User Tag List

First 1151596061626371 Last

Results 601 to 610 of 798

  1. #601
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    I already know that article. I don't imply racism. At worst, he's so removed from minority experience that he thinks it's no big deal to have opinions like this, or to admire people like Strom Thurmond. He's no different than my (white) dad really. The policy itself is racist though. He places property rights over racial rights. And my main point is that he'll never be able to convey that in a good light. It's like the Akin thing. Akin was trying to convey a certain phenomena with how adrenaline works in conception, and how that might relate to cases of rape. It blew up in his face.
    The fact that you focus on that fact while overlooking the rest of his accomplishments in the senate puts you in the same camp as Maddow and the rest taken to task in the article for misconstruing the man's positions.

    I can't do anything else for you.

    EDIT - you fault him for placing more importance on a private entity being free of government intervention than banning discrimination from the private sector, even though the negative economic repercussions of discrimination would kill the business. He hates racism, he just thinks the market would punish discriminators as readily as the legislation, and its more important to protect the rights of private entities than it is to force private businesses not to discriminate as they would already be dealt with by the market. Most importantly this whole debate is moot because the law is already in place, and his stance on one prong of decades old legislation isn't more important than what he's done in the Senate.

  2. #602
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The fact that you focus on that fact while overlooking the rest of his accomplishments in the senate puts you in the same camp as Maddow and the rest taken to task in the article for misconstruing the man's positions.

    I can't do anything else for you.
    I never asked you to do anything for me.

    I'm not just singling down to one issue btw. The overall dispute is an ideological one, but the Civil Rights Act is the most symbolic. It boils down to libertarians placing property rights over everything else. The more he talks about it, the more people will start scratching their heads.

    edit: Outside her abortion stance, I like Maddow though. You can accuse me of that.

  3. #603
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    I never asked you to do anything for me.

    I'm not just singling down to one issue btw. The overall dispute is an ideological one, but the Civil Rights Act is the most symbolic. It boils down to libertarians placing property rights over everything else. The more he talks about it, the more people will start scratching their heads.

    edit: Outside her abortion stance, I like Maddow though. You can accuse me of that.
    He's not talking about it.

    Those interviewing him are needlessly rehashing it.

    I know you didn't ask me to do anything.

    I meant I can do nothing else to make you understand.

    What's particularly galling about the people who continue to portray Paul as a quasi-racist with unenlightened views on civil rights is the fact that he is doing far more than most senators to protect the minority group presently subject to more institutional racism than any other: Muslims. He has been criticized by some for focusing in his filibuster on American citizens being targeted by drones, spied upon, other otherwise violated by the federal government. What about foreigners? This ignores the fact that he has expressed skepticism of drone strikes abroad on many occasions, once going so far as to say that "I don't believe Jesus would've killed anyone, or condoned killing, perhaps not even in self-defense;" and that when Paul defends Americans against warrantless spying, indefinite detention, harassment at the airport, and drone strikes on U.S. soil, he is opposing policies that disproportionately hurt powerless minorities and stigmatized others, as so many Muslim American emailers remind me. Falguni Sheth asks:

    Is Paul any more racist in his economic and drug policy endorsements than the White House in its policies of kill lists, targeted killings, drone strikes, TSA no-fly and watch lists, Department of Homeland Security's Secure Communities program or "See Something, Say Something" policy?" "Is Rand Paul more of a threat to black and brown populations (American or foreign) than the current administration, which deported more than 1.5 million migrants during its first term and separated tens of thousands of migrant parents from their children? Is Rand Paul more of a threat to our safety than the current administration?

    Despite the White House's defiant disregard of procedure, transparency or accountability, the Democrats disassociated themselves from an important strategic ally -- a libertarian who is the only one asking the questions that progressives, Occupy protesters, political dissenters, Muslims, Arab Americans, African-Americans, Latinos, South Asians and undocumented migrants want an answer to: Will the president claim and exercise the power to kill one of us at his and his advisers' discretion?

    Compare the reaction to Paul's comments on the Civil Rights Act to Michael Bloomberg's ongoing stop-and-frisk policy and the NYPD task force he sent to New Jersey to spy on innocent Muslim college students. I understand why the Civil Rights Act is regarded as sacrosanct, but treating non-racist, abstract discomfort with one of its provisions as a more important than actual, ongoing state harassment of innocent blacks and Muslims is bonkers. It isn't that no liberal has ever objected to Bloomberg's excesses, but tell me this: If pitted against one another in the 2016 presidential election, do you think the press would give Paul or Bloomberg a harder time on matters of race? What do you think would garner more mentions, the Civil Rights Act or spying on innocent Muslim students for months without producing any leads?

    Why is that?

  4. #604
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    I don't understand why Rand would even bother discussing the merits of the civil rights act. To me the bigger issue for the civil rights act is that regardless of whether it's good or bad the main issue is it's unconstitutional. If a simple act of congress can give you rights can't a simple act of congress also take away rights?

    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  5. #605
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    I don't understand why Rand would even bother discussing the merits of the civil rights act.
    He was green when he was interviewed on it. And didn't realize the club it would become for the press to pound him with.

    That article does a great job of showing the disparity between how mainstream candidates vs libertarians are treated by the press despite the fact that libertarians hold quite a few positions that should endear them to both the media and the left.

  6. #606
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    He's not talking about it.

    Those interviewing him are needlessly rehashing it.

    I know you didn't ask me to do anything.

    I meant I can do nothing else to make you understand.
    Yeah, he's not talking now. I'm saying if he was propped up as a potential leader, it'll inevitably take the forefront again. There's a lot of feelgood "solidarity" after his filibuster because a lot liberals put civil liberties at the forefront too. Libertarians take civil liberties to an extreme though. This is where the slippery slope comes in. And the head scratching. Additionally, even more Republicans aren't civil libertarians either. I'm not sure he's the leader they want themselves. Every single social conservative is an authoritarian (for better or worse). Be they D or R.

  7. #607
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    Yeah, he's not talking now. I'm saying if he was propped up as a potential leader, it'll inevitably take the forefront again. There's a lot of feelgood "solidarity" after his filibuster because a lot liberals put civil liberties at the forefront too. Libertarians take civil liberties to an extreme though. This is where the slippery slope comes in. And the head scratching. Additionally, even more Republicans aren't civil libertarians either. I'm not sure he's the leader they want themselves. Every single social conservative is an authoritarian (for better or worse). Be they D or R.
    You can't be serious.

  8. #608
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    You can't be serious.
    Yes. How is that even debatable?

    If I'm against abortion, I'm all for enforcing that position in the rest of the society. This is an authoritarian stance on a socially conservative issue.

    Some social conservatives are systematically authoritarian however. They want laws about what's played in their local movie theaters, or what days people can buy beer (or if they can buy beer at all, like in Prohibition). As you know, the opposite of this is libertarian: Which is basically "Get the fuck out of my life." They can range from the Ron Pauls to liberal libertarians like Bill Maher.

  9. #609
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    Yes. How is that even debatable?

    If I'm against abortion, I'm all for enforcing that position in the rest of the society. This is an authoritarian stance on a socially conservative issue.

    Some social conservatives are systematically authoritarian however. They want laws about what's played in their local movie theaters, or what days people can buy beer (or if they can buy beer at all, like in Prohibition). As you know, the opposite of this is libertarian: Which is basically "Get the fuck out of my life." They can range from the Ron Pauls to liberal libertarians like Bill Maher.
    Social conservatives have generally respected state and local rights when it comes to social issues. They only become authoritarian in reaction to authoritarian social liberals. Abortion is a great example of this. The legality of abortion was up to the states until roe v wade when it was forced on everyone. Social liberals tend to be way more authoritarian. When was the last time you heard a social liberal even consider respecting a state's rights on a social issue???
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  10. #610
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Social conservatives have generally respected state and local rights when it comes to social issues. They only become authoritarian in reaction to authoritarian social liberals. Abortion is a great example of this. The legality of abortion was up to the states until roe v wade when it was forced on everyone. Social liberals tend to be way more authoritarian. When was the last time you heard a social liberal even consider respecting a state's rights on a social issue???
    I don't care about states rights very much either, so you don't want me to answer that.

    The Voting laws in debate now piss me off. I'd like to take a giant dump on Mississippi. In the name of America, the beautiful.

Similar Threads

  1. Former Republican staffer's extremely scathing critique of the Republican party.
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-23-2011, 07:29 PM
  2. The Future of Microprocessors
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-15-2011, 04:23 AM
  3. Unity within the upper echelons of the Republican Party begins to crack.
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-26-2009, 12:18 PM
  4. The Death of the Republican Party, Stardate Unknown
    By Wind Up Rex in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 08-08-2009, 01:58 PM
  5. Your Predictions About the Future of Psychotherapy
    By ThatsWhatHeSaid in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-06-2008, 07:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO