4 ms·

I wouldn't look at it so cynically. The man might be in the Republican Party, but like his father, he is a man of personal ideals, not one to tow the party line

I wouldn't look at it so cynically. The man might be in the Republican Party, but like his father, he is a man of personal ideals, not one to tow the party line.

Frondo 11y ago
I just wish his ideals weren't so retrograde. This is the same guy who said he wouldn't have voted for the civil rights act.
- gortok 11y ago
  I'm not a fan of all of Rand Paul's positions; but the reason why he said that was that it prohibited businesses from serving people they don't want to serve. The instance he gave was the Jewish Store owner that would be forced to serve a neo-nazi. The Civil Rights act keeps business owners from truly owning whom they can serve; which unfortunately keeps an essential part of social pressure from happening. Imagine if businesses could refuse services to anyone who didn't vaccinate their children? Or refuse service to people who are bigots? Part of the issue with the CRA is the issue with all sorts of legislation: In its zeal to right wrongs, it has plenty of unintended consequences that have side-effects that can't be forseen.
  - Frondo 11y ago
    Well, right, because business owners perpetuated structural racism. If they'd all decided that black folks' money was as good as whites', we wouldn't have needed the government to take action. The hypothetical of the Jewish store owner being forced to serve a neo-nazi is pretty weak, when the law addressed a real problem (private business owners' personal racism) that affected millions of actual people over the course of their lives.
    - gortok 11y ago
      Reading through your comment history; I recognize that there's no way for us to achieve mutual understanding or have a substantive debate on this issue. Thank you for responding.
      - Frondo 11y ago
        Thanks for at least responding. I just noticed a flurry of downvotes on all of my comments in this thread. It'd be nice if the randbots could at least try to talk, instead of knee-jerking on the little down arrow.
        gortok 11y ago
        Don't automatically assume that people who disagree with you are 'randbots'. That would make me downvote (if I had that privilege). Reasonable people can disagree with you without being a 'bot'. I disagree with Rand Paul on a great number of issues, but I can also disagree with your position without being a Rand Paul supporter. This is another reason why we can't have a substantive discussion on this issue; when someone jumps to name-calling, it's clear they don't want to discuss the principles of the argument.
        Frondo 11y ago
        I'm surprised that you're responding. In your own words, "... there's no way for us to achieve mutual understanding ...". So, what gives? Do you want to try to have a discussion after all? Because, of course, I'm game. I've made no blanket declarations that you'll never be able to understand my point of view.
        gortok 11y ago
        Not responding to the points you made regarding the CRA; responding to your specific actions.
        Frondo 11y ago
        Why are you still responding? What kind of rhetorical trick is this? "I'm not going to talk to you, because there's no way you and I could ever see eye to eye. ..... except now I'm going to call out some part of your behavior I don't agree with." I can't figure out what you're trying to accomplish; this is a new form of internet snark for me.
- iopq 11y ago
  I think that's the most attractive part of his candidacy for me. I can't support someone who doesn't see that private individuals should be able to make the WRONG choice. That's what freedom is about. If you only have the freedom to make the "right" choice, then you have no freedom at all. This applies to drugs (he's for allowing individuals to make their own choices here), civil rights act, supporting home schooling, owning guns, etc. he consistently favors freedom of choice. Out of all of the candidates, he's the only one who is even close to a libertarian.
  - Frondo 11y ago
    Except by saying "people are free to make the WRONG choice," you're at the same time throwing entire populations under the bus, because...freedom! The civil rights act didn't spring out of a desire for nanny staters to force us all to listen to Sting and eat kale three times a day. It came out of the fact that, decades after we abolished slavery here, entire regions of the country were filled with businesspeople who habitually discriminated against those former slaves, which couldn't have been good for business, but which they did because they were carrying around racist beliefs which guided their actions. You could say "those business owners all made the WRONG choice" and, well, ok, but that doesn't really get us anywhere. It's also callous beyond belief to ignore the people that suffered as a result of there being no real consequence for that wrong choice.
aaronbrethorst 11y ago
Based on analysis of multiple outside rankings, Paul is an average Republican member of Congress, meaning he will vote with the Republican Party on the majority of bills. http://ballotpedia.org/Rand_Paul http://ballotpedia.org/Rand_Paul
- adventured 11y ago
  That says absolutely nothing specific about what is actually being voted on or against. That doesn't tell me if he votes with Congress on war policies, different budget issues, drug policy, incarceration policy, surveillance policy, et al. Averages on something like that are almost entirely worthless. You'd have to be specific on what he voted on, and why. Or what he voted against, and why. As Bernie Sanders pointed out in an AMA the other day, he often has to vote against some thing (a smaller part of a bill) he is in favor of, because a bill contains a far bigger issue that needs voted against.

I wouldn't look at it so cynically. The man might be in the Republican Party, but like his father, he is a man of personal ideals, not one to tow the party line.

Frondo 11y ago

I just wish his ideals weren't so retrograde. This is the same guy who said he wouldn't have voted for the civil rights act.

gortok 11y ago
I'm not a fan of all of Rand Paul's positions; but the reason why he said that was that it prohibited businesses from serving people they don't want to serve. The instance he gave was the Jewish Store owner that would be forced to serve a neo-nazi. The Civil Rights act keeps business owners from truly owning whom they can serve; which unfortunately keeps an essential part of social pressure from happening. Imagine if businesses could refuse services to anyone who didn't vaccinate their children? Or refuse service to people who are bigots? Part of the issue with the CRA is the issue with all sorts of legislation: In its zeal to right wrongs, it has plenty of unintended consequences that have side-effects that can't be forseen.
- Frondo 11y ago
  Well, right, because business owners perpetuated structural racism. If they'd all decided that black folks' money was as good as whites', we wouldn't have needed the government to take action. The hypothetical of the Jewish store owner being forced to serve a neo-nazi is pretty weak, when the law addressed a real problem (private business owners' personal racism) that affected millions of actual people over the course of their lives.
  - gortok 11y ago
    Reading through your comment history; I recognize that there's no way for us to achieve mutual understanding or have a substantive debate on this issue. Thank you for responding.
    - Frondo 11y ago
      Thanks for at least responding. I just noticed a flurry of downvotes on all of my comments in this thread. It'd be nice if the randbots could at least try to talk, instead of knee-jerking on the little down arrow.
      - gortok 11y ago
        Don't automatically assume that people who disagree with you are 'randbots'. That would make me downvote (if I had that privilege). Reasonable people can disagree with you without being a 'bot'. I disagree with Rand Paul on a great number of issues, but I can also disagree with your position without being a Rand Paul supporter. This is another reason why we can't have a substantive discussion on this issue; when someone jumps to name-calling, it's clear they don't want to discuss the principles of the argument.
        Frondo 11y ago
        I'm surprised that you're responding. In your own words, "... there's no way for us to achieve mutual understanding ...". So, what gives? Do you want to try to have a discussion after all? Because, of course, I'm game. I've made no blanket declarations that you'll never be able to understand my point of view.
        gortok 11y ago
        Not responding to the points you made regarding the CRA; responding to your specific actions.
        Frondo 11y ago
        Why are you still responding? What kind of rhetorical trick is this? "I'm not going to talk to you, because there's no way you and I could ever see eye to eye. ..... except now I'm going to call out some part of your behavior I don't agree with." I can't figure out what you're trying to accomplish; this is a new form of internet snark for me.
iopq 11y ago
I think that's the most attractive part of his candidacy for me. I can't support someone who doesn't see that private individuals should be able to make the WRONG choice. That's what freedom is about. If you only have the freedom to make the "right" choice, then you have no freedom at all. This applies to drugs (he's for allowing individuals to make their own choices here), civil rights act, supporting home schooling, owning guns, etc. he consistently favors freedom of choice. Out of all of the candidates, he's the only one who is even close to a libertarian.
- Frondo 11y ago
  Except by saying "people are free to make the WRONG choice," you're at the same time throwing entire populations under the bus, because...freedom! The civil rights act didn't spring out of a desire for nanny staters to force us all to listen to Sting and eat kale three times a day. It came out of the fact that, decades after we abolished slavery here, entire regions of the country were filled with businesspeople who habitually discriminated against those former slaves, which couldn't have been good for business, but which they did because they were carrying around racist beliefs which guided their actions. You could say "those business owners all made the WRONG choice" and, well, ok, but that doesn't really get us anywhere. It's also callous beyond belief to ignore the people that suffered as a result of there being no real consequence for that wrong choice.

aaronbrethorst 11y ago

Based on analysis of multiple outside rankings, Paul is an average Republican member of Congress, meaning he will vote with the Republican Party on the majority of bills. http://ballotpedia.org/Rand_Paul http://ballotpedia.org/Rand_Paul

adventured 11y ago
That says absolutely nothing specific about what is actually being voted on or against. That doesn't tell me if he votes with Congress on war policies, different budget issues, drug policy, incarceration policy, surveillance policy, et al. Averages on something like that are almost entirely worthless. You'd have to be specific on what he voted on, and why. Or what he voted against, and why. As Bernie Sanders pointed out in an AMA the other day, he often has to vote against some thing (a smaller part of a bill) he is in favor of, because a bill contains a far bigger issue that needs voted against.