[quote]pushharder wrote:
BTW, what’s with all the whining here among moderates here about CPAC - that’s CONSERVATIVE Political Action Conference – rallying behind CONSERVATIVE candidates at their annual conference?[/quote]
It’s not whining - it’s recognizing the (bad) impact it will have on the GOP winning the 2016. When potential nominees feel required to start shrieking about abolishing the IRS to score points with the crowd, they’re positioning themselves to lose the general election. But they are forced to because of this conference.
That’s fine, as far as it goes. “Conservatives” want the sugar high. But when the GOP flops in 2016, we’ll know why.
[/quote]
It won’t be because of CPAC, that’s for sure. To insist on that shows shallow end of the pool thinking, I’m thinking.
Hey, your wing of the party, the establishment, still holds most of the GOP power. Go getcha your Bob Dole and run the sumbitch. What are you waiting on?
In the meantime, you can continue to disingenuously label Cruz as a “radical,”
[/quote]
Well, let’s be clear - I don’t have a wing in the party, because it’s not my party. I am not a Republican, nor does the party have a lock on my vote. And the problem with CPAC is that it puts too much pressure on electable candidates to ruin their mainstream credentials.
And Cruz is pretty radical - not as radical as Paul. The biggest concern about Cruz is his temperment and the fact that he exhibits poor judgment. Witness the shutdown theater. Not exactly the Talleyrand of the Senate.
Well, I’m not a Democrat, and I don’t support big government.
Cruz’s actions were foolish. He wasn’t attempting anything of substance - he was grandstanding. And everyone saw it. He has even admitted not handling it right, in retrospect - which is fine, but it shows he isn’t ready, and possibly that he never will be. When on the biggest stage and with a duty to get something done, he instead chose to be a gadfly.
Cruz may fire up the base, but he isn’t going to make progress with the middle.
If you are a moderate, an Eisenhower/Stevenson cuz we gotta be pragmatic type, you most certainly do. Indirectly.
[/quote]
Life, in the real world, isn’t divided into reductionist options of a “night watchman” state or a “big-government” proto-socialist Leviathan. There are many points in between on a spectrum where each of those reductionist extremes exist. Being somewhere other than at the “night watchman” pole isn’t the same as being a fan of “big government.”
It’s fun to think so for libertarian goof-off time, but it’s not useful for people who live and operate in the real world, which has been transformed by the rise (and dominance of) the installation of markets, technology, and globalization. These radical changes have required big-ger government. If that inconvenient fact messes up the libertarian thought project, that isn’t my problem to fix.
I’m open to hearing why denying service to anyone for any reason is in fact reasonable.
If this is Rand Paul’s position; and many feel that it a reasonable position; reasonable people will listen then draw their own conclusions.
Mufasa
[/quote]
Here is a list of protected classes:
Race
Color
Religion
National origin
Age
Sex
Pregnancy
Citizenship
Family status
Disability
Veteran
These are FEDERALLY protected classes of people. Please tell me how a business can now be compelled to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding that conflicts with their religious beliefs.
Please tell me why activists are infringing on the rights of the MANY?
Why on earth would you want a baker WHO DESPISES YOU to bake your cake? He’d probably drop it on the floor, or worse! It’ about activists and special interests eroding our rights. Small business are NOT publicly traded companies. They should be able to do what they want and serve who they want as long as they are not discriminating against a federally protected class of people. Fags aren’t federally protected…
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Why on earth would you want a baker WHO DESPISES YOU to bake your cake? He’d probably drop it on the floor, or worse![/quote]
-That’s why we need 24/7 surveillance of all businesses. We HAVE to make sure that doesn’t happen. That wouldn’t violate the Fourth Amendment, because nothing forces people to open businesses. There’s no problem that can’t be solved with regulation.
-As far as the federally protected classes are concerned, I wonder what happens when one class interferes with another? What if a baker, who is a member of a strictly pacifist church, is asked to bake a cake reading “101st Airborne is greater than God” for a disabled veteran?
Nowhere in my post did I say Cruz was the representative of the libertarian thought project - that’s obvious enough from reading it. My point is that it is cheap, lazy, and lame to brand virtually everyone who sees reason in a government larger than the “night watchman” state is and has to be a “big government” socialist, but that is just about all (most) libertarians have to say.
Angry Chicken: They should be able to do what they want and serve who they want as long as they are not discriminating against a federally protected class of people. Fags aren’t federally protected…
So … How Ya gonna feel when a “fag” goes and kicks your ass ?
Ok, lets get back to it…CRUZ is a CANADIAN ! Not eligible for the Presidency of the United States !
If a foreign born citizen was Eligible, do you not think that the Repube’s wouldnt have thrown Arnold up there Already ?