Sarah Palin Endorses Clint Didier For Senate

[Beemnseven]

Would anyone here deny that the KKK or Fred Phelps the has the right to free speech? How about the right to peacably assemble? Most (I assume) would agree that disgusting and repugnant as they are -- yes, they do have those rights.

Now, how about their property rights? Do they enjoy those as well? That might be a little tougher for leftists; they tend to have their doubts about property rights in general. Property rights are no different whether you're talking about someone's home or a privately owned business. Now, would Goldwater or Ron or Rand Paul like to see businesses openly discriminating on the basis of color, national origin or religion? Absolutely not. But should a business be banned from putting a sign out saying 'minorities will not be served here'? That's no different from Fred Phelps who stands outside of funerals of fallen soldiers with the anti-homosexual banners. At that point you get into free speech issues.

It's a tough question for those who don't mind a little serious, introspective thinking. For those who lack the intellectual firepower to ponder something like that -- and you know who you are -- don't bother, you're sure to fry some brain circuitry.

That's all Goldwater and Paul's opposition to the Civil Rights act was -- a principled, though politically incorrect and unpopular stance on their devotion to the idea of individual rights -- even for the rights of those we find abhorrent.

[joethiesmanfan]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Would anyone here deny that the KKK or Fred Phelps the has the right to free speech? How about the right to peacably assemble? Most (I assume) would agree that disgusting and repugnant as they are -- yes, they do have those rights.

Now, how about their property rights? Do they enjoy those as well? That might be a little tougher for leftists; they tend to have their doubts about property rights in general. Property rights are no different whether you're talking about someone's home or a privately owned business. Now, would Goldwater or Ron or Rand Paul like to see businesses openly discriminating on the basis of color, national origin or religion? Absolutely not. But should a business be banned from putting a sign out saying 'minorities will not be served here'? That's no different from Fred Phelps who stands outside of funerals of fallen soldiers with the anti-homosexual banners. At that point you get into free speech issues.

It's a tough question for those who don't mind a little serious, introspective thinking. For those who lack the intellectual firepower to ponder something like that -- and you know who you are -- don't bother, you're sure to fry some brain circuitry.

That's all Goldwater and Paul's opposition to the Civil Rights act was -- a principled, though politically incorrect and unpopular stance on their devotion to the idea of individual rights -- even for the rights of those we find abhorrent.

I am sure you understand? The Supreme court interprets the Constitution. Goldwater nor Paul are on the Supreme Court.

[over the mountain]

"Property rights are no different whether you're talking about someone's home or a privately owned business"

you can discriminate on your own dime on your own time.

when you open a business that, in any way, effects interstate commerce (hotels for interstate travelers, a small portion of your corn crop is sold for profit), your business is subject to the Fed gov't regulations through the interstate commerce clause.

Can you wear a tshirt saying KKK? yes, thats protected speech.
can you wear a tshirt with a dick on it? no, that is offensive speech with no _____ value. i forget for the moment what "value" speech must have.

can you not allow cowboy fans into your home? yes
can you allow everyone into your "open to public" bar except for cowboy fans? no

can a private golf course not allow women to join the club? yes (even though i dont know how the ICC doesnt apply since it applies to everything the feds want it to. How come they dont make the argument that Augusta National has members who are residents from other states outside of Georgia so technically out of state money is passing into Georgia = interstate commerce = you cant discriminate. Im guessing its b/c they are a private club and not open to the public, which means everyone is excluded and not just singling out one race but in practice they are violating the theory)

[joethiesmanfan]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

"Property rights are no different whether you're talking about someone's home or a privately owned business"

you can discriminate on your own dime on your own time.

when you open a business that, in any way, effects interstate commerce (hotels for interstate travelers, a small portion of your corn crop is sold for profit), your business is subject to the Fed gov't regulations through the interstate commerce clause.

Can you wear a tshirt saying KKK? yes, thats protected speech.
can you wear a tshirt with a dick on it? no, that is offensive speech with no _____ value. i forget for the moment what "value" speech must have.

can you not allow cowboy fans into your home? yes
can you allow everyone into your "open to public" bar except for cowboy fans? no

can a private golf course not allow women to join the club? yes (even though i dont know how the ICC doesnt apply since it applies to everything the feds want it to. How come they dont make the argument that Augusta National has members who are residents from other states outside of Georgia so technically out of state money is passing into Georgia = interstate commerce = you cant discriminate. Im guessing its b/c they are a private club and not open to the public, which means everyone is excluded and not just singling out one race but in practice they are violating the theory)

Okay, write up a brief present it to the Supreme court and let them vote on whether your interpretation of the Consitution is approved by them or not. That is how our system works. You can state your interpretation as fact all you want but the system says the Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court. You are welcome to challenge this law for he umpteenth time if you like though, my fellow American.

[over the mountain]

im not trying to push my own interpretation of the Constitution. What i've written and cited to in this thread is the SC's very own rulings and opinions.

And i may be wrong, im not fact checking what i write but just going off what i remember from law school.

no need to get all snippy with me buddy. if i say burning a cross is not protected free speech, im not saying that its my opinion or interpretation, im saying the SC said so in their interpretation of the Constitution that hate speech is not protected speech and that burning a cross is hate speech.

The SC said hotels cant discriminate, thats their interpretation not mine.

Im going by what the SC has said and interpreted.

go wear a shirt with a dick on it in public and you will find that the SC has interpreted such speech as offensive and not protected. im not telling you that, the SC is.

[joethiesmanfan]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

im not trying to push my own interpretation of the Constitution. What i've written and cited to in this thread is the SC's very own rulings and opinions.

And i may be wrong, im not fact checking what i write but just going off what i remember from law school.

no need to get all snippy with me buddy. if i say burning a cross is not protected free speech, im not saying that its my opinion or interpretation, im saying the SC said so in their interpretation of the Constitution that hate speech is not protected speech and that burning a cross is hate speech.

The SC said hotels cant discriminate, thats their interpretation not mine.

Im going by what the SC has said and interpreted.

go wear a shirt with a dick on it in public and you will find that the SC has interpreted such speech as offensive and not protected. im not telling you that, the SC is.

LOL, cool i get it now.

[saden1]

SS33, if this was 1964 you think it's ok if he said he wouldn't vote for the Civil Rights Act? You understand Paul brought this subject up right?

Looks like heavenly sent Rand Paul is taking a cue from Palin and won't do anymore interviews. It's a shame, I wanted to see him wiggle some more. Best of luck to his opponent. I suppose he'll be replacing Jim Bunning so it isn't a big deal if one dummy is replaced by another dummy.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

SS33, if this was 1964 you think it's ok if he said he wouldn't vote for the Civil Rights Act? You understand Paul brought this subject up right?

I hope that's not what you took away from my posts. I thought I was pretty clear, but I guess not. So to be clear....It would not be OK for Paul to not vote for the CRA.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by saden1

SS33, if this was 1964 you think it's ok if he said he wouldn't vote for the Civil Rights Act? You understand Paul brought this subject up right?

Looks like heavenly sent Rand Paul is taking a cue from Palin and won't do anymore interviews. It's a shame, I wanted to see him wiggle some more. Best of luck to his opponent. I suppose he'll be replacing Jim Bunning so it isn't a big deal if one dummy is replaced by another dummy.

He's only the third person in 62 years --- 62 freakin years!-- to cancel an appearance on Meet The Press. If his positions are so solid, let's hear it then.

Stick a fork in this clown, he's done.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

He's only the third person in 62 years --- 62 freakin years!-- to cancel an appearance on Meet The Press. If his positions are so solid, let's hear it then.

Stick a fork in this clown, he's done.

I wish he was done but he isn't...I put his chance of winning at 60% despite his short comings. Let's he is stupid enough to talks about his views more....one can only dream.

[Beemnseven]

By November, this incident will be ancient history. If the Dems were smart, they would have held off on this story until mid-October or so.

From here on out, Paul's going to beat the drum of bailouts, spending, and health care; and that's what the voters care about. Not some silly academic/philisophic discussion on legislation passed ages ago.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

By November, this incident will be ancient history. If the Dems were smart, they would have held off on this story until mid-October or so.

From here on out, Paul's going to beat the drum of bailouts, spending, and health care; and that's what the voters care about. Not some silly academic/philisophic discussion on legislation passed ages ago.

I don't think there's anything trivial --then or now-- about the Civil Rights Act. You may feel that way, but I don't. And if it's so trivial, why does it keep coming up and why did Paul just cancel the biggest interview of his political career?

Surely Paul could have sat down with David Gregory on "Meet", allay all concerns during the first 15 minutes of the program and campaign, on the very issues you just mentioned, for the second 15 minutes on probably the most respected Sunday talk show. And I'll bet a shiny nickel that this story will still be hot come November. In fact, I think it's only going to grow whenever the Tea Party or Rand Paul's name is mentioned. Every time Paul speaks it becomes more and more apparent that his views are not within the mainstream.

Besides, his latest blunder is calling the president un-American for calling out BP and being too tough on them over the recent oil spill. Really Rand Paul, you're defending a British oil company for polluting American waters and affecting tens of thousands of American lives in the Gulf region? Just whose side is this dude on anyway?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I don't think there's anything trivial --then or now-- about the Civil Rights Act. You may feel that way, but I don't. And if it's so trivial, why does it keep coming up and why did Paul just cancel the biggest interview of his political career?

Surely Paul could have sat down with David Gregory on "Meet", allay all concerns during the first 15 minutes of the program and campaign, on the very issues you just mentioned, for the second 15 minutes on probably the most respected Sunday talk show. And I'll bet a shiny nickel that this story will still be hot come November. In fact, I think it's only going to grow whenever the Tea Party or Rand Paul's name is mentioned. Every time Paul speaks it becomes more and more apparent that his views are not within the mainstream.

Besides, his latest blunder is calling the president un-American for calling out BP and being too tough on them over the recent oil spill. Really Rand Paul, you're defending a British oil company for polluting American waters and affecting tens of thousands of American lives in the Gulf region? Just whose side is this dude on anyway?

LOL @ un-american. This story isn't going so long as he is dodging the media. He is not a smart guy at all.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I don't think there's anything trivial --then or now-- about the Civil Rights Act. You may feel that way, but I don't. And if it's so trivial, why does it keep coming up and why did Paul just cancel the biggest interview of his political career?

Surely Paul could have sat down with David Gregory on "Meet", allay all concerns during the first 15 minutes of the program and campaign, on the very issues you just mentioned, for the second 15 minutes on probably the most respected Sunday talk show. And I'll bet a shiny nickel that this story will still be hot come November. In fact, I think it's only going to grow whenever the Tea Party or Rand Paul's name is mentioned. Every time Paul speaks it becomes more and more apparent that his views are not within the mainstream.

Besides, his latest blunder is calling the president un-American for calling out BP and being too tough on them over the recent oil spill. Really Rand Paul, you're defending a British oil company for polluting American waters and affecting tens of thousands of American lives in the Gulf region? Just whose side is this dude on anyway?

I didn't say the issue was trivial. Property rights is extremely important. Again, that was his contention with the Civil Rights Act. But the issue and the law is settled, and in the end, I'm saying the voters will be on to more current, pressing issues. They're more concerned with the policies of fiscal insanity.

Now, this thing about being "mainstream" -- did it ever occur to you that people might be starting to see that "mainstream" political views is what got government to its current pathetic state? The republicans and democrats have been in complete control of everything for well over a hundred years, they've squandered and spent our money into oblivion and now have to borrow or print the money out of thin air and it's put us into bankruptcy.

Yes, Rand Paul is standing up for private business. That surprises you? This president wants a centrally-planned economy, works in direct opposition to the free enterprise system, and doesn't miss a chance to criticize, demonize, and make the case for outright control of the sectors of the economy that he and his minions don't particularly like. We've seen that already with the car industry, the health care industry, and the banking and finance industries.

If you believe that come November, the voters will forget all of that and instead focus on comments made to an obscure newspaper about legislation passed 46 years ago -- then hopefully the DNC will hire you as their national campaign director.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I didn't say the issue was trivial. Property rights is extremely important. Again, that was his contention with the Civil Rights Act. But the issue and the law is settled, and in the end, I'm saying the voters will be on to more current, pressing issues. They're more concerned with the policies of fiscal insanity.

Now, this thing about being "mainstream" -- did it ever occur to you that people might be starting to see that "mainstream" political views is what got government to its current pathetic state? The republicans and democrats have been in complete control of everything for well over a hundred years, they've squandered and spent our money into oblivion and now have to borrow or print the money out of thin air and it's put us into bankruptcy.

Yes, Rand Paul is standing up for private business. That surprises you? This president wants a centrally-planned economy, works in direct opposition to the free enterprise system, and doesn't miss a chance to criticize, demonize, and make the case for outright control of the sectors of the economy that he and his minions don't particularly like. We've seen that already with the car industry, the health care industry, and the banking and finance industries.

If you believe that come November, the voters will forget all of that and instead focus on comments made to an obscure newspaper about legislation passed 46 years ago -- then hopefully the DNC will hire you as their national campaign director.

As with most political discussions here, I don't think there's much that separate our views. i believe we agree on more than we tend to lead on. After reading your post and instead of going point for point, let's just say I agree with about 90% of what you said. The other 10%, I have to stay true to my DNC talking points I mean, God forbid you talk negatively about Obama.

Yes, the law is settled. But the issue and conversation is ongoing and evolving and Rand Paul, not Rachel Maddow or some other liberal, placed himself dead in the center of this discussion. He did it first with NPR and a small newspaper.

Just to bring this full circle just a tad bit, Rand Paul announced his candidacy on Rachel's show way back when. So he obviously felt comfortable going on the show. He agreed to do another interview following the election results, this wasn't an interview out of thin air.