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

[Unsane]

I'm all for legalizing cannabis but I wouldn't vote for Ayn Rand Paul. He espouses a radical ideology of free-market fundamentalism. While some like him for his "outsider" status, he will ultimately cave-in to the Republican Establishment when he caucuses with them in the Senate. Like the "maverick" John McCain, Randroid Paul will become a partisan hack--a tool for the party which stands for a society that benefits the few while the we, the rest, suffer.

 

[White-rhino]

I wonder if or when he wins the Senate seat if the congressional black caucus will send him an application to join up. And if not, why. Or will he have to start his own caucus, whites only, and why not.

Normal, rational thinkers can easily tell who the real racists are in this country.

 

[Danks2005]

do you believe there are entire communities in the south that would not protest a racist business owner and his business would still succeed ?

It would be rare, and if so, it would be the duty of all compasionate people within driving distance to come protest. This is the age of technology, a few mass emails is all it would take. But what i am getting at is that these racist douchbags are still racist, only you don't know it because they are hiding behind federal law, and if they are brazen enough to discriminate for no reason, I would like to know, so that i no longer spend in their business, and can disassosciate myself from them socially.

Some feel as strongly about drugs, as you do about racial prejudice. I say stay the fuck out of others personal decisions. Protest non-violently, through boycott and picketing, if you disagree. Or mind your own business all together. If a community wants segregation, and the Feds say no you can't , I still don't want anything to do with said community, they are still racist.

 

[GP73LPC]

It would be rare, and if so, it would be the duty of all compasionate people within driving distance to come protest. This is the age of technology, a few mass emails is all it would take. But what i am getting at is that these racist douchbags are still racist, only you don't know it because they are hiding behind federal law, and if they are brazen enough to discriminate for no reason, I would like to know, so that i no longer spend in their business, and can disassosciate myself from them socially.

Some feel as strongly about drugs, as you do about racial prejudice. I say stay the fuck out of others personal decisions. Protest non-violently, through boycott and picketing, if you disagree. Or mind your own business all together. If a community wants segregation, and the Feds say no you can't , I still don't want anything to do with said community, they are still racist.

i really don't disagree with you in theory... believe me, i want the govt the fuck out of my life !!!

but with that said, i just feel without some govt control in this area we would take steps backwards and like it or not i really feel there would be pockets of America that would be segregated by choice.

those area's would be hot pockets for violence and open discrimination...

 

[ItsGrowTime]

Are you saying you support his "right" to ban blacks, however you do not support his freedom of speech/freedom not to speak?

Again mixing freedom of speech with civil liberties. two unrelated issues.

Say what? Unrelated issues? This whole issue is centered on the First Amendment, freedom of speech and the right to own property, which are collectively "civil liberties" along with everything else in the Bill of Rights. Way too many know-a-little-talk-alots spouting off these days and it's maddening. Whether I disagree or not with someone's speech has NOTHING to do with their right to speak it. If someone wants to stand on the highest point and scream about how much they hate (insert race/religion/age/etc here) then that's their business, not mine, not yours, and not the government's.

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

It's a sad commentary when the private property rights of a business owner is trumped by the government in the form of legislation forcing people to allow others onto their property. Paul's position is rooted in the Constitutional rights to speech (even if the speech is offensive) and the right to own property. If you accept that the government can mandate anyone to do anything on their own private property then you believe that you never actually own your property. I also don't see any mention of the other side of this coin, which is "black clubs", "gay clubs", etc. There's a hispanic bar in my neighborhood that clearly says "Bienvenidos Amigos!" on the sign and it's well known that any non-hispanics that enter will be asked to leave, sometimes forcibly. Why does this whole debate center around "white racists" when racism is all over? It's never going away. Besides, the true free market would address racism in today's society better than a bunch of old people sitting in the US Capitol.

I agree with Rand's position and I wish he had stuck with it instead of backtracking. Besides, why is a 40 year old law the important topic of the day? This is diversion and distraction from the real issues that matter TODAY. The Democrats can't beat Paul on the issues that matter today like the economy so they have to distract with non-issues like this. Don't fall for the dog and pony show!

 

[darrylRouson]

Say what? Unrelated issues? This whole issue is centered on the First Amendment, freedom of speech and the right to own property, which are collectively "civil liberties" along with everything else in the Bill of Rights. Way too many know-a-little-talk-alots spouting off these days and it's maddening. Whether I disagree or not with someone's speech has NOTHING to do with their right to speak it. If someone wants to stand on the highest point and scream about how much they hate (insert race/religion/age/etc here) then that's their business, not mine, not yours, and not the government's.

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

It's a sad commentary when the private property rights of a business owner is trumped by the government in the form of legislation forcing people to allow others onto their property. Paul's position is rooted in the Constitutional rights to speech (even if the speech is offensive) and the right to own property. If you accept that the government can mandate anyone to do anything on their own private property then you believe that you never actually own your property. I also don't see any mention of the other side of this coin, which is "black clubs", "gay clubs", etc. There's a hispanic bar in my neighborhood that clearly says "Bienvenidos Amigos!" on the sign and it's well known that any non-hispanics that enter will be asked to leave, sometimes forcibly. Why does this whole debate center around "white racists" when racism is all over? It's never going away. Besides, the true free market would address racism in today's society better than a bunch of old people sitting in the US Capitol.

I agree with Rand's position and I wish he had stuck with it instead of backtracking. Besides, why is a 40 year old law the important topic of the day? This is diversion and distraction from the real issues that matter TODAY. The Democrats can't beat Paul on the issues that matter today like the economy so they have to distract with non-issues like this. Don't fall for the dog and pony show!

You're confusing private property with a public place, you constitutional scholar you. Your private house is not a public venue like a concert hall or lunch counter that is open to the public.

If you are open to the public, you cannot put up a no niggers sign. You guys are disagreeing with that. Pretty fucked up.

"why is a 40 year old law the important topic of the day?"
Because Rand Paul expressed disagreements with it, ask him, not me. 90% of America is going to make a big deal because it is one.

No one is mandating your speech or actions, just forcing you to allow equal access to your public venue. Stop diluting the issue.

 

[Danks2005]

Say what? Unrelated issues? This whole issue is centered on the First Amendment, freedom of speech and the right to own property, which are collectively "civil liberties" along with everything else in the Bill of Rights. Way too many know-a-little-talk-alots spouting off these days and it's maddening. Whether I disagree or not with someone's speech has NOTHING to do with their right to speak it. If someone wants to stand on the highest point and scream about how much they hate (insert race/religion/age/etc here) then that's their business, not mine, not yours, and not the government's.

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

It's a sad commentary when the private property rights of a business owner is trumped by the government in the form of legislation forcing people to allow others onto their property. Paul's position is rooted in the Constitutional rights to speech (even if the speech is offensive) and the right to own property. If you accept that the government can mandate anyone to do anything on their own private property then you believe that you never actually own your property. I also don't see any mention of the other side of this coin, which is "black clubs", "gay clubs", etc. There's a hispanic bar in my neighborhood that clearly says "Bienvenidos Amigos!" on the sign and it's well known that any non-hispanics that enter will be asked to leave, sometimes forcibly. Why does this whole debate center around "white racists" when racism is all over? It's never going away. Besides, the true free market would address racism in today's society better than a bunch of old people sitting in the US Capitol.

I agree with Rand's position and I wish he had stuck with it instead of backtracking. Besides, why is a 40 year old law the important topic of the day? This is diversion and distraction from the real issues that matter TODAY. The Democrats can't beat Paul on the issues that matter today like the economy so they have to distract with non-issues like this. Don't fall for the dog and pony show!

I like your style

 

[MostHigh]

The liberal left is making fools out of themselves, swarming around Paul.

ffs...hes an easily flappable newb and they're blowing a gasket as if he's poised for the Oval Office.

Frign amateurs.

 

[darrylRouson]

This thread makes me sad. How could anyone watch the Rachel Maddow interview in it's entirety and still think he is racist/pandering to "the racists"? (As though there is a "white-racist caucus" lmao)

Damn this is why I don't like having discussions on here, no one reads my posts. He is not a racist. The NAACP said hes not a racist.

However the problem with him is he is so much more like a philosopher than a scientist. A philosopher ignores real world consequences and does what they think is right. A scientist admits hes wrong.

Rand Paul looks back at the result of ending segregation; and some-fucking-how sees a philosophical problem. That my friends, is the definition of FRINGE.

Let me ask this. If your wife was Jewish and you white, and you were trying to rent a house, and that realtor handed you a flyer that said no dirty jew lovers allowed (and you loved your wife very much), would you not be oppressed? There are entire areas where it is still like this even under the civil rights act. You take it away and there's going to crop up a lot of stuff like this.

But that's ok because we'll just boycott the whole country. That will solve unemployment too. 200 million Americans boycott their jobs, boom 200 million job openings. I should be a politician too huh? Everything I think of works on paper. = This is the type of logic that frustrates me

Rand Paul: Obama BP criticism 'un-American'

WASHINGTON - Kentucky Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul said Friday that President Barack Obama's criticism of BP in the wake of the Gulf oil debacle sounds "really un-American."

Paul, already facing a backlash over remarks earlier this week about civil rights legislation, criticized the Obama administration for declaring it will put its "boot heel on the throat of BP." White House spokesman Robert Gibbs used similar language shortly after the spill.

In an interview Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America," Paul says the president's response is part of the "blame game" that's played in the United States.

Paul said that leads to the thinking that tragic incidents are "always someone's fault" and added, sometimes accidents just happen.

More: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37273085/ns/politics-decision_2010

Congrats AynRand Paul on your three-day self-inflicted political suicide. Rarely does it happen that quickly and completely.

Simply stated, he is just dumb.

Accidents just happen. Of course, that's why you don't sign off shore drilling permits in over a mile of water, where we can't deal with said accidents. ROFLcopter.

wow wow wow. Let's elect this eye doctor and political novice

Day 1) Signs off on more off shore drilling (its a free country)
Day 2) Millions of more gallons of oil leak out
Day 3) signs off on more off shore drilling (its a free country)
...
Day 4) Mineral Management tries to intervene
Day 5) Rand Paul shuts down the MMS (its a free country)
Day 6) signs more off shore drilling permits
Day 7) your kids are "free" to go to the beach and swim in the oil.

 

[Danks2005]

A philosopher ignores real world consequences and does what they think is right.

Just what we don't need in gov't, somone who does what they think is right.

 

[MostHigh]

The liberal left, stimulated by the media industry (who absolutely will manufacture controversy any chance it can...it is after all the source of their revenue, anyway)
has conflated and misconstrued Paul to the nth degree.

While I don't back him, I am most alarmed at the amount of foam dripping from the liberal left's mob and siege mentality.

 

[Danks2005]

Let me ask this. If your wife was Jewish and you white, and you were trying to rent a house, and that realtor handed you a flyer that said no dirty jew lovers allowed (and you loved your wife very much), would you not be oppressed? There are entire areas where it is still like this even under the civil rights act. You take it away and there's going to crop up a lot of stuff like this.

But that's ok because we'll just boycott the whole country. That will solve unemployment too. 200 million Americans boycott their jobs, boom 200 million job openings. I should be a politician too huh? Everything I think of works on paper. = This is the type of logic that frustrates me

I wouldn't want this property owner to rake in my cash, and I would continue looking, after excersising my right to free speach, and telling him what I think of him.

Boycott the whole country, i guess if that's what it takes. You seem to have no faith in the country as a whole to do the right thing.

 

[darrylRouson]

You seem to have no faith in the country as a whole to do the right thing.

That's why its a republic and not a democracy, because the founding fathers agreed with me.

Asked if they know someone they consider racist, 43 percent of whites and 48 percent of blacks said yes. - http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/12/racism.poll/index.html
University of Connecticut professor Jack Dovidio, who has researched racism for more than 30 years, estimates up to 80 percent of white Americans have racist feelings they may not even recognize.

You don't have to be a out-spoken racist to take discriminating actions.

 

[Danks2005]

That's why its a republic and not a democracy, because the founding fathers agreed with me.

Asked if they know someone they consider racist, 43 percent of whites and 48 percent of blacks said yes. - http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/12/racism.poll/index.html
University of Connecticut professor Jack Dovidio, who has researched racism for more than 30 years, estimates up to 80 percent of white Americans have racist feelings they may not even recognize.

First of all Polls are Bullshit.

racist feelings they don't recognize, what the fuck is that.

80%=BULLSHIT

 

[The King Adrock]

I donno....Rand Paul just doesn't seem to be a Ron Paul to me.

I didn't find a mention of the drug war on his website at all...

 

[Fuzz420]

That's why its a republic and not a democracy, because the founding fathers agreed with me.

Asked if they know someone they consider racist, 43 percent of whites and 48 percent of blacks said yes. - http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/12/racism.poll/index.html
University of Connecticut professor Jack Dovidio, who has researched racism for more than 30 years, estimates up to 80 percent of white Americans have racist feelings they may not even recognize.

You don't have to be a out-spoken racist to take discriminating actions.

good thing your wrong and its actually a DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLIC, not purely democratic and not purely republic, but entities of BOTH!!!!

Like Ive said before race baiting is system of control, to divide and conquer to fill the globalist agenda

Right now they are saying jump and the masses are saying how high

Im glad im not brainwashed, feels good to be free mind to think and learn as i will without influence from the Main stream media

 

[hoosierdaddy]

While I don't back him, I am most alarmed at the amount of foam dripping from the liberal left's mob and siege mentality.

It's par for their course.
It is accepted practice by these people. In fact, it is encouraged...but only if used against their opponents. Anyone in their camp is immune from the rules the left thinks the right must play by. They left will justify any and all actions by their own.
The most fake and phony group of people I have ever witnessed in my lifetime. Each and every one of them could give a fuck less about truth, honesty, and integrity.
The substance of arguments and debates do not matter o these types of folks, and only the spin they are told to place on each and every issue is all that matters. It is ALL that fucking matters to these folks.
I've seen these sorts of tactics take place for decades now, and it sickens me. For the life of me I cannot imagine anyone wanting to actually align themselves with such a shallow and unintelligent group of people. People that cannot win in the arena of ideas, so they must demonize their opponent to have any chance at all to put forth their ideas.
Which, btw...all root back to progressive socialism, which gargles the balls of all good people on the planet. The advocates of this ideology don't even know that that is what they are fighting for. They have no clues, apparently. All they know is the party line and the spin that the media or academia gives them.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

racist feelings they don't recognize, what the fuck is that.

That, is what justifies these fucks throwing around the racist charge at folks just because they live in a certain area or state. You know, the way some of the sad bastards have done in here?
We are supposed to accept their charges, and really we should thank them for bringing it all out in the open for us, because we obviously have racist feelings that we just don't recognize. We need these dumb fucks to bring this to light for us all..don't you see?
Oh, and about 20% or so find themselves to be progressive liberals...wow, now there is your 20% that knows bygawd what they are all about. The other 80% just accept that you are a racist bastard.

I really need to stop even reading this shit...you leftist fucks absolutely sicken me. Grow some fucking brains people, and stop depending on others for your total existence.
Good fucking grief folks. (sad and shaking head)

 

[White-rhino]

good thing your wrong and its actually a DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLIC, not purely democratic and not purely republic, but entities of BOTH!!!!

Wrong. No where in the constitution is the word democracy, or any derivation of the the word. Matter of fact, the constitution is anti-democracy as it protects the individual from the mob. The US is a Constitutional Republic, not a democratic republic. Huge difference.

The founding fathers knew all about democracies, and if they had wanted to repeat the mistakes of the past would have made the US a democracy. They specifically did not. The intention of the constitution was to make it so that 300 million voters could not vote to take away the individual rights of even one person.

 

[Fuzz420]

Oh so now you guys care about the constitution and what it says, but too bad that point is irrelevent. The constitution is the framework, for our DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLIC.The people vote democratically for a representation, and in congress the people are represented by the people they are elected, but the people dont vote directly. How is this not a Democratic-republic again?