Rand Paul IS AWESOME!

[Pliny]

Your logic is convoluted and makes no sense.

It opposes your logic and I do understand there may be some difficulty in seeing any logic or sense in it since the usual orthodox arguments are not presented to you and you can just feed back your usual orthodox responses.

[KeyStone]

This is one of the best commentaries from a politician I've heard in a while.

It's about time somebody started to speak up against this bullcrap! :angry:

What a complete moron. It's about what you can expect from a Tea Partier.

First of all, his comparison to pro-choice was idiotic.

Secondly, he repeats himself 15 times, and it's not even intended to be a filibuster.

Thirdly, he just doesn't get the concept.

He believes that all Americans should be free to make a choice, to buy products that may be harmful for the environment in general. He thinks that government should just encourage people to make the right choices, instead of force them.

Shall we encourage people not to have slaves rather than take away their choice?

Shall we encourage people not to bring Asian karp into the country, rather than take away their choice?

Shall we encourage people to pick up their dog's shit, rather than take away their choice?

Shall we encourage people not to play super loud music at 5 AM, rather than take away their choice.

Shall we encourage people not to have sex with 12 year olds, rather than take away their choice?

What Mr. Paul clearly fails to recognize is that we live in a global community. If we purchase and use products that are harmful to the community, and adversely affect the lives of others, that is something we all share the consequences of. Mr. Paul does not live in a bubble where his environmentally unfriendly choices only affect him.

[bush_cheney2004]

...What Mr. Paul clearly fails to recognize is that we live in a global community....

No "we" don't....that would be the ultimate loss of choice in such matters.

[KeyStone]

No "we" don't....that would be the ultimate loss of choice in such matters.

So, if the US citizens decide it is alright for the US to dump toxic waste in international waters, then the international community should have no say in the matter?

So, if every idiot with a new car out there, decides to get an ultra-sensitive car alarm, that doesn't turn off for three hours, and is louder than a rock concert, that's their right? They don't have to be concerned about the community they are disturbing?

If someone decides that they want a better view of the city, it's ok for them to cut down all the trees in the park?

Look, Rand makes a good sound bite, all about freedom and choice, but he simply doesn't think through what it means for us all to make decisions completely independent and oblivious to the common good.

Edited March 14, 2011 by KeyStone

[bush_cheney2004]

So, if the US citizens decide it is alright for the US to dump toxic waste in international waters, then the international community should have no say in the matter?

The "international community" doesn't exist as a sovereign entity, and would not have standing anyway. The US does dump toxic waste outside the 50 mile limit. I've done it myself many times...nasty business!

So, if every idiot with a new car out there, decides to get an ultra-sensitive car alarm, that doesn't turn off for three hours, and is louder than a rock concert, that's their right? They don't have to be concerned about the community they are disturbing?

Whoa...Podner. Cars and/or alarms are not "rights" to begin with. But clearly loud alarms are permitted by law. And they don't have to be concerned at all. Just pay the ticket.

If someone decides that they want a better view of the city, it's ok for them to cut down all the trees in the park?

If they get a permit.....sure. What somebody thinks about that in the "global community" doesn't mean dick.

[bloodyminded]

There would be a lot more respect for life in the womb under recognition that the fetus is a legal person. As a matter of fact, I think it would go a long way to curtailing unwanted pregnancies.

Ah, so now you support your great enemy--social engineering.

It's amusing to me that when a social conservative says something, many of your arguments--repated over and over as if you really meant them (you don't) are abandoned in favour of the Big Government, restrictive stance.

[pinko]

It opposes your logic and I do understand there may be some difficulty in seeing any logic or sense in it since the usual orthodox arguments are not presented to you and you can just feed back your usual orthodox responses.

It would seem to me that Rand Paul speaks out of both sides of his mouth. You then present some garbled argument in his defence and expect others to swallow it hook line and sinker.

[Pliny]

There would be a lot more respect for life in the womb under recognition that the fetus is a legal person. As a matter of fact, I think it would go a long way to curtailing unwanted pregnancies.

Ah, so now you support your great enemy--social engineering.

Including the fetus under the definition of "person" is social engineering? How so? Is including Blacks or Women under the definiton of person about social engineering. Excluding them was social engineering of which many laws regarding property and slavery were made.

No further laws need be made regarding "persons" beyond those that exist already. If "person" is defined to include the fetus, many laws, as with the recognition of Blacks and women as persons, will be unnecessary.

It's amusing to me that when a social conservative says something, many of your arguments--repated over and over as if you really meant them (you don't) are abandoned in favour of the Big Government, restrictive stance.

I am a social conservative in my personal views however I am not a social conservative politically.

Does that seem like it is inconsistent? I expect people to act with respect towards others not to have to legislate their behavior.

Edited March 14, 2011 by Pliny

[Pliny]

It would seem to me that Rand Paul speaks out of both sides of his mouth. You then present some garbled argument in his defence and expect others to swallow it hook line and sinker.

Find the part you disagree with the most and try to make sense of it. How could he possibly think what he is saying has any validity or merit? He is obviously not an idiot. Does he think everyone else is an idiot or does he just think that big government is about incompetence, inefficiency and idiocy besides power and money.

[pinko]

Find the part you disagree with the most and try to make sense of it. How could he possibly think what he is saying has any validity or merit? He is obviously not an idiot. Does he think everyone else is an idiot or does he just think that big government is about incompetence, inefficiency and idiocy besides power and money.

I take it you are speaking about Rand Paul. I don't read minds so I wouldn't know what Rand Paul thinks.

[Pliny]

What a complete moron. It's about what you can expect from a Tea Partier.

It is what you expect, I'm sure. And as far as that goes, Paul Rand delivers.

First of all, his comparison to pro-choice was idiotic.

Secondly, he repeats himself 15 times, and it's not even intended to be a filibuster.

Thirdly, he just doesn't get the concept.

He believes that all Americans should be free to make a choice, to buy products that may be harmful for the environment in general. He thinks that government should just encourage people to make the right choices, instead of force them.

A choice to buy products harmful to the environment? No. He is just saying that government is not the best agency to make the decision as regards what is the best option for everyone.

Well, maybe in the interests of safety and the environment we should abandon the automobile altogether. Should we just encourage them to do that or should we force them? We know that getting rid of the automobile will be good for the environment and will save hundreds of thousands of lives annually.

Good idea? If you are really serious about the environmment and safety then I can't see you disagreeing.

Shall we encourage people not to have slaves rather than take away their choice?

I'll have two, please. We could make it illegal and then let illegal immigrants into the country to do all the manual labour and menial tasks necessary to our comfort? That's one way around it.

Who's encouraging slavery?

Shall we encourage people not to bring Asian karp into the country, rather than take away their choice?

"President Obama and his administration supported Illinois's efforts to keep the canal open and with the support of USGS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife service reports have consistently denied that the Asian carp poses a threat"

Asian carp

What's up with that? Who's encouraging people to bring Asian carp into the country?

Shall we encourage people to pick up their dog's shit, rather than take away their choice?

Taking away their choice doesn't seem to have made a difference. I'm all for encouraging them to do so.

It seems they do this on "public" property, like in parks. They are less likely to do it on someone's private property.

Shall we encourage people not to play super loud music at 5 AM, rather than take away their choice.

I am all for encouraging people not to play super loud music at 5 AM. But I know what you mean, we have noise laws and people still do that? How come? They don't have that choice. It doesn't seem to have eliminated the problem.

I know how about we encourage common sense instead of making idiocy illegal.

Shall we encourage people not to have sex with 12 year olds, rather than take away their choice?

I'm all for encouraging people not to have sex with 12 year olds. Do you think someone is encouraging this choice? It is illegal but it happens. Do you think if it is legal that we will encourage each other to have sex with twelve year olds? Or will we encourage ourselves not to.

Some cultures still allow what we would consider to be child brides. They will just have to get with the program since we can't enforce them with our laws.

These are not choices that rational people will make. Basically, you are saying that freedom and liberty consists of being able to choose whether or not you want to rob a bank or create any amount of chaos without consideration for anyone in the name of choice. How idiotic an argument is that?

Your assumption is that given the opportunity people will always make the most destructive choice to others and therefore we need to be restrained.

What Mr. Paul clearly fails to recognize is that we live in a global community. If we purchase and use products that are harmful to the community, and adversely affect the lives of others, that is something we all share the consequences of. Mr. Paul does not live in a bubble where his environmentally unfriendly choices only affect him.

I encourage you to continue to choose riding your bike.

I think people understand we need to use our finite resources wisely. We need to take care of our environment. We need options and choices. Is the electric car the best we can do? Is the CFL bulb the best we can do? Government for some reason believes these should be our only options and will make laws regarding limiting our options. In other words we stop right there. There is no progress from that point and if you think that government will change it's laws for some other option you are sadly mistaken - they made them for a reason and it probably isn't primarily about concern for the environment. It can't be or they would allow us to get on with cleaning up the environment because we have already made that choice - we aren't going to make our current choices illegal. It has to be an evolutionary process and your idea is that people will not change their ways unless they are forced and their choices are limited.

We know what changes are necessary. Let's not make the mistake of running to the Fox's den because the sky is falling.

[Pliny]

I take it you are speaking about Rand Paul. I don't read minds so I wouldn't know what Rand Paul thinks.

There must be some point in that video with Rand Paul that you disagree with?

[bloodyminded]

Find the part you disagree with the most and try to make sense of it. How could he possibly think what he is saying has any validity or merit? He is obviously not an idiot. Does he think everyone else is an idiot or does he just think that big government is about incompetence, inefficiency and idiocy besides power and money.

We're going round and round on this: Rand Paul does not oppose big government.He supports it. His big government is ideologically conservative--which is why you support and defend it, mistaking conservative ideology for nature itself. He opposes any big government initiative that appear to come from a leftish direction, not the efficacy of big government initiatives themselves.

[maple_leafs182]

Well, maybe in the interests of safety and the environment we should abandon the automobile altogether. Should we just encourage them to do that or should we force them? We know that getting rid of the automobile will be good for the environment and will save hundreds of thousands of lives annually.

Good idea? If you are really serious about the environmment and safety then I can't see you disagreeing.

I do think that would be a good idea. Doing that might mess up the economy but the economy is fake anyways.

We're going round and round on this: Rand Paul does not oppose big government.He supports it. His big government is ideologically conservative--which is why you support and defend it, mistaking conservative ideology for nature itself. He opposes any big government initiative that appear to come from a leftish direction, not the efficacy of big government initiatives themselves.

Yes, Rand Paul does oppose big government. Rand Paul wants to cut spending both on the welfare and warfare sides.

Rand Paul is heavily influenced by his father Ron Paul who is a true libertarian.

[ToadBrother]

There is no more efficient way to deal with finite resources than the market system.

That also sounds like a statement of religious faith.

Having said that, a local council is different than a federal government.

I believe you are implying that common sense is abandoned under "libertarianism". Local initiatitives generally do address local problems whether council, local government or the citizens themselves address them.

I think my wider point is that following any ideology to the extreme without some moderation and compromise will ultimately lead to disaster. Libertarianism is no different in this regard than any other particular system. There are aspects I agree with, but all in all, I think it would create an unworkable state. As with capitalism, you know to moderate it in multiple ways.

"Libertarianism fails because it artificially separates government from the wider society."??? It artificially separates an artificial agency from society. Government is an artificial imposement upon society and needs limits and restrictions to it's mandate despite the misconstrued but widely held and promoted social democratic concept of supporting whomever provides the widest range of entitlements and privileges.

I see nothing artificial about government. It is an outgrowth of our species' trait of creating dominance hierarchies. Primitive hunter-gatherers may not have governments as we create them but they most definitely have organized means of decision making, depending on the size of the group. Heck, even chimpanzees create such dominance structures.

Edited March 14, 2011 by ToadBrother

[GostHacked]

It would seem to me that Rand Paul speaks out of both sides of his mouth. You then present some garbled argument in his defence and expect others to swallow it hook line and sinker.

I am seeing this as well. At least his father was consistent and still is consistent in what he says.

[bloodyminded]

Yes, Rand Paul does oppose big government. Rand Paul wants to cut spending both on the welfare and warfare sides.

If by "Government" you mean "taxes" and nothing but, then you might have a point. (Actually, I don't think so; not even that; but that's a slightly separate argument).

Rand Paul supports government intrusion into a woman's choice in what to do with her body. He supports warrantless eavesdropping on citizens. He claims to be opposed to empire, as his father also claims, but aside from empty words, I haven't heard him come out agaisnt the Iraq War--a big government initiative built specifically on deception of the public.

Taxes and spending are not the only measurements of a government's power and reach. Obviously.

[maple_leafs182]

If by "Government" you mean "taxes" and nothing but, then you might have a point. (Actually, I don't think so; not even that; but that's a slightly separate argument).

Rand Paul has introduce a plan to cut the deficit by 500 billion dollars.

Rand Paul supports government intrusion into a woman's choice in what to do with her body. He supports warrantless eavesdropping on citizens. He claims to be opposed to empire, as his father also claims, but aside from empty words, I haven't heard him come out agaisnt the Iraq War--a big government initiative built specifically on deception of the public.

Rand Paul opposed the Patriot Act.

I don't know if Rand Paul has come out against the war in Iraq but I do know that his father did.

[bloodyminded]

Rand Paul has introduce a plan to cut the deficit by 500 billion dollars.

Rand Paul opposed the Patriot Act.

I don't know if Rand Paul has come out against the war in Iraq but I do know that his father did.

Well, that's the question. If he supports the exansionism inherent to wars of choice, then he's a big government heavy spender...by definition.

It should also be noted that there is a genuine, intellectual libertarian movement in the United States, and they don't seem too crazy about Paul. They feel that being so closely aligned with social conservatives (and Paul is one) is dfamaging to their movement, and antithetical to their political beliefs.

Edited March 14, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bud]

shady!

i think for the first time we are in total agreeance!

i especially like how rand paul says that foreign aid to countries such as israel ($3 billion +), egypt and saudi should be cut off! i'm sure you do too!

rand paul IS AWESOME!

[maple_leafs182]

If some of you like Rand Paul, why not Ron Paul?

[GostHacked]

If some of you like Rand Paul, why not Ron Paul?

Good question!!!

[DrGreenthumb]

This is one of the best commentaries from a politician I've heard in a while.

It's about time somebody started to speak up against this bullcrap! :angry:

Haha, I love Rand Paul, and his father Ron too. Freedom is NOT slavery. I don't agree with EVERYTHING they say, but damned close. This world is full of f@cking busybodies that want to limit our choices, restict our freedoms, and I will join with the Pauls in telling those busybodies to go to hell! The government should tell us all the reasons why we should wear seatbelts. They should NOT be allowed to MAKE us wear them by law. Criminality only occurs, in my opinion, when there is a victim. Every time we give police/government more power we subtract an equal ammount of our freedom. I am a left wing libertarian. I see the value in a government taxing us in return for services provided, and infrastructure being built, but will never accept government interference in our civil liberties. If I want to drive a motorcycle with no helmet, the government should NOT be able to stop me from doing so. What is with right wing governments and their desire to force their moral judgements on everyone?

[pinko]

Haha, I love Rand Paul, and his father Ron too. Freedom is NOT slavery. I don't agree with EVERYTHING they say, but damned close. This world is full of f@cking busybodies that want to limit our choices, restict our freedoms, and I will join with the Pauls in telling those busybodies to go to hell! The government should tell us all the reasons why we should wear seatbelts. They should NOT be allowed to MAKE us wear them by law. Criminality only occurs, in my opinion, when there is a victim. Every time we give police/government more power we subtract an equal ammount of our freedom. I am a left wing libertarian. I see the value in a government taxing us in return for services provided, and infrastructure being built, but will never accept government interference in our civil liberties. If I want to drive a motorcycle with no helmet, the government should NOT be able to stop me from doing so. What is with right wing governments and their desire to force their moral judgements on everyone?

Why is Rand Paul part of the Republican Party caucas? I am sure you must realize the Republican Party is a right wing party.

[bloodyminded]

Why is Rand Paul part of the Republican Party caucas? I am sure you must realize the Republican Party is a right wing party.

And one of the two most powerful and entrenched and wealthy political parties on Earth.

If Paul really does stand apart from the Party (an idea which I find less than perfectly clear), he isn't going to change them; they're going to co-opt and change him.