He wasn't named Rand by Ron. His birth name was Randal, and at some point he started going by Rand.

5/22/2010 9:18:18 PM

It's Kentucky. He'll probably get elected.

5/22/2010 10:32:46 PM

^^ either way, they're both faggots

5/23/2010 2:19:09 AM

He is up pretty big in KY.

The media is really pounding this guy, they dont want him elected. If you watch the Maddow interview he answers her question several times but she keeps on asking different hypotheticals in an attempt to get her sound bite. I guess he is out spoken or its just the general beating of anything tea party that has the media brining up is OPINION of one part of the CRA when he has no intentions of changing or even discussing.

The good that comes from a Paul is that he could open the door for serious discussions...yet the media seems to focus on some obscure BS.

He has a point on his OPINION about CRA reaching into private businesses. On BP, I dunno. He seems to be making the point that any disaster is used for political grandstanding and pointing fingers, esp when BP is paying for the damages and trying to fix it.....yet this is a pretty damn big deal and the political timing (esp with it hitting shore) couldnt be worse. But hey, havent people said they want thier politicians to be more honest?

5/23/2010 8:56:31 AM

Rand Paul on Alex "salisburyboy's hero" Jones's radio show:

Quote :

"During a July 23, 2009 show, Jones, decrying the Wall Street bailout, asked Paul, "This isn't really socialism….Isn't this more akin to fascism?" Paul replied, "You're exactly right." Later on the show, while Jones was denouncing cap-and-trade legislation (which he says could lead to "toilet paper taxes") and calling for investigating Al Gore, Paul noted that should the climate bill become law, "we will have an army of armed EPA agents--thousands of them." These EPA troopers, according to Paul, would be free to burst into homes and apartments to determine if they were meeting energy-efficiency standards. Paul also didn't say anything when Jones raised an odd charge about the Federal Reserve. During a rant about the Fed, Jones claimed "we know that the Federal Reserve was clearly implicated in the kidnapping of a congressman's baby" and commended Paul for his "courage" in taking on the Fed. Paul replied, "I appreciate that," and he told Jones that he could not mount his Senate run "without you.""

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/rand-paul-and-his-911-conspiracy-theorist-friend

I can't wait for his proposed legislation to finally put an end to all of the baby stealing perpetrated by the Federal Reserve.

Also, regarding the CRA, here's a quote from William F. Buckley:

Quote :

"I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow. I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,993801,00.html#ixzz0oljUNDiV

5/23/2010 11:39:51 AM

Hey, maybe we should re-open a serious discussion about enslaving blacks!

5/23/2010 1:08:29 PM

When you're fighting on the side of totalitarianism, misdirection really is the best tactic.

5/23/2010 2:41:37 PM

What's the best tactic when you're fighting on the side of paranoid crazyism?

5/23/2010 2:43:27 PM

Just keep your head in the sand, man. Such an obedient little statist.

5/23/2010 2:46:07 PM

5/23/2010 2:50:58 PM

Quote :

"and it shouldn’t come as a shock that his son found himself publicly undone, in what should have been his moment of triumph, because he was too proud to acknowledge the limits of ideology, and to admit that a principle can be pushed too far."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/opinion/24douthat.html

5/23/2010 10:04:27 PM

imagine that. the NYT doesn't like a small-gov't guy. *shocker*

5/23/2010 10:06:14 PM

The GOP doesn't like him, and the tea party won't claim him either. Seems the NYT is with the conservatives on this one.

Sarah Palin is one of the few who has claimed him publicly so far.

[Edited on May 23, 2010 at 10:10 PM. Reason : ]

5/23/2010 10:09:58 PM

that's because the press is blowing his statement out of proportion and trying to paint him as some super-racist. he's 100% right. the federal government has no business telling private companies who they can and can't hire. typical liberal bullshit

[Edited on May 23, 2010 at 10:17 PM. Reason : ]

5/23/2010 10:16:41 PM

Quote :

"that's because the press is blowing his statement out of proportion and trying to paint him as some super-racist. he's 100% right. the federal government has no business telling private companies who they can and can't hire. typical liberal bullshit "

What is the press blowing out of proportion?

Paul thinks it should be allowed to not serve blacks or women because you think they are inferior.

Like zero-tolerance rules, no single ideology is perfect enough to handle all situations. You, like Paul, are an idiot for thinking that it can.

5/23/2010 10:25:53 PM

and what is wrong with thinking the federal gov't should mind its own business? not a damn thing. if I want to serve whites only, that's my business. and when I go out of business for being a racist fuck, I'll have no one to blame but myself

what are they blowing out of proportion? oh, I dunno, maybe painting him as a racist, for one...

and, for the record, "zero-tolerance" rules are fucking stupid from the beginning. the ideology, itself, is wrong. this ideology, is not wrong on its surface

[Edited on May 23, 2010 at 10:31 PM. Reason : ]

5/23/2010 10:29:27 PM

Quote :

"and what is wrong with thinking the federal gov't should mind its own business? not a damn thing. if I want to serve whites only, that's my business. and when I go out of business for being a racist fuck, I'll have no one to blame but myself"

Except your presumption that in 1960s America, racism was not tolerated among broader society is not based in reality. Considering that you are aware of this, and are choosing to blindly ignore it for an ideology that hasn't held up with purity in any society in history, this makes you a pretty stupid person.

Quote :

"what are they blowing out of proportion? oh, I dunno, maybe painting him as a racist, for one... "

Except too that the NYT article is saying fairly clearly that he's not racist, just ignorant of history or human behavior.

Quote :

"and, for the record, "zero-tolerance" rules are fucking stupid from the beginning. the ideology, itself, is wrong. this ideology, is not wrong on its surface "

but it is wrong in certain realistic situations...?

And you don't see how your "zero tolerance" for all federal gov. isn't "fucking stupid"?


[Edited on May 23, 2010 at 10:35 PM. Reason : ]

5/23/2010 10:33:08 PM

Quote :

"Except your presumption that in 1960s America, racism was not tolerated among broader society is not based in reality. Considering that you are aware of this, and are choosing to blindly ignore it for an ideology that hasn't held up with purity in any society in history, this makes you a pretty stupid person."

there were ways to deal with that that didn't involve the gov't busting in on private business transactions.

Quote :

"but it is wrong in certain realistic situations...?"

no, zero-tolerance on its surface is fucking stupid.

are there times when you can bend ideology for practical purposes? sure. Paul's instance here isn't one of them. what's so fucking hard to see about that?

5/23/2010 10:36:56 PM

Quote :

"there were ways to deal with that that didn't involve the gov't busting in on private business transactions. "

haha like what?

Was anyone proposing these in 1960?

And if no one was, doens't that make it dumb and wrong to say the civil rights act was wrong?

and you are putting words in Paul's mouth now, but i'll allow it, because i'm really curious what you think would have pushed the country off the path of socially accepted racism.

5/23/2010 10:45:54 PM

you seem to ignore that we were already veering off the path of socially accepted racism. it took people to actually support these initiatives. Otherwise, they never would have been passed in the first place. Look at the civil rights protests. it wasn't just black people.

and how do you fight such things? simple: no gov't contracts for companies that refuse to serve or hire everyone. that's just the simplest of steps in a plan that doesn't involve the gov't telling people who they can and can't serve or hire. banks that don't offer loans to everyone regardless of race don't get FDIC insurance. same with schools and the like. you wanna segregate? fine. don't expect any federal money.

I don't know everyone who was or wasn't proposing things back then. But it doesn't mean that what passed was the only solution, nor does it mean it was the best

5/23/2010 10:52:07 PM

Quote :

"I want to serve whites only, that's my business."

I explained the trap that arises earlier in the thread:
the self-fulfilling discrimination trap that arises, which is what legislation like this attempts to fix. If people Y assume people X are risky loanees and bad workers, this causes people X to be poorer which in turn causes them to not be able to pay loans back and miss opportunities to gain work experience and skills causing them to be risky loanees and bad workers.

5/23/2010 11:03:34 PM

Quote :

"Paul thinks it should be allowed to not serve blacks or women because you think they are inferior."

I'm not sure if you don't want to admit it, or just haven't realized it, but there's a distinction between what should be allowed and what should be encouraged. Racial discrimination is a problem. We, as individuals, shouldn't be giving business to known racists. Racism is unacceptable, and we should call racists out for their ignorant and bigoted beliefs. You probably agree. The difference between us is that you then go on to say, "...and the federal government should attempt to make laws against racial discrimination."

There are a couple of problems with that approach. For one, the federal government doesn't have any authority to regulate employer/employee/potential hire relations. It just doesn't. Go read the constitution right now, then go back and read the tenth amendment. If you want to amend the constitution, let's do that. If you want to bypass it completely, then be honest about your intentions. If laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be passed, it should be on the state level. The liberal position on that is usually, "eh, whatever, pass it wherever it can get passed," but that's a reckless attitude. The value of having a republic is that a state can try out different sets of laws, and the other states can observe the results.

The other problem is that you've given a sweeping bureaucracy the very difficult task of regulating something as complex as discrimination. It's hard to prove that discrimination took place without invading someone's privacy.

I understand the desire to make legislation at a federal level. We know that discrimination is wrong, just like we understand that discrimination based on sexuality is wrong. The real issue, which I've mentioned elsewhere recently, is that far more bad than good comes about when the federal government gets involved. I know that in some situations, a federal law will force a section of the population to "catch up" in terms of values. That could be seen as a positive outcome. However, the negative outcomes of giving the government that power are laws like the Defense of Marriage Act.

In any case, trying to paint Rand Paul as a racist is dishonest as fuck, and anyone doing that should know better.

[Edited on May 23, 2010 at 11:04 PM. Reason : ]

5/23/2010 11:04:10 PM

Quote :

"I explained the trap that arises earlier in the thread:"

and I already attacked that trap. keep up. I know it's hard for a communist simpleton like you to do that, but please try...

5/23/2010 11:06:23 PM

Quote :

"you seem to ignore that we were already veering off the path of socially accepted racism. it took people to actually support these initiatives. Otherwise, they never would have been passed in the first place. Look at the civil rights protests. it wasn't just black people."

I'm not ignoring those elements at all.

I'm saying it's okay for the government to nurture those elements to drag the rest of society along.

Quote :

"and how do you fight such things? simple: no gov't contracts for companies that refuse to serve or hire everyone. that's just the simplest of steps in a plan that doesn't involve the gov't telling people who they can and can't serve or hire. banks that don't offer loans to everyone regardless of race don't get FDIC insurance. same with schools and the like. you wanna segregate? fine. don't expect any federal money."

Haha, perhaps this would have worked. But it would have been opposed by the racist politicians equally as hard as being overreaching government policy. Put yourself in the place of a racist, wealthy, powerful 1960s businessman, and the gov. is proposing compromising your way of life because you don't like blacks... you wouldn't be happy.

It doesn't change the fact that Paul said the civil rights act was wrong, when it was the best we had at the time. Hindsight is 20/20 ...


[Edited on May 23, 2010 at 11:39 PM. Reason : ]

5/23/2010 11:32:42 PM

Quote :

"and I already attacked that trap."

No you didn't fag.

5/23/2010 11:52:32 PM

Quote :

" Go read the constitution right now, then go back and read the tenth amendment. If you want to amend the constitution, let's do that. If you want to bypass it completely, then be honest about your intentions. If laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be passed, it should be on the state level."

You are ignoring the political and legal backdrop to the civil rights act, and you are ignoring the 14th amendment.

You realize the constitution sets up the judicial system too? Many of the institutional problems that required the civil rights act stemmed from plessy vs ferguson and other court decisions. Plessy v ferguson itself stemmed from societal issues with racism.

The civil rights act wasn't passed in a vacuum. They couldn't have just said "let the states do it" because past political events had already complicated things.

The civil rights act in one swoop adjusted for all of the past legal precedents that had been set, and actually enforced the statements in the 14th amendment.

If you actually take the constitution as it was in the 60s, it doesn't make any sense to say that the civil rights act was unconstitutional.

Quote :

" That could be seen as a positive outcome. However, the negative outcomes of giving the government that power are laws like the Defense of Marriage Act. In any case, trying to paint Rand Paul as a racist is dishonest as fuck, and anyone doing that should know better. "

The courts allowed for the DOMA. You aren't arguing the courts aren't constitutional are you?

and you must have missed "except too that the NYT article is saying fairly clearly that he's not racist, just ignorant of history or human behavior"

5/24/2010 12:41:55 AM

Oh lawd, he thinks facebook is twitter...
http://www.facebook.com/RandPaul2010

...and even worse, he uses it to make bad jokes.

Quote :

"If you want more evidence of how much our campaign terrifies the liberal establishment and the media elite, turn on your TV. Or better yet -- don't."

5/24/2010 3:54:20 AM

^


I mean wtf is your point here.

5/24/2010 7:58:56 AM

Quote :

"Kris All American 33812 Posts user info edit post either way, they're both faggots 5/23/2010 2:19:09 AM"

Quote :

"Kris All American 33812 Posts user info edit post No you didn't fag. 5/23/2010 11:52:32 PM"

Quote :

"Kris All American 33812 Posts user info edit post sup fag lol 5/23/2010 4:56:20 PM"

...Something on your mind, Kris?

5/24/2010 8:24:05 AM

^^I suppose that he doesn't seem to understand technology? Or that whatever staff member of his updates his Facebook doesn't seem to understand technology? Or that none of them know what humor is? Or perhaps I just wanted to post a link to his facebook page so other people could share in the pity-laughs?

At least one of those things applies.

I mean, honestly, there's not many points that need to be made when we're talking about a pseudo-libertarian who actually calls himself "Rand"... besides diverging from the guy completely to have a broader discussion on limited government power, like everyone else on this page of the thread.

[Edited on May 24, 2010 at 8:29 AM. Reason : .]

5/24/2010 8:26:41 AM

Top reason I wouldn't be able to vote for Rand:

on Mountain top removal mining

Quote :

"“I think whoever owns the property can do with the property as they wish, and if the coal company buys it from a private property owner and they want to do it, fine. The other thing is that I think coal gets a bad name, because apparently a lot of the land is desirable once it gets flattened out… I don’t think anyone’s going to be missing a hill or two here and there. Some people like the flat land, and some of it apparently has become rather valuable when it’s become flattened.”"

But you can't get elected in Ky without regurgitating Big Coal talking points.

Quote :

"I want to be in Kentucky when the end of the world comes, because its always 20 years behind -Mark Twain "

5/24/2010 9:30:21 AM

^
I agree 100%. It's bad enough that he's pro-life and pro-drug-war. He's not a Libertarian. He's a Republican.

5/24/2010 11:07:39 AM

^^^

Someone posting an opinion on their facebook status is absolutly unheard of!!!!! Doesn't he know the rules of when to use Facebook and when to use Twitter? Obviously this guy is out of touch with the American population and can't be trusted to represent the people of Kentucky.


Also to understand technology, I guess one most know these facebook status rules.

[Edited on May 24, 2010 at 11:43 AM. Reason : rules]

5/24/2010 11:41:47 AM

^Tell me, what is it like to live in a world without humor? Do the people there have souls, or are those also crushed by the overpowering weight of constant seriousness and necessity?


I'm sorry if you don't quite get it, but it's funny in the same way that an ad agency trying to sound hip and edgy by using 1980s rap lyrics is funny. You should at least be able to understand that concept, even if you don't laugh at it.

[Edited on May 24, 2010 at 11:48 AM. Reason : .]

5/24/2010 11:46:38 AM

Ah yes, now that I have made your arguement look flat out silly you decide to play the "it was originally a joke" card and try to call me out for not getting your "attempt at humor".


I find Rand Pauls facebook joke much more humerous than your attempt (Even though he did use facebook wrong). Hopefully I am using TWW in the right way, or should I be twittering or facebooking this...?



[Edited on May 24, 2010 at 11:58 AM. Reason : .]

5/24/2010 11:52:35 AM

I had an argument here? It was a non-serious post from the beginning, and I said as much in the post itself. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here, unless you're trying to proudly display your ability to miss out on obvious verbal cues. Hell, the first two words of the post with the link were "oh lawd". If you failed to catch on after that, it was your own fault. Except for half-hearted sarcasm, I've made no attempt to defend the serious point that my post never actually had, so why would I be trying to backpedal away from the non-point that I didn't attempt to make?

[Edited on May 24, 2010 at 12:05 PM. Reason : joke isn't quite the right word. more a call of "hey, look, this guy is embarrassing himself"]

5/24/2010 12:00:39 PM

Quote :

"I mean wtf is your point here."

Quote :

"I suppose that he doesn't seem to understand technology? Or that whatever staff member of his updates his Facebook doesn't seem to understand technology? Or that none of them know what humor is? Or perhaps I just wanted to post a link to his facebook page so other people could share in the pity-laughs?"

Sorry now that I realize this was a "joke" I'm rolling in the floor laughing...

[Edited on May 24, 2010 at 12:43 PM. Reason : joke isn't quite the right word. more a call of "hey, look, this guy is embarrassing himself"]]

5/24/2010 12:42:03 PM

Quote :

"Something on your mind, Kris?"

Yeah, too many faggots in this section lately.

5/24/2010 6:10:19 PM

if you left, there'd be one less...

Quote :

"You are ignoring the political and legal backdrop to the civil rights act, and you are ignoring the 14th amendment."

Really? The 14th amendment talks about what private businesses can do? And here I thought it talked about equal treatment under the law. I guess private businesses are now part of the law, huh...

5/24/2010 6:41:57 PM

Jesus Christ, Kris, you're not in middle school.

5/25/2010 11:16:47 AM

Fag is the only acceptable insult on the internet.

5/25/2010 5:48:52 PM

^^^ huh? private businesses are subject to laws obviously...

5/25/2010 7:23:06 PM

subject to, yes. being the law, no.

5/25/2010 8:45:35 PM

The Civil Rights act doesn't apply to businesses with fewer than 15 employees right? Because we sure as hell would never hire white people. Laziest bitches on the planet.

[Edited on May 25, 2010 at 9:26 PM. Reason : Also, the Paul family are horrible libertarians. There has to be someone better out there.]

5/25/2010 9:25:20 PM

5/25/2010 9:29:05 PM

Quote :

"It's bad enough that he's pro-life"

as discussed earlier, that has nothing to do with libertarianism.

5/26/2010 1:18:14 AM

smc, it's actually ok to discriminate against white people.

5/26/2010 7:50:19 AM

^^
...didn't say it did. I was voicing reasons why I won't be voting for him. Then I commented on how he's not a Libertarian, because some have seemed to claim that.

5/26/2010 8:45:44 AM

Libertarians: Rand Paul betrayed us

Quote :

"A week after a come-from-behind victory over the GOP's establishment candidate in a Kentucky Senate primary, Rand Paul is facing a possible challenge by the Libertarian Party and is shaking up his staff after comments he made about racial segregation caused a firestorm. Despite his pedigree as the son of former Libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul, Libertarian Vice Chairman Joshua Koch said Rand Paul has betrayed the party's values with stands he's taken, and they were considering finding a candidate to run for the seat. It was a startling development that could play a role in shaping the outcome of the race in November by siphoning votes from Paul to the benefit of his Democratic opponent, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway. The news came on the same day that Paul named Jesse Benton, one of his father's former aides, as his campaign manager."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/26/AR2010052602334.html

5/26/2010 6:46:02 PM

A week after a come-from-behind victory
a come-from-behind victory
come-from-behind

har har

5/26/2010 10:48:36 PM