181–190 of 207 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obama promised to end Guantanamo bay antiterrorism/whatever, which is executive branch.
That's on Obama. I don't see how that has any bearing on Rand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please leave your anti-science anti-intellectual comments outside of hacker news. "FED was instrumental in making USD the most stable currency in the last 100 years" - baseless argument. comparing fiat money to fiat money says nothing about efficacy of fiat money. "Too bad when California deregulated their energy market..." - http://www.tylervigen.com/ Furthermore, where does this money appear from? If the government…
> "anti-abortion" - please explain why third-trimester abortions should be allowed. the baby can live by being born at that point, and the mother has had plenty of time to deal with the issue. but sure, you can disagree with that, and I won't debate it here. And you please tell us who are you to tell a woman what to do with her body. As a matter of fact, how does anyone other than the woman and her doctor have any st…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Constitutionally, the president doesn't control a state religion, abortion, marriage, etc. The Establishment Clause is pretty clear that states should not and cannot enact state religions, and its up to the federal government to enforce that. The fact that Rand Paul is clearly biased by his religion makes him distinctly un-libertarian.
I think it makes him a politician more than anything. The guy has an MD from Duke; I doubt he is as religious as he seems. The reality is, there is little upside in a Republican primary for saying he thinks gays should marry or for promoting a nuanced view on abortion. Just like his dance on saying he will increase defense spending after first proposing to cut it.
I don't understand what you're saying here—are you implying that MDs are somehow unlikely to be religious?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the American dream if you were born into the means of achieving the American dream. Libertarians seem to universally believe that everyone is just born with wealth, or that if you bootstraps hard enough, you are just bound to trip over wealth.
That strawman is just about the same as saying, 'liberals seem to universally believe that nobody could be incompetent and every personal outcome is controlled by everyone else instead of personal decisions.'
"Liberals seem to universally believe that the status you are born into will probably be the status you stay in your entire life."
The important distinction here is that competence isn't a factor and that the above statement is true in every measurable way.
This is not surprising. Rand Paul, similar to his father Ron Paul, has very libertarian political views which means they prefer no government involvement, not just in the Internet but anywhere. This is not as good as it sounds. For example, he doesn't support FED in controlling money supply. But FED was instrumental in making USD the most stable currency in the last 100 years. He doesn't like energy regulations and b…
Please leave your anti-science anti-intellectual comments outside of hacker news. "FED was instrumental in making USD the most stable currency in the last 100 years" - baseless argument. comparing fiat money to fiat money says nothing about efficacy of fiat money. "Too bad when California deregulated their energy market..." - http://www.tylervigen.com/ Furthermore, where does this money appear from? If the government…
> I recommend becoming informed and making a rational decision about such things instead of lying to yourself.
Please don't insult the person you're talking to. Doing so breaks our rule about civility.
I understand that Rand Paul is heavily into the "rights" of corporations. Is that actually true? I personally am rather more worried about corporate surveillance than NSA surveillance. That's why I pay cash for everything, and take pains to blackhole web analytics servers with my hosts file.
Corporations are not as worrisome as government because their power to act on that data is less. No company in america is going to bust down my door with rifles or throw me in prison because I think things they don't like. The worst they can do (assuming the government doesn't totally break down) is refuse to do business with me. But the government can do a lot worse and have a history of doing a lot worse.
Great, the man also wants to destroy public funding of science. I understand that that is his opinion, but well fuck that. I want to be a scientist and need REUs. Science is more important than capitalism. Capitalism has failed the world. edit: that last sentence was a bit much, I'll admit.
Capitalism is the reason you are using the wonderful machine in front of you. Capitalism is the reason you have food. Capitalism is the reason you are not right now waiting in line for toilet paper. Capitalism has far from failed. Very little actual good and a lot of bad science has come from public funding.
Correlation doesn't imply causation. That countries like Finland, Sweden etc. exist and do very well (in most metrics better than the USA), which use a system that most people in the US label "socialism" shows that there is not very much reason to believe that any of that was because of capitalism. It could very well be that despite capitalism all that happened. We will never know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think pretty much everyone (including Paul) would agree that the federal government needs to keep a state religion from forming in a state. Laws related to abolition, marriage, etc. is not necessarily religious, so claiming the states should make their own decisions seems fair. Also, he's a Republican (for better or worse), he'll almost certainly get a large portion of Libertarian vote though (which accounts for 2…
> Laws related to abolition, marriage, etc. is not necessarily religious Pray tell me what non-religious arguments you have against same-sex marriage and abortion (I assume you meant "abortion" instead of "abolition").
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another straw-man argument against mandatory vaccination. Mandatory also means you might be subject to fines or denied access to government social programs.
> Mandatory also means you might be subject to fines So you write me that ticket and I shove it down my pants, wipe my ass with it, and throw it in your direction. What then? You want to know what happens when you don't pay the government's fines? http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2015/02/09/384968360/jai... So you're OK with throwing people in jail for not performing a medical procedure on their children? I just w…
Yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it makes him a politician more than anything. The guy has an MD from Duke; I doubt he is as religious as he seems. The reality is, there is little upside in a Republican primary for saying he thinks gays should marry or for promoting a nuanced view on abortion. Just like his dance on saying he will increase defense spending after first proposing to cut it.
"The guy has an MD from Duke; I doubt he is as religious as he seems" I don't understand what you're saying here—are you implying that MDs are somehow unlikely to be religious?
And he certainly has a strong belief in its separation from government.