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

[DiscoBiscuit]

You won't repeal the CRA for private business.

 

[Diamonddss]

Rand Paul is no libertarian. He is pure pro-life and strongly believes life begins at conception. His dad Ron atleast wants it left up to the states.
Real libertarians are no prolifers

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I think it depends on which libertarian you're debating. How does state control technically differ than any other when it comes to the rights of the fetus and/or a woman's decision to deliver or abort?

 

[Maria_Vanessa]

Rand Paul is no libertarian. He is pure pro-life and strongly believes life begins at conception. His dad Ron atleast wants it left up to the states.
Real libertarians are no prolifers

What I thought was strange is that Rand said that he does oppose abortion. But his campaign manager, maybe the one he just fired, insisted he supports RU486 in cases of rape or incest. Pro-lifers would still expect the child to be carried to term even if a woman became pregnant through rape or incest.

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/nkypolitics/2010/04/23/paul-grayson-spar-on-abortion-earmarks/

Here is the direct link to the Kentucky Right to Life PAC's Questionnaire:
http://c0469351.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/KYRTLresponse.pdf

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Maria_Vanessa, "anti-mj"?

 

[Maria_Vanessa]

Maria_Vanessa, "anti-mj"?

Maria, played by Paula Garces, was Harold's love interest in H&K I and II. Vanessa, played by Danneel Harris, was Kumar's love interest in H&K II. Both movies are two of my favorite.

 

[MarquisBlack]

Rand Paul is no libertarian. He is pure pro-life and strongly believes life begins at conception. His dad Ron atleast wants it left up to the states.
Real libertarians are no prolifers

A case could be made for protecting the liberties of all people, including unborn, developing fetuses. Personally I think that abortion should be done in hospitals, in the cases of rape, incest, and determined danger to the mother. However, the notion that no true libertarian is pro-life doesn't hold water to me.

Now if your beef is with not wanting to "leave it up to the states", which is a frequent solution to these kinds of problems for libertarians, I can jive with that.

 

[Maria_Vanessa]

Now if your beef is with not wanting to "leave it up to the states", which is a frequent solution to these kinds of problems for libertarians, I can jive with that.

That would be a possible solution. But, the issue that worries me is what will happen to the women that live in states that prohibit abortion and they do not have a means of transportation to a state that does not prohibit abortion. It could possibly create a black market service in those states, jeopardizing a woman's health or her life.

 

[MarquisBlack]

That would be a possible solution. But, the issue that worries me is what will happen to the women that live in states that prohibit abortion and they do not have a means of transportation to a state that does not prohibit abortion. It could possibly create a black market service in those states, jeopardizing a woman's health or her life.

That's true I never thought about that. Black market abortion...

That's a scary concept. But so are question-free abortion clinics, in my opinion... Reduces the value of human life. (Though some would argue that too much stock causes value to drop.. I try not to think of human life as a commodity lol)

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Rand Paul wants to repeal the 14th amendment.

 

[Texicannibus]

My comments will be in red disco to clarify for you.

That's about nuts enough to ignore the rest your schpeil there, jimbob. Deadly force isn't always murder and is even justified under the right circumstances.

As usual you feel the need to result to insults. I figured the republican clause would upset you. Pretty predictable, progressives like yourself want to revise history. When forced to see the truth and facts they often fall back to insults. I never said that murder was justified. You claim to have some sort of wonderful reading comprehension yet continually distort peoples opinions and perspectives.


Well by all means, keep suggesting I'm ignorant and not just rejecting your philosophy.

If you would respond to actual positions instead of contorting them into something you feel like you can win I dont think it would be a issue. Reject my philosophy.. all you like.


I'm reverting back to the opening comment, beam me up Scotti.

In other words I cant respond or make a good argument and will result to insults once more.


Take a look at black and white newsreels from the 60s. I already know you guys are stand up citizens and purveyors of morality in the truest sense. But your idea things wouldn't regress is imagination.

Take a look at a calendar .. Is it the 1960s? Can you show me any facts or studies to show that your suggestion things would regress is anything more than your overactive imagination? Of course not both are conjecture and opinions. You always think your opinion = fact.


Well that's interesting, you just admitted what no other defender of the faith has admitted in 23 pages of, (they) "won't discriminate and" (I'm) "a racist."

I said we was all racist in my opinion. If you would like to have that discussion I have a couple questions for you. The first would be do you agree with affirmitive action. Let me give you a hint if your answer is yes then in my opinion you are a racist.

Your opinion is your right. Interesting you bring up an analogy with such racial disparity. Pink bodies get fines and probation far more than their minority equivalent and prison is the only alternative.

As I have shown you also consider your opinion 'right' obviously. Refer to your comment that somehow we dont know what will happen in the future and you do... lol. Can you provide statistics backing this up or just another 'fact' you pulled out of your ass? I dont doubt its true but Im betting it came out a stinky place. In addition how has the CRA stopped racism. As you clearly are stating above its prevelant.

Yeah, that's fine. Except for the parts where you infer ignorance and hoodeybaby starts with the "definitions" spaz.

So, is it racism or discrimination to tell people they cannot enter your resteraunt or business without proper attire? Certainly it could be ...

I could see the writing on hoosier's wall before he typed it, something about misunderstanding such an elementary concept when he's busy flinging the goo. Goo doesn't take concept and imaginary paddlings are just another opportunity to correct the guy. Even the fun house has it's dull moments.

Please keep your posts focused on the issues at hand.


Thanks.....alot.

You are welcome.

You and every other debate opponent. I'm not sure what word best describes your idea that individual liberty on a moral issue (multiplied by untold millions) will constitute anything close to what you imagine. That's right, you no more know what would happen than the people you claim don't know the very same thing. The outcome of actions. Just because you've got a cushy ethnic existence doesn't educate you to the point we no longer need societal controls over racial issues.

Not only do you want to repeal discrimination in the work place, a single read of the Libertarian manifesto reads like a litany of angst with minority and poverty issues.

I think it is a racist perception to believe that minorities would some how be at a disadvantage in this enviroment. It is nothing more than your opinion (based on your opinion of those races) that would lead you to believe this.

I have to say that sounds honest, sincere and you have nothing there to point the racist finger at you. But your idea of repeal don't hunt, I'm sorry. That's just my opinion

Finally, a disclaimer thanks. Your welcome to your opinion on my opinion about letting states regulate our daily lives as intended by the constitution.

and a big enough chunk of the nations, enough to keep it that way.

At the moment I would agree. Through education efforts and teaching people the false revisionist history they have been taught is the first step in that. I would hope that one day you might take the time to read the federalist papers.

I only think it waters down your argument because I don't believe in states rights over issues where we get 50 ways to fuck something up.

That is a typical progressive point of view. Force our elitist opinion on the masses regardless of constitutional boundaries on the federal goverment. I like you because you represent the opposite of myself.

I don't subscribe to your idea of "private" serving "public" escaping commerce, thus the clause is constitutional, IMO.

It is not applicable to all commerce. That is why you must read more and learn more about wich you talk. It is called the 'interstate commerce clause' for a reason. This is to make trade regular between the states. Can you tell me what trade is made regular by a business owner being able to descriminate? It happens every day we have given you a ton of examples yet you ignore it. Refer to the example of 'no shirt no shoes'.


The idea of arbitration was to arbitrate over states that couldn't get along. States couldn't tell business owners not to discriminate, some of em were involved themselves. Big Daddy took control of an out of control situation and made it a crime because individuals otherwise chose to discriminate.

Instead of repeating things you have been told why not read the words written to convince the states and pass(ratify) the constitution and unite the states. I am sure you would be impressed with the extensive knowledge and understanding that Hamilton, Jay, and Madison had. LOL.. Ok check out how many states had banned it. Some states did not . The states that did forced the ones that did not. They simply was not willing to let the states come around to the abolitionist movement. Truely laughable man you should get some books and read some about our history. Try 'the real george washington'.

Nah, James Madison's alright with me. He's dead and can't defend himself. It's not like James Madison's everything I disagree with.

I would certainly hope he is not. Madison is a great founding father. He is considered the 'father of the American Constitution' as well as the 4th elected president of the United States. He was the principle author of the Constitution. He is also considered the 'father of the Bill of Rights'. I am sure you know all of this just a friendly reminder.

I tried to save you guys the time long ago. You're not likely to cause me any reflection on constitutional grounds, the personal freedoms you don't have or the founding father's intent on a single page document. Especially with their own moral dilemmas.

This to me is the funniest part. I know one thing about you man and that is that you will always be a partisan. Talking points and all... no worries though. In my libertarian world there is room for all types. Why dont you judge yourself instead of others. Again you show that you dont know much about history. The federalist papers are long .. lol certainly not a single page document as you claim. In addition they are regularly cited to explain various interpretations of the constitution. Instead of assuming your various talking points are correct ...

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

All of your arguments are flawed, Disco. You have to first understand what discrimination is. You have a very narrow view of the term. It is your misunderstanding of exactly what discrimination means. And perhaps if you actually educate yourself, you could better see the point of view that you think is so racially motivated.
It is YOU that has the race card stuck up your ass, and you are trying to use it to demonize someone that you are afraid of. If he is not the person that will win an election, rational people (and poker players) would let that hand ride and try not to draw attention to it. But, see you folks are either 1) irrational or 2) scared of Paul and those who share his ideology, and know he is one that will be kicking some liberal ass in the fall if you don't gang up and put this racist bastard in his place...so that nothing he has to say, no matter how on point it may be, will be listened to because you managed to convince other simpleton fence sitters that he is in fact a racist bastard that is not to be listened to.

Yeah, you really need to do some study...and try looking up the word discrimination.
Then come back with your ignorant rational. SO we can laugh at some more of your misguided arguments. Man, you have to at least have a grasp of the terms being used before anyone can take you seriously. But then, I know that is a bit much to ask of you.

you are grasping at straws here..... again...

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

"I have a message, a message from the tea party, a message that is loud and clear and does not mince words: We have come to take our government back"
-Rand Paul

^what are you talking about dude? It is not the progressive liberal you are taking your county back from so to speak. We are taking the country back from greedy criminals on wall street and in the government. The government is so corrupt it doesn't matter what political philosophy you believe in. They have all been so far corrupted by human greed that the only way to fix it is to start over. the government is still based off a 234 year old system that was great. What we need to do now to actually fix the country is fire ever single person in all three branches, and limit campaign finance to 100,000 dollars. That is the real problem. offices are for sale. As soon as we force public service to be just that again, greed and personal agenda will rule the day.

remember there was a time in our country when people respected people of the other parties. the country hasn't been this polarized since the civil war. The difference is now we are polarized on subjects meant to distract us from the fact that we are being robbed by government, and private sector in many ways, every time we make a buck.

I have no problem with you protesting taxes if you are willing to cut our huge military complex budget by just half. we spend seven times more money on our military than every other county on the planet combined. that is where our money goes. Every single social program we have combined does not even add up the half the cost of our military either. You wanna cut government spending, and lower taxes then we have to become isolationist again. we have lose power. I don't see you having a problem with this.

there my exact words..... again......

 

[MarquisBlack]

Rand Paul wants to repeal the 14th amendment.

Hey Fonzie, what are you doing water-skiing?

Maybe you should specify which part lmao.

Personally I can understand amnesty to children of illegals born in US hospitals, if we qualify it with an effective date. (That way we don't encourage more illegal immigration to exploit the amnesty) However, beyond that, I can see why some would want to redefine the law so that children born to illegals do not gain citizenship. Take away some of their motivation.

Edit: Oh and having those children take citizenship courses like everyone else who immigrates/naturalizes would be nice too.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Hey Fonzie, what are you doing water-skiing?

Maybe you should specify which part lmao.

Personally I can understand amnesty to children of illegals born in US hospitals, if we qualify it with an effective date. (That way we don't encourage more illegal immigration to exploit the amnesty) However, beyond that, I can see why some would want to redefine the law so that children born to illegals do not gain citizenship. Take away some of their motivation.

absolutely

 

[Maria_Vanessa]

That's true I never thought about that. Black market abortion...

That's a scary concept. But so are question-free abortion clinics, in my opinion... Reduces the value of human life. (Though some would argue that too much stock causes value to drop.. I try not to think of human life as a commodity lol)

Unfortunetly, alot of people think of human life as a commondity.

I can understand why people are against abortion. I believe that politicians like Rand Paul are looking at this topic with ignorance. To me, education is the key.

Sex from a moral perspective should come from the parent(s). Subject like love, lust, sexual identity, etc.

Sex education in school should be taught from a civil point of view; how a person's sexual choice can effect the entire community; unplanned pregnanies, sexual transimitted diseases, etc. Maybe, if sex wasn't such a taboo topic within families and society, abortion wouldn't such a polarizing topic.

DiscoBiscuit Rand Paul wants to repeal the 14th amendment.

Hmm... I read several articles about his interview in Russia. Unfortunetly, he was also speaking to an audience that is having alot of issues with immigration as well. Since the start of civilization on this planet, in almost every country, past and present, immigrants have always been blamed for any and all problems.

It is sad to note that alot of people do not know the history and why the 14th amendment was ratified into the the Consitution. A majority of Americans today benefit from a past relative giving birth to a child on this soil, and that child becoming a citizen of America.

I don't know if I can agree with your statement 100% regarding Mr. Rand, because there have been and always will be politicians that want to repeal a Constitution amendment, the 13th, 14th and 15th, always the most popular to get rid of. But all attempty have failed in the past and will fail in the future.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

It is not the progressive liberal you are taking your county back from so to speak.

You are 100% incorrect with that statement. The progressive socialist movement is exactly what has shaped our President's mind, and the minds of his minions. Those very ideas are the enemies of the state. It's those ideas that are working against what we are and were intended to be as a free society. It are those same ideas that have been proven failures, and have hampered societies for decades.
We can look back to the election of Woodrow Wilson for when this progressive socialist mentality first took a foothold on our great society.

"We have our boot on the throat of BP" (sic)

I bet that makes some of you wet.

 

[Texicannibus]

My replies will be in red ... /yawn.

Murder is an inalienable right? What, did I misspell it or something? I never framed an argument on that one, pal. I played with it like a cat plays with a mouse. I guess I got too rough and hurt your feelings, that's where the flawed argument came in.

I dont think your capable of hurting my feelings buddy. Feel free to give it your best shot. You did frame the argument on words I never said. I gave you murder you contorted it to deadly force.

So I guess the same (sound) argument is you have the inaliable right to discriminate? Mom and dad gave you that right? The government took it away? Now you want that right back? But, like murder, you won't exercise that right? Do you want back your right to murder too?

To answer that question(right to descriminate) yes. If you would open your eyes you would see people use that right every day in every facet of life. Do I want the right to commit murder? Thats stupid its illegalized at state, local, and federal levels does that stop it from happening? You cant grasp the concept of rights. Explain how you have the right to laugh or be entertained as you have suggested earlier. I didnt see that in the bill of rights ,.. lol.

Nah, you'll have to figure it out enough to make your analogy work and I don't think you can. You're like the others that tried to tiptoe around it because you're tired of the ice breaking underneath, you end up wet and you blame others for misunderstanding. In my opinion you misjudge the thickness of the ice as safe but it breaks every time you discuss your wish with folks that disagree.

The figuring it out part is on you bud not me. You are the one that wanted to contest my opinion and try to debate me after I merely clarified your position. Instead of making stupid analogies try to respond on point. Thanks.

Suggesting I figure it out is like suggesting one conclude the meaning of Paul's local newspaper interview. Except Paul didn't tell the interviewer to figure it out for himself. He sat there and pondered the comment he'd demonstrate (at the counter) against discrimination as abhorrent behavior, then he said he'd recognize their right to free speech. Can't absorb that one either.

I am sure its a hard concept for you to absorb.

I'll borrow Paul's logic for a moment. According to his videotaped interview:

Paul doesn't want government interference regarding racial discrimination with private business.

Paul recognizes discrimination as abhorrent.

Paul would demonstrate at Woolworth's counter if they didn't serve King a sandwich.

But, Paul would recognize the counter owner's right to free speech.

What does that mean? Would he side with one's inaliable right to racially discriminate. Would he demonstrate against it? Both?

Remember you are asking what it means. I have explained try reading my posts to understand. He is giving everyone the same freedoms. He did not say black people cannot discriminate but white people can that would be racist.

You can flout all the argument framing you want. Or, you can attempt to explain it. I say "attempt" because I don't think you can.

You are a partisan nothing will change your mind except time and your own reasoning if ever. I do not wish to change your mind but I am tired of you projecting racism onto this man and libertarians.

Texi, is that the "hard part" of being a Libertarian? Paradox? Paul references getting misty hearing King's words. Would King agree with Paul's paradox? Paul seems to think (and even suggests) that King wanted government sanctioned racism to end but didn't want intrusion into private business. Would King don the pee jar in the trunk as consolation for those that still wanted to discriminate? After all, King could always pee in Rand's private eye clinic. If he wanted to, that is.

Im going to go out on a limb and guess you never listened or read much about Mr. King. He infact was on a crusade for people to be judged equally. He knew that laws and policy was only one aspect because people regardless of laws and policy would still be quite capable of expressing racism. Are people judged equally? Does affirmative action = dr kings dream?..

Rand's comments didn't flush. Rand's potential leader recommended a hiatus for Paul, suggesting neither understood. Now, you guys throw all the red candy you want. The public doesn't have a ratings system to punk. What are you going to explain when you hit that wall running like Paul did?

The media is on a witchhunt. Trying to catch the man in a 'gotcha' moment we both know this. What would be the point of him going infront of the media at this time? You just want him to come out and give you something you can grab ahold of and say aha hes a racist... oh wait you already did that.

I think I'm just fine with not being racially insensitive. You can add all the context you wish but that's yours to read yourself.

You think I am not racially sensitive? Can you explain exactly what that word means without showing racism? Thanks.

I find it funny a guy tells me to figure it out then adds his own "perfect" context to others' comments. Another interesting aspect of personal freedoms. One better get with the program or risk being told to figure it out for them self. I asumed that was your reason for being here Texi, recognizing I don't agree and telling others I'm ignorant. I not only disagree, I think your reasoning is as bizarre as the klan kitchen analogy I was lambasted for referencing.

It was obvoious there was a disconnect. You think the goverment gives us rights. We think that they came at birth and can not be given by the goverment. Thats a fundamental difference I felt worthy of pointing out.

I'm not exercising the same logic that justifies murder as a right given by mom and dad. I disagree with that logic. You can claim ignorance all you want. I call it illogical. And so does enough of the country for Paul's leader to recommend Paul forget about his comments, at least until he gets back to Kentucky. But fortunately we'll get to hear any of Paul's (public) record, even in Kentucky.

How about you define rights for us DB? How about you define racism and descrimination while your at it.

Based on you guy's reaction to me, Paul wouldn't abhor the right to discriminate. He would demonstrate his abhorrence at my right to disagree. I wonder if Paul himself would be a better messenger, albeit the Woolworth's counter paradox.

 

[MarquisBlack]

I found this page particularly enlightening in regards to the 14th amendment, and why clarification is needed-

http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

 

[MarquisBlack]

We can look back to the election of Woodrow Wilson for when this progressive socialist mentality first took a foothold on our great society.

And even ol' Woody knew he got played-

I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.
A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit.
Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation,
therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men.
We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely
controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world.
No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by
conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by
the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson