Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

[lord_casek]

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Bill Clinton, just said something along the lines of tea party extremist's possibly doing something like the Oklahoma City bombing.

[angelofdeath]

top this:

 

fans of mastadon, stoner rock, doom metal, between the buried and me fans, and members of bands with 'nordic' band names are 'tea baggers', 'angry white men,' neo confederates, racists, nazi's and part of the violent arm of the 'tea party movement.'

 

you heard it here first... according to chris matthews and the SPLC, hipsters with painted fingernails listening to between the buried and me and dancing to such bands are extremist racist angry white men

 

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/SouthernAvenger/archives/2010/04/17/heavy-metal-or-hate-angry-white-people-take-over-music-farm

 

 

wow.

just fucking wooowwwwww

[lord_casek]

top this:

 

fans of mastadon, stoner rock, doom metal, between the buried and me fans, and members of bands with 'nordic' band names are 'tea baggers', 'angry white men,' neo confederates, racists, nazi's and part of the violent arm of the 'tea party movement.'

 

you heard it here first... according to chris matthews and the SPLC, hipsters with painted fingernails listening to between the buried and me and dancing to such bands are extremist racist angry white men

 

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/SouthernAvenger/archives/2010/04/17/heavy-metal-or-hate-angry-white-people-take-over-music-farm

 

 

wow.

just fucking wooowwwwww

 

 

I have a friend who works for C SPAN who I keep trying to get to urine balloon Matthews.

He insulted Tucker Carlson, but I didn't request that.

 

Matthews is just up to his old tricks of being a dipshit for attention.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/opinion/07kristof.html

 

Posting this here, just to provide an example that downgrading the military isn't a bad thing.

[Zig]

you know what is funny is i don't even really see ron paul as a revolutionary, just more as a restorationist. but i guess restoring the constitution and bill of rights in our day and age is revolutionary, and if you look at it that concept can be viewed as a continuation of the american revolution.

[Zig]

Paul hasn't been properly vetted. If he was, and people find out his views mean no public schools, no student loans, no environmental laws, no government regulation of any kind of industry, gold based currency, no workplace laws, no minimum wage, no overtime for 40 hour work weeks, no social security, medicare, no federal disaster assistance, etc.... I could go on and on. Once people find that out, his numbers would drop to the floor.

 

i wouldn't be so sure about that, and not to mention that just because a president takes office doesn't mean he can institute all of his ideas. look at obama.

 

a lot of the things you're mentioning, public schools, student loans, environmental laws, government regulation, fiat currency, minimum wage, etc. are all malfunctioning or failed policies anyway. :rolleyes:

[skengmanmode]

fuck this racist capitalist, and fuck America's constitution

[russell jones]

i wouldn't be so sure about that, and not to mention that just because a president takes office doesn't mean he can institute all of his ideas. look at obama.

 

a lot of the things you're mentioning, public schools, student loans, environmental laws, government regulation, fiat currency, minimum wage, etc. are all malfunctioning or failed policies anyway. :rolleyes:

 

 

I don't know what you are trying to say about Obama and Paul... considering Obama had one huge goal accomplished within a year of taking office.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

He's just trying to say that you wont be able to put into policy everything that you would like as the President.

 

Regardless to who you are.

[russell jones]

Paul wouldn't be able to accomplish anything, because he would find few friends in Congress. The only things he could do would involve executive orders, which he would be reticent to use, and pull troops out of foreign theaters, which is fine by me.

[angelofdeath]

i think the main thing paul could do was essentially order the executive branch to stand down. cease enforcement of unconstitutional federal laws, drug war, gun war, stop using the patriot act, MCA06, and like you said, start dismantling the over seas empire, etc etc.

[skengmanmode]

start dismantling the over seas empire, etc etc.

 

unless he is planning on ending capitalism, this would be pretty hard. The empire is not due to a few bad apples colluding in congress or the white house, it is to keep the world open for business (by force). In the age of monopoly-capital when domestic investment outlets diminish (the work by David Harvey, John Belamy Foster, Magdoff and Paul Sweezy is good on this if anyone is interested), the US needs the world open for exploitation - the empire ensures this.

 

So unless Ron Paul is secretly planning on leading the working class to build socialism and overthrowing capitalism, there's not much he can do.

[Zig]

unless he is planning on ending capitalism, this would be pretty hard. The empire is not due to a few bad apples colluding in congress or the white house, it is to keep the world open for business (by force). In the age of monopoly-capital when domestic investment outlets diminish (the work by David Harvey, John Belamy Foster, Magdoff and Paul Sweezy is good on this if anyone is interested), the US needs the world open for exploitation - the empire ensures this.

 

So unless Ron Paul is secretly planning on leading the working class to build socialism and overthrowing capitalism, there's not much he can do.

 

"Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven’t had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It’s not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military-industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism!" ~ Ron Paul http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr070902.htm

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

unless he is planning on ending capitalism, this would be pretty hard. The empire is not due to a few bad apples colluding in congress or the white house, it is to keep the world open for business (by force). In the age of monopoly-capital when domestic investment outlets diminish (the work by David Harvey, John Belamy Foster, Magdoff and Paul Sweezy is good on this if anyone is interested), the US needs the world open for exploitation - the empire ensures this.

 

So unless Ron Paul is secretly planning on leading the working class to build socialism and overthrowing capitalism, there's not much he can do.

 

 

You serious?

 

I don't think that is accurate at all.

 

Ron Paul and....socialism?

 

ROFL!

[Zig]

[Zig]

Rachel Maddow hit-piece on Rand Paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3O2rBz9gwo&feature=player_embedded#!

 

Basically trying to portray him as a racist.

 

I really hate that dike (oops.) Free speech :) (joking)

[angelofdeath]

the smear campaign has begun

[Zig]

Rand Paul Says He's Being 'Trashed Up and Down' by 'Democratic Talking Points'

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/2010_Elections/rand-paul-fires-back-critics-civil-rights-act/story?id=10705651

[lord_casek]

I've been keeping up with this smear campaign against Rand. It's fucking ridiculous. I guess we've hit that point where the norm in the U.S. is a lack of understanding of our Constitution

and those who follow it.

[russell jones]

Rachel Maddow hit-piece on Rand Paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3O2rBz9gwo&feature=player_embedded#!

 

Basically trying to portray him as a racist.

 

I really hate that dike (oops.) Free speech :) (joking)

 

 

Not a hack job at all... he refused to answer straightforward questions about his well publicized views. I don't think he is a racist, but he needs to be forthcoming no matter how it makes him look to others.

[lord_casek]

Not a hack job at all... he refused to answer straightforward questions about his well publicized views. I don't think he is a racist, but he needs to be forthcoming no matter how it makes him look to others.

 

 

He should have asked Rachel if she thought it would be ok for a black business to refuse Klansmen service.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Not a hack job at all... he refused to answer straightforward questions about his well publicized views. I don't think he is a racist, but he needs to be forthcoming no matter how it makes him look to others.

 

 

What about the point he makes about Byrd filibustering that same bill, himself, and he happens to be a Democrat.

 

Rand like he says was 2 when the 64 Civil Rights Act was passed. He has never campaigned to repeal this bill. He was basically talking semantics when it came down to certain parts of the bill that apply to private businesses.

 

So...yeah, if this isn't a biased attack to portray someone as a racist, I really don't know what to say.

 

And I'm sure that the same smear tactics wouldn't be used against the majority of the people this chick has on her show.

 

For example..."he holds an unacceptable view on civil rights".

 

What a fucking joke.

[Zig]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/23

 

Maybe we can finally have a serious discussion in this country about the lunacies of libertarianism.

 

I doubt it. This is, after all, America. I doubt we'd know an intelligent political discourse if it whacked us upside the haid.

 

But now we have Rand Paul, son of Ron, marching toward the United States Senate, with a mission to "take back our government". Oh boy.

 

I might be able to get a little bit excited about that if it really was his goal. The truth is that the American government exists almost entirely to serve the interests of the American plutocracy. If libertarians want to break that evil connection, well, then, definitely give me a shout. I'll be glad to pitch in.

 

But, of course, you pretty much never hear them talk about that part as they rant about the evils of government.

 

What do libertarians actually want, Herr Doktor? It's not entirely clear to me that they know themselves. They're pretty good with the shibboleths, but always seem to have trouble beyond that. That's because it is precisely on the other side of the sappy slogans where the contradictions of libertarianism come glaringly into focus. This is the place where naive but kindly people would say "Wot, I signed up for that?", and that's exactly why libertarians don't want to go there.

 

Such avoidance of reality is not only rarely a problem in American political discourse, it's nearly a national religion. In this sense, the discussion Rand Paul had with Rachel Maddow the other night was doubly instructive. First, because Paul - the national savior on horseback du jour - was reduced to repeated instances of the most basic, and base, political maneuvering in order to come to grips with the implications of his own ideology.

 

And, second, because Maddow gave us a partial reminder of what good journalism would actually look like in America. She didn't actually get quite all the way to where she should have gone, but her polite, thoughtful and semi-relentless questioning of her guest was as foreign to what passes for journalism in this country today as would be six-headed fourteen-dimensional gaseous creatures from a distant galaxy. Maddow is fast becoming a national treasure, which says a lot about her, but, regrettably, a lot more about her colleagues in the ‘news' business.

 

There are several key explanations for the rise of the insane right over the last three decades, but surely one of them has been the compliance of the mainstream media. Politicians have been able to make the most absurdly ridiculous and hypocritical statements without fear of being called on them. And if they ever were, they need only repeat the same line in some slightly different variation, and that's the end of the affair - media lapdogs are well trained to cease and desist. One of Maddow's great virtues - which ought to be a sine qua non for anyone calling themselves a journalist - is her doggedness.

 

Check out the reddit comments:

 

I'm just smh at this. I'm not even libertarian either.

[angelofdeath]

i'll explain the issue so everyone can get on with their lives.

 

rand paul supports the parts of the civil rights act which over turn state laws enforcing of segregation in public institutions.

the philosophical libertarian position on the 'touchy' part that everyone is going into hysterics over is quite simple....

libertarians make no distinction between private property such as a house and private property such as a business. whereas everyone else some how has decided that private property that is employed for 'public accommodation' the government has a right to tell property owners, the supposed sole controller and master of their own property, whom to associate with. if we are to get in the business of telling people who they are to associate with, why cant we force neo nazi time on rachel maddows show or force neo nazis to attend her cook outs... or why cant we, as casek said above, force blacks to associate with klansmen? if we take this into a few other areas, we can see how hypocritical the leftist position is. they will say that one has the right to discriminate against who joins the black caucus, but a private property owner cannot engage in a transaction without government interference.

further, if we are to say that there is a positive obligation on the part of the property owner to serve someone (that is that one is forced to serve someone) then why are we as property owners allowed to discriminate against drunk people? against naked people? people who carry weapons into places that serve alcohol? what do you think the left would do if using the civil rights act, we started overturning local laws forbidding the carrying of firearms into places that serve alcohol? if property owners arent allowed to associate with who they want to, and if peoples rights are violated if they are discriminated against due to some mythical conception of a positive obligation, why are we allowed to ban smokers from private property?

 

not only was segregation govt sanctioned and enforced, integration of a voluntary sort would land you in front of the judge. slavery lasted as long as it did because the govt recognized a property right in humans and the legal system defended this system for hundreds of years. does anyone think for one second that if some corporation started refusing to allow black people or hispanics on to their property in 2010 or made them pay at separate check outs that this place would not be either out of business due to loss of revenue or boycotted out of existence in about 12 seconds?

 

to not say that a private property owner doesnt have the right to 'discriminate' is simply silly.

considering how hysterical the left is about how greedy capitalists want to exploit everyone, do we really think that the greedy companies are going to immediately ban all black people from businesses if that part of the civil rights act was repealed? (mind you, rand paul does not support repealing it at all, but im just saying....) is a black mans money just as green as a white mans?

we discriminate all the time. when i chose my wife i discriminated against half the entire human race because i wanted to marry a woman. the black caucus discriminates against non blacks. the boy scouts discriminates against men and females. the catholic church wont marry non catholics.

 

furthermore if we are to ban, by govt force, abhorrent things like free speech or associations, we cease to be a free society.

[Zig]

yea... i mean I get it, and like i said i don't even consider myself a libertarian. i'm really struggling to understand what is so difficult to grasp by the majority of people. it's really quite ridiculous to see a candidate made out to be some sort of bigot or racist because of these touchy areas of the ideology. everyone is commenting (not just on the internet) and basically trashing libertarianism... claiming it would bring us back to segregation and discrimination. Maddow knew what she was doing... yet the majority are siding with her and calling this good journalism? things really are beginning to turn upside down...

 

i think it also stems from the hatred of the Tea Party movement too, since he is "their" candidate. A lot of people HATTTE that movement (I kind of do too.), because of all the goons that hopped on board like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin etc. It really became a right-wing movement, and since Rand Paul is a Republican they associate him with all of that right-wing stuff. So when he says things like "We're here to take back our government" people on the left are thinking he means from the evil black man in office. I mean this is the simplistic way a lot of Americans view politics I believe.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

not only was segregation govt sanctioned and enforced, integration of a voluntary sort would land you in front of the judge. slavery lasted as long as it did because the govt recognized a property right in humans and the legal system defended this system for hundreds of years. does anyone think for one second that if some corporation started refusing to allow black people or hispanics on to their property in 2010 or made them pay at separate check outs that this place would not be either out of business due to loss of revenue or boycotted out of existence in about 12 seconds?

 

This whole post was on point, but the first two sentences in this paragraph explain the REAL situation.

[angelofdeath]

i'm really struggling to understand what is so difficult to grasp by the majority of people. it's really quite ridiculous to see a candidate made out to be some sort of bigot or racist because of these touchy areas of the ideology. everyone is commenting (not just on the internet) and basically trashing libertarianism... claiming it would bring us back to segregation and discrimination.

 

i think it also stems from the hatred of the Tea Party movement too, since he is "their" candidate. A lot of people HATTTE that movement (I kind of do too.), because of all the goons that hopped on board like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin etc. It really became a right-wing movement, and since Rand Paul is a Republican they associate him with all of that right-wing stuff. So when he says things like "We're here to take back our government" people on the left are thinking he means from the evil black man in office. I mean this is the simplistic way a lot of Americans view politics I believe.

 

what it boils down to in my opinion is legislating morals.

the left is so against this, and rightfully so, but has no problem telling people who to associate with. is racism awful? surely. but people do awful things all the time. even the ACLU defends the nazi's right to assemble and say that they hate jews, etc. the question becomes should their be a penalty for saying bad things or withholding services? a free society says, no. anyone has a right to associate with whoever they want to. the other side argues that we must, to borrow recent rhetoric, put our boots on the throats of property owners, deny them control of their domain and tell them who to associate with in the name of making things more 'free' for others. this is a conflict of rights. you cannot trample someone's rights in order to make someone else be more 'free.'

true negative liberties simply mean that you can do whatever you want to as long as you inflict no physical harm to anyone elses life, liberty or property with no positive obligations. you refusing to associate with someone who is shirtless or shoe less, drunk and obnoxious or whatever in your store, does not negatively affect the rights of the person who was discriminated against as this person has no claim on your property or services. might it make them feel bad or piss them off? sure, but there is no actual rights violation.

 

and surely this is a reaction to the tea party movement. the left has the best tactic in their arsenal. a supposed moral high ground on 'race' issues. if you dont 100% tow the statist party line on the issue, your racial sensitivity is immediately brought into question and you are then forced to defend your character as opposed to talking about the issues at hand.

 

this is the perfect way for these people to take the focus off of rand paul trying to cut spending or abolish some sacred federal department. since rand paul is obviously not well trained and experienced in deal with the smear machine, he is gonna have a tough row to hoe. however in a news media that only deals with 3 second sound snippets and not full philosophical debates, he cannot win this battle.

all rachel maddow wants is a sound clip of rand saying..'yes i support repeal of the civil rights act provision integrated woolworths lunch counters...' and then they can spin off of this, without ever even thinking about trying to understand the actual position. if it is explained that a 'lunch counter' is the same thing as a house as far as private property goes, and that a black home owner doesnt have to allow klansman in his house.... people might start to actually see the position.

 

i always had trouble with this. it always made sense to me that govt played a role in telling business owners that they had to serve certain types of people. but as you start thinking more about the issue actually being a property rights issue, you technically do have a right to 'discriminate' no matter how stupid it might be. in the same manner you have the right to say abhorrent things.

 

i have a feeling that despite all this stuff going on this will actually boost rand paul in the end as most of america is on to the race card players and the splc race hustlers

[UPS!]

24'd^

 

Hit the nail on the head.

 

Rand Paul's policy is solid. I respect the hell out of him for turning down a ''meeting the press'' and being smart enough to know not to go and let them grill him like hes some kind of racist and attack his charector.

 

He probably got more publicity by giving the media the four. Its hard these days to like a politician, but this kid's alright.

[Mr.Write]

Politics are boring. Ron Paul is a dead end. For entertainment purposes only. Its all about the art of distraction. Last time i farted smelled freakin deliciouse.