Rand Paul

[57Brave]

Further proving he is NRFPT by ignoring the lessons of Jindal,Bachmann, McDonnell and Rubio by following POTUS making a rebuttal.
It has proven to be political suicide

////

from twitter:
Ana Marie Cox ‏@anamariecox 19m

This oughta be good. RT @AlexPappas: Rand Paul to deliver response to Obama’s Syria speech http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/10/rand-paul-to-deliver-response-to-obamas-syria-speech/ …
View summary

[Julio3000]

Dude is a joke. His claim to fame is being the spawn of a guy who—hey, forget the racist newsletters for a moment—could get re-elected while basically saying "no" to everything which wasn't his own brand of crackpottery. . . which is really easy to do when you don't have the responsibility to actually govern. I've said it before here, but some perverse part of me wants to see L'il Rand get elected president, just to watch the meltdown.

[jpx7]

I've said it before here, but some perverse part of me wants to see L'il Rand get elected president, just to watch the meltdown.

Oooohhh ...

http://weknowgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/stephen-colbert-popcorn-gif.gif

That could be pretty good theatre.

Like Macbeth, only I might end up one of the candles that's put out.

[sturg33]

Dude is a joke. His claim to fame is being the spawn of a guy who—hey, forget the racist newsletters for a moment—could get re-elected while basically saying "no" to everything which wasn't his own brand of crackpottery. . . which is really easy to do when you don't have the responsibility to actually govern. I've said it before here, but some perverse part of me wants to see L'il Rand get elected president, just to watch the meltdown.

What makes him a joke?

[sturg33]

Dude is a joke. His claim to fame is being the spawn of a guy who—hey, forget the racist newsletters for a moment—could get re-elected while basically saying "no" to everything which wasn't his own brand of crackpottery. . . which is really easy to do when you don't have the responsibility to actually govern. I've said it before here, but some perverse part of me wants to see L'il Rand get elected president, just to watch the meltdown.

Ron Paul's "no" votes were based on the following criteria...

"Does the US Constitution authorize the Federal Government to do xyz?"

If the answer was no, he would vote no. Just like he took an oath to do.

[acesfull86]

NT

[Julio3000]

Ron Paul's "no" votes were based on the following criteria...

"Does Ron Paul's interpretation US Constitution authorize the Federal Government to do xyz?"



FIFY.

Let me be clear . . . when I say "watch the meltdown," I don't mean watch the country melt down when an ZOMG Real Libbutarian is elected president and immediately abolishes the IRS and puts us on the gold standard, I mean watch the meltdown when the well-intentioned but naive Paulistas watch Big Baby Jesus turn into a run-of-the-mill Republican.

[sturg33]

FIFY.

Let me be clear . . . when I say "watch the meltdown," I don't mean watch the country melt down when an ZOMG Real Libbutarian is elected president and immediately abolishes the IRS and puts us on the gold standard, I mean watch the meltdown when the well-intentioned but naive Paulistas watch Big Baby Jesus turn into a run-of-the-mill Republican.

I have serious doubts about Rand Paul's authenticity. I had none about Ron Paul.

But you didn't answer my question. What is it that makes you think he is a joke?

[Julio3000]

I have serious doubts about Rand Paul's authenticity. I had none about Ron Paul.

But you didn't answer my question. What is it that makes you think he is a joke?

I'll start with the obvious. Does he get elected to the United States Senate if his name is Rand Jones, ophthalmologist?

[sturg33]

I'll start with the obvious. Does he get elected to the United States Senate if his name is Rand Jones, ophthalmologist?

Probably not because he had to unseat an establishment backed Republican in the primary.

But I could ask the same questions about Hilary Clinton or Ted Kennedy or Mitt Romney or George Bush or whoever.

But what about his substance/policies makes him a "joke"

[Julio3000]

Probably not because he had to unseat an establishment backed Republican in the primary.

But I could ask the same questions about Hilary Clinton or Ted Kennedy or Mitt Romney or George Bush or whoever.



Are we talking about those people?

[Julio3000]

Probably not because he had to unseat an establishment backed Republican in the primary.

But I could ask the same questions about Hilary Clinton or Ted Kennedy or Mitt Romney or George Bush or whoever.

But what about his substance/policies makes him a "joke"

I guess I could start here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rand-pauls-rewriting-of-his-own-remarks-on-the-civil-rights-act/2013/04/10/5b8d91c4-a235-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_blog.html)

[sturg33]

I guess I could start here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rand-pauls-rewriting-of-his-own-remarks-on-the-civil-rights-act/2013/04/10/5b8d91c4-a235-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_blog.html)

So let me get this straight.

You're going to link to a story where Paul obviously got bombarded with negative publicity due to his statements on the civil rights act, and thus did practically a 180 to get on the politically correct side of things. In other words, you're saying he is a "joke" because he flipped on an issue that he got killed for his original stance (shame on him for flip flopping).

And then you support folks like Barack Obama.

LOL.

[sturg33]

Are we talking about those people?

No. But you made a strawman argument that didn't answer my question. So I showed you why that was dumb and I asked you a third time why you made your original claim.

Then you link to a politician flip flopping as if that proves anything. If that is what makes politicians "jokes", tell me which politician's AREN'T jokes.

[Julio3000]

No. But you made a strawman argument that didn't answer my question. So I showed you why that was dumb and I asked you a third time why you made your original claim.

Then you link to a politician flip flopping as if that proves anything. If that is what makes politicians "jokes", tell me which politician's AREN'T jokes.

Wait. You concede that he wouldn't have been elected to the Senate were he not his father's son, then throw that back at me as a strawman argument? Girl, please.

[sturg33]

Wait. You concede that he wouldn't have been elected to the Senate were he not his father's son, then throw that back at me as a strawman argument? Girl, please.

Sorry - maybe I missed the intent of your original comment. I read your comment as:

"Rand Paul is a joke."

I didn't know you meant:

"Rand Paul was elected because his last name was Paul."

I agree with that. But I don't think that makes him a joke. I suppose you do. I guess I had higher expectations for some substance form you

[sturg33]

Also - to be clear. The only real advantage of his being Ron's son was fundraising. It's not like Ron had some major constituency in Kentucky that propelled him to victory (I don't recall Ron doing too well in Kentucky in 2008 primary). He won because of the tea party, and that he had national donors because of Ron. The combination took him to victory. But I can assure you that if he was touting neocon, big spending rhetoric, he certainly would not have won.

[Dalyn]

Lews kicks way more ass (and isn't as crazy).

[Bdawg2309]

Ron paul circlejerks are frequent on reddit

[Dalyn]

Ron paul circlejerks are frequent on reddit

Sounds taxing. Not something I think Ron supports.

[Julio3000]

Sorry - maybe I missed the intent of your original comment. I read your comment as:

"Rand Paul is a joke."

I didn't know you meant:

"Rand Paul was elected because his last name was Paul."

I agree with that. But I don't think that makes him a joke. I suppose you do. I guess I had higher expectations for some substance form you

This isn't debate team. This is the internet. :)

How about this, oh great elevator of political debate? It is my highly subjective opinion, the expression of which is SURELY UNPRECEDENTED on this board or in fact on the internet as a whole, that Rand Paul is a lightweight, who has been cast into the spotlight because of his pedigree and not any native talent.

Without his pop's name and fund-raising apparatus, he's an eye doctor in Kentucky, bitching to his neighbors about how unfair taxes are to productive members of society like himself.

I'm not a particular fan of political dynasties . . . which is one reason I supported Barack Obama—who rose to prominence from humble beginnings, who achieved success at elite institutions without name or wealth; and who, if untested, had at least been elected to office—against Hilary Clinton, whose qualifications and intellect still dwarf those of the junior, to say nothing of the senior, Mr. Paul. I do agree that those dynasties are a fact of life, and that their scions should be judged on their merits.

Rand Paul is like the kid that I went to school with who was happy to smoke a joint with you and bull**** about the 4th amendment, but who was an economic royalist who believed that wealth equaled virtue, and that he and his trust fund bros were entitled to the place in society that some forebear of theirs had earned. His senate career, to date, has consisted of some combination of grandstanding, spotlight grabbing, and clowning himself in order to appeal to Republican primary voters. Check out the legislation he's co-sponsored. It's mostly grandstanding silliness, in some cases overlapped by economic extremism. Gold? Repealing cross-state pollution regulations? Yikes.

Rand Paul doesn't like drone strikes. Good for him. Neither do I. There are more things that I probably agree with Rand Paul about. The reason that I would never consider voting for him, even if I might have more political opinions in common with him than with any other Republican contender, is that his economic policies are basically a cut n' paste of the worst recycled trickle-down republican dross, wrapped in a deeply cynical bow of economic freedom and liberty.

Rand Paul doesn't think there's a critical national interest at play in the Syrian civil war. Neither do I. But his opening lines last night:

Twelve years after we were attacked by al-Qaida, 12 years after 3,000 Americans were killed by al-Qaida, President Obama now asks us to be allies with al-Qaida. Americans by a large majority want nothing to do with the Syrian civil war. We fail to see a national security interest in a war between a leader who gasses his own citizens and Islamic rebels who are killing Christians.

are pure histrionic horse****, predictably small-minded, and unworthy of someone who seems to want a seat at the grownup table. If you think that the only problem with his tapdance about the Civil Rights Act was that he filp-flopped, we're probably not going to get very far in this discussion. I'll be happy if Rand Paul moves the needle in the Republican party with regard to drug laws or teh ghey marriage or overseas military intervention, but I think that demographic factors are going to move that needle anyway.

[57Brave]

oh my!

[Metaphysicist]

This isn't debate team. This is the internet. :)

How about this, oh great elevator of political debate? It is my highly subjective opinion, the expression of which is SURELY UNPRECEDENTED on this board or in fact on the internet as a whole, that Rand Paul is a lightweight, who has been cast into the spotlight because of his pedigree and not any native talent.

Without his pop's name and fund-raising apparatus, he's an eye doctor in Kentucky, bitching to his neighbors about how unfair taxes are to productive members of society like himself.

I'm not a particular fan of political dynasties . . . which is one reason I supported Barack Obama—who rose to prominence from humble beginnings, who achieved success at elite institutions without name or wealth; and who, if untested, had at least been elected to office—against Hilary Clinton, whose qualifications and intellect still dwarf those of the junior, to say nothing of the senior, Mr. Paul. I do agree that those dynasties are a fact of life, and that their scions should be judged on their merits.

Rand Paul is like the kid that I went to school with who was happy to smoke a joint with you and bull**** about the 4th amendment, but who was an economic royalist who believed that wealth equaled virtue, and that he and his trust fund bros were entitled to the place in society that some forebear of theirs had earned. His senate career, to date, has consisted of some combination of grandstanding, spotlight grabbing, and clowning himself in order to appeal to Republican primary voters. Check out the legislation he's co-sponsored. It's mostly grandstanding silliness, in some cases overlapped by economic extremism. Gold? Repealing cross-state pollution regulations? Yikes.

Rand Paul doesn't like drone strikes. Good for him. Neither do I. There are more things that I probably agree with Rand Paul about. The reason that I would never consider voting for him, even if I might have more political opinions in common with him than with any other Republican contender, is that his economic policies are basically a cut n' paste of the worst recycled trickle-down republican dross, wrapped in a deeply cynical bow of economic freedom and liberty.

Rand Paul doesn't think there's a critical national interest at play in the Syrian civil war. Neither do I. But his opening lines last night:

Twelve years after we were attacked by al-Qaida, 12 years after 3,000 Americans were killed by al-Qaida, President Obama now asks us to be allies with al-Qaida. Americans by a large majority want nothing to do with the Syrian civil war. We fail to see a national security interest in a war between a leader who gasses his own citizens and Islamic rebels who are killing Christians.

are pure histrionic horse****, predictably small-minded, and unworthy of someone who seems to want a seat at the grownup table. If you think that the only problem with his tapdance about the Civil Rights Act was that he filp-flopped, we're probably not going to get very far in this discussion. I'll be happy if Rand Paul moves the needle in the Republican party with regard to drug laws or teh ghey marriage or overseas military intervention, but I think that demographic factors are going to move that needle anyway.

http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/benwyatt-micdrop.gif

[thethe]

Julio for President!

[jpx7]

Rand Paul is like the kid that I went to school with who was happy to smoke a joint with you and bull**** about the 4th amendment, but who was an economic royalist who believed that wealth equaled virtue, and that he and his trust fund bros were entitled to the place in society that some forebear of theirs had earned.

For me, this kid was from Tennessee, not Kentucky, but it's otherwise spot-the-hell-on.

[sturg33]

This isn't debate team. This is the internet. :)

How about this, oh great elevator of political debate? It is my highly subjective opinion, the expression of which is SURELY UNPRECEDENTED on this board or in fact on the internet as a whole, that Rand Paul is a lightweight, who has been cast into the spotlight because of his pedigree and not any native talent.

Without his pop's name and fund-raising apparatus, he's an eye doctor in Kentucky, bitching to his neighbors about how unfair taxes are to productive members of society like himself.

I'm not a particular fan of political dynasties . . . which is one reason I supported Barack Obama—who rose to prominence from humble beginnings, who achieved success at elite institutions without name or wealth; and who, if untested, had at least been elected to office—against Hilary Clinton, whose qualifications and intellect still dwarf those of the junior, to say nothing of the senior, Mr. Paul. I do agree that those dynasties are a fact of life, and that their scions should be judged on their merits.

Rand Paul is like the kid that I went to school with who was happy to smoke a joint with you and bull**** about the 4th amendment, but who was an economic royalist who believed that wealth equaled virtue, and that he and his trust fund bros were entitled to the place in society that some forebear of theirs had earned. His senate career, to date, has consisted of some combination of grandstanding, spotlight grabbing, and clowning himself in order to appeal to Republican primary voters. Check out the legislation he's co-sponsored. It's mostly grandstanding silliness, in some cases overlapped by economic extremism. Gold? Repealing cross-state pollution regulations? Yikes.

Rand Paul doesn't like drone strikes. Good for him. Neither do I. There are more things that I probably agree with Rand Paul about. The reason that I would never consider voting for him, even if I might have more political opinions in common with him than with any other Republican contender, is that his economic policies are basically a cut n' paste of the worst recycled trickle-down republican dross, wrapped in a deeply cynical bow of economic freedom and liberty.

Rand Paul doesn't think there's a critical national interest at play in the Syrian civil war. Neither do I. But his opening lines last night:

Twelve years after we were attacked by al-Qaida, 12 years after 3,000 Americans were killed by al-Qaida, President Obama now asks us to be allies with al-Qaida. Americans by a large majority want nothing to do with the Syrian civil war. We fail to see a national security interest in a war between a leader who gasses his own citizens and Islamic rebels who are killing Christians.

are pure histrionic horse****, predictably small-minded, and unworthy of someone who seems to want a seat at the grownup table. If you think that the only problem with his tapdance about the Civil Rights Act was that he filp-flopped, we're probably not going to get very far in this discussion. I'll be happy if Rand Paul moves the needle in the Republican party with regard to drug laws or teh ghey marriage or overseas military intervention, but I think that demographic factors are going to move that needle anyway.

I working on a sell to Costco today - but I will respond when I have more time.

Your response was, of course, not out of line of my expectations.

[Julio3000]

I working on a sell to Costco today - but I will respond when I have more time.

Your response was, of course, not out of line of my expectations.

Ok. Convince me that he's not a lightweight. Show me his policy chops, his leadership skills, and his intellectual depth. Bring it.

Make me believe, Sturg. If I'm not quoting von Mises by Friday, I will doubt if you even love Rand Paul.

[50PoundHead]

Julio, you were rockin'.

[gilesfan]

Let Sturg run to his Ron Paul message boards and cut and paste a defense argument. He certainly isnt' countering that argument with a well thought out one of his own.

[bravesnumberone]

I wasn't aware the Pauls were a political dynasty, but w/e.

[cajunrevenge]

You know what, screw Ron and Rand Paul. Lets vote in more Status Quo candidates because thats worked out so well for us.

[Metaphysicist]

You know, of all the possible governments we could have, I think the status quo has got to be in the upper quartile. At least. That's not a very convincing argument.

[bravesnumberone]

You know, of all the possible governments we could have, I think the status quo has got to be in the upper quartile. At least. That's not a very convincing argument.

So when I hear Hillary/Obama say "status quo" ad naseum in 2008, they were full of **** and just talking about themselves? Good to know.

[jpx7]

So when I hear[d] Hillary/Obama say "status quo" ad naseum in 2008, they were full of **** and just talking about themselves? Good to know.

I disagree with the general premise you've proposed in this thread, but the answer to your specific question in the above post is: "Yes."

[bravesnumberone]

I disagree with the general premise you've proposed in this thread, but the answer to your specific question in the above post is: "Yes."

The point is it's all about the letter next to the name.

[sturg33]

This isn't debate team. This is the internet. :)

How about this, oh great elevator of political debate? It is my highly subjective opinion, the expression of which is SURELY UNPRECEDENTED on this board or in fact on the internet as a whole, that Rand Paul is a lightweight, who has been cast into the spotlight because of his pedigree and not any native talent.

Without his pop's name and fund-raising apparatus, he's an eye doctor in Kentucky, bitching to his neighbors about how unfair taxes are to productive members of society like himself.

I'm not a particular fan of political dynasties . . . which is one reason I supported Barack Obama—who rose to prominence from humble beginnings, who achieved success at elite institutions without name or wealth; and who, if untested, had at least been elected to office—against Hilary Clinton, whose qualifications and intellect still dwarf those of the junior, to say nothing of the senior, Mr. Paul. I do agree that those dynasties are a fact of life, and that their scions should be judged on their merits.

Rand Paul is like the kid that I went to school with who was happy to smoke a joint with you and bull**** about the 4th amendment, but who was an economic royalist who believed that wealth equaled virtue, and that he and his trust fund bros were entitled to the place in society that some forebear of theirs had earned. His senate career, to date, has consisted of some combination of grandstanding, spotlight grabbing, and clowning himself in order to appeal to Republican primary voters. Check out the legislation he's co-sponsored. It's mostly grandstanding silliness, in some cases overlapped by economic extremism. Gold? Repealing cross-state pollution regulations? Yikes.

Rand Paul doesn't like drone strikes. Good for him. Neither do I. There are more things that I probably agree with Rand Paul about. The reason that I would never consider voting for him, even if I might have more political opinions in common with him than with any other Republican contender, is that his economic policies are basically a cut n' paste of the worst recycled trickle-down republican dross, wrapped in a deeply cynical bow of economic freedom and liberty.

Rand Paul doesn't think there's a critical national interest at play in the Syrian civil war. Neither do I. But his opening lines last night:

Twelve years after we were attacked by al-Qaida, 12 years after 3,000 Americans were killed by al-Qaida, President Obama now asks us to be allies with al-Qaida. Americans by a large majority want nothing to do with the Syrian civil war. We fail to see a national security interest in a war between a leader who gasses his own citizens and Islamic rebels who are killing Christians.

are pure histrionic horse****, predictably small-minded, and unworthy of someone who seems to want a seat at the grownup table. If you think that the only problem with his tapdance about the Civil Rights Act was that he filp-flopped, we're probably not going to get very far in this discussion. I'll be happy if Rand Paul moves the needle in the Republican party with regard to drug laws or teh ghey marriage or overseas military intervention, but I think that demographic factors are going to move that needle anyway.

How about this, oh great elevator of political debate? It is my highly subjective opinion, the expression of which is SURELY UNPRECEDENTED on this board or in fact on the internet as a whole, that Rand Paul is a lightweight, who has been cast into the spotlight because of his pedigree and not any native talent.

This is where I was confused. You said he was a "joke" which I was wondering why you thought that. After asking you 4 times and still not getting a substantive answer, I accept that you have changed your argument to "he's a political lightweight who was elected because of his dad." OK.

Without his pop's name and fund-raising apparatus, he's an eye doctor in Kentucky, bitching to his neighbors about how unfair taxes are to productive members of society like himself.

Talk about a simplistic viewpoint. You basically suggest that there is no room in congress for people who believe in limited government and low taxes. You suggest that there is no room in congress for anyone who tries to legislate based on his/her interpretation of the Constitution. Because Rand Paul is a contrarian, he could have NEVER won without his last name. Of course, this doesn't explain how folks like Ted Cruz, Ron Paul, and Justin Amash got elected. I must have missed the "Amash dynasty"

I'm not a particular fan of political dynasties . . . which is one reason I supported Barack Obama—who rose to prominence from humble beginnings, who achieved success at elite institutions without name or wealth; and who, if untested, had at least been elected to office—against Hilary Clinton, whose qualifications and intellect still dwarf those of the junior, to say nothing of the senior, Mr. Paul. I do agree that those dynasties are a fact of life, and that their scions should be judged on their merits.

So we're proud of Barack Obama for his humble beginnings, and I assume youa re referring to his success in undergrad and law school? You act as if Rand is some spoiled rich kid who was handed everything he has. Let's ignore the idea that he has an MD. They just hand those out to folks, i hear.

The idea that Hilary Clinton is some sort of intellectual giant is hilarious. Her whole career has been a national healthcare system that failed and a Bengazi coverup that a non-corrupt government would have fired her for. To be honest, I don't know a ton about her accomplishments because I haven't cared enough to go looking for them. I know she doesn't understand how a successful economy should be run, and I know should couldn't give two ****s about individual liberty. I know she isn't even on the same intellectual planet as Dr. Paul. But hey, she's a Clinton, and she's a woman, so she will probably be President.


Rand Paul is like the kid that I went to school with who was happy to smoke a joint with you and bull**** about the 4th amendment, but who was an economic royalist who believed that wealth equaled virtue, and that he and his trust fund bros were entitled to the place in society that some forebear of theirs had earned.

What are you even talking about? Do you have any evidence to suggest what you're saying is remotely true? Or is it just typical bull ****? You do understand that his father never accepted a pay raise while the rest of congress voted to raise theirs, he doesn't participate in the government pension program. He never accepted medicare or medicaid as a doctor - but would treat those patients for free if that is all they had. Of all people that could instill personal responsibility values into their kid, it's Ron Paul. I don't know what you're talking about with the "trust fund friends are entitled..." comment. But perhaps you have some substance to back it up that I'm not aware of. I'm happy to read it.

It sounds like you're just upset because he doesn't believe that poor people are entitled to anything that anyone else isn't entitled too. I know you are liberal, so you're going to have a problem with that. Nothing I can do to change your mind - but him having a constitutional and free market econommic philosophy that you disagree with doesn't make him a "lightweight."

Of course, we both know (I think) that Rand isn't anything close to a free market capitalist (unfortunately). His budget calls for some $3.8 trillion, so he doesn't indend on slowing down the spending machine much.


His senate career, to date, has consisted of some combination of grandstanding, spotlight grabbing, and clowning himself in order to appeal to Republican primary voters. Check out the legislation he's co-sponsored. It's mostly grandstanding silliness, in some cases overlapped by economic extremism. Gold? Repealing cross-state pollution regulations? Yikes.

This is where, once again, you show your hypocrisy. You're attacking Rand's record as Senator in his 2.5 years. Of course, I suppose that wasn't a huge issue for you with Mr. Obama, whom I'd love to go on and on about his senate credentials when he won the Presidency of the United States, but unfortunately, there is nothing to go on about.

You're upset about his "spotlight grabbing", yet you agree with what he used to grab the spotlight (drones). That was a highly successful political move, and one a lightweight wouldn't have been able to pull off. Of course, I appreciated it for its substance, for which he received a response from the US AG.

You're upset about gold? You act as if gold is some crazy insane philisophical discussion that is so removed from reality that anyone who mentions it shouldn't be taken seriously. Only, gold was our money all the way until Nixon. And when gold was our money, our money didn't lose any value. Since federal reserve notes became our money, our money has lost 96% of its value. LOL at the cooky Rand for asking the question about going back to a sound currency.

Some other things he's co-sponsored are ammendments to the NDAA, which doesn't allow the US Military to indefinitely detain US citizens on US soil. Again - KOOKY!

He sponsored a federal reserve transperency act so that the congress can have some oversight into the instution that can literally print trillions of dollars out of thin air. - WHAT A NUTJOB!

Or his crazy 4th amendment restoration act, after the NSA spying program was revealed. What a loser for him trying to fight a massive surveilance program. Who needs civil liberties?

I could go on, but I'm running out of time so I'll move on. Just know that Paul has done a lot more in his Senate years than Mr. Obama, who you fully supported.


Rand Paul doesn't like drone strikes. Good for him. Neither do I. There are more things that I probably agree with Rand Paul about. The reason that I would never consider voting for him, even if I might have more political opinions in common with him than with any other Republican contender, is that his economic policies are basically a cut n' paste of the worst recycled trickle-down republican dross, wrapped in a deeply cynical bow of economic freedom and liberty.

I'm not sure what to respond to here, can you offer some more details about his economic details that would make the world end? Is his $3.8 trillion budget not enough spending for you?

Rand Paul doesn't think there's a critical national interest at play in the Syrian civil war. Neither do I. But his opening lines last night:

Twelve years after we were attacked by al-Qaida, 12 years after 3,000 Americans were killed by al-Qaida, President Obama now asks us to be allies with al-Qaida. Americans by a large majority want nothing to do with the Syrian civil war. We fail to see a national security interest in a war between a leader who gasses his own citizens and Islamic rebels who are killing Christians.

I didn't watch the speech yet - haven't had time. But just to be clear, you're dogging him because he is on the same position as you, but you don't like how he worded it. Have you listened to the President in the last month?

The fact is, the US government literally spends money to arm our enemies. Then it spends money to go fight those same enemies. It's happened time and time again and it's about to happen in Syria.

are pure histrionic horse****, predictably small-minded, and unworthy of someone who seems to want a seat at the grownup table. If you think that the only problem with his tapdance about the Civil Rights Act was that he filp-flopped, we're probably not going to get very far in this discussion. I'll be happy if Rand Paul moves the needle in the Republican party with regard to drug laws or teh ghey marriage or overseas military intervention, but I think that demographic factors are going to move that needle anyway.

Again, haven't seen the speech. But you have to keep in mind he the majority of folks he is talking to and trying to reach out to are simple-minded to downright stupid voters, and therefore he is simplifying the argument. That is one thing his father could never do. Ron could not simplify things that is easy for the "they hate us because we're free" crowd or the "cut taxes and spending will solve all economic problems" crowd could understand. Rand is playing the political game much better than Ron ever did.

I'm out of time. Will continue to discuss further. But I think the reason you are so against Rand is because of partisanship, not actual substance. To be clear, Rand and you probably agree a lot on foreign policy and civil liberties.

I have serious doubts about Rand and he has not won me over yet. I question his authenticity, becaus ehe has flip flopped. But for every 1 think he does that pisses me off, he does 3 things that make me believe in him. We will see how things play out in the next few years.

[sturg33]

Let Sturg run to his Ron Paul message boards and cut and paste a defense argument. He certainly isnt' countering that argument with a well thought out one of his own.

Nah, I was running to go find shirtless pictures of Redskins and Nats players. You inspired me!

[sturg33]

Without his pop's name and fund-raising apparatus, he's an eye doctor in Kentucky, bitching to his neighbors about how unfair taxes are to productive members of society like himself.

I'm not a particular fan of political dynasties . . . which is one reason I supported Barack Obama—who rose to prominence from humble beginnings, who achieved success at elite institutions without name or wealth; and who, if untested, had at least been elected to office—against Hilary Clinton, whose qualifications and intellect still dwarf those of the junior, to say nothing of the senior, Mr. Paul. I do agree that those dynasties are a fact of life, and that their scions should be judged on their merits.

This also makes me laugh.

For years you all tell me what a joke Ron Paul is. How he was unelectable and never had more than a few extremist's support. How he never got anything accomplished because nobody ever took him seriously.

Then you go on to tell me that Rand Paul has become a serious Presidential contender because of the fame of his dad - the same guy who was a joke and who nobody took seriously. How can that be?

[Tapate50]

I can't help but raise an eyebrow when someone that lauds Obama on his accomplishments, but deflects Rand because he "lacks a Senate record". POT there is someone I'd love for you to meet...

Sturg, that was pretty well put considering the post it was answering. Nicely done.

[acesfull86]

Ron paul circlejerks are frequent on reddit

LOL, speaking of circle jerks, I get a kick out of the reactions every time Julio makes a post.

[sturg33]

LOL, speaking of circle jerks, I get a kick out of the reactions every time Julio makes a post.

You ain't kidding

[sturg33]

Let Sturg run to his Ron Paul message boards and cut and paste a defense argument. He certainly isnt' countering that argument with a well thought out one of his own.

What was the argument I was unable to counter? I didn't know you would agree so heavily with a liberal. I'm learning more about you each day

[The Chosen One]

This also makes me laugh.

For years you all tell me what a joke Ron Paul is. How he was unelectable and never had more than a few extremist's support. How he never got anything accomplished because nobody ever took him seriously.

Then you go on to tell me that Rand Paul has become a serious Presidential contender because of the fame of his dad - the same guy who was a joke and who nobody took seriously. How can that be?

The main reason for Rand being popular is he is thrown into this "youth movement" the GOP has created. Guys like Ryan, Christie, Rubio, Paul that don't look like old white grandpas.

The other thing is, Rand is a senator not just a Congressman like his dad. More clout on his words vs his dad.

Paul's rise to fame has a lot to do with his lsst name and his dad.

[sturg33]

Just watched Rand's speech. What about it made you think he is a lightweight, simplistic, and unintelligent?

I thought he made a very simple case as to why we shouldn't go.

[Metaphysicist]

Her whole career has been a national healthcare system that failed and a Bengazi coverup that a non-corrupt government would have fired her for. To be honest, I don't know a ton about her accomplishments because I haven't cared enough to go looking for them.

http://sherriesea.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Colin_Farrel-Disgusted.gif#played

[sturg33]

http://sherriesea.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Colin_Farrel-Disgusted.gif#played

Sorry - forgot to mention that a few other scandals she was tied to, and that she voted for the Iraq war.

I'd love to hear her great accomplishments that offset these things.

[gilesfan]

What was the argument I was unable to counter? I didn't know you would agree so heavily with a liberal. I'm learning more about you each day

You arent intelligent enough to put together a good argument

[cajunrevenge]

You know, of all the possible governments we could have, I think the status quo has got to be in the upper quartile. At least. That's not a very convincing argument.

Your standards must be really low. What could they do to be worse while still remaining a democracy?

[sturg33]

You arent intelligent enough to put together a good argument

Haha. Sick burn bro

[Metaphysicist]

Sorry - forgot to mention that a few other scandals she was tied to, and that she voted for the Iraq war.

I'd love to hear her great accomplishments that offset these things.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/305e091253e8eb86e2d99f0e7b7c30ce/tumblr_mlf0dlgO541s2wqsvo1_400.gif

[goldfly]

http://sherriesea.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Colin_Farrel-Disgusted.gif#played

this would have been better

http://www.gifsforum.com/images/gif/are%20you%20shtting%20me/grand/are-you-shtting-me-eccbc87e4b5ce2fe28308fd9f2a7baf3-149.gif

[sturg33]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/305e091253e8eb86e2d99f0e7b7c30ce/tumblr_mlf0dlgO541s2wqsvo1_400.gif

No I didn't. I just found it fun that you took that entire post to pull out one sentence to post a GIF that makes you feel smart. I understand your point was saying "how could I talk about her entire career, if I haven't bothered to look much into her career?"

I'll look into and get back to you. Perhaps she is some genius that I just have missed over the years.

[acesfull86]

Spoiler alert: she isn't.

[sturg33]

Spoiler alert: she isn't.

I assume she has to be, because she will likely be our next President and Julio assures me she is an intellectual juggernaut to Rand Paul.

[57Brave]

The thread is titled Rand Paul ---- not Hillary Clinton.

Comparing Rand Paul as a public servant next to HRC is preposterously stupid. Like comparing a Toyota Prius to a tricycle.
Ones record of public service goes back to the 1970's the other is an Ophthalmologist bitching to his neighbor that his taxes are too high. (I paraphrase)
Maybe the tiniest bit of research will tell you the "scandals" HRC was supposed to be involved in were the 1990's equivalent of Obama's birth certificate.
Again this thread is titled Rand Paul

and this concerning Dr Pauls medical practice:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/05/22/868772/-Is-Rand-Paul-M-D-s-income-from-Socialized-medicine#
http://allbleedingstops.blogspot.com/2010/06/rand-paul-self-certified-physician.html

[weso1]

Lots of anti opthalmolites itt.

[Tapate50]

The thread is titled Rand Paul ---- not Hillary Clinton.

Comparing Rand Paul as a public servant next to HRC is preposterously stupid. Like comparing a Toyota Prius to a tricycle.
Ones record of public service goes back to the 1970's the other is an Ophthalmologist bitching to his neighbor that his taxes are too high. (I paraphrase)
Maybe the tiniest bit of research will tell you the "scandals" HRC was supposed to be involved in were the 1990's equivalent of Obama's birth certificate.
Again this thread is titled Rand Paul

and this concerning Dr Pauls medical practice:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/05/22/868772/-Is-Rand-Paul-M-D-s-income-from-Socialized-medicine#

Other than a free advertisement for his practice, that article says as close to nothing as could be possible. Another great source from Fitty.

Yeah, she has experience but is that a good thing? I guess if you love the status quo. Experience can be good or bad, depending on your political viewpoints.

[sturg33]

Other than a free advertisement for his practice, that article says as close to nothing as could be possible. Another great source from Fitty.

Yeah, she has experience but is that a good thing? I guess if you love the status quo. Experience can be good or bad, depending on your political viewpoints.

Indeed. Many years of massive government peddling and failed policies and scandals is not a good thing.

It's nice to finally have some fresh blood in the system.

[57Brave]

of course it was an ad for his practice! The words are from his website --
and where does Dr Paul draw a paycheck? For how long? (how you missed that in the articles is beyond me)

Again, your above statement proves your ignorance on the subject of HRC. And if I re read my above words they say a record of public service not experience in government. There is a difference
Before becoming a TeaPary darling, what if anything did Dr Paul contribute? Was he on any service boards or volunteer organizations? Work any outreach programs? Design any type of child care programs? Or even do Pro-Bono Ophthalmology?
which leaves as noted above - his qualifications for the US Senate amounted to his being a flake- niche Texas Congressman's son. A Congressman with a past connected to hate groups in fact. But hey, money is money.

I believe in the words of Ayn Rand - Rand Paul would be a "taker" which to my mind would qualify him to be as Julio put it --- a "joke"

[57Brave]

Indeed. Many years of massive government peddling and failed policies and scandals is not a good thing.

It's nice to finally have some fresh blood in the system.

Massive Government Peddling?


Failed Policies?


Scandals?

Fresh Blood in The System?

you can fill in the blanks at your leisure or keep proving you have no business in the deep end of the pool

[Metaphysicist]

I'll look into and get back to you. Perhaps she is some genius that I just have missed over the years.

Yeah, please report back. I'm waiting with bated breath here. I can't wait to hear how you spin her 40 year political, legal, and business career into someone achieved by an incompetent moron. I'm sure you'll bring some real, hard-hitting analysis and insight.


It's nice to finally have some fresh blood in the system.

Yes, it sure is swell to have these fresh ideas like "taxes are bad," "states' rights," and "the gold standard." Just some innovative stuff right there. I can't believe it took so long for someone to suggest them. Things are really gonna change, boy I tell you what.

[sturg33]

Massive Government Peddling?


Failed Policies?


Scandals?

Fresh Blood in The System?

you can fill in the blanks at your leisure or keep proving you have no business in the deep end of the pool

Hell of an argument here.

[sturg33]

What happened to Julio?

[sturg33]

Yeah, please report back. I'm waiting with bated breath here. I can't wait to hear how you spin her 40 year political, legal, and business career into someone achieved by an incompetent moron. I'm sure you'll bring some real, hard-hitting analysis and insight.



Yes, it sure is swell to have these fresh ideas like "taxes are bad," "states' rights," and "the gold standard." Just some innovative stuff right there. I can't believe it took so long for someone to suggest them. Things are really gonna change, boy I tell you what.

If you recall, I started a thread asking about Hilary's credentials. Your reply was your usual degrade the question but don't provide an answer.

[Tapate50]

of course it was an ad for his practice! The words are from his website --
and where does Dr Paul draw a paycheck? For how long? (how you missed that in the articles is beyond me)

Again, your above statement proves your ignorance on the subject of HRC. And if I re read my above words they say a record of public service not experience in government. There is a difference
Before becoming a TeaPary darling, what if anything did Dr Paul contribute? Was he on any service boards or volunteer organizations? Work any outreach programs? Design any type of child care programs? Or even do Pro-Bono Ophthalmology?
which leaves as noted above - his qualifications for the US Senate amounted to his being a flake- niche Texas Congressman's son. A Congressman with a past connected to hate groups in fact. But hey, money is money.

I believe in the words of Ayn Rand - Rand Paul would be a "taker" which to my mind would qualify him to be as Julio put it --- a "joke"

Jeesus, a doctor that takes gov't program money to make half of his income! OMGEEEEEE. Thats so crazy!!!!

I would operate within the system that is set forth if I wanted to make some money, but it wouldn't mean I couldn't support another system if it was available. Taking private pay patients can be a daunting and very dangerous career path. I wouldn't blame any doctors for operating within the system they have now, because there aren't many choices. Going completely private pay also costs most docs to cut staff, and thus costs community jobs (and good ones at that).

Finally, What does Pro-Bono Ophthalamology have to do with any of this?

Fwiw, I am not even a Paul supporter really. I just find it fascinating that the sky isn't blue when talking about the candidates that don't have a D after their name.

[57Brave]

Hell of an argument here.

wasn't an argument
was questions.

? = question

[57Brave]

Jeesus, a doctor that takes gov't program money to make half of his income! OMGEEEEEE. Thats so crazy!!!!

I would operate within the system that is set forth if I wanted to make some money, but it wouldn't mean I couldn't support another system if it was available. Taking private pay patients can be a daunting and very dangerous career path. I wouldn't blame any doctors for operating within the system they have now, because there aren't many choices. Going completely private pay also costs most docs to cut staff, and thus costs community jobs (and good ones at that).

Finally, What does Pro-Bono Ophthalamology have to do with any of this?

1) one that rails against alchohol should not be seen n public drunk

2) ah. career path vs ideology. From one that espouses his ideology. Do as I say not as I do --- gotcha

3) Pro Bono Opthamology would be Public Service. (capital P capital S)

Why do people have to explain these simple principles to you? (there is that pesky question mark again) my lord.

[sturg33]

of course it was an ad for his practice! The words are from his website --
and where does Dr Paul draw a paycheck? For how long? (how you missed that in the articles is beyond me)

Again, your above statement proves your ignorance on the subject of HRC. And if I re read my above words they say a record of public service not experience in government. There is a difference
Before becoming a TeaPary darling, what if anything did Dr Paul contribute? Was he on any service boards or volunteer organizations? Work any outreach programs? Design any type of child care programs? Or even do Pro-Bono Ophthalmology?
which leaves as noted above - his qualifications for the US Senate amounted to his being a flake- niche Texas Congressman's son. A Congressman with a past connected to hate groups in fact. But hey, money is money.

I believe in the words of Ayn Rand - Rand Paul would be a "taker" which to my mind would qualify him to be as Julio put it --- a "joke"

I'm confused - do you think taking government money makes one a joke? Wouldn't that mean Hilary Clinton is a joke?

Also - Rand Paul is not Ron Paul. Th ta has already been stated.

Lastly, Rand Paul has done a lot more to help people than Hilary Clinton. She has been a destructive force of growth in this country. At least Rand helps people. Of course, if Hilary had her way, it would be much more difficult for those doctors to help people.

[Metaphysicist]

If you recall, I started a thread asking about Hilary's credentials. Your reply was your usual degrade the question but don't provide an answer.

And here we are, a month later, and you are still bragging about how little you know about her, other than how big of a poopypants she is, and flaunting your active refusal to even do the bare minimum of reading her wikipedia page. It's a wonder to behold.

[57Brave]

No I think that one who takes government money while railing against the use of government money makes on at the least a joke at the medium a lightweight and at the top a hypocrite.

I think those that loyally follow their tripe naive - sophomoric and ideologically dangerous

I take back my statement on Pauls public service his Wiki page biography includes this. I was wrong

Following completion of his medical training, Paul began practicing ophthalmology in Bowling Green in 1993,[18][19] eventually opening his own medical practice, in which he specialized in corneal disease and glaucoma.[10][19][20] Paul faced two malpractice lawsuits between 1993 and 2010; he was cleared in one case while the other was settled for $50,000.[19] As a member of the Bowling Green Noon Lions Club, Paul founded the Southern Kentucky Lions Eye Clinic to help provide eye surgery and exams for those who cannot afford to pay.[21]

In 1995, Paul passed the certifying examination of the American Board of Ophthalmology, entitling him to describe himself as a "board-certified" ophthalmologist. In 1997, to protest the American Board of Ophthalmology's decision to grandfather in older ophthalmologists and not require them to be recertified every 10 years in order to maintain their status as board-certified practitioners, Paul, along with 200 other ophthalmologists, formed the National Board of Ophthalmology to offer an alternative ophthalmology certification system.[22] The National Board of Ophthalmology was incorporated in 1999, but Paul allowed it to be dissolved in 2000 after failing to file the required paperwork with the Kentucky Secretary of State's office for the organization to continue to operate. Paul later recreated the board in September 2005, three months before his original certification from the American Board of Ophthalmology was scheduled to expire. His American Board of Ophthalmology certification lapsed on December 31, 2005. Paul has since been certified by the National Board of Ophthalmology.[18] Paul's alternative ophthalmology board is not officially recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS).

[sturg33]

wasn't an argument
was questions.

? = question

Oh, I didn't realize you were too dumb to know what I referring to.

Failed policy = health care reform, education reform - notice how dumb our country is these days. Yay for puclic education!

Scandals = Bengazi. Should have been a career ender. I won't even touch the 90's stuff

Fresh blood = Someone who doesn't want to start a war every chance he gets, who questions the drug war, who questions the NDAA, who questions the Federal Reserve. Hilary should learn a thing or tow, instead - she votes for Iraq war

[sturg33]

And here we are, a month later, and you are still bragging about how little you know about her, other than how big of a poopypants she is, and flaunting your active refusal to even do the bare minimum of reading her wikipedia page. It's a wonder to behold.

I actually have read her wiki page. And I'm still curious about the hype. Can you help me out?

[57Brave]

Oh, I didn't realize you were too dumb to know what I referring to.

Failed policy = health care reform, education reform - notice how dumb our country is these days. Yay for puclic education!

Scandals = Bengazi. Should have been a career ender. I won't even touch the 90's stuff

Fresh blood = Someone who doesn't want to start a war every chance he gets, who questions the drug war, who questions the NDAA, who questions the Federal Reserve. Hilary should learn a thing or tow, instead - she votes for Iraq war
/////

(A)
HRC participation in health care reform was at the committee level and could be seen as a legislative failure. It did however lay the ground work for a successful program in Mass and the eventual conversation - passage and reforms to our present system. A failure == perhaps on some levels. But like any other venture nothing chanced nothing gained. Let's see what comes of that gold standard thingy Sen Paul espouses . That- will be a failure because it ignores reality. There will not be a return to the gold standard . Like there was no return in the 1940's 50's 60's 70's 80's90's 00's or today. Like Meta pointed out a grandstanding scheme with no possible chance of being serious governance
I never voted for HRC based on her Iraq vote. Let me fix that -- I am not an enthusiastic HRC supporter based on her Iraq vote. I don't think she will get the '16 nomination due to that vote and guessing here I will never have to decide.

(B)
Oh those scandals. She was having an affair with Vince Foster when she had him killed. She's had numerous Lesbian affairs and the Whitewater stuff. She has been a know mporter of cocaine ... It is all out there for looking at.
And dont forget Bengazi
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/11/watch-as-a-benghazi-lie-is-shot-down-live-on-fo/195836

(C)
I too believe there should be fresh blood. But depends on who's body that blood is running through.
Fresh blood -- looks good on a bumper sticker

[sturg33]

/////

(A)
HRC participation in health care reform was at the committee level and could be seen as a legislative failure. It did however lay the ground work for a successful program in Mass and the eventual conversation - passage and reforms to our present system. A failure == perhaps on some levels. But like any other venture nothing chanced nothing gained. Let's see what comes of that gold standard thingy Sen Paul espouses . That- will be a failure because it ignores reality. There will not be a return to the gold standard . Like there was no return in the 1940's 50's 60's 70's 80's90's 00's or today. Like Meta pointed out a grandstanding scheme with no possible chance of being serious governance
I never voted for HRC based on her Iraq vote. Let me fix that -- I am not an enthusiastic HRC supporter based on her Iraq vote. I don't think she will get the '16 nomination due to that vote and guessing here I will never have to decide.

(B)
Oh those scandals. She was having an affair with Vince Foster when she had him killed. She's had numerous Lesbian affairs and the Whitewater stuff. She has been a know mporter of cocaine ... It is all out there for looking at.
And dont forget Bengazi
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/11/watch-as-a-benghazi-lie-is-shot-down-live-on-fo/195836

(C)
I too believe there should be fresh blood. But depends on who's body that blood is running through.
Fresh blood -- looks good on a bumper sticker

I think you're only acceptable form of fresh blood has to have a (D) next to it

[Metaphysicist]

I actually have read her wiki page. And I'm still curious about the hype. Can you help me out?

If you've read her wiki page and are still posting things like:

The idea that Hilary Clinton is some sort of intellectual giant is hilarious. Her whole career has been a national healthcare system that failed and a Bengazi coverup that a non-corrupt government would have fired her for. To be honest, I don't know a ton about her accomplishments because I haven't cared enough to go looking for them. I know she doesn't understand how a successful economy should be run, and I know should couldn't give two ****s about individual liberty. I know she isn't even on the same intellectual planet as Dr. Paul. But hey, she's a Clinton, and she's a woman, so she will probably be President.

Then I am forced to assume you are either illiterate, trolling, or have that problem that the dude in Memento has. Maybe you should try tattooing stuff from the wiki page to random parts of your body.

[bravesnumberone]

Hillary used to be a Goldwater-ite.

[Metaphysicist]

Hillary used to be a Goldwater-ite.

See what you learn with wikipedia! Heck, sturg, she was a proud Young Republican, just like you!

[sturg33]

If you've read her wiki page and are still posting things like:

The idea that Hilary Clinton is some sort of intellectual giant is hilarious. Her whole career has been a national healthcare system that failed and a Bengazi coverup that a non-corrupt government would have fired her for. To be honest, I don't know a ton about her accomplishments because I haven't cared enough to go looking for them. I know she doesn't understand how a successful economy should be run, and I know should couldn't give two ****s about individual liberty. I know she isn't even on the same intellectual planet as Dr. Paul. But hey, she's a Clinton, and she's a woman, so she will probably be President.

Then I am forced to assume you are either illiterate, trolling, or have that problem that the dude in Memento has. Maybe you should try tattooing stuff from the wiki page to random parts of your body.

As alway, attack the question, never provide an answer.

[acesfull86]

How do you define success & failure? Just to be simplistic: If Obama was able to raise the minimum wage to $15/hr, I would see that as a major failure while liberals would be dancing in the streets. If Rand Paul was elected and abolished the federal minimum wage, I would see that as a success and liberals wouldn't.

I don't deny HRC has been a major relevant political figure the past 2-3 decades, but success can be subjective.

[Julio3000]

What happened to Julio?

Sorry, real life beckoned temporarily.

But, with something between a sigh and a yawn . . .



This is where I was confused. You said he was a "joke" which I was wondering why you thought that. After asking you 4 times and still not getting a substantive answer, I accept that you have changed your argument to "he's a political lightweight who was elected because of his dad." OK.

Maybe I was just simplifying my argument so "simple-minded to downright stupid voters" could understand it.

Seriously. If you'd like for me to explain how "joke" is a figure of speech, and could be understood to be shorthand for "lightweight and unaccomplished," I will.

Definition #2, according to M-W is "something not to be taken seriously." Do you need me to parse that for you?

Talk about a simplistic viewpoint. You basically suggest that there is no room in congress for people who believe in limited government and low taxes.

Yeah, there are NONE of those in congress.

You suggest that there is no room in congress for anyone who tries to legislate based on his/her interpretation of the Constitution.

Nope, no room. Congress is to be composed solely of gibbering illiterates, and/or animals.

Because Rand Paul is a contrarian, he could have NEVER won without his last name.

What, you mean like Prince?

Well, not "never." But, in any case, not because he is a contrarian.

Of course, this doesn't explain how folks like Ted Cruz, Ron Paul, and Justin Amash got elected. I must have missed the "Amash dynasty"

I don't even know where to start with that. Ted Cruz was not the favored establishment candidate, but was hardly an unqualified nobody. I despise Cruz's politics and his style, but he is a person of some accomplishment and a veritable philosopher-king next to Rand Paul.

If Rand Smith, ophthalmologist, got Club for Growth and FreedomWorks to dump money into his primary campaign, he probably would have gotten elected. But that's just what I'm saying: is Rand Paul such an effective delivery device for a Tea Party message that, without his name, he'd attract money and attention in a way that dozens, if not hundreds, of unsuccessful primary candidates do not? Is he that charismatic and energetic? Does his message distinguish itself from, say, those of Lindsey Graham's primary opponents of the last couple of election cycles? What is it that is so unique about him?

Besides, Amash and the senior Paul are/were House members. House and Senate races are apples and oranges.

The idea that Hilary Clinton is some sort of intellectual giant is hilarious.

Well, degrees certainly aren't everything, but Clinton does have a J.D. from Yale Law and published in her area of expertise. She's been accused of being a lot of things, but stupid is not one of them.

But, a giant? I don't know. Just that she doesn't sound like a crank-addled spider monkey spewing conspiracy theories is probably enough for me.

Her whole career has been a national healthcare system that failed and a Bengazi coverup that a non-corrupt government would have fired her for.

Her whole career, huh?

To be honest, I don't know a ton about her accomplishments because I haven't cared enough to go looking for them.

Maybe, as has been suggested, you should check out her Wikipedia page. It's a pretty quick read.

I know she isn't even on the same intellectual planet as Dr. Paul.

Since she hasn't been goldbugging and predicting hyperinflation for the past three decades, this is a safe assumption.

But hey, she's a Clinton, and she's a woman, so she will probably be President.

Darn women, always getting elected President.

What are you even talking about? Do you have any evidence to suggest what you're saying is remotely true? Or is it just typical bull ****? You do understand that his father never accepted a pay raise while the rest of congress voted to raise theirs, he doesn't participate in the government pension program. He never accepted medicare or medicaid as a doctor - but would treat those patients for free if that is all they had.

I suppose his handling of his government salary and benefits is admirable. He must've netted enough from his bigoted and apocalyptic newsletters to make up the loss.

[i]Of all people that could instill personal responsibility values into their kid, it's Ron Paul. I don't know what you're talking about with the "trust fund friends are entitled..." comment. But perhaps you have some substance to back it up that I'm not aware of. I'm happy to read it.

I'm extrapolating based on the fact that Rand Paul's budget seems to be an instrument designed to make the very rich even richer. I will repeat: the fact that he's a departure from GOP conventional wisdom on foreign policy does not mean that he is some kind of outsider, speaking truth to power. There's a reason that he is the fair-haired boy of FreedomWorks and Club for Growth. They are power. A vote for Rand Paul is a vote for plutocracy.

It sounds like you're just upset because he doesn't believe that poor people are entitled to anything that anyone else isn't entitled too. I know you are liberal, so you're going to have a problem with that. Nothing I can do to change your mind - but him having a constitutional and free market economic philosophy that you disagree with doesn't make him a "lightweight."

This is where I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding Rand Paul, me, or the thinkers who supposedly influenced the Drs. Paul. Many of them (Hayek, Friedman) accepted the legitimacy and necessity of social welfare. The mechanisms they promoted for effecting it were different, but they accepted the necessity of a social safety net. It's only the most disconnected kind of libertarian utopians who claim that it's not in the interest of a modern, wealthy society to guarantee the protection of its citizens against the vicissitudes of the market.

No, me thinking he's a lightweight has to do with the fact that he's a political legacy who brings nothing new to the table except some truly weird beliefs about monetary policy—and that's according to the AEI (http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/08/rand-paul-is-dead-wrong-milton-friedman-would-have-supported-the-feds-bond-buying/), not me. Everything else is just boilerplate—halving income taxes on the wealthiest, getting rid of cap gains and dividend taxes, etc.

More lightweight stuff? How about warning of the NAFTA superhighway? The North American Union? Returning to the gold standard?

Of course, we both know (I think) that Rand isn't anything close to a free market capitalist (unfortunately). His budget calls for some $3.8 trillion, so he doesn't indend on slowing down the spending machine much.

So dismantling the Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, and HUD doesn't even rate an attaboy from you?

This is where, once again, you show your hypocrisy. You're attacking Rand's record as Senator in his 2.5 years. Of course, I suppose that wasn't a huge issue for you with Mr. Obama, whom I'd love to go on and on about his senate credentials when he won the Presidency of the United States, but unfortunately, there is nothing to go on about.

Yeah, Obama didn't have much of a track record in the Senate. If you want to compare their public service, though…Obama did serve in elected office for several years before being elected to the Senate, did work in public policy, did teach constitutional law at UC. Rand Paul treated glaucoma.

You're upset about his "spotlight grabbing", yet you agree with what he used to grab the spotlight (drones). That was a highly successful political move, and one a lightweight wouldn't have been able to pull off. Of course, I appreciated it for its substance, for which he received a response from the US AG.

Oh, right. You mean the part where he pretended that it took 13 hours of filibuster to get an answer to a question that had, in fact, been answered in testimony that morning? I applaud him for bringing attention to the issue. I giggle at his grandstanding.

You're upset about gold? You act as if gold is some crazy insane philisophical discussion that is so removed from reality that anyone who mentions it shouldn't be taken seriously. Only, gold was our money all the way until Nixon. And when gold was our money, our money didn't lose any value. Since federal reserve notes became our money, our money has lost 96% of its value. LOL at the cooky Rand for asking the question about going back to a sound currency.

I didn't say that. These folks (http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_cw1nNUYOXSAKwrq) pretty much did, though.

Sound currency backed by a relatively-valued, finite resource extracted from beneath the earth? That DOES sound like a recipe for stability. Besides, we never had an economic bust when we were on the gold standard . . . er, wait.

By the way . . . still waiting for that hyperinflation.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the Civil Rights Act, too.

[sturg33]

What thoughts would you like to hear?

I'll respond to the rest of your post when I have more time. But I appreciate the reply

[Metaphysicist]

As alway, attack the question, never provide an answer.

Provide an ans.... OH MY GOD... are you really going to make me crib her wiki page for you? Are you that lazy? Is that task really that difficult. Jesus tap-dancing Christ on stick.... Fine. Here are a selection of her accomplishments/record/whatever from the wikipedia article you claim to have read:

- Non-stop political activist since the 60s, focusing on children, education, and social justice, chairing and serving on the boards of any number of NPOs
- Yale JD, the most prestigious law school in the country
- Congressional Legal Counsel during Watergate
- Law Professor & Oft-Cited Legal Scholar
- First Woman Partner at the Rose Law Firm, 3rd oldest firm in the US.
- First Woman Chair of the Legal Services Corporation
- Board of Directors for Wal-Mart, TCBY, others
- Twice named one of the most influential lawyers in America
and so on yadda yadda

That's all pre-POTUS era. I hope you are capable of handling that reading for yourself.

I look forward to your dismissive handwaving.

[BedellBrave]

I am reminded once again why I tell myself not to do a lot of posting.

[sturg33]

Provide an ans.... OH MY GOD... are you really going to make me crib her wiki page for you? Are you that lazy? Is that task really that difficult. Jesus tap-dancing Christ on stick.... Fine. Here are a selection of her accomplishments/record/whatever from the wikipedia article you claim to have read:

- Non-stop political activist since the 60s, focusing on children, education, and social justice, chairing and serving on the boards of any number of NPOs
- Yale JD, the most prestigious law school in the country
- Congressional Legal Counsel during Watergate
- Law Professor & Oft-Cited Legal Scholar
- First Woman Partner at the Rose Law Firm, 3rd oldest firm in the US.
- First Woman Chair of the Legal Services Corporation
- Board of Directors for Wal-Mart, TCBY, others
- Twice named one of the most influential lawyers in America
and so on yadda yadda

That's all pre-POTUS era. I hope you are capable of handling that reading for yourself.

I look forward to your dismissive handwaving.

No dismissing... I already read all of that.

[50PoundHead]

I am reminded once again why I tell myself not to do a lot of posting.

Agreed!

[AerchAngel]

I am reminded once again why I tell myself not to do a lot of posting.

Exactly

[sturg33]

Sorry, real life beckoned temporarily.

But, with something between a sigh and a yawn . . .

I don't even know where to start with that. Ted Cruz was not the favored establishment candidate, but was hardly an unqualified nobody. I despise Cruz's politics and his style, but he is a person of some accomplishment and a veritable philosopher-king next to Rand Paul.

If Rand Smith, ophthalmologist, got Club for Growth and FreedomWorks to dump money into his primary campaign, he probably would have gotten elected. But that's just what I'm saying: is Rand Paul such an effective delivery device for a Tea Party message that, without his name, he'd attract money and attention in a way that dozens, if not hundreds, of unsuccessful primary candidates do not? Is he that charismatic and energetic? Does his message distinguish itself from, say, those of Lindsey Graham's primary opponents of the last couple of election cycles? What is it that is so unique about him?

Maybe I was just simplifying my argument so "simple-minded to downright stupid voters" could understand it.

Seriously. If you'd like for me to explain how "joke" is a figure of speech, and could be understood to be shorthand for "lightweight and unaccomplished," I will.

Definition #2, according to M-W is "something not to be taken seriously." Do you need me to parse that for you?

Talk about a simplistic viewpoint. You basically suggest that there is no room in congress for people who believe in limited government and low taxes.

Yeah, there are NONE of those in congress.

You suggest that there is no room in congress for anyone who tries to legislate based on his/her interpretation of the Constitution.

Nope, no room. Congress is to be composed solely of gibbering illiterates, and/or animals.

Because Rand Paul is a contrarian, he could have NEVER won without his last name.

What, you mean like Prince?

Well, not "never." But, in any case, not because he is a contrarian.

Of course, this doesn't explain how folks like Ted Cruz, Ron Paul, and Justin Amash got elected. I must have missed the "Amash dynasty"

I don't even know where to start with that. Ted Cruz was not the favored establishment candidate, but was hardly an unqualified nobody. I despise Cruz's politics and his style, but he is a person of some accomplishment and a veritable philosopher-king next to Rand Paul.

If Rand Smith, ophthalmologist, got Club for Growth and FreedomWorks to dump money into his primary campaign, he probably would have gotten elected. But that's just what I'm saying: is Rand Paul such an effective delivery device for a Tea Party message that, without his name, he'd attract money and attention in a way that dozens, if not hundreds, of unsuccessful primary candidates do not? Is he that charismatic and energetic? Does his message distinguish itself from, say, those of Lindsey Graham's primary opponents of the last couple of election cycles? What is it that is so unique about him?

Besides, Amash and the senior Paul are/were House members. House and Senate races are apples and oranges.

The idea that Hilary Clinton is some sort of intellectual giant is hilarious.

Well, degrees certainly aren't everything, but Clinton does have a J.D. from Yale Law and published in her area of expertise. She's been accused of being a lot of things, but stupid is not one of them.

But, a giant? I don't know. Just that she doesn't sound like a crank-addled spider monkey spewing conspiracy theories is probably enough for me.

Her whole career has been a national healthcare system that failed and a Bengazi coverup that a non-corrupt government would have fired her for.

Her whole career, huh?

To be honest, I don't know a ton about her accomplishments because I haven't cared enough to go looking for them.

Maybe, as has been suggested, you should check out her Wikipedia page. It's a pretty quick read.

I know she isn't even on the same intellectual planet as Dr. Paul.

Since she hasn't been goldbugging and predicting hyperinflation for the past three decades, this is a safe assumption.

But hey, she's a Clinton, and she's a woman, so she will probably be President.

Darn women, always getting elected President.

What are you even talking about? Do you have any evidence to suggest what you're saying is remotely true? Or is it just typical bull ****? You do understand that his father never accepted a pay raise while the rest of congress voted to raise theirs, he doesn't participate in the government pension program. He never accepted medicare or medicaid as a doctor - but would treat those patients for free if that is all they had.

I suppose his handling of his government salary and benefits is admirable. He must've netted enough from his bigoted and apocalyptic newsletters to make up the loss.

[i]Of all people that could instill personal responsibility values into their kid, it's Ron Paul. I don't know what you're talking about with the "trust fund friends are entitled..." comment. But perhaps you have some substance to back it up that I'm not aware of. I'm happy to read it.

I'm extrapolating based on the fact that Rand Paul's budget seems to be an instrument designed to make the very rich even richer. I will repeat: the fact that he's a departure from GOP conventional wisdom on foreign policy does not mean that he is some kind of outsider, speaking truth to power. There's a reason that he is the fair-haired boy of FreedomWorks and Club for Growth. They are power. A vote for Rand Paul is a vote for plutocracy.

It sounds like you're just upset because he doesn't believe that poor people are entitled to anything that anyone else isn't entitled too. I know you are liberal, so you're going to have a problem with that. Nothing I can do to change your mind - but him having a constitutional and free market economic philosophy that you disagree with doesn't make him a "lightweight."

This is where I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding Rand Paul, me, or the thinkers who supposedly influenced the Drs. Paul. Many of them (Hayek, Friedman) accepted the legitimacy and necessity of social welfare. The mechanisms they promoted for effecting it were different, but they accepted the necessity of a social safety net. It's only the most disconnected kind of libertarian utopians who claim that it's not in the interest of a modern, wealthy society to guarantee the protection of its citizens against the vicissitudes of the market.

No, me thinking he's a lightweight has to do with the fact that he's a political legacy who brings nothing new to the table except some truly weird beliefs about monetary policy—and that's according to the AEI (http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/08/rand-paul-is-dead-wrong-milton-friedman-would-have-supported-the-feds-bond-buying/), not me. Everything else is just boilerplate—halving income taxes on the wealthiest, getting rid of cap gains and dividend taxes, etc.

More lightweight stuff? How about warning of the NAFTA superhighway? The North American Union? Returning to the gold standard?

Of course, we both know (I think) that Rand isn't anything close to a free market capitalist (unfortunately). His budget calls for some $3.8 trillion, so he doesn't indend on slowing down the spending machine much.

So dismantling the Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, and HUD doesn't even rate an attaboy from you?

This is where, once again, you show your hypocrisy. You're attacking Rand's record as Senator in his 2.5 years. Of course, I suppose that wasn't a huge issue for you with Mr. Obama, whom I'd love to go on and on about his senate credentials when he won the Presidency of the United States, but unfortunately, there is nothing to go on about.

Yeah, Obama didn't have much of a track record in the Senate. If you want to compare their public service, though…Obama did serve in elected office for several years before being elected to the Senate, did work in public policy, did teach constitutional law at UC. Rand Paul treated glaucoma.

You're upset about his "spotlight grabbing", yet you agree with what he used to grab the spotlight (drones). That was a highly successful political move, and one a lightweight wouldn't have been able to pull off. Of course, I appreciated it for its substance, for which he received a response from the US AG.

Oh, right. You mean the part where he pretended that it took 13 hours of filibuster to get an answer to a question that had, in fact, been answered in testimony that morning? I applaud him for bringing attention to the issue. I giggle at his grandstanding.

You're upset about gold? You act as if gold is some crazy insane philisophical discussion that is so removed from reality that anyone who mentions it shouldn't be taken seriously. Only, gold was our money all the way until Nixon. And when gold was our money, our money didn't lose any value. Since federal reserve notes became our money, our money has lost 96% of its value. LOL at the cooky Rand for asking the question about going back to a sound currency.

I didn't say that. These folks (http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_cw1nNUYOXSAKwrq) pretty much did, though.

Sound currency backed by a relatively-valued, finite resource extracted from beneath the earth? That DOES sound like a recipe for stability. Besides, we never had an economic bust when we were on the gold standard . . . er, wait.

By the way . . . still waiting for that hyperinflation.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the Civil Rights Act, too.

I don't even know where to start with that. Ted Cruz was not the favored establishment candidate, but was hardly an unqualified nobody. I despise Cruz's politics and his style, but he is a person of some accomplishment and a veritable philosopher-king next to Rand Paul.

If Rand Smith, ophthalmologist, got Club for Growth and FreedomWorks to dump money into his primary campaign, he probably would have gotten elected. But that's just what I'm saying: is Rand Paul such an effective delivery device for a Tea Party message that, without his name, he'd attract money and attention in a way that dozens, if not hundreds, of unsuccessful primary candidates do not? Is he that charismatic and energetic? Does his message distinguish itself from, say, those of Lindsey Graham's primary opponents of the last couple of election cycles? What is it that is so unique about him?

I think Rand Paul does about the best job of explaining libertarian positions of any national candidate I've heard in a long time. So yes, I believe he was quite good at espousing the tea party ideas. Again, you dismiss Ron Paul as a serious national figure (he only won in Texas, after all), but you credit him for the success of Rand in Kentucky. And that doesn't even begin to explain why Rand has established himself as a serious challenger for the R primary. Ron Paul has nothing to do with that. That was all Rand once he got in. You can dismiss that all you want, but political lightweights don't get to this point.

Well, degrees certainly aren't everything, but Clinton does have a J.D. from Yale Law and published in her area of expertise. She's been accused of being a lot of things, but stupid is not one of them.

But, a giant? I don't know. Just that she doesn't sound like a crank-addled spider monkey spewing conspiracy theories is probably enough for me.

Again, this doesn't say anything. I'm tired of everyone talking about how smart Hilary Clinton is. Just because she can coherently speak her liberal ideas better than someone like Sarah Palin doesn't make her intelligent. I can only go by what she has tried to do. Her whole career has been trying to improve childcare education (which you and Meta consider "accomplishments"), but these are things that I think of much like you think of the gold standard. The department of education has basically destroyed the critical thinking in this country - all it does is indoctrinate and teach to the bottom. She wans more government in education. That is so stupid to me, I can't even comprehend it. But this is a partisan debate, which I don't believe we are debating.

Since she hasn't been goldbugging and predicting hyperinflation for the past three decades, this is a safe assumption.

As far as pure intelligence is concerned, she isn't anywhere close. Dr. Paul is an MD and an economist. Hilary Clinton is a cheerleader for the state. But again, we will disagree because of partisanship. No sense in arguing.

Darn women, always getting elected President.

I suspect that had she been born with a penis, she would not be slam dunk for the 2016 nomination

I suppose his handling of his government salary and benefits is admirable. He must've netted enough from his bigoted and apocalyptic newsletters to make up the loss.

Ah yes - the newsletters. When in doubt - go to the newsletters! Let's ignore the idea that Dr. Paul espouses policies that would get half the minorities out of jail for drug offenses. The newsletters have been discussed. There was a few out thousands that had racial tones and remarks- it's not hard for me to believe that he didn't write them or know of them. his whole career is a complete contradiction of the idea that he is some sort of racist. Moving on.

Where Dr. Paul made his money was investments in gold and against the US dollar. He won that bet

I'm extrapolating based on the fact that Rand Paul's budget seems to be an instrument designed to make the very rich even richer. I will repeat: the fact that he's a departure from GOP conventional wisdom on foreign policy does not mean that he is some kind of outsider, speaking truth to power. There's a reason that he is the fair-haired boy of FreedomWorks and Club for Growth. They are power. A vote for Rand Paul is a vote for plutocracy.

I see, so you think he is a spoiled trust fund rich kid because he doesn't believe in taking half of high earner's money. Guess what, he doesn't believe in taking half of low earner's money either. As any objective person would understand, progressive taxes are discrimination. But no, you'd rather punish them because of their success. Nevermind the fact that rich people are what support the middle class and lower class. But again, you don't agree with conservative economic principles so there is no point in continuing the debate. You're disregard for Rand is because you disagree with him politically. OK.

This is where I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding Rand Paul, me, or the thinkers who supposedly influenced the Drs. Paul. Many of them (Hayek, Friedman) accepted the legitimacy and necessity of social welfare. The mechanisms they promoted for effecting it were different, but they accepted the necessity of a social safety net. It's only the most disconnected kind of libertarian utopians who claim that it's not in the interest of a modern, wealthy society to guarantee the protection of its citizens against the vicissitudes of the market.

Whether it has been accepted or not, I don't really care. I'm certain that it wasn't accepted at these levels. 99 weeks of unemployment. 20% of Americans under the poverty line and not getting out. Yes, our social welfare programs work ... to keep people poor.

No, me thinking he's a lightweight has to do with the fact that he's a political legacy who brings nothing new to the table except some truly weird beliefs about monetary policy—and that's according to the AEI, not me. Everything else is just boilerplate—halving income taxes on the wealthiest, getting rid of cap gains and dividend taxes, etc.

As I'm going through this, it's absolutely evident that you think he is a lightweight because you disagree with his policies. You should have just said that from the beginning.

So dismantling the Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, and HUD doesn't even rate an attaboy from you?

Not enough for me. They are wasteful programs that we survived just fine with before they were created, and we would survive just fine after. Of course, we know that will never happen - because anyone who ever speaks of eliminating some government agencies is consider a whack job. It is a nice strategy. What would ever do without the department of education? Probably avoid monstrosities like NCLB and not be considered mediocre from an education standpoint in the world's largest super power.

Yeah, Obama didn't have much of a track record in the Senate. If you want to compare their public service, though…Obama did serve in elected office for several years before being elected to the Senate, did work in public policy, did teach constitutional law at UC. Rand Paul treated glaucoma.

Ha! Do you even know how Obama got into the State Senate to begin with? He used his amazing law skills to get all of his competitors kicked off the ballot. Hell of an accomplishment to be sure.

As far as before government public service, give me the doctor over the community organizer every time. I'm just glad Mr. Obama was able to wow you with such an amazing track record. Good thing he wasn't a lightweight.

I didn't say that. These folks pretty much did, though.

Sound currency backed by a relatively-valued, finite resource extracted from beneath the earth? That DOES sound like a recipe for stability. Besides, we never had an economic bust when we were on the gold standard . . . er, wait.

Hard to imagine why policy makers and rich folks would be against gold. The money printing machine would be shut down. I'm shocked there is opposition to that!

By the way . . . still waiting for that hyperinflation.

The US cumualitive inflation since 1913 is 2,260%. What $20 bought you then, you would need $472 to buy it today. You may consider that just fine over the course of 100 years. I would call you insane.

But you're right, we have managed to avoid HYPER inflation for the most part. Why? Because the US is very fortunate the world is forced to use the dollar as the world reserve. Whatever we print in the US gets dispersed globally instead of nationally, which softens the inflation hit.

Of course, we don't really know what the inflation rate is because the government decided that it's not worth accounting for food or energy in their calculations. Got that? The two things that every American uses every day, is not counted in the inflation calculator. If you do factor it, the inflation year over year is closer to 10%, not the 2% they tell us. But, you're right, that's STILL not hyper inflation.

We won't see hyper inflation until countries begin to refuse to trade oil in dollars. When that happens, I have no idea. But countries have already began threatening to. That will be very bad for our economy.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the Civil Rights Act, too.

What would you like to hear?









So here we are, a long debate. It all started cause I asked you why you thought Rand Paul was a joke. The answer is clear. You disagree with his policies. That doesn't make him a joke. He is clearly a legitimate public figure in the eyes of Americans. You thinking Rand Paul is a joke is just as ridiculous to me as me saying Hilary Clinton is a joke to you. I don't believe she is. She obviously knows what she is doing politically - as does Rand. I just happen to think Hilary would be a disaster for this country, and you think Rand would be. So we move on.

[The Chosen One]

After reading this thread, I don't know what I want to do anymore.

[Metaphysicist]

No dismissing... I already read all of that.

The you are admitting to being a troll. Congratulations.

[yeezus]

After reading this thread, I don't know what I want to do anymore.

It makes me hate politics even more, because you realize they are ALL full of **** and don't give a **** about the people. none of them. if it doesn't benefit them they don't care.

[57Brave]

If you hate politics ----- why do you read and post on political boards?

[Julio3000]

Yes, the newsletters.

“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks,” read a typical article from the June 1992 “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism,” a supplement to the Ron Paul Political Report. Racial apocalypse was the most persistent theme of the newsletters; a 1990 issue warned of “The Coming Race War,” and an article the following year about disturbances in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C., was entitled “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” Paul alleged that Martin Luther King Jr., “the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” had also “seduced underage girls and boys.” The man who would later proclaim King a “hero” attacked Ronald Reagan for signing legislation creating the federal holiday in his name, complaining, “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”

No conspiracy theory was too outlandish for Paul’s endorsement. One newsletter reported on the heretofore unknown phenomenon of “Needlin’,” in which “gangs of black girls between the ages of 12 and 14” roamed the streets of New York and injected white women with possibly HIV-infected syringes. Another newsletter warned that “the AIDS patient” should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,” a strange claim for a physician to make."

He also cuddled up to the militia movement, asserted that AIDS was created in a US government lab, suggested the the 1993 WTC bombing was a Mossad op, and chatted about the Trilateral Commission on a radio show run by Willis Carto (http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/carto.asp?xpicked=2&item=carto).

Sounds like a real friend of "the blacks," as he refers to them, in person as well as in print.

Where Dr. Paul made his money was investments in gold and against the US dollar.

How do you know that? There's ample evidence that he made a good living in the years that the newsletter was published. He became a millionaire, in fact. Besides, do you think that it is at all strange that a guy whose investment portfolio is made up primarily of mining stocks and precious metals uses his public platform to encourage people to buy gold and return to the gold standard? I guess he's just putting his money where his mouth is, or at least putting his mouth where his money is.

You want to convince me of his intellectual heft. I'm certainly convinced that he's smart enough to know that exploiting racism and paranoia is a, er, gold mine.

[Julio3000]

Sturg, do you even know what the Department of Energy does?

[sturg33]

Yes, the newsletters.

“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks,” read a typical article from the June 1992 “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism,” a supplement to the Ron Paul Political Report. Racial apocalypse was the most persistent theme of the newsletters; a 1990 issue warned of “The Coming Race War,” and an article the following year about disturbances in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C., was entitled “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” Paul alleged that Martin Luther King Jr., “the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” had also “seduced underage girls and boys.” The man who would later proclaim King a “hero” attacked Ronald Reagan for signing legislation creating the federal holiday in his name, complaining, “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”

No conspiracy theory was too outlandish for Paul’s endorsement. One newsletter reported on the heretofore unknown phenomenon of “Needlin’,” in which “gangs of black girls between the ages of 12 and 14” roamed the streets of New York and injected white women with possibly HIV-infected syringes. Another newsletter warned that “the AIDS patient” should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,” a strange claim for a physician to make."

He also cuddled up to the militia movement, asserted that AIDS was created in a US government lab, suggested the the 1993 WTC bombing was a Mossad op, and chatted about the Trilateral Commission on a radio show run by Willis Carto (http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/carto.asp?xpicked=2&item=carto).

Sounds like a real friend of "the blacks," as he refers to them, in person as well as in print.

Where Dr. Paul made his money was investments in gold and against the US dollar.

How do you know that? There's ample evidence that he made a good living in the years that the newsletter was published. He became a millionaire, in fact. Besides, do you think that it is at all strange that a guy whose investment portfolio is made up primarily of mining stocks and precious metals uses his public platform to encourage people to buy gold and return to the gold standard? I guess he's just putting his money where his mouth is, or at least putting his mouth where his money is.

You want to convince me of his intellectual heft. I'm certainly convinced that he's smart enough to know that exploiting racism and paranoia is a, er, gold mine.

I've seen those excerpts from newsletters a million times. I believe he didn't write them. I believe his whole career illustrates that. You can think I'm naive, and that is fine. He has taken responsibility for them being published without his review.

As far as his gold investments, I know he has made a fortune because of his portfolio. Forbes does a yearly article on how crazy his portfolio is, and frankly - how dangerous it is. But also notes he consistently outperforms the market considerably. I'm guessing this year has been a bit tougher for him.

But you have it backwards with the "putting his money where his mouth is." If the government stopped the printing presses like he calls for them to do, gold would be the one to suffer. The reason gold is so valuable is because it is a hedge against the dollar.

As far as I can tell, he made very little money on his news letter. He basically paid no attention to it and let some of his radical workers handle all of it. He made good money as an OBGYN, his books, and decent money as a congressman (remember the whole pay raise thing). And he has done exceptionally well in his investments.

[zitothebrave]

I've seen those excerpts from newsletters a million times. I believe he didn't write them. I believe his whole career illustrates that. You can think I'm naive, and that is fine. He has taken responsibility for them being published without his review.

As far as his gold investments, I know he has made a fortune because of his portfolio. Forbes does a yearly article on how crazy his portfolio is, and frankly - how dangerous it is. But also notes he consistently outperforms the market considerably. I'm guessing this year has been a bit tougher for him.

But you have it backwards with the "putting his money where his mouth is." If the government stopped the printing presses like he calls for them to do, gold would be the one to suffer. The reason gold is so valuable is because it is a hedge against the dollar.

As far as I can tell, he made very little money on his news letter. He basically paid no attention to it and let some of his radical workers handle all of it. He made good money as an OBGYN, his books, and decent money as a congressman (remember the whole pay raise thing). And he has done exceptionally well in his investments.

Paul may not have written them, but I don't think they're too far from his own political beliefs, and I highly doubt that he wouldn't have read most if not all of them. Whether they were before publishing or after doesn't matter. Ron Paul is often associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a group that SLPC talks about having neoconfederate ties.

[Julio3000]

Even if you accept the assume that he didn't write them, there's still a raft of problems with their existence, and it's entirely fair to question his motivations and actions.

If the topic is Rand Paul, though, I can summarize:

The Republican party might emerge stronger from being forced to wrangle with some of the issues that Rand Paul is bringing into the spotlight. That may be good for them in the long run. My opinion is that he is a lightweight who won't stand up to the scrutiny that a serious presidential candidate receives. I could be wrong about that, but time will tell.

[sturg33]

Even if you accept the assume that he didn't write them, there's still a raft of problems with their existence, and it's entirely fair to question his motivations and actions.

If the topic is Rand Paul, though, I can summarize:

The Republican party might emerge stronger from being forced to wrangle with some of the issues that Rand Paul is bringing into the spotlight. That may be good for them in the long run. My opinion is that he is a lightweight who won't stand up to the scrutiny that a serious presidential candidate receives. I could be wrong about that, but time will tell.

Agreed - the newsletters were disturbing and he has admitted as much. But think about how many thousands of times he has been mic'd up... I'll challenge you to find a racial statement that he actually said.

Regarsding Rand - there is much I disagree with him about. But I think he's much stronger politically than you give him credit for, and I think POLITICALLY he will fare much better than pops

[sturg33]

Paul may not have written them, but I don't think they're too far from his own political beliefs, and I highly doubt that he wouldn't have read most if not all of them. Whether they were before publishing or after doesn't matter. Ron Paul is often associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a group that SLPC talks about having neoconfederate ties.

Why? What about his political beliefs seems racist? What has he ever actually said on camera that has a hint of racism?

[zitothebrave]

Why? What about his political beliefs seems racist? What has he ever actually said on camera that has a hint of racism?

Well you can start with his opposition to Civil Rights Act, you can also point that he's the only person to vote against Rosa Parks getting Congressional Gold Medal.

Also some minor issues with Paul's denial is that he's changed it in the last 20 years. From he wrote thousands and you're taking it out of context to he doesn't write them all and doesn't check them all, especially the bad ones.

[Julio3000]

Why? What about his political beliefs seems racist? What has he ever actually said on camera that has a hint of racism?

Really, now. His explanation of the newsletters just strains credibility. Particularly when you consider that he didn't disavow them until he ran for president.

[Julio3000]

Well you can start with his opposition to Civil Rights Act, you can also point that he's the only person to vote against Rosa Parks getting Congressional Gold Medal.

Also some minor issues with Paul's denial is that he's changed it in the last 20 years. From he wrote thousands and you're taking it out of context to he doesn't write them all and doesn't check them all, especially the bad ones.

If he considers Rosa Parks a hero but was worried about the expense to the taxpayer, perhaps he should have offered to have one struck for her out of his personal stockpile.

[sturg33]

Well you can start with his opposition to Civil Rights Act, you can also point that he's the only person to vote against Rosa Parks getting Congressional Gold Medal.

Also some minor issues with Paul's denial is that he's changed it in the last 20 years. From he wrote thousands and you're taking it out of context to he doesn't write them all and doesn't check them all, especially the bad ones.

His opposition to the civil rights act is on the correct side of the issue. It's about personal property rights. The government shouldn't be allowed to force someone to serve someone. You're allowed to be racist. The government can't stop you from being racist.

The Rosa Parks things was once again his constitutional interpretation of what the federal government is authorized to do. In his mind, the government should not have been allowed to use tax payer money to make up an award out of thin air. I commend him for sticking to his principles rather than doing the ABSOLUTELY politically correct and popular move.

I'm not sure I understand your last sentence

[sturg33]

Really, now. His explanation of the newsletters just strains credibility. Particularly when you consider that he didn't disavow them until he ran for president.

Again, the man has been mic'd up tens of thousands of times in his career. I'm actually challenging you to find a racist statement that would support the idea that he believed what is in those newsletters.

[57Brave]

personal property rights --- states rights ---- what kind of world do you see where it is "the correct side of the issue" to be able to deny service to another human being because of the pigment of his/her skin.

That in a nut shell is why we have a government -- to protect the rights of the weak from the tyranny of the powerful.
One of the implied meanings of our existence as a nation
Guessing States Rights is a viable argument to enslave people to you--- is it?

An extreme interpretation of your idea personal property rights would involve the Castro man of Cleveland. What right does the government (police -law enforcement) have to tell him he can't keep young women chained in his back yard. His yard --- right?

[Julio3000]

Again, the man has been mic'd up tens of thousands of times in his career. I'm actually challenging you to find a racist statement that would support the idea that he believed what is in those newsletters.

Here's the funny thing: it doesn't matter. Those newsletters, on their own, should disqualify him from public office or serious consideration. The absolute BEST case scenario is that he ran a business with fewer than 10 employees and was such a poor manager that he had no knowledge of or impact on the quality of the product it produced.

So which was it? Was he clueless, cynical, or racist?

[sturg33]

An extreme interpretation of your idea personal property rights would involve the Castro man of Cleveland. What right does the government (police -law enforcement) have to tell him he can't keep young women chained in his back yard. His yard --- right?

Uh... what?

Of course not. In your ridiculously stupid example - that person is affecting the rights of another person.

In your restaurant example, you don't have a "right" to eat in a private establishment.

How about this. If a black person came to my house and asked to come in, and I say "no, no blacks allowed in my house" - should the government step in and say I mush let him in?

[sturg33]

Here's the funny thing: it doesn't matter. Those newsletters, on their own, should disqualify him from public office or serious consideration. The absolute BEST case scenario is that he ran a business with fewer than 10 employees and was such a poor manager that he had no knowledge of or impact on the quality of the product it produced.

So which was it? Was he clueless, cynical, or racist?

I think he was busy with his private medical practice (where he routinely cared for black patients - often times for free), and his political aspirations. And I think the newsletters were the furthest thing from his mind.


Let's think about it like this. Kyle Hawkins starts a message board. Is heavily involved for a while. But then gets busy with the rest of his life and stops paying attention to it. Is he responsible for all the content that gets posted on the message board? Or should he be there to moderate anything he didn't want associated to his views?

[zitothebrave]

His opposition to the civil rights act is on the correct side of the issue. It's about personal property rights. The government shouldn't be allowed to force someone to serve someone. You're allowed to be racist. The government can't stop you from being racist.

The Rosa Parks things was once again his constitutional interpretation of what the federal government is authorized to do. In his mind, the government should not have been allowed to use tax payer money to make up an award out of thin air. I commend him for sticking to his principles rather than doing the ABSOLUTELY politically correct and popular move.

I'm not sure I understand your last sentence

Well for point 1. That person can still be racist. And the Civil Rights Act was primarily used to address the issues with the States in particular the Southern States who legally practiced segregation in Public Schools, and on Public Transportation, voter registration, and so on so forth. I'm not combing through the whole act but in general it has to do with businesses who profit or are responsible for interstate commerce which the Federal Government has control over. I'm not gonna read it line for line, but in general I think the law is fairly constitutional. Sure there are some areas it steps on the toes but I would consider overall the bill a win.

As far as the Rosa Parks thing, lets see, the first Congress Gold Medal was issued by the Continental Congress to George Washington, under the Constitution in 1800 Captain Thomas Truxtun was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal. So I guess Ron Paul really hates the guys who were you know involved with the drafting and ratification of the Constitution.

Last sentence is pretty simple.

From Dallas Morning News

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation.

Dr. Paul also took exception to the comments of Mr. Bledsoe, saying that the voters in the 14th District and the people who know him best would be the final judges of his character.

"If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?" Dr. Paul asked.

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.

From Austin American Statesman

"Dr. Paul is being quoted out of context," [Paul's spokesman, Michael] Sullivan said. "It's like picking up 'War and Peace' and reading the fourth paragraph on page 481 and thinking you can understand what's going on."

"You have to understand what he is writing. Democrats in Texas are trying to stir things up by using half quotes to impugn his character," Sullivan said. "His writings are intellectual. He assumes people will do their own research, get their own statistics, think for themselves and make informed judgments."

same papaer a few months later

Morris distributed Paul's article to reporters at a Capitol news conference. It was not the first time. Morris has been scrutinizing Paul's writings and sharing his findings with reporters. In May, he released an article in which Paul described a majority of black men in Washington, D.C., as ''semi-criminal or entirely criminal.''

Morris, a Bee Cave lawyer, once again called on Paul to release back copies of the newsletter he has published for more than a decade. Paul, a Surfside obstetrician, has refused.

He said he has written ''thousands of items'' during the past 20 years and that releasing these materials would be impractical. Paul said releasing all those writings would be like asking Morris to ''provide documents for every lawsuit he has been involved in during his lengthy legal career.''

[zitothebrave]

I think he was busy with his private medical practice (where he routinely cared for black patients - often times for free), and his political aspirations. And I think the newsletters were the furthest thing from his mind.


Let's think about it like this. Kyle Hawkins starts a message board. Is heavily involved for a while. But then gets busy with the rest of his life and stops paying attention to it. Is he responsible for all the content that gets posted on the message board? Or should he be there to moderate anything he didn't want associated to his views?

Wow what an outstandingly crappy comparison.

[sturg33]

personal property rights --- states rights ---- what kind of world do you see where it is "the correct side of the issue" to be able to deny service to another human being because of the pigment of his/her skin.

That in a nut shell is why we have a government -- to protect the rights of the weak from the tyranny of the powerful.
One of the implied meanings of our existence as a nation
Guessing States Rights is a viable argument to enslave people to you--- is it?

An extreme interpretation of your idea personal property rights would involve the Castro man of Cleveland. What right does the government (police -law enforcement) have to tell him he can't keep young women chained in his back yard. His yard --- right?

So you're telling me I should be forced to serve anyone. That I have NO RIGHTS as to who I allow in my restaurant. So I can't say "no gang members" or "no children" or "no soliciters"... Or is it only african americans that I must allow in? Even if they are in a gang, or a soliciter, or a child.

Why don't you allow me to put up a "no blacks allowed" sign - and let's see how long I stay in business. Maybe a month or two.

[Julio3000]

How about the one where he advises you to wipe your prints from and dispose of the gun you use to kill an urban youth who attempts to carjack you? How about the one where he lists the "10 Militia Commandments"? How about the conspiracy talk: Bohemian Grove and the Trilateral commission?

How about his son's 2008 statements about the "NAFTA Superhighway" and the Amero? That's the stuff of a deep thinker, right there.

[sturg33]

How about the one where he advises you to wipe your prints from and dispose of the gun you use to kill an urban youth who attempts to carjack you? How about the one where he lists the "10 Militia Commandments"? How about the conspiracy talk: Bohemian Grove and the Trilateral commission?

How about his son's 2008 statements about the "NAFTA Superhighway" and the Amero? That's the stuff of a deep thinker, right there.

Sorry - are these more newsletters?

Question - do you deny the existence of the Bohemian Grove and Trilateral Commisions?

Wasn't it Geroge Bush who started the talks with Mexico and Canada about the NA Union (I'm legit asking as I don't much about this, but I did recall reading about it)

[Julio3000]

Let's think about it like this. Kyle Hawkins starts a message board. Is heavily involved for a while. But then gets busy with the rest of his life and stops paying attention to it. Is he responsible for all the content that gets posted on the message board? Or should he be there to moderate anything he didn't want associated to his views?

Let's not think about it like that. Mostly because it's nothing like that.

So. Bad manager, cynical profiteer, or bigot?

[yeezus]

If you hate politics ----- why do you read and post on political boards?

Because I can. Is that ok with you? I don't need a reason.

[sturg33]

Let's not think about it like that. Mostly because it's nothing like that.

So. Bad manager, cynical profiteer, or bigot?

Disinterested manager. Moved on to bigger things.

[Julio3000]

Sorry - are these more newsletters?

Question - do you deny the existence of the Bohemian Grove and Trilateral Commisions?

No, just the spook stories about them.


Wasn't it Geroge Bush who started the talks with Mexico and Canada about the NA Union (I'm legit asking as I don't much about this, but I did recall reading about it)

Not that I'm aware of.

[Julio3000]

Disinterested manager. Moved on to bigger things.

That's precious.

[jpx7]

A vote for Rand Paul is a vote for plutocracy.

This.


Many of them (Hayek, Friedman) accepted the legitimacy and necessity of social welfare.

If you want to compare their public service, though … Obama [...] did teach constitutional law at UC.

I didn't say that. These folks [UChicago GSB survey] (http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_cw1nNUYOXSAKwrq) pretty much did, though.

Meanwhile: I'm loving these University of Chicago references.

I also enjoy Mr Kashyap's specific response: "Love of the G.S. implies macroeconomic illiteracy."

Edit: Damn the Booth guys are killing it. Here's Thaler: "Why tie to gold? why not 1982 Bordeaux?"

[sturg33]

That's precious.

For my job, if I do a presentation for a client, it is me who prepares the deck and information. My boss is busy with other clients.

I go present to the client, and there is incorrect stuff in there.

Of course, my boss wouldn't have put that stuff in there. But he was doing other things, so it went through. He still is held responsible for it though.

It's the same situation. Dr. Paul's staff was an unregulated staff that wrote without him paying close attention. Ultimately, he gets held responsible for it, which he has accepted. But that doesn't mean he wrote, believed, or condoned what was published.

[sturg33]

By the way, in every single one of my business courses they talk about how the gold standard is an unrealistic and stupid proposition.

I bought every word of it.

Until I did some reading into Austrian Economics post-undergrad.

[57Brave]

So you're telling me I should be forced to serve anyone. That I have NO RIGHTS as to who I allow in my restaurant. So I can't say "no gang members" or "no children" or "no soliciters"... Or is it only african americans that I must allow in? Even if they are in a gang, or a soliciter, or a child.

Why don't you allow me to put up a "no blacks allowed" sign - and let's see how long I stay in business. Maybe a month or two.

You are not forced to serve anyone. You are free to discriminate against anyone you like. Provided you are willing to pay the penalty decided on by an overwhelming majority of citizens. Just like the Castro guy in Cleveland - he was perfectly free to hold those women in his house / his property -- but there were consequences for flaunting the norms of society. Just like holding people against their will we as a nation decided discrimination based on color is unacceptable.
The Drs Paul have no problem with racial discrimination. I don't think the word that applies is racist but rather bigot


Admit, the Drs Paul jokes and lightweights with no chance of ever being in a position of governance

[gilesfan]

Jack Hunter and Rand Paul ‘playing the game’
By Jennifer Rubin, Published: July 12 at 12:25 pmE-mail the writer


This week we learned that Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) had hired Jack Hunter, an avowed secessionist with a history of anti-minority statements. Not only does Paul continue to employ him and refuse to renounce or even to comment on Hunter’s views but, according to Hunter, Paul was fully aware of his views and reputation when he first hired Hunter to co-write a book.
Rand Paul
Sen. Rand Paul (James Crisp/Associated Press)

Even worse for Paul was Hunter’s accusation that his extremism has found a home with the senator, who has “learned to play the game,” such as declaring that an attack on Israel would be an attack on the United States. With a few “rhetorical flourishes,” he said, Rand Paul is more respectable than his father, Ron, and can thereby get farther in politics. That is precisely the concern that many center-right observers had in trying to decipher Rand Paul: namely, that he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
What is interesting is the reaction of those who supported, cheered and hired Hunter for his avowed views — views from which he is now trying to distance himself.
The Washington Free Beacon first reported that Hunter wrote for Taki’s Magazine, a Web site, then edited by Richard Spencer, that was open to harangues against minorities (one of which, by John Derbyshire, got him canned from his more prominent perch at National Review Online)

In reviewing Hunter’s Southern Avenger Web site today, we found a number of podcasts with such titles as “a discussion on the 9-11 Truth movement, John Birch Society, populism and the ‘conspiratorial’ Right’ ” from 2009. However, none of the podcasts can be accessed, leaving us in the dark as to Hunter’s most candid views. What remains are a few written pieces: for example, decrying neoconservatism (a favorite target of Rand Paul). Where are the rest?
Spencer now heads the avowedly white supremacist National Policy Institute. Yesterday he put up a long, rambling video, discussing his long association with Hunter and relating that he produced “hundreds” of pieces and podcasts for Taki. Where those are now available, he does not say. But for nearly half of his diatribe, Spencer picks up on Hunter’s “playing the game” theme in relation to both Hunter and Paul. He is none too pleased about it. In his mind, people who cloak their real beliefs are “cowards” and should come right out and spell out their views, as did Paul’s father, who dabbled in conspiracy theories and put out a racist newsletter under his name. Spencer declares, “Rand Paul does play the game. He tries to alienate traditional conservatives a lot less.” But he deplores Rand Paul’s efforts at getting along as “ham-fisted.”
Others who peddle in these views appear to be equally dismayed. We see out on Twitter a smattering of racist tweets bemoaning Hunter for backing away from his previous views.
What does this tell us? Hunter and people who know him the best have told us what many long suspected: Under Rand Paul’s veneer of respectability is another, far more radical figure, not inside the mainstream of conservatism but one who is “playing the game.” The fact that Hunter is still in Paul’s employ and that Paul won’t repudiate any of his aide’s views suggests they are on to something.
Paul is not only taking heat from the media; Jewish groups whom he tried to woo are castigating him. So much for his pro-Israel campaign.
At the very least, Rand Paul owes it to voters to explain himself and his relationship with Hunter. This also suggests he’ll be a poor ambassador to minority communities, whom he said he’ll reach out to, given not only his past criticism of the Civil Rights Act but also his embrace of the Southern Avenger.

[zitothebrave]

For my job, if I do a presentation for a client, it is me who prepares the deck and information. My boss is busy with other clients.

I go present to the client, and there is incorrect stuff in there.

Of course, my boss wouldn't have put that stuff in there. But he was doing other things, so it went through. He still is held responsible for it though.

It's the same situation. Dr. Paul's staff was an unregulated staff that wrote without him paying close attention. Ultimately, he gets held responsible for it, which he has accepted. But that doesn't mean he wrote, believed, or condoned what was published.

Hahah more bad comparisons.

Ron Paul had years to fix that issue, and orginally didn't deny writing it and supported some of the racist things in odd ways (such as saying you aren't gonna catch someone who steals your purse)

[Julio3000]

This.





Meanwhile: I'm loving these University of Chicago references.

I also love Mr Kashyap's specific response: "Love of the G.S. implies macroeconomic illiteracy."

Edit: Damn the Booth guys are killing it. Here's Thaler: "Why tie to gold? why not 1982 Bordeaux?"

I figured you'd notice the multiple U of C refs.

I found that survey to be a hoot.

[Julio3000]

For my job, if I do a presentation for a client, it is me who prepares the deck and information. My boss is busy with other clients.

I go present to the client, and there is incorrect stuff in there.

Of course, my boss wouldn't have put that stuff in there. But he was doing other things, so it went through. He still is held responsible for it though.

It's the same situation. Dr. Paul's staff was an unregulated staff that wrote without him paying close attention. Ultimately, he gets held responsible for it, which he has accepted. But that doesn't mean he wrote, believed, or condoned what was published.

Nobody's that disengaged. It beggars belief.

[acesfull86]

personal property rights --- states rights ---- what kind of world do you see where it is "the correct side of the issue" to be able to deny service to another human being because of the pigment of his/her skin.

That in a nut shell is why we have a government -- to protect the rights of the weak from the tyranny of the powerful.
One of the implied meanings of our existence as a nation
Guessing States Rights is a viable argument to enslave people to you--- is it?

An extreme interpretation of your idea personal property rights would involve the Castro man of Cleveland. What right does the government (police -law enforcement) have to tell him he can't keep young women chained in his back yard. His yard --- right?

I'm surprised comparisons czar Zito didn't jump on this one

[sturg33]

Hahah more bad comparisons.

Ron Paul had years to fix that issue, and orginally didn't deny writing it and supported some of the racist things in odd ways (such as saying you aren't gonna catch someone who steals your purse)

I dunno...

If I go to a basketball court and am asked to pick up a player to play with - my bias would lead me to picking the black guy over the white guy - because it seems to me that black people's athletic abilities are more suited for basketball than white players.

I don't consider that even remotely racist - but just honest.

[sturg33]

You are not forced to serve anyone. You are free to discriminate against anyone you like. Provided you are willing to pay the penalty decided on by an overwhelming majority of citizens. Just like the Castro guy in Cleveland - he was perfectly free to hold those women in his house / his property -- but there were consequences for flaunting the norms of society. Just like holding people against their will we as a nation decided discrimination based on color is unacceptable.
The Drs Paul have no problem with racial discrimination. I don't think the word that applies is racist but rather bigot


Admit, the Drs Paul jokes and lightweights with no chance of ever being in a position of governance

I can't even reply to your post anymore because you have now twice compared not serving someone in a resturant to chaining someone up against their will.

It is clear you don't understand property rights.

[sturg33]

Nobody's that disengaged. It beggars belief.

That's fine that you believe that. I truly do not believe he wrote them or condoned them. I have a whole career to look at that drives me to my belief.

You are certainly welcome to call me naive. It's been done before.

[sturg33]

Jack Hunter and Rand Paul ‘playing the game’
By Jennifer Rubin, Published: July 12 at 12:25 pmE-mail the writer


This week we learned that Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) had hired Jack Hunter, an avowed secessionist with a history of anti-minority statements. Not only does Paul continue to employ him and refuse to renounce or even to comment on Hunter’s views but, according to Hunter, Paul was fully aware of his views and reputation when he first hired Hunter to co-write a book.
Rand Paul
Sen. Rand Paul (James Crisp/Associated Press)

Even worse for Paul was Hunter’s accusation that his extremism has found a home with the senator, who has “learned to play the game,” such as declaring that an attack on Israel would be an attack on the United States. With a few “rhetorical flourishes,” he said, Rand Paul is more respectable than his father, Ron, and can thereby get farther in politics. That is precisely the concern that many center-right observers had in trying to decipher Rand Paul: namely, that he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
What is interesting is the reaction of those who supported, cheered and hired Hunter for his avowed views — views from which he is now trying to distance himself.
The Washington Free Beacon first reported that Hunter wrote for Taki’s Magazine, a Web site, then edited by Richard Spencer, that was open to harangues against minorities (one of which, by John Derbyshire, got him canned from his more prominent perch at National Review Online)

In reviewing Hunter’s Southern Avenger Web site today, we found a number of podcasts with such titles as “a discussion on the 9-11 Truth movement, John Birch Society, populism and the ‘conspiratorial’ Right’ ” from 2009. However, none of the podcasts can be accessed, leaving us in the dark as to Hunter’s most candid views. What remains are a few written pieces: for example, decrying neoconservatism (a favorite target of Rand Paul). Where are the rest?
Spencer now heads the avowedly white supremacist National Policy Institute. Yesterday he put up a long, rambling video, discussing his long association with Hunter and relating that he produced “hundreds” of pieces and podcasts for Taki. Where those are now available, he does not say. But for nearly half of his diatribe, Spencer picks up on Hunter’s “playing the game” theme in relation to both Hunter and Paul. He is none too pleased about it. In his mind, people who cloak their real beliefs are “cowards” and should come right out and spell out their views, as did Paul’s father, who dabbled in conspiracy theories and put out a racist newsletter under his name. Spencer declares, “Rand Paul does play the game. He tries to alienate traditional conservatives a lot less.” But he deplores Rand Paul’s efforts at getting along as “ham-fisted.”
Others who peddle in these views appear to be equally dismayed. We see out on Twitter a smattering of racist tweets bemoaning Hunter for backing away from his previous views.
What does this tell us? Hunter and people who know him the best have told us what many long suspected: Under Rand Paul’s veneer of respectability is another, far more radical figure, not inside the mainstream of conservatism but one who is “playing the game.” The fact that Hunter is still in Paul’s employ and that Paul won’t repudiate any of his aide’s views suggests they are on to something.
Paul is not only taking heat from the media; Jewish groups whom he tried to woo are castigating him. So much for his pro-Israel campaign.
At the very least, Rand Paul owes it to voters to explain himself and his relationship with Hunter. This also suggests he’ll be a poor ambassador to minority communities, whom he said he’ll reach out to, given not only his past criticism of the Civil Rights Act but also his embrace of the Southern Avenger.

Ah yes, ol Jennifer Rubin. I'm hoping she finally gets fired now that Bezos is in charge. She is trash.

Meanwhile, I hope Paul is "playing the game" because if he means some of the things he supports today, then I wouldn't be able to support him.

[zitothebrave]

I dunno...

If I go to a basketball court and am asked to pick up a player to play with - my bias would lead me to picking the black guy over the white guy - because it seems to me that black people's athletic abilities are more suited for basketball than white players.

I don't consider that even remotely racist - but just honest.

That is the definition of being a racist.

[sturg33]

That is the definition of being a racist.

rac·ist
/ˈrāsist/
noun
noun: racist; plural noun: racists1. a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.


Wouldn't that mean I'm a racist against white people?

[Julio3000]

I'm surprised comparisons czar Zito didn't jump on this one

That might make it a circle jerk, and since you're the authority on those, it'd be your call.

[zitothebrave]

rac·ist
/ˈrāsist/
noun
noun: racist; plural noun: racists1. a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.


Wouldn't that mean I'm a racist against white people?

No, and cool definition cherry picking bro

a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

[jpx7]

If I go to a basketball court and am asked to pick up a player to play with - my bias would lead me to picking the black guy over the white guy - because it seems to me that black people's athletic abilities are more suited for basketball than white players.

I don't consider that even remotely racist - but just honest.

It's called "benevolent" racism, and while I personally don't think it's ultimately all that benevolent, it's still racism.

Sort of like how some stereotypes can be "positive" (for instance: all Asians are math-wizards), but are nonetheless still instances of stereotyping, with similar and nonetheless potentially negative ramifications.

[zitothebrave]

I'm surprised comparisons czar Zito didn't jump on this one

I would have but I was playing fifa

[Julio3000]

Ah yes, ol Jennifer Rubin. I'm hoping she finally gets fired now that Bezos is in charge. She is trash.

Meanwhile, I hope Paul is "playing the game" because if he means some of the things he supports today, then I wouldn't be able to support him.

So what about the substance? I'm from SC. I'm very familiar with the LoS.

[jpx7]

I figured you'd notice the multiple U of C refs.

I found that survey to be a hoot.

Gotta rep the mater and all her nourishments.

[sturg33]

No, and cool definition cherry picking bro

a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

How is that selective? I literally pulled it straight from the page.

It's not racist - it's sterotypical. Stereotypes aren't racist.

It's like asian women are bad at driving? Do you disagree? If so, then you are a racist!

What is wrong with our society that we can't be honest about our feelings.

Am I wrong to assume that black athletes may be better at certain sports than whites, or asian?

If I'm wrong, why do I see so many black athletes in the NBA and at the skill positions in the NFL? Is that just a coincidence?

Whatever the reason - whether it is biological, cultural, or pure randomness, it has driven me to assume that, knowing nothing else - a black person would be better at bball than a white person.

There is nothing racist about assuming a person is better or worse at something based on years of data and analysis. Heck, I will say with absolute certainty that overall, asian people are better at math than black people and white people.

You can call me a racist for saying that, but I'll call you delusional for not admitting it.

[57Brave]

I can't even reply to your post anymore because you have now twice compared not serving someone in a resturant to chaining someone up against their will.

It is clear you don't understand property rights.

No I probably don't understand property rights
or state rights
or ------
I understand property rights perfectly well. They extend to breaking a law on said property. By discriminating a person at a restaurant you are as liable to legal scrutiny as you would be if you are caught with a girl chained in the back yard,half a marijuanna farm in your restaurant kitchen area or discriminate seating / serving someone at your restaurant.

Law trumps property rights. The law is set by our elected representatives (government) . Our elected representatives voted overwhelmingly that discrimination over color is unacceptable. Under any circumstance
It is the law -- not quite sure what there is you can't understand or even worsegrasp why it is a law

[sturg33]

No I probably don't understand property rights
or state rights
or ------
I understand property rights perfectly well. They extend to breaking a law on said property. By discriminating a person at a restaurant you are as liable to legal scrutiny as you would be if you are caught with a girl chained in the back yard,half a marijuanna farm in your restaurant kitchen area or discriminate seating / serving someone at your restaurant.

Law trumps property rights. The law is set by our elected representatives (government) . Our elected representatives voted overwhelmingly that discrimination over color is unacceptable. Under any circumstance
It is the law -- not quite sure what there is you can't understand or even worsegrasp why it is a law

So you support any law - even if it is a bad law?

[sturg33]

In 57's mind, slavery trumped individual liberty because slaver was the law so... That's it.

[acesfull86]

That might make it a circle jerk, and since you're the authority on those, it'd be your call.

....preparing to be .GIF'ed and memed.....

[57Brave]

So you support any law - even if it is a bad law?

I don't support stopping traffic lights just because they turn red. Why should a red light tell me what to do or direct my free will?

but, living in a society we have rules / norms we agree to through the process of representative government-- whether we like them (support?) or not.
One of those norms is we do not tolerate discrimination based on the color of peoples skin --

nor do we enslave people because a state passes a law.

[jpx7]

Whatever the reason - whether it is biological, cultural, or pure randomness, it has driven me to assume that, knowing nothing else - a black person would be better at bball than a white person.

It's the "making assumptions without any other data" part that is problematic, not the statement of empirical observations. For instance: stating that most skill-position players in the NFL are African-American is one thing; assuming that a random black dude in a gym is a super athlete is another, and much more problematic, thing. Or: stating that, on average, Asian-Americans tends to score better on standardized mathematical tests is one thing; assuming a random Asian-American child is a math-genius is another, and racially-stereotyping, thing.

You can be honest about your feelings in this country; but, if you honestly believe making these blanket assumptions, along racial lines, about random people for whom you lack any other relevant or pertinent data outside of visible racial markings, then I'm also free to shun and shame you.

[yeezus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn6MM6nohAI

[sturg33]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn6MM6nohAI

Classic

[sturg33]

It's the "making assumptions without any other data" part that is problematic, not the statement of empirical observations. For instance: stating that most skill-position players in the NFL are African-American is one thing; assuming that a random black dude in a gym is a super athlete is another, and much more problematic, thing. Another: stating that, on average, Asian-Americans tends to score better on standardized mathematical tests is one thing; assuming a random Asian-American child is a math-genius is another, and racially-stereotyping, thing.

You can be honest about your feelings in this country; but, if you honestly believe making these blanket assumptions, along racial lines, about random people for whom you lack any other relevant or pertinent data outside of visible racial markings, then I'm also free to shun and shame you.

But if you have nothing else to compare, and all else is equal (same height, age, etc), then why wouldn't you use the general knowledge you have that, historically, a black person is more likely to be good than a white person?

[jpx7]

But if you have nothing else to compare, and all else is equal (same height, age, etc), then why wouldn't you use the general knowledge you have that, historically, a black person is more likely to be good than a white person?

But why do you so desperately need to be making assumptions like these? Why can't you forestall judgement until you've acquired some sort of additional, specific, actually-relevant information about an individual? What circumstances or contingent factors are forcing such assumptive processes upon you?

And give me something better than the trivial example of selecting teammates for a pick-up basketball game.

[sturg33]

Why do you so desperately need to be making assumptions like these? Why can't you condition yourself to forestall judgement until you've acquired some sort of additional, specific, actually-relevant information about an individual? What circumstances or contingent factors are forcing such assumptive processes upon you?

And give me something better than the trivial example of selecting teammates for a pick-up basketball game.

LOL. There is no desperate need for anything. It's literally just a real world example that happens to me basically everytime I play basketball.

How am I supposed to wait for more evidence? We gotta start the game!

But many a time, we play that first game - and I regret the decision. Oh well.

If using a stereotypical bias that favors a black person makes me racist against black people... well, I just don't know how to respond to that

[Julio3000]

I can't help but raise an eyebrow when someone that lauds Obama on his accomplishments, but deflects Rand because he "lacks a Senate record". POT there is someone I'd love for you to meet...

Sturg, that was pretty well put considering the post it was answering. Nicely done.

Hey, at what point in that post did I "laud Obama on his accomplishments?"

[Julio3000]

Sturg. Clarify for me. You support Ron Paul's disavowal of the Civil Rights Act, yes?

[sturg33]

Sturg. Clarify for me. You support Ron Paul's disavowal of the Civil Rights Act, yes?

Yes.

[Julio3000]

Yes.

I've got a couple of questions, which I'm curious to see how you—or anyone else who's inclined to . . . aces, Tapate, Bedell?—answer. This is not any kind of rhetorical question, or gotcha-game. I'm just curious.

Was the Civil Rights Act unconstitutional?

Was the harm to private property rights suffered by business owners greater or lesser than the harm suffered by citizens who were discriminated against on the basis of race? Did the simple existence of legal racial discrimination affect the rights of non-whites to enjoy liberty and pursue happiness? What was the actual harm suffered by business owners under Title II of the act?

[Metaphysicist]

The Rosa Parks things was once again his constitutional interpretation of what the federal government is authorized to do. In his mind, the government should not have been allowed to use tax payer money to make up an award out of thin air. I commend him for sticking to his principles rather than doing the ABSOLUTELY politically correct and popular move.

So you are telling me that Ron Paul doesn't believe Congress has the power to honor people? I look forward to the next bill he introduces: "Shut down Arlington National Cemetery and throw out all those bodies."

[Metaphysicist]

Stereotypes aren't racist.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/1835b6302e6577a76acde48bd1b45925/tumblr_msor52jBvW1sx02dco1_400.gif

[Metaphysicist]

How is that selective? I literally pulled it straight from the page.

Did the page have more than one definition? And did you select one of those?

[Metaphysicist]

LOL. There is no desperate need for anything. It's literally just a real world example that happens to me basically everytime I play basketball.

How am I supposed to wait for more evidence? We gotta start the game!

But many a time, we play that first game - and I regret the decision. Oh well.

If using a stereotypical bias that favors a black person makes me racist against black people... well, I just don't know how to respond to that

Even in your incredibly mundane example, the aftershock of your "helpful" racism is evident. The average joe black guy ends up on worse team, since the other team gets a better player at the same time. Additionally, the average joe black is saddled with subtle resentment ("I regret the decision") that he has no control over.

Now imagine if this was something that actually mattered.

[Metaphysicist]

How about this. If a black person came to my house and asked to come in, and I say "no, no blacks allowed in my house" - should the government step in and say I mush let him in?

Is your house doing business in the public marketplace?

[Krgrecw]

I don't like the Paul's, but I imagine there's not to many people in Washington who would accept money from Stormfront and not return it and admit fault after the media finds out you accepted the funds except for the Paul's. Stormfront has no doubt that Paul was behind his 'racist letters' from years back.

Are they racist? I don't think they are racist as much as they just don't care for Blacks or Jews. there's a difference. I could never bang or date a 300lb chick. Does that mean I hate them? Nope. People like who they like. different strokes for different strokes. freedom of choice.

[Runnin]

Validated by Michael Scott. LOL

[zitothebrave]

I don't like the Paul's, but I imagine there's not to many people in Washington who would accept money from Stormfront and not return it and admit fault after the media finds out you accepted the funds except for the Paul's. Stormfront has no doubt that Paul was behind his 'racist letters' from years back.

Are they racist? I don't think they are racist as much as they just don't care for Blacks or Jews. there's a difference. I could never bang or date a 300lb chick. Does that mean I hate them? Nope. People like who they like. different strokes for different strokes. freedom of choice.

You're confusing sexual preference with racial prejudice, aka, racism. The Paul Letters say things like "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." or "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day." or “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began.” or “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.” or saying that homosexual who contracts aids “enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick,"

The inability for adults functioning in society today to grasp what racism is, is sad. Racism isn't posting big signs or burning crosses exclusively. Racism shows up in many different functions. See sturg's racist example of picking the black guy to play basketball.

[sturg33]

I've got a couple of questions, which I'm curious to see how you—or anyone else who's inclined to . . . aces, Tapate, Bedell?—answer. This is not any kind of rhetorical question, or gotcha-game. I'm just curious.

Was the Civil Rights Act unconstitutional?

Was the harm to private property rights suffered by business owners greater or lesser than the harm suffered by citizens who were discriminated against on the basis of race? Did the simple existence of legal racial discrimination affect the rights of non-whites to enjoy liberty and pursue happiness? What was the actual harm suffered by business owners under Title II of the act?

I believe it was unconstitutional because of the restrictions it put on private business owners. it gave the federal government power over the hiring and service offered of employers.

I don't know where the harm was worse, and frankly I don't care. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the Federal government can force a private business owner to serve someone, or to hire someone. It infringes on someone's right to be able run his/her business the way they see fit.

This is from Ron Paul's speech in 2004 on the 40th anniversary:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

[sturg33]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/1835b6302e6577a76acde48bd1b45925/tumblr_msor52jBvW1sx02dco1_400.gif

So if I stereotype that women might be better at educating young children than men, that would make me racist? (note, I don't think that - just an example to your typical thought out GIF)

[sturg33]

Did the page have more than one definition? And did you select one of those?

Here is what I did... Ready?

1. I went to www.google.com

2. I typed in "racist definition

3. I copied and pasted what was on the top of the page. Which happened to be the only definition

[sturg33]

Is your house doing business in the public marketplace?

Sure. What if I am selling something on Craigslist?

[zitothebrave]

So if I stereotype that women might be better at educating young children than men, that would make me racist? (note, I don't think that - just an example to your typical thought out GIF)

No that would make you sexist.

[Metaphysicist]

So if I stereotype that women might be better at educating young children than men, that would make me racist? (note, I don't think that - just an example to your typical thought out GIF)

Do... do you think women are a different race from men?

[sturg33]

Do... do you think women are a different race from men?

Of course not, which is why I said it because stereotype does not equal racist

But it was really clever how you did that "do... do" bit. Nice!

[sturg33]

The inability for adults functioning in society today to grasp what racism is, is sad. Racism isn't posting big signs or burning crosses exclusively. Racism shows up in many different functions. See sturg's racist example of picking the black guy to play basketball.

I think you just have a different interpretation of what racism is than I do. You don't know all - so you can get over that.

I believe that racism is thinking a person is inferior ONLY because of his race. Applying stereotypes based on real world data is just practical and common sense - as long as you understand that it could very well be wrong.

[sturg33]

No that would make you sexist.

Oh I see - so we can NEVER assume one person is better at something based on real world data and experiences ever?

Is it "sexist" of me to say women are more emotional than men?

I would call that biological fact. You call it sexist and think i'm some horrible person for just being honest

[Metaphysicist]

Sure. What if I am selling something on Craigslist?

Really? When you sell something on Craiglist, you open your doors for the general public to come in at their leisure? Or do you rather invite someone inside when it suits you? It makes a big difference.

[zitothebrave]

Oh I see - so we can NEVER assume one person is better at something based on real world data and experiences ever?

Is it "sexist" of me to say women are more emotional than men?

I would call that biological fact. You call it sexist and think i'm some horrible person for just being honest

It's sexist to see a woman and assume she's more emotional than a man. You're confusing statistics of a group vs qualities of an individual and it's quite sad.

[Metaphysicist]

Of course not, which is why I said it because stereotype does not equal racist

But it was really clever how you did that "do... do" bit. Nice!

Just so I'm following your logic here: stereotypes about race are not racist because stereotypes can also be about things that are not race. That about right?

[sturg33]

Really? When you sell something on Craiglist, you open your doors for the general public to come in at their leisure? Or do you rather invite someone inside when it suits you? It makes a big difference.

How about a garage sale?

[50PoundHead]

sturg33--on property rights--where does it stop? I agree that the Little Pink House lady in the Kelso case was right to fight eminent domain because I think the local government was clearly out to lunch, but what if the Little Pink House was sitting on a toxic waste dump and the house's existence threatened the rest of the community because it impeded clean-up? I try not to question motives because it's too difficult, so I leave my judgment to actions and I can't see why a business owner would want to limit consumers on a racial basis. I suppose they have their reasons. But we see signs limiting the number of kids that can be in a convenience store at a time or require shirt and shoes. Owners can still govern the behavior in their establishment. If a property owner feels threatened, there are avenues to lawfully alleviate that threat without bringing race into the picture. It's important to note that while the Declaration of Independence is not a governing document, Jefferson changed Locke's reference to "property" to "pursuit of happiness." I don't know if that solves anything here, but I've always found that interesting.

[sturg33]

It's sexist to see a woman and assume she's more emotional than a man. You're confusing statistics of a group vs qualities of an individual and it's quite sad.

No. It's literally science. The face that you can't understand that is sad.

Can there be exceptions? Of course. But in general - why would I ignore science?

[Metaphysicist]

For sturg:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ua0TT87KNwo

[zitothebrave]

No. It's literally science. The face that you can't understand that is sad.

Can there be exceptions? Of course. But in general - why would I ignore science?

Because every person is different? If Chris Johnson has a .333 BA does that mean every time he comes to the plate he gets a third of a hit? Or exactly every 3 times he comes to the plate he gets a hit? No anyone with an arbitrary amount of knowledge of statistics and biology would discuss the fact that generalities don't apply to individuals.

[sturg33]

Heading out to play golf - beautiful day!

We'll pick it up later

[bravesnumberone]

Since this thread has already gone to ****....

Who wrote the newsletters? Robert Byrd?

[Metaphysicist]

How about a garage sale?

I'm no lawyer, so I'm not exactly sure how active of an open store you have to be running to be subject to those rules. But it's pretty distant from the scenario you originally proposed, which was a guy just walking up to your door and asking to come in.

[Julio3000]

I believe it was unconstitutional because of the restrictions it put on private business owners. it gave the federal government power over the hiring and service offered of employers.

I don't know where the harm was worse, and frankly I don't care. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the Federal government can force a private business owner to serve someone, or to hire someone. It infringes on someone's right to be able run his/her business the way they see fit.



If that right appears in Ron Paul's copy of the constitution, I can see why he's so worked up about it.

Maybe you and he agree that the commerce clause begins and ends with Madison's (apparent, extra-constitutional) view. That doesn't change the fact that it's been interpreted more expansively over time. That it doesn't conform to Ron Paul's interpretation of the intent of a fractious group of politicians doesn't make it unconstitutional.

[Julio3000]

Since this thread has already gone to ****....

Who wrote the newsletters? Robert Byrd?

Well, we've hit the Byrd threshold.

Instead of shining light on unapologetic or unreconstructed racists, we're pointing at racists who are apologetic and reconstructed . . . to say nothing of dead.

[jpx7]

Even in your incredibly mundane example, the aftershock of your "helpful" racism is evident. The average joe black guy ends up on worse team, since the other team gets a better player at the same time. Additionally, the average joe black is saddled with subtle resentment ("I regret the decision") that he has no control over.

Now imagine if this was something that actually mattered.

This.

[jpx7]

It's important to note that while the Declaration of Independence is not a governing document, Jefferson changed Locke's reference to "property" to "pursuit of happiness." I don't know if that solves anything here, but I've always found that interesting.

This is a great point.

[jpx7]

The framers of the Constitution intended

So nobody can ever know why a business-person does something – whether their motivations for discrimination, say, are racially-predicated or not – but Ron Paul knows precisely what tens of two-hundred-year-dead men intended when they arbitrated a complex general legal framework for a fledgling nation-state? Is it that only Ron Paul gets to use reasoning and deduction to form conclusions about things he cannot know definitively and absolutely, or just that he runs a mean séance and spoke directly with the Constitution's authorial spectres?

This is one of the main reasons why I've never been able abide the Scalia mode of Constitutional interpretation: not because of some inane "living/dead document" distinction, but because it's suffused with that Straussian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss) fallacy that there is some sort of "literal" correspondence which obviates the need for interpretation. Scalia is interpreting the document just as any other Justice does, he's simply hubristic enough to believe he isn't.

[Julio3000]

So nobody can ever know why a business-person does something – whether their motivations for discrimination, say, are racially-predicated or not – but Ron Paul knows precisely what tens of two-hundred-year-dead men intended when they arbitrated a general legal framework for a fledgling nation-state? Is it that only Ron Paul gets to use reasoning and deduction to form conclusions about things he cannot know definitively and absolutely, or just that he runs a mean séance and spoke directly with the Constitutions authorial spectres?

This is one of the main reasons why I've never been able abide the Scalia mode of Constitutional interpretation: not because of some inane "living/dead document" distinction, but because it's suffused with that Straussian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss) fallacy that there is some sort of "literal" correspondence which obviates the need for interpretation. Scalia is interpreting the document just as any other Justice does, he's simply hubristic enough to believe he isn't.

http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff511/poinsett/mordor__zpsb1bebb6c.jpg

[bravesnumberone]

Well, we've hit the Byrd threshold.

Instead of shining light on unapologetic or unreconstructed racists, we're pointing at racists who are apologetic and reconstructed . . . to say nothing of dead.

Still waiting to hear what Rand said. Not that I like defending him, but it's kind of like pointing a finger at Obama for some of the unsavory people he's had close working relationships with.

[jpx7]

Still waiting to hear what Rand said. Not that I like defending him, but it's kind of like pointing a finger at Obama for some of the unsavory people he's had close working relationships with.

Hey, don't blame that on Obama. He moved to northwest Hyde Park first; I used to live closer to the lake.

[bravesnumberone]

Hey, don't blame that on Obama. He moved to northwest Hyde Park first; I used to live closer to the lake.

Lol ok.

[Julio3000]

Still waiting to hear what Rand said. Not that I like defending him, but it's kind of like pointing a finger at Obama for some of the unsavory people he's had close working relationships with.

What Rand said about what?

[bravesnumberone]

What Rand said about what?

About black people.

[jpx7]

http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff511/poinsett/mordor__zpsb1bebb6c.jpg

One of my favorites in this series.

[jpx7]

In in the interest of fairness – not to mention the chance to highlight a critical issue for the US, about which I'm pretty passionate – three cheers for Rand Paul on this point (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/09/18/rand-paul-i-am-here-to-ask-that-we-begin-the-end-of-mandatory-minimum-sentencing/):


"If I told you that one out of three African-American males is [prohibited] by law from voting, you might think I was talking about Jim Crow, 50 years ago. Yet today a third of African-American males are still prevented from voting because of the war on drugs. The war on drugs has disproportionately affected young black males. The ACLU reports that blacks are four to five times more likely to be convicted for drug possession, although surveys indicate that blacks and whites use drugs at about the same rate. The majority of illegal drug users and dealers nationwide are white, but three-fourths of the people in prison for drug offenses are African American or Latino."

[...]

Paul said the Justice Safety Valve Act, which he and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced last March, would restore some of the discretion that mandatory minimums took from judges. [...] So while it is true that Paul’s bill would not repeal mandatory minimums, it would effectively make them nonmandatory.

[...]

In addition to the injustice of mandatory minimums, Paul mentioned their impact on the size of our prison system:

"Since mandatory sentencing began, America’s prison population has exploded, quadrupled. America now jails a higher percentage of citizens than any other country in the world, at the staggering cost of $80 billion a year."

[sturg33]

In in the interest of fairness – not to mention the chance to highlight a critical issue for the US, about which I'm pretty passionate – three cheers for Rand Paul on this point (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/09/18/rand-paul-i-am-here-to-ask-that-we-begin-the-end-of-mandatory-minimum-sentencing/):

Sounds just like his pops.

[acesfull86]

That doesn't sound like a racist to me...

Paul is on point, IMO. I don't see who benefits from minimum sentencing for non-violent drug offenses.

[Julio3000]

Agree entirely. Glad to see this getting attention.

Now, maybe he should quit writing books with neo-confederate secessionist types.

[bravesnumberone]

Sigh...

[Julio3000]

Sigh...

Sigh if you want to, but it's a legitimate eyebrow-raiser, isn't it?

I give him credit where credit is due. And I haven't called him a racist. But, objectively, you don't think it's a little off-putting?

[bravesnumberone]

Yea it is, but he is hardly the first politician with some kind of connection to unsavory people.

[sturg33]

If that right appears in Ron Paul's copy of the constitution, I can see why he's so worked up about it.

Maybe you and he agree that the commerce clause begins and ends with Madison's (apparent, extra-constitutional) view. That doesn't change the fact that it's been interpreted more expansively over time. That it doesn't conform to Ron Paul's interpretation of the intent of a fractious group of politicians doesn't make it unconstitutional.

Does the civil rights act of 1964 apply to all races, sexes, sexual orientations, etc. etc? Or just African Americans?

I just don't understand why it so bad to believe that a private business owner should be allowed to refuse service to whomever he pleases. I can guarantee that if someone put a "no blacks allowed" sign on his window, he would be out of business within a few months. I certainly wouldn't go there.

But in an effort to protect individual liberty, how are you doing that by FORCING someone to serve someone a sandwich if he/she doesn't want to?

[sturg33]

So nobody can ever know why a business-person does something – whether their motivations for discrimination, say, are racially-predicated or not – but Ron Paul knows precisely what tens of two-hundred-year-dead men intended when they arbitrated a complex general legal framework for a fledgling nation-state? Is it that only Ron Paul gets to use reasoning and deduction to form conclusions about things he cannot know definitively and absolutely, or just that he runs a mean séance and spoke directly with the Constitution's authorial spectres?

This is one of the main reasons why I've never been able abide the Scalia mode of Constitutional interpretation: not because of some inane "living/dead document" distinction, but because it's suffused with that Straussian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss) fallacy that there is some sort of "literal" correspondence which obviates the need for interpretation. Scalia is interpreting the document just as any other Justice does, he's simply hubristic enough to believe he isn't.

I mean, the constitution is a very simple document of what the federal government is allowed to do. Can you show me where it allows the government to force private business owners to serve whoever the government tells them to? If so, I think you may have a point. If not, Ron Paul is simply abiding to the constitution. If individual states want to take measures erode private property rights, then that is one thing - but I don't see where the US Constitution allows the federal government to do so. If so, please show me.

[sturg33]

Still waiting to hear what Rand said. Not that I like defending him, but it's kind of like pointing a finger at Obama for some of the unsavory people he's had close working relationships with.

Rand (or Ron) have never said anything remotely racist. I've put the challenge out there to go find any clip of Ron Paul saying something racist and I won't hold my breath because I know nobody can find one

[sturg33]

Agree entirely. Glad to see this getting attention.

Now, maybe he should quit writing books with neo-confederate secessionist types.

To bravesnumberone's point, perhaps Obama should stop holding fundraisers with Bill Ayers - but that didn't stop you from voting for him

[Julio3000]

To bravesnumberone's point, perhaps Obama should stop holding fundraisers with Bill Ayers - but that didn't stop you from voting for him

I'd prefer that you discuss Rand Paul and Jack Hunter, but if you'd like to compare having a neo-confederate secessionist ghostwrite your book in 2011* with a student radical from the early 70s having hosted a single coffee meet n' greet benefiting Obama—whom he'd never met before—in 1995, go right ahead. The more you suggest that proximity to hinky people is an issue, the more you do Ron Paul—and possibly his son—a disservice. He's played cozy with racists, anti-Semites, and secessionist weirdos for decades. It's one reason I've never been tempted to jump on the bandwagon even when he's occasionally talking sense.

*and putting him on your staff, as both Pauls did.

[Julio3000]

Rand (or Ron) have never said anything remotely racist. I've put the challenge out there to go find any clip of Ron Paul saying something racist and I won't hold my breath because I know nobody can find one

And in so doing, have missed the point entirely.

[sturg33]

I'd prefer that you discuss Rand Paul and Jack Hunter, but if you'd like to compare having a neo-confederate secessionist ghostwrite your book in 2011* with a student radical from the early 70s having hosted a single coffee meet n' greet benefiting Obama—whom he'd never met before—in 1995, go right ahead. The more you suggest that proximity to hinky people is an issue, the more you do Ron Paul—and possibly his son—a disservice. He's played cozy with racists, anti-Semites, and secessionist weirdos for decades. It's one reason I've never been tempted to jump on the bandwagon even when he's occasionally talking sense.

*and putting him on your staff, as both Pauls did.

To act as if secessionists are some crazy non existent group of people is naive. Hell, Rick Perry was a favorite to win the President just a year ago!

I don't know much about Jack Hunter - I've listent to some of his stuff when he campaigned for Ron Paul, but for those, there was nothing crazy being spouted

[Julio3000]

I mean, the constitution is a very simple document of what the federal government is allowed to do. Can you show me where it allows the government to force private business owners to serve whoever the government tells them to? If so, I think you may have a point. If not, Ron Paul is simply abiding to the constitution. If individual states want to take measures erode private property rights, then that is one thing - but I don't see where the US Constitution allows the federal government to do so. If so, please show me.

How about the ADA? Feel the same way?

Listen. You can disagree about the interpretation of the commerce clause. Fine. Many people do. That is not the same thing as being able to unequivocally say that Congress does not have that power. The Supreme Court has upheld the current interpretation.

Does the civil rights act of 1964 apply to all races, sexes, sexual orientations, etc. etc? Or just African Americans?

Is this an actual question? If it is, I'd suggest not arguing the issue (with me, anyway) until you are familiar enough with the law to answer to that question.

But in an effort to protect individual liberty, how are you doing that by FORCING someone to serve someone a sandwich if he/she doesn't want to?

You're interested in property rights, I think. You keep saying "liberty," though. Which do you think is a larger affront to liberty? A person unable to buy a widget at a business engaged in interstate commerce SOLELY because of his/her race or sex; or a widget store owner being told that he cannot refuse to serve someone on the basis of race or sex?

I can guarantee that if someone put a "no blacks allowed" sign on his window, he would be out of business within a few months. I certainly wouldn't go there.

Dude. Was this the case in 1964, do you think? Or do you think that the ability for businesses and institutions to legally discriminate on the basis of race formed a de facto apartheid system? Libertarians—particularly the young ones, though the Drs Paul have no excuse—can be so stinking glib about the Civil Rights Act. Grow up. Study the history of the Civil Rights movement. Acquire some empathy for your fellow humans, and be glad that your fight is only against imaginary boogeymen instead of armed racists, police dogs, or the Arkansas National Guard.

[Julio3000]

To act as if secessionists are some crazy non existent group of people is naive. Hell, Rick Perry was a favorite to win the President just a year ago!

I don't know much about Jack Hunter - I've listent to some of his stuff when he campaigned for Ron Paul, but for those, there was nothing crazy being spouted

Tee hee. OK. But his past statements and associations are a matter of public record.

To act as if secessionists are some crazy non existent group of people is naive

Neo-confederate secessionists? They may or may not be crazy. Their ideas, however, are contemptible and should be disgusting to anyone, PARTICULARLY someone who styles his or herself a libertarian.

[50PoundHead]

I mean, the constitution is a very simple document of what the federal government is allowed to do. Can you show me where it allows the government to force private business owners to serve whoever the government tells them to? If so, I think you may have a point. If not, Ron Paul is simply abiding to the constitution. If individual states want to take measures erode private property rights, then that is one thing - but I don't see where the US Constitution allows the federal government to do so. If so, please show me.

So in other words, if you own a factory that is upstream from everyone else, you can dump whatever you want in the water because the Constitution says no one can stop you.

PS--Don't use Rick Perry as an example of anything that remotely makes sense.

[Metaphysicist]

I mean, the constitution is a very simple document of what the federal government is allowed to do.

I can't believe that anyone who has ever thoroughly read or studied the constitution would describe it as "very simple." Elegant, yes; but it is not "simple."


Can you show me where it allows the government to force private business owners to serve whoever the government tells them to?

If you look at the actually case law here, for example: Heart of Atlanta vs. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States) and Katzenbach v. McClung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._McClung), this is a power granted under the Commerce Clause, in combination with the Necessary and Proper Clause, which read:

- [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes

- The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

i.e., Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, and make laws that will allow them to act upon this power. The supreme court determined if Congress has a rationally reason to think racial discrimination hinders interstate commerce, then it falls within the powers allotted to them. Here is the money shot from the Supreme court opinion (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel,_Inc._v._United_States/Opinion_of_the_Court) in Heart of Atlanta:

'The power of Congress over interstate commerce is not confined to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce or the exercise of the power of Congress over it as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the exercise of the granted power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. See McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 421, 4 L.Ed. 579.' 312 U.S. at 118, 61 S.Ct. at 459.

Thus the power of Congress to promote interstate commerce also includes the power to regulate the local incidents thereof, including local activities in both the States of origin and destination, which might have a substantial and harmful effect upon that commerce.

This is what amuses me: The Civil Rights Act exists not only to protect minority groups, but it also is designed to protect the market; so we end up with free market libertarians actively campaign to hurt the marketplace.

Anyway, sturg, I'd be interested if you can articulate why you think these clauses do not give Congress this kind of power. The case law is very old at this point (Katzenbach cites John Marshall for goodness sake), so you'd have to have a pretty compelling argument. And no, "it does explicitly say that," isn't a good argument. That's the whole point of the Necessary and Proper clause.

[Metaphysicist]

http://doctorbulldog.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/crickets.gif

[sturg33]

http://doctorbulldog.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/crickets.gif

Sorry - have been in Canada. Will respond when I have more time. Thanks for your patience on this message board

[weso1]

So in other words, if you own a factory that is upstream from everyone else, you can dump whatever you want in the water because the Constitution says no one can stop you.

PS--Don't use Rick Perry as an example of anything that remotely makes sense.

The folks who live downstream do have the right to sue. And as sturg said States have the right to make their own laws. And of course States can sue other States. So no, a factory couldn't do that without possible repercussions even if the federal government were out of the picture outside of the judicial branch of course.

[gilesfan]

http://doctorbulldog.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/crickets.gif

You don't really expect a knowledgeable answer, do you?

[Julio3000]

The folks who live downstream do have the right to sue. And as sturg said States have the right to make their own laws. And of course States can sue other States. So no, a factory couldn't do that without possible repercussions even if the federal government were out of the picture outside of the judicial branch of course.

OK, so it gets decided in federal court. So, what standard gets used in court?

Which, curiously enough, was kind of the point of the commerce clause. To ensure efficient trade by avoiding conflicts between the states.

[sturg33]

You don't really expect a knowledgeable answer, do you?

I forgot the board got a new liberal!

[weso1]

OK, so it gets decided in federal court. So, what standard gets used in court?

Which, curiously enough, was kind of the point of the commerce clause. To ensure efficient trade by avoiding conflicts between the states.

Yeah... The point is always very well intended. But unfortunately I think this clause has been abused at times most recently with Obamacare (or at least they tried). And that again is the libertarian argument. It's better to not have it at all then for it to be abused by the federal government, which libertarians feel is inevitable.

Are you ok with some or potentially a lot of federal abuse if it makes trade more efficient? Better hope we have good judges in the high court.

Just to clarify. I'm not against the commerce clause, but I do believe at times it has been interpreted too broadly.

[sturg33]

I can't believe that anyone who has ever thoroughly read or studied the constitution would describe it as "very simple." Elegant, yes; but it is not "simple."



If you look at the actually case law here, for example: Heart of Atlanta vs. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States) and Katzenbach v. McClung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._McClung), this is a power granted under the Commerce Clause, in combination with the Necessary and Proper Clause, which read:

- [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes

- The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

i.e., Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, and make laws that will allow them to act upon this power. The supreme court determined if Congress has a rationally reason to think racial discrimination hinders interstate commerce, then it falls within the powers allotted to them. Here is the money shot from the Supreme court opinion (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel,_Inc._v._United_States/Opinion_of_the_Court) in Heart of Atlanta:

'The power of Congress over interstate commerce is not confined to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce or the exercise of the power of Congress over it as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the exercise of the granted power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. See McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 421, 4 L.Ed. 579.' 312 U.S. at 118, 61 S.Ct. at 459.

Thus the power of Congress to promote interstate commerce also includes the power to regulate the local incidents thereof, including local activities in both the States of origin and destination, which might have a substantial and harmful effect upon that commerce.

This is what amuses me: The Civil Rights Act exists not only to protect minority groups, but it also is designed to protect the market; so we end up with free market libertarians actively campaign to hurt the marketplace.

Anyway, sturg, I'd be interested if you can articulate why you think these clauses do not give Congress this kind of power. The case law is very old at this point (Katzenbach cites John Marshall for goodness sake), so you'd have to have a pretty compelling argument. And no, "it does explicitly say that," isn't a good argument. That's the whole point of the Necessary and Proper clause.

I can't believe that anyone who has ever thoroughly read or studied the constitution would describe it as "very simple." Elegant, yes; but it is not "simple."

I think from a libertarian perspective, it's especially simple. We look at it in a way in which "what does the federal government have the authority to do?" and i believe the answer is usually very simple. I.E., if it's not explicitly authorized, then simple, No.

Anyway, sturg, I'd be interested if you can articulate why you think these clauses do not give Congress this kind of power. The case law is very old at this point (Katzenbach cites John Marshall for goodness sake), so you'd have to have a pretty compelling argument. And no, "it does explicitly say that," isn't a good argument. That's the whole point of the Necessary and Proper clause.

The problem with the court's interpretation of the Commerce clause rests in that it basically ignores every other part of the constitution which contradicts their meaning of what the founders meant in the commerce clause.

Prior to the 1930s, the Supreme Court had regarded the ‘Commerce Clause’ to read what it’s authors intended: that only Congress should have the power to set regulations on trade between the various states, a clause inserted into the Constitution to prevent trade wars from erupting between states. For example, North Carolina can not place import tariffs on goods manufactured in Virginia. California may not forbid its citizens from traveling to or conducting business with Arizona.

A little history:

As is happening in the present day, FDR and a Democrat controlled Congress used an economic crisis as justification to pass legislation granting massive new powers to the federal government. Most of these were struck down by the Supreme Court, since they had no justification under the Constitution, which reserves all powers not specifically granted to the government to the states or the people.

In response, FDR threatened to increase the size of the Supreme Court from nine to fifteen Justices, meaning he would immediately be able to appoint the six new Justices himself, who would then approve his ‘New Deal’ programs. In response to this threat, Justice Owen Roberts had a sudden change of mind, and from then on the Supreme Court approved FDR’s proposals, eventually culminating in essentially granting the federal government unlimited power in Wickard v. Filburn - which didn't allow farmers to grow wheat to feed their chicken under the "interstate commerce" clause.

This state of affairs existed until almost the turn of the century: for six decades after the Supreme Court began using the ‘Commerce Clause’ to excuse FDR’s power grab on behalf of the federal government, the Supreme Court found absolutely nothing that was not ‘justified by the Commerce Clause.’ No limits whatsoever. Katzenbach v McClung is one of many extensions of nearly unlimited power to the federal government.

Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the Supreme Court decision that approved it, stands as a great example of the ‘federal government can do anything it wants’ concept. The admissions policy of an out-of-the-way restaurant in Alabama does not have much to do with maintaining the smooth flow of ‘interstate commerce.’

As I'm sure you know, the constitutionality of the law has nothing to with race. But that is how to get the emotionally charged argument flowing... In actuality, the entire Constitutional justification of the law is that it makes it easier for “interstate commerce for one can hardly travel without eating.” Simply put, the justification Congress had to pass Title II of the ‘1964 Civil Rights Act’ was that mandating such regulations on restaurants increased the likelihood that blacks would engage in interstate travel. With this reasoning, there is nothing to prevent Congress from passing other such laws, for example mandating that all restaurants offer a full vegan menu in order to ‘promote interstate travel’ for vegans. Congress could pass laws demanding that all restaurants offer a full Halal meal in order to promote interstate travel by Muslims. Congress could pass laws demanding that all restaurants offer a full range of diet drinks and low calorie meals in order to facilitate interstate travel by overweight people.

Basically, if you take the race relations out of the equation, and in the McClung case, that is exactly what the Supreme Court had to do, then you're left with a ridiculous justification for federal authority under the guise of the 'Commerce Clause'

[jpx7]

And that again is the libertarian argument. It's better to not have it at all then for it to be abused by the federal government, which libertarians feel is inevitable.

So essentially you're arguing that libertarians just prefer one inevitable abuse to another.

[sturg33]

So essentially you're arguing that libertarians just prefer one inevitable abuse to another.

But at least we have a choice with private business

[weso1]

So essentially you're arguing that libertarians just prefer one inevitable abuse to another.

Yes. They just think the abuse they prefer is less abusive.

[Julio3000]

[B]
...

As is happening in the present day, FDR and a Democrat controlled Congress used an economic crisis as justification to pass legislation granting massive new powers to the federal government.
...


I take issue with a lot of this, but I have to say this first: you've pretty much blown your credibility with your first sentence.

[Julio3000]

The problem with the court's interpretation of the Commerce clause rests in that it basically ignores every other part of the constitution which contradicts their meaning of what the founders meant in the commerce clause.

And the problem with your interpretation is that you assume that there was some unified and monolithic "intent of the founders" with regard to anything other than creating a government that is responsive to the people.

[Julio3000]

The admissions policy of an out-of-the-way restaurant in Alabama does not have much to do with maintaining the smooth flow of ‘interstate commerce.’

Parts of the deep south existed as a de facto apartheid state. Are you seriously going to suggest that a substantial minority of the population being unable to travel and do business freely within a large area of the country wouldn't amount to an unreasonable restraint of interstate commerce?

[sturg33]

I take issue with a lot of this, but I have to say this first: you've pretty much blown your credibility with your first sentence.

That's hurtful...

You mind elaborating?

[sturg33]

The problem with the court's interpretation of the Commerce clause rests in that it basically ignores every other part of the constitution which contradicts their meaning of what the founders meant in the commerce clause.

And the problem with your interpretation is that you assume that there was some unified and monolithic "intent of the founders" with regard to anything other than creating a government that is responsive to the people.

Well considering the entire constitution basically limits the federal government wherever it can - then I deduct that court's understanding of the commerce clause of "we can let any power slide under the commerce clause" is inconsistent with the rest of the constitution.

[sturg33]

The admissions policy of an out-of-the-way restaurant in Alabama does not have much to do with maintaining the smooth flow of ‘interstate commerce.’

Parts of the deep south existed as a de facto apartheid state. Are you seriously going to suggest that a substantial minority of the population being unable to travel and do business freely within a large area of the country wouldn't amount to an unreasonable restraint of interstate commerce?

If that were the case - do you disagree with my other ridiculous examples? The vegan menus, etc??

[jpx7]

And the problem with your interpretation is that you assume that there was some unified and monolithic "intent of the founders" with regard to anything other than creating a government that is responsive to the people.

This, a thousand times. This was precisely the point I was advancing previously in this thread.

[jpx7]

That's hurtful...

You mind elaborating?

I believe he means the part where you inaccurately state that Democrats control Congress.

[Julio3000]

That's hurtful...

You mind elaborating?

Democrats controlled Congress until the 2010 election . . . even then they were having to reach a 60-vote threshold in the senate to do anything. Since January of 2011, Republicans have enjoyed a majority in the house. so the idea that Obama has engaged in a power grab thanks to a friendly congress is just silly.

[Metaphysicist]

I think from a libertarian perspective, it's especially simple. We look at it in a way in which "what does the federal government have the authority to do?" and i believe the answer is usually very simple. I.E., if it's not explicitly authorized, then simple, No.

Since I knew you were going to say this, I've already pre-empted this claim in the very words you quoted below this. You should at least address what I said, rather than reflexively typing "not explicit!", as if that made any sense for a document with an elastic clause.

EDIT: Just to be perfectly clear: I want you explain to how your statement of "it has to be explicit" gels with the existence of the necessary and proper clause, which states that there are implied powers.


The problem with the court's interpretation of the Commerce clause rests in that it basically ignores every other part of the constitution which contradicts their meaning of what the founders meant in the commerce clause

I have no idea what this means. What parts of the constitution are being contradicted? You can't just assert this; that is basically the definition of "begging the question."

As for "what the founders meant," this is a meaningless statement. The Founders didn't even agree on what these things meant! Or whether they were even good ideas! That why we have a Bill of Rights! That why we have the Federalist papers! That there was a struggle to get the states to ratify! That's why we had Federalists and anti-Federalists! That's why it only took us until president #2 to have the most bitterly divided political parties imaginable! And those guys were the founders! Do you think Alexander Hamilton would tell you the same thing about the Commerce clause as Patrick Henry? Please...

Mr. President, I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.
- Ben Franklin, to George Washington at the end of the Convention (great speech (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_917.asp))

But, oh no, sturg from the internet knows what "the founders intended."


Prior to the 1930s, the Supreme Court had regarded the ‘Commerce Clause’ to read what it’s authors intended: that only Congress should have the power to set regulations on trade between the various states, a clause inserted into the Constitution to prevent trade wars from erupting between states. For example, North Carolina can not place import tariffs on goods manufactured in Virginia. California may not forbid its citizens from traveling to or conducting business with Arizona

Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion? You are describing the most extreme and limited possible interpretation of the commerce clause, and I would be quite interested if you could find something from the Marshall court era that explicitly laid out that the Commerce power was restricted to state governments making laws about other states (Hint: you probably aren't going to find it; but you might find the opposite).


A little history:

I don't feel like fact checking that little partisan history lesson because it is irrelevant. I already have a functional understanding of the history and various interpretations of the Commerce clause. I'm asking you to explain your stance on what the constitution says; as a strict constructionist, this is all you should care about anyway.

As for the "halal" food stuff, that's some pretty gross equivocation. There's a world of difference between having to allow vegans into your restaurant (Civil Rights Act) and being forced to prepare vegan food (libertarian jibber jabber). There are many problems with that comparison, but the most obvious is that there is no rational basis (an important part of the constitutionality test applied in these 1960s cases) for believing the former would actually improve interstate commerce.

[Julio3000]

Just as the Founders intended.

http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff511/poinsett/tyson-spinks.jpg

[sturg33]

Since I knew you were going to say this, I've already pre-empted this claim in the very words you quoted below this. You should at least address what I said, rather than reflexively typing "not explicit!", as if that made any sense for a document with an elastic clause.

EDIT: Just to be perfectly clear: I want you explain to how your statement of "it has to be explicit" gels with the existence of the necessary and proper clause, which states that there are implied powers.



I have no idea what this means. What parts of the constitution are being contradicted? You can't just assert this; that is basically the definition of "begging the question."

As for "what the founders meant," this is a meaningless statement. The Founders didn't even agree on what these things meant! Or whether they were even good ideas! That why we have a Bill of Rights! That why we have the Federalist papers! That there was a struggle to get the states to ratify! That's why we had Federalists and anti-Federalists! That's why it only took us until president #2 to have the most bitterly divided political parties imaginable! And those guys were the founders! Do you think Alexander Hamilton would tell you the same thing about the Commerce clause as Patrick Henry? Please...

Mr. President, I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.
- Ben Franklin, to George Washington at the end of the Convention (great speech (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_917.asp))

But, oh no, sturg from the internet knows what "the founders intended."



Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion? You are describing the most extreme and limited possible interpretation of the commerce clause, and I would be quite interested if you could find something from the Marshall court era that explicitly laid out that the Commerce power was restricted to state governments making laws about other states (Hint: you probably aren't going to find it; but you might find the opposite).



I don't feel like fact checking that little partisan history lesson because it is irrelevant. I already have a functional understanding of the history and various interpretations of the Commerce clause. I'm asking you to explain your stance on what the constitution says; as a strict constructionist, this is all you should care about anyway.

As for the "halal" food stuff, that's some pretty gross equivocation. There's a world of difference between having to allow vegans into your restaurant (Civil Rights Act) and being forced to prepare vegan food (libertarian jibber jabber). There are many problems with that comparison, but the most obvious is that there is no rational basis (an important part of the constitutionality test applied in these 1960s cases) for believing the former would actually improve interstate commerce.


I don't have time to fully respond for a bit - but Im confused about your post... You asked me to articulate why I think the commerce clause shouldn't give the federal government the power it has given. I did exactly that. You're free to disagree - but I believe I met my end of the bargain.

[Metaphysicist]

I asked you to explain why you think the commerce clause + the elastic clause do not give Congress this power. That means, go look at the Constitution and let's talk about how it works. You did not do that at all, but instead gave me a history lesson, and some unbacked assertions. I wasn't asking about the history, I was asking about the text.

I think my criticisms were pretty direct and relevant. Is there a specific one you are confused about?

EDIT: To make them more direct:

1) Why are you ignoring the necessary and proper clause? (especially since was part of the original question)
2) What parts of the Constitution do you think are being contradicted by the Supreme Courts interpretation?
3) Do you have any evidence to support your claim about the early court determining that the Commerce clause was limited solely to State governments make laws about other states?

These are all fundamental problems I have with what you wrote. If you can't address them, then you have not met your "end of the bargain."

[50PoundHead]

The folks who live downstream do have the right to sue. And as sturg said States have the right to make their own laws. And of course States can sue other States. So no, a factory couldn't do that without possible repercussions even if the federal government were out of the picture outside of the judicial branch of course.

(1) I think the notion of basic human rights gets stretched to untenable extensions at certain points, but why should someone have to sue to have a reasonable assurance of clean air and water.

(2) Groundwater and air aren't penned up by each state, so living in a state with stricter standards doesn't ensure that the natural resources are appreciably better than in a state with lower standards.

(3) People somehow believe the courts are unbelievably liberal now and personal injury decisions give that impression, but that hasn't always been the case. Courts are, and always have been, creatures of politics.

[weso1]

(1) I think the notion of basic human rights gets stretched to untenable extensions at certain points, but why should someone have to sue to have a reasonable assurance of clean air and water.

(2) Groundwater and air aren't penned up by each state, so living in a state with stricter standards doesn't ensure that the natural resources are appreciably better than in a state with lower standards.

(3) People somehow believe the courts are unbelievably liberal now and personal injury decisions give that impression, but that hasn't always been the case. Courts are, and always have been, creatures of politics.

1) It's either that or the EPA. If you think federal law is better than you choose EPA. Some think lawsuits are a better way to deal with the problem due to EPA abuse and economic reasons as well. It's not like the problem of prevention goes away just because you make lawsuits less necessary and instead invoke federal rules. And even with federal involvement the need for lawsuits don't just go away. Of course the system of lawsuits are abused as well, so maybe this is a good question for sturg to answer since he's the most vocal board libertarian. Why support lawsuits over federal rules when the power of lawsuit is abused as well.

2) Is this really a problem though? I mean do humans need perfect air and water? So long as it doesn't cause bodily harm then I think that's a fair enough standard.

3) That's true, but it works both ways. Sometimes the court will be in my favor, but sometimes it will be in your favor. It's not a perfect system. Nobody has come up with a perfect system.

2)

[The Chosen One]

1) It's either that or the EPA. If you think federal law is better than you choose EPA. Some think lawsuits are a better way to deal with the problem due to EPA abuse and economic reasons as well. It's not like the problem of prevention goes away just because you make lawsuits less necessary and instead invoke federal rules. And even with federal involvement the need for lawsuits don't just go away. Of course the system of lawsuits are abused as well, so maybe this is a good question for sturg to answer since he's the most vocal board libertarian. Why support lawsuits over federal rules when the power of lawsuit is abused as well.

2) Is this really a problem though? I mean do humans need perfect air and water? So long as it doesn't cause bodily harm then I think that's a fair enough standard.

3) That's true, but it works both ways. Sometimes the court will be in my favor, but sometimes it will be in your favor. It's not a perfect system. Nobody has come up with a perfect system.

2)

Why did you leave 2-B) blank?

Is that a pun for Uggla's got nothing? :icwudt:

[weso1]

More like what Uggla's season reminds me of... number 2.

[50PoundHead]

1) It's either that or the EPA. If you think federal law is better than you choose EPA. Some think lawsuits are a better way to deal with the problem due to EPA abuse and economic reasons as well. It's not like the problem of prevention goes away just because you make lawsuits less necessary and instead invoke federal rules. And even with federal involvement the need for lawsuits don't just go away. Of course the system of lawsuits are abused as well, so maybe this is a good question for sturg to answer since he's the most vocal board libertarian. Why support lawsuits over federal rules when the power of lawsuit is abused as well.

2) Is this really a problem though? I mean do humans need perfect air and water? So long as it doesn't cause bodily harm then I think that's a fair enough standard.

3) That's true, but it works both ways. Sometimes the court will be in my favor, but sometimes it will be in your favor. It's not a perfect system. Nobody has come up with a perfect system.

2)

(1) I think the problem with simple contract law governing things is that it concentrates almost solely on the private elements of contract without considering the social contract as a whole. An unminded network of private contracts could easily lead to oligopolies and monopolies, which inherently undermine free enterprise.

(2) I suppose that depends on which side of the river upon which two states border you live on. If the state on one side of the river decides to have lax standards, the people on the other side are forced to live with the consequences of that decision. I think there can be legitimate gripes against the EPA, but in the absence of a federal authority to set minimum standards and mediate disputes that arise between states, the system becomes "beggar thy neighbor" writ large. Lawsuits against a state would have to go to federal court, because a state wouldn't have standing in another state's courts. In the absence of some national standards, no state would have a peg to hang a case upon.

(3) We agree here, but the goal should be to keep things out of the judicial system.

[Metaphysicist]

Some think lawsuits are a better way to deal with the problem due to EPA abuse and economic reasons as well.

As someone who worked in the environmental remediation field for a few years, I can attest that the EPA has many problems. Many, many problems. But 'abuse' is very low on the list; some much more obvious problems are (1) the sheer number of contaminated locations in the us far outstrips the federal and state resources allocated to manage them, (2) the inherent slowness and obstinance inherent in bureaucracy, (3) the methods for locating potential responsible parties, etc.. There are plenty of problems (many of them interrelated), and most of them are very clearly way ahead of "abuse."

Honestly, only someone with no grasp of actual facts and practices could honestly claim that it would be better to eliminate the environmental protections we have and leave it all up to individual lawsuits. That would be INSANE; I cannot comprehend how that could possibly be better. Most of those lawsuits are based on the EPA protections as it is. Without those protections and rules, it would be very difficult to prove harm in a legal setting. Completely unworkable. There are clear opportunities for real, useful reform: focus your energies there, if you want to make a difference.




(2) Groundwater and air aren't penned up by each state, so living in a state with stricter standards doesn't ensure that the natural resources are appreciably better than in a state with lower standards.

2) Is this really a problem though? I mean do humans need perfect air and water? So long as it doesn't cause bodily harm then I think that's a fair enough standard.

That is exactly the purpose of current standards: to prevent harm. The standards aren't arbitrary (well, statisticians might argue about the methods used in the calculations, or whether the standards are too stringent, but the aim is not arbitrary).

[Metaphysicist]

I asked you to explain why you think the commerce clause + the elastic clause do not give Congress this power. That means, go look at the Constitution and let's talk about how it works. You did not do that at all, but instead gave me a history lesson, and some unbacked assertions. I wasn't asking about the history, I was asking about the text.

I think my criticisms were pretty direct and relevant. Is there a specific one you are confused about?

EDIT: To make them more direct:

1) Why are you ignoring the necessary and proper clause? (especially since was part of the original question)
2) What parts of the Constitution do you think are being contradicted by the Supreme Courts interpretation?
3) Do you have any evidence to support your claim about the early court determining that the Commerce clause was limited solely to State governments make laws about other states?

These are all fundamental problems I have with what you wrote. If you can't address them, then you have not met your "end of the bargain."

http://i1258.photobucket.com/albums/ii538/Mongol_Magpie/crickets-humping.gif

[sturg33]

Sorry buddy - I had really forgotten all about this thread and what had been asked and what hasn't... I'll answer you commerce question on last time when I have more time tonight.

[Metaphysicist]

As the clock runs down.... and... META WINS. YAY META.

sturg is hereby barred from ever talking about the about something being "unconstitutional" ever again.

[sturg33]

As the clock runs down.... and... META WINS. YAY META.

sturg is hereby barred from ever talking about the about something being "unconstitutional" ever again.

Sorry - I haven't been able to find a Rand Paul blog to give me my answer yet... just keep waiting.

[Tapate50]

Wish we could keep the Rand Paul talk to the Rand Paul thread.

Claims of corruption? I need proof before I claim those sorts of things.

[sturg33]

Since I knew you were going to say this, I've already pre-empted this claim in the very words you quoted below this. You should at least address what I said, rather than reflexively typing "not explicit!", as if that made any sense for a document with an elastic clause.

EDIT: Just to be perfectly clear: I want you explain to how your statement of "it has to be explicit" gels with the existence of the necessary and proper clause, which states that there are implied powers.

The founders themselves argued against the elastic clause, saying that it would grant limitless power to the federal government. However, it was passed because the founders who supported it made the argument that it is simply there to allow the execution of granted powers in the Constitution. That is the argument that prevailed for its inclusion.

And looking at the elastic clause, I certainly don't see anything that implies other powers:
The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I have no idea what this means. What parts of the constitution are being contradicted? You can't just assert this; that is basically the definition of "begging the question."

As for "what the founders meant," this is a meaningless statement. The Founders didn't even agree on what these things meant! Or whether they were even good ideas! That why we have a Bill of Rights! That why we have the Federalist papers! That there was a struggle to get the states to ratify! That's why we had Federalists and anti-Federalists! That's why it only took us until president #2 to have the most bitterly divided political parties imaginable! And those guys were the founders! Do you think Alexander Hamilton would tell you the same thing about the Commerce clause as Patrick Henry? Please...

I already addressed this earlier. And regardless if the founders agreed or not, it's irrelevant. The Constitution is the Constitution. And you are going to have a hard time convincing me that the rest of the Constitution (aside from the commerce clause) clearly favors federal authority on any issue other than the obvious (like military). I'm not saying the commerce clause is inconsistent with the rest of the Constitution, I'm saying the court's and liberal interpretation of it are inconsistent with the rest of it. Simply put, it's the clause that everyone points to when they want to expand federal power. But I'd call you an idiot if you believed the founders were in favor of limitless government.

1) Why are you ignoring the necessary and proper clause? (especially since was part of the original question)
2) What parts of the Constitution do you think are being contradicted by the Supreme Courts interpretation?
3) Do you have any evidence to support your claim about the early court determining that the Commerce clause was limited solely to State governments make laws about other states?

1. I'm not ignoring it
2. Just about all of it
3. What is the point in answering? I provided you examples of history where the courts didn't feel as they do today, but you just said you didn't feel like fact checking it. So I don't really feel like finding more examples.

[57Brave]

Surprised no one brought up the topic of Rand Paul the plagiarizer and whether they think this is it for his career.

Between having a racist on his immediate staff and this --- I'd say libertarians and other nullification advocates will have to hitch their wagon to another "team"
Those are my words. Except "team" which I credit to my friend. Un prompted

[sturg33]

Question for the board - should people be allowed to be friends with racists?

Because frankly, as long as Rand (or whomever) is not a racist, why should I care if a member of his staff is?