Politics 2015

[KevinG]

Hey everybody, it looks like Rand Paul is officially running for president!  

 

So which is great because he is going to appeal to those young conservatives and fair minded libertarians.  But before you think how great it would be to have just a great libertarian mind as the most powerful man in the world, let's remember he is nothing close to libertarian, and in fact holds many positions directly against the Libertarian Party Platform.  

 

 

• He is against marijuana legalization, and wants the government to have a say what you can and cannot put in your body.  
• He is anti-choice, and wants the government to have a say in health choices that should be between a woman and her doctor.
• He opposes same sex marriage
• He is for an increased military spending and for the US getting involved in conflicts overseas
• Also he is for imprisoning people for listening to "radical political speeches" (which I would think the government would need to make that determination)

 

I guess you could argue that economically he believes in libertarian values, free market etc, but that is a value held by most conservatives.  

 

Go ahead and read his voting record for yourself.  http://votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/117285/rand-paul/#.VSPtlF33-iw; http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Rand_Paul.htm

 

 

Rand himself has said, he is not a libertarian, but a "Libertarian Republican" (whatever that is)   Which is fine and he is not seeking the nomination for the Libertarian Party.  But many, people including much of the media will brand him as a libertarian, or having libertarian values.  He simply is not.  He like everyone one of the GOP candidates (or potential candidates), believes in a Big Government that controls what you can do with your body, who you can love, and what speech you can listen to or perform.  He is a member of the Republican Party and will continue to toe the party line.  So when you hear that Rand Paul is a libertarian (or has libertarian values), remember that is not the case.  

 

If are a libertarian and you really believe in personal freedom you should probably consider voting democrat.  

[LouieB]

Rand Paul is a demagogue of the worst order.  As I have heard him described with the 5 minute rule; you can listen to him for 5 minutes and he seems reasonable until he hits on those crazy things like opposing gay marriage, opposing abortion, and wanting more defense spending although doesn't want foreign wars.  I think him entering the race will be great.  The more nut balls running the better.  At some point Jeb Bush may sound like a reasonable mainline candidate and the powers that be will brush aside Paul, Cruz, and all the evangelicals. 

 

It's going to be interesting.

 

LouieB

[Mr. Heartbreak]

 

McCain upstages Rand Paul's announcement with one of his own.

 

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/04/07/us-sen-john-mccain-announces-hes-running-for-sixth-term/21162177/

 

Funniest part of that was the AOL home page made it look like he was running for Prez again:

 

 

 

John McCain annonces he's running again 

Some suspected the 78-year-old senator and former presidential nominee might be ready to retire, but he said otherwise Tuesday.

[KevinG]

 

McCain upstages Rand Paul's announcement with one of his own.

 

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/04/07/us-sen-john-mccain-announces-hes-running-for-sixth-term/21162177/

 

Funniest part of that was the AOL home page made it look like he was running for Prez again:

 

I think the funniest thing that AOL is still a thing.  

 

If there is one person who is emblematic of the problems with the GOP it is John McCain.  Once seen as maverick, he has drifted ever more to the far right in hopes to court votes from the TEA party and the extreme fringes of the party.  

 

It appears that he will be challenged by a TEA party backed candidate, which means I am sure he will swing more right.  It would be my hope that McCain loses the primary and the people of Arizona elect a democrat, but I worry whoever wins the GOP nomination will win the seat.  So I guess I would rather have a cranky far right McCain then another Rand Paul or Ted Cruz in the senate.  

[Sir Stewart]

Although I made it very clear that I am in no way a racist

 

Come on man, that's not true of any person.

[Hixter]

Come on man, that's not true of any person.

noun

1. a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

I don't believe any race is superior to another. In our polarized and politically correct world, we've twisted words like racism so much that they're almost meaningless. And don't get me started about all the -phobias...

[LouieB]

But just in case make sure you have a big honkin' shot-gun.

 

LouieB

[Hixter]

But just in case make sure you have a big honkin' shot-gun.

[LouieB]

That's stupid too.

 

LouieB

[Hixter]

That's stupid too.

Even gun haters seem to enjoy the occasional bit of shooting. It's fun!

 

 

 

 

 

[Magnetized]

I don't think someone born and raised in this country could possibly say they are not racist in any way. There's too much history, too many ingrained cultural expectations, for anyone to be untouched. In fact, recognizing and accounting for racism--overt, covert, institutional, systemic, and yes, personal--is an essential step in overcoming it.

[Hixter]

I don't think someone born and raised in this country could possibly say they are not racist in any way. 

Do you think a particular race is superior to another? I don't and it seems pretty straightforward to me. We've all seen racism and our experiences may have been affected (I almost said colored) by race, but that doesn't make someone racist. I think it's a bit overreaching to say that every person in this country is racist in some way.

[Doug C]

Do you think a particular race is superior to another? I don't and it seems pretty straightforward to me. We've all seen racism and our experiences may have been affected (I almost said colored) by race, but that doesn't make someone racist. I think it's a bit overreaching to say that every person in this country is racist in some way.

I agree. Ever person in this country, if not the world, is prejudiced in some way. Not everyone practices discrimination, but we all have prejudices. Some people are prejudiced discriminators, some are prejudiced non-discriminators, but very few, if any, of us, are 100% non-prejudiced non-discriminators.

[Lammycat]

but very few, if any, of us, are 100% non-prejudiced non-discriminators.

 

 I'd say nearly 100%, if not 100%, of all children 0-3 are 100% non-prejudiced non-discriminators....

[Hixter]

Prejudice is a part of our daily lives and much of it takes place unconsciously. When I come to a green light and my gut tells me that the other car isn't going to stop, I'm prejudging him/her. If I'm walking down a deserted street and I see 3 guys with shotguns in hand, I'll take another route, although it's possible that they're just getting ready to head to the skeet range. If a cop pulls over a pickup with an ATM in the bed, he's prejudging the driver, but it's reasonable to do so.

 

As I said, we've overused the words racism and -phobia so much that a lot of people have lost track of their true meanings. And we're well on the way to abusing the concept of hate crimes/speech, too.

[tinnitus photography]

let's just use 'racial profiling' instead

[Hixter]

let's just use 'racial profiling' instead

Even that term has been overused to the point that it's become politically incorrect to mention the race of a wanted suspect. That's not racial profiling, it's called a description.

[tinnitus photography]

in the case of a wanted suspect, that's called an eye witness report, no?

[Hixter]

in the case of a wanted suspect, that's called an eye witness report, no?

I'm not a cop, but I would assume that descriptions are based upon witness reports. Whatever the nomenclature, if the race of the suspect is known, it is relevant in the search.Stuff like this is jus politically correct nonsense:

 

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2015/02/university_of_minnesota_to_sto.php

[Doug C]

 I'd say nearly 100%, if not 100%, of all children 0-3 are 100% non-prejudiced non-discriminators....

Touche'!! Ha! Very true. We have to learn prejudice, and since we naturally form schemas, we develop prejudices.

[KevinG]

Prejudice is a part of our daily lives and much of it takes place unconsciously. When I come to a green light and my gut tells me that the other car isn't going to stop, I'm prejudging him/her. If I'm walking down a deserted street and I see 3 guys with shotguns in hand, I'll take another route, although it's possible that they're just getting ready to head to the skeet range. If a cop pulls over a pickup with an ATM in the bed, he's prejudging the driver, but it's reasonable to do so.

 

I think you miss the point.  Everything you have said have nothing do with race, it has everything to do with the actions of individuals.  

 

Honestly can you say to yourself that you have never acted differently, or thought of someone different because of the color of their skin?  If you can say that you never have, it seems to me that you are not being honest with yourself.  I have done it myself.  I catch myself doing it.  I don't like it, I am not proud of it, but I will admit that it happens.  

 

We all have prejudices, but behind some of those is a tinge of racism. It is a fact of life.      

 

 

As I said, we've overused the words racism and -phobia so much that a lot of people have lost track of their true meanings. And we're well on the way to abusing the concept of hate crimes/speech, too.

 

I wholly agree.  I think all hate crime legislation is ridiculous and unconstitutional.  We should punish the actions not the thoughts.  

[Mr. Heartbreak]

If Hixter and KevinG can agree on something, I think it's high time all the schmucks in D.C. get together, stop grandstanding, and find some common ground.

[Hixter]

If Hixter and KevinG can agree on something, I think it's high time all the schmucks in D.C. get together, stop grandstanding, and find some common ground.

 

I'm glad this Kennedy stayed out of politics:

 

SACRAMENTO (CBS SF) – As lawmakers at the State Capitol consider a bill that would no longer allow parents to opt out of vaccinating their children over personal beliefs, vaccination critic Robert Kennedy Jr. waded into the debate at a Sacramento appearance.

 

Kennedy spoke to a crowd Tuesday screening a film that claims a link between autism in children and thimerosal, an ingredient in vaccines, according to the Sacramento Bee.

 

“They get the shot, that night they have a fever of a hundred and three, they go to sleep, and three months later their brain is gone,” Kennedy reportedly told the crowd. “This is a holocaust, what this is doing to our country.”

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/04/08/robert-kennedy-jr-compares-vaccine-debate-holocaust-california-lawmakers-banning-exemptions/

[lost highway]

Oof

[tinnitus photography]

Go Texas