Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Now its the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Tim Kaine, who does a Maddow and flat-out lies on national television about Rand Paul. On Fox News Sunday Kaine claimed that Paul said it was un-American to hold BP accountable for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Host Chris Wallace called him out by pointing out that what Paul said was un-American was a Democratic pols grandstanding bloviation that we should put a boot on the neck of BP. Paul said that such rhetoric is un-American, not holding BP accountable for damage it has caused.
"And I think it's part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it's always got to be somebody's fault instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen," Paul said.
It aint good for business,Is it Also Un-American to make sure Companies and Restaurants don't Discriminate against Black, Hispanic or white folks?
It's the battle of inalienable rights vs equal protection law.
Private property vs public accomodation business.
The very arguement is in great part what makes America the great experiment it remains.
Rand Paul appears to understand this better than most politicians of the age, and for that I commend him. While his delivery of the message was a bit awkward, it appears to this point his intent was both fair and right. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a monumental moment of Federal Authority, with widespread complications and contradictions that continue to play out to present day - for better or worse.
It's the battle of inalienable rights vs equal protection law.
Private property vs public accomodation business.
The very arguement is in great part what makes America the great experiment it remains.
Rand Paul appears to understand this better than most politicians of the age, and for that I commend him. While his delivery of the message was a bit awkward, it appears to this point his intent was both fair and right. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a monumental moment of Federal Authority, with widespread complications and contradictions that continue to play out to present day - for better or worse.
+
It's the battle of inalienable rights vs equal protection law.
Private property vs public accomodation business.
The very arguement is in great part what makes America the great experiment it remains.
Rand Paul appears to understand this better than most politicians of the age, and for that I commend him. While his delivery of the message was a bit awkward, it appears to this point his intent was both fair and right. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a monumental moment of Federal Authority, with widespread complications and contradictions that continue to play out to present day - for better or worse.
The manifoil libertarian principle challenge: Is Voting a Civil Right, and by extension; is manifoil truly an old school traditionalist and literalist[sic]?
manifoil's libertarian principle: "If the government is imposing anything, including the particulars of the Civil Rights Act, it is by definition an infringement on civil rights rather than an expansion or protection."
Is voting a civil right?
If voting is a civil right, one would think one would have to have issues with the founding fathers and the original imposition(s) of who could vote and who could not vote in each of their respective states, in order to hold true to the manifoil libertarian principle.
If voting is not a civil right ("a civil right is a protection"), then...
---
==========================The amendment process to the US Constitution was the only tool left to future generations of Americans, to be used to correct perceived flaws in the US Constitution and by extension, i the state constitutions. Were the flaws in the US Constitution purposefully left there by the founders? We can safely assume what can be called flaws in teh state constitutions were there on purpose.
Assuming the manifoil libertarian principle supports using the amendment process to correct flaws or unprincipled, government impositions, written into the US Constitution by the founders, where does applying the manifoil principle leave us standing on the Fifteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
---
The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits each government in the United States from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (i.e., slavery). It was ratified on February 3, 1870.
The Fifteenth Amendment is one of the Reconstruction Amendments.
.........Here is a hint, he got pulled back hard by his party and told to stfu. Heard from him lately?
He represents tea baggers perfectly though. I wish he would have kept on talking, but sadely he will back peddle.
So it stands to reason that, in Paul's world, a Black business could refuse to serve whites and a white business can refuse to serve blacks. That is not segregation? That is a return to Jim Crow.
Just remember, standing behind Rand is Ron. His racist tendencies have been known for some time. Let me know if you want links and quotes.
.........Here is a hint, he got pulled back hard by his party and told to stfu. Heard from him lately?
He represents tea baggers perfectly though. I wish he would have kept on talking, but sadely he will back peddle.
I wouldn't worry about Rand Paul opening his mouth again. He will. The Republican Party needs Rand Paul more than he needs them.
It looks like there is more Tea Bagger money behind him, than Republican. Tea Baggers need a leader. The New York Times survey shows about 18% of Americans associate with the Tea Bagger Party, and 4% of the American population are actually funding the Tea Bagger movement. Rand Paul is awash in money. And, frankly I think the Republican Party has become excess bagage to conservatives. They got too comfortable with 8 years of George Bush, and now they are desperate. Rand Paul is "any port in a storm," for conservatives.
Rand Paul will be fine.
He made an error in trying to discuss the complexities surrounding the Civil Rights Bill - and in doing so, actually showed a far greater grasp of the history of that legislation than most who are now attempting to spin the intent his response. It would have been far easier for him to simply state - "I want to make sweet hot love to the Civil Rights Bill" and the left would have had to accept him as one of their own!Instead, he actually approached it with attempted intellectual understanding of its far reaching implications, and some in the media have now attempted to turn him into an outright racist.
This attempt is not playing in Kentucky though - Rand Paul will be a member of the U.S. Senate - one of MANY new faces coming to Congress after November 2010...
What are the "complexities surrounding the Civil Rights Bill"?
Metaphors have meanings."I think that sounds really un-American. Ohhh...so there."
What a doosh. Not only is he stupid, he is also an arrogant fop.
Ron isn't racist either.
And before you share those "links/quotes," Jim, I HAVE read Ron Paul's newsletters, back when they were hot, fresh, and controversial back in January 2008.
So, tell me the "racist" parts of them. Go on.
Metaphors have meanings."I think that sounds really un-American. Ohhh...so there."
What a doosh. Not only is he stupid, he is also an arrogant fop.
So, the meaning of the "boot on the throat" would be un-American.
+
It's the battle of inalienable rights vs equal protection law.
Private property vs public accomodation business.
The very arguement is in great part what makes America the great experiment it remains.
Rand Paul appears to understand this better than most politicians of the age, and for that I commend him. While his delivery of the message was a bit awkward, it appears to this point his intent was both fair and right. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a monumental moment of Federal Authority, with widespread complications and contradictions that continue to play out to present day - for better or worse.
Okay class. Last time we went over the basics of the manifoil principle.
==========================The amendment process to the US Constitution was the only tool left to future generations of Americans, to be used to correct perceived flaws in the US Constitution and by extension, i the state constitutions. Were the flaws in the US Constitution purposefully left there by the founders? We can safely assume what can be called flaws in teh state constitutions were there on purpose.
Assuming the manifoil libertarian principle supports using the amendment process to correct flaws or unprincipled, government impositions, written into the US Constitution by the founders, where does applying the manifoil principle leave us standing on the Fifteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
---
The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits each government in the United States from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (i.e., slavery). It was ratified on February 3, 1870.
The Fifteenth Amendment is one of the Reconstruction Amendments.
This time we'll dig into the flawed reasoning and fractured premises contained in the principle. We will also touch upon the issues raised by accepting the logical conclusions of the principle.
3 major manifoil principle premises:
1) a civil right is a protection for the individual against what the government is allowed to do
2)the government cannot arbitrarily impose a determination of fairness when protecting a civil right for an individual, because civil rights are only a protection for the individual against what the government is allowed to do. the government does not determine what is a civil right
3) if the government is imposing anything, it is by definition an infringement on civil rights rather than an expansion or protection
---
We will be dealing with necessity and the blind eye of libertarian principles phenomena, where principles go into hiding in order to defend what the manifoil principle originally states is indefensible:
Eliminating bad policies of government was (and is always) necessary.
Telling a person they have no right to decide whom they'll do business with was NEVER necessary, yet a point taken into consideration is necessity.
If people get sick, they may die because of bad business practices whether or not they are constitutional, and because times are different, the manifoil principle dictates that if an act is unconstitutional yet necessary (for example, some think the following are unconstitutional: Louisiana Purchase, the ICC Act, Civil Rights Acts, etc)., we simply pretend they are constitutional if they are necessary.
The manifoil principle allows going deaf, dumb and blind, to principle, because for better or worse, doing the right thing overrides a civil right, and justifies the government arbitrarily imposing a determination of fairness in enforcing a civil right, that is not a civil right.
note: any errors of content may be corrected as this is a rough outline of course material (pun?)
See - now even Dante is admitting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a far more complex and contradictory entity than far too many politicians of today appear capable of understanding - similar to what Rand Paul was attempting to explain.
Well done sir!!
____
Okay class. Last time we went over the basics of the manifoil principle.
==========================The amendment process to the US Constitution was the only tool left to future generations of Americans, to be used to correct perceived flaws in the US Constitution and by extension, i the state constitutions. Were the flaws in the US Constitution purposefully left there by the founders? We can safely assume what can be called flaws in teh state constitutions were there on purpose.
Assuming the manifoil libertarian principle supports using the amendment process to correct flaws or unprincipled, government impositions, written into the US Constitution by the founders, where does applying the manifoil principle leave us standing on the Fifteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
---
This time we'll dig into the flawed reasoning and fractured premises contained in the principle. We will also touch upon the issues raised by accepting the logical conclusions of the principle.
3 major manifoil principle premises:
1) a civil right is a protection for the individual against what the government is allowed to do
2)the government cannot arbitrarily impose a determination of fairness when protecting a civil right for an individual, because civil rights are only a protection for the individual against what the government is allowed to do. the government does not determine what is a civil right
3) if the government is imposing anything, it is by definition an infringement on civil rights rather than an expansion or protection
---
We will be dealing with necessity and the blind eye of libertarian principles phenomena, where principles go into hiding in order to defend what the manifoil principle originally states is indefensible:
Eliminating bad policies of government was (and is always) necessary.
Telling a person they have no right to decide whom they'll do business with was NEVER necessary, yet a point taken into consideration is necessity.
If people get sick, they may die because of bad business practices whether or not they are constitutional, and because times are different, the manifoil principle dictates that if an act is unconstitutional yet necessary (for example, some think the following are unconstitutional: Louisiana Purchase, the ICC Act, Civil Rights Acts, etc)., we simply pretend they are constitutional if they are necessary.
The manifoil principle allows going deaf, dumb and blind, to principle, because for better or worse, doing the right thing overrides a civil right, and justifies the government arbitrarily imposing a determination of fairness in enforcing a civil right, that is not a civil right.
note: any errors of content may be corrected as this is a rough outline of course material (pun?)
Metaphors have meanings."I think that sounds really un-American. Ohhh...so there."
What a doosh. Not only is he stupid, he is also an arrogant fop.
So, the meaning of the "boot on the throat" would be un-American.
See - now even Dante is admitting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a far more complex and contradictory entity than far too many politicians of today appear capable of understanding - similar to what Rand Paul was attempting to explain.
