poopy crazy base today and Stossel is playing to the anti-handicapped base today. So, that means that between them, they have offended all non-whites, all sane people and handicapped people who rely upon the public accommodations portion of the Civil Rights Act. Last time I checked, ALL of those folks vote and watch TV. Keep it up folks.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by timesthree (May 20, 2010 3:59 pm ET)
        6  
        And so many more.

        I'm white, not particularly handicapped, my sanity would be questioned by the likes of those three,

        and they've offended me.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by scubcap647 (May 20, 2010 3:03 pm ET)
      16 1
      OMG! Rand Paul is the new GOP Oracle. He has (with one primary victory) replaced Scott Brown, Sara Palin, and Glen Beck in the minds of conservative talking heads right now. I can see the narrative starting to form now. By next Tuesday, this will be the new Fox Primetime lineup.

      [http://swankd.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/kkk.jpg]
      Report Abuse
      • Author by timesthree (May 20, 2010 4:00 pm ET)
        6  
        Nice pic of pointy headed fools.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bodhi057 (May 20, 2010 4:07 pm ET)
        10  
        Haha- look at the fat one! "Yep, it's the stay-puft marshmallow man."
        Report Abuse
      • Author by lede39571545 (May 20, 2010 4:07 pm ET)
        8  
        Too cowardly to show their faces.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by The_Cat (May 20, 2010 4:43 pm ET)
          8  
          Too cowardly to show their faces.

          And, when dealing with any bully, that's the important thing to remember: not any particular fear you may be feeling, but the fear that MUST exist within their own hearts because of the way they behave. Such as wearing a white hood. They can rationalize it all they want, you are correct in essence, lede29571545: they are cowards.

          And Stossel? Just another knuckle-dragging bigot. Big whoop.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by didi (May 21, 2010 12:33 pm ET)
        3  
        Why do I always think of Blazing Saddles whenever I see them in their funny looking costumes?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jediknight65 (May 21, 2010 1:31 pm ET)
          3  
          how many times have i told you to wash your hands after your weekly cross burning.......see its coming off..............

          and now for my next impression.....jesse owens
          Report Abuse
    • Author by David2012 (May 20, 2010 3:04 pm ET)
      15  
      It's as though American history never happened.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (May 20, 2010 3:09 pm ET)
        12  
        The folks on Fox are really trying hard to completely re-write history. Beck was talking about going back to the "peaceful 60s" a few weeks ago. Beck was almost 5 when 1970 rolled around. He has NO idea.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mjh (May 20, 2010 5:02 pm ET)
          4  
          "The folks on Fox are really trying hard to completely re-write history."


          Indeed -- Newt the Toot Gingrich was yapping just the other day about how he thought we were in "the greatest battle for America since the Civil War" . . . after earlier stating how the country should go back to the condition it was in 400 years ago . . .




          Report Abuse
    • Author by New Frontier (May 20, 2010 3:04 pm ET)
      19  
      Good lord.

      This IS 2010, right??

      Then Stossel complains about "getting flak". Hey, Stossel: The people who couldn't attend "white" schools or sit in the fronts of buses? THEY got flak--not you, you overpaid, elitist, bigot.

      Just un-believable...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by The New Pilgrims (May 20, 2010 3:05 pm ET)
      8  
      So these geniuses really want to do this? Rehash the political issues of the 1960s? OK by me!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by billcnc (May 20, 2010 3:06 pm ET)
      8  
      Caveman Mentality!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by farans195 (May 20, 2010 3:10 pm ET)
      15  
      What is happening in this world? I was actually on that blonde's side for once in my life! That troubles me.

      Why did she not ask him how he feels about abortion? I bet he has NO problems with the govt. telling women what they can and can't do, but white business owners? No problem there. Looking forward to his reaction when a black owned restaurant refuses to serve whitey.

      How on earth has the conversation in this country turned to this topic? What is going on? How does he still have a program on TV?
      Is he trying to compete with Beck?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by worrierking (May 20, 2010 3:11 pm ET)
      14  
      I must have been asleep for the last forty years because I dreamed that we had a fairness doctrine, separation of church and state, a civil rights act, respected science and agreed that because of Vietnam, wars should only be fought when absolutely necessary.

      I see I've got some catching up to do.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by The_Cat (May 20, 2010 3:36 pm ET)
        7  
        To paraphrase 'Gladiator':

        There was once a dream that was America...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by epkklk851 (May 20, 2010 4:06 pm ET)
          5  
          Don't give him any ideas! Glennie is already making other Roman references on his own. I am sure he has seen that movie, and I'll bet he thinks that Maximus was a real person. I'll bet he has that last bit scripted into his imaginary funeral service, the one that will take place after he's been given the "Chicago Way" treatment by the White House.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by John Paradox (May 21, 2010 3:25 am ET)
            4  
            Just wait for Glenn to quote Captain Oveur.....
            Report Abuse
          • Author by jediknight65 (May 21, 2010 10:06 am ET)
            3  
            well maximus was in a way a real person........he was a mixture of a number of historical figures of rome.

            narcissus-commodus' real killer. a professional gladiator and wrestler.

            trajan-primary template for maximus. a spanish general who was a regular soldier and rose through the ranks.

            cinncinatus-just for good measure and showing the ideal roman willing to give power back to the people
            Report Abuse
    • Author by worrierking (May 20, 2010 3:11 pm ET)
      7  
      I must have been asleep for the last forty years because I dreamed that we had a fairness doctrine, separation of church and state, a civil rights act, respected science and agreed that because of Vietnam, wars should only be fought when absolutely necessary.

      I see I've got some catching up to do.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by trelan1701 (May 20, 2010 3:23 pm ET)
        9  
        Well sure, but the conservatives have been working non stop for those same 40 years trying to undo all of that. So, not so much sleeping as looking in the wrong direction while the GOP set fire to your house. Good thing we all have a smoke detector now. Thanx MMFA!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by marco21 (May 20, 2010 3:20 pm ET)
      14  
      I hope more conservative asses get on this train about repealing parts of the Civil Rights Act. Please, please, please.

      This is real conservatism. Scary, huh?

      And WTF - is Megyn wearing a cocktail dress?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by timesthree (May 20, 2010 4:04 pm ET)
        9  
        It's conservatism unmasked.

        And yes the daytime cocktail dress was a bit odd. Can you imagine if Michelle Obama had worn such a thing.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Brutus (May 20, 2010 4:15 pm ET)
        9  
        These so called real conservative bigots will have a rude awakening when they find out the majority of Americans will not support them.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mjh (May 20, 2010 5:13 pm ET)
          6  
          "These so called real conservative bigots will have a rude awakening when they find out the majority of Americans will not support them."


          I'm thinking they got that awakening in NY-23 last November and PA-12 this past Tuesday -- not to mention November 2008 nationwide.

          Then again, they'll just chalk that up to "voter fraud" . . .




          Report Abuse
    • Author by fishgirl26 (May 20, 2010 3:34 pm ET)
      7  
      I certainly hope none of these people become stricken with something that renders them handicapped! Isn't Rand Paul a eye surgeon. Surely he believes that there should be some accomodations for the blind...like at street lights..right?? Oh, no, we don't want that?? HMMMMM>>>
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jediknight65 (May 21, 2010 10:08 am ET)
        3  
        and the majority of his patients have medicare........oooooo. he is gonna have a problem with that.....
        Report Abuse
    • Author by epkklk851 (May 20, 2010 3:36 pm ET)
      7  
      FA! on the Free Market. If we hadn't forced restaurants and hotels to admit Blacks and other minorities, many of them would still be segregated. There are still reports of discrimination going on now. There was the temporary agency that wouldn't send Juan or Maria to certain clients, and wasn't Denny's sued for discriminating against African Americans in the 1980s. It would be nice if no one practiced racial discrimination, but some people will, and until then, we have to pass or enforce laws against discrimination.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by raddave43 (May 20, 2010 3:37 pm ET)
      9 1
      I call for the repeal of FOX news and FBNs broadcast licenses, but I don't see it happening.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (May 20, 2010 3:38 pm ET)
      3  
      See. Just another reason that the Government is getting in the way of free markets! How DARE the Gubmint tell us who is allowed in our place of business!!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (May 20, 2010 3:39 pm ET)
      8 1
      If I had a restaurant I would refuse to serve John Stossel as much as a glass of water... ;>)
      Report Abuse
      • Author by MiniTru (May 20, 2010 4:37 pm ET)
        7  
        STOSSEL: Do you serve crabs here?

        OWNER: We serve anyone, sir. Have a seat.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by riverdog (May 20, 2010 6:21 pm ET)
          14
        so you agree with stossel that as a private biz you can dicriminate?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by temphandle alternatives82ariser (May 20, 2010 3:42 pm ET)
      8  
      What crap! If biz would not discriminate for profit then they wouldn't have discriminated for decades before the CR Act.

      In fact, biz are notorious for screwing up and acting against interest. That's part of the reason 85% of them fail.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by louee (May 20, 2010 3:45 pm ET)
      10  
      "It should be their right to be racist." Regardless of the effects on the lives of millions of people. The country has lost its ever-loving mind. But I'm grateful for this in a way, because it shows up creepo losers like John Stossel and Rand Paul for the so-called "intellectual" racists they are. Screw 'em. Americans, we should all stand up and shout we don't want any part of this madness.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by johnbrown (May 20, 2010 3:49 pm ET)
      13  
      I am so sick of bigotry excused as "common sense".
      Report Abuse
      • Author by christopher howard (May 20, 2010 3:55 pm ET)
        9  
        "...because private businesses ought to get to discriminate. And I won't won't ever go to a place that's racist and I will tell everybody else not to and I'll speak against them. But it should be their right to be racist."

        Riiiight, Stossel. You think restaurants shouldn't be required to serve someone based on the color of their skin, but you (not being a racist) would never, ever go to such a place and would speak out against them. Liar.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by timesthree (May 20, 2010 3:53 pm ET)
      11  
      The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed at a time when owners would have lost business if they served people of color.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 20, 2010 4:03 pm ET)
      10  
      See... Freedom and Liberty are great principles. And to a punch-drunk right-winger, this ALMOST sounds like a principled defense. But the 'slippery slope' here is NOT government stepping in to make sure that one group of people isn't legally protected in their active victimization of another group pf people. The "slippery slope" is that when we start repealing laws for crimes that have ACTUAL VICTIMS, eventually we end up with NO LAWS, because EVERY LAW can be shown to LIMIT OUR FREEDOM in some way. And only an idiot (or a truly blind and overly-zealous Libertarian) would fight a law that actually protects another person from harm. But that's teh reasoning we've got here - the one whom the law governs is the victim, moreso than the ACTUAL victim of the ACT with it outlaws. How absurd.

      Some things are just not worth defending, John. THIS is one of them. This is not a speech or even an association issue. This is one of basic decendy. What's more, white's ARE allowed to be memebers of Black advocacy groups and straits ARE allowed to be member of gay advocacy groups. We don't all think like YOU and Rand Paul, John.

      Your new middle name should be [John] "Seperate Water Fountains Means Shorter Lines For Everyone" [Stossel]

      ---------------------------------------------------------
      IMHO

      --------------------------------------------
      Report Abuse
    • Author by timesthree (May 20, 2010 4:09 pm ET)
      6  
      If FOX News had any integrity, they would take Stossel off the air. That said, they'll probably give him a bonus.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by doggeddem (May 21, 2010 9:51 am ET)
        3  
        FAUX News, we distort, we crap all over democracy, has no integrity. It is a racist, bigoted organization that caters to the racist bigots in this country. That whole network should be taken off the air, flown down to the gulf and dropped onto the leaking oil well as a big fat plug.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by txthinker (May 20, 2010 4:18 pm ET)
      7 1
      STOSSEL: because private businesses ought to get to discriminate. And I won't won't ever go to a place that's racist and I will tell everybody else not to and I'll speak against them. But it should be their right to be racist.
      And I guess John Stossel has a right to be stupid...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by PastyJournalist (May 20, 2010 4:34 pm ET)
      12  
      According to Stossel and Paul, almost any type of abhorrent behavior can be excused if you're running a business while doing it.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Don Quixote (May 20, 2010 4:35 pm ET)
      14  
      Nine out of ten's not bad, unless you consider that the one thing they want stripped is basically 90% of the significance and importance of the Civil Rights Act. "But it's just one out of ten..."

      Unfrikinbelievable. Proves that minority groups and those who support civil rights can never, EVER, stop fighting. It's a constant eternal struggle, and we always have to be vigilant. Sad, but true.

      I always think of Faulker when vermin like Paul and Stossel crawl out from under their rocks and open their pie holes.

      "The past isn't dead and buried. It isn't even past."
      Report Abuse
      • Author by christopher howard (May 20, 2010 4:46 pm ET)
        17  
        "Proves that minority groups and those who support civil rights can never, EVER, stop fighting. can never, EVER, stop fighting."

        Also another reason that minority groups and those who support civil rights tend to vote for progressives. They know what lurks at the heart of the modern conservative movement and it's bigoted, regressive "libertarians" like Stossel who want to turn the clock back to the 1950s or earlier.

        "Absolutely. But those -- Jim Crow -- those were government rules. Government was saying we have white and black drinking fountains."

        This is either woefully ignorant or (more likely) an outright lie on Stossel's part. Private entities like the lunch counter at Woolworth's were more than happy to descriminate based on race.

        [http://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/6-legacy/images/sit-in.jpg]

        Report Abuse
    • Author by iglou (May 20, 2010 4:58 pm ET)
      7  
      Right, Cpt Moustache because there are no victims in discrimination. But hey, let's tip the slope the other way and see what you think here.

      People ought to get to spit in Stossels face. I'm not saying it's right and I wouldn't deal with anyone who would spit in another mans face and I'd tell everyone not to deal with that person but a person ought to have that right. If that doesn't get you how about if I suggested the use of a firearm? It doesn't sound so fair now because your notion of a victim is clear there.

      But hey, what do I know I don't get to talk on TV out my rear but hey why don't we let businesses discriminate on political grounds so we don't have to give work to wacko's like him. Wouldn't that be fair?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tbone (May 20, 2010 5:09 pm ET)
      9  
      because private businesses ought to get to discriminate

      I'm mostly libertarian, but this is one area where libertarian theory (free right of association) runs headlong into "all men are created equal". While I should have the right to be a racist jackass, said right rapidly becomes discriminatory when one has any role in commerce. Many claim that the market will sort it out, but that is the same line of thought as "separate but equal" which was anything but.

      When these rights are juxtaposed, history has proven time and again that government has a far more compelling need to secure the rights of the "protected" classes over the racist jackasses.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by LKL (May 22, 2010 9:52 am ET)
        2  
        Exactly - how could anyone argue that we have a free and equal society if some people can't see a movie or go to a certain restaurant just because of the color of their skin??

        That we are even having to debate this again, in 2010, is disgusting.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by txthinker (May 20, 2010 5:17 pm ET)
      9  
      Stossel calls for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights Act
      Stossel's next step will be calling for Roger Ailes to start placing signs like this srounf Faux News headquarters....

      [http://www.vawatchdog.org/pix/white%20colored.jpg]
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (May 20, 2010 5:17 pm ET)
      8  
      WTF? These people are insane.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by highliter (May 20, 2010 5:34 pm ET)
      3 18
      I don’t agree with Stossel at all on this one. But it is funny how all black/female schools, scholarships, hiring/contract preferences, public organizations, Gyms, ect.. Are all ok, but people throw a fit if any type of organization admits only white men. Like Augusta and the military academy that only admitted men.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (May 20, 2010 6:14 pm ET)
        11 1
        It isn't apples and apples. When the schools/academies/clubs that are the ticket to sucess in one's chosen field are discriminatory and leave out women or people of color, it puts a block in one's way to achievement.

        This is so different than all black/female groups. These aren't holding back caucasian/males from being successful!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (May 20, 2010 6:45 pm ET)
        7  
        I don't agree with Stossel at all on this one.

        Pin-o-chio!...
        Report Abuse
    • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (May 20, 2010 5:42 pm ET)
      4 1
      Well, now that we've settled this Johnny-boy, how long will it take you to get to "Sind Hier Juden"?...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (May 20, 2010 5:59 pm ET)
        4 1
        Or whatever the German translation of "Jews Not Welcome Here" is...
        Report Abuse
    • Author by skiploader1111 (May 20, 2010 5:53 pm ET)
      8  
      Ole Johnny "Wrestling is Fake" Stossel should be asked one simple question.

      Mr. Stossel, do you think that eventually the free market would have eventually eliminated segregation in private businesses without the Civil Rights Act of 1964? I wonder if the free market would have eliminated other things too, EVENTUALLY.

      Just when the free market was about to END CHILD LABOR, the government had to get in the way and ban it.

      Just when the free market was going to end 16 hour work days 6 days a week with no overtime, the government had to stick it's nose where it didn't belong and create mandatory overtime.

      Just when the free market was about to end bank runs where when a bank went under, all it's depositors literally see their checking accounts disappear, the government had to create the FDIC.

      I am also very sure that if the Confederacy had won the Civil War, eventually the free market would have ended slavery in the south.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Sharpe (May 20, 2010 6:04 pm ET)
      5  
      The only problem (actually there are many but the major problem) with paul's argument is that no one is electing him to be a moral leader who speaks out against evils. They are electing him to be a legislature whos job it would be to write and pass LAWS, not tell people what he thinks is moral or immoral. If he cannot bring himself to pass something as widely accepted as the civil rights act, he is unfit to be in the US senate. What law will he ever vote for if not that?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (May 20, 2010 6:46 pm ET)
        4  
        What law will he ever vote for if not that?

        Anti-miscegenation laws?...
        Report Abuse
    • Author by cbcbcb (May 20, 2010 7:04 pm ET)
      2 15
      I agree with him. If a business wants to lose customers let them do it.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by skiploader1111 (May 20, 2010 9:21 pm ET)
        12  
        Oh, sure. Yeah. The free market did SUCH a great job in stopping business owners from discriminating against blacks before 1964.

        Maybe we should have also just waited until the free market provides health insurance for everyone. Yeah that's the ticket.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by sluggo (May 20, 2010 7:09 pm ET)
      7  
      John really as something there...

      Let a business avoid the Civil Rights law and discriminate to it's hearts content just after the local municipal government ensures that no public resources are used to support the business. This means that police and fire services cannot be used, along with other public supported resources such as sewer and public highways. (I guess the entrance to such businesses could be blocked off to prevent the business owner from driving on the local city streets).

      If a business wants to operate under these kinds of restrictions then they should be free to do so. If Stossel had an IQ larger than a small mammal he would have considered these point.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by zamfir273114 (May 20, 2010 7:55 pm ET)
        1 17
        Would they also be immune from taxation then?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by eweston8542983 (May 20, 2010 9:03 pm ET)
          5  
          Academic, they'd never be able to be able to insure the place.

          I spose we could insist that they locate in one area. Charge for local, state and federal resource's that they decide to buy or rent. Consider the burocracy and money needed to support this.

          Seems a lot simpler and cheaper to insist on equal rights and access to all citizens.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (May 20, 2010 9:13 pm ET)
          6  
          IOW, they should be able to discriminate on my dime, using services my taxes pay for. Lovely...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by The_Cat (May 21, 2010 1:30 am ET)
            5  
            I have an Illudium Q-36 Space Modulator you can borrow, if you need one, ForTheLoveOfEllipsis...
            Report Abuse
            • Author by John Paradox (May 21, 2010 3:30 am ET)
              5  
              Oh, is there going to be an Earth-shattering BOOM?!
              Report Abuse
              • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (May 21, 2010 7:50 am ET)
                6 1
                Thanks, kids, but to be completely accurate...
                I have an Illudium Q-36 Space Modulator you can borrow, if you need one

                That's anj Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator, and...
                Oh, is there going to be an Earth-shattering BOOM?!

                ...an Earth-shattering Ka-BOOM! Accuracy in all things, please...

                And the Earth-shattering Ka-Boom will only come when John Stossel's head explodes after being denied service at Sylvia's. If it's okay for whitey to keep out blacks, then why shouldn't blacks be allowed to keep out whitey, after all?...
                Report Abuse
      • Author by Space-Pedestrian (May 20, 2010 8:31 pm ET)
        1 14
        That would violate the law and freedom of speech at the same time. How liberal.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Space-Pedestrian (May 20, 2010 8:28 pm ET)
      6 1
      I can see where he's coming from, being a gay moustached conservative anchorman. He'd like people to wear their prejudice on their sleeves so he can avoid them. How novel.

      So presumably perhaps he'd agree that a business, if they so choose, should be able only to peddle young Asian girls to white middle-aged men. This would be opposed to girls of any other ethnicity, which itself would not be particularly discriminatory (more of a product decision), but this would still discriminate against the ability of men of other ethnicity to access such product though the said business. Further, it excludes women as customers, which is inherently misogynistic.

      So, in conclusion, not only does John Stossel call for the repeal of the public accommodations portion of the Civil Rights Act as it pertains to private business, but he is also a discriminating misogynist approver of the international sex-trade and a bigot who favours moustached white middle-aged men.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by j238 (May 20, 2010 11:34 pm ET)
      7  
      It's one thing to believe in free markets because you believe they do good for the economy. It's another thing to believe in free markets as an idealogical principal.

      John Stossel has crossed that line. He does not care about the public interest. When public interest conflicts with his free markets obsession, his ideology goes with free markets no matter the outcome.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jonesjax2374 (May 21, 2010 12:19 am ET)
      4  
      OMG. Another white jerk who doesn't get it. Disgusting.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mookie von zipper (May 21, 2010 1:25 am ET)
      2 9
      [http://www.loopsandpluto.com/images/gunsmens-thumb.gif]
      Report Abuse
    • Author by brighthopa7588 (May 21, 2010 1:36 am ET)
      3  
      this guy is a fool.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mookie von zipper (May 21, 2010 2:10 am ET)
        17
      from the election-results-call-for-desperate-accusations dept:

      while i'm not surprised that mmfa and their loyal minions here are incapable of having an intellectually honest discussion about race relations in this country, it still sickens me and i'm fed up with the race card constantly being played when it's no where near deserved...

      pretending that paul and stossel believe in segregation or white supremacy is nothing short of a smear of the worst kind... actually believing same is ignorance of the worst kind... and failing to grasp the simple concept that government mandating a racist business owner to not be stupid does nothing to advance race relations in this country... these ignorant examples of sub-humanity should be allowed to expose themselves and their clientele, and then ultimately fail...

      reporting from murderland ranch,
      i'm mookie von zipper
      massmurdermedia

      Report Abuse
      • Author by timesthree (May 21, 2010 2:22 am ET)
        10  
        What Paul, Stossel and You don't seem to understand is that in 1964 denying services to blacks, Jews, etc. would have been good for business. And in some parts of the US, it would still be good for business to have all white restaurants, hotels, etc.

        Occasionally, such as in Brown v Board, the government has to be ahead of the people in order to protect the dignity and rights of all its citizens.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mookie von zipper (May 21, 2010 2:58 am ET)
            14
          they and i do understand that rubber stamping laws does not change hearts and minds, the court of public opinion does... if, by some parts of the united states, you mean the south, try hailing a taxi while black in new york or boston... i take issue with the assertion that segregation was and is good for business, and would only allow that isolated, anecdotal success stories, for lack of a better phrase, occurred... a business trying that now, should public accommodation be repealed, would face a public relations disaster and deservedly so... but they should have the right to be stupid, backward and neanderthal...

          my dad was a dj in 1950's tennessee, at the height of segregation... white like me, he once organized a sock hop and invited kids from both the white and black schools... the white parents and school officials said no way... he went ahead with the black sock hop, to which the white kids wound up attending against their parents and officials wishes...

          more hearts and minds, less government instrusion...

          Report Abuse
          • Author by mhughen (May 21, 2010 11:53 am ET)
            8  
            You laissez faire adherents are dedicated to the purity of your ayn randian objectivism the same way a fundamentalist, religious nutjob believes their religion is the 'only way.' Despite all the facts to the contrary, you are unbending on the idea that the Fed Gov't powers are unsuitable/unconstitutional to regulate 'private business." Goldman Sachs, coal mine disasters, oil spills, enrons, ecoli, tainted toothpaste, led in my kids toys . . . jeebus! the list goes on and on demonstrating the NEED for intelligent efficient regulations. You free-market knuckle-draggers want us to go back to the wild f$%king west and in your arguments to do so you are forced to defend the proposition that racism is acceptable where the magic hand of free market says so. I wish your magic hand would plug that gushing hole the Gulf of Mexico.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mookie von zipper (May 22, 2010 9:19 am ET)
                6
              your equating public safety with social behavior and free thought is straight out of 1984... gimme the wild fvcking west any day...

              Report Abuse
              • Author by congero6189599 (May 22, 2010 1:12 pm ET)
                5  
                a stateless society. A libertarians fantasy. What a kook.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by mookie von zipper (May 22, 2010 3:04 pm ET)
                    5
                  i'm comparing the wild west to oceania... try to keep up...

                  Report Abuse
          • Author by Old_Benjamin (May 21, 2010 11:58 am ET)
            7  
            my dad was a dj in 1950's tennessee, at the height of segregation... white like me, he once organized a sock hop and invited kids from both the white and black schools... the white parents and school officials said no way... he went ahead with the black sock hop, to which the white kids wound up attending against their parents and officials wishes...


            I think you are getting confused with Footloose.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by christopher howard (May 21, 2010 1:06 pm ET)
              8  
              Or Hairspray.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Old_Benjamin (May 21, 2010 3:06 pm ET)
                6  
                <zing>
                Report Abuse
              • Author by mookie von zipper (May 22, 2010 9:25 am ET)
                  6
                as for hairspray, i've seen both and prefer the john walters original version... and that plot was specfically about the integration of a tv dance show for white teenagers, not a black sock hop...

                Report Abuse
            • Author by mookie von zipper (May 22, 2010 9:23 am ET)
                5
              you're just plain confused... i haven't seen footloose, but it's my understanding that it concerned a town banning dancing altogether...


              Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (May 21, 2010 2:28 pm ET)
            9  
            Your father's anecdotal sock hop history I am sure is fascinating to you, however it does nothing to explain you or the other right-wingers' defense here. It is a fact that businesses were doing just fine in the South under Jim Crow. Many of them were. Some of them were flourishing.

            You say "a business trying that now" as if that actually supports your position. It actually supports the argument against yours. "Now" is YEARS after the government forced integration onto these busineses. Yes, if we went back now there would probably be very few busineses that would still profit from their racism. But, that is only after two generations have gone by since they were forced into integration. And, you cannot have it both ways. You and Paul cannot claim to be against this law, but only today. You would be fine with it once the Jim Crow laws come back. That is a cowardice of principle at the highest level. Either you think separate drinking fountains and every thing else should have been left alone, or you think the government was correct in stepping in.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by congero6189599 (May 21, 2010 2:47 pm ET)
              4  
              Exactly MH.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by mookie von zipper (May 22, 2010 9:29 am ET)
                5
              it is fascinating to me, and what it does explain is the concept of hearts and minds overcoming antiquated and repugnant belief systems... my dad didn't need a federal regulation or the national guard to integrate a sock hop...

              Report Abuse
              • Author by congero6189599 (May 22, 2010 12:44 pm ET)
                5  
                unfortunately your dads sock hop didn't end segregation now did it.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by mookie von zipper (May 22, 2010 3:05 pm ET)
                    5
                  that's quite the astute observation on your part... not much gets by you...

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mary59 (May 23, 2010 12:11 am ET)
                    4  
                    I enjoy the part where your daddy bought all the Woolworth franchises and department stores in the South and let in all the coloreds. Praise be to your daddy. He was a regular one man army of non-bigotry.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by mookie von zipper (May 23, 2010 1:55 am ET)
                        3
                      on a 1-to-10 scale, 10 being rather witty, i would rate your comment -5000 on the who-gives-a-rat's-ass-o-meter...

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by mary59 (May 23, 2010 2:34 pm ET)
                        4  
                        Really? Guess that's why you bothered to reply. Thanks.
                        Report Abuse
        • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (May 21, 2010 7:55 am ET)
          7  
          What Paul, Stossel and You don't seem to understand is that in 1964 denying services to blacks, Jews, etc. would have been good for business. And in some parts of the US, it would still be good for business to have all white restaurants, hotels, etc.

          Oh, I'm quite sure that mookie von zippythepinhead knows that, but is so blindly in love with free-markets-at-all-cost-though-they-slay-us that he's willing to blind himself while trying to blind us as well. And that's the most benevolent interpretation of his dreck that I can imagine...
          Report Abuse
      • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (May 21, 2010 7:53 am ET)
        5  
        these ignorant examples of sub-humanity should be allowed to expose themselves and their clientele, and then ultimately fail...

        Yeah, like they were failing all over the place prior to the CRA of 1964. You just couldn't keep a business afloat in the South without catering to all races, right?

        Idiot...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Lord of Light (May 21, 2010 8:25 am ET)
          6  
          Well, according to Stossel, the horrible intrusive big government forced all that on them! Southern racists really didn't want to have racist policies, ya see? C'mon, we all remember how easy it was in, say, Birmingham in 1963, to get the equality in place. Think Bull Connor.

          Plus, when desegregation became law, Southern whites just breathed a huge sigh of relief that the government wasn't telling them to keep blacks out of their schools. God bless America!

          <sarcasm off> For people who claim to love the country so much, wingnuts sure don't know much about its history.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (May 21, 2010 8:30 am ET)
            6  
            For people who claim to love the country so much, wingnuts sure don't know much about its history.

            They're far too busy trying to re-write it to have actually read it...
            Report Abuse
        • Author by mookie von zipper (May 22, 2010 9:34 am ET)
            6
          your childish name-calling does not diminish my argument and sure as hell does nothing to enhance yours...

          you might try threatening to beat me up after school, then maybe i'll see the light...

          Report Abuse
          • Author by congero6189599 (May 22, 2010 1:05 pm ET)
            6  
            mookie we have already been through your insane backward arguments. It was called the defeat of reconstruction . I suggest you review that history as well as Plessy v. Ferguson . the period after reconstruction ws one of the most brutal in our history turning back many of the gains the ex-slaves and society made after the civil war and unleashed over 100yrs. of state enforced second class citizenship on people of color. The withdrawal of federal support for the ex=slaves help create this condition and it wasn't until the Federal government stepped in due to pressure from civil rights groups that it began to change. Your fathers sock hop had nothing to do with it.

            Furthermore if private businesses have a right to discriminate,who will enforce that right? If I as a black man decide to sit down at a restuarant and the owner calls the police to evict me...don't you see we've been down this road before? Do you not remember the beatings,lynchings,arrest,intimidation,the waterhosing,police dogs that were unleashed because private businesses in the South saw it as their right to serve who they wanted based on color. Businesses who for the most part would have lost patronage if they served black people. We've had this discussion and fight before and it seems we need to have it again becuase of the ignorance of people like you.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mookie von zipper (May 22, 2010 3:09 pm ET)
                7
              your premise only makes sense if you believe the prevailing bigoted notions of the day, particularly those in the south, have not changed one iota... i submit to you the politics of division, a favorite tactic of liberal democrats, is what has arrested the development of race relations in this country...

              Report Abuse
      • Author by christopher howard (May 21, 2010 8:58 am ET)
        6  
        "while i'm not surprised that mmfa and their loyal minions here are incapable of having an intellectually honest discussion about race relations in this country, it still sickens me and i'm fed up with the race card constantly being played when it's no where near deserved..."

        It is deserved in this case. Both men have intimated that they want to see a day where "Whites Only" can appear on hotel signs and restaurant doors again as a matter of free-market freedom. You are defending this.

        "pretending that paul and stossel believe in segregation or white supremacy is nothing short of a smear of the worst kind..."

        No, they just want to repeal basic civil rights legislation. Their pretending that they are against racism while pushing for this is deeply dishonest, no less so your mealy-mouthed defense of both men.

        "and failing to grasp the simple concept that government mandating a racist business owner to not be stupid does nothing to advance race relations in this country..."

        Bunk. Laws are not designed to change hearts and minds, but to regulate behavior. A person's inner desire to drive 100mph while intoxicated may not be changed by traffic laws, but said laws protect society.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mookie von zipper (May 22, 2010 9:48 am ET)
            7
          they do not want to repeal basic civil rights legislation and have made it very clear that it's the public accommodation aspect of the bill that they oppose...

          saying they are intimating they want a return to "whites only" is a stretch at best, and a smear at worst...

          laws indeed are meant to regulate behavior... but how does this change the heart and mind of a racist?... how effective was big brother in controlling winston smith's thoughts in oceania?...

          Report Abuse
          • Author by congero6189599 (May 22, 2010 1:41 pm ET)
            5 1
            I could care less about changing the heart and mind of a racist but at least the law does not allow racist to deny my human rights. It wasn't always that way.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mookie von zipper (May 22, 2010 3:13 pm ET)
                7
              if you are/were a man/woman of color, would you patronize a business if you knew the owner was a racist who is being mandated to serve you, thereby putting your ostensibly hard earned money in his pocket?...

              Report Abuse
              • Author by christopher howard (May 22, 2010 4:25 pm ET)
                5  
                "they do not want to repeal basic civil rights legislation and have made it very clear that it's the public accommodation aspect of the bill that they oppose..."

                Oh, yes. Just the part that says everyone can go to a movie, restaurant or a hotel without facing a sign that says "you are not welcome here."

                "...saying they are intimating they want a return to "whites only" is a stretch at best, and a smear at worst..."

                Stossel and Paul smeared themselves by saying they want to revisit hard earned civil rights gains. I don't give a damn if they are not "racist in their hearts" if their extreme libertarianism leads to a place where public accommodations suddenly become verboten to select groups.

                "...laws indeed are meant to regulate behavior... but how does this change the heart and mind of a racist?... how effective was big brother in controlling winston smith's thoughts in oceania?"

                1984 is a work of fiction and, in answer to your (how effective?) question: "...he had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother". I'd say the answer is "very effective."

                Something that is a law can long-term change attitudes as people adjust to the new normal (e.g.; a nation where racism is not an agreed upon norm as it was throughout much of the US not too long ago).

                If I can avoid being run over by a drunk driver because he's been pulled over or lost his license, I don't care what his heart or mind says about drunk driving laws. Laws that proscribe behavior do not make us Oceania, Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. Sorry.

                "If you are/were a man/woman of color, would you patronize a business if you knew the owner was a racist who is being mandated to serve you, thereby putting your ostensibly hard earned money in his pocket?"

                There are a lot of schmucks I don't want to have my money, but I'm not going to not shop at a place because the owner might harbor resentments about having to serve "someone like me."
                Report Abuse
                • Author by mookie von zipper (May 23, 2010 1:29 pm ET)
                    2
                  "you are not welcome here"
                  i wouldn't be surprised if some owner, somewhere, would be stupid enough to deploy such a business model... but seriously, this unfounded fear of rampant jim crowism does not address the issue at heart and has as much merit as those that say the tea partiers are radical, violent revolutionaries hellbent on anarchy...

                  "law can change long-term attitudes"
                  perhaps, perhaps not... prohibition, anyone?... equating drunk driving with an antiquated racist attitude is not exactly apples-to-apples... someone being offended by racism doesn't imperil their life... if you think a law will make a racist see the light of day, then enjoy your thoughts being controlled in utopialand...

                  Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (May 21, 2010 11:19 am ET)
        3  
        I disagree about whether or not the govt should mandate. Are race relations better now than they were prior to the civil rights act? I think most people would say yes. As for Paul and Stossel I sort of agree with you but I think they put far too much faith in the free market to solve everything. Now after 40 years of improvement businesses might be cutting their own throats by displaying such open bigotry but prior to the civil rights act it was common place and accepted. We could not have gotten where we are today without the original mandate.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mookie von zipper (May 22, 2010 11:19 am ET)
          1 7
          i'd like to think we could have improved race relations without the civil rights act but of course we'll never know the answer to that... a lot of people here may not realize there are 10 sections to the law, and i would agree that 9 were much needed... public accommodation is the issue of this thread... then there's the affirmative action section which all too often is bastardized from barring discrimination of minorities into a quota system designed to punish white men for past injustices...

          Report Abuse
          • Author by congero6189599 (May 22, 2010 2:06 pm ET)
            5  
            Of course we have the answer to that. How many years was it after the defeat of reconstruction did it take for the 1964 civil rights act to be passed?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mookie von zipper (May 22, 2010 3:16 pm ET)
                6
              how many years after the civil rights act did it take for racism to be eradicated?...

              Report Abuse
              • Author by mary59 (May 22, 2010 6:32 pm ET)
                6  
                That is a nonsense question.

                The change in accomodation was dramatic. And the change in consciousness is slower but equally dramatic, considering the rate of change between pre and post civil rights laws.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by juliajayne1 (May 22, 2010 7:40 pm ET)
                5  
                Racism will probably never be eradicated. And that's the very essence against your argument here.

                Mookie, you speak of hearts and minds being changed, but some never will. That's what you don't seem to get. That just because institutionalized racism isn't now accepted by most people, that businesses should be allowed to go back to the "good old days" and be left to their own devices to discriminate is really mindless. It's actually only an argument that can be made now that civil rights have been enacted and the results seen as Mary articulated.

                Do you really not see the dichotomy in what you say?

                Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (May 21, 2010 1:04 pm ET)
        5  
        We don't know if they believe in racism or white supremacy. However, it is very clear that they believe that segregation should, in fact, be allowed and defended by the US government. They are clearly defending the idea that only the free market should be allowed to dictate the idea that America does not allow separate drinking fountains, etc.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mookie von zipper (May 22, 2010 11:33 am ET)
            5
          there are plenty of drinking fountains in government facilities, and they are not in favor any government, local, state or federal, segregating anything... but, yes, they are defending free market segregation... a private business should have the right to be:

          stupid
          hateful
          ignorant
          racist

          i don't know why this concept is so offensive... it should be the behavior, not the right to do so, that should be shunned... most people would agree that freedom of speech would include the right to say something offensive but at the same time defend the right to do so...

          Report Abuse
          • Author by congero6189599 (May 22, 2010 1:52 pm ET)
            5  
            amazing you use the same arguments that the southern segregationist used prior to civil rights act. Do you not remember the battles and struggles that took place when a black man or women dareed to sit at a lunch counter? You want to return to the days of "if your white your alright,if your brown stick around,if your black get back." All with the protection of the state because if private business has a right to discriminate based on gender,race or whatever the the the state has a duty to protect that right. I thought went down this road before with all of it's ugliness,how many people sacrificed their blood and lives to bring us out of the dark ages your ignorance will return us too.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mookie von zipper (May 22, 2010 3:19 pm ET)
                5
              well, if the civil rights act didn't end racism, surely obama's election will, right?...

              Report Abuse
              • Author by MiniTru (May 22, 2010 6:27 pm ET)
                4  
                The CRA wasn't intended to end racism, that's an internal feeling held by bigots. What the CRA was intended to do was prevent the bigots from acting on their racism, especially if they ran a business open to the public.
                Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (May 21, 2010 1:10 pm ET)
        6  
        "these ignorant examples of sub-humanity should be allowed to expose themselves and their clientele, and then ultimately fail..." - mookie

        Well, that is a stunning example of ignorance. So, you and Paul are now suggesting that the free market would have put these racists and their segregated businesses out of business. Facts be damned, I guess. I thought it was the far left that lived in a utopian dream world. You right-wingers today never cease to amaze me. Have you ever considered the possibility of what we do if the free market actually rewards these hotels for using separate drinking fountains? You would be OK living in that world as long as you could excuse it to the free market? Unbelievable.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by congero6189599 (May 21, 2010 2:26 pm ET)
          4  
          Mike if they believe that private business has a right to discriminate who and what would enforce that right ? We've gone through this discussion before,remember the police in the south enforcing that right before the 64 Act. Do we really want to go back to police dogs,waterhoses,beatings,jailings,lynchings and intimidation. This is backward,nothing new and it should be exposed. Child labor laws,minimum wage,right of workers to organize,social security,Medicare,Healthcare reform all revolve around this issue of whether the government has any right to regulate private business. This is whats behind this small government talk and once seen in that light we can see how fringe and radical the tea-baggers and cons are. Of course they will argue that they don't want to argue established law but the reply is not what the government is doing but SHOULD it have a right to do it.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (May 21, 2010 2:30 pm ET)
            6  
            And I thought rational adults were actually beyond this conversation by now. Of course the government can excercise some control over private businesses. This just baffles me.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by mookie von zipper (May 22, 2010 11:50 am ET)
            6
          perhaps you have a stunning example of data that proves the free market, over the course of the last 46 years, would not have weeded out the racist behavior of business owners...

          we'll never know one way or another... we do know that denny's had some trouble in this area years ago... had they not been mandated to serve minorities, losing millions of dollars in court, i suspect they would have lost much more money over a longer period of time if they insisted on continuing with their racist business model... but i can only speculate as well...

          Report Abuse
          • Author by congero6189599 (May 22, 2010 2:12 pm ET)
            6  
            Your post makes absolutely no sense,put down the bong dude you are trippin'.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mookie von zipper (May 22, 2010 3:21 pm ET)
                7
              maybe if you reread it a time or too you'll get it...

              Report Abuse
    • Author by BamaGuy1024 (May 21, 2010 8:46 am ET)
      8  
      Stossel is a racist bigot if he seriously believes that the law should be repealed. If it is, guess what will happen: the country will revert to the way it was 50 years ago, with race haters that own businesses refusing to serve people of color. WHAT IS HAPPENING IN AMERICA when Fox News is allowed to advocate such insanity?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by j238 (May 21, 2010 8:57 am ET)
      5  
      * * Question for John Stossel * *

      Someone should ask him this. (I once did get to ask him something on a call-in show years ago. Wasn't permitted a follow-up.)

      Since you believe that the government should not interfere with privately owned businesses to remedy discrimination in matters of public accommodation, does that mean you believe private businesses should be permitted to discriminate in areas of employment, housing, and credit if they choose to?

      His unwavering belief in free market ideology suggests his answer would be yes. In fairness, I'd really like to hear John Stossel's own answer.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by cameron19 (May 21, 2010 8:59 am ET)
      5  
      If you agree with nine out of ten...then just be happy with it!

      Obviously, we are a very diverse nation and your NEVER ever gonna get exactly what your want...be happy with what you got.
      This seems like another distraction put on by the the party who is struggling... (Ooo, look at this shiny bright thing over here, while we try to sneek somthing in over there...)

      Dumb, thats all it is... way more pertinant things to focus on!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by cameron19 (May 21, 2010 9:14 am ET)
        4  
        I ddnt think i needed to specify which party is strugglin...but its the repubs... no matter how much faux (never balanced) news!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by pamiety (May 21, 2010 10:00 am ET)
          5  
          Amazing how Republicans/Conservatives scream that blacks are so are naive when voting for Democratic/Liberal candidates that we are 'sheeple'. Then they think Michael Steeles, Condi Rices, Gen. Powells are reasons to vote for them.(I believe Condi voted for Obama )./ I can't wait for the spin from the 'right' about this form of racism.(SMH)
          .
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mookie von zipper (May 22, 2010 11:52 am ET)
              3
            powell publicly endorsed obama for president...

            Report Abuse
            • Author by congero6189599 (May 22, 2010 3:00 pm ET)
              2  
              missing the point again.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mookie von zipper (May 22, 2010 3:28 pm ET)
                  5
                there is no spin form the right about this form of racism... conversely, how often do the likes of michael steele have to endure being called uncle toms simply for their political views...

                those people should listen to this guy

                Report Abuse
                • Author by christopher howard (May 22, 2010 6:10 pm ET)
                  3  
                  I listened to him. Wow, he's black AND he can spew idiotic rightwing talking points.
                  Report Abuse
    • Author by jms (May 21, 2010 9:18 am ET)
      2 6
      Stossel is absolutely right. I can't think of a better way to expose the true racists then to let them have their way. Let's expose them and marginalize them.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by j238 (May 21, 2010 9:40 am ET)
      5  
      When I was in college, the ethnic clubs were required to be open to all students. Stossel's analogy doesn't hold water.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by doggeddem (May 21, 2010 9:44 am ET)
      8 2
      John Stossel has just admitted that he is in favor of discrimination. He is in favor of racism, homophobia, and bigotry.
      "...because private businesses ought to get to discriminate." Case closed. John Stossel is a racist.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by whillenbrand (May 21, 2010 9:51 am ET)
      4  
      Wasn't Stossel a consumer advocate for WCBS in New York?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mhughen (May 21, 2010 9:56 am ET)
      6 1
      Libertarians and Conservatives are outraged, outraged, I tell you!
      One problem they have is that the more they talk about their complete adherence to Laissez Faire ideologies, the more rediculous and rigid they sound.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Bulletproof Air (May 21, 2010 11:21 am ET)
      5  
      Even Rand Paul didn't advocate physically REPEALING parts of the bill.....Jesus.....


      I was waiting for the crazies to start popping out of the woodworks now that Paul has inspired them...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rjackson1500@yahoo.com (May 21, 2010 11:31 am ET)
      3  
      should any of these pvt. businesses that republicans believe should have the right to sever whites only ever be in need of the police or fire dept.. i say send only the white cops and fire fighters....if these same people that support this should ever be hurt and need to be taken to a hospital they should be taken to a whites only..and should they ever need blood we should make sure that the blood comes from someone white is
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mookie von zipper (May 22, 2010 11:57 am ET)
          7
        cops and firefighters aren't private businesses... there is a section of the civil rights act that addresses governments denying access to public services... they are not in favor of repealing this...

        Report Abuse
    • Author by seahawks123 (May 21, 2010 12:03 pm ET)
        11
      Actually I think that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. All things business and groups should be all inclusive. The gay softball team should have to let straight people in. That there should be a WET( white entertainment channel ) to go along with BET ( black entertainment channel ). If a girl wants to join the Boy Scouts than so be it. Same if a boy wants to join the Girl Scouts. If we are going to be all inclusive than lets do it.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (May 21, 2010 12:56 pm ET)
        9  
        I thought Fox News was the White Entertainment Channel?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by christopher howard (May 21, 2010 1:10 pm ET)
          8  
          Spit it out, Seahawks. Do you think hotels and restaurants should refuse food and accomodation based on race? If so, have the courage of your convictions and say so.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by seahawks123 (May 21, 2010 1:18 pm ET)
              12
            They wouldn't. They would loose money. I know capitalism is foreign to you libs so let me put it in terms even you can understand. If you have 2 different hotels. One allows minorities and the other doesn't. The one that does makes more than the one that doesn't. The one that doesn't will go out of business. No government involvement what so ever.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by The New Pilgrims (May 21, 2010 1:23 pm ET)
              9  
              We already tried that approach. It didn't work.

              C'mon, seahawks123, just admit it: You hate black people.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by seahawks123 (May 21, 2010 1:34 pm ET)
                  11
                Of course that and the gay hispanic that is my friend and my neighbor who is black and I've had over to my house for beer and BBQ.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by The New Pilgrims (May 21, 2010 1:45 pm ET)
                  7  
                  So you know a black person. And he's been in your house.

                  Well that certainly proves you're no racist (cough).
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by christopher howard (May 21, 2010 1:52 pm ET)
                    8  
                    "They wouldn't. They would loose money."

                    So if it was financially feasible you're for it?

                    "I know capitalism is foreign to you libs..."

                    Not even close.

                    "...so let me put it in terms even you can understand."

                    Yes, please do so, you patronizing twit.

                    "If you have 2 different hotels. One allows minorities and the other doesn't. The one that does makes more than the one that doesn't. The one that doesn't will go out of business. No government involvement what so ever."

                    So your explanation is a rehash of your stupid opening statement. I ask again... if a model that includes refusing service to minorities is financially viable, you're for it. Correct?
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by papa bear3 (May 21, 2010 1:54 pm ET)
                    6  
                    . . . don't forget the UPS guy and the cable man
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by onementalgiant (May 23, 2010 10:50 am ET)
                      3
                    How typical - and hypocritical (redundant) that a regular MMFA poster calls out an opposing poster who says they have minority friends, yet when one of their "own" does the exact same thing they allow them a great big pass! (I refer to bintx statement she 'has many, many Hispanic friends' from a few days ago). Or how about DellDolly saying 'The blacks' when talking about them as a group.

                    The degree of hypocrisy that comes from the left amazes me every single day.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by congero6189599 (May 23, 2010 12:02 pm ET)
                      3  
                      yea it's hard to tell the difference in a garden when your wearing blinders. Reason becomes difficult also to one who is a mental midget.
                      Report Abuse
            • Author by jediknight65 (May 21, 2010 1:34 pm ET)
              3  
              so you wanna bring back jim crow there eh? well try it and see how well that works out for ya.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (May 21, 2010 2:40 pm ET)
              6  
              What if the free market acutally rewards segregation? Clearly, the free market was not getting rid of Jim Crow laws on its own. Are you completely ignorant of basic American history? So, if the free market were to dictate that it is OK for hotels to have separate drinking fountains, etc. you would be OK with that? As long as you god, the free market, approves of it you don't have to deal with it, right?
              Report Abuse
      • Author by jediknight65 (May 21, 2010 1:25 pm ET)
        3  
        so then you disagree with stossel and rand paul. your fellow teabaggers won't like that one bit.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (May 21, 2010 2:42 pm ET)
        5  
        Psst. Seahawks, I know you are always woefully unaware of the nonsense you spew. But, white people are allowed to watch BET. I swear. Try it.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (May 21, 2010 8:35 pm ET)
        7  
        Actually I think that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. All things business and groups should be all inclusive.

        NOW you want to include us! ~

        The reason for "gay softball teams" or "BET" is NOT because Gays, African Americans and other minorities DIDN'T want to include White folks. It's because White folks DID NOT want to include them, so they formed their own clubs or groups!

        You seem to have forgotten (on purpose?) your history.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by congero6189599 (May 22, 2010 2:37 pm ET)
        4  
        WET...the ignorance of history and actual current events is astounding in the post of you cons defending discrimination. When you don't understand history I guess everything looks the same. Tell me why would there be a need for a white entertainment channel? Don't whites control most if not all of the stations and cable network providers? Isn't it the white owned corporations that determine whats on those channels and who works for them?

        Who says someone who is not gay can't be on a gay softball team? If you want to play on one I'am sure you'd be accepted. Mostly it's the other way around with those who are gay having to hide their identity.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by mickeba (May 21, 2010 3:54 pm ET)
      4  
      He's a clown! A total loser. I knew a guy like him once, who clung to the "no one will discriminate if it costs them business" argument. It's sickening. They have public roads outside their business, and public sidewalks. The police are a public group, as are the firefighters. If some community managed to farm out the police or fire to a private company, would Stossell the idiot claim that the "private" police or "private fire department" can discriminate as to who they help? I'm sure he would. What a jackass! And John, you are a racist. At least admit it.

      mickeba
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mookie von zipper (May 22, 2010 12:08 pm ET)
          6
        any contractor of a municipality is bound by said municipality's laws, in this case, federal law... any local or state government would still be in violation the 1964 civil rights act, specifically the section dealing with denial of public services, if their contractor discriminated...

        Report Abuse
        • Author by congero6189599 (May 22, 2010 12:45 pm ET)
          3  
          But if it was left up to you there would be no 1964 civil right act.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mookie von zipper (May 22, 2010 3:34 pm ET)
              7
            why would you say that when i've been very clear thoughout this thread that the only section of the 10 section civil rights act i wouldn't mind seeing repealed is the one concerning public accommodation?...

            i'll tell you why... you're incapable of understanding simple concepts without allowing your emotions to interfere with preconceived notions of stereotypical archetypes...

            Report Abuse
            • Author by mary59 (May 22, 2010 6:26 pm ET)
              6  
              Dear zipper,
              Please post again when you grow up and admit you have never lived through and certainly have never experienced the kind of discriminatory practices you write so cavalierly about. It's no concern of yours except as an "intellectual exercise."

              The cluelessness is painful.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mookie von zipper (May 23, 2010 1:44 am ET)
                  3
                i trust you are a woman of color who has lived through and experienced the kind of discriminatory practices i write so cavalierly about, as your premise would dismiss anyone else voicing concern in this matter, pro or con, as "intellectual exercise"...

                the cluelessness isn't painful... it's pathetic...

                Report Abuse
                • Author by CatsRBigLuv (May 23, 2010 3:50 am ET)
                  4  

                  Well mucky, you must be proud.

                  All that hot air peppered with 10 dollar whoppers and the transparently bogus equivocation of a very stupid premise... the trust-fund was as well spent as your time defending Stossel.

                  Whatever your background, your lack of understanding (and your adamant reluctance to understand) is far more revealing than any bs hypothetical non-sense you are attempting (quit poorly) to propose.

                  Your tone and word-use reveals someone too young to really comprehend what the significance of this issue really is.

                  Perhaps one day you might know what bigotry really tastes like (I mean, if you consider being dressed down by Mary59 to be the equivalent of racial or sexual discrimination... well, you really need to grow up. Youre talking about the living experience of real human beings, your talking about a very real period in Americas history... these arent theoretical issues, ok?)

                  So here's hoping your car breaks down in a place where you are neither safe nor welcome SOLELY because of your skin, or your religion, or your sexuality, or your hair-color, or your perceived social standing, or your outfit, or whatever.)
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mookie von zipper (May 23, 2010 1:51 pm ET)
                    1 6
                    i'm 50, if you must know... but for someone ostensibly old enough to comprehend the english language, as you suggest, your confusing my reply to mary59 with an attempt at equivalency with discrimination belies this...

                    "so here's hoping your car breaks down in a place where you are neither safe nor welcome SOLELY because of your skin, or your religion, or your sexuality, or your hair-color, or your perceived social standing, or your outfit, or whatever.)"
                    telling me to grow up, and fantasizing about me being in peril, in lieu of cogent points, seems to be the running theme here lately... you all are really quite emotional, aren't you?...

                    Report Abuse
    • Author by mickeba (May 21, 2010 3:56 pm ET)
      3  
      A gross new twist on the old "I may disagree with your opinion but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to free speech". People should get to be racist. Unreal.

      mickeba
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wootton_752714 (May 21, 2010 7:58 pm ET)
      3  
      I'm sure Stossel would happily walk away if I refused to serve him because he has a moustache. I hate them 'tasches.

      I know I might be a cynic here but I feel that those who have never, and probably never will, experience discrimination because of who they are see no problem in giving others the right to discriminate?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rtmesq6717 (May 21, 2010 7:59 pm ET)
      7  
      I look at Media Matters website almost every day but I havn't posted a comment in several years.

      John Stossel has found a home at Fox. At least twenty years ago, long before the rise of cable news, Stossel did an hour documentary called "The Blame Game" about our civil justice system (I think it was on 20/20). If fact, it was a sham piece and nothing more than an specious infomercial for the insurance industry. To my recollection this was the first instance of blatant conservative misinformation in the mainstream media that I can remember.

      I never thought I'd be agreeing with Megan Kelly (who has a sharp legal mind but is a shill for the right). The Civil Rights Act and several other social pieces of that era were enacted under the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. And restaurants and gas stations, etc. do impact interstate commerce. They purchase and re-sell food and energy grown or manfactured out of state.

      Private discrimination (or association) is still legal and we, as a free society, cannot regulate thought or most speach (unless criminal or a clear and imminent danger to public safety). And persons who hold and practice these views should also be punished in the marketplace. For example, an avowed white supremist passed the Illinois Bar Exam but was denied admission to practice. I say give him his law license. What law firm would want to hire him? How do you think judges would react to him even on unrelated cases? Will many people, including whites, select another attorney because of his publically stated views on race?

      Stossel's ending and unrelated comments about complex election laws keeping people from running for public office is also nonsense. Well over 90% of elected offices are local officeholders (school boards, city or village councils, mayors, trustees, etc). The requirements are minimal and straighforward and local election boards provide simple and plain instructions to prospective candidates. The rejection rate of nomination petitions in my State is well below 5%. And shouldn't someone interested in running for an office put in enought time to figure out the entrance requirements? And if you're running for federal or statewide office you're going to be an experienced political candidate and have legal counsel (often provided free by your political parties)provide advise on complinace and campaign finance matters.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by j238 (May 21, 2010 11:17 pm ET)
      4  
      If John Stossel find himself turned away from a place of business where he really needs to use the restroom, I wonder if "free market solution" will be the first thing on his mind.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by union (May 21, 2010 11:42 pm ET)
      4  
      I think Stossel's mustache has grown into his brain.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rowdimus (May 22, 2010 12:21 am ET)
      4  
      Has Stossel lost his f'n mind?!! What a pile of un-American garbage!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by SkeeterVT (May 22, 2010 8:38 am ET)
      3  
      There has been an ongoing advertiser boycott of Fox's Glenn Beck show. Now it's time to expand the boycott to the ENTIRE Fox News Channel!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by chavez_frank9414 (May 22, 2010 2:27 pm ET)
      3  
      It's easy for Stossel and Paul to say things like this because they aren't from groups that have been discriminated against. I doubt you'd ever hear a Afro-American, Hispanic, Asian, Jew or woman of any ethnicity saying something like this. Well Michelle Malkin or someone like that but not someone normal.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by fantagor (May 22, 2010 3:50 pm ET)
      4  
      The central argument here is absurd in the extreme. He and Paul would permit "private" businesses, y'know, like ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Microsoft, and tens of thousands of other PUBLICLY traded entities created with GOVERNMENT approval, to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color or religion...but of course neither man would have anything to do with such entities.

      That makes as much sense as saying you're against food poisoning but think restaurants should have the right to serve spoiled food, although you'd avoid such establishments, and for a good reason because there's an interest in not wanting to be poisoned. But on the other hand, you are OK with others being poisoned, if that's the wishes of management.

      If this food poisoning analogy sounds senseless, good, because Stossel and Paul sound like that to me and every mentally fit person on Earth.

      Randy
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shag11 (May 22, 2010 8:43 pm ET)
         
      Hitler's lineage.
      Report Abuse