IDBillzFan Posted May 22, 2010 Posted May 22, 2010 Fools: The Tea Party feeds on your idiot criticism. So in a sense, you could easily argue that folks like Bishop and Conner and WBF are exactly like the Tea Party. Interesting.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted May 22, 2010 Posted May 22, 2010 That's what I'm saying. He's had his macaca moments and now hopefully Kentucky will come to their senses. While he may be as nuts as his father it's obvious Rand is being groomed as the great white dope of the teabagger and libber-tear-uhn fringe movements on a national level. I'm glad a Libertarian is finally getting national attention. Time to expose the complete idiocy of that group
Adam Posted May 22, 2010 Posted May 22, 2010 I'm glad a Libertarian is finally getting national attention. Time to expose the complete idiocy of that group Like they are any worse than the Democrat and Republican lemmings.
Mr. Dink Posted May 23, 2010 Posted May 23, 2010 What is your problem with Chef? Not that there is anything wrong with that... It is what it is.
RkFast Posted May 23, 2010 Posted May 23, 2010 The modern day Democrats wants the Govt. to control EVERYTHING. Paul and his ilk want it to control NOTHING. You really cant call someone names and look down on them when they use the EXACT same ideological thought process as you.
pBills Posted May 23, 2010 Posted May 23, 2010 I do like watching people fall in love with the Tea Party people and their candidates... CHANGE is coming right?? HAHAHA
outsidethebox Posted May 23, 2010 Posted May 23, 2010 I do like watching people fall in love with the Tea Party people and their candidates... CHANGE is coming right?? HAHAHA Didn't you fall for that once?
Nanker Posted May 23, 2010 Posted May 23, 2010 Time to change your Huggies, Hedd. In 1883 the US Supreme Court ruled the Civil Rights Act of 1875 because it tried to apply federal law to private practices. It wasn't until 1957 when Eisenhower attempted to begin again a Federal remedy to institutionalized racism in this country. That act - though flawed and focused primarily on protecting voting rights for all - established the bipartisan Commission on Civil Rights with power to investigate civil complaints regarding denial of equal protection of the laws and a new Assistant Attorney General to run a new civil rights enforcement division in the Justice Department. If you believe in the Constitution as Libertarians do, it's not the Federal government's place to legislate behavior in the private sector. It's up to the individual states to regulate that. The Civil Right Act of 1964 codified essentially the same stance held by the reconstructions in 1875, i.e., that the Federal government could regulate practices in the private sector and it outlawed unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public. Oh, and Senators Al Gore Sr., Robert Byrd and William Fulbright voted against it you'll be happy to know. To my knowledge, the US Supreme Court has not had a challenge to the fundamental constitutionality of the law. I believe that is what Rand Paul was referring to. However, as a practical matter even if it were to be struck down by The Court the individual states could, should and would enact protective legislation on their own. America has grown up a lot, but in addition it has lost regional distinctions and largely shows a preference for the opiate potions stirred by the increasingly heavy hand of a coercive, homogenizing federal power. Good job comrade. Soon the central committee will command all! So, if you can allow the Federal government to legislate morality regarding race, why can't it legislate morality regarding other things such as sexual behavior and drug abuse? To Paul, it's a matter of the proper role of the Federal government and he does not believe it has the authority to behave in such a coercive manner. It's an interesting position to have in the political sea of gotcha politics. But you'll be happy to know he would support government non-intervention whenever you want to have a Tea Party member put their scrotum in your mouth.
/dev/null Posted May 23, 2010 Posted May 23, 2010 Didn't you fall for that once? Yeah but when he fell for it, it was different. That was change we could believe in needed. We were in the middle of 2 wars and were bailing out all kinds of irresponsible companies. Unemployment and foreclosures were rising. A series of Executive Orders and Congressional bills were stripping Americans of our Liberties. Guantanamo was still open Look how much has changed in the last 2 years
murra Posted May 23, 2010 Posted May 23, 2010 I do like watching people fall in love with the Tea Party people and their candidates... CHANGE is coming right?? HAHAHA Niiiiice.
murra Posted May 23, 2010 Posted May 23, 2010 Time to change your Huggies, Hedd.In 1883 the US Supreme Court ruled the Civil Rights Act of 1875 because it tried to apply federal law to private practices. It wasn't until 1957 when Eisenhower attempted to begin again a Federal remedy to institutionalized racism in this country. That act - though flawed and focused primarily on protecting voting rights for all - established the bipartisan Commission on Civil Rights with power to investigate civil complaints regarding denial of equal protection of the laws and a new Assistant Attorney General to run a new civil rights enforcement division in the Justice Department. If you believe in the Constitution as Libertarians do, it's not the Federal government's place to legislate behavior in the private sector. It's up to the individual states to regulate that. The Civil Right Act of 1964 codified essentially the same stance held by the reconstructions in 1875, i.e., that the Federal government could regulate practices in the private sector and it outlawed unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public. Oh, and Senators Al Gore Sr., Robert Byrd and William Fulbright voted against it you'll be happy to know. To my knowledge, the US Supreme Court has not had a challenge to the fundamental constitutionality of the law. I believe that is what Rand Paul was referring to. However, as a practical matter even if it were to be struck down by The Court the individual states could, should and would enact protective legislation on their own. America has grown up a lot, but in addition it has lost regional distinctions and largely shows a preference for the opiate potions stirred by the increasingly heavy hand of a coercive, homogenizing federal power. Good job comrade. Soon the central committee will command all! So, if you can allow the Federal government to legislate morality regarding race, why can't it legislate morality regarding other things such as sexual behavior and drug abuse? To Paul, it's a matter of the proper role of the Federal government and he does not believe it has the authority to behave in such a coercive manner. It's an interesting position to have in the political sea of gotcha politics. But you'll be happy to know he would support government non-intervention whenever you want to have a Tea Party member put their scrotum in your mouth. Of course, Hedd will only read the first line of this post, and determine that yet again the "right" has resorted to childish name-calling/taunting. Another history lesson falling on deaf ears at TBD.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted May 23, 2010 Posted May 23, 2010 Of course, Hedd will only read the first line of this post, and determine that yet again the "right" has resorted to childish name-calling/taunting. Another history lesson falling on deaf ears at TBD. I think this brings up a great point. Rand Paul's view are VERY 1870ish. We left that thinking behind for a reason. Industrialization changed the world and the political system had to change also. Mr. Paul longs for a world that most Americans were glad to leave behind, the evils of the Jim Crow system being just one of them. Paul looks at the spill in the gulf and says "so what?" while most Americans see it as a disaster. He's a few sandwhiches short of a picnic. As are all Libertarians
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted May 23, 2010 Posted May 23, 2010 Oh, and Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. The United States did settle the issue http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...tofatlanta.html
Alaska Darin Posted May 23, 2010 Posted May 23, 2010 Paul looks at the spill in the gulf and says "so what?" while most Americans see it as a disaster. That's ridiculous. Criticizing Ken Salazar for saying "Our job basically is to keep the boot on the neck of British Petroleum." and saying "Sometimes accidents happen" isn't the same as "So what?". The fact is American "management" is all about crisis and blame placement with very little rational forethought - which was the point that Mr. Paul was making during the interview. As are all Libertarians Painting an entire segment of the population in such a way makes you a pretty big hypocrite. I'm not surprised, given that you have only the ability to concentrate on soundbyte politics. Mr. Paul longs for a world that most Americans were glad to leave behind, the evils of the Jim Crow system being just one of them. That's a tremendous inference based on no substance.
pBills Posted May 23, 2010 Posted May 23, 2010 Yeah but when he fell for it, it was different. That was change we could believe in needed. We were in the middle of 2 wars and were bailing out all kinds of irresponsible companies. Unemployment and foreclosures were rising. A series of Executive Orders and Congressional bills were stripping Americans of our Liberties. Guantanamo was still open Look how much has changed in the last 2 years Personally I believe he has done more in two years as compared to what was done the eight years prior.
murra Posted May 23, 2010 Posted May 23, 2010 Personally I believe he has done more in two years as compared to what was done the eight years prior. Explain.
RkFast Posted May 24, 2010 Posted May 24, 2010 Explain. Paul = Lieberman. That is, people are so focused on one little soundbye or postions, they dont realize the man's other 50 positions fall IN LINE with their ideology. They want to demonize Paul because hes a "racist white teabagger", IGNORING the fact that a good amount of his OTHER postions fall DIRECLTY in line with the progressive agenda. Just like Liberman. They demonized his becuase of his hawkish counterterrorism stance, forgetting the fact he's a dyed in the wool hardcore liberal on pretty much EVERYHING else. CLASSIC definition of tossing the baby with the bathwater. Dummies.
IDBillzFan Posted May 24, 2010 Posted May 24, 2010 Explain. Well, for one, the union now owns 20% of GM and all they had to do was show up to work. That's pretty awesome. And he has twice managed to increase job hirings while simultaneously raising the unemployment rate, which you have to admit, is a pretty nifty trick. Yeah, almost 10% of the US is unemployed, but we added a bunch of census workers. That counts, right? Oh, and no one in any industry wants to screw up right now...lest they find themselves facing increased regulation, an oversight commission comprised of people not from that industry, and full time demonization and higher taxes just for proving they can't be trusted without government involvment. And that's just for starters. I could go on for days, but I wouldn't want to wake Barney Fife from his afternoon nap just to start handing out more of his "you're a partisan hack" citations. Aunt Bea made homemade huckleberry pie for desert tonight, and you know 'ol Barney always likes the first slice.
Booster4324 Posted May 24, 2010 Posted May 24, 2010 Well, for one, the union now owns 20% of GM and all they had to do was show up to work. That's pretty awesome. And he has twice managed to increase job hirings while simultaneously raising the unemployment rate, which you have to admit, is a pretty nifty trick. Yeah, almost 10% of the US is unemployed, but we added a bunch of census workers. That counts, right? Oh, and no one in any industry wants to screw up right now...lest they find themselves facing increased regulation, an oversight commission comprised of people not from that industry, and full time demonization and higher taxes just for proving they can't be trusted without government involvment. And that's just for starters. I could go on for days, but I wouldn't want to wake Barney Fife from his afternoon nap just to start handing out more of his "you're a partisan hack" citations. Aunt Bea made homemade huckleberry pie for desert tonight, and you know 'ol Barney always likes the first slice. I will give that one a pass, you can continue your one lucky strike in 21k posts.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted May 25, 2010 Posted May 25, 2010 That's ridiculous. Criticizing Ken Salazar for saying "Our job basically is to keep the boot on the neck of British Petroleum." and saying "Sometimes accidents happen" isn't the same as "So what?". The fact is American "management" is all about crisis and blame placement with very little rational forethought - which was the point that Mr. Paul was making during the interview. Painting an entire segment of the population in such a way makes you a pretty big hypocrite. I'm not surprised, given that you have only the ability to concentrate on soundbyte politics. Ya, keeping their boot to the neck of a company that is ruining the entire southern coast line seems pretty smart to me. What would you do, give them a tax cut to make them feel better? It's the Libertarian/Retard way, afterall! But criticising a company that totally f*** 's up after buying all the politicians is totally un-American! God Bless those oil men! Yes, I am painting the Libertarians as retards because that's what they are. Morons with an opinion. Just as bad as the Commies, except Libertarians actually win votes. They are for Free-Dumb ya know! Oh boy, Rand Paul is gonna be fun!
Recommended Posts