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.

(Reason Magazine)   Tea party darling RAND PAUL continues the minority outreach program with...oh wait   (reason.com) divider line 94
    More: Spiffy, Rand Paul, The Declaration of Independents, political journalism, John McCain, Norman Ornstein, humans, curriculum framework, Bill Moyers  
•       •       •

3558 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Sep 2014 at 11:09 AM (6 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



94 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-09-02 09:13:46 AM  
Reminder that Paul has no problem with outlawing pot, as long as it is the states doing the outlawing.
 
2014-09-02 09:39:50 AM  

grumpfuff: Reminder that Paul has no problem with outlawing pot, as long as it is the states doing the outlawing.


Which is fine.  State wants to allow it, OK.  State wants to ban it, OK also.

You have more influence with your state legislators than you do with the people who represent you in Congress.  And if you don't like the way your state is going, you can "vote with your feet" to a state that is more to your ideological liking.

It's much harder to do that when the entire country is involved.
 
2014-09-02 09:45:02 AM  

grumpfuff: Reminder that Paul has no problem with outlawing pot, as long as it is the states doing the outlawing.


Colorado and Washington (and hopefully more to come) would like to have a word with you.
 
2014-09-02 09:48:11 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: grumpfuff: Reminder that Paul has no problem with outlawing pot, as long as it is the states doing the outlawing.

Colorado and Washington (and hopefully more to come) would like to have a word with you.


What does that have to do with Paul's stance?
 
2014-09-02 09:56:06 AM  

grumpfuff: What does that have to do with Paul's stance?


dittybopper: Which is fine. State wants to allow it, OK. State wants to ban it, OK also.

You have more influence with your state legislators than you do with the people who represent you in Congress. And if you don't like the way your state is going, you can "vote with your feet" to a state that is more to your ideological liking.

It's much harder to do that when the entire country is involved.


Seeing as you missed that.
 
2014-09-02 10:01:07 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: grumpfuff: What does that have to do with Paul's stance?

dittybopper: Which is fine. State wants to allow it, OK. State wants to ban it, OK also.

You have more influence with your state legislators than you do with the people who represent you in Congress. And if you don't like the way your state is going, you can "vote with your feet" to a state that is more to your ideological liking.

It's much harder to do that when the entire country is involved.

Seeing as you missed that.


Which still has fark all to do with my point that Paul would be ok with every state making it illegal.
 
2014-09-02 10:07:15 AM  

dittybopper: grumpfuff: Reminder that Paul has no problem with outlawing pot, as long as it is the states doing the outlawing.

Which is fine.  State wants to allow it, OK.  State wants to ban it, OK also.

You have more influence with your state legislators than you do with the people who represent you in Congress.  And if you don't like the way your state is going, you can "vote with your feet" to a state that is more to your ideological liking.

It's much harder to do that when the entire country is involved.


You mean it's much easier for corporate interests to buy off your state legislator than your national one.
 
2014-09-02 10:12:52 AM  

grumpfuff: Reminder that Paul has no problem with outlawing pot, as long as it is the states doing the outlawing.


I'm OK with that, as I don't live in an uptight loser (ie, red) state.
 
2014-09-02 11:09:26 AM  

dittybopper: grumpfuff: Reminder that Paul has no problem with outlawing pot, as long as it is the states doing the outlawing.

Which is fine.  State wants to allow it, OK.  State wants to ban it, OK also.

You have more influence with your state legislators than you do with the people who represent you in Congress.  And if you don't like the way your state is going, you can "vote with your feet" to a state that is more to your ideological liking.

It's much harder to do that when the entire country is involved.


The same argument could be provided for making the decision at county level versus state level - you have more influence with county officials than with state legislators. If you don't like the way your county is going you can "vote with your fee" to a country that is more to your ideological liking. It's much harder to do that when the entire state is involved.

That's why it's a meaningless argument.

A government action is not right at one level of government and not right at another level of government. The notion is patently ridiculousl.
 
2014-09-02 11:11:16 AM  
Makeover time girlfriend!
 
2014-09-02 11:13:00 AM  
tl;dr
 
2014-09-02 11:13:24 AM  
images.dailykos.com
Rand Paul's Minority Outreach: Up and running!
 
2014-09-02 11:15:47 AM  

dittybopper: grumpfuff: Reminder that Paul has no problem with outlawing pot, as long as it is the states doing the outlawing.

Which is fine.  State wants to allow it, OK.  State wants to ban it, OK also.

You have more influence with your state legislators than you do with the people who represent you in Congress.  And if you don't like the way your state is going, you can "vote with your feet" to a state that is more to your ideological liking.

It's much harder to do that when the entire country is involved.


However "voting with your feet" isn't easy or practical or even possible for a great many people.
 
2014-09-02 11:17:28 AM  

dittybopper: grumpfuff: Reminder that Paul has no problem with outlawing pot, as long as it is the states doing the outlawing.

Which is fine.  State wants to allow it, OK.  State wants to ban it, OK also.

You have more influence with your state legislators than you do with the people who represent you in Congress.  And if you don't like the way your state is going, you can "vote with your feet" to a state that is more to your ideological liking.

It's much harder to do that when the entire country is involved.


You're ignoring the larger principle: libertarian Rand Paul only thinks libertarian principles should apply to the federal government. He's not a libertarian; he's an anti-federalist.
 
2014-09-02 11:21:02 AM  

qorkfiend: He's not a libertarianRepublican; he's an anti-federalist Republican.



/ftfy
/"But he's got a new hat!" -- Waylon Smithers Rand Paul
 
2014-09-02 11:21:20 AM  
Ah yes, the "hooray drugs" libertarian argument. Despite the fact that it's not really hooray drugs, and that it requires you to accept a whole lot of crazy just to get that one little bit that you like.
 
2014-09-02 11:27:48 AM  

dittybopper: grumpfuff: Reminder that Paul has no problem with outlawing pot, as long as it is the states doing the outlawing.

Which is fine.  State wants to allow it, OK.  State wants to ban it, OK also.

You have more influence with your state legislators than you do with the people who represent you in Congress.  And if you don't like the way your state is going, you can "vote with your feet" to a state that is more to your ideological liking.

It's much harder to do that when the entire country is involved.


This is the sort of mental gymnastics you can engage in, if you think rights are something a government gives you instead of rights being something a government is meant to respect and protect.
 
2014-09-02 11:33:03 AM  

phaseolus: However "voting with your feet" isn't easy or practical or even possible for a great many people.


Some people would call this a deficiency with your bootstraps.  Surely it's just as easy to move in modern times as it was in the mythical ages of America past.
 
2014-09-02 11:34:07 AM  
A liberal at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, Ornstein helped craft the speech-squelching Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which the Supreme Court, mercifully, has largely overturned.

Jesus, I couldn't even get to the part about whatever the hell Rand Paul has been doing.
 
2014-09-02 11:36:35 AM  

grumpfuff: Which still has fark all to do with my point that Paul would be ok with every state making it illegal.


Just being against the forfeiture laws is enough to sway my vote, and I think the man is somewhat insane.
 
2014-09-02 11:38:57 AM  
Ya know, if he led with this kind of material, he might be more appealing to the audience.
 
2014-09-02 11:39:12 AM  

nmrsnr: it requires you to accept a whole lot of crazy just to get that one little bit that you like


^ This is the real problem.  I want my prison reform/revocation of forfeiture/kneecapping of the DEA done by saner folks that won't be going off on interesting tangents.
 
Bf+
2014-09-02 11:41:16 AM  

EyeballKid: [images.dailykos.com image 550x305]
Rand Paul's Minority Outreach: Up and running!


[golfclap.gif]
 
2014-09-02 11:43:53 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: nmrsnr: it requires you to accept a whole lot of crazy just to get that one little bit that you like

^ This is the real problem.  I want my prison reform/revocation of forfeiture/kneecapping of the DEA done by saner folks that won't be going off on interesting tangents.


The states still being able to enact and enforce their own forfeiture laws would not be a problem?
 
2014-09-02 11:45:48 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: grumpfuff: Which still has fark all to do with my point that Paul would be ok with every state making it illegal.

Just being against the forfeiture laws is enough to sway my vote, and I think the man is somewhat insane.


qorkfiend: The states still being able to enact and enforce their own forfeiture laws would not be a problem?

 
2014-09-02 11:48:39 AM  

nmrsnr: Ah yes, the "hooray drugs" libertarian argument. Despite the fact that it's not really hooray drugs, and that it requires you to accept a whole lot of crazy just to get that one little bit that you like.


The funny part is, the full legalization of marijuana will, most likely, eventually take place without the help of dipshiats like the Pauls and we won't even have to adopt all the other insane and pie-in-the-sky Libertarian nonsense.

I believe full legalization is going to be on the 2016 ballot here in MA, for instance...
 
2014-09-02 11:53:40 AM  
"Reason" magazine knobgobbling for the GOP?  Is it a day ending in y?
 
2014-09-02 11:53:52 AM  

dittybopper: grumpfuff: Reminder that Paul has no problem with outlawing pot, as long as it is the states doing the outlawing.

Which is fine.  State wants to allow it, OK.  State wants to ban it, OK also.

You have more influence with your state legislators than you do with the people who represent you in Congress.  And if you don't like the way your state is going, you can "vote with your feet" to a state that is more to your ideological liking.

It's much harder to do that when the entire country is involved.


So then why haven't you left New York yet, given our crappy gun laws?
 
2014-09-02 11:59:25 AM  

theknuckler_33: A liberal at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, Ornstein ...


Really??!? 20-25 years ago Ornstein was considered to be a Conservative, as I remember it. He was also kind of hilarious as one of Al Franken's straight men on Comedy Central's political coverage.

/still can't find an image of Ornstein wearing a Pilgrim costume, and the only mentions of it on the web are from me talking about it in old Fark threads
 
2014-09-02 12:01:55 PM  

grumpfuff: Which still has fark all to do with my point that Paul would be ok with every state making it illegal.


And ok with every state making it legal. Ain't that a kick in the head?
 
2014-09-02 12:03:25 PM  

grumpfuff: Reminder that Paul has no problem with outlawing pot, as long as it is the states doing the outlawing.


According to Rand Paul, states can also impose an official State Religion upon people and even legalize human slavery.
 
2014-09-02 12:04:40 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: dittybopper: grumpfuff: Reminder that Paul has no problem with outlawing pot, as long as it is the states doing the outlawing.

Which is fine.  State wants to allow it, OK.  State wants to ban it, OK also.

You have more influence with your state legislators than you do with the people who represent you in Congress.  And if you don't like the way your state is going, you can "vote with your feet" to a state that is more to your ideological liking.

It's much harder to do that when the entire country is involved.

This is the sort of mental gymnastics you can engage in, if you think rights are something a government gives you instead of rights being something a government is meant to respect and protect.


Yeah, I'm guessing you don't really know me very well, because I'm *PRECISELY* the kind of guy who says things like what I bolded above.
 
2014-09-02 12:05:36 PM  

phaseolus: Really??!? 20-25 years ago Ornstein was considered to be a Conservative, as I remember it.


Pointing out that excessive money in politics is bad makes you the libbyist lib that ever libbed according to Reason.
 
2014-09-02 12:06:24 PM  

grumpfuff: Dancin_In_Anson: grumpfuff: What does that have to do with Paul's stance?

dittybopper: Which is fine. State wants to allow it, OK. State wants to ban it, OK also.

You have more influence with your state legislators than you do with the people who represent you in Congress. And if you don't like the way your state is going, you can "vote with your feet" to a state that is more to your ideological liking.

It's much harder to do that when the entire country is involved.

Seeing as you missed that.

Which still has fark all to do with my point that Paul would be ok with every state making it illegal.


...

The federal government currently says that it is illegal.  In all states.

I'm guessing your argument is that the federal government should have all the power, and shouldn't be wrong?
 
2014-09-02 12:08:38 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: dittybopper: grumpfuff: Reminder that Paul has no problem with outlawing pot, as long as it is the states doing the outlawing.

Which is fine.  State wants to allow it, OK.  State wants to ban it, OK also.

You have more influence with your state legislators than you do with the people who represent you in Congress.  And if you don't like the way your state is going, you can "vote with your feet" to a state that is more to your ideological liking.

It's much harder to do that when the entire country is involved.

This is the sort of mental gymnastics you can engage in, if you think rights are something a government gives you instead of rights being something a government is meant to respect and protect.


Why not both?
 
2014-09-02 12:10:36 PM  
I'm glad to see ole Rand doing some good.  However, soon as he starts advocating for rich folk owning everything (basically, Libertarianism), they we are done.   (Let's sell our streets and roads to corporations and turn them all into toll roads.  See, then we don't have to spend out taxes on road repairs.  Of course, then we have to pay tolls every time we leave the house.)
 
2014-09-02 12:10:57 PM  

sendtodave: grumpfuff: Dancin_In_Anson: grumpfuff: What does that have to do with Paul's stance?

dittybopper: Which is fine. State wants to allow it, OK. State wants to ban it, OK also.

You have more influence with your state legislators than you do with the people who represent you in Congress. And if you don't like the way your state is going, you can "vote with your feet" to a state that is more to your ideological liking.

It's much harder to do that when the entire country is involved.

Seeing as you missed that.

Which still has fark all to do with my point that Paul would be ok with every state making it illegal.

...

The federal government currently says that it is illegal.  In all states.

I'm guessing your argument is that the federal government should have all the power, and shouldn't be wrong?


No, the argument is that Rand Paul's libertarian "principles" are anything but libertarian.
 
2014-09-02 12:11:26 PM  
Check out Kansas for how cheaply you can buy a state senator.
 
2014-09-02 12:14:11 PM  

phaseolus: dittybopper: grumpfuff: Reminder that Paul has no problem with outlawing pot, as long as it is the states doing the outlawing.

Which is fine.  State wants to allow it, OK.  State wants to ban it, OK also.

You have more influence with your state legislators than you do with the people who represent you in Congress.  And if you don't like the way your state is going, you can "vote with your feet" to a state that is more to your ideological liking.

It's much harder to do that when the entire country is involved.

However "voting with your feet" isn't easy or practical or even possible for a great many people.


Reality isn't what's important!  Purity of Philosophy is all that matters!
 
2014-09-02 12:14:37 PM  

qorkfiend: sendtodave: grumpfuff: Dancin_In_Anson: grumpfuff: What does that have to do with Paul's stance?

dittybopper: Which is fine. State wants to allow it, OK. State wants to ban it, OK also.

You have more influence with your state legislators than you do with the people who represent you in Congress. And if you don't like the way your state is going, you can "vote with your feet" to a state that is more to your ideological liking.

It's much harder to do that when the entire country is involved.

Seeing as you missed that.

Which still has fark all to do with my point that Paul would be ok with every state making it illegal.

...

The federal government currently says that it is illegal.  In all states.

I'm guessing your argument is that the federal government should have all the power, and shouldn't be wrong?

No, the argument is that Rand Paul's libertarian "principles" are anything but libertarian.


Oh, well, yeah.  Meh?

"Libertarian" is just a word that "conservatives" use.  So is "conservative."

We all know what they mean.
 
2014-09-02 12:14:44 PM  
Apparently, in the view of Reason, minority outreach consists of reducing prison sentences.

You know, GOP, most members of minority groups are not, nor ever have been, in prison.
 
2014-09-02 12:15:20 PM  

Deucednuisance: phaseolus: dittybopper: grumpfuff: Reminder that Paul has no problem with outlawing pot, as long as it is the states doing the outlawing.

Which is fine.  State wants to allow it, OK.  State wants to ban it, OK also.

You have more influence with your state legislators than you do with the people who represent you in Congress.  And if you don't like the way your state is going, you can "vote with your feet" to a state that is more to your ideological liking.

It's much harder to do that when the entire country is involved.

However "voting with your feet" isn't easy or practical or even possible for a great many people.

Reality isn't what's important!  Purity of Philosophy is all that matters!


When things get bad enough, people flee their homelands.

Guess things aren't bad enough.
 
2014-09-02 12:15:56 PM  

Graffito: Apparently, in the view of Reason, minority outreach consists of reducing prison sentences.

You know, GOP, most members of minority groups are not, nor ever have been, in prison.


But most people in prison are minorities.  You can't explain that.
 
2014-09-02 12:18:28 PM  

sendtodave: grumpfuff: Dancin_In_Anson: grumpfuff: What does that have to do with Paul's stance?

dittybopper: Which is fine. State wants to allow it, OK. State wants to ban it, OK also.

You have more influence with your state legislators than you do with the people who represent you in Congress. And if you don't like the way your state is going, you can "vote with your feet" to a state that is more to your ideological liking.

It's much harder to do that when the entire country is involved.

Seeing as you missed that.

Which still has fark all to do with my point that Paul would be ok with every state making it illegal.

...

The federal government currently says that it is illegal.  In all states.

I'm guessing your argument is that the federal government should have all the power, and shouldn't be wrong?


media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com
 
2014-09-02 12:28:11 PM  

phaseolus: dittybopper: grumpfuff: Reminder that Paul has no problem with outlawing pot, as long as it is the states doing the outlawing.

Which is fine.  State wants to allow it, OK.  State wants to ban it, OK also.

You have more influence with your state legislators than you do with the people who represent you in Congress.  And if you don't like the way your state is going, you can "vote with your feet" to a state that is more to your ideological liking.

It's much harder to do that when the entire country is involved.

However "voting with your feet" isn't easy or practical or even possible for a great many people.


No, but it's easy for upper-middle class white people, which is largely what libertarians are and who they think everyone else is.
 
2014-09-02 12:30:40 PM  

BSABSVR: No, but it's easy for upper-middle class white people, which is largely what libertarians are and who they think fark everyone else is.


FTFY

On a completely unrelated note, I thought that libertarians were all about open borders and free flow of capital.  What's up with this national security / dey terk er jerbs nonsense recently?

Oh, yeah, right.  Upper-middle class white people problems.
 
2014-09-02 12:31:46 PM  

sendtodave: qorkfiend: sendtodave: grumpfuff: Dancin_In_Anson: grumpfuff: What does that have to do with Paul's stance?

dittybopper: Which is fine. State wants to allow it, OK. State wants to ban it, OK also.

You have more influence with your state legislators than you do with the people who represent you in Congress. And if you don't like the way your state is going, you can "vote with your feet" to a state that is more to your ideological liking.

It's much harder to do that when the entire country is involved.

Seeing as you missed that.

Which still has fark all to do with my point that Paul would be ok with every state making it illegal.

...

The federal government currently says that it is illegal.  In all states.

I'm guessing your argument is that the federal government should have all the power, and shouldn't be wrong?

No, the argument is that Rand Paul's libertarian "principles" are anything but libertarian.

Oh, well, yeah.  Meh?

"Libertarian" is just a word that "conservatives" use.  So is "conservative."

We all know what they mean.


Except for all those libertarians who support Rand Paul because of his "libertarian" stance when it comes to drugs.
 
2014-09-02 12:34:47 PM  

dittybopper: Crotchrocket Slim: dittybopper: grumpfuff: Reminder that Paul has no problem with outlawing pot, as long as it is the states doing the outlawing.

Which is fine.  State wants to allow it, OK.  State wants to ban it, OK also.

You have more influence with your state legislators than you do with the people who represent you in Congress.  And if you don't like the way your state is going, you can "vote with your feet" to a state that is more to your ideological liking.

It's much harder to do that when the entire country is involved.

This is the sort of mental gymnastics you can engage in, if you think rights are something a government gives you instead of rights being something a government is meant to respect and protect.

Yeah, I'm guessing you don't really know me very well, because I'm *PRECISELY* the kind of guy who says things like what I bolded above.


Actually I was calling you out on your cognitive dissonance on this particular topic- if you believe rights simply are (for whatever reason, whatever source) then you really cannot believe this topic to be up to the states to decide- this is an unenumerated right that the states are already obligated to recognize and protect, but many aren't.
 
2014-09-02 12:37:36 PM  

sendtodave: Crotchrocket Slim: dittybopper: grumpfuff: Reminder that Paul has no problem with outlawing pot, as long as it is the states doing the outlawing.

Which is fine.  State wants to allow it, OK.  State wants to ban it, OK also.

You have more influence with your state legislators than you do with the people who represent you in Congress.  And if you don't like the way your state is going, you can "vote with your feet" to a state that is more to your ideological liking.

It's much harder to do that when the entire country is involved.

This is the sort of mental gymnastics you can engage in, if you think rights are something a government gives you instead of rights being something a government is meant to respect and protect.

Why not both?


Bear in mind 'bopper has spent a great many gun-related threads arguing for a natural right to bear arms etc. despite the many practical issues an armed populace creates for functional governance (for what that's worth I'd agree somewhat that at least outlawing firearms is no practical in the US).
 
2014-09-02 12:38:27 PM  

qorkfiend: Except for all those libertarians who support Rand Paul because of his "libertarian" stance when it comes to drugs.


If that is their single hot-button issue?  They deserve what they get.

Then again, it's a fault of the Democratic party for not being liberal enough to say "eh, drugs... who cares?"
 
Displayed 50 of 94 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report