Rand Paul

[Kulindahr]

But they don't own themselves after that?

Dude.... you own yourself and by extension your property so you should be able to legally remove anyone from your restaurant, but not someone from actually occupying your body?

One is eviction, the other is murder. If it were forty below outside, and I evicted a guy wearing sandals, shorts, and tank top into a raging blizzard, I could be justifiably convicted of murder or at least manslaughter. The same is true of abortion once there are full brainwaves indicative of personhood.

Pregnancy is not a disease. Except in case of rape, it was voluntary -- no chick accepts a dick without knowing the potential consequences.
And if she can't make up her mind to terminate within three months, she has made up her mind by default.

 

[Kulindahr]

Do you deny that we all profit from the existence of these companies? Or are you unaware of some of of the things they're involved in? The slave labor involved in getting Nestle's chocolate to you, the paramilitary funding of Chiquita, the complicity with paramilitaries against their union workers of Coca-Cola, the child sweatshop labor of Nike. I doubt I really need to expound on Wal-Mart.

You and I profit from the existence and cheapness of these goods/services. We are profiting off of other people's suffering. This isn't an abstract analogy about what-ifs or the potential for these companies to do things we can generally agree are immoral and distasteful. It's about the very real fact that these things do exist and we do profit from their existence.

All I'm saying is I wouldn't get too comfortable on my high horse if I were you. Neither you nor I nor, likely, anyone else on this forum, has clean hands when it comes to profit from the suffering of others.

"Child sweatshops"?
The only such things Nike was ever involved in were subcontracted labor where both the subcontractors and the local governments assured Nike that their requirement of an age of eighteen or older was being met. In some countries they discovered they had workers with false age papers, easy enough to buy for a few dollars. In most places, their wages lead the way, tugging at the rest of the labor market; where they run their own factories, their work conditions lead the way as well.
If Walmart in the U.S. paid its workers as well as Nike overseas, the lowest-paid worker would be getting better than $12/hr, not minimum. Benefits are another matter; as best I'm aware, Nike workers making shoes get far better benefits than those making apparel (maybe because shoes are their signature line?).

 

[Kulindahr]

I concur.

Three months may or may not be long enough, but six months (the point of the onset of human brainwaves) certainly is. Abortion after that point, in my own opinion, really is murder....

I go with the earlier figure because from what I've read the onset of brainwaves indicating 'personhood' (or its potential) gets pegged anywhere from eighty days to a hundred and eighty. For the protection of human beings, I'll opt earlier. And from a perspective not relevant to some here, some ancient Church Fathers argued that the soul entered the body at "quickening",which also draws the clock downward, toward four months.

If pressed, to get the matter settled in law, I could settle on four months, though not happily (not that I'm really 'happy' with three).

Where Paul is coming from on this, I'm clueless -- it isn't medical, it isn't scientific, it isn't self-ownership....

 

[NotThatCreative]

No, it's the difference between reality and the artificial construct humans impose on it.
Rights cannot be created or destroyed. They cannot be granted or taken away. They are part of being human. They cannot be relinquished.
To maintain that they come from laws, or being enumerated, means they don't exist. If they come from what people decide to do, then they're just privileges or fads.
Yes, John Locke was enormously influential -- and he held that rights exist, and aren't granted. That was the whole point of the Declaration of Independence and the foundation for the Bill of Rights.

You sound like a lawyer with an axe to grind.

Once again: Adams, in the Amistad case, argued the right to insurrection. The right is not one against private entities, but a general one. SCOTUS affirmed this. So the right is real. Thus whatever those other items mean, they do not mean that there is no right of insurrection.
But that makes no difference, really -- the fact that this right was the foundation of the American Revolution is sufficient to show that it continues. Rights do not vanish. Those who drafted the Constitution knew that it existed; they'd recently made use of it. They also knew that no law or human document can take away rights.

Let me try again:
the Declaration of Independence is part of federal law -- that's what the U.S. Code is. Madison, one of the prime architects of the Constitution, recognized it as foundation to U.S. law, as the legal act by which the U.S. came to be.
That the courts generally ignore it is baffling.

Governments do not have rights; only people do.

And rights do not depend on location, nor on government, nor on documents: right exist. They come from being sentient and thus having self-ownership. All the scribbling by all the lawyers through all of time cannot change that.

BTW, Lincoln was correct in not recognizing the action of the South as an application of the right of insurrection: the right was specified in the Amistad case, relying on the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence, as the right to insurrection against tyranny. Lincoln properly recognized that slavery was tyranny and thus not unreasonably judged that this insurrection wasn't against tyranny but in support of it. So to be precise, there is no general right of insurrection, only a right of insurrection against tyranny.

Yet again, the Amistad wasn't about overthrowing government. Had nothing to do with that. I don't care what Adams argued, I care what the court said, as it's the court's decision that determines rights and application of law, not the people arguing before it.

The rest of your argument has your idealistic vision of reality all over it. I don't care what you prefer. What matters is what is true. In this country, the Constitution is relevant to our rights. You may not like that. Which is fine. But that's the way it is.

Locke wrote of natural rights. But you ignore the part where he says that when you form a social contract you agree to relinquish some number of them. The only right that can't be relinquished according to Locke is the right to self-defense. We have relinquished the right to insurrection in this country though. Rights may not vanish per se, but we relinquish them.

If you can't look at the way reality is as being different at all from the way you think things should be, then just say so because this discussion is pointless so long as that's true.

By the way, it's always nice to hear someone who suspended habeas corpus for American citizens (unconstitutionally in some cases) characterized as an ardent fighter against tyranny. One of two times it had ever been done to people living in a recognized state. The other was by Andrew Jackson during the War of 1812. Jackson was another obviously passionate fighter against tyranny...

Lincoln's justification for war wasn't about slavery. It had nothing to do with recognizing the "right of insurrection against tyranny". It was about keeping the Union together.

 

[opinterph]

The right to insurrection … was upheld on the Amistad case

The Amistad case had nothing to do with rebellion against the government.

It had to do with insurrection, period. Adams did not argue from a right of insurrection against tyrannical private acts, but against all such acts. In fact, given the references to a certain foreign government, it may be maintained that the case had specifically to do with insurrection against government.

No. The Amistad case had much to do with the slave trade, but it was not about insurrection. The slaves on board the Amistad that rebelled were not legally allowed to be slaves, according to both Spanish and American laws. That was the issue at play.

Adams argued the right of insurrection. SCOTUS affirmed it, because they [American colonies] were people who had only recently exercised that right.

Once again: Adams, in the Amistad case, argued the right to insurrection. The right is not one against private entities, but a general one. SCOTUS affirmed this. So the right is real.

Realistically, whatever arguments were presented by the individuals representing the opposing litigants is not what matters. It is the final opinion of the Court and the rationale it publishes to support that opinion which becomes the guiding principal of law.

The following link appears to represent a rather comprehensive compilation of President Adams’ statements in argument of the case. I note that the term “insurrection” is not included in its more than fifty-six thousand words. Adams does reference the Declaration of Independence at least twice early on and seems to proceed under the general assumption that the subject individuals were at all times “free” individuals – certainly under provisions of governing law at that point in time.

Argument Of John Quincy Adams For The Appellees​

I think it is pertinent to note the following statement written by Justice Story, relating the opinion of the Court:

If these negroes were, at the time, lawfully held as slaves under the laws of Spain, and recognised by those laws as property capable of being lawfully bought and sold; we see no reason why they may not justly be deemed within the intent of the treaty, to be included under the denomination of merchandise, and, as such, ought to be restored to the claimants: for, upon that point, the laws of Spain would seem to furnish the proper rule of interpretation.

This seems to suggest that in absence of Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution and whatever relevant treaties or other legal constructs were in place at that point in time, the Court would have been compelled to rule that the subject individuals were, in fact, merchandise – not free individuals. In other words, the ruling (for whatever its worth) seems to rely upon some sort of progressive interpretation of evolving law and is therefore perhaps best viewed in contrast to a history of common practice or any longstanding acceptance of an absolute principle.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yet again, the Amistad wasn't about overthrowing government. Had nothing to do with that. I don't care what Adams argued, I care what the court said, as it's the court's decision that determines rights and application of law, not the people arguing before it.

Justice Story noted in the decision that the Africans had legitimately revolted against illegal oppression. The decision held that when the Amistad arrived in U.S. waters it was in the possession of the Africans, and on that basis a treaty the governments of the U.S. and of Spain had relied on was declared not applicable. So the decision recognized the right of insurrection, just not in so many words. Taken with the knowledge of the Court that the nation itself rested on the validity of the right of insurrection, that recognition cannot be taken as a narrow, isolated reference, but a specific example of the greater right.

The rest of your argument has your idealistic vision of reality all over it. I don't care what you prefer. What matters is what is true. In this country, the Constitution is relevant to our rights. You may not like that. Which is fine. But that's the way it is.

What is true is that rights do not derive from documents. Change the Constitution to limit free speech, and reality is that the change would be illegitimate.

Locke wrote of natural rights. But you ignore the part where he says that when you form a social contract you agree to relinquish some number of them. The only right that can't be relinquished according to Locke is the right to self-defense. We have relinquished the right to insurrection in this country though. Rights may not vanish per se, but we relinquish them.

If that were Locke's meaning, Jefferson never would have derived any argument from him, because Locke's position then would have been that the American Revolution was illegitimate. What your argument boils down to is that there can never be a legitimate revolution, because we relinquish rights by being born in a specific location. That's ridiculous.

If you can't look at the way reality is as being different at all from the way you think things should be, then just say so because this discussion is pointless so long as that's true.

I'm not talking at all about the way things should be, but the way they are. Rights are facts, and remain in people because that's where they arise. Governments cannot take them away, and we cannot surrender them.

By the way, it's always nice to hear someone who suspended habeas corpus for American citizens (unconstitutionally in some cases) characterized as an ardent fighter against tyranny. One of two times it had ever been done to people living in a recognized state. The other was by Andrew Jackson during the War of 1812. Jackson was another obviously passionate fighter against tyranny...

Lincoln's justification for war wasn't about slavery. It had nothing to do with recognizing the "right of insurrection against tyranny". It was about keeping the Union together.

Lincoln suspended habeus corpus? Not that I consider him a great defender of liberty anyway.

I didn't mention his justification for the war, I stated why he was right (despite his own motives). His actual reason, to keep the Union together, was by itself improper, because it contained no justification for doing so. That he was doing so in order to eliminate tyranny gave him grounds to stand on (though interestingly, by the end of the war, slavery had been so far degraded by the South that the charge of tyranny was effectively void -- in fact, with the campaign of terror unleashed by Sherman, the moral case could be argued to have switched sides).

 

[NotThatCreative]

After this you can say what you want, I won't reply. It's clear to me, even if it isn't to you, that you have trouble comprehending the fact that your ideology/philosophy isn't necessarily right and furthermore isn't the ideology/philosophy of this country. This discussion is therefore pointless.

Justice Story noted in the decision that the Africans had legitimately revolted against illegal oppression. The decision held that when the Amistad arrived in U.S. waters it was in the possession of the Africans, and on that basis a treaty the governments of the U.S. and of Spain had relied on was declared not applicable. So the decision recognized the right of insurrection, just not in so many words. Taken with the knowledge of the Court that the nation itself rested on the validity of the right of insurrection, that recognition cannot be taken as a narrow, isolated reference, but a specific example of the greater right.

The Amistad rebellion was a rebellion of people who were unlawfully enslaved by a private businessman. It had nothing to do with government rebellion. Nothing whatsoever. In fact, it relied on the laws of both Spain and the US in order to declare the rebellion on the ship lawful.

Recognizing your right to defend yourself from a businessman who literally seeks to enslave you in no way necessarily leads to this "right of insurrection." You've twisted and warped this so bad I am honest-to-God surprised you can't see it.

What is true is that rights do not derive from documents. Change the Constitution to limit free speech, and reality is that the change would be illegitimate.

These two sentences are your ideology, not the ideology of the country. Not everyone agrees with you on matters philosophical and political. The fact you don't see the two things I just said as true is sad. You've blinded yourself as effectively as anyone's ever been brainwashed.

If that were Locke's meaning, Jefferson never would have derived any argument from him, because Locke's position then would have been that the American Revolution was illegitimate. What your argument boils down to is that there can never be a legitimate revolution, because we relinquish rights by being born in a specific location. That's ridiculous.

The lovely thing about what you wrote here was how blatantly obvious it makes the fact that you've never read The Second Treatise of Government by John Locke.

Here's some quotes from it for you. On relinquishing of power:

95. MEN being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent. The only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any, that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left as they were in the liberty of the state of nature. When any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.

99. Whosoever therefore out of a state of nature unite into a community, must be understood to give up all the power, necessary to the ends for which they unite into society, to the majority of the community, unless they expresly agreed in any number greater than the majority.

On being born in a specific location (the sum of his response to criticism along those lines is 'tacit consent'):

There is a common distinction of an express and a tacit consent, which will concern our present case. No body doubts but an express consent, of any man entering into any society, makes him a perfect member of that society, a subject of that government. The difficulty is, what ought to be looked upon as a tacit consent, and how far it binds, i.e. how far any one shall be looked on to have consented, and thereby submitted to any government, where he has made no expressions of it at all. And to this I say, that every man, that hath any possessions, or enjoyment, of any part of the dominions of any government, cloth thereby give his tacit consent, and is as far forth obliged to obedience to the laws of that government, during such enjoyment, as any one under it; whether this his possession be of land, to him and his heirs for ever, or a lodging only for a week; or whether it be barely travelling freely on the highway; and in effect, it reaches as far as the very being of any one within the territories of that government.

Under the following conditions is dissolution acceptable (note that none of these can constitutionally happen in this country...there's a reason for that):

214. First, That when such a single person, or prince, sets up his own arbitrary will in place of the laws, which are the will of the society, declared by the legislative, then the legislative is changed: for that being in effect the legislative, whose rules and laws are put in execution, and required to be obeyed; when other laws are set up, and other rules pretended, and inforced, than what the legislative, constituted by the society, have enacted, it is plain that the legislative is changed. Whoever introduces new laws, not being thereunto authorized by the fundamental appointment of the society, or subverts the old, disowns and overturns the power by which they were made, and so sets up a new legislative.

215. Secondly, When the prince hinders the legislative from assembling in its due time, or from acting freely, pursuant to those ends for which it was constituted, the legislative is altered: for it is not a certain number of men, no, nor their meeting, unless they have also freedom of debating, and leisure of perfecting, what is for the good of the society, wherein the legislative consists: when these are taken away or altered, so as to deprive the society of the due exercise of their power, the legislative is truly altered; for it is not names that constitute governments, but the use and exercise of those powers that were intended to accompany them; so that he, who takes away the freedom, or hinders the acting of the legislative in its due seasons, in effect takes away the legislative, and puts an end to the government,

216. Thirdly, When, by the arbitrary power of the prince, the electors, or ways of election, are altered, without the consent, and contrary to the common interest of the people, there also the legislative is altered: for, if others than those whom the society hath authorized thereunto, do chuse, or in another way than what the society hath prescribed, those chosen are not the legislative appointed by the people.

217. Fourthly, The delivery also of the people into the subjection of a foreign power, either by the prince, or by the legislative, is certainly a change of the legislative, and so a dissolution of the government: for the end why people entered into society being to be preserved one intire, free, independent society, to be governed by its own laws; this is lost, whenever they are given up into the power of another.

219. There is one way more whereby such a government may be dissolved, and that is: When he who has the supreme executive power, neglects and abandons that charge, so that the laws already made can no longer be put in execution. This is demonstratively to reduce all to anarchy, and so effectually to dissolve the government: for laws not being made for themselves, but to be, by their execution, the bonds of the society, to keep every part of the body politic in its due place and function; when that totally ceases, the government visibly ceases, and the people become a confused multitude, without order or connexion.

On eminent domain (which he opposed):

Men therefore in society having property, they have such a right to the goods, which by the law of the community are their's, that no body hath a right to take their substance or any part of it from them, without their own consent: without this they have no property at all; for I have truly no property in that, which another can by right take from me, when he pleases, against my consent. Hence it is a mistake to think, that the supreme or legislative power of any commonwealth, can do what it will, and dispose of the estates of the subject arbitrarily, or take any part of them at pleasure.

On the one constant right (self-defense):

149. THOUGH in a constituted common-wealth, standing upon its own basis, and acting according to its own nature, that is, acting for the preservation of the community, there can be but one supreme power, which is the legislative, to which all the rest are and must be subordinate, yet the legislative being only a fiduciary power to act for certain ends, there remains still in the people a supreme power to remove or alter the legislative, when they find the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them: for all power given with trust for the attaining an end, being limited by that end, whenever that end is manifestly neglected, or opposed, the trust must necessarily be forfeited, and the power devolve into the hands of those that gave it, who may place it anew where they shall think best for their safety and security. And thus the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of any body, even of their legislators, whenever they shall be so foolish, or so wicked, as to lay and carry on designs against the liberties and properties of the subject: for no man or society of men, having a power to deliver up their preservation, or consequently the means of it, to the absolute will and arbitrary dominion of another; when ever any one shall go about to bring them into such a slavish condition, they will always have a right to preserve, what they have not a power to part with; and to rid themselves of those, who invade this fundamental, sacred, and unalterable law of self-preservation, for which they entered into society. And thus the community may be said in this respect to be always the supreme power, but not as considered under any form of government, because this power of the people can never take place till the government be dissolved.

On usurpation of power:

198. In all lawful governments, the designation of the persons, who are to bear rule, is as natural and necessary a part as the form of the government itself, and is that which had its establishment originally from the people; the anarchy being much alike, to have no form of government at all, or to agree that it shall be monarchical, but to appoint no way to design the person that shall have the power, and be the monarch. Hence all commonwealths, with the form of government established, have rules also of appointing those who are to have any share in the public authority, and settled methods of conveying the right to them. Whoever gets into the exercise of any part of the power, by other ways than what the laws of the community have prescribed, hath no right to be obeyed, though the form of the commonwealth be still preserved; since he is not the person the laws have appointed, and consequently not the person the people have consented to. Nor can such an usurper, or any deriving from him, ever have a title, till the people are both at liberty to consent, and have actually consented to allow, and confirm in him the power he hath till then usurped.

On majority rule (which he, of course, favors):

97. And thus every man, by consenting with others to make one body politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation, to every one of that society, to submit to the determination of the majority, and to be concluded by it; or else this original compact, whereby he with others incorporates into one society, would signify nothing, and be no compact, if he be left free, and under no other ties than he was in before in the state of nature. For what appearance would there be of any compact? what new engagement if he were no farther tied by any decrees of the society, than he himself thought fit, and did actually consent to? This would be still as great a liberty, as he himself had before his compact, or any one else in the state of nature hath, who may submit himself, and consent to any acts of it if he thinks fit.

I'm not talking at all about the way things should be, but the way they are. Rights are facts, and remain in people because that's where they arise. Governments cannot take them away, and we cannot surrender them.

You're talking about the way things are according to your ideology and philosophy. This country doesn't operate of that though. So you're not talking about reality.

 

[Kulindahr]

After this you can say what you want, I won't reply. It's clear to me, even if it isn't to you, that you have trouble comprehending the fact that your ideology/philosophy isn't necessarily right and furthermore isn't the ideology/philosophy of this country.

You seem to think that reality is malleable, that truth and facts change according to ideology. I don't give a hoot about ideology, in the first place, and in the second, you're wrong.

I'm starting with the fact of self-ownership. Rights come from that fact. No country's, or anyone else's, proposals or laws or concepts can alter them, and more than I can take telepathic control of a diplomat by wishing or writing down that I have done so.

The Amistad rebellion was a rebellion of people who were unlawfully enslaved by a private businessman. It had nothing to do with government rebellion. Nothing whatsoever. In fact, it relied on the laws of both Spain and the US in order to declare the rebellion on the ship lawful.

Recognizing your right to defend yourself from a businessman who literally seeks to enslave you in no way necessarily leads to this "right of insurrection." You've twisted and warped this so bad I am honest-to-God surprised you can't see it.

Whether it was a businessman or a government is irrelevant. Government has no divine rights, no aura of special privilege or authority.
So if it was lawful to rebel against a businessman doing you wrong, it is lawful to rebel against a country doing you wrong. What the words printed on a paper by anyone at all has nothing to do with the matter; all that does is whether someone has sufficiently violated one's self ownership to justify rebellion.

These two sentences are your ideology, not the ideology of the country. Not everyone agrees with you on matters philosophical and political. The fact you don't see the two things I just said as true is sad. You've blinded yourself as effectively as anyone's ever been brainwashed.

They're not ideology. They're truths that were recognized by the Founders.
The trouble here is that you don't believe in truth -- you believe in a mutable reality that can be changed by the whims and opinions of men. When a nation is founded on "self-evident" truths, and on rights endowed by a Creator, that's the foundation of that country -- and its ideology.
Over and over in their writings, and in those by later Americans, even in SCOTUS decisions, this was testified to: that rights do not come from government, but belong to the people regardless, even rights that haven't been listed or named or even thought of.
So you're wrong that what I said is not the ideology of the country; they're its foundation.,

The lovely thing about what you wrote here was how blatantly obvious it makes the fact that you've never read The Second Treatise of Government by John Locke.

Here's some quotes from it for you. On relinquishing of power:

On being born in a specific location (the sum of his response to criticism along those lines is 'tacit consent'):

Sorry, I've read it. He's talking out of his ass; by his argument there, a Jew born in Nazi Germany should have gone willingly to a concentration camp.

I will note that he says nothing of giving up rights.

As for the part about location, by what he says, a person trying to leave is thereby consenting to obey the government, because he's traveling on roads or highways -- or he would have all those who wish to not consent to a government's rule become criminals, violating the self-ownership of others in order to aim at exercising their own.

Under the following conditions is dissolution acceptable (note that none of these can constitutionally happen in this country...there's a reason for that):

For starters, that discussion is incomplete. He fails to cover the situation where the legislative usurps power -- already sufficient weakness to cast doubt on it.
None of those things could have happened constitutionally in Great Britain, either. Britain managed to be tyrannical in spite of that, just as our government is working toward a tyranny, with laws steadily being passed to give the executive more power and to keep Congresscritters in office as nearly for life as possible. He should have noted that whenever the legislative begins to work to protect its own power at the expense of those they represent, the time is come to watch for tyranny.

On the one constant right (self-defense):

Are you even aware of what you posted? He's talking about the right of insurrection! Those comments are specifically saying that the people may get rid of their government, and if it won't go peacefully, then get rid of it however they might!
Thank you -- I knew he supported the right of insurrection; I'd just forgotten where it was.

On usurpation of power:

LOL

Read more closely -- that's a recipe for establishing a new government in place of one tossed out.

You're talking about the way things are according to your ideology and philosophy. This country doesn't operate of that though. So you're not talking about reality.

I'm talking about how things proceed from facts. And in spite of the few places where Paine pulls his teeth in and nibbles instead of bites, as a matter of personal safety, his supports where I stand. He affirms the right of insurrection, and shows how to get rid of one government and replace it with another -- legally. And he nowhere supports your contention that we surrender rights.

What the country operates off of is the time-weary system by all those in power to try to get the people to think they have to do as they're told, a system that runs with one purpose: to legitimize the maintenance of power. They don't want you to know we have the right to kick the bastards out, and not just by elections; they don't want you to know that you are not their property, but own yourself; they don't want you to know that your rights are eternal and uncontestable because rights don't come from them but from the mere fact that you think for yourself -- and you've bought it lock, stock, and barrel. They've turned you into a sheep, and you've become happy to pretend the fences that confine you are decorations of your own choosing.

This is why all students should have to read Paine, and Locke, and Mill, to study the Federalist and AntiFederalist papers: that every American might remember that he/she is a human being in whom reside all the rights any human being has ever had, not because of the Constitution, but because we are all humans -- and that the Constitution exists not to give us rights, but as an attempt to guard the rights we have.

Then maybe when a president decided to mount an invasion of a country that never did us harm, Congress wouldn't stampede to moo along, and maybe the soldiers who understood what being an American means would say "No!" in a loud and resounding voice. Maybe then the people wouldn't bleat "Baaa!" when a president raises a scare, and run whichever way he pointed, but would vote not only that president but all of Congress who mooed along out of office -- permanently.

Because by your measure of things, the law is a magic wand that changes the truth and reality, and if Congress makes the law to say we must never criticize it, or that we must always report our neighbors if they appear disloyal, why then, that is what we must do. Like the Roman Catholics of the Middle Ages, we must stick our faces down toward the earth and acknowledge that all our blessings come from the laws and those who write them, who are never wrong.

But an American would laugh at such things, and tell Congress to take its laws and stuff them. And as Locke so nicely explained is their right, Americans will tell the bastards to get out, and if they don't do so peacefully, will elect an "usurper", and end the reign of that government, and put him in their place -- making it legal by acknowledging him.



BTW, I noticed you never responded to the fact that the Declaration of Independence actually stands as part of the law of the land.

 

[NickCole]

No honey, that's the internet.

No, that's a faction of the Internet.

On line, off line, society is what human beings make it. And it's diverse.

"ObamaNation" is the term I've used the past couple of years to identify the crowd Obama tapped into that thinks and behaves like a high school clique, which has been an increasingly strong element of our society on- and off-line. But it is by no means everyone. There are still some mature adults in America.

If he's not ready to be interviewed about his positions he's not ready for any office.

That's ridiculous.

The value you place on media savvyness is very revealing, though. I place higher value on the effectiveness of work one does in office.

Yes, because decent human beings think you don't have the right to marry the consenting adult of your choice,

Decent human beings can disagree about issues like marriage and abortion.

Except he didn't stumble - his position was exposed. And it is his position, which he doesn't deny. And then he acted the part of the wronged party for being asked about his position.

Don't know which position you're referring to. Since these were interviews, do you have a YouTube(s) showing his behavior or position you think deserves to be ridiculed?

 

[Ambrocious]

Rand Paul...the son of Ron Paul.....I wish him the best. Few are left that have not sold out to the worldwide agenda and I hope because of who Rand Paul's dad is that HE hasn't sold out too.

Even if he makes it...he won't be able to make any real change until the power elite of the world are dethroned.

 

[MercuryJones]

The value you place on media savvyness is very revealing, though. I place higher value on the effectiveness of work one does in office.

Not the value of media savvyness, which was never said - despite your efforts to falsely portray it as such - but the ability to honestly and cogently present a position, and hen have the integrity to stand by it. People on this message board do it daily. Kids in debate teams do it across the country.

Paul, like his spiritual sister Sarah Palin, can't, because they don't have the ability or integrity.

 

[MercuryJones]

Rand Paul...the son of Ron Paul....I wish him the best.

You wish him the best because of who his dad is?

Or because you hope he'll be successful in making same sex marriage illegal?

 

[Kulindahr]

You wish him the best because of who his dad is?

Or because you hope he'll be successful in making same sex marriage illegal?

False dichotomy.

I wish him well because he's against the stand against deficits. On that issue, we could use another "Dr. No" in Congress.

 

[Ambrocious]

You wish him the best because of who his dad is?

Or because you hope he'll be successful in making same sex marriage illegal?

It's the bigger picture I'm worried about. Same sex marriage is by far (in my opinion) not the bigger picture. There are other things to be weary over which Rand may be able to help change. I know that he's NOT his dad but he may just do enough to show that he was taken from the same ball of cloth anyways.

 

[Kulindahr]

... he may just do enough to show that he was taken from the same ball of cloth anyways.

I think the expression is "bolt of cloth". Cloth doesn't usually come in balls.

 

[NickCole]

Not the value of media savvyness, which was never said - despite your efforts to falsely portray it as such - but the ability to honestly and cogently present a position, and hen have the integrity to stand by it. People on this message board do it daily. Kids in debate teams do it across the country.

Paul, like his spiritual sister Sarah Palin, can't, because they don't have the ability or integrity.

Being grilled by a professional adversarial like a Rachel Maddow on her turf is nothing like posting anonymously at your leisure on a message board. I assumed you knew at least that much. But if you're not talking about media savvyness and believe what people do anonymously on message boards is the same as winning a nomination and facing the heavy media scrutiny that Rand Paul faced, you don't even know what it is you're ridiculing with your derisive "cries like a little girl."

 

[Ambrocious]

Like allowing businesses to discriminate?

Where does the idea come from that Rand Paul is racist? I think I understand now...


If I'm against big government takeover................RACIST!
If I'm pro Constitution and Bill of Rights................RACIST!
If I'm pro life and pro liberty..................................RACIST!
If I'm against banker bailouts which hurts us all...RACIST!
If I don't like these wars going on right now.........RACIST!


Is there anything on the very long list of things that I did not cover that would exclude me as being racist and Rand Paul also? Are we guilty for not liking by far this huge takeover of government and other corporations? Well...if I'm racist for not liking tyranny and oppression...guilty as charged I suppose.

The race card works only if your willing to play children games. That's all it is now...invoking racism to shut up and shut out and tear down ANY competition that stands up against the governments "chosen" goons.

Oh by the way, was I racist for hating what George W. Bush was doing too? Tyranny comes in every color of the rainbow and in as many flavors as Baskin-Robbins. You can be taught to love your enslavement or learn to stand up against it. Your call.

 

[Ambrocious]

I think the expression is "bolt of cloth". Cloth doesn't usually come in balls.

Yes thats what I meant, thanks for the correction. I know that he differs from his dad on a lot of tings an I'm not sure if he can do it, even if he wanted to go all the way. As you know, I'm very cautious of who to trust. Alex seems to support him for the most part as he supports Ron as well but...we shall see where this goes.

 

[Ambrocious]

JUB, for example, can ban you for anything you say, at at any time.
They can't have it both ways.

Banning someone at anytime for any reason is no freedom at all and it is NOT good at all and it is the very definition of tyranny and slavery. People have the right to freedom of speech and if they are discriminated against, that's why we have the courts to abide by the laws of the land.

I know what your getting at and I understand that it sucks for someone to NOT hire you because your gay or lesbian, it more than sucks. The legal system is in place for this sort of thing and you can take anyone to court if you feel you have been discriminated against.

So to say that our speech should be taken from us by force is to say we are truly no longer sentient sovereign beings. Respect falls in the lines here where other things do not apply.

We have the right to speak out against something we don't agree with, if we are in the wrong, the court system is there for this. Take away the right to speak freely and you can then take away EVERYTHING else that you want! No right to protest means no amount of resistance which leads to a dictatorship 100 percent of the time, EVERY TIME! History speaks for it's self I'm afraid. Freedom is a two way street, it DOES go both ways.

 

[MercuryJones]

Where does the idea come from that Rand Paul is racist? I think I understand now...

You owe Johann an apology. He never said or implied that Paul is a racist.

Johann did reference a policy position of Paul's, which is that Paul believes businesses have a constitutional right to discriminate based on race. That is his position, and he's clear about it.

If you think that makes him a racist you should take it up with him rather than lying about Johann.