Politics
Out of context: Reply #12554
- Started
- Last post
- 33,770 Responses
- ********0
Read that ^ article lucky. Its a poor article, and i would call it more of a opinion piece by someone(fix* it is op'd) who didn't do much research or thinking on what he was commenting about. It seems more about playing to a side like a cheerleader to pump them up.... and if i was to end the post there i would be doing the same thing the article did. I'll go point to point and explain why i think that.
Look at the type of language and words used to open the piece up with. Its all hyperbole setting the mood. The first think of actual consequence that he speaks about is the highlighted content about the "crisis" management teams keeping him away from cameras. Being a highlighted link you would think he would spend more time thinking about why that is. I think it was a smart political move and im not surprised in the least. For one he is the first political face being used as a focus point for the teabaggers. Up until now there has been no sort of "teabagger candidate." People may say palin but i think all people know shes just a joke playing off the TB's hype in the media. Getting spokesperson jobs and such, which she did successfully unfortunately. I dont believe she was in anyway an actual political candidate to attack, more of a celebrity like Cruise is for scientology. Now that RP got their support he's target numero uno. And the media and every PR firm is going to have a hayday. Should he be attacked or held accountable for tons of emotionally upset people who are hypocritical have no real structure or beleif system in place, who blindly act on a whim and who don't have a solid idea what they're fighting for just an impression of the idea of freedom? I think not. I saw his acceptance speech and i admit he seemed to pander to them in it. I did not like that, but in politics it is sometimes necessary. And being the first day i'll accept it and see how he does in the future. Now also on keeping him out of the media was also smart. since the shows people would want him on would give him maybe 5 minutes tops of uninterupted time for him to explain the philosophy he is talking about and how it should be applied or not applied on such a large thing as civil rights vs equal rights. The lincoln/douglas debates lasted up to 7 hours sometimes to discuss such things. And still 7 hours wasn't enough. The talkshows that wanted him would be primarily using him for entertainment and ratings, while promoting there own agenda and bias. I hope hes currently working on a long statement to cover it. Because it is a large topic and large topics usually result in political suicide in our twitter type entertainment based culture. Unless you can spin a positive impression with charisma.
Now on the topic of civil liberties im positive after seeing him on maddow he was being truthful. If im allowed to speculate. His philosophy seems to be to uphold equal rights. In the case of private business(property), they should be allowed to refuse business to whomever they like. We do it all the time with no shirt no shoes no service. People may say thats different because thats just discrimination not racial discrimination. But we allow it. We dont sell weapons to hostile countries which is discrimination based on what we believe to be hostile. Businesses are forced to sell parts to competitors. The point being there is many types of discrimination that are acceptable. And those types of dicrimination are acceptable becuase of the idea of equal rights and mainly the part of private property. And based on that philosophy it should stand that racial discrimination should be ok to. If not its reverse discrimination against private business and property. And just incase you dont understand how private business is similiar to private property or think them to be different, because private business is more open then say your car. I'd have to sum it up by saying its privately owned. The owner can control hours, shutdown, change menu do whatever they want when they want as long as it doesnt infringe on someone else rights. Which is to say burn the place down and the fire burns down someone else place. To say someone wanted a burger from a restaurant and the owner shutdown isnt infringing on the customers rights, becuase he had no right in the first place to the burger. Much like in the case if i let my friends drive my car and some stranger sees it and want to drive and i refuse him.
So why is reverse discrimination being allowed in the case of race? Its likely because a century of guilt about the racial injustices that happened. Which is a sad thing but was product of the culture of its time. A socially conditioned mentality that was utterly terrible. And i think RP is happy that the civil rights movement took place, but recognizes the infringement and contradiction of equal rights. And he hasn't pushed for a bill but seems to have simply suggest people look into it. And that the federal government has no right which it really doesnt. Personally i think most people have changed there conditioning in a new generation and more or less colorblind. I do recognize a need in certain states or places with a culture still brought up in such a way. I see it as a necessary evil, in as much as i understand fully its infringing upon rights, and think a nice baby step would be to let federal go and let states decide. Which is probably what he is suggesting.
Racial housing laws fall under the same idea as above. Its either equal rights, or not. And still i find it will be impossible for him to get his message across on such a medium as tv.
The superhighway thing i had to actually look up. My first impression was well if its true it would change my thoughts about the guy. But since there was no context and was only a few sentences i checked it out so i could formulate a rational response and not get sucked into impression or take a statement and add an imaginary context to it that id find suitable. What i found briefly looking through the hot link and short research is that yes physical NAFTA highway doesnt exist. Its primarily a nickname for interconnecting highways and or proposed projects. It has to do with the north american free trade agreement. The one in question he was referring to sounded like trans texas corridor. Which is an actual proposed network... the hotlink stated no such thing exists as called NAFTA, and didnt seem to mention it as primarily a nickname. Then related it to swift boat nuts. The linked article links to this statement http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/… that explicitly states NAFTA as a nickname and the real name is the texas corridor. I may look into the rest but as far as it seems the article is ron paul and not his son. And the Paul he's quoting is ron on the "borderless, mass continent" not rand. He simply used Paul before the quote. Giving the impression for those who didnt look to believe it was Rand. As far as the other quotes the article it linked to said Paul without any source to where those quotes came from. So i cant verify if those others quotes were Rand or Ron or what context they were taken from. Thats so dirty and sneaky.
On the oil spill stuff. I could careless about what words the president uses about his action on othe oil spill and care more about his actions. As far as Rand Pauls view on the presidents position i find it trivial wether its unamerican or not. Especially without context. And especially since im not too sure about what the president has been doing or been saying on the case. I cant make an educated decision and since i cant do that i wont make an emotional one either. But as far as Rand Paul on the mining thing saying its an accident and then coming in to blame someone i agree with. Its completely reasonable. Its a fact that accidents happen, various little mistakes all come together and make a big mistake. It shouldnt be treated liek accidents dont happen and its witch hunt, it should be looked at objectively liek an academic to see what was the cause. Then dealt with. Without people panicking and calling for tons of new retarded safety measures. Remember working at home depot and someone made a honest mistake and someone got hurt. National news came in as an expose secretly filming anyone who they could make look worse then it was out of context. Do to public panic and demanding tons of safety laws which HD ended up doing. The result ended up taking 4 people to do a man job, lack in customer service, lack in downstocking and avaibility of products, which pissed consumers off. And even with safety precautions in place customers would just walk under warning signs which lead to new measures, with layoffs, which meant even less work gets done and less customer service and just a downward spiral. And thats why it is important to objectively look at something rather then irrationally calling for new safety measures. To understand that accidents do happen. And in this sense dont generally take what im saying as hey he doesnt think theres a need for safety. Or he doesnt care if peopel get hurt. Im simply saying look at each regualtion or rule objectively. Because 100% safety means shutting the business down so it doesnt exist. which then what good would that be. Just have the ability to recognize what are 1 in a million accidents. Look at it rationally.
Those are my takes on the 2 line talking points. The author wrote this as a simple dumb opinion piece with no context, no proper evaluation whatsoever, the only evaluation he gave was the impression Rand Paul sucks without a lick of reason, misproper quotes, hot linking to terribly biased sites that didnt do there research in their own articles. And all the hyperbole which is fine being an opinion piece. But this isnt news or good journalism. Just someone blindly bitching for entertainment purposes. My beef with it is why this is considered news? Why this is considered material worthy of reading and being hotlinked? But thats my 2cents with my reasoning behind it lucky. Hope it makes sense wether you agree with it or not.
- TEABAGGERS UNITE®utopian
- Yeh db, it is an editorial. One man's opinion, but he makes solid points.luckyorphan
- You don't think Rand Paul is a lightning rod for the media because he has radical views?DrBombay