Ron Paul's kid running for office: Is opposed to the civil rights act of 1964.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Tangentially related, I have heard while following the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that BP officials say this happened because of too much regulation on their Free Market enterprise.

[LMNO]

How can that be?  They didn't follow the regulations in the first place.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

All the little rules confused them

[AFK]

Wouldn't matter.  Haliburton was involved.  They seem to be like Teflon when it comes to regulation. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Rand Paul is pathetic. Not because of his political views, but because of his political ignorance.

See, he makes a valid point. There is nothing in the Constitution specifically that gives the government the right to tell private companies who they can/can't or must hire. That much is true.

However, this is the United States and no one wants to listen to political theory, without assuming that you plan on applying the theory directly to practice in the most extreme manner. He was constitutionally correct, but politically wrong. Politically, he needed to find a way to spin his 'theory' so that it was not obviously a Civil Rights issue. OR he should have spun it that "although there was not a Constitutional provision, the political process allowed this evolution in order to deal with an EXTREME unforeseen circumstance... that way he could still argue for minimal government intrusion, while covering his ass with the idea that since Civil Rights and segregation were extreme issues, they transcended the normal bounds of the Constitution.

For me personally, I think that Civil Rights are covered in the Constitution, since Brown vs Board of Education was dealt with 10 years before the Civil Rights Act. Further, I think it was an example of DEMOCRACY in action (ya know that other force that America was founded on, besides the 'market'), because the law was passed due to the grassroots movements of citizens and the electoral choices made by states (ie more people were voting for more progressive candidates). The Civil Rights Act was simply the culmination of our political process actually acting as it was designed to.

This is somewhat different than a lot of the current arguments about government interference and a smart politician should be able to walk the line between something like Civil Rights vs National Healthcare.

As this appears to be some of the best the Tea Party has to offer... I think we're probably safe.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Rand Paul is pathetic. Not because of his political views, but because of his political ignorance.

See, he makes a valid point. There is nothing in the Constitution specifically that gives the government the right to tell private companies who they can/can't or must hire. That much is true.

However, this is the United States and no one wants to listen to political theory, without assuming that you plan on applying the theory directly to practice in the most extreme manner. He was constitutionally correct, but politically wrong. Politically, he needed to find a way to spin his 'theory' so that it was not obviously a Civil Rights issue. OR he should have spun it that "although there was not a Constitutional provision, the political process allowed this evolution in order to deal with an EXTREME unforeseen circumstance... that way he could still argue for minimal government intrusion, while covering his ass with the idea that since Civil Rights and segregation were extreme issues, they transcended the normal bounds of the Constitution.

For me personally, I think that Civil Rights are covered in the Constitution, since Brown vs Board of Education was dealt with 10 years before the Civil Rights Act. Further, I think it was an example of DEMOCRACY in action (ya know that other force that America was founded on, besides the 'market'), because the law was passed due to the grassroots movements of citizens and the electoral choices made by states (ie more people were voting for more progressive candidates). The Civil Rights Act was simply the culmination of our political process actually acting as it was designed to.

This is somewhat different than a lot of the current arguments about government interference and a smart politician should be able to walk the line between something like Civil Rights vs National Healthcare.

As this appears to be some of the best the Tea Party has to offer... I think we're probably safe.

Safe? I think you're forgetting how stupid the average citizen is.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Rand Paul is pathetic. Not because of his political views, but because of his political ignorance.

See, he makes a valid point. There is nothing in the Constitution specifically that gives the government the right to tell private companies who they can/can't or must hire. That much is true.

However, this is the United States and no one wants to listen to political theory, without assuming that you plan on applying the theory directly to practice in the most extreme manner. He was constitutionally correct, but politically wrong. Politically, he needed to find a way to spin his 'theory' so that it was not obviously a Civil Rights issue. OR he should have spun it that "although there was not a Constitutional provision, the political process allowed this evolution in order to deal with an EXTREME unforeseen circumstance... that way he could still argue for minimal government intrusion, while covering his ass with the idea that since Civil Rights and segregation were extreme issues, they transcended the normal bounds of the Constitution.

For me personally, I think that Civil Rights are covered in the Constitution, since Brown vs Board of Education was dealt with 10 years before the Civil Rights Act. Further, I think it was an example of DEMOCRACY in action (ya know that other force that America was founded on, besides the 'market'), because the law was passed due to the grassroots movements of citizens and the electoral choices made by states (ie more people were voting for more progressive candidates). The Civil Rights Act was simply the culmination of our political process actually acting as it was designed to.

This is somewhat different than a lot of the current arguments about government interference and a smart politician should be able to walk the line between something like Civil Rights vs National Healthcare.

As this appears to be some of the best the Tea Party has to offer... I think we're probably safe.

Safe? I think you're forgetting how stupid the average citizen is.

You tryin to ruin my Friday, Vex?!

[AFK]

Rand Paul is pathetic. Not because of his political views, but because of his political ignorance.

See, he makes a valid point. There is nothing in the Constitution specifically that gives the government the right to tell private companies who they can/can't or must hire. That much is true.

However, this is the United States and no one wants to listen to political theory, without assuming that you plan on applying the theory directly to practice in the most extreme manner. He was constitutionally correct, but politically wrong. Politically, he needed to find a way to spin his 'theory' so that it was not obviously a Civil Rights issue. OR he should have spun it that "although there was not a Constitutional provision, the political process allowed this evolution in order to deal with an EXTREME unforeseen circumstance... that way he could still argue for minimal government intrusion, while covering his ass with the idea that since Civil Rights and segregation were extreme issues, they transcended the normal bounds of the Constitution.

For me personally, I think that Civil Rights are covered in the Constitution, since Brown vs Board of Education was dealt with 10 years before the Civil Rights Act. Further, I think it was an example of DEMOCRACY in action (ya know that other force that America was founded on, besides the 'market'), because the law was passed due to the grassroots movements of citizens and the electoral choices made by states (ie more people were voting for more progressive candidates). The Civil Rights Act was simply the culmination of our political process actually acting as it was designed to.

This is somewhat different than a lot of the current arguments about government interference and a smart politician should be able to walk the line between something like Civil Rights vs National Healthcare.

As this appears to be some of the best the Tea Party has to offer... I think we're probably safe.

Safe? I think you're forgetting how stupid the average citizen is.

This.  He'll probably win the election.  The news stations have been selling this "Anti-incumbent" story line hard.  And not just Fox, MSNBC and CNN have been trading in it as well.  Between the media and the Tea Party, and everyone else who jumps on that bandwagon, a lot of citizens are going to think they are supposed to vote against the incumbent or the establishment guy.  In many cases, that may be the right choice.  But, there are probably also some incumbents/establishment types who've been good for the country.  (It would kind of suck if Congress lost Russ Feingold for instance.)  So I can see Paul winning because many will vote for him not because they think he's right in terms of policy, but because it is what everyone else is doing and because the TV said so. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Rand Paul is pathetic. Not because of his political views, but because of his political ignorance.

See, he makes a valid point. There is nothing in the Constitution specifically that gives the government the right to tell private companies who they can/can't or must hire. That much is true.

However, this is the United States and no one wants to listen to political theory, without assuming that you plan on applying the theory directly to practice in the most extreme manner. He was constitutionally correct, but politically wrong. Politically, he needed to find a way to spin his 'theory' so that it was not obviously a Civil Rights issue. OR he should have spun it that "although there was not a Constitutional provision, the political process allowed this evolution in order to deal with an EXTREME unforeseen circumstance... that way he could still argue for minimal government intrusion, while covering his ass with the idea that since Civil Rights and segregation were extreme issues, they transcended the normal bounds of the Constitution.

For me personally, I think that Civil Rights are covered in the Constitution, since Brown vs Board of Education was dealt with 10 years before the Civil Rights Act. Further, I think it was an example of DEMOCRACY in action (ya know that other force that America was founded on, besides the 'market'), because the law was passed due to the grassroots movements of citizens and the electoral choices made by states (ie more people were voting for more progressive candidates). The Civil Rights Act was simply the culmination of our political process actually acting as it was designed to.

This is somewhat different than a lot of the current arguments about government interference and a smart politician should be able to walk the line between something like Civil Rights vs National Healthcare.

As this appears to be some of the best the Tea Party has to offer... I think we're probably safe.

Safe? I think you're forgetting how stupid the average citizen is.

This.  He'll probably win the election.  The news stations have been selling this "Anti-incumbent" story line hard.  And not just Fox, MSNBC and CNN have been trading in it as well.  Between the media and the Tea Party, and everyone else who jumps on that bandwagon, a lot of citizens are going to think they are supposed to vote against the incumbent or the establishment guy.  In many cases, that may be the right choice.  But, there are probably also some incumbents/establishment types who've been good for the country.  (It would kind of suck if Congress lost Russ Feingold for instance.)  So I can see Paul winning because many will vote for him not because they think he's right in terms of policy, but because it is what everyone else is doing and because the TV said so. 

On the other side though, the Democrat primary winner got more actual votes than Rand Paul did. I'm clinging to my tiny thread of hope, goddamnit!!!

[Vene]

Well, the one thing we learned, in case it was every in question, is that as much as Rand Paul would like to cast himself as a "different" kind of politician.  He's just as weasley as the rest of them.  When he was interviewed on CNN yesterday, after the smack down he received from Maddow, he was asked again if he would have voted yes for the Civil Rights Act.  He said yes.

I think it's pretty clear he's wilting under the pressure and understands the position he's held for the past few decades is not going to fly and he needs to pay lip service to win the race.  

In other words,  mega, mega tool.  

I would have a lot more respect for these loons if they stuck to their principles. See, if they give lipservice that fast, they're essentially saying their principles are wrong and stupid.

[AFK]

And for his next trick, he's pulling out the "unAmerican" card:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/21/rand-paul-obama-sounds-un_n_584661.html

So Obama is unAmerican for wanting to hold BP accountable for their (not so) little mess.  And pretty much anyone who wants to take a business to task for screwing up is unAmerican. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

And for his next trick, he's pulling out the "unAmerican" card:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/21/rand-paul-obama-sounds-un_n_584661.html

So Obama is unAmerican for wanting to hold BP accountable for their (not so) little mess.  And pretty much anyone who wants to take a business to task for screwing up is unAmerican.  

Heh, I'd like to see him sell that in Louisana six months from now.... wonder if he's got lynchin' insurance?


EDIT: Also, why isn't he pissed at BP for being 'uncapitalistic' and not properly testing their systems that morning?

A spokesman for the testing firm, Schlumberger, said BP had a Schlumberger team and equipment for sending acoustic testing lines down the well "on standby" from April 18 to April 20. But BP never asked the Schlumberger crew to perform the acoustic test and sent its members back to Louisiana on a regularly scheduled helicopter flight at 11 a.m., Schlumberger spokesman Stephen T. Harris said.

[Requia ☣]

And for his next trick, he's pulling out the "unAmerican" card:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/21/rand-paul-obama-sounds-un_n_584661.html

So Obama is unAmerican for wanting to hold BP accountable for their (not so) little mess.  And pretty much anyone who wants to take a business to task for screwing up is unAmerican. 

Oh hey, he actually wants nothing to do with the free market it seems.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

And for his next trick, he's pulling out the "unAmerican" card:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/21/rand-paul-obama-sounds-un_n_584661.html

So Obama is unAmerican for wanting to hold BP accountable for their (not so) little mess.  And pretty much anyone who wants to take a business to task for screwing up is unAmerican. 

Oh hey, he actually wants nothing to do with the free market it seems.

Yeah, won't the Free Market just  make us all boycott BP? I mean, its not like they have a product that we desperately need... oh... ah... nevermind.

[Requia ☣]

Part of the free market is supposed to be that you don't get sheltered from your mistakes.

At the very least BP owes every fisherman in the Gulf of Mexico for fucking with their business.