(pre) Congratulations, Senator-elect Jack Conway, D-KY

[B_talltpaguy]

^lol... wow... How can the guy espouse those positions and dare call himself a libertarian??? Amazing...

 

[Bbucko]

^lol... wow... How can the guy espouse those positions and dare call himself a libertarian??? Amazing...

As someone whose northern New England libertarian roots stretch back to colonial times, I resent his use of the term. It just doesn't apply.

New Hampshire, the most conservative state in New England (and by far the most libertarian state east of the Mississippi) has full marriage equality and relatively open access to abortion, for instance. Live and let live certainly doesn't apply to his core positioning; like I said above, he's a "cafeteria Libertarian" who certainly had no problem with governmental interference into certain personal liberties, so long as it's been pre-approved by focus groups sponsored by Dick Armey.

His clumsy critique of civil rights legislation (and subsequent back-tracking) was nothing but a king-sized dog whistle to Kentucky reactionaries. Too bad for him that such a slender base is unlikely to carry him to Congress.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

^I'm originally from the NE end of the US too (NW PA) . :beerchug:

 

[Trinity]

Yes, with these intellectual heavyweights ready to take him on, I bet he's just quaking in his electoral boots.

He is quaking in his electoral boots. Obama had to go on an extensive begging unity tour with Hillary Clinton to get a large portion of the majority of voters to vote for him. Obama is losing that base left and right. Those voters aren't Harvard intellectuals or Elitists...which is why Obama is losing the pulse of the American people and their support.

 

[TurkeyWithaSunburn]

New hero of Tea Party Rand Paul is so conservative he scares Dick Cheney

wants to abolish the federal departments of education, commerce and energy, as well as the income tax.

He favors a constitutional amendment banning abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.
But in a libertarian twist, he also favors legalizing medical marijuana.

The Commerce Dept contains the Patent Office, The National Weather Service, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. So no patents, depend on god to see if it's gonna flood, and that 10 pound bag of sugar might only be 5, since there would be no standard unit of measure of what a pound really was.

The Department of Energy has far more involvement in nuclear technologies than most people are aware. It's actually responsible for nuclear bombs, according to it's own site.
Yes you can argue that those things would be better seperately but as of now they are contained in those departments.
Hooray no income tax, welcome to the 2nd Guilded Age.

Let's force 10yo victims of incestuous rape to bear children.
The dude sounds like a winner.

I am curious how he feels about birth control, prostitution (everybody knows where a libertarian should stand on that), the government takeover of airline security in the form of the TSA, and whether like his father favors going back on the gold standard.

It will be interesting come election day the margin of victory, or maybe not.

 

[dreamer20]

Re: Civil Rights Act of 1964's public accommodation clauses : Paul objected to the Act as he felt private businesses should be permitted to racially discriminate against their patrons.

He made a further gaffe as he opined: since the government stopped racial discrimination in restaurants then, IHO, Americans should be entitled to tote their guns into them as well - which was a ludicrous comparison to make.

http://www.lpsg.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=2779518

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqAAfSfap5w&annotation_id=annotation_29964&feature=iv

What exactly is the problem with Rand's remarks on the notion of private businesses to discriminate on any basis of their choosing? I really don't see where it's any of the government's business to tell private owners who they can and cannot conduct commerce with.

The notion isn't all that shocking, especially considering the SCOTUS decision in favor of the Boy Scouts of America's right as a private organization to do exactly the same thing.

Civil rights

The wide interpretation of the scope of the Commerce Clause continued following the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which aimed to prevent business from discriminating against black customers. The United States Supreme Court issued several opinions which supported this use of the Commerce Clause. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers. Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969), ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.

 

[justasimpleguy]

How are we even having this conversation? While Libertarians are busy kowtowing to the all powerful gods of money, private property and corporate limited liability...the rest of us will pick up the pieces I guess.

 

[HazelGod]

Two of the best examples I can think of are so far apart that they wind up coming back together again: country clubs and gay bathhouses.

Exactly...I've seen plenty of establishments with placards reading, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

The United States Supreme Court issued several opinions which supported this use of the Commerce Clause. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers. Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969), ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.

What's your point?

How are we even having this conversation?

We're having it because there are people of a libertarian mindset who take issue with any government entity presuming to insert itself into private affairs for the purpose of dictating touchy-feely togetherness. We're having it because that's what rational, educated adults do whenever their viewpoints on any given issue aren't aligned.

 

[dreamer20]

*I forgot to post the following link, which contains information referenced by Miss Maddow, and from whence the following excerpt came*

Commerce Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Civil rights

The wide interpretation of the scope of the Commerce Clause continued following the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which aimed to prevent business from discriminating against black customers. The United States Supreme Court issued several opinions which supported this use of the Commerce Clause. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers. Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969), ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Two of the best examples I can think of are so far apart that they wind up coming back together again: country clubs and gay bathhouses.

Exactly...I've seen plenty of establishments with placards reading, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

You're barely ever (if never) going to see 100% straight men randomly go to a gay bathhouse and complain about being discriminated against for obvious reasons. However, a Country Club and some privately owned co-ops will pretend that everyone is welcome then discriminate on grounds based on color and sexual preference. The committee in the co-op I live in now will not let an African American rent or own an apartment in their complex. I heard that from my partner of 6+ years who is actually on the panel. The only reason why I'm able to live with him now is because he owns his space and my name isn't on the lease. However, if by chance he died and wanted to leave his co-op to me there would be drama not only from the state of New York (that doesn't grant full privileges to gay couples), but from the co-op who don't want people like me "bringing down their property value".

And we all know it's illegal to come right out and say they can deny people based on skin color, so they think of unique excuses to refuse them.

 

[B_spiker067]

my bad.

 

[vince]

There is already a pretty good thread going discussing this topic Spike.

http://www.lpsg.org/184742-pre-congratulations-senator-elect-jack.html

 

[HazelGod]

*I forgot to post the following link, which contains information referenced by Miss Maddow, and from whence the following excerpt came*

More to the point, you forgot to say why you were posting it at all.

 

[tripod]

Exactly...I've seen plenty of establishments with placards reading, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

... There are people of a libertarian mindset who take issue with any government entity presuming to insert itself into private affairs for the purpose of dictating touchy-feely togetherness. We're having it because that's what rational, educated adults do whenever their viewpoints on any given issue aren't aligned.

These arguments were the same ad hominem ones bandied about in 1963.

You are repeating the same statements of the opponents of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 verbatim HG.

Congratulations.

*******************************************************

This line means that I am not addressing you in this post anymore HG. the following statement is not meant for you or really anybody on this site and is just my opinion.

Libertarians = cowardly racists...

I wish they would just put the fucking hoods on and stop hiding behind the "founding fathers" and the constitution... what a bunch of smug white assholes.

Yes, I said it.

 

[HazelGod]

So your rational, adult contribution here is to address my remarks not by substance but to imply they're similar to those made by others in the past...then label an entire political subdivision of the population as racists, imply that their belief in the founding principles of this nation equates to cowardice, and for your pièce de résistance, you toss in a fairly racist parting shot of your own. Classy.

Incredible that you would have the gall to characterize anything I've said as being ad hominem (inaccurately, no less) after all that..

 

[TomCat84]

These arguments were the same ad hominem ones bandied about in 1963.

You are repeating the same statements of the opponents of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 verbatim HG.

Congratulations.

*******************************************************

This line means that I am not addressing you in this post anymore HG. the following statement is not meant for you or really anybody on this site and is just my opinion.

Libertarians = cowardly racists...

I wish they would just put the fucking hoods on and stop hiding behind the "founding fathers" and the constitution... what a bunch of smug white assholes.

Yes, I said it.

You are WAY too extreme in your views, dude. Not everything is as black and white as you say it is in just about every post I've seen from you.

 

[TomCat84]

So your rational, adult contribution here is to address my remarks not by substance but to imply they're similar to those made by others in the past...then label an entire political subdivision of the population as racists, imply that their belief in the founding principles of this nation equates to cowardice, and for your pièce de résistance, you toss in a fairly racist parting shot of your own. Classy.

Incredible that you would have the gall to characterize anything I've said as being ad hominem (inaccurately, no less) after all that..

I agree with the substance of your rebuttal, but I would argue that the founding principles of this country were certainly not uniformly libertarian. Perhaps many of the Founding Fathers had libertarian views, inasmuch as they were against the emerging welfare states of Europe at the time, but remember one of the key elements of dissension in the early years- Alexander Hamilton and his Federalists mostly favored the establishment of a National Bank, and federal assumption of state (and colonial) debts. I would certainly not categorize the establishment of a National Bank as libertarian.

 

[tripod]

So your rational, adult contribution here is to address my remarks not by substance but to imply they're similar to those made by others in the past.

There is no substance behind your remarks. You are taking the asshole position on this matter HG... it is your choice, not mine.

Everything is childlike and irrational when going up against the great Hazelgod. Give it a fucking rest, it's almost your knee jerk reaction these days. Where is the older and more kind Hazelgod? The one we have now is some kind of crazed Ron Paul acolyte. Bring back the old Hazelgod, the one who is against discrimination and unfair treatment.

If the constitution advocates discrimination, it is just plain wrong. The constitution is an imperfect document written by fallible human beings. It is not the ten commandments. The constitution should not be worshiped like a God or even an idol.

..then label an entire political subdivision of the population as racists, imply that their belief in the founding principles of this nation equates to cowardice, and for your pièce de résistance, you toss in a fairly racist parting shot of your own. Classy.

Every libertarian that I have known has been a white person with racist tendencies. Every fucking single one of them. Every single one of them has been too much of a coward to put the hood on. I can spot a racist a mile away, it's really rather simple when you have been raised around white devils all of your life. In fact, I do know a black man that is a libertarian, but he is self hating and most black folk get on his nerves. He doesn't get along with hardly any other black people. He thinks that black folk are lazy welfare recipients that would rather take a hand-out than get a job. He is a racist.

When I meet a non racist libertarian, I'll let you know.

Incredible that you would have the gall to characterize anything I've said as being ad hominem (inaccurately, no less) after all that..

Well if you read what I said carefully, you would have found out that I was comparing the similarity of your statements to the anti-civil rights vitriol of the 60's.

The comparison is correct.

Rep. Joe D. Waggonner Jr. (D-LA) said "without apology": That he believed "it is neither illegal nor immoral to prefer the peaceful and orderly separation of the races, without discrimination or rancor of any kind," and said "pure equality is Communism."

Rep. Albert Watson (D-SC) said: "The racial problem is preeminently a Southern problem; in the South it can only be solved by Southern people, both white and Negro. Legislation by an only slightly familiar Federal Government can only inflame an already very difficult situation."

and

Lt. Gov. C.C. Aycock (D-LA) said: The proposed bills "ignore the civil rights and civil liberties of homeowners, businessmen, professional men, and all persons other than the minorities who are sought to be protected…. The central government just does not have the constitutional authority to dictate to the individual citizen the persons with whom he must associate or the manner in which he must use his property, or what individuals he can or cannot serve in his place of business."

These statements were made in the June 26, 1963 sub-committee hearings.

Rand Paul's statements as well as yours don't differ one bit from the Southern opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as illustrated.

Those three all hid behind the constitution and tour founding fathers to dodge the slings and arrows of progress and equality. These men were avowed racists and their statements don't differ at all from the ones that are being bandied about today by the "libertarians".

Is that adult enough for you?

I'm just telling the truth, don't shoot the messenger.

You are WAY too extreme in your views, dude. Not everything is as black and white as you say it is in just about every post I've seen from you.

Oh, I'm sorry to be too extreme for your views.

I don't come here to seek your approval and believe what I know to be right in my heart. Maybe you see everything as shades of grey and I see differentiations between dark grey and light grey?

I am a fighting liberal, deal with it or put me on ignore.

 

[TomCat84]

There is no substance behind your remarks. You are taking the asshole position on this matter HG... it is your choice, not mine.

Everything is childlike and irrational when going up against the great Hazelgod. Give it a fucking rest, it's almost your knee jerk reaction these days. Where is the older and more kind Hazelgod? The one we have now is some kind of crazed Ron Paul acolyte. Bring back the old Hazelgod, the one who is against discrimination and unfair treatment.

If the constitution advocates discrimination, it is just plain wrong. The constitution is an imperfect document written by fallible human beings. It is not the ten commandments. The constitution should not be worshiped like a God or even an idol.



Every libertarian that I have known has been a white person with racist tendencies. Every fucking single one of them. Every single one of them has been too much of a coward to put the hood on. I can spot a racist a mile away, it's really rather simple when you have been raised around white devils all of your life. In fact, I do know a black man that is a libertarian, but he is self hating and most black folk get on his nerves. He doesn't get along with hardly any other black people. He thinks that black folk are lazy welfare recipients that would rather take a hand-out than get a job. He is a racist.

When I meet a non racist libertarian, I'll let you know.



Well if you read what I said carefully, you would have found out that I was comparing the similarity of your statements to the anti-civil rights vitriol of the 60's.

The comparison is correct.

Rep. Joe D. Waggonner Jr. (D-LA) said "without apology": That he believed "it is neither illegal nor immoral to prefer the peaceful and orderly separation of the races, without discrimination or rancor of any kind," and said "pure equality is Communism."

Rep. Albert Watson (D-SC) said: "The racial problem is preeminently a Southern problem; in the South it can only be solved by Southern people, both white and Negro. Legislation by an only slightly familiar Federal Government can only inflame an already very difficult situation."

and

Lt. Gov. C.C. Aycock (D-LA) said: The proposed bills "ignore the civil rights and civil liberties of homeowners, businessmen, professional men, and all persons other than the minorities who are sought to be protected…. The central government just does not have the constitutional authority to dictate to the individual citizen the persons with whom he must associate or the manner in which he must use his property, or what individuals he can or cannot serve in his place of business."

These statements were made in the June 26, 1963 sub-committee hearings.

Rand Paul's statements as well as yours don't differ one bit from the Southern opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as illustrated.

Those three all hid behind the constitution and tour founding fathers to dodge the slings and arrows of progress and equality. These men were avowed racists and their statements don't differ at all from the ones that are being bandied about today by the "libertarians".

Is that adult enough for you?

I'm just telling the truth, don't shoot the messenger.



Oh, I'm sorry to be too extreme for your views.

I don't come here to seek your approval and believe what I know to be right in my heart. Maybe you see everything as shades of grey and I see differentiations between dark grey and light grey?

I am a fighting liberal, deal with it or put me on ignore.

You sound like a little snot nosed 18 yr old know it all, the way you debate.

 

[TomCat84]

And dude, you can be a fighting liberal without calling everybody who disagrees with you a racist or "white devil." I'm not a libertarian, but I don't think libertarians are inherently racist just because they believe business owners have the right to discriminate. FYI, I don't think they should. Just because all libertarians you have met are supposedly racist, doesn't make all libertarians racist. That's a basic logical fallacy. I can understand and respect the clarity of logic in a libertarian being against any aspect of the welfare state. Doesn't mean I have to agree with them- but it also doesn't mean they're evil just because they disagree with me. I think the KKK should absolutely have the right to publicly espouse their views. That doesn't make me racist- I absolutely encourage counter-protesters. I severely dislike the Westboro Baptist Church crowd- but I would fight HARD for them to have the rights to such views. Your positions- which posit that pretty much anyone who disagrees with you is racist, evil, etc, is as dangerous as the racism that you claim to hate.