Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

news2.jpg

Paul says he will run for Senate

By Joseph Gerth • [email protected] [Louisville, Ky]• August 5, 2009

Bowling Green ophthalmologist Rand Paul said Wednesday that he will convert his Senate exploratory committee to a full-fledged campaign.

...

His politics are similar to his father's, as is his disdain for mainstream Republican initiatives that he argues led to a doubling of the federal deficit during the Bush administration.

On Saturday at the Fancy Farm political picnic, he lobbed criticisms at both Republicans and Democrats, calling “hypocrisy ... the one true bipartisan trait.”

Paul said Wednesday that his criticism of Republicans may drive away some voters but that it sets him apart from other Republicans.

He noted that when he's at Republican events and he criticizes the bank bailout bill, which was engineered in part by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, he gets applause.

“I'm a Republican,” he said. “I want us to be true to our platform. The problem is, we've elected republicans who aren't true to our platform,” he said[sic].

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/200...0401/1008/rss01

Edited by TruckDriver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is this good news? He is just as religious as his father.

Based on what? I couldn't even find what religion he is. If he is a religious nut (which I doubt) he isn't talking about it, or anybody else for that matter. I you go to his campaign website http://www.randpaul2010.com/ you'll find he doesn't even mention religion once. If you do have sources for this claim I would like to see them.

I think its good news because I cannot envision my personal liberties coming under attack from Dr Paul in the Senate. This is the only issue I care about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
His foreign policy statements seem to be a lot better than those of his father. Furthermore, I did not find anything that looks like he is as strongly anti-choice on abortion as his father.

The only thing I could find about his stance on abortion was that he was against federal funding for it. This comes as no surprise seeing how he's against federal funding for almost everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As some of you might know, the "big" "controversy" going on right now is involving Rand Paul, who was recently asked by NPR whether or not he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Paul gave an answer clarifying that he supports ending all government-sponsored discrimination and ending all government funding of any private entity that discriminates or segregates, but that he could not support the Act in full because he supports private property rights.

Immediately his Democrat opponent in KY, Jack Conway, announced something to the effect of "Don't vote for Rand Paul because he wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act." That lead to an interview on the Rachael Maddow Show in which Maddow attacked Paul for being against minorities and civil rights, saying that the government should force private property owners to serve everyone, even if they don't want to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VGdP2mNPeo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ61qYT3Pe8

Paul stood his ground nonetheless (though I think by now he has backed up his comments unfortunately.) Thought he had strong internet support, now it seems like every fascist on Twitter, blogs, and TV are going after Paul, calling him a racist, reactionary, bigot, pro-slavery, and every other ad hominem you can think of.

http://www.google.com/search?q=rand+paul&a...ved=0CE8Q5QUwBg

"Rand Paul's views have no place in 2010!"

"Rand Paul wants to force everyone to wear wigs!"

"Rand Paul wants to take us back to the 1800s!"

"Rand Paul took off his pointed White hat for all to see! thought that was against KKK protocol. LOL!!"

"We have the right to NOT be discriminated against, so says the Constitution, 14th Amendment"

"Rand Paul's views might make sense in theory, but we need to be realists."

"Rand Paul puts some abstract thing like property rights over humans!"

"He gets nominated and the first thing he wants to do is repeal Civil Rights! Teabaggers are all racists!"

"I don't believe our society in 2010 ought to tolerate that," Conway said. "I think it's just this narrow and rigid worldview that he has, this philosophy. I don't know if it comes from his father. Tim Russert, a few years back, asked his father a few years ago about this. And his father said that, based on property rights, he doesn't support a few provisions of the Civil Rights Act. He said that point blank to Tim Russert."

Omg! He supports property rights point blank!

Newsbusters reports "MSNBC Slams Rand Paul: Eight Segments Totaling 37 Minutes Attacking the Republican."

MSNBC ran some hilarious headlines "Rand Paul says there's a 'but' on Civil Rights Act" "Rand Paul clarifying racist comments" "Rand Paul on repealing Civil Rights Act" etc. while they trotted out the usual race pimps Jackson, Sharpton, et al. to make the usual insipid non-arguments.

Of course Rand Paul is a paleo-conservative and thus fails to be consistent (you have the right to expel a human from your lunch counter, but not a fetus from your womb?) but in any case he's right on this issue for once, and it shows how very un-liberal and re-gressive the left truly is. Let there be no pretending they actually support free speech and freedom of association.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard this on NPR - what prompted them to ask about such a random topic? The discussion basically went: "We are now joined by Rand Paul, who won the Republican primary in Kentucky yesterday. Question 1: Mr. Paul, why are you opposed to civil rights?"

Where did this come from? Who planned this?

I remember the liberals complaining that Fox News was choreographed, so that all the reporters and pundits covered the same topic with the same slant at the same time. Now suddenly and at the same time, every journalist on the left attacks the same person on the same random issue in a smear attempt. This was clearly orchestrated, but by whom?

Edited by brian0918

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The initial reaction of leftists is predictable. They are driven by emotion today, not reason. I personally would not worry about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D:lol: :lol: :lol:

HA! HA!

The left plays the race card, yet again. Is anyone here honestly surprised by that??

Fortunately, they have overplayed that hand so much that the word "racist" rightfully gets nothing more than a roll of the eyes and a good laugh. The big R word is nothing but an act of desperation from the left. Rand Paul had such a powerful showing in the primary that they truly fear him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On this issue he comes across well.

Paul went on the Laura Ingraham radio show and stated that if he were a senator at the time he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act. That is the right answer, and it would be my answer as well. It is rare that all the factors align that allow an important piece of legislation to pass. After all of the injustices that had gone before and were continuing it would be immoral to vote this down and let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough (and for who knows how much longer?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This subject is far beyond "left-fascists." To many people the civil rights act and the abolition of Jim Crow laws is taken almost as common sense. Being against that, then and now, is going to land you a few weird looks and negative comments from just about anybody. Very few people are going to understand or even try to understand Rand Paul's position here, no matter how right he is. If droves of people understood property rights like Rand Paul does, then the country would be fundamentally different than it is now. There is a new populist movement in the country, and Rand Paul has used its support to win a GOP primary. Even if he is elected to office, I don't see some major opportunity for him to make substantial difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha, check out this rambling fool Rep. Jim Clyburn: He wants total laissez-faire! He wants laissez-faire! How can he say that? He wants people to be able to do whatever they want! Who gives him the authority to say that! Omg! Gulf coast! Gulf coast! Medicare!

Edit: You know you're doing something right when now the President is going after you.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an unambiguous victory in the struggle for equality in the United States. In a single moment, legal segregation in schools and public places came to an end.

But Kentucky Republican Rand Paul has said that he doesn't support the law as it was written. He believes that businesses should have the right to discriminate based on race, gender, disability, or any other factor. When asked about whether or not he supports desegregating lunch counters, Paul couldn't even answer yes or no.

Rand Paul needs to know that his position is unacceptable, and it will take a massive public outcry for him to feel the political consequences.

Edited by 2046

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This subject is far beyond "left-fascists." To many people the civil rights act and the abolition of Jim Crow laws is taken almost as common sense.
Exactly, and therein lies the political hurdle that the more libertarian types face: they fly in the face of "common sense". Since the bulk of what people hear is via commentators, it is a tough job to communicate that one is all for common-sense, but not for forcing common-sense on others. Even the "independent voter" with a streak of let-them-alone will think: "well that's fine when it comes to drugs and so on, but racism affects other people"! A candidate has to put his position into a couple of soundbites that are hard to misrepresent. That's a tough call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this comment from one of the videos would be a good counter to this propaganda:

RACHEL wants the Government to FORCE black business owners to serve KKK clans members!! WTF!?!?
Edited by Plasmatic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this comment from one of the videos would be a good counter to this propaganda:

The funny thing about that counterpoint is that it reveals the racism of anyone it convinces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The funny thing about that counterpoint is that it reveals the racism of anyone it convinces.

Could you clarify a little for me? When you say "convinces",what is the person accepting who is convinced?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this comment from one of the videos would be a good counter to this propaganda:

A caller on a local radio show brought up that exact counterpoint and the host was stumped. All he could say was almost straight out of James Taggart or Ferris' mouth, "But that's just theory! No one's going to walk in with a KKK hood on! You have a right in this country to get a cup of coffee! You can't but property rights over someone's right to get a cup of coffee!"

I say someone should test this out by filming just such an encounter, and when the owner objects, invoke the Civil Rights Act to show just how rediculous it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly, and therein lies the political hurdle that the more libertarian types face: they fly in the face of "common sense". Since the bulk of what people hear is via commentators, it is a tough job to communicate that one is all for common-sense, but not for forcing common-sense on others. Even the "independent voter" with a streak of let-them-alone will think: "well that's fine when it comes to drugs and so on, but racism affects other people"! A candidate has to put his position into a couple of soundbites that are hard to misrepresent. That's a tough call.

Yeah, and you know this is probably just one of the many things Rand Paul's enemies will target about him and his statements. The GOP has to be watching him closely to determine how people are reacting to him. His success or failure could determine how far the GOP is willing to go in maintaining the status quo or order of the party, which could affect the populist movement itself. It could be an interesting election though. And who knows, maybe the movement will create so many divisions in the GOP that they will split apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need folks who do better at countering these idiots :

Journalist : Are You really against the ciil rights act?"

Smart egoist: "Im against my bi-racial nephew who owns a resturaunt ,being forced by this act to serve a filet mingon to the bigot who calls him a "nigger" every day when he walks into his buisness. The same guy who called him a "monkey" every morning on his way to the bus stop in highschool!"

Journalist: What do you think about President Obamas comments about Rand Paul?

Smart egoist: "What I think is Obamas comments have nothing to do with alleged racism and everything to do with his Fascism!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The initial reaction of leftists is predictable. They are driven by emotion today, not reason. I personally would not worry about it.

If there is something to worry about, it would be the reaction of independent voters in KY who may decide this election. If they are persuaded that Rand Paul is a racist, would that change their vote, assuming a majority are leaning towards Rand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... countering these idiots
Unfortunately, your sample responses won't work for the "average independent voter". You're inviting the listener to think of two examples:

1. Freedom to refuse to serve a rude, bigot

2. Freedom to refuse to serve a normal guy off the street

... and you're inviting the listener to see that the same principle of freedom applies to both.

However, while the same political principle applies to both, the same moral evaluation does not. The listener see that the first example is okay, while the second is immoral. So, his mind goes to thinking that the law should (perhaps) allow the first and disallow the second.

One would need to address the underlying assumption. One would need to convince him that the law must allow people to act immorally toward other people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately, your sample responses won't work for the "average independent voter". You're inviting the listener to think of two examples:

1. Freedom to refuse to serve a rude, bigot

2. Freedom to refuse to serve a normal guy off the street

... and you're inviting the listener to see that the same principle of freedom applies to both.

However, while the same political principle applies to both, the same moral evaluation does not. The listener see that the first example is okay, while the second is immoral. So, his mind goes to thinking that the law should (perhaps) allow the first and disallow the second.

One would need to address the underlying assumption. One would need to convince him that the law must allow people to act immorally toward other people.

Yes indeed on the need to address the underlying assumptions. I was pointing to the specific context of the method the

media was using against Paul in the limited context of those shows. One is not likely to lay enough foundation to debate the underlayment in this case, in the time allotted, but the responses I was thinking of would go a long way at reducing the strawmen against him to absurdity quickly. In essence nullifying the attempt to marshall emotional responses against him based on said strawmen.

Edited by Plasmatic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...