He's not bad in the same ways as Bush. Bush installed a police state. I would compare him to Colin Powell; he as good intentions, but he's not the brightest bulb, and he has a certain pride that gets in the way.
Ron Paul didn't have the power to do so at any point, ever. It's like saying Hillary is better than Bush because she never gets morning wood - Technically true, but an unfair comparison.
This is the guy who said that he wouldn't have signed the Civil Rights Act because it intruded on states' rights. Do you honestly think he'd be an autocrat?
Anyway, it's past midnight over here, so if I don't answer your next post, it's not because I have nothing to say, it's because I'll be asleep.
This is the guy who said that he wouldn't have signed the Civil Rights Act because it intruded on states' rights. Do you honestly think he'd be an autocrat?
It's not state's rights, it's property rights, the rights to do what you wish on your property, especially if you're a business. And considering his racist statements in the past, I think we can guess exactly what rights he's thinking are infringed by an act that makes it unlawful to discriminate against people on the basis of race. It's not a clear cut case by any means, but you have to admit that those racist statements combined with his opposition to the act that effectively ended segregation on the basis of property rights, it's not looking terribly good by any stretch.
Anyway, it's past midnight over here, so if I don't answer your next post, it's not because I have nothing to say, it's because I'll be asleep.
That's cool, it's the internet, the latter is the default assumption, unless you don't replay for a few days rather than just a few hours.
This is the guy who said that he wouldn't have signed the Civil Rights Act because it intruded on states' rights. Do you honestly think he'd be an autocrat?
It's not state's rights, it's property rights, the rights to do what you wish on your property, especially if you're a business. And considering his racist statements in the past, I think we can guess exactly what rights he's thinking are infringed by an act that makes it unlawful to discriminate against people on the basis of race. It's not a clear cut case by any means, but you have to admit that those racist statements combined with his opposition to the act that effectively ended segregation on the basis of property rights, it's not looking terribly good by any stretch.
"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society." - Part of a longer speech by Paul before congress, before the symbolic vote on the 40th anniversary of the Civil rights act, on July 3rd, 2004.
He does not, at any point, mention State's rights - the closest he comes is mentioning interstate commerce.
Full text of the speech inside the next spoiler tags -
Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.
Anyone who says they can put up with "lesser racism" and defines that level as the crud Ron Paul says, actually can put up with a hell of a lot of racism. It may be lesser than straight up skinheads, but seriously that some fucked up racist horribleness that should be fought against. You know, I'm of the opinion that there is no "acceptable level" of racism. There are degrees, and perhaps we should fight them in order of threat severity, but I don't think any racism is really okay. I hope it all goes away.
"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society." - Part of a longer speech by Paul before congress, before the symbolic vote on the 40th anniversary of the Civil rights act, on July 3rd, 2004.
Key word being federal. I understand where the confusion was, but in an interview with MSNBC I can't seem to find, he expanded that he would be fine with it on a state level.
Do you guys want to know the part that scares even me -- the nihilist who tolerates racism, sexism, many religious hatreds and forgot his morals at Jamaica Plain and isn't gonna go back to get them? These are the reasons that Paul does well in the polls. People who work on his campaign have talked about how many people like Paul, but disagree with his foreign policy too much to vote for him.
Today's my last day, possibly ever, of coaching sailing. The thing that sucks is I won't have money this summer, but the good thing is after six years I'm finally sick of this job and I'm ready to have a summer free of major commitment.
Today's my last day, possibly ever, of coaching sailing. The thing that sucks is I won't have money this summer, but the good thing is after six years I'm finally sick of this job and I'm ready to have a summer free of major commitment.
Summers without commitment are nice, but make sure you can afford it. I didn't get a job last summer and was completely broke by the end of the school year.
Key word being federal. I understand where the confusion was, but in an interview with MSNBC I can't seem to find, he expanded that he would be fine with it on a state level.
That's nonsense. The only reason he keeps talking about federal power is because it's not state governments. His objections do not change if it becomes a states issue, it merely becomes smaller scale - remember, he's objecting on the basis of loss of personal property rights and privacy, not that it's the state government should have the power to take away these freedoms. As twisted and stupid as believing you have a right to have your own little re-enactment of the Jim Crow Laws is.
These are the reasons that Paul does well in the polls.
Not quite. The reason Paul does well in any online poll is because every time sites like The Daily Paul find one, they game it in Paul's favor. From what I recall, the harder a poll is to game - for example, not being an online poll, but a properly conducted one out in the real world - the less of a showing Ron Paul makes. It's just another case of the Paul supporters trying to convince people they have a chance - Just like their accusations of poll fraud and conspiracy(which proved to be false), their "Secret Delegate" plan(which isn't possible), the Third Party run(which also isn't possible), Ron being the VP(which is about as likely gravity suddenly switching off), and so on, so fourth.
The reason Paul does...well, not well, compared to anyone else other than the nobody-has-heard-of-you candidates like Vermin Supreme or the roughly dozens of young, white, male, moderately cashed up computer programmers that want to be the next Ron Paul that Reddit keeps fielding. But he has consistent percentages, at least - because his biggest supporter groups are Racist hate groups like Stormfront, conspiracy groups, and people whose political theories and ideals, written down, would just be "I Ron Paul" for ten pages, Ancaps, and FreeMen. Those people don't really have any other candidate to go to, because no other candidate is as crazy as they are.
Libertarians as a group, interestingly, mostly prefer Gary Johnson, who is like Ron Paul but without most of the crazy and stupid shit Ron Paul believes, nor any racist, homophobic, or conspiracy theory scandals behind him. I actually think he's quite a likeable chap, even if I wouldn't vote for him.
...and Johnson pledged his support to Paul in '08 and the inverse is happening now. I'm not sure that I think Johnson doesn't believe in as bullshit thing as much as he's smart enough not to say them. Mind you, I want people to vote for him if only because I want a significant 3d party. He's polling at 8% at the moment, and you only need 15% to get in the debates. I want to see any 3d party at the debates -- even neo-Nazis or what have you.
...and Johnson pledged his support to Paul in '08 and the inverse is happening now. I'm not sure that I think Johnson doesn't believe in as bullshit thing as much as he's smart enough not to say them. Mind you, I want people to vote for him if only because I want a significant 3d party. He's polling at 8% at the moment, and you only need 15% to get in the debates. I want to see any 3d party at the debates -- even neo-Nazis or what have you.
I know. With Johnson, at least at this point, there is no evidence that he believes the crazy shit, and it's not unlikely that Paul endorses him because he is simply the candidate with the most positions in common. A LOT of Paul supporters won't make the shift, though, and Paul knows it - After all, we're talking about a crowd that freaked the fuck out when Rand endorsed Romney for nominee, after his father said "Yeah, I'm not going to be the nominee." The crazy shit I've seen about that, from Romney being a traitor(in some cases, I've seen it with the word "Race" appended to the front, but that's only in the most distasteful sections of the internet), to the conspiracy theory that Obama is threatening the Paul family with death if Rand doesn't endorse Romney.
I agree with you about the 3rd party candidates at the debates, though, it's always a good show when they are - after all, crazy as that view might be sometimes, it's always nice to have an extra view or three there.
@Churba: for some reason I'm imagining Die Hard, but the German terrorists are the Obama administration, John McClain's wife and child are Rand Paul, and John himself is Ron.
@Trogdor: The other problem is that before Gorilla and Leopard were even running, the jungle unnimously elected elephant king. Elephant worked closely with gorlilla and leopard, so when he refused re-election, it left them in an advantagous situation. Also, see Teddy Roosevelt, 1912, and the Bull-Moose party for more information on how 3d parties can be fun mathematically.
So Apple's finally updated the MacPro. While I give them a bit of leeway for taking so long to update the CPUs since they use Xeons and Intel themselves takes forever to update their Xeon lines, the lack of Thunderbolt/LightPeak, USB3, and more modern video cards has confirmed to me that Apple's more or less punting on the professional market. Not that I'm surprised, but I was hoping to be wrong. Looks like I'm switching back to Windows when it's time to upgrade my desktop.
The new MacBook Pros do look pretty nice, however. One of 'em will probably be my next laptop (I do like to keep a machine running each major OS in my possession for various reasons).
I bought my MacBook Pro two years ago, and I upgraded it to a pretty stupid level. It now has similar specs to the newly released MacBook Pro laptops released today. I wish mine had USB 3 though! At least I still have Firewire 800 and Ethernet.
The Retina MacBook Pro display looks pretty cool though!
Yeah, I do like the Retina MBP display too, but it's probably overkill for my purposes. Unless there's a price drop on Retina displays between now and when I buy my next laptop, I'll probably get the 13" MBP. Small enough to still be quite portable and I can always hook it up to an external monitor at home if I want a bigger screen.
I just remembered, I got the Hi Res screen option on this MacBook Pro, and at 15 inch the screen is just perfect. I just checked out more specs for the latest laptops and none of them have both headphone out and mic in, only a single input/output. I'm really pleased I got this version, as I use that functionality all the time.
It got me thinking, if there is no Ethernet or other standard connectors, and no DVD burner, what makes this "pro"? Even its SSD is the same size as the one in mine that I bought 2 years ago, at 256 GB. A massive screen upgrade but a downgrade in so many other ways isn't what I want at all.
I checked out the Mac Pro line too. Very impressive, but totally weird not to have any USB 3, Thunderbolt, or any other high speed connection.
Apple actually kind of disappointing this time. None of the big changes to iOS are things that I really want. I'm actually mostly looking forward to Google releasing a Google Maps app in the app store, so I don't have to use the Apple one. I'll have to wait for the iPhone 5 itself to get interested in something.
I was halfway considering getting a Macbook of some kind for the sole purpose of making iPhone apps. However, the 13" does not have the (not actually) retina display, and the Air is too much money. Actually, everything they make is too much money if that is all I'm going to use it for.
Wait a minute, the MacBook Pro doesn't have ethernet? What is Apple smoking?
I haven't used an ethernet cable in over 3 years. I definitely haven't ever used one on the laptop I currently have. Not sayin everybody is like me, but a lot of people just use wireless now.
I need ethernet on my desktop for the torrents and the vidjigames and such, but my ethernet-free MacBook Air is fine without ethernet. The machine is thinner than an ethernet cable; there really is no space for it.
Comments
Anyway, it's past midnight over here, so if I don't answer your next post, it's not because I have nothing to say, it's because I'll be asleep.
"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society." - Part of a longer speech by Paul before congress, before the symbolic vote on the 40th anniversary of the Civil rights act, on July 3rd, 2004.
He does not, at any point, mention State's rights - the closest he comes is mentioning interstate commerce.
Full text of the speech inside the next spoiler tags -
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.
You know, I'm of the opinion that there is no "acceptable level" of racism. There are degrees, and perhaps we should fight them in order of threat severity, but I don't think any racism is really okay. I hope it all goes away.
Do you guys want to know the part that scares even me -- the nihilist who tolerates racism, sexism, many religious hatreds and forgot his morals at Jamaica Plain and isn't gonna go back to get them? These are the reasons that Paul does well in the polls. People who work on his campaign have talked about how many people like Paul, but disagree with his foreign policy too much to vote for him.
The reason Paul does...well, not well, compared to anyone else other than the nobody-has-heard-of-you candidates like Vermin Supreme or the roughly dozens of young, white, male, moderately cashed up computer programmers that want to be the next Ron Paul that Reddit keeps fielding. But he has consistent percentages, at least - because his biggest supporter groups are Racist hate groups like Stormfront, conspiracy groups, and people whose political theories and ideals, written down, would just be "I
Libertarians as a group, interestingly, mostly prefer Gary Johnson, who is like Ron Paul but without most of the crazy and stupid shit Ron Paul believes, nor any racist, homophobic, or conspiracy theory scandals behind him. I actually think he's quite a likeable chap, even if I wouldn't vote for him.
I agree with you about the 3rd party candidates at the debates, though, it's always a good show when they are - after all, crazy as that view might be sometimes, it's always nice to have an extra view or three there.
@Trogdor: The other problem is that before Gorilla and Leopard were even running, the jungle unnimously elected elephant king. Elephant worked closely with gorlilla and leopard, so when he refused re-election, it left them in an advantagous situation. Also, see Teddy Roosevelt, 1912, and the Bull-Moose party for more information on how 3d parties can be fun mathematically.
The new MacBook Pros do look pretty nice, however. One of 'em will probably be my next laptop (I do like to keep a machine running each major OS in my possession for various reasons).
The Retina MacBook Pro display looks pretty cool though!
It got me thinking, if there is no Ethernet or other standard connectors, and no DVD burner, what makes this "pro"? Even its SSD is the same size as the one in mine that I bought 2 years ago, at 256 GB. A massive screen upgrade but a downgrade in so many other ways isn't what I want at all.
I checked out the Mac Pro line too. Very impressive, but totally weird not to have any USB 3, Thunderbolt, or any other high speed connection.
I was halfway considering getting a Macbook of some kind for the sole purpose of making iPhone apps. However, the 13" does not have the (not actually) retina display, and the Air is too much money. Actually, everything they make is too much money if that is all I'm going to use it for.