Rand Paul Remarks Lead KY Legislature to Pass CR Resolution

cawacko said:
That's the public perception of the Tea Party or what you would like it to be? Wasn't it the New York Times of all publications that wrote the article that stated the Tea Party folks were more educated than the average American?
Click to expand...
I don't know. I don't read the times. I've seen lots of Tea Baggers interviewed and they mostly come off as trailer park red necks.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Adam you couldn't possibly be stupid enough to defend Rand Paul's comment.
Click to expand...

I suggest you read Walter Williams' piece. I don't necessarily agree with his own conclusion, but I think his characterization of the incident is clear and his analysis is important.

I don't think most people even realize what Rand Paul's actual comment was, and frankly, folks who think this line will sink his campaign don't want a factual discussion.

This guy is not a racist, he is not some kind of intellectual lightweight, he's not even some kind of libertarian ideologue and refuses to use the word to describe himself.

If someone can't take off their partisan blinders to recognize the legitimacy of his candidacy, that people in this country are coming around to these ideas and the platform he was nominated on (that is, actual issues), they're going to be scratching their head quite severely when he wins in November.

Rand Paul is leading among voters who are more like the people who live in Kentucky. Jack Conway is leading among voters who are more like people who live in San Francisco.

There aren't enough of those people in Kentucky to elect Jack Conway and now that the worst of the character assassination is over, Rand has got this.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I don't know. I don't read the times. I've seen lots of Tea Baggers interviewed and they mostly come off as trailer park red necks.
Click to expand...

There were several large threads started on the board about this article. The part I bolded isn't usually equated with trailer park red necks.

However based on who you claimed you've seen interviewed maybe you have a right to feel that way. If you watched the local news here you'd think every black person in Oakland was either out committing a crime or murder or was already in jail. Well most of us know that not to be true but if you only watched the news you might not know otherwise.


A New York Times/CBS News poll of backers of the emerging Tea Party movement shows that its supporters are more affluent and better educated than the general public. They tend to be white, male, and married. They are loyal Republicans, with conservative opinions on a variety of issues. And their strong opposition to the Obama administration is more rooted in political ideology than anxiety about their personal economic situation.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/04/14/us/politics/20100414-tea-party-poll-graphic.html
 
christiefan915 said:
I look at some laws and regulations as necessary to protect the law-abiding from the others.

Where is this Trekkian universe where anything goes and nobody is subject to any restrictions on their actions? Not anywhere on earth that I'm aware of.
Click to expand...

Until the moronic laws are put in place, we're all law-abiding citizens. What you mean is, people who choose to live their lives the way I choose to.
 
Cypress said:
Few americans, outside the extreme fringe, would agree with you and Ayn Rand Paul that businesses should be allowed to discriminate against blacks, women, or disabled people. Whether or not you want to call it philosophical musing, mental masturbation, or whatever.
Click to expand...
The people are proles. Thanks for giving us the opinion of the unwashed masses. Its a wonder they still have any rights left at all with so-called liberals like you going to bat for them. What's your next compassionate move to fuck them over, I wonder?

Cypress said:
As for being brave in speaking the truth, I recall that Rand Paul did a 180 degree flip flop the day after rachel maddow, and then chickened out and cancelled his Meet the Press interview. Only three people in the history of MTP have cancelled at the last minute, one of whom was Louis Farakan.

Bravery and ideological principle indeed.
Click to expand...

Yep, Rand decided to be dishonest. What he said originally, however, which was honest, was attacked by every retarded wingnut accross America from both sides of the aisle.

Now, as I am not yet a full convert to libertarianism, I will explain what I mean by this. Both paleoconservatives and mainstream liberals subscribe to certain things that form their legal defenses for what they advocate. Constitutional law, common and case law, and tradition. I can argue against a government program, for example, while acknowledging that it has become a tradition in this country to put programs in place that service the perceived public good. Both conservatives and liberals look at extra-Constitutional arguments to form their agendas.

Libertarians do not do this. They focus strictly on the Constitution (as well as how the Founders read it specifically) as a source for authority, and seeing as how its the supreme law of the land, its hard to argue with them. I would look at the CRA as a necessary measure for the public good at the time it was enacted.

It is dishonest, however, to attack Paul for holding a strictly Constitutional reading of the matter, simply because he doesn't take into account our personal feelings about the matter. I have yet to see ONE SINGLE criticism of Paul that has been honest, which is to say, admit that he's not racist, insane, apologetic, etc. It may be extreme, but then, so is liberty.

Good day to you, sir.
 
Mr. Spite said:
Conservatism is responsible for all the problems we have today. Eliminate conservatives and we will have a millenia of peace.
Click to expand...

Personally, I can't stand the democratic-republican one party system. Most conservitives, and liberals are marxist in my opinion. The problem that I see is keeping the right to my property.

It's a fact that marxist don't want me to have a right to my property.

So as I see it, the problem is marxism.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
I suggest you read Walter Williams' piece. I don't necessarily agree with his own conclusion, but I think his characterization of the incident is clear and his analysis is important.

I don't think most people even realize what Rand Paul's actual comment was, and frankly, folks who think this line will sink his campaign don't want a factual discussion.

This guy is not a racist, he is not some kind of intellectual lightweight, he's not even some kind of libertarian ideologue and refuses to use the word to describe himself.

If someone can't take off their partisan blinders to recognize the legitimacy of his candidacy, that people in this country are coming around to these ideas and the platform he was nominated on (that is, actual issues), they're going to be scratching their head quite severely when he wins in November.

Rand Paul is leading among voters who are more like the people who live in Kentucky. Jack Conway is leading among voters who are more like people who live in San Francisco.

There aren't enough of those people in Kentucky to elect Jack Conway and now that the worst of the character assassination is over, Rand has got this.
Click to expand...

Rand's comments on Maddow's show can only be interpreted one way.

(Excerpt) Maddow: "Do you think that a private business has a right to say, 'We don't serve black people'?" To which Paul answered, "I'm not, I'm not, I'm not in ... yeah ... I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form."

The "yeah" was spun in the media as "yes" to the question whether private businesses had a right to refuse service to black people. Paul had told Maddow that while he supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act in general, he thought that provisions banning private discrimination might have gone too far. (End)
http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/06/02/the_right_to_discriminate?page=full

Then Rand continued on about businesses being privately owned and government interference. While he didn't come out and directly state businesses should be allowed to discriminate his remarks can not be construed any other way.

If he is against government interfering in businesses that discriminate that means he believes in the right of businesses to discriminate. How else can it be interpreted? If there are no laws against doing something that means one has the right or is permitted to do it.

I feel one of the reasons people latched on to this is because Rand was deliberately evasive. If he had come out and said he is against government interference and while one of the consequences may be discrimination it would be temporary as money/business decisions would correct the problem it would have been taken quite differently.

The way he replied made it sound like discrimination would be inevitable and lasting even though he may not have actually believed that. He could have, should have, turned it around and made the point any businesses which did discriminate would quickly fold due to public outrage.
 
Cypress said:
Few americans, outside the extreme fringe, would agree with you and Ayn Rand Paul that businesses should be allowed to discriminate against blacks, women, or disabled people. Whether or not you want to call it philosophical musing, mental masturbation, or whatever.

As for being brave in speaking the truth, I recall that Rand Paul did a 180 degree flip flop the day after rachel maddow, and then chickened out and cancelled his Meet the Press interview. Only three people in the history of MTP have cancelled at the last minute, one of whom was Louis Farakan.

Bravery and ideological principle indeed.
Click to expand...


Like all devotees of Ayn Rand, Paul is under the mistaken impression that it is possible to achieve something significant all on one's own, with absolutely no help from others. The rugged individualism posited by Rand and her followers is delusional, and flies in the face of the facts. Instead of reading Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead, Paul should have read the book that inspired Thomas Jefferson and James Madison: Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract. Published in 1762, it ascribes the concept of rights to agreements made by groups of individuals to form non-familial societies to promote order, safety, and stability.

FACT: Outside the context of a social contract, the concept of rights is meaningless. There exists no right to life nor right to private property; only unlimited privilege to take what you want, and kill whomever you choose. Of course, every other individual has that very same privilege, so holding on to your stuff and life is a 24/7 job. In forming a social group, those entering into the social contract agree to give up those privileges in order to gain the right to life and the right to private property. The group protects its members' rights and enforces the agreement internally through police and courts, and externally through a military force.

Rather than talk about government, a term that brings out the batshit in a certain segment of the population, we'll couch it in terms of the newly formed social group. All of us in the group, as the signatories to the contract, pledge mutual defense of your rights to life and private property. We also pledge that our progeny will automatically enter into the contract at birth. Got that? This is crucial. The only reason you can have private ownership of anything, is because the rest of us are guaranteeing your right. In exchange for our guarantee, we're going to place some conditions on your ownership. First, since the rest of us are all guaranteeing your ownership of your property, your right to do with it what you please ends at your neighbor's property line, and even before you get to the physical boundary. The rest of us as guarantors won't allow you to do anything with your property that adversely affects the property we own. We call that zoning. And as for Rand Paul's idiotic claim that the business owner has the right to exclude whomever he wishes: nice try, schmuck, but since all the rest of us are your business's guarantors, through our elected representative government, you will serve every goddamned one of us that walks through your door, or we'll close your ass down.

Got it?

Good.

The idea that a private business exists in a social vacuum, with no responsibility to the rest of the group, who make the private ownership possible in the first place, is truly choking the cerebral chicken. Those who have no clue what government is supposed to be, should not be elected to it, because their ignorance will ultimately work to he detriment of the rest of us. Power, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and if we the people choose not to wield the power given us by our Constitution, that power will be wielded upon us by someone else, and it won't be pleasant. Deregulation was us keeping our responsibilities as guarantors, but ceding our power to establish standards to OUR satisfaction. Not working so well, is it?.
 
Has Ayn Rand Paul Actually Read the Constitution?

Rand Paul:

I recently have been talking more about satellite observation. They say you can sit in front of the store here and a satellite can read the headline on your newspaper. So I think you could also monitor your border with satellites, and then you just have to have some means of intercepting people who come in illegally. You could have helicopters stations positioned every couple of hundred miles. . .

We’re the only country I know of that allows people to come in illegally have a baby and then that baby becomes a citizen. And I think that should stop also.
Click to expand...


Odd that a libertarian is advocating massive government surveillance by helicopter gunships and satellite.

Also, Mr. Rand, please read the 14th amendment. You can't "stop" people from becoming american citizens if they are born on american soil.


Third, Mr. Ayn Rand, we're not "the only" country that allows people to be citizens if they are born on american soil . Canada and Mexico — automatically grant citizenship to children born within their borders, as do many other nations.


http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/28/paul-citizenship/

http://thinkprogress.org/
 
Cypress said:
Odd that a libertarian is advocating massive government surveillance by helicopter gunships and satellite.

Also, Mr. Rand, please read the 14th amendment. You can't "stop" people from becoming american citizens if they are born on american soil.


Third, Mr. Ayn Rand, we're not "the only" country that allows people to be citizens if they are born on american soil . Canada and Mexico — automatically grant citizenship to children born within their borders, as do many other nations.


http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/28/paul-citizenship/

http://thinkprogress.org/
Click to expand...

There's nothing unlibertarian about protecting our border and spending government money on the basic constitutional functions of government. Unless you think all libertarians are against all government and are for open borders. To that point, again, very extreme libertarians don't even consider Rand Paul one of them...and neither does Rand Paul.

As to the 14th...duh. He is suggesting that the issue be revisited. Imagine that, a member of Congress, who instead of subverting the Constituition to change policy, actually suggests amending the Constitution when you want to make substantial additions or changes to our national government.

This is the kind of idea of limited power that every elected official should come to office with, and yet very, very few want to acknowledge the rightful limitations of their offices. And as soon as Rand Paul comes around and suggests in any way we've got too much government, you guys turn into all-out attack mode just like his Country Club Republican opponents did before he beat them.
 
zoombwaz said:
In forming a social group, those entering into the social contract agree to give up those privileges in order to gain the right to life and the right to private property. The group protects its members' rights and enforces the agreement internally through police and courts, and externally through a military force.

Rather than talk about government, a term that brings out the batshit in a certain segment of the population, we'll couch it in terms of the newly formed social group. All of us in the group, as the signatories to the contract, pledge mutual defense of your rights to life and private property. We also pledge that our progeny will automatically enter into the contract at birth. Got that? This is crucial. The only reason you can have private ownership of anything, is because the rest of us are guaranteeing your right. In exchange for our guarantee, we're going to place some conditions on your ownership. First, since the rest of us are all guaranteeing your ownership of your property, your right to do with it what you please ends at your neighbor's property line, and even before you get to the physical boundary. The rest of us as guarantors won't allow you to do anything with your property that adversely affects the property we own. We call that zoning. And as for Rand Paul's idiotic claim that the business owner has the right to exclude whomever he wishes: nice try, schmuck, but since all the rest of us are your business's guarantors, through our elected representative government, you will serve every goddamned one of us that walks through your door, or we'll close your ass down.

Got it?

Good.
Click to expand...

Is that the total bullshit false premise you'd tell the homeowners in Arlington, TX that had their homes taken so Jerry Jones could own a new football stadium and parking lot?
 
Adam Weinberg said:
I suggest you read Walter Williams' piece. I don't necessarily agree with his own conclusion, but I think his characterization of the incident is clear and his analysis is important.

I don't think most people even realize what Rand Paul's actual comment was, and frankly, folks who think this line will sink his campaign don't want a factual discussion.

This guy is not a racist, he is not some kind of intellectual lightweight, he's not even some kind of libertarian ideologue and refuses to use the word to describe himself.

If someone can't take off their partisan blinders to recognize the legitimacy of his candidacy, that people in this country are coming around to these ideas and the platform he was nominated on (that is, actual issues), they're going to be scratching their head quite severely when he wins in November.

Rand Paul is leading among voters who are more like the people who live in Kentucky. Jack Conway is leading among voters who are more like people who live in San Francisco.

There aren't enough of those people in Kentucky to elect Jack Conway and now that the worst of the character assassination is over, Rand has got this.
Click to expand...
Adam! You're rationalizing. Even if you disagree with racism being a proxy to enable those to commit racism makes you a racist whether you like it or not and your charaterization of Kentucky is asinine in the extreme. How much time have you spent there? None I bet. If you can't see the truth to what an asinine comment Paul made then the only person who has partisan blinder on is you!

Adam, you more then capable of being objective. I challange you to pull off your partisan libertarian blinders, put your self into the shoes of the millions of Americans who were harmed by the kinds of discriminatory practices prevelent before the CRA of 64 and I think you'll find that Mr. Pauls comments crossed a line. Because I"m telling you Adam, passively accepting racism, in the name of liberty, still makes you a racist!

Think man, think!
 
Last edited:
Adam Weinberg said:
There's nothing unlibertarian about protecting our border and spending government money on the basic constitutional functions of government. Unless you think all libertarians are against all government and are for open borders. To that point, again, very extreme libertarians don't even consider Rand Paul one of them...and neither does Rand Paul.

As to the 14th...duh. He is suggesting that the issue be revisited. Imagine that, a member of Congress, who instead of subverting the Constituition to change policy, actually suggests amending the Constitution when you want to make substantial additions or changes to our national government.

This is the kind of idea of limited power that every elected official should come to office with, and yet very, very few want to acknowledge the rightful limitations of their offices. And as soon as Rand Paul comes around and suggests in any way we've got too much government, you guys turn into all-out attack mode just like his Country Club Republican opponents did before he beat them.
Click to expand...

The problem of illegal immigration can be mitigated with much cheaper, easier, and more effective methods than helicopter gunships and pervasive NSA satellite survellaince. It's a social issue, much more than a border security issue. Arrest and put in jail the corporations and employeers who willingly hire illegals and covertly encourage them to come here. I'm no expert on it, but I'm pretty sure this is an issue that has a resolution without black helicopters.

My maternal family is in Canada and I cross the border routinely. I don't feel there's any need for NSA satellites to be snapping photos of me, or helicopter gunships monitoring my movements. Like I said, the issue of illegal immigration is resolvable with less expensive methods to the taxpayers, and methods that don't require massive upgrade of covert government survellanice. Wow, this NSA satellite and helicopter crap doesn't sound libertarian at all.

Also, with regard to your suggesting that Rand Paul advocates repeal of the 14th amendment.....well, that's just batshit crazy and extremist. I've never heard of a candidate running on a platform to repeal and/or restrict the 14th amendment.
 
Cypress said:
Also, with regard to your suggesting that Rand Paul advocates repeal of the 14th amendment.....well, that's just batshit crazy and extremist. I've never heard of a candidate running on a platform to repeal and/or restrict the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...

Don't be such a drama queen. Revisiting birthright citizenship has nothing to do with repealing the 14th amendment. It has to do with clarifying it.

Sorry if you've never read about the active discussion of this subject among constituional scholars and elected leaders since literally the passage of the 14th.

The discussion of whether we should have birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants has been around a long time and it is incredibly relevant today when speaking about incentives for illegal immigration, which you yourself admit is more a
factor than even the border itself.

Not even the original authors of the fourteeth amendment intended for it to be interpreted in that manner.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top