Forget racism... anyone catch what Rand said about disabled people?  

Thats a good point, and I will not argue it since I dont know what its like to be disabled. The comment just struck me as odd because "fiscal responsibilty" was his buzz word for this interview. He mentioned it quite a few times, even when it didnt fit the context of the discussion... almost as if he knew that saying those two words is what Tea Party people like to hear. It seemed to me that he dosent think buildings should be built to accomodate handicap people because it just costs too much money.

I wish the new buzz word/phrase was "common sense". The government can and should regulate public buildings to make sure that all citizens, regardless of handicap, can access them freely - and they do. But I am not sure that government should regulate everything, everybody, every building.

There are stores I frequent more often than others simply because they provide better accommodations. They have the scooters near the door, employees willing to retrieve them for you, carry your purchases to your car, etc. Other establishments don't provide such accommodations and they don't get my business. Perhaps my business is not important to them. If they suffered economic loss, they might change their establishments to accommodate me and other handicapped people. But they don't limit my ability to get what I need, and I don't enlarge their coffers with my disposable income.

Some apartment complexes cater to the elderly or the disabled, others don't. I don't rent apartments on the third floors of old houses, but I don't feel I have a right to demand that the landlord install elevators so that I can rent his apartments.

Common sense dictates that if a public building is one that any citizen might need access to - a courthouse, a post office, an IRS office - then the government ought to make sure it's accessible to everyone. But putting economic burdens on private businesses to the detriment of their ability to do business and to the detriment of the economy as a whole, doesn't make sense.

Don't make it harder for disabled people, I think it would be great if I could go everywhere and do everything. I want to go to the beach, but chairs and scooters don't move well over dry beach sand. I can't demand the city put a handicap ramp in that takes me to the ocean's edge. Limitations are not the same as discrimination, they just are a fact of life. Not all disabled people are making unreasonable demands and not all are treated fairly. Let's be fair AND use common sense. I am disabled and can still be reasonable and sensible. I think lots of people can be both.

I never said you couldn't and I apologize if this discussion is making you upset. It was merely my point of veiw, as a non-disabled person, who thought that perhaps this statement was insensitive. Nothing more, thank you for your perspective, I really do appreciate it.

Rollo, II2 makes a very good point. If we were to listen to Rand Paul, and allow your employer to decided on his own not to put in handy cap accessible access to higher floors, and your job was on a higher, than you probably wouldn't be hired for that job. Wouldn't that be discrimination? If anyone on here should understand what II2 is saying, it should be YOU!!! If it is going to cost a company hundreds of thousands of dollars to make a building handy cap accessible for ONE person, then they won't unless that person is worth it. So, people like yourself would be much harder to employ because your could only work in single story buildings, but that doesn't included restrooms. If it was totally up to companies to decide on this, or state you will have some that won't do this, and it would be discrimination. I'm not handy capped, but I personally don't approve of discrimination on any grounds. You should see this even more than the rest of us because you have seen this first hand.

II2, Rollo is usually upset, it has nothing to do with this discussion. You get use to it.

Debater, you're reading way too much into this. All he said was that it was more reasonable to give someone a first floor office than to install a $100,000 elevator in a 2 story building. If you ran a business in a small, two story building, and a man in a wheelchair applied for a job, what would you do? Would you hire him and give him a first floor office, or would you take out a $100,000 loan, apply for the necessary permits, and interview contractors to have an elevator installed in your building? You might be bankrupt before the guy could ever start work at that rate.

Debater assumes I am always upset simply because I always disagree with his emotion-packed but substance-poor positions.

You mistake me entirely II2 if you believe I am upset. I am trying to speak of the opposite of emotion - that is, logic and sense. I am speaking of being reasonable, rather than whiny. I don't believe all handicapped people feel discriminated against because there are limitations on their lives. Life is a crapshoot, you know? You take what you get. Adversity is often a good way to build character.

I could not decide to move into a third floor apartment and demand that the landlord install an elevator. I could not demand that the city pave a ramp just for me so that I can go to a public beach. These things would be unreasonable.

Common sense. Why is it so rare?

I do not know what its like to be wheelchair bound but I am pretty sure if I was I would be pretty upset if my employer limited my acces in my job. Oh there is a meeting on the second floor? Well.. email me the minutes... I'll just stay down here in the designated diabled person zone while you all discuss the important matters.

You are making something of nothing. Just have meetings on the first floor. Sheesh. It's like you're actively trying to be unreasonable.

Like you I didnt know much about him either. Personaly, my first exposure to him was not positive. I cant say for sure but, I would venture a guess that many people like him because they like his father Ron. We all know how well THAT line of thought works in politics over the recnt years. At least, I thought we did. The entire interview (which I listened to live, as it was happening) it was like he was reading from notes on the palm of his hand. Just mention fiscal responsibility as much as possible... that will win over those Tea Party people!

"it's still not ethical to limit their activities because of the cost of an upgrade."

They are required by law to make "reasonable accommodations." If cost is prohibitive than the accommodation is not reasonable and thus, the person will not be hired. Spall I've worked my last 4 jobs in the public sector and gone through ridiculous amounts of training regarding ADA accommodations. Bankrupting a company is not reasonable by any stretch of the imagination.

"if that two-story office is open to the public, they're required by federal law to have both floor accessable to people with handicaps."

Tell that to those crappy motels with two stories and no elevators. In fact, forget them, what about bed & breakfasts? I can tell you the ones I've seen are just large houses that were converted to businesses. They typically don't have elevators either.

I should also point out that outside of Miami, every apartment I've ever lived in has been in a 3 story building and NONE OF THEM have had elevators.

Taskr, motels and the like can accomodate guests on the ground floor and, as far as I know, are still required to have rooms that are wheel chair accessible. You're right about employers though.

BTW, our courthouse here in Hooterville had to install an elevator a few decades ago because a friend of my husband's was arrested and wouldn't be able to attend his own hearing. He lost a leg in a motorcycle accident and the courtrooms are on the second floor.

Well that makes sense. I personally think government buildings should be required to make every building fully accessible to handicapped people. That's the government. Private businesses however are a bit more limited which is where "reasonable" comes in to play.

On a side note have you ever been to Miami International Airport? Good luck finding an elevator there. My wife and I had to CARRY my son in a stroller up an escalator, then down another escalator to get to our plane due to the bizarre layout of that place. I asked why there were no elevators and an employee told me "Well it's an old building." Now THAT pissed me off. They probably have some hidden elevator for disable people somewhere, but nobody knew where one was when we asked. Personally I wonder how they've never been sued over it.

I think you're right that government buildings should be accessible to all people because after all, it is the government's job to care for every citizen. But it's a different story when it comes to private companies. It's just not reasonable to spend that much on just one employee unless the employee proves to be a very valuable asset to the company.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Rand might be one of those people who took advantage of the current political atmosphere to do a power grab all his own. Everyone knows incumbents are in trouble this year. This gives a whole new generation of corrupt government officals to step up to bat.

Mind you, this is all my gut feelings... having listened to this particular interview and reading others since. I understand that his father is popular with the Tea Party. Apparently nepotism is not one of the big government evils that needs to be done away with with this new revolution.

Yup. I'm sure you would.