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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 155 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report