[tritium]

Rand Paul + tea party = Racist.... It's a no brainer

[N_Fiddledog]

tritium tritium:

Rand Paul + tea party = Racist.... It's a no brainer

Nah...

It's Progressive + unsupportable accusations of racism = Bad argument.

[tritium]

Rand Paul now says that President Obama's blaming BP was "un-American"!!..Hello!!

WTF??!!!

So businesses should be able to do what they want. Suppose they can sell boooz to a 5 year old, who cares what happens after, right?

Rand Paul = Ass Hat with a microphone...

[N_Fiddledog]

And again it's a hypocritical attack from Libs. They were happy to accommodate Rand until he won something. Now he's a whacko, racist. Before he won the primary, and his numbers started to show him walking away from the Democrat challenger in November he was coddled by their broadcasters as a reasoned voice, because he could be relied on for the odd attack on sitting Republicans.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right- ... berta.html

[N_Fiddledog]

Here's a right wing blogger on Paul's BP comment, so you can hear from both sides.

$1:

Rand Paul Calls Obama's Criticism of BP "Really Un-American"

Le sigh...

Rand Paul's not done saying silly things yet. On ABC's Good Morning America he ran full tilt into an amateur mistake:

"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.' I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business," he said. "I've heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it's part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it's always got to be someone's fault instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen."

Give the man a prize. He just said the magic words that will guarantee he stays in the news cycle for at least another 24 hours. Do I agree with the President's attack on BP? Of course not. He's wrong. But that doesn't make his political point-scoring "un-American."

One of the core American freedoms, something not enjoyed even in other parts of "Western Civilization", is the right to score political points by lambasting others. As the Ninth Circuit put it yesterday (PDF), "The right to provoke, offend and shock lies at the core of the First Amendment."

The President's attack on BP is both offensive and based on a faulty premise. But it's not un-American. And after spending the past year or more decrying the same Democratic smear against the Tea Parties, Rand should have known better.

What an amateur. As Drew put it yesterday: the MFM will make Paul the new face of the Republican Party for at least the next six months or so. Oops.

Insta-Update: Several commenters say it is un-American if Obama "puts his boot heel on the throat of BP" and so Rand is right.

Except that Rand didn't say that. He specifically called the President's criticism of business—his words—un-American. That's just plain wrong. It has the added something of being awfully bad politics, so there's that too.

Criticizing business has a centuries-long history in the United States and at the moment a plurality of Americans seem to agree with the President. I think Obama's wrong about this (and those Americans who agree with him too), but that doesn't mean he or they are un-American for criticizing BP.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/301793.php

[Scape]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rachel-maddo ... revisited/

$1:

“‘Libertarian’ is not a five-syllable shorthand word for ‘Republican.’ It is a really specific worldview about the appropriate reach of federal law in this country, and when you are auditioning for a role as part of the federal government’s highest lawmaking body, which makes laws for everyone in this country, questions about what you believe is the appropriate reach of federal law ought to be expected. And the answers, the answers to those questions sometimes reopen debates that no one anywhere near the mainstream of American politics had any idea were still controversial.”

[tritium]

Scape Scape:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rachel-maddow-rand-paul-civil-rights-act-revisited

Here is the YouTube Video

Rachel Maddow is a very smart lady and handed Rand his ass.. Kudos to Maddow.

[angler57]

Easier to cast stones than to think, seems to guide a few here.
The terms racist is one of the first to get tossed about.
No thought required. When our lunk heads in D.C. draft a bill they put in as many bad clauses as good ones.
Pointing out this fact to them is instantly labeled RACISM. Sex ism or just pick your ISM.
And many find it easy to take or media in the USA as gospel. They are as bias as
the flatbottoms in D.C. Elect me is their only goal. The peoples interest are far down their list of important topics.

[sandorski]

tritium tritium:

Scape Scape:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rachel-maddow-rand-paul-civil-rights-act-revisited

Here is the YouTube Video

Rachel Maddow is a very smart lady and handed Rand his ass.. Kudos to Maddow.

Pwnt.

[BartSimpson]

tritium tritium:

Rand Paul + tea party = Racist.... It's a no brainer

Tritium + hyperbole =

[Thanos]

Baby Doc's self-immolation this week has been a useful reminder as to why libertarianism is such a repulsive phenomenon:

1) The only right that libertarianism recognizes is the right to property, and to use that property in any way the owner sees fit, regardless of any negative effect it has on others. This is why libertarianism is so popular among modern neo-confederates and others who would still justify slavery and racial discrimination that they've concocted on completely bogus economic and religious grounds. On any recognizable level, the fantasies of libertarianism are an intellectual and philosophical joke.
2) Libertarianism refuses to recognize that free capital is only capable of existing under the safety and stability provided by a functioning state with laws and structures that guarantee business the ability to operate. Removing the state doesn't allow for an expansion of capitialism, it would destroy capitalism (along with practically every other societal institution) and replace the free flow of goods, services, and skills, with pure robber barony and economic chaos. Libertarianism in the end would only ensure the concentration of all political and economic power under the control of totalitarians.
3) Libertarianism, regardless of all it's claims to the promotion of individual economic freedom, is profoundly anti-human. The overall good of the society or nation is of the least importance to it. It has no interest at all in any of the social responsibilities that are the duty of each and every individual. It's sole concern, once one gets past all of it's ridiculous pseudo-intellectualism, is the use of property towards the making of profit and it has no ethical or moral problems whatsoever with how profit is acheived. Kill an entire ocean with a faulty oil rig? No problem, it's your property: "Accidents happen" - Rand Paul, May 2010. Deny service based on your private beliefs, even though you're operating a business that takes money from the general public? No problem, it's your property, get those niggers and spics off of your property if you hate the mere sight of them. Kill a bunch of mine workers because you find any and all safety regulations annoying? Go ahead, the government has no right to throw bureaucratic roadblocks in the way of your making profit. And if others get hurt of killed? Well, too bad for them, they should have known what they were getting into.

At this stage it becomes easy to understand why the fringes of the right wing, ranging from the incoherent rage of the Tea Party to the comment sections of hate sites like the Aryan Nations Stormfront, find common ground with the libertarians as represented by the likes of Papa Doc and Baby Doc Paul. It's a coalescence of those who have zero respect for others and who have absolutely no empathy at all for other human beings. That this thoroughly evil bullshit has taken over the entire thought-process of one of the two major American political parties is what makes it such a tragedy, and such an existential danger not just to America but to the entire world.

[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

Baby Doc's self-immolation this week has been a useful reminder as to why libertarianism is such a repulsive joke:

1) The only right that libertarianism recognizes is the right to property, and to use that property in any way the owner sees fit, regardless of any negative effect it has on others. This is why libertarianism is so popular among modern neo-confederates and others who still justify slavery and racial discrimination that they've concocted on completely bogus economic and religious grounds.
2) Libertarianism refuses to recognize that free capital is only capable of existing under the safety and stability provided by a functioning state that guarnatees business the ability to operate. Removing the state doesn't allow for an expansion of capitialism, it would destroy capitalism (alnog with practically every other societal institution) and replace the free flow of goods, services, and skills, with pure robber barony and economic chaos.
3) Libertarianism, regardless of all it's claims to the promotion of freedom, is profoundly anti-human. It has no interest at all in any of the social responsibilities that are the duty of each and every individual. It's sole concern, once all it's ridiculous pseudo-intellectualism, is the use of property towards the making of profit and it has no ethical or moral problems whatsoever with how profit is acheived. Kill an entire ocean with a faulty oil rig? No problem, it's your property: "Accidents happen" - Rand Paul, May 2010. Deny service based on your private beliefs, even though you're operating a business that takes money from the general public. No problem, it's your property. Kill a bunch of mine workers because you find any safety regulations annoying? Go ahead, the government has no right to throw bureaucratic roadblocks in the way of your making profit. And if others get hurt of killed? Well, too bad for them, they should have known what they were getting into.

At this stage it becomes easy to understand why the fringes of the right wing, ranging from the incoherent rage of the Tea Party to the comment sections of hate sites like the Aryan Nations Stormfront, find common ground with the libertarians as represented by the likes of Papa Doc and Baby Doc Paul. It's a coalescence of those who have zero respect for others and who have absolutely no empathy at all for other human beings. That this thoroughly evil bullshit has taken over the entire thought-process of one of the two major American political parties is what makes it such a tragedy, and such an existential danger not just to America but to the entire world.

The USA was founded as an essentially libertarian state and the libertarians mostly want that to return. To an extent, I agree with them. I'd like to see government dial back its reach into our lives and I'd like to see property rights respected far more than they are now.

Right now, except in states where this is now explicitly forbidden, the state can use its power of eminent domain to seize your property for a scant fraction of its market value and then turn it over to a private buyer who should have simply negotiated with you in good faith to buy your property. Consequently, we have what amounts to government sanctioned theft. Libertarians oppose this.

They also oppose property taxes that essentially make you a tenant on your own land. If you fail to pay your rent to the government you get kicked off your land...just the same as what happened to the serfs in feudal Europe.

But are there social responsibilities? Yes, there are. And property owners need to have the right to do what they want on their land up to the point where it intrudes on their neighbors' right to enjoy THEIR land. I don't believe you have a right to run a junkyard without a permit or in a residential area, I also don't believe you have a right to foul the air or water so it affects your neighbors. I differ with the libertarians here who think that government should not regulate these things. I tell you, if government does not regulate these things, the people will.

Just like in Arizona - the government is not regulating immigration so Arizona is taking that into their own hands because it needs to be done. The libertarians would allow a breakdown of society in these cases and that is just wrong.

[Thanos]

When the United States was founded, the corporate sector did not even come close to approaching the size, power, and influence that it has today. Removing the state today would not re-empower the rural freeholders or urban small merchants, mostly because those types of people have gone extinct. Removing the state and it's regulatory abilities would only create a massive power vacuum that wouldn't be filled by the dying middle class, it would be filled by the corporations that have shown over and over and over again, with each sickening incident after sickening incident, that they have absolutely no sense of societal responsibility and no respect at all for the welfare of either individuals or communities.

You thought Communisim was bad? Give contemporary corporations total control and an unhindered opportunity to pillage, and you'll see exactly what kind of hell a pack of unrestrained and outside-the-law libertarian-exploiting plutocrats can bring to the earth. The deluded simpletons that now form the bulk of the current Republican/conservative base have no idea of the dangers of what they're endorsing and promoting.

[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

When the United States was founded, the corporate sector did not even come close to approaching the size, power, and influence that it has today. Removing the state today would not re-empower the rural freeholders or urban small merchants, mostly because those types of people have gone extinct. Removing the state and it's regulatory abilities would only create a massive power vacuum that wouldn't be filled by the dying middle class, it would be filled by the corporations that have shown over and over and over again, with each sickening incident after sickening incident, that they have absolutely no sense of societal respinsibility and no respect at all for the welfare individuals or communities.

You thought Communisim was bad? Give contemporary corporations total control and an unhindered opportunity to pillage, and you'll see exactly what kind of hell a pack of unrestrained and outside-the-law libertarian-exploiting plutocrats can bring to the earth. The deluded simpletons that now form the bulk of the current Republican/conservative base have no idea of the dangers of what they're endorsing and promoting.

In many ways, the government assures the corporations of the severity of difficulty in anyone competing with them. Removing many aspects of government bureacracy would allow a lot more companies to compete with the big guys.

Yes, there is a role for government to level the playing field, but that needs to be the end of it. What happens now is the government makes it a pain in the butt for anyone to compete with established corporations. What I mean is that the reality we have RIGHT NOW is essentially the nightmare you fear.

Toyota, for instance, ignored safety problems and some 50 people are dead and all they got for their criminal conspiracy was a fine that was a relative pittance? How is government protecting us from this murderous corporation? They are not.

Instead of the extreme of no regulation as the libertarians want, and the omnipresent state we have right now, there needs to be a better balance. If the liberatrians force the discussion to move towards that healthy balance then good for them.

[Thanos]

I'm not convinced of the Big Government argument anymore. In the Gulf of Mexico right now, the priority clearly isn't the saving of sea life, or of all the fishing and tourist industry jobs that go with life on the Gulf coast. By allowing BP, whose sole concern is saving their well, to direct the (so-called) clean-up, the US government has again shown that the priorities of an unanswerable corporation will be placed before the public good. If the government wasn't being held hostage to a basically pro-business-uber-alles and libertarian political mindset, the US Navy and Coast Guard would have been immediately put in charge and allowed to destroy the well-head in order to stop the flow of pollution.

But they weren't. BP's been put in total control of the situation, to the point where they're even allowed to use local police to kick reporters off of beaches to prevent them from photographing the puddles of oil and dead wildlife that are now washing ashore. BP pulled all the strings it could among local and federal politicians to get their way and the end result, thanks to the libertarian mindset that only regards the interests of business and capital as important, is going to be an unending disaster caused by the deliberate murder of an entire ocean-sized body of water.

Libertarianism economic principles in their full glory. And the libertarian's hero of the moment, Rand Paul, could only say silly shit like "accidents happen, and "quit being mean to BP"? And this is the mentality that the right wing now believes whole-heartedly in.

Wheeeeee?