Meh. He's an unreconstructed racist opposed to the Civil Rights Act Of 1964 just like his dad, under a misplaced guise of "freedom." He's a charlatan using a theoretical issue to get attention for his presidential run. Actually I find it funny and telling that he has no qualms about drones and lethal police/military force being used on people of color in and outside of USA.
He strikes me, much like his old man, as one of the few people in Washington with any principles. His policy opinions might suck, like his old man's, but I'm not sure what difference that actually makes. None of those assholes can ever be counted on to do what's right, so the only really difference between a principled bastard and an unprincipled hypocrite is that at least we know where the Pauls actually stand. Like I said a while back, I'd rather vote for somebody who's honest about being a scumbag than somebody who throws out bullshit platitudes.
Don't let him fool you. He's really good at acting like he has principles. Look at his voting record and his actual opinions. Someone who says they care about the constitution and civil rights while also saying a bar should deny me my right to have a beer in in based on my skin color is actually an inconsistent, unprincipled faggot.
I'm not sure there's a correlation there. The Constitution and civil rights don't necessarily have anything to do with private businesses, and if that was the position he (Rand or Ron?) was taking, I'd have a hard time disagreeing with him.
Neither he nor Ron ever said that companies should deny your rights, like you are claiming. Their argument was that the free market will kill off any business that is unwilling to adapt and to serve all peoples, and therefore the government doesn't have the obligation to worry about enforcing that. I don't think, however, that voicing opposition to the Civil Rights Act was the right way to go about pointing that out, though. And I don't think that argument would have been relevant in the 60s.
Their argument is racist faggotry on its face, considering the free market environment in unreconstructed Southern enclaves in 1964 was so hostile to negroes that it necessitated the Civil Rights Act Of 1964 in the first place. It's like their and their fellow Rethuglicans' arguments in favor of getting rid of the Voting Rights Act today. They figure blacks are finally voting without poll taxes so we should get rid of the rules that prohibit poll taxes. It's at best a misplaced, and at worst racist/pro-disenfranchisement argument under the guise of freedom. Look, I hate blacks as much as the next guy, but I think he and his dad should at least admit that if they had their way, people of color who aren't moochers would also be in danger of not being allowed to have a beer at their local southern drinking establishment because the bar owner happens to hate Indians. The market should be free, but should also be regulated by rules. The Pauls would get rid of these rules and consumer protections. Charlatans.
Yes, I agree that the 60s free market would not topple segregated businesses like the current free market would, which is why I think opposing the act is not the right way of making the point they are trying to make. I do not, however, think that either of them are racist.
It's a different kind of racism. Not the "I hate niggers" kind, but the "I want to create laws that make it easier for (white) business owners to decide with whom they do business with" variation. Also known as libertarianism. Which is, in the way the Pauls present it, a type of charlatanism that espouses rights for some but not for others. I'm not really consistent myself, since I think people should not be allowed to drink carbonated beverages, while I also think marijuana should be legal, and I think I should be allowed to drink a beer at my favorite bar, but I don't think blacks should be allowed there.
It's probably to do with how you distinguish the wealth. I don't know how they do it here, whether it's the difference between the wealth of the top 5% vs the bottom 5%, 10% vs. 10%, the difference between the middle 30% vs the bottom and top 10%... I'm not for a minute saying that graphs like this give us an perfect idea of what's going on. Japan is pretty fucked, though. I sure as hell wouldn't like to be part of the 'new poor' class there. A higher percentage of people live in poverty in Japan than in almost all of the other OECD nation (it's higher than a fair few Eastern European countries), and Japan's social safety net is shite. India is a different animal, of course, although I don't think it's that fair to talk about wealth inequality in developing nations vs. developed nations.
I don't really feel that living somewhere as a privileged Western expat (who deals and associates mainly with other expats and the middle and upper-classes of the country) necessarily gives you an idea of what life is really like there. We almost always have things much, much easier. Korea is a little different, but I pretty much get to experience only the upsides to life here, and none of the downsides. In fact, here's an article on the 'hidden poor' of Japan. I also remember seeing a documentary on what it's life for the poor in Japan and it was fucking dreadful. Things here can be terrible too, but I don't really know much about it as I'm never exposed to it, even though I teach teenagers from poor families every day.
Well first of all, sir, I've lived in Japan for most of my life, including 15 years in Nagano and 2 years in Kyoto. Right now I live in a hostel probably somewhat similar to what's described in that article (rent is more like 1,200 yen per day, pretty damn cheap for Tokyo). I probably live among these so-called new poor. Hell, maybe I'm part of the new poor. I guess I just don't see this kind of life as poverty. I know there's more poverty in western Japan (Osaka, Kyoto). And yea, the hobos are pretty well hidden here. When I was in Kyoto I was in a not-so-well-off area, and I suppose I can see some of the people there as living in poverty (that might explain the prominence of the communist party there).
I mistakenly assumed you were a fellow honky on the trot. How old are you? I only ask because I don't think not having a 'decent' place to live or much money matters a whole lot when you're young, as long as you have a place to sleep, enough food to eat, a little bit left over so you have have something of a social life. It does, however, matter a hell of a lot if you want to start a family, if you're old and don't have enough money to live a good retirement (or retire at all), if you're expected to assist your older relatives financially, or there isn't a decent safety net from the state and you happen to get seriously ill, lose your job, want to spend time re-training, etc. Do you feel like you face any of these problems as a 'poor' person?
I'm a honky like you, just grew up here and such. I'm 26 and yea it does make a difference if you're young and single. But my impression was that the "new poor" or "working poor phenomenon" referred mostly to young people who aren't working full time jobs, in stark contrast to the post-war rapid growth period where it was assumed that everybody would come out of college and sign up with a company that would employ them for the rest of their lives. As far as old people goes, it's commonly thought that the upper generation as a whole has an insane amount of savings. But I'm sure with there being such a large population of the elderly a lot of their situations are undesirable. Haven't given much thought to the social safety net.
Paul finally yielded the floor after 12 hours and 54 minutes. I was hoping he would break the filibuster record, but oh well. Super glad that we have a Congressman who finally stood up to this shit and brought the issue to light.
pretty much. it's really funny how libertarians tend to use the rhetoric of Thoreau when justifying their theory of small government and their right to disobey "unjust" laws against stuff like drugs (first world injustices), then turn around and act as if "freedom" is the same thing as "the freedom of businesses to be racist." actually Thoreau was also the one who famously pointed out, way back in the time of slavery, that there was an enormous difference between "freedom" and "free trade." back then, according to businesses and plantation owners, it was a free market and they were free to profit from slaves if they wanted.
I'm the first to object to institutionalized racism, but I still have a hard time telling a small business owner that he's required to hire or serve somebody he doesn't want to. Moreover, I think we live in a different era where the market wouldn't be kind to such a practice if it became commonplace. One restaurant refusing to serve colored people would just create a perfect market for another that would target them directly. I'd call that a win/win.
Spaceman, you are wasting time responding to Disappear. He has been saying the same exact thing about the Pauls since 2007. And Ogre, that is completely different. The fallacy with slavery is that one human's rights are being trampled by another. A human does not have the right to force another to engage in an activity with them, in this case selling something to them. But hey, I guess that's just code for my secret racism.
kinda raging right now... Rachel Maddow had a fairly reasonable article on the filibuster, acknowledging that there was probably a lot of political posturing going on (some of Paul's GOP supporters during the filibuster support the drone program, even in the US), but at the same time noting that the discussion about drones is an important one to have. But her mindless Democrat minions can only focus on how they think Paul is insincere in his comments, as if that is a more important discussion to have than the discussion about the drone program. These goddamned idiots remind me that I feel good for voting 3rd party last election.
As I've already explained above, it's a different form of racism (of the institutional kind), you strawman-placing dicknigger.
I fail to see how believing it's wrong to force some one who has not infringed on anyone's rights to do something is racism of any kind.
Jim Crow Laws: Businesses must enforce segregation Rand Paul's position: Government doesn't tell businesses what to do regarding this issue Current Law: Businesses cannot enforce segregation Hope this helps. You can make inferences about his intentions however you want, but that is the reality of the positions presented.
i dunno, i think the status quo is fine. in Garrettsville, Ohio they solve the problem by hanging a noose at the entrance to the bar. they've never gotten in trouble for it because a black guy has never gone to Garrettsville, Ohio (why the hell would anyone go there, by choice or otherwise?)
My problem is that the Pauls' position would allow Jim Crow laws to exist, under the guise of allowing businesses to discriminate based on race. They not only have no problem with businesses that discriminate, but also, per their stated positions on the Civil Rights Act Of 1964, they want to change the law to prevent government from enforcing non-discrimination laws in the first place. To me, it means they are more than comfortable with Jim Crow laws, because in the end, they are unreconstructed racists, using "freedom" as a guise to usurp people's right to drink a beer in their favorite watering hole while being black. Again, I have no problem discriminating against blacks, but they should at least be honest on the issue.
The part in bold is not a right, and the rest is all speculation based on nothing. Glad to know you can read minds... I won't have to type any more on this ridiculous subject (as if I would if you couldn't). Or we could continue to talk about it like it is some how negates the fact that Rand Paul is one of a very few in our government willing to talk against trial-free execution of Americans. And contrary to your claim further up on this page, he in fact did talk against killing innocent middle eastern people via drones during his filibuster.
And yet he still thinks the Civil Rights Act Of 1964 should be overturned. I'm just saying, there are much better spokesmen for protecting our rights than the Paul klan.
i agree; no one has the right to drink a beer and anyone who does drink a beer should be sentenced to hard labor. fucking drug addicts are ruining our country.
“I was going to vote against Brennan, until the filibuster,” Graham, of South Carolina, said Thursday. “I thought Brennan was arrogant, a bit shifty. I am going to vote for Brennan now because it’s become a referendum on the drone program.”
The Brennan nomination was annoying. I don't like the guy and I damn sure don't like what people like him are doing to this country, but at the same time the man was insanely well qualified for the job. You couldn't fake a resume as good as his for the CIA gig. Still, you always knew his approval was a foregone conclusion, just like all of the other DC bullshit.
"if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids." That's funny coming from John McCain.
It's funny because it's a perfect example of how fucking braindead the Republicans are right now. The Bible-thumping nutjobs view them as a gangrenous appendage rather than crucial to their survival.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/...at-rand-pauls-filibuster-on-the-senate-floor/ http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/...you-guys-didnt-worry-about-drones-under-bush/ lol McCain's butt buddy is getting in on the action. This is doubly funny considering it's the exact Nazi-like fearmongering Rand was warning about. That said, Rand, in joining his dad, has gone completely off-message as a Republican, since his party generally supports the idea of endless warmongering, militarization, extrajudicial assassinations and a police state.
Owned by Mongolia, Somalia, North Korea, Iran, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Bangladesh etc.
Um duh, how do you think we are #1 in GDP? (nevermind that we'd still be #1 if we had paid maternal leave...)
