Althouse: "I'd also like to know whether Paul really believes in a conspiracy among the U.S., Canadian and Mexican governments..."

May 25, 2010

"I'd also like to know whether Paul really believes in a conspiracy among the U.S., Canadian and Mexican governments..."

"... to turn North America into a 'borderless, mass continent' bisected by a 10-lane superhighway. Because that's what he said in 2008. 'It's a real thing,' he said of the imaginary threat to U.S. sovereignty, 'and when you talk about it, the thing you just have to be aware of is that if you talk about it like it's a conspiracy, they'll paint you as a nut.' Very little paint is needed."

77 comments:

mesquito said...: The "un-American" part is consistent with the campaign by Republican cynics and Tea Party wing nuts to delegitimize Obama's presidency.

Is Robinson saying that it's all a conspiracy?

(That was too easy.); 5/25/10, 11:00 AM
Pastafarian said...: I agree with Robinson -- you would have to be a nut to think that there's such a conspiracy.

The word "conspiracy" implies secrecy, and they're not even hiding the fact that they're destroying the border between Mexico and the US. They're perfectly open about it.

And they'll deny this; and then in the same breath deride as "racist" anyone who wants immigration laws to be enforced, without which the border is a meaningless red squiggle on a map.; 5/25/10, 11:04 AM
Kirby Olson said...: I don't yet know how all the dots connect with regard to Rand Paul. Is he named after Ayn Rand? If so, is he a Randian?

I don't think one or two of those in the government would hurt anything. It would be nice to have someone arguing that government should disappear, as opposed to a mob who can't wait to wipe out the private sphere, and remake America into a communist utopia.; 5/25/10, 11:04 AM
GMay said...: "Or has the Tea Party movement's newly crowned Mad Hatter changed his mind?"

I wasn't aware the Tea Party was cohesive enough to have designated it' own leadership yet. Rand Paul fits the liberal narrative beautifully. First, the feeling liberals have of being entitled to set policy and agenda for their opponents. Then, smear their opponents as kooks, racists, militant, extremists, etc. Then appoint their opposition's leadership by finding the highest profile whacko possible.

I wonder if this WaPo smear campaign will fail as bad as their McDonnell smearfest.; 5/25/10, 11:07 AM
Franklin said...: My theory is that people are starting to understand that we HAVE to put Libertarian-to-a-fault people like Rand Paul in office because by sending anyone less stringent, we end up with people like Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter.

Political reality will, of course, temper Paul's views and influence, but at least he's looking at these issues from the correct perspective.; 5/25/10, 11:17 AM
Opus One Media said...: I sat on a SWairlines flight from Houston to Kansas City with a fellow who was pointing out the window at the proposed route of this expressway. The plane was full so I couldn't change seats.

I wonder if Kentucky is full up too and maybe wants to change things a bit...; 5/25/10, 11:23 AM
halojones-fan said...: "...we HAVE to put Libertarian-to-a-fault people like Rand Paul in office."

Rand Paul is not "Libertarian-to-a-fault". He's just fucking whacko. If his daddy wasn't Ron Paul then he'd be out there chaining himself to a tree, or wearing a kaffiyeh and waving a sign with "FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA", or checking the expiration dates on the survival rations in his isolated mountain compound, or burning the midnight oil in yet another chat-room argument about how 9/11 was an inside job.; 5/25/10, 11:25 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I sat on a SWairlines flight from Houston to Kansas City

And here I thought your kind was anesthetized and stored in baggage for the comfort and safety of the passengers. Guess thats what de-regulation of the airlines gets us.; 5/25/10, 11:39 AM
SGT Ted said...: Oh a WAPO article calling a libertarian a nutball and trying to smear the Tea Party movement as racists. How ordinary and doctrinaire.

Is the WAPO going to discuss MSNBCs doctored transcript they issued that smeared Rand Paul as someone who was for racial discrimination?

When the leftards discuss and denounce their own whacko's, starting with Thomas 'Dictator for a day" Freidman", I'll be prepared to talk about this stuff.; 5/25/10, 11:50 AM
Beth said...: Lefties have been laughing at Friedman for years. I think that should make everyone happy.; 5/25/10, 12:00 PM
Scott M said...: Wait a sec. You mean we're supposed to hold politicians accountable for things they said a few years ago?

That is soooo pre-post-racial-Obamanation.; 5/25/10, 12:16 PM
Bob From Ohio said...: According to Wikipedia, Mexico has 109 million people and Canada 33 million.

Let's round up to 150 million.

There are 300 million plus in the US.

The "old" US would dominate the "new" US by population. Not to mention economic power etc.

Canada is no different than Oregon or New England.

Our military and law enforcement would gradually clean up Mexico. Mexico not too long ago was in much better shape and could be again.

So what's to be afraid of?

Manifest Destiny!; 5/25/10, 12:19 PM
Caroline said...: Lefties have been laughing at Friedman for years.

It does make one wonder who the heck has been buying his books, and why he is given so much air time and print space to spout off?

I would expect the other panelists on the show to be embarrassed for him when he goes off on his "china for a day" thing. Instead, some of them agreed with him. (Note: I only skimmed the transcript, so maybe I missed out that they were just humoring him?); 5/25/10, 12:23 PM
AllenS said...: You can't go wrong disagreeing with Eugene Robinson most of the time.; 5/25/10, 12:44 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Libertarianism is very divorced from practical reality.

Rand tells us he, the good Libertarian, is opposed to laws saying private businesses may not discriminate. He says discrimination laws should only apply to governments.

Meanwhile, Libertarianism also says the government should be reduced to a fraction of it's size. They would have the private sector carry out most of the functions of government.

Put these two things together and what you have is a Libertarian ideology that offers very little protection from racial prejudice and bigotry.

The bottom line is that Libertarianism, as currently espoused, would increase opportunities for racism to grow.

These observations strike me as wholly accurate and fair. Can the Libertarians debate on the merit or will they just sling insults? In 1, 2...; 5/25/10, 12:58 PM
Brian said...: I knew it. Go ahead, call me a racist, but I just knew those dang Canadians were trying to take us over.; 5/25/10, 1:00 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Does anyone here have evidence of this "NAFTA Superhighway?" It's the whole point of the post, after all.

My conservative relatives have been telling about this for years. Apparently some right wing outfit has been pumping up the xenophobia to shake down their supporters for some more scratch.; 5/25/10, 1:00 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: If Rand Paul won't answer this question, perhaps some of his supporters here could offer an opinion on Eugene Robinson's question:

"Does he still believe it ought to be permissible to deny Americans access to housing because of the color of their skin, as he argued a few years ago? "; 5/25/10, 1:03 PM
Unknown said...: Though skeptical myself, Rand Paul is hardly alone in his views on this one.

He's been joined by the UAW and AFL-CIO, for example.

AlphaLiberal said...

Libertarianism is very divorced from practical reality.

(No, I won't...); 5/25/10, 1:04 PM
GMay said...: "Libertarianism is very divorced from practical reality."

Says the guy with an oxymoronic name.; 5/25/10, 1:07 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: ahhhh.... another question that Rand Paul is ducking. This one provided in the online chat with Eugene Robinson:

"Wouldn't Rand Paul favor ending Social Security and Medicare? "

I think he does. Agreed?; 5/25/10, 1:08 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "Wouldn't Rand Paul favor ending Social Security and Medicare? "

Doesn't matter since mathematics favors it's demise.; 5/25/10, 1:11 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: EDutcher makes a weird claim:

He's been joined by the UAW and AFL-CIO, for example. .

What are you talking about? THE UAW opposed the Civil Rights Act? Or do they oppose the ADA?; 5/25/10, 1:12 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: GMay:

Says the guy with an oxymoronic name. .

You are living in the past.; 5/25/10, 1:13 PM
Michael said...: I am as right wing as they come, but let's face it: Rand Paul is a moron and represents the views of mostly moronic people. To keep talking about him is going backwards and plays perfectly into the hands of the MSM which rightly sees him as easy pickings to find support for every wrong stereotypical view of conservatives.; 5/25/10, 1:16 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Rand Paul may be a moron but he's a also the Republican nominee for US Senate from Kentucky. He's also a Tea Party favorite.

We're not picking some guy out of obscurity. This is someone supported by the Tea Party gang and who overcame opposition from Mitch McConnell.

He's yours. All YOURS!; 5/25/10, 1:21 PM
Scott M said...: @Alpha

Libertarianism is very divorced from practical reality.

...unlike the reality liberals adhere to in which everyone gladly subsumes their personal drives for the good of the group? The reality where everyone is equal in every way? That reality?

As far as the superhighway thing, the only places I remember hearing about it were Art Bell's Coast To Coast (George Norry, now, I guess) and the local version of Art Bell our afternoon driver has on each Tuesday. So, I suppose, that puts it squarely in the realm of wacko theory, but I'm not an expert on superhighways.

I am, on the other hand, an expert in my own self-interest, much like everyone else.; 5/25/10, 1:23 PM
Scott M said...: Doesn't matter since mathematics favors it's demise.

That's got to be close to a thread winner.; 5/25/10, 1:24 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Another good question for Rand Paul and his supporters from the online chat:

If Rand Paul believes so much in personal freedom is opposed to restrictions on abortion?; 5/25/10, 1:26 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: "That's got to be close to a thread winner."

In the category of evasiveness and ducking the question. i.e., "wimping out."

he can't handle the truth.; 5/25/10, 1:27 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Scott M:

...unlike the reality liberals adhere to in which everyone gladly subsumes their personal drives for the good of the group? The reality where everyone is equal in every way? That reality? .

No, not actually. What you have their is your own warped view of what liberals think.

And, it is very divorced from reality.

But by all means, provide some links to back up your strawman charge. Should be easy if it's true, right?

And, BTW, you do know that when you debate with a strawman.....; 5/25/10, 1:30 PM
Scott M said...: If Rand Paul believes so much in personal freedom is opposed to restrictions on abortion?

I could almost see you giggling to yourself in the throws of a gotcha-asm as you thought of that. It's not anywhere near as clean cut as you probably think it is.

I can be wholly for personal liberty and still defend pro-life policies on the basis of protecting the unborn's rights...the same rights that individual would enjoy seconds after leaving the birth canal.

Try again.

Mind you, I'm not defending Paul, as I don't live in Kentucky and really don't care. But your statement needed some debate.; 5/25/10, 1:31 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Here is Ron Paul going on about the NAFTA Superhighway and the North American Union.

I say this is one more example of Libertarians being "divorced from reality." (I know, "unfair" using real facts).

You disagree? Show us the plans for the NAU or the superhighway.; 5/25/10, 1:32 PM
Scott M said...: No, not actually. What you have their is your own warped view of what liberals think.

Really...do you want to go down the road of supporting equality of outcomes, living wages, social justice, etc and say that the left doesn't expect people (the proles, that is, not the elite) to act as good morale actors instead of pursuing their own ends?

Expect = coerce, by the way.; 5/25/10, 1:35 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Scott M:

I can be wholly for personal liberty and still defend pro-life policies on the basis of protecting the unborn's rights...the same rights that individual would enjoy seconds after leaving the birth canal. .

Nowhere do you discuss the rights of the woman with the pregnancy. Does she even merit a mention?

With no other medical procedures is the patient treated as having no rights to determine what is done to their own body! Instead, you decide she must carry that child to term and live under YOUR value system.

And you can't see the hypocrisy there? A real Libertarian would support reproductive rights.; 5/25/10, 1:37 PM
Scott M said...: @AL

say this is one more example of Libertarians being "divorced from reality." (I know, "unfair" using real facts).

Let's assume he's completely wrong on this particular issue...which I'm completely willing to do as I don't know anything about this particular nugget. But let's say he's wrong. Let me fix that statement for you and make you less intolerant of an entire group of people.

say this is one more example of a Libertarian being "divorced from reality." (I know, "unfair" using real facts).

The fact is that I know a whole host of libertarians that believe nothing of the sort in regards to a supposed superhighway.; 5/25/10, 1:38 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Scott M, now I do not want to go down a road where you constantly change subjects, including what you wrote only five minutes ago.

A minimum wage does not mean everyone is "equal in every way."

You hate social justice? Really? So you embrace social injustice. Well, we're not going to find much to agree on then.

Etc. Whatever. It's a waste of time.; 5/25/10, 1:40 PM
David said...: If I still believed what I read in the main stream media, I would think that Rand Paul is a bit of a nut. But I don't believe the media anymore (with a few exceptions), so I'll have to seek more direct sources of understanding of Mr. Paul.; 5/25/10, 1:41 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: I see. So, because Scott M is ignorant about the extent of support within Libertarian circles and leaders for the loopy North American Union concept, that means the fault must lie ---- anywhere but with Scott M.

How about maybe, perhaps, if you don't know what you're talking about, that's your deficiency, not mine?; 5/25/10, 1:43 PM
Scott M said...: With no other medical procedures is the patient treated as having no rights to determine what is done to their own body! Instead, you decide she must carry that child to term and live under YOUR value system.

You're putting an awful lot of words in my mouth there, skippy. I said nothing of the sort and if you've paid any attention in any other threads about abortion where I've chimed in, you would know that's not even remotely close to what I believe. If you would like, I'll expand on that for you, but you couldn't be more wrong than you are right now.

And being that wrong makes you not only divorced from reality, but paying half your salary in alimony and another quarter in child support (or maybe not as you're fine with killing a person).; 5/25/10, 1:43 PM
Greg Hlatky said...: You disagree? Show us the plans for the NAU or the superhighway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Texas_Corridor; 5/25/10, 1:44 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: A real Libertarian would support reproductive rights.

Reproductive rights? I thought womenfolk already had the right to reproduce?; 5/25/10, 1:46 PM
Scott M said...: You hate social justice? Really? So you embrace social injustice. Well, we're not going to find much to agree on then.

Most assuredly not when you're constantly putting words in my mouth. Find "hate" in my writing anywhere upthread and I'll give the point to you. Otherwise, sit down and let the adults carry on.

I don't hate social justice. Social justice, in and of itself, is just fine and dandy. However, it is artificial and must be supported by taking from others only to have those resources used in damned near the most inefficient manner possible while policies geared toward enacting social justice tend to hurt the very people they are supposed to help.

Being against the American government's traditional (ie, last fourty years or so) method of social justice doesn't mean I embrace social injustice at all. To make such a statement borders on childish and a two-dimensional view of the world. Despite the razor-thin social veneer we all enjoy, under it lies reality and reality is anything but egalitarian. I know, facts suck, huh?

Social justice, as a goal, is a noble end to pursue. I would like to pursue it in the manner I deem fit with the resources I have at my disposal, thank you.; 5/25/10, 1:51 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: To make such a statement borders on childish and a two-dimensional view of the world.

Consider who you're talking to.; 5/25/10, 1:54 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Scott, I based my comments on this comment from you:

I can be wholly for personal liberty and still defend pro-life policies on the basis of protecting the unborn's rights...the same rights that individual would enjoy seconds after leaving the birth canal. .

No where in that explanation do we see a concern or mention of the rights of a woman to control her own body. Instead you say there is a right to make the call for the woman.

So, to recap: Private businesses should allowed to practice injurious racial prejudice, as part of their control over their private facilities, regardless of the impacts on the victims.

In the case of abortion, however, women should not be allowed to control their private bodies, in deference to the zygote/fetus.

Some principles there.; 5/25/10, 1:54 PM
Scott M said...: How about maybe, perhaps, if you don't know what you're talking about, that's your deficiency, not mine?

As a registered libertarian, I'm fully aware of what you're talking about. I said the libertarians (and there are quite a few here) I know don't really care about it.

You know, you're usually much more lucid than this. Home with a fever today, are you?; 5/25/10, 1:55 PM
Scott M said...: Instead you say there is a right to make the call for the woman.

Please say where I said that. I said nothing of the sort.

So, to recap: Private businesses should allowed to practice injurious racial prejudice, as part of their control over their private facilities, regardless of the impacts on the victims.

If you're recapping something I said, you're nudging over into epic fail at this point.

In the case of abortion, however, women should not be allowed to control their private bodies, in deference to the zygote/fetus.

See above.; 5/25/10, 1:57 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: In the case of abortion, however, women should not be allowed to control their private bodies, in deference to the zygote/fetus.

Some principles there.

That implies they were not in control of their bodies when the zygote/fetus was conceived. Which of course if the liberal mantra: You are not responsible for your personal actions.; 5/25/10, 1:58 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Scott M is just getting weird:

'Find "hate" in my writing anywhere upthread and I'll give the point to you.'

OK, you didn't actually say "hate" when you brought up social justice. You just mocked the concept.

So, you claim to support it, just not in anyway that might actually achieve it.

I think it's reasonable to say that people who mock social justice and oppose any effort to reach it don't really believe in it. You disagree. So be it.; 5/25/10, 2:00 PM
Scott M said...: That implies they were not in control of their bodies when the zygote/fetus was conceived. Which of course if the liberal mantra: You are not responsible for your personal actions.

How does it imply that?; 5/25/10, 2:01 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Hoosier Daddy makes (surprise) an idiotic statement:

That implies they were not in control of their bodies when the zygote/fetus was conceived. .

No. It does not.

Though that is entirely possible given that so many conservatives oppose abortion even in the case of forced sex (rape/incest).

But it needn't be the case.

This is just one more example of how conservatives are hypocrites when it comes to personal freedom. The constantly oppose it, except for large corporations.

Rand Paul is another one of those hyopcrites, in addition to being a NAU conspiracy theorist.; 5/25/10, 2:03 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: John, I researched the "Supercorridor" already after getting fliers from relatives about it. I couldn't find any public agency with any information on it. That's what i'm talking about re: proof.

There is no basis in reality for it. Citing a web site some Schmoe put together doesn't mean a thing.; 5/25/10, 2:07 PM
John henry said...: Someone mentioned the AFL and teamsters being up in arms about the super corridor.

The Longshoremen are too. Why? Well it means that Chinese and other pacific goods can enter through Mexican ports depriving American longshoremen of their outrageous wages. Trucks coming from Mexico will be driven by non-teamster drivers.

And so on.

So, yeah. The unions are upset about this and vocal.

John Henry; 5/25/10, 2:07 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Scott M: "How does it imply that?"

Thanks for that!

I think his worldview tells him that only sluts want abortions. For the birth control.; 5/25/10, 2:07 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: This is just one more example of how conservatives are hypocrites when it comes to personal freedom.

Why is it hypocritical? You think its a zygote whereas I think its a human being. I think killing an innocent human being is wrong. It has nothing to do with personal freedom. The fact your so cavalier about human life and will froth at the mouth over an oil drenched pelican says a lot more about your principles than it does mine.; 5/25/10, 2:10 PM
Scott M said...: OK, you didn't actually say "hate" when you brought up social justice. You just mocked the concept.

I fully defended the concept just above. What I mock is the theory that the federal government, as we have known it for decades, can bring it about. I believe it's as noble an end as, say, peace on Earth. I'm also exactly as optimistic that it's going to happen, if at all, any time soon. Soon in geologic terms.

This is where we differ. People are wholly unequal in ability, drive, risk-aversion, work ethic, etc. Social justice, as I believe you are trying to define it (correct me if I'm wrong), casts all of that aside and tries to make everyone equal. This is the core of my "everyone equal in every way".

Biology itself dictates real equality can't possibly be the case, so we're left with social justice as a fine goal to strive for as long as you're not coercing people to participate. Like I said. Let me donate and volunteer where I want to with the resources and time I have. Don't steal from me under the guise of national policy while at the same time wasting unholy amounts of money on other crap.

I think it's reasonable to say that people who mock social justice and oppose any effort to reach it don't really believe in it. You disagree. So be it.

I think you're unreasonable and seem to lack the ability to read. I type it slowly, but that doesn't translate well in blogs. I...don't...mock...social...justice.

See above and stop breathing from your mouth only.; 5/25/10, 2:11 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: John, do you understand that the web site you posted has involvement from US ports up and down the western seaboard?

That's not the "NAFTA Superhighway" it's very different.

Oh, what am I doing? I'm outta here!; 5/25/10, 2:11 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I think his worldview tells him that only sluts want abortions. For the birth control.

You know what Alpha, go to hell. Seriously.; 5/25/10, 2:11 PM
Greg Hlatky said...: There is no basis in reality for it. Citing a web site some Schmoe put together doesn't mean a thing.

This is from the schmoes at the Texas Department of Transportation:

http://www.keeptexasmoving.com/index.php/i-69-ttc; 5/25/10, 2:14 PM
Scott M said...: I think his worldview tells him that only sluts want abortions. For the birth control.

Having been a party to an abortion (have you ever been, Alpha, or is all of your knowledge purely second, third, fourth, or even fifth hand?), I can quite confidently say that most of the women I know that have had abortions did so as a form of birth control. There have been a tiny few married or otherwise monogamous women I've know that did it for fiscal or life-plan reasons, and one for a deformity issue. Outside of that, what would you call it?

I suppose we really need your definition of a slut? That would be threadjacking, though.

Whoops...too late...so, yeah, define slut for us as you understand it.; 5/25/10, 2:15 PM
Greg Hlatky said...: You hate social justice?

The only thing I know about "Social Justice" is that it was the title of Father Coughlin's anti-Semitic rag.; 5/25/10, 2:16 PM
Scott M said...: Oh, what am I doing? I'm outta here!

That's close enough to a white flag for me, thanks.; 5/25/10, 2:28 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Scott, to clarify my remark above, Alpha is of the belief that conservatives think women should not have control over their bodies (ie: abort thier unborn). My comment that implies we think they didn't have control at the time of conception. Well they did have control; one can use birth control or abstinence. They just don't wake up one day with a bun in the oven.

As I said, I think killing an unborn human fetus is wrong in the same way liberals think stepping on a next of wild geese eggs is a criminal offense although I am consistent in my respect for unborn human life as I am for unborn wild geese life.; 5/25/10, 2:28 PM
raf said...: Y'know, there actually is already a superhighway from Mexico to Canada. It's called I-35. Not 10 lanes, though, so I suppose it doesn't count.

I have heard proposals to create a sort-of linear Free Trade Zone along I-35 (or similar) to ease border crossings. Customs would have to staff all the exits like they "do" the border crossings today, I suppose. And they would have to protect against illegal crossings between legal exits just as well as they protect the existing border, I suppose.

Not all that practical, unless you want to vastly increase Federal employment. Hmm.

WV, no kidding: wives. Don't know what that has to do with NAFTA conspiricies; it must be reacting to the abortion threadjacking somehow.; 5/25/10, 2:41 PM
Unknown said...: Alpha, as usual, misses the point (Kell Sir prize) and attempts to change the subject.

The topic of this post was a Euro-style union of Canada, the US, and Mexico. No one was louder in denouncing all sorts of nefarious plots to that end than the UAW and AFL-CIO. You know, like NAFTA.

At least during the 12 years of the Presidents Bush. Now, they seem to have no problem with nefarious plots.

Imagine that.; 5/25/10, 3:02 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: A real Libertarian would support reproductive rights.

Only if you define life starting at birth, or very close therabouts. Otherwise, if you give the parents, or presumably just the one parent, the right to kill any of their offspring, when does that right end? At 18? (Maybe 17, if they join the military then).

The whole concept of a woman's right to control her body through abortion rests on the assumption that life does not begin until birth. But, of course, that is a legal fiction, as any parent knows. And, the fact that an Ob can deliver a fetus in minutes to a live birth into the 2nd trimester right now.

Otherwise, if you define birth at an earlier time, then you have the mother's reproductive right up against the fetus' right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as well as society's right to prevent murder.

In short, your facile attempt to discredit the pro-life movement fails these days with a majority of Americans.; 5/25/10, 3:17 PM
El Presidente said...: I dislike Rand Paul and most of what he stands for. The problem I have is that I don't trust Eugene Robinson any farther than I can throw him. His slap dash quotations and logical fallacies just make me wonder what the editors at the Washington Post are thinking. The drive to make people look like fools and racists is so strong at the Post that it undercuts pretty much every article that they write.; 5/25/10, 3:26 PM
EnigmatiCore said...: "Rand Paul is not "Libertarian-to-a-fault". He's just fucking whacko. If his daddy wasn't Ron Paul then he'd be..."

Actually, that he is Ron Paul's son has a lot to do with why he is the way he is.

The apple has not fallen far from the tree.; 5/25/10, 3:28 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Bruce Hayden:

Only if you define life starting at birth, or very close therabouts. .

No, not really. Not at all.

People can have different answers to that question but acknowledge it's not an open and shut case. So they may leave the decision up to the person carrying the disputed entity (zygote/fetus/human being).

I've made my own decisions on this at a personal level. I have never been a party to an abortion.

You can make your own decisions and not be a party to an abortion.

And we can let the next American make her own decisions on this highly disputed question.

To inject the state into this highly personal decision is the exact opposite of Libertarian thought.

That's not "gotchya," it's just making the point that Libertarianism, which I flirted with as a youth lo these many decades ago, is being a bit used and abused.; 5/25/10, 3:34 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: edutcher, please show us where in NAFTA it establishes a North American Union.

(I say that after deleting other text of a more blasting nature. Maybe it's there and I don't know. So you can show us).; 5/25/10, 3:36 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: That's close enough to a white flag for me, thanks. .

Ha ha. Yeah, I found myself wasting more precious time on this Earth debating the NAU so I decided to get the hell out of Dodge and cut my losses.

That means, in your brain, you're right on a whole separate argument.

Uh huh. Whatever.; 5/25/10, 3:39 PM
damikesc said...: So, Rand Paul is indicative of what ALL Tea Partiers think?

I guess it'd be mean to wonder if Patty Murray or Barbara Boxer are indicative of what all Dems believe? Is Pelosi indicative of all Dems?

I'll note that your whackjobs are in high positions in Congress while Paul is a candidate only.; 5/25/10, 4:22 PM
Unknown said...: AlphaLiberal said...

edutcher, please show us where in NAFTA it establishes a North American Union.

Misdirection, thy name is Alpha.
Those who wish can read my original comment. The rest can watch Alpha point to the piggy flying across the sky.; 5/25/10, 4:24 PM
Pastafarian said...: This is an amusing thread. AlphaLiberal must be getting paid double-time to flood the zone about this poor Rand Paul character; and he's getting his ass handed to him.

He tried to portray ScottM as a hatemonger, and had to back down; he asked for proof of this "corridor", and was promptly provided with a link, and had to move the goalposts to "show me where NAFTA requires this corridor".

Jesus, Alpha, up your game. Soros might dock your pay if you keep this shit up.; 5/25/10, 4:44 PM
damikesc said...: AL, you seem to have an exceptionally weak grasp of what Libertarianism is.

Its not anarchy. Using your logic, a Libertarian opposed to slavery is a hypocrite.

I don't want abortion to be illegal...progressives have them more than most, so its a demographic win in the end...but there is a quite legitimate Libertarian argument to oppose it.

Just not one I subscribe to.; 5/25/10, 4:45 PM
AC245 said...: So, to recap: Private businesses should allowed to practice injurious racial prejudice, as part of their control over their private facilities, regardless of the impacts on the victims.

AlphaLiberal, are you against the government-mandated and sanctioned "injurious racial prejudice" found in such programs as Affirmative Action and minority/woman contract set-asides?

My experience has been that Liberals only consider such preferences evil when done by private citizens, but love them when sanctioned by a government entity.; 5/25/10, 6:21 PM
Fen said...: Okay, sorry guys but no more points awarded for revealing AlphaLibtard as a fool.

Call it a scaling fix.; 5/26/10, 12:53 AM