For all the big government losers on this site
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-04-2012, 08:05 AM (This post was last modified: 13-04-2012 08:12 AM by germanyt.)
RE: For all the big government losers on this site
I can't see the vids on this comp and can't speak to those quotes. I've never heard them before.

However, everything you're saying could be 100% true and it doesn't change anything. I was a loud mouthed racist myself up until I was about 18. People change. And you can spin Paul's position on civil rights however you like to make it fit your view. He actually doesn't even plan to repeal the Civil Rights act. At least not that I'm aware of. When questioned about it he simply claimed that we don't need those laws anymore. If you would like to know why, look it up.



This is every Libertarian's position on the Civil Rights act. Much of them at least.

KELLY: Rand Paul is a libertarian. You are a libertarian. He is getting excoriated for suggesting that the Civil Rights act -- what he said was, "Look it's got 10 parts, essentially; I favor nine. It's the last part that mandated no discrimination in places of public accommodation that I have a problem with, because you should let businesses decide for themselves whether they are going to be racist or not racist. Because once the government gets involved, it's a slippery slope." Do you agree with that?

STOSSEL: Totally. I'm in total agreement with Rand Paul. You can call it public accommodation, and it is, but it's a private business. And if a private business wants to say, "We don't want any blond anchorwomen or mustached guys," it ought to be their right. Are we going to say to the black students' association they have to take white people, or the gay softball association they have to take straight people? We should have freedom of association in America.

KELLY: OK. When you put it like that it sounds fine, right? So who cares if a blond anchorwoman and mustached anchorman can't go into the lunchroom. But as you know, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came around because it was needed. Blacks weren't allowed to sit at the lunch counter with whites. They couldn't, as they traveled from state to state in this country, they couldn't go in and use a restroom. They couldn't get severed meals and so on, and therefore, unfortunately in this country a law was necessary to get them equal rights.

STOSSEL: Absolutely. But those -- Jim Crow -- those were government rules. Government was saying we have white and black drinking fountains. That's very different from saying private people can't discriminate.

KELLY: How do you know? How do you know that these private business owners, who owned restaurants and so on, would have said, "You know what? Yes. We will take blacks.

STOSSEL: Some wouldn't.

KELLY: We'll take gays. We'll take lesbians," if they hadn't been forced to do it.

STOSSEL: Because eventually they would have lost business. The free market competition would have cleaned the clocks of the people who didn't serve most customers.

KELLY: How do you know that, John?

STOSSEL: I don't. You can't know for sure.

KELLY: That then was a different time. Racism and discrimination was rampant. I'm not saying it's been eliminated. But it was rampant. It was before my time, before I was born, but obviously I've read history, and I know that there is something wrong when a person of color can't get from state to state without stopping at a public restroom or a public lunchroom to have a sandwich.

STOSSEL: But the public restroom was run by the government, and maybe at the time that was necessary.

KELLY: But that's not what Rand Paul said. Rand Paul agreed that if it's run by the government, yes intervention is fine. He took issue with the public accommodations, with private businesses being forced to pony up under the discrimination laws.

STOSSEL: And I would go further than he was willing to go, as he just issued the statement, and say it's time now to repeal that part of the law

KELLY: What?

STOSSEL: because private businesses ought to get to discriminate. And I won't won't ever go to a place that's racist and I will tell everybody else not to and I'll speak against them. But it should be their right to be racist.



Bottom line is that racist or not a person should have the right to discriminate against anyone they choose. How dare the government tell a private business owner who he can or can't hire/serve. This is an individual rights issue. Now a race issue. There is already a long thread about this somewhere. I'd like to hear your position on Hooters being forced to hire male waiters if you don't mind.

Should Hooters be allowed to only hire the type of emplyee that they feel will benefit the company the most? Even if that decision is entirely dependent on appearance.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 12:05 PM
RE: For all the big government losers on this site
(03-04-2012 12:14 PM)satan69 Wrote:  
(03-04-2012 11:39 AM)lucradis Wrote:  Your thread title makes you seem like a douchebag. Are you a douchebag per chance?
Yes I am. A angry small government revolutionist douchebag. Thanks for asking. I am so sick of fucking "stimulus" . How about a real fucking economy instead of clash for clunkers,8k housing credit, airports to nowhere, trillions of debt. every president says the same thing.. we cant cut spending because we are in a recession, and then its- we cant cut spending because we are coming out of one and dont want to stop the recovery. reagan, bush2, and obama all said it when they were president and im sick of it. 16 trillion later, and we are never cutting spending because we are always in, or coming out of, a recession.
I am sorry, but I have to stop you for a second regarding the 16+ trillion dollars of debt. This is a large number toted around by small government "revolutionists", but it completely ignores one (very important) half of the equation. The GDP. It is important to keep in mind the importance of the debt to GDP ratio. Currently we sit at 103% (not even in the top 10 worst in the world).

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fede...chart.html

Above is a helpful site full of graphs. Notice how the budgeted debt will continue to go up in terms of billions while the %GDP starts to head down as time goes on. Also notice how this isn't near as bad as it has been. Check out the mid 1940s.

I hope this adds some context to your "out of control" debt claims.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 01:08 PM
RE: For all the big government losers on this site
(16-04-2012 12:05 PM)MrGnawty Wrote:  
(03-04-2012 12:14 PM)satan69 Wrote:  Yes I am. A angry small government revolutionist douchebag. Thanks for asking. I am so sick of fucking "stimulus" . How about a real fucking economy instead of clash for clunkers,8k housing credit, airports to nowhere, trillions of debt. every president says the same thing.. we cant cut spending because we are in a recession, and then its- we cant cut spending because we are coming out of one and dont want to stop the recovery. reagan, bush2, and obama all said it when they were president and im sick of it. 16 trillion later, and we are never cutting spending because we are always in, or coming out of, a recession.
I am sorry, but I have to stop you for a second regarding the 16+ trillion dollars of debt. This is a large number toted around by small government "revolutionists", but it completely ignores one (very important) half of the equation. The GDP. It is important to keep in mind the importance of the debt to GDP ratio. Currently we sit at 103% (not even in the top 10 worst in the world).

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fede...chart.html

Above is a helpful site full of graphs. Notice how the budgeted debt will continue to go up in terms of billions while the %GDP starts to head down as time goes on. Also notice how this isn't near as bad as it has been. Check out the mid 1940s.

I hope this adds some context to your "out of control" debt claims.
Unfortunately no one in at the executive and much of the legislative branch of government has any interest in stopping the spending. It's 103 now but in 4 years it'll be 110. And 4 years later it'll be 120.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 01:26 PM
RE: For all the big government losers on this site
In the 1940s it was into the 120s and we managed to pull out. Reducing spending is one way, but you can't starve the nation either (especially not in one fell swoop).

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spen...111lcn_H0f

Budgeted spending (charted out to 2017) never reaches 120% and actually trends downwards, albeit very slowly. I have full confidence that future reductions in spending will see that this chart is too conservative in that the numbers will actually be much lower. The dollar amount will go up, yes, but the %GDP will go down.

Politically speaking, Obama has to come up with a spending reduction plan to guarantee a second-term and I am willing to bet that such a plan will be unfurled soon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 01:30 PM
RE: For all the big government losers on this site
(16-04-2012 01:26 PM)MrGnawty Wrote:  In the 1940s it was into the 120s and we managed to pull out. Reducing spending is one way, but you can't starve the nation either (especially not in one fell swoop).

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spen...111lcn_H0f

Budgeted spending (charted out to 2017) never reaches 120% and actually trends downwards, albeit very slowly. I have full confidence that future reductions in spending will see that this chart is too conservative in that the numbers will actually be much lower. The dollar amount will go up, yes, but the %GDP will go down.

Politically speaking, Obama has to come up with a spending reduction plan to guarantee a second-term and I am willing to bet that such a plan will be unfurled soon.
In the 1940s we didn't have social security, medicare part D, food stamps, and 1/4 of the nation on some sort of welfare. Debt was easier to control when we weren't running trillions in deficit every year.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 01:40 PM
RE: For all the big government losers on this site
And even though it was easier, it skyrocketed to a %GDP that we have yet to come close to reaching. What would it have been?

Trillions or billions is irrelevant. It's all in the percentages.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 01:50 PM
RE: For all the big government losers on this site
(16-04-2012 01:40 PM)MrGnawty Wrote:  And even though it was easier, it skyrocketed to a %GDP that we have yet to come close to reaching. What would it have been?

Trillions or billions is irrelevant. It's all in the percentages.
I'm not familiar enough with the economy in the 40s or 50s to formulate an opinion or argument. But how about the percentage at which debt to GDP is rising as compared to the 40s? Were we shoveling in the 40s and using an excavator now?

And even if our debt to GDP isn't about to collapse the economy we should still try to get a hold on things. Just because we can spend 4 trillion a year doesn't mean we should or need to. There is a awful lot of money out there that would be much better off back in the hands of the taxpayers.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 02:01 PM
RE: For all the big government losers on this site
(16-04-2012 01:50 PM)germanyt Wrote:  
(16-04-2012 01:40 PM)MrGnawty Wrote:  And even though it was easier, it skyrocketed to a %GDP that we have yet to come close to reaching. What would it have been?

Trillions or billions is irrelevant. It's all in the percentages.
I'm not familiar enough with the economy in the 40s or 50s to formulate an opinion or argument. But how about the percentage at which debt to GDP is rising as compared to the 40s? Were we shoveling in the 40s and using an excavator now?

And even if our debt to GDP isn't about to collapse the economy we should still try to get a hold on things. Just because we can spend 4 trillion a year doesn't mean we should or need to. There is a awful lot of money out there that would be much better off back in the hands of the taxpayers.
The %GDP is actually projected to taper off in the next 5 years, not exponentially increase as some seem to believe. I don't really know why.

I agree we should still try and get a hold of things, but there is such a thing as a smart investment. Infrastructure and education being considered smart investments.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 02:19 PM (This post was last modified: 16-04-2012 02:23 PM by germanyt.)
RE: For all the big government losers on this site
(16-04-2012 02:01 PM)MrGnawty Wrote:  
(16-04-2012 01:50 PM)germanyt Wrote:  I'm not familiar enough with the economy in the 40s or 50s to formulate an opinion or argument. But how about the percentage at which debt to GDP is rising as compared to the 40s? Were we shoveling in the 40s and using an excavator now?

And even if our debt to GDP isn't about to collapse the economy we should still try to get a hold on things. Just because we can spend 4 trillion a year doesn't mean we should or need to. There is a awful lot of money out there that would be much better off back in the hands of the taxpayers.
The %GDP is actually projected to taper off in the next 5 years, not exponentially increase as some seem to believe. I don't really know why.

I agree we should still try and get a hold of things, but there is such a thing as a smart investment. Infrastructure and education being considered smart investments.
Financial investment in education has proven to be a failure. You can't just throw money at a school and get smarter students. As for infrastructure, I'd be much happier knowing that half a trillion dollars went building new nuclear power plants and interstate highways than to Pakistan or Israel. On my first day in office I'd cut every dollar of foreign aid being sent to hostile countries and redirect it towards the US/Mexico border. I'd end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and use every dollar saved to pay down the deficit and our debtors. I'd end the fed, DoE, TSA, etc and use that money to make the US the most inviting place in the world to start a business. Then I'd tackle welfare reform and reinvest in the American people with forms of job training and career assistance programs. I would legalize gay marriage and illicit drugs on a federal level. With money saved on the drug war I'd invest in the most advanced high speed rail system the world has seen and begin rebulding our horrible sewer, water, and garbage facilities. I'd strictly enforce separation of church and state and remove In God We Trust from our currency. I'd shred our current tax code in favor of a progressive tax consisting of hundreds of non marginal tax brackets with no loopholes and very limited credits and deductions. As it becomes possible I would include in the tax code that for every certain amount of money in surplus the tax brackets drop right along with it. Assuming I had a Congress that would work with me on these things.


God damn I should run for president.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 02:24 PM
RE: For all the big government losers on this site
(16-04-2012 02:19 PM)germanyt Wrote:  
(16-04-2012 02:01 PM)MrGnawty Wrote:  The %GDP is actually projected to taper off in the next 5 years, not exponentially increase as some seem to believe. I don't really know why.

I agree we should still try and get a hold of things, but there is such a thing as a smart investment. Infrastructure and education being considered smart investments.
Financial investment in education has proven to be a failure. You can't just throw money at a school and get smarter students. As for infrastructure, I'd be much happier knowing that half a trillion dollars went building new nuclear power plants and interstate highways than to Pakistan or Israel. On my first day in office I'd cut every dollar of foreign aid being sent to hostile countries and redirect it towards the US/Mexico border. I'd end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and use every dollar saved to pay down the deficit and our debtors. I'd end the fed, DoE, TSA, etc and use that money to make the US the most inviting place in the world to start a business. Then I'd tackle welfare reform and reinvest in the American people with forms of job training and career assistance programs. I would legalize gay marriage and illicit drugs on a federal level. With money saved on the drug war I'd invest in the most advanced high speed rail system the world has seen and begin rebulding our horrible sewer, water, and garbage facilities. I'd strictly enforce separation of church and state and remove In God We Trust from our currency. I'd shred our current tax code in favor of a progressive tax consisting of hundreds of non marginal tax brackets with no loopholes and very limited credits and deductions. As it becomes possible I would include in the tax code that for every certain amount of money in surplus the tax brackets drop right along with it. Assuming I had a Congress that would work with me on these things.


God damn I should run for president.
I only wish things were that simple.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: