What, no Rand Paul thread?

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?

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.

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.

Oh and HI Comrade! Hope all is well ^^

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.

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.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cuchulain

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).

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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

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.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6506354.shtml

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cuchulain

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)

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

"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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

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.

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/news...4905622211.jpg
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
Kentucky GOP Senate candidate Rand Paul is the most recent subject of these attacks. “Is Rand Paul ‘Crazy’?” asked a headline in The Week. “Rand Paul may not be a racist, but he is an extremist,” Ezra Klein wrote in The Washington Post. “The newest Washington parlor game is coming up with wacky questions to ask Rand Paul about his worldview,” noted Robert Schlesinger, 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, 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.


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 whom he designates as an enemy combatant? Or that Joe Lieberman wants to strip Americans of their citizenship 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 and True/Slant. Reach him at conor.friedersdorf@gmail.com or through his Twitter handle @conor64.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYBURBS

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYBURBS

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

YouTube- REGULATION VACATION CELEBRATION!

Rand Paul Blocks Iran Sanctions - YouTube

Sen. Rand Paul Invokes The Constitution In Iran Sanctions Debate - 03/27/12 - YouTube

Rand Paul Abandons Ron Paul, Endorses Mitt Romney - YouTube

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gouki

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

Ron Paul And Rand Paul Interviewed 1/31/10 Part 1 - YouTube

Rand Paul endorses Romney - YouTube

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

Rand Paul Launches a Preemptive Strike Against Domestic Drone Use:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...ne-use/258422/

Rand Paul's Religious Fundamentalist View of Flood Insurance - YouTube

Rand Paul Tries to Intimidate & Harass Journalist After A Youtube Video - YouTube