Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Dr. Rand Paul for US Senate

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Dr. Rand Paul for US Senate - Kentucky 2010
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 12:14 am Post subject:

ontheway wrote:

1960 5.0 10.5 5.2

1970 4.5 8.2 3.7

1980 6.3 13.1 6.8

1990 4.7 10.1 5.4

Given we're talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this is the pertitent section of your data. Have a look at what happened between 1960's numbers and 1970's. They certainly didn't spike upwards, and even by 1990, they were at roughly the same level. I don't see this data bearing out your claim that:

ontheway wrote:

... anti-discrimination laws actually hurt minorities by driving up the minority unemployment rate.

In fact if anything it works against it. In 1970 they were better off than in 1960, and in 1990 they were roughly as well off. Further, this data doesn't seem to control in any way for the various other factors that can affect unemployment, ranging from culture to criminal activity to other economy-related laws and regulations. And of course you see this, which is why you softened you claim from the one I quoted above to this:

ontheway wrote:

As we can see from the chart, the Civil Rights act of 1964 did nothing to end racism in hiring and black unemployment rates did not improve.

But even this softened claim is in no way proven by your data. Nothing about those numbers proves the Civil Rights Act of 1965 did nothing to end racism in hiring. They also don't show that the Act did nothing to help black unemployment rates, because we have no idea what those rates would have been in the counterfactual situation where the Act wasn't passed. This is why it's so hard to take you seriously. You genuinely do look at these numbers and say, "Well, that's pretty open and shut! Libertarianism wins again!" and then get angry when people don't immediately agree. This is such a complex, nuanced topic, but for you it, as usual, simply boils down to liberty = good, government = bad.

Thanks for trying to educate me though. I know it must be hard for you to step down to the level of mere mortals and try to help someone who hasn't travelled the world on some sort of economic vision quest. I'm sure I'm just too stupid and uneducated to see the truth. Maybe someday just like you I can roam the world studying economics and screaming angrily about how Rhodes scholars are stupid and uneducated people.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 7:21 am Post subject:

Alright. Rand Paul is a Trojan Horse.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/kristol_theres_room_in_the_gop.html

Quote:

Bill Kristol, editor in chief of the Weekly Standard and a contributor to The Post, was one of the national security hawks contacted in March by allies of Trey Grayson with a warning about Rand Paul. "On foreign policy, [global war on terror], Gitmo, Afghanistan, Rand Paul is NOT one of us," wrote Cesar Conda, a former aide to Dick Cheney, to Kristol and to other conservatives.

Now that Paul is the GOP's nominee in Kentucky, what does Kristol think of him?

"Paul ran a good campaign," Kristol said. "He did a good job of being less like his dad -- seeming less 'out there' -- so if you were a normal Kentucky voter you thought you were voting for a Sarah Palin-like, anti-Washington figure, not someone who bought into the whole Ron Paul agenda."

Kristol gave American conservatives the other neo-con Trojan Horse: Sarah Palin. (here idiots, she talks like you - but in her offices is a flag... and the idiots bought it). Now Rand. He's a neo-con Trojan Horse.

The Tea Party is 50% Palin and 50% Ron Paul. Now Rand will conquer Ron's 50%, or most of.

Man, hoodwinked again. I'm just gonna start watching sports or fussing over Lindsay Lohan.

.38 Special

Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania

Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 9:11 am Post subject:

mises wrote:

Alright. Rand Paul is a Trojan Horse.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/kristol_theres_room_in_the_gop.html

Quote:

Relax. Rand's a good man. Kristol is just an asshole. Rand has his father's pedigree. Kristol and his friends originate from communists. Those good ole boys got an ugly past and they want an uglier future.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 3:34 am Post subject:

Rand Paul calls Obama un-American for his response to BP.

Quote:

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you don�t want to get rid of the EPA?

PAUL: No, the thing is is that drilling right now and the problem we�re having now is in international waters and I think there needs to be regulation of that and always has been regulation. What I don�t like from the president�s administration is this sort of, you know, �I�ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.� I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. I�ve heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it�s part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it�s always got to be someone�s fault. Instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen. I mean, we had a mining accident that was very tragic and I�ve met a lot of these miners and their families. They�re very brave people to do a dangerous job. But then we come in and it�s always someone�s fault. Maybe sometimes accidents happen.

BP has lied about the quantity of oil leaking from the spill. BP has tried to shift as much blame as possible for this spill onto other companies. BP has tried to trick fishermen who their spill has harmed into signing away their right to sue. BP has used less effective, more toxic oil dispersants than it could have just so it could buy them from Nalco, a company whose leadership includes BP executives.

Criticism of BP is not un-American, it's completely American. Rand Paul is confirming everything I believed about the Tea Party all along.

.38 Special

Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania

Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 7:52 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Rand Paul calls Obama un-American for his response to BP.

Quote:

If your strategy for holding businesses accountable is to put your "boot to their neck," then they're going to lie and dodge. Putting your boot to someone's neck is decidedly "un-American" -- at least in the sense that such a statement has any meaning at all -- that is, contrary to American cultural mores. I'd say bullying a business is "un-American" in that sense.

Yeah, BP has messed up bad. They have a lot to answer for. But we should be offering to help, not garroting them. Publically booing BP doesn't clean up oil, Obama and his administration are just trying to look good by sacrificing BP.

Like piranhas...

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 8:25 am Post subject:

.38 Special wrote:

mises wrote:

Alright. Rand Paul is a Trojan Horse.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/kristol_theres_room_in_the_gop.html

Quote:

"The bigger the lie, the more they believe."

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 6:07 pm Post subject:

.38 Special wrote:

If your strategy for holding businesses accountable is to put your "boot to their neck," then they're going to lie and dodge.

BP has been lying and dodging since well before any "boot" was applied to their "neck", which is exactly why people have gotten progressively angrier at them. They've been lying and dodging from day one.

.38 Special wrote:

Putting your boot to someone's neck is decidedly "un-American" -- at least in the sense that such a statement has any meaning at all -- that is, contrary to American cultural mores. I'd say bullying a business is "un-American" in that sense.

No, it's not. It's not contrary to our cultural mores at all. BP was trusted more than it should have been, and it used tha trust to play people for fools in an attempt to minimize their fiancial losses. Anger about that and it's expression is totally American.

.38 Special wrote:

Yeah, BP has messed up bad. They have a lot to answer for. But we should be offering to help, not garroting them. Publically booing BP doesn't clean up oil, Obama and his administration are just trying to look good by sacrificing BP.

We should be offering to help while simultaneously expressing anger and frustration at BP. BP has ruined people's lives. Not in some abstract sense, in a very real, direct, livelihood destroying sense. BP has caused immense, direct environmental damage. It would be stupid not to be angry at them, and it would be even more stupid not to channel that anger into better policy to help ensure this doesn't happen again.

Yes, we should help them fix this any way we can. While doing it, though, we should be be doing two other things:

1) Ensuring they're financially responsible for every penny of damage their recklessness has caused (in concert with other companies responsible).

2) Funneling public anger over this event into political pressure to craft better policy. If everyone just takes Dr. Libertarian's calm, placid, "Hey, accidents happen," attitude, then nothing will change and this will happen again. Massive public outrage is required to overcome the pro-big business political stall machine and actually ensure this doesn't happen again.

Obama's mistake isn't expressing anger at BP; his anger is totally correct and totally American. No, his mistake was trusting BP at all to handle this in a responsible, honest way.

So tired of Republicans calling people un-American. Wars of aggression are far more un-American than expressing anger about corporate irresponsibility, but none of these pussies seems willing to stand up and admit it (and condemn people accordingly), so yet again they're just being peacocks.

The Happy Warrior

Joined: 10 Feb 2010

Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 10:35 pm Post subject:

mises wrote:

Alright. Rand Paul is a Trojan Horse.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/kristol_theres_room_in_the_gop.html

Quote:

I'm with .38 Special on this one. Rand Paul is a libertarian faking the traditional conservativism, rather than the other way around. Apparently, on the trail, his biggest issue is lowering the deficit and cutting taxes. But none of its terribly sexy or controversial.

You have to get elected before you can make policy. Unlike Obama, who is better at getting elected than making policy, or Clinton, who was good at both, Rand Paul seems to be poor at getting elected. It remains to be seen how good Rand Paul will be at making policy (I expect like Obama his first year, or Clinton as governor of Arkansas, he will be far from perfect at the first).

I see Fox's point, but Rand Paul is right insofar as Obama really is a coward for simply blaming BP for all the damage. These are American sovereign waters. What? We just let oil companies drill oil, and then throw up our hands in the air when they make a boo-boo and say, 'The corporations are so bad! I'm so surprised!'

C'mon. The buck doesn't stop with BP.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Fri May 28, 2010 6:11 pm Post subject:

Rand Paul speaks out against the Constitution.

Quote:

Kentucky Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul recently shared with a Russian television station his belief that the United States should end its policy of guaranteeing citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

"We shouldn't provide an easy route to citizenship," Paul explained. "We're the only country that I know that allows people to come in illegally, have a baby, and then that baby becomes a citizen. And I think that should stop."

In the interview Paul also suggested what steps he thinks lawmakers should take to address illegal immigration -- one of his ideas being constructing an "underground electrical fence" along the boarder. The Senate hopeful even mentions the solution on his campaign website in defining his stance on the issue:

Quote:

Millions crossing our border without our knowledge constitutes a clear threat to our nation's security. I will work to secure our borders immediately. My plans include an underground electric fence, with helicopter stations to respond quickly to breaches of the border.

Also on his campaign website, Paul supports his position on illegal immigration by citing the protections outlined in the 10th amendment of the U.S. Constitution -- a frequent point of reference for the self-described "constitutional conservative."

Quote:

I support local solutions to illegal immigration as protected by the 10th amendment. I support making English the official language of all documents and contracts.

Paul doesn't mention however, the 14th amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the country.

On Friday morning, Paul campaign chairman David Adams clarified that the Kentucky candidate stands behind his remarks "because illegal immigration is a real problem in this country."

In short, Dr. Paul -- like many conservatives -- cares about the Constitution only insofar as it supports his own political views.

I can see why Republicans like this guy. More and more, he's starting to look like the Platonic Form of the Republican Party.

catman

Joined: 18 Jul 2004

Posted: Fri May 28, 2010 6:51 pm Post subject:

Has Rand Paul maintained his anti-interventionist position with regards to foreign policy? I can see mainstream Republicans being worried about that.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Fri May 28, 2010 7:09 pm Post subject:

catman wrote:

Has Rand Paul maintained his anti-interventionist position with regards to foreign policy?

I can see mainstream Republicans being worried about that.

http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/h-p/national-defense/

*Rand Paul opposes closing Guantanamo Bay.
*Rand Paul supports trying terrorists in military courts.
*Rand Paul says he would have voted in favor of the War in Afghanistan.

So, Dr. Paul is for the unilateral seizing of non-U.S. citizens who haven't been charged with a crime, followed by their unlimited detention and total lack of legal recourse. He also supports using an act of terrorism as justification to invade another country and occupy it, a purely interventionist policy which has cost our country billions in taxpayer dollars, American lives, and resulted in (and continues to result in) innocent civilians being killed.

I don't see how you can call that an anti-inteventionist policy.

The Happy Warrior

Joined: 10 Feb 2010

Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 6:55 pm Post subject:

The Reeducation of Rand Paul

Quote:

For instance, instead of calling for the elimination of many federal departments � as his father, Ron Paul, the libertarian Republican congressman and former presidential candidate, regularly does � Paul says he is trying to �nibble around the edges,� to �not be the person who says he will eliminate every department in the federal government. My dad freely will say that, that he would eliminate at least half of the departments, but he is just more forthright.�

Despite Fox's effective attacks on the man, and Rand Paul's gaping wounds from Maddow's interview, I still like where Rand Paul's head is

Quote:

When he is asked what committees he would like to serve on, he answers that since �we live in an almost pure democracy now, where there is hardly any constitutional restraint,� he wants to revive the �Harry Byrd committee,� or, as he puts it, �the waste-reduction committee� � referring to a past Senate committee on nonessential expenditures. �I do not want to be on the Appropriations Committee.�

Why is it that we have an Appropriations Committee but not the inverse, a Committee for cutting out-dated programs and commitments?

Quote:

As the flareup over his civil-rights remarks fades into the vast wasteland of old news, Paul says he is focusing more on winning the race than on winning an argument. His top three issues from now until November? �The debt, the debt, and the debt,� he says.

Yes. The previous Paul, and his father, seem more set on winning an argument. But the Clintonian adage states that you must first win to govern.

And the debt is a massive problem.

The Happy Warrior

Joined: 10 Feb 2010

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:42 pm Post subject:

Ron Paul defends . . . Obama's Executive Discretion?

Quote:

Without mentioning Obama by name, the U.S. Senate candidate said Congress shouldn�t micromanage the war in Afghanistan and should leave the decisions on troop levels to the White House. Paul spoke Saturday in Lexington at a Fayette County GOP picnic mostly about his conservative fiscal positions that have drawn him strong Tea Party support.

�I think when they have long-winded debates over how many troops there should be in a particular location, I don�t really think that�s the proper role of Congress,� he said.

I'd like to see his full remarks. He's right that Congress doesn't position troops, in the sense that its inappropriate for Congress to say X Division belongs in Kandahar and Y Division belongs in Helmand. But Congress has power of the purse. In that sense, it would be remiss for Congress to neglect discussing how many troops are deployed abroad.

Quote:

He warned that if tax cuts from former President George W. Bush are allowed to expire next year, it could push the economy over the edge.

�If we allow the tax cuts to expire, it will be the equivalent of the largest increases in our taxes in history,� he said. �If there is any one thing that could push us from a recession into a depression possibly� it would be a large tax increase.�

I disagree. And notice how Rand fails to distinguish between upper and lower brackets. This is a common GOP tactic. Anyway, we cannot balance the budget with cuts alone. I refer to the experts at TaxVox.

Quote:

In the long run, the benefits of extending the tax cuts are less clear, especially if they are not offset with other tax hikes or spending cuts. This is important since, at the moment, neither President Obama nor very many members of Congress are interested in paying that bill.

Both Len and Donald agreed that rather than remaining focused on tax cuts, Congress ought to reframe the tax issue and begin to think about reform. There, I think both have it exactly right. Refighting the tax wars of a decade ago will inevitably make deficits worse and do little to boost growth. The best course may be for Congress to extend low- and middle-class provisions of the Bush tax cuts for a year or two, and use that time to design a serious tax reform.

I'm very worried that Rand Paul will place the GOP 'never taxes, ever' ideology above his concerns about the debt. Its looking more and more like Rand Paul aspires to be rank-and-file GOP.

The Happy Warrior

Joined: 10 Feb 2010

Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:22 pm Post subject:

Rand Paul, running in Kentucky for Senate

Quote:

[I]t�s been Paul�s shrewd use of the perception that they are all out to get him, and, by proxy, the citizens he represents, that has resonated. Ask many of his less dogmatic advocates for his policy positions and beyond a general �smaller government� theme, you�re more likely to get a diatribe on the media and governing elite rather than an exegesis of his tax proposals.

Fitting, then, that when cornered on the GQ allegations, Paul told FOX News, "I think they deserve a lawsuit. The problem is, in our country they make it almost impossible for politicians to win anything� we used to have journalistic ethics in this country� it's so ridiculous I don't know where to start."

No one ever lost a vote in Kentucky for smacking �the media.� While Paul is certainly not the first to do it, he�s mastered the art in short order.

Rand Paul is casting himself as a victim of the national media. This may yet work. Or it may not be enough. Conway is Attorney General, a non-legislative position, so the failures of his party may just bounce off his reputation.

Supporters shouldn't get all too wrapped up in Rand Paul. He's just another politician.

itsjustverbs

Joined: 05 Aug 2010

Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:40 pm Post subject:

I remember seeing Peter Schiff on CNN in 2009 or something and I was in shock. He wasn't mamby pamby negative, he was actually negative and got a few minutes on CNN. Although I never saw him much afterwards. Gee I wonder why. He doesn't have enough happy talk for big media.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Page 5 of 8

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe