Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

tea party + sarah palin + rand/ron paul

  • 20-05-2010 08:50PM
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,141 ✭✭✭


    i think people who called sarah palin a dumb biatch etc (which she is) are finding themselves in the deep end of the pool on their first swimming lesson, suddenly her prospects of 2012 are looking pretty good, she might be the front runner, along with ron/rand who even though arent supported by the establishment, are THE most popular people amongst the tea party (okay, maybe not ron, but his son is alot more popular)

    2m83wr8.jpg

    your views on this? i'd blindly vote for ron/rand if i could and they ran for president, but i'd never vote for sarah palin.


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Agreed I would vote for Ron Paul but never Palin.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 888 ✭✭✭Mjollnir


    i think people who called sarah palin a dumb biatch etc (which she is) are finding themselves in the deep end of the pool on their first swimming lesson, suddenly her prospects of 2012 are looking pretty good, she might be the front runner, along with ron/rand who even though arent supported by the establishment, are THE most popular people amongst the tea party (okay, maybe not ron, but his son is alot more popular)

    2m83wr8.jpg

    your views on this? i'd blindly vote for ron/rand if i could and they ran for president, but i'd never vote for sarah palin.

    Her prospects of 2012 'are looking pretty good'?

    Not in any of the known universes that I've ever heard of.

    Why would you 'blindly' vote for anyone? Ever?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,141 ✭✭✭imported_guy


    Mjollnir wrote: »
    Her prospects of 2012 'are looking pretty good'?

    Not in any of the known universes that I've ever heard of.

    Why would you 'blindly' vote for anyone? Ever?
    well it wouldnt be blind voting for ron, since i know his voting record is pretty much ideal for me, but rand, well i just trust him i guess? him being ron's son and all, their policies are similar even though rand appeals to both the tea partiers and the establishment a little more.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Well first off on Palin. "A Hick on a highrope" is the phrase that comes to mind. I would love if she got the nomination in 2012 because Obama would win by 10+ points easily. There are plenty of other talented people in the GOP that will rip her apart in 2011 GOP primaries anyway. Apparently she was close to a mental breakdown before her convention speech in St. Paul. Not very re-assuring for someone who wants to be president. She is a media phenomenon but that is all. She is clever enough to get rich out of this but she will NEVER be president and to entertain such notions is preposterous. She makes Bush look like FDR!

    On Rand/Ron Paul, well I don’t think Rand Paul will get elected to the senate. Its one thing firing up your base but to win a state (or national) election you must covet the independents. After this beauty only hours after his primary win its clear that Libertarian ideals are just that, ideals.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/20/rachel_maddow_and_rand_paul_discuss_civil_rights.html

    So there you have it, Rand Paul basically favours the rights of private business owners to discriminate against serving whomever they wish. Are we back to the 60's again?? See he just could not utter the word that YES! the Federal government actually do something’s well like the civil rights act. He would march with MLK but not vote for the civil rights act?

    See this is the real world where legislation has to be made.

    By the way I like Ron Paul. He seems honest and he cares about what he says. But do you want him as president? A pure Libertarian is just a nice word for an Anarchist


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,141 ✭✭✭imported_guy


    jank wrote: »
    Well first off on Palin. "A Hick on a highrope" is the phrase that comes to mind. I would love if she got the nomination in 2012 because Obama would win by 10+ points easily. There are plenty of other talented people in the GOP that will rip her apart in 2011 GOP primaries anyway. Apparently she was close to a mental breakdown before her convention speech in St. Paul. Not very re-assuring for someone who wants to be president. She is a media phenomenon but that is all. She is clever enough to get rich out of this but she will NEVER be president and to entertain such notions is preposterous. She makes Bush look like FDR!

    On Rand/Ron Paul, well I don’t think Rand Paul will get elected to the senate. Its one thing firing up your base but to win a state (or national) election you must covet the independents. After this beauty only hours after his primary win its clear that Libertarian ideals are just that, ideals.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/20/rachel_maddow_and_rand_paul_discuss_civil_rights.html

    So there you have it, Rand Paul basically favours the rights of private business owners to discriminate against serving whomever they wish. Are we back to the 60's again?? See he just could not utter the word that YES! the Federal government actually do something’s well like the civil rights act. He would march with MLK but not vote for the civil rights act?

    See this is the real world where legislation has to be made.

    By the way I like Ron Paul. He seems honest and he cares about what he says. But do you want him as president? A pure Libertarian is just a nice word for an Anarchist
    first of all ron paul isnt a pure libertarian, hes pretty moderate, at best. he is what we call a republican libertarian, follows conservative fiscal policies (such as the gold standard etc).

    well dont be so skeptical about sarah palin, she is alot more smarter than the guy who told us man and fish can coexist peacefully :D zing.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    first of all ron paul isnt a pure libertarian, hes pretty moderate, at best. he is what we call a republican libertarian, follows conservative fiscal policies (such as the gold standard etc).

    well dont be so skeptical about sarah palin, she is alot more smarter than the guy who told us man and fish can coexist peacefully :D zing.

    Well sound bites are all well and good but you cant govern on them alone.


  • Posts: 7,714 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    jank wrote: »
    A pure Libertarian is just a nice word for an Anarchist

    An anarchist, with stuff..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    How can you legitimately criticise Libertarians when you obviously don't understand even the very basic facts of the system. "Anarchism with stuff"? Come of it.

    Her tea party membership aside, I think Sarah Palin is just a little too wacky for most people; myself included. I have even spent a good deal of time in Alaska so I understand the sort of culture she comes from more than others. Ron Paul, however, is a consistent voice of reason and I enjoy reading his opinions.


  • Posts: 7,714 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Valmont wrote: »
    How can you legitimately criticise Libertarians when you obviously don't understand even the very basic facts of the system. "Anarchism with stuff"? Come of it.

    Am, no, i have a reasonable idea of the libretarian philosophy..thre anarchist with stuff comment was in relation to the seemingly similarities between certain parts of libretarian left(anarchist) as opposed to libretarian right('libretarian')..a major difference in the two philosophies is the issue of property, and property rights..


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    This post has been deleted.

    So you are basically in favour of legal discrimination by private business owners.:eek: A bar or restaurant is entitled to put up a "No blacks, no Irish no dogs" sign and the state cannot tell them otherwise? Man did you miss the whole civil rights movement of the 60's?

    This post has been deleted.

    So what role and functions should they be because everyone seems to have a different opinion on this. From my view the popular libertarian belief government is bad full stop!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 313 ✭✭HQvhs


    Yes, exactly. A private restaurant can choose to serve only Asian lesbians if it wishes. A private fitness club can choose to cater only to women. A private golf club may choose to admit only men. You can call this "discrimination" if you wish, but the point is that private businesses, clubs, and associations should have the right to discriminate.
    and this..
    Libertarians believe that the government should protect life, liberty, and property.

    I cannot get my head around the dissonance here. So the government should protect the liberty of its citizens but at the same time allow flagrant discrimination and bigotry too? Or should the government protect the liberty of its citizens to be racists? But what about the freedom of its citizens to be free from discrimination? The confusion!

    IMO, it's all well and good to have these esoteric templates to fit the world into. But while something like "libertarianism", "socialism", "communism" or "anarchism" may work well in theory when you're dreaming up an ideal world, in practice it will never work. Why? Because, unfortuntely, in the real world not everyone is going to agree on a template by which to run a country. Not everyone is going to agree that private business should have an absolute right to discriminate against whoever they want. At the same time, not everyone is going to agree that all wealth should be shared equally and all businesses run as co-ops. And, people may get pretty pissed when someone else comes in and tells them "no, you're wrong, my way is better for everyone". Just like people would get pretty angry if someone came along and said "No, it's better if employers can discriminate against whoever they want when making employment decisions, so tough luck if you're black and they don't like you, or Irish and they don't like you, or Polish and they don't like you".

    In the real world, compromises have to be made. Businesses, by and large, can discriminate based on reasonable criteria (i.e. "you're too drunk - get out of my bar." ; not, "you're too black - get out of my bar").
    Wealth isn't spread equally, but there is a small bit of redistribution just to make sure no one is living in abject poverty (although as with everything, this isn't perfect). And I'm sure you wouldn't be opposing welfare handouts for veterans or Medicare for OAPs? I notice most libertarians only support cutting welfare for the people who need it most, and the people who are least likely to support them.

    Look, I respect you're decision to try and fit the world into this template you have constructed (hell, when I was younger I was an ardent socialist! Then, I was an ardent libertarian. Now, I'm merely a moderate.) But at some point, you'll have to realise that most of the time, they don't work.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 709 ✭✭✭Exile 1798


    Ah yes, the horror that was the Civil Rights Act.

    What value human rights and decency when property rights might be slightly infringed upon?

    6a00d83451c45669e20133ee0b3a5e970b-550wi


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    Exile 1798 wrote: »
    Ah yes, the horror that was the Civil Rights Act.

    What value human rights and decency when property rights might be slightly infringed upon?
    No one has said it was a horror; merely that if one wants to, one can discriminate on their own property. There is a big difference between individual and state discrimination.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    That is a crazy world view to hold an there on lies the problem with pure libertarianism. Someone can hold a racist view point, they can be as racist as they want BUT you cannot deny someone a service because they were born a certain way. Be it white, black, Jew or Gay. That is the law as it stands now.

    The First Amendment doesn't mention anything about the right to discriminate or property rights. You can hold a KKK rally, you can have hold a Neo-Nazi rally. You can hate all you want but you cannot open a business and discriminate based on religion or colour.

    Pure socialism or libertarianism doesn't work because humans are flawed.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 709 ✭✭✭Exile 1798


    This post has been deleted.

    Not a divine right, a considered and reasonable right.

    I'm not really impressed by what Libertarians could never support. They are absolutists and their absolutist philosophy overrides all human concerns in every case.

    Human beings and society being far more advanced then Libertarian cultist beliefs we can actually ban supermarkets and restaurants from refusing Blacks and still manage to allow for your Catholic mothers group.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 709 ✭✭✭Exile 1798


    This post has been deleted.

    Clear and consistent, and unbending and invariable and rigid. I've already said that I'm not impressed by such absolutism, I don't know why you're putting it forward as a great virtue of yours.
    This post has been deleted.

    We allow female gyms because some women feel uncomfortable or unsafe training in a mixed male female environment for a variety of reasons, many of which most people accept to be reasonable. It’s not really that hard, a bit like having separate male and female toilets. Just a bit of common sense and decency, nothing that anyone but the idiot or the Libertarian would have an objection to.

    Blacks not being served in restaurants? No so much, yep I’m glad that practice was outlawed by the Civil Rights Act.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 709 ✭✭✭Exile 1798


    This post has been deleted.

    Is there one single example of straight women forming such a gym?

    My understanding is that gay gyms are only gay in their ethos, there's nothing preventing straight people from joining them and indeed many do if it's convenient for them.
    This post has been deleted.

    That's one element behind existing woman's gyms, and as I've already said, I have no objection to them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,026 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    This post has been deleted.

    From the article you quoted;

    He emphasized that while the planned nursing home would cater to the needs of homosexuals, including having staff specially trained in issues specific to the community, it would be open to anyone and would accept residents from around the country.

    “We don’t want this to be seen as a move back into the closet. Anyone will be allowed to live there. It would be another form of integration,” he said.

    This is something I can agree with. It's one which specifically caters towards LGBT people but where all are welcome. It does not prevent them from living there (which I don't agree with it at all, and yes, I apply this to women only/obesity gyms)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 709 ✭✭✭Exile 1798


    This post has been deleted.

    So straight women creating straight women only gyms isn't actually an issue?

    Can you see why many people won't find an argument based on a non-issue as convincing as one based on a real issue such as Blacks being excluded from restaurants, hotels, shops and the like throughout the South of the US? A real issue that was largely solved by the passing of the Civil Rights Act.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,026 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    This post has been deleted.

    No, I don't. If a gym wants to be geared towards women, run women-focussed regimes and dietary classes, then I see no problem with that. If however, they want to ban men from joining the gym then I'm opposed to such discimination.

    Keep in mind I'm an authoritarian social democrat.:cool:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


Advertisement