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  
•       •       •

2077 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 06:19:49 PM

whidbey: So let's skip to the good part:

Who's voting for Paul in 2016? Or is that also democracy he doesn't support?


Nah, I'm going to keep voting for his old man. He gave me one silver dime for my vote.
 
2013-06-24 06:21:57 PM

netgamer7k: (a. We threw Christianity out the window and embraced the Dollar,


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

We threw Christianity at the Dollar in order to embrace it shamelessly.
 
2013-06-24 06:22:55 PM

thamike: thamike: in the sense that they were wrong in and of themselves, but they happened to be steps towards something positive.  part of a longer timeline that resulted in something better.

Rephrased, I guess.  You get my drift.


Yeah, I was just about to post [quizzicaldog.jpg].
 
2013-06-24 06:25:02 PM

HighOnCraic: thamike: thamike: in the sense that they were wrong in and of themselves, but they happened to be steps towards something positive.  part of a longer timeline that resulted in something better.

Rephrased, I guess.  You get my drift.

Yeah, I was just about to post [quizzicaldog.jpg].


Yeah I noticed the step towards part makes it sound like I think it was a step in the right direction as opposed to an absurd stalling of the inevitable.
 
2013-06-24 06:27:13 PM
 
2013-06-24 06:28:39 PM

Marshal805: Libertarianism: Private Property trumps Human Rights.


Does that make Booker T. Washington the libtardtartian?
 
2013-06-24 06:29:08 PM
30 years ago, Republicans wanted to tear down the Berlin Wall and bring freedom and democracy to Eastern Europe.

Today, they want to build a wall along the Rio Grande and take freedom and democracy away from Detroit.
 
2013-06-24 06:30:22 PM
I can honestly say this is the most intelligent, nuanced thing ever to come out if his mouth.
 
2013-06-24 06:33:04 PM

GreatGlavinsGhost: Marshal805: Libertarianism: Private Property trumps Human Rights.

Does that make Booker T. Washington the libtardtartian?


No, but trying to pass off BTW as some sort of token black libertarian to suit your agenda is rather obvious, however.
 
2013-06-24 06:39:35 PM

whidbey: GreatGlavinsGhost: Marshal805: Libertarianism: Private Property trumps Human Rights.

Does that make Booker T. Washington the libtardtartian?

No, but trying to pass off BTW as some sort of token black libertarian to suit your agenda is rather obvious, however.


Okay, how about if I say it the other way; libtardtarians have embraced his philosophy (as described in the link)?
 
2013-06-24 06:41:17 PM

whidbey: GreatGlavinsGhost: Marshal805: Libertarianism: Private Property trumps Human Rights.

Does that make Booker T. Washington the libtardtartian?

No, but trying to pass off BTW as some sort of token black libertarian to suit your agenda is rather obvious, however.


Oh, and from the link:

Mr. Washington represents in Negro thought the old attitude of adjustment and submission; but adjustment at such a peculiar time as to make his programme unique. This is an age of unusual economic development, and Mr. Washington's programme naturally takes an economic cast, becoming a gospel of Work and Money to such an extent as apparently almost completely to overshadow the higher aims of life. Moreover, this is an age when the more advanced races are coming in closer contact with the less developed races, and the race-feeling is therefore intensified; and Mr. Washington's programme practically accepts the alleged inferiority of the Negro races. Again, in our own land, the reaction from the sentiment of war time has given impetus to race-prejudice against Negroes, and Mr. Washington withdraws many of the high demands of Negroes as men and American citizens. In other periods of intensified prejudice all the Negro's tendency to self-assertion has been called forth; at this period a policy of submission is advocated. In the history of nearly all other races and peoples the doctrine preached at such crises has been that manly self-respect is worth more than lands and houses, and that a people who voluntarily surrender such respect, or cease striving for it, are not worth civilizing.

In answer to this, it has been claimed that the Negro can survive only through submission. Mr. Washington distinctly asks that black people give up, at least for the present, three things, -

First, political power,

Second, insistence on civil rights,

Third, higher education of Negro youth,

- and concentrate all their energies on industrial education, the accumulation of wealth, and the conciliation of the South. This policy has been courageously and insistently advocated for over fifteen years, and has been triumphant for perhaps ten years. As a result of this tender of the palm-branch, what has been the return? In these years there have occurred:

1. The disfranchisement of the Negro.

2. The legal creation of a distinct status of civil inferiority for the Negro.

3. The steady withdrawal of aid from institutions for the higher training of the Negro.

These movements are not, to be sure, direct results of Mr. Washington's teachings; but his propaganda has, without a shadow of doubt, helped their speedier accomplishment. The question then comes: Is it possible, and probable, that nine millions of men can make effective progress in economic lines if they are deprived of political rights, made a servile caste, and allowed only the most meagre chance for developing their exceptional men? If history and reason give any distinct answer to these questions, it is an emphatic No. And Mr. Washington thus faces the triple paradox of his career:

1. He is striving nobly to make Negro artisans business men and property-owners; but it is utterly impossible, under modern competitive methods, for workingmen and property-owners to defend their rights and exist without the right of suffrage .

2. He insists on thrift and self-respect, but at the same time counsels a silent submission to civic inferiority such as is bound to sap the manhood of any race in the long run.

3. He advocates common-school and industrial training, and depreciates institutions of higher learning; but neither the Negro common-schools, nor Tuskegee itself, could remain open a day were it not for teachers trained in Negro colleges, or trained by their graduates.
 
2013-06-24 06:41:58 PM

Lord Dimwit: Basically, it works like this:
Each Representative represents, say, 100,000 people (it would be more, but that's a nice round number for explanatory purposes).
Each person in that Representative's district gets one vote on everything that comes up in Congress.
Every vote in Congress is open for a full 24 hours or something. Every registered voter in the country gets to vote on everything.
When a Representative votes, anyone in his/her district who didn't cast a vote has their vote default to that of the Representative - in other words, you trust your Representative to vote the right way on most things for you, but you can always override his/her vote if you want.
There are practical issues like national secrets and such and the infrastructure needed to do it, but the principle itself could work.


A great idea, but it runs the risk of misuse and fraud.

Do we really want to trust our most important democratic decisions to the Weedlord Bonerhitlers of the nation?
 
2013-06-24 06:43:08 PM
Thanks to the War on Drugs, blacks in many urban areas are very well armed today.

And that's why there's no safer or less racially charged place to be than Detroit, New Orleans, or Baltimore.
 
2013-06-24 06:43:49 PM

Ishkur: Lord Dimwit: Basically, it works like this:
Each Representative represents, say, 100,000 people (it would be more, but that's a nice round number for explanatory purposes).
Each person in that Representative's district gets one vote on everything that comes up in Congress.
Every vote in Congress is open for a full 24 hours or something. Every registered voter in the country gets to vote on everything.
When a Representative votes, anyone in his/her district who didn't cast a vote has their vote default to that of the Representative - in other words, you trust your Representative to vote the right way on most things for you, but you can always override his/her vote if you want.
There are practical issues like national secrets and such and the infrastructure needed to do it, but the principle itself could work.

A great idea, but it runs the risk of misuse and fraud.

Do we really want to trust our most important democratic decisions to the Weedlord Bonerhitlers of the nation?


There is a group of people who doing everything they can to make Idiocracy happen sooner. Kinda like those apocalyptic morans.
 
2013-06-24 06:45:25 PM
Heh...

Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground.

It is not light that we need, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake.


- Frederick Douglass

... and he was right.
 
2013-06-24 06:55:22 PM
Not surprising that a libertarian is not a fan of democracy.

I use the sane test for Democracy that I do for and political movement: Are there any modern, fairly large size  Democratic countries that I wouldn't mind living in?
Answer: Yes, there are in fact many Democratic countries I think I would have a good life in.

Now as the same question to libertarians like Rand Paul: Are there any modern, large countries you wouldn't mind living in that are not Democracies?


Answer: Modern, large non-democracies are Hell-holes.Democracy is not perfect, but it beats the alternatives.
 
2013-06-24 07:26:14 PM

o5iiawah: Corvus: 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.

Not sure if I that jumbled mishmosh of words qualifies as English, but I'll take a stab...

You think libertarians only take that stance on Gay marriage and dont care about hetero marriage?   You've obviously never heard of the flat/fair tax movement which many libertarians support.  The entire idea of libertarianism is an ideology of "Leave me the fark alone and I'll leave you the fark alone" so I'm not sure where you find some deep rooted intolerance there.


Don't do it, don't do it, don't do it......
 
2013-06-24 07:30:29 PM

Flappyhead: o5iiawah: Corvus: 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.

Not sure if I that jumbled mishmosh of words qualifies as English, but I'll take a stab...

You think libertarians only take that stance on Gay marriage and dont care about hetero marriage?   You've obviously never heard of the flat/fair tax movement which many libertarians support.  The entire idea of libertarianism is an ideology of "Leave me the fark alone and I'll leave you the fark alone" so I'm not sure where you find some deep rooted intolerance there.

Don't do it, don't do it, don't do it......


Heh. I have a very simple modification that would make the flat tax perfectly fair:

The whole argument for flat tax/fair tax is that people pay 15% of their income, or whatever, right off the top.

Fine.

Here's how it works: 15% off the top of their gross income, no deductions. But that's *all* income, including capital gains, interest, etc.

And, here's the important part: corporations are people too. They pay 15% of their gross income - not profit - off the top. Fair's fair, I didn't get to deduct my living expenses and car note from the amount I owed on taxes, you don't get to either.
 
2013-06-24 07:35:53 PM

Lord Dimwit: Flappyhead: o5iiawah: Corvus: 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.

Not sure if I that jumbled mishmosh of words qualifies as English, but I'll take a stab...

You think libertarians only take that stance on Gay marriage and dont care about hetero marriage?   You've obviously never heard of the flat/fair tax movement which many libertarians support.  The entire idea of libertarianism is an ideology of "Leave me the fark alone and I'll leave you the fark alone" so I'm not sure where you find some deep rooted intolerance there.

Don't do it, don't do it, don't do it......

Heh. I have a very simple modification that would make the flat tax perfectly fair:

The whole argument for flat tax/fair tax is that people pay 15% of their income, or whatever, right off the top.

Fine.

Here's how it works: 15% off the top of their gross income, no deductions. But that's *all* income, including capital gains, interest, etc.

And, here's the important part: corporations are people too. They pay 15% of their gross income - not profit - off the top. Fair's fair, I didn't get to deduct my living expenses and car note from the amount I owed on taxes, you don't get to either.


I'm fairly certain we'd still come up short.
 
2013-06-24 07:46:48 PM

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

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.

As far as I can tell, the Jim Crow laws were only about Seperate But Equal.  So yes, he is blatantly contradicting himself here


I believe he is arguing that Federalism moves us more from a Republic to a Democracy.  Tyranny of the majority is the fear of a pure democracy and that erodes individual rights in favor of the majority.
 
2013-06-24 07:51:07 PM

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


Christ, you're an idiot.
 
2013-06-24 07:56:09 PM

poot_rootbeer: Thanks to the War on Drugs, blacks in many urban areas are very well armed today.

And that's why there's no safer or less racially charged place to be than Detroit, New Orleans, or Baltimore.


I know you're saying that sarcastically, but I feel more safe all around Baltimore than I ever felt living in New York.
 
2013-06-24 07:56:56 PM

keylock71: Heh...

Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground.

It is not light that we need, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake.

- Frederick Douglass

... and he was right.


I'm sure there's a song or quote out there about the stupidity of breaking up the plowshares and converting them to guns or swords but I'm too lazy to look it up.

That being said, it would be ingenuous to believe that Douglass felt that being in a constant state of revolution was a bad thing.

We need people who can act- not just "blow smoke" more comes to mind when I read this though as opposed to a call to revolution.
 
2013-06-24 08:06:36 PM

tbeatty: I believe he is arguing that Federalism moves us more from a Republic to a Democracy. Tyranny of the majority is the fear of a pure democracy and that erodes individual rights in favor of the majority.


That would be my assessment as well.
 
2013-06-24 08:12:27 PM

slayer199: tbeatty: I believe he is arguing that Federalism moves us more from a Republic to a Democracy. Tyranny of the majority is the fear of a pure democracy and that erodes individual rights in favor of the majority.

That would be my assessment as well.


well it's pretty simple then.Paul just explains that he didn't mean he wasn't a fan of Democracy, he instead meant something else.  Simple right?

/don't hold your breath.
 
2013-06-24 08:16:34 PM

skullkrusher: 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? ;)


It's not as obvious as you might think. My first body recovery when I was in Search & Rescue was of some dead dolt who thought it would be fun to explore an unsafe mine.
 
2013-06-24 08:21:04 PM

Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: 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? ;)

It's not as obvious as you might think. My first body recovery when I was in Search & Rescue was of some dead dolt who thought it would be fun to explore an unsafe mine.


that aint work. point stands. I just now got Bonnie's response and it was delicious. "Can nary"... gold
 
2013-06-24 08:29:33 PM

Lord Dimwit: Flappyhead: o5iiawah: Corvus: 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.

Not sure if I that jumbled mishmosh of words qualifies as English, but I'll take a stab...

You think libertarians only take that stance on Gay marriage and dont care about hetero marriage?   You've obviously never heard of the flat/fair tax movement which many libertarians support.  The entire idea of libertarianism is an ideology of "Leave me the fark alone and I'll leave you the fark alone" so I'm not sure where you find some deep rooted intolerance there.

Don't do it, don't do it, don't do it......

Heh. I have a very simple modification that would make the flat tax perfectly fair:

The whole argument for flat tax/fair tax is that people pay 15% of their income, or whatever, right off the top.

Fine.

Here's how it works: 15% off the top of their gross income, no deductions. But that's *all* income, including capital gains, interest, etc.

And, here's the important part: corporations are people too. They pay 15% of their gross income - not profit - off the top. Fair's fair, I didn't get to deduct my living expenses and car note from the amount I owed on taxes, you don't get to either.


Flat tax is unfair and here's the science as it were.  15% of a million dollars does not have as much pain as 15% of 20k.  Why? because that tank of gas is the same price for rich or poor.  I'd notice if I lost a 20% of my paycheck each week to keep my car on the road- probably wouldn't notice the expense if it were 5% or less.   If I'm barely keeping my head above water, paying an additional 15% would probably kill me.  If all I drank was water from a bottle, the 15% would probably be close to what I was already paying and go unnoticed.

You want equal- everyone gets a credit card with their income history that adjusts the price they pay for each purchase made accordingly.  At minimum, one will be able to buy "at cost".  As for the rich?  I'm looking forward to the rise of those micro breweries that result as they say "no more" to a twenty five dollar six pack of Pabst...

You still insist on flat tax?  Keep all food (excluding junk food) and- below a set income-- utilities, and shelter tax free.  Tax any motorized vehicle exceeding the number of licensed drivers per household heavily (an extra vehicle that is seldom used for work purposes is a luxury).  Tax larger vehicles a higher road tax excluding vehicles used for the transport of goods and multiple passengers.  Sorry Joe contractor- carrying around a 2x4 in your F250 won't qualify you for a tax break.

There are many ways of extracting taxes from the wealthy- just be prepared for a proportional bite out of your own wallet as well.
 
2013-06-24 08:44:29 PM

Aldon: slayer199: tbeatty: I believe he is arguing that Federalism moves us more from a Republic to a Democracy. Tyranny of the majority is the fear of a pure democracy and that erodes individual rights in favor of the majority.

That would be my assessment as well.

well it's pretty simple then.Paul just explains that he didn't mean he wasn't a fan of Democracy, he instead meant something else.  Simple right?

/don't hold your breath.


Well except that it took the Fed to finally remove Jim Crow.
 
2013-06-24 08:49:33 PM

MJMaloney187: That article was painful to read.

Rand Paul is the best politician to come along in my generation. I don't agree with all of his ideas, but he's a critical thinker and, I believe, an honest and moral man. We have three co-equal branches of government so Rand couldn't go running roughshod over existing bureaucracies.

He's brave for having said that to an all black audience. That's probably why most people cringe when he opens his pie hole - they cringe because they're scared on him.


Snert, let me laugh even harder.
 
2013-06-24 08:55:11 PM
Mississippi population:
white 59%
black 37%
Mississippi congressional representation:
five white dudes and Bennie Thompson

Alabama population:
white 72%
black 26%
Alabama congressional representation:
8 honkies and Terri Sewell

Georgia population:
white 60%
black 30%
Georga congressional representation:
12 white, 4 black

Arkansas population:
white 77%
black 15%
Arkansas congressional representation:
100% white

Tell me again about this "democracy"


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?

Ancient Athens was a democracy because some people could vote. As was the Holy Roman Empire. And modern Israel including the occupied territories.


Ishkur
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.

That's bullshiat. There were many black armed self-defense groups.


o5iiawah
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.

Until they do.


HighOnCraic
/I'll concede the point that using guns to defend your home from a night-time Klan raid is an effective plan; using guns to storm into the state legislatures and demand voting rights, not so much.King's tactic of non-violence into face of brutal retaliation shamed Congress into acting.

Congress has guns (via the police and military). It seems to me that most "non-violence" advocates really just demand that someone else do the violence for them.
 
2013-06-24 08:59:47 PM
o5iiawah

Tell me again how if price goes up number of units sold doesn't go down. That shiat was hilarious.
 
2013-06-24 09:00:34 PM

skullkrusher: Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: 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? ;)

It's not as obvious as you might think. My first body recovery when I was in Search & Rescue was of some dead dolt who thought it would be fun to explore an unsafe mine.

that aint work. point stands. I just now got Bonnie's response and it was delicious. "Can nary"... gold


No no, if there are fools who might like exploring unsafe mines, there are bound to be fools who would like working in one.

Anyway, there are no canaries in gold mines.
 
2013-06-24 09:00:58 PM

RanDomino: Mississippi population:
white 59%
black 37%
Mississippi congressional representation:
five white dudes and Bennie Thompson

Alabama population:
white 72%
black 26%
Alabama congressional representation:
8 honkies and Terri Sewell

Georgia population:
white 60%
black 30%
Georga congressional representation:
12 white, 4 black

Arkansas population:
white 77%
black 15%
Arkansas congressional representation:
100% white

Tell me again about this "democracy"


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?

Ancient Athens was a democracy because some people could vote. As was the Holy Roman Empire. And modern Israel including the occupied territories.


Ishkur
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.

That's bullshiat. There were many black armed self-defense groups.


o5iiawah
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.

Until they do.


HighOnCraic
/I'll concede the point that using guns to defend your home from a night-time Klan raid is an effective plan; using guns to storm into the state legislatures and demand voting rights, not so much.King's tactic of non-violence into face of brutal retaliation shamed Congress into acting.

Congress has guns (via the police and military). It seems to me that most "non-violence" advocates really just demand that someone else do the violence for them.


the kind where representatives aren't just assigned based on racial proportions, you farking race hustling jerk
 
2013-06-24 09:01:53 PM

Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: 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? ;)

It's not as obvious as you might think. My first body recovery when I was in Search & Rescue was of some dead dolt who thought it would be fun to explore an unsafe mine.

that aint work. point stands. I just now got Bonnie's response and it was delicious. "Can nary"... gold

No no, if there are fools who might like exploring unsafe mines, there are bound to be fools who would like working in one.

Anyway, there are no canaries in gold mines.


there are canaries in witness protection, however
 
2013-06-24 09:05:55 PM
skullkrusher
the kind where representatives aren't just assigned based on racial proportions, you farking race hustling jerk

Ooh, "assigned", yes. Because we wouldn't expect that a random sampling of the population would produce proportionate demographics.
 
2013-06-24 09:13:50 PM

RanDomino: HighOnCraic
/I'll concede the point that using guns to defend your home from a night-time Klan raid is an effective plan; using guns to storm into the state legislatures and demand voting rights, not so much.King's tactic of non-violence into face of brutal retaliation shamed Congress into acting.

Congress has guns (via the police and military). It seems to me that most "non-violence" advocates really just demand that someone else do the violence for them.


Maybe the non-violent types are smart enough to know that going toe to toe with the US military would be a disaster for them.
 
2013-06-24 09:16:56 PM

RanDomino: Mississippi population:

HighOnCraic
/I'll concede the point that using guns to defend your home from a night-time Klan raid is an effective plan; using guns to storm into the state legislatures and demand voting rights, not so much.King's tactic of non-violence into face of brutal retaliation shamed Congress into acting.

Congress has guns (via the police and military). It seems to me that most "non-violence" advocates really just demand that someone else do the violence for them.


How was passing the Civil Rights Act an act of violence?
 
2013-06-24 09:19:19 PM

RanDomino: skullkrusher
the kind where representatives aren't just assigned based on racial proportions, you farking race hustling jerk

Ooh, "assigned", yes. Because we wouldn't expect that a random sampling of the population would produce proportionate demographics.


only if we assume the "random sampling" of the population faps to race as much as you do and cannot consider voting for someone of another race. Do you think the country is over 50% black when looking at the results of the 2012 Presidential election?
 
2013-06-24 09:20:53 PM

RanDomino: That's bullshiat. There were many black armed self-defense groups.


And how many of them overturned Jim Crow through the use of their armaments?
 
2013-06-24 09:24:49 PM

RanDomino: Tell me again how if price goes up number of units sold doesn't go down. That shiat was hilarious.


Do you have a quote or something on that?  You were trying to say that price elasticity has something to do with businesses pricing according to taxation.  For the last time - a business will roll the cost of a tax into the price of the product if they feel the market will bear the increase. If the market wont bear the increase, the company will eat the tax and will have to either deal with less profit (and less expansion, R&D, hiring, etc) reduced costs, reduced employee hours or layoffs.


Lord Dimwit: And, here's the important part: corporations are people too. They pay 15% of their gross income - not profit - off the top. Fair's fair, I didn't get to deduct my living expenses and car note from the amount I owed on taxes, you don't get to either.


Thats fine.  We may find that as a society, we only have to pay 5% or 10% of our income in taxes once those evil 1% you've been wanting to stick it to pay theirs. I'll gladly do my part to help society so long as the common worker and the banker do the same.  Madison's "General Welfare" is that the government provided benefits for all and was paid for or contributed by all.

.
 
2013-06-24 09:26:07 PM

RanDomino: 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?

Ancient Athens was a democracy because some people could vote. As was the Holy Roman Empire. And modern Israel including the occupied territories.


How is choosing a really bad example of democracy (the South, which has gone from electing dozens of Democrats to Congress unopposed--prior to the 60s--to electing Republicans, to a lesser degree, unopposed) an intelligent way to criticize democracy?

That's like saying, "Star Trek sucks!" and only using episodes of "Voyager" as evidence.
 
2013-06-24 09:31:54 PM

GreatGlavinsGhost: Oh, and from the link:


Dude, I read the link. I liked it.

I'll be goddamned if I understand the point you were making. Why did you even feel the need to bring it up?
 
2013-06-24 09:33:17 PM

DamnYankees: 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.

This is not what he said. He didn't say "Democracy has vulnerabilities" or "democracy has weaknesses". That would be ok, because while it recognizes the issues in there, it still shows some awareness that every governmental system has some form of abuse possible, but democrac is a pretty good way to handle it.

But he didn't say that. He said he doesn't believe in democracy. That's because he's a Randian (pun not intended). He seems to fundamentally believe in the truth that there is a class of people, the Maker class, which is actually better, and better suited to govern. It's like an inverse Marxism.


Exactly.  The South's main tactics for maintaining segregation were attempts to thwart democracy through massive resistance against Federal interference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interposition#School_desegregation
 
2013-06-24 09:34:36 PM

Aldon: well it's pretty simple then.Paul just explains that he didn't mean he wasn't a fan of Democracy, he instead meant something else. Simple right?

/don't hold your breath.


No, he didn't mean anything else.  Paul leans libertarian (though he's still a Republican at his core), knowing that may shed some insight into to those of you that don't understand libertarian concepts.  Central to that is that rights of an individual > the power of the State.  The State exists to protect and defend those rights, it does NOT exist to usurp individual liberty.  The Constitution also states this rather implicitly in that the People have (natural) rights and grant the government power.  Not the other way around.  For this reason, the U.S. is NOT a democracy, it's a constitutionally-limited republic.

I'm also not a fan of pure democracy (aka direct democracy) because as John Adams and Alexis de Tocqueville warned, the power of the majority ends up taking precedence over the rights of the individual.  It's up to the citizenry to restrain government's natural inclination to obtain more power.  Seems rather prescient given the political environment today as both parties increase the size and power of the federal government at the expense of individual liberty.
 
2013-06-24 09:40:02 PM

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


I used to think that. But then I realized:

Democracy isn't four wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. It's one wolf and four sheep. Only the wolf has convinced two of the sheep that if they don't vote for mutton, they'll lost the opportunity to become wolves themselves.
 
2013-06-24 09:40:37 PM

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

I used to think that. But then I realized:

Democracy isn't four wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. It's one wolf and four sheep. Only the wolf has convinced two of the sheep that if they don't vote for mutton, they'll lose the opportunity to become wolves themselves.


FTFM
 
2013-06-24 09:41:22 PM

slayer199: knowing that may shed some insight into to those of you that don't understand libertarian concepts.


Actually, I've been waiting for some (non-troll) libertarian to "shed light" on the rather fatal criticisms leveled toward your ideology, namely:

1 Libertarianism is naive. It is based on the honor system, which in the business/political world, isn't.
2. Libertarians want to eliminate needed protections on the environment, and deregulate industry to allow them to practice whatever amoral policies they want. See: law based on the honor system
3. Without a strong central government, racism would thrive and without an enforceable rule of law corporatism would take over society.

Not that I expect you to address these issues. Just making you aware of them.
 
2013-06-24 09:42:14 PM

Ishkur: RanDomino: That's bullshiat. There were many black armed self-defense groups.

And how many of them overturned Jim Crow through the use of their armaments?


Alas
 
2013-06-24 09:43:35 PM

RanDomino: Mississippi population:
white 59%
black 37%
Mississippi congressional representation:
five white dudes and Bennie Thompson

Alabama population:
white 72%
black 26%
Alabama congressional representation:
8 honkies and Terri Sewell

Georgia population:
white 60%
black 30%
Georga congressional representation:
12 white, 4 black

Arkansas population:
white 77%
black 15%
Arkansas congressional representation:
100% white

Tell me again about this "democracy"


I wonder what Ron Paul's odds would be if Texas had proportional representation.
 
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