The Media Treatment of Rand Paul - Knee Jerk Reactionism by Mental Midgets

[jrodefeld]

@CannyDan

Fatal ennui will surely overcome me if I have to read back through six pages of the OP’s endless fawning over the Pauls to find previously posted cites demonstrating that the above is incorrect. I am sure I remember reading that Ron and/or Rand or both have spoken positions exactly opposite of the above.

If someone can direct me to those posts I’ll be grateful-- and be able to cheer, point, and laugh.

If I’m mistaken, I’ll have my crow grilled, with mustard on the side.

Ron Paul supports these positions. 100%. Rand Paul, it has been pointed out is taking a slightly different tone. I am not happy with that. I will have to see how he votes if and when he gets in office. But Ron Paul is famous for supporting legalization of marijuana and getting the government out of the marriage issue.

[jrodefeld]

@42fish

I supposed it doesn’t technically qualify as something either “said,” but Palin (so far) has been smart enough not to issue newsletters under her name with racist tripe in them.

Unbelievable. How many times have we gone over this shit? Ron Paul NEVER WROTE THOSE LETTERS. I’m not even going any further down that path. You better come up with something better than that.

[jrodefeld]

@Bryan_Ekers

Regarding Ron Paul and pot, it looks like he’s very specifically against Federal regulation, but is mute on state regulation, i.e. Oregon could make it 100% legal, Texas could make use a capital crime, etc.

Strikes me as kind of odd - I’d’a thought a libertarian would object to governmental regulation regardless of the source, but then again, I’ve never run for elected office in the U.S. and I understand “states’ rights” strikes a cord with a lot of its citizens.

He does oppose laws against marijuana at any level, but understands that the Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from getting involved in forcing things on the States. It is a consistent position. If a few States legalize marijuana, then more will follow.

[jrodefeld]

@CannyDan

Thanks for that; it’s exactly what I remember. Good thing! I really don’t like crow.

So this is my opportunity to say, hey, jrodefeld, your boy(s) aren’t such free thinkers after all. Or they are (as I also believe I read upthread) totally full of shit and willing to lie like rugs about their “convictions” to sway the electorate.

And your own beliefs about them, their veracity, and the principals you tell us they forthrightly, even righteously stand for (“Ron Paul, and Rand Paul’s position is for pot to be legalized and get the government out of the marriage issue entirely. So, you clearly haven’t done your homework.” quoth you) are (shall we say most charitably) misplaced. By a few orders of magnitude.

Who hasn’t done their homework now? Off to bed, without supper! (Unless you’d like a heaping serving of crow. Without condiments.)

point! laugh!! cheer!!!

First of all, I am talking about Ron Paul’s positions. Rand Paul differs in some ways and I hope he changes his mind in those areas. We will see how it goes. But look at what Ron Paul said and see if there is any contradiction or hypocrisy in anything he has said.

[FinnAgain]

@jrodefeld

Unbelievable. How many times have we gone over this shit? Ron Paul NEVER WROTE THOSE LETTERS.

Believe it or not, but writing in all caps doesn’t make a claim true. Who knew?
Ron Paul claims he didn’t write them. You repeat that as if it’s gospel truth. And the fact you were responding to was not that he definitely wrote them, which is certainly possible, but that he published them under his name. Which is a true.

As also pointed out, Paul defended the racists statements both personally and through his spokesman.

@jrodefeld

He does oppose laws against marijuana at any level, but understands that the Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from getting involved in forcing things on the States.

Again, you need to learn about the Constitution before you make claims about it.
The federal government is 100% entitled to regulate interstate commerce.

[jrodefeld]

@Marley23

It looks like jrodefeld thinks they’re wrong on those issues, but he’s cool with them flip-flopping or or lying about their views to get elected. Because these guys aren’t typical politicians, you see.

To be clear, Ron Paul never flip flopped on any of these issues whatsoever. Period. I thought you would know that, Marley23? This isn’t the first thread about these topics. Rand Paul was quite consistent until recently, when he has been playing nice with the Republican establishment. I think it is premature to judge him on these issues. We will have to wait and see how he does. He is still at least 80% libertarian and libertarians can disagree on certain issues.

If Rand Paul sticks to his guns and supports federal drugs laws, he is only taking the position that 99% of all politicians take. I don’t agree with it but we have many more important issues facing this nation at the moment. Rather than pick out a few examples where he is not as principled and consistent as his father I think we should evaluate whether or not a libertarian in the Senate would be a good thing. Whether or not a candidate who will push to cut spending and not sell out to the special interests are a good thing or not.

So, for future reference, here is my position:

I like Rand Paul but acknowledge he is not a perfect libertarian. Ron Paul is the model libertarian in my eyes. I stand for probably 95% of what he stands for. He is consistent and principled. Rand is a work in progress. I think he is a good candidate and I agree with maybe 80% of what he says. Economics is the topic issue and Rand Paul is great on that issue. Rand Paul is great on civil liberties and he is a populist. But he is no Ron Paul. Yet.

That should clear up any misconceptions.

[jrodefeld]

@astro

Apparently the REAL Libertarians are not too pleased with Rand Paul’s philosophical wavering. Their insistence on ideological prurity at the near complete expense of electability is …well…interesting. These dudes are hardcore about their ethos, almost manically so. They’re like the Taliban.

See that is what I am talking about. You criticize me for excusing Rand’s “nuanced” and political positions, yet we are trying to turn the libertarian movement into a viable force in the electorate. The time is right for it. Rand is running in a very conservative state. The idea that we can’t play politics AT ALL in order to do some good in government is ridiculous. Ron Paul has gotten away with being completely consistent and never pandering and it is a miracle that he has. Whether you like him or not, you must admire the fact that he takes the positions he does and won election three separate times against the establishment without pandering and being consistent over his entire career. That takes political skills.

Your favorite candidate has lied, pandered, taken special interest money and engaged in propaganda and character assassination. But when Rand deviates from libertarian dogma in the least bit to get elected you criticize me. I am not happy with it but I see it may be necessary to become a valid force in politics.

I am presenting the philosophic case for what I am talking about. Secondly, I am supporting the candidates that most represent these values.

[BrainGlutton]

“The Great American Book that Refutes Rand Paul,” by Michael Lind, in Salon, about Black Like Me, by John Howard Griffin:

On rereading “Black Like Me” with Rand Paul’s controversial comments in mind, I was struck by how very few truly public places there were in the apartheid South. Employers, subdivisions, stores, restaurants, gas stations, hotels – Rand Paul would have allowed all of these to be segregated to this day because they are privately owned. According to this disingenuous theory, in the segregated South everyone, black or white, should have had a right to work, eat and sleep at the small-town post office or police station, because they were public agencies – but no right to work, eat or sleep anywhere else.

Private employment? Disguised as a “Negro,” Griffin tried to get a job at a plant in Mobile, Ala., by offering to accept less pay than a white man would:

"No use trying down here," he said. "We're gradually getting you people weeded out from the better jobs at this plant. We're taking it slow, but we're doing it. Pretty soon we'll have it so the only jobs you can get here are the ones no white man would have."

"How can we live?" I asked hopelessly, careful not to give the impression I was arguing.

"That's the whole point," he said, looking me square in the eyes, but with some faint sympathy, as though he regretted the need to say what followed: "We're going to do our damndest to drive every one of you out of the state."

Private real estate transactions? Until struck down by federal law, restrictive covenants barring homeowners from selling to blacks, Latinos and sometimes Catholics and Jews were common in every region of the country. Griffin tells the story of a talk he gave at a college where an industrial psychologist was the only black in attendance. A white college professor, proud of his paternalistic liberalism, asked the black doctor of industrial psychology whether he considered the lecture a turning point in the community’s history, and was shocked to be told no:

The doctor said, "It's true that I have a good job in this town, and I seem to be respected, and I am certainly paid a wage commensurate with my skills. But -- so long as I have to house my wife and children in a town twenty miles away because I can't buy, rent, lease or build a home here, don't expect me to get too excited over your 'historic turning points.'"

Privately-owned stores?

No matter where you are, the nearest Negro café is always far away, it seems. I learned to eat a great deal when it was available and convenient, because it might not be available or convenient when the belly next indicated its hunger ... It is not that they crave service in the white man’s café over their own -- it is simply that in many sparsely settled areas Negro cafes do not exist; and even in densely settled areas, one must sometimes cross town for a glass of water. It is rankling, too, to be encouraged to buy all of one's goods in white stores and then be refused soda fountain or rest-room service. 

Rand Paul is a year younger than I am, born like me in Texas during the final years of segregation. I have difficulty believing that any white Southerner my age who questions the civil rights laws that broke down the all-encompassing system of “private” economic and social segregation in our native region does so purely out of libertarian principle. I would have trouble believing that, even if not for recent revelations that his father’s supposedly libertarian newsletter for decades was filled with unsigned racist rants.

I have known and worked with many conservatives and libertarians in my life, and in my experience states’ rights arguments and libertarian arguments against the Civil Rights, Voting Rights and Fair Housing Acts are used opportunistically by people who are covert, if not overt, bigots. You do not have to be a racist to oppose race-based affirmative action, a form of compensatory discrimination that Bayard Rustin, the organizer of the March on Washington, opposed as a violation of the nondiscrimination principle. But if it bothers you that cafeterias and stores and hotels and gas stations since 1964 had been unable to refuse service to blacks, or Latinos, or Asians, then you cannot complain if people speculate about your motives. I do not believe it is possible for anyone to be “personally” opposed to racism and at the same time opposed on the grounds of high constitutional principle to public policies that eliminate private policies constituting an elaborate, interlocking system of racial apartheid. That position may be theoretically coherent. But it is psychologically impossible.

[jrodefeld]

@Der_Trihs

Which is a major reason why I think they would be utter disasters if given power. They do make me think of the Communists; once in power, they’d hold to their ideological purity no matter how unworkable their ideals turned out to be in practice.

I don’t think this is the case. Look at Ron Paul’s recent victory in getting a Federal Reserve Audit passed. He worked with democrats, republicans, and independents alike. He has a good working relationship with both sides and is universally respected.

I libertarian has a vision and principle of what they would like to work towards. There is plenty of room for compromise. A libertarian could broker a deal between the Republicans and Democrats: We are facing a budget crisis. The Republicans want to cut welfare spending and the Democrats want to cut military spending. So we make a deal and cut a little from both. They normally compromise to raise spending all around.

Rand Paul could push for transparency, accountability, and fiscal discipline. He wouldn’t have to be so ideologically rigid as to get nothing done.

[jrodefeld]

Rand Paul demonstrates his ignorance of the US Constitution:

Quote:
U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul is stirring it up again, this time by saying he opposes citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are illegal immigrants.

Paul, who a week ago won the GOP primary, told a Russian TV station in a clip circulating on political Web sites Friday that he wants to block citizenship to those children.

“We’re the only country I know that allows people to come in illegally, have a baby, and then that baby becomes a citizen,” Paul told RT, an English-language station, shortly after his win over GOP establishment candidate Trey Grayson. “And I think that should stop also.”
This is a direct contradiction of the fourteenth amendment, and any fool who thinks it can be changed with legislation cannot reasonable be called a constitutional scholar. Once again Rand Paul demonstrates he is no libertarian, but a right wing opportunist exploiting populist fears of brown immigrants.

No, he supports a repeal of the fourteenth amendment. I don’t know whether I agree with him here or not. I don’t think he is anti immigrant at all. He, I think rightfully, recognizes the burden a massive number of immigrants places on the system and would rather they come legally in a more controlled manner, so as to not put excessive burden on our hospitals and social services. This is not a crazy position, in my opinion. Automatic citizenship encourages many more immigrants to come and have children.

Both Ron Paul and Rand Paul have said they favor very generous immigration policies after we fix our economy and reform our welfare system. The burden placed upon these social services given the fiscal state of places like California makes the notion of reducing the number of immigrants a very reasonable position to take given current events.

What is crazy about this?

[CannyDan]

@jrodefeld

First of all, I am talking about Ron Paul’s positions. Rand Paul differs in some ways and I hope he changes his mind in those areas. We will see how it goes. But look at what Ron Paul said and see if there is any contradiction or hypocrisy in anything he has said.

You hand wave Marley23’s cites, and offer “To be clear, Ron Paul never flip flopped on any of these issues whatsoever. Period. I thought you would know that, Marley23? This isn’t the first thread about these topics. Rand Paul was quite consistent until recently, when he has been playing nice with the Republican establishment. I think it is premature to judge him on these issues.”.

Bolding mine.

Goal posts – moved.

Bullshit – amplified and defended.

OP – precious.

[BrainGlutton]

@jrodefeld

No, he supports a repeal of the fourteenth amendment.

Please tell me you’re making this up.

[Der_Trihs]

@BrainGlutton

Please tell me you’re making this up.

Googling, it appears that either he does want it repealed, or thinks it doesn’t qualify as valid law, or both.

[Reno_Nevada]

@jrodefeld

…to express what I consider the most important aspects of the federal budget and central banking:

1. I want a balanced budget and a low, preferably nonexistent public debt.

2. I want low inflation, or no inflation.

3. I want to limit government from expanding without the peoples consent.

4. I don’t accept the notion of a secret central bank able to create money out of thin air with no oversight. Nobody should have that kind of power.
   If I, or anybody else desires these things, we must reject Keynesian economics and central banking outright. We must believe in a commodity standard for our currency. These are things that Austrian economics would provide.

What is wrong with any of those points?

Nothing is particularly wrong with these points. However, there are some negative issues that would go along with these:

1. You would get periodic periods of deflation, with other periods of inflation. Most economists believe deflation is extremely destructive.

2. You would still have business cycles of booms and busts. During the busts, your poor people would be hit very hard, to the point of widespread starvation (because tax receipts would be down and the government could not borrow).

3. Your government would be prone to the “tyranny of the majority.” If sufficient numbers of citizens hate a particular group, that group will lose their rights without any government protection.

[Leaper]

So if he’s been inconsistent to “play nice with the Republican establishment,” why should anyone believe that he’ll do any different once elected?

And for that matter, how do we know he really has libertarian tendencies at all, given that he’s already moving certain positions into the “conservative Republican” column? How do we know that he’s not really just “playing nice” with the libertarians in order to get more votes?

[Der_Trihs]

@Reno_Nevada

3. Your government would be prone to the “tyranny of the majority.” If sufficient numbers of citizens hate a particular group, that group will lose their rights without any government protection.

Another problem with #3 is that what if some aspect of government needs to be bigger to do its job? Government (or any organization, really) needs to be at least as big as is necessary to do its job; not held to some predetermined size.

I recall an old line by George Washington, when faced with a proposal to legally limit the Federal Government to a 10,000 man army; he supposedly said that they should also require that no enemy invade with more than 5,000 men.

[FinnAgain]

@Leaper

How do we know that he’s not really just “playing nice” with the libertarians

All 17 of them?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@jrodefeld

He does oppose laws against marijuana at any level, but understands that the Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from getting involved in forcing things on the States. It is a consistent position. If a few States legalize marijuana, then more will follow.

And a few will very specifically not follow and could, absent federal regulation, impose state penalties even harsher than existing federal ones. How does Rand Paul feel about that?

[astro]

@jrodefeld

See that is what I am talking about. You criticize me for excusing Rand’s “nuanced” and political positions, yet we are trying to turn the libertarian movement into a viable force in the electorate. The time is right for it. Rand is running in a very conservative state. The idea that we can’t play politics AT ALL in order to do some good in government is ridiculous. Ron Paul has gotten away with being completely consistent and never pandering and it is a miracle that he has. Whether you like him or not, you must admire the fact that he takes the positions he does and won election three separate times against the establishment without pandering and being consistent over his entire career. That takes political skills.

Your favorite candidate has lied, pandered, taken special interest money and engaged in propaganda and character assassination. But when Rand deviates from libertarian dogma in the least bit to get elected you criticize me. I am not happy with it but I see it may be necessary to become a valid force in politics.

I am presenting the philosophic case for what I am talking about. Secondly, I am supporting the candidates that most represent these values.

You are confusing yourself at this point, which is not too surprising given the absolute cluster**** of an OP with which you started out this merry little exercise. My post you are responding to was referencing the Libertarian response to Rand Paul and how they have turned on him for being insufficiently rigorous in his stated postions. How closely Rand Paul hews to right thinking classical Libertarian dogma is of little consequence or interest to me. The main thing that interests me is what comes out of his mouth in terms of statements about his beliefs and positions.

Having said this, it is amusing to me that in 2010, and wanting to be political players vs being the butt of political science and economics professor’s jokes, that Libertarians maintain this almost dainty sense of purity.

But when Rand deviates from libertarian dogma in the least bit to get elected you criticize me. I am not happy with it but I see it may be necessary to become a valid force in politics.

You impute to me the insistence that you can’t pay politics and and be good Libertarians. Again you are confused. I maintain no such position. I’m happy to have you enter the fray.

Your attitude that you will have to press your rose scented kerchief against your nose, and repress a disgusted shudder as you hoist up your philosophical petticoats to enter the mud wrestling pit of politics, and possibly compromise is telling of just how utterly puerile your attitudes are with respect to dealing with the complexities of the real world.

[BrainGlutton]

@Der_Trihs

Googling, it appears that either he does want it repealed, or thinks it doesn’t qualify as valid law, or both.

The 14th Amendment is the constitutional mechanism by which the Bill of Rights was held to be binding on state and local as well as federal government. Why would any Libertarian want to repeal that?!

And IME, people who doubt the validity of the Civil War amendments are usually Neo-Confederates.