Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,755 Responses
- DrBombay0
I think it is wrong and shows a warped sense of thinking that Rand Paul squares EVERYTHING that could possibly happen in this country to the free market template.
- CALLES0
think about this guys... in about 20 to 25 years... chances are... that we will have an ex-hipster president
- ukit0
"the shows people would want him on would give him maybe 5 minutes tops...I hope hes currently working on a long statement to cover it"
You know enough with implying its the media's fault somehow. I'm not the biggest Rachel Maddow fan in the world (the way she talks and her whole style kind of annoys me actually), but if you watch that clip she was 100% fair.
She explained the issue, provided context, even made very clear what the libertarian argument was - in terms of being opposed to that one clause of the Civil Rights Bill vs the whole thing. Rand Paul on the other hand stood there and obfuscated for 20 minutes, and was extremely reluctant to answer a simple yes or no question about whether he would have opposed that part of the bill.
So, no, he's not working on a long statement. In fact, I'd bet a lot of money based on just watching that interview that Rand goes to sleep every night these days praying he will never have to talk about it again (he will).
- if he answered yes what would maddow do? would he have time to explain the philosophy. apply examples. reference examples. talk the politics. social conditions of the time for context********
- , talk of social conditions in the time of 64. talk of applying it in different cultures. theres a lot to talk about********
- of course, I mean she explained it herself and even discussed the libertarian rationaleukit
- the tv talkshow is an unsatisfactory medium for such a discussion especially with todays people********
- thing is that although people in general might not be familiar with this, journalists generally areukit
- and they understand where Rand is coming from, it's just a very extreme position w/ disturbing implicationsukit
- you seem to be implying that they either don't understand, or are trying to slander himukit
- when ironically the whole problem for him is the issue itselfukit
- im saying theyre trying to slander and provide entertainment. thats there purpose.********
- Is that what Mitch is doing here too? http://www.huffingto…DrBombay
- if he answered yes what would maddow do? would he have time to explain the philosophy. apply examples. reference examples. talk the politics. social conditions of the time for context
- ukit0
"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."
You really don't need to speculate though. This is simply a long standing issue in terms of the Civil Rights Bill.
It's not a new debate or even something that began in the 60s, the disagreement stems all the way from 1875 when the Republicans (back when they were a Northern, progressive party) passed a different Civil Rights Bill that did pretty much the same thing, attempted to ban discrimination in public places (including businesses as well as gov owned). That part of the bill was overturned by the Supreme Court at the time which was extremely conservative, making essentially the same argument as Rand Paul.
This is a good read on the issue, by Bruce Bartlett who worked in the Reagan and Bush administrations:
http://www.capitalgainsandgames.…
"...in 1883 the Supreme Court, then it its most libertarian phase, knocked down the 1875 act as well as many other Republican measures passed during Reconstruction designed to aid African Americans. The Court's philosophy in these cases led logically to Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, which essentially gave constitutional protection to legal segregation enforced by state and local governments throughout the U.S.
As we know from history, the free market did not lead to a breakdown of segregation. Indeed, it got much worse, not just because it was enforced by law but because it was mandated by self-reinforcing societal pressure. Any store owner in the South who chose to serve blacks would certainly have lost far more business among whites than he gained. There is no reason to believe that this system wouldn't have perpetuated itself absent outside pressure for change.
In short, the libertarian philosophy of Rand Paul and the Supreme Court of the 1880s and 1890s gave us almost 100 years of segregation, white supremacy, lynchings, chain gangs, the KKK, and discrimination of African Americans for no other reason except their skin color. The gains made by the former slaves in the years after the Civil War were completely reversed once the Supreme Court effectively prevented the federal government from protecting them.
I don't believe Rand is a racist; I think he is a fool who is suffering from the foolish consistency syndrome that affects all libertarians. They believe that freedom consists of one thing and one thing only--freedom from governmental constraint. Therefore, it is illogical to them that any increase in government power could ever expand freedom. Yet it is clear that African Americans were far from free in 1964 and that the Civil Rights Act greatly expanded their freedom while diminishing that of racists. To defend the rights of racists to discriminate is reprehensible and especially so when it is done by a major party nominee for the U.S. Senate."
- so your ok that rights arnt equal when it comes to race?
********
- race has nothing to do with rights being equal, society however does.
wtf are you asking?BonSeff - im asking the simple question that is what its all about.... if you missed that then no wonder theres a problem on understanding********
- Is English your fifth language? Form a proper question...DrBombay
- Amazing - Bruce Bartlett's work actually supports my point.luckyorphan
- so your ok that rights arnt equal when it comes to race?
- ********0
The whole thing with Rand is he is for equal rights. Which means to lift some of the racial discrimination stuff relating to jobs, business homes. And in doing so people then are equal. So doc i was asking ukit if he didnt mind that people werent equal when it comes to race in those respects. its a simple question. and heres something extra to think about. If you feel you have the right to decide the rights of someone wouldnt that mean reflexive property that they have the right to decide your rights.
- Your question starts on the false premise that we think people are less equal due to the CRA.DrBombay
- What is a business home?DrBombay
- ... if you cant grasp the premise then that is the problem. business, home... like housing and restaurants********
- Your puny mind cant graspp the premis DrBombay and that is the problem!!!ukit
- My puny mind can't grasp his lack of commas and basic English skills.DrBombay
- ********0
- DrBombay0
Nikki Haley
Nikki Sixx
- ukit0
"lift some of the racial discrimination stuff relating to jobs, business homes"
Not sure what you're talking about here. Rand Paul was taking issue with the Civil Rights Bill specifically.
"If you feel you have the right to decide the rights of someone wouldnt that mean reflexive property that they have the right to decide your rights."
Um...no? I mean the people deciding are Congress, that's what we elect them to do. Am I missing something here?
Why does every "libertarian" (as of last year) conservative think they know something the rest of us don't when it comes to this shit? When we understand these issues perfectly fine, we just don't see it in such simplistic terms. Arguing backwards from an inflexible philosophical stance isn't a viable way to run a country, or a business for that matter.
Being so absolutist in your viewpoint brings to mind other failed political philosophies, like Marxism ironically enough.
- really? Civil RIghts bill covers racial discrimination. and second is true. congress decides through mob rule.********
- hence the idea of certain inalienable rights that mob rule cant vote to take away********
- Proofread your shit before hitting "save" this makes zero sense.DrBombay
- and ya gotta get over the team terms man. with that kinda attitude you wont ever have an objective view********
- Rand Paul wants to join the "Mob" though, right?DrBombay
- ron paul joined the gov body yes. does he want to have mob rule style no.********
- He wants to be part of the mob ya dumb cunt.DrBombay
- Ron is a fuckin mobsterukit
- really? Civil RIghts bill covers racial discrimination. and second is true. congress decides through mob rule.
- BonSeff0
Rand Paul and Deathboy say, fuck you Radio Raheem
- haha Radio Raheemukit
- that movie is a perfect argument to paul's philosophyBonSeff
- haha. once again supporting equal rights isnt the same as advocating racial discrimination. stay focused********
- they go hand in hand ahole.BonSeff
- Danny Aiello didn't want to serve the Moolies. You agree with it. right?DrBombay
- does supporting equal rights mean your advocating racial discrimination? context determines relation********
- Have you ever seen the movie to the left you were commenting on?DrBombay
- nope i simply reminding that to advocate equal rights isnt the same as advocating racial discrimination.********
- You shouldn't comment on thing you don't know shit about. Didn't your Dad ever tell you that?DrBombay
- did i? or was i simply reinterating a point, which seemed relevant with the fuck you Radio Raheem.********
- doesnt take a genius to guess the odds of what the clip is about in the context of the discussion. was i wrong?********
- If you havent seen this movie, I guess you are in your early 20's, right?DrBombay
- Or completely insulated from black culture in the 80's/90'sDrBombay
- ukit0
"congress decides through mob rule."
I see, so you got a problem with the 14th and 15th Amendment too? 19th Amendment? What about the rest of the Civil Rights Bill?
- i got problem when a democracy forgets about inalienable rights and turns into mob rule.********
- I got problem!DrBombay
- Rick, you are one shrill little bitch. I can hear your high pitched nag voice even through your writing.mathinc
- There are tons of people on here who fuck up grammar. But it's only the people you don't agree with who get this sort ofmathinc
- treatment. Childish.mathinc
- He has an illogical viewpoint and shitty grammar, the perfect combination for ridicule. You can agree with him if you like.DrBombay
- The illogical viewpoint depends on whoever is doing the 'viewing.' I think your viewpoint is batshit crazy but I appreciatemathinc
- your right to a differing viewpoint without belittling you constantly. The grammar.. man look around this thread...mathinc
- You belittle me daily, quit this high horse bullshit and get off my cock.DrBombay
- You're demented.mathinc
- You called me childish and demented in this note section alone. Yet somehow you don't belittle people? Go buy a gun and I will borrow u a bullet.DrBombay
- and I will borrow you a bullet.DrBombay
- if you cant understadn becuas eof bad grammar or mispellings how can you determine its illogical?********
- i think you can read it jsut fine, but dont agree with it, but cant rationally explain why so you turn to insults********
- I think all libertarians are boneheads. They frame everything in free-market rhetoric whether it fits or not.DrBombay
- It is an illogical worldview that has never ever been tested and has like 3 members of gov for a reason. It is half baked.DrBombay
- You can disagree, it's fine. I welcome you to run for office and lose.DrBombay
- thats a statement with no rational follow through. and why such a large generalization when its not called for********
- called for. when its more direct about individual equal rights. wheres your take on the content at hand********
- large party generalizations are worthless********
- Run for office.DrBombay
- I don't think people had more rights before the CRA, you do. Because you are an idiot.DrBombay
- i got problem when a democracy forgets about inalienable rights and turns into mob rule.
- DrBombay0
LAPD's Beck joins other chiefs to say Arizona immigration law could cripple law enforcement ---
“legislation like this inhibits us from doing our jobs”
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/…
- DrBombay0
House Republicans started http://www.americaspeakingout.co… let's mine it for some gems:
In the "American Values" section:
We need more laws like the one in Arizona. "Driving While Black" just isn't enough. We need "Driving While Brown," "Driving While Yellow," and "Driving While Wearing Blue Jeans."
The BIBLE says that JESUS is the head of a marriage! So we need a constitutional amendment banning non-traditional, non-Christian "marriages"!!!
NATIONAL SECURITY:
This cuontry having to make safe a border. All kind nut peple make way into this great naton for make a trouble. when imgriants come cross a borders, have to catch, humliate by make a caca on a chest and send back home still with a caca on his chest. who going to risk embarass by have to go home to family with caca on chest for all a world to see? and to come back and have a same happen again? this how peples in mine father cuontry do thing and you never hear about illegal mexican come cross a border to his cuontry in a europe.
My neighbor wears a towel on his head and he smells funny. Arrest him.
Register all Christians and monitor them, as they are likely to commit acts of terrorism to bring about the Second Coming. Allahu Ackbar!
good times. haha
- It must be a bitch to be a moderator on that site. What is real and what is trolling?DrBombay
- haha wow these are real?mathinc
- go look for urself http://www.americasp…DrBombay
- Nice backfire RNC.DrBombay
- "I think every food product NOT endorsed by Sarah Palin should carry a warning label stating we are ingesting socialism. "DrBombay
- socialism"DrBombay
- They just deleted a ton of comments on that site, wtf?DrBombay
- So much for America speaking out...DrBombay
- ukit0
"i got problem when a democracy forgets about inalienable rights and turns into mob rule."
What does that mean? And which rights are inalienable? Only the ones written down on a piece of paper 200 years ago?
Do you support the 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments where Congress used their authority to expand rights to women and minorities?
- as far as what i mean by rights id say read mans rights essay. and as far as the other amendants not sure would have to read them********
- have to check read them and evaulate them.********
- wow, so you don't even know what they are? You are a silly motherfucker.DrBombay
- well i dont feel like writing a book right now explaining rights, when i think other shave done a better job********
- hate to tell you doc, not all things can be summed up in 4 sentence generalizations.********
- as far as what i mean by rights id say read mans rights essay. and as far as the other amendants not sure would have to read them
- luckyorphan0
Hey db, in your earlier post in reference to Rand Paul, you said, "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."
I believe that was in reference to Eugene Robinson's noting Rand Paul's belief that the US, Canada and Mexico are in a conspiracy to create a "borderless mass continent." You challenged that Robinson's op-ed was not based on research, but rather a bit of a hit piece.
A quick search turned up the following article and clip:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoint…
In the Montana appearance, Rand Paul echoed his father's views, referring to the "Amero" (the Euro-style currency of the future North American Union), and saying "I guarantee you it's one of their long term goals to have one sort of borderless, mass continent."
Watch the clip. It's informative.
- I don't mean to pile on. I'm just asking you to consider that Robinson's piece was more informed than you might think.luckyorphan
- i didnt see a video clip. ill check it out********
- ok thats were the source was sighted guess i skimmed over the video like it was an ad.********
- he doesnt strike me as a kook talking about it. Seems there is substantial info about it. Perhaps theorizing a bit ahead********
- but he put his theory down that something like that is 20-30yrs ahead. And it wouldnt be the first time its been done.********
- It doesnt have to much effect on my outlook of the guy. Seems academical enough for discussion. Much like hawking talking about aliens.********
- talking about aliens.********
- bwahahahaukit
- should i mention its highly likely such a thing will happen in the future considering mans nature********
- luckyorphan0
On another note:
Family Research Council: End Of DADT Means More Gay Rape In The Military
by Evan McMorris-Santoro
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.c…"Here's how the Family Research Council envisions things going if Don't Ask, Don't Tell is repealed: first, more straight soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines will be fellated in their sleep against their will. Then, commanders afraid of being labeled homophobic will refuse to do anything about it. Eventually, the straight service members will quit out of fear."
Good times.
- DrBombay0
I bet a million bucks deathboy is a whiteboy
- That's a hellofa thing to say.sigg
- Would have to be pretty insulated from minorities to hold that position.DrBombay
- or i could be white and jsut colorblind and treat people on values and intellect and not color and thats why i hold it********
- That might make sense but then you are blind to the rest of the country's racism.DrBombay
- and are u suggesting all white people are insulated from minorities?********
- no i see it. lots of peopel hate people on race, stereotype, ideals, football teams.********
- and i also see that the culture has changed since the late 1800s.********
- Mostly due to the civil rights movement.DrBombay
- Bussing, shit like that.DrBombay
- "and are u suggesting all white people are insulated from minorities?" wow you are dense.DrBombay
- Where you live, deathboy?DrBombay
- yes the civil rights was a necessary evil to change the social conditioning done back then, think we can handle the freedom now********
- freedom now
********
- "necessary evil"... fucking wow.DrBombay
- LA********
- anyways location is irrelevant. you woudl need how do i live, people, place i go, where i travel, where have i lived all that********
- What was the other profile you used to go by around here?DrBombay
- thats to formulate a better opinion then jsut a city name********
- Doesn't really matter, you sound like a piece of shit no matter the demo. I am done here. later.DrBombay
- necessary evil in context that liberty was taken away.********
- bye.********
- the liberty to discriminate. Thats is what you want back. You obviously feel you have lost something.DrBombay
- Otherwise you wouldn't continue with this shit.DrBombay
- ive covered all this in those long posts doc. read it becuas eim tired of repeating myself********
- Writing a lot of words doesn't necessarily make your argument convincing though, does it?ukit
- nope. but there deosnt appear to be any questions or pointing out holes in the basic logic, especially with rights.********
- or maybe your like some peopel who dont believe in inalienable rights. you simply beleive rights are determined by gov and thats it********
- by gov and thats it. if thats what you beleive then i could see how we were on 2 different pages********
- mathinc0
I think the problem here, Rick, is that you think that without government we'd all murder and eat each other.
Truth is, and I think the point being made here, is that we're progressed enough as a society to now take back the laws acknowledging that a person is person based on their skin color - because that is in fact also racist. You and I have never agreed on this use of the word 'racism.' I think you're convinced that the only time the word racist is allowed is when it's a white person doing the prejudicing. Now I'm getting off topic, anyways I think this is an interesting discussion and I don't even know where I stand on this issue. I do, and have always, felt like we need to stop constantly reminding people that they're minorities who need our help.
Have any of you read the book Blink by Malcom Gladwell? There is a part in that book where they had African Americans take a test, but before they gave them the test they asked a group of them to fill out their race, you know, that common 'check the box for your race:' and the group who had to check their box performed a lot worse then the ones who didn't. It's interesting how one simple question that reminds the person of all the stereotypes for his/her race, can actually make them mentally become that stereotype. Imagine what a lifetime of being told that you're not supposed to do as good as whites can do to a person.
Rick aren't you a 'whiteboy'? What's that have to do with anything if deathboy is white? You're being racist again eh? Because someone has the opinion that we don't need laws that make us racially equal any longer then they must be a white person trying to work one over on the minorities eh? You probably don't even see the racial irony in that way of thinking, just forget I said anything.
- yup thats pretty much what i was goin for.********
- What other race would want to roll back the civil rights act?DrBombay
- yup thats pretty much what i was goin for.
- DrBombay0
What freedoms have you lost due to the civil rights movement?