Sarah Palin Endorses Clint Didier For Senate

[joethiesmanfan]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Correct me if I'm wrong here. Are you saying that the Negro League was preferred by black people? That they preferred to have their own league than play in the major leagues?

Not saying that. Just saying that before the majors were integrated there was a Negro league , there were black hotel chains, etc. So to say a black person couldn't get a hotel on I-95 is a stretch to say the least. (That is no way to run a country though) is waht I said as my point after that.

[SmootSmack]

Ok, got it

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by joethiesmanfan

Not saying that. Just saying that before the majors were integrated there was a Negro league , there were black hotel chains, etc. So to say a black person couldn't get a hotel on I-95 is a stretch to say the least. (That is no way to run a country though) is waht I said as my point after that.

More often than not, black Americans in the early 1960s had to rely on rented rooms in private homes or the hospitality of friends if they were to travel far from their home. Hotels and motels dotted along highways and in towns provided comfortable accommodations for white Americans but black Americans had no access to these establishments.

Justice Clark wrote that in researching Congress' debate over the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the evidence was clear the difficulties black Americans encountered in their attempts to find accommodations "had the effect of discouraging travel on the part of a substantial [large] portion of the Negro community." The evidence was "overwhelming . . . that discrimination by hotels and motels impedes [interferes with] interstate travel" and, therefore, obstructs interstate commerce.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States: Supreme Court Drama

It appears the case is from Georgia going by the hotels name of "heart of atlanta" but I could have sworn and still do believe it was a florida state case.

This link isnt the SC opinion but a synopsis.

If anyone is interested in learning alil about the long stretching and evolving powers of the interstate commerce clause and how it effects state rights vs federal powers, this case synopsis provides a quick, to the point summary which is a helpful and proper starting point for such discussions.

if you ever wondered how the fed gov't can enforce it's will and sense of fairness upon individual states, this is the tool they use.

[joethiesmanfan]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

More often than not, black Americans in the early 1960s had to rely on rented rooms in private homes or the hospitality of friends if they were to travel far from their home. Hotels and motels dotted along highways and in towns provided comfortable accommodations for white Americans but black Americans had no access to these establishments.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States: Supreme Court Drama

It appears the case is from Georgia going by the hotels name of "heart of atlanta" but I could have sworn and still do believe it was a florida state case.

This link isnt the SC opinion but a synopsis.

Let's be realistic. From what I have been taught, and hotels were a major issue. That one of the things lost by the black community to desegeration was black owned nationwide hotel chains. They went out of business after desegregation. Plus, if you pay attention to I-95 it goes up and down the coasts of NC, SC, and Florida. There are plenty of predominantly black areas up and down this highway. Will come with a link after lunch.

[over the mountain]

knock yourself out, i wasnt around in the '60s so I can only go by what i read. i really dont care either way, i was just passing along and interfusing this discussion with alil relevant law. i was not trying to revisit or reargue the law or SC opinions or findings.

kinda hard to argue with the facts the SC relied upon in reaching a unanimous opinion which has stood for over 40 years.

before you spend time fashioning a rebuttal, i suggest you read the actual court opinion. how can you argue with a SC opinion if you havent read that opinion yet? seems like you have a real interest in this kinda thing, i find it interesting too, so i think you will enjoy and learn some things as well.

[CRedskinsRule]

Where are Atlanta's Black-Owned Hotels?

Atlanta's Black - Owned Hotels - A History

The history of the industry that provides sleeping quarters is not totally devoid of Black hotel owners. Black-owned and operated hotels have existed since pre-turn of the century Atlanta.

• In 1895, Colonel Wesley Redding, a bank teller, entrepreneur and the first Black resident of Auburn Avenue east of Boulevard (where the MLK family home was located) opened the European Hotel in time to accommodate Blacks attending the Cotton States Exposition in Piedmont Park that year. The hotel opened three years after the Atlanta City Council passed an ordinance making segregation legal.

• In 1901, Katie McBride opened the Mackie Bee Hotel, said to be the "only colored hotel in the city." An advertisement indicates that rates are $1 to $2 per day and boasts of being "up-to-date and first class, completely furnished and meets every requirement of a strictly modern and first class hotel." It was located at 115 Houston St., at the corner Piedmont (Citizens Trust Bank is located on that corner today).

• In 1913, J.H. Hawk opened the Hawk Hotel near the Old Union Shed on Central Ave. Advertisements in The Atlanta Independent, a weekly-Black-owned Atlanta newspaper, boasted of the "hot-and-cold bath" features.

• In 1921, The McKay Hotel opened in the newly built Citizens Trust Bank Building on Auburn Avenue. In 1949, the name was changed to the Hotel Royal, which was purchased by entrepreneur Carrie Cunningham who also purchased the Top Hat Club in 1949 for $31,000 and renamed it the Royal Peacock.

• In 1924, Alonzo F. Herndon built and opened the three-story Herndon Building on Auburn Avenue at the corner of Butler Street. Among its offices and shops was the James Hotel, which was operated by Mary Walker James and her husband.

• In 1937, C.M. Pearson opened the Savoy Hotel in the Herndon Building after the James Hotel closed. It is said that hundreds gathered outside to see the Savoy sign light up on Auburn. The hotel’s ballroom became popular for its twice-weekly dances and was a favorite spot for club and fraternal functions.

• In 1951, developer Walter A. "Chief" Aikens opened the Waluhaje (a collection of the first letters of his children) building on West Lake Avenue in northwest Atlanta. The building was actually one of the first apartment-hotel sites and became popular for its ballroom featuring top jazz talent.

• In 1957, two new motels were established. O.T. Bell built the Bellview Hotel at the corner of Auburn and Piedmont (which later became the Palamont) and the University Motel on Northside Drive near MLK Jr. Drive. The hotel featured a small tavern, that became known as the Town Club. Rumor has it that the hotel was secretly financed by singer Ray Charles for a friend.

• In 1959, the three-story Danzig Motel opened on Chappell Road in northwest Atlanta.

• In 1967, James and Robert Paschal opened a five-story, 120-room Paschal’s Motor Hotel adjacent to their restaurant. In 1996, the complex was sold to Clark Atlanta University for $3 million.

• In 1975, a group of Black businesses formed the National Hotel Acquisition Corp. and purchased the 425-room Atlanta International Hotel for somewhere between $6 to $7 million. Within a year, the AIH owners were filing for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11.

• In 1979, the Empire Real Estate board unveiled plans to build a hotel at Interstate-20 and Ashby Street. The plan stalled due to lack of available financing.

• Feb. 8, 1995, The Atlanta Journal and Constitution carried a front-page story on plans by several African-American business leaders and the Vine City Housing Ministry to build a 225-room hotel on Northside Drive just across the street from the Georgia Dome. The story included an architectural rendering and costs of between $12 to $15 million. Listed as owners were developers Real Property Solutions, a Black-owned firm, the Vine City Housing Ministry and Johnny Moore, owner of the parcel where the hotel would be built. George Hawthorne, president of Real Property Solutions, told the newspaper that they envisioned the facility "would be under the downtown hotel market but less expensive, more quality and service oriented." The project never got beyond planning.

Long Road to Justice - Public Accommodations - Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

just information. Not sure what specific type links you were talking about jtf, but these seemed interesting to me.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

You can't be tricked into saying something that dumb...he spoke his mind and it seems that he is against "The" Law that banned systematic institutional racism in America. I don't know why you blame Maddow for his short comings.

C'mon now. The left would never try to paint a Republican candidate in a bad light. Since any link from Fox, Heritage, etc. would just be seen as blind defense of Paul, here's one from your Favorites List:

Rand Paul On Civil Rights Controversy: I Shouldn't Have Talked To Rachel Maddow [UPDATED]

Paul's statement from the link:

"I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
"Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws."

"As I have said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts in the intervening years."

"My opponent's statement on MSNBC Wednesday that I favor repeal of the Civil Rights Act was irresponsible and knowingly false. I hope he will correct the record and retract his claims."

"The issue of civil rights is one with a tortured history in this country. We have made great strides, but there is still work to be done to ensure the great promise of Liberty is granted to all Americans."

"This much is clear: The federal government has far overreached in its power grabs. Just look at the recent national healthcare schemes, which my opponent supports. The federal government, for the first time ever, is mandating that individuals purchase a product. The federal government is out of control, and those who love liberty and value individual and state's rights must stand up to it."

"These attacks prove one thing for certain: the liberal establishment is desperate to keep leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign."

The dude is no racist.

[joethiesmanfan]

History of Black Owned Hotels

just saying there were hotels to go to, desegregation was the goal.

[joethiesmanfan]

We off topic sorry bout that.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Paul's blunder was blindly walking into a trap. He should've never been on Maddow. She's been throwing race-bombs at the Tea Party for some time. She's Chris Matthews on steriods....with the same haircut. Nothing good could come from him being on that show. He should've foreseen that coming, and not allowed himself to be cornered like he was.

I don't know the man, but I'd bet a good sum of money he's not a racist. He was trying to stay true to his stance of very limited gov't at the expense of what is practically right (no reasonable person believes businesses should be allowed to discriminate against people based on the color of their skin). There are some cases where Fed intervention is needed, the Civil Rights Act was one of them.

Paul better get used to these type of attacks and playing on the big stage with big boy gloves or he won't make it to DC.

My feelings and yours about Rachel Maddow aside for a moment, did you actually see the interview? All of it? Because I did. And I'm 100% sure no one cornered Rand Paul into doing an interview with Rachel Maddow. In fact the tone was civil and there were no gotcha moments or questions. Now If Paul wants to thrust himself onto the scene as a national candidate worthy of the electorate's consideration to lead the state of Kentucky, and perhaps the country one day, then he should account for his views and articulate his policy prescriptions. I think that's fair and reasonable. Prior to the Maddow interview he made some controversial statements on NPR that raised a few eyebrows. The Maddow interview was more or less a follow-up to simply dig in a little more and allow Mr. Paul to clarify a few points regarding the Civil Rights Act and previous statements.

But let's really cut to the chase where all of this is headed. Conservatives would like to paint this as some witch hunt by the "looney left" to bring down Rand Paul and portray him as a racist. For the record, I don't think he would stand a bat's chance in hell of winning a national election and I don't believe he's a racist. But his libertarian views, I feel, would open the door to racial tension and undo much of the progress we've made over the past several decades. So on one hand no one is really trying to infer, at least I'm not, that Rand Paul is racist but on the other the unintended consequences of some of his views could very well lead us down that road. And that's just dangerous and irresponsible if you ask me.

For the first time since the berth of the Tea Party movement, we now have a national candidate and a voice that we can reasonably assume espouse their views and sentiments. During his victory speech, he openly declared himself as the voice of the Tea Party (paraphrased). So from here on out, as the anointed spokesman for the Tea Party, we can look no further than Rand Paul to see what it is they believe. When they say things like "take my country back", how does that look in terms of actual policy? That's the big question Rand Paul and the Tea Party will have to answer in the coming days.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by saden1

Someone as absent minded as you doesn't deserve more in a response. Check yourself, most of your post on this threat are pretty retarded dude...and this thread isn't the only thread where your post are wanting. Cut the crap and fix your thinking gaps...like Captain Planet says, "only you have the power."

Ahh yes, a "Captain Planet" reference. What a brilliant job of proving my point ...

But once again, no actual refutations.

[Beemnseven]

Would anyone here deny that the KKK or Fred Phelps the has the right to free speech? How about the right to peacably assemble? Most (I assume) would agree that disgusting and repugnant as they are -- yes, they do have those rights.

Now, how about their property rights? Do they enjoy those as well? That might be a little tougher for leftists; they tend to have their doubts about property rights in general. Property rights are no different whether you're talking about someone's home or a privately owned business. Now, would Goldwater or Ron or Rand Paul like to see businesses openly discriminating on the basis of color, national origin or religion? Absolutely not. But should a business be banned from putting a sign out saying 'minorities will not be served here'? That's no different from Fred Phelps who stands outside of funerals of fallen soldiers with the anti-homosexual banners. At that point you get into free speech issues.

It's a tough question for those who don't mind a little serious, introspective thinking. For those who lack the intellectual firepower to ponder something like that -- and you know who you are -- don't bother, you're sure to fry some brain circuitry.

That's all Goldwater and Paul's opposition to the Civil Rights act was -- a principled, though politically incorrect and unpopular stance on their devotion to the idea of individual rights -- even for the rights of those we find abhorrent.

[joethiesmanfan]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Would anyone here deny that the KKK or Fred Phelps the has the right to free speech? How about the right to peacably assemble? Most (I assume) would agree that disgusting and repugnant as they are -- yes, they do have those rights.

Now, how about their property rights? Do they enjoy those as well? That might be a little tougher for leftists; they tend to have their doubts about property rights in general. Property rights are no different whether you're talking about someone's home or a privately owned business. Now, would Goldwater or Ron or Rand Paul like to see businesses openly discriminating on the basis of color, national origin or religion? Absolutely not. But should a business be banned from putting a sign out saying 'minorities will not be served here'? That's no different from Fred Phelps who stands outside of funerals of fallen soldiers with the anti-homosexual banners. At that point you get into free speech issues.

It's a tough question for those who don't mind a little serious, introspective thinking. For those who lack the intellectual firepower to ponder something like that -- and you know who you are -- don't bother, you're sure to fry some brain circuitry.

That's all Goldwater and Paul's opposition to the Civil Rights act was -- a principled, though politically incorrect and unpopular stance on their devotion to the idea of individual rights -- even for the rights of those we find abhorrent.

I am sure you understand? The Supreme court interprets the Constitution. Goldwater nor Paul are on the Supreme Court.

[over the mountain]

"Property rights are no different whether you're talking about someone's home or a privately owned business"

you can discriminate on your own dime on your own time.

when you open a business that, in any way, effects interstate commerce (hotels for interstate travelers, a small portion of your corn crop is sold for profit), your business is subject to the Fed gov't regulations through the interstate commerce clause.

Can you wear a tshirt saying KKK? yes, thats protected speech.
can you wear a tshirt with a dick on it? no, that is offensive speech with no _____ value. i forget for the moment what "value" speech must have.

can you not allow cowboy fans into your home? yes
can you allow everyone into your "open to public" bar except for cowboy fans? no

can a private golf course not allow women to join the club? yes (even though i dont know how the ICC doesnt apply since it applies to everything the feds want it to. How come they dont make the argument that Augusta National has members who are residents from other states outside of Georgia so technically out of state money is passing into Georgia = interstate commerce = you cant discriminate. Im guessing its b/c they are a private club and not open to the public, which means everyone is excluded and not just singling out one race but in practice they are violating the theory)

[joethiesmanfan]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

"Property rights are no different whether you're talking about someone's home or a privately owned business"

you can discriminate on your own dime on your own time.

when you open a business that, in any way, effects interstate commerce (hotels for interstate travelers, a small portion of your corn crop is sold for profit), your business is subject to the Fed gov't regulations through the interstate commerce clause.

Can you wear a tshirt saying KKK? yes, thats protected speech.
can you wear a tshirt with a dick on it? no, that is offensive speech with no _____ value. i forget for the moment what "value" speech must have.

can you not allow cowboy fans into your home? yes
can you allow everyone into your "open to public" bar except for cowboy fans? no

can a private golf course not allow women to join the club? yes (even though i dont know how the ICC doesnt apply since it applies to everything the feds want it to. How come they dont make the argument that Augusta National has members who are residents from other states outside of Georgia so technically out of state money is passing into Georgia = interstate commerce = you cant discriminate. Im guessing its b/c they are a private club and not open to the public, which means everyone is excluded and not just singling out one race but in practice they are violating the theory)

Okay, write up a brief present it to the Supreme court and let them vote on whether your interpretation of the Consitution is approved by them or not. That is how our system works. You can state your interpretation as fact all you want but the system says the Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court. You are welcome to challenge this law for he umpteenth time if you like though, my fellow American.