Rand Paul Wins Primary

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]0mar wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh my…

The Constitution explicitly grants the power to raise and SUPPORT ArmIES. The Air Force is nothing more a specialized air army. This counter-argument is immediately rendered silly by simply asking oneself “Self, if the Air Force was called the Air Army, would it then constitutional? Of course, cause not it’s THE Army!” C’mon…

[/quote]

The Constitution specifically says “land and naval” forces. No where does it say air forces. Sure, you can spin it as armies, but then the Constitution is redundant, because there would be no need for the phrase “sea armies”. Thus, the original intent of the founders was to specify land and naval armies.

I’m not arguing that the Air Force is unconstitutional, I’m showing that reading the Constitution in such a strict light is absurd. However, that is precisely what Paul and people like him want to do.

And it doesn’t stop with the Airforce. Off the top of my head, the following agencies would be unconstitutional:

NSA
CIA
NASA
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
The National Laboratories
Mineral Mangement Authority
TSA
FAA
FDA
FCC
National Science Foundation (NSF)

With Paul’s brand of ideology, we would not have a functioning country.[/quote]
You are clueless beyond words.

82

[quote]0mar wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh my…

The Constitution explicitly grants the power to raise and SUPPORT ArmIES. The Air Force is nothing more a specialized air army. This counter-argument is immediately rendered silly by simply asking oneself “Self, if the Air Force was called the Air Army, would it then constitutional? Of course, cause not it’s THE Army!” C’mon…

[/quote]

The Constitution specifically says “land and naval” forces. No where does it say air forces. Sure, you can spin it as armies, but then the Constitution is redundant, because there would be no need for the phrase “sea armies”. Thus, the original intent of the founders was to specify land and naval armies.

I’m not arguing that the Air Force is unconstitutional, I’m showing that reading the Constitution in such a strict light is absurd. However, that is precisely what Paul and people like him want to do.

And it doesn’t stop with the Airforce. Off the top of my head, the following agencies would be unconstitutional:

NSA
CIA
NASA
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
The National Laboratories
Mineral Mangement Authority
TSA
FAA
FDA
FCC
National Science Foundation (NSF)

With Paul’s brand of ideology, we would not have a functioning country.[/quote]

Of course it doesn’t say Air Force…How the hell could it? The ability for our armies to use a mode of transportation is more than covered under support of our armies. This a horrible argument.

And what does any of this, the ability to provide for the Common Defense, have to do with your right to private property? Yes, your right. Why IS your business any less your property than your home? Why is your home anymore your property than your business? Are the ultimate defenders of equality those who’d support laws making it illegal to discriminate within our homes? Should we be fined because we refused to invite blacks, or whites, or pre-op transgendered bi-sexual polygamists, to our birth-day parties?

Is it your property, or isn’t it? Yes, or no? If it is, how can the government say who you must allow onto it? That’s just makes it their property for which they simply allow you to run and profit off it, in order that they may collect tax revenue from it.

84

[quote]John S. wrote:
You know Rand is the right guy when liberals have to go to the race card this early into the debate.[/quote]

This is a misstatement, Paul is the one that would not admit it would be going backwards to repeal the civil rights laws, An intellgent person would have seen this problem comming a mile down the road and would not have let it blow up like it did. It will not take many circumstances like this to kill any type of political carreer

85

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
You know Rand is the right guy when liberals have to go to the race card this early into the debate.[/quote]

This is a misstatement, Paul is the one that would not admit it would be going backwards to repeal the civil rights laws, An intellgent person would have seen this problem comming a mile down the road and would not have let it blow up like it did. It will not take many circumstances like this to kill any type of political carreer [/quote]

He says he is not going to revist it. Liberals are playing the race card because they have nothing else to play. This really is a non issue and is nothing more then a liberal circle jerk, they are the only ones buying into it.

The same people I see screaming that he is racist(he is not) are the same people saying the tea party is racist(its not).

He even said he would vote for the civil rights act if he was in office when it came up, so what exactly are people going off on?

Ill put a tub of anaconda down that Paul wins the election, anyone wanna bet against me?

86

Yeah. Screw civil rights! We’re all ready for the Hobbesian get it on, right?

87

I don’t have a problem with Rand’s position on whether businesses should be required to provide equal treatment. What I did have a problem with, is that he was afraid to say it. He literally could not give a straight answer to Maddow because he was so frightened to say it. That’s not a good start.

It’s the same idea as everyone being allowed to curse in public and say whatever they want about anything. Just because your neighbor says all Jews should burn, and you think he should be allowed to say that, doesn’t mean you support it. Why is discrimination with businesses any different?

88

How the hell can you argue that we should not have an Air Force because it was not in the Constitution when the first bi-plane glider was built in 1900?

90

MSNBC has shot themselves in the foot, Paul won’t be going on that trash station for a long time.

In this link is the ABC interview with Paul too, where he says he will not repeal things and calls out the democrats for their racist in office.

Let me ask you liberals this(I am looking at you Irish), do you really want to go down this race card path? Listen to Pauls interview and think about that one for a second.

91

[quote]John S. wrote:
MSNBC has shot themselves in the foot, Paul won’t be going on that trash station for a long time.

In this link is the ABC interview with Paul too, where he says he will not repeal things and calls out the democrats for their racist in office.

Let me ask you liberals this(I am looking at you Irish), do you really want to go down this race card path? Listen to Pauls interview and think about that one for a second.[/quote]

The rigidity with which libertarians apply their principles is problematic in many ways. While there are more important issues to discuss, anyone who uses property rights as an argument for not legislating against instances of discrimination in private business is not necessarily a racist, but is, at the very least, someone who is completely out of touch with minorities. If you have ever had a black friend you understand that things like this have a profound emotional and psychological impact on people.

92

[quote]thefederalist wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
MSNBC has shot themselves in the foot, Paul won’t be going on that trash station for a long time.

In this link is the ABC interview with Paul too, where he says he will not repeal things and calls out the democrats for their racist in office.

Let me ask you liberals this(I am looking at you Irish), do you really want to go down this race card path? Listen to Pauls interview and think about that one for a second.[/quote]

The rigidity with which libertarians apply their principles is problematic in many ways. While there are more important issues to discuss, anyone who uses property rights as an argument for not legislating against instances of discrimination in private business is not necessarily a racist, but is, at the very least, someone who is completely out of touch with minorities. If you have ever had a black friend you understand that things like this have a profound emotional and psychological impact on people. [/quote]

You are trying really hard not to understand what he was saying. Stop using “black people” as a shield. Quit putting people into groups also, You really think that if some business owner wants to be racist this law is going to stand in there way? You seem to forget that most of the things the law fixed where other laws they put in place to segergate.

93

Dr. Paul got it right the second time 'round (or whatever time it was)

Later Thursday, in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, he went further. Asked specifically whether facilities should have had the right to segregate their lunch counters, as was common in the South, he said, according to the CNN transcript, "I think that there was an overriding problem in the South so big that it did require federal intervention in the '60s. And it stems from things that I said, you know, had been going on, really, 120 years too long. And the Southern states weren’t correcting it.[u] And I think there was a need for federal intervention."[/u]

I don’t like the feds stepping into private lives. However, I agree with Dr. Paul’s (current) position that there are times when it is necessary to do so. That Dr. Paul took such a misstep early simply points to his being new at politics. He’ll learn. That being said, I do think it is an excellent example of his political positions and why I, and and dare say the “silent majority,” disagree with those positions.

It is somewhat unfortunate that race was involved in this. Really, it was (or should have been) a question of his (extreme) political views. Views he seems to have now softened…at least in this regard.

I wish him luck as the new senator. I’m sure he’ll win the seat easily.

94

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

How the hell can you argue that we should not have an Air Force because it was not in the Constitution when the first bi-plane glider was built in 1900? [/quote]

This is the classic hypothetical to counter the “strict constructionist” reading of the Constitution. And it is a fair argument put to true “strict constructionists”.

But, to note, the whole “it couldn’t have been in the Constitution at the time because we didn’t know about it then, but it should be in the Constitution now because we know about it now” is the backbone for lots of unwelcome judicial activism in the name of “progress”. I’d steer clear of that justification of the Air Force.

95

On the junior Paul (who I will give the benefit of the doubt to, despite being the offspring of a loathesome clown), I think Charles Krauthammer said it well:

[i]This is not going to sink him, but it is a negative. If on the first day of the general election campaign you have to issue a statement saying I’m not in favor of repealing the Civil Rights Act, you have a problem. Why are you even discussing it?

There is a reason why in America libertarians are admired and their ideas are current, but they get half a percent of the vote when they actually want to govern. People don’t want this purist individualism actually in government.

And I think he should have had an easy answer saying: â??The Civil Rights Act was one of the great achievements of our day and it made our country enormously better in every way. But… our real problem today, in part, [is that] because of the prestige that the federal government acquired as a result of the success on civil rights, it thought it could solve everything, and for the last 50 years we have been injecting it in every area of life, and I’m saying it’s not the way to approach things.â??

But to actually debate the first principles about desegregation on day one of the campaign, this is a huge unforced error.[/i]

96

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]thefederalist wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
MSNBC has shot themselves in the foot, Paul won’t be going on that trash station for a long time.

In this link is the ABC interview with Paul too, where he says he will not repeal things and calls out the democrats for their racist in office.

Let me ask you liberals this(I am looking at you Irish), do you really want to go down this race card path? Listen to Pauls interview and think about that one for a second.[/quote]

The rigidity with which libertarians apply their principles is problematic in many ways. While there are more important issues to discuss, anyone who uses property rights as an argument for not legislating against instances of discrimination in private business is not necessarily a racist, but is, at the very least, someone who is completely out of touch with minorities. If you have ever had a black friend you understand that things like this have a profound emotional and psychological impact on people. [/quote]

You are trying really hard not to understand what he was saying. Stop using “black people” as a shield. Quit putting people into groups also, You really think that if some business owner wants to be racist this law is going to stand in there way? You seem to forget that most of the things the law fixed where other laws they put in place to segergate.[/quote]

I fully understand what he’s saying. It isn’t that sophisticated of an argument. Also, I’m not “hiding behind” black people. A debate about the validity of the civil rights act is unacceptable. Anyone who entertains that kind of discussion is either completely out of touch with reality or is an out and out racist.

That said, I don’t think that Rand Paul is a racist but I do think that his life as a member of the majority and subsequent lack of exposure makes him unable to perceive that the need to right the ills of southern segregation are greater than theoretical ideals.

97

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

How the hell can you argue that we should not have an Air Force because it was not in the Constitution when the first bi-plane glider was built in 1900? [/quote]

This is the classic hypothetical to counter the “strict constructionist” reading of the Constitution. And it is a fair argument put to true “strict constructionists”.

But, to note, the whole “it couldn’t have been in the Constitution at the time because we didn’t know about it then, but it should be in the Constitution now because we know about it now” is the backbone for lots of unwelcome judicial activism in the name of “progress”. I’d steer clear of that justification of the Air Force.[/quote]
The difference is that objectively undeniable technological advancement has rendered the provision for the common defense, an uncontested constitutional mandate, nearly meaningless without air power. Or radio communications, or space based surveillance. Or a whole host of other technologies only a lobotomized revisionist could proclaim would have been off limits had they been available to the continental army.

In other words there is indeed a foundational basis for something like an Air Force drawn from the concrete implication of the clearest of lawful mandates. Such is not even vaguely the case where most social welfare programs and intrusive federal regulation is concerned.

98

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
You know Rand is the right guy when liberals have to go to the race card this early into the debate.[/quote]

This is a misstatement, Paul is the one that would not admit it would be going backwards to repeal the civil rights laws, An intellgent person would have seen this problem comming a mile down the road and would not have let it blow up like it did. It will not take many circumstances like this to kill any type of political carreer [/quote]

He says he is not going to revist it. Liberals are playing the race card because they have nothing else to play. This really is a non issue and is nothing more then a liberal circle jerk, they are the only ones buying into it.

The same people I see screaming that he is racist(he is not) are the same people saying the tea party is racist(its not).

He even said he would vote for the civil rights act if he was in office when it came up, so what exactly are people going off on?

Ill put a tub of anaconda down that Paul wins the election, anyone wanna bet against me?[/quote]

I won’t bet you but if he has bigger aspirations than just a Congress, then he has to minimize these bad PR situations

99

[quote]thefederalist wrote:

I fully understand what he’s saying. It isn’t that sophisticated of an argument. Also, I’m not “hiding behind” black people. A debate about the validity of the civil rights act is unacceptable. Anyone who entertains that kind of discussion is either completely out of touch with reality or is an out and out racist.

That said, I don’t think that Rand Paul is a racist but I do think that his life as a member of the majority and subsequent lack of exposure makes him unable to perceive that the need to right the ills of southern segregation are greater than theoretical ideals. [/quote]

There is no debate about the validity of the civil rights act. Do yourself a favor and turn off MSNBC and CNN, they are twisting his words. He has said he would have voted for it, no one is debating against it. And would you stop putting people into groups we are either all the same or we are different, skin color matters or it don’t would you liberals pick which side you are on already.

100

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I won’t bet you but if he has bigger aspirations than just a Congress, then he has to minimize these bad PR situations[/quote]

You know, at the end of the year this entire thing will be a non issue. I mean you have to really twist words and ignore responses to get racist out of this. Rand is more then likely going to ignore the trash networks now for the stunt they pulled.