Sarah Palin Endorses Clint Didier For Senate

Someone as absent minded as you doesn't deserve more in a response. Check yourself, most of your post on this threat are pretty retarded dude...and this thread isn't the only thread where your post are wanting. Cut the crap and fix your thinking gaps...like Captain Planet says, "only you have the power."

Ahh yes, a "Captain Planet" reference. What a brilliant job of proving my point ...

But once again, no actual refutations.

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.

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.

"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)

"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.

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.

My feelings and yours about Rachel Maddow aside for a moment, did you actually see the interview? All of it? Because I did. And I'm 100% sure no one cornered Rand Paul into doing an interview with Rachel Maddow.Yes and agreed (and Maddow does have the same haircut as Matthews). What I mean by cornered is that he was completely off balance in the interview and should've had the "three word" answer to shoot down the inferences of racism ready to go.

In fact the tone was civil and there were no gotcha moments or questions. Now If Paul wants to thrust himself onto the scene as a national candidate worthy of the electorate's consideration to lead the state of Kentucky, and perhaps the country one day, then he should account for his views and articulate his policy prescriptions. I think that's fair and reasonable.

Prior to the Maddow interview he made some controversial statements on NPR that raised a few eyebrows. The Maddow interview was more or less a follow-up to simply dig in a little more and allow Mr. Paul to clarify a few points regarding the Civil Rights Act and previous statements.Agree on the first para. On the ADA thing mentioned on NPR, I do a good amount of Fed work and I can tell you his point is spot on about the $ 100K elevator. The Fed requirements of Section 508 add ridiculous costs when there are often more cost effective and common-sense solutions to accomodate those with disabilities.

But let's really cut to the chase where all of this is headed. Conservatives would like to paint this as some witch hunt by the "looney left" to bring down Rand Paul and portray him as a racist.But it's so fun and easy to do

For the record, I don't think he would stand a bat's chance in hell of winning a national election and I don't believe he's a racist. But his libertarian views, I feel, would open the door to racial tension and undo much of the progress we've made over the past several decades. So on one hand no one is really trying to infer, at least I'm not, that Rand Paul is racist but on the other the unintended consequences of some of his views could very well lead us down that road. And that's just dangerous and irresponsible if you ask me.But seriously, I agree here with you and that's my concern with many conservative candidates that would be very helpful to the country in terms of fiscal responsibility and scaling back the size/scope of govt'. They often allow themselves by trying to be true to their core beliefs (limited gov't) to be drawn into a black & white discussion with no allowance for shades of gray.

For the first time since the berth of the Tea Party movement, we now have a national candidate and a voice that we can reasonably assume espouse their views and sentiments. During his victory speech, he openly declared himself as the voice of the Tea Party (paraphrased). So from here on out, as the anointed spokesman for the Tea Party, we can look no further than Rand Paul to see what it is they believe. When they say things like "take my country back", how does that look in terms of actual policy? That's the big question Rand Paul and the Tea Party will have to answer in the coming days.I thought his statement clarifying his position was solid, but it should never even have been needed. He should've seen the attacks coming and been prepared. A simple response, "I completely support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While I advocate limited government there are extreme cases of gross injustice where the Federal government is required to act. However the Federal gov't attempt to privatize health care.....etc, etc. etc."

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.

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.

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.