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.
That's ridiculous. If Louisiana Republicans can vote for "an Indian", why would the rest of the party have a problem with it?
Despite popular belief, Louisana is a very open culture to people of different ethnic groups. "Cajun" folk are a mixture of this and that anyway.
Now, Alabama?
But people used to say the same thing about Mormons and Romney. People voted for him, although I'm sure some stayed home and didn't vote for him because of his religion.
I am watching Huntsman. If the Dems trot out Clinton, I will likely give him a shot. I don't care for dynasties. More generally, I think Americans will want to go GOP after eight years of Obama, IF the GOP can nominate someone who is worthy of bipartisan respect. They hosed themselves twice in this election. First, by electing crazy and vindictive congressmen to sabotage Obama's recover efforts, and second by nominating two transparently dishonest candidates.
I don't know that much about Huntsman, but three things impress me. First, he has lived abroad as a diplomat and can speak Chinese. Clearly, he is curious and knowledgeable about the world. Second, he believes in anthropogenic global warming (that doomed him in the primaries, but showed the general population that he is a rationalist). Third, he refused to sign Grover Norquist's pledge. Taken together they show a person with a healthy intellect and world knowledge, and someone who thinks for himself.
Romney fails all three.
Yeah, I really liked Huntsman. An intelligent, well-reasoned conservative, with an experienced world view. My fear, though, is that the anti-intellectual, bumper sticker portion of the party will never get in line with someone like him. Its going to be a big problem for the GOP to actively garner more support from moderates and independents when you have a primary season that forces candidates to pander to the more.... baser elements(?).....of our party to secure the nomination.
Michelle Obama can wear a pair of $540 dollar sneakers to a Food Bank and have lavish vacations worth millions at tax payers expense. Sure we can all keep all our stuff in the name of redistribution.
I never said that they aren't responsible for it as well. The Democrats are just as bad for that. The issue is perception. The GOP is perceived as the "rich guy" party and as long as that is the case we will continue having trouble with moderates. You can argue with me until your blue in the face but ultimately that is the story, boss. I canvassed neighborhoods in VA for McCain in 2008 and Huntsman initially in 2012 to generate hype for his candidacy.
Whether we like to admit it or not...the GOP is perceived as the rich guy party and if we don't do something to alter that viewpoint it is going to be harder and harder to win elections.
I'm not a fan of Bobby Jindhal, but Republicans have to face facts, this is the 21st century, and pushing religious ideals and ignoring science is pathetic.
We need a real small government party, no defense, on the economy, on social issues. Republicans need to become more libertarian. Hell Rand Paul is pushing Mitch McConnel to lower penalties on marijuana. There is hope.
Rand Paul is a man who in 2010 said he wouldn't have voted for the civil rights Act because for him people have a legal right to be racist.
His thinking on this issue is so simplistic and backwards that it disqualifies him to hold any elected office.
The reality is there is no neutrality for the government in allowing citizens to practice racial discrimination in the economic sphere. The government will take a side period.
For instance lets say Rand Paul's fantasy exists and the federal government says employers, landlords, banks, private schools, private industry, etc can racially discriminate against black Americans.
So lets say a store owner says no black people allowed and a black person comes into the store. How does this situation get resolved in Rand Paul's fantasy world without the government taking a side?
The government in the above example will either support and enforce the racism of the store owner or the government will be for civil rights in the economic sphere.
In all situations the government is making a choice to support racial discrimination or to not support racial discrimination.
In Rand Paul's fantasy world the government would have supported racial discrimination against black people and thus nothing would have changed.
The fact that Rand Paul and evidently "libertarian" thought is this fantasy that the government could remain neutral is damning of libertarian political thought.
Rand Paul is a man who in 2010 said he wouldn't have voted for the civil rights Act because for him people have a legal right to be racist.
His thinking on this issue is so simplistic and backwards that it disqualifies him to hold any elected office.
The reality is there is no neutrality for the government in allowing citizens to practice racial discrimination in the economic sphere. The government will take a side period.
For instance lets say Rand Paul's fantasy exists and the federal government says employers, landlords, banks, private schools, private industry, etc can racially discriminate against black Americans.
So lets say a store owner says no black people allowed and a black person comes into the store. How does this situation get resolved in Rand Paul's fantasy world without the government taking a side?
The government in the above example will either support and enforce the racism of the store owner or the government will be for civil rights in the economic sphere.
In all situations the government is making a choice to support racial discrimination or to not support racial discrimination.
In Rand Paul's fantasy world the government would have supported racial discrimination against black people and thus nothing would have changed.
The fact that Rand Paul and evidently "libertarian" thought is this fantasy that the government could remain neutral is damning of libertarian political thought.
So for me Rand Paul is an idiot.
I agree with Rand Paul. Private citizens should be able to discriminate against whomever they want. The state colleges, schools, and public institutions should be open to everyone, but if the Indian owned convience store down the road doesn't want to serve me because of the color of my skin, that should be their right.
See you immediately jump to "He thinks that people should be able to discriminate against Black people." which isn't true. He is saying that all free citizens should be able to discriminate against who they want, regardless of either parties skin color.
Now, that said, I think that during the 60's there was a need for such legislation. But even the Supreme Court is going to debate soon a lot of the aspects of the Civil Rights act, and may indeed change it or do away with it.
Its a different country today. Lots of black owned businesses in the south today. If they don't want to serve white folks, fine. Free market would dictate that someone will step in and take all that business someone else is rejecting.
It appears that Bobby Jindal has seized the moment: the first GOP potential presidential candidate to publicly renounce the "old" GOP and call for a new course. His speech ranged widely, but among his recommendations for a New Model GOP, he specifically renounced the anti-intellectualism and bizarre fringe-loony tendencies which have been so much in evidence among GOP candidates and supporters.
This speech will certainly be important, but it will be viewed at least two ways: either as nothing more than preparatory spin laying the foundations for his candidacy in 2016, or else the modern GOP's "Murrow moment", the famous 1954 broadcast by Edward Murrow, when someone finally stood up to the McCarthy-like extremism which has damaged the GOP brand in the latest election.
And Bobby Jindal is another anti-abortion zealot, and a Jesus freak who believes intelligent design should be taught in schools.
Look at this point, most conservative elected officials because of the political purity tests are very radical in their policy positions.
The idea that ANY of these guys are going to hide the crazy and appeal to voters outside of their base is difficult to imagine, unless they do a lot of lying and pretending.
I never said that they aren't responsible for it as well. The Democrats are just as bad for that. The issue is perception. The GOP is perceived as the "rich guy" party and as long as that is the case we will continue having trouble with moderates. You can argue with me until your blue in the face but ultimately that is the story, boss. I canvassed neighborhoods in VA for McCain in 2008 and Huntsman initially in 2012 to generate hype for his candidacy.
Whether we like to admit it or not...the GOP is perceived as the rich guy party and if we don't do something to alter that viewpoint it is going to be harder and harder to win elections.
The mainstream media news and Hollywood unfortunately help project those kind of views making it look like the Dems are innocent which is far from the truth. The liberal owners of CBS and NBC are loaded with money but we have many poor people taking their word for it who are clueless. The good news is that the alternative media like radio has grown more popular over the years. 20-30 years ago we didn't have many options for information outside the mainstream like we do now but there is hope.
I agree with Rand Paul. Private citizens should be able to discriminate against whomever they want. The state colleges, schools, and public institutions should be open to everyone, but if the Indian owned convience store down the road doesn't want to serve me because of the color of my skin, that should be their right.
See you immediately jump to "He thinks that people should be able to discriminate against Black people." which isn't true. He is saying that all free citizens should be able to discriminate against who they want, regardless of either parties skin color.
Now, that said, I think that during the 60's there was a need for such legislation. But even the Supreme Court is going to debate soon a lot of the aspects of the Civil Rights act, and may indeed change it or do away with it.
Its a different country today. Lots of black owned businesses in the south today. If they don't want to serve white folks, fine. Free market would dictate that someone will step in and take all that business someone else is rejecting.
Look man, you aren't getting it. The government cannot remain neutral. It has to make a choice. To not see that is to be an idiot.
There is no way in the economic sphere that the government can allow citizens to practice racial discrimination without the government SUPPORTING and being racist itself. There is no neutrality.
To allow racism is to say it is legal to say it is legal means the government has to enforce its practice. If the government is enforcing the practice of racism by private citizens, then the government is defacto practicing racism against its citizens.
Do you understand? I don't give f c k what is in someone's heart. There is no way as a citizen of this nation that you can allow your government to support people discriminating against you in the economic sphere.
If this is the best libertarians got, that's pathetic.
Location: Charlotte,NC, US, North America, Earth, Alpha Quadrant,Milky Way Galaxy
3,770 posts, read 7,546,456 times
Reputation: 2118
Jindal to GOP: ‘Stop being the stupid party’
I like what Jindal had to say...and I'm sure the moderate Republicans felt this way all along but were hedging their bets to see if Romney could pull it off. Now that they lost the presidency, they can hopefully jetison the extremists who have held the GOP captive for so long...
Look man, you aren't getting it. The government cannot remain neutral. It has to make a choice. To not see that is to be an idiot.
There is no way in the economic sphere that the government can allow citizens to practice racial discrimination without the government SUPPORTING and being racist itself. There is no neutrality.
To allow racism is to say it is legal to say it is legal means the government has to enforce its practice. If the government is enforcing the practice of racism by private citizens, then the government is defacto practicing racism against its citizens.
Do you understand? I don't give f c k what is in someone's heart. There is no way as a citizen of this nation that you can allow your government to support people discriminating against you in the economic sphere.
If this is the best libertarians got, that's pathetic.
Look man, you just aren't getting it. Freedom means that people get to do things you may not like. This is supposed to be a free country.
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.
Jindal to GOP: ‘Stop being the stupid party’
