boy that was quick. good thing he showed his true libertarian/tea party values early and nobody had to force him into it. he did it himself.

thanks

5/20/2010 11:43:05 PM

You're a bit late on the uptake, he lost the election 6 2 years ago.

[Edited on May 20, 2010 at 11:51 PM. Reason : v fuck, whoops.]

5/20/2010 11:44:07 PM

in 2004 Rand Paul was an ophthalmologist at Graves-Gilbert Clinic in Kentucky

did he mess up someone's eyesight that cost him the election on his HOA or something?

5/20/2010 11:49:03 PM

Quote :

"It's not a widely known statistic, but 95% of the politically active people on the Internet claim to be "libertarians". These Cyber Libertarians have formed their political opinions by processing nothing but political attack pieces from both sides of the political spectrum. From their parent's basements they declare themselves libertarians because it's cool and different than being a democrat or a republican. They say they "want much smaller government", but when you ask them to expand you will quickly discover that no two libertarians share anything even approximating the same beliefs. Some want abortion and drugs banned, others want to grind up and smoke a partial birth while a hooker gives them a hand job. It turns out the only thing that libertarians have in common is they all learned from mom and dad that money is awesome, and consequently their entire belief system is hinged around protecting their own money. Only libertarians could conceivably equate seat belt laws and sales tax to terrorism and fascism. Only libertarians will mention public kindergarten in the same sentence as Stalin. They believe that the ultimate, and most important, loss of freedom is the loss of ability to control one's own money. ... Tax should be abolished. Except for tax to support the military. And local tax for the police and fire department. No, the police and fire department should be privatized. School vouchers are great. School vouchers don't go far enough. Forced integration is against the constitution. Welfare people buy cookies with MY TAX DOLLARS! ... Luckily for the rest of society, Cyber Libertarians are invariably either complete losers or ignorant children. There are handfuls that exhibit some signs of intelligence, but for the most part they are trapped in a group masturbation session talking about how awesome a libertarian paradise will be. While each one vigorously stimulates his or her genitals they close their eyes and picture a libertarian paradise 100% different from the person next to them."

5/21/2010 1:46:43 AM

i dont get the controversy, his views are consistently for smaller govt so why is this such a shock to people

i'd rather have true libertarians like the paul's than the nutcase republicans who want to use govt to enforce their values.

5/21/2010 1:47:46 AM

a “true libertarian” that supports the war on drugs?

5/21/2010 1:52:51 AM

^huh, didnt know about that, Ron paul is for legalization of marijuanna, i figured rand was the same

5/21/2010 2:13:39 AM

^Last I checked, Paul was also strongly against abortion/was pro-life, and I seem to recall him touting some other very conservative-Christian-ish point back when he was running for president (anti-gay marriage, maybe, though I'm pretty sure he's in the "let states decide" camp).

He is, for the most part, still a Republican... he's just a consistent Republican, which makes him appear very different from virtually every other politician in the GOP.

5/21/2010 5:06:09 AM

^you realize rand paul and ron paul are different people right?

[Edited on May 21, 2010 at 8:06 AM. Reason : i actually made the same mistake for a few weeks when i first heard the name.]

5/21/2010 8:05:40 AM

Actually, I figured someone was making an Ayn Rand joke about Ron Paul.

...Well, now, don't I just feel stupid.
At least he's just a senatorial candidate from Kentucky/Ron Paul's son. Neither of those are things I expect myself to keep up with, so it's not all that shameful.

5/21/2010 8:10:04 AM

Ron Paul made that joke about himself when he named his kid. What a faggot.

5/21/2010 8:18:34 AM

Quote :

"They believe that the ultimate, and most important, loss of freedom is the loss of ability to control one's own money."

While I wouldn't call it the "ultimate" or "most important" freedom, I do think that economic freedom - at least at the individual level - is an integral part of a free society. I can't imagine a legitimately free society in which people aren't, for the most part, free to choose how to make and spend their money.

5/21/2010 9:01:15 AM

And, according to Rand Paul, it's also very important to be allowed to discriminate against black people in your place of business.

5/21/2010 9:23:26 AM

Look, if I want to make my money on the backs of Black children who work and live their lives at my place of business, I have the right, nay, the DUTY to do so.

5/21/2010 9:25:54 AM

Quote :

"Look, if I want to make my money on the backs of Black children who work and live their lives at my place of business, I have the right, nay, the DUTY to do so."

Quote :

"When you have nothing substantive to say, you make up shit and demonize the other side. Faux NewzGod and 'pubs fellow TWWers are pretty good at that."

5/21/2010 9:34:24 AM

The Kentucky election will give you a good look at what the democrat strategy will look like as it smears liberty-minded candidates.

Rand Paul is talking about gov't abuse of power. Remember that, before the Civil Rights Act, the Jim Crow laws were also a product of the government... laws that protected discrimination. Racism was required and forced by our gov't.
Rand Paul would've disagreed with both the gov't forcing people to discriminate AND being forced not to discriminate.

He would agree that the gov't should not discriminate..because the gov't is the only entity that is allowed to use physical force. But individual people should be allowed to choose their own way and deal with the consequences.

It's not the gov't's role to force us to associate with each other. It's up to the Free Market to encourage and reward association through the profit motive. Those businesses who cut off potential customers because of something silly like race, are only hurting themselves and will eventually fail.

5/21/2010 9:43:24 AM

Important, substantive commentary from DalCowboys

5/21/2010 9:44:34 AM

also great political insight from IMStoned420

5/21/2010 9:45:53 AM

Look, if you don't like the fact that I use slave labor to produce my products, just don't shop here!

*continues working children to death*

5/21/2010 9:47:06 AM

It works for Apple

5/21/2010 9:50:53 AM

EarthDogg, I would agree that it is simply an ideologically consistent belief if it weren't for the fact that Rand Paul is against marijuana legalization, anti-reproductive rights, for increasing Medicare payments to physicians, and for coal subsidies for Kentucky.

5/21/2010 9:57:50 AM

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Kentucky's Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul criticized President Barack Obama's handling of the Gulf oil spill Friday as putting "his boot heel on the throat of BP" and "really un-American." Paul's defense of the oil company came during an interview in which he tried to explain his controversial take on civil rights law, an issue that has overtaken his campaign since his victory in Tuesday's GOP primary. "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,'" Rand said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America." "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business." Paul appeared two days after a landslide primary victory over the Republican establishment's candidate, Trey Grayson. He had spent most of the time since his win laboring to explain remarks suggesting businesses be allowed to deny service to blacks without fear of federal interference. On Friday said he wouldn't seek to repeal civil rights legislation. On the oil spill, Paul, a libertarian and tea party darling, said he had heard nothing from BP indicating it wouldn't pay for the spill that threatens devastating environmental damage along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. "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," Paul said."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_RAND_PAUL

omg double post suspend!

5/21/2010 10:13:56 AM

Quote :

"The Kentucky election will give you a good look at what the democrat strategy will look like as it smears liberty-minded candidates."

stop parroting Rush and learn English.

5/21/2010 10:40:22 AM

Quote :

"It's not the gov't's role to force us to associate with each other. It's up to the Free Market to encourage and reward association through the profit motive. Those businesses who cut off potential customers because of something silly like race, are only hurting themselves and will eventually fail."

This is a senseless blind ideology that has failed in countless civilizations throughout history. When in history have peopled gravitated towards peace? Part of the reason we naturally organize into governments is because it allows us to live our lives without having to worry about who is trying to screw us over. That is true freedom, the ability to pursue your dreams without having to constantly watch your back.

You're clinging to a belief system that has failed.

5/21/2010 11:17:58 AM

Quote :

"It turns out the only thing that libertarians have in common is they all learned from mom and dad that money is awesome, and consequently their entire belief system is hinged around protecting their own money."

Wow, moron, do you really believe this?
You're the worst anti-liberty bigot I've ever run into.
Do you jack-off to liberal websites? It sounds like it.

5/21/2010 11:45:20 AM

Quote :

"Part of the reason we naturally organize into governments is because it allows us to live our lives without having to worry about who is trying to screw us over. That is true freedom, the ability to pursue your dreams without having to constantly watch your back."

Because governments have never screwed anybody over

5/21/2010 11:54:19 AM

Haven't we been down this road before?

Anarchy doesn't work, neither does Totalitarianism. There are merits of personal freedom. There are merits of government control.

Neither the "Liberals" nor the "Libertarians" in this thread are arguing for either. They just prefer government involvement at different places on the sliding scale between the two.

Actually i think someone might pop in here to argue for anarchy.

5/21/2010 12:13:56 PM

And that person would be Rand Paul

5/21/2010 12:14:34 PM

Quote :

"This is a senseless blind ideology that has failed in countless civilizations throughout history. When in history have peopled gravitated towards peace? Part of the reason we naturally organize into governments is because it allows us to live our lives without having to worry about who is trying to screw us over. That is true freedom, the ability to pursue your dreams without having to constantly watch your back. You're clinging to a belief system that has failed."

How many times have I said that the primary purpose of government should be to protect rights? You don't want to protect rights. You want to take rights away. You're not a liberal, you're an authoritarian. You want government to force people to conform to your values. As long as the government has the power to do that, they also have the power to implement some fundamentalist Christian policy when the electoral tides turn. That's the purpose of having limited government.

5/21/2010 12:47:25 PM

Last I checked the people elect representatives to the government to enforce their values.

Do you think the people in Denmark or other "socialist" countries feel like the government is forcing them to take all that free healthcare and education?

5/21/2010 12:57:11 PM

Quote :

" It's up to the Free Market to encourage and reward association through the profit motive. Those businesses who cut off potential customers because of something silly like race, are only hurting themselves and will eventually fail."

problem with this is scarcity. What happens with things that there are not enough to sell? The amount of money banks can loan? what if there are 50 snow shovels left after a snowstorm? etc etc.

5/21/2010 2:23:13 PM

Quote :

"Last I checked the people elect representatives to the government to enforce their values."

Alright, so if 51% of people think we shouldn't have freedom of speech, should we take away freedom of speech? It happens all the time...like with the civil rights act. I despise the people that do discriminate based on race, and they should be openly confronted and called out for their bigotry. I don't support telling them who they can and can't hire, though. The owner of a business should have the final say. And, the law really does nothing. If someone wants to not hire someone because of their race, they'll just come up with a fake reason.

I vote for people that I feel will uphold the constitution.

Quote :

"Do you think the people in Denmark or other "socialist" countries feel like the government is forcing them to take all that free healthcare and education?"

Well, it's not free. The people of Denmark pay for that stuff. Just like here, I'm sure a lot of people in Denmark feel that their government is infallible and always allocates resources in an efficient way. Then, you have a few people that reject that ridiculous concept.

5/21/2010 3:01:06 PM

Quote :

"what if there are 50 snow shovels left after a snowstorm? etc etc."

import them from the next town over, and have more on hand for the next snowstorm.

[Edited on May 21, 2010 at 3:17 PM. Reason : unless it's just more efficient to import them from the next town when in extremis]

5/21/2010 3:17:16 PM

^you missed the point. theres no financial disadvantages to only sell the shovels to white people, or for banks to only loan money to white people but it keeps everyone else down.

[Edited on May 21, 2010 at 7:08 PM. Reason : theyre going to sell it all regardless]

5/21/2010 7:08:38 PM

You're missing the self-fulfilling discrimination trap that arises, which is what legislation like this attempts to fix. If people Y assume people X are risky loanees and bad workers, this causes people X to be poorer which in turn causes them to not be able to pay loans back and miss opportunities to gain work experience and skills causing them to be risky loanees and bad workers.

5/21/2010 7:22:18 PM

Quote :

"But Paul's base — the "tea party" movement he has embraced and claimed to speak for — was also all but mum. Two leaders declined to claim Paul, the son of libertarian icon Rep. Ron Paul, as a movement spokesman. Others dodged questions about his statements. "He's a politician. He doesn't represent the movement on anything regardless of what he says," said Mark Meckler, national coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots, an online network for local groups. "He's a guy running for office.""

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rand-paul-20100522,0,3603396.story

5/21/2010 7:58:41 PM

Quote :

"EarthDogg, I would agree that it is simply an ideologically consistent belief if it weren't for the fact that Rand Paul is against marijuana legalization, anti-reproductive rights, for increasing Medicare payments to physicians, and for coal subsidies for Kentucky."

Agreed. Those are definitely not very libertarian positions.

Quote :

"As long as the government has the power to do that, they also have the power to implement some fundamentalist Christian policy when the electoral tides turn. That's the purpose of having limited government."

Excellent point!

I don't want the gov't forcing anything down my throat..religion, racism, tolerance, or social justice

5/21/2010 10:24:07 PM

of course you don't want it. people don't want anything. slave owers didn't want the government taking their slave owning liberties away.

5/21/2010 10:31:10 PM

Quote :

"Actually i think someone might pop in here to argue for anarchy."

Quote :

" And that person would be Rand Paul"

This is a common argument aimed at libertarians from both dems and pubs. David Boaz at CATO has an interesting reply....

Quote :

"Michael Gerson writes in the Washington Post, “[Rand] Paul and other libertarians are not merely advocates of limited government; they are anti-government.” I can’t speak for Rand Paul, but for the libertarians I know, this is just wrong. Libertarians are not against all government. We are precisely “advocates of limited government.” Perhaps to the man who wrote the speeches in which a Republican president advocated a trillion dollars of new spending, the largest expansion of entitlements in 40 years, federal takeovers of education and marriage, presidential power to arrest and incarcerate American citizens without access to a lawyer or a judge, and two endless “nation-building” enterprises, the distinction between “limited government” and “anti-government” is hard to see. But it is real and important."

[Edited on May 21, 2010 at 11:12 PM. Reason : .]

5/21/2010 11:12:31 PM

Quote :

"Agreed. Those are definitely not very libertarian positions."

Agreed, except that I think that being anti-abortion can easily be reconciled with libertarianism.

5/22/2010 2:39:09 PM

absolutely.

abortion has nothing to do with libertarianism - it only depends on when you determine life to have begun. A pro-abortion libertarian who pretends that life begins at conception would necessarily have to be anti-abortion in that imaginary universe in order to remain a true libertarian.

5/22/2010 2:46:46 PM

yep. not really a religion or political ideology question. it's mostly a biology question (with an element of philosophy, if you are of the mindset that there's a grey area when it comes to what is and isn't human life).


of course, i've met numerous pro-abortion types who openly admit that they are OK with abortion in cases when they themselves believe that it is human life. That is fucking morally disgusting.

5/22/2010 2:53:48 PM

its not necessarily morally disgusting, to me.


It's definitely not libertarian to support abortion if you believe life begins before that abortion. It is utilitarian.

5/22/2010 3:04:48 PM

well, i'll agree with your 2nd statement.

5/22/2010 3:53:21 PM

Dem pickup....would would of thought.....

5/22/2010 4:21:36 PM

Quote :

"WOULD WOULD OF"

5/22/2010 4:24:44 PM

I also thought this was a play on words with ron paul/ann rand

But then I remembered it was a mambagrl thread, and he probably doesn't even know who ann rand is.

5/22/2010 4:49:31 PM

Quote :

"it was a mambagrl thread, and he probably doesn't even know who ann rand is."

Holy fuck.

5/22/2010 5:02:29 PM

Quote :

"Ron Paul made that joke about himself when he named his kid. What a faggot."

dude kid name fail

5/22/2010 5:23:17 PM

ayn, whatever

I never remember weird spellings of names.

5/22/2010 5:26:26 PM