Rand Paul handling business on CNN right now (video added)

[AlexG]

Rand did dodge two questions which isn't good for Ron. Everything Ron does can be explained rationally. I think what happened is that Rand began tired of playing devil's advocate because he said he would have voted FOR the CRA. Rand is a very good politician and debater, unfortunately he's not "ideologically pure."

 

[veto]

Tell you right now living here in Kentucky following his son and just watching how much better of a speaker he has become since he began. Noticed even with all the people trying to strangle Ron, Rand made them look desperate and that's really how I think it came off to anyone watching it. I am campaigning hard for Ron, but I think Rand would win the whole damn thing if he was the nominee right now, hands down.

 

[StilesBC]

I just got in trouble with my girlfriend for yelling obscenities at that interviewer while watching this.

What happened to asking questions and listening to answers? Not that difficult! You're a journalist. Nobody cares what you agree or disagree with!

 

[nobody's_hero]

I couldn't watch the whole thing. That was horrible.

It goes to show that there's still too many Americans who expect the government to do something about every crisis (I'll include racial tension as a crisis).

Some things can't be fixed by laws.

If it were true that laws could eradicate racism, then why did they just stop there? Why didn't they go all the way and pass a law to make the world a perfect place? Because it's superficial. There are some (if not all) issues on which society has to take the first step. Government laws reflect society but they are at best mildly effective at directing society.

 

[ZanZibar]

WOW!

I can't believe Rand used the phrase "calorie Nazis" on live TV lolz.... that's awesome

 

[satchelmcqueen]

i saw that. its bs. it was linked to one of his daughters twitter account iirc.

Damn it. Now they have Huntsman's daughters on and that CNN pundit is bringing up that fake Youtube, that appears came from Huntsman's own camp, and trying to smear Ron Paul with it.

I am about sick and tired of this crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Sublyminal]

Rand demolished those fuckers.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Since the time of Euclid, people have been trying to prove Euclid's 5th postulate, the parallel postulate, from the prior four postulates.

Parallel postulate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_postulate

Fact is, you can't prove the parallel postulate from the prior four. The parallel postulate is a self-evident truth rather than something to be proven.

Likewise, we cannot prove the right of trial by jury or habeas coprus from prior postulates. These are postulates or principles that are taken as self-evident truth.

Now I am adding a another postulate; if your property is open for business, you cannot discriminate by race. This is a postulate and self-evident truth, not proved or attempted to be proven by prior postulates or principles.

This is the simplest way to handle the situation.

 

[happyphilter]

Rand dominated that. All those other guys looked so uneasy.

 

[HigherVision]

Rand's got the whole swagger thing down, I'll give him that.

 

[BLS]

This is what we are up against. Some people; most people; will believe that if you don't support minorty rights, that you are a bigot.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Now I am adding a another postulate; if your property is open for business, you cannot discriminate by race. This is a postulate and self-evident truth, not proved or attempted to be proven by prior postulates or principles.

Close! It is a self-evident falsehood. So you're very close. But you're misunderstanding liberty a little bit. Just a tad.

So I will have to reject your property-rights-destroying, unintended-consequence-causing, tyrannical proposition and instead stick with Ron Paul, Mises, Rothbard, the anti-federalists, and all the good classical liberals.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Close! It is a self-evident falsehood. So you're very close. But you're misunderstanding liberty a little bit. Just a tad.

So I will have to reject your property-rights-destroying, unintended-consequence-causing, tyrannical proposition and instead stick with Ron Paul, Mises, Rothbard, the anti-federalists, and all the good classical liberals.

it is part of the common law.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

it is part of the common law.

Nope! Just part of the delusions of tyrants (and Rolf).

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Nope! Just part of the delusions of tyrants (and Rolf).

I am not an anarchist.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I am not an anarchist.

What does that have to do with anything?

Tell, me, which do you think has more authority?

a) The Constitution
b) The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (now elevated to the level of a geometrical axiom by the likes of Rolf)

Simple question.

 

[tremendoustie]

I am not an anarchist.

Neither am I. I believe in respecting property rights.

Violence is not an appropriate solution to these kinds of problems. Direct, nonviolent action -- like boycotts, pickets, ostracism, etc, are.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

What does that have to do with anything?

Tell, me, which do you think has more authority?

a) The Constitution
b) The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (now elevated to the level of a geometrical axiom by the likes of Rolf)

Simple question.

OK, smarty pants, derive the principle of habeas corpus from first principles.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Neither am I. I believe in property rights, which means I believe it's immoral for me to use threaten violence against people just because they use their time and property in ways I don't personally approve of.

Violence is not an appropriate solution to these kinds of problems. Direct, nonviolent action -- like boycotts, pickets, ostracism, etc, are.

derive the principle of trial by jury from first principles.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Simple question, Rolf. Just kindly answer the question. Thanks!