Rand Paul

[captivewear]

How much of a nutjob is this guy? I honestly think he is flat out stupid. He is a voice of the right wing tea party movement. He has scary ideology and he could be Senator of Kentucky soon.
What is America coming to?
Paul gets the Republican Senate Representation for Kentucky and his major ideals are to take away the Civil Rights Act making it legal to turn away any colored persons, handicap persons, gays or disabled persons to any private or public place. Lets just take 10 steps back! I find it amusing that Paul says he wants to do these things because it is more "American". Thats funny because I remember reading this in school...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

I don't know about you but I know I'd be pissed if I couldn't go into Burger King because I am too Pale.

[Machu505]

I wouldn't call him stupid. His ideology is obviously flawed in my view, but he's one of the few libertarian Republicans who's intellectual about his beliefs. With that being said, he'd be a menace to have in the Senate.

[AprilFools]

I wouldn't call him stupid. His ideology is obviously flawed in my view, but he's one of the few libertarian Republicans who's intellectual about his beliefs. With that being said, he'd be a menace to have in the Senate.
there's no way you're 15.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

It's okay guys... Rand Paul totally supports the Civil Rights Act now. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100520/pl_ynews/ynews_pl2171;_ylt=AjRBEJFjTNpt1L0og o7i0ZKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNrZ2VnMmVvBG Fzc2V0A3luZXdzLzIwMTAwNTIwL3luZXdzX 3BsMjE3MQRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRj cG9zAzEwBHBvcwM3BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQR zZWMDeW5faGVhZGxpbmVfbGlzdARzbGsDcG F1bGNoYW5nZXNj)

[thepianominstre]

Stop the hysterics and stick to the facts. Rand Paul does not want to repeal the Civil Rights Act; read some of his forced backpedaling in the last 24 hours. His national attention is forcing his pure philosophical ideology to confront the complexities of the real world, and it's going to be a good thing for him and everyone else. He holds an ideology that says government should not interfere with private business, and he was ashamed to admit one of the logical conclusions of that ideology.

Instead of badgering about it I wish he would have elaborated the libertarian position: OK, so governments shouldn't tell businesses they can't discriminate, but what's going to happen? In my libertarian world, any business that actually does discriminate is losing customers, and they're going to get a bunch of bad press and boycotts from other customers, too. Then another business will open up nearby that doesn't discriminate, take all their customers and run them out of business. Ta-da!

Then we could say, well, what if that kind of business didn't actually get run out by the market? OK, well, then we now have room to discuss the limitations of a pure libertarian philosophy. And, hey, maybe we could say we allow the government to forbid some things - like selling alcohol to minors, or turning away blacks - while still holding an overall position of freedom from government. (Hmm, is the alcohol age limit federal or does every state just have the same rule? Not sure off the top of my head.)

I think Paul would prefer individual states and localities to make those rules instead of the federal government, but that's a personal preference. He's not a "nutjob" with a "scary ideology." He's an honest man with principles* - which is more than can be said for most of our federal politicians. His pure principles are simply being forced to interact with the complexities of the real world. (*Assuming, of course, that his backpedaling & blame-the-liberal-smears game means he's still principled in his philosophy... Oops.)

[SwedishHeat]

Thats funny because I remember reading this in school...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.".

The irony being that the men that wrote that didn't believe black people could be considered men.

Just playing devil's advocate, I agree that this guy's a nut, but I don't think you can hold history to today's standards. When the Consitution and Bill of Rights and all that good stuff was written, freedom of the press/speech, right to bear arms all that stuff, they had no idea that multi-billion dollar corporations would be able to buy elections and they had no idea "arms" would be able to fire more than one bullet every 10 seconds.

Threadjack here but I HATE it when people say "I have a right to bear arms". When that was written, people fought with muskets that didn't even shoot straight, and once you fired it, you had to manually reload and that took time. You can't take what people wrote back then literally, that's why we need judges to interpret the law

[bridgeofeldin]

Stop the hysterics and stick to the facts. Rand Paul does not want to repeal the Civil Rights Act; read some of his forced backpedaling in the last 24 hours. His national attention is forcing his pure philosophical ideology to confront the complexities of the real world, and it's going to be a good thing for him and everyone else. He holds an ideology that says government should not interfere with private business, and he was ashamed to admit one of the logical conclusions of that ideology.

Instead of badgering about it I wish he would have elaborated the libertarian position: OK, so governments shouldn't tell businesses they can't discriminate, but what's going to happen? In my libertarian world, any business that actually does discriminate is losing customers, and they're going to get a bunch of bad press and boycotts from other customers, too. Then another business will open up nearby that doesn't discriminate, take all their customers and run them out of business. Ta-da!

Then we could say, well, what if that kind of business didn't actually get run out by the market? OK, well, then we now have room to discuss the limitations of a pure libertarian philosophy. And, hey, maybe we could say we allow the government to forbid some things - like selling alcohol to minors, or turning away blacks - while still holding an overall position of freedom from government. (Hmm, is the alcohol age limit federal or does every state just have the same rule? Not sure off the top of my head.)

I think Paul would prefer individual states and localities to make those rules instead of the federal government, but that's a personal preference. He's not a "nutjob" with a "scary ideology." He's an honest man with principles* - which is more than can be said for most of our federal politicians. His pure principles are simply being forced to interact with the complexities of the real world. (*Assuming, of course, that his backpedaling & blame-the-liberal-smears game means he's still principled in his philosophy... Oops.)

I believe the alcohol thing is both. The fed tells states that if they don't make the age limit 21, they'll cut the states' loans/subsidies or whatever.

I don't think Paul is a racist or anything. To denounce the Civil Rights Act is political suicide, no politician would actually do that. I agree that he was taken out of context, but he should have been more careful

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Threadjack here but I HATE it when people say "I have a right to bear arms". When that was written, people fought with muskets that didn't even shoot straight, and once you fired it, you had to manually reload and that took time. You can't take what people wrote back then literally, that's why we need judges to interpret the law

Don't forget that "the right to bare arms" is only half of the 2nd amendment. The other half is "in a well-regulated militia"... something the NRA tends to ignore. And just to show how dated the Constitution is, look at the third amendment.

[zachff]

I believe the alcohol thing is both. The fed tells states that if they don't make the age limit 21, they'll cut the states' loans/subsidies or whatever.

I don't think Paul is a racist or anything. To denounce the Civil Rights Act is political suicide, no politician would actually do that. I agree that he was taken out of context, but he should have been more careful

If the state does not have a legal drinking age of at least 21 they lose highway/road funding. It was a rider on a law passed a long time ago.

Edit: From Wiki, Under the Federal Aid Highway Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act), a state not enforcing the minimum age would be subjected to a ten percent decrease in its annual federal highway apportionment.

[thepianominstre]

Don't forget that "the right to bare arms" is only half of the 2nd amendment. The other half is "in a well-regulated militia"... something the NRA tends to ignore. And just to show how dated the Constitution is, look at the third amendment.

It's not "in a well-regulated militia" but "a well-regulated militia being necessary...." and thus I've heard it argued that it means that the right to bear arms is obviously necessary to have a well-regulated militia, but that doesn't make it the only reason, and there's supposedly examples of the "being necessary" kind of clause used in other laws where it gives an example of how the right is necessary for a particular cause but is clearly not limiting it to that cause only. I'm not a constitutional lawyer.. just what I've read.

A good ol' 2nd Am. discussion belongs elsewhere, though I suppose opinions on the Constitution are certainly relevant to any discussion about libertarianism in America.

[GeeBee]

Stop the hysterics and stick to the facts. Rand Paul does not want to repeal the Civil Rights Act; read some of his forced backpedaling in the last 24 hours. His national attention is forcing his pure philosophical ideology to confront the complexities of the real world, and it's going to be a good thing for him and everyone else. He holds an ideology that says government should not interfere with private business, and he was ashamed to admit one of the logical conclusions of that ideology.

Instead of badgering about it I wish he would have elaborated the libertarian position: OK, so governments shouldn't tell businesses they can't discriminate, but what's going to happen? In my libertarian world, any business that actually does discriminate is losing customers, and they're going to get a bunch of bad press and boycotts from other customers, too. Then another business will open up nearby that doesn't discriminate, take all their customers and run them out of business. Ta-da!

Then we could say, well, what if that kind of business didn't actually get run out by the market? OK, well, then we now have room to discuss the limitations of a pure libertarian philosophy. And, hey, maybe we could say we allow the government to forbid some things - like selling alcohol to minors, or turning away blacks - while still holding an overall position of freedom from government. (Hmm, is the alcohol age limit federal or does every state just have the same rule? Not sure off the top of my head.)

I think Paul would prefer individual states and localities to make those rules instead of the federal government, but that's a personal preference. He's not a "nutjob" with a "scary ideology." He's an honest man with principles* - which is more than can be said for most of our federal politicians. His pure principles are simply being forced to interact with the complexities of the real world. (*Assuming, of course, that his backpedaling & blame-the-liberal-smears game means he's still principled in his philosophy... Oops.)

Your whole statement illustrates perfectly why he IS a nutjob with a scary ideology. Libertarianism taken to it's logical conclusions is simple anarchy and is in no way tenable. I like certain aspects of the principle, but this "purity" of his principles is simple utopian gas.

[thepianominstre]

If the state does not have a legal drinking age of at least 21 they lose highway/road funding. It was a rider on a law passed a long time ago.

Edit: From Wiki, Under the Federal Aid Highway Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act), a state not enforcing the minimum age would be subjected to a ten percent decrease in its annual federal highway apportionment.

Well, there you go. Just another example of why "state's rights" is kind of meaningless today... every state gets so much in prizes from the federal government now that the threat of losing it severely dampers any incentive to break rank...

[captivewear]

Stop the hysterics and stick to the facts. Rand Paul does not want to repeal the Civil Rights Act; read some of his forced backpedaling in the last 24 hours. His national attention is forcing his pure philosophical ideology to confront the complexities of the real world, and it's going to be a good thing for him and everyone else. He holds an ideology that says government should not interfere with private business, and he was ashamed to admit one of the logical conclusions of that ideology.

Instead of badgering about it I wish he would have elaborated the libertarian position: OK, so governments shouldn't tell businesses they can't discriminate, but what's going to happen? In my libertarian world, any business that actually does discriminate is losing customers, and they're going to get a bunch of bad press and boycotts from other customers, too. Then another business will open up nearby that doesn't discriminate, take all their customers and run them out of business. Ta-da!

Then we could say, well, what if that kind of business didn't actually get run out by the market? OK, well, then we now have room to discuss the limitations of a pure libertarian philosophy. And, hey, maybe we could say we allow the government to forbid some things - like selling alcohol to minors, or turning away blacks - while still holding an overall position of freedom from government. (Hmm, is the alcohol age limit federal or does every state just have the same rule? Not sure off the top of my head.)

I think Paul would prefer individual states and localities to make those rules instead of the federal government, but that's a personal preference. He's not a "nutjob" with a "scary ideology." He's an honest man with principles* - which is more than can be said for most of our federal politicians. His pure principles are simply being forced to interact with the complexities of the real world. (*Assuming, of course, that his backpedaling & blame-the-liberal-smears game means he's still principled in his philosophy... Oops.)
Honest man with principles? Wow you must have REALLY low standards for morals and principles. Are you a politician in Arizona?
You need a HUGE reality check if you think that "which is more than can be said for most of our federal politicians." in terms of honest men in politics. That is actually a complete hypocritical sentence. "An Honest Politician" haha good one!

[bridgeofeldin]

If the state does not have a legal drinking age of at least 21 they lose highway/road funding. It was a rider on a law passed a long time ago.

Edit: From Wiki, Under the Federal Aid Highway Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act), a state not enforcing the minimum age would be subjected to a ten percent decrease in its annual federal highway apportionment.

yeah thats it! i learned about it in one of my am gov classes, thanks for the clear up

[J.C.]

I respected him more for sticking to his guns. Now it just looks like he's more concerned with political expedience.

[thepianominstre]

Your whole statement illustrates perfectly why he IS a nutjob with a scary ideology. Libertarianism taken to it's logical conclusions is simple anarchy and is in no way tenable. I like certain aspects of the principle, but this "purity" of his principles is simple utopian gas.

I disagree that he is a nutjob. (Libertarianism taken to its logical conclusions may not be tenable, but then I don't believe its opposing ideologies are, either.) Consider Rand's upbringing. He's spent his entire life inundated in libertarian arguments, which on their own make a lot of sense. He's been filled to the brim with examples of government failure, of the disastrous unintended consequences of regulations, and so forth. Until now, he's never been forced to confront a fuller picture - even his dad never got far enough for any of his policies to be seriously scrutinized. He promotes certain policies because he truly believes - regardless of how correct he is - that they are good things to do, and not because he's owned by lobbyists or constituents.

If he can maintain that purity of principle while admitting that the real world is not so simple, and adjust his principles accordingly - that would be a good thing. Now if only I could believe that his Civil Rights Act reversal was a result of such an epiphany, and not simply a result of some GOP strong-arming that hey this is a really inconvenient thing to be stuck on, let it go, and we'll deal with your anti-farm-subsidies and other oppositions to big-GOP-government stuff later, let's just all look at the big-leftist-government stuff that we can all hate so much...

Honest man with principles? Wow you must have REALLY low standards for morals and principles. Are you a politician in Arizona?
You need a HUGE reality check if you think that "which is more than can be said for most of our federal politicians." in terms of honest men in politics. That is actually a complete hypocritical sentence. "An Honest Politician" haha good one!

Um, I'm really not sure what you're saying. You think I have low standards but then you don't believe there is a such thing as an "honest politician"? I'm saying that Paul has principles because he promotes things that he truly believes in, while politicians tend to promote things because they've been bribed or bought or lobbied or sweetened or threatened or whatever... The issue here is what he believes in, not how honestly he adheres to it.

[J.C.]

lol @ painting Rand Paul as an honest politician. He's never held elected office in his life, just won a party primary two days ago, and has already caved on a stance of his for the sake of political expedience.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

I respected him more for sticking to his guns. Now it just looks like he's more concerned with political expedience.

I also respect politicians who stick to their guns. Rick Sanford stuck to his guns when he didn't resign as governor. Last I checked, cheating on your wife with your soul mate does not affect your duties as a governor.

[thepianominstre]

lol @ painting Rand Paul as an honest politician. He's never held elected office in his life, just won a party primary two days ago, and has already caved on a stance of his for the sake of political expedience.

Well, you have a pretty good point.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Is Rand Paul going to legalize all drugs? If he does, he's going to put alot of small business owners (drug dealers) out of business. Talk about a conundrum!

[GeeBee]

Is Rand Paul going to legalize all drugs? If he does, he's going to put alot of small business owners (drug dealers) out of business. Talk about a conundrum!

Is he going to urge a reversal of the AZ immigration law, since it clearly violates the CONSTITUTIONAL equal protection clause/void for vagueness/supremacy clause?

This is precisely my point. All the constitution-pounders can't handle the consistency that it would apparently demand of them.

[Machu505]

Oh yeah. From optometrist to senator.

WHERE'S YOUR EXPERIENCE NOW, GOP?

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Oh yeah. From optometrist to senator.

WHERE'S YOUR EXPERIENCE NOW, GOP?

That's another thing that confuses me about conservatives. They want to vote out the career politicians and elect (blank). Blank is the key word since they can't come up with particular people running for office (I'll say Rand Paul is the exception due to his father's career). Do they want to elect city mayors and state reps and senators that no one has heard of? I'm not saying that these types of politicians don't deserve to hold a seat in Congress, but they want to elect a bunch of newbies while calling Obama as an inexperienced community organizer.

[caveBEAR]

Your whole statement illustrates perfectly why he IS a nutjob with a scary ideology. Libertarianism taken to it's logical conclusions is simple anarchy and is in no way tenable. I like certain aspects of the principle, but this "purity" of his principles is simple utopian gas.

So the AM! song should be 'I Was A Teenage Libertarian'?

[thepianominstre]

That's another thing that confuses me about conservatives. They want to vote out the career politicians and elect (blank). Blank is the key word since they can't come up with particular people running for office (I'll say Rand Paul is the exception due to his father's career). Do they want to elect city mayors and state reps and senators that no one has heard of? I'm not saying that these types of politicians don't deserve to hold a seat in Congress, but they want to elect a bunch of newbies while calling Obama as an inexperienced community organizer.

This shouldn't confuse you. Both sides play the game of latching onto reasons to criticize their opponents and only seeing what they want to see. It's the same reasons Democrats complained about the deficit until Obama came to power, at which point the right magically saw the light again. And furthermore, both sides can even convince themselves that it's not hypocrisy because their version is different. Example: Rand Paul has no political experience but it's OK cuz we hate career politicians now and at least he's familiar with how to run a business and create wealth, while Obama never had to manage anything with money and doesn't understand how the goose creates the golden eggs. And just as easily: Bush's deficits were bad because he did bad things with nothing to show for it like useless tax cuts and unnecessary wars. Obama's deficits are OK cuz they are for necessary things like stimulus and health care and whatever else.

[saysmydoctor]

A political gimmick who will not be a Senator....at least not this time around.

[aealeman]

Don't forget that "the right to bare arms" is only half of the 2nd amendment. The other half is "in a well-regulated militia"... something the NRA tends to ignore. And just to show how dated the Constitution is, look at the third amendment.

Haha. The right to *bare* arms? YES! TANK TOPS FOR EVERYBODY!!!!

[thursday727]

I abhor racism, I think it’s a bad business decision to ever exclude anyone from your restaurant – but at the same time I do believe in private ownership.I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form … But I think what's important about this debate is not written into any specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question: what about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking?”
I agree with him when he says that we have to allow people we find ignorant and aborhant the right to express any statement they want , no matter how horrible we find it because that's a price of freedom.
I know none of you'll will agree with this but i do because i was always brought up with the philosophy of "i may not agree with what you're saying but i'll die for your right to say it"
he's basicly saying that a person has the right not to let anyone they want into their business because they own it but if they do they'll fail anyway because nobody will shop or eat there. That's the Libertarian viewpoint , you have the right to make bad decisions but if you fail and get bad backlash from it that's all on you.
I see them trying to paint him as a racist but they're failing pretty badly , at least to the people that were not pre conditioned to associate racists and constitutionalists together.

[Beyondclarity]

Rand stands for liberty and freedom and as such supports smaller govt. He supports personal responsibility. I'd much rather we had a govt who holds the people accountable instead of always trying to be bleeding heart saviors.

How much could we lower the federal income tax rate if the federal govt stopped giving money away or stopped creating programs that they shouldn't? Wouldn't you prefer to have your money, instead of the govt having it?

[Beyondclarity]

I know none of you'll will agree with this but i do because i was always brought up with the philosophy of "i may not agree with what you're saying but i'll die for your right to say it"
.

That's the foundation of America, the foundation of our freedoms are based in your comment there. I couldn't agree with you more that I'd rather protect a bigot than try to shut him up.

[Beyondclarity]

A political gimmick who will not be a Senator....at least not this time around.

Being from Minnesota - I thought the same thing about Al Franken...oh and Jesse Ventura (for the record, I did not vote for either of them)

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Rand stands for liberty and freedom and as such supports smaller govt. He supports personal responsibility. I'd much rather we had a govt who holds the people accountable instead of always trying to be bleeding heart saviors.

How much could we lower the federal income tax rate if the federal govt stopped giving money away or stopped creating programs that they shouldn't? Wouldn't you prefer to have your money, instead of the govt having it?

I agree that people should be personally responsible, but the cynic in me believes most people are not responsible. I'm no expert on the subject, but I feel as though cutting government services will just drive up the poverty rate.

[Beyondclarity]

I agree that people should be personally responsible, but the cynic in me believes most people are not responsible. I'm no expert on the subject, but I feel as though cutting government services will just drive up the poverty rate.

I agree with your cynical side, because it's mostly true. But if you think back our parents and the generations before them weren't as lazy and didn't depend on the govt to save them. Maybe we need a bit more tough love.

Secondly - nature tells us that life is a survival of the fittest - so if there is a section of our public that is either too lazy or too stupid to work hard and earn a living, I don't see how the rest of us should have to fit the bill for their incompetence. At some point people need to take charge of their own lives and make themselves. I'd much rather have some sort of system where people have to work to earn extra assistance from the govt, instead of just being given a handout.

[boxingwithstars]

On May 19, 2010, Paul stated that he favors 9 out of 10 titles (parts) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but questioned Title II of the Act, which prohibits private businesses who provide public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of race, religion, or national origin against their customers, arguing that it infringes upon Constitutionally-enshrined freedoms. The following day, Paul stated "unequivocally ... that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Paul has also criticized the Americans with Disabilities Act, characterizing it as an overreach of the federal government. He opposes same-sex marriage, he is opposed to abortion without exception, not even in cases of rape, incest or where the health of the mother is threatened, and he supports a constitutional amendment to completely ban abortion.

can you spot the hypocrisy here?

[Mitch]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/05/21/paul_says_obama_criticism_of_oil_gi ant_is_un-american.html (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/05/21/paul_says_obama_criticism_of_oil_gi ant_is_un-american.html#disqus_thread)

oO

[caveBEAR]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/05/21/paul_says_obama_criticism_of_oil_gi ant_is_un-american.html (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/05/21/paul_says_obama_criticism_of_oil_gi ant_is_un-american.html#disqus_thread)

oO

The article, for those who can't visit the link;

Rand Paul (R) said on ABC News that President Obama's criticism of BP over the massive oil spill off Louisiana was un-American.

Said Paul: "What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.' I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."

He added: "I think it's part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it's always got to be someone's fault instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen."

Here I was thinking he was just a misguided politician, turns out he's a stupid mother-fucker asshole who shills for the Republicans. I like his use of the 'blame game' buzz word.

What a fucking tool.

EDIT: On second thought, maybe Paul is onto something. Think about it; BP knew about the dangers and risks they were undertaking by not abiding by government regulations, but the government shouldn't criticize BP because 'accidents happen'. By that logic, if I was cleaning a gun with the safety off a mere 6 inches from Rand Paul's face, and 'oops', it went off...I'd get off scott-free because...'accidents happen'!

RAND PAUL FOR PREZ IN 2012!

[boxingwithstars]

The article, for those who can't visit the link;



Here I was thinking he was just a misguided politician, turns out he's a stupid mother-fucker asshole who shills for the Republicans. I like his use of the 'blame game' buzz word.

What a fucking tool.

EDIT: On second thought, maybe Paul is onto something. Think about it; BP knew about the dangers and risks they were undertaking by not abiding by government regulations, but the government shouldn't criticize BP because 'accidents happen'. By that logic, if I was cleaning a gun with the safety off a mere 6 inches from Rand Paul's face, and 'oops', it went off...I'd get off scott-free because...'accidents happen'!

RAND PAUL FOR PREZ IN 2012!

but if the government didn't regulate the oil industry at all, they wouldn't have to worry about being held accountable for their actions. after all, they are a private industry (that has received billions of dollars in tax breaks from the government) and apparently private business owners should be able to do whatever the fuck they want. i mean, it's not like the environment they're ruining belongs to everyone... so the government shouldn't have any say in what they are allowed to do to it! makes perfect sense... in Rand Paul's mind.

[boxingwithstars]

Being from Minnesota - I thought the same thing about Al Franken...oh and Jesse Ventura (for the record, I did not vote for either of them)

except that Al Franken is proving he's not a gimmick... he's actually turning out to be a pretty good senator.

[oldwirehands]

Come on guys, he's just trying to make some money...

[Mitch]

Here's an article in response to Rand's assertion: http://www.salon.com/news/rand_paul_kentucky_senate_republica n/index.html?story=/tech/htww/2010/05/21/rand_paul_calls_obama_un_american#

Man, this guy is really bad at avoiding controversy. Haha.

[J.C.]

We saw what this country was like when private businesses were allowed to discriminate freely. That's why we passed the fucking law. There's no nobility in sticking to your philosophy in the face of common sense, and common sense should tell you that this country is now better off because it's legally no longer a place where people are turned away from service on the basis of their skin.

[caveBEAR]

We saw what this country was like when private businesses were allowed to discriminate freely. That's why we passed the fucking law. There's no nobility in sticking to your philosophy in the face of common sense, and common sense should tell you that this country is now better off because it's legally no longer a place where people are turned away from service on the basis of their skin.

Not uh! If a racist opened up a shop, it would go out of business because people wouldn't shop there! Sure, that logic relies on the assumption that somehow racists don't exist in the 'common people' and that only business owners are racist, which doesn't make a lick of sense, but...they...I...:explode:

[sjb2k1]

i finally pulled my head out of the sand and this guy has come on my radar. "And I think it's part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it's always got to be somebody's fault instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen," Paul said.

lol, okay, accidents happen, sometimes even accidents that kill 11 people and do untold damage to the earth, but you kinda have to have a plan for when they do.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

I agree with your cynical side, because it's mostly true. But if you think back our parents and the generations before them weren't as lazy and didn't depend on the govt to save them. Maybe we need a bit more tough love.

Secondly - nature tells us that life is a survival of the fittest - so if there is a section of our public that is either too lazy or too stupid to work hard and earn a living, I don't see how the rest of us should have to fit the bill for their incompetence. At some point people need to take charge of their own lives and make themselves. I'd much rather have some sort of system where people have to work to earn extra assistance from the govt, instead of just being given a handout.

Yea, but our parents didn't have the Internet, XBox, iPods, and the like. As for survival of the fittest, I also agree with that. But the liberal way of thinking is that we shouldn't just allow Americans to just become poor and die out. Idealistically, I wish what you said was true, that most Americans are productive and self-sustaining individuals.

[caveBEAR]

Yea, but our parents didn't have the Internet, XBox, iPods, and the like. As for survival of the fittest, I also agree with that. But the liberal way of thinking is that we shouldn't just allow Americans to just become poor and die out. Idealistically, I wish what you said was true, that most Americans are productive and self-sustaining individuals.

I love this misguided view that the 'Tea Party'ers have about welfare. They act like getting welfare checks and food stamps lets you live like a King. They generally have a woeful misunderstanding of just how deep in poverty you have to be to receive those benefits, and how low on the financial ladder they still are after receiving said 'handouts'.

[Skadrist]

Far from a libertarian. I would say he as a theo-fascist masquerading as a libertarian.

[GeeBee]

I love that morons like Paul simply want to switch from the government fucking me inadvertently out of inefficiency to a corporation fucking me purposely out of greed. I'll take the former.

[caveBEAR]

I love that morons like Paul simply want to switch from the government fucking me inadvertently out of inefficiency to a corporation fucking me purposely out of greed. I'll take the former.

Nah man. I disagree. I didn't like middle school one bit, and I really wish the option had been there to start working in a coal mine instead.

[GeeBee]

Nah man. I disagree. I didn't like middle school one bit, and I really wish the option had been there to start working in a coal mine instead.

Reminded me of this little gem:

"This morning I was awakened by my alarm clock, powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly, regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy. I slept well, knowing one of the most advanced militaries in the world has assured no rockets will hit my house in the night. I fell asleep knowing that if my child should suffer an asthma attack in the night, 911 is a quick call that ensures she will get help as soon as possible.

I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service determined the weather would be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched all this while eating my breakfast of food that was inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and took vitamins and medications deemed safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, I got into my automobile, approved by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and set out for work on roads built by local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase fuel, the quality of which is assured by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door, I deposit any mail I have to be sent via the U.S. Postal Service, and drop my kids off at the public school.

After work, I return to my house, which has not burned down in my absence thanks to state and local building codes and fire marshal’s inspections. It was also not plundered or robbed of its valuables thanks in large part to the diligence of the local police department.

I then hop onto the internet (developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration), so that I can blog about the evils of “socialism”."

[caveBEAR]

Reminded me of this little gem:

"This morning I was awakened by my alarm clock, powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly, regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy. I slept well, knowing one of the most advanced militaries in the world has assured no rockets will hit my house in the night. I fell asleep knowing that if my child should suffer an asthma attack in the night, 911 is a quick call that ensures she will get help as soon as possible.

I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service determined the weather would be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched all this while eating my breakfast of food that was inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and took vitamins and medications deemed safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, I got into my automobile, approved by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and set out for work on roads built by local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase fuel, the quality of which is assured by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door, I deposit any mail I have to be sent via the U.S. Postal Service, and drop my kids off at the public school.

After work, I return to my house, which has not burned down in my absence thanks to state and local building codes and fire marshal’s inspections. It was also not plundered or robbed of its valuables thanks in large part to the diligence of the local police department.

I then hop onto the internet (developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration), so that I can blog about the evils of “socialism”."

:lol:

That's a good read.

[apoemtothedead]

A political gimmick who will not be a Senator....at least not this time around.
Pretty bold statement there considering the first poll since the primaries had him at +25.

[GeeBee]

Pretty bold statement there.

Not really. Half his hype is from his dad, the other half from the fact that he actually dares to spout in public the ridiculous brand of Libertarianism he espouses.

[J.C.]

I think Paul will win at this point(though I thought Sestak didn't provide much of a threat to Specter initially either), but his numbers are only going to plummet if he keeps staking out positions that only offer enormous political downside, whether it's questioning the Civil Rights Act or rushing to the defense of BP and trying to rid them of responsibility. Those are just tone-deaf tangents to go off in and it reeks of someone new to politics who doesn't understand where the country at-large is. He's still stuck in a Kentucky-bubble.

[saysmydoctor]

Pretty bold statement there considering the first poll since the primaries had him at +25.
Consider the opposition. It's not a matter of anti-incumbent or anti-Democrat (or Republican), it's anti-establishment, machine politics. Grayson was the embodiment of what they perceive as the problem. (Same with Specter, but his is obviously more multi-faceted.

Not to mention, consider the stage. Primary elections don't get much press, turnout is incredibly low. While high profile, Paul wasn't really under any serious lens. Now that it's general election and he just 'shocked' the country with his upset over Grayson, now there will be more attention to his views--and his views are, frankly, controversial. He'll lose. Trust me, I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

[J.C.]

You have a bit more faith in the voters of Kentucky than I do at this point.

[saysmydoctor]

McConnell has never astoundingly won, with the exception of 2002, and neither did Bunning. I'm just going by recent electoral history, really.

[Machu505]

I'm fairly educated with the area, so I'm predicting the seat for Conway. Kentucky's huge number of Democrats (KY has the second highest percentage of registered Democrats; only WV surpasses it) won't respond well to Rand Paul's libertarian bullshit. Paul will do especially poorly in eastern Kentucky too.

[captivewear]

Rand stands for liberty and freedom and as such supports smaller govt. He supports personal responsibility. I'd much rather we had a govt who holds the people accountable instead of always trying to be bleeding heart saviors.

How much could we lower the federal income tax rate if the federal govt stopped giving money away or stopped creating programs that they shouldn't? Wouldn't you prefer to have your money, instead of the govt having it?

Yet the Conservative administrations always somehow raise taxes and don't create any jobs yet rip democrats for taxes and jobs?
Also, if you dont want taxes then who pays for road repairs, parks, freeways, street sweeper and who will pay for the police officers that protect you? Who pays the firefighters?
The problem is taxes. The problem is the "politicsng" in politics. There is way too many "favors" and corporate favors and lobbyist having so much power in the United States. Cut the crap out of politics. For example, cities getting blank amount of money each year even though they only need 60% of it so they end up doing things that aren't necessary. Each city should submit an exact number and need for what they need for the city. Stop the political commercials on tv or at least make them to where they can only talk about themselves and what they can do instead of the "Blah wants to raise taxes and has had 20 abortions." These political commercials are a joke and misinforming and not to mention with corporate big business behind them it means more loss of $ for Americans because the politicians that get elected end up having to give kickbacks and favors to these companies.
These are only a few of MANY things that need to change.

[J.C.]

Rand stands for liberty and freedom and as such supports smaller govt.

Unless it's a couple of gay guys who want to tie the knot. Or a woman impregnated during rape.

He supports personal responsibility.

Unless you're a major oil company whose incompetence at containing a spill is threatening the entire ecosystem of a region. Then he's more of an "accidents happen" kinda guy.

[saysmydoctor]

I didn't realize liberty and freedom were synonymous with smaller government.

[GeeBee]

Unless it's a couple of gay guys who want to tie the knot. Or a woman impregnated during rape.



Unless you're a major oil company whose incompetence at containing a spill is threatening the entire ecosystem of a region. Then he's more of an "accidents happen" kinda guy.

:appl:
Eloquently stated.

[J.C.]

I didn't realize liberty and freedom were synonymous with smaller government.

The freedom to infringe on other people's ability to do things was a cherished freedom.

[boxingwithstars]

I love that morons like Paul simply want to switch from the government fucking me inadvertently out of inefficiency to a corporation fucking me purposely out of greed. I'll take the former.

if you tell me i have to side with either the government or corporations, i will always choose the government. the problem is our government is being ruled by corporations, so we no longer have a choice.

Unless it's a couple of gay guys who want to tie the knot. Or a woman impregnated during rape.



Unless you're a major oil company whose incompetence at containing a spill is threatening the entire ecosystem of a region. Then he's more of an "accidents happen" kinda guy.

amen.

apparently gays and women aren't protected under the constitution.

[saysmydoctor]

Cue the inappropriate usage of the word 'revolution.'

[J.C.]

MZljJ5D3-oc

[saysmydoctor]

Yo, fucking...yes, dude.

[saysmydoctor]

I'm un-American.
(http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/75119/rand-paul-pressure-bp-un-american)

[apoemtothedead]

Consider the opposition. It's not a matter of anti-incumbent or anti-Democrat (or Republican), it's anti-establishment, machine politics. Grayson was the embodiment of what they perceive as the problem. (Same with Specter, but his is obviously more multi-faceted.

Not to mention, consider the stage. Primary elections don't get much press, turnout is incredibly low. While high profile, Paul wasn't really under any serious lens. Now that it's general election and he just 'shocked' the country with his upset over Grayson, now there will be more attention to his views--and his views are, frankly, controversial. He'll lose. Trust me, I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.
That +25 was in a matchup against Conway. Paul with 59% of the vote. I know it's only one poll, yadda yadda yadda, but that's a huge lead to overcome even if the people of Kentucky wise up.

[thepianominstre]

That +25 was in a matchup against Conway. Paul with 59% of the vote. I know it's only one poll, yadda yadda yadda, but that's a huge lead to overcome even if the people of Kentucky wise up.

I was shocked by that +25 poll, not gonna lie. If you watch the polls enough Rasmussen tends to skew right of reality (while PPP and Daily Kos skew left), but even relative to old Rasmussen polls that's a big jump. I'll be interested to see the next poll after Rand's newsmaking the last few days.

And I'm not really a fan of his BP statements, either. Someone said somewhere that it reeks of Palin-esque opportunistic Obama-slamming, and I agree. Pretty much everything he's done since winning the primary reeks of everything I dislike about the GOP, actually.

As someone who sympathizes with libertarians, I'm concerned about government over-reaction to the spill, too. (In fact, I've heard it argued that this is a "failure of regulation" - the industry was already heavily regulated but it didn't prevent this. If regulation requires perfect and competent regulators, it's not very tenable, either. I mean, you could say we require every rig to have the extra remote shut-off, but until we figure this out, if the redundant devices already in place didn't work how do we even know that would have worked? And would the cost of that remote device be worth the extra price of gas?)

But at the same time libertarians have to realize that this thing is having incredible negative externalities (a term that should be familiar to anyone who argues libertarianism on the basis of economics). Even if you don't care about the handful of slimy creatures they've found, you've gotta be concerned about all the fishermen and shrimp harvesters along the entire freakin' Gulf. Libertarianism also requires perfect flow of information, and if BP and friends are trying to cover things up that doesn't help things. (Did anybody else hear NPR talking about the way TransOcean kept the workers locked up until they signed some "contracts"? Haven't seen that anywhere else.) I don't want to over-react and call BP the devil and make it impossible for them to do business (although with how much influence they have on our Congress, does Rand really think that's possible anyway?), but I don't want my bias to cause me to under-react and downplay an incredibly horrific disaster... and that's what I see Rand doing.

[loveisdead]

I was shocked by that +25 poll, not gonna lie. If you watch the polls enough Rasmussen tends to skew right of reality (while PPP and Daily Kos skew left), but even relative to old Rasmussen polls that's a big jump. I'll be interested to see the next poll after Rand's newsmaking the last few days.

And I'm not really a fan of his BP statements, either. Someone said somewhere that it reeks of Palin-esque opportunistic Obama-slamming, and I agree. Pretty much everything he's done since winning the primary reeks of everything I dislike about the GOP, actually.

As someone who sympathizes with libertarians, I'm concerned about government over-reaction to the spill, too. (In fact, I've heard it argued that this is a "failure of regulation" - the industry was already heavily regulated but it didn't prevent this. If regulation requires perfect and competent regulators, it's not very tenable, either. I mean, you could say we require every rig to have the extra remote shut-off, but until we figure this out, if the redundant devices already in place didn't work how do we even know that would have worked? And would the cost of that remote device be worth the extra price of gas?)

But at the same time libertarians have to realize that this thing is having incredible negative externalities (a term that should be familiar to anyone who argues libertarianism on the basis of economics). Even if you don't care about the handful of slimy creatures they've found, you've gotta be concerned about all the fishermen and shrimp harvesters along the entire freakin' Gulf. Libertarianism also requires perfect flow of information, and if BP and friends are trying to cover things up that doesn't help things. (Did anybody else hear NPR talking about the way TransOcean kept the workers locked up until they signed some "contracts"? Haven't seen that anywhere else.) I don't want to over-react and call BP the devil and make it impossible for them to do business (although with how much influence they have on our Congress, does Rand really think that's possible anyway?), but I don't want my bias to cause me to under-react and downplay an incredibly horrific disaster... and that's what I see Rand doing.

The government has overreacted to nothing concerning this spill. Obama really should've gotten to work on this faster.

[loveisdead]

Leaked Rand Paul memo:
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-05-21-RandFinal.jpg

[loveisdead]

He just cancelled his Meet the Press appearance. He is the 3rd person to do so in 62 years. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/21/rand-paul-cancels-on-meet_n_585460.html)

[thepianominstre]

The government has overreacted to nothing concerning this spill. Obama really should've gotten to work on this faster.

Not yet. But this saga is far from over. For decades there've been hundreds of rigs in the Gulf that have never done this; until we figure out why this one did we can't figure out how to stop it from happening again. At the same time, governments sometimes over-react to a crisis to look like they're "doing something" (see Patriot Act, etc) instead of doing nothing, and it's a trade-off being doing something now and waiting to know the right things to do. Putting a pause on new off-shore drilling makes sense, for instance; it's the inevitable 1000-page bills from Congress that no one's read but are magically going to make everything better that I'm more worried about.

And your leaked memo is funny but I think it's trying a little too hard. GOP stereotypes and libertarian stereotypes are not quite the same thing. Although perhaps Rand's trying to straddle both...

[caveBEAR]

Not yet. But this saga is far from over. For decades there've been hundreds of rigs in the Gulf that have never done this; until we figure out why this one did we can't figure out how to stop it from happening again. At the same time, governments sometimes over-react to a crisis to look like they're "doing something" (see Patriot Act, etc) instead of doing nothing, and it's a trade-off being doing something now and waiting to know the right things to do. Putting a pause on new off-shore drilling makes sense, for instance; it's the inevitable 1000-page bills from Congress that no one's read but are magically going to make everything better that I'm more worried about.

And your leaked memo is funny but I think it's trying a little too hard. GOP stereotypes and libertarian stereotypes are not quite the same thing. Although perhaps Rand's trying to straddle both...

Uh, they know why this one did. The government regulations were ignored and safe practices were sent to the wayside. Just because you don't know something, doesn't mean it's unknown.

[x togepi x]

I didn't realize liberty and freedom were synonymous with smaller government.


They are if you're a white dude.

Libertarians are idiots. done.

[GeeBee]

He just cancelled his Meet the Press appearance. He is the 3rd person to do so in 62 years. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/21/rand-paul-cancels-on-meet_n_585460.html)

Well, god knows David Gregory is a fierce interrogator...

[thepianominstre]

Uh, they know why this one did. The government regulations were ignored and safe practices were sent to the wayside. Just because you don't know something, doesn't mean it's unknown.

Ignoring almighty government regulations is not a sin with the automatic punishment of a blown oil rig; ignoring them may make it easier for these things to happen, but it's not an actual cause. Was this the only rig that wasn't inspected often enough? Why did it go and not the others? What event happened that, under an environment of ignored regulations, caused the rig to blow, so that we can know that if the same event happened under followed regulations, it would not cause the rig to blow?

But ket's assume that whatever caused the rig to blow was something preventable by following existing regulations. To stop it from happening again what do we do? Take extra steps to enforce existing regulations? Is that a realistic long-term strategy? I honestly don't know, that's why I'm asking. I don't have much faith in regulations in general because even if they're not over-reactions they tend to be ignored or incompetently enforced until a crisis happens at which time we redo everything and pass a giant bill (see finance bill) but are always a step behind, just creating a new set of rules for people to figure out how to game in ways the rule makers never thought of.

Of course, the libertarian argument is that after these costs BP has a major incentive to regulate itself better and make sure these things will never happen again. The liberal argument is that after these costs we can't trust BP to regulate itself anymore. (And the Republican argument, I guess, is, um, regulation's bad. duh.) Maybe the truth is somewhere in between.

[saysmydoctor]

Well, god knows David Gregory is a fierce interrogator...
Sig'd.

[rawesome]

Don't forget that "the right to bare arms" is only half of the 2nd amendment. The other half is "in a well-regulated militia"... something the NRA tends to ignore. And just to show how dated the Constitution is, look at the third amendment.
Don't forget that "baring arms" doesn't have to mean guns, also. A sword or stick could be considered arms.

[caveBEAR]

Don't forget that "baring arms" doesn't have to mean guns, also. A sword or stick could be considered arms.

Wanna start the National Sword & Stick Association?

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Don't forget that "baring arms" doesn't have to mean guns, also. A sword or stick could be considered arms.

Back in my day, we settled our disputes with fisticuffs.

[rawesome]

Wanna start the National Sword & Stick Association?
Yes.

[rikfrommf]

Unless it's a couple of gay guys who want to tie the knot. Or a woman impregnated during rape.



Unless you're a major oil company whose incompetence at containing a spill is threatening the entire ecosystem of a region. Then he's more of an "accidents happen" kinda guy.

I miss this forum.

[shit stroll]

http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-rand-pauls-amazing-meltdown/19488905?icid=main|main|dl8|link1|h ttp://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-rand-pauls-amazing-meltdown/19488905
:rolleyes:

[caveBEAR]

http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-rand-pauls-amazing-meltdown/19488905?icid=main|main|dl8|link1|h ttp://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-rand-pauls-amazing-meltdown/19488905
:rolleyes:

Uhhh...that guy does realize that Paul didn't enter the mainstream public eye until after he started making crazy remarks, right? There was no 'media conspiracy' to not interview him until he was elected, no one gave a shit about him until they saw all the untapped crazy they may get for soundbites.

:rolleyes:

[saysmydoctor]

So I was right, basically?

[Da_Boss]

this guys sorta a nutjobb...

[saysmydoctor]

I think Senator McConnell may secretly agree with me (http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/PoliticalWire/%7E3/Aj9qXAYZhXI/mcconnell_says_paul_has_said_enough .html).

[Zeran]

Haha. The right to *bare* arms? YES! TANK TOPS FOR EVERYBODY!!!!

this made me lol.

[Zeran]

He just cancelled his Meet the Press appearance. He is the 3rd person to do so in 62 years. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/21/rand-paul-cancels-on-meet_n_585460.html)

pathetic. look at who the other 2 people to cancel were.

[saysmydoctor]

"A genuine lunatic."
(http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/75200/rand-paul-versus-the-amero)

[loveisdead]

"A genuine lunatic."
(http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/75200/rand-paul-versus-the-amero)

Aha I love you.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

The thing about Rand Paul is that he wins one primary and all of a sudden he thinks he's a national treasure. I wouldn't be surprised to see that in five and a half years, he makes a run for the presidency.

[Zeran]

"A genuine lunatic."
(http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/75200/rand-paul-versus-the-amero)

david frum, though conservative, has actually written some good stuff.

[kofiadrian]

"A genuine lunatic."
(http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/75200/rand-paul-versus-the-amero)


Pretty much this. Seeing Rachel Maddow grill the fuck out of this nutjob was both awesome, yet also terribly annoying(on Dr. Paul's part).

[saysmydoctor]

Rand Paul, not board certified (http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/PoliticalWire/%7E3/UFcV1QaNF8I/paul_not_certified_as_claimed.html) .

[loveisdead]

Hahaha This guy is such a joke.

[GeeBee]

The hits just keep on coming for this douche-o-matic.

[grantton]

hes not so bad, i mean sometimes he dosnt think before he talks but im a liberatarian (however i supported prop 8) and i think overall hes good for america

[paper halo]

hes not so bad, i mean sometimes he dosnt think before he talks but im a liberatarian (however i supported prop 8) and i think overall hes good for america

You're not going to do well here.

[loveisdead]

hes not so bad, i mean sometimes he dosnt think before he talks but im a liberatarian (however i supported prop 8) and i think overall hes good for america

A libertarian should support prop 8.

[Machu505]

Why would a libertarian vote yes on Prop 8?

[loveisdead]

My bad. Yeah I spoke before I thought.

[saysmydoctor]

Uhm, is prop 8 the new litmus test or something?

[J.C.]

hes not so bad, i mean sometimes he dosnt think before he talks but im a liberatarian (however i supported prop 8) and i think overall hes good for america

Hating gays got in the way of your principles? I hate when that happens.

[caveBEAR]

hes not so bad, i mean sometimes he dosnt think before he talks but im a liberatarian (however i supported prop 8) and i think overall hes good for america

Agreed! I own a pizzeria, and all these damn Hispanics and black people keep coming in. I mean, it's my business, why can't I be a total motherfucker and refuse to serve them based on the pigmentation of their skin and mental fuck-ups in my mind?

:rolleyes:

[GeeBee]

Agreed! I own a pizzeria, and all these damn Hispanics and black people keep coming in. I mean, it's my business, why can't I be a total motherfucker and refuse to serve them based on the pigmentation of their skin and mental fuck-ups in my mind?

:rolleyes:

Wow, this kid in 2 threads? I'm starting to get excited...

[boxingwithstars]

hes not so bad, i mean sometimes he dosnt think before he talks but im a liberatarian (however i supported prop 8) and i think overall hes good for america

well, it seems like you fit right in line with the Rand Paul mantra: everyone should be able to live free from government intervention... except for gays, women, and brown people.

[captivewear]

The BP oil spill is a perfect example of why Gov't intervention is necessary and a good reason why Libertarianism would never work.
I mean look at what big business gets away with already. Without any Gov't there would be no healthcare for employees, sexual harassment taking place without any repercussions and getting away with ripping off employees and laundering money.
I can go on for days about this but lets face it when it comes to big businesses I think the Gov't isn't doing enough...

[Machu505]

The BP oil spill is a perfect example of why Gov't intervention is necessary and a good reason why Libertarianism would never work.
I mean look at what big business gets away with already. Without any Gov't there would be no healthcare for employees, sexual harassment taking place without any repercussions and getting away with ripping off employees and laundering money.
I can go on for days about this but lets face it when it comes to big businesses I think the Gov't isn't doing enough...

As if we needed more examples of how libertarian-style capitalism has failed.