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 09:49:17 PM
HighOnCraic
How was passing the Civil Rights Act an act of violence?

Anything that has an implied "Or we'll shoot your ass" is an act of violence.


skullkrusher
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?

So you're saying white people get elected disproportionately... because they're more qualified?


o5iiawah
a business will roll the cost of a tax into the price of the product if they feel the market will bear the increase.

Causing customers to look for alternatives, and costing the company money.

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.

Which also costs the company money. So you agree your point was bullshiat. Excellent.


HighOnCraic
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?

Right, so my attempt to reinforce your point by using sarcasm did not succeed.


slayer199
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.

If there had been that kind of democracy in the US around the turn of the 19th century, the populace would have abolished the debts, which would have been bad only for the financial elite. The Republican system had no difficulty annihilating the rights of Indians and slaves, and, later, workers. Thank goodness that we protected the rights of the minority of the financial elite and industrialists, and all it cost was the rights of pretty much everyone else.
 
2013-06-24 09:54:19 PM
Ishkur
And how many of them overturned Jim Crow through the use of their armaments?

You said "You know why they weren't armed? ...because they were illiterate and uneducated." I'm not arguing if it was successful. Just pointing out that you're wrong, many were armed.
 
2013-06-24 09:54:47 PM

RanDomino: How was passing the Civil Rights Act an act of violence?

Anything that has an implied "Or we'll shoot your ass" is an act of violence.


The Feds were fairly reasonable in all the integration stand-offs where troops were sent in.

The South, on the other hand. . . .  Google the word "Bombingham."
 
2013-06-24 09:59:54 PM
HighOnCraic
The Feds were fairly reasonable in all the integration stand-offs where troops were sent in.

They would have used them if necessary to enforce the law. The plausible threat that they would use them was the only thing that compelled segregationists to stand down. That is violence. Not saying it's bad, of course, just saying "non-violence" is just a way for moralists to wash their hands.  (or fail! Usually they just fail.)
 
2013-06-24 10:02:17 PM
Who let the farkin' Freepers in here?
 
2013-06-24 10:07:31 PM

animal color: Who let the farkin' Freepers in here FREEPS OUT?


content.internetvideoarchive.com

DERP DERP HERP DERP
 
2013-06-24 10:13:33 PM

RanDomino: So you're saying white people get elected disproportionately... because they're more qualified?


unless you're gonna make an argument that all people of all races and demographics have equal access to education and opportunity, yeah, I'd say that on average white people are more qualified.
 
2013-06-24 11:08:24 PM

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


I have you farkied as "likes to threaten armed revolt," and you never disappoint.
 
2013-06-24 11:21:17 PM

slayer199: 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.


So in your world, there is only one type of Democracy (the direct democracy type)?

What can I say? I disagree. There are different forms and variants, all Democracies.  Including Democratic constitutionally-limited republics.
 
2013-06-24 11:29:42 PM

skullkrusher: RanDomino: So you're saying white people get elected disproportionately... because they're more qualified?

unless you're gonna make an argument that all people of all races and demographics have equal access to education and opportunity, yeah, I'd say that on average white people are more qualified.


Oo, this is how you troll! Subtle, accurate, and calculated to enrage; yet the discerning Farker can see exactly what you really mean on a second look. Let's see how many people take that second look.

There aren't canaries in the witness protection program; those are pigeons. The kind that perch on low backless chairs.
 
2013-06-24 11:30:58 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.


They don't have to take away education.  All they have to do is corrupt it. Leave the parts in that they like and change the rest.  Like Intelligent design.
 
2013-06-24 11:33:37 PM

ZombieApocalypseKitten: They don't have to take away education.  All they have to do is corrupt it. Leave the parts in that they like and change the rest.  Like Intelligent design.


Yeah but that would still definitely count as "taking away your access to higher education."
 
2013-06-24 11:40:03 PM

whidbey: 2. Libertarians want to eliminate needed protections on the environment,


Right - because politicians have never destroyed the environment before.  Go ask any native Floridian what they think of the Army Corps of engineers and their management of Florida's Ecosystem and natural waterways.

The tragedy of commons and inevitable rape of resources only comes with public management of environmental assets.  Once you divvy up land or beast into private shares, each actor has an incentive to find sustainable balance between production and consumption of resources.

RanDomino: Causing customers to look for alternatives, and costing the company money.


A company has no money that a customer hasn't first given to it in exchange for a product or service.  Are you really this stupid?

whidbey: 1 Libertarianism is naive. It is based on the honor system, which in the business/political world, isn't.


Oh look. you again.  Making statement about stuff you know nothing of.  There's no honor system in libertarianism.  Each man will generally leave his fellow man alone. Acknowledging that this isn't always going to be the case, man formed government as a way to protect property, natural rights and to enforce the terms of contracts and exchanges.

In fact, the very foundation of libertarianism is that men simply cannot be trusted, thus we need laws to protect the stuff we own.  No surprise. You're a moron who doens't know what you're talking about and calling me at troll doesn't make you any less of a moron either.

whidbey: and without an enforceable rule of law corporatism would take over society.


What can a corporation do to you besides offer you a product you are not forced to buy or a job you're not forced to take?  You want a massive central government to fight corporatism and in the end, you get more corporatism.  After all, why invest millions in R&D for your product when you can buy a few congressmen?  Why create products that the market wants to buy when you can sell them to the customer that can earn its income via the IRS?  Those of you who think the corporations and banks screwed people over look no further than the politicians that let them run wild, bailed them out and give them tax breaks to continue doing it.
 
2013-06-24 11:48:35 PM

HighOnCraic: 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?


I'll play devil's advocate here, though no doubt I'll get biatched at for "doing it wrong," but whatever.

Passing the CRA* meant the executive would ENFORCE the CRA, meaning violence if the law was not obeyed.  The problem is the difference between implicit violence and explicit violence.  Or Roosevelt's "big Stick" policy if you prefer.  And the truth is there is some argument for it, but it carries too many unfortunate implications for most righties to use it.

Labor unions, organizations and strikes, the working class getting educated enough to stand up and demand the aristocrats offer a fair deal was put down for a LONG time.  A lot of undeclared wars were fought when laborers would strike and Pinkertons would start shooting.  That all became a LOT harder after WWII, when America's fighting forces came back home and said (implicitly) "we are armed, organized, and blooded, you give us a bad deal and we'll give you a cloud of bullets."  They didn't NEED to prove it with actual violence to get the point across.

And that's the point, would a rebel insurgency of militia-types be more than a speed bump to a New American Dictatorship with support of the US military?  fark no, but it would BE that speed bump, and it's a farking hill to climb for Officer Corruption and all the murderous jackasses in blue.  Knowledge of violence that CAN be affected is the big stick behind the soft words of diplomacy, and even Gene Roddenberry's impossible dreamworld of the Pacifistic Utopia of Starfleet had big-ass guns for when speeches and peaceful diplomacy met an intractable asshole in space.

Why are the Irish white people instead of "dirty irish bastards" treated as bad as the negro?  Because they organized, they joined the police force, and they got into a position where you couldn't oppress them without facing threat of BEING oppressed.  You may note we don't have loud and defined moments when the Irish stopped being a mud-race, it just sorta happened.

Would arming up the southern blacks during Jim Crow have worked?  Not alone, but the Black Panthers were a lot bigger than history likes to pretend these days, and you can bet those motherfarkers were organized and armed.  Would MLK's message of peace and love and equality be as well-received without the alternative, angry black men fighting an insurgency, quietly seething just outside the spotlight?

What-ifs may be impossible to answer, but sometimes they're still important to ask.


*This acronym gets more use than it probably should
 
2013-06-24 11:56:13 PM
Holy shiat, Rand Paul says that he doesn't believe in mob-rule levels of democracy and everyone loses their minds.

You people do realize that this is the same view that lets people reject bullshiat like Prop 58, right?

/ in b4 who are "you people"?
 
2013-06-25 12:13:35 AM

TheBigJerk: Why are the Irish white people instead of "dirty irish bastards" treated as bad as the negro? Because they organized, they joined the police force, and they got into a position where you couldn't oppress them without facing threat of BEING oppressed. You may note we don't have loud and defined moments when the Irish stopped being a mud-race, it just sorta happened.


There's another reason the Irish, Italians, Poles and other "mud-people" who started off being pretty well oppressed when they landed here, and the blacks didn't, and it has to do with ease of assimilation. No matter how much "Americans" hated the micks, wops, pollacks and assorted other races when they got off the boat, once they found a way to fit in, they mostly LOOKED like everyone else. And no matter how much blacks otherwise fit in with the neighbors, they mostly didn't. As unpalatable as that might be, at the very base of racism is look-ism: Who looks different from "us." And Europeans mostly look the same, or at least tolerably so. And the ethnic minorities that look more like white Europeans are tolerated more easily in American society (Hispanics, Asians) than blacks are, everything else being equal.

(It's not unique to white Americans, btw; lookism is the same in Asia or the Pacific Islands or Africa--I just know about America, since I live here)

Fear of violence is important, as you say; but you're not giving enough weight to the degree that people will push back against a perceived outsider. There was less resistance than you might think to the Irish or Italians, no matter how much threat the Irish cops or Italian mob might have presented.
 
2013-06-25 12:21:36 AM
GO fark YOURSELF, KENTUCKY.


You incredible ignoramuses.
 
2013-06-25 12:51:03 AM

whidbey: 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?


I thought that Washington was supporting the idea of economic freedom, but no civil rights.

/Been reading a Du Bois reader.
 
2013-06-25 12:58:55 AM

Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: RanDomino: So you're saying white people get elected disproportionately... because they're more qualified?

unless you're gonna make an argument that all people of all races and demographics have equal access to education and opportunity, yeah, I'd say that on average white people are more qualified.

Oo, this is how you troll! Subtle, accurate, and calculated to enrage; yet the discerning Farker can see exactly what you really mean on a second look. Let's see how many people take that second look.

There aren't canaries in the witness protection program; those are pigeons. The kind that perch on low backless chairs.


That was particularly well crafted, if I do say so myself.
 
2013-06-25 01:11:25 AM

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.


Jim Crow was created when the vast majority of the population couldn't vote and individual rights were most certainly not applied equally.  That was the whole problem.
 
2013-06-25 01:16:14 AM

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.


Paul is a corporatist.  He's never been familiar with reality.
 
2013-06-25 01:49:20 AM

o5iiawah: 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.


That's not how businesses price their goods. Have you ever owned a business?

The price is set first, determined by manufacturing, shipping, marketing, distribution costs and consumer demand, with added profit. If the company beancounters have determined that $X is the price point by which they can move full inventory and stay solvent, then it stays at $X. The tax is set on top of that ($X + 7%). If taxes are raised, changed or removed, it doesn't change the price point. And your insistence that they do and yet you are unable to provide a single example in half a dozen threads over the past 2 years over this issue is what is so ludicrously wrong with your argument.

Once again: Companies calculate price points irrespective of what the actual tax is. Because they can't control the tax and they don't get to keep it -- it means nothing to them. They are only concerned with what they can keep, and they structure their prices very specifically so they can meet expenses and earn profit off every unit sold. That is how capitalism works.
 
2013-06-25 01:49:38 AM

Corvus: jigger: hubiestubert: In fairness, most Libertarians are NOT fans of democracy. They are fervent believers in a NeoFeudalism that will give them sway over their minions, with local strongmen with enough economic and military power to force them to capitulate to their will, much as they hope to subjugate those around them.

Subjugation and serfdom. It's what libertarians really want. You're about to blow open the whole conspiracy.

Libertarians (at least ones of today) believer property rights are the most sacrosanct right there is. That's what they say.


How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land ? This idea is strange to us.

If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water how can you buy them?
 
2013-06-25 01:52:41 AM

Gyrfalcon: (It's not unique to white Americans, btw; lookism is the same in Asia or the Pacific Islands or Africa--I just know about America, since I live here)


I had dual citizenship in Japan--since my mother was a citizen. I didn't keep it up, because no matter what, I would be a mixed blood in a nation that has a lot of racism. Coming out, I got a lot of my Dad's looks, and I would just be another gaijin amongst folks. My Nihongo is poor, at best, and despite being born in Okinawa, I would be just another foreigner in a land that puts foreigners into some odd categories--and few flattering. In honesty, looking far more like my Irish-German father, I would have had an easier time of it, than say my sister, who is Irish-German and Korean--Dad had a thing for smart native girls for awhile--and certainly better than if I were Korean-Japanese or Vietnamese-Japanese, because as much as Americans and Europeans get a load of odd looks and some interesting stereotypes, other Asians in Japan get just full on racist sh*t that is maybe shocking for the folks who don't realize how much my mother's homeland is homogeneous.

Even IF my Nihongo was perfect. Even if I kept my dual citizenship, I would have always been an outsider. America has its issues, and racism is certainly far from dead, but we do better than some in quashing that. We do worse than some to be sure, as well, but with assimilation comes realization that we're all in it together. Be we native born, be we immigrants, white, black, brown, red, yellow, and a lot of odd mixes and dabs of color in between. Irish, Scots, Africans of many nations and origins, Mexicans, Brazilians, French, Japanese, Chinese, there is a long line back for a good number of folks. Even those pesky Russian immigrants have made homes here, and made it their own. We pretty much all, with few exceptions of those natives we sort of pushed aside, came here from away. We're a nation of immigrants, and it's good to remember that. Some volunteered. Some were volunteered to be dumped upon our shores, to work off debts, for simple slavery, for more complicated slavery when a good many Chinese showed up, and a less than legal slavery when it comes to some folks from Eastern Europe recently. We are a nation of folks from away. Which is why we sort of cling to those tales of our nations of origin. Irish, French, English, Scots, Africans lost a lot of family history thanks to the conditions of their passage and treatment here, and some recent additions to the melting pot have still heavy ties to their old country, even if that passage here was generations ago.

Which is why, when folks invoke nativism here, I sort of cock my head a bit. Be they Texans or Mainers, because we're, most of us, from away. Even if you have smidge of native blood, we still have connections to other lands. Maybe not close, but even the folks whose families were here during the Revolution, were mostly from away. Doesn't keep us from being some racist and nationalist bastiches, but it's odd that a nation of immigrants sometimes has problems accepting new waves of folks might want to come here...
 
2013-06-25 01:53:42 AM

RanDomino: You said "You know why they weren't armed? ...because they were illiterate and uneducated." I'm not arguing if it was successful. Just pointing out that you're wrong, many were armed.


My original assertion is that education is a better path to liberty than firearms, and your exception only bolsters my claim.

So thank you for proving me right.
 
2013-06-25 02:06:01 AM
skullkrusher
unless you're gonna make an argument that all people of all races and demographics have equal access to education and opportunity, yeah, I'd say that on average white people are more qualified.

I'm just going to let this one speak for itself.


o5iiawah
The tragedy of commons and inevitable rape of resources only comes with public management of environmental assets. Once you divvy up land or beast into private shares, each actor has an incentive to find sustainable balance between production and consumption of resources.

As someone else said a few weeks ago, 'Come to upstate New York where the farmers have sold every tree they can on their property to buy meth.'

A company has no money that a customer hasn't first given to it in exchange for a product or service. Are you really this stupid?

"Causing the company to make less money". Is that better, since you are apparently an early 1990s text-based adventure game parser?

What can a corporation do to you besides offer you a product you are not forced to buy or a job you're not forced to take?

Beside hire thugs to smash the competition and intimidate workers? Which would, of course, never happen. Because reasons.


Ishkur
My original assertion is that education is a better path to liberty than firearms, and your exception only bolsters my claim.

As TheBigJerk said, nonviolence was not tested in a vacuum.
 
2013-06-25 02:26:40 AM

RanDomino: As TheBigJerk said, nonviolence was not tested in a vacuum.


but who's fault was that, really?
 
2013-06-25 02:29:11 AM
To be fair, I'm not a huge fan of Capitalism.  It got us $16,000,000,000,000 in debt.
 
2013-06-25 03:29:39 AM

o5iiawah: whidbey: 2. Libertarians want to eliminate needed protections on the environment,

Right - because politicians have never destroyed the environment before.  Go ask any native Floridian what they think of the Army Corps of engineers and their management of Florida's Ecosystem and natural waterways.


LOL never mind answering the criticism, LOOK AT WHAT "YOUR" PEOPLE DO.

Weak, dude.

The tragedy of commons and inevitable rape of resources only comes with public management of environmental assets.  Once you divvy up land or beast into private shares, each actor has an incentive to find sustainable balance between production and consumption of resources.

Another non-answer. I made the statement that without regulations, huge polluting corporations will do whatever the hell they want, and you answer with this? Not surprising. Not a real answer, though.

I really don't think you're capable of giving one.

whidbey: 1 Libertarianism is naive. It is based on the honor system, which in the business/political world, isn't.

Oh look. you again.  Making statement about stuff you know nothing of.  There's no honor system in libertarianism.  Each man will generally leave his fellow man alone. Acknowledging that this isn't always going to be the case, man formed government as a way to protect property, natural rights and to enforce the terms of contracts and exchanges.


Actually as far as environmental protection and human rights go, it really would depend on a honor system to enforce it, as polluters and bigots also would believe their property rights are being trampled on.

You have the expectation that people are just going to straighten up, fly right, and do the right thing. Well, even history from the past 50 years says otherwise, and it took government to intervene.

See this is the disconnect here: you envision few, if any government interventions, whereas any Googling of history indicates that we need government to intervene on the people's behalf. Over and over. What guarantee do you have that your "limited" government is going to be anywhere near as effective?

In fact, the very foundation of libertarianism is that men simply cannot be trusted, thus we need laws to protect the stuff we own.

As few laws as possible. And any laws which place human rights above "the stuff you own" are to be avoided.

 No surprise. You're a moron who doens't know what you're talking about and calling me at troll doesn't make you any less of a moron either.

Ah, personal attacks once again. That means I don't have to answer any of your other points as you have forfeited this discussion. Better luck next time.
 
2013-06-25 03:33:00 AM

o5iiawah:  No surprise. You're a moron who doens't know what you're talking about and calling me at troll doesn't make you any less of a moron either.

.


Amazing. How many times do I have to report this guy? I behaved civilly in this exchange.
 
2013-06-25 04:11:10 AM

RanDomino: skullkrusher
unless you're gonna make an argument that all people of all races and demographics have equal access to education and opportunity, yeah, I'd say that on average white people are more qualified.

I'm just going to let this one speak for itself.


Hook, line, sinker, and reel! And after I pointed it out!
 
2013-06-25 04:15:44 AM
i.qkme.me

"The Federalist Papers" Motherfarker, did you READ it???
 
2013-06-25 06:36:18 AM

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?


Right here. Everybody gather round. I found exactly what to dickslap the gun nuts with, right here.
 
2013-06-25 06:39:40 AM

Ishkur: o5iiawah: 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.

That's not how businesses price their goods. Have you ever owned a business?


I don't think he's ever even worked in one.
 
2013-06-25 06:44:21 AM

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.


Yeah, I mean Queen Elizabeth II is a monarch, and has no power to change any laws, or do anything political at all except to repeat verbatim what the PM tells her to, so he has way more power than a monarch.
 
2013-06-25 06:56:41 AM

whidbey: o5iiawah:  No surprise. You're a moron who doens't know what you're talking about and calling me at troll doesn't make you any less of a moron either.

.

Amazing. How many times do I have to report this guy? I behaved civilly in this exchange.


He probably finds being called "naive" FAR more insulting, since part of the libertarian ego foundation is being smarter than all the "sheeple."
 
2013-06-25 06:57:18 AM

clowncar on fire: 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.


Same here... Though, a call to revolution, doesn't always mean violence. Unfortunately those who hold power over others are often unlikely to give up that power without a struggle, and it's often a violent struggle. Personally, the Douglass quote seems to foretell the Civil Rights Movement of the mid-20th century, where more often than not, the violence was perpetrated by those who opposed change and wanted to keep their fellow Americans in a permanent state of second class citizenship because of their skin color.
 
2013-06-25 07:00:05 AM

TheBigJerk: whidbey: o5iiawah:  No surprise. You're a moron who doens't know what you're talking about and calling me at troll doesn't make you any less of a moron either.

.

Amazing. How many times do I have to report this guy? I behaved civilly in this exchange.

He probably finds being called "naive" FAR more insulting, since part of the libertarian ego foundation is being smarter than all the "sheeple."


Which is hilarious as Libertarianism is nothing by naive idealism... Like I said earlier, they remind me of Communists in the early 20th century. Without all the followers and ability to act, of course. : )
 
2013-06-25 07:56:13 AM
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.

 Jesus Christ, Rand, yer tap dancing all over the farkin' place.

Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this but what I think he's saying is the Civil Rights Act is in some way related to both no-smoking acts and the Americans With Disabilities Act. No-smoking acts are enacted on a mostly local level, and I generally agree it's unfortunate when they don't include an exemption for something like cigar bars or hookah bars where the owners are catering to a smoking clientele. The Americans With Disabilities Act is a federal act but in no way related to the Civil Rights Act necessarily, and about the only time where I have any sort of difference with it is if an owner buys an old property and then gets sued for not having retrofitting to include wheelchair accessibility (retrofitting should be tied to the property sale for commercial buildings.) Neither of these are tied to the Civil Rights Act, which is the law that keeps Ma and Pa from seating blah people at the diner because it offends their sensibilities.

Stick with being a (fake) eye doctor, Rand.
 
2013-06-25 08:00:14 AM
Neither of these are tied to the Civil Rights Act, which is the law that keeps Ma and Pa from  refusing to seat blah people at the diner because it offends their sensibilities.

missed my coffee this morning, heh.
 
2013-06-25 08:20:50 AM

Ishkur: If taxes are raised, changed or removed, it doesn't change the price point


I've provided dozens of answers that you dont want to hear, listen to or accept.  The sticker on the shelf may not change but this isn't the actual price that the consumer pays. If a county passes a referendum to change their sales tax from 5 to 7%, the MSRP of the product wont change but that isn't the price of the product.  The price is what the cashier asks you to pay at the register which has all the new taxes included.  Price point on the shelf is nothing more than a psychological trick to make us think we're paying $99.99 for something and when we get to the register, we figure taxes are a part of it and just fork over $106.50 or whatever state/local tax rate is levied

And gasoline taxes...ever notice the price on the sign is higher in counties that have added gasoline taxes for roads?  How can that be?  The shell Station 5 miles up the road prices gas at $3.49 and this one has it for $3.59

whidbey: LOL never mind answering the criticism, LOOK AT WHAT "YOUR" PEOPLE DO.

Weak, dude.


Weak?  You said we need a strong central government to manage environmental law and I provide an example of where government screwed it up.  Do we need to go tit for tat?

Actually as far as environmental protection and human rights go, it really would depend on a honor system to enforce it, as polluters and bigots also would believe their property rights are being trampled on.

This is why I call you a moron - because you will proudly make statement like this about how right you think you are.  A polluter so to speak has rights to his own private property but those rights stop once his pollution affects the property or health of another.  The exercising of your rights stops once you trample on the rights of someone else.  Kind of sad that this is 2nd-3rd grade level civics we're discussing here.  As far as bigots go, the free market provided for blacks long before government ever did.

You have the expectation that people are just going to straighten up, fly right, and do the right thing. Well, even history from the past 50 years says otherwise, and it took government to intervene.

No, I have the expectation that people are going to do the right thing, but that we ordain a government to settle controversies and protect people who are having their rights or property violated by those who choose not to.  This is maybe the 3rd or 4th time this thread I've said something to this effect and that you dont understand it is pretty pathetic.

RanDomino: Beside hire thugs to smash the competition and intimidate workers? Which would, of course, never happen. Because reasons.


Any smashing of competition would be a breach of that law and that is why we have police/courts to settle it.  Its no surprise though that once government gets into bed with business that smashings then become legal.  See, government has an exclusive monopoly of force.
 
2013-06-25 09:11:02 AM
You know, it's fine and dandy of him to say something like that.

But if he's not a fan of it, what's his solution?  Benevolent dictatorship?  Rule of the minority?

There are things we can do (which I don't think he's proposing) to improve our representative democracy.  One of them is to have instant runoff elections. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting">http://en.wikiped ia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

It does away with (or at least limits the power of) the two-party system.  When you vote you rank the candidates in the order you like.  If no one candidate has a majority of the votes, then the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated then those votes are distributed based on the voters' second choices.  This repeats until you have a victor. 

This way you can vote for the candidate you want and not be throwing your vote away.  Maybe you wanted Kucinich but you voted for Obama because Kucinich didn't have a shot in hell.  This way you could put Kucinich as your first choice and Obama as your second choice and if there's no clear winner and Kucinich is in last place, your vote goes to Obama.
 
2013-06-25 10:11:32 AM
o5iiawah (farkied: Right wing wharrgarbler with a wharrgarbl name): The tragedy of commons and inevitable rape of resources only comes with public management of environmental assets. Once you divvy up land or beast into private shares, each actor has an incentive to find sustainable balance between production and consumption of resources.

Welcome to Aynrandistan.  There will be a $3 per minute charge to breathe our fresh, clean, smog-free Bank of America Air®.

/Go on, pollute the air all you want.  Just don't let it drift off the premises of your factory.
 
2013-06-25 10:32:59 AM

Gyrfalcon: RanDomino: skullkrusher
unless you're gonna make an argument that all people of all races and demographics have equal access to education and opportunity, yeah, I'd say that on average white people are more qualified.

I'm just going to let this one speak for itself.

Hook, line, sinker, and reel! And after I pointed it out!


"Subtle, accurate, and calculated to enrage; yet the discerning Farker can see exactly what you really mean on a second look "

I think I know why he was upset by it
 
2013-06-25 10:33:47 AM

RanDomino: skullkrusher
unless you're gonna make an argument that all people of all races and demographics have equal access to education and opportunity, yeah, I'd say that on average white people are more qualified.

I'm just going to let this one speak for itself.


o5iiawah
The tragedy of commons and inevitable rape of resources only comes with public management of environmental assets. Once you divvy up land or beast into private shares, each actor has an incentive to find sustainable balance between production and consumption of resources.

As someone else said a few weeks ago, 'Come to upstate New York where the farmers have sold every tree they can on their property to buy meth.'

A company has no money that a customer hasn't first given to it in exchange for a product or service. Are you really this stupid?

"Causing the company to make less money". Is that better, since you are apparently an early 1990s text-based adventure game parser?

What can a corporation do to you besides offer you a product you are not forced to buy or a job you're not forced to take?

Beside hire thugs to smash the competition and intimidate workers? Which would, of course, never happen. Because reasons.


Ishkur
My original assertion is that education is a better path to liberty than firearms, and your exception only bolsters my claim.

As TheBigJerk said, nonviolence was not tested in a vacuum.


you're not even sure why you're mad anymore. You're just mad that some capitalist pig dog scum said something.
 
2013-06-25 10:39:35 AM

o5iiawah: I've provided dozens of answers that you dont want to hear, listen to or accept. The sticker on the shelf may not change but this isn't the actual price that the consumer pays. If a county passes a referendum to change their sales tax from 5 to 7%, the MSRP of the product wont change but that isn't the price of the product. The price is what the cashier asks you to pay at the register which has all the new taxes included. Price point on the shelf is nothing more than a psychological trick to make us think we're paying $99.99 for something and when we get to the register, we figure taxes are a part of it and just fork over $106.50 or whatever state/local tax rate is levied


This is all true, but its not your god damn argument. Why is this so hard for you?

Your argument was "Often times, if a tax burden is lifted, a company will cut prices"

I asked you to give me one example and you can't in thirteen months of arguing about it. And pursuant with our original discussion, I'm talking about a company literally dropping the MSRP directly because a tax burden is lifted, I guess out of the goodness of their hearts or something. And I was talking about anything from corporate taxes to property taxes, manufacturing taxes, shipping/trucking taxes, gas taxes, etc. whatever enables the company to move product easier and cheaper. Not farking sales taxes.

For some blockheaded reason you keep returning to the sales tax losing gambit which is not what your argument should be because it's wrong for one thing, and we were talking about corporate taxes in the original thread before you made that stupid quote. And you've been stuck on sales taxes and other tangential nonsense ever since.

Seriously, just get your head out of the stupid sales taxes sub-argument because its not germaine to what you were trying to prove.

I just don't know why you are incapable of understanding this.
 
2013-06-25 11:44:45 AM
Gyrfalcon
Hook, line, sinker, and reel! And after I pointed it out!

Like I said, you can think whatever you like about that one.


thamike
Right here. Everybody gather round. I found exactly what to dickslap the gun nuts with, right here.

Go try nonviolence in a vacuum with absolutely no one doing the opposite strategy, and tell me how it works out. Spoiler: You will be ignored and/or beaten and arrested just for lulz. Violence alone sometimes doesn't work, sometimes does. Same for nonviolence.


o5iiawah
Any smashing of competition would be a breach of that law and that is why we have police/courts to settle it. Its no surprise though that once government gets into bed with business that smashings then become legal. See, government has an exclusive monopoly of force.

Okay, so if there's no government at all, then capitalists hire thugs to take control; but if there is a government, then capitalists take control of the government?
 
2013-06-25 12:08:06 PM

RanDomino: Gyrfalcon
Hook, line, sinker, and reel! And after I pointed it out!

Like I said, you can think whatever you like about that one.


why don't you tell us what you thought about that one?
 
2013-06-25 01:37:52 PM

o5iiawah: This is why I call you a moron -


Actually, personal attacks mean you don't have an argument. and you forfeit whatever point you were making.
 
2013-06-25 01:46:42 PM

RanDomino: Right, so my attempt to reinforce your point by using sarcasm did not succeed.


My meter may need adjusting, but I was still referring to RAND PAUL's critique, not your sarcastic comment.
 
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