tea party + sarah palin + rand/ron paul

imported_guy · 20-05-2010 7:50pm #1

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)

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.

Iwasfrozen · 20-05-2010 8:06pm

Agreed I would vote for Ron Paul but never Palin.

Mjollnir · 20-05-2010 10:31pm

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?

imported_guy · 20-05-2010 10:59pm

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.

jank · 21-05-2010 12:57am

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

imported_guy · 21-05-2010 1:04am

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

zing.

jank · 21-05-2010 2:39am

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

21-05-2010 2:53am

An anarchist, with stuff..

Permabear · 21-05-2010 8:39am

This post has been deleted.

Valmont · 21-05-2010 4:07pm

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.

22-05-2010 12:43am

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..

jank · 22-05-2010 1:11am

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?

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!

Permabear · 22-05-2010 9:45am

This post has been deleted.

HQvhs · 22-05-2010 1:05pm

and this..

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.

Exile 1798 · 22-05-2010 1:59pm

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

6a00d83451c45669e20133ee0b3a5e970b-550wi

Valmont · 22-05-2010 5:51pm

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.

Permabear · 22-05-2010 7:13pm

This post has been deleted.

jank · 23-05-2010 2:59am

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.

Permabear · 23-05-2010 10:30am

This post has been deleted.

Exile 1798 · 23-05-2010 11:25am

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.

Permabear · 23-05-2010 11:38am

This post has been deleted.

Exile 1798 · 23-05-2010 12:07pm

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.

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.

Permabear · 23-05-2010 12:20pm

This post has been deleted.

Exile 1798 · 24-05-2010 1:28pm

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.

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

Permabear · 24-05-2010 2:20pm

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep · 24-05-2010 2:57pm

From the article you quoted;

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)

Permabear · 24-05-2010 3:07pm

This post has been deleted.

Exile 1798 · 24-05-2010 3:08pm

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.

Lockstep · 24-05-2010 3:19pm

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:

Permabear · 24-05-2010 3:23pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 24-05-2010 3:27pm

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep · 24-05-2010 3:32pm

Nah, religious freedom and all that. Given it's a central part of Catholic theology and otherwise harms noone.
Secular and Canon law need to have a lot balancing done. I don't believe in absolute freedom in this regard, but there needs to be leeway. If a church wants to have seperate rooms for men and women then that's one thing, but forcing women to undergo genital mutilation is another.

Permabear · 24-05-2010 3:47pm

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep · 24-05-2010 3:51pm

Yup, private religious institutions don't bother me. (As controversial as it sounds, I give a higher weighting to religious freedom)

Exile 1798 · 24-05-2010 3:57pm

You're speaking in sweeping and absolute terms which are invariably incorrect.

What Jim Crow laws shared universally was the enforcement of segregation in public places - schools, parks, universities. In some states there were also laws enforcing segregation on private businesses.

InTheTrees · 25-05-2010 9:05pm

You're trying to say the whites of the south weren't really bigoted racists it was just the state legislatures who came up with the discriminatory laws?

You're living in some kind of fairyland.

Permabear · 27-05-2010 9:59am

This post has been deleted.

SeanW · 27-05-2010 11:51am

@HQvhs, Exile1798 etc.

If you both think equal-service-in-restaraunt type laws are necessary, I suggest you set up a restaurant or chipper anywhere in Ireland with a "no Jews of Blacks served" sign and see how long it takes for private market forces (i.e. boycotts, bad press, excessive market fragmentation etc) for it to be rendered insolvent.

dlofnep · 27-05-2010 11:56am

No, they should not have that right. There is no right to allow a business owner to discriminate on who can or cannot enter their establishment, and there never should be. The last time we saw something like that implemented, was when African-Americans were not allowed to eat in white-restaurants, or use white toilets.

If you have to discriminate, then you don't deserve to be in business. Find a different job.

SeanW · 27-05-2010 12:04pm

And you wouldn't be in business very long if you set up shop in a society that abhors racism.

Permabear · 27-05-2010 12:37pm

This post has been deleted.

dlofnep · 27-05-2010 12:47pm

And it was happily accepted by many southerners.

When you open a business open to the public, it is no longer private in the same sense that your home is. You accept that you are dealing in business with the public, and as such - it would be wrong to reject business without a valid reason.

People operating business in the public, do not have the right and should not have the right to discriminate. Now, I understand your intentions are not the same as those southerners, and that you simply wish to limit Government intervention in your business - but this is one intervention I agree with, and feel is a necessity.

Permabear · 27-05-2010 1:08pm

This post has been deleted.

dlofnep · 27-05-2010 1:20pm

And that is your view, and you're certainly entitled to that view. However - I, along with many others would disagree that you have the right to select who you do business with - because it will ultimately in almost every case lead to discrimination - and I feel that when faced with the choice between the Government intervening with measures that stop discrimination, and the choice between selecting who you do business with - it's a very clear cut choice for me.

I never suggested that you would. But there would be those who would, and it would ultimately probably lead to violence.

That is true - but no Government in the western world is going to enforce segregation - so I feel your point is moot. However, if business owners were allowed to select whom they want to do business with - you would ultimately see discrimination on a wide scale. Not only that, but it would have a knock-on affect on how society sees things. If children grow up thinking that it is ok to discriminate, based on what they've seen in a restaurant, then what's to say that they won't discriminate in daily issues throughout their life?

For discussion sake.

Who exactly would you like to have the ability to reject business from?

Exile 1798 · 27-05-2010 1:22pm

How about in Rand Paul's home state Kentucky in 1956? Unlike some other Southern States Kentucky is overwhelmingly white, with non-whites making up only 10%-15% of the population.

I don't think "market forces" would be putting racist businesses out of order down in that place at that time. The Civil Rights Act however did.

Permabear · 27-05-2010 1:45pm

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch · 27-05-2010 2:15pm

That is a grossly misguided and dare I say dangerous viewpoint. It took laws to prevent discrimination and it is still rampant throughout the world and in many parts of the US. Without those laws minority groups will always be targetted and discriminated against because of human nature. Some day we might become more enlightened as a species and laws will no longer be necessary to prevent discrimination, but that day is still far away.

dlofnep · 27-05-2010 2:19pm

It's a major factor, yes. That and the factor that such legislation has normalized non-discriminatory practices. For example - In the south of the USA, it was socially accepted to be racist, because businesses were allowed to discriminate against people for their colour. If a child grows up seeing such practices - then it's going to have an impact on how he views society.

It wouldn't immediately. But after 1 or 2 generations when such behaviour has been normalized, then we would certainly see alot of it. For me - Even one business who discriminates unfairly, is one business too much. So I don't think the argument is even on how many businesses would engage in it. But there certainly would be quite a few.

I can empathise with that. I don't think anyone would want to do business with a dodgy character. But some might take it beyond that and associate "dodgy" with "working class". Then we have a problem.

Permabear · 27-05-2010 2:33pm

This post has been deleted.

dlofnep · 27-05-2010 2:44pm

Someone from a working class background can have a suit. My father has always worn a suit out to meals.

As far as dress codes go - I'm not actually sure what the law is on it. Out of curiosity - do you have any information off-hand on dress-code legislation?

LostinKildare · 27-05-2010 2:52pm

Discrimination against blacks and Jews is not an issue in Ireland. A more pertinent question to you: How many pubs in Ireland have been run out of business by an outraged public because they denied service to Travellers?

tea party + sarah palin + rand/ron paul

Comments