CTH Public Relations

• Torture by CO2HOG [May 02, 2012, 10:19:42 PM]
• China by CO2HOG [March 31, 2012, 02:24:13 PM]
• Global Warming Watch by TonyBlair [October 09, 2011, 06:41:37 PM]
• Solar Panel Doubts by TonyBlair [September 02, 2011, 08:25:23 AM]
• Barack Hussein Obama, Emp... by TonyBlair [August 10, 2011, 08:57:54 PM]
• National Debt Clocks and ... by Counter [August 08, 2011, 10:30:42 AM]
• Scanner or Pat Down? by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:09:51 PM]
• Rise of the Police State by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:01:03 PM]
• Who can we trust? by Vocal Observer [June 08, 2011, 01:07:59 PM]
• Anthony Wiener's wiener i... by CarolinaBuckeye [June 01, 2011, 11:29:22 PM]
• Democrat's Culture of Cor... by TonyBlair [May 18, 2011, 06:55:46 AM]
• Hey Obama..You want Taxes... by Vince the Fox [April 21, 2011, 03:12:25 AM]
• Obama Policy Watch by TonyBlair [April 20, 2011, 06:56:14 AM]
• George W. Obama by TonyBlair [April 19, 2011, 06:11:57 AM]
• The Religion of Peace Upd... by TonyBlair [April 12, 2011, 06:43:20 AM]

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

Members

• Total Members: 329
• Latest: boborians

Stats

• Total Posts: 40602
• Total Topics: 5158
• Online Today: 18
• Online Ever: 252
• (April 10, 2011, 07:49:21 AM)

Users Online

Users: 0
Guests: 17
Total: 17

EducateWorthington.org

The 912 Project - Glenn Beck

912 Group of Central Ohio

Please let me know if you'd like your link added

Rand Paul is very well spoken.  Hopefully people are willing to listen.  One day after the primary, the establishment releases their attack dogs on the threat.

Part I
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/-3O2rBz9gwo&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/-3O2rBz9gwo&rel=0</a>

Part II
@ 7:40
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/IS_qya7w0hs&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/IS_qya7w0hs&rel=0</a>

Thanks for posting these videos. Rachel Maddow rocks. Is there any other journalist on television that can be so persistent and civil at the same time.

She lifts up the rock and it’s not a slimy ugly little creature that emerges – it’s an evasive and thoughtless one.
Nothing here could be accurately described as "attack dog". 

Ron Paul never directly answered her question: is it good policy to make it illegal to deny some people the services at a public but privately owned lunch counter?

Ron Paul was consistent in his point of view -- but foolishly consistent.

As I see it, he employs two arguments.

Argument 1.
Premise 1: there is an important and fundamental difference between the public sphere and the private sphere.
Given that (premise 2): government cannot regulate freedom of speech in the private sphere and I can legally make any hateful claim I want.
Therefore we can generalize and conclude 3, while government has the authority to regulate racist and discriminatory behavior in the public sphere it does not have the authority to regulate racist and discriminatory behavior in the private sphere.

Argument 2 (which is directed to those with liberal beliefs).
Premise 1: The liberal believes that the owner of a private business has the right to deny service to those who enter her establishment carrying a gun. 
From premise 1, we can infer that the liberal is committed to the belief that government has no authority to regulate the discriminatory practices of the owner of a private business.
Thus, we can infer that the liberal must endorse the generalized claim that businesses have the right to discriminate on any basis they chose, including discriminating on the basis of race, ethnic origin, or religion.

Now, I believe that Paul would welcome a discussion focusing on these arguments. I wonder if you would care to defend them.

Apparently Rand Paul has changed his mind:

On Wednesday, Paul expressed support for the act's provisions banning discrimination in public facilities, but he had misgivings about extending the same requirement to private businesses - then or now.

"Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?" he was asked by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Wednesday.

Today he tells CNN "Paul told CNN he would have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a statement he declined to make one day earlier."

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/rand-paul-is-kentucky-fri_n_584179.html

Now my questions: Do you agree with yesterday's Rand Paul or today's Rand Paul?

Perhaps you think doggedly asking questions of candidates is unfair -- it's attack dog journalism.

Care to comment? Should Paul have just muttered "this is attack-dog journalism." And then refused to discuss the issue further?

Rand Paul Rejects Libertarianism

Paul's stance is "very reasonable, and quite close to the Libertarian position," a spokesman for the Libertarian Party told TPMmuckraker.

"If some private business discriminates we think that's unfortunate, but we don't think the government should get involved in banning it," said the spokesman, Wes Benedict. "That's just a negative that we have to tolerate in a free society."

Walter Block, a libertarian professor of economics at Loyola University, and a senior fellow with the libertarian Ludwig Von Mises Institute, went further. "I think anyone who doesn't believe that isn't a libertarian," he said, calling Paul's comment "a very mainstream libertarianism."

"I'm delighted that Rand Paul said that," an enthusiastic Block added. "I think it's magnificent. I didn't realize that he was that good."

Same guy, same views, just came to his senses and realized that some weren't going to listen no matter what he had to say.

Would you expect a black business owner to serve someone dressed in racist garb? 

Economically and for other reasons, it isn't logical to discriminate, but let people express their 1st Amendment rights to their own detriment if this is the case.

"Same guy, same views, just came to his senses and realized that some weren't going to listen no matter what he had to say."

--- Ok, I tried to listen and tried to represent his argument accurately. Where did I fail?
Or, did someone else not listen closely enough?

I suggest that Paul's problem stems from the fact that others did listen to him and questioned what he said.

"Would you expect a black business owner to serve someone dressed in racist garb?"

   ---- I'm not sure what racist garb is -- a white sheet with hood? A Nazi uniform?
Discrimination based on a reasonable dress code is certainly permissible. No shirt - No Shoes - No pants - No service.

Coat and tie are required. That's fine. But discrimination based on race, religion or ethnic origin is not permissible.


Again, is persistently asking questions attack dog behavior?

Same guy, same views, just came to his senses and realized that some weren't going to listen no matter what he had to say.

Would you expect a black business owner to serve someone dressed in racist garb? 

Economically and for other reasons, it isn't logical to discriminate, but let people express their 1st Amendment rights to their own detriment if this is the case.

Nicely put.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/lEM50EkAyx4&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/lEM50EkAyx4&rel=0</a>

Again, have I misinterpreted Paul’s argument in some way?

You claim, “Economically and for other reasons, it isn't logical to discriminate, but let people express their 1st Amendment rights to their own detriment if this is the case.”


This answer seems to consist of two claims:

(1)   A logical claim: it isn’t logical to discriminate.

(2)   The claim that the 1st Amendment prohibits infringement of the freedom of speech, and since discrimination is a form of speech the government cannot limit discrimination. 

Claim #1: If this is the proper interpretation of your answer I consider it to be not merely false but absurd.

Maybe discrimination isn’t logical – I have no idea – but you certainly don’t establish that it is illogical.

The fact is: throughout the entire course of human history people have shown that we do discriminate – people routinely kill other people who are of the wrong race, ethnic group, and religion not to mention the infinite number of other ways people have discriminated against others.

To claim that it is nothing to worry about because people behave logically exhibits a total disconnect with reality. History shows that people do not behave logically.

Consider the fact that most employers. in this country, routinely discriminated against women, blacks, and Latinos. If they were even hired they were given less money for the same job and they were routinely denied promotion. They were fired for lesser offenses. Blacks were denied access to schools and to transportation.  Apparently you believe that all of this was logical —economically logical, perhaps, socially logical, culturally logical, and religiously logical (whatever it is you mean by logical for “other reasons”).

Given that this history is a fact I have no idea what you mean by your claim that discrimination is illogical. So, what? I don't care if it is illogical I care whether it is real or not.

Claim #2: The first Amendment freedom of speech clause establishes the right to discriminate.
Your claim seems to entail that the first Amendment overrides the Equal Protection clause of the 15th amendment.

Employees have no right to be treated equally. Employers have a right to discriminate.
End of discussion.

I assume you have had sufficient time to read and digest all of the above message.

I will conclude that since you have not questioned any of it that you have changed your position and that you agree with me on every point I've made.

Don't flatter yourself

"Freedom isn't the ability to do what you want to do, but the ability to do what you should do."

I just noticed that.

The thing -- whatever it is -- called "free will" is sometimes viewed as the ability to make choices in accordance with our wants, desires and passions.

I take it you would see free will as a form of freedom -- but by implication you do not see it as the ability to follow our passions but the ability to do what we should do.

So, you would be what is called a free will compatibilist -- free will is consistent with determinism where the actions of every person is determined by the laws governing human behavior and the nature of prior conditions as long as these 2 conditions allow us to do what we should do.

I distinguish between freedom of natural law and license of man's law.

"Freedom isn't the ability to do what you want to do, but the ability to do what you should do."

I distinguish between freedom of natural law and license of man's law.


Generally, we think of freedom as the absence of constraints.

It seems to me that any sort of law constrains behavior -- law, of any sort, restrains and limits freedom.
Natural law is viewed as a universal and timeless set of moral principles available for discovery by human reason.

Just as the principles of logic constrain and limit what can be validly inferred, the principles of natural law constrain and limit what a person may do.