- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Rand Paul = Democrats’ Enemy #1
Posted on 8/7/14 at 12:37 pm to ocelot4ark
Posted on 8/7/14 at 12:37 pm to ocelot4ark
quote:
Not at all.
the point of any law is to deny rights/liberties
if you don't believe in laws that "deny rights" then you don't believe in any laws. that's the basis of the social contract
this is where discussions "down the rabbit hole" go that lead to people becoming ancaps (who reject the concept of the social contract)
quote:
You continue to miss the point.
i don't think you understand what the end-result of your point is (and that's a society without any laws)
2
Posted on 8/7/14 at 12:54 pm to a want
quote:
a want
Rand Paul = Democrats’ Enemy #1
Bring it on. The more attention he gets - the more he'll be exposed as the plagiarist and racist he is. No to mention he'll have to do the inevitable swerving back and forth between moderate conservatism and total right wing loonery to win.
This post was edited on 8/7/14 at 12:55 pm
Posted on 8/7/14 at 12:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
My point being what?
Posted on 8/7/14 at 1:23 pm to ocelot4ark
Laws should not discriminate or reflect a value system
Posted on 8/7/14 at 1:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the point of any law is to deny rights/liberties
Not necessarily. For example, the purpose of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were to protect constitutional rights.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:12 pm to trackfan
quote:
For example, the purpose of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were to protect constitutional rights.
well the CRA in many/most cases denied rights, like the most famous contemporary examples of the right to freely associate
now the point of the VRA wasn't to deny rights, but the execution denied equal participation in the political process to all sorts of people. forced districts based on minority representation removed the ability of those communities/states to draw up the districts.
now, you're probably going to respond with something about my subjective evaluations, but whether i agree or disagree with these laws is irrelevant to the discussion. i'm just pointing out that they do deny rights/liberties to people
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:14 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
racist he is
Do tell
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
well the CRA in many/most cases denied rights, like the most famous contemporary examples of the right to freely associate
now the point of the VRA wasn't to deny rights, but the execution denied equal participation in the political process to all sorts of people. forced districts based on minority representation removed the ability of those communities/states to draw up the districts.
now, you're probably going to respond with something about my subjective evaluations, but whether i agree or disagree with these laws is irrelevant to the discussion. i'm just pointing out that they do deny rights/liberties to people
I'll concede that the CRA infringes on private property rights but earlier you said that laws only deny rights? Are you denying that the CRA and the VRA restored many rights that had been denied during the Jim Crow era?
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:59 pm to trackfan
quote:
Are you denying that the CRA and the VRA restored many rights that had been denied during the Jim Crow era?
i'll defend the VRA's intent and most of its execution (i think it should have been scrapped 20 years ago, though)
something had to be done
but again, i'm not an anarchist
i think the CRA was proper with respect to public bodies. public bodies should not discriminate, and Jim Crow = state action
i can support the intent of the CRA with respect to private parties, but i don't support the implementation. i don't think that is a problem that can be solved by law and/or the effects of the law are just as discriminatory and liberty-reducing
Posted on 8/7/14 at 4:20 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
he'll have to do the inevitable swerving back and forth between moderate conservatism and total right wing loonery to win.
This I agree with. Past statements are going to be what he is bludgeoned with. He's never had national scrutiny--it's brutal.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 4:52 pm to a want
Dems understand what Rand is. He's an ideological juggernaut that is very politically savvy and can win an election with his broad appeal to groups that the typical republican doesn't have access to. Thats a motherfricking nightmare for democrats in the business of winning elections.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 5:02 pm to a want
He'll never make it past the social cons in his own party, IMNSHO.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 5:55 pm to Jim Rockford
Paul is the Republicans, Elizabeth Warren and just like Warren has no chance of making it out of the primary.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 5:56 pm to socraticsilence
quote:
Paul is the Republicans, Elizabeth Warren and just like Warren has no chance of making it out of the primary.
I'd say the odds are against him. But he's got a chance.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News