If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The American Conservative)   RAND PAUL: "I'm not a firm believer in democracy. It gave us Jim Crow." Please wait until my huge bucket of popcorn is ready before posting   (theamericanconservative.com) divider line 255
    More: Interesting, Rand Paul, Jim Crow, Kentucky Senators, Mises, New Republic, historically black colleges, Jonathan Chait, Ayn Rand  
•       •       •

2076 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jun 2013 at 4:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



255 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-24 04:28:56 PM

Aarontology: I thought he was OK with those kinds of laws because they were on the state level.


And free markets don't forget how free markets will sort everything out.
 
2013-06-24 04:28:59 PM

dittybopper: And had those blacks been armed, the KKK would have swiftly become history, and Jim Crow couldn't have taken hold.


You know why they weren't armed? ...because they were illiterate and uneducated. They couldn't act, they couldn't organize, they couldn't revolt and they couldn't obtain power because they lacked the accessibility to achieve those aims.

For its not guns that make a people free, but education. Guns mean absolutely jack squat in terms of freedom. What use is freedom if you have not the knowledge or the understanding to use it properly (and you're too ignorant to know when it's being taken away)?

Only one thing can prevent tyranny: Education.

A highly informed and educated citizenry always demands more out of its government and is the best safeguard against tyranny. All dictatorships, once they obtain power, immediately seize all communications and education channels. If you can control what the people read or hear, you can control what they say or think. Keep the populace distant, ignorant and separated, and you never have to fear counter-revolution.

This is how societies in the past maintained slave populations that often numbered more than citizens.

So forget guns. Be more afraid of anyone taking away your access to high education. That's what totalitarianisms do. Whosoever tries to restrict your access to knowledge and information wants to control you.
 
2013-06-24 04:29:28 PM

dittybopper: HighOnCraic: factoryconnection: HighOnCraic: How the heck do laws passed in states where the vast majority of blacks and a sizable number of poor whites were unable to vote somehow exemplify democracy?

He's a southern white man with a libertarian bent; none of those realities actually occurred in his mind.

Ah...


"The proposed Civil Rights Act of 1964 presented the libertarian wing of the conservative movement with a wrenching choice. Libertarians loathed segregation, but breaking Jim Crow would demand a sweeping expansion of Federal power that would intervene deeply into private life. The dilemma was that African Americans repression rose not only from government, but from the culture and personal choices of their white neighbors.
The Civil Rights Acts proposed to do something that libertarian ideology insisted was impossible -expand personal freedom by expanding central government power. Goldwater made a fateful decision to break from the core of the Republican Party and oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act. His decision alienated the black community and shone a glaring light on a fatal weakness in libertarian theory.
Libertarianism protects personal liberty from being impaired by government. It creates weak states on the assumption that without government intrusion personal freedom will blossom.
The black experience is a living reminder that government is not alone as a potential threat to personal liberty. It is possible, as in the Jim Crow South, to build a government so weak that no one's personal liberties can be protected."

http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2013/01/how-libertarianism-failed-afr ic an-americans/

And had those blacks been armed, the KKK would have swiftly become history, and Jim Crow couldn't have taken hold.


I've said this before, but I'm not convinced that arming Black Americans would have resulted in anything but genocide on a massive scale. Didn't work for the Native Americans.
 
2013-06-24 04:29:42 PM

skullkrusher: Soup4Bonnie: Rand Paul believes that we don't need mine safety regulations because people wouldn't want to work in an unsafe mine.

would you? No? QED then.


I wouldn't WANT to; but if it was work in an unsafe mine or let your kids starve....?
 
2013-06-24 04:30:18 PM

Corvus: Umm no he doesn't. It's not even close.


I think it was truncated.  I believe the original went something like:

Rules like a monarch
Stings like a bee.
 
2013-06-24 04:31:00 PM

skullkrusher: Satanic_Hamster: skullkrusher: I'm pretty sure he has spoken about people's rights to discriminate in private establishments, not government mandated segregation.

No, he's fine with government mandated segregation.  As long as it's STATE'S doing it.  Remember, the Constitution doesn't apply to the States either.

you have a cite? I know that's a neo-confederate sort of position to take but I have never seen him actually take it


Come to think of it, that's his dad, not Rand; at least that I can remember.
 
2013-06-24 04:31:37 PM

Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: Soup4Bonnie: Rand Paul believes that we don't need mine safety regulations because people wouldn't want to work in an unsafe mine.

would you? No? QED then.

I wouldn't WANT to; but if it was work in an unsafe mine or let your kids starve....?


hey, slow your roll - I was just pointing out the obvious. Who would want to work in an unsafe mine? ;)
 
2013-06-24 04:31:59 PM

Hollie Maea: Alas, the US is no longer a Republic but has become a Democracy.  The two reasons for this are: 1. With the House of Representatives membership capped at 435, each member represents many thousands of people.  2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.


i1.ytimg.com
 
2013-06-24 04:32:14 PM

Ishkur: For its not guns that make a people free, but education.


Which is why Teabaggers are all for cutting education budgets and demonizing teachers as union thugs.
 
2013-06-24 04:32:37 PM

Corvus: skullkrusher: Satanic_Hamster: But what about all the times he said he thought Jim Crow laws should be legal.

I'm pretty sure he has spoken about people's rights to discriminate in private establishments, not government mandated segregation.

So he is fine with the federal government forcing laws onto states?


I don't know for sure, Corvus. It would seem he is, however, since he does speak approvingly of the federal government's intervention in the case of Jim Crow laws
 
2013-06-24 04:33:13 PM

meat0918: skullkrusher: Satanic_Hamster: skullkrusher: I'm pretty sure he has spoken about people's rights to discriminate in private establishments, not government mandated segregation.

No, he's fine with government mandated segregation.  As long as it's STATE'S doing it.  Remember, the Constitution doesn't apply to the States either.

you have a cite? I know that's a neo-confederate sort of position to take but I have never seen him actually take it

Come to think of it, that's his dad, not Rand; at least that I can remember.


certainly does sound like a RON PAUL thing to say. I've never seen RAND PAUL say it though.
 
2013-06-24 04:33:26 PM
Rand Paul and his senile father are not firm believers in reality, either...

Pie in the sky idealism and a total disregard for history and human nature are something libertarians have in common with Communists in the early 20th Century... Luckily, there's not nearly enough followers of these clowns to actually take over a country by violent revolution or elections. But boy, oh boy, can they biatch, moan and bloviate on the internet. : )
 
2013-06-24 04:34:05 PM

skullkrusher: Who would want to work in an unsafe mine?


I can nary think of any one who would.
 
2013-06-24 04:34:53 PM

Soup4Bonnie: skullkrusher: Who would want to work in an unsafe mine?

I can nary think of any one who would.


NARY INDEED!

*mike drop*
 
2013-06-24 04:35:38 PM

vernonFL: Zoning Laws are tyranny!

/this is what these idiots actually believe.


They can definitely be used tyrannically by petty tyrants.
 
2013-06-24 04:36:02 PM

Triumph: [fc08.deviantart.net image 792x612]


So you prefer what to Democracy then?
 
2013-06-24 04:37:59 PM

skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: Satanic_Hamster: But what about all the times he said he thought Jim Crow laws should be legal.

I'm pretty sure he has spoken about people's rights to discriminate in private establishments, not government mandated segregation.

So he is fine with the federal government forcing laws onto states?

I don't know for sure, Corvus. It would seem he is, however, since he does speak approvingly of the federal government's intervention in the case of Jim Crow laws


Then why were you answer for him before, if you don't know?

So you knew at first but then when I had you explain you didn't know anymore. Did you forget his stance on the position in the last minute?

So then why are some federal laws pushed on the state OK and others are not? where does he make this distinction? Or is it whenever it becomes convenient for him "state's rights" exist?
 
2013-06-24 04:38:29 PM

dittybopper: And had those blacks been armed, the KKK would have swiftly become history, and Jim Crow couldn't have taken hold.


Really former soldiers who also had access to firearms would have lost to former slaves who had probably never held guns before?
 
2013-06-24 04:39:10 PM

vpb: "republic" ref errs to the structure of government.


No it does not.  Republic means "of the people" and is only in contrast to a monarchy, i.e. a government by the people instead of by an elite sub-group.   It has absolutely nothing to do with structure, and "we ain't a democracy we's a republic" is an utterly meaningless sentence.

/jimmies status - rustled.
 
2013-06-24 04:39:55 PM

Corvus: Then why were you answer for him before, if you don't know?


what?

Corvus: So you knew at first but then when I had you explain you didn't know anymore. Did you forget his stance on the position in the last minute?

So then why are some federal laws pushed on the state OK and others are not? where does he make this distinction? Or is it whenever it becomes convenient for him "state's rights" exist?


what the fark are you talking about? I have never seen him say he thinks Jim Crow laws should be legal so I asked for proof of that. He does, however, seem to be ok with the feds putting an end to Jim Crow laws so that, at the very least, contradicts any previous stance he may have taken in favor of Jim Crow laws.

bark up some other tree. This one is out of your league
 
2013-06-24 04:39:56 PM

Corvus: Hollie Maea: 2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.

Umm no he doesn't. It's not even close.


Question: If he did, would that make the US a Democracy instead of a Republic?
 
2013-06-24 04:40:45 PM

skullkrusher: meat0918: skullkrusher: Satanic_Hamster: skullkrusher: I'm pretty sure he has spoken about people's rights to discriminate in private establishments, not government mandated segregation.

No, he's fine with government mandated segregation.  As long as it's STATE'S doing it.  Remember, the Constitution doesn't apply to the States either.

you have a cite? I know that's a neo-confederate sort of position to take but I have never seen him actually take it

Come to think of it, that's his dad, not Rand; at least that I can remember.

certainly does sound like a RON PAUL thing to say. I've never seen RAND PAUL say it though.


He says he believes states should be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals.
 
2013-06-24 04:41:07 PM

Ishkur: dittybopper: And had those blacks been armed, the KKK would have swiftly become history, and Jim Crow couldn't have taken hold.

You know why they weren't armed? ...because they were illiterate and uneducated. They couldn't act, they couldn't organize, they couldn't revolt and they couldn't obtain power because they lacked the accessibility to achieve those aims.

For its not guns that make a people free, but education. Guns mean absolutely jack squat in terms of freedom. What use is freedom if you have not the knowledge or the understanding to use it properly (and you're too ignorant to know when it's being taken away)?

Only one thing can prevent tyranny: Education.

A highly informed and educated citizenry always demands more out of its government and is the best safeguard against tyranny. All dictatorships, once they obtain power, immediately seize all communications and education channels. If you can control what the people read or hear, you can control what they say or think. Keep the populace distant, ignorant and separated, and you never have to fear counter-revolution.

This is how societies in the past maintained slave populations that often numbered more than citizens.

So forget guns. Be more afraid of anyone taking away your access to high education. That's what totalitarianisms do. Whosoever tries to restrict your access to knowledge and information wants to control you.


encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-06-24 04:41:26 PM

Hollie Maea: Alas, the US is no longer a Republic but has become a Democracy.


Aaaaahhh!  My jimmies!!!
 
2013-06-24 04:42:45 PM
Which is why we have (or ought to have, or used to have) a republic.  Where the whims of any one group or majority couldn't simply vote away the rights or property of another group.
 
2013-06-24 04:42:59 PM

skullkrusher: Corvus: Then why were you answer for him before, if you don't know?

what?

Corvus: So you knew at first but then when I had you explain you didn't know anymore. Did you forget his stance on the position in the last minute?

So then why are some federal laws pushed on the state OK and others are not? where does he make this distinction? Or is it whenever it becomes convenient for him "state's rights" exist?

what the fark are you talking about? I have never seen him say he thinks Jim Crow laws should be legal so I asked for proof of that. He does, however, seem to be ok with the feds putting an end to Jim Crow laws so that, at the very least, contradicts any previous stance he may have taken in favor of Jim Crow laws.

bark up some other tree. This one is out of your league


He said he believe the Civil Rights Act should be legal, which is a federal law pushed onto the states. So when is that ok and when is it not. Because he is saying it's not ok for protecting of abortion or protections on gays.

So where does this magical line get created?
 
2013-06-24 04:44:23 PM

HighOnCraic: factoryconnection: HighOnCraic: How the heck do laws passed in states where the vast majority of blacks and a sizable number of poor whites were unable to vote somehow exemplify democracy?

He's a southern white man with a libertarian bent; none of those realities actually occurred in his mind.

Ah...


"The proposed Civil Rights Act of 1964 presented the libertarian wing of the conservative movement with a wrenching choice. Libertarians loathed segregation, but breaking Jim Crow would demand a sweeping expansion of Federal power that would intervene deeply into private life. The dilemma was that African Americans repression rose not only from government, but from the culture and personal choices of their white neighbors.
The Civil Rights Acts proposed to do something that libertarian ideology insisted was impossible -expand personal freedom by expanding central government power. Goldwater made a fateful decision to break from the core of the Republican Party and oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act. His decision alienated the black community and shone a glaring light on a fatal weakness in libertarian theory.
Libertarianism protects personal liberty from being impaired by government. It creates weak states on the assumption that without government intrusion personal freedom will blossom.
The black experience is a living reminder that government is not alone as a potential threat to personal liberty. It is possible, as in the Jim Crow South, to build a government so weak that no one's personal liberties can be protected."

http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2013/01/how-libertarianism-failed-afr ic an-americans/


The state governments weren't so weak that they couldn't oppress blacks. They had plenty of strength to do that. Don't you think if those governments had been weakened then freedom could have blossomed for blacks? And isn't that basically what happened? The Feds were able to weaken the state governments' power allowing blacks to become more free.
 
2013-06-24 04:44:29 PM

ArkPanda: dittybopper: 
And had those blacks been armed, the KKK would have swiftly become history, and Jim Crow couldn't have taken hold.

Because all the blacks would have been shot, and there would have been no need for either.


^^^THIS.

See: Tulsa Race Riot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot
 
2013-06-24 04:46:20 PM

physt: dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.

[static8.depositphotos.com image 850x884]


Neither of the Pauls are stopped clocks, right twice a day.  They're both clocks running backwards at irregular speeds which change at random intervals.  They're right on very random occasion one every few blue moons - but never for longer than one unit of Planck time.
 
2013-06-24 04:46:40 PM

skullkrusher: what the fark are you talking about? I have never seen him say he thinks Jim Crow laws should be legal so I asked for proof of that. He does, however, seem to be ok with the feds putting an end to Jim Crow laws so that, at the very least, contradicts any previous stance he may have taken in favor of Jim Crow laws.

bark up some other tree. This one is out of your league


Sorry I thought you actually read the article:

Though he would still not give them a definitive answer on his position on the Civil Rights Act, he did say that he believed federal intervention had been justified. "I'm not a firm believer in democracy," he explained. "It gave us Jim Crow." '

So why is it ok for federal intervention for Blacks but not for gays?
 
2013-06-24 04:46:41 PM

Satanic_Hamster: As long as it's STATE'S doing it.  Remember, the Constitution doesn't apply to the States either.


The constitution explicitly forbids the states to segregate or allow slavery.

You're an idiot.
 
2013-06-24 04:46:45 PM

Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: Then why were you answer for him before, if you don't know?

what?

Corvus: So you knew at first but then when I had you explain you didn't know anymore. Did you forget his stance on the position in the last minute?

So then why are some federal laws pushed on the state OK and others are not? where does he make this distinction? Or is it whenever it becomes convenient for him "state's rights" exist?

what the fark are you talking about? I have never seen him say he thinks Jim Crow laws should be legal so I asked for proof of that. He does, however, seem to be ok with the feds putting an end to Jim Crow laws so that, at the very least, contradicts any previous stance he may have taken in favor of Jim Crow laws.

bark up some other tree. This one is out of your league

He said he believe the Civil Rights Act should be legal, which is a federal law pushed onto the states. So when is that ok and when is it not. Because he is saying it's not ok for protecting of abortion or protections on gays.

So where does this magical line get created?


I don't know, Corvus. You'll have to ask him.
 
2013-06-24 04:47:12 PM

spongeboob: Triumph: [fc08.deviantart.net image 792x612]

So you prefer what to Democracy then?


Constitutional republics?
 
2013-06-24 04:47:40 PM

SnakeLee: RAND PAUL: There are things that people were concerned about that were unintended consequences [of the Civil Rights Act], for example, people who believe very fervently in people having equal protection under the law, and are against segregation and all that, still worried about the loss of property rights...for example, I can't have a cigar bar any more, and you say, "well, that has nothing to do with race" - the idea of whether or not you control your property, it also tells you, come in here I want to know the calorie count on that, and the calorie Nazis come in here and tell me. [...] The point is that its not all about that. It's not all about race relations, it's about controlling property, ultimately.


You know what, Rand? If that property is owned entirely by one person or whatever, I might kinda agree with you (but probably not).

This is what irritates me about most "Libertarians" - they forget that corporations really aren't people. They're not even "made up of people". They are completely fictitious legal entities conjured up out of nothing and given a distinct legal personality in contravention of all natural law so that certain people can't be held liable for their actions. They are complete and utter contrivances of a government.

Libertarians want the government to literally create a new person for them, but they don't want the government to have any say in how that new person behaves. Well, too bad - you can't have it both ways. That new person that was created ex nihilo? Yeah, it doesn't have a religion or a race. It has no beliefs about class or sex. It cannot be prejudiced or racist and hide behind its religion or its "beliefs" because it doesn't have any. It exists solely because we as a society, through our government, have agreed to pretend that it exists.

If you want to be a racist dickbag, go ahead - but don't ask the rest of us to then shield you from liability and create a completely fictitious person for you. You don't want to play by the rules? Fine, but then you don't get any of the benefits either.
 
2013-06-24 04:47:58 PM

Corvus: Hollie Maea: 2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.

Umm no he doesn't. It's not even close.


Exactly. The POTUS has way more power than the monarch of the UK. It's not even close.
 
2013-06-24 04:48:14 PM

Corvus: Hollie Maea: 2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.

Umm no he doesn't. It's not even close.


To be fair, HM didn't say what kind of monarch.  Obama has less power than (let's say) Kim Jong-Un, but more than Queen Elizabeth II.
 
2013-06-24 04:48:18 PM

Hollie Maea: Corvus: Hollie Maea: 2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.

Umm no he doesn't. It's not even close.

Question: If he did, would that make the US a Democracy instead of a Republic?


You question makes no sense. ans has nothing to do with what I said.
 
2013-06-24 04:49:43 PM

skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: Then why were you answer for him before, if you don't know?

what?

Corvus: So you knew at first but then when I had you explain you didn't know anymore. Did you forget his stance on the position in the last minute?

So then why are some federal laws pushed on the state OK and others are not? where does he make this distinction? Or is it whenever it becomes convenient for him "state's rights" exist?

what the fark are you talking about? I have never seen him say he thinks Jim Crow laws should be legal so I asked for proof of that. He does, however, seem to be ok with the feds putting an end to Jim Crow laws so that, at the very least, contradicts any previous stance he may have taken in favor of Jim Crow laws.

bark up some other tree. This one is out of your league

He said he believe the Civil Rights Act should be legal, which is a federal law pushed onto the states. So when is that ok and when is it not. Because he is saying it's not ok for protecting of abortion or protections on gays.

So where does this magical line get created?

I don't know, Corvus. You'll have to ask him.


Well if you don't know then why are you answering people for him in this thread and implying you know what his positions are??
 
2013-06-24 04:49:50 PM

Corvus: So why is it ok for federal intervention for Blacks but not for gays?


The libertarian answer to the Gay marriage question is a tax/legal code which doesn't show any preference towards married or unmarried individuals.  Whom you choose to associate with should be no business of the government and thus government should show no preference to any one group.

Equal protection/application of the law should mean that a married couple shouldn't enjoy tax benefits that a single person does not have.  For decades, politicians have used the tax code to enrich particular segments of the population they think will support their ideas
 
2013-06-24 04:51:24 PM

Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: Then why were you answer for him before, if you don't know?

what?

Corvus: So you knew at first but then when I had you explain you didn't know anymore. Did you forget his stance on the position in the last minute?

So then why are some federal laws pushed on the state OK and others are not? where does he make this distinction? Or is it whenever it becomes convenient for him "state's rights" exist?

what the fark are you talking about? I have never seen him say he thinks Jim Crow laws should be legal so I asked for proof of that. He does, however, seem to be ok with the feds putting an end to Jim Crow laws so that, at the very least, contradicts any previous stance he may have taken in favor of Jim Crow laws.

bark up some other tree. This one is out of your league

He said he believe the Civil Rights Act should be legal, which is a federal law pushed onto the states. So when is that ok and when is it not. Because he is saying it's not ok for protecting of abortion or protections on gays.

So where does this magical line get created?

I don't know, Corvus. You'll have to ask him.

Well if you don't know then why are you answering people for him in this thread and implying you know what his positions are??


I just asked for a citation where he supported Jim Crow laws. I don't know where he draws the line between ok intervention and not ok intervention. That isn't what I was discussing. This conversation isn't happening how you wish (or imagine) it were so unless you want to join in the actual conversation that is happening, just stop.
 
2013-06-24 04:53:22 PM

jigger: Corvus: Hollie Maea: 2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.

Umm no he doesn't. It's not even close.

Exactly. The POTUS has way more power than the monarch of the UK. It's not even close.


Don't be so sure.
 
2013-06-24 04:54:07 PM

o5iiawah: Corvus: So why is it ok for federal intervention for Blacks but not for gays?

The libertarian answer to the Gay marriage question is a tax/legal code which doesn't show any preference towards married or unmarried individuals.  Whom you choose to associate with should be no business of the government and thus government should show no preference to any one group.

Equal protection/application of the law should mean that a married couple shouldn't enjoy tax benefits that a single person does not have.  For decades, politicians have used the tax code to enrich particular segments of the population they think will support their ideas


So then why are libertarians then only use this argument for Same Sex marriage and are pretty quite about it for none-same sex marriage.

I will tell you why, because it's a shame argument only made to justify a Libertarians who have intolerant  views.
 
2013-06-24 04:54:53 PM
So, the idea is, more than 50% of the people are right more that 50% of the time.

Guess what ...sometimes more than 50% of the people are wrong.

Obviously including our "representatives". Especially when they stop representing us.
Or in this case, really stupid as well:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAaDVOd2sRQ

That is why sometimes an ideal is more important than a simple majority rule.

I think, for the most part, our brand of democracy is fine. It's the campaign finance rules, etc. that are farked. Get the money out of politics and get our representatives back to representing.

Do I have the answers? No. But I am willing to facilitate in any way I can to help get them.
 
2013-06-24 04:56:12 PM

skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: Then why were you answer for him before, if you don't know?

what?

Corvus: So you knew at first but then when I had you explain you didn't know anymore. Did you forget his stance on the position in the last minute?

So then why are some federal laws pushed on the state OK and others are not? where does he make this distinction? Or is it whenever it becomes convenient for him "state's rights" exist?

what the fark are you talking about? I have never seen him say he thinks Jim Crow laws should be legal so I asked for proof of that. He does, however, seem to be ok with the feds putting an end to Jim Crow laws so that, at the very least, contradicts any previous stance he may have taken in favor of Jim Crow laws.

bark up some other tree. This one is out of your league

He said he believe the Civil Rights Act should be legal, which is a federal law pushed onto the states. So when is that ok and when is it not. Because he is saying it's not ok for protecting of abortion or protections on gays.

So where does this magical line get created?

I don't know, Corvus. You'll have to ask him.

Well if you don't know then why are you answering people for him in this thread and implying you know what his positions are??

I just asked for a citation where he supported Jim Crow laws. I don't know where he draws the line between ok intervention and not ok intervention. That isn't what I was discussing. This conversation isn't happening how you wish (or imagine) it were so unless you want to join in the actual conversation that is happening, just stop.


Ok I agree with you. His "state's rights" beliefs are a shame and he takes them to justify the things for things he wants and ignores them like in Jim Crow laws and Civili Rights Act when they are unpopular.

I agree.
 
2013-06-24 04:57:27 PM

Triumph: jigger: Corvus: Hollie Maea: 2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.

Umm no he doesn't. It's not even close.

Exactly. The POTUS has way more power than the monarch of the UK. It's not even close.

Don't be so sure.


Hmm. I wonder how you have a secret veto of a public bill.

The internal Whitehall pamphlet was only released following a court order and shows ministers and civil servants are obliged to consult the Queen and Prince Charles in greater detail and over more areas of legislation than was previously understood.

Why isn't this understood? Don't the MPs at least in the House of Commons know what they're getting into? Once they're in office they never ever tell anyone about having to gain approval from the Queen on certain bills? Why not? I tell you, I don't get it.
 
2013-06-24 04:58:09 PM

Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: Then why were you answer for him before, if you don't know?

what?

Corvus: So you knew at first but then when I had you explain you didn't know anymore. Did you forget his stance on the position in the last minute?

So then why are some federal laws pushed on the state OK and others are not? where does he make this distinction? Or is it whenever it becomes convenient for him "state's rights" exist?

what the fark are you talking about? I have never seen him say he thinks Jim Crow laws should be legal so I asked for proof of that. He does, however, seem to be ok with the feds putting an end to Jim Crow laws so that, at the very least, contradicts any previous stance he may have taken in favor of Jim Crow laws.

bark up some other tree. This one is out of your league

He said he believe the Civil Rights Act should be legal, which is a federal law pushed onto the states. So when is that ok and when is it not. Because he is saying it's not ok for protecting of abortion or protections on gays.

So where does this magical line get created?

I don't know, Corvus. You'll have to ask him.

Well if you don't know then why are you answering people for him in this thread and implying you know what his positions are??

I just asked for a citation where he supported Jim Crow laws. I don't know where he draws the line between ok intervention and not ok intervention. That isn't what I was discussing. This conversation isn't happening how you wish (or imagine) it were so unless you want to join in the actual conversation that is happening, just stop.

Ok I agree with you. His "state's rights" beliefs are a shame and he takes them to justify the things for things he wants and ignores them like in Jim Crow laws and Civili Rights Act when they are unpopular.

I agree.


ok. Pretty sure the world is gonna end now and it's gonna be your fault.
 
2013-06-24 05:02:09 PM

Perlin Noise: Get the money out of politics and get our representatives back to representing.


Pretty funny. And I thought you were serious until that part.
 
2013-06-24 05:03:41 PM

jigger: Triumph: jigger: Corvus: Hollie Maea: 2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.

Umm no he doesn't. It's not even close.

Exactly. The POTUS has way more power than the monarch of the UK. It's not even close.

Don't be so sure.

Hmm. I wonder how you have a secret veto of a public bill.

The internal Whitehall pamphlet was only released following a court order and shows ministers and civil servants are obliged to consult the Queen and Prince Charles in greater detail and over more areas of legislation than was previously understood.

Why isn't this understood? Don't the MPs at least in the House of Commons know what they're getting into? Once they're in office they never ever tell anyone about having to gain approval from the Queen on certain bills? Why not? I tell you, I don't get it.


The Guardian is winning this year with the freak-you-out news stories,
 
2013-06-24 05:04:05 PM
Wow, the butthurt in that article was palpable.

" We lost two elections to a Black Guy, so Democracy is Racist and we should never hold elections again (if theres a possibility we might lose)."

Sounds like someone is afraid of getting their arses handed to them in the next election cycle...

/ If you think Democracy is Evil, dont vote!
 
2013-06-24 05:05:32 PM

Heraclitus: Wow, the butthurt in that article was palpable.

" We lost two elections to a Black Guy, so Democracy is Racist and we should never hold elections again (if theres a possibility we might lose)."

Sounds like someone is afraid of getting their arses handed to them in the next election cycle...

/ If you think Democracy is Evil, dont vote!


The modern Republican Party is a party that claims to love democracy so much that they do everything in their power to ensure the smallest number of people possible get to vote.
 
Displayed 50 of 255 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report