|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 8:07 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
^
Really? A stretch?
Please point out the difference between Rand Paul's position as he articulated on Rachel Maddow a few months ago and this excerpt from Ron Paul's speech in Congress on June 4, 2004:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
(I feel a little dirty just linking to that site, but it was the first one up.)
A stretch? One would have to do some heavy duty stretching to make a gap between the two positions wide enough to squeeze a dime in. They are identical positions.
Here's the Maddow interview:
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/05/19/4310399-rachel-maddows-interview-with-rand-paul-519 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Who cares? The Civil Rights Act is not in any danger, and Rand Paul walked his statement back since.
As I've stated before, the Constitutional foundations for the Civil Rights act are not very firm: the Federal gov't has little authority to regulate private businesses (the 14th Amendment is limited to State action), and the Commerce power was expanded to accomodate the need.
This is not a pressing issue, unlike say, Obama's violation of the War Powers Act or Wall Street's takeover of Washington or chronic deficit spending. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Who cares? The Civil Rights Act is not in any danger, and Rand Paul walked his statement back since.
As I've stated before, the Constitutional foundations for the Civil Rights act are not very firm: the Federal gov't has little authority to regulate private businesses (the 14th Amendment is limited to State action), and the Commerce power was expanded to accomodate the need.
This is not a pressing issue, unlike say, Obama's violation of the War Powers Act or Wall Street's takeover of Washington or chronic deficit spending. |
I care. I care very much about civil rights.
I don't care whether Rand walked his statement back or not. I don't believe him. On a matter of this importance, a politician cannot claim he hasn't thought about it or that he misspoke. He has had a lifetime to think about it and he said what he believed. He seems to have waffled because he was in an election. (Waffling--strike two.)
There shouldn't need to be anything in the Constitution about treating everyone equally. It's a matter of common decency.
I also find it very ironic the Pauls oppose the Patriot Act and the Civil Rights Act. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Who cares? The Civil Rights Act is not in any danger, and Rand Paul walked his statement back since.
As I've stated before, the Constitutional foundations for the Civil Rights act are not very firm: the Federal gov't has little authority to regulate private businesses (the 14th Amendment is limited to State action), and the Commerce power was expanded to accomodate the need.
This is not a pressing issue, unlike say, Obama's violation of the War Powers Act or Wall Street's takeover of Washington or chronic deficit spending. |
I care. I care very much about civil rights. |
You also care about humiliating Ron and Rand Paul.
Yes, this was a dismal moment for Rand Paul. I care about Civil Rights, too, but I'm not concerned that the Civil Rights Act will be repealed. Not for a second.
| Quote: |
| There shouldn't need to be anything in the Constitution about treating everyone equally. It's a matter of common decency. |
Well, there's the equal protection of the laws, but that's not the issue. When a private businessman discriminates, that's not state action. And, in fact, shopkeepers and storeowners can discriminate on many grounds, but not racial and ethnic ones. Its about the legacy of Jim Crow, more than anything else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 3:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
You also care about humiliating Ron and Rand Paul.
Yes, this was a dismal moment for Rand Paul. I care about Civil Rights, too, but I'm not concerned that the Civil Rights Act will be repealed. Not for a second.
Quote:
There shouldn't need to be anything in the Constitution about treating everyone equally. It's a matter of common decency.
Well, there's the equal protection of the laws, but that's not the issue. When a private businessman discriminates, that's not state action. And, in fact, shopkeepers and storeowners can discriminate on many grounds, but not racial and ethnic ones. Its about the legacy of Jim Crow, more than anything else. |
How is quoting father and son humiliating...unless it should be?
No, what the Pauls espouse is a rigid, inflexible ideology that has chosen one right and elevated it above all others, a right that is so sacred that it trumps anyone else's fundamental rights. Property rights were used to withhold the vote, and when that finally failed, they have tried to use property to say, "Well, crap! Yes, you can vote, but you aren't going to get to vote on this issue and that issue because it involves my property rights."
It is an ethically bankrupt system and these men should not be allowed within a hundred miles of political power for the same reason we don't let bank robbers serve in government. A week or so ago there were several articles about elements of conservative Christians pointing out to their political allies that Ayn Rand was anti-Christian. I'm no Christian, but one of the admirable parts of traditional Christianity is the social aspect. That strain of Christianity is over-due for a comeback. Again, people with the moral code of an alley cat do not deserve to be in government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
^
Really? A stretch?
Please point out the difference between Rand Paul's position as he articulated on Rachel Maddow a few months ago and this excerpt from Ron Paul's speech in Congress on June 4, 2004:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
(I feel a little dirty just linking to that site, but it was the first one up.)
A stretch? One would have to do some heavy duty stretching to make a gap between the two positions wide enough to squeeze a dime in. They are identical positions.
Here's the Maddow interview:
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/05/19/4310399-rachel-maddows-interview-with-rand-paul-519 |
The debate wasn't if they shared the same views on the Civil Rights Act, your contention was that they share the same views period. Do they both share the same views ideologically? It seems we may be debating two different things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
They are similar but not the same. However, I will say for the purposes of your assertion they have far more in common than differences so in that sense you would be right. I took it literal as they share the same ideology up and down. I assume you mean more in common than different, right? As far as I can tell some of the things in which they differ are:
Death Penalty: Ron Paul opposes the death penalty. Rand Paul supports it.
Social Security: Ron Paul wants to end it. Rand Paul wants to raise the age of eligibility and also wants to have a means test, deductability adjustment.
Social Conservatism: Ron Paul has fare more libertarian views on it while Rand Paul has social conservatism as part of his platform. Church groups like Rand, don't like Ron.
Guantanomo: Ron Paul says try them in civilian courst. Rand wants them tried in military courts. Ron Paul wants the jail to be shut down immediately, while Rand doesn't want it closed until there is an alternative. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| No, what the Pauls espouse is a rigid, inflexible ideology that has chosen one right and elevated it above all others, a right that is so sacred that it trumps anyone else's fundamental rights. Property rights were used to withhold the vote, and when that finally failed, they have tried to use property to say, "Well, crap! Yes, you can vote, but you aren't going to get to vote on this issue and that issue because it involves my property rights." |
No. Neither Paul has advocated denying the vote to anyone. And being able to walk onto private property and purchase goods/services is NOT a fundamental right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Friend Lee Ghost
Joined: 06 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
No. Neither Paul has advocated denying the vote to anyone. And being able to walk onto private property and purchase goods/services is NOT a fundamental right. |
Interesting list. Exactly what did the Supreme Court enumerate as constituting the right to privacy, Kuros? Without knowing the details, it just seems to me that the government violates this all the time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Friend Lee Ghost
Joined: 06 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ron Paul wins 2012 Republican straw poll in New Orleans
(Reuters) - Representative Ron Paul easily won a Republican Leadership Conference straw poll of the party's 2012 presidential contenders on Saturday, with former U.S. envoy to China Jon Huntsman finishing second...
Not even close
Bachmann 191
Cain 104
Gingrich 69
Huntsman 382
Johnson 10
McCotter 2
Palin 41
Paul 612
Pawlenty 18
Roemer 9
Romney 74
Santorum 30 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sevenseven7
Joined: 27 Nov 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wow, this is definitely good news. Palin scares me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KRTV
Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Friend Lee Ghost wrote: |
Ron Paul wins 2012 Republican straw poll in New Orleans
(Reuters) - Representative Ron Paul easily won a Republican Leadership Conference straw poll of the party's 2012 presidential contenders on Saturday, with former U.S. envoy to China Jon Huntsman finishing second...
Not even close
Bachmann 191
Cain 104
Gingrich 69
Huntsman 382
Johnson 10
McCotter 2
Palin 41
Paul 612
Pawlenty 18
Roemer 9
Romney 74
Santorum 30 |
Reuters is wishful thinking. Whatever the big bankers decide, that's who's going to get the nominee. Period. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KRTV wrote: |
Reuters is wishful thinking. Whatever the big bankers decide, that's who's going to get the nominee. Period. |
Did the big bankers or the party machine decide Obama in advance as well back in 2008? Or even Clinton who was not the front runner. He was way behind when he started. Going back, Carter as well now that I think about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| No, what the Pauls espouse is a rigid, inflexible ideology that has chosen one right and elevated it above all others, a right that is so sacred that it trumps anyone else's fundamental rights. Property rights were used to withhold the vote, and when that finally failed, they have tried to use property to say, "Well, crap! Yes, you can vote, but you aren't going to get to vote on this issue and that issue because it involves my property rights." |
No. Neither Paul has advocated denying the vote to anyone. And being able to walk onto private property and purchase goods/services is NOT a fundamental right. |
Thanks for pointing out the obvious, and thereby canceling out all of ya-ta's stupidity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| KRTV wrote: |
Reuters is wishful thinking. Whatever the big bankers decide, that's who's going to get the nominee. Period. |
Did the big bankers or the party machine decide Obama in advance as well back in 2008? Or even Clinton who was not the front runner. He was way behind when he started. Going back, Carter as well now that I think about it. |
Of course Obama was chosen from above. His mentor at Columbia University was Zbigniew Brzezinski, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission (of which every member of Carter's admin was a member, as well as most other elite politicians like GHW Bush and Bill Clinton). Brzezinski is a David Rockefeller minion, full stop.
Obama would never have seen the light of day if he hadn't been selected and vetted by the powers that be. Anyone who thinks his charismatic smile and (scripted) teleprompter speech reading abilities got him into the White House has no clue about reality whatsoever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
