1 The MFM will bury him by November.

2 Ron Paul will be raked over the coals. But candidates who fully support race mongers like The Rev Wright and Al "the Bafoon" Sharpton well will get elected President without much ado. Go figure?

3 For the record, he could have answered it better, e.g. by simply stating that as a libertarian, he was wary of Federal Intrusion into private business decisions and that there should be limits to such intrusion. But, for Pete's sake, the Civil Rights Act was 46 frakkin' years ago! Put down the bong and look at a calendar, you stupid hippies! You may not like it, but the country has made a whole lotta racial progress since then, and to most people, a hypothetical about the Civil Rights Era isn't really salient to the Massive Government Debt Era.

The country has moved on, but the idiot left is stuck in 1964. Rand Paul is not going to travel back in time, Quantum Leap style, to vote against the Civil Rights Act. (He has actually said he would have voted for it.) But if it makes you feel better, if he does manage to travel back in time, Timecop-style, to 1964, he would probably vote against the Vietnam War, too.

Feel better, hippies?

4 I think he will win in Nov. The only way he can lose in Kentucky imo is if the right wing decides to backstab him.

5
Rand Paul (and Ron) are the least of our worries.

Right now Rand Paul is a bright spot in the GOP.

6

Who the f*ck advised him to go on NPR and that ugly dude's show?  That's just asking  them to try and  trip you up and play into their hands.

7 What was Rand Paul thinking?  NPR and the Rachael Maddow show?  Talk about going into the lion's den. 

8 Rand Paul. Can't we contract intestinal polyps instead? Because that would be less painful than talking about Rand and Ron.

9 Hannity should ask Beckel if he supports the Epantsipation Proclamation.

In a perfect world Maddow would get hit by a truck. She had Frum on a few months back and started lecturing him about moral equivalency. Friggin' wanker.

10

Politics in America is about compromise...In that kind of system compromise is always going to be required.

Drew thinking like a woman. Good on you!

11
When can this become an Open Thread?

12

So, you are in favor of Politicians continuing to LIE to us?  Instead of saying what they think and mean?

That is one of the reasons the electorate no longer TRUSTS Politicians... they can't believe what they say...

And your entire screed is that Rand did not LIE enough for you?  That he "shudder" put his HONOR before YOUR PARTY winning POWER?

Don't you understand that for many of us, that is the PROBLEM?

13

Yeah, its going to be 6 months of Rand Paul here at AoS.

Our party should stick to conservatives and liberal. Heaven forbid we defend a big L Libertarian within the midst of our party, right?

 

Oh and I hate Ron Paul. so don't get any ideas. I'm just not going to worry about Rand Paul's Libertarianism.

And since when did we become worried about how the MFM is going to try to destroy the republican party. If it isn't this it will be something else. It's not logical.

Let's say we abandon Rand Paul and he is asked to leave, do you think the MFM will start reporting fairly on Republicans?

14 I am not worried about this at all. Calling Rand Paul a racist will not work in kentucky with high unemployment everywhere and dems in charge everywhere.

15 Q: What do you think of the Civil Rights Act?

A: Well, I think it's unfortunate that sometimes you need a federal law to force Democrats to do the right thing.

16 I'd rather have him in there telling his honest, not-used-to-the-public-eye opinion than have some Democrat in there lying. I wonder if Chris Christie would run and hide, and "nuance" his answers? Sorry, really don't care if this guy's a whack job. He gets points for not being a pussy.

17 12 So, you are in favor of Politicians continuing to LIE to us? Instead of saying what they think and mean? That is one of the reasons the electorate no longer TRUSTS Politicians... they can't believe what they say... And your entire screed is that Rand did not LIE enough for you? That he "shudder" put his HONOR before YOUR PARTY winning POWER? Don't you understand that for many of us, that is the PROBLEM? Posted by: Romeo13 at May 20, 2010 12:18 PM (OlHjR) Nobody's asking him to lie, he's being asked not to piss people off about an incredibly emotional issue. Now, what is your opinion of intestinal polyp? Pretty yucky, right?

18 But, for Pete's sake, the Civil Rights Act was 46 frakkin' years ago! Put down the bong and look at a calendar, you stupid hippies!

It's not like there's been recent major legislation setting up trillions of tax dollars' worth of race-based federal bureaucracies that mandate racial discrimination in hiring and education, that they could ask about.

19 bottom line:  we must win in november

20

Drew..youre' turning into an Eeyore.

Your "purity of thought" comments are silly. he was just reiterating his stance on the constitutionality of some laws.

He did condemn discrimination. He just does not think the Fed should be an uber-nanny.

I find his candor refrehing

21 Rand Paul is my kind of guy.

22 The country has moved on, but the idiot left is stuck in 1964. Rand Paul is not going to travel back in time, Quantum Leap style, to vote against the Civil Rights Act. (He has actually said he would have voted for it.) But if it makes you feel better, if he does manage to travel back in time, Timecop-style, to 1964, he would probably vote against the Vietnam War, too.

You forgot Roe v Wade.

23 12 So, you are in favor of Politicians continuing to LIE to us?  Instead of saying what they think and mean?

Did Drew advise Rand Paul to lie?  No, but you got to fight your political battles wisely.

24
Guys like Rand Paul and Ron Paul can do something that other Republicans cannot do. That is: to get young people to vote for Republicans.

We're losing all the young folks to the Democrats. I don't give a shit about any big tent crap, but we're not gonna win shit by being the party of middle-aged folks.

25

instead of Rubio, a real deal conservative being the face of the Tea Party(and the Tea Party overall shares more of his views than Pauls), it will be Rand Paul because of this and alot more like it to come.

Its a good thing potentially for COnservatism, if they bury him then it kills off the Paulbots going into 2012.  Otherwise they are emoboldened and we are screwed in 2012

26

Ok, Dr. Paul may be more lion than fox.  But at this point, I would rather have politicians speaking about their beliefs and educating the public.  Is he a polished politician?  No.  Will he be taken out of context?  Yes.

But the alternative is having McConnell's puppy nominated whose master failed to fight the health care bill agressively when he had the chance.

Again, we need more lions and less foxes if we are going to take back this country.  Too many of our seasoned, wise politicians fail to take stand on anything.

Case in point--what Republican leader in DC has criticized the Mexican President for insulting our country during his state visit?  Maybe if JD Hayworth was at the podium with Presidents Obama and Calderon, McCain may have felt the urge to criticize.

27

Romeo's right, you know.

This country has a lot of structural problems encoded in law, most of the time because Congress decided to take a feel-good, get-reelected approach to solving them instead of following the Constitution. The 1964 Act is one of those problems.

Truth is, no one can be elected talking complicated truths to the public. This shit is complicated. It's just to easy to write the guy off as Bull Connor when the flipside is an hour-long theoretical discussion of settled bad law.

28

O/T -- The party crashers were stopped in DC again last night.  Stuck.On.Stupid.  http://tinyurl.com/29gsjxu

 

29 Bad law need not be settled law.  Wrapping a pig, in this case the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in a blanket of noble intentions, does not mean the law itself does not stink like well a pig.

A free citizen's private affairs is simply not the proper concern of the state.  To deny such is to deny freedom.   I refuse to consent to the Maddow test of my freedom, to wit that only freedom I enjoy or those of which she personally approves.  Do you consent?

30 7 What was Rand Paul thinking?  NPR and the Rachael Maddow show?  Talk about going into the lion's den.
------------
i don't know anything about Rand Paul (although i live in his father's district), and i know even less about any of his advisers, but, hopefully, he's a smart guy.  That is, he knows what kind of maelstrom is coming his way.  Maybe he is simply "taking the fight" to the other side.  Getting some stuff out of the way.  Confronting.

31

Rand should never have gone on that show, but here's a message for Drew and everyone else: They're only going to smear us anyway. That is what Commiecrats do.

The Rule Of Anyway. Never forget it.

32 One of the reasons we are where we are today is that in the late 90s, many Libertarians went fundamentalist. Rather then try and focus on polices that the public supports and try to build support for those the public is on the bubble about, they went whole hog on decimalization all drugs and other issues that the public is vehemently opposed to and decided to pick fights with anyone that did not perfectly toe the line.

This removal of Libertarians from serious political discussion led to the rise of Bush's "compassionate conservatism".

It looks like Obamanomics might have opened the door again for the public to seriously consider libertarian arguments. Please, please, please, don't make the same mistakes again...

33 Rush is currently destroying Calderon for Calderon's hypocrisy in trashing AZ's new law, while Mexico has far more stringent immigration laws.

34 OT but awesome:
Rush is ripping the Mexican presidente a new one.  In his speech yesterday he blathered Obama's crap about "human rights" and "racial profiling" and then proceeded to tell Wolf Blitzer (of all people) that papers of foreigners are checked in Mexico, and if they're there illegally, they send them back.

Rush is now reading from Mexican law which details allllllllll the many ways people may be refused entry into Mexico-- there are physical and mental restrictions, bans on people who have criminal pasts.... oh, it's beautiful.

35

Could a free market approach to desegregation have created the same or even better results? No one knows

Yes we do. We know the answer is "no".

36

Don't forget the Crackpot Ron Paul Newsletters the MSM has been Sitting on basically, while giving Ron Paul more TV time.

Paul's wife and Daughter were on the Payroll which is on the books, if Rand was ever on this Payroll its all coming back out.

Also, checkout Stormfront...they are actively raising lots of funds for Rand Paul.  This isn't good

37 Rand will win Kentucky... but yeah, don't make that the face of the Republican party...

38 Rand is up 59 percent and you're worried?  Jesus Christ.  Find another race to wring your hands over, like say the Toomey-Sestak one.

39 What's an HBDer?

40 You go on NPR and MSNBC to convert people.  Not likely... and their audience is paltry... but that's the thinking.  I don't think a racism tag sticks.  Hell, the left calls EVERYONE racist... well, except for Obama, Rev Wright, Cynthia Jackson Lee, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson........

41

Compromise?  We are not supposed to compromise with American-hating socialists.  The compromise should be the middle ground somewhere between guys like Rand Paul and guys like John McCain, not between John McCain and Nancy Pelosi.  An outlier that can shift the spectrum to the right a bit is welcome, even if the outlier is, well, an outlier. 

42

I love to argue with liberals about how this country is doing pretty damn well on race issues.

Hmm. I think the country is doing pretty damn bad on race issues...just not bad the way liberals think of bad. I think Affirmative Action, set-asides, the ridiculous ways cops are made to jump through hoops so they arrest the 'right' number of certain minorities, are all very bad, and all attributable to Civil Rights Act abuses.
Still, Rand should keep his mouth shut.

43 Every dime contributed by Stormfront needs to be returned immediately. Every freakin' dime.

44 So, you are in favor of Politicians continuing to LIE to us?  Instead of saying what they think and mean?

Actually on thinking about it yes. I would rather have a conservative politician lie about what he is going to do to get elected then spend the effort, and political capital, arguing for unpopular conservative issues he plans on trying to implement.

Politics isn't a game, and I could care less about playing nice or fair.

Of course the issue with this in real world usage - how many politicians have ever governed to the right of the their campaign promises?

45 34 Rush is currently destroying Calderon for Calderon's hypocrisy in trashing AZ's new law, while Mexico has far more stringent immigration laws

check out William Bennett's & Seth Liebsohn's "The Presidents and the Arizona Law" @ NRO -- it's good, reeeeeeeeeeaal good

46 The Rule Of Anyway. Never forget it.

Yeah. There really in no point in appearing on MSZinNBC. It's a niche moonbat outlet and Conservatives only serve to legitimize them by going on.

47 This is why honest and principled people never get into office.  He was not asked if he "supported" the law; he was asked if he would have voted for it.

If he would not have voted for it (for very good reasons), and he said, "Yes!", he would have been lying.

You just recommended that he lie.  That might be how to get elected, but it is not how to evolve into a just and honest democracy.  It ensures that bad ideas, once passed into law and blessed by the Supreme Court, become permanently enshrined as holy writ -- you can't even criticize parts of it without losing your reputation as a decent human being.

Call me a nut libertarian.  I'm never gonna say a stupid idea is a swell idea.  If even AoSHQ is saying I should, what hope is there?

48

What was Rand Paul thinking?  NPR and the Rachael Maddow show?  Talk about going into the lion's den. 

 

better now than later, it's done and can be written off for the rest of the campaign.

 

In a perfect world he should have told her it was a stupid question, posed by a partisan hack and been done with her, but this isn't a perfect world.

49 If he had any sense at all, he would have given these questions the Nancy Pelosi treatment:  "Are you serious?"

50

How many Republicans can have Ron Paul's political associations and his documented past(Ron Paul Newsletters) and the MSM basically let it slide and jsut give him more TV Time?

 

Why do you suppose they've been doing this???  There is an easy, obvious answer. 

Basically, Libertarians are absolute idiots when it comes to Politics

51 Could a free market approach to desegregation have created the same or even better results? No one knows

Yes we do. We know the answer is "no".

It depends on what you mean by "better".  If you mean better for everyone, then probably.  If you mean better for blacks, then probably not.

52 Drew is right my friends, politics in this great country of ours is all about compromise.

53 42 Compromise?  We are not supposed to compromise with American-hating socialists.  The compromise should be the middle ground somewhere between guys like Rand Paul and guys like John McCain, not between John McCain and Nancy Pelosi.  An outlier that can shift the spectrum to the right a bit is welcome, even if the outlier is, well, an outlier.

nicely put

54 Politics in America is about compromise.

Very "mavericky" statement by Drew.

55

Ronald Reagan was no Paulnut, and understood how the Game works:

"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it.

"Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.

"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.

- REAGAN

56 Awesome. I was worried we might get 20 comments in before the Paulpods started spraying crazy all over my monitor.

It's on the inside, too, so you can't wipe it off.

57 I'm reminded of the joke the Germans used to tell just before the end of WWII.  Enjoy the war, the peace is going to be terrible.

58

i don't know anything about Rand Paul

Me neither.  What's with his hair?

59 If you don't agree in playing Politics and the idea of COmpromise in certain areas then you are actually either wanting Full Blown Socialism to take root now OR you better start figuring out how to get the Second Civil War going.

60 In case your blood pressure is too low, I'll just share the information that the DJIA is at -272.90. I suggest drinking at work.

61

"I know and agree that are problems with the Civil Rights Act but you know what else? It settled law (which Paul concedes). ThereÂ’s no upside to giving the limited constitutional/libertarian lecture on it. "

And that's where your blind spot comes in, Drew.  Because the not-so-secret secret is that Libertarians can't help but lecture.

See, freedom from government, rightly understood, is only possible when a country's citizens have reached a state of self-reliance through acquired competence.  This state of self-reliance is not only not achievable through government interference; it is also not achievable through non-government interference.  It is achieved by making choices that are guided by virtue and rooted in the dignity of the human person.

Libertarianism is essentially politics done in a laboratory.  It has nothing to do with actual human beings who will never live under controlled conditions.  And your advice about what to say when a question like this is asked shows that Libertarianism has nothing to do with virtue, either.

62

Right now my biggest concern is undoing Obamacare.

I have one question for you, DrewM.:

Do you welcome the suffering and death of minority children because their underprivileged families lack access to affordable health care?

63 Without question, the new face of the racist Aryan Republican Nation.

64 What's with his hair?

hah!  yeah, right?

65

OT but awesome:
Rush is ripping the Mexican presidente a new one.  In his speech yesterday he blathered Obama's crap about "human rights" and "racial profiling" and then proceeded to tell Wolf Blitzer (of all people) that papers of foreigners are checked in Mexico, and if they're there illegally, they send them back.

Actually NOT all that far off topic. Father and Son Paul get it on immigration, and a lot of the GOP still doesn't.

I realize the Paulian foreign policy is dangerously naive. But on most every other issue, they are AOS "morons"!

Some of you had better start getting that.

Of course we deserve a better GOP candidate. And I deserve to win the office lotto pool to make up for all the money my cheating ex-wife stole from me, if karma was just.

But it isn't.

We go to November with who won the primary, to paraphrase Mr. Rumsfeld.

66 Do you welcome the suffering and death of minority children because their underprivileged families lack access to affordable health care? Posted by: FireHorse at May 20, 2010 12:41 PM (cQyWA) Is it safe to assume that you're trying to make a metaphorical point?

67 A man's own labor is one of the most precious things he owns and his ability to live from the fruits of his own labor will determine whether or not he's free.  If it's my diner counter, my eggs, my toast and my labor that makes the western omelette then it's me alone who determines who I do it for.  And in a free country I can decline anyone I want for any reason.  The Civil Rights Act in anti-freedom.

68 .... and the Paulistinians come ragin out of the woodwork.

69 The correct answer: 

We elected a black man President of the United States. Racism is dead,  move along.

70 61 In case your blood pressure is too low, I'll just share the information that the DJIA is at -272.90. I suggest drinking at work.

Or if you're not at "work" because you're so hoarse that you can't speak, mainline some Zicam and Tylenol and chase it down with hard liquor. 

71 68 A man's own labor is one of the most precious things he owns and his ability to live from the fruits of his own labor will determine whether or not he's free. If it's my diner counter, my eggs, my toast and my labor that makes the western omelette then it's me alone who determines who I do it for. And in a free country I can decline anyone I want for any reason. The Civil Rights Act in anti-freedom. Posted by: ccruse456 at May 20, 2010 12:43 PM (3pv79) [face palm] Then you've given up on domestic peace in the United States.

72

Now, now, lets not start reflexively apologizing for nominating a conservative to a Republican's seat in the Senate.  Nominating someone who prompts folks to rethink some of their basic big gov't assumptions is a good thing.

and by the way, I disagree that "disparate impact" is settled law. You can expect that line of cases to come under scrutiny down the road.  That would be a good thing, right?

73

Ronald Reagan was no Paulnut, and understood how the Game works

Knowing how to play the Game well is one thing, immediately going milquetoast because you are afraid the Commiecrats will smear you, which they will always do anyway, is quite another.

Rand Paul is the nominee now, lke it or not. When Juan McLame won the nomination, I wasn't happy, but I sucked it up because better him than the Commeicrats.

Can your wing of the GOP do the same?

74 If the standard is Republicans are never going to challenge "settled law" then we might as well pack it in right now.  ObamaCare, SOX, McCain Feingold, there is alot of settled law that needs to be repealed.  Paul is merely arguing the Libertarian case for property rights, which is actually a more pro-civil rights position.  If we are unwilling to engage the populace on these issues, we're fucked.

75 Do you welcome the suffering and death of minority children because their underprivileged families lack access to affordable health care?

Posted by: FireHorse at May 20, 2010 12:41 PM (cQyWA)

No, that's why I support repeal of ObamaCare.

The current law, if fully enacted, will only lead to increased costs and lack of access, not just for poor minority children (who are covered under current programs) but for all Americans.

Not only do I want those poor minority children to continue to receive quality care, I want them to grow up in a country where they can improve their economic status and that of their children. Saddeling them with the debt required to fund a health care law that will neither lower costs nor improve care will not allow that to happen.


FYNQ

(I say that not to you but the MFMer you are channeling)

76

I take Paul at his word that he opposes discrimination and itÂ’s not likely his first piece of legislation will be to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964

That is my extremely pragmatic point of view on this. No matter how nutty he might possibly be on issues 11-20, what's he going to accomplish?

On the other hand, having him voting our way in issues 1-10 could make a significant difference.

77 The Civil Rights Act in anti-freedom.

It's an overwhelmingly accepted part of our National Catechism now.  Dissent at your own peril, and rightly so. 

78 8 Rand Paul. Can't we contract intestinal polyps instead? Because that would be less painful than talking about Rand and Ron. Posted by: joncelli at May 20, 2010 12:16 PM (RD7QR) I mean, it really sounds painful, right? And the bleeding! But isn't contemplating it better than talking with Paulistas? Amirite?

79

all i know is i hope this blog spends less time harping on Rand Paul than the MFM does.

Besides, he's going to win in november and it won't matter.

80 -286 now.  Today will cost the Fed a pretty penny.

81 70 The correct answer: 

We elected a black man President of the United States. Racism is dead,  move along.

Posted by: damian at May 20, 2010 12:44 PM (4WbTI)

I honestly believe that. Now how do we inject it into the culture at large and make it a "truth".

Sure, there will always be racism by somebody, and the MFM uses that to continue to propagate the myth that it is widespread and ingrained into American values, so how do we counter THAT?

82 Bob Bennett decided not to run for Utah as a write in candidate. Crist hardest hit.

83 68 A man's own labor is one of the most precious things he owns and his ability to live from the fruits of his own labor will determine whether or not he's free.

72 [face palm] Then you've given up on domestic peace in the United States.

You've surrendered liberty for a false sense of "domestic peace". All you've done is given into extortion.

84 Besides, he's going to win in november and it won't matter.

Word.

85 Yeah, we're going down!

86 Do you welcome the suffering and death of minority children because their underprivileged families lack access to affordable health care?

They only "lack access" now if their legal guardian (sometimes one of the people who fucked them into being, even) does not (for whatever reason) call up the state and fill out the SCHIP and/or Medicaid forms (in Iowa, a social worker can be dispatched to where you live to fill out the forms for you; all you have to do is make your X where they show you).

The excise tax on wheelchairs is not going to magically change the behavior of the adults responsible for those children. 

87 The fact is, if you take pride in how far this country has come in a relatively short period of time on race relations, then you simply canÂ’t toss aside the effects of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Tell it to Reginald Denny.
Tell it to Rev Wright and Al Sharpton.
Tell it to the Affirmative Action President.
Thomas Sowell, who reached maturity in the dark ages before 1964, might disagree with your premise.
In July of 2009 he wrote "The original Civil Rights Act of 1964 was very straightforward in forbidding discrimination. But, even before that Act was passed, there were already people demanding more than equality of treatment. Some wanted equality of end results, some wanted restitution for past wrongs, and some just wanted as much as they could get...But judges, over the years, have "interpreted" the Civil Rights Act to mean what its opponents said it would mean, rather than what its advocates put into the plain language of the legislation."

88 78 The Civil Rights Act in anti-freedom.

It's an overwhelmingly accepted part of our National Catechism now.  Dissent at your own peril, and rightly so. 

Posted by: damian at May 20, 2010 12:47 PM (4WbTI)

 

Well, LOL... I've been called a Heretic before...

89

That 200 MDA is getting the shit kicked out of it and we are concerning ourselves with a guy that detests big government and is the polar opposite of the Obama socialists.

90 Dear Thingy,  as posted on Ace yesterday.

Proportionally more Republicans voted for the CRA than did Demorats. It’s a libel that the the Repulicans opposed civil rights. “The 1964 Civil Rights Act Roll Call Vote: In the House, only 64 percent of the Democrats (153 yes, 91 no), but 80 percent of the Republicans (136 yes, 35 no), voted for it. In the Senate, while only 68 percent of the Democrats endorsed the bill (46 yes, 21 no), 82 percent of the Republicans voted to enact it (27 yes%2

91 It's an overwhelmingly accepted part of our National Catechism now.  Dissent at your own peril, and rightly so. 

Posted by: damian at May 20, 2010 12:47 PM (4WbTI)

Why "rightly so"?

92 [The Civil Rights Act is] an overwhelmingly accepted part of our National Catechism now.  Dissent at your own peril, and rightly so.

So was slavery. And Jim Crow.

Why is it "rightly so" that dissenting from the convention wisdom on the government merely flipping from one set of racial biases to the opposite involves peril? You think it's good that objecting to racial preferences puts peoples' lives at risk?

93 Racism is dead, move along.

The racial prefences and set-asides in the HCR[sic] will keep racism very much alive. Want to go to nursing school? Admissions has to look at the demographic info on your application before they can any further; if there are too many white people already enrolled it doesn't matter what the rest of it says...

94 damian - why "rightly so"? The Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional because the federal government does not have the power to mandate that private business refrain from discriminating on any basis. To accept the civil rights act is to accept the bastardized "interpretation" of the commerce clause of 'Wickard' and its progeny, and is to accept basically unlimited power of the federal government.

95

#87: I think the (sarcastic) original point was that the Left will *always* demogogue an issue, and to "go along to get along" and cave into the Left will get us nowhere.

Take the Civil Rights Act. We all know that Title 9 alone is a joke, and has essentially gutted men's programs at many schools. Of course we discuss amending it, we will be demogogued because the Civil Rights Act is a sacred cow. But there it is.

 

96 The Civil Rights Act in anti-freedom.

Yes, let's run on that! Full of win!!

97

DJI -317.3 weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.....................

98

Do you welcome the suffering and death of minority children because their underprivileged families lack access to affordable health care?

What does that have to do with ObamaCare?

99

Unlike the insincerity of the President and the AG--I do think we need a very serious discussiona bout race in this country.

Let's begin with exactly why--after all these years and all the news in those years that the Voting Rights Act still only applies to the cotton south? 

Let's talk about Joseph Lowery calling out a specific racial group in the prayer at the President's inauguration.

Let's talk about Jesse Jackson and Al Shaprton making careers, not out of the Gospel as a "Reverend" should, but as sahke down artists and lying ones at that.

Let's talk about the fact that the Predsident of the United States is a black man and, in light of that stunning revelation just a generation after the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, the reasons that we are still ahving this discussion.

Let's talk about the incredible level of violence and the lack of opportunity in our urban areas and the real reasons for them.

I'm no Rand Paul fan because I fear the apple is still actually hanging from the tree in his case, but we need to get real here.  Racism, militarism and federalism are not America's fundamental problems.  We're broke.  We have many, many serious external enemies.  And we turned the serious switch off when the Berlin Wall came down. 

100 Q: What do you think of the Civil Rights Act?

A: Well, I think it's unfortunate that sometimes you need a federal law to force Democrats to do the right thing.

Posted by: Brendan

 

This should have been it right there. Follow up with the point that it was Northern Republicans that got the Civil Rights Act over the top. If they want to talk about that being in the past, smile and agree, noting that even Robert Byrd, the 'Dean of the Senate' ws once a member of the KKK'. And even he saw the errors of his ways. There's nothing better than getting someone to choke on your agreeing with them.

101

DrewM.

there is part of me that agrees with you. Tell the media what they want to hear and then shut up. Once you are in office, you can vote how you want to vote.

however there is a part of me that is principled.  a part of me that says honesty, regardless of the consequences, is the best policy. I believe the american people, or at least a large part of them are looking for this now. You see it in Chris Christie who doesn't mince words and says what he believes.  We will in all likelihood have that in Rand Paul, someone who believes strongly in his convictions that he is willing to take nuanced positions on aspects of American history that aren't really questioned anymore.

But for the sake of him winning, which i am positive he will, he shouldn't let people like Maddow and NPR pick the obscure topics with the intent of mischaracterizing his beliefs.

 

102 How did he answer when she asked him repeatedly about when he is going to stop raping little boys?  Fucking stupid question.

103 Dow is getting the shit kicked out of it this morning. Down 312 points to 10,132. Assume a 100-point "melt up" this afternoon and we're still down 200 points for the day. Yikes. That "flash crash" of last week is starting to look less like an aberration and more like an abrupt but accurate adjustment.

104 Jim Crow!!!111!!!!

105 hey steele and gop....set the record straight every chance you get.  spout the vote numbers blah blah then add the icing......


plenty of data to prove voting for dems has been a  disaster for blacks.

106 You see it in Chris Christie who doesn't mince words and says what he believes.
Posted by: Ben at May 20, 2010 12:55 PM (wuv1c)

Sort of.

Ace posted about that in the last week or so. Christie ran on cuts and getting things in order but he never talked about them on the scale he's going for now.

Running for election and governing aren't the same.

107
Hahaaa, Rush just dropped an "unexPECTedly" on us, after taking about the dow being down 300+. 

108

That "flash crash" of last week is starting to look less like an aberration and more like an abrupt but accurate adjustment.

Monty,

We're only at the beginning.  Not only does the emperor have no clothes, but he's missing a couple of limbs as well.

109 DJI -317.3 353.2 more weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.....................

110

How did he answer when she asked him repeatedly about when he is going to stop raping little boys?  Fucking stupid question.

Exactly. All of you harping about how Rand Paul mishandled the question (and you are right, he did), seem to confuse that with his heart not being in the right place.

OF COURSE the Left will smear him. Nominating a McConnellesque Milquetoast instead would *not* change that.

111 noting that even Robert Byrd, the 'Dean of the Senate' ws once a member of the KKK'. And even he saw the errors of his ways

Like hell he did. What he saw was that he could profit by selling the negative image of the same racial paranoia.
Seriously -- look at the Dem record. They stirred up hatred and fear of blacks among poor whites to maintain their power in the South through the Jim Crow era. Now what they do is stir up hatred and fear of whites among poor blacks to maintain their power in cities. They've abandoned their allies in the Klan for the likes of the Black Panthers -- and we've all heard black Democrats openly threaten violence if they don't get their way.

112

That "flash crash" of last week is starting to look less like an aberration and more like an abrupt but accurate adjustment.

That's the current thinking, by the way. What happened on May 6 should've happened.

113 Snap Poll:

More unpleasant - slamming your balls in a kitchen drawer, TWICE,

or

discussinglistening to a lecture about the nature of individual liberty from a Paul supporter.

114 All you've done is given into extortion.

Indeed.  There is, however, such a thing as societal precedent.  The vast majority of the people in this country believe that the Civil Rights Act is necessary and consistent with the American Creed.  I believe that if it were put up as an Amendment to the Constitution, it would be passed and adopted in less than 90 days.  Therefore, I think its accepted canon.

I'll give you another issue:  The Constitutionality of State Succession.  Internally I believe that the Southern States were correct on the idea that they freely joined the Union and had the right to freely depart.  Outwardly I recognize that any issue to gets settled by killing a half a million people probably should remain settled. 

Some letter-of-the-law illegalities get legalized by usage.

115
Rand Paul should not lie, nor should we recommend that he lie.  What he should say is that he is strongly against discrimination on the basis of race, and that if elected he will never take a position that he believes would increase racial discrimination in this country.  He should say that he has considered and understands libertarian arguments against the Civil Rights Act, but that he would never make or support an effort to repeal that legislation. If the interviewer pressed on, he could say that neither he nor the voters is interested in a discussion about utopian philosophy, and that he would be happy to talk about what he would actually do as a Senator.

116
plenty of data to prove voting for dems has been a  disaster for blacks.

New Orleans and Detroit come to mind as data points.

117 This is my problem with many (L)libertariansÂ…they often seem more interested in purity of thought and winning an argument than actually accomplishing something.

---------------------

Well, this Libertarian voted McCain as the lesser of two evils while many conservative purists stayed home.

118 Let me ask a serious question for those who think the Civil Rights Act is an abomination....

If we held a national referendum on its repeal, what do you think the pro-repeal side would score?

I'm going to say 20% because you generally get that many people to agree to anything.

Now, if you put it to a vote in Congress it would get 1 vote, maybe 2 next year (they would both come from the Paul family).

Rand Paul's problem isn't messaging, it's that essentially no one in this country agrees with him on this.

119 Ace: "Politics in America is about compromise. This isn't a RINO approach to the world, it's a feature not a bug of the government the founders established."

Well, yes and no. If only the compromise sometimes ended up restricting that which the founders hadn't intended, we'd be OK. Alas, that never really happens, does it? Government grows. Always. Forever. It shouldn't if we really believe that equal compromise was the essence of our Republic. But compromise wasn't the essence. The essence is the self-evident truths that are supposed to provide for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- those Rights given by our Creator which NO government can restrict or confiscate.

It's our Republic, if we can keep it. Turns out, we can't. And it's because of compromise -- compromises we are not required to make yet do because we don't know our Constitution and because to argue it is considered "cranky." Sure would be nice if, for a change, we didn't worry about being cranks and actually fought with boldness rather than cower to the MFM or those who might be afraid of a little teabagging.

120 Would all Libertarins here please self identify. We only want a count. that's all we want really.

121 108 Hahaaa, Rush just dropped an "unexPECTedly" on us, after taking about the dow being down 300+.
__________________

He also asked "which country does Obama believe he's president of?", echoing Gus's comment from yesterday's border thread. Rush is obviously a moron; the only question is, which sockpuppet does he use during the ONT?

122 "The only way he can lose in Kentucky imo is if the right wing decides to backstab him." @4. They will. The Reich Wing loves them some government. Drew and Ace will lead the charge.

123
which sockpuppet does he use during the ONT?

PGiS.

124

Oh, and Drew, Rand Paul is a LOCK to vote for full repeal of Obamacare, not just tinker around the edges--if that is in fact your big issue. 

Agree with you though that he should know to stay away from NPR, MSLSD, etc.,

125 And his anti-war stance (it's a waste of taxpayer money) is sure to excite the base.

126 Whoops@120. Attribution is DrewM.'s, not Ace's. Don't ban me, Ace. I'll hit the tip jar.

127

Fox News is showing the Mexican prez making a speech to our congress, ripping the Arizona law. The whole place erupts in applause! WTF!!!!

Let's vote everyone fucking one of these fucking traitors out!

128

 

You don't compromise when the other side is wrong. You compromise when the other side is making a valid case but it wants something you'd prefer not to have.

129 118 Well, this Libertarian voted McCain as the lesser of two evils while many conservative purists stayed home.
__________________

This conservative voted for Palin. The fact that in order to do so, I had to pull the lever for McCain is just something up with which I had to put.

I quit calling myself a Libertarian when the Libertarians got all weird over the Iraq war.

130 noting that even Robert Byrd, the 'Dean of the Senate' ws once a member of the KKK'. And even he saw the errors of his ways

Like hell he did. What he saw was that he could profit by selling the negative image of the same racial paranoia.

Posted by: Rob Crawford

 

Agreed. But your recitiation, though accurate, won't provoke the pained smile and grunt of agreement that an intimation of Dems coming back to the light of Republicanism would. That sir, is akin to holding a kegger in the home of your enemy, and getting him/her/it to smile while they clean up after you.

131

It's the economy, stupid.

And we're here talking about the Civil Rights Act. Thanks for keeping it real, Big L Libertarians!

132 The answer to the "do you support the Civil Rights Act" should be to just say "First, I agree with Justice Thomas' position on the legality of it.  Second, it's a great idea, and it's a shame that Congress was too sloppy in drafting the law, and failed to give it the strong Constitutional foundation that such an important piece of law deserves.  In order to protect the law, we must be frank in identifying its weaknesses, and it does a terrible disservice to this county to do a half-hearted defense of the Civil Rights Act.  Let's identify the vulnerabilities, and worked to fix them if we can. I am fully in favor of extending the maximum protection afforded by law to prevent unconstitutional discrimination! In fact, it's so important that I hereby declare every single state should put their own Civil Rights Act on their own ballot! Eleventy!"

I think the above quote works.  Shallow thinking progressives will never figure out that (1) supporting the goals/ideas of a law and (2) admitting its unconstitutionality are not mutually exclusive.

133 Whoops@120. Attribution is DrewM.'s, not Ace's. Don't ban me, Ace. I'll hit the tip jar.

You know how you can tell us apart?

First, the name at the top.

Second, some are witty, insightful and well written. The rest are mine.

134 All I got to say is everybody better get behind Rand Paul instead of adding to the chorus of criticism.  Kentucky chose him and thats that.

59 - 34 is something to celebrate.  Thats a spanking right there.

Oh, f the MFM and the idiot president for mexico too.

135

More proof that principle and politics dont mix.

136

Drew..we do not need whining from you and the cob loggers about how the left can twist the viewpoints of someone on our side..especially when he is being honest.

We need you guys to come out defend the truth and honesty

137 "Rand Paul's problem isn't messaging, it's that essentially no one in this country agrees with him on this."

I think many, many people agree with him on this but would not publicly cop to it because it's taboo. But that doesn't mean they don't agree.

138

Desegregation of lunch counters!?! Really?  There's somebody bringing that up in 2010 as if it were some sort of relevant political issue?

Only a hard-core Leftist would live in the kind of Alternate Universe it would require to think bring that up, and the only people who would watch a show like that are a few fellow Alternate Universe Leftists.  It doesn't seem like much to get excited about. I presume Rand Paul is just trying to get his name & face out there, to become more recognizable.

Looking at Maddow, though (albeit, thankfully not literally), imagine the kind of desperation that must be creeping in if they're trying to redouble-down on playing the race card this way.  I mean - this is really pretty pathetic.  You can almost smell their fear of the "Tea Party".

As a "small-L" libertarian, myself, I know what you mean about the "big-L" guys.  That being said, I think it benefits the political discourse to have a scattered few of these guys in the mix.  Some of their ideas are a bit far-out, but many others are refreshingly spot-on.  Either way, they seem to be the only people who ever even bring up basic principles, and that's desperately needed.

139 Did it cut a few constitutional corners? Sure. Has the law been abused and expanded beyond it‘s original purpose? Yep.

See, this is where you lose me because those are terribly important points to make.  I want more politicians to say "hey this isn't the federal government's business."  I'm still pondering the appropriate way for a politician to do that.  It's like the Kagan hearings, those are the perfect vehicle for delving into the philosophical differences in various schools of jurisprudence.  And I know that's simply not going to happen because of the feckless crapweaselness of the Republicans. 

So, I guess my knee jerk reaction is that I'm not going to slam on Paul for saying that but a more considered reaction is that there are ways and ways of expressing that point.  I just loathe the idea that libertarian (or Libertarian) views shouldn't be expressed because of what the MFM will do. Yes, yes, I know I'm overstating Drew's position but that's the button it pushes for me.

140

 

Should Israel compromise with the Hamas and allow Hamas to wipe out half of Israel? Of course not.

Should we compromise with the Democrats and allow the Democrats to make this country a socialist nation (rather than the full-blown Communist nation they'd prefer)?

When the other side is completely wrong, you don't compromise with them, you mock and ridicule them out of Congress.

141 Oh..did anyone see where the Jackassocrats gave el presidente of Messico a standing O when he criticized the US and the AZ law?

142 If Rand Paul is elected he will destroy the state's economy .... I know about these things...

143 133It's the economy, stupid.

And we're here talking about the Civil Rights Act. Thanks for keeping it real, Big L Libertarians!

But I want a battle that even I cannot win!

144

Has the MFM asked Robert Byrd his opinions on miscegenation?

The MFM has no credibility anymore when it goes on some crusade--the charge of "racism" has lost much of its effectiveness given the vile hypocrisy of the modern civil rights movement.  Granted, charges could hurt in the Northeast, where the Republican brand is moribund, but I ain't gonna spend election night 2010 worrying about a bunch of fucking Connecticut Yankee douchebag voters. 

145

We need you guys to come out defend the truth and honesty

Umm, no. This isnt' about truth & honestly.  This  (and his candidacy) is about an unwarranted distraction.

146 The Dow is only down 299 now.  Weee!

147 I'm loving this! I can't wait to see the fruits of the "You know, George Wallace and Bull Conner made some pretty good points" strategy. Let's roll with that one. Any comment on Brown v. Board of Education while we're throwing things out there?

148 59 - 34 is something to celebrate. Thats a spanking right there. And "polite-company conservatives" are taking the spanking of a Democrat rather personally—as if it's they who are getting spanked. And they're trying to stop it. How unexpected.

149 Drew says:
###This is my problem with many (L)libertariansÂ…they often seem more interested in purity of thought and winning an argument than actually accomplishing something. At the risk of over generalizing, it seems agreeing on an ad hoc basis isnÂ’t enough for many (L)libertarians you also have to buy into the whole intellectual frame work. Deviate for one second in pursuit of some real world goal and you are a useless sellout.
####

Pot, meet kettle. How aren't you and Ace and every other "I fucking hate the libertarians because they're just a bunch of ideologue purist hippie pot smokers" guilty of the exact same thing? Libertarians agree with run of the mill conservative GOP'ers like 80% of the time, and yet you use the few points of difference a few points of difference to kick them out of the club. Unless, of course, what you really mean is that Libertarians don't play well with others because they just stop caring about the things that they disagree with you on because you deigned to send them an invitation in the first place, in which case, you're an essentially irrational person.

Seriously, with Rand Paul, you get EVERYTHING you want on economics, Supreme Court justices, BarryCare, etc... Fucking _everything_. You disagree with him on a couple of things, and start hating on him, and _he's_ the one that's unwilling to work together for victory?

This whole post really stinks of concern trolling. You already don't like Rand Paul, fine, whatever. That doesn't mean that he's bad for Republicans, or conservatives in general. David Frum and Kathleen Turner try this shit all the time too, and it's no more believable coming from you.

150

Oh..did anyone see where the Jackassocrats gave el presidente of Messico a standing O when he criticized the US and the AZ law?

If the GOP had any sense and guts, they would run that clip, with subtitles identifying clapping Democrats, again and again and again, from now to November, and again in 2012.

151 He should have ridiculed the questioner with something along the lines of, "Are you seriously asking me what I would do if I had a fucking time machine? Cause if I did have a fucking time machine, I'd use it to travel 10 years into the future to take pictures of the pain, suffering and economic devastation caused by Obamacare and massive governmental debt, you ass-itch of an excuse for a journalist."

152

I'm from kentukcy.  I wasn't real thrilled about Rand Paul winnng this primary, but I have zero doubt he will win the election.  Jack Conway is a hack and a tool, and perceived as part of the "establishment" which is the kiss of death this year in Kentucky.  There has been a debacle in the state legislature this year with an epic failure to pass a budget and the Governor (a typical Democratic hack who ran for Governor about 50 times until he finally won) looking like a dickless moron.  People are pissed off with all conventional politicians because they feel let down by all of them.  That's why Paul won the primary and why he will win the general.  Whatever Paul says or does, the voters know he is authentic. 

And people in Kentucky don't give two shits what NPR or the New York Times or Washington Post says - if they did, they wouldn't have kept reelecting Jim Bunning or Mitch McConnell.  It isn't that they are stupid rednecks, it's just that Kentuckians really don't care what anyone else says about them. 

153 Why would he go on NPR and Maddow at all? Like walking into an ambush.

154 Posted by: alexthechick at May 20, 2010 01:10 PM (8WZWv)

I think it comes down to are we talking about real world politics or a philosophical debate?

Philosophically, I agree with you.

In the real world, it doesn't fly. Now, I'm not saying we give up the fight totally. I'm saying that's not the first shot to fire. It needs to be massaged a bit to keep people on board.

Something I didn't get into is he was asked about the ADA. I think he should go to town on that.

What's the difference?

First, the ADA has been expanded to crazy ass lengths that you can actually hold the whole scheme up to ridicule.

Second, there are ways to re-mediate problems for the disabled that don't require a whole federal structure.

Third, race is different. I know people want to ignore that fact but it just is. There's no history of societal discrimination and antipathy towards the handicapped as there is towards blacks in this country.

Race is simply to charged an area to start hammering away at in the name of ideology.

I'm not saying give up or avoid that fight, I'm simply saying for practical and other reasons, race is not the ground on which to fight. We won't win and I honestly think we'd do more harm than good in a number of ways.

155

David Frum and Kathleen Turner try this shit all the time too.

They were awesome in Body Heat. 

156

He blew it.

The proper answer is, "Today, we have a president that is openly dividing Americans on racial lines and undermining the laws of a US State in joint appearances with the president of Mexico and you are asking me hypotheticals about legislation that was signed into law 45 years ago? Which do you think is more relevant to the American people right now? Is there no amount of spinning you will do in order to prop up this failed socialist administration?"  

It's called the Christie approach, Dr. Paul. Man up and fight the media head on, or they will destroy you. 

157
Rand Paul is ONE guy.  and he's not president.

158 110 DJI -317.3 353.2 more weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.....................

Posted by: conscious and fucking incoherent at May 20, 2010 01:00 PM (YVZlY)

CNN no longer puts the market indexes on the front page of their website.  Weird huh?

159 158 - They were way better in Romancing the Stone. Dumbass on me though, I meant Parker. I mixed up blonde women who sound like Harvey Firestein.

160 DrewM writes:

This is my problem with many (L)libertariansÂ…they often seem more interested in purity of thought and winning an argument than actually accomplishing something. At the risk of over generalizing, it seems agreeing on an ad hoc basis isnÂ’t enough for many (L)libertarians you also have to buy into the whole intellectual frame work. Deviate for one second in pursuit of some real world goal and you are a useless sellout.


Ah, DrewM the pragmatist. I finally figured out that this is what drives your (and I think everyone else on the Conservative side) opposition to any discussion of Obama's Citizenship status.

While I can appreciate the reasoning of your argument, it makes me wonder if this is how we ended up with people like Arlen Specter. By being too pragmatic. You are right of course about rand. To paraphrase Ghostbusters, " When someone asks you if you are the gatekeeper, you say YES !!!!"

161

Hello FireHorse.

The "...suffering and death of minority children [from any background]..." due to lack of "...access to affordable health care..." is unwelcome.  Your concern for the children, if it is genuine, is laudable.  Your President Zero's plan will result in less access to good healthcare for everyone.  ('Affordable' is seldom equal to 'good'.)  Obamacare will lead us to healthcare hell, but, hey, your intentions are all good.

If you really cared about the children, you would support free market solutions, which are the only economic mechanisms which actually work to bring the price of high quality products down where we common people can have access. 

 

 

162

Paul should have been more nuanced.

You nancy boys make me want to fucking puke.  Do we or don't we know how this man feels about the issue? 

It will be a long six months with cute names like "paulnuts, paulistinians, randies", etc. 

Bunch of twats, the lot of you.

163 #161  CNN no longer puts the market indexes on the front page of their website.  Weird huh?

If they don't show it, it doesn't exist.

164 I am an unashamed Libertarian. Get government out of our lives.

Government exists to provide for the safety and order of its citizens. That's it. No student loans, no bailouts, to mandatory health care. If you wanna smoke dope, great. Do it.

For the life of me, I cannot understand what people find so threatening about the Libertarian platform. It is the absolute closest thing to the pure freedom and the intent of the constitution. I honestly think freedom, real freedom, scares the shit out of most people. And thus they see freedom from government control as chaos. Unbelievably, this nation survived in the late 1700's without taxes, without a bazillion ridiculous laws, and without a Fed Reserve. Many folks see Paul and his kid as radicals. I don't get it. 

165

Oh, and one more thing - this whole kerfuffle just goes to show how right Jonah Goldberg was in his column earlier this week.  Democrats really have nothing but the race card to play, it's the only script they know, and they will go to absurd lengths to follow it.  The fact that Rand Paul is actually, seriously being asked in 2010 about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is proof of how politically bankrupt the Democrats are and how desperate they are to gin up the black vote this year.  They know they have fucked up on the Arizona law while trying to shore up their Hispanic base, so now they are back to the good old tried-and-true black race baiting.

This is not about Rand Paul at all, it is about agitating black voters in Pennsylvania and California and Florida and getting them to show up in November. 

166 Rand should've unzipped and started face-slapping Maddow with his dick.  Maybe Chris Christie can go on her show and do that.

167
UPDATE.

168 UPDATE: The Paul campaign has issued the following statement:

“I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person.  I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation.  Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
 
“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.”
 
“As I have said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts in the intervening years.”
 
“My opponent's statement on MSNBC Wednesday that I favor repeal of the Civil Rights Act was irresponsible and knowingly false. I hope he will correct the record and retract his claims.”
 
“The issue of civil rights is one with a tortured history in this country. We have made great strides, but there is still work to be done to ensure the great promise of Liberty is granted to all Americans.”
 
“This much is clear:  The federal government has far overreached in its power grabs.  Just look at the recent national healthcare schemes, which my opponent supports.   The federal government, for the first time ever, is mandating that individuals purchase a product.   The federal government is out of control, and those who love liberty and value individual and state's rights must stand up to it.”
 
“These attacks prove one thing for certain:  the liberal establishment is desperate to keep leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign."

169 Ok, so for those who hate compromise...

Unless we get everything we want, we walk away?

How do you translate this never compromise position to actually being  in a position of responsibility? Do you simply take nothing every time your maximialist position is defeated?

I want ObamaCare fully repealed but if the choice is repealing 80% of it and have to live with say, high risk pools to cover those with pre-existing conditions and allowing 'kids' to stay on their parents insurance until they are 26, I'll take 80% and live with those add-ons.

I guess that makes me a sellout. I should say, "NO! I will not let 'kids' stay on their parents policy until they are 26. I'd rather let the the individual mandate and all the rest take effect than compromise my position! I am pure, hear me ROAR!!!!!!111!!"

Oh kay then.

170

For the life of me, I cannot understand what people find so threatening about the Libertarian platform.

Because freedom means the ability to do bad things as well. It means freedom to be "racists", "sexists", "homophobes", or any of the other Leftist bugaboos. The Left would rather have totalitarian control, for "the good of all" (nebulously defined) or "your own good".

171

I don't mind his libertarianism.  I kinda mind his political naivete. 

 

172 I don't mind his libertarianism. I kinda mind his political naivete. Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 20, 2010 01:30 PM (Wh0W+) Yeah I'm with ya there. Thank goodness we have such a expert professional in the White House??????????????????

173 I think it comes down to are we talking about real world politics or a philosophical debate? Philosophically, I agree with you.   In the real world, it doesn't fly.

Yeah, we don't actually disagree.  Look, I'll be the first to admit that I live way too much inside my head and my first reaction is usually to support having all out fights about the philosophical bases of politic viewpoints.  That doesn't really work out in the real world.  I have yet to be able to come up with some middle ground where a candidate can address a subject like this without it turning into a disaster.

Race is simply to charged an area to start hammering away at in the name of ideology.

And back to the living in my head thing, I just can't make myself accept that.  I know how the real world is.  I know how the clips play.  And I want that to stop.  It's anathema to all I hold intellectually dear to make a topic verboten due to emotional reactions.   On a practical level, you're right.  But I hate that this is the reality of it and I want that to change.  I don't see how it will change until that premise is challenged.  Which is not to say that a Senate campaign is the best way to do that. 

I totally agree about the ADA, that would play well since that impacts a ton of people who are mad about seeing people game the system. 

174 "Are you seriously asking me what I would do if I had a fucking time machine?"

I would pay good money to see that.

175

Ok, so for those who hate compromise...

Unless we get everything we want, we walk away?

It's not that, Drew. It's that you are already piling on the nominee for a minor error, when we all know the Commiecrat must be defeated. And a lot of the GOP Establishment likes to do this.

176 For the life of me, I cannot understand what people find so threatening about the Libertarian platform.

Because it's scary.  Responsibility is hard and it means making difficult decisions and it means accepting that sometimes bad shit happens.  It's far easier to let someone else take care of you.

177

#176 I didn't vote for Obama.  I would vote for Rand.  See the difference?

 

I don't like wasting political capital defending a novice.  He's spent most of today sayin "aw yeah, I probably shouldn't have done that Maddow thing, boy what was I thinking there?" and issuing complete, 100% unequivocal support of the CRA without nuanced statements about Federal overreach".

Yay.

178 reiterating:  we must win in november

179 RE: political capital... I don't mean me personally, I have none.  I mean all of us collectively.

180 Dave in Texas at May 20, 2010 01:34 PM (Wh0W+) I know. That wasn't a shot at you. I was just thinking out loud.

181 ah, ok, mybad.

182 great,  we're breaking out the "M" word again.

183 SELMA!!!

Did they ask him about Selma?  Because it's ALWAYS about SELLLLMAAAAAAA!!1!!!ELEVENTY!11!!

184 Drew, how aren't you doing the exact same fucking thing? Rand Paul differs from you on maybe 20% of shit, and you immediately start chugging on the Haterade.

Your entire argument is a fucking straw man. Nobody who opposes ObamaCare would say that they'd rather have nothing than have to keep the "your kids stay covered until they're 26". They'd continue to argue that the let your kids stay covered bit is stupid, bad, and harmful, but that's not the same thing at all. Show me one libertarian who's made that argument.

185 "The proper answer is..."

He was very clear...no way to take this gaffe back.

Time to make the apology calls to Al and Jesse.

186

Compromise is called for in a situation when both parties have more or less equivalent capital, i.e., two large armies facing in the field.  It's not so appropriate when you're arguing with a schizophrenic that Great Grape Ape and Ricochet Rabbit want to kill him with a machete. 

When you're dealing with an irrational, conniving, and ceaselessly vocal minority of liberals, compromise may be justified, but the intent is to get as much as you can and then work to reinforce your position so that during the next round you can push your enemy further.  Compromise forestalls conflict until you're better equipped.  And the problem is that there's the belief that the Republicans compromise, then fail to reinforce and re-equip. 

187

he's being asked not to piss people off about an incredibly emotional issue.

All issues have become incredibly emotional issues. That's half the problem.

Stop being so goddamn emotional.

188 DrewM writes:


I guess that makes me a sellout. I should say, "NO! I will not let 'kids' stay on their parents policy until they are 26. I'd rather let the the individual mandate and all the rest take effect than compromise my position! I am pure, hear me ROAR!!!!!!111!!"

Oh kay then.

Drew, consider that if the horrible things don't occur, people won't realize that something is wrong, and that it needs to be fixed. Sometimes a ship keeling over a bit is what it takes for the passengers to finally get the message that the Titanic is sinking!

189 I will admit. I do find it funny we are hemming and hawing over Rand Paul and how he will make our party look once the MFM starts tearing into him, all the while the Democratic Candidate for Senate in Conn. has been claiming to be a Vietnam Veteran, captain of the Harvard swin team, and not in any way related to Reinhard Heydrich despite the uncanny resemblance.

190 114 Snap Poll: More unpleasant - slamming your balls in a kitchen drawer, TWICE, or discussinglistening to a lecture about the nature of individual liberty from a Paul supporter. Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 20, 2010 01:01 PM (C9ASC) Well, that depends. Did I have a couple of drinks before slamming my balls? I mean, context matters.

191 "Sometimes a ship keeling over a bit is what it takes for the passengers to finally get the message that the Titanic is sinking!"

Unfortunately, that usually also means it's too late to do anything about it.

192 Time to make the apology calls to Al and Jesse.

Posted by: snapdragon at May 20, 2010 01:36 PM (5Etcj)

Kiss it!

193

he's being asked not to piss people off about an incredibly emotional issue.

All issues have become incredibly emotional issues. That's half the problem.

Stop being so goddamn emotional.

Entropy, please.. I am incredible emotional about the issue of being over emotional.

 

194

Good statement.  Already calling Conway a liar and cheap political hack.  More media piling on after this will actually help Paul in Kentucky. 

It looks to me like Democrats are going to try to run the same stupid, losing campaign here that they did in Virginia last year.  The Washington Post threw everything it had at Bob McDonnell trying to paint him as a far-right Neanderthal, but the voters saw through it.  So will Kentuckians.

195

Kiss it!

Apologize. Yeah that's right Apollo-gise.

I was thinking the same thing,.

196 Because it's scary.  Responsibility is hard and it means making difficult decisions and it means accepting that sometimes bad shit happens.  It's far easier to let someone else take care of you.

My worry is that we can get the libertine parts without the economic parts.  If you want to use drugs etc, I say more power to you, get off my lawn and die in the street.  The truth is we will end up with legalized pathologies and we have to pay to support it.

197 I'm not defending Paul, per say, and I haven't read all of his quotes, so by the standards of the Obama administration, I'm infinitely qualified to speak on this.

What I will say is that a typical Midwestern voter, of which I am familiar, won't pay much attention to this type of thing, because they are tired of the racial thing and just want it to go away.  Enough with the racial boogey man being around every corner, is IMO, a popular sentiment in this area of the country.

He may do some other wacky things to blow up his chances, but I don't see this a being it.

198 nap Poll: More unpleasant - slamming your balls in a kitchen drawer, TWICE, -- cool, cool pudding afterwards?

199

Drew, you can't claim that anyone here is opposed to all compromise.  That's a strawman.  How to negotiate depends on what is being negotiated.  Passing ObamaCare?  No compromise, the answer is and should be no.  End of story.  Repealing it?  Take what you can get when you can get it, but never, never stop hammering away until you get it all.  That's not technically compromise either, it's simply a piecemeal approach, which I think is what you're advocating in your example anyway. 

Compromise only happens when you have two reasonable alternatives and need a solution; but if one alternative is unreasonable, keep hammering it until it's dead, whether it's all at once, or piece by piece. 

The other neat thing about not compromising with the Dems when they propose legislation?  If you deadlock, they get nothing.  Neat, huh?  Would have been nice on ObamaCare, or TARP.  Repealing is another matter, because that's positive action on our side.  That approach requires you take what you can get when you can, and come back and fight for the rest later (the very next day). 

And pre-compromising is a terrible negotiation strategy.  Aim for the stars, and get what you can.  If you come to the table with a reasonable offer, you'll lose even more than what you were prepared to.  (At least if you're negotiating with an unreasonable party, which the Dems are.)

200 Your entire argument is a fucking straw man. Nobody who opposes ObamaCare would say that they'd rather have nothing than have to keep the "your kids stay covered until they're 26". They'd continue to argue that the let your kids stay covered bit is stupid, bad, and harmful, but that's not the same thing at all. Show me one libertarian who's made that argument.
Posted by: DMXRoid at May 20, 2010 01:36 PM (vd872)

Bullshit.

I just did a quick search of this thread for the word "compormise" look at Numbers 10 42 53 54 55 130 142 144.

There are others along those lines.

You may not think compromise isn't bad but I wasn't talking to you then.

201 195 "Sometimes a ship keeling over a bit is what it takes for the passengers to finally get the message that the Titanic is sinking!"

Unfortunately, that usually also means it's too late to do anything about it.

Posted by: the peanut gallery at May 20, 2010 01:39 PM (NurK6)

I'm not sure if we're already at that stage or not. If we are, part of the reason we are is because people kept patching up the ugliness by slowing and delaying it (through compromises) to allow the public to become accustomed to it slowly.

(like the boiling frog syndrome.)

Sometimes I think that rather than making the democrat's ugly legislation more tolerable, we should instead be allowing\forcing it to be far worse.

202

Stop being so goddamn emotional.

Posted by: Entropy at May 20, 2010 01:37 PM (IsLT6)

Take that, laceyunderalls!

203 My worry is that we can get the libertine parts without the economic parts.  If you want to use drugs etc, I say more power to you, get off my lawn and die in the street.  The truth is we will end up with legalized pathologies and we have to pay to support it.

Me too.  I am personally very very very anti-drug.  Like, incredibly so.  But hey, if someone wants to shoot up with heroin, thanks for removing yourself from the gene pool.  You want to do it, fine, as long as I don't have to pay for it and as long as I can shoot you in the face when you try to break into my house to steal my stuff to pay for it.

Right now?  We're getting the libertine without the responsibility.  That's a bad combination.

204 Drew, you can't claim that anyone here is opposed to all compromise.
Posted by: Shillelagh at May 20, 2010 01:43 PM (Oz4Bj)

Gee, where did I get that idea from.

Oh wait, I know, I read you number 42!

Compromise?  We are not supposed to compromise with American-hating socialists.  The compromise should be the middle ground somewhere between guys like Rand Paul and guys like John McCain, not between John McCain and Nancy Pelosi.  An outlier that can shift the spectrum to the right a bit is welcome, even if the outlier is, well, an outlier

Now maybe compromise is occasionally okay as a tactic? Hmmmm, seems one of us changed out tune a bit. Here's a hint...it wasn't me.

205 Deviate for one second in pursuit of some real world goal and you are a useless sellout MAINSTREAM REPUBLICAN. Did you see those fuckers clapping for Calderon?

206 +1 Drew.   I come from the Objectivist-Libertarian camp (originally - I find myself more and more mainstream conservative nowadays) and the philosophizing and absolutism they display makes them political non-starters 99% of the time. 

I know all of the meticulously-reasoned (and largely correct) arguments that make Rand* supporters oppose political chestnuts such as the Federal Reserve, the Civil Rights Act, etc...  But you can't make those arguments in 30 seconds on the Maddow show (it took Ayn Rand a bajillion pages of novels + 10 volumes of essays to make a decent showing).  If you can't contextualize and justify your position on an issue in 30 seconds or less, leave it the hell alone and go with the mainstream.

* Ayn, not Paul-  I'll mistrust "Rand Jr." and his pappy as ideological hijackers until given a good reason not to - maybe irrational on my part, but Ron's political bedfellows run to far to the fringe for my tastes, for one thing and I can't shake the sense of carpetbagging I feel about them both.  I also mistrust their political followers for being personality cultists first - much like many Objectivists are.

207 Quick poll, how many are here are from Kentucky? How many from Kentucky give a rats ass what the rest of the country thinks? How many from Kentucky will vote for Rand because the media and the rest of the country doesn't like?

208 I fully agree that compromise is the only way things get accomplished politically these days (if you're not a Democrat).  However, if that is the case, shouldn't conservatives hold a more far-right position so that compromise will be achieved in the middle?

Right now, if conservatives are determined to hold a center-right position on most political issues and they are going up against far-left Democrats, your compromise is going to end up being center-left.  Perhaps if we were more determined to hold a further-right position, the compromise would end up being a bit more center-center?

Then again, maybe I'm just talking out of my ass.

209 Segregation is evil.

210 He was very clear...no way to take this gaffe back.
No dipshit, he wasn't clear, point of the post.  But its been made clear now.

Time to make the apology calls to Al and Jesse.
Time for Al and Jesse to apologize to the American people for the decades of race pimping and keeping African Americans in poverty.

211 197 he's being asked not to piss people off about an incredibly emotional issue. All issues have become incredibly emotional issues. That's half the problem. Stop being so goddamn emotional. Entropy, please.. I am incredible emotional about the issue of being over emotional. Posted by: Ben at May 20, 2010 01:39 PM (wuv1c) Your emotion about being so goddam emotional is making me incredibly...well...you know.

212 The best way to compromise is to be the last bastard to leave the moral high ground - bitching and whining the whole way. Make Obama think John McCain has to literally drag your ass on to the floor.

213 Bullshit.

I just did a quick search of this thread for the word "compormise" look at Numbers 10 42 53 54 55 130 142 144.

There are others along those lines.

You may not think compromise isn't bad but I wasn't talking to you then.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 20, 2010 01:43 PM (9B5OK)

Some compromising is always necessary. That says nothing about the limit of compromise, and with whom you compromise, and over what.

That's the real argument being made here (by most making that argument). Hence the accusation against you of manufacturing a straw-man rebuttal.

214 #198 The Washington Post threw everything it had at Bob McDonnell trying to paint him as a far-right Neanderthal, but the voters saw through LOVED it.

215

Bunch of twats, the lot of you.

Yep. This blog needs an enema.

216 Did you see those fuckers clapping for Calderon?

Posted by: dr kill at May 20, 2010 01:47 PM (w9bVp)

Yep, it was fuckin' sickening. Bastards.

217 Posted by: Jim in San Diego at May 20, 2010 01:51 PM (oIp16)

Well, those comments I pointed out kind of lacked that nuance you've added.

Still, I'm glad we can get past the idea that compromise in politics is inherently evil and nothing but RINOrific selling out. Nice to have that on record.

218 he's being asked not to piss people off about an incredibly emotional issue.

All issues have become incredibly emotional issues. That's half the problem.

Stop being so goddamn emotional.

Entropy, please.. I am incredible emotional about the issue of being over emotional.
Posted by: Ben at May 20, 2010 01:39 PM (wuv1c)

Your emotion about being so goddam emotional is making me incredibly...well...you know.

Shit. It's going to be a long day.

219 Right now, if conservatives are determined to hold a center-right position on most political issues and they are going up against far-left Democrats, your compromise is going to end up being center-left.

That's a good point.  The CenterLeft threatens to unleash their insane FarLeft cannon fodder on us all the time, and yet you never hear of the CenterRight coming in and dumping a dufflebag of machine guns and grenades on the table and warning the Left that they took these off their farRight cohort but they don't know how much longer they can restrain them.


We're good cops without bad cops.

220 Compromise?  We are not supposed to compromise with American-hating socialists.  The compromise should be the middle ground somewhere between guys like Rand Paul and guys like John McCain, not between John McCain and Nancy Pelosi.  An outlier that can shift the spectrum to the right a bit is welcome, even if the outlier is, well, an outlier

Now maybe compromise is occasionally okay as a tactic? Hmmmm, seems one of us changed out tune a bit. Here's a hint...it wasn't me.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 20, 2010 01:47 PM (9B5OK)

Not sure I hear the changed tune.  Don't compromise with America-hating socialists.  You disagree with that statement?  Do compromise if the compromise is reasonable.  I don't see the contradiction.

221
fuck you, italics

222 Dammit Jim, I'm a DOCTOR, not a lawyer. I'm new to this political mumbo jumbo.

223

Rand...dude...duuuuuude...

Trust me on this.

Sometimes the best answer is a simple, solid, "No."

224 "Right now, if conservatives are determined to hold a center-right position on most political issues and they are going up against far-left Democrats, your compromise is going to end up being center-left.  Perhaps if we were more determined to hold a further-right position, the compromise would end up being a bit more center-center?"

Yeah, I think the point here is that you can compromise in practice but you should never compromise your ideals.

225 OK, so I'm opposed to compromising with American-hating socialists.  Is that the full set of parties with whom there will ever be negotiations?  No one else?  I'm totally against all compromise with everyone always, because I don't want to compromise with American-hating socialists? 

226

What was it Reagan said about negotiating?

What's ours in ours, and whats yours in negotiable.

227 Heh: PAUL JUMPS OUT TO A 25 POINT LEAD IN KY SENATE RACE

228 Posted by: FUBAR at May 20, 2010 01:54 PM (1fanL)

If you have an overwhelming majority where you can simply cut deals between the right and middle of the Republican party, great.

Something tells me we aren't going to have that for awhile (especially in the Senate) so you may have to talk to a few Democrats along the way.

229 PAUL JUMPS OUT TO A 25 POINT LEAD IN KY SENATE RACE

Our take away is that Kentuckians aren't thrilled with the Civil Rights Act.

230 Politics isn't calculus.  Some views shift you out of the conversation entirely rather than moving the goalposts.  We've all heard of "third rail" issues.

In today's world, with public attitudes as they stand, the Civil Rights Act is a "third rail."  Red Card - game over - hit the showers. 

To beat the dead horse some more, all the discussion about whether he's right or wrong doesn't mean much if he a) never reaches office and/or b) drags the whole Republican name down by association. 

The two-party system requires compromise and Libertarians haven't shown sufficient interest in it.  Yes, I know, "in a compromise between food & poison...", but a major problem Libertarians (and Randroids) have is in erroneously labeling errors of fact and judgment as errors in morality.  Not all compromises involve morality.

231 "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens."

232

Did you see those fuckers clapping for Calderon?

I don't mind Calderon. Sure he's a douche, but he's the best Mexico has to offer. Also, keep in mind the man he beat in the last election essentially wanted to completely turn a blind eye to drug trafficing, if not be involved in it.

As much as Calderon sucks balls, he is one of the last people preventing mexico from become a full blow Pre-Uribe Columbia.

We need to understand that mexico will always be a quasi failed state that only surivive sucking off the tit of america. So while Calderon may piss me off in many way, I can't blame the guy. Look at the material he has to work with.

233 Please President Obama... Please save the Stock market from falling any further O'Great One. I beg of thee please help us little people......

234 If you have an overwhelming majority where you can simply cut deals between the right and middle of the Republican party, great.

Something tells me we aren't going to have that for awhile (especially in the Senate) so you may have to talk to a few Democrats along the way.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 20, 2010 01:57 PM (9B5OK)

As has been said: if the compromise is reasonable, compromise.  If the compromise is with America-hating socialists, don't compromise. 

Which part of that, exactly, is bad?  Which compromises should the Republicans have made with Barry and the rest of the America-hating socialists?

235 222 Posted by: Jim in San Diego at May 20, 2010 01:51 PM (oIp16)

Well, those comments I pointed out kind of lacked that nuance you've added.

Still, I'm glad we can get past the idea that compromise in politics is inherently evil and nothing but RINOrific selling out. Nice to have that on record.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 20, 2010 01:53 PM (9B5OK)

Drew, you are just like worse than Hitler.

/

236 Bah, Drew, you sellout.  You're probably afraid of freedom!

237 I had a vision of Mitch McConnell telling the Democratic leadership that He was the only thing standing between them and the pitchforks,   and then I woke up and laughed.

238

I won't decide until I get a good look at Rand's pant creases.

239 "guess what this liberal would be all about? This liberal would be all about socializing -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."

240 Drew says:
Bullshit.
I just did a quick search of this thread for the word "compormise" look at Numbers 10 42 53 54 55 130 142 144.
There are others along those lines.
You may not think compromise isn't bad but I wasn't talking to you then. I think that every single one of those is obviously not the kind of thing you're talking about. I can't speak for them, but it looks to me like they're talking about not compromising in the sense of, "If you have a choice between BarryCare and NOT BarryCare, you shouldn't compromise for half BarryCare". I doubt if you put the question of "If we can get rid of half of BarryCare today, but would have to live with the other half until we can repeal it later, should we do it" to any of those commenters, they'd say no.

241 For the record, I recently compromised with my brother over which strip club to go to on a night out.  I wanted to go to the swankier, expensive downtown stripclub where the women are all 20-30, and he wanted to go to the cheaper one in the county where the women are either 18 or 40+.  I got my choice of club in exhange for paying his cover.  See?  Compromise!

242 Our political system only involves compromise if your a conservative. This has everything to do with the tone of politics in America which is largely dictated to us by the MFM through control of the message. For example, one candidate will be crucified for his libertarian views when it comes to the CRA, while another candidate can refer to his grandmothers as a "typical white person" when referring to her racist behavior.

243 where the women are all 20-30, and he wanted to go to the cheaper one in the county where the women are either 18 or 40+. 

Posted by: Shillelagh at May 20, 2010 02:05 PM (Oz4Bj)

Wait.  This is a tough one.  Because you can always ignore the ones who are 40+.

244

great,  we're breaking out the "M" word again.

Mangina?

245 is zerohedge down?

246 so you want rand to lie to reporters?

247 "under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket"

248 Let me add, Jim: I only took up this political "soft science" because I'm scared sh*tless that Obamacare is going to make me work for peanuts. I shudder at the thought of being associated in any way with that android Carter.

249

HOLY SHIT

 

In one of the previous threads I said I was locked out of my Ameritrade account and asked if anyone else was affected.

 

apparently per drudge they just locked most people out through the mid day trading.

jeez.

250 sock off

251 As has been said: if the compromise is reasonable, compromise.

Again that's an added nuance.

A welcome one but added nonetheless.

252 Again that's an added nuance.

A welcome one but added nonetheless.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 20, 2010 02:11 PM (9B5OK)

I guess I missed where anybody said never ever ever ever ever compromise ever ever under any circumstances ever.

253 "I got my choice of club in exhange for paying his cover. "

Real titty bars don't charge a cover. Think of the $5.00 bottle of germicide you purchase later that night as the "cover". 

254 164

Hello FireHorse.

If you really cared about the children, you would support free market solutions...

Honest to God--was I the ONLY person who read FireHorse's comment as a really clever joke?

Anyone? Bueller? 

255 The Fed is kicking in hard  -270

256 Rand Paul.

Rand Paul.

RAND PAUL!

LUAP DNAR sounds so much cooler than LUAP NOR after all.

257

Posted by: David Brooks at May 20, 2010 02:10 PM (wuv1c)

Does it keep failing you out on the security question?

258 247:

Now that's how politics and compromise work - excellent analogy.  You both wanted to see boobz (shared goals) and found a way to make both of you happy (I hope).

That's different from compromising with the Palestinians if you are Israel (we want you all dead vs. we all want to live). 

And no, we shouldn't compromise with the hard-left nutters whose goal is destroying the system from within, but we need to take incremental steps rather than radical restructuring based on anyone's "revealed truth" ideology (be it Marx or Von Mises).

259 where the women are all 20-30, and he wanted to go to the cheaper one in the county where the women are either 18 or 40+. 

Posted by: Shillelagh at May 20, 2010 02:05 PM (Oz4Bj)

-------

Wait.  This is a tough one.  Because you can always ignore the ones who are 40+.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 20, 2010 02:07 PM (1fanL)

OK, there are two girls there that are 18, the rest are 40+.  And I swear the one might be lying and not even 18.  Does not look like it.  If you've ever heard the line "that's someone's little girl on that stage," this girl is where that comes from.  Yeesh. 

But my girlfriend is 19, so I guess that's a little of a double standard.  Though I'm the only one that sees her naked (I'm told). 

260 250 Wait. This is a tough one. Because you can always ignore the ones who are 40+.
_______________

What if the 18 one called in sick that night?

261 -239  the spigots are wide open now, and the Scottrade site is getting boggy.

262 And it seemed to me like Rand Paul compromised.  Instead of saying that the Civil Rights Act was the most perfectest law ever and the pinnacle of modern civilization, or saying it was the most wrong-headed piece of legislation ever passed, he said there were problems with it but he supported equal rights, etc.

If he lives in Kentucky, I'm sure he doesn't mind kissing his sister.

263

I believe someone pointed this out earlier (thank you Mr. or Mrs. Voice of Reason, and sorry I forget who you were), but anyway.....

We're dissecting down to the every word one potential Senator from an already red conservative state.

Why aren't we demanding answers from the Dems on why the Senators they support gave a standing ovation to the Mexican President that had the audacity to slam one of our states that's doing nothing more than (a) adhering to existing federal law and (b) protecting itself from the most vile of said President's countrymen? And why was he even given a soapbox in the first place? What say you Snapdragon??

It's probably time for a bit of perspective, no?

264 Uggggh...I wish Ameritrade would lock me out.  I didn't need to see that. 

265

But my girlfriend is 19, so I guess that's a little of a double standard.  Though I'm the only one that sees her naked (I'm told). 

Posted by: Shillelagh at May 20, 2010 02:14 PM (Oz4Bj)

Of course you're the only one who sees me naked, lover.  I'm going out with my girlfriends tonight, 'kay?

266

Posted by: Upscale Community Organizing Thought Criminal at May 20, 2010 02:16 PM (IhHdM)

Obviously it's the wife's fault.

That poor beleaguered husband was willing to meet her halfway, and that selfish bitch wouldn't even budge!

267 "Elena Kagan's America is a land in which women would be forced into store-front abortions, minorities would get preferential seating at lunch counters, for jobs, and the institutions of higher learning, convicted sexual perverts would receive  no-cost erectile enhancing drugs, police would routinely break down citizens' doors in midnight raids in search of veterans and conservatives, schoolchildren would be force-fed liberal dogma and alternative sexuality, writers and artists would be sponsored by the Government to create offensive images denigrating Christianity, and the doors of the Federal courts would be opened wide to millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is the encourager of alleged grievance"

Sounds great!  Where can we sign up?

268 I'm going to vote for John Stossel as ship commander when you come up for a job review, Jim.

269

Why aren't we demanding answers from the Dems on why the Senators they support gave a standing ovation to the Mexican President that had the audacity to slam one of our states that's doing nothing more than (a) adhering to existing federal law and (b) protecting itself from the most vile of said President's countrymen? And why was he even given a soapbox in the first place? What say you Snapdragon??

Posted by: laceyunderalls at May 20, 2010 02:16 PM (pLTLS)

I say that's good for 157 Senate seats and 837 House seats.

270

But my girlfriend is 19, so I guess that's a little of a double standard.  Though I'm the only one that sees her naked (I'm told). 

Posted by: Shillelagh at May 20, 2010 02:14 PM (Oz4Bj)

Of course you're the only one who sees me naked, lover.  I'm going out with my girlfriends tonight, 'kay?

Posted by: Your 19 y.o. Girlfriend at May 20, 2010 02:18 PM (1fanL)

OK, have fun.  Did you need my credit card, or do you have enough cash?

271

Posted by: David Brooks at May 20, 2010 02:10 PM (wuv1c)

Does it keep failing you out on the security question?

 

yeah. i can get in now. but i couldn't midday.

272 I guess I missed where anybody said never ever ever ever ever compromise ever ever under any circumstances ever.

I guess you did.

See there are a lot of people now coming out saying, "oh no, that's not what I meant". That's fine. But when people write in sweeping generalities, don't be shocked when others call them on it.

273 I'm glad you took the Brooks' sock off, Ben, as I can't believe Brooks knows enough about the markets to actually invest in them.

274

I'm glad you took the Brooks' sock off, Ben, as I can't believe Brooks knows enough about the markets to actually invest in them.

yes. yes indeed. He's heavily invested in a failing president. i think that has depleted any capital he had left.

275

Obviously it's the wife's fault.

That poor beleaguered husband was willing to meet her halfway, and that selfish bitch wouldn't even budge!

Posted by: Jim in San Diego at May 20, 2010 02:19 PM (oIp16)

So in this scenario, the wife is the libertarian and the husband is the healthy red-blooded American America-hating Socialist?

276 The husband should compromise by always wearing a condom, at home.

277 Man, I love it when bloggers get all petty and bitchy in their comment threads.

278 Nothing is more important than how I am perceived on the internet!

279

What about posts 4 8 15 16 23 and 42? 

280 they often seem more interested in purity of thought and winning an argument than actually accomplishing something.

This is where I am going to take exception. The libertarian philosophy which itself makes up the foundation of conservative principals of government, cannot not itself be compromised without confusing the message of libertarian ideals. In the case of the Civil Rights Act. Is the approach in principal the right thing to do? I would stipulate that on principal, the approach is at least arguable, as the intent of the act is to protect rights, and as such is a legitimate function of government. While I will not go so far as to say it is the best approach, it is clear that some action on behalf of government was necessary. The second question though, is it legal? Not under any reasonable understanding of the commerce clause. So like many government actions. The intent, at least superficially is noble, the societal need apparent, but the overall precedent and path of governance disastrous.

Understanding the practical world of small change, and real accomplishment in policy, is it so wrong, or so unsellable to say that you stand squarely behind the principal of desegregation, but have severe concerns over using the commerce clause to accomplish it, and proposing that it would be better for society, if they really want congress to regulate desegregation, to grant them an appropriate limited power by amendment, and narrow the interpretation of the commerce clause, to protect business from abuses. Because in reality, if you say, sure it's OK to break the rule this once in this case, then what real rule do you have? What real message do you have? The challenge for the libertarian is presenting the philosophy as a viable alternative to statism. By demonstrating how the government the people need can still be implemented without supporting a big government theory of society. Once you start down the path of practical exception to the limited enumerated powers, it never ends and you end up with the status quo with no real change ever implemented.

That is ultimately the concern of many libertarians, that, even if you support Congress having additional power not currently enumerated, you should support them LEGALLY having it, rather than usurping it. This is the lost protection against the runaway government we have now.

281

But my girlfriend is 19, so I guess that's a little of a double standard.  Though I'm the only one that sees her naked (I'm told). 

Posted by: Shillelagh at May 20, 2010 02:14 PM (Oz4Bj)

just you and everybody on Facebook.

282

Mainstream Democrats at May 20, 2010 02:26 PM (NurK6)

I see you hail from the dying socialist planet NurK6, hoping to invade our earthly organism.

I may be voting for Jim's ouster later, but he's STILL my commander, dammit.

I wouldn't check your 6 eyes with a foot-long light pole.

283 I guess you did.

See there are a lot of people now coming out saying, "oh no, that's not what I meant". That's fine. But when people write in sweeping generalities, don't be shocked when others call them on it.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 20, 2010 02:22 PM (9B5OK)

Well, they're easy to overlook...in your mind!

"At the risk of over generalizing, it seems agreeing on an ad hoc basis isnÂ’t enough for many (L)libertarians you also have to buy into the whole intellectual frame work."

Ironical, huh?

"Did it cut a few constitutional corners? Sure."

Is this the kind of compromise you're talking about?  Doing something unconstitutional because the ends are noble and good?  Because I'm not jiggy with that.  Every time someone wants to do something unconstitutional, it's because the ends are noble and good.  That's how we got in this mess in the first place.  Why don't you compromise on Obamacare?  Sure, it's a little unconstitutional, but the ends are noble and good.

284 We welcome our Compromise Over Lords.

285

OK, have fun.  Did you need my credit card, or do you have enough cash?

Posted by: Shillelagh with my head in my ass at May 20, 2010 02:21 PM (Oz4Bj)

No, that's ok, I have lots of singles from...work.

286 Why don't you compromise on Obamacare?  Sure, it's a little unconstitutional, but the ends are noble and good.

If it had 90% approval, we wouldn't even be talking about it.

287

"so you want rand to lie to reporters?"

Reporters?  No.

He can lie all he likes to Rachel Maddow and her half-dozens of viewers.

288 Tammy Bruce going off on this now, good Obama bashing today as well.

http://talkstreamlive.com/talk_radio/tammy_bruce.stream

289 It was pathetic.  This wasn't an ambush by Maddow.  A Louisville newspaper said these things were Paul's positions in their anti-endorsement of his and she gave him every opportunity to clarify them.  He failed.

He tried to compare blacks not being able to go into a restaurant with gun owners not being able to bring a gun into a restaurant.  As if you can leave your black in a safe at home. 

It's an odious position.  Proven so by history.  This isn't some libertarian thought experiment.  We KNOW what happens when you allow businesses to discriminate.  You end up with entire towns that have no services available for black people.  That's why the law exists.  Not because someone thought it was necessary.  But because it WAS necessary.

290

The fact is that if a private business practiced segregation they would be out of business in a heart beat. The only exception to this would be a country club whose members are exclusively democratic politicians.

291 It's an odious position.  Proven so by history.  This isn't some libertarian thought experiment.  We KNOW what happens when you allow businesses to discriminate.  You end up with entire towns that have no services available for black people.  That's why the law exists.  Not because someone thought it was necessary.  But because it WAS necessary.

Posted by: seattle slough at May 20, 2010 02:43 PM (JRGA6)

Even if the law is unconstitutional?

Is the law still necessary?  Because if it's not, it'd seem like a good idea to get rid of an unconstitutional law.  If it is, where do you live?

292 The political leanings of my strawman "towns that have no services available for black people" is entirely irrelevant.  By no means should anyone read post #15.

293 If it is, where do you live?

Apparently Seattle, where they fear and hate the black man.

294 Apparently Seattle, where they fear and hate the black man.

Posted by: damian at May 20, 2010 02:49 PM (4WbTI)

Actually they love 'em, they just don't know any.

295

Posted by: seattle slough at May 20, 2010 02:43 PM (JRGA6)

This isn't some libertarian thought experiment.  We KNOW what happens when you allow businesses to discriminate.  You end up with entire towns that have no services available for black people.  That's why the law exists.  Not because someone thought it was necessary.  But because it WAS necessary.

You give no credit to the anti-discriminatory power of CAPITALISM in our modern world.

The freedom-loving dollar makes wise men out of fools. Get thee back to the squishy planet JRGA6.

296 Posted by: MikeTheMoose at May 20, 2010 02:33 PM (chPp1)

I appreciate what you are saying but you're proving my point.

40+ years on, 80-90% of the people are ok with the way the corners were cut to end segregation.

You have a wonderful theoretical argument against the means that were used but very few people will agree with them. We as a society have accepted that trade off or compromise, if you will.

You can insist that people pass amendments (and that would have been a better way to go) but 40 years on people don't care, they see the results and in the big scheme of things they are ok with it. They don't want to hear about your desire for what they see as a formality.

It's wonderful to have a coherent philosophy that's not compromised by political reality but refusing to acknowledge, let alone accept that reality, it you consign yourself to the sidelines when actual policy is made.

I get that people, not just libertarians, who have a strong belief in something don't want to accept that it's usually a minority position and that they can't have their beliefs accepted in totality by the majority.

The overwhelming majority of people don't have a coherent political philosophy that they are consciously aware of. Expecting them to and treating them as if they do in the same way you do is self defeating for you.

297 On behalf of the Democratic National Party and all it's affiliated organizations, may I just say how pleasing and, doggone it, downright exciting the Kentucky GOP Senatorial primary result was. I have to admit that many on the left, liberals, progressives, liberals and leaners alike, were in an awful tizzy when it became clear that Senator Jim Bunning would be forced into retirement. And not just for the possibly lost opportunity at a D win: even more for the lost ability to turn to Senator Bunning on a slow news day for just that perfect sound bite to excite our base. But now it's clear that the GOP was all along just preparing a special gift for us, a replacement for the months and months of the left's bashing Rush Limbaugh -- which, after all, was getting sort of old and feeble, even hypocritical once we succeeded in denying him a seat at the lunch counter of the NFL. As a show of gratitude, the DNC is now providing the Rand Paul for Senate campaign with free consulting and media booking services. You're welcome.

298 But businesses DID practice discrimination without going out of business.  For decades and decades.  Are there is absolutely nothing to suggest businesses wouldn't be able to get away with it today.  Maybe not in downtown Atlanta, but certainly there are parts of my home state (Washington) where they could and would. 

And it IS constitutional.  Having states where businesses are openly hostile to blacks (for instance) has massive implications for interstate commerce. 

Without the Civil Rights Act a chamber of commerce could literally run every black person out of town.  Tough to live somewhere where you are not allowed into ANY store or restaurant.  Don't think that would happen?  Then you're wrong.

299 It's a trap!

269 before we get the obvious,  You morons are letting me get easy ones.  How the heck do you get that much free time?

300 polynikes:

I'm for what?  How?  You're absolutely right insofar as I have no idea what you mean by the words "selective discrimination."

301 The only problem with Ronulans is there from Outer Fucking Space.
Ok, the hair, silver suits and stridently impractical politics are trouble also.

302 Posted by: seattle slough at May 20, 2010 02:56 PM (JRGA6)

Just curios but in your mind what check is there on the federal government when it comes to telling you what you can do and with whom you have to associate?

303 It's obvious they didnt teach him common sense at med school.

Great. Another putz-head Republican.

304 But businesses DID practice discrimination without going out of business.  For decades and decades.  Are there is absolutely nothing to suggest businesses wouldn't be able to get away with it today.  Maybe not in downtown Atlanta, but certainly there are parts of my home state (Washington) where they could and would. 

And it IS constitutional.  Having states where businesses are openly hostile to blacks (for instance) has massive implications for interstate commerce. 

Without the Civil Rights Act a chamber of commerce could literally run every black person out of town.  Tough to live somewhere where you are not allowed into ANY store or restaurant. Don't think that would happen?  Then you're wrong.

Posted by: seattle slough at May 20, 2010 02:56 PM (JRGA6)

Practicing discrimination against slaves and former slaves who are also discriminated against by the local, state, and federal government is a lot different than suddenly starting to discriminate against full citizens who aren't discriminated against by the gummint.  Especially when public opinion on the subject has changed.  Isn't it?

If it is constitutional, what kind of gummint regulation controlling freedom of association ISN'T constitutional?  What kind of gummint regulation pertaining to commerce ISN'T constitutional?

Don't think that would happen?  Then you're wrong.

Very compelling, well-thought-out argument.

305

You and your fellow travelers have no problem with allowing businesses to discriminate against persons who may be exercising other legal activities such as smoking or concealed carry.

Posted by: polynikes at May 20, 2010 03:04 PM (m2CN7)

And I'll just bet he's ok with affirmative action too.  That's the good kind of racial discrimination.

306 Spot on, Drew.

To get elected, you just answer on the broad issue and save the noodling facts for working in Congress.

If a lefty can say "If we can share the wealth, that's better for everyone." That makes the entire left get all wet and tingly--Including some fairly rational lefties who are not communists.

(Never mind that what actually happens once the man takes office is a hard left turn toward totalitarianism and nationalism that appalls even some hardcore Liberals.)

307 318

Nationalism?  Obama?  What nation?

308

Paul's phrasing was a rookie mistake, there's no getting around that.  At the same time, I'm not going to accept the left's bad-faith paraphrase of Paul's position for his true beliefs, and it's surprising to see so many commenters do so.  The left is never going to give a libertarian or a conservative a fair shake:  we should plan for that reality, but we shouldn't actually buy into their spin.

Even as a right-wing (l)libertarian I get half of what Drew is saying, but the other half makes me think he sees no enemies to the left and no allies to the right.  I don't see how that's helpful when Paul won the GOP primary in a blow-out and is now leading the Democrat candidate by 25 points.  Yeah, there's time for that to change but I fail to see the problem so far.  What we lose on a rookie candidate we've more than made up on a candidate Kentucky voters actually seem to want.

309 Just a head's up for all those who just haven't got round to finding the time to join up in following me on Twitter: Rand Paul has agreed to join us for a regular feature from here on until November. We were just thinking of a nightly update between "Orly Taitz" and "That woman is an idiot", but Rand insisted on going down to whatever NBC studio is handiest each and every day to bring us his latest "It's Real Inner Resting" commentary, on such timeless topics as: the dynamics of the Constitution, and how everything refers back to the first two amendments; how eliminating all taxation can be combined with tax credits and tax holidays to promote growth in the few depressed pockets of American society; and even dining tips.

310 I've made this argument to people --friends even-- that once equality was recognized most of the CR legislation did more damage than good, and that we should let bigots be bigots in their private establishments. Let a whole state be a bunch of bigots. If you really believe that everyone is of value and contributes to the growth of society and humanity, then a large area of the country that essentially chases people out due to its bigotry will have less -- and arguably worse -- human capital upon which to draw.

People look at me like I'm insane. Even my pals. And here's the thing, as I truly believe that, it would be nearly impossible for me to answer "Yes" to the question asked of Paul. That probably makes me unfit for an election campaign. Well, that and about a hundred other things.

311 Rand Paul is why I left the Right, and why the GOP will be extinct after November

312 Rand Paul to Laura Ingraham on what did he think was going to happen by going on the Maddow show: "You're right. it was a poor political decision." and then, still unable to curb his incessant desire for qualification: "Probably won't be happening any time in the near future." Probably...near future... So, next week maybe? Did this guy get through eye surgery class on the remedial program?

313 Paul's phrasing was a rookie mistake, there's no getting around that.At the same time, I'm not going to accept the left's bad-faith paraphrase of Paul's position for his true beliefs, and it's surprising to see so many commenters do so.
Posted by: Dave R. at May 20, 2010 03:15 PM (ryKz7)

Listen to all 3 videos. He never says he'd have voted against it but he does make his case against the public accommodations language as applied to private businesses.  Besides most people weren't defending him on 'phrasing' they support his critique of the CRA (which has been, um, modified, today)

I get half of what Drew is saying, but the other half makes me think he sees no enemies to the left and no allies to the right.

Seriously? No enemies to the left? Other than his military service, I doubt you can find more than 1 or 2 nice things I've ever said about John McCain. As for Obama the nicest I've ever said about him is that on one or two occasions he'd not fucked something up (holding back detainee pictures and letting the SEALS kill the pirates).

How on earth do you think I see no enemies to the left?

I know it sounds like whining but it's more just curiosity. I'm just amazed to read something like that.

314

Left pulling more of this out now, check PageOneKentucky

This is from a 2002 letter to Editor Rand wrote:

 

But the Daily News ignores, as does the Fair Housing Act, the distinction between private and public property. Should it be prohibited for public, taxpayer-financed institutions such as schools to reject someone based on an individualÂ’s beliefs or attributes? Most certainly. Should it be prohibited for private entities such as a church, bed and breakfast or retirement neighborhood that doesnÂ’t want noisy children? Absolutely not.

Decisions concerning private property and associations should in a free society be unhindered. As a consequence, some associations will discriminate.

315 polynikes:

Smoking and carrying a gun are BEHAVIORS.  Yes, businesses can require shirts, shoes, etc.

Are you trying to be an idiot?

We are talking about immutable characteristics. 

If I say "no guns allowed" I'm not discriminating against you.  I'm telling you to leave your gun at home.  Airports can say "no guns."  They can't say "no black people."  Courthouses can say "no cell phones," they can't say "no gays."  Hospitals can say "no smoking," they can't say "no jews."

Do you need me to go on?

316

Given the answer Mr. Paul gave to the question, I don't see a lot of down side.  The MFM can harp on it all they want.  I doubt very strongly that it will affect the swing votes.  I absolutely will not turn Republicans against him.  The bulk of the minority vote is already against him, so he's really not risking much in terms of hurt feelings among non-whites.  Of the right leaning minority people I have spoken to, few of them would be turned off by this. 

Most people in the "middle" want somebody who will not tax them to death, who will not swell the welfare roles, and who want to get American business back up and running.  They want someone who has something in his sack that will give him the courage to deal with our multitudinous enemies.  That's the great thing about America still being a center-right nation.  Thanks to Obastard, those who are not brain dead will realize that any R is better than any D when it comes to these more serious matters. 

 

317 Posted by: seattle slough at May 20, 2010 03:36 PM (JRGA6)

You're doing what liberals always do...framing the issue as if it were value neutral. It's not.

You are chosing between one persons freedom (a black man's right to eat at a given restaurant) and antothers (a white restaurant owners right to chose the people he lets on to his property to be served).

It's a zero some game and you come down on one side, that's fine but don't pretend that because it deals with race it's not a limitation on someone's freedom at some point.

318 Hey seattle, how's your answer to my question in 313 coming along?

319

nothing like beating a dead horse, six months worth?

might be some kind of record, if he holds out.

320 This post is becoming a continuation of the Kinsley thread with SS as contemporary example.  Liberals like what liberals like, and moreover, you're evil if you don't like the same things.

Racists!

321 Without the Civil Rights Act a chamber of commerce could literally run every black person out of town.  Tough to live somewhere where you are not allowed into ANY store or restaurant. Don't think that would happen?  Then you're wrong.

Posted by: seattle slough at May 20, 2010 02:56 PM (JRGA6)

This may happen in a few selected areas, but it would be damn few.  And those areas would be swiftly ruined by the universal boycott of their town.  That kind of thing will never again be tolerated by the nation at large.  Indeed, if some town tried it they would make a fine example - of what happens when you do something that nearly everyone finds really obnoxious.

Besides, the fact is that as a white person there are lots of places in this country that I DARE NOT live.  I would be KILLED.  And that is no exaggeration.  If you think it is, then you have no experience with the realities of the inner cities.  There are places so dangerous for whites that if you do so much as drive through the police will pull you over, explain your dangerous predicament, and escort you out.  As per usual these days, whites are the only ones with no claim to live where they wish without fear.  And this will remain the case until doomsday, because no one has the stones to go in and clear those rat nests. 

322

he won, let it go...

323 Rand Paul going on NPR, that is nothing. Ron Paul went on "Bruno" for crying out loud...

324 Would you support Adam Kokesh(military bashing moonbat) if he gets nominated as an "R"????  Rand Paul considers Kokesh to be an ally

325 If he's a "military bashing moonbat" then obviously no.   Can he get nominated as an R?  If he could, the precedent would be David Duke.

Vote for the crook, it's important.

326

Rand claims he and Kokesh are in the same 'movement' which is to take over the GOP.

This is why Buckely and Goldwater ran off the original Paulnuts(Birch Society and Murray Rothbard, the Ron Paul Ideology center) to begin with!!!!!1

327 *shrug*

328 zero some game

Posted by: DrewM. at May 20, 2010 03:43 PM (9B5OK)

That's "zero sum," buddy.

329 I appreciate what you are saying but you're proving my point.

That may be so. But in the same statement you prove mine. That compromise of law is OK if the majority agree that it's right to do so. That is at its premise counter to a Constitutional Republic. If we cannot at least in majority agree that we should try and live under the law, including amending law where necessary to grant the federal government powers we deem they need not originally included by the founders, than our approach dooms us to a gradual leftward slide, one that may be slowed, halted, or for even a short period reversed, but inexorable in progress toward the destination of structured society; Not as a matter of theory or philosophy, but as a matter of practicality. That's just how things work. Without the strong bias of limited government in the governing documents, society will slide to statism, it has been practically demonstrated in every modern democratic society. Without presupposing a populations bias toward living in a free society of limited government there is no practical political strategy which brings our side to victory, only slower loss.

If your point is that society is so set in method that we cannot suggest that, we are not living under Constitutional law, we should be, and we should progress towards the latter by amending the Constitution, and repealing law; and as such we have to openly lie to gain office to make positive change. Than you have conceded the only political tool we could ever use to ever have a free America in the future. You've sacrificed your king to save your queen, while desperately trying to convince yourself that your still in the game.

And that sort of talk, that we just need to accept exception after exception, because the right and legal way is just too hard a sell dispirits me, and I think many others, into believing that we are just slowing the inevitable and a better strategy would be to stock up on various essentials and let it go.

I'm not saying we all have to agree on a particular flavor of libertarianism vs conservatism etc etc. But if we can't agree that our best hope lies in a Constitutional Republic, what best hope do we have? Motivate me. Make me believe we can win without a Constitution, or one that allows exception after exception, or a living breathing one, whatever you want to call it today. Give me a historical model that works. Hell, give me a hypothetical one that might work. Give me that hope, tell me how we can still be free.

330 Drew M. @313

Somewhere between my private life and me getting a business license/articles of incorporation and opening a business for the general public. 

Basically, you don't have to marry a negress, but you do have to let her shop in your store.

I suppose the finest line would be whether I have to let black people shop at my garage sale.  I suppose not.  

And you are damned right that a black person's right to be able to purchase food trumps the white business owner's right not to be forced to be near a black person.  Yes.  I'm willing to make that call.

331 Rand Paul's intentions are honorable, I'm sure - but he's still going to be flayed mercilessly by the "press".  If he learns to choose his words wisely when the MFM asks stupid question after stupid question, he'll do fine.  Otherwise - well, we'll know better next time.

332 I like Libertarians....  they have it all figured out.  Like Dr. Manhattan on Mars.  But when things get practical, they start sounding like children.  I wonder if Rand Paul believes that the United States should have an army.

333

Paul unequivocally states he will not support any effort to repeal the Civil Rights Act...

WELL THANK FUCKIN GOD.

I WAS REALLY REALLY WORRIED.

334 Dang...when did Ace HQ become such a hangout for weenies? Allahpundit has ruined ya.

335 polynikes:

Personal preference? 

I don't think I could have spelled out any clearer the distinction between discrimination on the basis of race, religion and sexual orientation and so-called "discrimination" against smokers, gun carriers, and nudists.

This isn't my personal preference.  This is basic stuff.  It's got nothing to do with me.  What I like to wear (or not wear) when I'm eating is completely beside the point. 

336

 a black person's right to be able to purchase food

And I'll miss you most of all, Scarecrow!

337

Without the Civil Rights Act a chamber of commerce could literally run every black person out of town.  Tough to live somewhere where you are not allowed into ANY store or restaurant

 Well that's fucking Seattle for you.

We don't have this problem in Illinois.. or Georgia, anymore.

If the HORROR you painted were remotely possible the act wouldn't have passed in the first place, and would be repealed now.

A majority of the country did not support segregation at th end of segregation. A fraction of a percent as many do now.

If you tried to bar black people from your store, you'd not only lose their business but a hundred million white people would boycott your ass too.

And if some oddball neonazi managed to stay in business with his ReichsLunchenKownter? So what? There will be enough stores everywhere. Let the stormfront gits ostracize themselves.

338 You must understand, SS would never discriminate against a black person, even if it were legal, but you would.  He knows.

Racists!

339 Polynikes:

Whoa there.  Slow down.

You and I can protest whoever we wan't.  It's got nothing to do with the commerce clause and you know it.

Homeless people?  Rights not to smell homeless people?  Um, OK.  I've never really thought about it, but are you suggesting some kind of a smell meter at the entrance to libraries?  Does such a thing exist?  How long after I've taken a shower am I allowed in a library?  Can I ride my bike to the library?  Even if I get sweaty doing so?

Etc. Etc.

I will say that I'm not a fan of affirmative action at all.  However it is not discrimination.  You aren't saying we don't hire white people.  You are saying, we keep a couple spots for a minority to make sure we aren't completely staffed by whites.  I don't like it particularly.  But it is no where near as bad as a blanket policy to not hire any blacks for instance.  (which was the unwritten policy of thousands and thousands of businesses - frankly still is).

I'm not sure what illegal aliens have to do with your rights.  The right not to have your tax dollars being spent on something or other you don't agree with?  I'm not sure I follow.  The right to not have to see people on the streets who are overstaying their student visas?

Are you against the civil rights act as it applies to private businesses?  Or are you just mad about this phony hypocrisy you think you perceive?

340

“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.”
This actually bothers me more than if he would make a case for the repeal of it. Intentions, or nice sounding names, are irrelevant. It is the effect, best carefully estimated or seen in hindsight, intended and unintended consequences that laws should be judged on, not whether they make people feel good about the legislators who passed them.

If a law has great intent but sucks in practice we shouldn't be forced to say, oh well, they meant well, so suck it up. Even if it was passed 100 years ago.  "Repeal and Replace" could probably apply to half the laws on the books, since politicians stick to stage one thinking as Sowell points out.

I don't know specifics if it is the case with this law. I'm speaking generally about defenses of laws based on intent. I don't think that even our public is too stupid to grasp the distinction.

341 Posted by: seattle slough at May 20, 2010 04:36 PM (JRGA6)

So you can't point to any actual limits other than, you know it when you see it.

This is the problem with liberals, you can't (actually don't want to) layout a principle beyond your personally evolving standards.

Hell of a way to run a constitutional republic.

342 "This is the problem with liberals, you can't (actually don't want to) layout a principle beyond your personally evolving standards. "

The standard's been the same for thousands of years...

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was sick and you visited me.

343

We've been here before, only with religion.

http://minx.cc/?blog=86&post=288451#c5051629

SS likes what he likes and shut up!

An epic beat down btw.  Good times.

344 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was sick and you visited me.

Yep..  Although I missed the part that said I was hungry and you made that other guy feed me, I was thirsty, but it's cool 'cause that other guy's kids doesn't needs his water so much, here you go, I was naked and you stole someones clothes for me.

345 All of that said, hereÂ’s the bottom line...when you're running for office and someone asks you if you support the Civil Rights Act you say "yes". Period. Full Stop. Next question.

In other words: Ray, when someone asks you if you're a god, you say "YES"

346 DrewM:  I laid it out as clearly as I could.  BUSINESSES that are serving the public under the blessings of the state is where the hard line is drawn.

I said the gray area was a quasi business, like a garage sale.  That I recognize there are gray areas is not a sign of evolving standards.  It's a sign that I recognize that there is a limit to government power in this area and there is a line somewhere.  Where that line exactly is in regards to private clubs, craigslist level service providers, tutors, nannies, etc. is certainly open for debate. 

If you are asking me to provide you with my personal opinions about each and every one of these scenarios I'd thankfully decline because I don't have the time and frankly, I can't say I've thought about them all in any meaningful way.

For instance:  If you are a nanny, you should be able to work (or refuse to work) in whatever home you want.   But a licensed daycare center probably shouldn't be able to say "we don't accept colored children."

These questions are why we have a court system and people have been busily figuring out where that precise line should be for the past 46 years.

For me, the approach would be "does the action have a tendency to create the appearance of there being an actual second class of citizen."  Or is this just someone choosing who to associate with.

I understand there is nothing so simple as a Libertarian thought experiment.  That's the appeal of being a Libertarian isn't it?  It's easy to be rigid and simply say, leave it up to the States.  Then you don't really have to form an opinion at all.

I don't get it Drew.  Are you now agreeing with Paul?  Should restaurateurs be able to discriminate? After you pretty clearly disagreed with him in your article?  Or were you just disagreeing with him voicing this opinion because you recognize its odiousness, even if you wholeheartedly agree with it?

Tell us Drew, do you think Congress was in error making it unlawful for a store or restaurant to deny service to persons based solely on their race or religion?

347 damian:

Thanks for reposting!  I stand by every word!

348 SS: Business doesn't serve under blessing of the State. Business is one of the natural activities and states of mankind. We tolerate limited State intervention into Business for some good reasons. But don't try to play it as a privelege granted from our beneficent superiors in government to engage in commerce, which is what sustains your life.

349 Posted by: seattle slough at May 20, 2010 06:15 PM (JRGA6)

It's clear to me that Congress overstepped its constitutional authority in passing the CRA (I guess I disagree with Ace about that). I also think the benefits to society outweigh the cost in this case. Still, I understand and accept that there is a serious constitutional breach here.

Sometimes good things come from bad actions. Life isn't a lab where everything is clean. It's messy and ugly and you do the best you can. I think that's what happened with the CRA and I have no interest in undoing it.

That doesn't mean I am happy with how it's metastasized and absolutely will fight the same slippery thinking from prevailing with health care.

I'm just curious if you accept that as well or if there's simply no limitations for the federal government to do whatever they hell it wants.

350 I thought I made it clear that I recognize the limits of government when it comes to issues of discrimination and I'm pretty sure I outlined where that limit is.  Or at least I attempted to.

And thank you for a sincere reply.

351 It's clear to me that Congress overstepped its constitutional authority in passing the CRA

I need to amend the above....Congress overstepped its authority in terms of public accommodations. I do agree that Congress absolutely could and should have ended state sponsored discrimination and segregation. Should have never been allowed in the first place. America would be a much better place today if it had.

352

Romeo's right, you know.

This country has a lot of structural problems encoded in law, most of the time because Congress decided to take a feel-good, get-reelected approach to solving them instead of following the Constitution. The 1964 Act is one of those problems.

Truth is, no one can be elected talking complicated truths to the public. This shit is complicated. It's just to easy to write the guy off as Bull Connor when the flipside is an hour-long theoretical discussion of settled bad law.

-----

Excellent post, Spongeworthy.

353

OMG! Gabe's interpretation of Rand Paul's statement was exactly like LGF's! You know, blind to the word "like" and misunderstanding that the critiscism was referring to the "boot heel" comment in regards to business.

That's, um... pretty embarrassing. Does not bode well. Will future interpretations follow along the lines of "right-wing teabagging Christian extremists?"

354 Oopsy poo. Wrong thread.

355 Rand Paul and his minions have spent the last several months on a wrecking ball "lie and burn" tour across the Commonwealth, complete with an episode where his camp.mgr. chewed out a little old lady........but hey, she deserved it because she's "establishment", right?  And now, he needs the establishment to give him credibility because he's still issuing talking points to keep his Stormfront donations rolling in.  Yeah, it's like that.

You ain't seen nothin' yet, Ace.  The only way Paul can win is if he becomes someone else........and the only way to do that is to lie like a dog.......repeatedly......for months.  Lying worked in the primary, but it's a different ballgame now.  You know that letter that was produced that he wrote in '02 to the Bowling Green Daily News?  The one Stephanopolous asked him about?  Well, that's probably 0.0000001% of the stuff they have on him.

Here's "unity rally" coverage.
http://tinyurl.com/2fxpo5y

356

ßæßÊíá × Ïáíá ãæÇÞÚ × ãäÊÏíÇÊ ßæßÊíá × ÔÇÊ ÕæÊí × ÔÇÊ ßæßÊíá × Ýä ÊÇíã

357

Some truth about impending war with Iran.

http://tinyurl.com/2fzhu4z