Home› A Moving Train

TEA Party backed Rand Paul wins Kent. GOP Senate Primary

unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
edited May 2010 in A Moving Train
Congrats to Dr. Paul. Real change will be coming to Washington.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05 ... -kentucky/
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    I was originally on-board with the Tea Party when they were a 'No Incumbants' Movement. I also feel it would be a wake-up call to Washington if no incumbant were returned to their seat as representatives of us, the people. Democrats, Republicans, independents... any incumbant would be tossed into the ranks of the unemployed.
    But, when it was taken over by the people at FOX News and the Republican Party... I bailed. Great intention... horrible result.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSunLikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    Im wary of the Tea Party, but Rand Paul winning is a great thing.

    im also pleasantly suprised that its affecting democrats too. i was worried it was just republican bullshit.
  • VINNY GOOMBAVINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,818
    Congrats to Rand! Here's to more Libertarian-minded people being elected this November.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    Cosmo wrote:
    I was originally on-board with the Tea Party when they were a 'No Incumbants' Movement. I also feel it would be a wake-up call to Washington if no incumbant were returned to their seat as representatives of us, the people. Democrats, Republicans, independents... any incumbant would be tossed into the ranks of the unemployed.
    But, when it was taken over by the people at FOX News and the Republican Party... I bailed. Great intention... horrible result.
    I choose to follow the principle and not the party. In my case, that means not voting for two republican incumbents.

    I do agree that certain republicans have hijacked the movement to be self-serving. It's too bad that the sane majority are ruled by parties that cater to the fringe edges of the political spectrum.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    unsung wrote:
    Congrats to Dr. Paul. Real change will be coming to Washington.



    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05 ... -kentucky/


    perhaps the Teabaggers had a bit to do with this...however, I think his daddy's connections (i.e. Campaign Cash) had much more to do with his win...either way, congrats to Mr. Paul...
  • he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
    I assume that he is like his dad in that he believes in personal freedom for EVERYONE... he is not selective on who gets freedom?

    You know... you can have your guns if I can smoke my dope?

    If so... awesome.

    If not.... if he is a true "tea partier" who thinks freedom is selective (I can have my guns but we gotta check all brown people to make sure they aren't dangerous)... then no.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSunLikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    Jason P wrote:
    Cosmo wrote:
    I was originally on-board with the Tea Party when they were a 'No Incumbants' Movement. I also feel it would be a wake-up call to Washington if no incumbant were returned to their seat as representatives of us, the people. Democrats, Republicans, independents... any incumbant would be tossed into the ranks of the unemployed.
    But, when it was taken over by the people at FOX News and the Republican Party... I bailed. Great intention... horrible result.
    I choose to follow the principle and not the party. In my case, that means not voting for two republican incumbents.

    I do agree that certain republicans have hijacked the movement to be self-serving. It's too bad that the sane majority are ruled by parties that cater to the fringe edges of the political spectrum.
    I think they have tried to co-opt the movement, but are realizing they have no real control over the message. They have created a monster and now have no control over it. thats pretty funny!
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    Jason P wrote:
    I choose to follow the principle and not the party. In my case, that means not voting for two republican incumbents.

    I do agree that certain republicans have hijacked the movement to be self-serving. It's too bad that the sane majority are ruled by parties that cater to the fringe edges of the political spectrum.
    ...
    Which was the original intent of the Tea Party. For voters to break themselves away from the Political System we are being forced to accept. ANY seated Representative that was up for election was going to lose their seat, regardless of their Political Party.
    That has gone to the wayside since the Tea Party has been taken over by the Republican Party, using mouthpieces such as FOX News, AM Talk Radio and soliciting the services of the Sarah Palin's of the system to get the message out. The battle cry used to be, "Kick Them ALL Out"' and is now, "Kick All DEMs Out".
    Now, the Tea Party doesn't represent Independent Voters, as originally intended... it represents the Republican Party.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSunLikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    edited May 2010
    so far it hasnt had much of an impact on actual elections and i dont think it will. in fact the only real election yesterday went to a democrat. sure the dems will lose seats, but midterm elections always go to the party out of power. it wont be the slaughter that tea partiers make it out to be. i think there is a movement on the left side to get rid of incumbents as well.

    i think for me i'm kinda excited about the unintended consequences. it could be that the ultimate consequence would be to isolating the old republican party (and maybe electing a few libertarians) and throw out a huge amount of career politicians on both sides at the same time. that would be pretty cool.
    Post edited by LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun on
  • yahamitayahamita Posts: 1,514
    Yes, Indeed! Now I'm ready for some Change..
    I knew all the rules, but the rules did not know me...GUARANTEED!

    Hail Hail HIPPIEMOM

    Wishlist Foundation-
    http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
    info@wishlistfoundation.org
  • flywallyflyflywallyfly Posts: 1,453
    hummmmmmmmmmm..............

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/2 ... 82872.html

    Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul believes that the federal government blurred the lines between public and private property when it passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and made it illegal for private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race.

    Paul explained his views on "The Rachel Maddow Show" Wednesday, just one day after wholloping his opponent in Kentucky's Republican primary.

    Maddow focused on the Tea Party-backed candidate's civil rights stance after he publicly criticized parts of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

    Paul told Maddow that he agrees with most parts of the Civil Rights Act, except for one (Title II), that made it a crime for private businesses to discriminate against customers on the basis of race. Paul explained that had he been in office during debate of bill, he would have tried to change the legislation. He said that it stifled first amendment rights:


    Maddow: Do you think that a private business has a right to say that 'We don't serve black people?'

    Paul: I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race. Butdo discriminate.

    But I think what's important in this debate is not getting into any specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question 'What about freedom of speech?' Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent. Should we limit racists from speaking. I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things that freedom requires is that
    we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it...


    Paul argued that Maddow's questions weren't practical, but were instead abstract. She asked Paul to tell that to protesters who were beaten in their struggle for equal rights:


    Maddow:... Howabout desegregating lunch counters?
    Paul: Well what it gets into then is if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says 'well no, we don't want to have guns in here' the bar says 'we don't want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each-other.' Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion...

    Maddow: Well, it was pretty practical to the people who had the life nearly beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen's lunch counters despite these esoteric debates about what it means about ownership. This is not a hypothetical Dr. Paul.


    Paul will face Democratic Senate candidate and Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway in the general election to replace Republican Sen. Jim Bunning on November 2, 2010.
  • WaveCameCrashinWaveCameCrashin Posts: 2,929
    he still stands wrote:
    I assume that he is like his dad in that he believes in personal freedom for EVERYONE... he is not selective on who gets freedom?

    You know... you can have your guns if I can smoke my dope?

    If so... awesome.

    If not.... if he is a true "tea partier" who thinks freedom is selective (I can have my guns but we gotta check all brown people to make sure they aren't dangerous)... then no.

    Yes you can keep your buds :mrgreen:
    but what your last statement pretty lame bcos I guess we should just let anybody in our country and not know anything about them. Like who they might be,Do they have criminal record,are they wanted for any crimes or questioning ect ect... :idea:

    Actually I take that back you can't keep YOUR NUGS bcos they war causing you to loose all common sense ;)
  • blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    flywallyfly wrote:
    hummmmmmmmmmm..............

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/2 ... 82872.html

    Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul believes that the federal government blurred the lines between public and private property when it passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and made it illegal for private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race.

    Paul explained his views on "The Rachel Maddow Show" Wednesday, just one day after wholloping his opponent in Kentucky's Republican primary.

    Maddow focused on the Tea Party-backed candidate's civil rights stance after he publicly criticized parts of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

    Paul told Maddow that he agrees with most parts of the Civil Rights Act, except for one (Title II), that made it a crime for private businesses to discriminate against customers on the basis of race. Paul explained that had he been in office during debate of bill, he would have tried to change the legislation. He said that it stifled first amendment rights:


    Maddow: Do you think that a private business has a right to say that 'We don't serve black people?'

    Paul: I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race. Butdo discriminate.

    But I think what's important in this debate is not getting into any specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question 'What about freedom of speech?' Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent. Should we limit racists from speaking. I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things that freedom requires is that
    we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it...


    Paul argued that Maddow's questions weren't practical, but were instead abstract. She asked Paul to tell that to protesters who were beaten in their struggle for equal rights:


    Maddow:... Howabout desegregating lunch counters?
    Paul: Well what it gets into then is if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says 'well no, we don't want to have guns in here' the bar says 'we don't want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each-other.' Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion...

    Maddow: Well, it was pretty practical to the people who had the life nearly beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen's lunch counters despite these esoteric debates about what it means about ownership. This is not a hypothetical Dr. Paul.


    Paul will face Democratic Senate candidate and Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway in the general election to replace Republican Sen. Jim Bunning on November 2, 2010.

    While I see his point that in a true libertarian point of view, Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the government dictating rules to private businesses, but that nuanced answer won't play well politically against "Rand Paul disagrees with the Civil Rights Act of 1964" political ads and soundbytes.

    But if he does believe that it crossed the lines, where does he stand on other government intrusions into the private sector like building codes, OSHA/safety regulations, labor laws, etc?
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • ed243421ed243421 Posts: 7,673
    unsung wrote:
    Congrats to Dr. Paul. Real change will be coming to Washington.



    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05 ... -kentucky/

    do your homework unsung.
    or are you with him?
    do you really think a public restaurant should put up a "no blacks" sign?
    The whole world will be different soon... - EV
    RED ROCKS 6-19-95
    AUGUSTA 9-26-96
    MANSFIELD 9-15-98
    BOSTON 9-29-04
    BOSTON 5-25-06
    MANSFIELD 6-30-08
    EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
    BOSTON 5-17-10
    EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
    PJ20 9-3-11
    PJ20 9-4-11
    WRIGLEY 7-19-13
    WORCESTER 10-15-13
    WORCESTER 10-16-13
    HARTFORD 10-25-13









  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    I THINK PAUL'S WIN IS A GOOD THING...FOR THE DEMOCRATS... seriously, how easy is it going to be to campaign against a guy that thinks the civil rights act is unconstitutional? and that thinks that the FDA and other organizations should be abolished?? this was a gift to the dems because it is so easy to make soundbytes about where he stands on the issues, and according to most research, soundbytes do resonate with voters.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=5721332


    Wow...This guy is an idiot...
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    ed243421 wrote:
    unsung wrote:
    Congrats to Dr. Paul. Real change will be coming to Washington.



    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05 ... -kentucky/

    do your homework unsung.
    or are you with him?
    do you really think a public restaurant should put up a "no blacks" sign?


    I'm Libertarian/Constitutionalist so yes he has my vote when I can do so.
  • Backstop-440Backstop-440 Posts: 93
    Is Rand Paul going to get the GOP's backing in the actual election this fall?

    The strict libertarian view does not line up with the Republican views on Roe v Wade or the war on drugs.
    "Money is no object," I said, "but I am on a budget."
  • VINNY GOOMBAVINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,818
    Backstop-440 wrote:
    Is Rand Paul going to get the GOP's backing in the actual election this fall?

    The strict libertarian view does not line up with the Republican views on Roe v Wade or the war on drugs.
    He should have it being that he is the official candidate.

    The Libertarian view definitely does NOT match up with the current GOP's ideas on the war on drugs. As far as abortion, Libertarians are split on this issue. The marjority are probably on the "choice" side, but definitely not all of them. What it comes down to is the question of whether the fetus is a life or not. If it is a life, it is worth protecting. If it isn't a life, it isn't. Check the Libertarian Party's website for a stance on abortion-- I don't even see it there anymore. It is much less an issue to this party above all of the others.

    I do believe Rand thanks the fetus is a life, and therefore has all the rights afforded to human beings already born.
  • he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
    A true Libertarian would not want the state or country to get in the way of the woman having an abortion. No way.

    That said, most Libertarians that I know, myself included, think that it is not something that should be done with frivolity. In fact, I guess I'd simply call it "baby killing."

    The mark of a true Libertarian is when he/she doesn't allow morals, values or beliefs to get in the way of personal freedom.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    This is the Libertarian stance on abortion http://www.lp.org/platform

    "1.4 Abortion - Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

    I'll have to admit, when I was reading through their stance on different issues I found myself nodding my head in approval quite a bit.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • Backstop-440Backstop-440 Posts: 93
    I agree with a lot of the libertarian stances in theory, but in practice they are not so viable. But this is not a Libertarianism thread (because Rand Paul is officially a Republican candidate and he's going to have to fall in line with them) so I will shut up.
    "Money is no object," I said, "but I am on a budget."
  • he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
    Backstop-440 wrote:
    I agree with a lot of the libertarian stances in theory, but in practice they are not so viable. But this is not a Libertarianism thread (because Rand Paul is officially a Republican candidate and he's going to have to fall in line with them) so I will shut up.

    Why are they not viable?

    (NOT trying to start a "fight"... for some reason when I ask questions on this board I get all-caps responses sometimes)
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • VINNY GOOMBAVINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,818
    Backstop-440 wrote:
    I agree with a lot of the libertarian stances in theory, but in practice they are not so viable. But this is not a Libertarianism thread (because Rand Paul is officially a Republican candidate and he's going to have to fall in line with them) so I will shut up.

    I think he has to fall in line with them about as much as his father does... Which isn't very much at all.

    Ask Ron Paul who the real Conservative Republican is, and he will tell you that he's the one being a true Republican while the rest of the party has lost their way.

    I like Rand, although he appears to be more of a pollished politician than his old man.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    Backstop-440 wrote:
    I agree with a lot of the libertarian stances in theory, but in practice they are not so viable. But this is not a Libertarianism thread (because Rand Paul is officially a Republican candidate and he's going to have to fall in line with them) so I will shut up.
    They are not viable with Dems and GOP running things. Maybe it is time for "change".
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • Backstop-440Backstop-440 Posts: 93
    he still stands wrote:

    Why are they not viable?

    (NOT trying to start a "fight"... for some reason when I ask questions on this board I get all-caps responses sometimes)
    And I'm not looking for a fight. :) I'm too new here for all that.

    For example, the Libertarian view of the totally-free market. The theory is that businesses that do the right thing will rise to the top, and underhanded or low-quality businesses will fail, therefore the government does not need to regulate things. Well, sure, but what if customers are dying from their melamine-tainted crap and the businessman goes out of business and move to the Netherlands? Wouldn't we have been better off with a government safety inspector cutting off problems before the free market could react?
    "Money is no object," I said, "but I am on a budget."
  • FlaggFlagg Posts: 5,856
    Backstop-440 wrote:
    I agree with a lot of the libertarian stances in theory, but in practice they are not so viable. But this is not a Libertarianism thread (because Rand Paul is officially a Republican candidate and he's going to have to fall in line with them) so I will shut up.


    Yes a lot of it sounds nice in theory, but you can't do away with organizations like the FDA or else we would all be running around eating food tainted with pesticides. Oh, wait . . .
    DAL-7/5/98,10/17/00,6/9/03,11/15/13
    BOS-9/28/04,9/29/04,6/28/08,6/30/08, 9/5/16, 9/7/16, 9/2/18
    MTL-9/15/05, OTT-9/16/05
    PHL-5/27/06,5/28/06,10/30/09,10/31/09
    CHI-8/2/07,8/5/07,8/23/09,8/24/09
    HTFD-6/27/08
    ATX-10/4/09, 10/12/14
    KC-5/3/2010,STL-5/4/2010
    Bridge School-10/23/2010,10/24/2010
    PJ20-9/3/2011,9/4/2011
    OKC-11/16/13
    SEA-12/6/13
    TUL-10/8/14
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    I actually did just laugh out loud.
  • Backstop-440Backstop-440 Posts: 93
    You don't think it was many times worse before the FDA? Life was all beer and skittles before FDR started meddling with everything?

    Let's go back to the free market world of robber barons, traveling snake-oil salesmen, and sweatshop labor from the turn of the 20th century, yes please.
    "Money is no object," I said, "but I am on a budget."
  • VINNY GOOMBAVINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,818
    Backstop-440 wrote:
    Let's go back to the free market world of robber barons, traveling snake-oil salesmen, and sweatshop labor from the turn of the 20th century, yes please.

    The Robber Barons have given themselves a permanent place in our government: The Federal Reserve. They created the central bank, and it has been serving them ever since.

    As far as sweat shop labor, considering the power of unions these days I don't think that would ever be a problem ever again.

    If nothing else, abolish every federal agency in which the 50 states also have the same department. Department of Ed, Agriculture, etc... Too much redundancy, and too much money that goes unaccounted for.
Sign In or Register to comment.