Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rand Paul doesn't claim to be a large L libertarian, and he's not running as one. He's running as a libertarian-leaning, Constitution-respecting Republican. So demanding total obeisance to the Libertarian platform is disingenous.
States rights on marijuana is consistent with the 10th Amendment.
If Medicare payments are so low that doctors stop taking it, the left would be screaming about limited access to healthcare. Or doctors simply bump up fees to the rest of their patients to compensate.
No, he's not running as a Libertarian. He's compromising his supposed 'principles' because he wants a cushy government job. Like I said, self-serving compromise is exactly what will happen as Libertarians try to make it out of the op-eds and into the real world. So much for that clean internal logic and those iron-clad 'principles'. All said and done, they'll just be a slightly different iteration of Republicans.
Slavery is consistent with the 10th Amendment. So ****ing what?
As for the Medicare question... are ya'll gonna let the Left define what you should or shouldn't do? Shouldn't the Holy Free Market decide? Clearly not when Randy's (and his buddies') incomes are threatened.
If a wall of text is required to 'clarify', then things still ain't all that clear.
The wall of text was needed to show proof of all the things you got wrong about Rand Paul because of your twisted agenda. You were educated and shown the door in that post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by turkey-head
Fact is that Randy can't concisely explain and consistently act on his so-called principles.
Fact is you can't understand simple statements and take things out of context and just plain misrepresent his policies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by turkey-head
Plus he's chosen to take a stand in favor of LEGALIZED DISCRIMINATION (that's one hell of a hill to die on).
It's not governments role. Why should it be, they were the ones who made the Jim Crow laws. This is another thing you have wrong so why believe you? It is societies role and society doesn't progress through force and coercion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by turkey-head
Not to mention the fact that he fully supports welfare for himself and his doctor buddies- while claiming it's horrible for anybody else to receive help from the gov't ("doctors deserve to make a good living").
Because when one is FORCED to accept a price for services because the free market is being bypassed, that person should be compensated fairly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by turkey-head
This is why people don't like him and don't trust him. And it's why he'll never be president.
Then why is he polling as one of the leading contenders. Your posts are the only thing not to trust here. Truth is treason to some.
The wall of text was needed to show proof of all the things you got wrong about Rand Paul because of your twisted agenda. You were educated and shown the door in that post.
Fact is you can't understand simple statements and take things out of context and just plain misrepresent his policies.
It's not governments role. Why should it be, they were the ones who made the Jim Crow laws. This is another thing you have wrong so why believe you? It is societies role and society doesn't progress through force and coercion.
Because when one is FORCED to accept a price for services because the free market is being bypassed, that person should be compensated fairly.
Then why is he polling as one of the leading contenders. Your posts are the only thing not to trust here. Truth is treason to some.
At the end of the day, what matters is this: Randy won't be president. Period.
But it'll be fun to watch him try. I HOPE he gets the Republican nomination. But we both know it's gonna be Bush. And he'll lose to Clinton. Just like his daddy.
No doubt... Especially when he hasn't golfed nearly as much as old Bushy did. Hard to take these wingnut Righties seriously. It is as if history didn't matter at all.
...It's not governments role. Why should it be, they were the ones who made the Jim Crow laws. This is another thing you have wrong so why believe you? It is societies role and society doesn't progress through force and coercion.
Jim Crow laws were State & Local laws. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 emulated the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Without it, we'd still have the Jim Crow laws, including public segregation.
The States & Locales enforced the Jim Crow laws. When were they going to voluntarily stop enforcing? Honestly, your opinion.
And it demonstrates the limits of his rigid ideology. All the high-minded constitutional arguments in the world don't change the FACT that without intervention by the Feds, systematic discrimination would've continued in the South. Even Randy is bending his own supposedly iron-clad ideology by ceding a slew of 'states rights' in his half-hearted endorsement of those parts of the Civil Rights Act applicable to government institutions. Just shows how unworkable libertarian 'principles' are in the real world- despite their fairly consistent internal logic.
You can see this in other positions he takes. He doesn't support unqualified legalization of marijuana- even though that WOULD be the true Libertarian position. No, instead he's splitting hairs and taking the neo-confederate route of "states rights", saying that the states should make the decision- which is certainly a more palatable position to take among Republican neoconfederates. But it's NOT Libertarian. I mean, I don't recall Libertarians supporting government intrusion into personal behavior. Does the fact that it's the Great State of Mississippi rather than the United States of America really make a difference?
And as I mentioned earlier, he's compromising his 'libertarian principles' when it comes to Medicare payments to doctors. I mean, doctors are free to NOT take Medicare payments. But instead, Randy supports increasing Medicare payments to doctors- because they "deserve to make a good living". Libertarian 'principles' for thee, but not for me.
These are some pretty good examples of why I've abandoned the Libertarians. Lots of their positions ARE logically consistent... within a simplified world-view unencumbered by the need for policies that function in the real world. Sun Tzu said that no plan ever survives contact with the enemy- and I firmly believe that. That's exactly what we're witnessing with Randy: Libertarian ideology getting just a little closer to the real world.
Right now, Libertarianism exists primarily in op-eds, message boards, and talk shows- makes it look pretty appealing just sitting there flexing its internal-logic muscles without actually having to function in the real world. But as it has to deal with real-world issues like elections (which are hard enough), and governing (which is MUCH more difficult), the ideology and those who wield it WILL make compromises. And as Randy is demonstrating, those compromises will be politically expedient and self-serving. An awful lot like those Democrats and Republicans we all loathe so much.
Well first off, Rand Paul never claimed to be a libertarian, he was just dubbed one by the media. Secondly he is and incrementalist so he pushes for states rights because A) that is the Constitutionally correct method and B) it is easier to get smaller changes to push us in the right direction than an "all or nothing" approach. By ending the federal "war" on drugs and leaving it to the states to decide on drug legalization we will be in a much better situation than we are now.
By the way, "systematic discrimination" came from the government. The answer isn't more government, it's less government. It is the same set of principles that allow the government to enforce integration today that allowed them to enforce segregation back then. You are supposed to change the culture of a nation through reason, logic, and persuasion. Doing it through JBTs and force makes you morally and ethically on the same level as Jim Crow supporters. Just because you claim good intentions means nothing, those who supported Jim Crow also thought they had good intentions too.
Well first off, Rand Paul never claimed to be a libertarian, he was just dubbed one by the media. Secondly he is and incrementalist so he pushes for states rights because A) that is the Constitutionally correct method and B) it is easier to get smaller changes to push us in the right direction than an "all or nothing" approach. By ending the federal "war" on drugs and leaving it to the states to decide on drug legalization we will be in a much better situation than we are now.
By the way, "systematic discrimination" came from the government. The answer isn't more government, it's less government. It is the same set of principles that allow the government to enforce integration today that allowed them to enforce segregation back then. You are supposed to change the culture of a nation through reason, logic, and persuasion. Doing it through JBTs and force makes you morally and ethically on the same level as Jim Crow supporters. Just because you claim good intentions means nothing, those who supported Jim Crow also thought they had good intentions too.
I'm amazed and impressed by conservaterians' ability to re-write history.
'Whites only" lunch counters were private businesses. That didn't end until the Federal Government stepped in.
'Jim Crowe' laws were state laws. They didn't end until the Feds stepped in.
And here we have Paul who literally supports 'whites only' lunch counters. Who wants such matters delegated to the same states that passed and enforced Jim Crowe laws. It's no wonder he's so popular among 'conservative' neoconfederates.
This isn't a question of 'more' or 'less' government. Fact is that like all Republicans, Paul only cares about 'less government' where billionaires are concerned. All the rest is empty rhetoric. But when it's a question of Federal laws outlawing discrimination vs. Paul's neoconfederate mix of private and state-sanctioned LEGALIZED DISCRIMINATION... well the choice is clear to me.
When somebody chooses legalized discrimination (which is well-proven and soundly rejected by most Americans)- that tells me pretty much all I need to know about them.
I'm amazed and impressed by conservaterians' ability to re-write history.
'Whites only" lunch counters were private businesses. That didn't end until the Federal Government stepped in.
'Jim Crowe' laws were state laws. They didn't end until the Feds stepped in.
And here we have Paul who literally supports 'whites only' lunch counters. Who wants such matters delegated to the same states that passed and enforced Jim Crowe laws. It's no wonder he's so popular among 'conservative' neoconfederates.
This isn't a question of 'more' or 'less' government. Fact is that like all Republicans, Paul only cares about 'less government' where billionaires are concerned. All the rest is empty rhetoric. But when it's a question of Federal laws outlawing discrimination vs. Paul's neoconfederate mix of private and state-sanctioned LEGALIZED DISCRIMINATION... well the choice is clear to me.
When somebody chooses legalized discrimination (which is well-proven and soundly rejected by most Americans)- that tells me pretty much all I need to know about them.
Well said. The Plessy v Ferguson decision in 1896 upheld the constitutionality of State laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities ushering in the ‘separate but equal’ doctrine which would remain in effect until 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v Board of Education. An earlier Supreme Court decision had limited the Federal Government’s ability to intervene in State’s affairs, including restraining States or Locales from acts of racial discrimination &/or segregation.
The States' Right argument was used during the American Civil War as well. Some States wanted the right to own people as property. Jim Crow laws were State & Local laws legitimized by the Plessy decision.
In 2015 though? To defend the indefensible? It doesn't make sense.
Jim Crow laws were State & Local laws. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 emulated the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Without it, we'd still have the Jim Crow laws, including public segregation.
The States & Locales enforced the Jim Crow laws. When were they going to voluntarily stop enforcing? Honestly, your opinion.
No, we wouldn't still have segregation laws (Note that we only had segregation laws because of the government). Economically the would have had to at some point. Oppressing half your population limits your growth and as the South got poorer and poorer businesses would have thought about the bottom line at some point. People may have their racial opinions but bread on the table trumps that.
What people need to realize is that when you give the state a certain power that power can cut both ways. Every action has consequences and sometimes they have unintended consequences. When you tell the government they have power over their people they can use that for good or bad purposes. Yesterday we were forcing segregation, today we're forcing integration, and who knows what the government will do tomorrow. Times change and at some point we might not be interested in pursuing noble purposes but by then it will be too late. We've already set that precedent. Governments that are big enough to give you everything you want really are big enough to take away everything you have.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your posts are the only thing not to trust here. Truth is treason to some.
This should clear it up...
