Is Rand Paul Racist?

Filed in National by on May 21, 2010

Yesterday a scandal erupted over Rand Paul and some of his views on civil rights. In interviews with the Louisville Courier Journal, National Public Radio and the Rachel Maddow Show Paul expressed the belief that it is wrong for the government to enforce civil rights. He even expressed the idea that he would not have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which he then was forced to walk back).

What Paul appears to be saying is that even though racism is wrong, it’s a greater wrong to limit private business even if that business violates the rights of others. How is this libertarian? To me it’s arguing that the rights of private businesses trump the rights of individuals and that the state has no role in upholding the rights of individuals. Paul believes the free market will solve racism, despite the fact that it didn’t do anything about racism from Reconstruction until the Civil Rights Act.

A discussion started about Rand Paul’s remarks – is this racism? First, let’s hear from Matt Yglesias:

The point to make about Paul, however, is that what he suffers from here is an excess of honesty and ideological rigor not an unusual degree of racism. Basic free market principles really do lead one to the absurd conclusion that government regulation of private business is a greater evil than institutionalized segregation. That’s why Barry Goldwater, William F Buckley, the Young Americans for Freedom, and the other progenitors of the postwar conservative movement all opposed the Civil Rights Act and the civil rights movement. And, indeed, under the kind of hyper-restrictive construction of the constitution that today’s rightwingers use to say the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, the Civil Rights Act would probably also be invalidated.

Digby at Hullaballoo:

Last night on Rachel Maddow’s show Paul tried to walk the fine line between the inherently racist effect of libertarian policies and being a racist. And he didn’t do a very good job of it. (His father is a much, much smarter politician.) But part of his problem is that it’s very difficult to know if Paul is just a childishly naive Randian or if he actually has more racist motives, in the Bircher tradition. He protests a lot that he doesn’t. But it’s complicated by the history of his father, who most definitely has held some very noxious racist views

There’s also the little problem of Rand Paul’s spokesman’s crude racism, which led to his resignation. Is Paul to be held liable for the words of others? No. But a pattern does start to emerge that raises the question as to whether Paul is just a starry-eyed libertopian who thinks that government is the only institution that oppresses and that racism will disappear naturally once people realize that bigotry interferes with profits — or if he’s a chip off the old block.

Not that it matters in practical terms. Obviously, libertarians in general are not necessarily racists. But their ideology inexorably leads to a society in which racism is normal and tolerated and where those who have the social power and economic clout are able to rig the game in their favor. You know — the America of 40 years ago before the Civil Rights Act. It’s not like we never gave Rand’s libertarianism a chance to work.

Conservative Bruce Bartlett, who worked in Bush I’s Treasury Department (and ironically, also for Rep. Ron Paul) agrees with digby. He thinks libertarianism has been tried and failed to stop racism.

As we know from history, the free market did not lead to a breakdown of segregation. Indeed, it got much worse, not just because it was enforced by law but because it was mandated by self-reinforcing societal pressure. Any store owner in the South who chose to serve blacks would certainly have lost far more business among whites than he gained. There is no reason to believe that this system wouldn’t have perpetuated itself absent outside pressure for change.

In short, the libertarian philosophy of Rand Paul and the Supreme Court of the 1880s and 1890s gave us almost 100 years of segregation, white supremacy, lynchings, chain gangs, the KKK, and discrimination of African Americans for no other reason except their skin color. The gains made by the former slaves in the years after the Civil War were completely reversed once the Supreme Court effectively prevented the federal government from protecting them. Thus we have a perfect test of the libertarian philosophy and an indisputable conclusion: it didn’t work. Freedom did not lead to a decline in racism; it only got worse.

Dave Weigel at the Washington Post agrees with Matt Yglesias that Rand Paul is a wide-eyed, naive utopian liberatarian:

So is Rand Paul a racist? No, and it’s irritating to watch his out-of-context quotes — this and a comment about how golf was no longer for elitists because Tiger Woods plays golf — splashed on the Web to make that point. Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses. Those businesses, as Paul argues, take a risk by maintaining, in this example, racist policies. Patrons can decide whether or not to give them their money, or whether or not to make a fuss about their policies. That, not government regulation and intervention, is how bias should be eliminated in the private sector. And in this belief Paul is joined by some conservatives who resent that liberals seek government intervention for every unequal outcome.

Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon writes that libertarianism is just the intellectual justification for racism:

I’m sure Matt thinks he’s being pretty hard on Rand Paul by invoking the term “white supremacy” in his post, but he makes the same mistake that Dave Weigel does in rushing to reassure people that Rand Paul isn’t a racist so much as a hard core ideologue, and that surely his support of segregation is offered more in sorrow than in glee. This view ignores some pretty damning evidence about Paul’s history and associations, but it also ignores the fact that “principled” libertarians who woefully say that they unfortunately have to promote racist policies against their own moral compass will abandon that principled libertarianism when it breaks in favor of reproductive rights. “Principled” libertarianism only seems up to making those “hard” choices if oppressed people have to suffer the consequences.

But I’m bothered more by the way that some liberal pundits approach libertarian arguments as if we’re all in some debate club or in a court of law at worst, and this is a matter of everyone presenting arguments to be judged on their supposed rigor and the implications of which don’t fall on the person making the arguments. Conservatives particularly benefit from this mindset, which is why all of them come fully equipped with a willingness to scream “ad hominem” the second you suggest that making asshole arguments is evidence that the person making them is an asshole.

Paul isn’t arguing for a debate team or even in the court of law. He’s a politician who is seeking national office that would allow him to write and vote on legislature. The standards by which we evaluate his arguments must be very different indeed. That he supports racist policies is something that we the opposition should highlight without caveats about ideological rigor that is frankly lacking. Giving him the benefit of the doubt that he’s a principled man is counterproductive and missing the point. From the perspective of a voter, Paul’s associations with racists and the anti-social, racist results of arguments matter way more when assessing whether he’s a racist than his claims of ideological rigor. And we should address our arguments to that.

The crux of Marcotte’s argument is that Paul’s beliefs lead to racist outcomes and that’s the basis on which he should be judged. Her argument is that if your core belief leads to racists outcomes, it is in itself racist.

Charles Lane at the Washington Post demolishes Rand Paul’s argument. Private racism doesn’t exist without government support:

Let’s accept Paul’s assurances that his views on this matter are borne of libertarian doctrine and not actual racism. I believe him when he says he would never personally favor discrimination in any business that he operated or frequented. The problem remains: his argument makes no sense. There is no such thing as “private” discrimination with respect to a public accommodation. Like any other claimed property right, it could not exist without government support.

Suppose an African American customer sits down at a “whites only” restaurant and asks for dinner. The owner tells him to leave. The customer refuses and stays put. What are the owner’s options at that point? He can forcibly remove the customer himself, but, as Paul concedes, that could expose the restaurateur to criminal or civil liability. So he’ll have to call the cops. When they arrive, he’ll have to explain his whites-only policy and ask them to remove the unwanted black man because he’s violating it. But they can only do that on the basis of some law, presumably trespassing. In other words, the business owner’s discriminatory edict is meaningless unless some public authority enforces it.

This really matches with my understanding of one’s Constitutional rights. Your rights end where other’s rights begin. This means that you have the Constitutional right to be a racist. You can give speeches, put up billboards, write letters to the editor, etc., but you don’t have the right to force other people to be racist and you don’t have the right to be protected from other people’s reactions to your beliefs. As Lane explains, “whites only” businesses were enforced by the state and that made them the state’s policy. If the state has to choose between competing interests, I think they should come down on the side of upholding the values espoused in our Constitution. Denying African-Americans the right to peaceful assembly is wrong and the state has come down on the side of upholding that right, which is a good thing. Rights aren’t something that should be put to a vote, they are supposed to be something you have just because you exist.

Tags: , , ,

About the Author ()

Opinionated chemist, troublemaker, blogger on national and Delaware politics.

Comments (133)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. The Wild Hunt » A Trip Around the Pagan Blogosphere | May 22, 2010
  1. nemski says:

    Should the gov’t restrict what pollutants an industry emits?

    You know, if everyone worked for a good long term solution instead of their short term wallet, then maybe we could have a Libertarian Utopian world. But peeps are inherently selfish — society be damned. I believe it is the government’s job to guide society into the future. A good example of a strong federal gov’t doing moving the US along would be the Lincoln Administration.

  2. a. price says:

    He probably isn’t an actual racist…. not the way Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, and the AZ state legislator are. He IS an ignorant sheltered white-guy who still doesn’t know that a TON of racism exists. So much so, that if his moronic Libertarian utopia existed, we would revert back to Jim Crow… because when businesses were allowed to decided for themselves who was allowed in, and the “free market” was allowed to vote on those decisions, the entire south operated just shy of apartheid.
    It is the same with banks and oil companies…. when companies are allowed to do whatever they want, they hurt many many many people, destroy consumer choice, and a few greedy people make a lot of money. THAT is the America Randy the Racist wants.

  3. pandora says:

    This is a must see video.

  4. Mary E says:

    Rand’s views are libertarian in its purest form? Whether in his heart he’s a racist I haven’t a clue. A pure 100% libertarian view is basically nuts. While his Dad often sounded like the best Republican in the 07-08 GOP debates, and garnered a cult following, when you listen to what his Dad says it’s nuts. Most people think of libertarian in a positive light, like stay out of my bedroom, and pot smoking shouldn’t be a crime. But when libertarian philosophy makes no exceptions to counteract the “human condition” the result is an extreme and untenable position.

    Hopefully Rand will continue to be the gift that keeps on giving.

  5. nemski says:

    Jay Smooth has a way with the words.

  6. Mary E says:

    Actually a. price a think Rand fully understands without federal laws discrimination in the private sector would occur, and he claims that would be wrong, but a greater evil is for the government to tell private businesses how to run their business. He doesn’t only have problems with the private business section of the 64 Act, Rand’s vocally opposed to the Americans with Disabilities Act, which Bob Dole, the noted lefty co-sponsored, but also the Federal Housing Act. He’s even expressed opposition to Medicare, but not reducing MD reimbursements, how convenient.

    I’m not ready to judge the ”good doctors” heart, but his views are nuts. Most members of Congress aren’t nationally opposed as a nut before they are elected, so it’ll be interesting to see if Kentucky wants this guy representing them.

  7. There is nothing nutty about opposing unfunded government mandates like the ADA. He is the balance we need in Congress. He was so clear that he favored 90% of the Civil Rights law and would not favor any change in the current law. The only thing he needs to do is suspend academic discussions during the campaign. Now is not the time to educate people on the intellectual value of a libertarian approach.

    The Civil Rights law was necessary and proper. The truth is the real problem of the time was not private business, it was government mandates on private business. The reason many of the businesses discriminated was because the government said so. The damage done by so many decades of government action was so severe that I have to agree with Lyndon Johnson that the only way to undue it was an affirmative action to oppose it. It would have taken decades to undue the damage if we just said no more laws that discriminate. Saying that we out law it made sense and we see today that it worked.

    Let’s get to the larger issue of the government programs. I think it is funny that you have to characterize everything as nutty that you appear to never thought through. The world worked pretty well before these programs. They didn’t solve the problems but created others. We need people talking about other approaches to open our minds to different solutions.

  8. Mary E says:

    RD I bet you’ve never even read the ADA. An un-funded government mandate normally refers to federal mandate like no child left behind, that mandate certain state action, but provide no, or insufficient funds to the state to implement the mandate.

    Making it illegal to fire a person (or not hire) because the person has a disability is not an un-funded government mandate. Requiring new building to be handicapped accessible adds costs to the construction, but in a civilized society where we no longer treat disabled people like useless trash it is a minimum societal cost.

    He said he favored 90% of the 64 Civil Rights Act, however the act isn’t divided by word count, or by section. Yes the prohibition on business to discrimination in housing, and goods and services, if they provide housing and goods and services to the general public, was only one of 11 (not 10 as Rand said) sections of the 64 Act, but it was the section that did and continues to have the greatest impact in reducing discrimination. You can still have your private club that bars minorities, or women, but you can’t have a restaurant open to the public that won’t serve minorities. Rand has a problem with that, which is why Rand is a dolt despite his MD!

    Your solution is that Rand should hide his views until elected? Do you really hate the people of Kentucky?

    The dumbest sentence you’ve ever posted is, “The truth is the real problem of the time was not private business, it was government mandates on private business. The reason many of the businesses discriminated was because the government said so.” Grow up, if that were true why did restaurants continue to discriminate after 64, and still continue to discriminate today?

    “The world worked pretty well before these programs.” Sure if you are a white male without disabilities.

  9. Brooke says:

    Of course he’s racist. Also sexist, classist, and stupid.

    If i hear the term “lunch counter” in this discussion one more time I’m likely to scream.

    Black people died (like dead, not like ‘experienced extreme mortification’ or ‘failed to reach their true potential’) because private hospitals refused to treat them.

    You know who else dies from that stuff, absent federal civil rights protections? Well, women who can only get their health care at Catholic hospitals and need abortions. Also, children with pre-existing conditions. Also gay partners who can’t get their medical plans respected because their spokesperson can’t marry them. Also way too many people with AIDS. Also women and children being used as slaves in the sex industry. Also migrant workers who are afraid of having their papers checked so they live in squalor and without access to medical or police services.

    They die. Anyone who wants to represent himself as a candidate for office ought to know that.

  10. Rand Paul explicitly stated on CNN that he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act, had he been in Congress at the time. Funny thing, many of the Democrats in Congress at the time voted against it.

  11. cassandra_m says:

    Another apologist heard from. As if we couldn’t tell the evolution of this position.

  12. nemski says:

    And most of those Southern Democrats are Republicans now. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

  13. The real history of the civil rights act:

    The true history of the Civil Rights act, according to Princeton university Sean Wilentz, is not exactly worthy of glib emails from the GOP.

    “Everybody knows that in 1964, a proud southern Democratic President, Lyndon Johnson, pushed hard to secure the Civil Rights Bill, with the aid of a coalition of northern Democrats and Republicans,” Wilentz said. “This sent the defeated segregationist Southern Democrats (led by Strom Thurmond) fleeing into the Republican Party, where its remnants, along with a younger generation of extremist conservative white southerners, including Rand Paul, still reside.”

    Wilentz said that any suggestion that Democrats talking about the Civil Rights act is somehow hypocritical is pretty much a complete rejection of the actual facts — and the political landscape at the time.

    “In many ways, the 1964 Act defined the modern political parties — with the Republicans becoming the heirs to the traditions of the Confederacy and Jim Crow, and the Democrats embracing the tradition of Abraham Lincoln,” he wrote.

    He said that the history of the bill shows that Republicans didn’t hold the high ground when it came to supporting Civil Rights.

    “Brian Walsh may have forgotten that Lyndon Johnson ran for president in 1964 against a Republican nominee, Barry Goldwater, who repudiated the Civil Rights Act,” Wilentz wrote.

    And the so-called fact that “Republicans voted for, Democrats voted against” is wrong:

    For the record, 46 Democrats and 27 Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act, while 21 Democrats and 6 Republicans opposed.

    So, 70% of Democrats and 80% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act and the Dixiecrats fled the Democratic party for the Republican party after that.

  14. Bill Haywood says:

    Anyone who believes that a businessman has a “right” to discriminate on the basis of race is a racist.

    Rand Paul is obviously a racist, as is his father. Having grown up in the segregated south and later having lived a short time in South Africa, I have heard every variation of the “libertarian” rationale for racism. It isn’t rocket science. No decent person can watch racism in practice and not desire government intervention to protect his fellow citizens from this perversion of morality. Only racists can be so callous.

  15. I love it when folks who deny that they are pro-abortion just because they believe that government should not interfere with the taking of the life of an unborn child and instead insist that they are merely “pro-choice” then turn around and argue that supporting the right of a business owner to run his business as he sees fit is not “pro-choice” but is instead a racist because.

  16. Jason330 says:

    No. I’m not buying that you love it.

  17. Oh, but I do — it exposes you folks as self-righteous hypocrites.

  18. anon says:

    If you are opposed to CRA on libertarian grounds you might not be a “hater” racist but you are a “de facto” racist. If you are on the receiving end of the racism, it doesn’t matter what kind of racism it is.

  19. Wrong — any more than I am a “de facto” racist because I support the right of the KKK to march, burn a cross on their own property, and publish a newsletter.

  20. cassandra_m says:

    The only self-righteous hypocrite here is the idiot RWR — who thinks that a business owner who wants to keep brown and black and Jewish people out of his restaurant can actually do that without government intervention (the police). He may put a No Coloreds sign out in front, but if the uppity ones show up and demand sandwiches, it isn’t like this business owner has any real recourse for saying no. Other than calling the cops. Which asks the government to be complicit in your bullshit. In this case it is not about the interference of government — it is that said business owner who wants to discriminate has no recourse to enforce his racism other than the government.

  21. Hmmmmm — I could make the same argument about government being complicit in abortion when the clinic operator calls the police to remove the “uppity” pro-lifers who block the driveway.

    And to use an example from before — does the police presence to protect a Klan march from violent opponents make the government complicit in the KKK’s racism? Or is it merely protecting the rights of citizens, even those who choose to act badly?

  22. anon says:

    I could make the same argument about government being complicit in abortion when the clinic operator calls the police to remove the “uppity” pro-lifers who block the driveway.

    And you would be correct, in that the government is complicit in preventing crimes and ensuring access to all legal businesses.

  23. anon says:

    Moose, I have two words for you about government complicity in racism:

    Bull Connor.

  24. cassandra_m says:

    Anon is right –you can’t come up with an equivalent metaphor. The women trying to get to that clinic are doing that lawfully. The people blocking that are not. You can remove people for breaking the law on your property. You can’t just remove people from a public conveyance just because you don’t like the color of their skin.

  25. anon — your argument does not work. Bull Connor (Democrat — Alabama) was using his authority to violate the First Amendmnet rights of marchers to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievance, and to freely speak in on public property.

    On the other hand, if a store owner wished to exclude minorities and they insisted upon entering the property, then the government would merely be “preventing crimes (trespassing) and ensuring access to a legal business.”

  26. By the way, and for the record, any individual who would actually engage in racial discrimination is scum, and roundly deserving of condemnation. My business would go elsewhere — assuming i didn’t open a competing, non-discriminating business across the street.

  27. anon says:

    CRA represents a moment when America rose up in moral revulsion and said “No, this is one place where we will not allow you to stand on property rights.” But some people still are trying to stand there because they like the view.

  28. cassandra_m says:

    There is no “trespassing” in a legally licensed public conveyance. If you have a license to run a bar, you do not get a license to ban people of color at the same time. So this argument is Nothing But FAIL.

  29. anon says:

    My business would go elsewhere — assuming i didn’t open a competing, non-discriminating business across the street.

    Perhaps you can call it the “Separate But Equal Café.”

  30. anon says:

    There is no “trespassing” in a legally licensed public conveyance.

    Actually, there is. A store owner can have the cops kick you out because you are a pain in the ass, but not because you are black.

  31. me says:

    If they were to repel the civil rights act, which they probably won’t
    you automatically assume that everyone would hate black people again,
    You are forgetting that People go where money is, and if it where repelled, businesses would serve people mostly based on being A customer not white.
    Most companies offer websites in english and spanish… walmart probably has A huge minority base of customers, and specifically the younger generation, have been mostly taught that racist is bad.
    On a moral standard, many bigger churches also have black people, specifically in the bible belt… that’s a whole group of congregation’s that will be respected because they are part of the church..
    Racist groups tend to be found sparingly now.
    Not as pronounced as they were in the 1950’s/60s
    You also forget the basis of comunnity,
    A person who is well known even though they are black will be liked anyways because its them.
    We have several famous black people,
    Remember how many people supported michael jackson after his death? (okay bad example)
    or how about tupac, or how many fans guys like lebron james and kanye west have?
    I can see the problems with agreeing with the anti business approach, because it lets people be racist,
    But I don’t see as many openly racist people now as you would have before.

  32. cassandra_m says:

    Which was something of my point — you can’t be trespassing because you belong to some group of people the owner doesn’t like. You do have to be involved with something illegal (which being black or brown is not) to get enforcement help from the government.

  33. Comment by anon on 22 May 2010 at 11:58 pm:

    My business would go elsewhere — assuming i didn’t open a competing, non-discriminating business across the street.

    Perhaps you can call it the “Separate But Equal Café.”

    Hardly — since as I was pointing out clearly, my business would be one that admitted individuals of all races, creeds, and sexual orientations. I’d like to suggest that you take remedial reading lessons.

  34. anon says:

    me – the 1970s called, they want their honky doubletalk back.

  35. Comment by cassandra_m on 23 May 2010 at 12:06 am:

    Which was something of my point — you can’t be trespassing because you belong to some group of people the owner doesn’t like. You do have to be involved with something illegal (which being black or brown is not) to get enforcement help from the government.

    last time I checked, refusing to leave because the business owner tells you to IS trespassing, and IS a crime. Indeed, that is the very definition of the crime of trespassing — take the relevant definition from down here in Texas, which is similar to the law in most states:

    Penal Code § 30.05. Criminal Trespass.

    (a) A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or he enters or remains in a building of another without effective consent and he:
    (1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
    (2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

  36. anon says:

    Hardly — since as I was pointing out clearly, my business would be one that admitted individuals of all races, creeds, and sexual orientations.

    And who do you think would run the whites only place, and who would be its clientele?

    And who do you think would run the mixed place, and who would be its clientele?

    What if there isn’t enough business for two shops?

    The result would be separation; which society has rejected.

  37. Comment by anon on 23 May 2010 at 12:13 am:

    me – the 1970s called, they want their honky doubletalk back.

    Thanks for the racial slur!

  38. anon says:

    Jesus H. Christ, I am on the Internet at midnight trying to explain to some moron why apartheid is a bad thing.

  39. And who do you think would run the whites only place, and who would be its clientele?

    Some idiot, and his fellow moral retards.

    And who do you think would run the mixed place, and who would be its clientele?

    Some decent human being — perhaps me — and people of like mind and a sense of moral decency.

    What if there isn’t enough business for two shops?

    Ah, but that is exactly the point — because the folks with a sense of moral decency would undoubtedly outnumber those lacking it, only one of the two businesses would survive.

  40. me says:

    Just to clarrify on my above comment,
    I’m not racist,
    I wouldn’t support the repeal of the civil rights act,
    because it would cause an uproar, and while I don’t like over regulation, I do believe that black people were treated unfairly, even though in some places, slavery actually did go away based on nessesity, like in wisconsin.
    Mining with slaves was expensive, so they just let the slaves free, and ended up being one of the more succesful anti slave states, even making a possible arguement of state vs federal rights, when the federal government tried to enforce the fugative slave law, and wisconsins state court went against it.

  41. Comment by anon on 23 May 2010 at 12:16 am:

    Jesus H. Christ, I am on the Internet at midnight trying to explain to some moron why apartheid is a bad thing.

    That’s easy — any system of discrimination imposed by law is inherently immoral and must be opposed as antithetical to any notion of a free society. And that is exactly why the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a legitimate exercise of government power — it was designed to end a regime of government-imposed racial segregation and to use the power of government to remedy the evil effects of that government-imposed system of racial discrimination.

  42. jason330 says:

    In addition to being a racists, Rand Paul is opposed to the mythological NAFTA superhighway:

    Rand Paul spoke out against the NAFTA Superhighway, encouraging Congress to stop the mythical project that would connect Mexico, the U.S., and Canada and, critics say, deal a fatal blow to American sovereignty. Long a bugaboo on some segments of the Right, the NAFTA Superhighway does not actually exist.

    “It’s gonna go up through Texas, I guess, all the way to Montana,” said Paul, at an event in Bozeman. “So, it’s a real thing, and when you talk about it, the thing you just have to be aware of is that, if you talk about it like it’s a conspiracy, they’ll paint you as a nut.”

    As was amply documented by The Nation a few years back, “There’s no such thing as a proposed NAFTA Superhighway.” It represents, Newsweek put it, “a strange stew of fact and fiction, fired by paranoia” that was popularized by Jerome Corsi, the man who spearheaded the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry in 2004.

    He is coo coo for cocoa puffs.

  43. Someone should ask Rand Paul if he thinks outlawing child labor is against free market principles.

  44. pandora says:

    I love it when folks who deny that they are pro-abortion just because they believe that government should not interfere with the taking of the life of an unborn child and instead insist that they are merely “pro-choice” then turn around and argue that supporting the right of a business owner to run his business as he sees fit is not “pro-choice” but is instead a racist because.

    So… given your example, wouldn’t you be doing the same thing in reverse? You’re “pro-choice” business, but “anti-choice” abortion.

    BTW, I find your comparison silly, but it is your comparison, so why aren’t you applying it across the board. If you truly believe in your Libertarian views you would be pro-choice on business and abortion. But you’re not. Please defend your example from your perspective.

  45. jason330 says:

    UI, he has already stated that being forced to pay overtime wages is an afront to the utopian ideal of unfettered free markets, so child labor is a no brainer.

  46. Easy, pandora. Abortion takes a human life. A business person discriminating does not.

  47. Geezer says:

    And, by extension, a pregnant woman no longer has rights, because she becomes a vessel for the fetus-American the moment she conceives. Because the fetus-American might be male, you see.

  48. pandora says:

    So… they aren’t comparable. Thought so. Thanks for proving my point.

  49. Right, Rand Paul isn’t racist, he just spends his time defending the rights of racists. Got it.

  50. Yeah, pandora, you are right — they are not comparable. Unless you consider racial discrimination to be the equivalent of — if not worse than — taking a life.

    An UI — “Right, the ACLU isn’t Communist, it just spends its time defending the rights of Communists. Got it.” See the illogic of your position?

  51. Geezer says:

    Gotta protect those fetus-Americans. Don’t you baby incubators understand your role in the Great Libertarian Society?

  52. pandora says:

    Give it up, A Nony, you lost your own argument. How embarrassing.

  53. cassandra_m says:

    last time I checked, refusing to leave because the business owner tells you to IS trespassing, and IS a crime. Indeed, that is the very definition of the crime of trespassing

    There’s a reason why you are a social studies teacher in freakin’ Texas, and this would be it. It is not trespassing to walk into a restaurant and order food from its menu as long as you are otherwise orderly. Because that restaurant is open and licensed to do that. It is not free — either by law or by the license given to it to operate — to say that black or brown people may not sit down and order food off of the menu. The person breaking the law here is the restaurant owner — not the people trying to buy food that this owner sells to everyone else. Notwithstanding the fact that people like you and the people you are trying to defend have already tried this legal route and quite utterly failed.

    You are an asshat of the first order, RWR and it is despicable of you to try to defend racial apartheid by pretending to some property right that doesn’t exactly exist.

  54. Let’s see, pandora.

    I made an argument. You didn’t even attempt to refute it. How, exactly, does that make me the loser? In a world populated by individuals with any knowledge of argumentation, that would be considered a victory on my part. By the way — hope the blood of the unborn washes off your hands before you reach the gates of heaven.

    And Geezer — given that I am not a libertarian (or a Libertarian), your argument fails. But interestingly enough, Rand Paul is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage…

  55. anon says:

    Cass, not to take away from your excellent point, but I believe the way the law works, a store owner CAN kick you out for any reason or no reason, except those reasons prohibited by law. There is good reason to give that kind of deference to property rights, except for those cases (such as discrimination on race or disability) where we have decided the rights of property owners are outweighed.

  56. pandora says:

    Your argument was silly. It was also based on you comparing abortion- choice with business-choice and demanding consistency. You failed on the consistency of your own argument.

    Rand Paul is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage…

    Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

    I am 100% pro life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being.
    I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life.
    I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion.
    I believe in a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue. I also believe that while we are working toward this goal, there are many other things we can accomplish in the near term.

    It is unconscionable that government would facilitate the taking of innocent life. I strongly oppose any federal funding for abortion and will stop the flow of tax dollars to groups like Planned Parenthood, who perform or advocate abortions.

    In addition, I believe we may be able to save millions of lives in the near future by allowing states to pass their own anti-abortion laws. If states were able to do so, I sincerely believe many — including Kentucky — would do so tomorrow, saving hundreds of thousands of lives.

  57. Cassandra, don’t get into arguments where you are incompetent — intellectually and morally — to participate. That you cannot even follow the premise of the argument here is quite telling.

    We have, or course, been talking about the Rand Paul statement about a property owner having a right to discriminate, and the question of whether or not a government should limit the property rights of an owner in deciding with whom they will do business. As such, we then entered into a hypothetical question of whether it could ever be trespassing for an individual to refuse to leave a business establishment from which the management sought to exclude them for reasons of race, ethnicity, etc.

    So let’s go back to the discussion:

    My point is that in such a situation there is a property right to control who enters your property. There is a right as well to decide who you will or will not do business with. Absent a statute banning discrimination (which is what we were talking about, you vapid imbecile), someone refusing to leave a property when directed to do so would be trespassing, even in the event that the reason the moral midget directing them to leave was their race. The enforcement of trespassing law in such a situation would therefore be the application of a neutral statute, not government-sanctioning of racism.

    Are you clear now, cassandra?

  58. Apparently i was misinformed on and Paul’s position on the abortion issue by an individual who I trusted. I stand corrected.

  59. Actually, anon, I don’t think that cassandra believes in property rights. I believe she thinks that all property belongs to government, and that we are merely licensed to use it as long as and only in ways government permits.

  60. cassandra_m says:

    Cassandra, don’t get into arguments where you are incompetent — intellectually and morally — to participate. That you cannot even follow the premise of the argument here is quite telling.

    You have some nerve, asshat. The incompetence and the intellectual and moral deficts are all on your end. You don’t even know better than to find someplace to talk to people who will at least be on your grade school level. DelawarePolitics is your place, you idiot. You add completely nothing here other than your own rather obscene ravings. They’ll be exactly on your spectacularly moronic wavelength.

    And now that your have worked on avoiding the argument by trying to attack an editor here — we’ll do this again. You can be in the argument or you can be gone. And I’ll be delighted to help you go. You still aren’t adding a damn thing here.

  61. cassandra_m says:

    except those reasons prohibited by law

    And refusing service to people who are a color you don’t like IS prohibited by law last time I checked.

  62. Actually the ACLU defends the rights of everyone including the KKK and Rush Limbaugh. Rand Paul is only defending the rights of racists. Logic fail! Of course, that’s never bother Nony before so why would he start now.

    I guess you’re right about me. I care about the rights of people more than the rights of not-people. I’m such a monster that way.

    Also, I don’t think Rand Paul is pro-gay marriage either but I’ll have to check. So really, it makes him the worst of both worlds in Republican-land. Basically he believes in the rights of businesses over people.

  63. anon says:

    I hate to defend Rand Paul but I think his nuttiness is consistent enough he would defend the right of KKKers, Nazis, homosexuals, and Communists to march or intermarry, as long as they don’t suggest taxing the rich.

  64. pandora says:

    Rand on gay marriage

    Basically he says government should not be involved, but…

    They want to get married. Have at it. But why should the government be involved?

    “Why should the government be involved?” is a question that’s sure to get about 60% of an American audience nodding its collective head in agreement, no matter what the issue. But it’s really absurd here. The government has been involved in marriage for centuries, and as he surely knows that ending that is an impossibility, he is de facto against gay marriage. He should be asked at a future debate if he’d support ending the requirement that male-female couples go down to the courthouse and enroll and get blood tests.

  65. Someone should ask Paul whether the government should sanction anyone’s marriage.

  66. Yeah, cassie, fucking ban me again. In fact please, ban me. Your inability to actually follow an argument, make a logical argument, or recognize that anyone who doesn’t parrot your views has a valid argument is indicative of the fact that I don’t have a place here in your left-wing echo chamber.

    I generally make every effort to be polite here, but I think this discussion needs to end this way — Get it done with, and then go fuck yourself.

  67. jason330 says:

    You have to admit that you really are not adding anything to the mix moosy. If not for your impotent rage, intellectual dishonesty and moral bankruptcy I think you’d cease to exist and dissolve into a stinky glob of schmootz.

  68. anonone says:

    Actually, moosey, cassandra_m doesn’t prefer a left-wing echo chamber – she prefers a “cassandra_m” echo chamber. And woe to anybody who disagrees with her or her “can do no wrong” President Obama.

    Nevertheless, you are still an right-wing nutcase.

  69. cassandra_m says:

    And here is someone else who adds nothing piping up to lie (again) and put his smarmy belligerent ignorance on display. The behavior of a right wing nutcase right down the line — except you have deluded yourself into think that there is something progressive about whatever it is you are doing.

  70. pandora says:

    Sorry, A1, but I see very little difference between you and our right wing posters. You really aren’t looking for discussion – you’re looking for converts. There are no shades of gray with you.

    cassandra_m doesn’t prefer a left-wing echo chamber – she prefers a “cassandra_m” echo chamber.

    That takes a lot of nerve. And I do find it disappointing that I’ve come to the point where I’ve stopped reading most of your comments. Sadly, I already know what you’re going to say. And I do mean sadly. Because it’s sad that we can agree on so much, except “so much” is not enough for you.

  71. anonone says:

    Well, maybe when “Delaware Liberal” stops simply being “Delaware Obama Supporters” and begins to start writing blog posts criticizing the current administration with the same fervor that you criticized the Bush administration for the exact same polices and actions, then you can start to criticize me. In the meantime, carry on with your titillating posts about Palin, Rand, and whatever republickin sex scandal du jour that you think is important. Meanwhile, the wars rage on, our gulf coast is being destroyed, our civil liberties are being taken, torture and secret prisons are continuing, and the President continues to lie to the nation and the world.

    So at least I don’t have a have a double standard – one for Obama and the Democrats and one for Bush and the republickins, like all the Delaware Liberal bloggers, and cassandra_m in particular, have.

    Perhaps it is sad that you feel that you know what I am going to say. What is sadder, though, is what a predictable milquetoast blog that Delaware Liberal has turned into.

  72. pandora says:

    Let my try and explain this to you. Am I happy with everything Obama is doing? No. I am, however, willing to give him time. I am not the sort of person who supports someone and then throws in the towel at the first disappointments. As an adult, I don’t expect to get everything I want immediately.

    So, yes, I still like Obama – but then again I knew I was voting for a centrist – and given everything on his plate I’m willing to give him time. How much time is up to me to decide – not you.

    And if you aren’t happy with DL, then start your own blog and air your own complaints. You seem to have the time.

  73. cassandra_m says:

    Pandora, I don’t know why you bother with this lying whacko. All he is going to do is recreate the world in a way that best makes him out to be superior to everyone else, which is why he has taken the playbook of the rightwing know-nothings for himself.

  74. Mike Matthews says:

    I wish my bitch A1 would start his (or her) own blog. I’d love a one-stop shop for a good concentration of wackiness. How you doin’, A1?? 😉

  75. anonone says:

    How many years are you going to give him to close down his secret torture prisons? How many more years are you going to give him to give back the civil liberties that he is taking away? How many more weeks are you going to give him to stop colluding with BP, and stop the oil leak by imploding the well? How many more years and lives and money are you going to let him waste in Afghanistan and for what? How many more years are you going to let him lie about HCR?

    To hell with this “centrist” crap. Obama is a corporatist, plain and simple. He always puts big corporations over the people. I didn’t “throw in the towel at the first disappointment,” but how many more “disappointments” and lies do you need? How many more “tired arguments” (Obama’s words about off shore drilling) are willing to lose?

    Look at how the tea baggers are pulling their party to the right. We could pull the Dems to the left if people would just stand up and do something instead of taking the “wait and see” and “thanks for the crumbs” approach you all seem to favor.

    But keep writing about Palin and Rand to try to distract people from the ongoing policy disaster in the White House.

  76. anonone says:

    See above, Mike. That’s about how I’m doin’ at the moment. Anybody who isn’t literally furious about the ongoing destruction of our country isn’t paying attention. And we know where “the buck stops.”

    How’s your new digs?

  77. jason330 says:

    Speaking for myself, I love Obama. In fact, the more A1 goes whackanut, the more I love the Kenyan usurper.

  78. Mike Matthews says:

    Oh my.

  79. anonone says:

    They only attack me because they can’t defend Obama. I get it.

  80. Mike Matthews says:

    I could have sworn A1’s original comment above said “Oilbama.”

    And my new digs are nice, A1. The house is going to take some work before I move in this summer, but it’ll be an interesting experience.

  81. anonone says:

    So the DL editors went through all my comments and changed the names “Oilbama” and “Obomba” to Obama. Good job, DL. I guess we’ll never know what other comments and commenters that you have modified.

    I guess it must be so painful to you to hear or see the indefensible truth about you’re dear leader. Do you see what your former blog has become, Jason?

  82. Mike Matthews says:

    Ahh…so I’m not the only one who caught that. How very interesting, DLers. And somewhat creepy.

  83. jason330 says:

    Do you see what your former blog has become, Jason?

    I would have banned your stupid, boring cry baby ass outright 4 months ago.

    Mike – what new digs? Are you back in the game?

  84. Mike Matthews says:

    No you wouldn’t have, Jason!! You know that — like me — you live for the interblogular drama wars!

  85. Mike Matthews says:

    Nope…I think A1 meant my new house, although I’m not sure how he/she would know unless he/she has been stalking me on Facebook or we have a mutual friend who shared this info.

    Or perhaps A1 was referring to my newly-svelte, 185-pound sexy-ass, 5K-runnin’ frame?!?

  86. anonone says:

    It doesn’t get much lower for a blog than to anonymously modify other people’s comments without permission or indication. That shows an utter lack of any integrity that is well beyond “creepy.”

  87. anonone says:

    Mike, I saw it on the twitter feed before you took DWA down.

    And Jason, you’ve become a wussy-ass middle-of-the-road wimp. The warrior in you that I used to know and defend is gone.

  88. cassandra_m says:

    Stop whinging, A1 (even though that is your particular stock in trade). When you get to be a commenter with some integrity, you may have a leg to stand on. In the meantime, you can take your sorry ass someplace where the bloggers are doing everything you want them to do.

  89. Mike Matthews says:

    I will come to A1’s defense on this. Obnoxious or no, it’s a bit effed up to be modifying someone’s comment like that.

    Gotcha, A1…I forgot I kept that Twitter feed going on my (now defunct) site.

  90. anonone says:

    You mean like blogs with integrity that don’t change the words of their commenters?

    If you’re the one who did that, cassandra_m, than your actions are despicable and reprehensible. You’re like a radical Islamic who can’t bear any criticism of their God, who, in your case, is Obomba.

    Note: This comment may have been modified by Delaware Liberals without permission.

  91. Jason330 says:

    I loooove motherfucking iced tea. I could set up a bog about how mch I love ice tea and every once in a while I might say something interesting or noteworthy about iced tea.

    Or I could come here a turn every thread into about how great iced tea is and how people who don’t love iced tea are a bunch or sell out dumbfucks. I think I’ll do that. If someone mentions ice cream I’ll go off and make an ass out of myself. I’ll bet I convert a shit load of people into iced tea drinkers if I piss and moan had enough.

  92. anonone says:

    The difference here is that people who think that they are drinking iced tea get mad when you tell them that it is actually piss. Which is odd because they were complaining for 8 years about other people making them drink piss.

    What did Palin say today?

    Note: This comment may have been modified by Delaware Liberals without permission.

  93. cassandra_m says:

    You might as well do that, Jason. Commenters like the liar A1 persistently suck all of the air out of the room with his special brand of know-nothingism (matched only by his right wingnut brethren) largely pitched to show the world how superior he is. Of course, he won’t go start his own blog (even though he is so dumbly superior to everyone else because he doesn’t have the cojones to be someplace where no one will hear his idiocy.

  94. Jason330 says:

    Iced tea is delicious.

  95. anonone says:

    As I said, cassandra_m, is all you can do is attack me because you know that everything I have written about Obomba is true. It has nothing to do with feeling superior; it has everything to do with trying to get people outraged enough about what is truly going on that they do something.

    You won’t argue on merits because you know that you have none. It is easy to call someone a liar when you can’t show that what they said is untrue. And changing other people’s comments because they insult your dear leader is beyond the pale.

    People can see who the liar is.

    Note: This comment may have been modified by Delaware Liberal without permission.

  96. Brooke says:

    Well, I’m willing to talk about iced tea. I’ll probably be banned for saying I prefer hot, however, blogs being what they are.

    A1, really, I think you’ve made your point. You think President Obama betrayed his many progressive and liberal supporters by taking an approach that might be, with charity, described as incrementalist. You want people to share your outrage on that. The people running this blog, for the most part, don’t.

    I guess what I don’t really get is why, this being the case, you seem to think you’re going to change someone’s mind by your participation here. That seems unlikely, to me. Your approach is not working.

    There might be ways, and some of them might be held in the actual world, apart from the blogosphere, that you could harness your ire more usefully, more influentially, than by ranting anon here. Because, with no personal stake in this at all, I observe your current strategy is kinda fail.

  97. cassandra_m says:

    I’ve been drinking alot of hot tea over the past few days because I came down with a ridiculous cold. But I LOVE iced tea and made my first pot of sun tea this weekend.

    A1 = FAIL seems axiomatic to me.

  98. Jason330 says:

    Head Brooke’s comment. You lost me and I was in your corner for a long time.

  99. Brooke says:

    Sun tea was one of the first practical applications I ever knew for Solar energy. I still have not forgotten the magic of cooking food so simply…really, it changed my whole perspective.

  100. Jason330 says:


  101. Having a flame war every weekend with same players involved is getting rather tiresome. Brooke is right on the money here. Thanks for the comment Brooke. I generally try to stay out of flame wars because it’s really a waste of time. I don’t like banning people or censoring people but I’m getting close to the edge here. The purpose of this blog is not for anonone to criticize the moderators. I can take my share of criticism but criticism because I don’t write what one person wants me to write is insane. It’s great big blog world out there. I’m sure there’s plenty of blogs to vent about how awful we are at DL.

  102. pandora says:

    I don’t like banning people or censoring people but I’m getting close to the edge here.

    I agree. It’s very frustrating to put up a post and constantly have it hijacked, especially when UI puts a Open (anything goes) Thread every weekday and one on the weekend. And I’m not sure what to do about it… perhaps moving the unrelated comment to the open thread?

    And, I love iced tea!

  103. cassandra_m says:

    When I was in the Girl Scouts ages and ages ago, we learned how to bake using the sun and reflectors. That was VERY cool. Brownies and some sort of quick bread was the deal, I think.

  104. Jason330 says:

    If A1 does not get the picture after this thread he (she?) should really be banned. I think you guys take banniing too seriously. Being as boring as A1 is more than sufficient grounds.

  105. anonone says:

    Brooke, I learned a long time ago that you don’t make your point by saying it just once. It isn’t for you or me to say that my approach isn’t working. And commenting here is not the only way I work for change.

    But it is fascinating to me how the bloggers here will entertain all kinds of right wing nuttery, but feel then feel threatened enough to modify the comments of somebody coming from the left wing of the political spectrum. It is amazing to me that Obomba is getting a free pass here while doing the exact same things that Bush did. Rand gets multiple posts but Obomba’s secret prisons get none. A republikin sex scandal gets headlines, but Obomba’s attempts to repeal Miranda gets none. Obomba’s laissez faire handling of the Gulf crisis and his “let BP handle it” approach gets no criticism. News comes out that the HCR bill is going to cost $100 billion more than estimated by the administration. Crickets.

    I know that there are people here that can’t stand my point of view so they attack me as a liar. Fine, I can handle that. Anybody who reads the news knows what I am saying is true.

    The people who blog here are as anonymous to me as I am to them, and it is flat out wrong to modify somebody else’s comments just because you disagree with them. That hurts the integrity of this blog to the core.

    Note: This comment may have been modified by Delaware Liberal without permission.

  106. I love iced tea, as long as it’s not sweetened. They give you that sugary stuff down South and generally you have to ask for unsweetened.

  107. pandora says:

    Unsweetened with the fresh mint that takes over my garden!

  108. Jason330 says:

    Buh bye A1. If you start a bog let me know and I’ll go trash Obama with you or turn every thread into how great iced tea is.

  109. cassandra_m says:

    Unsweetened, but I like a slice of fresh mango in mine too. Last year I had some pomegranate tea that was *fantastic* as part of the sun tea mix. Now I can’t remember where I got it.

  110. It sounds good with mango. I love mint, but isn’t it like a weed? It just takes over in the garden.

  111. anonone says:

    1) I wasn’t the first or only person off-topic on this thread.
    2) Do all of you think it is acceptable to change the words of DL commenters that you disagree with?
    3) Why is OK for you to incessantly criticize the News Journal for being hypocritical but you can’t take even moderate criticism for your content?
    4) Have the Delaware Liberal bloggers become so incapable of defending Obomba against legitimate criticism from the left that they need to resort to censorship and banning?
    5) Being “boring” is not a banable offense according to your written rules.
    6) Why is it not hypocritical for the bloggers to criticize the commenters, but not the commenters to criticize the bloggers?
    7) When big issues are being ignored by the bloggers here, why isn’t legitimate to point that out?

  112. Jason330 says:

    8 ) Boring.

  113. pandora says:

    Lots of mint forces you to make mojitos, UI!

  114. cassandra_m says:

    9) Self-serving
    10) Off-topic

  115. cassandra_m says:

    I think that you can plant your mint in a pot, then bury the pot if you want it as part of the garden. That might corral it and keep it from taking over. But then again, I don’t think that you have to mow mint……

  116. anonone says:

    There isn’t much more of a self-serving despicable act that a blogger can do then change the words of a commenter merely because she disagrees with them. Do you spit in other people’s ice tea, too?

  117. Brooke says:

    In NCC you have to mow mint. It’s tall.

    Planting it is like releasing any pest… it’s anti-social. However, what we enjoy it in is lemonade, with strawberries. Nummy.

    Anonone, this is why I observe non-success. It’s not an observation de jure, it’s de facto. It’s science. Whether you think it SHOULD work or not, it isn’t.

  118. We put mint in a planter. It still tends to take over.

  119. anonone says:

    I hear that Oilbama is going to be serving Louisiana ice tea at the White House: lemonade made brown with BP oil and a nice rainbow sheen on top.

    Speaking of not working, how’s your Senate campaign going?

  120. jason330 says:

    You’d be so gone if I was still blogging.

  121. anonone says:

    I like my ice tea much stronger than most.

  122. anon says:

    I am getting disoriented between the foodie and the hate comments. It is surreal.

  123. anonone says:

    Jason, maybe you should start blogging at Delaware Grapevine. They don’t allow any filthy pesky commenters and I am sure that Celia would serve you ice tea to welcome your new-found moderation and to help make your skin even thinner.

  124. anon says:

    Q: What do Jason330 and Dave Burris have in common?

    A: Both had to flee their blogs when they were taken over by people to the right of them.

  125. anonone says:

    LOL, anon. This truly is the salvador dali thread.

  126. Unsweetened iced tea. Extra lemon. Lots of lemon. Splenda or agave nectar.

    For a special treat, I like mango, as well. A little puree or an actual slice of mango, if I’m up to carving one.

  127. anonone says:

    Mike, agave nectar is really just a 90% high fructose syrup chemically extracted from agave. Stay away from that stuff – it is worse than cane sugar and will make you fat just like HFCS. Stick with the Splenda (sucralose).

  128. Brooke says:

    It’s slow, anonone, but thanks for asking. Unlike President Obama, perhaps, my basic drive is to do the right thing as I understand it. That makes interacting with the ‘business’ of politics a little sketch. However, he’s been elected, and I may not be. points to ponder, eh?

    Still, I speak my truth, and people have the opportunity to agree or disagree with it. I encourage everyone to drop over and read at my website.

  129. liberalgeek says:

    Iced tea sucks!

    Hey this is fun. Not nearly as much fun as chicken pot pie, but close.

  130. Mary E says:

    anonone if the Obama administration screwed up, and lied 1/5th as much as W did there would be more criticism here. You seem to fail to grasp that this is Delaware Liberal, not Delaware conservative, or Delaware no political leanings or beliefs. It shouldn’t be a hard concept to grasp! Many people have criticized Obama, or his cabinet members from the left on this blog, as opposed to those on the right who spout off crazy criticism, and question his place of birth. Sane people (most people on the left) don’t see the oil disaster as in the gulf as Obama’s Katrina, or the watered down health care reform (the best that could pass, but not what most liberals wanted) bill as socialism. Many criticize the Afghanistan policy; others don’t not because a D is in the WH, but because Afghanistan and Iraq were never viewed the same. People saw Afghanistan as a war of necessity and Iraq a war of choice. Many wish Gitmo was closed already, so you won’t hear complaints from liberals at the desire to close just the speed at which it is happening. So next time you think, Delaware Liberal, and the bulk of the posts aren’t criticizing W at the same level, first try and realize it is because he hasn’t warranted the level of criticism, and most people here agree with his policies.

  131. anonone says:

    Mary E.

    Thanks for your comment. The fact is that Obomba, in spite of his promise of “hope and change” is continuing many of the same policies in regards to civil liberties, corporatism, secret prisons and abuse, lax environmental policies, deceitful budgeting, and unjustified wars. In many of these areas, there is little difference between Bush and Obomba – and it all can be documented. Both Bush and Obomba have told big, deliberate, and calculated lies.

    The statement that “most people here agree with his policies” is odd since the bloggers (moderators?) here won’t even try to defend the recent headlines. Instead, despite the headlines, they ignore these policies and examples of Obomba’s dishonesty and ineptitude. They dismiss them (and me) as boring and call me a liar for even raising them, now even to the point of threatening to ban me for being “boring” or for pointing out that they are ignoring any news item that is at all critical of Obomba. But I guess that they think that blogging about Rand, Palin, Minner, and the sex scandal du jour are all more important stories than the broken promises of Barack Obama.

    I think that you’re going to be very surprised at the effect of the ongoing disaster has on Obomba’s presidency. The consequences of his total deference to BP and failure to lead or muster the full force of the Federal Government in this crisis have only begun to be felt. Even staunch Dems like James Carville are starting to recognize this and discussing it openly. Whether or not you believe that it is Obomba’s Katrina or not, because of his reactive failure to lead, it won’t take much for his political opponents to frame it as such. And the catastrophe is only now just starting to hit land and the economic consequences will be enormous.

    Finally, there is no excuse – none – for bloggers to willy-nilly change the comments of the commenters simply because they don’t like the political opinion expressed. It is about as low and blatantly dishonest as a blogger can go. It speaks volumes about the thin-skinned and narrow-minded “liberalism” of cassandra_m and the Delaware Liberal bloggers who apparently support it.

  132. Harmonika Savingsbonds says:

    Now that we know where Dr. Rand Paul stands on the rights of African Americans, it would be interesting to learn how many A.A. have gone blind due his unwillingness to provide them his opthomological service because of their skin color.