I assume he’ll also be going all hard core on the Teabaggers and explain to them all about SOCAS as well.
-Joe
His father does, but I don’t know what his stance is.
I don’t know what it is either, and that’s after reading through his campaign materials. So I think it’s safe to conclude that whatever his position is, it is nowhere close to the top of his priorities. Which is hard to reconcile with his otherwise hardcore libertarianism, given the huge scope and impact of the drug war compared to his other priorities (e.g. voluntary funding of the United Nations).
Yes, I do recall that. Not only do I recall that you started such threads, but I recall what happened in them. For example, I responded to you by explaining why bragging about how your incredible intellect towers over that of your opponents is not a very good idea. But since you’ve apparently forgotten the reasons, I’m going to repeat them.
First of all, as others have already mentioned, you appear to believe that anyone who doesn’t support libertarianism most not understand libertarianism. Get this into your head. Many people understand libertarianism but don’t agree with it. Okay? The point is so important that I violated my long-standing policy by using bold. Libertarianism is not the be-all and end-all of human intellectual achievement. It is very possible to read up on all the big names like Mises and Hayak and not become a libertarian.
How do I know this? Because I did so. I took a political philosophy class in college from a hardcore Ayn Rand-devotee, so I had to read Rand as well as Mises and all the rest. So in answer to your question of who’s read those authors, I’ve read them. Okay. And I guarantee you that many of the other people on this board. So quit posting a big list of authors and thinking that you’re going to intimidate us into silence. Maybe that works in your local coffee-shop debating society, but it doesn’t work on the Straight Dope Message Board.
Second, you attack us for not reading the links that you post. But we have read the links that you post. That’s precisely your problem. The links you post are crap. And we read them, and we see that they are crap, and we come back to the board and report that they are crap, and then you refuse to acknowledge or address the fact that we’ve shredded your links. To recap, here’s some of what you’ve linked to in previous threads:
A youtube video from Ron Paul’s campaign account claiming that the Holocaust is a hoax.
Videos of racist rantings from Lou Dobbs and Chris Matthews.
Wikipedia articles.
A variety of bizarre, right-wing nutjobs who believe that there are plans for the NAFTA Superhighway, that the government is dumping chemical in the drinking water to turn American men into homosexuals, and other such conspiracy theories.
After you’ve posted stuff like that, bragging about how you have such a monstrous intellect while other people are unable to respond to your links is farcical. We are able to respond to everything you say. You are completely unable to respond to any of our arguments. That’s the truth and everybody on this board knows it, except possibly yourself.
So the next time that you’re thinking of starting a thread in which you begin with many paragraphs of bragging about your solid links and your towiering intellect, remember that on every previous occasion when you’ve done so, you’ve only embarrassed yourself. Your intellect is not as towering as you think it is. Intelligence does not come from reading a long list of books. It comes from critical thinking and self-analysis.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go make a donation to Jack Conway. Thanks to Rand Paul, Conway will now have an easy cruise to victory in the Kentucky Senate race.
Depends. One might order one’s priorities base, in part, on what is practical. I haven’t read his campaign material, but does he have some very impractical stuff listed high on his priority list?
It will be interesting to see how much of a “real” libertarian he is, though. I mean, Glen Beck self-identifies as a libertarian.
Apparently, like his father, he believes in stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear “any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion,” so SOCAS would be left in the hands of state court judges, who often face popular election. The tea party would probably support that.
Yes, the parenthetical example I offered about UN funding is straight from his website.
OK. Let me further add that it wouldn’t surprise me if he prioritized issues by their practicality and popularity. Bashing the UN is pretty popular in many parts of the US. Legalizing drugs isn’t popular in very many places.
Sure. But if he’s willing to choose his battles based on political expediency rather than principle, then when he rests a difficult-to-defend position on narrow ideological grounds, we are permitted to wonder what makes that issue different. Of course, ordering priorities is different from taking positions, and maybe he’s a pragmatist about the former and an idealist about the latter, but I’m not really seeing that. To the extent he does talk about the drug war at all, it seems to be about devolving the war to the states, but letting it continue apace there, which is where most of the worst abuses are anyway.
So, is it Ron Paul, Rand Paul, or Mrs Paul? Who are we really discussing here? Let’s get that sorted out.
A lot of people are flying the Libertarian flag it seems, just to ride the train. Beck for example isn’t a libertarian, he’s an idiot.
As to the thing about the Fed not having a say in “states rights” to establish a religion, that is dead wrong thinking. Keeping a “respectful distance” is one of the guiding principles. Also, if and when that happened, how long before states rights began to spill over into any and everything else? SOMEONE has to be running the asylum.
Looking at the entry on him in Wikipedia, it says he supports the legalization of Medicinal Marijuana. It doesn’t say what his position is on other drugs. He’s against SSM, which I can’t see being a libertarian stance (unlike being pro-life).
Libertarian, which in America seems to mean “I get to do what I want, while the government stops taxing me but maintains existing spending programs that benefit me.”
You know what the problem is with Rand Paul’s views on civil rights? These guys can’t fathom how discrimination could possibly be a problem in 2010 America. They see bigots get crucified in the media for their views and think there’s no way a business could get away with discrimination. Maybe against black people today it would be really difficult. But what about Mexicans (for example)? If some businesses in Armpit, Kentucky decided that Mexicans shouldn’t get service because they’re probably illegal aliens taking away jobs from real Americans, is it hard to imagine that such discrimination could become popular? They fear a strong federal government because they see what they interpret as a steady chipping-away of rights that needs to be exposed and checked, yet they can’t see how abolishing civil rights legislation could cause the rights of disfavored minorities to be sliced and diced.
Maybe the OP should stop reading all those books and just have one conversation with a person that used to be banned from sitting at a lunch counter because of the color of his skin.
I realize that corporations are holy things, and gummint is to be hated in all things…but what’s to prevent the fire department of Jena, LA from ignoring calls from black neighborhoods?
-Joe
Especially after it’s been privatized.
Sure, libertarians can be pro-life. I’d bet a very good percentage of them are. However, I consider it anathema to libertarianism to advocate a constitutional amendment defining life at the moment of conception. He also says that he would fight for “each and every one” of the many ways to end abortion.
He also supports prayer in schools.
Once again, the overwhelming evidence is that Rand Paul is just an extreme right winger, not a libertarian.
What’s cool though, is it would legal for a school district have an official policy that the FSM is the one true deity.
Post 1 of 1
To preface this post, I know this is supposed to be another thread about Rand Paul already. However, I am going to cover slightly different topics and I want the OP to pay attention to what I am about to write:
I’m not interested in investing 3-4 hours to go over your arguments and links and videos. I’m not interested in reading an in-depth 6000 analysis of your opinions. Judging by other’s postings, I’m not the only person who feels this way and so you’ve already lost your own debate because of the flood of crap in your OP. I mean, I couldn’t even wade thru all of the OP to know what the debate is supposed to be about, but I already know that you lost.
Small “l” libertarians, or actually Libertarian party members? If the latter, then most would be pro-choice.
Why?
That’s really just the same thing as advocating the constitutional amendment.
Mandating prayer in school would be anti-libertarian. Allowing prayer in school would not. Actually a real libertarian wouldn’t want public schools anyway.
Ravenman, you could be right about Rand Paul, but none of your points so far supports that conclusion. The one that does is the one I brought up earlier-- that he opposes SSM. But that’s just one issue. If he’s libertarian on the majority of issues, I think it’s safe to call him libertarian.
Is Pastafarian music as much fun as Rastafarian music?