|SolRo - 2010-05-20 |
I loved this.
this douche is going to make the election so interesting, if he actually ever does an interview again after having a lesbian rip his nuts off on national television.
His pious musing about Constitutional philosophy and the theoretical transgressions committed by the tenth title of the Civil Rights Act will be utterly annihilated by the popular opinion the pilots the legislative process.
Curious about how that fits into his philosophy.
|APE_GOD - 2010-05-20 |
Oh man he is going to be a fun one.
|kamlem - 2010-05-20 |
Institutional segregation isn't an issue - for white rich hetro males...
|cognitivedissonance - 2010-05-20 |
I look forward to President Rand Paul.
We can make him President of Pedo Island, and have all the fun and none of the mess.
|Stopheles - 2010-05-20 |
His name reads like something out of THE DARK KNIGHT STRIKES AGAIN.
His name means "shield", which is exactly what happened in his childhood... he was shielded by his father from reality.
This guy is a jazzbo, and is only getting by on his father's name, and white resentment.
|Ocyrus - 2010-05-20 |
What I find interesting is that as she kicks off the actual exchange, she lobs an allegation from the editorial board that really didn't have any grounds in what the guy actually said.
Oh well, I've never met an honest person in my life, don't know why I thought this dyke might be.
Is there a constitutional guarantee of swimming privileges?
Is there a constitutional guarantee of getting to tell someone else how to run their business, or does it just open the whole affair up to people doing what their own free will guides them to. That is, unless you are opposed to individual freedoms.
So if all airlines decided not to allow libertarians on their flights, you'd be on the front lines defending their right to ban idiots from air travel?
Sorry, Cena_mark won't suck your dick.
"Is there a constitutional guarantee of getting to tell someone else how to run their business?"
Yes, there is. Article 1, Section 8 grants congress the power to pass laws necessary to uphold constitutional rights, and the 14th amendment grants all citizens equal protection under the law.
Taken together, these two elements of the constitution mean the federal government does have the right to tell business owners they can't be discriminatory.
Ocyrus, you're so fat that you were never a marine. They don't let fatties be marines.
Using that logic, then a newspaper is stomping on someone's 1st amendment rights by not publishing an article they submit. The Constitution applies to the government -- not private citizens/businesses.
Current interpretation by the SCOTUS of the interstate commerce clause would be a better bet for citation.
You could have just said "I agree with Rand Paul". Just because she takes a different position than you doesn't mean you now have to accuse her of lying. He made that statement. They had video of that on this video, followed by 20 minutes of him explaining that yes, that is his position.
You can't just claim he didn't say that and then say you agree with him.
There is a difference between what he said and what was said about what he said.
Listening skills aren't your forte, are they?
We're reading, not listening!
HAH! Stupid fat faggot. You got HANDLED!
|Bort - 2010-05-20 |
How on earth didn't he see this line of questioning coming? Look, if you're on stage on "Jerry Springer" with your wife and there's an empty chair next to her, you have no business being surprised by the surprise guest. And if you've been accused of wanting segregated lunch counters and a well-known progressive lesbian invites you on to her show, you really should expect it's going to come up.
Even I could answer this better than he can: "In 1964, I would have been troubled by the restrictions on private business imposed by the Civil Rights Act, but all in all I think I would have voted for it. That said, it is no longer 1964; the world of 2010 is very different, and we no longer need federal law to prevent segregation at lunch counters. Any establishment that tried that today would go out of business within six months, between bad PR and boycotts." That would be a bullshit answer, but at least it wouldn't have taken 20 minutes to get through.
|Ocyrus - 2010-05-20 |
Here's the thing... I actually agree with him to a point.
I don't want to tell anyone what they can/can't do, but society as a whole and the free market will destroy any business that chooses to be segregated at this point. People will not support overt racists, unless they are racists themselves, and there is a long history of boycotts that have worked.
He's got a point about private ownership of businesses, and she's just trying to drive the public discussion of his candidacy.
And just because of her self-righteousness, I'm banning lesbians from my office today. I wonder if anyone will notice.
"society as a whole and the free market"
I hear that sort of phrase repeated a lot by libertarians, as a magic cure to any and all ills. Just this year, we heard a story about a community pool that banned black kids, because the white residents there thought they were "dirty". And while that situation was addressed, there are many more cases we don't hear about.
If there's some sort of proof that "society and the free market" would address the situation so thoroughly as to create no need for the law, I'd be glad to hear it. But when it comes to discrimination, of all issues, I'd think there's an interest in the government making a statement against it, even if it weren't going on.
Hey, IrishWhiskey, no one told you but that's not what happened at that YMCA pool in the Baltimore area. But hey, liberal media's got a corner on the information market, so I'm not surprised.
Anyhow, if someone wanted to open a business, and they said they wouldn't serve white men, then I'd simply not give them any of my business. I'd get everyone I knew to stay away from them, and they would get everyone they knew. Even if it were some dude discriminating against another group of people that I don't belong to, I would still join any boycott in solidarity.
And Billy Burns, I'm not talking about the hot porno lesbians, I'm talking about the real-life ones.
Libertarians are the right-wings hippies...they are stupid, ugly, and have no idea or interest in how the real world works.
Also love your whole "I'd defend any minority by not buying a hoggie from some place" argument while at the same time bashing lesbians.
Yeah, that sure does work in Bumfuck, Alabama where the nearest restaurant that serves niggras is 300 miles away you stupid shit.
Libertarians are all such fat faggots.
Everything out of your mouth sounds like a half-hearted parody of what you believe in.
"the free market will destroy any business that chooses to be segregated at this point"
As someone who has grown up and lived most of his life in the south, it will not. By your logic, some country clubs who segregate to this day would then be out of business - yet they thrive.
I guess the free market would prevent the BP Oil spill and the Massey mining disaster, too? Oh wait...
It is not the government's place to tell construction companies or the business owners how to design their buildings. Eventually the buildings that collapse or kill everyone in a fire will be driven out of business by the free market in today's society.
Those people should have just put a little more research into which businesses they patronage, ami'right?
You agree with his ghooost point!
|e-Sensei - 2010-05-20 |
Libertarianism makes for nice bumper stickers but rarely translates well from the internets to actual policy.
|chumbucket - 2010-05-20 |
the guy looks like the southern version of Howard Dean
|dueserpenti - 2010-05-20 |
THE REASON YOUR OFFICE HAS A RAMP IN IT IS BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT MADE YOU GET ONE. BECAUSE OF THE ADA. YOU FUCK.
That said, I love this guy. Keep splitting that vote, you dumb, dumb, dumb motherfucker.
That's what I'm saying. It's absolutely irrelevant if he wins or not judging from the snippet of Hardball I caught yesterday where Chris Matthews and the GOP strategist he had on were dumbstruck by Paul's *actual* positions. Every single Republican on the national stage is going to have to either be against the Teabagger darling or for the repeal of the ADA, CRA and abolishing the Department of Agriculture (when their base is uniformly rural).
Except he isn't going to split the vote. The Republicans here in Kentucky would vote in a rotting zombie corpse before they voted for a Democratic candidate (See: Jim Bunning).
So Randroid Paul's electoral fate will pretty much be decided by whether or not more Kentucky Democrats can be bothered to vote than can Republicans. ...You know, unless some enterprising young person hacks his email and exposes Rand's hidden desires to be a pretty pretty kitty to the world.
|spikestoyiu - 2010-05-20 |
How many times is "Ocyrus" going to post about this video before it leaves the front page? 10? 12? Anyone wanna guess?
Really? Because I engaged in slight back-and-forth, you accuse me of being a posting squatter?
Paint my house, bitch.
|wtf japan - 2010-05-20 |
I believe Rand Paul's political philosophy is unrealistic at best and evil at worst. That said, I would MUCH rather the opposition be well-spoken libertarians than the idiotic proto-fascists conventionally supported by the Tea Party. Libertarians aren't fascists--far from it--and, since they can work within the right without the right being smart enough to realize what they are, I wish them as much success as they can have without upsetting progressives.
I found this interview to be one of the few instances where Rachel Maddow came across kind of badly. It's clear that he opposes partial nationalization of private businesses. The only reason to press the issue further is to get a sound bite that can poison the well of discourse. Bad form.
Either that or else she's trying to get a little clarity on the matter. He's said he doesn't think the Civil Rights Act should interfere with private enterprise, and it's fair to wonder how much of that is libertarianism and how much of that is bigotry looking for legal justification (the way that "states' rights" never comes up except when someone wants to stick it to minorities). Rand's painted himself into that corner and only he can, uh, paint his way out; and it's got to start with him admitting point-blank that he thinks bigots have the right to do bigoted things.
I'm glad Rachel didn't guide him to any easy resolution ("... so you seem to be saying that bigotry is wrong but you don't think federal law is the way to combat it, correct?"), because he really needs to say what he thinks. Rachel gave him every chance, but he wasn't at all prepared to answer the question.
I'm sorry, I didn't see a well-spoken libertarian in this clip. He was bordering on completely unintelligible and refused to answer a really, really simple yes or no question yes or no. Barry Goldwater fucking answered it yes or no, he can too.
Excuse me. I should have said *relatively* well-spoken. Well-spoken enough to reflexively arouse the consternation of all of the liberal dogmatists on this forum, apparently.
I think Dr. Paul is wrong in his opinion, but it is a delicate opinion about a rather important and complicated piece of legislature. If you want to see similar arguments put more eloquently, I think you should check out some of the dissenting essays in "What Brown v. Board Should Have Said," Balkin, ed.--and those are about institutionalized segregation, no less.
It is not fair to force him to formulate his opinion as "I don't think black people should be allowed in Wallgreens," because that's not the whole story. That's like forcing a pro-choice advocate to say plainly that they endorse baby-murder. Also, Goldwater, sadly, could get away with a simple answer because it was completely politically safe to be a spittle-flinging racist--not that I believe Goldwater was a racist. Nowadays, thankfully, it's not, and a verbal misstep on an issue such as this would result in a veritable public stoning in today's media.
Maddow wanted Dr. Paul to admit that he was a racist. I don't think he is. I think he did an admirable job trying to explain that you can be someone who is not a racist and also be critical of the Civil Rights Act.
Progressives should secretly embrace opposition like Rand Paul. It is much, much better to lose to a Paul or a Goldwater than it is to lose to a fundamentalist or a neocon. After all the shit liberals get for being pie-in-the-sky idealists, they ought to cut a man with unpopular principles some slack--even if he is kind of a dummy.
If the guy is saying that we should do "x" instead of "y", then he should also candidly state why he thinks the end results of "x" are more acceptable than the end results of "y".
In this case, he's fighting history: the Civil Rights Act was extremely effective in preventing activities that oppress minorities. If he's got a problem with the impact on private business, then he needs to say why business freedom is more important than blacks being able to eat at Woolworth's. If he can't then he's espousing bad policy and he knows it.
He's not well-spoken. He's good at filling up his allotted speaking time with nothing.
Once Rand actually starts explaining, in actual detail, how his ideas can be implemented in the real world, THEN we can discuss whether or not he's well-spoken.
|Cena_mark - 2010-05-20 |
God, you vapid dyke. He's not saying he's for discrimination, he's against government enforcing equality. He believes that real change comes from the people not from government. You fucking dyke bitch whore.
Sure, real change comes from the people. And if that no-good Mr. Government hadn't lost patience after a paltry 120 years, biting through the hard candy shell of the market to get at the chewy tootsie roll of equality inside, eventually we'd have seen it! The world may never know.
cena, its like you arent even trying. one paragraph?
*cue David Attenborough*
The Cena_Mark is an easily-agitated creature. I dare not venture further towards its burrow lest I alarm him--Oh, oh and there he goes.
Well, you can clearly see that, when threatened, this marvelous beast hisses furiously and inflates a pair of scarlet anal pouches which he brandishes at his supposed enemies with great vigor.
Look, I'm not saying I was against EVERYTHING in the Emancipation Proclamation. But you have to admit that it did hurt a lot of privately-owned plantations which, left to their own devices, would probably have realized the error of their ways and released their slaves on their own.
Rachel Maddow's dick is clearly bigger than yours.
Believe it or not, I have heard that very same argument from the states' rights crowd here in Mississippi.
These people also claim the civil war was not about slavery.
So people in Bumblefuck, Mississippi have a better grasp of American history then you do, Kingarthur?
Anyone with half a degree in American history can tell you that Slavery was a tack on issue pressed by slavery abolitionist rather then the reason for the Civil War.
It seems this concept is taught in the American school system as some PC nonsense and an easy answer for a complicated question. Slavery was widely practiced in the North during and after the civil war and took another 20+ years to finally be abolished fully from practice.
The real reason for the Civil War was a divide in Constitutional views between the North and South, heavy Tariffs and Trades which were unfair to the South and a movement to exclude Southern states their right to be states. That is why they succeeded from the US. It had nothing to do with slavery.
Slavery was just a floater issue and the Emaciation Proclamation was a lie as it never freed the slaves in the North, it freed them in the South where Lincoln had no jurisdiction due to Southern succession.
I wish you American would learn your own history so you would stop repeating your mistakes. I love you guys too much for this bullshit.
Cena, you're better than this. You can still get responses to your half-hearted, phoned-in trolling. We're seeing a great man brought low, today.
Also, don't forget to clean up the santorum after Rand Paul "succeeds" from your ass, dingus.
Also, since I haven't the time or inclination to type this out on my own and I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that you have the ability to see objective facts for what they are:
Unfortunately, this is not a place for civil debate so FU..=)
Seriously, the problem with the whole the Civil war was fought primary over the slavery issue is that slavery was in the North as well. If slavery was the main issue the civil war was fought over then why didn't the North deal with it's own slave problem at the time? It was a war of ideology and economics and while slavery was part of the economics, it was not the main factor.
Oh, and since people love Quotes, here is one from Lincoln:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery."
The Civil War wasn't fought over slavery. The Civil War was fought because the South was stupid and arrogant enough to shoot at Union soldiers, and earned themselves a Shermanizing.
Secession, though, was all about slavery.
|Squidmojo - 2010-05-20 |
This is a joy to watch.
Do any libertarians know anything about how history actually worked in this country?
What kind of person names their kid Rand anyway? How much of a self-important douche do you have to be?
I believe his full name is Randal, a clever disguise indeed
They know that Johnny Tremaine was real, Davey Crockett did actually kill a bar when he was only three, and Pinocchio wrote "Atlas Shrugged".
For them to do that would require some familiarity with reality.
|Billie_Joe_Buttfuck - 2010-05-20 |
that is not a fake name holy fuck
I hear tell he named one of his kids 'Fountainhead', but that was probably just bullshit.
At least, I *hope* it was bullshit.
|Cena_mark - 2010-05-20 |
I don't see what she's trying to prove. She can lie all she wants, there will not be a democrat senator in Kentucky.
Cite the "lie," please.
Both of our standard trolls bustin' out the d-word right out of the gate! Sure they're annoying, but now we know that they are genuinely terrible people as well.
Rachel has found a sensitive spot for these idiots, that being the complete stupidity of the libertarian values that their current set of leaders have to pretend that they have right now to resemble political outsiders without changing their abhorent opinions and philosophies.
Let us not stop poking fun at these Randians idiots until they have to crawl back under the rock from which they came.
First off Billie. I did not say "Dick" anywhere, so I don't see how you can accuse me of using the d-word.
Stophele: She's not so much lying, but she's greatly exaggerating his stances.
That wasn't the d-word. But, it is kind of interesting that the first think you think of when you come up with a d-word is dick.
That explains a lot.
Just come out of the closet already.
Lies, followed by video tape of also lies!
|boggy84 - 2010-05-20 |
hey dude with the ridiculous name you know they tried the whole free market approach to institutional racism and it turns out that an entire segment of the population was disenfranchised, held back, and denied upward mobility! so everyone probably could have waited for whenever market forces would have corrected for this but well the government decided that it was more important for this chunk of the public to actually have the same freedoms as everyone else rather than waiting for libertarian civil rights 2325: the next generation.
Rand should just move to Mississippi. They get away with that institutionalized racism and discrimination bullshit here all the damn time.
|Pillager - 2010-05-20 |
You know what this reminds me of?
Big daddy Ron Paul's racist newsletter scandal;
BTW, my favorite defense of Ron Paul?
He's not a racist, only collectivists are racists!
Oh Objectivism. Is there anything your stupidity can't destroy?
|FABIO - 2010-05-20 |
I always saw Libertarianism divided into 2 camps: the naive one that never evolved beyond a teenage thought process that everyone would be perfect if all the RULES went away, and shitheels trying to retroactively come up with an argument to legitimize their shitheel beliefs.
We'll put you down for both, shitheel.
|magnesium - 2010-05-20 |
Libertarianism has the same problem as socialism. It has lots of good points and sometimes it works really well on a tiny scale where everyone knows each other, but on a large scale it's a disaster, because it relies way too much on the honor system. Certainly a large company wouldn't treat all of it's employees like garbage or discriminate against anyone! People would boycott! It's not like they could just lie to the public or pay for advertising/propaganda/bribes to get away with these things, because that wouldn't be very nice of them! That's why everything was perfect before the government started their evil "labour laws" and desegregating things.
|spikestoyiu - 2010-05-20 |
Why are you guys still replying to Cena_mark?
It's like throwing pinecones at a barky dog
I'm glad they do. I get a little charge when I see 15 replies to his by-the-book bullshit. Plus, I mean, low-hanging fruit. It's like tilting against a 2 ft tall windmill made of marshmallows.
|MacGyver Style Bomb - 2010-05-20 |
Christ, any mention of the Paul family brings out the cranks.
|Keefu - 2010-05-20 |
Wow there sure are a lot of stupid conservatives and libertarians on PoeTV.
|Dicknuts - 2010-05-21 |
I'm on the bottom of the pile here. All sad and lonely. Showed up late for the party and now it's over. Well, that chunky girl is in the corner throwing up. Might get lucky. :(
|Space Helicopter - 2010-05-21 |
It's interesting that when asked a direct yes-or-no question, he says "it's interesting..."
|Caminante Nocturno - 2012-06-23 |
Libertarians are the lowest scum the world can possibly produce.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|