Skip to main content

 <<<In addition to supervising his infamous racist newsletter, Paul has maintained such close ties with white supremacists over the years that Stormfront website founder Don Black considered him “one of us” — a praise echoed by former Klansman David Duke and the Montana Militia. >>>

 

See more at: http://www.breitbartunmasked.c...sthash.72AmH5eY.dpuf

 See alas:  http://www.vice.com/read/yeah-...cist-after-all-sorry

 

"<<<<In an essay on his eponymous institution's website Sunday, the former U.S. congressman from Texas wrote that any supporters of freedom should cheer secessionism because it allows for smaller government—a constant mantra for the libertarian and perennial presidential candidate, who didn't previously realize there were more than a handful of secessionist groups in the United States.

"I was real pleased with that, and a bit surprised," Paul told National Journal. "But then, on second thought, you think, 'Why not? Why not more?' ">>>>

 

http://www.nationaljournal.com...-in-the-u-s-20140930

I yam what I yam and that's all I yam--but it is enough!

Last edited by Contendah
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Since Paul is no longer in the government, I assume this thread is just information in passing.  Go back far enough, and plenty of former Democrat politicians would have close ties with the terrorist, para-military arm of the Democrats -- the KKK.  I remember even cranky old socialist Norman Thomas used to appear on the dais with the hooded ones.

Originally Posted by direstraits:

Since Paul is no longer in the government, I assume this thread is just information in passing.  Go back far enough, and plenty of former Democrat politicians would have close ties with the terrorist, para-military arm of the Democrats -- the KKK.  I remember even cranky old socialist Norman Thomas used to appear on the dais with the hooded ones.

___

You go  back 60 years and more to a past era, evidencing how desperate you are  to find something racist in Democrat history. Ron Paul lives in the present and Ron Paul's son is a hot prospect for the GOP presidential nomination. Dwell on the distant past, if you so choose; I posted about an old racist/secessionist who is still alive and kicking.

 

Go back only 10 years and see what Ron Paul infamously did only a short time ago:

 

The Civil Rights Act repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination. Although Paul was not around to weigh in on the landmark legislation at the time, he had the chance to cast a symbolic vote against it in 2004, when the House of Representatives took up a resolution "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Paul was the only member who voted "no."

 

As to Rand Paul on civil rights, well, the acorn does not fall far from the tree:

 

http://thinkprogress.org/justi...ontrolling-property/

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/02/...ul-civil-rights-act/

 

Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

Since Paul is no longer in the government, I assume this thread is just information in passing.  Go back far enough, and plenty of former Democrat politicians would have close ties with the terrorist, para-military arm of the Democrats -- the KKK.  I remember even cranky old socialist Norman Thomas used to appear on the dais with the hooded ones.

___

You go  back 60 years and more to a past era, evidencing how desperate you are  to find something racist in Democrat history. Ron Paul lives in the present and Ron Paul's son is a hot prospect for the GOP presidential nomination. Dwell on the distant past, if you so choose; I posted about an old racist/secessionist who is still alive and kicking.

 

Go back only 10 years and see what Ron Paul infamously did only a short time ago:

 

The Civil Rights Act repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination. Although Paul was not around to weigh in on the landmark legislation at the time, he had the chance to cast a symbolic vote against it in 2004, when the House of Representatives took up a resolution "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Paul was the only member who voted "no."

 

As to Rand Paul on civil rights, well, the acorn does not fall far from the tree:

 

http://thinkprogress.org/justi...ontrolling-property/

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/02/...ul-civil-rights-act/

 _________________________________________________________________

As he was born in 1935, going back 60 years isn't too far.  Dems had much more radical anti-civil rights views back then -- much more radical than Paul's.  

 

Your first cited link was pretty much a leftie hatchet job with little facts and actual statements cited. 

The son's argument per property rights reflect yours concerning gay rights. 

 

 

Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

Since Paul is no longer in the government, I assume this thread is just information in passing.  Go back far enough, and plenty of former Democrat politicians would have close ties with the terrorist, para-military arm of the Democrats -- the KKK.  I remember even cranky old socialist Norman Thomas used to appear on the dais with the hooded ones.

___

You go  back 60 years and more to a past era, evidencing how desperate you are  to find something racist in Democrat history. Ron Paul lives in the present and Ron Paul's son is a hot prospect for the GOP presidential nomination. Dwell on the distant past, if you so choose; I posted about an old racist/secessionist who is still alive and kicking.

 

Go back only 10 years and see what Ron Paul infamously did only a short time ago:

 

The Civil Rights Act repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination. Although Paul was not around to weigh in on the landmark legislation at the time, he had the chance to cast a symbolic vote against it in 2004, when the House of Representatives took up a resolution "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Paul was the only member who voted "no."

 

As to Rand Paul on civil rights, well, the acorn does not fall far from the tree:

 

http://thinkprogress.org/justi...ontrolling-property/

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/02/...ul-civil-rights-act/

 _________________________________________________________________

As he was born in 1935, going back 60 years isn't too far.  Dems had much more radical anti-civil rights views back then -- much more radical than Paul's.  

 

Your first cited link was pretty much a leftie hatchet job with little facts and actual statements cited. 

The son's argument per property rights reflect yours concerning gay rights. 

 

 ___

So then, those clearly incriminating verbatim quotations from Rand Paul are a "hatchet job"?  Well, maybe a hatchet job on HIMSELF!

 

And if you believe that Rand Paul's views on property rights reflect mine on gay rights, then say WHY you believe that.  Your simply saying it does not make it so. Some actual explanation, please.

 

Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

Since Paul is no longer in the government, I assume this thread is just information in passing.  Go back far enough, and plenty of former Democrat politicians would have close ties with the terrorist, para-military arm of the Democrats -- the KKK.  I remember even cranky old socialist Norman Thomas used to appear on the dais with the hooded ones.

___

You go  back 60 years and more to a past era, evidencing how desperate you are  to find something racist in Democrat history. Ron Paul lives in the present and Ron Paul's son is a hot prospect for the GOP presidential nomination. Dwell on the distant past, if you so choose; I posted about an old racist/secessionist who is still alive and kicking.

 

Go back only 10 years and see what Ron Paul infamously did only a short time ago:

 

The Civil Rights Act repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination. Although Paul was not around to weigh in on the landmark legislation at the time, he had the chance to cast a symbolic vote against it in 2004, when the House of Representatives took up a resolution "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Paul was the only member who voted "no."

 

As to Rand Paul on civil rights, well, the acorn does not fall far from the tree:

 

http://thinkprogress.org/justi...ontrolling-property/

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/02/...ul-civil-rights-act/

 _________________________________________________________________

As he was born in 1935, going back 60 years isn't too far.  Dems had much more radical anti-civil rights views back then -- much more radical than Paul's.  

 

Your first cited link was pretty much a leftie hatchet job with little facts and actual statements cited. 

The son's argument per property rights reflect yours concerning gay rights. 

 

 ___

So then, those clearly incriminating verbatim quotations from Rand Paul are a "hatchet job"?  Well, maybe a hatchet job on HIMSELF!

 

From the first source cited;

 

RAND PAUL: There are things that people were concerned about that were unintended consequences [of the Civil Rights Act], for example, people who believe very fervently in people having equal protection under the law, and are against segregation and all that, still worried about the loss of property rights…for example, I can’t have a cigar bar any more, and you say, “well, that has nothing to do with race” — the idea of whether or not you control your property, it also tells you, come in here I want to know the calorie count on that, and the calorie ****s come in here and tell me. [...] The point is that its not all about that. It’s not all about race relations, it’s about controlling property, ultimately.

 

Law, to a degree, relies upon precedent,, not just what is written down.  And, as Paul stated, we have seen establishments like cigar bars banned by over eager liberals.  Restaurants in Chicago banned from serving politically incorrect items like foie gras and requiring caloric counts for every item on the menu.

 

Condie's challenge:

And if you believe that Rand Paul's views on property rights reflect mine on gay rights, then say WHY you believe that.  Your simply saying it does not make it so. Some actual explanation, please.

 

"If the engaged same-sex couple does not like this aspect of the services offered by the Knapps, they can seek assistance elsewhere."

 

https://www.tnvalleytalks.com/t...9#414646549005230969

 And, how different is you statement above substantially  different from Paul's

 

 

Last edited by direstraits

He falls far behind this guy:

Robert Byrd

Ku Klux Klan

In the early 1940s, Byrd recruited 150 of his friends and associates to create a new chapter of the Ku Klux Klan in Sophia, West Virginia.[8][12]

According to Byrd, a Klan official told him, "You have a talent for leadership, Bob ... The country needs young men like you in the leadership of the nation." Byrd later recalled, "Suddenly lights flashed in my mind! Someone important had recognized my abilities! I was only 23 or 24 years old, and the thought of a political career had never really hit me. But strike me that night, it did."[8] Byrd became a recruiter and leader of his chapter.[8] When it came time to elect the top officer (Exalted Cyclops) in the local Klan unit, Byrd won unanimously.[8]

In 1946, Byrd wrote to segregationist Mississippi Senator Theodore G. Bilbo:[17]

I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.

—Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1946[8][18][19]

In 1946 or 1947, Byrd wrote a letter to a Grand Wizard stating, "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation."[20] However, when running for the United States House of Representatives in 1952, he announced "After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan." He said he had joined the Klan because he felt it offered excitement and was anti-communist.[8] But Byrd's friend and fellow Klansman Democrat Senator Theodore G. Bilbo told Meet the Press, "No man can leave the Klan. He takes an oath not to do that. Once a Ku Klux, always a Ku Klux."[21] Byrd never provided any corroboration for his claim to have quit.

In 1997, Byrd told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics but also warned, "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck. Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena."[22] In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision — a jejune and immature outlook — seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions."[23] Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."[8]

Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:

He falls far behind this guy:

Robert Byrd

Ku Klux Klan

In the early 1940s, Byrd recruited 150 of his friends and associates to create a new chapter of the Ku Klux Klan in Sophia, West Virginia.[8][12]

According to Byrd, a Klan official told him, "You have a talent for leadership, Bob ... The country needs young men like you in the leadership of the nation." Byrd later recalled, "Suddenly lights flashed in my mind! Someone important had recognized my abilities! I was only 23 or 24 years old, and the thought of a political career had never really hit me. But strike me that night, it did."[8] Byrd became a recruiter and leader of his chapter.[8] When it came time to elect the top officer (Exalted Cyclops) in the local Klan unit, Byrd won unanimously.[8]

In 1946, Byrd wrote to segregationist Mississippi Senator Theodore G. Bilbo:[17]

I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.

—Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1946[8][18][19]

In 1946 or 1947, Byrd wrote a letter to a Grand Wizard stating, "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation."[20] However, when running for the United States House of Representatives in 1952, he announced "After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan." He said he had joined the Klan because he felt it offered excitement and was anti-communist.[8] But Byrd's friend and fellow Klansman Democrat Senator Theodore G. Bilbo told Meet the Press, "No man can leave the Klan. He takes an oath not to do that. Once a Ku Klux, always a Ku Klux."[21] Byrd never provided any corroboration for his claim to have quit.

In 1997, Byrd told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics but also warned, "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck. Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena."[22] In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision — a jejune and immature outlook — seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions."[23] Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."[8]

___

HIFLYER2, don't you see the difference?

 

Byrd APOLOGIZED repeatedly and fully renounced his former association with bigotry, but Rand Paul has NOT renounced his veiled but still bigoted views, continuing to conceal his bigotry under cover of "property rights." As to Ron Paul, he has established a long record of hostility to the civil rights act and a well-documented history of bigotry in his infamous newsletter.  His record goes back decades and he has not repudiated it.

 

direstraits  poses this question: 

 

"If the engaged same-sex couple does not like this aspect of the services offered by the Knapps, they can seek assistance elsewhere."

 

https://www.tnvalleytalks.com/t...9#414646549005230969

 And, how different is you[sic] statement above substantially  different from Paul's [question mark assumed]

-------

 

 

You apparently overlooked this part of my statement:

The LAW, which I cited to you, makes an explicit provision for an exception based on religious exercise. It does not prescribe exceptions for other reasons.  Serving food, providing medical care, etc. are not religious exercises.  Performance of a wedding ceremony by a minister of religion is a religious exercise

Someone who is a bigot and prefers not to provide ordinary secular services to persons of another race can object all they wish, but they remain bound by requirements of law governing such things as access to public accommodations.

 

The LAW here contemplated is the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as the Idaho version, which is essentially similar in its religious exemption provisions.

Do you understand what is meant by "ordinary secular services"? They include such services as selling and serving food .  The term does not include those activities that are explicitly exempted by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which makes EXCEPTIONS only for RELIGIOUS activities that meet certain criteria of that act.  

 

My statement above ("If the engaged same-sex couple does not like this aspect of the services offered by the Knapps, they can seek assistance elsewhere.") was provided in the context of a suggestion that a minister might wish to include in his standard wedding ceremony a quotation from the New Testament that clearly condemns homosexuality. That would be his prerogative.  The gay couple seeking his services would not constitutionally be permitted to dictate the content of the ceremony the performs.  He would, of course, include that statement in ceremonies for conventional marriages, thus avoiding any accusation of "targeting" gays exclusively.  The gay couple, told in advance of this part of the ceremony, can still be married by the minister.  By contrast, Rand Paul's preferred version of a civil rights act would permit a restaurant owner to outrightly deny service on the basis of race on some specious concept of "property rights."  If Paul wishes to embed a "property rights" exception within the federal Civil Rights Act, then it is his prerogative as a U.S. Senator to introduce legislation to that effect.  Such a move would not advance his prospects for higher office.

 

This scenario contemplates a situation where the City of Coeur d'Alene would prevail and the Knapps woud be legally bound to offer wedding services for "same-sex marriages" a scenario that I doubt will come about, since the city's enforcement of its ordianance against the Knapps' would be patently unconstitutional.

 

 

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

No, no, no

This was the standard republican answer. 

Now there is a new one,  Yours did too, yours did too.

Good defence.

_____________________________________________________-

The NO! is completely understandable.  That is the appropriate response to an unruly child.  Also, a party can't rule by controlling only one half of one third of the government, but can limit the damage.  With control of both houses of Congress, a party can expose the executive branch's more far left programs and limit funding to same. 

Originally Posted by Contendah:
 

direstraits  poses this question: 

 

"If the engaged same-sex couple does not like this aspect of the services offered by the Knapps, they can seek assistance elsewhere."

 

https://www.tnvalleytalks.com/t...9#414646549005230969

 And, how different is you[sic] statement above substantially  different from Paul's [question mark assumed]

-------

 

 

You apparently overlooked this part of my statement:

The LAW, which I cited to you, makes an explicit provision for an exception based on religious exercise. It does not prescribe exceptions for other reasons.  Serving food, providing medical care, etc. are not religious exercises.  Performance of a wedding ceremony by a minister of religion is a religious exercise

Someone who is a bigot and prefers not to provide ordinary secular services to persons of another race can object all they wish, but they remain bound by requirements of law governing such things as access to public accommodations.

 

The LAW here contemplated is the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as the Idaho version, which is essentially similar in its religious exemption provisions.

Do you understand what is meant by "ordinary secular services"? They include such services as selling and serving food .  The term does not include those activities that are explicitly exempted by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which makes EXCEPTIONS only for RELIGIOUS activities that meet certain criteria of that act.  

 

My statement above ("If the engaged same-sex couple does not like this aspect of the services offered by the Knapps, they can seek assistance elsewhere.") was provided in the context of a suggestion that a minister might wish to include in his standard wedding ceremony a quotation from the New Testament that clearly condemns homosexuality. That would be his prerogative.  The gay couple seeking his services would not constitutionally be permitted to dictate the content of the ceremony the performs.  He would, of course, include that statement in ceremonies for conventional marriages, thus avoiding any accusation of "targeting" gays exclusively.  The gay couple, told in advance of this part of the ceremony, can still be married by the minister.  By contrast, Rand Paul's preferred version of a civil rights act would permit a restaurant owner to outrightly deny service on the basis of race on some specious concept of "property rights."  If Paul wishes to embed a "property rights" exception within the federal Civil Rights Act, then it is his prerogative as a U.S. Senator to introduce legislation to that effect.  Such a move would not advance his prospects for higher office.

 

This scenario contemplates a situation where the City of Coeur d'Alene would prevail and the Knapps woud be legally bound to offer wedding services for "same-sex marriages" a scenario that I doubt will come about, since the city's enforcement of its ordianance against the Knapps' would be patently unconstitutional.

 ____________________________________________________________

Condie, you carefully hopscotched over the younger Paul's argument about government extended control of private property, which has taken place.  The end of segregation, was, of course, a noble goal.  Giving extended control of government interference into private property was not.

 

Hopefully, as part of the Knapp's wedding service is their contribution as clergy, they may escape government control.  Or, they may be forced to rent out the facility and let the gay couple provide their own clergy.  A few wedding cake providers, who do not wish to directly provide services to gay couples, now sell all their cakes without the couple on top -- the couple must place their choice on top -- bride and groom, two grooms, two brides, a groom and two brides, whatever.

 

 

When abortion was first approved by the courts, more extreme leftists attempted to criminalize all medical personnel who refused to participate -- no  matter their moral or religious objections.  Cooler heads on the left prevailed and squashed that.  However, it surfaces from time to time.  As the progressives continue their march, I expect to see it again, as well as a demand medical personnel participate in euthanasia despite any personal objects.    

 

 ____________________________________________________________

 

 

direstraits posted this:

 

Condie, you carefully hopscotched over the younger Paul's argument about government extended control of private property, which has taken place.  The end of segregation, was, of course, a noble goal.  Giving extended control of government interference into private property was not.

 

______________________________

 

Governments exercise ALL KINDS of control over private property.  They do so through zoning laws, for example, which, in the case of residential private property, severely limit the uses that a private property owner can undertake on his/her private property.  Is this a form of " [g]iving extended control of government interference into private property"? 

 

There are numerous other laws, state and local, that constrain how a private property owner may use his/her private property.  Certain radical libertarians  might not be comfortable with such laws, but they are not likely to succeed in rescinding them.  There is no way that the "noble goal" (your words, dire) of ending racial segregation could have been achieved without placing requirements upon private property owners.

 

 

 

Do you Libertarians really want to line up with Rand Paul's views on desegregation?

 

http://thinkprogress.org/polit...7/paul-civil-rights/

 

That article tells you where Paul is really coming from.  It is interesting to see how he backtracks and stumbles when "explaining" his position.  However much his ideology and his racist Daddy's influence impel him to such conclusions, he is simply dead wrong on this issue and is decidedly in the minority, even among the majority of those who consider themselves conservatives.

Originally Posted by Contendah:
 

 ____________________________________________________________

 

 

direstraits posted this:

 

Condie, you carefully hopscotched over the younger Paul's argument about government extended control of private property, which has taken place.  The end of segregation, was, of course, a noble goal.  Giving extended control of government interference into private property was not.

 

______________________________

 

Governments exercise ALL KINDS of control over private property.  They do so through zoning laws, for example, which, in the case of residential private property, severely limit the uses that a private property owner can undertake on his/her private property.  Is this a form of " [g]iving extended control of government interference into private property"? 

 

There are numerous other laws, state and local, that constrain how a private property owner may use his/her private property.  Certain radical libertarians  might not be comfortable with such laws, but they are not likely to succeed in rescinding them.  There is no way that the "noble goal" (your words, dire) of ending racial segregation could have been achieved without placing requirements upon private property owners.

____________________________________________________________

Actually, tighter written laws can,

 

 

 

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×