Do you have adblock enabled?
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 27
    More: Unlikely, Ron Paul, Republican establishment, David Boaz, Mitch McConnell, swing voters, fiscally conservative, House Republicans, Newt Gingrich  
•       •       •

1388 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-08-06 12:13:20 PM  
12 votes:
If they hated libertarians, then why would they be attacking you, Senator Paul?
2013-08-06 01:22:09 PM  
5 votes:

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.
2013-08-06 12:42:10 PM  
3 votes:
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 12:37:26 PM  
3 votes:
How are being anti-abortion and anti-marriage equality libertarian positions?
2013-08-06 02:37:28 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:41:36 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:04:54 PM  
2 votes:
They're not attacking you because you're libertarian Senator.  They're attacking you because you're a hypocritical POS.
2013-08-07 12:21:02 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:17:49 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-08-06 08:36:12 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:40:44 PM  
1 votes:
"Libertarianism", because saying you are actually a "Confederate" sounds so bad.
2013-08-06 05:01:47 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:40:02 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:14:03 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-08-06 03:29:01 PM  
1 votes:
Late to the party, but I'll just drag these out...

img.photobucket.com
2013-08-06 02:22:42 PM  
1 votes:

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
2013-08-06 02:02:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:56:44 PM  
1 votes:
Today's Libertarians....

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

2-Let the corporations run EVERYTHING!

3-Legal weed.
2013-08-06 01:32:55 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:24:14 PM  
1 votes:

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.
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-06 01:23:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:12:20 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:09:21 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:07:13 PM  
1 votes:

Eddie Adams from Torrance: He misspelled "dumbasses"


According to the OED, libertarian is an acceptable alternative spelling.
2013-08-06 01:06:24 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:04:36 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:03:17 PM  
1 votes:
He misspelled "dumbasses"
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report