Skip to comments.
Rand Paul and the Perils of Textbook Libertarianism
The New York Times ^
| May 21, 2010
| Libertarianism
Posted on 05/23/2010 5:25:34 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-44 next last
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
If you violate civil rights in the name of protecting them, have you protected civil rights at all, or only violated them?
2
posted on
05/23/2010 5:30:47 PM PDT
by
counterpunch
(GOP: Government's Other Party)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
I question his sanity by going on the “MADCOW” Show to begin with.
3
posted on
05/23/2010 5:34:14 PM PDT
by
gwilhelm56
(The one thing we learn from history is .. People REFUSE to Learn from History!!)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
I trade one libertarian for one RINO all day long.
4
posted on
05/23/2010 5:40:00 PM PDT
by
Leisler
To: Leisler
So that the “smoke filled rooms” of old now reek of cannabis?
5
posted on
05/23/2010 5:43:00 PM PDT
by
HiTech RedNeck
(I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
To: Leisler
6
posted on
05/23/2010 5:43:26 PM PDT
by
HiTech RedNeck
(I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
To: gwilhelm56
Oh come on! Don't dump on MADCOW just because the MSM is Alinsky-iting the totally sane and intelligent Rand. If everyone thought like Rand, we would be a much healthier world--both morally and economically.
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
But Mr. Pauls position is complicated.Not at all.
The Constitution is the cornerstone of his position and those who oppose the speak of Rand Paul oppose the dictate of the Constitution.
The perpetual political graying of the Constitution is what complicates a constitutional position.
8
posted on
05/23/2010 5:44:55 PM PDT
by
EGPWS
(Trust in God, question everyone else)
To: HiTech RedNeck
I’d settle for government ‘leaders’ that could get off the couch. Matter of fact, I pay taxes to buy Jamaica and move the Capital there.
9
posted on
05/23/2010 5:46:13 PM PDT
by
Leisler
To: savagesusie
One wonders if this is the only message that Rand has muddled. Sometimes it’s better to be clear and wrong than to be mushy mouthed on a subject of much debate.
10
posted on
05/23/2010 5:46:24 PM PDT
by
HiTech RedNeck
(I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
The Left and the neo-con Right do not want to address the points that Rand makes. This is all about marginalizing someone who represents a serious threat to their status-quo.
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
>> Senator Jon Kyl ... said, in mild rebuke of Mr. Paul, “I hope he can separate the theoretical ... from the actual votes we have to cast based on real legislation here.”
I prefer the neglected option #3; that which concerns the constituents.
12
posted on
05/23/2010 5:51:40 PM PDT
by
Gene Eric
(Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your Change.)
To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
That is true. But I believe nothing in the NY Slimes.
13
posted on
05/23/2010 5:53:01 PM PDT
by
darkangel82
(I don't have a superiority complex, I'm just better than you.)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
I am no fan of Rand or Ron Paul.
But this article is a steaming pantload.
14
posted on
05/23/2010 5:55:08 PM PDT
by
rlmorel
(We are traveling "The Road to Serfdom".)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
The real problem is those who could care less about the Constitution will twist the intent of the Constitution in order to play the Race Card. These Yahoos are so obsessed with the Race Card tactic that they would play it on their mother if it gave them one inch of advantage. I hope the voters of Kentucky see right through this nonsense and elect Rand Paul in a landslide. Rand Paul needs to use this episode as a teaching moment for the voters of Kentucky. He needs to show them that the state has more devious intentions than dictating restaurant seating arraignments. He needs to teach the Constitution in whatever opportunity comes his way. This is one of them.
15
posted on
05/23/2010 6:01:24 PM PDT
by
jonrick46
(We're being water boarded with the sewage of Fabian Socialism.)
To: HiTech RedNeck
He “muddled “ nothing. Do you think the damned government should tell you who to hire in YOUR BUSINESS? Tell us?
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
To be perfectly honest, I’d say that most white people in the South (and other sections of the country, too) would have opposed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. I know that democrats such as Robert Bird, Al Gore Sr, and many others did. But, that’s irrelevant...this is not 1964. Were Rand Paul alive in 1964 and of age, especially in Kentucky, the odds are that he would NOT have “marched” with MLK, who was largely seen by the public and local media as a rabble-rouser, communist and person who was upsetting a social system that the country had come to accept. You can’t logically judge the mores of 1964 by those of 2010. Its a trap, and a loser.
17
posted on
05/23/2010 6:04:16 PM PDT
by
dtrpscout
(A bad dog is better than most good people.)
To: rogertarp
Sorry, but truth and honest discussion do NOT belong in today’s media. That is a fact and he should have known better.
18
posted on
05/23/2010 6:05:18 PM PDT
by
Deagle
To: rogertarp
Why should he hasten to follow up by saying he would vote for that very legislation he pretends to condemn? Muddle, muddle, muddle.
19
posted on
05/23/2010 6:09:15 PM PDT
by
HiTech RedNeck
(I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
To: counterpunch
I don’t think he’s a libertarian at all. He’s a constitutionalist.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-44 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson