http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20005474-503544.html
QuoteNow that the Tea Party-backed Rand Paul has the GOP nomination for Kentucky's open Senate seat, the media and his Democratic opponent are pouncing on his extreme libertarian views -- particularly with respect to his position on racism in private businesses and whether he would have supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In an interview on NPR yesterday, host Robert Siegel asked Paul, the son of libertarian hero and former presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), whether the Civil Rights Act went too far. Seigel noted that Paul has said in the past that the Americans with Disabilities Act was an overreach of the federal government.
"What I've always said is that I'm opposed to institutional racism, and I would've, had I've been alive at the time, I think, had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism," Paul said.
However, he added:
"I think a lot of things could be handled locally. For example, I think that we should try to do everything we can to allow for people with disabilities and handicaps. You know, we do it in our office with wheelchair ramps and things like that. I think if you have a two-story office and you hire someone who's handicapped, it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator. And I think when you get to the solutions like that, the more local the better, and the more common sense the decisions are, rather than having a federal government make those decisions."
Later on MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Show" yesterday evening, Paul was pressed on the specific question of whether he thinks the government should prohibit private businesses from discriminating on the basis of race -- he refused to give a straight answer.
"Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent?" Paul asked. "Should we limit racists from speaking? I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way, in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things that freedom requires... that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it."
I'm thinking Mr Rand Paul might be needing some "help", if you catch my drift.
yes, please.
I still like him better than your standard republican. Or your average Kentucky democrat for that matter.
Oh dear. How can we help, Dok?
I kind of think this is pretty weak sauce if this leads to a witch stoning of Rand Paul. People are connecting dots and drawing lines where there aren't any...you know: the same shit Glenn Beck does.
That said, I think the boundaries of Rand Paul's appreciation for free speech should be tested like the mattress in a $20 hotel.
Quote from: navkat on May 21, 2010, 04:16:41 AM
I kind of think this is pretty weak sauce if this leads to a witch stoning of Rand Paul.
Um.
What religion is this, again?
Quote from: Hover Cat on May 21, 2010, 04:10:43 AM
Oh dear. How can we help, Dok?
Spread the word. Make fun of Kentucky, while you're at it.
Oh, yeah. He has a website.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 21, 2010, 05:23:21 AM
Quote from: navkat on May 21, 2010, 04:16:41 AM
I kind of think this is pretty weak sauce if this leads to a witch stoning of Rand Paul.
Um.
What religion is this, again?
This is a religion? :D
Quote from: navkat on May 21, 2010, 05:34:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 21, 2010, 05:23:21 AM
Quote from: navkat on May 21, 2010, 04:16:41 AM
I kind of think this is pretty weak sauce if this leads to a witch stoning of Rand Paul.
Um.
What religion is this, again?
This is a religion? :D
Damn straight. And I think it's high time we gave young Rand our blessings.
I hope he's had his shots.
Quote from: navkat on May 21, 2010, 04:16:41 AM
That said, I think the boundaries of Rand Paul's appreciation for free speech should be tested like the mattress in a $20 hotel.
(I completely stole this from Alternet, btw) I really really want a reporter to ask him if a porn shop should be allowed to open across the street from a school. I'd love to see how he'd spin that.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on May 21, 2010, 07:36:52 AM
Quote from: navkat on May 21, 2010, 04:16:41 AM
That said, I think the boundaries of Rand Paul's appreciation for free speech should be tested like the mattress in a $20 hotel.
(I completely stole this from Alternet, btw) I really really want a reporter to ask him if a porn shop should be allowed to open across the street from a school. I'd love to see how he'd spin that.
Simple. He'd say there shouldn't be any schools in the first place so what's the problem?
Yet another example of Utopian Libertarianism forgetting that the real world actually exists.
From what I read, the theory is that any company that hired based upon racism would be boycotted because of their hiring practices -- the Free Market would fix the problem, no need for government intervention.
Worked pretty well in the South during the 1950s-60s, didn't it?
In fairness to the theory, I can't remember a single example in the past 150 years of the Free Market ever steering us wrong.
Quote from: vexati0n on May 21, 2010, 01:25:24 PM
In fairness to the theory, I can't remember a single example in the past 150 years of the Free Market ever steering us wrong.
:lulz:
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.
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.
How can that be? They didn't follow the regulations in the first place.
All the little rules confused them :(
Wouldn't matter. Haliburton was involved. They seem to be like Teflon when it comes to regulation.
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.
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 21, 2010, 03:06:23 PM
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.
Quote from: vexati0n on May 21, 2010, 03:14:35 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 21, 2010, 03:06:23 PM
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.
:argh!:
You tryin to ruin my Friday, Vex?!
Quote from: vexati0n on May 21, 2010, 03:14:35 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 21, 2010, 03:06:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on May 21, 2010, 04:18:17 PM
Quote from: vexati0n on May 21, 2010, 03:14:35 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 21, 2010, 03:06:23 PM
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!!!
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on May 21, 2010, 01:41:23 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on May 21, 2010, 05:36:06 PM
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?
QuoteA 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.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on May 21, 2010, 05:36:06 PM
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.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on May 21, 2010, 05:42:17 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on May 21, 2010, 05:36:06 PM
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.
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.
Technically speaking, isn't a majority of citizens willfully investing in government regulation a free market activity?
Quote from: vexati0n on May 21, 2010, 06:24:01 PM
Technically speaking, isn't a majority of citizens willfully investing in government regulation a free market activity?
Only if the majority of citizens could also divest themselves of the government regulation, if they changed their minds.
Slate has a fairly decent article about Rand, and about what happens when an Anti-Establishment candidate bumps up against the Establishment.
Rand Paul is all about stopping government handouts, except where that would effect him:
Quote
But as former Bush speech writer David Frum noted, "Paul's libertarianism stops where his pocketbook starts." Frum highlighted a Wall Street Journal story from last week in which Paul said he doesn't want to cut Medicare payments to doctors like himself, because "[p]hysicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living"
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/20/rand-paul-doc-fix/
:lulz:
I never thought I'd say this but I'm starting to like David Frum.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on May 21, 2010, 07:39:37 PM
Rand Paul is all about stopping government handouts, except where that would effect him:
Quote
But as former Bush speech writer David Frum noted, "Paul's libertarianism stops where his pocketbook starts." Frum highlighted a Wall Street Journal story from last week in which Paul said he doesn't want to cut Medicare payments to doctors like himself, because "[p]hysicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living"
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/20/rand-paul-doc-fix/
:lulz:
I never thought I'd say this but I'm starting to like David Frum.
:facepalm:
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on May 21, 2010, 07:39:37 PM
Rand Paul is all about stopping government handouts, except where that would effect him:
Quote
But as former Bush speech writer David Frum noted, "Paul's libertarianism stops where his pocketbook starts." Frum highlighted a Wall Street Journal story from last week in which Paul said he doesn't want to cut Medicare payments to doctors like himself, because "[p]hysicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living"
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/20/rand-paul-doc-fix/
:lulz:
I never thought I'd say this but I'm starting to like David Frum.
:lulz: This is going to be a very loooong campaign for Dr. Paul. Someone needs to pin him down on abortion next.
Quote from: LMNO on May 21, 2010, 01:15:14 PM
Yet another example of Utopian Libertarianism forgetting that the real world actually exists.
Right. I never said it would actually
work.
And other Libertarians are falling all over themselves in support.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/libertarians-on-pauls-civil-rights-stance-very-reasonable.php?ref=fpc
QuotePaul's stance is "very reasonable, and quite close to the Libertarian position," a spokesman for the Libertarian Party told TPMmuckraker.
"If some private business discriminates we think that's unfortunate, but we don't think the government should get involved in banning it," said the spokesman, Wes Benedict. "That's just a negative that we have to tolerate in a free society."
Walter Block, a libertarian professor of economics at Loyola University, and a senior fellow with the libertarian Ludwig Von Mises Institute, went further. "I think anyone who doesn't believe that isn't a libertarian," he said, calling Paul's comment "a very mainstream libertarianism."
"I'm delighted that Rand Paul said that," an enthusiastic Block added. "I think it's magnificent. I didn't realize that he was that good."
"The spirit of non-discrimination," said Block "ends you right up in compulsory bisexuality."
I'm not sure what that last sentence means, nor do I really want to.
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 21, 2010, 06:48:16 PM
Quote from: vexati0n on May 21, 2010, 06:24:01 PM
Technically speaking, isn't a majority of citizens willfully investing in government regulation a free market activity?
Only if the majority of citizens could also divest themselves of the government regulation, if they changed their minds.
On a state level they can in most states. Through the initiative process.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on May 22, 2010, 01:01:18 AM
And other Libertarians are falling all over themselves in support.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/libertarians-on-pauls-civil-rights-stance-very-reasonable.php?ref=fpc
QuotePaul's stance is "very reasonable, and quite close to the Libertarian position," a spokesman for the Libertarian Party told TPMmuckraker.
"If some private business discriminates we think that's unfortunate, but we don't think the government should get involved in banning it," said the spokesman, Wes Benedict. "That's just a negative that we have to tolerate in a free society."
Walter Block, a libertarian professor of economics at Loyola University, and a senior fellow with the libertarian Ludwig Von Mises Institute, went further. "I think anyone who doesn't believe that isn't a libertarian," he said, calling Paul's comment "a very mainstream libertarianism."
"I'm delighted that Rand Paul said that," an enthusiastic Block added. "I think it's magnificent. I didn't realize that he was that good."
"The spirit of non-discrimination," said Block "ends you right up in compulsory bisexuality."
I'm not sure what that last sentence means, nor do I really want to.
I don't know what it means either, but I kind of like this compulsory bisexuality plan. I think I'll vote Libertarian. That's what they're in favor of right?
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on May 22, 2010, 01:01:18 AM
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/libertarians-on-pauls-civil-rights-stance-very-reasonable.php?ref=fpc
Quote
"The spirit of non-discrimination," said Block "ends you right up in compulsory bisexuality."
I'm not really sure what that sentence means, but I'm not going to try and waste time and worry about it. :fap: :fap: :fap:
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on May 21, 2010, 09:59:37 PM
:lulz: This is going to be a very loooong campaign for Dr. Paul. Someone needs to pin him down on abortion next.
Oh, he already answered those questions.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/179841.php
QuoteRepublican Senate candidate Rand Paul (Ky.) will launch a new advertisement Monday on Christian radio stations to emphasize his opposition to abortion rights and his support for laws restricting the procedure, the AP/Lexington Herald Leader reports. "I'm 100% pro-life," Paul says in the ad, adding, "I believe abortion is an abomination, and I will cast every vote in favor of protecting life." In the ad, Paul also pledges to support a "federal human life amendment to end abortion" and "any law that will help end abortion and save the lives of innocent unborn children."
The advertising campaign comes in response to charges from Trey Grayson -- Paul's opponent in the Republican primary -- that Paul does not oppose abortion rights. Grayson has alleged that Paul -- son of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) -- supports the use of the emergency contraception for rape survivors and prefers state-level approaches to abortion decisions.
I've lived close to Kentucky for most of my life so I understand why he has to take this position. If he didn't the ignorant hicks would skin him alive. I just don't see how he can square this with his paleo-libertarianism. The Free Market says that people want and need abortions on demand. Why let the government get in the way of that?
Nobody believes in the free market. Nobody in their right mind wants a free market. I'm not even sure people in their wrong mind want a free market.
Gregory took a few shots at Paul for being only the third guest to cancel on the show in its 62-year history :lulz:
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on May 22, 2010, 01:01:18 AM
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/libertarians-on-pauls-civil-rights-stance-very-reasonable.php?ref=fpc
Quote
"The spirit of non-discrimination," said Block "ends you right up in compulsory bisexuality."
I'm not sure what that last sentence means, nor do I really want to.
If you make a strawman out of non-discrimination logic, and then take it to it's furthest extreme, then to prefer one gender over another in terms of sexual attraction would be considered discriminatory.
It's kind of like the "gay marriage = legalized beastiality" argument.
Quote from: LMNO on May 24, 2010, 04:12:35 PM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on May 22, 2010, 01:01:18 AM
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/libertarians-on-pauls-civil-rights-stance-very-reasonable.php?ref=fpc
Quote
"The spirit of non-discrimination," said Block "ends you right up in compulsory bisexuality."
I'm not sure what that last sentence means, nor do I really want to.
If you make a strawman out of non-discrimination logic, and then take it to it's furthest extreme, then to prefer one gender over another in terms of sexual attraction would be considered discriminatory.
It's kind of like the "gay marriage = legalized beastiality" argument.
See, there was my problem. I assume that Block wasn't a blooming idiot.
Speaking of blooming idiots, Sarah Palin is defending Rand and says that Maddow was "prejudiced".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/23/palin-on-maddow-rand-paul_n_586353.html
Quotepeaking to "Fox News Sunday," the 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee said that Paul was being subjected to the same biased media coverage that marked her run for office, before offering her Tea Party-backed candidate a bit of advice.
"One thing we can learn in this lesson that I have learned and Rand Paul is learning now is don't assume that you can engage in a hypothetical discussion about constitutional impacts with a reporter or a media personality who has an agenda, who may be prejudiced before they even get into the interview in regards to what your answer may be," Palin said. "You know, they are looking for the gotcha moment. And that evidently appears to be what they did with Rand Paul, and I'm thankful he clarified his answer about his support for the Civil Rights Act."
Asking hard questions that require some thought and nuance = GOTCHA!
Also:
One thing we can learn in this lesson that I have learned ... :lulz:
This just in: Rand Paul is no fan of the 14th amendment.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/05/28/paul_opposes_citizenship_for_babies_of_illegals/
QuoteLegislation dubbed the Birthright Citizenship Act was introduced in the House last year seeking to prevent citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants even though the 14th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees citizenship to everyone born in the U.S.
Ok, can we call him a racist now?
Quote from: LMNO on May 28, 2010, 04:36:18 PM
This just in: Rand Paul is no fan of the 14th amendment.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/05/28/paul_opposes_citizenship_for_babies_of_illegals/
QuoteLegislation dubbed the Birthright Citizenship Act was introduced in the House last year seeking to prevent citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants even though the 14th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees citizenship to everyone born in the U.S.
Don't you know, Alphapance? The constitution doesn't mean anything, next to the bible, which is what America was really founded on. Especially because it was written by that communist fascist Tomas Jefferson.
anchors away...
I can't wait till all those Ron Paul fanboys come up with their conspiracy theories about how everyone is trying to destroy his son's image... and blah blah blah
maybe we can help that snowball along, hmm... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche