posted on May, 24 2010 @ 10:17 AM
reply to post by HunkaHunka
I don't think that Paul believes that the Civil Rights Act is wrong. What he was doing was use a philosphical argument to make a case and in the
public sphere, that is foolish.
The public does not have the ability to intellectually process the nuance of political philosophy and Paul should have been smart to know that. He
looks like an amature and frankly not ready for prime time.
On the BP thing, he never said that BP should not be held responsible for the clean-up. He said that he found the administration comments about their
putting a "jack boot on the throat" of BP offensive. He was referring to the facist practice of the government forcing business to perform its
whim and in that practice essentially nationalizing that business.
If you are familiar with history, Robert Bork made similar comments, attempting to show how smart he was by using philosphical arguments about the
constitutionality of certain things, including slavery. He proved that being a brilliant lawyer is not certainly qualification to be on the supreme
court, but judgement and temperment are equal to intellect.
I don't think Paul's comments have anything to do with the republican party, I also don't think that he has racist views. He was making subtle,
philosophical arguments and he should have been smart enough that they would rip the bark off of him in the media and should also have been smart
enough to understand that probably 80% of the folks listening would not understand what he was trying to do.
[edit on 24-5-2010 by dolphinfan]