No, I'm not diverting at all. Rand Paul believes that the federal government (and I guess state/local governments too) should not bar business owners from excluding people based on race or religion should they so choose to do so. Jack Conway made a campaign pledge that is laughable on its face. Paul's position is arguable. You can disagree with it, and make very valid arguments doing so. Conway's statement is the crazy. No, I don't. First, two people can be libertarian and not agree on 100% of the issues just like all conservatives and liberals don't agree on everything. What's the alternative? Should he refuse Medicare patients? That doesn't do the Medicare patient any good. Should he choose to only treat those people for free? Maybe that's a "principled" position, but it's also a good way to go broke.
He won't. His positions are based in federalism and individual rights, not in oppression. And even if you are right if he is one of 100, how does he EASILY do this? Strom Thurmond couldn't do it after 1964 and he really was a segregationist.
So I take it you think it should be legally OK to establish white only hospitals that refuse care to blacks. That is exactly what you just defended. And I'm the one with an abhorrent position?
Hospitals should be in a different category. Nobody chooses to go to one and they are all certified by government. I never said that. I'm not the moral absolutist here
Oh, so hospitals are different? But it's OK to humiliate a guy and force him to piss in the bushes or in a bottle because some yokel gas station owner doesn't want to afford black people the dignity of pissing in his station's sacred white-only toilets? So, MiH, do you really want to talk about abhorrent positions here? Oh, I'm pretty sure you did, and I'm quite sure I'm not either.
It's certainly not okay to do that. But it's also not my place to tell someone not to do it either. Neutrality is not defense.
So it's OK for the people of the United States to enact legislation through their local, state and federal governments to force the owners of private hospitals to accept black patients, but it's not OK for the people of the United States to enact legislation through their local, state and federal governments to force the owners of gas stations to let black people piss in their toilets?
His positions will result in oppression regardless of what they're based on. Uhhh... it's a new day, MitH. 2008 was what the right wing was so concerned about in 1964. Paul's bogeyman is a lot scarier to right wing America than LBJ ever was. They're fighting on a whole new level now. The balance in Congress won't be after November what it is now. EDIT: Not saying things haven't improved, but that the opposition now sees its enemy more clearly (and certainly as more powerful) than it might have back then is all.
Pretty much. Do you want to know why or do you just want to call my position abhorrent again? As an aside, although it is not my business to require someone not to discriminate you can bet your ass that if me and Auriaprottu were hanging out in some random backwater and he was forced to go out back and piss in a jar I would be right there with him, more than likely pissing on the guys tires. Then we'd go for some Chick Fil'a at the interstate rest stop (Which could not discriminate since it is on government property.)
Some could say that the status quo already results in a certain level of oppression. Not sure if I buy it but it's a valid argument. Can you explain more about Paul's bogeyman to me. I don't quite understand.
Rand was just on Good Morning 'Merika and ... wow. He doesn't really handle the media well when they give him tough questions. His whole thing was that the media is attacking him, that this is all partisan politics, that the Dems are freaking out b/c they're down 20 points in the polls, the liberal media elite yadda yadda yadda. The thing about this controversy is it will now shape the KY senate campaign, and Rand is going to be asked nothing but "gotcha" questions about policies and rhetoric. From here on out, Tea Partiers are going to be challenged by the media like never before. They've been darlings b/c it's a cute story. But now they want to get into power, so the harder questions are coming. It's not a liberal media out to kill a candidate. It's about asking absolutely fair, legitimate and pretty easy questions of men and women who want to make public policy.
Debatable? As for Conway's statement, it's crazy for government to contribute to the building of affordable housing. That's a non-debatable, laughable, crazy statement? At any rate, your position here is pretty much the flip side of the same coin as orthodox communism. It's an intellectual cop out, and as history has shown, dangerous.
I don't think anyone has said that, actually. So that's wrong. A politician's views on things like discrimination are important, whether or not he'd repeal the ADA or not. Rand Paul thinks it should be legal for people to discriminate against blacks and Jews. There's no arguing with that, no matter how much you want to try to draw equivalences.
Actually, it's a complete truth. Rand wrote a letter to the editor in 2002 saying as much. That's not the position he held 48 hours ago. Here should be his bumper sticker Rand Paul-Teabagging Pu$$y I can't wait until some bright reporter asks his position on farm subsidies. I wonder what he thinks about the federal highway system?
You missed the joke. The affordable housing comment was a joke. You can't really build things out of rainbows and wishes. Because he ain't creating a job for every Kentucky resident either. Sadly, that statement is actually on his website. If this is going to become a gotcha question-palooza for Rand Paul on the CRA, then surely Conway should be asked about making a promise that is completely laughable on his face.
Which has nothing to do with Rand Paul's opinion that institutionalized racism should be allowed. As for Conway - I'm sure he'll say he meant to add the word "opportunities" after jobs, since no one seriously believes he has the means or the intention to create a job for every single Kentuckian. Your moral equivalence has drawn a similarity between what is known as "puffery" (a chicken in every pot!) and real, substantive issues.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQIruPUw8Mc"]YouTube- Rachel Maddow Looks At Last Night's Interview With Rand Paul[/ame] The best part of this is Republicans scattering like roaches when the lights come on.
I realize the thread title is "Rand Paul for Senate", but there is someone else in the race. This being the Elections forum, I think talking about those people is fine too. There is no moral equivalence there, just stating facts. Maybe so. Maybe he does really believe it. There are lies ("I will not support bailouts") that some people actually do. Then there is just pure fantasy land. Conway, barring a typo in his statement, is in the latter camp.
This statement makes me think of the following quote by Martin Niemoller: First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me. There are certainly times/issues in life for which in practice there is no such thing as neutrality, because said neutrality perpetuates something so despicable that it in essence functions as a defense (status quo with whatever evil is being committed).
Rand Paul Deserves His Own Thread He's catching up to Sarah Palin's level of idiocy in just a few short days. Now we have this: "What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, “I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.” I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. And I think it’s part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it’s always got to be somebody’s fault instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen."
Re: Rand Paul Deserves His Own Thread I guess the irony of saying any criticism of BRITISH Petroleum is un-AMERICAN is lost on him.
Re: Rand Paul Deserves His Own Thread The interval between his primary victory and his first major gaffe* re: the Civil Rights Act was among the shortest I can recall. *I mean the classic DC definition of a gaffe: accidentally saying what you really believe.