What, no Rand Paul thread?

[Cuchulain]

It's been a couple days now and there's nobody here talking about Rand Paul. Is this section dead or just in hibernation?

Ok, so what do you think? Please, no horseshit about "he never said that". I watched the original interview by Rachel Maddow. Paul bobbed and weaved furiously in a way that would have made Joe Frazier proud, but it was clear that he feels that private business owners have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason - race, religion, politics, sexuality and maybe even the size of your nose. I think it's a logical assumption that he feels the same way about hiring practices.

Every American should know that the 'whites only' policies of many southern businesses in the 1960s helped the civil rights movement catch fire. The picture of Lester Maddox (later governor of Georgia)holding a gun and his son brandishing a pick handle as they chased a black guy out of their restaurant is a cultural classic.

It's illegal under the civil rights act for even a privately owned business to discriminate against customers on the basis of race. Libertarians, who seem to think that property rights trump everything, apparently disagree with that portion of the act. What about you?

[hippifried]

Well, there is now.

I think the racial aspect of his position is overhyped. I've seen no evidence of personal racial animosity on his part. His views of the law seem to be strictly ideological, & should be treated as such. "Property first" is the main ideological debate in all of our domestic politics. The rest is just a lot of peripheral silliness for the most part.

I'm torn. I'm liberal. Unlike the radical libertarians & Ayn Rand egoists, I believe that government has a function, the needs of society as a whole trump property priveliges, & human rights trump everything. That said, I don't want the radical "progressives" running roughshod over the country either. We need the debate in Congress as a check to keep things in balance & make sure our governance stays pragmatic. Although I disagree with a lot of his blather, I think Ron Paul has been a credible spokesman for the libertarian position in Congress. He can't stay there forever. I figure if that district in Kentucky is going to elect a Republican Representative anyway, they could do a lot worse than Rand Paul. The racial nonsense in this race is disingenuous at best. If that's what his opponant is going to run on in November, then I hope Paul wins. We don't need more mudslinging assholes.

[NYBURBS]

While I think it's idiotic not to serve someone based on their race/religion/etc, at the end of the day it should have been left a personal choice on who you associate with. Unfortunately, making a living for one's self has become seen as a privilege to be granted by society, rather than the inherent right it really is. With that shift in view it has become acceptable for the government to tell you who you must or must not associate with in terms of business.

Further compounding the issue is the fact that they leave exceptions to the law, such as on religious grounds, as if the command of someone's imaginary friend is somehow more important than anyone else's wishes on whom they want to associate with.

The government should never be allowed to make distinctions based on race, religion, etc; however, if a private party wishes to (foolhardy as it might be) then they should be allowed to do so. They will eventually go out of business anyway because someone else will come in that doesn't shun a potential market.

I'd also like to add that there was some far fetched twisting of the interstate commerce clause that took place in order for that part of the civil rights law to be upheld.

[NYBURBS]

Oh and HI Comrade! Hope all is well ^^

[evilernie]

Rand Paul made an argument against his own ideology. If we want the govt to get off our backs we should show that we are responsible enough to work for the common good.

This is why we are treated like children because we behave like children.

[Cuchulain]

Thanks for the replies, lads. Here's a few thoughts in hopes of keeping the discussion going. The elder Paul has always had my respect, if not my agreement. I guess that I'd rather see the Pauls in office than any other repubs I can think of atm - although Rand's defense of BP had me seeing red. I can't say that the younger Paul is a racist based on his position regarding the Civil Rights Act. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's an honest man with a philosophy that differs greatly from my own. But...I dunno, there's something about this passive acceptance of racism that troubles me. Does a person have a right to be racist? Certainly in his own mind, but the minute he acts on that bias, I'd say he's crossed the line. Prejudice based on race, religion or sexual orientation is a nasty concept that has caused a lot of misery in this world. A business, though privately owned, is a public place. In the 60s, we as a society said that racism was just too evil to be openly expressed in such a venue. Has Society changed so much ( in my mind, devolved) that we can now tolerate, even defend, open racism on the basis of property rights?

Anyway, I think that some of Rand's Libertarian views, such as his defense of BP, may be the ticket to beating him. If the Dems play it right, they may pick up that seat.

Gotta say I'm a bit disappointed with Comrade BURBS trotting out the CON line that racist businesses will fail because racism is bad business practice. I'll respond with the LIB line: how well did that work with all those southern lunch counters prior to the Civil Rights Act?

Btw, when writing this, I was reminded of the old Mark Twain quote
“The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.”

[NYBURBS]

Gotta say I'm a bit disappointed with Comrade BURBS trotting out the CON line that racist businesses will fail because racism is bad business practice. I'll respond with the LIB line: how well did that work with all those southern lunch counters prior to the Civil Rights Act?

Well, I think the big difference was that law enforcement was complicit in the racism of the South during that time. As I wrote earlier, it is unacceptable for government to act against anyone on the basis of their race, religion, political views, sexual orientation, etc. I just don't think it's the business of the government to say who you must associate with on a private basis, and a business is privately owned.

You could just as easily say that a church or synagogue is a "public place" as much as a diner is, but most people would be terribly upset if there was an attempt to tell them who they must accept into their place of worship (of course there is a First Amendment protection for religions, but I think there is a general protection of association built into the First Amendment).

[hippifried]

Well first of all: I've never heard of a church that was closed to non-members.

The general idea that racism is protected freedom of thought sounds good in theory, but it's one of those things that doesn't work in practice. Even Rand Paul has admitted that when he said he probably would have voted for the Act because things had gotten way too far out of hand at the time. The klan was running roughshod all over the place. It wasn't just Jim Crowe. It wasn't just the south either, or just discrimination against blacks. Left unchecked, it was turning into a national security problem. Blatant racism is tantamount to "fighting words", even if there's no overt violence to start with.

The way I see it: You have every right to be an asshole. But not with impunity. If you go out of your way to piss somebody off, you have no call to bitch when they punch you in the nose. I've noticed that a lot of these so called libertarians, especially the fanatical egoists, have no problem with government intervention when they want protection from those they try to incite. Pussies.

The point of title 2 (?) is that the private company is open to the public. The interstate commerce clause worked against Woolworths because they were a nationwide chain. The feds had the power to make law involving hiring practices because labor law is their domain. You can discriminate all you like with a private club. There's no money in it though.



Gotta say I'm a bit disappointed with Comrade BURBS trotting out the CON line that racist businesses will fail because racism is bad business practice. I'll respond with the LIB line: how well did that work with all those southern lunch counters prior to the Civil Rights Act?
The entire south was an economic basket case when Jim Crowe was in practice. It really is bad business. If a corporation does it, it's a violation of their fiduciary responsibiities. Money's all green on the back. I really doubt if you could ever get back to a situation where businesses will cut off their noses to spite their faces, & that's what they were doing. Economically, the Civil Rights Act was the best thing that ever happened to the south. You can join the klan or the nazis. It's not illegal. But if you don't keep it hidden, you'll be shunned by society. The Act was a liberation for everybody from the tyranny of small minded terrorists. It changed the mindset of America.

[Silcc69]

There is soem good stuff in here and I really don't know WTF Rand was thinking when he had sided with BP.

[hippifried]

Yeah. I haven't actually seen the Rand quote on BP. I can imagine, but I can't really comment.

I will say this though:
BP doesn't suck. They gagged, spit, & puked. Now they just blow.

[Cuchulain]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/21/politics/main6506354.shtml

Three comments from Paul in there that make him sound like either a total corporate bootlicker or an absolute moron.

[Faldur]

Three comments from Paul in there that make him sound like either a total corporate bootlicker or an absolute moron.

Looks to me he'd fit right in with the bunch of idiots that have gone before him.

"Too many ob-gyn's aren't able to practice their love with women across this country" GWB 09/06/08

"I think gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman." -Arnold Swarzenegger 2003

"I remember landing under sniper fire"
-- Hillary Clinton

"Every week we don't pass a Stimulus package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs.'' -Nancy Pelosi

"We have to pass the bill to know what is in it." -Nancy Pelosi

"I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." --Bill Bennett

Shit... Rand could be president with the crop of morons we currently have.. (shakes head)

[trish]

As long as a business depends on the public roads for the transport of persons and goods, as long as a business depends on the public mails for communication and advertisement, as long as a business depends on the police to guard the neighborhood in which it resides from crime, as long it it depends on the fire company to keep it secure from fire etc. etc. etc. there is a place for government within its walls to protect the civil liberties of its clients and workers.

[hippifried]

Nobody makes money or does anything else without the society at large. Everybody has a responsibility. Something that the Randian egoists keep denying.

That was a short trip, Trish. Thought you were foing to be gone for a couple of weeks.

[NYBURBS]

As long as a business depends on the public roads for the transport of persons and goods, as long as a business depends on the public mails for communication and advertisement, as long as a business depends on the police to guard the neighborhood in which it resides from crime, as long it it depends on the fire company to keep it secure from fire etc. etc. etc. there is a place for government within its walls to protect the civil liberties of its clients and workers.


Yea and those same services are used by individuals for non-business purposes, yet it is deemed that you have a right of association. The issue lies in the core belief that some hold in which they see making a living as a privilege instead of a right.

I'm certainly not advocating that a business should be able to do things that an individual cannot, but I also think the fact that money making is in the equation shouldn't change the rights a person has. If one can choose not to associate with someone (for whatever reason) as an individual then they should have that same freedom when running their business.

[trish]

"If one can choose not to associate with someone (for whatever reason) as an individual then they should have that same freedom when running their business."

This is of course pure belief, without reason. However, there is a distinction between business associations and other kinds of interactions. You know when you're doing business and when you're not. Everyone knows the distinction between business and pleasure, business and friendship etc. Why should the language of rights not make the distinction?

[NYBURBS]

"If one can choose not to associate with someone (for whatever reason) as an individual then they should have that same freedom when running their business."

This is of course pure belief, without reason. However, there is a distinction between business associations and other kinds of interactions. You know when you're doing business and when you're not. Everyone knows the distinction between business and pleasure, business and friendship etc. Why should the language of rights not make the distinction?

It is ground in reason. If providing for yourself is a fundamental right (which it is under almost any definition of fundamental right) and a right of association is a fundamental right (which it is according to our constitution), then you cannot separate the two.

Take a different approach for a moment. Say the government decides tomorrow that you must sell your goods to anyone regardless of their expressed political views. Now a Nazi group comes in and demands a seat in your restaurant, but you hate what they stand for and do not want to serve them. However, the government has decreed that you must or you lose your business license and face suit. So you are now placed in the untenable situation of deciding whether or not to harm your mode of survival or violate your right of conscience.

Now, of course you will point out that the law doesn't take that step in regard to political views, but applying your logic it could without violating anyone's rights. Also, some will state that the law primarily deals with race, which is distinct from political view. However, it also covers religious beliefs, and those happen to be quite similar to political beliefs.

For example, you run a restaurant and happen to dislike the stance that Southern Baptist groups take on gay marriage. So a Southern Baptist group comes in for lunch and you refuse to serve them because you have a policy to not associate with members of that Church. Congratulations are now in order because you have just violated Title 42 §2000a subsection (a) of the United States Code.

Long post, but my point is that as foolish as some forms of discrimination may be others are ground in sound logic and deep moral conviction, and private entities must be left to make their own choice of association if we are to protect the rights of all free individuals.

[trish]

The right of association is simply not the interpretable as the right not to do business with. What's the difficulty here? If you're business is open to the public, then it's open to the public. Long post for a non-issue.

[hippifried]

Now, of course you will point out that the law doesn't take that step in regard to political views...
I won't because the law does. What do you think a creed is? Sorry, but you don't get to discriminate over politics either. You're not talking about association. You're talking about somebody eating. You just happen to be the one with the food. How about taking it another step. How about the grocer or the farmer? Should they withhold food because they don't like someone? Of course not. There's a distinction between business & association. There's no interference with anyone's ability to earn a livelyhood at all. If you don't want to be open to the public, go "members only".

About the only loophole left to assholes is sexual orientation. In '64, everybody was scared to death of the "S" word, so it almost never made it into the law, & was added as a last minute amendment to the bill as a gender discimination issue. (That year or the next, Darren & Samantha Stevens [Bewitched] became the first TV couple to sleep in the same bed. Very risque.) Since "the gay" isn't mentioned directly, assholes at the State level have been real busy making sure that non-heteros can't be protected, & the assholes in Congress would love to take it a step beyond marriage. Sooner or later, somebody's going to figure out how to argue the 9th Amendment. In the meantime, the assholishness is getting whittled away & the stigma is shriveling. Before you know it, the only ones left who it will be politically correct & socially acceptable to hate will be the French.

[NYBURBS]

How about taking it another step. How about the grocer or the farmer? Should they withhold food because they don't like someone?

Yes they should be able to, for the reasons I addressed above.

Trish: You know as well as I do that they are not separate things. Association and business are very intertwined. Besides your argument is weak in the fact that places "open to the public" refuse people on other grounds all the time.

Bars/Clubs for instance will refuse ppl dressed a certain way, people of a certain age, people not "beautiful" enough, etc. They're open to the public but still choose which members of the public they will serve.

[Ben]

Is Rand Paul Crazier Than Anyone Else in D.C.?

The media mock libertarians and other candidates outside the mainstream. But are their ideas really any less valid than those of the ‘centrists’?

http://www.newsweek.com/content/newsweek/2010/05/25/is-rand-paul-crazier-than-anyone-else-in-d-c/_jcr_content/body/inlineimage.img.jpg/1274905622211.jpg (http://photo.newsweek.com/2010/4/conservative-reactionary-movements.html)
The Right Stuff: A history of conservative movements.


Forced to name the “craziest” policy favored by American politicians, I’d say the multibillion-dollar war on drugs, which no one thinks is winnable. Asked about the most “extreme,” I’d cite the invasion of Iraq, a war of choice that has cost many billions of dollars and countless innocent lives. The “kookiest” policy is arguably farm subsidies for corn, sugar, and tobacco—products that people ought to consume less, not more.


These are contentious judgments. I hardly expect the news media to denigrate the policies I’ve named, nor do I expect their Republican and Democratic supporters to be labeled crazy, kooky, or extreme. These disparaging descriptors are never applied to America’s policy establishment, even when it is proved ruinously wrong, whereas politicians who don’t fit the mainstream Democratic or Republican mode, such as libertarians, are mocked almost reflexively in these terms, if they are covered at all.


http://s0.2mdn.net/2214451/NW_300x250-nom.gif (http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh%3Dv8/39a8/3/0/%2a/e%3B223157876%3B0-0%3B1%3B32930014%3B4307-300/250%3B35922123/35940001/1%3B%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://www.theworldchallenge.co.uk/)
Kentucky GOP Senate candidate Rand Paul is the most recent subject of these attacks. “Is Rand Paul ‘Crazy’?” asked a headline in The Week (http://theweek.com/article/index/203140/is-rand-paul-crazy). “Rand Paul may not be a racist, but he is an extremist,” Ezra Klein wrote in The Washington Post (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/05/rand_paul_may_not_be_a_racist.html). “The newest Washington parlor game is coming up with wacky questions to ask Rand Paul about his worldview,” noted Robert Schlesinger (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/05/22/the-problem-with-rand-pauls-convictions.html), opinion editor of U.S. News & World Report.


This is how the notion forms that libertarians are especially nutty. The overall attitude is captured nicely by a hyperbolic post at Gawker (http://gawker.com/5544827/rand-paul-is-even-crazier-than-his-racist-and-pro+bp-gaffes-suggest), that reliable purveyor of snarky conventional wisdom. “Rand Paul, it seems, is the political-contender version of the mouth-breathing conspiracy theorist with missing teeth and a torn plastic bag full of photocopies who you hope doesn’t sit next to you on public transport,” Ravi Somaiya writes, prompted by an old speech the Senate candidate gave in opposition to a trans–North American superhighway that is more conspiracy theory than actual proposal.


And it’s true, Paul has plenty of beliefs that I regard as wacky, such as his naive, now withdrawn, assumption that markets would have obviated the need for certain provisions in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Or his desire to return America to the gold standard.


Of course, I feel world-weary exasperation upon hearing every national politician speak—have you ever gotten through the election-season television commercials without rolling your eyes?—but the media seem to reflexively treat some ideas and candidates less seriously than others for no legitimate, objective reason. Third-party presidential candidate Ross Perot was called a disparaging name so often that he tried to defuse the situation with humor by dancing in public to Patsy Cline’s rendition of the song “Crazy.” Rand Paul can’t escape this treatment even on Fox News, where an anchor called him a libertarian wacko (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oCXryE5fmw&feature=player_embedded).


If returning to the gold standard is unthinkable, is it not just as extreme that President Obama claims an unchecked power to assassinate, without due process, any American living abroad (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/world/14awlaki.htm) whom he designates as an enemy combatant? Or that Joe Lieberman wants to strip Americans of their citizenship (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36741.html) not when they are convicted of terrorist activities, but upon their being accused and designated as enemy combatants? In domestic politics, policy experts scoff at ethanol subsidies, the home-mortgage-interest tax deduction, and rent control, but the mainstream politicians who advocate those policies are treated as perfectly serious people.


Call them crazy, but Rand Paul, Ron Paul, and former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, a likely 2012 presidential candidate, oppose those policies, which puts them at odds with an establishment whose consensus shouldn’t determine whether we grapple with or dismiss an idea. As the most egregious excesses of the war on terror so clearly demonstrate, libertarian ideology doesn’t always lead its adherents to lunacy, and being “in the mainstream” isn’t always a self-evidently desirable characteristic, nor has it ever been in the long history of American politics.


Will the dismissive treatment of libertarians nevertheless persist? Will reporters covering a 2012 Gary Johnson candidacy zero in on his opposition to the war on drugs, and ask him questions like “Will sex offenders who’ve served their time in jail be able to buy ecstasy on their way to a Miley Cyrus concert?” Quite possibly. The press loves to ask questions premised on the most absurd applications of libertarian theory. But Obama won’t face incredulous questions from the establishment press about asserting powers that, if abused, would theoretically enable him to declare a political opponent an enemy combatant, deport him, and murder him using the power of the state.


The beliefs of libertarians and other candidates on our political fringes should not escape media scrutiny, nor should the media start making reflexive judgments about the wisdom of nonlibertarian Democratic and Republican policies, treating them with the open mockery and barely concealed disdain that Rand Paul and his father have received. But the policies and ideology of libertarian politicians should be treated as seriously and equitably as those of Lindsey Graham or Joe Lieberman, especially given the balance of political power in this country. It’s a de facto two-party system. And crazy, kooky, extreme actions are perpetrated by establishment centrists far more often than by marginalized libertarians.


Friedersdorf writes at TheAtlantic.com (http://www.theatlantic.com/special-report/the-future-of-the-city/) and True/Slant (http://trueslant.com/conorfriedersdorf/). Reach him at conor.friedersdorf@gmail.com or through his Twitter handle @conor64.

[hippifried]

Bars/Clubs for instance will refuse ppl dressed a certain way, people of a certain age, people not "beautiful" enough, etc. They're open to the public but still choose which members of the public they will serve.
Dress codes aren't covered. You can change your clothes & hairstyle. You can't change your melanin.

All public business is regulated. There's zoning rules & licences that are contingent on service to the public. Farmers get subsidies & price supports. If you're going to make your living off the society, & everybody does, then you have an obligation to be social. If people started going hungry, I have no problem with them forcibly taking farms away from those who wouldn't make their excess available, even for sale. It happens throughout history, & even recently. Property has no rights, & owning it is a privilege. Human rights trump everything.

[NYBURBS]

Dress codes aren't covered. You can change your clothes & hairstyle. You can't change your melanin.

All public business is regulated. There's zoning rules & licences that are contingent on service to the public. Farmers get subsidies & price supports. If you're going to make your living off the society, & everybody does, then you have an obligation to be social. If people started going hungry, I have no problem with them forcibly taking farms away from those who wouldn't make their excess available, even for sale. It happens throughout history, & even recently. Property has no rights, & owning it is a privilege. Human rights trump everything.

I know dress codes aren't covered, but they easily could be. The point is people make decisions about who they want to associate with. What is a human right? The right to be free? The right to provide for yourself? The right to associate or not associate with whom you see fit? It's certainly not to have people serve you upon your command.

Of course you're advocating using force upon someone that has not used it upon you, so that you might take as you deem fit. That is referred to as cynical egoism.

[hippifried]

I know dress codes aren't covered, but they easily could be. The point is people make decisions about who they want to associate with. What is a human right? The right to be free? The right to provide for yourself? The right to associate or not associate with whom you see fit? It's certainly not to have people serve you upon your command.

The priority human right is freedom from victimization. That trumps anybody's freedom to be an asshole. They aren't equal or absolute.

There's no problem with discrimination for cause, based on choices people make. Nobody chooses their parents. The law covers race, religion, creed, national origin, & sex. Now 2 of those five could be construed as a

choice, but the freedom to think & believe as one does trumps the freedom to act on it toward others. Discrimination is an action. Discrimination without cause is a victimization. A right for one is a right for all, & you don't get to trod on the rights of others in the name of your own. We all live in the society, without which all these abstracts about rights are unnecessary. Anyone who's uncomfortable with social restraint is free to leave.


Of course you're advocating using force upon someone that has not used it upon you, so that you might take as you deem fit. That is referred to as cynical egoism.
Not in this scenario, where food is withheld just because the one who has it doesn't like the one who needs it. We're not talking about shortages or subsistence farming here. We're talking about the grocer & the farmer who supplies the grocer. Deliberately causing others to go hungry is an act of violence. Fighting words at the very least. It's an assault. There's no such thing as a right to impunity. Commandeering the food supply, in this instance, is an act of self defence. Tyranny is not a government function & doesn't even require the existence of government. Being an asshole is risky behavior & there's no protection if one insists on that behavior.

Sorry spud, but you're advocating immorality. You're denying the social moral code of reciprosity. Without that, there's no society & all your "rights" are irrelevant. So's all the BS about property, livelyhoods, & association. If someone wants to live like an animal, there's lots of woods, jungle, & desert to go hide in. If you want to live like a human being & reap the benefits & protections of human society, then it's incumbent on you to be social. Ayn Rand's psychobabble egoist theories were woefully incomplete, & therefore she was wrong. We're more than individuals, working from self-interest alone. We're social critters & "colectivism" is our nature. Without the social collective, we could never have survived as a species.

[trish]

Of course the right to property is intertwined with the freedom to associate (which you seem to confuse with the freedom not to associate) and with other liberties. This doesn’t mean they can be inflated with logical impunity; nor does it automatically allow properties rights to function as trump cards. They certainly do not trump civil liberties. BTW, discriminating on a one time basis on the style of clothing someone chose wore one night to a club is more akin to judging a contest than trumping that person’s right to enter the threshold of a "club". I’m disappointed you would deliberately equate this with an African-American's right to buy breakfast at a Denny’s.

Property rights are granted by society at large, often with strings attached. There is no metaphysical connection between you and your property. There is no physical test one can perform to decide ownership. You own your stuff because the society grants your claim of ownership

[NYBURBS]

Of course the right to property is intertwined with the freedom to associate (which you seem to confuse with the freedom not to associate) and with other liberties.

The freedom to associate and the freedom not to associate derive from the same basic right, and cannot be separated. If you are allowed a pro-choice bumper sticker, but the law required you to also apply a pro-life one, then essentially your right to distinguish your association with or against something has been diminished.



Property rights are granted by society at large, often with strings attached. There is no metaphysical connection between you and your property. There is no physical test one can perform to decide ownership. You own your stuff because the society grants your claim of ownership

Yes property rights are a function of law, but who you work for or service is a personal choice that exists without society's say so. Property rights are designed to to safeguard one's ability to exercise more inherent rights, and association/speech/thought are held among the most important of those.

As I wrote earlier, it's not that I think someone is going to come up with a good logical reason to exclude someone based on their race, but the government should not be involved in personal decisions such as that. You end up opening the door for other policies that are simply insufferable in a free society. The parts of the civil rights act that forbids government action against someone, or punishes its deliberate inaction that is premised upon its own discriminatory policies, is a wonderful thing. My one issue with it, and obviously Rand Paul's issue with it too, is the section that deals with private persons.

[trish]

The association established through expression via bumper stickers can be separated from the non-association one attempts to express through closing one's business to say, Italian-Americans, or Korean-Americans, or say Gay citizens. Refusal to do business (an action) is not protected by the first amendment (which concerns the expression of political and religious belief through speech and free assembly). The government can intervene to protect citizens against wrongful action...which is what refusal to do business is.

[hippifried]

Hey Burb,

I can understand your position. I think it can't work as an absolute, but I understand it.

One thing though... Your analogies really suck.


Okay, back to it:

I'm seeing a problem here in respect to rights vs liberties. Rights aren't granted. They're innate. Some aspects are specifically recognized in law, but not all. Some liberties & priveliges come along with rights, & some others are grants. The distinction needs to be made when discussing specific issues in order to avoid confusion. This is the difference between us & Europe. It's the mindset with regard to government power, which is always a grant.

[NYBURBS]

Hey Burb,
I can understand your position. I think it can't work as an absolute, but I understand it.

One thing though... Your analogies really suck.


Well, I find simple and basic to often be best when trying to make these types of points. However, I'll do my best to live up to your wit and dazzle standard in the future kind sir :slimer

[hippifried]

YouTube- REGULATION VACATION CELEBRATION! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0)

[Ben]

Rand Paul Blocks Iran Sanctions - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CICZ6g_annk)

[Ben]

Sen. Rand Paul Invokes The Constitution In Iran Sanctions Debate - 03/27/12 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYn_4tSrD1s)

[Ben]

Rand Paul Abandons Ron Paul, Endorses Mitt Romney - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMzBJ3Nxth0&feature=plcp)

[Gouki]

he came out in support of Willard aka he sold out SMH

[Ben]

he came out in support of Willard aka he sold out SMH

Maybe he did sell out, maybe not.
Libertarian Lew Rockwell points out that Ron and Rand are different. He describes Rand as being a so-called Conservative. And is NOT a libertarian.
Plus Rand [probably] has high ambitions in politics. I mean, he could be Willard's running mate or the G.O.P. candidate in 2016 provided old Willard loses to Obama.
I, like most, assumed he had strong libertarian leanings like his dad. I like a lot of Ron Paul's positions. I didn't fully support all his positions. But a lot.
Ron Paul made sense with respect to the asinine/fruitless/expensive war on drugs.
We've a war on everything. Why not a war on dandruff -- ha ha!
I agree strongly with Ron Paul that we have to end all these wars. They're bankrupting the treasury. And they're to quote Ron Paul: "... illegal and immoral."

Lew Rockwell: Ron Paul and Rand Paul are different - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGfcS6NkiAY)

Ron Paul And Rand Paul Interviewed 1/31/10 Part 1 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAHL5tfwsRU)

[Ben]

Rand Paul endorses Romney - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB4voec2bTc&feature=relmfu)

[Gouki]

you can't compromise or take over evil, plain and simple

[Ben]

Rand Paul Launches a Preemptive Strike Against Domestic Drone Use:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/rand-paul-launches-a-preemptive-strike-against-domestic-drone-use/258422/

[Ben]

Rand Paul's Religious Fundamentalist View of Flood Insurance - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri1u0_FpLFk&feature=plcp)

[Ben]

Rand Paul Tries to Intimidate & Harass Journalist After A Youtube Video - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UKXpzdFQ_I)

[Ben]

Drone Strikes - Is Rand Paul a Constitutional Hero? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoWy7wnucXY)

[fivekatz]

Rand Paul may have had some correctness on his side when he puts a spotlight on the entire expansion of Presidential power that was granted to Bush 43 in response to 9-11 and has been closely guarded by Obama. And frankly rather than cloture as it has been used in recent years Paul demonstrated what obstruction is supposed to look like.

But whether it was poorly thought out or Rand Paul is a just a loony-tune, 4/5th of his talking points were crazy and inflammatory at best and at worst is a step towards inciting another Oklahoma City incident.

I applaud put a spotlight on the entire issue of drone use, which is a whole separate debate. The crazy stuff he said makes it easy to dismiss him and some of it was self-serving but drone technology is so new that what the rules of use should be need to smoked out but I happen to believe that drones are a better solution than invading a country to catch a single or a group of terrorists and if the world is going to fight terror proactively that is always going to be a dirty business.

[yodajazz]

For me, this is the major area where I disagree with Obama. But I am one who questions the validity of 'preemptive strikes, whether domestic or on foreign soil. The only exception I could see would be a military theater of war. Otherwise, it amounts to execution without a trial. Also it is a violation of another nation's
sovereignty. We would not permit another nation to kill people here, especially by bombing. Besides 'combatants' being killed, I'm pretty sure others are also killed in these attacks. So, in fact I see it as mostly counter-productive. I would ask, if doesn't create more enemies, than it destroys. Clinton used it also. This included attempts to get Bin Laden. Though I disagree with many of his views, I admire Ron Paul, for bringing up the subject of "blowback" in one of his campaign videos. So why cant the issue be brought up for public discussion about drone strikes, in general. I'm sure, that I disagree with Rand on many things also, like the video commentator.

For me the simple test of what is right or wrong, is asking the question whether I would approve of the same thing being done in my community. Or in other words: "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you." And in fact this whole 'new' controversy, is the part of the principle that is , doing unto us, what we have done to others.

[trish]

Before the expansion of presidential powers on 9-11, did Bush have the authority (never mind the mental wherewithal) to shoot down (with drones or missies launched from more conventional craft) the commercial planes filled wih innocent civilians that were heading toward their targets on 9-11? If I'm correct the president did and still has that authority and this is the kind of power Obama is reserving for the executive.

[hippifried]

Before the expansion of presidential powers on 9-11, did Bush have the authority (never mind the mental wherewithal) to shoot down (with drones or missies launched from more conventional craft) the commercial planes filled wih innocent civilians that were heading toward their targets on 9-11? If I'm correct the president did and still has that authority and this is the kind of power Obama is reserving for the executive.

Butt butt butt... They're DRONES!:hide-1: Doesn't that make everything billions of times more evil & horriblerer? Somebody said so on YouTube. Actual Presidential powers are never at issue as long as permission is granted for all actions before hand by the great cabal, which currently consists of Rush Limbaugh, Ronnie & Randy Paul, the stuffed corpse of L Ron Hubbard, & Noam Chomsky.

This damn Barry O'Bama guy just won't live up to expectations! I guess we'll have to take away the Irish potatoes (...oes) again.

[Stavros]

For me, this is the major area where I disagree with Obama. But I am one who questions the validity of 'preemptive strikes, whether domestic or on foreign soil. The only exception I could see would be a military theater of war. Otherwise, it amounts to execution without a trial. Also it is a violation of another nation's
sovereignty. We would not permit another nation to kill people here, especially by bombing. Besides 'combatants' being killed, I'm pretty sure others are also killed in these attacks. So, in fact I see it as mostly counter-productive. I would ask, if doesn't create more enemies, than it destroys. Clinton used it also. This included attempts to get Bin Laden. Though I disagree with many of his views, I admire Ron Paul, for bringing up the subject of "blowback" in one of his campaign videos. So why cant the issue be brought up for public discussion about drone strikes, in general. I'm sure, that I disagree with Rand on many things also, like the video commentator.

For me the simple test of what is right or wrong, is asking the question whether I would approve of the same thing being done in my community. Or in other words: "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you." And in fact this whole 'new' controversy, is the part of the principle that is , doing unto us, what we have done to others.

Setting aside the rights a President has, I think you have raised the crucial issue that ought to be a dominant theme in political discussion. The arguments in favour of the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles [UAVs] or Drones are that they are an effective counter-terrorism method that minimises collateral damage and casualties, that they reduce any dependence on combat troops in theatre, and that the cost of military engagement is therefore significantly reduced. Against this is the claim, on many occasions supported by fact, that collateral damage and civilian casualties DO take place; that the use of Drones increases hostility to the US motivating more rather than less potential attacks on US targets -(payback for drones deaths was one motive for the Times Square bomber); that it violates the sovereignty of states; that it is illegal under international law; and that it is promoting a new development in the arms race which must inevitably produce Drones for 'unfriendly regimes' - in this context, are Drones more worrying than nuclear weapons, be they developed by Iran or North Korea?

I think for Obama the key element is the absence of boots on the ground and the costs and complications that result from sending troops to foreign countries. Strategically, Obama inherited from Bush unresolved issues in the Middle East and South Asia -will they ever be resolved?- from which a strategic shift would be considered by critics a 'defeat' or 'weakening' of US influence in the region, as some must feel may happen with the progressive withdrawal from Afghanistan. Drones enable US military objectives to continue without the human cost to US service personnel, but do not address any of the fundamental problems of democracy, economic growth and good governance that cause so much violence and disruption in the region. Indeed, Drones may make it harder for the US to 'win hearts and minds' and further alienate ordinary people from the best of US intentions.

This link is to a long but serious discussion of Drones and strategy from a recent issue of International Affairs, highly recommended.
http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/International%20Affairs/2013/89_1/89_1Boyle.pdf

[trish]

1. It easy to see first hand why it is politically expedient to use drones rather than troops. I know that I personally would rather see my family and friends in the military stationed behind a joystick in Nevada than on the ground in Afghanistan and making incursions into Pakistan. That’s a big PLUS for the use of drones.

2. Political expedience on the domestic side makes it easier to slip a war (peace keeping missions, liberation, whatever it’s called) or two past the Congress and the electorate. That’s a big MINUS for drones.

3. I don’t know the statistics on collateral damage and how it differs between the use of drones and more conventional aerial strikes. The injustice of having your son, your wife, your mother declared a victim of collateral damage adds the grief of their loss; but being told the person responsible was robotically operating a drone one continent and one ocean away must feel particularly unjust. Another big MINUS for drones.

4. Someday, probably not very far off, drones will be in the hands of rogue states and terrorist gangs. But this is neither a plus nor a minus for our use of drones, because it will happen regardless of whether we continue in their use.

I suspect the widespread use of drones in the near future will neutralize objection (3) that death by robot is more objectionable than death by a bullet fired from behind the rocks and the trees. For me the big objection is (2). Already the U.S. is too readily inclined to “solve” problems by asserting its military might. We don’t need anything to encourage that inclination. For me the big argument for the use of drones is (1). The first guns already put soldiers further from the act the act of killing. Long range rifles are fired from hidden remote locations. Artillery can be fired tens of miles from the front. Mothers want their soldiers to be safe...at all costs. Drone technology is just an extension of the past capacities of military weaponry. It was always pointed in the direction of remote operation and deadly efficiency.

Thanks Stavros for the link. Try to read later this weekend.

[fivekatz]

The purest says that as a nation we do not engage in pre-emptive attacks or assignation.

The Neo-Con says that we invade and occupy countries where potential terrorists are hiding, hunt them down with conventional military plus intelligence, capture high value detainees, torture them into telling us a bunch of BS we want to hear and then leave them to rot at Gitmo.

The current Administration says when you can't get at a potential terrorist without use a large forces, you don't physically invade Pakistan and occupy, you target the suspect with a drone and kill them. Even when there is collateral damage it is a lot less than you'd incur if you went the Neo-Con route and it costs less beyond just blood but also in treasure.

Terrorism is not going away and just because there hasn't been a major incident on US soil since 2001 doesn't mean it has.

None of these choices are good. The purest waits to get hit. The Neo-Con jumps on the hit or creates war after war (Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia) to get at terrorists, the use of drones does create a execution without due process and does not give authorities a chance to interrogate.

Terrorism like insurgency largely nullifies conventional military defense techniques. It is a dirty business any way you look at. The fear of course is where drone technology will go not only in the hands of US Federal government and/or when the government changes will that power be used wisely but as time goes on it will expand all over the planet.

But for the moment I personally think it is the best of a bad set of choices and seriously doubt if any American would be questioning this if the World Trade Center was still smoldering.

[Ben]

Rand Paul's Anti-Drone Theatre | Think Tank - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTopGzJI1X8)

[yodajazz]

....

This link is to a long but serious discussion of Drones and strategy from a recent issue of International Affairs, highly recommended.
http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/International%20Affairs/2013/89_1/89_1Boyle.pdf

I read the whole thing. Wow! He makes many of the same arguments, that I have considered, but goes into more scholarly detail. He makes many interesting claims, such as saying the US is going beyond targeting leadership, to targeting ordinary foot soldiers, in some cases. They are more likely to have stronger ties to their communities, thus making anti-US backlash more likely. I noticed the deep irony, in his statement that innocent people in target area, feel "terror" about being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and being caught in a US drone attack. Another line that was amusing to me, came from an unnamed State Dept official, who was reported to say that, "three men, observed by surveillance, doing jumping jacks, is considered by some to be solid evidence of a 'terrorist training camp'.

I understand Obama's position of not being able to appear weak on 'terrorism'. I think a real public debate, would make him appear more reasonable, should he choose, to emphasize more strategic objectives, over drone strikes. I know that most on this forum are not as 'religious' as I claim to be. But for me, I am disappointed that religious leadership, does not speak on US drones, in terms of moral issues. Instead many look at sexual conduct as the major barometer of public morality. Killing people, in distant lands, with no names, and no accountability as to why in most cases, and not even being able to verify who and how many were killed, or injured, is damn near universally approved here.
Not even considering what those community we attack may feel, goes directly against one of the two commandments, Jesus left the world. But religious or not, a person who thinks and feels deeply about human issues, might understand there are always consequences, for the taking of human life without adequate legal framework to do so. "Blowback", is one of several terms that could be used to describe this.

One last thing from the article, that I also considered. How likely is that someone from a remote area in Yemen is going to directly harm something in the US homeland, so that his immediate execution is nescessary? Thanks much for the link Stavos.

[Ben]

Rand Paul Filibusters Brennan CIA Appointment Over Drone Strikes - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0XbU6KNq_4)

[fivekatz]

One last thing from the article, that I also considered. How likely is that someone from a remote area in Yemen is going to directly harm something in the US homeland, so that his immediate execution is nescessary? Thanks much for the link Stavos.

How likely was it that someone in a remote cave in the mountains of Afghanistan was going to launch an attack that ended up killing over 3,000 people in NY and DC?

Sherman famously said that all war is hell. Of that there is no doubt. The tactic is troubling and does require a leap of faith in both the integrity of the Administration but also the intelligence community. Still it is troubling than waiting to get hit without doing anything OR using the conventional warfare technics of the Bush Administration that created over $1.5 trillion in debt to date, well over 150,000 dead civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, a detention/torture center in Cuba that nobody knows how to close and little if any intelligence of use.

I get the civil liberty issues and the inhumanity of the killings. But if Rand Paul is really worried about American civil liberties perhaps he should sponsor real election reform. If he is really worried about the safety and well being of Americans perhaps he could support sensible gun safety regulations or possibly stopping this race to the bottom where America is the place where no defense contractor will ever go hungry but screw the unemployed and the under privileged.

Even if the topic is worthy of debate what a terrible messenger. Rand Paul is far more Tea Party than true libertarian and far more interested in his own self fulfillment than making a real difference.

I agree that drug laws are stupid. But while I agree with Paul that government is far too intrusive, I believe it is in people's personal lives from same sex marriage to choice. He believes it is regulating the robber baron bankers and the king's of pollution for profit like his benifactors the Koch Brothers want him to.

Bless Lindsay Graham for saying where were these GOPers when 43 was the President on this occasion even though IMHO far too often he has found himself opposing Obama not on the content of his policies but rather because of party affiliation.

[Ben]

Liberals should proudly cheer on Rand Paul: (http://www.salon.com/2013/03/07/liberals_should_proudly_cheer_on_rand_paul/)

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/07/liberals_should_proudly_cheer_on_rand_paul/

[Ben]

How likely was it that someone in a remote cave in the mountains of Afghanistan was going to launch an attack that ended up killing over 3,000 people in NY and DC?

Sherman famously said that all war is hell. Of that there is no doubt. The tactic is troubling and does require a leap of faith in both the integrity of the Administration but also the intelligence community. Still it is troubling than waiting to get hit without doing anything OR using the conventional warfare technics of the Bush Administration that created over $1.5 trillion in debt to date, well over 150,000 dead civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, a detention/torture center in Cuba that nobody knows how to close and little if any intelligence of use.

I get the civil liberty issues and the inhumanity of the killings. But if Rand Paul is really worried about American civil liberties perhaps he should sponsor real election reform. If he is really worried about the safety and well being of Americans perhaps he could support sensible gun safety regulations or possibly stopping this race to the bottom where America is the place where no defense contractor will ever go hungry but screw the unemployed and the under privileged.

Even if the topic is worthy of debate what a terrible messenger. Rand Paul is far more Tea Party than true libertarian and far more interested in his own self fulfillment than making a real difference.

I agree that drug laws are stupid. But while I agree with Paul that government is far too intrusive, I believe it is in people's personal lives from same sex marriage to choice. He believes it is regulating the robber baron bankers and the king's of pollution for profit like his benifactors the Koch Brothers want him to.

Bless Lindsay Graham for saying where were these GOPers when 43 was the President on this occasion even though IMHO far too often he has found himself opposing Obama not on the content of his policies but rather because of party affiliation.

The Koch brothers contributed to Rand Paul's campaign....
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00030836

[hippifried]

More hogwash to create more obfuscation.

The use of drone strikes is not a "liberal" or "conservative" issue.

[Prospero]

The fact that the technooogy for drones now exists means that it is virtually nevitable that "hostile' regimes will develop and use them (Don't Hezbollah already have some rather primitive versions of these). So expect iran, North Kirea et all to offer us their own drones soon - and i am sure Russia and China will have the technology very soon.

[yodajazz]

How likely was it that someone in a remote cave in the mountains of Afghanistan was going to launch an attack that ended up killing over 3,000 people in NY and DC? ...



Bin Laden was never charged with having something directly to do with 9/11. He was wanted in connection with the Cole bombings, and an embassy attack. The US has had 11 1/2 years, without a major terrorist attack.

Yes drone attacks are cheaper than invading a country, but that's still ignoring cheaper alternatives such as empowering the local/national governments to deal with their own problems. Also the drone process could be, an probably is, easily subverted. All someone has to do is to plant false information, through informants/double agents. Then the wrong people get killed. The local people get further enraged, and it becomes a perfect recruitment tool for anti US groups. According to the article the ranks of anti US groups are swelling greatly in areas US drone attacks. According to the article, even funerals have been targeted. Who goes to funerals? Also there have been double strikes, attacking people attending to the dead/wounded. All you have to do is to put yourself in the place of another, to better understand.

Executing people without having to provide evidence, is a slippery slope. We don't really even know how many non-combatants have been killed. We rely on the people who have something to lose, that is leadership, to tell us the results with no independent verification. There is also the question of whether national governments, such as Yemen, exaggerate the threat to the US, in order to get assistance with regional resistance groups. Didn't the US (we) 'accidentally' attack a funeral in Pakistan, killing maybe 20 people, a couple of years ago? Nothing wins friends like killing innocent people, huh? We should not ignore the possibility that someone planted false information, as the real cause of the 'accident'.

The other issues you mention are important also, but we can't just kill people and ignore the consequences. Bombs cannot kill ideas, especially when those who hold the ideas, live with others in a greater community. So we kill the person, but his ideas are simply passed on to another. On responses to news articles, I have seen people say we should exterminate all Muslims. The thing that bothers me the most was that others were not speaking about it being wrong, or impractical to eliminate 1/5 of the world's population. The thought of genocide is now ok, with some people. Some people dont understand why the sudy of human history is so important.

[Stavros]

I read the whole thing. Wow! He makes many of the same arguments, that I have considered, but goes into more scholarly detail. He makes many interesting claims, such as saying the US is going beyond targeting leadership, to targeting ordinary foot soldiers, in some cases. They are more likely to have stronger ties to their communities, thus making anti-US backlash more likely. I noticed the deep irony, in his statement that innocent people in target area, feel "terror" about being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and being caught in a US drone attack. Another line that was amusing to me, came from an unnamed State Dept official, who was reported to say that, "three men, observed by surveillance, doing jumping jacks, is considered by some to be solid evidence of a 'terrorist training camp'.

I understand Obama's position of not being able to appear weak on 'terrorism'. I think a real public debate, would make him appear more reasonable, should he choose, to emphasize more strategic objectives, over drone strikes. I know that most on this forum are not as 'religious' as I claim to be. But for me, I am disappointed that religious leadership, does not speak on US drones, in terms of moral issues. Instead many look at sexual conduct as the major barometer of public morality. Killing people, in distant lands, with no names, and no accountability as to why in most cases, and not even being able to verify who and how many were killed, or injured, is damn near universally approved here.
Not even considering what those community we attack may feel, goes directly against one of the two commandments, Jesus left the world. But religious or not, a person who thinks and feels deeply about human issues, might understand there are always consequences, for the taking of human life without adequate legal framework to do so. "Blowback", is one of several terms that could be used to describe this.

One last thing from the article, that I also considered. How likely is that someone from a remote area in Yemen is going to directly harm something in the US homeland, so that his immediate execution is nescessary? Thanks much for the link Stavos.

The religious angle is an elusive one, because both George W Bush and Tony Blair made no secret of their Christian Faith, yet neither could see a contradiction in that faith and the violence that was inevitably going to result from regime change in Iraq. Blair later said, when asked, that he would accept the judgement of God rather than the British people which suggested that he didn't particularly care what we the people thought at the time or since, a stance he has maintained -his Press Secretary, Alastair Campbell noted in his diaries how often Blair prayed before during (and presumably since) the operation began in Iraq, which he believed was a matter of Good versus Evil, whereas George W Bush apparently told President Chirac of France that 'Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East'...suggesting that for him it was the 'End-times' that occupied his thoughts.

Fundamentally, the realpolitik that guides the decisions to use drones does not address the causes of the threats to the USA, be it threats to US official personnel abroad or the population within the USA itself. It is not about any difference between Republicans or Democrats or left and right as Hippifried points out, but the existential threat to the USA. But are there any realistic threats below the level of the state? Obama is caught in this trap -if he doesn't use them and something happens he takes the blame; if he does and the wrong people are killed, he still takes the blame. But not using them does not appear to be an option at the moment.

Osama bin Laden declared war on the US in 1998 and attacked US targets outside and eventually inside the US itself. On this basis his 'military campaign' has enabled the US to claim that members of al-Qaeda were/are combatants in the context of international law, hence their prosecution in military tribunals in Guantanamo -although it isn't clear if such laws apply to any group of people who declare war on the USA- in this case 'non-state actors'.

And yes, it does mean that a single man in the Yemen who issues threats and makes videos calling for attacks on his own country -the case of 'the American' Anwar al-Aulaki- must be taken seriously up to a point, because he might be recruiting 'soldiers' in secret, or even on the internet -the point of intelligence in this context would be to establish the difference between an inflammatory 'preacher' with no practical means of attacking the USA physically, and someone with deadly, and realistic intentions to cause harm. Individuals verbally attack the USA every weekend at Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park, in London -that doesn't make them a credible threat (and anyway MI5 tracks them).

The broader problem of the Tribal Areas of Pakistan is that the US is engaged in a conflict of confidence with the military in Pakistan on the basis that the latter only half-heartedly deal with the militants, because some of them are backed by the Pakistan military and the Inter-Services Intelligence agency.

The fear that lawless regions can be used to train and recruit new 'soldiers' is undoutbedly part of the strategic mix, yet the fear that this was happening in Somalia was not met in reality, whereas a quite different problem, offshore piracy has become a serious issue. Indeed, the 'Islamic threat' in Somalia has receded and been replaced by Mali in this last year, athough the Yemen still gives cause for concern. But evidence does not show that lawless regions automatically provide a safe heaven for the al-Qaeda franchise -it didn't happen in Somalia, or Iraq, and it is unlikely to develop in Syria or Libya where internal politics are more pressing; and in Mali the Salafi are divided amongst themselves and loathed by most local people. The use of Drones against Boko Haram in Nigeria has become a possibility as the US increased its presence on the border in Niger at the end of February where it is claimed a 'Drone base' is being assembled. An attack on Boko Haram would be justified in a military context in the same way as attacks on al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
http://www.ng.quicknews-africa.net/index.php/news-m/952-us-may-deploy-drones-in-nigeria
http://www.nairaland.com/1205592/new-drones-nigeria-door-steps

I think the US has a deep anxiety about Pakistan, which is why Drones are used for the most part in the Tribal Areas, and this feeds into the problem of a resurgent Taliban -yet I cannot see any direct link between the use of Drones and the security of the USA as the politics of Bin Laden is dead. In Bin Laden's case, the attacks on the USA were tangential to his political campaign, which was to revive the Islamic Caliphate that was dissolved when the Ottoman Empire was finally laid to rest in 1923, but I am not aware that any but a few Salafi fanatics believe they can mount the revolutionary overthrow of the regimes in the Middle East and re-constitute the Caliphate, even if this is their interpretation of the 'Arab Spring'. And again, I don't know how attacking the USA advances this cause, except to say that attacking the USA for some is a badge of achievement.

But there still has to be a reason, a cause, for weapons to be used. I am not convinced that the use of Drones in the Tribal Areas, for example, has any real military purpose in the context of US security.

[yodajazz]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/05/world/asia/us-disavows-2-drone-strikes-over-pakistan.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0#

Here's a recent development. Others are claiming US drone strikes and the US is denying they were involved at all.

One important distinction in your post. I believe that Bin Laden declared war on the US military. If so, this would be in line with teachings in the Koran, that prohibits the targeting of non-combatants.

[fivekatz]

As far as this being a liberal or conservative issue, it isn't. The politicalization of the use of drones is different than legitimate concern over their use. I personal question Paul's motives regarding the topic.

The fact that he decided to use the topic of drone strikes on US soil, against US citizens who were non-combatants to filibuster an appointment by President Obama rather than question the correctness of the real drone policy may have been a dramatic way to put more light on the real policy but I personally believe it was motivated by politics and not moral outrage at assignation by drone.

Osama Bin Laden took credit for the planning and execution of 9-11 and did so quite proudly on video for all the world to see. So I think it is a straw man to suggest that he did have a lot of blood on his hands or that the extraordinary nature of the 2001 attacks did not warrant his being taken out either dead or alive.

Bin Laden also in his infamous post 9-11 pronouncements warned of more attacks on US soil against US citizens, so the whole theory that somehow Bin Laden was a holy man that would have only declared war against military targets is almost as revisionist as those who deny that the holocaust ever happened.

I understand that terrorists do what they do because the powers they oppose can not be confronted by conventional methods of warfare. But with that brings the question of how do you combat terrorist techniques when the tactics make conventions ineffective?

Cheney called it the dark side but then proceeded to use a bizarre cocktail of conventional war and occupation, combined with indefinite detention and torture. I honestly always thought he was talking about a cocktail of intelligence and as ugly as it is assignation.

The topic should be openly debated in the US and through out the world but I question Rand Paul's motives though the result is creating reasoned conversation about drones fueling the fear of the ultra extreme right in the US is never a good thing. Never forget Oklahoma City. Those people when incited can do horrible things.

[hippifried]

The fact that the technooogy for drones now exists means that it is virtually nevitable that "hostile' regimes will develop and use them (Don't Hezbollah already have some rather primitive versions of these). So expect iran, North Kirea et all to offer us their own drones soon - and i am sure Russia and China will have the technology very soon.

Huh? I had a working remote control airplane over 40 years ago. Mine was a relatively cheap toy, but the grownups had real good ones, with a national network of clubs for the enthusiasts. That's all a drone is. There's more satellites now, so the control can be farther away, but without all this modern communication, we wouldn't be able to publicly fret on this medium. Telstar went up in '62.

As for hostiles:
Ability to fly & wi-fi gets you a drone. If you can assemble a rocket, you can control it with a cell phone or your kid's X-box. Hezbollah has rockets. Therefore they have deadly drones, as the Israelis found out. Argentina gave the UK a small taste of the exocet back in '82. The french developed them in the '70s. The Iranians were effectively hitting Bagdad with Chinese built silkworm missiles during the Iran/Iraq war in the '80s. Etc...

There's nothing new here. Everybody has this "technology". I don't know why so many people are worried that what's already been happening for decades might happen someday.

[Ben]

Democrats Give Excuses For Not Joining Anti-Drone Filibuster:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/democrats-give-excuses-for-not-joining-anti-drone-filibuster

[Stavros]

One important distinction in your post. I believe that Bin Laden declared war on the US military. If so, this would be in line with teachings in the Koran, that prohibits the targeting of non-combatants.

No -the English translations of the 1998 Declaration include this paragraph:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God."

The quote from the Quran: "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," is from Sura 9:36 a chapter on Repentence; the second one, "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God." is from Sura 8:39, The Spoils of War.

However, none of the English translations of the 1998 Declaration are exact because some references to Quranic verses have been edited out -the English language versions I have seen appear to be the same- yet these missing verses would have meaning for those Muslims with a knowledge of the Quran as being part of the theologial justification for Jihad and was supposed to be part of the legitimacy that bin Laden and al-Qaeda sought amongst other Muslims. However one American scholar (Rosalynd Gwynne) argues that the manner in which Bin Laden and associates wrote the 1996 and 1998 Declarations opens up the charge that al-Qaeda has misinterpreted the Quran to support its own violent aims, quoting verses out of context. In this respect, al-Qaeda risked a degree of scepticism or even ridicule among the more scholarly Muslims for whom the precise origin of the verses is hugely important to understand what they mean. Curiously, Sura 9 is the only Sura in the Quran that does not begin with the invocation Bism'illah al Rahim al Rahman In the Name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate...

Bin Laden was challenged precisely on this issue of non-combatants, and argued that killing Americans regardless of who they were was justified in interpretations of the Quran, but cited two very obscure thinkers (a Pakistani called Sami Zai, and Abdullah al-Shehebi of Saudi Arabia -n18 in the link). He argued that there were no innocents on either side, a form of collective responsibility in which if the USA indiscriminately kills men women and children in the Islamic World, then they must expect the same indisicriminate violence in retaliation. This is clearly where the 'radical Jihadist' parts company with mainstream Islam and is a point of fracture in intra-Islamic conflicts notably those between Sunna and Shi'a.

Link one is to the 1998 text, link two is to the analysis (rather long I am afraid) by Rosalynd Gwynne at the University of Tennessee produced in 2001. The third link is to a chapter by Sohail Hashmi that has the references I noted above.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/military/jan-june98/fatwa_1998.html

http://web.utk.edu/~warda/bin_ladin_and_quran.htm

http://iis-db.stanford.edu/evnts/5261/911_and_jihad_tradition.pdf

[fivekatz]

In fairness this issue will not played out in the capitol very much is quite a burning issue with large elements for progressives in America. One could say that as much as Rand Paul used it for his political purposes, many Democrats are staying away from it only because a Dem is in the White House.

On almost every issue I like to believe I am very progressive. I do find myself more likely to empathize with Obama's "compromises than I would if they came from a right of center President. And I can find a great deal to critique in how they have handled financial reform or lack of it and the lack of punishment for the "bank-sters". My empathy comes in regarding ObamaCare which was a huge compromise, slash, sellout to the Big Pharma and Big Insurance.

But whether it was because I was in NY on 9-11-01 on business and had employees that were directly impacted by the attacks on the WTC, I have fewer issues with Drone use than perhaps I ordinarily would.

Whatever the case, terrorism is a cancer on society that targets the innocent to create as the name suggests terror and in the process destroy the will of the citizens to support their government. It is my choice not or to support my government and I do not want a few people with an axe to grind with my government to try and influence my decision either way by killing me or my fellow citizens.

So as long as terrorists exist as distasteful as it is to target humans for murder, this is a policy I find myself supporting at the same time I wish the Patriot Act would expire and we could get the A-holes in US government to allow the detainees in Gitmo to moved to the US and given due process.

I can only pray that some day before I die that there really will be some period of continual peace on the whole planet because I am not a young guy and there has never been a day in my life that somewhere in the world there has not been war.

[hippifried]

Democrats Give Excuses For Not Joining Anti-Drone Filibuster:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/democrats-give-excuses-for-not-joining-anti-drone-filibuster
Perhaps that headline should read: Fanatics make up excuses for nobody paying attention to them. The biggest lie that false ideologues on both the "left" & the "right" tell is that anyone who professes a certain bent should think in the stereotype of that bent, whether that stereotype has any basis in reality or not.

[Stavros]

But whether it was because I was in NY on 9-11-01 on business and had employees that were directly impacted by the attacks on the WTC, I have fewer issues with Drone use than perhaps I ordinarily would.

Whatever the case, terrorism is a cancer on society that targets the innocent to create as the name suggests terror and in the process destroy the will of the citizens to support their government. It is my choice not or to support my government and I do not want a few people with an axe to grind with my government to try and influence my decision either way by killing me or my fellow citizens.

So as long as terrorists exist as distasteful as it is to target humans for murder, this is a policy I find myself supporting at the same time I wish the Patriot Act would expire and we could get the A-holes in US government to allow the detainees in Gitmo to moved to the US and given due process.


I think it is a mistake to make policy based on reactions like yours -I was living in London at the time both the Official IRA and the Provisional IRA began a campaign of bombings (after 1972 it was mostly PIRA) across Northern Ireland and the UK, and the response of the British Government through actions such as Internment Without Trial, torture, and the aggressive policing of Catholic areas by the British Army actually worsened the security situation in Northern Ireland and the UK and led to more young men and women 'volunteering' for the Republican cause than might have been otherwise; 'Bloody Sunday' was another factor.

Indeed, 9/11 and the London Bombings of 2005 enabled the British Government to erode human rights and civil liberties even more than during 'the Troubles', with its collusion with the USA in 'extraordinary rendition' and torture, its imprisonment of 'suspects' held in prison without trial or even being told why they are in prison or what the evidence was against them -not for days or weeks, but years- and when these people do have access to the justice system, vide Abu Qatada, they can only win against a Government that cannot justify in law the causes of detention other than through supposition and hearsay. The humiliation of the British Government on imprisonment without trial has led Home Secretary Theresa May -currently being touted as the next 'Mrs Thatcher' to lead the Conservatives when they ditch Cameron- to argue it is time for the UK to opt out of European Human Rights legislation and its courts -in other words government should be allowed to do whatever it wants without the nuisance of the law getting in the way.

The latest Criminal Justice bill going through Parliament has approved a motion to create Courts that will operate in secret in order to 'protect intelligence sources', which is possibly true, but also works to cover up intelligence incompetence, and imprison people on the basis of no evidence at all, other than that they are Muslims -in the same way that the evidence of the threat in Northern Ireland all those years ago was the undeniable fact that the threat was called Patrick, or Sean, was Roman Catholic and lived on a particular street in Belfast or Londonderry. That the people should through public observance participate in the administration of justice should be basic to any modern democracy, we are to be denied this right not because we are too stupid to understand the case or too immature, but because on too many occasions governments get it wrong, arrest the wrong people, imprison people on the basis of flimsy evidence or faulty intelligence -but cannot bring themselves to admit they made a mistake. And how would you know what case was even being heard in a secret court?

Even though the turn to violence came out of the Civil Rights movement that began in Northern Ireland in the 1960s, had those rights (eg, the right to vote in some cases) not been denied in the first place, the 'moral' cause of the Republican movement would have been weaker -after all the Partition of Ireland of 1921 was not as universally hated across the country as many claim, even if it stored up the potential to cause trouble, as indeed it did.

But none of this was helped by the behaviour of the British Government in response to social conflict on the streets of Northern Ireland, and the draconian measures taken to deal with it became part of the problem for the succeeding 30 years. Yes, there is an ever present threat in the UK, from 'dissident Republicans', and from deluded Jihadists, and mostly our intelligence networks have done a reasonably good job of containing the threat, but the aggressive undermining of human rights and the democratic right to a fair and open trial are part of the problem not the solution.

[yodajazz]

No -the English translations of the 1998 Declaration include this paragraph:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God."

The quote from the Quran: "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," is from Sura 9:36 a chapter on Repentence; the second one, "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God." is from Sura 8:39, The Spoils of War.

However, none of the English translations of the 1998 Declaration are exact because some references to Quranic verses have been edited out -the English language versions I have seen appear to be the same- yet these missing verses would have meaning for those Muslims with a knowledge of the Quran as being part of the theologial justification for Jihad and was supposed to be part of the legitimacy that bin Laden and al-Qaeda sought amongst other Muslims. However one American scholar (Rosalynd Gwynne) argues that the manner in which Bin Laden and associates wrote the 1996 and 1998 Declarations opens up the charge that al-Qaeda has misinterpreted the Quran to support its own violent aims, quoting verses out of context. In this respect, al-Qaeda risked a degree of scepticism or even ridicule among the more scholarly Muslims for whom the precise origin of the verses is hugely important to understand what they mean. Curiously, Sura 9 is the only Sura in the Quran that does not begin with the invocation Bism'illah al Rahim al Rahman In the Name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate...

Bin Laden was challenged precisely on this issue of non-combatants, and argued that killing Americans regardless of who they were was justified in interpretations of the Quran, but cited two very obscure thinkers (a Pakistani called Sami Zai, and Abdullah al-Shehebi of Saudi Arabia -n18 in the link). He argued that there were no innocents on either side, a form of collective responsibility in which if the USA indiscriminately kills men women and children in the Islamic World, then they must expect the same indisicriminate violence in retaliation. This is clearly where the 'radical Jihadist' parts company with mainstream Islam and is a point of fracture in intra-Islamic conflicts notably those between Sunna and Shi'a.

Link one is to the 1998 text, link two is to the analysis (rather long I am afraid) by Rosalynd Gwynne at the University of Tennessee produced in 2001. The third link is to a chapter by Sohail Hashmi that has the references I noted above.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/military/jan-june98/fatwa_1998.html

http://web.utk.edu/~warda/bin_ladin_and_quran.htm (http://web.utk.edu/%7Ewarda/bin_ladin_and_quran.htm)

http://iis-db.stanford.edu/evnts/5261/911_and_jihad_tradition.pdf

Christian and Jews are not pagans, since they believe in the same God, whom Muslims call Allah. They are referred to in the Koran, as "the people of the Book". However, I understand that some Jews did betray the Prophet, in battle loyalties, but that still did not make them pagans. In those cases, I believe they would be called other names, but not such things as "non believers". The Koran is a 'high context' book. One needs to understand what was happening in real at that exact time. I think that 8th Sura, was written at a time, when it was rumored that a large army was coming after them. The two premises for war, are; 1. Those that would fight you because of your faith (that would be defense), and 2. those that would drive you from your homes, (that would be territory). I would agree that If Bin Laden truly believed that anyone could be attacked, his interpretations are obscure, since there are passages in the Koran, which directly forbid fighting non-combatants. I think the distinction that Bin Laden was not a 'good Muslim", so to speak, is very important. I even wonder whether or not some are trying to obscure this, for purposes of manipulating the public.

My time is limited today, so I will check out your references later. I do question whether Rand Paul is sincere, myself. I think he may have found an area which the Adminstration was vunerable. IN other words, he may just be doing it for pure political gain, not really about true moral reasons. The real issue should not just be about killing of Americans.

[Ben]

Three Democratic myths used to demean the Paul filibuster:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/10/paul-filibuster-drones-progressives

[Ben]

Rand Paul -- and the Life at Conception Act:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eMJSKHJH5Y

[Ben]

Rand Paul introduces ‘fetal personhood’ bill to outlaw abortion:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Friday introduced so-called “fetal personhood” legislation that would completely outlaw abortion in the United States.
The Life at Conception Act would declare that human life began at conception, providing fertilized eggs with the same legal status as born persons.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/17/sen-rand-paul-introduces-fetal-personhood-bill-to-outlaw-abortion/

[notdrunk]

Rand Paul introduces ‘fetal personhood’ bill to outlaw abortion:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Friday introduced so-called “fetal personhood” legislation that would completely outlaw abortion in the United States.
The Life at Conception Act would declare that human life began at conception, providing fertilized eggs with the same legal status as born persons.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/17/sen-rand-paul-introduces-fetal-personhood-bill-to-outlaw-abortion/

Rand Paul is full of shit. Most Americans don't believe in personhood. More people believe in restricting abortions than personhood. It is an attempt by pro-lifers to circumvent Roe v. Wade. Personhood sounds a lot better than banning all abortions. Hell, Rand Paul freely admits that is the purpose of his bill. Personhood only picked up a little steam in the last few years. It is similar to "Intelligent Design" pushed by Creationists to get their viewpoint into the classroom. Creationism became an icky word, so "Intelligent Design" replaced it. Branding is very important.

[fivekatz]

Paul is quite a character. In the same week he takes a stand on "personhood" that is radically to the right of center in its nature, he takes a stand against existing drug laws.

While just like his father his his voting record at moments conflict with the notation he is a true Libertarian his stance on drug laws is both very libertarian and IMHO realistically correct.

In a time when States and the Fed face budgetary challenges dumping a load of money into busting people for using pot is just stupid. Prohibitions never work and the expense of enforcement and the costs of incarceration do not make any sense. Instead the government should regulate and tax just like they do with booze that has a much more clear record of creating havoc in peoples lives.

I have no idea how this issue plays with greater electorate and I am not sure Paul does either, so a tip of the hat goes to him for staking out an position that cuts against convention but at least IMO makes total sense.

[trish]

If fetuses as persons we should count them in the census and charge them with criminal negligence when they cause the death of their mothers.

[fivekatz]

If fetuses as persons we should count them in the census and charge them with criminal negligence when they cause the death of their mothers.Great take!

[Ben]

Don't Stand With Rand - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07MH-WhrlK8)

[Ben]

The Flaw in Libertarian Theology:

The Flaw in Libertarian Theology - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7WUfFurZNQ)

[Ben]

Rand Paul’s missing spine (http://www.salon.com/2013/04/24/rand_paul%e2%80%99s_missing_spine/):

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/24/rand_paul%E2%80%99s_missing_spine/

[Ben]

We should bear in mind that we don't have a capitalist system. No capitalist system has ever survived. It'd self destruct in 5 minutes. So what we have is a kind of state-capitalist system. With the state playing a substantial role. Think: bailouts, research and development etc., etc.
Without the state, well, the corporate sector wouldn't be viable.
Is there an alternative to this???

Rand Paul: Liberals Don't Understand Capitalism - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohj2Jhkgcog)

[yodajazz]

We should bear in mind that we don't have a capitalist system. No capitalist system has ever survived. It'd self destruct in 5 minutes. So what we have is a kind of state-capitalist system. With the state playing a substantial role. Think: bailouts, research and development etc., etc.
Without the state, well, the corporate sector wouldn't be viable.
Is there an alternative to this???

Rand Paul: Liberals Don't Understand Capitalism - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohj2Jhkgcog)

I agree, but your statement, should contain about 500 'etc' in order to be more accurate. I now understand that most free trade agreements, contain copyright protections for US businesses. Actually some businesses are able to keep, the state or local tax money they collect from their employees, under the name of tax credits for business development. The list goes on and on. Assuming the official version of 9/11 was correct, 19 of the 21 attackers were from Saudi Arabia, however the US has strong business ties with that nation. But the US did not have that many business ties with Iraq, before the invasion. Contracts to 'rebuild Iraq' were given to US private contractors, as well.

[Ben]

I agree, but your statement, should contain about 500 'etc' in order to be more accurate. I now understand that most free trade agreements, contain copyright protections for US businesses. Actually some businesses are able to keep, the state or local tax money they collect from their employees, under the name of tax credits for business development. The list goes on and on. Assuming the official version of 9/11 was correct, 19 of the 21 attackers were from Saudi Arabia, however the US has strong business ties with that nation. But the US did not have that many business ties with Iraq, before the invasion. Contracts to 'rebuild Iraq' were given to US private contractors, as well.

YJ, here's the economist Dean Baker on: Patents, Copyrights, & Other Protectionist Barriers:

CEPR Seminar 10: Patents, Copyrights, & Other Protectionist Barriers - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAyA9Oegz-o)

[Ben]

Cory Booker Wants to Work With Rand Paul on Drug Law Reforms (http://reason.com/24-7/2013/10/23/cory-booker-wants-to-work-with-rand-paul)

[Ben]

Rand Paul Says Abortion & Science Could Lead To Eugenics | The Rubin Report - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uSunx1ud9Y)

[Ben]

Rand Paul Says Cheney Pushed Iraq War For Halliburton Profit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G_0rUH0iYY

[buttslinger]

I'd like to smoke a J with some of these govt insiders and get the great stories you never hear about in the news. But not Dick Cheney. He might accidentally try to light the bong with the gold .25 automatic Halliburton gave him when he retired.

[Stavros]

From yesterday's edition of the New York Times (online)

MEMPHIS — Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky broke Friday with fellow Republicans who have pushed for stricter voting laws as a way to crack down on fraud at the polls, saying that the focus on such measures alienates and insults African-Americans and hurts the party.
“Everybody’s gone completely crazy on this voter ID thing,” Mr. Paul said in an interview. “I think it’s wrong for Republicans to go too crazy on this issue because it’s offending people.”
Mr. Paul becomes the most prominent member of his party — and among the very few — to distance himself from the voting restrictions and the campaign for their passage in states under Republican control, including North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin, that can determine presidential elections. Civil rights groups call the laws a transparent effort to depress black turnout.
Speaking here in a mostly black and Democratic city with its own painful history of racism, Mr. Paul said that much of the debate over voting rights had been swept up in the tempest of racial politics.
The senator has had his own struggles with civil rights issues, hedging at times on his support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And, notably, he did not on Friday denounce voter ID laws as bad policy or take back previous statements in which he had said it was not unreasonable for voters to be required to show identification at the polls. He says these laws should be left to the states. (Kentucky does not have a restrictive voter identification statute.)
Instead, in his comments, he suggested that Republicans had been somewhat tone deaf on the issue. In the last three years, the voting rights fight has extended to more than 30 states and taken on a more partisan tone. The measures that have passed or are under consideration vary. Some require that voters come to the polls with a birth certificate, passport or other proof of citizenship. Others would cut back on early voting.
The movement gained momentum last year after the Supreme Court struck down a central provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html) that had required mostly Southern states to get Justice Department approval before changing its voting laws. States moved quickly, and since the decision last June, about a dozen have passed laws creating stricter regulations for voting.
Few issues ignite such passion among the base of both parties. Democrats argue that the laws are intended to keep poor voters away from the polls because they often have difficulty obtaining identification. Republicans contend cheating is rife in today’s elections.
Mr. Paul was in Memphis for the Republican National Committee’s spring meeting, but beforehand, he sat down to discuss his views on voting rights, public education and antipoverty policies with a group of black pastors.
Afterward, in a news conference, Mr. Paul admitted he still had a lot of work to do. Sometimes, he said, his audiences tell him: “I like what you’re saying. I’m still not voting for you.”
“That’s why you’ve got to keep saying it,” he said.
Mr. Paul’s remarks seem certain to stir up concern among Republicans over whether the senator — a libertarian-minded ophthalmologist who was first elected to public office three years ago — can appeal to the conservative voters who have so much influence in selecting the nominee.
He is not getting much support from Republican leaders in his efforts to change the discussion or the party’s tone. Colin L. Powell and Michael Steele, the former party chairman, have spoken against the restrictions. But no ranking Republican has done so, and there was no indication Friday that any would change their minds.Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, often seen as a party rival to Mr. Paul, has said that it is unfortunate that it is “minority voters who are the victims of that fraud,” but that governments “should not be working to undermine the integrity of our elections.”
Another Republican widely seen as a contender for the party’s presidential nomination in 2016, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, has embraced a contentious measure in his state to eliminate voting on Sunday and enact other restrictions.
Voting experts said the impact of the new laws might not become clear until the November elections. Many of the measures have yet to take effect, and a few will not start until 2016.
[/URL]N.A.A.C.P. officials said they were encouraged that a prominent Republican would challenge his party. “But the proof is always in the pudding in terms of seeing exactly what policies and measures he might support as an elected official,” said Jotaka Eaddy, the group’s senior director of voting rights.Mr. Paul is on a cross-country tour, stopping in Democratic strongholds like Chicago and Detroit where it might not seem obvious for a conservative Republican to seek out an audience.
After his meeting with the pastors in Memphis, Mr. Paul traveled a few blocks to address the Republican gathering, but he made no mention of voting rights. Instead, he hit on the message that the party needed to soften its edges and show more sympathy to populations that have felt overlooked and maligned by Republicans.
In the interview, Mr. Paul also stressed his commitment to restoring voting rights for felons, an issue that he said black crowds repeatedly brought up during his speeches.
“The bigger issue actually is whether you get to vote if you have a felony conviction,” he said. “There’s 180,000 people in Kentucky who can’t vote. And I don’t know the racial breakdown, but it’s probably more black than white because they’re convicted felons. And I’m for getting their right to vote back, which is a much bigger deal than showing your driver’s license.”
In trying to explain previous comments about the Civil Rights Act, Mr. Paul recently clarified that he would have voted for the landmark law, although he has expressed concern that its provisions may infringe on the rights of private institutions.
Some Democrats were not impressed by Mr. Paul’s efforts at outreach. G. A. Hardaway, a member of the Tennessee General Assembly, published a letter on Friday that called out Mr. Paul for his past statements on the Civil Rights Act and for saying that he did not think it was unreasonable to ask voters to produce drivers licenses.
“Get real, Senator,” Mr. Hardaway said. “To come here, to Memphis of all places, and espouse the principles and ‘goodness’ of today’s Republican Party,” he added. “Excuse me if I’m not buying it.”
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/10/us/politics/paul-says-gop-push-on-voting-laws-is-alienating-blacks.html?hp&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/10/us/politics/paul-says-gop-push-on-voting-laws-is-alienating-blacks.html?hp&_r=0#story-continues-3)

[Ben]

What would Rand Paul be like as President?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF0JvHmfDPI&list=UUbjBOso0vpWgDht9dPIVwhQ

[joanne_sven]

Just another hypocrite with a conservative logo, thinking conservative is not retrograde. Free thinkers, innovative and rational human do not carry flags. And this idiot is bound to have a short-lived hypocrisy. Good bye Rand whatever your pretend game is.

[Ben]

Just another hypocrite with a conservative logo, thinking conservative is not retrograde. Free thinkers, innovative and rational human do not carry flags. And this idiot is bound to have a short-lived hypocrisy. Good bye Rand whatever your pretend game is.

Not sure where Rand really stands. Is he merely an opportunist? Does he simply crave power -- and that's it???
Does the money system corrupt the political system -- ;) :) Meaning: has he been corrupted?
Does one change/alter one's values when they internalize the Washington/political/power structure???
Like or dislike his dad, well, you knew where he stood. I had mixed feelings about Ron Paul. I liked a lot of his positions. And then some of his positions seemed quite cruel, uncaring.

Ron Paul hypothetical health care question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BXTKrbGbZs

[Ben]

Ron And Rand Paul Do Not Agree About ISIS:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/katherinemiller/ron-and-rand-paul-do-not-agree-about-isis#1yqnz15

[Ben]

Rand Paul: “Over half the people receiving disability benefits are gaming the system”: (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/14/1357706/-VIDEO-Rand-Paul-Over-half-the-people-receiving-disability-benefits-are-gaming-the-system)

[Odelay]

This is Rand playing to his right wing base. As a reasonably smart guy, he doesn't actually believe that 50% of the people on disability are committing fraud. He's also a doctor so he is aware of the kinds of debilitating pains and mental disorders that some people live under. To refer to these as back pain and anxiousness is disingenuous.

I do broadly believe in the idea of personal responsibility that has become the ultimate credo of ultra-conservative dogma. However, I can't abide by the right wing approach to this issue.

1. Every system is corruptible. It's inherent. You can't design and build an incorruptible system that is used by many people. This applies to computer systems, social systems, religious systems, or any other system. Right wingers want to pull the plug on any system that they don't like and point to corruption as the reason, but they want to keep the plug in for any corrupted system that they do like, e.g. Christian churches. Can't have it both ways.

2. Our social safety nets help and protect people who badly need it. The right wing seems to never acknowledge the good that these programs do. Again, they point to the idea of personal responsibility and want to do away with the system instead of working on the fraud part.

3. I don't profess to know a lot about the operations of our safety nets, but my limited experience through collecting unemployment benefits leads me to believe that government is doing a lot to limit corruption. I had to attend employment audits where I had to produce evidence of me seeking employment, i.e. applications, response letters, etc. Had I not produced such evidence the government not only could have stopped future payments but also could have took me to criminal and/or civil court resulting in huge fines and back payment of previously paid benefits.

Rand is making the case that there are people who look like him (in their 40's) who are collecting disability. I doubt there are very few people who look as fit as Rand Paul who are on disability.

[Ben]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqZXjvWz09Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqZXjvWz09Q)

[Ben]

Rand Paul: Republicans Are Responsible For ISIS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CvUiCJ1aQA

[AshlynCreamher]

Ran Paul is just simply awesome; not only does he wear boots but he's libertarian.

"Let them do what they do"

[Ben]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JV47P_AXy7Y

[nitron]

Libertarians ," If you can't contribute, die". Progressive Leftys,"Only White Men are at fault for Earth's problems, die white men". Centrists (dem/rep),"The market controls everything , ...please shop!".....Sorry if I'm a little off topic .

[AshlynCreamher]

Ran Paul is just simply awesome; not only does he wear boots but he's libertarian.

"Let them do what they do"

I so take this statement back

Rand Paul has no backbone and is weak on immigration - aside from that he's excepted money from PACs and wallstreet

Rand Paul - BOUGHT AND PAID FOR

[flabbybody]

If he doesn't improve his poll numbers in the next few weeks he'll be relegated to the kiddies table with Jindahl. Oh I forget, Bobby will be watching from his couch