Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
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.
Rand Paul
- Thread starter 57Brave
- Start date
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
I
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
I
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
Well-known member
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?
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
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
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
I
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
I
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
Connoisseur of Minors
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
Connoisseur of Minors
Wow what an outstandingly crappy comparison.
sturg33
I
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
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
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.
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
I
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
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Let's not think about it like that. Mostly because it's nothing like that.
So. Bad manager, cynical profiteer, or bigot?
yeezus
It's OVER 5,000!
Because I can. Is that ok with you? I don't need a reason.
sturg33
I
Disinterested manager. Moved on to bigger things.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
That's precious.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
This.
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
I
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.