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

[bs0]

Then spell it out. If "control" of your personal property turns out to be controlling your private business by turning away for your private reason, sorry. Too many people did that until almost 46 years ago.

You didn't listen one bit whatsoever.

You continue to tell me that if I want control of my property I'm a bigot. You can keep repeating it but it is not true. .. Nope still not true this time. You are making a failed assumption. And you continue to do so. You believing that my motivations are solely rooted in one direction makes you ignorant.

Suit yourself. But the law assumes, I just point it out. I think you disagree with part of it.

What the hell are you talking about? I think you are judging my beliefs on your own assumed moral compass. I'm thinking that Paul didn't respond for this reason: you don't even listen to what is said, your assumption is rooted in some sort of permanent ideology of ....
I have no idea what. No law 'assumes'. None. Laws are black and white (pun FULLY INTENDED)

So how is a legal restriction a legal activity? It's only legal outside your legal restriction. Smokers and non-smokers alike have groups lobbying for their right to smoke or not. Non-smokers won.

No, non-smokers didn't win. Personal rights lost. People, you particularly, have got to understand that their rights aren't contingent upon agreeing with their fellow man. If I want to eat chicken every fucking day then damn well I will regardless of you approving or not.

It's not 'smokers vs. non-smokers', it's a person's right to do a legal activity in a private venue or not. Smoking tobacco is legal. Smoking tobacco is legal. Smoking tobacco is legal.

Smoking tobacco is legal.

Do you get it yet?

Telling people that they can not smoke tobacco in their private property is telling them that they can't do something legal on their private property.

Let that one stew for a minute.

Allow your mind the ability to see the fact there's nothing pure about racial discrimination. Allow your mind the ability to see your own position isn't transparent enough to "control" others if that control exercises them from your private business.

You are responding to something I never said. I said my desire to control my own property is pure. You then ASSUMED AGAIN THAT I WAS SAYING I WANT NO BLACKS ON MY LAND. Your brain really is stuck on repeat?

What I said was, "Allow your mind the ability to see that his position is not inherently evil, that he possibly does see it in the pure sense I do: we deserve to control our own bodies and own property. " You have denied your mind that ability. Your assumptions take full control of everything that you say. You never even read what I typed if that was your response. You deemed that people who are proponents of individual rights are inherently bigots. This is the exact reason that I brought up the Patriot Act. Opposing the Patriot Act does not make you a terrorist. Do you get it? It's not a tremendous mental leap to understand that very simple correlation.

I only agree the CRA should not be repealed. I don't agree with your "feral southern" idea. Repeal would affect more than the south and I don't think private business owners would collectively respond the way you think they would

It's a fact some private business owners would disagree with you. Being a private business owner doesn't give you a leg up on prophecy. Two centuries of racial strife as a nation trumps any idea your brethren will respond collectively.

Okay. You can have it. You just told me that I have no right to issue prophecies about society and then lay out LIKE 14 DIFFERENT PROPHECYS.

You have the sole ability to have an opinion of what the social response would be to the fictional repeal of the CRA.

If you don't like the government telling you what to do, contact your representative.

Oh for the love of god (yours, your neighbors, I don't care), NO I DO NOT WANT THE GOVERNMENT TELLING ME WHAT TO DO WITH MY OWN PROPERTY OR MY OWN BODY. NO I DO NOT WANT THEM TELLING ME WHAT I CAN EAT OR DRINK OR WHAT I CAN DO IN MY OWN HOME.

NO I DO NOT WANT MY GOVERNMENT LEGISLATING MORALS TO ME. If this is what you want then good for you.

And for the record, you COMPLETELY IGNORED my point about Arizona. The only relative example either of us can draw upon. You ignored it completely. There was no prognostication there. When one of the 50 states tried to implement a racist law they were STRUCK DOWN.

You can have your nanny government that you seem to want. Like I said previously I'm a Libertarian.

If you have something to say that isn't just completely assuming my standpoint then I'd welcome the discourse. But all you have done is repeat your dogma and attempt to label me a racist. For the record, the reason that I wanted to know who the racists were was so I could throw eggs at them. You .. disagree?

 

[Texicannibus]

Well in regards to the smoking complaint. Its well within the states rights to regulate just about anything that is not protected by the bill of rights or given to the federal goverment to regulate. That would mean that the state can pass a law or city etc.. its not unconstitutional Im a smoker and it sucks but ... state rights. Unfortunately none of them have not passed these types of laws and cities take it even further some places right into your home.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

You didn't listen one bit whatsoever.

You continue to tell me that I want control of my property I'm a bigot. You can keep repeating it but it is not true. .. Nope still not true this time. You are making a failed assumption. And you continue to do so. You believing that my motivations are solely rooted in one direction makes ignorant.

That's the trouble with getting lost in the word and missing the message. I'm not speaking to you as an individual, I'm not even convinced you're a private business owner. I'm saying your less than transparent motivation (nobody admits discrimination) multiplied by the millions of private businesses in the country doesn't afford your individual right for law's failed assumption. What you call my ignorance didn't happen at a flip of a coin, I carefully explained the first post and you're still not comfortable. I have to stand back from "control" until you explain what it means. If that's ignorant than maybe millions of mall marchers were ignorant in their demands the government enforce a law against racial discrimination. They didn't want folks to undulate between their own acceptable, self policed policy. They wanted law to remove that potential. But it still happens. The county north of mine boasts treacherous consequences after dark for black folks. No room for objective individuality, six and a half decades after CRA.

But you're free to choose that I'm making this all about me and you. To be honest, I try to look at the big picture. It's a little silly to want a pet freedom and not be willing to acknowledge the national consequences.

What the hell are you talking about? I think you are judging my beliefs on your own assumed moral compass. I'm thinking that Paul didn't respond for this reason: you don't even listen to what is said, your assumption is rooted in some sort of permanent ideology of ....
I have no idea what. No law 'assumes'. None. Laws are black and white (pun FULLY INTENDED)

The motivation behind the law assumed your opportunity to discriminate based on it's parameters, "it" revoked your opportunity to exercise, legally.

I'm just giving you reasoning behind the law. I keep telling you it's not between me and you. But you're free to take it or leave it.

It's about your "control" and what that means. You're free to feel the way you want. But when you appear to seek endorsement I'm unable to oblige. My comments aren't challenging your individual morals. I don't understand how a fella wants the CRA in force yet wants to "control" his own business. Care to define that a little?

No, non-smokers didn't win. Personal rights lost. People, you particularly, have got to understand that their rights aren't contingent upon agreeing with their fellow man. If I want to eat chicken every fucking day then damn well I will regardless of you approving or not.

You sound like an anarchist. Just kidding. You're making this too much a personal jib and it's getting boring.

It's not 'smokers vs. non-smokers', it's a person's right to do a legal activity in a private venue or not. Smoking tobacco is legal. Smoking tobacco is legal. Smoking tobacco is legal.

Smoking tobacco is legal.

Do you get it yet?

Telling people that they can not smoke tobacco in their private property is telling them that they can't do something legal on their private property.

Let that one stew for a minute.

one, two, three, Alright, stewed and ready for response.

Contact your representative. Maybe hit him with a few eggs....even roll limo, lol. That might get you some special privilege to exercise more control.

You are responding to something I never said. I said my desire to control my own property is pure. You then ASSUMED AGAIN THAT I WAS SAYING I WANT NO BLACKS ON MY LAND. Your brain really is stuck on repeat?

You brain ignores the word "if". I am responding with my opinion of what the nation would reflect if private business owners are allowed to discriminate. You use words like "control" and "pure". It's not my fault the government doesn't recognize the fact that your pure control isn't in violation. So they plucked your opportunity, not me. Quit making all this about you and look at from a national standpoint.

What I said was, "Allow your mind the ability to see that his position is not inherently evil, that he possibly does see it in the pure sense I do: we deserve to control our own bodies and own property. "

Sorry you take it on the chin from me to you brother. This is life, it's reality. I don't have time to channel faith in your right to exercise control over something you're not even willing to describe. Blame me all you want but that's what you're dealing with nationally, not just me. Your perceived transparency is opaque in reality.

You have denied your mind that ability.

Oh, damn. There I go denying again.

Your assumptions take full control of everything that you say.

pot, meet kettle

You never even read what I typed if that was your response.

Honestly, I thought I gave a dead horse of an idea the benefit of a view from the big picture. Sorry about the way you make it a personal battle but from a personal perspective, I'd probably just ignore it. If I feel like you continue the you/me thing I might just do that.

You deemed that people who are proponents of individual rights are inherently bigots. This is the exact reason that I brought up the Patriot Act. Opposing the Patriot Act does not make you a terrorist. Do you get it? It's not a tremendous mental leap to understand that very simple correlation.

Oh, there's many correlations that can be drawn my friend. "Individual rights" is as broad as it's long and "it" neither knows what it means nor cares. I can go to the next one and get a plethora of reasons to wear the teflon and stand back. If you want to turn individual rights (which isn't defined) and pure control (which is your undefined mental leap) into bigotry in my eyes, I can't stop you. But it is good to know you.

Okay. You can have it. You just told me that I have no right to issue prophecies about society and then lay out LIKE 14 DIFFERENT PROPHECYS. You have the sole ability to have an opinion of what the social response would be to the fictional repeal of the CRA.

Well, I guess I'm not alone there, chief. Talk to your rep and see what he says about it. I don't expect government's too keen on repeal to folks that are not willing to expound on their wish of "pure control."

Oh for the love of god (yours, your neighbors, I don't care), NO I DO NOT WANT THE GOVERNMENT TELLING ME WHAT TO DO WITH MY OWN PROPERTY OR MY OWN BODY. NO I DO NOT WANT THEM TELLING ME WHAT I CAN EAT OR DRINK OR WHAT I CAN DO IN MY OWN HOME.

You're a very exciting individual. Hell, you get excited just communicating.

NO I DO NOT WANT MY GOVERNMENT LEGISLATING MORALS TO ME. If this is what you want then good for you.

I don't want beefs with you, pal. Get a life and realize I'm neither in government nor telling you to like it. In fact, I took it pretty easy on you and made myself the example as I figured this would degenerate into a personal squabble with their own demon.

Accept it or reject it. It's your reality and I'd didn't make it for you.

And for the record, you COMPLETELY IGNORED my point about Arizona. The only relative example either of us can draw upon. You ignored it completely. There was no prognostication there. When one of the 50 states tried to implement a racist law they were STRUCK DOWN.

Up to now I haven't ignored anything but you're making me consider it. I don't see what Arizona has to do with your idea of pure control in private business but you're free to elaborate. BTW, check that sicking caps key, it's a bit irritating.

You can have your nanny government that you seem to want. Like I said previously I'm a Libertarian.

And you can have your fantasy. BTW, that 's the first libertarian connection I made. Just kidding. I'm surprised you say you don't want repeal of the small business part of the CRA. I also find it odd you're an egger and roller. Doesn't that conflict with other libertarian's right to discriminate if they feel your idea of individual freedom impairs their own? Seems like a dynamic conflict if you ask me.

If you have something to say that isn't just completely assuming my standpoint then I'd welcome the discourse. But all you have done is repeat your dogma and attempt to label me a racist. For the record, the reason that I wanted to know who the racists were was so I could throw eggs at them. You .. disagree?

I'm afraid your headed away from understanding instead of toward it. I don't ask to agree, I'm just reminding you what you face if chart your own territory. You insist I'm dogmatic but if you reread my first post to you, I took the liberty of presenting "if" and "or". The "if" didn't assume and the "or" gave the benefit of the doubt. So both scenarios were reduced to my dogmatic assumption one way. That's the same thing you're suggesting I'm doing to you.

Sorry man, nice try. I should have posted the edited version and saved the time. I labeled you nothing. I gingerly offered the real world perspective should you embark on the same perilous path Dr. Paul charted when he started talking about segregation. Nit picking his details may never get the light of day. That's not my fault any more than it is the nations'.

I don't condone bigots but everybody's a bigot to somebody else. I won't personally stand in your way but throwing eggs might get something you don't want. I'd hate to see your actions degenerate like this discussion has.

 

[bs0]

I don't condone bigots but everybody's a bigot to somebody else. I won't personally stand in your way but throwing eggs might get something you don't want. I'd hate to see your actions degenerate like this discussion has.

If you would stop calling me names perhaps then there could be a discussion.

Paul espouses personal rights from a libertarian standpoint.

His stance disagrees with your morals.

Don't vote for him.

And quit telling me to 'call my representative'. I was offering you insight into a viewpoint that didn't necessarily agree with your own. You degrade it into some sort of condescending description of the CRA which is totally beside the point. And you continue to call me a bigot.

You treat 'law' as doctrine. Dogma.

I think that some 'laws' should be repealed. How about every anti-cannibus law in existence? Those all arose from a desire to control our personal freedoms.

So based on your logic if I'm pro POT (anti laws), then I'm pro segregation (anti laws).

(taken further, if I'm pro free speech then I'm for child pornography... please use better arguments)

I said it before, have fun with all your nanny laws. Have fun with your Patriot Act (which you seemed acquiescent to in your response), have fun with your pot prohibition and all other laws you feel should govern our rights to ourselves and our property. I don't agree with them. This is why I am pro personal liberty.

I'll offer you this minor observation: I think in the 50's america was too ignorant to understand that we all COULD work together and be together as a society. America *did* need a kick in the ass.

If the CRA had the effect of offering america that insight, showing people that they can work together, it served its purpose. If the root problem of racism still exists then perhaps the CRA does nothing but mask it? Perhaps there is a solution to the root problem rather than treating the symptom?

You can call me names all you want, and attack me in this condescending manner. But you are completely missing the point of libertarianism. It's about your rights over yourself and your property. There is no institutionalized predisposition as to what you should do with yourself or your property.

I'm sorry if repeating myself seemed overly aggressive in my last post, but it is very frustrating to be told over and over that I am a bigot. You are calling me a name and immediately dismissing anything I say according to your assumptions about the name you are calling me. I feel like I'm talking to a fox news reporter.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

If you would stop calling me names perhaps then there could be a discussion.

Paul espouses personal rights from a libertarian standpoint.

His stance disagrees with your morals.

Don't vote for him.

And quit telling me to 'call my representative'. I was offering you insight into a viewpoint that didn't necessarily agree with your own. You degrade it into some sort of condescending description of the CRA which is totally beside the point. And you continue to call me a bigot.

You treat 'law' as doctrine. Dogma.

I think that some 'laws' should be repealed. How about every anti-cannibus law in existence? Those all arose from a desire to control our personal freedoms.

So based on your logic if I'm pro POT (anti laws), then I'm pro segregation (anti laws).

(taken further, if I'm pro free speech then I'm for child pornography... please use better arguments)

I said it before, have fun with all your nanny laws. Have fun with your Patriot Act (which you seemed acquiescent to in your response), have fun with your pot prohibition and all other laws you feel should govern our rights to ourselves and our property. I don't agree with them. This is why I am pro personal liberty.

I'll offer you this minor observation: I think in the 50's america was too ignorant to understand that we all COULD work together and be together as a society. America *did* need a kick in the ass.

If the CRA had the effect of offering america that insight, showing people that they can work together, it served its purpose. If the root problem of racism still exists then perhaps the CRA does nothing but mask it? Perhaps there is a solution to the root problem rather than treating the symptom?

You can call me names all you want, and attack me in this condescending manner. But you are completely missing the point of libertarianism. It's about your rights over yourself and your property. There is no institutionalized predisposition as to what you should do with yourself or your property.

I'm sorry if repeating myself seemed overly aggressive in my last post, but it is very frustrating to be told over and over that I am a bigot. You are calling me a name and immediately dismissing anything I say according to your assumptions about the name you are calling me. I feel like I'm talking to a fox news reporter.

If asking what you mean is calling you a bigot, no wonder I don't understand your idea of pure control. If your effort is to gain understanding, explaining what you mean will go much farther than a Sarah Palin type strategy of either accusing folks of bigotry or suggesting accusations of the same. I'm not suggesting you explain your idea to me, I'm suggesting the next time you feel the same way when somebody else thinks your opaqueness and contradicting vigilance is confusing and won't deserve you're perception of calling you racist.

I was pleased to hear today that Dr. Paul felt Maddow interview was fair. His words. And I have to agree. That's a step forward. I also heard Dr. Maddow say she enjoyed the debate and hoped Dr. Paul (and his dad) would consider continuing the discussion. I for one am optimistic Dr. Paul will have that opportunity to reflect on what was said and any conflict with the perception it may have generated. With neither side pointing the finger or making accusations, at least that conversation has a chance for understanding.

THis one I'm not so sure. Pedophilia seems like a tactic to make things as distant as one could possibly imagine. Why not roll all the crimes of humanity into that argument? That ought to foster good will between opposing views.

Obviously I'm being sarcastic, but so is the idea I'm calling you anything other than bs0.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

I for one am optimistic Dr. Paul will have that opportunity to reflect on what was said and any conflict with the perception it may have generated. With neither side pointing the finger or making accusations, at least that conversation has a chance for understanding.

Fat chance with the bloodthirsty liberal media, and their less-than-rational following. It doesn't matter what Paul has to say, to these people. They will find him a racist bastard worthy of hanging. But at least this group of malcontents are consistent.
Argue points that Paul argues, and you are a racist bastard worthy of hanging. Hell, belong to a group or party outside of the socialist cloth, and you are a racist bastard worthy of hanging.
BUT...let one of these less-than-rational malcontents raise their truly racist head to blatantly perpetuate racial strife, and they will be seen as freedom fighters serving justice.
Reason and logic are only a means to an end with these people, and should only be connected to truth if it helps their agenda.

These people just don't see what they do, but have clear view of your world.

 

[groady-ho]

Hoosier , i think i agree with ya ole' buddy..

 

[bs0]

I was pleased to hear today that Dr. Paul felt Maddow interview was fair. His words. And I have to agree. That's a step forward. I also heard Dr. Maddow say she enjoyed the debate and hoped Dr. Paul (and his dad) would consider continuing the discussion. I for one am optimistic Dr. Paul will have that opportunity to reflect on what was said and any conflict with the perception it may have generated.

THis one I'm not so sure. Pedophilia seems like a tactic to make things as distant as one could possibly imagine. Why not roll all the crimes of humanity into that argument? That ought to foster good will between opposing views.

Obviously I'm being sarcastic, but so is the idea I'm calling you anything other than bs0.

The only point I've been trying to get across to you is this:
Someone wanting property rights not inherently evil.

The reason I brought up child porn was in regards to free speech. Most child porn defences were built on freedom of speech claims.
I will defend our freedom of speech to the death, regardless of whether or not pedophiles or the glen becks of the world make use of it to spew drivel.

I feel the same about all our freedoms. Even if we have talking heads on TV looking to shock people with leading questions. Your girl rachel maddow is just as bad as beck.

 

[MarquisBlack]

The underlying point that really makes Rand Paul's case for me is this-

(And try giving me the benefit of the doubt here, and not assume I am a closet racist, though I understand why I might seem that way)

The Federal Government exists to defend the Country as a whole, to protect the rights of the individual as laid out in the Bill of Rights, and arbitrate interstate/international business/trade.

If Person A is not allowing Person B into their privately owned business, based on Person B's race, has Person A violated any of Person A's Constitutional Rights?

If Person A is not allowed to discriminate in his own privately-owned business, has his right to Private Property not been violated?

These questions are not rhetorical, feel free to interject wherever you see fit.

No, non-smokers didn't win. Personal rights lost. People, you particularly, have got to understand that their rights aren't contingent upon agreeing with their fellow man. If I want to eat chicken every fucking day then damn well I will regardless of you approving or not.

It's not 'smokers vs. non-smokers', it's a person's right to do a legal activity in a private venue or not. Smoking tobacco is legal. Smoking tobacco is legal. Smoking tobacco is legal.

Smoking tobacco is legal.

Do you get it yet?

Telling people that they can not smoke tobacco in their private property is telling them that they can't do something legal on their private property.

Let that one stew for a minute.

I gotta disagree with you here. It's been proven that second-hand smoke is detrimental to the health of those exposed to it, so your "right" to smoke in a private establishment ends when it is clear that exercising that right is infringing upon the rights of others, namely the right to life.

The Constitution is a living document that will never be perfect, but with the proper amount of discernment it will function as a defense against tyranny and oppression for another century or two.

Edit: Uh oh. Now comes in the issue of public vs. private property. What I just said regarding smoking is contradictory to my take on the CRA and the example of restaurants disallowing people based on race.

If a private business owner condones smoking in their establishment, it would be the same as a homeowner allowing smoking in their home. If you don't like it- leave. Then your right to life is not infringed upon, nor is my right to personal property. (I'm not a smoker, just demonstrating a point.)

So it is within the right of a business owner to not allow smoking in their business, however, it is not the right of the Federal Government to dictate that absolutely no smoking is allowed in "public accommodations" (privately owned, that is) as long as the business owners who are allowing the smoking make it clear that the establishment DOES allow smoking so that potential patrons can choose whether or not to expose themselves to the risks involved with second-hand smoke.

Shoo. That was a tricky one. Go Constitution.

SO in conclusion, you DO NOT have a right to smoke in any establishment that you do not own, that does not allow it. However, business owners have the right to allow smoking as they see fit.

(I realize technically business owners do not have the right to allow smoking, but I consider the rights laid out in the Bill of Rights to be inalienable, and I would defend them whether or not there was a "legal standing". I technically do not have the right to smoke Cannabis in my home, but at the same time I do have that right, do you see what I'm saying?)

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Fat chance with the bloodthirsty liberal media, and their less-than-rational following. It doesn't matter what Paul has to say, to these people. They will find him a racist bastard worthy of hanging. But at least this group of malcontents are consistent.
Argue points that Paul argues, and you are a racist bastard worthy of hanging. Hell, belong to a group or party outside of the socialist cloth, and you are a racist bastard worthy of hanging.
BUT...let one of these less-than-rational malcontents raise their truly racist head to blatantly perpetuate racial strife, and they will be seen as freedom fighters serving justice.
Reason and logic are only a means to an end with these people, and should only be connected to truth if it helps their agenda.

These people just don't see what they do, but have clear view of your world.

Although Dr. Paul has made a disparaging remark or two about the "liberal" media, I think bloodthirsty is a little premature at this point. When asked specifically, Dr. Paul said the Maddow interview was fair. Mr. Maddow returned kind words in response. The media did pick up on the nature of the interview but in part because it appeared contentious. The heat blew off when Dr. Paul answered a question on CNN and I've seen only less than excited reference to it since.

There was also a segment on the Chris Matthews show where the Kentucky Democratic candidate for Senate accused Paul of saying he would actually work to repeal the private business part of CRA. Even Chris Matthews recognized the implications and called the Democratic candidate (sorry, can't remember his name) out for making unsubstantiated claims. The guy defended his accusation, saying it was on streaming video on the local newspaper that asked the question. Since then I've seen no attempt to bring this streaming video to public attention. Journalists know the they risk backlash from what might be considered race baiting, they'll find something else to exploit, unless more statements float to the surface.

 

[bs0]

The underlying point that really makes Rand Paul's case for me is this-

(And try giving me the benefit of the doubt here, and not assume I am a closet racist, though I understand why I might seem that way)

The Federal Government exists to defend the Country as a whole, to protect the rights of the individual as laid out in the Bill of Rights, and arbitrate interstate/international business/trade.

If Person A is not allowing Person B into their privately owned business, based on Person B's race, has Person A violated any of Person A's Constitutional Rights?

If Person A is not allowed to discriminate in his own privately-owned business, has his right to Private Property not been violated?

These questions are not rhetorical, feel free to interject wherever you see fit.



I gotta disagree with you here. It's been proven that second-hand smoke is detrimental to the health of those exposed to it, so your "right" to smoke in a private establishment ends when it is clear that exercising that right is infringing upon the rights of others, namely the right to life.

The Constitution is a living document that will never be perfect, but with the proper amount of discernment it will function as a defense against tyranny and oppression for another century or two.

Edit: Uh oh. Now comes in the issue of public vs. private property. What I just said regarding smoking is contradictory to my take on the CRA and the example of restaurants disallowing people based on race.

If a private business owner condones smoking in their establishment, it would be the same as a homeowner allowing smoking in their home. If you don't like it- leave. Then your right to life is not infringed upon, nor is my right to personal property. (I'm not a smoker, just demonstrating a point.)

So it is within the right of a business owner to not allow smoking in their business, however, it is not the right of the Federal Government to dictate that absolutely no smoking is allowed in "public accommodations" (privately owned, that is) as long as the business owners who are allowing the smoking make it clear that the establishment DOES allow smoking so that potential patrons can choose whether or not to expose themselves to the risks involved with second-hand smoke.

Shoo. That was a tricky one. Go Constitution.

SO in conclusion, you DO NOT have a right to smoke in any establishment that you do not own, that does not allow it. However, business owners have the right to allow smoking as they see fit.

(I realize technically business owners do not have the right to allow smoking, but I consider the rights laid out in the Bill of Rights to be inalienable, and I would defend them whether or not there was a "legal standing". I technically do not have the right to smoke Cannabis in my home, but at the same time I do have that right, do you see what I'm saying?)

That's exactly the point I have been intending to get across now. That was the importance of my smoking analogy. Private vs public property is a VERY important distinction.

Thank you.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The only point I've been trying to get across to you is this:
Someone wanting property rights not inherently evil.

Yep, I think I not only read that but got every drop of absorption from the first read. I'm standing on that square but to get to the next one, I (not necessarily me, personally) need to know what property rights entails. I'm not the boss, it's just a matter of whether we agree or disagree. As two equals, citizens of the country.

If I was cornered and arm twisted I don't don't think I'd say this is motivated by bigotry. But the silence after the question isn't reassuring. I can handle the idea you guys want varying degrees of not being told what to do. But I don't know what that (national) pic would look like because it's apparently not the topic of discussion. So I'll leave it alone.

The reason I brought up child porn was in regards to free speech. Most child porn defences were built on freedom of speech claims.
I will defend our freedom of speech to the death, regardless of whether or not pedophiles or the glen becks of the world make use of it to spew drivel.

no comment

I feel the same about all our freedoms. Even if we have talking heads on TV looking to shock people with leading questions. Your girl rachel maddow is just as bad as beck.

Umm, that's a strange comparison. I consider Beck a shock jock and Maddow a TV journalist.

 

[bs0]

Umm, that's a strange comparison. I consider Beck a shock jock and Maddow a TV journalist.

Just because you agree with someone doesn't mean they are reputable.

There is another fellow in this thread who I'm certain would present the exact opposite opinion as you...

Maddow and all the MSNBC cronies are just as bad as FOX. They are both faux news organizations presenting biased political rhetoric as actual news. They sell advertising time, not news.

Dr. Paul pausing when asked a question wherein the response could have lasted the entire show time is not an indication of whatever "stinky fish" you might accuse him of. It was a damned hard question, and one whose response is easily misconstrued. As evidenced by this thread.

 

[SpasticGramps]

Maddow is run by NBC which is owned by GE (General Evil a top 10 military contractor) = psyops campaign.

American mainstream media is all psyops these days. Opinions are propaganda not news. News is stating the all the facts and leaving the viewer to make up their own opinions. Larry King interviewing celebrities is not news. Glenn Beck is not news. Anderson Cooper is not news. Talking heads, especially "officials" or politicians, on big screen TV's aren't news. It's story telling and fictional creation. It's psyops to put the people to sleep and get them talking in circles that have no bearing on the direction the country is going in or what is really going on behind the scenes.

Mainstream media leads to a mainstream narrative all compliments of Operation Mockingbird brought to you by your benevolent CIA. Such is the reality of "news" when the military runs your country. When you come to the conclusion that journalistic integrity does not exist in the mainstream media you must, IMO, come to the conclusion that you are watching propaganda. If you are watching propaganda the next conclusion must be that someone is trying to control your perception for some reason. And if history tells us anything, it's usually a devious reason.

EDIT: One more thing. They do a fantastic job at selling the people on fighting endless meaningless wars that have no mission or the mission always changes and nobody even notices or cares. It always starts out as "Regime change" (it's always a regime that we helped fund and put into power), then morphs into oh, uh we are nation building now in the name of freedom and democracy. We fight these wars until we the people finally get pissed off enough to get our boys out of there and stop the senseless murder of our own troops and the civilians of whatever country we have decided to occupy for the time being. They have learned many many lessons from selling wars from the Vietnam era. For military historians, it's a very impressive and sophisticated, albeit sad, psopys campaign that's been running for decades now.

 

[SpasticGramps]

I know this is off topic, but dammit if we don't stop fighting all these wars we will never see weed legalized like we want because we will always be living under a military dictatorship.

Here's your benevolent CIA admitting to creating a fake video of Osama Bin Laden all compliments of Operation Mockingbird.

The agency actually did make a video purporting to show Osama bin Laden and his cronies sitting around a campfire swigging bottles of liquor and savoring their conquests with boys, one of the former CIA officers recalled, chuckling at the memory. The actors were drawn from “some of us darker-skinned employees,” he said.

Article found HERE.

There is your Al-CIAda and the false boogieman they created to justify the War on Terror, Patriot Act, and final Hitler-ese stripping away all your freedoms. They are even laughing about it. More like laughing at us. We the Suckers.

 

[JackTheGrower]

I know this is off topic, but dammit if we don't stop fighting all these wars we will never see weed legalized like we want because we will always be living under a military dictatorship.

Here's your benevolent CIA admitting to creating a fake video of Osama Bin Laden all compliments of Operation Mockingbird.

Article found HERE.

There is your Al-CIAda and the false boogieman they created to justify the War on Terror, Patriot Act, and final Hitler-ese stripping away all your freedoms. They are even laughing about it. More like laughing at us. We the Suckers.

Perhaps Government is what keeps the people from actually fighting back?


SG .. We all Know Heaven is everything we hoped it would be but why then are we all wanting to stay alive?
Our Reward of a lifetime of Segregation is Equality in Heaven don't you know? No Libertarians there.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Just because you agree with someone doesn't mean they are reputable.

If they purport fact they're reputable. Reputable enough for you accuse of making charges of bigotry which I personally find about as irresponsible as it gets.

There is another fellow in this thread who I'm certain would present the exact opposite opinion as you...

Then he's exercising his right.

Maddow and all the MSNBC cronies are just as bad as FOX. They are both faux news organizations presenting biased political rhetoric as actual news. They sell advertising time, not news.

Well that's your right, bs0. Remember it's your opinion, no more a fact than your personal insistence.

Dr. Paul pausing when asked a question wherein the response could have lasted the entire show time is not an indication of whatever "stinky fish" you might accuse him of. It was a damned hard question, and one whose response is easily misconstrued. As evidenced by this thread.

Maybe you need to watch it yourself, bs0. The response never materialized because Dr. Paul never answered the question. He defended his stance with more rhetoric that didn't address the question. He can take all the hours he wants to painfully and awkwardly inch his way back from painful statements, only to make an about face on CNN (especially if the perception he advocated repeal turns out to be true.)

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.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Maddow is run by NBC which is owned by GE (General Evil a top 10 military contractor) = psyops campaign.

American mainstream media is all psyops these days. Opinions are propaganda not news. News is stating the all the facts and leaving the viewer to make up their own opinions. Larry King interviewing celebrities is not news. Glenn Beck is not news. Anderson Cooper is not news. Talking heads, especially "officials" or politicians, on big screen TV's aren't news. It's story telling and fictional creation. It's psyops to put the people to sleep and get them talking in circles that have no bearing on the direction the country is going in or what is really going on behind the scenes.

Mainstream media leads to a mainstream narrative all compliments of Operation Mockingbird brought to you by your benevolent CIA. Such is the reality of "news" when the military runs your country. When you come to the conclusion that journalistic integrity does not exist in the mainstream media you must, IMO, come to the conclusion that you are watching propaganda. If you are watching propaganda the next conclusion must be that someone is trying to control your perception for some reason. And if history tells us anything, it's usually a devious reason.

EDIT: One more thing. They do a fantastic job at selling the people on fighting endless meaningless wars that have no mission or the mission always changes and nobody even notices or cares. It always starts out as "Regime change" (it's always a regime that we helped fund and put into power), then morphs into oh, uh we are nation building now in the name of freedom and democracy. We fight these wars until we the people finally get pissed off enough to get our boys out of there and stop the senseless murder of our own troops and the civilians of whatever country we have decided to occupy for the time being. They have learned many many lessons from selling wars from the Vietnam era. For military historians, it's a very impressive and sophisticated, albeit sad, psopys campaign that's been running for decades now.

Gramps, I'm not attempting to defend the news filter. But I happen to think the filter actually approves news worth reporting and I don't get it from FoX without the further spin of political influence. Check out Democracy Now for another "loony left" joint that doesn't interject politics into the news they report. I'm an information junkie, not a political junkie. I can see political influence on the left as easily as the right (if I happen to know the facts behind any spin that might be included.

For example, I recognized Chris Matthews' concern when Mr. Pauls Democratic opponent accused Mr. Paul of stating for the public record his desire to repeal the private business part of CRA. But a little time may indeed expose the answer and Mr. Paul doesn't seem to care about it enough to respond definitively.

This dog is too big to deny or defend as a whole and we don't have the necessary space to debate it in BillO'reilly's thread about Dr. Paul. But I'll agree debate the media's attention to Dr. Paul's statements.

Did the media make it all up or was Dr. Paul actually connected to the statements that are considered racially insensitive? I happen to think the man opined a bunch of sentiment that the media rightfully questioned. Now, the degree of controversy can be reported responsibly or it can be fanned with the flames of politics.

A fact isn't politically motivated, it's a fact whether you stand to the right, left or middle of the political spectrum. If a fact is influenced with opinion, then I can understand where ones political or other persuasions might influence, even determine where ones "you decide" ends up.

But Mr. Pauls statements are fact. The degree of his statements may not yet be determined but it depends who's considering the significance. Because Dr. Paul doesn't respond directly when he's asked to explain the more potentially disturbing comments to larger crowds. Because even he recognizes the significance and chooses what to discuss at that point. (Reference the Maddow interview, lots of rhetoric but no direct (or even indirect) answer to the question Maddow asked and gave 20 minutes to answer. Yes/no doesn't take 20 minutes. Whether one considers the politics will influence the significance is to be determined but being pro-Paul doesn't change facts.

I agree 100% that GE has no business owning part of the news. Westinghouse (another military contractor) has no business hiding behind Viacom, the joint that says they own CBS. A filter on a filter isn't any better than just admitting that Westinghouse, another MIC player holds the control over CBS. ABC is owned by Disney, they don't build weapons of mass destruction but their political affiliations reads like a joint full Liberty University graduates, destined for PIC (The Political Industrial Complex, lol.)

In the digital media age, there are multiple news organizations that don't have a boot on their necks. I'm sure they get their share of "you can't report this because ..yada yada". But they're no more controlled by a parent MIC owner than my own decision who to listen to. If they can't get a story for whatever reason, they don't make up stuff for filler. If they do I reconsider continued viewing.

Is news the best it can be? Hell no. But I happen to think there's more valid information reported every day than I have the ability to observe. Does it make up for the filter? Unfortunately, hell no. But I find the alternative (not watching, reading or listening to the news, or parking my ass in front of a single joint) a non starter.

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.

 

[MarquisBlack]

Disco, I thought you were going to "bust a hole in my ass"? Lemme guess - I'm not worth responding to, not even to the dude who spends a paragraph dissecting every sentence of those he feels he's debating.

I also like that you'll spend pages and pages talking about which news source is trustworthy, then go on to say (in regards to the issue of the CRA)-

This dog is too big to deny or defend as a whole and we don't have the necessary space to debate it in BillO'reilly's thread about Dr. Paul. But I'll agree debate the media's attention to Dr. Paul's statements.

I don't get it. Why is the issue of news outlets a worthwhile subject, but debating whether or not Paul's statements have constitutional standing (thus proving/disproving his consistency) is not?

Or am I misunderstanding something?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Disco, I thought you were going to "bust a hole in my ass"? Lemme guess - I'm not worth responding to, not even to the dude who spends a paragraph dissecting every sentence of those he feels he's debating.

Sorry, making my own point isn't a dissection of another's view. If I choose to break it down, it's just to make it easier to address. If anything, I'm going out of my way to explain a point of view for you to consider or not, or tell me to shut the #@%& up in public, give a negative rep and a mealy taunt in private. All over the right to make my own decision.

I also like that you'll spend pages and pages talking about which news source is trustworthy, then go on to say (in regards to the issue of the CRA)-

I hope you'll understand I don't have the patience to guide you after being stifled and scolded. If you can keep up I'll humor your whim but I'm not gonna hold your hand through a re-read. That includes who I responded to.

I don't get it. Why is the issue of news outlets a worthwhile subject, but debating whether or not Paul's statements have constitutional standing (thus proving/disproving his consistency) is not?

Or am I misunderstanding something?

What else is new? Constitutionality was decided in 1964 and hasn't been repealed. It happens to be a controversial subject for enough of the nation that no discussion of repeal has existed, outside an enclave of folks that won't discuss why they want it.

You cats can shower me with the love and attention you wish. But your dog won't hunt.

Did it ever occur to you that your own stance is unconstitutional?

And about your flip flop hangup, that's what got your knot so tight I don't care to further substantiate my opinion on that one.