Rand Paul wins Senate Primary, soon to be a pro-legalization senator!

[hoosierdaddy]

To see it's antithesis , look at Greece.

 

[Texicannibus]

Jack, America has only abandoned libertarianism in the last 100 years or so. Im hopeful we will see a resurgence.

 

[THC123]

Me too the less government is involved the better

 

[Rainman]

You cats can ignore the facts all you want and play semantics with it, but the plain simple truth is you did not answer any of my posts but simply responded to one part. So ignore 90% of his ideology and focus on that 10% you agree with. You cats are really in desperation mode this fall if this is who you gots to hang your hat with. It simply makes me smile to see guys like him disrupt a already downtrodden Repub party which all of you were T-baggin last fall. Simply makes any opposing candidate look that much better when they dont gotta explain such retarded thought and quotes every time they show up to a podium!

Hoosier - So now we are masturbaters huh? Well if anyone would be familiar with the penis ejaculation of us males it would you. Your are such an easy target just like your questionable military history or lack there of! Now go back to the MODS and tellem Rainman is pickin on me again (like you did already). Great thing is as long as you are on their side we always get the win!!! Im done with you troll so save the neg rep and pms this go round.

Again where is the uh huh moment with Rand? Are your guys really that lost to read what I posted from (his mouth) and still see something redeemable?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

You know, during the debate over the CRA in the 60's there were black groups that did not like the idea of the amendment as written for the exact same reasons Dr. Paul lays out. Their arguments were just as valid then, as his are today.

If I own a restaurant and the KKK starts to like lunch there. They fill the place each noontime. Do I have the right to discriminate against them and ask them not to come to my establishment anymore?

Like Paul, you would "abhor" the KKK. Then you would "get emotional channeling Dr. King." You would "not go to" your restaurant and "you would stand up in your community and say it's abhorrent." "But the hard part, and this is the hard part about believing in freedom is, if you believe in the first amendment for example, you have to, for example, most defenders of the first amendment will believe abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things." You'd reference the bastions of the first amendment and declare they "recognize people saying bad things, it's the same way with other behaviors. In a free society you would tolerate boorish people who have abhorrent behaviors. But if we're civilized people, we'd publicly criticize that and don't belong to those groups and associate with those people."

Damn, hoosier. The poo-bah says you'll stand up in your community and abhor their behavior. Then you'd have to believe the KKK's standing up and saying awful things, as it's the same way with other behaviors. In this free society you would tolerate boorish people with abhorrent behavior. But because you're civilized, you'd publicly criticize the KKK for taking over your restaurant and add you don't belong to the KKK and associate with those people.

Wow, that's not only a flip flop, it sounds like your own paradox and your own conflict of interest.

Under Paul's idea, you'd be free to stand up in your community and abhor your customers while you simultaneously tolerate boorish people with abhorrent behavior.

That's real good hoosier. Maybe while you're recognizing your flip flop stance, you'll whip out the ol' dinky and masturbate in front of the gawkers watching you flip the ol' floppy in a more direct demonstration.

So the big bad hoosier gets his restaurant hijacked by the KKK. Maybe you'll win out when your brother in arms brings enough eggs and toilet paper to shame the KKK into returning your abode to your control. Maybe then you can get back to the business of practicing your own discrimination the way you personally see fit.

Let's assume they really like your place, and decide that not only will they have lunch there, but they may like to have dinner there once a week and during it they will conduct their meetings.
Do I now have the right to ask them to leave?

Let's assume that no other patrons will go to your place, because it is well known that it is a hangout for the KKK. Do you then have the right to discriminate against this group and ask them not to visit your diner anymore?

Do you feel that your rights as an American business owner are being violated if you have to allow the KKK to basically take over your diner?

Need more examples, or can someone fix the mess of the KKK diner first?

Oh, now it's my place? Reread your first scribble, "If I owned a restaurant...."

I'd rather see your list of "black groups that did not like the idea of the amendment as written for the exact same reasons Dr. Paul lays out."

 

[Rainman]

Meanwhile, the Libertarian Party of Kentucky condemned Paul Tuesday for what it said were his "hurtful comments."

"Rand Paul's statements regarding all forms of discrimination are not consistent with, nor do they reflect the views of, the Libertarian Party of Kentucky," said K. Joshua Koch, vice chair of the state party, in a news release.

Paul is not a libertarian, Koch said. "There are clear differences between the Libertarian Party, including the philosophy upon which it is based, and the philosophy and campaign rhetoric of Rand Paul," he said.

For example, Koch said, libertarians want to find a way to give non-traditional couples equal protection under the law while Paul supports the "one man, one woman" definition of marriage.

Thats not Maddow, or the left leaning media calling him out but...... his own supposed party thinks he is a weirdo and not one of them so what is he?? Liberepublican? Liar? Bigot? Racist? Or just another plain jane politician that has developed a cult following much like all you cats accused the dems of doing by following/voting for Obama. No diff. at all.

This quote after he got trapped in the mess of last week and now he is changing the tune to help his image. But who beleives this other than Marquise and Hoosier who are patriots defending the rights of all us colored folks.

In a written statement following the remarks on MSNBC, Paul said, "I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person."

Really? Cause that sounds nothing like earlier comments and rhetoric from him. Again a flipper!!!


Now this is my fav by far!!

“I’m opposed to institutional racism, and I would’ve, had I been alive at the time, I think, had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism.”

Now tell me this guy is serious! This fool woulda been right there with Loosier, Marquise, and the Montgomery, ALA. police hosing people, unleashing dogs on unarmed protestors, beating folks looking for equality all in the name of their freedom and American way of life! I guess thats what he ment by being along side Dr King. He's not lying about that part ,but we all know he woulda been holding a baton protecting his white rights just like Quise and Loosier are argueing.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Yes or no?

I just knew you couldn't do it.
Fail.

Rainman leaps in as if his post is the end all of discussion.
LOL...laughable failure.

Both of you guys seem to be way off in left field somewhere. La La land.

Does your side have any valid debaters available?
All you keep sending us is masturbatory clowns.
Wait...you heard masturbate instead of debate! OK, I understand now...

Well, you failed your opportunity to debate and substituted la la land and masturbation.

I baited your motivations and proved my point, allowing you to stooge your own stage.

If you're hell bent on a yes/no, I'd have to say, yes. Based on his past comments. I afforded the benefit of the doubt but you erased that benefit. So, bigot candidate he is.

I refuse to say the word racist because that reflects skin color alone. I feel like "bigot" better serves the candidate because he'd probably use "pure control" to bar (any) folks that disagree with his flip flopping.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Rainman leaps in as if his post is the end all of discussion.
LOL...laughable failure.

Meanwhile, the Libertarian Party of Kentucky condemned Paul Tuesday for what it said were his "hurtful comments."

"Rand Paul's statements regarding all forms of discrimination are not consistent with, nor do they reflect the views of, the Libertarian Party of Kentucky," said K. Joshua Koch, vice chair of the state party, in a news release.

Paul is not a libertarian, Koch said. "There are clear differences between the Libertarian Party, including the philosophy upon which it is based, and the philosophy and campaign rhetoric of Rand Paul," he said.

For example, Koch said, libertarians want to find a way to give non-traditional couples equal protection under the law while Paul supports the "one man, one woman" definition of marriage.

Thats not Maddow, or the left leaning media calling him out but...... his own supposed party thinks he is a weirdo and not one of them so what is he?? Liberepublican? Liar? Bigot? Racist? Or just another plain jane politician that has developed a cult following much like all you cats accused the dems of doing by following/voting for Obama. No diff. at all.

This quote after he got trapped in the mess of last week and now he is changing the tune to help his image. But who beleives this other than Marquise and Hoosier who are patriots defending the rights of all us colored folks.

In a written statement following the remarks on MSNBC, Paul said, "I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person."

Really? Cause that sounds nothing like earlier comments and rhetoric from him. Again a flipper!!!


Now this is my fav by far!!

“I’m opposed to institutional racism, and I would’ve, had I been alive at the time, I think, had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism.”

Now tell me this guy is serious! This fool woulda been right there with Loosier, Marquise, and the Montgomery, ALA. police hosing people, unleashing dogs on unarmed protestors, beating folks looking for equality all in the name of their freedom and American way of life! I guess thats what he ment by being along side Dr King. He's not lying about that part ,but we all know he woulda been holding a baton protecting his white rights just like Quise and Loosier are argueing.

hoosier, is K. Joshua Koch, vice chair of the state party a "laughable failure"

Yes or no?

 

[bs0]

Btw, it all goes toward your own wish for pure control and not revealing anything toward what you're talking about, lol. That might satisfy you but you didn't score any points for the opaque reference.

After all this you still latch onto me saying I want "pure control of my property", misquote me and say "pure control".

Misquoting dosent suprise me, you thought it was a "gotcha".

Opaque reference?

I can explain again ( LOL as you would type, you condescending jerk. Every time you spout something that isn't what I said and then type 'lol' you are acting childish.):

* I want control of my own personal property.*

This is the point. There is no opacity, no lies or misquotes. This was dr. Pauls point too. You are so hung up on a witch hunt you are saying all sorts of strange things. The constitutional validity of his statement? Its an opinion for gods sake. Do you want do arrest him or something?

If you can't grasp that simple concept after all these pages...

I guess if I were like you I could follow that up with a "lol" and try to belittle you. What's the point though. You will just respond with another "pure control" diatribe and bore me.

 

[bs0]

I might not always agree with Gramps but I consider him a friend. One that's capable of opening eyes without verbally attempting to black them shut. That's an ability I find rare in today's polarized discussions.

Well I take that to mean that I'm not your friend :cries:

That's real big of you, to blanketly call everyone who disagrees with you ignorant. Disapointing.

There isn't a right and wrong in opinion. Your opinion is what it is and that's fine. The problem lies where you are misrepresenting the idiology and I don't want someone spouting off some BS and saying it is my (or dr. paul) opinion. You aren't going to "open my eyes" because they aren't closed. I see clearly and I feel that the detriments to freedom outweigh the risks. You aparrently feel differently and that is OK.

Please continue to have whatever opinion you want, just relax with telling people what their opinion is. That's where the frustration comes from, and something you will rarely be correct about.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

After all this you still latch onto me saying I want "pure control of my property", misquote me and say "pure control".

Misquoting dosent suprise me, you thought it was a "gotcha".

You're weren't misquoted, I neither added nor subtracted context. I simply referenced one of your comments with enough info to know which one I was talking about. Then I asked what it meant, a half dozen times.

Opaque reference?

I can explain again ( LOL as you would type, you condescending jerk. Every time you spout something that isn't what I said and then type 'lol' you are acting childish.):

* I want control of my own personal property.*

This is the point. There is no opacity, no lies or misquotes.

Your words, not mine.
"I want control of my own personal property."
I'm tired of dancing around with you bro. Chalk up another opaque for Mr. bs0

This was dr. Pauls point too. You are so hung up on a witch hunt you are saying all sorts of strange things. The constitutional validity of his statement? Its an opinion for gods sake. Do you want do arrest him or something?

I'm not arguing constitutionality of Paul's comments, I recognize his comments as racially insensitive and worse if exercised. Dr. Paul made two points, and three if you count his reaction to his conundrum.

(1)Paul says he abhors bigotry.

(2)Paul also affords bigots' right to free (hate) speech.
..............................
(3)When bigots appear, he'd ostracize them by standing up in his community.

If you can't grasp that simple concept after all these pages...

I guess if I were like you I could follow that up with a "lol" and try to belittle you. What's the point though. You will just respond with another "pure control" diatribe and bore me.

Nah, I'd just ask what it means and you'd avoid it like the plague after all these pages...



...and that makes me laugh out loud.

 

[MarquisBlack]

I think there is folly in assuming that the Government is in anyway justifiably effective at addressing and treating societal ills through legislating morality.

I also think there is folly in assuming that one cannot support another's right to say and do ignorant things (that in the end do not deprive anyone of their rights), while still exercising one's right to speak against such actions and ideas.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Well I take that to mean that I'm not your friend :cries:

That's real big of you, to blanketly call everyone who disagrees with you ignorant. Disapointing.

It is your right to add context my friend. My accommodation to the gentleman posting was in regard to disagreement, not pejorative.

Friendship is a two way street. Neither of us has broached the opportunity. I find your comment we're not able to be friends an admission of your own, disappointing context and conclusion.

There isn't a right and wrong in opinion. Your opinion is what it is and that's fine. The problem lies where you are misrepresenting the idiology and I don't want someone spouting off some BS and saying it is my (or dr. paul) opinion. You aren't going to "open my eyes" because they aren't closed. I see clearly and I feel that the detriments to freedom outweigh the risks. You aparrently feel differently and that is OK.

Ok to the point I misrepresent you? You my friend don't represent yourself. My unanswered question is no misrepresentation of your secret idiology.

Please continue to have whatever opinion you want, just relax with telling people what their opinion is. That's where the frustration comes from, and something you will rarely be correct about.

I'm correct you won't establish what control of your private property gains with repeal in regard to control of who enters your privately owned, yet public serving business.

And you're free to frustrate in the illusion I'm making your opinion for you. I don't have to do that. But observing you consciously avoid any description or explanation doesn't put any feathers in your cap.

 

[bs0]

Paul is not a libertarian, Koch said. "There are clear differences between the Libertarian Party, including the philosophy upon which it is based, and the philosophy and campaign rhetoric of Rand Paul," he said.

For example, Koch said, libertarians want to find a way to give non-traditional couples equal protection under the law while Paul supports the "one man, one woman" definition of marriage.

Ugh.

So maybe I was giving him far too much credit. Sounds like he is a doofus.

Well at least I agree with him on property rights...

 

[Rainman]

Quise - So basically you are saying you would leave legislation like the 1964 decision, the ADA, and so many other improtant pieces of leg. to who? The individual? The state?

Would you endorse his stance on BP and the Coal mine catastrophe? You seem to be very good at riding the fine line of not saying what you really wanna say but your comments give away your nature several times over. Just like you commenting about whites not being able to say what they want due to being called a racists in the other thread. You are sooooo lame its funny. Dont dedicate any more energy to me since you cant say whats on your mind anyways.


Finally you also think that people can say what they want without perscution or gov regulation? Guess what? I agree in freedom of speech in much the same way. The problem is no one in this debate is talking about talking!!! We are talking about the rights of those that were historically oppressed, ignored, denied equal rights as simple human beings and preyed upon by the same individuals you want to give the right to turn away people based on skin color. Period! Now you can sugar coat it as being a libertarian but you much like Randy, are just showing your true colors. Again.

 

[bs0]

It is your right to add context my friend. My accommodation to the gentleman posting was in regard to disagreement, not pejorative.

Friendship is a two way street. Neither of us has broached the opportunity. I find your comment we're not able to be friends an admission of your own, disappointing context and conclusion.

Ok to the point I misrepresent you? You my friend don't represent yourself. My unanswered question is no misrepresentation of your secret idiology.

I'm correct you won't establish what control of your private property gains with repeal in regard to control of who enters your privately owned, yet public serving business.

And you're free to frustrate in the illusion I'm making your opinion for you. I don't have to do that. But observing you consciously avoid any description or explanation doesn't put any feathers in your cap.

This is an honest question:
What do you think I'm saying when I state :"I want control of my property"?

And why are you so enamored that I used the verbage "pure control of my property"? Do you think this was my super secret racist callsign?

It really frustrates me and I want to clear this up.
Your responses at this point (no offense, I'm being completely honest) sound nonsensical and I don't understand what you are getting at.

I don't understand what you think this big secret is that I'm keeping from you. What is my secret?

If you think I have an agenda consider this: I hate political parties.
For the past 8 years I have voted democrat because I am anti-war and anti-patriot act. I voted for obama and would gladly do so again because he is both intelligent and a centrist. I say this for this reason: I select ideas that I feel are true. I don't blindly ascribe to one side or the other.

 

[MarquisBlack]

Just like you commenting about whites not being able to say what they want due to being called a racists in the other thread. You are sooooo lame its funny. Dont dedicate any more energy to me since you cant say whats on your mind anyways.

I know I told you I'm not going to waste anymore energy on you, and in regards to Rand Paul and his statements about the CRA, that is still true. However, I can't just let you misrepresent what I said in that other thread. Your synopsis of my statement was out of context and used as another weapon in your racist-hunting arsenal.

In the other thread I made a statement regarding Mexican President Calderon chastising the US for Arizona's immigration bill, and I said that white people can not speak up on the issue of national sovereignty (ie the right to protect our border from illegal aliens) without fear of being called a racist. Your statement makes it seem as though I was arguing that white's should be able to say fuck-all without being labeled racist.

There are countless instances of African Americans as well as Hispanic Americans speaking out against illegal immigration, one need only check Youtube for instances. For most people it is not an issue of not wanting hispanics to immigrate to American, but rather an issue of not wanting ANYONE to illegally immigrate to America, especially if they are economically burdensome. (Not being an economic burden is typically a condition of immigration)

My comment was very much related to my comments in this thread, you are correct about that. I was trying to shine light on how race-politics are used to divide we-the-people so that our out-of-control Federal Gov't can continue to misrepresent our collective will. (As seen by their reluctance to take real and decisive action to defend the border, one of the Federal Government's primary purposes as per the Constitution. )

 

[Rainman]

Again more talking outta the side of your mouth! Your tired arguement assumes that immigrants are a burden on the economy just like your repub counterparts always espouse. The problem is its not true! I would be more concerned about terrorists using the borders to slip across undetected with a bomb than some Latino looking for work. Most people recognize that our border is not secure but you and your buddies want to blame Mexicans for the ills of the economy. How is that possible when the only reason they are coming here is to work!? Simple and easy target to beat up on but still holds no water. Unless you are following the party line, or if you are an Obamafite they call it drinking the koolaid. You got your cup? I got my cup!

Look at the facts of illigal immigration from Mexico. Sneak into a country that considers you less of a person than the family pet, live in the worst conditions, have access to limited or no healthcare and nothing close to what you and I have, no recourse to employers who are getting rich by abusing employees and the laws you are so keen on upholding, seperate yourself from your family so you can provide not even a meager income, pay some coyote 10k to sneak you into the country or maybe just leave you locked in a cargo truck to cook slowly. And for what? So you can make less than the minimum wage in a incredibly physical job, pay your employer all kinds of fees on top of that in a job 9 outta 10 Americans wouldnt think about doin! Yeah they are a real threat to your way of life and are such an economic burden to your tax dollars(actually most are charged taxes by their employers who just keep the money). So you see when Mexicans and Black talk about sovereignty(another call word for us whites protecting our country) and the country's safety we are smart enough to look at it rationally and thoughtful and not just go all David Duke! What about all the eastern Europeans who are flooding the country. You see when you cats focus on a group simply based on race(Mexicans) and dont even mention the eatsern European side it smacks of racism and bigotry. So its seems you dont like the Brown skinned folks entering your country illegally, but if they look like you its not even worth mentioning? Again your words bely your real thoughts whether you want them to or not. Just like your continued support for a closet racist who cant seem to stop flippin. Weak and very poorly played yet again on your part. AGAIN!

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Kentucy Libertarians May Field New Candidate

Kentucy Libertarians May Field New Candidate

Rand Paul betrayed our values. (from a Right friendly AP I might add)

Roger Alford - | 05/26/10 03:42 PM |

FRANKFORT, Ky. — 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.

The shake-up was announced a week after a round of interviews in which Paul dismayed fellow Republicans with his views on racial segregation. Paul suggested to MSNBC host Rachel Maddow last week that the federal government shouldn't have the power to force restaurants to serve minorities if business owners don't want to.

Despite the timing, Benton said the staffing changes have nothing to do with the postelection political firestorm. Benton replaces David Adams, who was made campaign chairman.

"Our team is remaining intact," said Benton. "We've clarified some roles and will be adding even more talent to what is going to prove an extremely formidable operation."

Rand Paul's father was the Libertarian presidential candidate in 1988. He is currently a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Once an ally, Koch had strong criticism for Paul, who won the Republican Senate nomination last week by trouncing the GOP establishment candidate, Secretary of State Trey Grayson.

"He had gone from being an outsider candidate to a tea party candidate to an establishment candidate in the past nine months," Koch said. "It's a complete identity crisis. I've never seen anything like it."

Insisting Paul is no Libertarian, Koch called Paul and his Democratic opponent, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, "faces of the same bad coin."

The Libertarian Party doesn't have a strong presence in Kentucky. But the race is being closely watched as Democrats seek to reclaim a seat that is being vacated by retiring Republican Sen. Jim Bunning, a 78-year-old former major league pitcher who opted not to seek a third term.

University of Louisville political scientist Laurie Rhodebeck said if the Senate race were to be close, a Libertarian candidate could potentially take enough votes from Paul to affect the outcome.

"A lot of the Libertarian candidates are people with little or no political experience," she said. "They don't speak well in public. They're underfunded. But it would make a point."

Who the Libertarian Party might put up to run in the race was unclear on Wednesday. The filing deadline is Aug. 10.

The Paul campaign said it wasn't concerned about the development. "If someone wants to split up Kentucky's non-conservative vote more than it already is, that's OK with me," Adams said.

Conway had no immediate comment.

Koch said Paul's views on a variety of subjects differ from the Libertarian Party, including his promised support for any measures to ban abortion and his opposition to same-sex marriage.

"Trying to impose a national standard for that would throw the whole system out of balance, and that's definitely not Libertarian," Koch said.

Koch also said Paul is out of step with Libertarians in his unwillingness to call for U.S. troops to leave Iraq and Afghanistan.


"The reason why we would even consider running somebody in this race is because we're not going to let Rand determine what a Libertarian stands for," he said. "I'm here to say Rand does not have the Libertarian ideology."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/26/kentucky-libertarians-may_n_590387.html

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

This is an honest question:
What do you think I'm saying when I state :"I want control of my property"?

I prefer the reality you won't state in your own words, suggesting instead I play your game of Guess What I'm Not Willing to Say.

And why are you so enamored that I used the verbage "pure control of my property"? Do you think this was my super secret racist callsign?

Your words, my friend. Not mine. I notice you ignored (me) using your modified comment, verbatim. Like I already said, I prefer the reality of your own statements, beyond (however) you wish to reword your initial offering.

It really frustrates me and I want to clear this up.
Your responses at this point (no offense, I'm being completely honest) sound nonsensical and I don't understand what you are getting at.

Then you only understand the complexities of what you wish for enough to resist discussing your own reasoning.

I don't understand what you think this big secret is that I'm keeping from you. What is my secret?

Something you wish not to reveal, instead you resort semantics.

I don't know your secret but it's apparent you won't touch it.

If you think I have an agenda consider this: I hate political parties.
For the past 8 years I have voted democrat because I am anti-war and anti-patriot act. I voted for obama and would gladly do so again because he is both intelligent and a centrist. I say this for this reason: I select ideas that I feel are true. I don't blindly ascribe to one side or the other.

But your true reasoning is either blind, secret or whatever acceptable adjectives describe your reluctance to discuss your motivations.