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.

(WBUR Boston)   RAND PAUL: "The Economist is attacking me because they hate Libertarians"   (onpoint.wbur.org) divider line 155
    More: Unlikely, Ron Paul, Republican establishment, David Boaz, Mitch McConnell, swing voters, fiscally conservative, House Republicans, Newt Gingrich  
•       •       •

1386 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Aug 2013 at 1:02 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



155 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-06 12:13:20 PM
If they hated libertarians, then why would they be attacking you, Senator Paul?
 
2013-08-06 12:37:26 PM
How are being anti-abortion and anti-marriage equality libertarian positions?
 
2013-08-06 12:42:10 PM
This interview was astonishing. Paul carries the torch of right wing victimhood to new and heretofore uncharted territories.

I had no idea he was so thin skinned. If he is really planning to run for president, he had better come up with some answers about the crazy racist lunatic he worked with until about two weeks ago.

Clutching his pearls in outrage at the suggestion he should have to acknowledge his association with a white supremacist isn't going to fly in the big leagues.
 
2013-08-06 12:48:32 PM

Aarontology: If they hated libertarians, then why would they be attacking you, Senator Paul?


This

/Fascist, maybe
 
2013-08-06 12:55:45 PM
Oooh, look at ME! I read The Economist!

What do you read? Time? Newsweek? Those are for people who can't handle a real news magazine like the one I read. That's because you're not as smart or sophisticated as me.

On weekends, I like to sit out on my porch in my wicker chair with my bifocals and my subscription copy of The Economist. Then, when I go to a professor's wine-and-cheese party later that night, I can casually mention all the fancy stuff I read about NASA and Venezuela and Gen. Pervez Musharraf in my fancy magazine and impress everybody.

Question: Do you think I'm smarter than everyone else because I read The Economist, or do I read The Economist because I'm smarter than everyone else? Now, there's a conundrum! I should mail that one in to The Economist and see what they think!

I say, old chap, here comes Lord Smartingford of Braintonshire! Shall we dine upon a nice cup of tea, then? We can discuss the economy, and the global situ-AYYY-tion, and ever so many other matters! I am so very versed in such matters, reading as do I The Economist, just as soon as the postman delivers it by the estate, don't you know. I find that only the right cracking coverage of The E-CON-omist keeps me jolly-well informed and all that, wouldn't you agree? Mmm, yes, I did think you would!
 
2013-08-06 01:03:17 PM
He misspelled "dumbasses"
 
2013-08-06 01:03:54 PM

vernonFL: Oooh, look at ME! I read The Economist!

What do you read? Time? Newsweek? Those are for people who can't handle a real news magazine like the one I read. That's because you're not as smart or sophisticated as me.

On weekends, I like to sit out on my porch in my wicker chair with my bifocals and my subscription copy of The Economist. Then, when I go to a professor's wine-and-cheese party later that night, I can casually mention all the fancy stuff I read about NASA and Venezuela and Gen. Pervez Musharraf in my fancy magazine and impress everybody.

Question: Do you think I'm smarter than everyone else because I read The Economist, or do I read The Economist because I'm smarter than everyone else? Now, there's a conundrum! I should mail that one in to The Economist and see what they think!

I say, old chap, here comes Lord Smartingford of Braintonshire! Shall we dine upon a nice cup of tea, then? We can discuss the economy, and the global situ-AYYY-tion, and ever so many other matters! I am so very versed in such matters, reading as do I The Economist, just as soon as the postman delivers it by the estate, don't you know. I find that only the right cracking coverage of The E-CON-omist keeps me jolly-well informed and all that, wouldn't you agree? Mmm, yes, I did think you would!


Thems some east coast liberal unamerican elitist words you got there, boy.
 
2013-08-06 01:04:36 PM
I was listening to On Point this morning, the interview got good when he starting flipping out over the "stop caring about what a staffer and biographer wrote, damnit!" moment.

good times
 
2013-08-06 01:04:54 PM
They're not attacking you because you're libertarian Senator.  They're attacking you because you're a hypocritical POS.
 
2013-08-06 01:05:00 PM
He also learned how to build his car from Popular Mechanics.
 
2013-08-06 01:05:11 PM

vernonFL: Oooh, look at ME! I read The Economist!

What do you read? Time? Newsweek? Those are for people who can't handle a real news magazine like the one I read. That's because you're not as smart or sophisticated as me.

On weekends, I like to sit out on my porch in my wicker chair with my bifocals and my subscription copy of The Economist. Then, when I go to a professor's wine-and-cheese party later that night, I can casually mention all the fancy stuff I read about NASA and Venezuela and Gen. Pervez Musharraf in my fancy magazine and impress everybody.

Question: Do you think I'm smarter than everyone else because I read The Economist, or do I read The Economist because I'm smarter than everyone else? Now, there's a conundrum! I should mail that one in to The Economist and see what they think!

I say, old chap, here comes Lord Smartingford of Braintonshire! Shall we dine upon a nice cup of tea, then? We can discuss the economy, and the global situ-AYYY-tion, and ever so many other matters! I am so very versed in such matters, reading as do I The Economist, just as soon as the postman delivers it by the estate, don't you know. I find that only the right cracking coverage of The E-CON-omist keeps me jolly-well informed and all that, wouldn't you agree? Mmm, yes, I did think you would!


I don't know why, but I totally read that in Stephen Colbert's voice.
 
2013-08-06 01:06:03 PM
Nearly done in one, finished off for good in two.
 
2013-08-06 01:06:24 PM
It's impossible to hate someone for being a colossal douchebag.  No, he can only be hated because other people are scared of freedom.
 
2013-08-06 01:07:13 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: He misspelled "dumbasses"


According to the OED, libertarian is an acceptable alternative spelling.
 
2013-08-06 01:09:21 PM

gilgigamesh: I had no idea he was so thin skinned


Are you kidding?  He was actually mad at the libs for making him buy a bad toilet.  The man can be a victim over anything.
 
2013-08-06 01:09:23 PM
'tis true, The Economist is left-leaning pro-Keynesian magazine.
 
2013-08-06 01:10:12 PM
RAND PAUL's attempts to communicate outside of his own fan club have been incredibly inept so far.  I mean, some of the best unintentional political lulz in a long time came from his just incredibly dumb speech he gave at Howard.

I think in the end he is unelectable for the same reason Newt Gingrich is: he's too convinced of his own brilliant political mind, which often leads him to say very dumb things.
 
2013-08-06 01:11:42 PM

vernonFL: Oooh, look at ME! I read The Economist!

What do you read? Time? Newsweek? Those are for people who can't handle a real news magazine like the one I read. That's because you're not as smart or sophisticated as me.

On weekends, I like to sit out on my porch in my wicker chair with my bifocals and my subscription copy of The Economist. Then, when I go to a professor's wine-and-cheese party later that night, I can casually mention all the fancy stuff I read about NASA and Venezuela and Gen. Pervez Musharraf in my fancy magazine and impress everybody.

Question: Do you think I'm smarter than everyone else because I read The Economist, or do I read The Economist because I'm smarter than everyone else? Now, there's a conundrum! I should mail that one in to The Economist and see what they think!

I say, old chap, here comes Lord Smartingford of Braintonshire! Shall we dine upon a nice cup of tea, then? We can discuss the economy, and the global situ-AYYY-tion, and ever so many other matters! I am so very versed in such matters, reading as do I The Economist, just as soon as the postman delivers it by the estate, don't you know. I find that only the right cracking coverage of The E-CON-omist keeps me jolly-well informed and all that, wouldn't you agree? Mmm, yes, I did think you would!


Smart people read the LRB. It's published fortnightly, so you know it's good.
 
2013-08-06 01:12:20 PM
I haven't read The Economist in a while. Not since I read up on enough economics to realize it's all built on postdictive model building that lacks a cynical touch about other people looking at the model and finding ways to game it.

TuteTibiImperes: How are being anti-abortion and anti-marriage equality libertarian positions?


From what I've seen, it looks like the Paulist libertarians are advocating that the Federal government drop it's ability to regulate such things in favor of state's rights. That is, the state's right to regulate things in a manner that certainly isn't small government or libertarian.

Harry Browne would smack the shiat out of the "libertarians" floating about right now. But Libertarians aren't libertarians, so one is defined and the other self defined.
 
2013-08-06 01:13:31 PM
The funny thing is the Randroid should LOVE the Economist. Every issue talks about how private anything is automatically better and how negative externalities never existed. They're all over giving crap back to the states because states are easier to bribe and control than a unified federal power.

/Got a one year subscription as part of a bank reward points thing
//Still overpaid
 
2013-08-06 01:13:36 PM
"The Economist is attacking me because they hate Libertarians"
//because they have no tolerance for groups who oversimplify economics or invent new math to support their positions.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-06 01:16:01 PM
he's a corporate anarchist.

words have meanings, douche.
 
2013-08-06 01:16:17 PM

wildcardjack: I haven't read The Economist in a while. Not since I read up on enough economics to realize it's all built on postdictive model building that lacks a cynical touch about other people looking at the model and finding ways to game it.

TuteTibiImperes: How are being anti-abortion and anti-marriage equality libertarian positions?

From what I've seen, it looks like the Paulist libertarians are advocating that the Federal government drop it's ability to regulate such things in favor of state's rights. That is, the state's right to regulate things in a manner that certainly isn't small government or libertarian.

Harry Browne would smack the shiat out of the "libertarians" floating about right now. But Libertarians aren't libertarians, so one is defined and the other self defined.




Well, take RAND PAUL's much derided comment about how he wouldn't mind local police using a drone to blow away someone who just robbed a liquor store. Coming so close on the heels of his filibuster of the Obama administration using drones, people saw that as hypocrisy, but it's not. RAND PAUL is just against the federal government using drones. If a state or local government wants to use then to blow away jaywalkers, that's fine with him.

State governments would be far more tyrannical than RAND PAUL claims the federal government is if he got his way.
 
2013-08-06 01:22:09 PM

TuteTibiImperes: How are being anti-abortion and anti-marriage equality libertarian positions?


He reminds me of Andrew Ryan from Bioshock.  He's all about libertarian ideals and John Galt right up until they don't benefit him and/or they allow other people to do things he disapproves of.

He is a petulant, hypocritical man-child with a poor grasp of causality and no personal grace or class, winning or losing.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-06 01:23:26 PM

jake_lex: Well, take RAND PAUL's much derided comment about how he wouldn't mind local police using a drone to blow away someone who just robbed a liquor store. Coming so close on the heels of his filibuster of the Obama administration using drones, people saw that as hypocrisy, but it's not. RAND PAUL is just against the federal government using drones. If a state or local government wants to use then to blow away jaywalkers, that's fine with him.


Or corporations.  He's fine with corporations doing whatever the fark they want with absolutely no law or regulation.

That's why I call his ilk corporate anarchists.
 
2013-08-06 01:24:14 PM

monoski: because they have no tolerance for groups who oversimplify economics or invent new math to support their positions.


You're thinking of the other Paul -- Paul Ryan.  Rand Paul doesn't have enough brain cells to even start talking about math.
 
2013-08-06 01:25:20 PM
BUT IF GROG HAS SURPLUS COCANUT ON HIS ISLAND, HE CAN TRADE FOR BANANANANAS FROM DOFR'S ISLAND.

FIGHT AGAINST BIG CAVE!!
 
2013-08-06 01:26:53 PM

Aarontology: If they hated libertarians, then why would they be attacking you, Senator Paul?


Done in one.
 
2013-08-06 01:27:36 PM
img197.imageshack.us
 
2013-08-06 01:28:17 PM
Are there any conservatives in Congress anymore who aren't whiny little babies laboring under the false idea that they're perpetually victimized? Your average kindergartner is more mature and less blubbery than your typical conservative these days.
 
2013-08-06 01:32:21 PM

skozlaw: Are there any conservatives in Congress anymore who aren't whiny little babies laboring under the false idea that they're perpetually victimized? Your average kindergartner is more mature and less blubbery than your typical conservative these days.


I'm sure there are some - but they know if they open their mouths the Koch bros and Tea Party will declare a fatwa against them and they'll get primaried.
 
2013-08-06 01:32:50 PM

somedude210: I was listening to On Point this morning, the interview got good when he starting flipping out over the "stop caring about what a staffer and biographer wrote, damnit!" moment.

good times


YES.  It was fabulous.  The interview seemed to be going ok for him but then he lost his shiat & exposed himself as the spoiled racist crybaby douche that he truly is.  I hope his Democratic opponent uses a clip of that in ads.
 
2013-08-06 01:32:55 PM

wildcardjack: From what I've seen, it looks like the Paulist libertarians are advocating that the Federal government drop it's ability to regulate such things in favor of state's rights. That is, the state's right to regulate things in a manner that certainly isn't small government or libertarian.


But, if you look at them as 'corporatists' instead of 'libertarians', the neo-confederism makes complete sense.  Big companies largely operate above the fray of states and are more and more flexible every year.  But, they can play states against one another for tax break, handout, economic development money, state-paid training programs, all sorts of other goodies.  And, in the name of "laboratories of democracy", the states will race each other to the bottom.
 
2013-08-06 01:33:34 PM
http://www.lp.org/platform
Libertarian party platform.

/A real Libertarian does not allow ownership of other people and their bodies.
 
2013-08-06 01:34:39 PM
No, they are against crazy people who can't accept reality, not against Lib....wait a minute...
 
2013-08-06 01:34:48 PM

vernonFL: Oooh, look at ME! I read The Economist!


Alright, vernonFL, its been a long time coming, but you finally won Green 3 status.
 
2013-08-06 01:39:37 PM

MindStalker: vernonFL: Oooh, look at ME! I read The Economist!

Alright, vernonFL, its been a long time coming, but you finally won Green 3 status.


*ahem*  Not to detract from vernonFL's many good qualities, but...

http://www.theonion.com/articles/according-to-the-economist-nasa-is- an -industrial-s,11532/?ref=auto
 
2013-08-06 01:41:36 PM

Arkanaut: monoski: because they have no tolerance for groups who oversimplify economics or invent new math to support their positions.

You're thinking of the other Paul -- Paul Ryan.  Rand Paul doesn't have enough brain cells to even start talking about math.


I wish this country would stop electing people because their daddy got elected to something
 
2013-08-06 01:42:40 PM
It's the standard PAULite response to criticism. If you disagree or challenge them in any way, you must be a statist and approve of the government stealing money, the drug war, your mother's rape, and the feeding of Christian babies to rabid spiders.
 
2013-08-06 01:46:03 PM

gilgigamesh: vernonFL: Oooh, look at ME! I read The Economist!

What do you read? Time? Newsweek? Those are for people who can't handle a real news magazine like the one I read. That's because you're not as smart or sophisticated as me.

On weekends, I like to sit out on my porch in my wicker chair with my bifocals and my subscription copy of The Economist. Then, when I go to a professor's wine-and-cheese party later that night, I can casually mention all the fancy stuff I read about NASA and Venezuela and Gen. Pervez Musharraf in my fancy magazine and impress everybody.

Question: Do you think I'm smarter than everyone else because I read The Economist, or do I read The Economist because I'm smarter than everyone else? Now, there's a conundrum! I should mail that one in to The Economist and see what they think!

I say, old chap, here comes Lord Smartingford of Braintonshire! Shall we dine upon a nice cup of tea, then? We can discuss the economy, and the global situ-AYYY-tion, and ever so many other matters! I am so very versed in such matters, reading as do I The Economist, just as soon as the postman delivers it by the estate, don't you know. I find that only the right cracking coverage of The E-CON-omist keeps me jolly-well informed and all that, wouldn't you agree? Mmm, yes, I did think you would!

I don't know why, but I totally read that in Stephen Colbert's voice.


When I hit "situ-AYYY-tion" I suddenly heard Motley Crue.  Same old Situation was in my exercise play list last night.

/No, it doesn't take me 26 minutes to get to the gym - more like 26 seconds to walk downstairs.
 
2013-08-06 01:47:35 PM
I can't find it now, but there was a quote from Ron Paul questioning the reality of his son being a Libertarian.

Throwing out the pretend reality that corporate power is just as bad as government power, he would be a standard-bearer Republican if it wasn't for the last five years of the Tea party shifting Republicans to the right.

/I still find it ironic that it is normal for a Libertarian to be anti-gay rights, anti-drug legalization (just marijuana does not count anymore) and anti-abortion.
 
2013-08-06 01:50:01 PM

skozlaw: Are there any conservatives in Congress anymore who aren't whiny little babies laboring under the false idea that they're perpetually victimized? Your average kindergartner is more mature and less blubbery than your typical conservative these days.


Yes, they are in the Democratic Party, doing quite well.  In fact, they represent a majority of the party these days.
 
2013-08-06 01:52:52 PM

vernonFL: Oooh, look at ME! I read The Economist!

What do you read? Time? Newsweek? Those are for people who can't handle a real news magazine like the one I read. That's because you're not as smart or sophisticated as me.

On weekends, I like to sit out on my porch in my wicker chair with my bifocals and my subscription copy of The Economist. Then, when I go to a professor's wine-and-cheese party later that night, I can casually mention all the fancy stuff I read about NASA and Venezuela and Gen. Pervez Musharraf in my fancy magazine and impress everybody.

Question: Do you think I'm smarter than everyone else because I read The Economist, or do I read The Economist because I'm smarter than everyone else? Now, there's a conundrum! I should mail that one in to The Economist and see what they think!

I say, old chap, here comes Lord Smartingford of Braintonshire! Shall we dine upon a nice cup of tea, then? We can discuss the economy, and the global situ-AYYY-tion, and ever so many other matters! I am so very versed in such matters, reading as do I The Economist, just as soon as the postman delivers it by the estate, don't you know. I find that only the right cracking coverage of The E-CON-omist keeps me jolly-well informed and all that, wouldn't you agree? Mmm, yes, I did think you would!


upload.wikimedia.org

Unimpressed by the number of magazines you read.
 
2013-08-06 01:53:00 PM

Raharu: [img197.imageshack.us image 650x976]


Libertarianism: internally consistent, externally retarded.
 
2013-08-06 01:53:51 PM
I believe it.  After all, there are no other reasons to attack Rand Paul.

*snort*
 
2013-08-06 01:54:16 PM

Parthenogenetic: MindStalker: vernonFL: Oooh, look at ME! I read The Economist!

Alright, vernonFL, its been a long time coming, but you finally won Green 3 status.

*ahem*  Not to detract from vernonFL's many good qualities, but...

http://www.theonion.com/articles/according-to-the-economist-nasa-is- an -industrial-s,11532/?ref=auto


Damnit, and I see he's not in Florida anymore.  vernon, I'll have to claim that beer sometime.
 
2013-08-06 01:54:17 PM
They're attacking pants on head retarded economic policy. One might think, because it's The Economist. Whether or not you are Libertarian, and whatever flavor of Libertarian you are, matters less than the quality of the stoopid you spout.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-06 01:55:01 PM

ikanreed: Raharu: [img197.imageshack.us image 650x976]

Libertarianism: internally consistent, externally retarded.


The Rand Paul Libertarianism isn't consistent at all.  That's the problem.  Rand Paul Libertarianism is more like "corporate person good, real person bad."
 
2013-08-06 01:56:44 PM

TuteTibiImperes: How are being anti-abortion and anti-marriage equality libertarian positions?


Because Jesus.
 
2013-08-06 01:56:44 PM
Today's Libertarians....

1-Leave me alone...unless I'm in trouble or pregnant.

2-Let the corporations run EVERYTHING!

3-Legal weed.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-06 01:59:38 PM

zappaisfrank: Today's Libertarians....


Lets correct his...

1-Leave me alone

1.5 - The gov't can screw with anyone that does something I don't like or hurts me.
 
2-Let the corporations run EVERYTHING!

 
3-Keep weed illegal because Eli Lilly and Co. and Pfizer .


www.jasonfarrisawesome.com

That's better.
 
2013-08-06 02:00:11 PM
Anyone have a link to a transcript?
I'm torpid and lazy from lunch.
 
2013-08-06 02:00:50 PM

gilgigamesh: I say, old chap, here comes Lord Smartingford of Braintonshire! Shall we dine upon a nice cup of tea, then? We can discuss the economy, and the global situ-AYYY-tion, and ever so many other matters! I am so very versed in such matters, reading as do I The Economist, just as soon as the postman delivers it by the estate, don't you know. I find that only the right cracking coverage of The E-CON-omist keeps me jolly-well informed and all that, wouldn't you agree? Mmm, yes, I did think you would!

I don't know why, but I totally read that in Stephen Colbert's voice.


I read it in the voice of "Pops" from the Regular Show.

fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net
 
2013-08-06 02:02:04 PM

Aarontology: If they hated libertarians, then why would they be attacking you, Senator Paul?


When libertarians attack him, "I'm not a libertarian. Don't hang that label on me."

When non-libertarians attack him, "You just hate libertarians."
 
2013-08-06 02:03:33 PM

d23: ikanreed: Raharu: [img197.imageshack.us image 650x976]

Libertarianism: internally consistent, externally retarded.

The Rand Paul Libertarianism isn't consistent at all.  That's the problem.  Rand Paul Libertarianism is more like "corporate person good, real person bad."


Taken to it's logical conclusion his policy is that 'Money buys your rights'.  It's about disenfranchising those without so that the wealthy can accumulate more power without the have-nots having an effective means to use government to counter it.

Another Farker turned me onto this piece.  If you didn't know it was written over one hundred years ago, you could swear it was written about today's political and social climate.
 
2013-08-06 02:03:53 PM

d23: he's a corporate anarchist.

words have meanings, douche.


Yep, even the contradiction in terms above, sovereign citizen.
 
2013-08-06 02:06:52 PM

zappaisfrank: Today's Libertarians....

1-Leave me alone...unless I'm in trouble or pregnant.

2-Let the corporations run EVERYTHING!

3-Legal weed.


From a different article:


Back in November, Paul outlined similar views, explaining how he is personally against marijuana use but sees states as the right place for decisions to be made.
"States should be allowed to make a lot of these decisions," Paul said. "I want things to be decided more at a local basis, with more compassion. I think it would make us as Republicans different."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/24/rand-paul-marijuana_n_29453 07 .html

/And if a state decides to be somewhat less than compassionate, the Federal government should leave them alone.
//Nothing bad has ever happened when states were given the right to decide how compassionate they could be toward their citizens without interference from the mean old Federal government. . .
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-06 02:07:30 PM

jigger: d23: he's a corporate anarchist.

words have meanings, douche.

Yep, even the contradiction in terms above, sovereign citizen.


how so exactly?  He wants the corporation to have the governmental power in the U.S.  He wants to corporation to have no regulations at all and do what ever the hell they want.  He, himself doesn't get the idea that the corporation needs to government to exist.

So you can shove your self righteousness.
 
2013-08-06 02:10:10 PM

TuteTibiImperes: d23: ikanreed: Raharu: [img197.imageshack.us image 650x976]

Libertarianism: internally consistent, externally retarded.

The Rand Paul Libertarianism isn't consistent at all.  That's the problem.  Rand Paul Libertarianism is more like "corporate person good, real person bad."

Taken to it's logical conclusion his policy is that 'Money buys your rights'.  It's about disenfranchising those without so that the wealthy can accumulate more power without the have-nots having an effective means to use government to counter it.

Another Farker turned me onto this piece.  If you didn't know it was written over one hundred years ago, you could swear it was written about today's political and social climate.


"The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government."

--Pope Leo XII, "Rerum Novarum," 1891
 
2013-08-06 02:11:53 PM

thurstonxhowell: It's the standard PAULite response to criticism. If you disagree or challenge them in any way, you must be a statist and approve of the government stealing money, the drug war, your mother's rape, and the feeding of Christian babies to rabid spiders.


I demand to know why more federal funding isn't being dedicated to research of arachnid rabies.
 
2013-08-06 02:13:40 PM

d23: jigger: d23: he's a corporate anarchist.

words have meanings, douche.

Yep, even the contradiction in terms above, sovereign citizen.

how so exactly?  He wants the corporation to have the governmental power in the U.S.  He wants to corporation to have no regulations at all and do what ever the hell they want.  He, himself doesn't get the idea that the corporation needs to government to exist.


Exactly, so why did you think under anarchy there could be such a thing as a corporation as we know them?
 
2013-08-06 02:13:46 PM

jigger: Aarontology: If they hated libertarians, then why would they be attacking you, Senator Paul?

When libertarians attack him, "I'm not a libertarian. Don't hang that label on me."

When non-libertarians attack him, "You just hate libertarians."


Smart/funny
 
2013-08-06 02:15:18 PM
When you're complaining about The Economist giving you unfairly critical press and you're a Republican - you really have to think about how stupid you sound.

The Economist rolls over and begs for belly rubs for every Republican economic craptastic "policy" and "budget" position.  THEY ARE ON YOUR SIDE YOU IDIOT.

The fact that The Economist happens to take critical stances on Republican social issues has everything to do with its name - if it ain't economics, The Economist tends to think you shouldn't be wasting your time on it.
 
2013-08-06 02:16:32 PM
I'll probably vote for him in the primary. I can't see any other candidates worth voting for.
 
2013-08-06 02:19:52 PM

jigger: Exactly, so why did you think under anarchy there could be such a thing as a corporation as we know them?


Ask the anarcho-capitalists. Many of them definitely seem to think they would.
 
2013-08-06 02:20:32 PM
static1.businessinsider.com

How can you not want to read this magazine?
 
2013-08-06 02:22:42 PM

HighOnCraic: zappaisfrank: Today's Libertarians....

1-Leave me alone...unless I'm in trouble or pregnant.

2-Let the corporations run EVERYTHING!

3-Legal weed.

From a different article:


Back in November, Paul outlined similar views, explaining how he is personally against marijuana use but sees states as the right place for decisions to be made.
"States should be allowed to make a lot of these decisions," Paul said. "I want things to be decided more at a local basis, with more compassion. I think it would make us as Republicans different."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/24/rand-paul-marijuana_n_29453 07 .html

/And if a state decides to be somewhat less than compassionate, the Federal government should leave them alone.
//Nothing bad has ever happened when states were given the right to decide how compassionate they could be toward their citizens without interference from the mean old Federal government. . .


I expressed views similar to this concerning motorcycle helmet laws once, because every argument I've ever heard from the anti-helmet crowd went on and on about "totalitarian enactments", blah blah blah..

So, I said "Well, if you don't want to wear a helmet and don't want laws saying you have to, then fine. BUT, if you crack up on one and permanently injure yourself, you don't get a dime of disability compensation. If you've paid into social security you get that, but nothing over and above".

The discussion pretty much ended right there because the rest was all rationalizing and backpedaling.

"States Rights" is just a buzzword for "Ala Carte Government", where the fed still sends your state money, you just don't have to do anything in return...kinda like living with someone but refusing to even mow the grass to "give a little back".

/raspberry

upload.wikimedia.org
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-06 02:24:07 PM

thurstonxhowell: jigger: Exactly, so why did you think under anarchy there could be such a thing as a corporation as we know them?

Ask the anarcho-capitalists. Many of them definitely seem to think they would.


Exactly.  Corporations would take up the vacuum in the governmental structure.  It's pretty much forgotten in the U.S. that the corporation is the creature of the government and there are plenty of corporatists that would LOVE to see the corporation be the "ultimate" that owes its existence to no other institution.  Speculative fiction has written about that situation for years...
 
2013-08-06 02:25:44 PM
I thought only true blue (red) Christian conservatives were the only ones that were persecuted.  So the tent has been widened?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-06 02:25:52 PM

zappaisfrank: "States Rights" is just a buzzword for "Ala Carte Government", where the fed still sends your state money, you just don't have to do anything in return...kinda like living with someone but refusing to even mow the grass to "give a little back".


It's funny how States Rights advocates all of a sudden are for national laws and U.S. Constitution amendments when states don't decide in their favor.

*ahem* Gay Marriage *ahem*
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-06 02:27:00 PM

hammettman: I thought only true blue (red) Christian conservatives were the only ones that were persecuted.  So the tent has been widened?


only a true Christian is a conservative.

At least that's how THAT fallacious argument goes...
 
2013-08-06 02:29:09 PM

thurstonxhowell: jigger: Exactly, so why did you think under anarchy there could be such a thing as a corporation as we know them?

Ask the anarcho-capitalists. Many of them definitely seem to think they would.


They'd tell you that under anarchy there couldn't be corporations as we know them.

d23: thurstonxhowell: jigger: Exactly, so why did you think under anarchy there could be such a thing as a corporation as we know them?

Ask the anarcho-capitalists. Many of them definitely seem to think they would.

Exactly.  Corporations would take up the vacuum in the governmental structure.  It's pretty much forgotten in the U.S. that the corporation is the creature of the government and there are plenty of corporatists that would LOVE to see the corporation be the "ultimate" that owes its existence to no other institution.  Speculative fiction has written about that situation for years...


That's not anarchy.
 
2013-08-06 02:29:38 PM

d23: zappaisfrank: "States Rights" is just a buzzword for "Ala Carte Government", where the fed still sends your state money, you just don't have to do anything in return...kinda like living with someone but refusing to even mow the grass to "give a little back".

It's funny how States Rights advocates all of a sudden are for national laws and U.S. Constitution amendments when states don't decide in their favor.

*ahem* Gay Marriage *ahem*


It's almost as if they aren't really fans of states' rights and are actually lying autocrats hellbent on controlling other people.
 
2013-08-06 02:29:45 PM
People who attack because they hate Confederates, historically, tend to be less polite.
 
2013-08-06 02:32:09 PM

Aarontology: If they hated libertarians, then why would they be attacking you, Senator Paul?


Came here for this, leaving happily. Rand Paul is about as much of a Libertarian as I am, honestly.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-06 02:33:17 PM

palelizard: d23: zappaisfrank: "States Rights" is just a buzzword for "Ala Carte Government", where the fed still sends your state money, you just don't have to do anything in return...kinda like living with someone but refusing to even mow the grass to "give a little back".

It's funny how States Rights advocates all of a sudden are for national laws and U.S. Constitution amendments when states don't decide in their favor.

*ahem* Gay Marriage *ahem*

It's almost as if they aren't really fans of states' rights and are actually lying autocrats hellbent on controlling other people.


but they aren't right. simple businessmen?
 
2013-08-06 02:36:03 PM

d23: zappaisfrank: "States Rights" is just a buzzword for "Ala Carte Government", where the fed still sends your state money, you just don't have to do anything in return...kinda like living with someone but refusing to even mow the grass to "give a little back".

It's funny how States Rights advocates all of a sudden are for national laws and U.S. Constitution amendments when states don't decide in their favor.

*ahem* Gay Marriage *ahem*


Ya know...all I hear out of right wing knotheads is them going on and on about "entitlements" and how everyone feels "entitled" to this or that...yet they turn around and want government tailored just to suit their wants and needs and what they "want"...I have yet to see how that isn't the exact thing they go on and on about being against.
 
2013-08-06 02:36:51 PM

jigger: They'd tell you that under anarchy there couldn't be corporations as we know them.


Murray Rothbard would not tell me that. Partly because he's dead and partly because he would disagree. Unless you're using "as we know them" to mean "exactly as we know them". The core idea behind a corporation is a group of people pooling capital, making collective decisions, and declaring to their creditors that their liability is limited to the funds invested in the corporation. There is nothing in anarcho-capitalism to stop that.
 
2013-08-06 02:37:28 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: Confederates


Honestly. Let's just call both Pauls what they actually are.

They believe "states' rights" trumps civil rights. Sounds really familiar...
 
2013-08-06 02:41:50 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: People who attack because they hate Confederates, historically, tend to be less polite.


[generalsherman.jpg]

Unavailable for comment.
 
2013-08-06 02:42:41 PM

thurstonxhowell: declaring to their creditors that their liability is limited to the funds invested in the corporation


Which is an utterly meaningless phrase in an anarchy.  'Liability' to whom?  Anyone's 'liability' is limited only by what they have (or the amount they're willing to pay to ransom their kidnapped kid).  Legally liable? Son, we just eliminated the law.  Liable in the court of public opinion?
 
2013-08-06 02:43:50 PM
is Libertarian the new Black?
 
2013-08-06 02:51:59 PM

rjgarc: is Libertarian the new Black?


That would be ironic!

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

Like rain . . .
 
2013-08-06 02:53:58 PM
Rand Paul will be the next president - mark my words.
 
2013-08-06 02:57:12 PM
All joking aside, has anyone here actually read The Economist? It's really not that right-wing, and when it is, it doesn't go for the frothing derp-fest you'd get from FOX or from The Sun. It's actually kinda snarky, in a British sort of way.
 
2013-08-06 03:00:55 PM

HighOnCraic: That would be ironic!

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


Well written and a thought I've had several times. The libertarian rejoinder I've heard most often is that Jim Crow was enforced through state power (it was codified in some segregation states, not in others)... as libertarians they're opposed to state power... and without state power it would have fallen to the power of the Holy Market.

That theory leaves out the reality that, even without formal state-level Jim Crow laws, someone trying to open an 'integrated lunch' in Alabama in 1952 would have found it burned to the ground.  Immediately.  And not prosecuted (likely because the DA, sheriff, and judge were all among the torch-bearers).  They'd be lucky if it was just burned to the ground and they weren't tied up inside at the time.
 
2013-08-06 03:02:21 PM

vernonFL: Oooh, look at ME! I read The Economist!

What do you read? Time? Newsweek? Those are for people who can't handle a real news magazine like the one I read. That's because you're not as smart or sophisticated as me.

On weekends, I like to sit out on my porch in my wicker chair with my bifocals and my subscription copy of The Economist. Then, when I go to a professor's wine-and-cheese party later that night, I can casually mention all the fancy stuff I read about NASA and Venezuela and Gen. Pervez Musharraf in my fancy magazine and impress everybody.

Question: Do you think I'm smarter than everyone else because I read The Economist, or do I read The Economist because I'm smarter than everyone else? Now, there's a conundrum! I should mail that one in to The Economist and see what they think!

I say, old chap, here comes Lord Smartingford of Braintonshire! Shall we dine upon a nice cup of tea, then? We can discuss the economy, and the global situ-AYYY-tion, and ever so many other matters! I am so very versed in such matters, reading as do I The Economist, just as soon as the postman delivers it by the estate, don't you know. I find that only the right cracking coverage of The E-CON-omist keeps me jolly-well informed and all that, wouldn't you agree? Mmm, yes, I did think you would!


I read Le Monde.
 
2013-08-06 03:03:48 PM

BurrisYeltsin: Rand Paul will be the next president - mark my words.


He should be. The US needs to go back to its Southern Roots.
 
2013-08-06 03:04:33 PM
The Economist doesn't hate libertarians - the Economist mocks libertarians. There's a difference. I don't hate a five-year old kid who eats dirt, but I may well laugh at him.
 
2013-08-06 03:06:11 PM

theorellior: All joking aside, has anyone here actually read The Economist? It's really not that right-wing, and when it is, it doesn't go for the frothing derp-fest you'd get from FOX or from The Sun. It's actually kinda snarky, in a British sort of way.


For decades.  It's moderated a *lot* from its Thatcher/Reagan infatuation days, that much is for sure, though the whole political-and-economic spectrum has changed dramatically from those days too.  More than anything, you still get the same "Colonialism... wasn't that just a jolly old time?" vibe you get from Niall Ferguson.
 
2013-08-06 03:08:17 PM

theorellior: has anyone here actually read The Economist? ... It's actually kinda snarky, in a British sort of way.


Thanks for putting "Sunny Afternoon" in my gulliver.
 
2013-08-06 03:08:36 PM

Arkanaut: monoski: because they have no tolerance for groups who oversimplify economics or invent new math to support their positions.

You're thinking of the other Paul -- Paul Ryan.  Rand Paul doesn't have enough brain cells to even start talking about math.


Hey, now.  Rand Paul made it through medical school, so his brain has adequate processing power.

It's just that his brain is trying to run poorly coded software, or is bogged down with derpy malware.

Now this here's a gen-u-ine Pentium IV with hyper-threading technology.   It's got 3 giggity-hertz, so it's faster than your fancy-shmancy 2.4 GHz i7.  Suck it, libs.

littlegreenfootballs.com
 
2013-08-06 03:16:16 PM

RexTalionis: vernonFL: Oooh, look at ME! I read The Economist!

What do you read? Time? Newsweek? Those are for people who can't handle a real news magazine like the one I read. That's because you're not as smart or sophisticated as me.

On weekends, I like to sit out on my porch in my wicker chair with my bifocals and my subscription copy of The Economist. Then, when I go to a professor's wine-and-cheese party later that night, I can casually mention all the fancy stuff I read about NASA and Venezuela and Gen. Pervez Musharraf in my fancy magazine and impress everybody.

Question: Do you think I'm smarter than everyone else because I read The Economist, or do I read The Economist because I'm smarter than everyone else? Now, there's a conundrum! I should mail that one in to The Economist and see what they think!

I say, old chap, here comes Lord Smartingford of Braintonshire! Shall we dine upon a nice cup of tea, then? We can discuss the economy, and the global situ-AYYY-tion, and ever so many other matters! I am so very versed in such matters, reading as do I The Economist, just as soon as the postman delivers it by the estate, don't you know. I find that only the right cracking coverage of The E-CON-omist keeps me jolly-well informed and all that, wouldn't you agree? Mmm, yes, I did think you would!

I read Le Monde.


I read......well, you've probably never heard of it.
 
2013-08-06 03:21:25 PM
So is Paul running on segregated lunch counters? Will that be on the Republican party platform?
I would be happy enough with turning down that rap music in your car.
 
2013-08-06 03:27:52 PM

Aarontology: If they hated libertarians, then why would they be attacking you, Senator Paul?


LOL How anyone thinks he's nothing more than a completely run of the mill Republican only with a gimmick and a bunch of stupid, shallow followers is beyond me.

I have no respect for libertarians/ism or the whole "no true Scotsman" game they like to play but even I have to admit he's just using the label and has no real interest in the poorly-defined principals of the "philosophy" outside of where they are not politically advantageous for him to use to advance his career.
 
2013-08-06 03:29:01 PM
Late to the party, but I'll just drag these out...

img.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-06 03:37:25 PM
"I'm not a libertarian. I'm a libertarian Republican. I'm a constitutional conservative."

-Rand Paul, May 2013
 
2013-08-06 03:38:07 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: I have no respect for libertarians/ism or the whole "no true Scotsman" game they like to play but even I have to admit he's just using the label and has no real interest in the poorly-defined principals of the "philosophy" outside of where they are not politically advantageous for him to use to advance his career.


Fact is, there are about a dozen flavors of libertarian thought based on fundamental differences.
Minarchy/Anarchy
Intellectual property
Natural Law/Utilitarianism

The fact that whatever type of libertarian you find yourself arguing with says you don't know what REEEEAAAL LIBERTARIANISM is, is because s/he doesn't know either. REAL "small-L" libertarians are against all power structures, INCLUDING CAPITALISM; they are now known as libertarian socialists. Today's "big-L" Libertarians are a splintered cult whose only unifying characteristic is being useful idiots for Goldline and Koch Industries.

img.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-06 03:48:24 PM

vernonFL: What do you read? Time? Newsweek?


Utne Reader.
 
2013-08-06 03:56:26 PM

Lawnchair: thurstonxhowell: declaring to their creditors that their liability is limited to the funds invested in the corporation

Which is an utterly meaningless phrase in an anarchy.  'Liability' to whom?  Anyone's 'liability' is limited only by what they have (or the amount they're willing to pay to ransom their kidnapped kid).  Legally liable? Son, we just eliminated the law.  Liable in the court of public opinion?


Liable under the terms of the contract with enforcement provided by whatever entity both parties agreed upon. A lack of a state does not mean a lack of all contract enforcement. Whatever we think of as the job of the state would be performed by private entities engaging in free trade.

Anarcho-capitalism is utter nonsense, BTW. Don't mistake my attempts at explaining it for advocacy.
 
2013-08-06 04:03:54 PM

BurrisYeltsin: Rand Paul will be the next president - mark my words.


I will mark them with a nice trolltastic grey, tyvm.
 
2013-08-06 04:08:58 PM

thurstonxhowell: Liable under the terms of the contract with enforcement provided by whatever entity both parties agreed upon. A lack of a state does not mean a lack of all contract enforcement. Whatever we think of as the job of the state would be performed by private entities engaging in free trade.


Effectively, of course, it does mean just that. Any contract enforcement contract is just as dismissable as the contract itself. Unless you've got the bigger army of mercenaries to back it up.

thurstonxhowell: Anarcho-capitalism is utter nonsense, BTW. Don't mistake my attempts at explaining it for advocacy.


So noted.  I was pretty sure you were just devil's advocating it.  But, I do have this conversation with an old college roommate and anti-state.com regular.  He pretty much reinvents government again after about 20 minutes every time we get into it, so that's nice.
 
2013-08-06 04:09:38 PM
Rand, you aren't a libertarian, please quit sullying the party.
 
2013-08-06 04:10:55 PM

d23: he's a corporate anarchist.

words have meanings, douche.


Contradiction in terms.  You can't have private property on a corporate scale without a state apparatus to protect it.
 
2013-08-06 04:12:10 PM
Nice thread we got going here.
 
2013-08-06 04:13:54 PM

tirob: d23: he's a corporate anarchist.

words have meanings, douche.

Contradiction in terms.  You can't have private property on a corporate scale without a state apparatus to protect it.


You can't have private property, period, without government - not unless you're big enough and mean enough to take and hold it by force yourself, that is.
 
2013-08-06 04:14:03 PM

palelizard: T

He reminds me of Andrew Ryan from Bioshock.  He's all about libertarian ideals and John Galt right up until they don't benefit him and/or they allow other people to do things he disapproves of.


All "Libertarians" are like that.  They have rights, the rest of us have obligations.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-06 04:14:23 PM

tirob: d23: he's a corporate anarchist.

words have meanings, douche.

Contradiction in terms.  You can't have private property on a corporate scale without a state apparatus to protect it.


we already had this conversation.
 
2013-08-06 04:19:45 PM

d23: he's a corporate anarchist.

words have meanings, douche.


I'd say more pro-corporate fascist especially given his racist leanings.
 
2013-08-06 04:29:44 PM

tirob: All "Libertarians" are like that.  They have rights, the rest of us have obligations.


No... everyone has rights in theory. Life, liberty, property. But no one has the obligation to help you achieve those rights, even if (especially if) you can't achieve them on your own. It's the bastardization of social Darwinism on a grand scale. Moreover, it's social entropy. Society is built upon compromise, sacrifice and forgiveness: all the things libertarian philosophy rails against because they require imperative participation to work. The obsession over almighty contracts and civil courts is equally dubious and ignorant of history.

You have the right to continue to exist... and that's it. Whoop-de-doo.

img.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-06 04:40:02 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Aarontology: If they hated libertarians, then why would they be attacking you, Senator Paul?

LOL How anyone thinks he's nothing more than a completely run of the mill Republican only with a gimmick and a bunch of stupid, shallow followers is beyond me.

I have no respect for libertarians/ism or the whole "no true Scotsman" game they like to play but even I have to admit he's just using the label and has no real interest in the poorly-defined principals of the "philosophy" outside of where they are not politically advantageous for him to use to advance his career.


He learned from the best.
 
2013-08-06 04:42:03 PM

BurrisYeltsin: Rand Paul will be the next president of the Confederate States of America - mark my words.

 
2013-08-06 05:01:47 PM

whidbey: BurrisYeltsin: Rand Paul will be the next president - mark my words.

He should be. The US needs to go back to its Southern Roots.


What?!?! What exactly do you mean by " Southern roots "? Well if you mean back to the time where the north gave the south a royal ass whuppin, im all for that. Lord knows the south is starting to ask for it.

There is no way in hell that Paul will become President as long as there is a huge block of non white voters. He is surrounded and supported by bigots and Paul has very questionable views on civil rights. The only way he could win is by the south trying as hard as it can to stop anyone whos not white and or rich to vote...oh wait.
 
2013-08-06 05:06:48 PM

HighOnCraic: Gaseous Anomaly: People who attack because they hate Confederates, historically, tend to be less polite.

[generalsherman.jpg]

Unavailable for comment.


Anybody have the one where Dallas is getting nuked and he's enjoying it?  Heh...

/God do the Southerners fear him...
 
2013-08-06 05:13:29 PM

Rwa2play: HighOnCraic: Gaseous Anomaly: People who attack because they hate Confederates, historically, tend to be less polite.

[generalsherman.jpg]

Unavailable for comment.

Anybody have the one where Dallas is getting nuked and he's enjoying it?  Heh...

/God do the Southerners fear him...


LMGTFY..

i258.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-06 05:22:35 PM

I Like Bread: tirob: All "Libertarians" are like that.  They have rights, the rest of us have obligations.

No... everyone has rights in theory. Life, liberty, property. But no one has the obligation to help you achieve those rights, even if (especially if) you can't achieve them on your own. It's the bastardization of social Darwinism on a grand scale. Moreover, it's social entropy. Society is built upon compromise, sacrifice and forgiveness: all the things libertarian Spencerian philosophy rails against because they require imperative participation to work. The obsession over almighty contracts and civil courts is equally dubious and ignorant of history.

You have the right to continue to exist... and that's it. Whoop-de-doo.


Fair enough; I would make one change as you see, as I still think of the word "libertarian" in its old Anarchist sense, where there is no state to protect private property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Spencer
 
2013-08-06 05:26:24 PM

Maud Dib: Rwa2play: HighOnCraic: Gaseous Anomaly: People who attack because they hate Confederates, historically, tend to be less polite.

[generalsherman.jpg]

Unavailable for comment.

Anybody have the one where Dallas is getting nuked and he's enjoying it?  Heh...

/God do the Southerners fear him...

LMGTFY..

[i258.photobucket.com image 399x408]


Hah~! Seriously, it's like they see him as the second coming of Satan or something...
 
2013-08-06 05:26:57 PM

sheep snorter: A real Libertarian does not allow ownership of other people and their bodies.


I would listen to real Libertarians more often if you didn't all sound like schizophrenics.
 
2013-08-06 05:38:51 PM

I Like Bread: Crotchrocket Slim: I have no respect for libertarians/ism or the whole "no true Scotsman" game they like to play but even I have to admit he's just using the label and has no real interest in the poorly-defined principals of the "philosophy" outside of where they are not politically advantageous for him to use to advance his career.

Fact is, there are about a dozen flavors of libertarian thought based on fundamental differences.
Minarchy/Anarchy
Intellectual property
Natural Law/Utilitarianism

The fact that whatever type of libertarian you find yourself arguing with says you don't know what REEEEAAAL LIBERTARIANISM is, is because s/he doesn't know either. REAL "small-L" libertarians are against all power structures, INCLUDING CAPITALISM; they are now known as libertarian socialists. Today's "big-L" Libertarians are a splintered cult whose only unifying characteristic is being useful idiots for Goldline and Koch Industries.

[img.photobucket.com image 400x400]


Pretty much but even with that acknowledged he really does seem to be disingenuously using it as a marketing gimmick for his eventual Presidential run(s). It's been my experience that l/Libertarians think they are a lot smarter than they really are; Paul just figured out how to fleece those rubes.
 
2013-08-06 05:40:44 PM
"Libertarianism", because saying you are actually a "Confederate" sounds so bad.
 
2013-08-06 05:44:58 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Pretty much but even with that acknowledged he really does seem to be disingenuously using it as a marketing gimmick for his eventual Presidential run(s). It's been my experience that l/Libertarians think they are a lot smarter than they really are; Paul just figured out how to fleece those rubes.


Family tradition.

http://www.libertynetworkers.com/
 
2013-08-06 06:09:23 PM
The Economist takes libertarians just as seriously as everyone else.
 
2013-08-06 06:35:01 PM
That's like saying feminists are attacking Rush Limbaugh because he hates sausages.
 
2013-08-06 06:41:27 PM
Everything is fine for the right people.
 
2013-08-06 07:10:00 PM
Libertarianism: for conservatives who don't want people to know they're assholes.
And pot-heads.
 
2013-08-06 08:18:53 PM

Aarontology: If they hated libertarians, then why would they be attacking you, Senator Paul?


Done in one.

Just like his father, Rand is a Paleo-conservative, with a few bonus wacky ideas.
 
2013-08-06 08:36:12 PM

Maud Dib: Rwa2play: HighOnCraic: Gaseous Anomaly: People who attack because they hate Confederates, historically, tend to be less polite.

[generalsherman.jpg]

Unavailable for comment.

Anybody have the one where Dallas is getting nuked and he's enjoying it?  Heh...

/God do the Southerners fear him...

LMGTFY..

[i258.photobucket.com image 399x408]


You know what?  I'm gonna say it: that picture is incredibly insulting.  Not to Southerners, but to General Sherman's memory and everything he stood for.

He said "War Is Hell" because he understood just what war was, and he hated it.  He hated every minute of what he was doing, but he still did it because he knew it needed to be done.  He took no pleasure in the March to the Sea.  If he was around today, and discovered that humanity devised a weapon that could kill so many with such little effort, he would respect its ability to make the world see what he saw about the horrors of war, and appreciate its ability to make us actually hesitate to go to war.  But he would utterly loath the weapon itself and the humanity that had laid itself so low as to create such a weapon.  Him expressing joy in using it would be unthinkable.

/Southerner
 
2013-08-06 09:08:30 PM

NEDM: Maud Dib: Rwa2play: HighOnCraic: Gaseous Anomaly: People who attack because they hate Confederates, historically, tend to be less polite.

[generalsherman.jpg]

Unavailable for comment.

Anybody have the one where Dallas is getting nuked and he's enjoying it?  Heh...

/God do the Southerners fear him...

LMGTFY..

[i258.photobucket.com image 399x408]

You know what?  I'm gonna say it: that picture is incredibly insulting.  Not to Southerners, but to General Sherman's memory and everything he stood for.

He said "War Is Hell" because he understood just what war was, and he hated it.  He hated every minute of what he was doing, but he still did it because he knew it needed to be done.  He took no pleasure in the March to the Sea.  If he was around today, and discovered that humanity devised a weapon that could kill so many with such little effort, he would respect its ability to make the world see what he saw about the horrors of war, and appreciate its ability to make us actually hesitate to go to war.  But he would utterly loath the weapon itself and the humanity that had laid itself so low as to create such a weapon.  Him expressing joy in using it would be unthinkable.

/Southerner


Thanks.
               The artist is an idiot.
 
2013-08-06 09:37:17 PM

NEDM: You know what?  I'm gonna say it: that picture is incredibly insulting.  Not to Southerners, but to General Sherman's memory and everything he stood for.

He said "War Is Hell" because he understood just what war was, and he hated it.  He hated every minute of what he was doing, but he still did it because he knew it needed to be done.  He took no pleasure in the March to the Sea.  If he was around today, and discovered that humanity devised a weapon that could kill so many with such little effort, he would respect its ability to make the world see what he saw about the horrors of war, and appreciate its ability to make us actually hesitate to go to war.  But he would utterly loath the weapon itself and the humanity that had laid itself so low as to create such a weapon.  Him expressing joy in using it would be unthinkable.

/Southerner


Sadly, there are still people who argue that the bomb should've never been used against Japan in WWII.  I wonder if they would consider how more horrific it would've been had the Allies decided to invade Japan.
 
2013-08-06 09:43:16 PM

Rwa2play: NEDM: You know what?  I'm gonna say it: that picture is incredibly insulting.  Not to Southerners, but to General Sherman's memory and everything he stood for.

He said "War Is Hell" because he understood just what war was, and he hated it.  He hated every minute of what he was doing, but he still did it because he knew it needed to be done.  He took no pleasure in the March to the Sea.  If he was around today, and discovered that humanity devised a weapon that could kill so many with such little effort, he would respect its ability to make the world see what he saw about the horrors of war, and appreciate its ability to make us actually hesitate to go to war.  But he would utterly loath the weapon itself and the humanity that had laid itself so low as to create such a weapon.  Him expressing joy in using it would be unthinkable.

/Southerner

Sadly, there are still people who argue that the bomb should've never been used against Japan in WWII.  I wonder if they would consider how more horrific it would've been had the Allies decided to invade Japan.


There's a school of thought which holds that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing to do with any attempt to make Japan capitulate - we killed more people when we firebombed Tokyo than we did in Hiroshima, and Japan was already making inquiries about terms of surrender. According to this theory, use of atomic weapons was mostly about swinging our big dicks in an effort to impress the Soviets.
 
2013-08-06 09:47:13 PM

BMulligan: Rwa2play: NEDM: You know what?  I'm gonna say it: that picture is incredibly insulting.  Not to Southerners, but to General Sherman's memory and everything he stood for.

He said "War Is Hell" because he understood just what war was, and he hated it.  He hated every minute of what he was doing, but he still did it because he knew it needed to be done.  He took no pleasure in the March to the Sea.  If he was around today, and discovered that humanity devised a weapon that could kill so many with such little effort, he would respect its ability to make the world see what he saw about the horrors of war, and appreciate its ability to make us actually hesitate to go to war.  But he would utterly loath the weapon itself and the humanity that had laid itself so low as to create such a weapon.  Him expressing joy in using it would be unthinkable.

/Southerner

Sadly, there are still people who argue that the bomb should've never been used against Japan in WWII.  I wonder if they would consider how more horrific it would've been had the Allies decided to invade Japan.

There's a school of thought which holds that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing to do with any attempt to make Japan capitulate - we killed more people when we firebombed Tokyo than we did in Hiroshima, and Japan was already making inquiries about terms of surrender. According to this theory, use of atomic weapons was mostly about swinging our big dicks in an effort to impress the Soviets.


That's one school of thought.  AFA Japan was concerned, through the last years of the war there was an internal struggle by the military who wanted to continue the war at whatever cost to the country and those who wanted the war over before Japan was reduced to ashes.  Heck, even the Emperor's surrender announcement was almost sabotaged.
 
2013-08-06 10:20:26 PM
Libertarianism will never work on a large scale country. It only works with limited Government and limited like-minded population.

/Libertarian

"States" should be abolished. Only two levels are needed. Local (county/city) and Federal.
 
2013-08-06 10:28:48 PM

d23: jake_lex: Well, take RAND PAUL's much derided comment about how he wouldn't mind local police using a drone to blow away someone who just robbed a liquor store. Coming so close on the heels of his filibuster of the Obama administration using drones, people saw that as hypocrisy, but it's not. RAND PAUL is just against the federal government using drones. If a state or local government wants to use then to blow away jaywalkers, that's fine with him.

Or corporations.  He's fine with corporations doing whatever the fark they want with absolutely no law or regulation.

That's why I call his ilk corporate anarchists.


Every time Rand Paul talks, I have to play Bioshock Infinite.
 
2013-08-06 10:51:28 PM
Remembers when Libertarians were kinda on the left hippie side. Now it seems they are for the Republicans who are too far right for them and the Republicans who say they are Libertarian so they won't seem square.

//Used to agree with alot of what they said till someone in the party decided that Ayn Rand was the party spokesperson
 
2013-08-06 10:53:57 PM

Rwa2play: Sadly, there are still people who argue that the bomb should've never been used against Japan in WWII. I wonder if they would consider how more horrific it would've been had the Allies decided to invade Japan.


Sadly, there are people who believe that dropping a second bomb before the Japanese had a chance to respond to the first wasn't racist.
 
2013-08-06 10:54:12 PM
Lawnchair
That theory leaves out the reality that, even without formal state-level Jim Crow laws, someone trying to open an 'integrated lunch' in Alabama in 1952 would have found it burned to the ground. Immediately. And not prosecuted (likely because the DA, sheriff, and judge were all among the torch-bearers). They'd be lucky if it was just burned to the ground and they weren't tied up inside at the time.

In theory, there could have been a combination of self-defense militias with assistance from non-local allies, and boycotts of businesses owned by or supporting racists. Although IMO authoritarian behavior is usually driven by some other authoritarian force or institution; eliminate those and racism makes so little sense that it should disappear almost immediately.

Unless you've got the bigger army of mercenaries to back it up.

And as we all know from reading our Rothbard, there is no way this could possibly ever be abused.


I Like Bread
REAL "small-L" libertarians are against all power structures, INCLUDING CAPITALISM; they are now known as libertarian socialists.

saying "known as" is being pretty generous.

I miss the Caveman Libertarian thread.
 
2013-08-06 10:59:17 PM

Without Fail: Rwa2play: Sadly, there are still people who argue that the bomb should've never been used against Japan in WWII. I wonder if they would consider how more horrific it would've been had the Allies decided to invade Japan.

Sadly, there are people who believe that dropping a second bomb before the Japanese had a chance to respond to the first wasn't racist.


It was a lot of things, but "racist" probably wasn't one of them...
 
2013-08-06 11:10:58 PM

RanDomino: eliminate those and racism makes so little sense that it should disappear almost immediately.


There you go attributing sense to things.  You can't reconcile sense and racism.  And racism really does exist. In massive doses.  Which should be enough make you realize that sense isn't a variable in any part of the equation.  Which shoots holes in all sorts of optimized textbook theories.
 
2013-08-07 12:17:49 AM

RanDomino: Lawnchair
That theory leaves out the reality that, even without formal state-level Jim Crow laws, someone trying to open an 'integrated lunch' in Alabama in 1952 would have found it burned to the ground. Immediately. And not prosecuted (likely because the DA, sheriff, and judge were all among the torch-bearers). They'd be lucky if it was just burned to the ground and they weren't tied up inside at the time.

In theory, there could have been a combination of self-defense militias with assistance from non-local allies, and boycotts of businesses owned by or supporting racists. Although IMO authoritarian behavior is usually driven by some other authoritarian force or institution; eliminate those and racism makes so little sense that it should disappear almost immediately.


If you read some of the old propaganda from the 50s and 60s in the National Review and the White Citizens' Council publications, you'd see that it would've been impossible for Southerners to just voluntarily give up on segregation without being forced to by the Federal government (even Buckley eventually admitted that).  The main idea was that integration would inevitably lead to a Communist takeover of America (as well as black male/white female miscegenation), and segregation was supported by Christ Himself.  What good would boycotts have done when state laws made segregation mandatory, and it was even illegal (in Mississippi) to publish pro-integration material?

I know it runs against the whole "State guv good!  Fed guv bad!" narrative, but that's the way it was.  It took Federal power to overthrow the authoritarian rules of the state governments.
 
2013-08-07 12:21:02 AM

theorellior: All joking aside, has anyone here actually read The Economist? It's really not that right-wing, and when it is, it doesn't go for the frothing derp-fest you'd get from FOX or from The Sun. It's actually kinda snarky, in a British sort of way.


I love The Economist. That doesn't mean I agree with everything in there, but it's certainly a well-written mag. As a libtard, I've often stroked my chin and said, "Hmmm, that's actually a good point" while reading it.

In a world (or at least a nation) where finding ANYTHING even resembling conservatism that doesn't fly off the rails is remarkably difficult, it's a refreshing read. It has also led me to research things I otherwise would have remained ignorant of.
 
2013-08-07 12:42:45 AM
Rand Paul is full of farking shiat. I am so tired of him stating that he's a libertarian. I didn't even read the article, but I'm sure it's the same victimized bullshiat he's been spouting since before he entered office. He's done nothing good for my state, and his number 1 priority is posturing for a presidential bid that will ultimately fail in the primaries.

Seriously hanging my head in shame for all the idiots who voted him in, and even moreso for the lazy asses who didn't vote at all.
 
2013-08-07 12:48:09 AM

d23: ikanreed: Raharu: [img197.imageshack.us image 650x976]

Libertarianism: internally consistent, externally retarded.

The Rand Paul Libertarianism isn't consistent at all.  That's the problem.  Rand Paul Libertarianism is more like "corporate person good, real person bad."


Seems consistent to me. It is retarded and evil, but it is consistent.
 
2013-08-07 01:01:50 AM

LoneWolf343: d23: ikanreed: Raharu: [img197.imageshack.us image 650x976]

Libertarianism: internally consistent, externally retarded.

The Rand Paul Libertarianism isn't consistent at all.  That's the problem.  Rand Paul Libertarianism is more like "corporate person good, real person bad."

Seems consistent to me. It is retarded and evil, but it is consistent.


Demented and sad, but social.

/Well, not all that sociable. . .
 
2013-08-07 01:28:07 AM
Lawnchair
And racism really does exist.

In its modern sense, it was invented to keep Irish indentured servants, African slaves, indigenous people, and poor English yeomen and laborers from getting along, in order to make it easier to exploit them all. Racism establishes a hierarchy in which certain (invented) classes are given privileges over the others in order to make them loyal to the system as a whole. Often those privileges amount to "We'll fark you over less".
This simply parallels all other types of privilege. There could be a regime that makes left-handed people overlords over right-handed people and creates a sort of cult around it and it would practically be the same (years after political rights are given to right-handed people: "I don't hate right-handed people! One of my best friends is right-handed!").
Parochialism may exist as a universal independent. Racism, in itself, does not.


HighOnCraic
What good would boycotts have done when state laws made segregation mandatory

Politicians often are, or are friends with, wealthy businessmen.
themoreyouknow.jpg
 
2013-08-07 01:54:33 AM

RanDomino: Lawnchair
And racism really does exist.

In its modern sense, it was invented to keep Irish indentured servants, African slaves, indigenous people, and poor English yeomen and laborers from getting along, in order to make it easier to exploit them all. Racism establishes a hierarchy in which certain (invented) classes are given privileges over the others in order to make them loyal to the system as a whole. Often those privileges amount to "We'll fark you over less".
This simply parallels all other types of privilege. There could be a regime that makes left-handed people overlords over right-handed people and creates a sort of cult around it and it would practically be the same (years after political rights are given to right-handed people: "I don't hate right-handed people! One of my best friends is right-handed!").
Parochialism may exist as a universal independent. Racism, in itself, does not.


HighOnCraic
What good would boycotts have done when state laws made segregation mandatory

Politicians often are, or are friends with, wealthy businessmen.
themoreyouknow.jpg


But the wealthy businessmen in the South wanted to maintain segregation in order to keep the poor whites happy with their situation.  Besides, how would boycotts put pressure on businessmen to integrate when the laws prevented blacks from being served in their business?

And as I mentioned, they were afraid that integration would lead to a Communist takeover of America. I'll try to do some googling to provide you with a link to the documentation.
 
2013-08-07 02:01:07 AM
" 'Integration' and 'Communization' are, after all, pretty closely synonymous. In light of what is happening today, the first may be little more than a euphemism for the second. It does not take many steps to get from the 'integrating' of facilities to the 'communizing' of facilities, if the impulse is there."
 http://www.amren.com/news/2012/04/the-decline-of-national-review/
 
2013-08-07 03:42:35 AM

RanDomino: Lawnchair
And racism really does exist.

In its modern sense, it was invented to keep Irish indentured servants, African slaves, indigenous people, and poor English yeomen and laborers from getting along, in order to make it easier to exploit them all. Racism establishes a hierarchy in which certain (invented) classes are given privileges over the others in order to make them loyal to the system as a whole. Often those privileges amount to "We'll fark you over less".
This simply parallels all other types of privilege. There could be a regime that makes left-handed people overlords over right-handed people and creates a sort of cult around it and it would practically be the same (years after political rights are given to right-handed people: "I don't hate right-handed people! One of my best friends is right-handed!").
Parochialism may exist as a universal independent. Racism, in itself, does not.


HighOnCraic
What good would boycotts have done when state laws made segregation mandatory

Politicians often are, or are friends with, wealthy businessmen.
themoreyouknow.jpg


Not that I ever agree with you, but Nell Painter in her excellent book "The History of White People" makes this exact point, and traces racism in America to exactly the moment, just after the Revolution succeeded, when wealthy white landowners (with or without slaves) looked around this new land of ours and suddenly realized the poor free whites and poor free blacks had MUCH more in common with each other than they'd ever have with the wealthy white landlords--and an awful lot in common with all those enslaved blacks down on de plantation.

The white middle class was created specifically as a buffer between rich whites and the poors, by relaxing restrictions on who could own land--it was easier to restrict by skin color only than by the complex mishmash of race, heritage, parentage and birth order which had existed in Europe before that. (Alexandre Dumas pere, a "quadroon" as they say, was a landed gentleman in France) As laws against poor whites gradually fell off the books, it wasn't that poor whites got MORE rights necessarily--just that free blacks got many fewer by comparison.

It bought the rich white folks about another 50 years...
 
2013-08-07 08:46:36 AM
I think it's horrible that on the axis of Authoritarian -> Libertarian, the people representing the Libertarian side these days tend to be the ones who want the freedom to do farked up shiat to people, when it SHOULD be people who want liberty and don't have it.

I think everyone who isn't a white corporate executive who buys congressmen should live somewhere on the line closer to the libertarian end, especially gays, or anyone who doesn't feel their government should be involved in their diet, their sex lives, their churchgoing or lack thereof,  but instead we get these whackos who want freedom because in a dog-eat-dog world without restrictions, they feel like their lack of compassion will benefit them.

fark this country. It gives you the choice of one party that gives you corporate control and extra taxes on Funyuns, and the other that gives you corporate control and wants to dictate who you can fark.
 
2013-08-07 09:59:46 AM
HighOnCraic
But the wealthy businessmen in the South wanted to maintain segregation in order to keep the poor whites happy with their situation. Besides, how would boycotts put pressure on businessmen to integrate when the laws prevented blacks from being served in their business?

Without exports, their wealth would have started to dry up, and they may have gone squealing to their politician buddies to do whatever it took to fix things.
 
2013-08-07 10:27:54 AM

RanDomino: HighOnCraic
But the wealthy businessmen in the South wanted to maintain segregation in order to keep the poor whites happy with their situation. Besides, how would boycotts put pressure on businessmen to integrate when the laws prevented blacks from being served in their business?

Without exports, their wealth would have started to dry up, and they may have gone squealing to their politician buddies to do whatever it took to fix things.


But as I said, it was boycotts that changed that state segregation laws, because most businesses wouldn't serve blacks to begin with.  It worked with the buses, because blacks were allowed to ride them (with certain restrictions), so the bus companies were losing money. All the stores that refused to serve blacks in the first place wouldn't have been impacted by a boycott.

Why is it such a big deal to admit that in this particular case, Federal power was necessary?  Even William F. Buckley (the guy who wrote "Why the South Must Prevail"), admitted it.

"I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow," Mr. Buckley said in 2004. "I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/weekinreview/23tanenhaus.html?_r=0
 
2013-08-07 01:08:09 PM

RanDomino: HighOnCraic
But the wealthy businessmen in the South wanted to maintain segregation in order to keep the poor whites happy with their situation. Besides, how would boycotts put pressure on businessmen to integrate when the laws prevented blacks from being served in their business?

Without exports, their wealth would have started to dry up, and they may have gone squealing to their politician buddies to do whatever it took to fix things.


Still waiting to hear an explanation of how boycotting a business that doesn't serve blacks will make those businesses lose money.  I'm also curious how exports got brought into the conversation.  What exactly to hotels and restaurants export?

/I'll concede that a boycott might've worked with places like movie theaters, which allowed black customers as long as they sat in a separate section.
//Most businesses, not so much.
 
2013-08-07 04:28:48 PM

HighOnCraic: But as I said, it was boycotts that changed that state segregation laws, because most businesses wouldn't serve blacks to begin with.  It worked with the buses, because blacks were allowed to ride them (with certain restrictions), so the bus companies were losing money. All the stores that refused to serve blacks in the first place wouldn't have been impacted by a boycott.

Why is it such a big deal to admit that in this particular case, Federal power was necessary?  Even William F. Buckley (the guy who wrote "Why the South Must Prevail"), admitted it.

"I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow," Mr. Buckley said in 2004. "I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/weekinreview/23tanenhaus.html?_r=0


You know what's sad?

The modern GOP has gotten to the point where even some  literal flag waving confederates are turned off by the racism.

Meanwhile, Rand Paul and his father are even worse.


images.politico.com
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-08-07 06:28:47 PM
HighOnCraic
What exactly to hotels and restaurants export?

That's not the target. The target is the ruling class, not specific businesses.
 
2013-08-07 09:26:56 PM

schrodinger: HighOnCraic: But as I said, it was boycotts that changed that state segregation laws, because most businesses wouldn't serve blacks to begin with.  It worked with the buses, because blacks were allowed to ride them (with certain restrictions), so the bus companies were losing money. All the stores that refused to serve blacks in the first place wouldn't have been impacted by a boycott.

Why is it such a big deal to admit that in this particular case, Federal power was necessary?  Even William F. Buckley (the guy who wrote "Why the South Must Prevail"), admitted it.

"I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow," Mr. Buckley said in 2004. "I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/weekinreview/23tanenhaus.html?_r=0

You know what's sad?

The modern GOP has gotten to the point where even some  literal flag waving confederates are turned off by the racism.

Meanwhile, Rand Paul and his father are even worse.


[images.politico.com image 465x349]
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 320x240]


Uh, just to say, but I think that bottom sign says "Rednecks FOR Obama".  As in, they're advocating voting for him.
 
2013-08-08 12:58:37 AM

RanDomino: HighOnCraic
What exactly to hotels and restaurants export?

That's not the target. The target is the ruling class, not specific businesses.


And how could you do that when certain specific businesses were immune from the threat of a boycott?  I mean, how much can you threaten a business that doesn't allow black customers by having black customers refuse to shop there?

Can you admit that at least in this particular scenario Federal intervention accomplished something that the free market never could have achieved?
 
Displayed 155 of 155 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report