0 votes

Why are some people here acting like clowns all of a sudden?

What is the deal with all this anti-rand crap ... no not from the left ... from libertarians and ron paul people ... is this some kind of joke?

Everyone here knows very well what Rand is doing ... and that the whole racism things is a bunch of bs. He has the right position ... the only minor disappointment is that yes the 1964 CRA is a problem .. no not because we are racist, but because it interferes with property rights ... now let's make this clear ... PEOPLE ARE NOT PROPERTY ... there is no way you can argue with that ... period end of story.

I ... like Barry Goldwater would have voted AGAINST the act .. not because I am racist but because it has a bad provision ... just like Ron Paul would vote against the Financial Reform Package that SUCKS! even if 1207 is attached. It makes perfect sense. No it's not racist ... no it's not compromising ... it's being honest and to the point and whoever wants to whip out their halloween costumes can do so and have fun with it while the dollar collapses and the country is destroyed. Reap what you sow.

The one thing Rand could have done was actually taken the same position as Barry Goldwater. He is not experienced and is not perfect ... stop railing on him so much. When he is elected .. you know what he will do when he gets into the Senate. Think of it sort of like .. you knew what McCain would do if he was elected president ... the wrong thing ... and you know what Rand will do ... the right thing. He has made general statements about policy nothing definitive on what he would do or support. Don't shoot a man that has yet to commit treason ... the same way that we believe that people shouldn't be locked up in military prison forever because they are SUSPECTS.

Support Rand Paul and watch him when he gets into office. We smacked the GOP establishment with hardcore precision ... and everyone is whining so much about what the statist tyrants on the left say and do. Since when did that matter either? Let the blow hards mouth off and expose themselves as the tyrant racists thats they are and let's keep on gaining inches and inches of freedom.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Rand Paul and Ron Paul Rating High On

Created chart using "Google Analytics"

Shows "Rand Paul did well in gaining Internet activity. Metrics were "searches" (website and name) and "media articles"

"Trey Grayson" had only barely enough references during his last tiny mini-media-blitz to pop up on the very bottom of the chart.

"Rand Paul" was producing numbers envied by candidates in more populated areas.

Whether media in positive or negative, Rand Paul and his team must learn and make the best of it.

Quite a debate going on in this DailyPaul forum:

It is about how "Public Service Announcements" are indeed free. In other words, you are free to get free pross and broadcast. Says right in the "Public Service Announcements Law, 1927."

Tell all Liberty Candidates and those that help. Let folks you don't respect find out for themselves.
(The title is not so interesting; the forum is good; the comments are great; I wrote most of 'em).
Best link that supports "Ron Paul" strength on the Internet:
Using "Google Analytics" this video shows "Ron Paul" won the hearts and minds of America. American media blitz turned election away from the truth. "Ron Paul" spoke the truth; media couldn't handle the truth.

Creator of this video about "media lying" was created by Jerry Day, http://JerryDay.com Drop him a thank you. Documented "Ron Paul" had many times higher Internet interest than any of the gaggle of Main Stream puppets. Very powerful message. The forum comments tell you my opinion about the "Public Service Announcements" being free for public benefit.

"If you don't read the newspapers, you are uninformed.
If you read the newspapers, you are misinformed."

"A lie can travel half way around the world, while the truth is still putting on its shoes."

Mark Twain

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Shades of Scott Brown

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Personally I hope his comments are clarified, to a point where they make sense. Perhaps they already have been and I'm just not up to speed?

For instance, can anyone explain what he was talking about when he said to criticize BP is un-American? I'm going to look into myself after this post, but I'm curious what you guys/gals have taken from it.

If you have been following BP, under all their aliases since their inception, then you must be as fluxed as I am over his support for them. Like I said though, I need to read more about the actual context of his comments.

Ya know

We actually have a man of principle running. A man that CAN MAKE CHANGE. If you want more of the same slam the hell out of Rand Paul. If you want the obaaaaaaaaaaama change then turn your back on Rand Paul.
Seriously, folks, stop and think.
Rand is a chip off the block and will do the same things his dad would do.
Realize we are in a huge battle here. We have to support freedom and liberty candidates!

Formerly rprevolutionist

Makes you sick dosen't it

We finally get a Man of principle and Beat the GOP in KY.. my home state and the Peanut gallery on the DP splits political hairs.

I think it's obvious that many here don't really give a hill of beans about taking control of the government back for the people. You know Actually using the Constitution and Bill of Rights.


"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
-- Thomas Jefferson

The Peanut Gallery?!

There's no peanut gallery on the DP!


I am of the opinion that at least 75% here do NOT understand our Constitution nor do they understand the subtleties of Liberty as a philosophy.

I am of the opinion that Canadians actually know more about liberty than Americans because of one voice, Marc Emery, who is now a bona fide 'political prisoner' and has taught the public more about the cause of Liberty as a philosophy than any college teacher has.

BTW, Whipple, have you read the Articles of Freedom and signed the pledge?

Just asking.

Why sign it

when I keep a copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights in my car..lol


Remember Sentinel. He's in Canada right now. were still connected by facebook. You're right.. There are many Canadians who are pushing individual sovereignty.

I'm just trying to educate people where I live.

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Are you Canadian Whipple?

Is that what you mean by 'why sign it' ?

Because if you are an American and you truly want to make a difference to return our country back to our Constitution instead of the socialistic morph that has taken place under our noses, I suggest you read the Articles of Freedom, the works of the Continental Congress 2009 then sign the pledge.

We need critical mass of 5% American to hold elected ones accountable.

not about Rand Paul--

I am not sure how to respond. I don't live in Kentucky, and I'm not sure it's my business about Rand Paul. I thought he was articulate and honest about the Civil Rights Act.

I've spent the last 30 to 40 years trying to figure out whether I am a pro-life libertarian or an anarchist or even an anti-war conservative.

America's present political arena has to be a difficult place for anyone to survive.

I thank Ron Paul for being the only consistent congress person in the last 20 years who has made sense.

I am not a Mises economist; I am an independent simple-living person who eschews government assistance, and I don't invest money. I am sympathetic with the Amish, but I am not Amish. And I know some of them who make much better business people than I ever could. I could never be a business person, so a lot of that . . . isn't in my radar. I also don't care for Ayn Rand, but I understand that she may have inspired some pepole, even Ron Paul.

I don't worship any of these people, and I understand the importance of talking about ideas.

Lately I have become suspicious that many of the things that are being discussed, while many are valid, are distractors--

distracting from the realities of aggressive foreign wars, for example--

name-calling doesn't help.

lately I have seen that libertarianism or . . . liberty-valuing doesn't seem to go very deep with many of *us*. When our particular *corns* are stepped on, we wince.

We all have corns. Symbolically speaking--

and any one of us can get stepped on.

I think that too much is being expected of one man.

Ron Paul, the father, has focused on several things and stayed away from others, simply because he is, after all, only human. He has his strengths. He hasn't, ever, attacked Israel, and I don't criticize him for that, even though I am a proponent of Jews Against Zionism.

But, I can be concerned about the taint that comes from the ever-powerful AIPAC. I haven't stood outside the AIPAC conventions with Rabbi Weiss and held signs with him, and I know Ron Paul hasn't either. And I can respect both men.

But he has taught me a lot and helped me to see that I am not the only person in the world who values liberty/freedom/whatever it is that is valued on here.

Some of this feels tongue in cheek even as I type it out. Maybe humor is required more some days than others.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Do u guys forget that there

Do u guys forget that there were 569 guests on here the other day? Many probably just waking up? A bit more tolerance would be welcomed if we want to grow our ranks..

we had thousands of guests yesterday

at any given time we had 400-600 non-members guests.

300,000 unique visitors this month.

here is a song for you -

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

I do not hate Ron or Rand

I love them.. They are my American brethren. I would die for them. I am a libertarian but think they get it wrong.. not sure about Ron here.. But Rand is wrong.

When two intrestes are in contention what happens?

Individual liberty or corporate liberty..

I would argue Individual liberty. This Rand is taking the corporatist position here.. He is wrong. This is why discrimination in the workplace or regarding race descrimiation in the market is a matter that governemnt should be involved in.. Whats next Rand Only white stock market? Absurd. White restraunts and black. NO the governemtn has to protect the rights that need to be in place for any God created bieng. God gave the black, brown, white whatever skin color you have that skin.. And you cannot allow a buisness to say.. nop you have to drive 30 miles to the black store to get it.. No the governemtn has a role and it is to PROTECT INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY not the other way aroudn Rand. sad.. I am torn up over this.

TimC: I totally agree with you on this one!

Rand’s attempts to justify ones first amendments right, to translate into the right to discriminating against another’s ability to buy groceries (or any other private service offered in America) in the only grocery store in little town USA is ridiculous. Free speech does NOT give anyone such a right to harm another.

One only has to put themselves into another man’s shoes to see how wrong this is. If America was a 90% black country, with only 10% being white, and the same nonsense was allowed to perpetrate against whites, we would quickly see how awful a place America would be to live in.

I believe that Rand is more than terribly wrong on this issue. And if we as DailyPaul’ers cannot understand this simple principle, we will most certainly fracture our own movement.

I believe Rand stuck his foot in his mouth on this one, and should do the right thing, and pull it out!

Those who wish to comment in a contrary fashion to my thoughts on this subject are free to do so (your first amendment right). But you will NEVER change my mind or opinion on this subject.

May God bless America!

The Winds of Change!

I agree with you. Individual

I agree with you. Individual liberty is more important than corporate liberty.

I hope he'll pull his foot out, but he seems to be drifting farther and farther from the movement that funds him.

I think you might want

to re-study the part about one person's liberty only extends to where it meets the next person's liberty.

You don't increase liberty by forcefully stomping on everyone in a misquided quest for enforcing perceived "fairness".

Even the hideous 14th Amendment only guarantees "equal protection under the law". That's UNDER THE LAW, not in the marketplace.

I think your position is ludicrous, and not based on "liberty", but instead based on "Political Correctness" dogma.

So again you say the Marketplace trumps indivdiaual liberty

that is nonsense. The constitution is not an economic system it is a system to protect indivudal liberties. by limiting governemt but relizing governemt must protect the rights of its citizens and that is against the very notion your proposing. DO not confuse your edonomic model with a political one.

Tell me how this model you posit protects me from a market place that up to 1964 could deny me service. In some cases causing harm to individuals. (I must say I am white of italian decent). I am talking theory here and Rands is nothing but corporate tyranny. Individual rights trump marketplace rights always. God gave them. No buisness charter or govenment can take them without due process. Your position argues contrary to that Rand. its shameful and unamerican. So come back to the sensable and ligical libertarianism. One that protects individual liberty above all else. and holds buisness acountable for torts against the prson.


You have no right to be "protected" in the marketplace.

Where you do get the idea that you are entitled to be protected in the marketplace?

Removing other people's liberties to satisfy your sense of fairness is the antithesis of liberty. It's tyranny.

The idea that there is some form of "individual liberty" in forcing others to do what you want, is rather comical.

Its implicent everywhere in our founding documents

Read commen sense.. Read the general welfare clause. To deny that the general welfare clause does not protect individauls is philisophically unfair to the founders. the general welfare includes the individual or it could not be general at all. Your reasoning lacks a 18th century philosophical frame.

Read commen sense again.. heck two times. You will understand where your ideas are wrong.

The governemt is thier to protect us from forieng powers.. sounds like a market place to me.. All WARS are Marketplace wars.. so your position is logically tebnnable or the governemtn would have to right to protect the market from other forces.. those markest make up people and those people individuales.. I.e. the government is to protect the people and the marketplace. This is why wars are fought.. remember the tea party.. of course not.. but your position denies yoru very founding priniciples..

You're a liberal.

You believe that the "general welfare" clause extends to anything and everything that anybody wants to make up.

If that is the case, then there is no Constitution or limits on anything for gov't to do, because anything could be construed to be "general welfare".

James Madison:
James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee,

"If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once."

The very fact that you press for the unbridled application of the "general welfare" clause in ways that it clearly was never intended to be, shows you are a big gov't liberal in philosophy, and have no idea what liberty is, nor the meaning of the Constitution.

However, I don't hold that against you, because we all came in here from somewhere else, and there is room to learn. The fact that you are here is a good sign.

I'm a liberal (Classical)

He is a Leftist.

NO he is taking a corporatitist position not a libertarian one..

You are so wrong and so is Rand sadly. Corprate entaties should not have the same rights as individuals. We are created by god not the restraunt etc.. So rights given by god are protected by government for a reason. Becaause buinsess entitites could deny life, liberty etc based on color etc.. To allow a buisness to trum that is the definition of Tyrrany. True Libertaraianism posists the individual above corporate intrests. This is what the founders fought. They compromised and that is why we should understand this one thing.. Buisness entitties cannot have the rights that people have. People trump buisness always. Thus we fought against the buisness intrests of England for the rights of the individual in the 1700's. rand is wrong historicaly and politically here. Philosophicaly his libertairainism ceases to be that.. It is a corporate protection clause to keep allowing a corporation to run roughshod over god given rights. No Rand is wrong. Very very wrong. He needs to think deeper about this.. Corporate good does not always protect liberty. I am sure the tax collectors in England would have Loved Rands form of Liberty. sad but true.. No buisness entitty should be allowed to infringe on the rights of any man wihtout due process of law. This is the kernal of trueth. The founders new they had an imperfect mess on thier hands.. (slavery, womans suffrage etc). Thus they made ways to change the governemtn to better protect thsese people over time.. Individual libety trumps all other form s of liberty even that of corporations Rand.. Get it.. Your view is the same as the English lord.

"Corporate entities should

"Corporate entities should not have the same rights as individuals"

So then, as long as a cafeteria is organized as a private partnership, or a sole proprietorship, it's OK to choose with whom one associates? But arbitrarily organizing as a Corp changes things?

"True Libertaraianism posists the individual above corporate intrests"

'True libertarianism' posits no government intervention. There is no 'truer' libertarianism than absolute anarchy. Rand is not advocating that, and neither am I really; but still, you're not going to get more freedom from government intrusion (which is libertarianism) than you get in a world with no government at all.

And why would tax collectors in England have loved "the liberty" of someone against taxes?

Also, a "corporation" does not decide to deny any one service, simply because "a corporation" cannot decide to deny anyone service, because "a corporation" cannot decide anything. All decisions, to discriminate, or not to discriminate, whether that be wrt. to who you marry or who you serve food, is done by the only decision making entity in existence, which is rational man.

If A does not serve lunch to B because he considers B to be of the wrong race, or because he considers B to be overweight, or whatnot; that decision is made by person A. Not by some mystical "corporation". Weighing on A's decision may be a desire to continue drawing a paycheck from corporation C, but nothing forces him to do so.

All nonsense about "corporations" making decisions that are "bad", are just that; nonsense, and a favorite red herring of those consummate nonsense believers known as liberals at that. All decisions made are made by individual, rational men and women. And freedom means letting these individual, rational men and women make those decisions on their own. Without some other men and women, these particular ones dressed up and titulated in government costumes and pomp, bullying them around and telling them what they can and cannot do.

Most clearly not ... people

Most clearly not ... people who refer to businesses or corporations as monsters as creating a fairy land bed time story that just simply doesn't exist. I never argued that corporations are individuals. A business is the property of an individual. And that individual has the right to do with his property whatever he wants ... period end of story. Can't get much more simpler than that.

All paper money eventually returns to its real intrinsic value, zero. - Voltaire

Not when it trumps idivvidaul libety

This is the origin of the tort. Rand is wrong. sad. Corpporations are NOT monsters.. but they can be run by monsters. People rights when in contention must be ascendant.

your still not getting the

your still not getting the point here .. just like ron has said .. there is no such thing as economic liberty and social liberty or even corporate liberty or black liberty or white liberty .... liberty is one unit ... indivisible.

either you are free or you are not.

property rights never trump the individual ... you need to learn the difference between rights and privileges ... youtube that with michael badnarik's name.

because you want something ... you do not have a right to it ... if an individual owns a business for example an oil company. he owns the products of his labor and his property ... other people DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO OIL ... except when THEY PURCHASE THAT OIL ...

All paper money eventually returns to its real intrinsic value, zero. - Voltaire

Absolutly incorect

What do you say when your near a pharmecy that is Black only and your baby has a fevor of 102.. your 40 miles from a hospital. adn You cannot get your baby medicine? This is why we have government. To protect our rights and keep them from beieng infringed on by any aentitiy without due process. That baby is not responsable for its skin color. It is god Given and no man can withold it life. This is a crime in any moral cort. Your philosopy is morrally repugnant. And denys the very liberty it seems to want. You want to limit a option to somoen based on the whims of a buisness. To posasbly kill a baby. If that is libertarianism I want out but cannot as I am one who undertands the proper role of governemtn is to enshrine personal liberty.. and that is true libertarinism. all other is just corporatism. Grnting the rights of life and death to buisness intrests. sick

I am not a Libertarian, and

I am not a Libertarian, and am glad I have no doctrine to defend, here, because I am really enjoying this argument. I see both sides. One of the reasons for starting the Federal Government was to protect our individual liberty. Therefore, is it right to allow a woman or a black to be discriminated against..anywhere? Good point.
On the other hand, I have always had a problem with authority of any kind, even when people say what we should do, let alone passing a law that legalizes or illegalzes behavior. Regardless, I heard a line from my spiritual teacher today, and he said that in every single person there is some good. Unfortunately, we have mastered the art of provoking the bad in people. We must master the art of provoking their good.
So I say, can you ever call someone trustworthy, unless u have trusted them? It is over 40 years later. We have to give us a chance to accept and understand freedom. Treat our neighbors as ourselves. Give and receive dignity and respect. We should be able to take it with a grain of salt if someone fails--then try to provoke their good. The heck with private business being told who to serve..LOL

wrong again ... that is as

wrong again ... that is as weak as the argument pretending that you have a RIGHT to healthcare because you are sick ... or that you have a RIGHT to food from a restaurant because you are hungry.

That is blatantly turning liberty on its head. You do not have a right to other people's property.

All paper money eventually returns to its real intrinsic value, zero. - Voltaire

Pure logic

doesn't seem to be working. You may have to try something less obvious.


well it's obvious that logic

well it's obvious that logic doesn't work ... he has to inject a small white baby into the equation .. instead of himself claiming that HE HAS A RIGHT TO MY PROPERTY ...

here's how it goes ... if you think you have a right to my property .. try to come and take it ... and you will find out that my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is the only one that counts

All paper money eventually returns to its real intrinsic value, zero. - Voltaire