Rand Paul wins Senate Primary, soon to be a pro-legalization senator!
- Thread starter Bill O'Reilly
- Start date
- Status
miltonchitlin
Member
In your house sure, you decide who comes and goes. The federal government is not allowed to discriminate. When a person buys a business license he partners with the government, and guess what, government can't discriminate or let it's partners discriminate. If you own a restaurant you'll need a liquor license, and another partnership with uncle Sam.
It's so simple I'm surprised Mr. Paul can't figure this out.
It's so simple I'm surprised Mr. Paul can't figure this out.
See there you go again making things up. Could you show me where he flip flopped? The notion that Rand Paul somehow reversed his statements is a media fabrication. Have you watched any of the full interviews, or just the out-of-context clips? And while we're talking about flip-flopping, what about your boy Obeezy? (Boondocks reference, lol) Something tells me you be dick-ridin' Obama way harder than we be dick-ridin' Rand.
You can call me a "tea-bagger" all you like. I've never been to a Tea Party event, never held a picket sign with clever anti-Obama quips. (Didn't vote for McCain OR Obama) You seem to think I've fixed myself to Rand Paul's scrotum, when really I'm defending a dude who is being lied about over and over again in the media. Tell me, are you one of those dudes who still thinks Obama is the real deal? If so I understand why you're so butt-hurt.
You're just inciting useless argument at this point, Rainman. (Hoosier is culpable as well, I thought I made that clear) Try bringing some facts to our discussion here, instead of estrogen-fueled gobbledygook.
Now- Can anyone find legislation/court cases which define "open to the public" as it applies to privately owned businesses? Preferably instances that are dated before the Civil Rights act..
Interesting- do you have a Court Case that supports this idea? It seems feasible, but at the same time it also seems to be a part of that gray area wherein Privately Owned Businesses become Public Domain. (Accommodations, lol, sick of that phrase already)
As for Rand Paul and legalization, I haven't seen him speak on that particular issue. However, I know he would support state's rights on the matter, and I can also see him in favor of decriminalization. Does anyone have any statements from Rand on this matter?
Being a libertarian is very difficult... supporting peoples rights to do things you dont approve of necessarily... is just part of that difficulty.
J
JackTheGrower
Add Stop funding the Wars and we will have a chance.. You see we are yet to even pay interest on the 8+ year wars in M.East
That is the real danger or some could say The 500LB Gorilla in the room we ignore.
Does Rand Paul stand for stopping the war spending? Do Libertarians stand for stopping the war spending?
Seriously it's insane to make children go with out medical care in this country or the elderly who need assistance because social security is inadequate for even a simple existence when we have enough to pay for global wars.
Wars that we fight when we are not in danger except from loss of jobs and the loss of the American Dream for the average worker.
So I am all for Pro Cannabis votes but we sure do not need backwoods leadership.
Most libertarians are pretty isolationist in there approach to international politics.. What I mean by that is ... swiss like.. but as a conservative libertarian you can probably bet that like me he is all for strong national defense capabilities.
J
JackTheGrower
Is that best for the people?
Have we made enough war? I would think inter-planetary colonization would be the answer rather than fighting over resources.
Just a wild card there..
Serious what Are we fighting against ? I lost track after the weapons of mass destruction part.
:: Only if you want to chat about it.. np..
J
JackTheGrower
We have all been here before.
Perception ultimately is a singularity but every pattern of being and non-being are the basic logic of reality.
Wow.. I like Weed!
Nice thread.. I am playing the witty left-of-center part here.
Last edited:
Defense ... not offense .. unless provoked isolationist dont get envolved in others affairs its a rather libertarian approach to international politics. So after 9/11 yes afghanistan was justified because we was provoked. Meanwhile the invasion of iraq would fall into the not getting envolved.. There is a historical reference for where isolationism has led to bad things like world wars... still I tend to lean that way myself.
If you are wary of Rand's stances on War, you might want to look into his father's voting record. (Not to say they'll be the exact same in all instances)
(Taken from Wikipedia Re:Ron Paul)
Ron Paul isn't perfect, but he's one of the most consistent members of congress we have.
(Taken from Wikipedia Re:Ron Paul)
Ron Paul isn't perfect, but he's one of the most consistent members of congress we have.
Dank - No apologizing needed man. Do you and let me do me and we will get along fine.
Marq - Like I said you are a T-bagger not a tea bagger. I like how quickly you jumped down here in the mud but nothing I havent seen before from much better informed flip floppers. Here is your boys stance just a few months ago to various important issues affecting the country.
On the defense budget, Paul says we should cut what "we are doing militarily" (speech to Ron Paul for President supporters in Chattanooga, Tenn., February 2, 2008).
On terror suspects held in the Guantanamo Bay detention center, Paul once said, "They should mostly be sent back to their country of origin or, to tell you the truth, I’d drop them back off into battle ... You’re unclear, drop 'em off back into Afghanistan. It'd take them a while to get back over here" (speaking in Paducah, Ky., May 8, 2009)…
On Iran, Paul asserts: "Our national security is not threatened by Iran having one nuclear weapon." (speech to Ron Paul for President supporters in Burlington, Vt., October 1, 2007).
On Iraq, in an interview on "Antiwar Radio with Scott Horton" in May 2009, Paul said: "Yeah, I say not 'out of Iraq now,' I say 'out of Iraq two or three years ago' -- or 'never go in,' even better. But I think that when you get out the only thing that you need to propose and that people will accept is that you do it in an orderly fashion."
On September 11th terrorists: "When my dad stood up to [Rudy] Giuliani [at a 2008 presidential debate] and said that our foreign policy caused us some of what we got on 9/11, he didn’t say that it justified what those people did to us. But we have to understand that there is blowback from our foreign policy.” (remarks at Western Kentucky University, April 7, 2009).
On the Patriot Act: "I am absolutely opposed to the PATRIOT Act, would've voted no on it and would vote to sunset any provisions as quickly as we could." (Rand Paul on Freedom Watch, Fox News, May 20, 2009).
Now go and check his stance on the same issues while trying to get elected. Easy breezy baby! He is just another guy trying to get in office nothing new or exciting. He was a clone of his dad's up until a few weeks ago so what is so new. Also!! When has a big biz concerve guy ever voted for canna? Yeah I couldnt find one either. Peace.
Marq - Like I said you are a T-bagger not a tea bagger. I like how quickly you jumped down here in the mud but nothing I havent seen before from much better informed flip floppers. Here is your boys stance just a few months ago to various important issues affecting the country.
On the defense budget, Paul says we should cut what "we are doing militarily" (speech to Ron Paul for President supporters in Chattanooga, Tenn., February 2, 2008).
On terror suspects held in the Guantanamo Bay detention center, Paul once said, "They should mostly be sent back to their country of origin or, to tell you the truth, I’d drop them back off into battle ... You’re unclear, drop 'em off back into Afghanistan. It'd take them a while to get back over here" (speaking in Paducah, Ky., May 8, 2009)…
On Iran, Paul asserts: "Our national security is not threatened by Iran having one nuclear weapon." (speech to Ron Paul for President supporters in Burlington, Vt., October 1, 2007).
On Iraq, in an interview on "Antiwar Radio with Scott Horton" in May 2009, Paul said: "Yeah, I say not 'out of Iraq now,' I say 'out of Iraq two or three years ago' -- or 'never go in,' even better. But I think that when you get out the only thing that you need to propose and that people will accept is that you do it in an orderly fashion."
On September 11th terrorists: "When my dad stood up to [Rudy] Giuliani [at a 2008 presidential debate] and said that our foreign policy caused us some of what we got on 9/11, he didn’t say that it justified what those people did to us. But we have to understand that there is blowback from our foreign policy.” (remarks at Western Kentucky University, April 7, 2009).
On the Patriot Act: "I am absolutely opposed to the PATRIOT Act, would've voted no on it and would vote to sunset any provisions as quickly as we could." (Rand Paul on Freedom Watch, Fox News, May 20, 2009).
Now go and check his stance on the same issues while trying to get elected. Easy breezy baby! He is just another guy trying to get in office nothing new or exciting. He was a clone of his dad's up until a few weeks ago so what is so new. Also!! When has a big biz concerve guy ever voted for canna? Yeah I couldnt find one either. Peace.
miltonchitlin
Member
Well we are all created equal and if you don't serve Baptists in your restaurant because you don't like them what do you suppose will happen to your liquor license? I'm fine with the idea that the government is not allowed to discriminate. This founding principle should be well known to anyone who's read the constitution and the bill of rights. The discrimination of religion, race, sex, disability is not allowed by our government or it's partners.
Moreover, the constitution doesn't really apply to we the people, it applies only to the new government these patriots were creating. People are free to not let baptists in their home, when you purchase that business license you are then a partner of the government.
If you want the government to change, you have to make it change. It won't change itself.
Moreover, the constitution doesn't really apply to we the people, it applies only to the new government these patriots were creating. People are free to not let baptists in their home, when you purchase that business license you are then a partner of the government.
If you want the government to change, you have to make it change. It won't change itself.
J
JackTheGrower
Mostly I am exploring this with ya...
I can see the dynamic but I am listening to Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young.
Clouds my judgement.
We need someone to support the old Hippy aspect.. Much of the West Coast is so ready to use this in marketing that we need all Pro-Cannabis to be pro people as well.
No, how about you show me? Because what you posted is entirely consistent with what I said. You can't show me an outright flip-flop, you're just taking the media's word for it. Once again- you have nothing.
You're a joke!
One thing Im starting to accept is that Rand must pander if he wants to be elected. I don't like it but Im accepting it. His father, Ron, is an 11 term Congressman with a very stable seat. He doesn't need to pander. Rand, on the other hand, is a freshman and an outsider. Sure I wish he could stand up there and repeat Ron's platform but we know how that worked out back in 2008. The media unfairly eviscerated Ron, just like they're trying to do to Rand now. Rand simply can't afford to give them the chance to bury him.
Dare I say that Rand must pander and those of us that support him will have to trust that he will return to libertarian conservative principles after he is elected? I also expect that Ron would not be very happy if Rand basically tapped his support base to get elected then turned into just another neo-con warmonger. Rand has to walk a very fine line right now. His message on the Civil Rights Act confirms that he is still of a libertarian constitutionalist mindset while still saying some of the stuff he needs to say to win the seat in a state that votes status quo Republican in federal elections. Im going to trust him.
(Btw, he could do worse than getting the frothy left and MSNBC mad at him. If there's one thing that will solidify Republican support it's the Obama administration condemning your comments and MSNBC attacking you.)
Oh good lord. You too? Please reread what you quoted. There is no legal difference between a home and a business. Both are equally private property with the same rules based in hundreds of years of english common law.
Amend the Constitution, don't ignore it. The CRA ignored the Constitution. Do you advocate ignoring it? Once you do, you essentially give up all of your rights. That's a big reason why the fedgov has been chipping away at them over the last 50 years. You give them permission through your thoughts and actions. If you defend one transgression like the CRA then you implicitly allow more....until there is nothing left. Then I guess none of us get to own private property regardless of our skin color. Won't everything be grand when we're all poor slaves to the government...
Last edited:
C
cork144
cheers, ill be clearing up my morning cuppa tea off the screen today.
I think Mr. Paul flip flopped. In fact, he can afford to flip over his flop of an interview which equates the right to deny gun toters with the right to deny based on the rotting corpse of racial hatred. It doesn't matter the word racist was avoided, especially when he's admittedly an agent, and at national level. At least in the sense he's running for national office, publicly advocated repeal and not only admits his opinion that the law is unconstitutional because the federal government has no authority to dictate private business matters, he considers the right to discriminate as freedom of speech. It was a Macaca Moment and he didn't see it any more than ol' Cleetus, the former governor who's presidential aspirations were dashed quicker than it took to run a couple of newsreels.
I'll make it real simple...
rainman is a dick of the highest order. And the only history he and I have is when he tried to state that I am lying about my military service. The asshole tried to say that I have never been in the military, and am only lying about it. He was wrong then, and it is obvious he is using the same sort of lacking logic he did from the start of our confrontation, to base where he stands now...in a pile of stinking shit.
But, to his defense, he is no different than about half of our nation. Stupid people, with very few values to guide their lives.
Heck, don't take my word for it...just read his lame shit again.
And mr rainman can post up all of my quotes out of context, I could care less...I was responding to folks that are just like him..with number three hat sizes.
It is THEM that like to throw out baseless charges and call names, and then try to point out how they were called names by mean people. Fuck you rainman...is that good enough for one of your lame ass quotes? And you didn't own anyone at all in any of our confrontations. That is only your pea brain thinking outside of reality.
Our nation seems to be full of these ignorant sorts. More than likely folks like rainman are in reality miserable fucks of the lowest order, and live shit poor existences.
rainman is a dick of the highest order. And the only history he and I have is when he tried to state that I am lying about my military service. The asshole tried to say that I have never been in the military, and am only lying about it. He was wrong then, and it is obvious he is using the same sort of lacking logic he did from the start of our confrontation, to base where he stands now...in a pile of stinking shit.
But, to his defense, he is no different than about half of our nation. Stupid people, with very few values to guide their lives.
Heck, don't take my word for it...just read his lame shit again.
And mr rainman can post up all of my quotes out of context, I could care less...I was responding to folks that are just like him..with number three hat sizes.
It is THEM that like to throw out baseless charges and call names, and then try to point out how they were called names by mean people. Fuck you rainman...is that good enough for one of your lame ass quotes? And you didn't own anyone at all in any of our confrontations. That is only your pea brain thinking outside of reality.
Our nation seems to be full of these ignorant sorts. More than likely folks like rainman are in reality miserable fucks of the lowest order, and live shit poor existences.
Yeah, but he didn't. So, I have to question your thinking ability.
Show us this flip-flop, then.
You can't do it. Quit taking the medias word for it.It was reported that Rand Paul was for repealing the Civil Rights Act. (Which is completely untrue, he only stated his distaste for the Public Accommodations clause which is a gray area in which private business is deemed public) And then when he addresses this fact, saying that he never was in favor of repealing the legislation, the media seizes the opportunity and calls it flip-flopping.
So please, to all of you referring to his alleged flip-flopping, show us a concrete example, or shut the fuck up.
Public perception does not reality make.
- Status
