Thank you for finally answering the question. I'm not sure why you accused me multiple times of twisting his words when in fact I had it right all along. Rand Paul doesn't believe it was a good idea for the government to desegregate lunch counters. barfo
Paul doesn't say that is un-american. He said it's un-american to be hostile to business given any excuse.
“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws,” he said. Still a lack of comprehension. I suppose you don't want to if it doesn't fit the party talking points memo.
Well, which is it? Is a restaurant the "public sphere" or "private property". You've now said the Rand Paul believes in the civil rights act as it applies to the former, but not the latter. You've admitted he criticized the Act, but you are unwilling to acknowledge or discuss exactly what his criticism was. barfo
Except that he didn't use the word "hostile". He used the word "criticism". And as I've been told, Paul chooses his words carefully. barfo
A lunch counter is both public sphere and private property. The government has no compelling interest in it for either reason. You glossed over post #2 in this thread as if it were never posted.
There is little doubt that Obama is hostile to business, other than Goldman Sachs for some reason. It is unamerican for govt. to favor one business over another. It's bad enough that govt. has to buy weapons from the private sector.
Let me put it another way. The constitution says, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Being hostile to business is anti Liberty and is harmful to the general Welfare. Anti-american by definition.
Post #2 in this thread was completely irrelevant to post #1, except for the first sentence. You, on the other hand, have been dodging and weaving to avoid talking about the actual topic of this thread, which is Rand Paul's specific criticism of the Civil Rights Act and the political ramifications thereof. It's almost like you realize that his opinions are unacceptable and need to be hidden. barfo
That's nice, but we are talking about Rand Paul here. Ok. Are you saying that by criticizing BP for it's oil spill, Obama is favoring ChevronTexacoExxonMobil or whatever it is called nowadays? You'd prefer that the government manufacture weapons itself? Wouldn't that be "big government"? barfo
Oil spills do not insure domestic tranquility, promote the general Welfare, etc. Oil spills are un-American by definition. Criticizing companies that make oil spills is therefore defending the constitution. barfo
Which is entirely outside the mainstream of thought. I agree with barfo, the problem with the Libertarian school of thought is that it is far too extreme to be likely to be ever adopted. There's definitely room in the debate for a position of "less government." Plenty of people would go along with that. Essentially no government, outside of defense? No human society has ever agreed with that and my bet is that no human society ever will.
I have repeated his (and my) objection to govt. interfering with peoples' private property. It is fine for govt. to make its own rules, it's a stretch to call a lunch counter something to do with interstate commerce (otherwise the fed has no jurisdiction!). And if you don't want my observations and analysis about Rand's statements and views, you shouldn't ask or ask loaded questions.
Libertarians are not anarchists. You are putting up a strawman (anarchy) and arguing against that (I concur, but that's the point!) vs. Libertarianism. This human society created a govt. specified by the Constitution. Libertarians (and the founders) suggest we go by that plan for govt. over the make it up as you go, over regulate after the hose has left the coral variety.
You don't like the loaded questions pointed in your direction. Odd! The B in BP stands for British. I wonder what the Brits think of Obama's "criticism" of BP? http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100040294/100040294/ So maybe the threats that go along with the criticism are the issue? I'd actually prefer that companies that develop weapons on the govt.'s money not be allowed to sell weapons in the private sector as well.
So, it seems that now we are back again to the statement that I keep repeating, and you keep denying, but that seems to be true even though for some reason you don't want to admit it: Rand Paul thinks the government desegregation of lunch counters was not a good idea. barfo
He said he thinks the goal of desegregation of lunch counters was a good idea, and that he supports the Act and would have voted for it. Whatever else you're trying to make of it is talking points.
I questioned Obama's favoritism towards Goldman Sachs. It seemed to bother you. Oh well. The government is favoring certain companies by contracting with them to develop complex weapons systems. There should be some penalty to equalize that favoritism. Oddly, it'd be ideal if govt. did develop its own weapons, but it is so incompetent at all but a very few things it has to rely on the private sector, where all the innovation is.
He's also said some other things, but since you are unwilling to discuss or even admit to the other things he said, I guess there isn't much point in continuing. barfo
