Energy

It's a Toilet, Not a Choice! Rand Paul Flushes Out Anti-Freedom Logic at Dept. of Energy

|

There was a moment a year or so ago when it seemed like Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was shaping up to be just another aqua-buddha-worshippin' LINO (libertarian in name only).

Since showing up in D.C., the people's city, the guy has been on fire, calling for real budget cuts and trims to useless government activities.

And now we know the reason why. Like some righteous Hank Hill come to life, he's mad as hell at regulations on everything from light bulbs to toilets in his house. Regs that inevitably restrict choice even as the bureaucrats and bipartisan do-gooders (the current light bulb ban was proudly signed into law by George W. Bush) who insist that no, really, they're not restricting your choice. Except when it comes to, you know, choosing.

The only question I've got about Rand Paul these days is: How do we clone him?

Hat Tip: Allahpundit over at Hot Air, who implies (read: says nothing of the sort) that the exit line ("I'm sorry about your toilet") is among the greatest things ever said in the foul chamber of horrors we call the U.S. Senate.

In 2009, Reason.tv looked at how the incandescent light bulb has changed from a sign of a good idea to one more symbol of the growing nanny state:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

288 responses to “It's a Toilet, Not a Choice! Rand Paul Flushes Out Anti-Freedom Logic at Dept. of Energy

  1. 50 more Rand Pauls in the Senate, and I for one would sleep better.

    1. Make that 59 more.

      1. Hey, I guess getting the “right” people in power does make a difference.

        1. Hell yeah!, and sometimes the “right people” are SoCons like Rand Paul.I’ll agree that is a bug more than a feature but it is the only viable way to get “libertarian-leaning” pols elected to Washington.

    2. Some H&R commenters believe Rand Paul is engaging in meaningless culture war proxy battles here.

    3. 50 more Rand Pauls in the Senate

      I dare you to go here and say that!

      No, webfilter. This comment is not spam, dammit!

  2. my 1928 Standard Moderno is going with me if I ever sell my house.

    1. Got a 1925 Illini* in the first floor guest suit. Uses about 10 gal / flush. True story.

      *American Standard I think. I just remember the Illini part because they named a toilet after a great Native American Confederation:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I…..federation

      1. I had prewar toilets for years. Fond memories. Those bastards flushed hard. I swear I had one that would pull a vacuum that could slam the bathroom door.

        1. I got a new Am Std 1.6 that would clog twice a week until I figured out how to make it flush like a champ by modifiying how the float worked (just moved it on the chain). I probably broke a federal law by doing it.

      2. I wish you would’ve used a different nickname with that comment.

  3. Wow, that’s fantastic

    “Frankly, my toilets don’t work in my house and I blame you, and people like you…”

    1. You’d blame them for your toilets too if you had to watch them spew their shit all day like poor Rand does….

      1. Are you the shit monitor all of a Sudden?

  4. Rand Paul is the Real Thing?

  5. “How do we clone him?”

    Non-News Flash: CJ at Singularity of Morons Succombs To Convulsions, Enters Catatonic State; Not Expected to Blog Again

  6. its a toilet…& an undersized water treatment plant. flush…

    1. Here’s the golden shower you requested, Urine.

  7. All respect Nick, but being on fire for markets does not a libertarian make, as you know.

    1. Rand is the best we have until The Jacket gets elected.

      1. Should he run for office from Ohio? Because he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in DC.

    2. There aren’t many non-economic issues where Opthamologist Paul disagrees with libertarians either.

      1. Except immigration, abortion, marriage equality, and matters that alienate the religious right. But those only really hurt specific groups so lets turn a blind eye.

        1. I wasn’t aware there was a “libertarian” position on murdering innocent children.

          1. +5000

        2. Libertarians are divided on the specific issues you mention (assuming “marriage equality” is the euphemism du jour for gay marriage).

  8. The “lo-flo” toilets are a joke, and the King of the Hill episode was right. If you flush 6 times, you’re not saving water.

        1. They need to add a “flush Capacitor” to stop the multi flush.

          1. They do NOT use those toilets in the White House or in the Congressional rest rooms.

            1. They do NOT use those toilets in the White House or in the Congressional rest rooms.

              I thought they just had toilets for visitors and played “tubgirl” and “two girls one cup” when they had to go.

    1. The “lo-flo” toilets are a joke, and the King of the Hill episode was right. If you flush 6 times, you’re not saving water.

      I assume that the lo-flo toilets DO save water for the fact that most flushes are from a recent piss.

      The ones that I laugh at are the motion sensor toilets that we have at work. It’ll flush 3 times if you don’t bolt out the stall after finishing.

      1. HA, I was just thinking the same thing. We have that here, too; the urinals will even go off in mid-piss if you move to the left or right a few inches. It’s such a waster!

      2. We have one at work and I hate it because it will flush four times on me before I even finish. It’s a spitter, too…

    2. They need a #1 flush handle and a #2 flush handle.

      1. That would actually be a good idea.

      2. I’ve seen those in Europe, though not labeled that way; there’s a larger button and a smaller button. Teutonic efficiency.

        1. They exist in the US too, although they are pretty rare.

          1. They’re only rare as far as few people buy them, but they are readily available.

            I can’t say how common they are in Europe, but they’re pretty much standard in Australia.

          2. I have one. They’re only rare because few people here know about them and/or choose to buy them. Just go to the Home Depot website and search for “dual-flush toilet,” and you’ll get about 30 different models for sale there (I tried to just link to the search results, but it keeps getting flagged as spam).

            I don’t know how popular they are in Europe, but they’re pretty much standard in Australia.

            1. House-guests don’t get it. They leave #2s.

      3. Japan has these. Of course, Japanese toliets play chimes, have heated seats, and a buit-in bidet…

        1. A friend had one of those, and I never got how the bidet part wouldn’t get gunged up with all kinds of nasty bacteria. Having once had a UTI, I wasn’t willing to risk another one on a crapper/bidet combo.

          1. crapper/bidet combo.

            An excellent euphemism for the current occupants of the the White House.

  9. Ha, Hogan doesn’t believe regulation restricts choice.

    Those people are truly flummoxed by the argument for personal choice. They absolutely know what’s best for everyone else, and since previous Congresses and Administrations came, in a bipartisan manner, to move the power to choose from citizens to regulators, everyone should shut the fuck up and do as they’re told.

    1. But surely you’ll concede that they’re always right about everything, at the very least?

    2. George W. Bush signed this. Just one more proof as if any more were needed…

    3. They believe that your choice is made when you vote (or allow others to vote) every two years. Since nearly everyone who votes votes Republican or Democrat, a bipartisan consensus means that the bill must reflect everyone’s choice.

      Poppycock? Yes. But I can’t throw an eraser at my place of employment without hitting two or three people who will nod their heads in agreement.

      1. It’s even worse when the majority of Americans meekly submit to regulations that carry the weight of law. At least we could vote out people who pass stupid shit (see: Obamacare). The nation seems to collectively shrug their shoulders at these regulations and bellyache that they can’t do anything about it.

        1. ^^That thingy^^

    4. I think she just had no idea what he was saying. It was like she had never heard someone say these sorts of things before, and they were ideas that her simple little mind would never have considered on her own. She just repeated her empty statement that these regulations do not restrict personal choice…as if he hadn’t just torn that assertion down.

      Then, at the very end, she realizes that she’s lost the argument (though she still doesn’t know why or how), so she smiles condescendingly and refuses to say anything else, as if she is above responding to a rational argument. Fuck her.

  10. I feel like this is the next best thing to actually having America’s #1 toilet freedom crusader, Dave Barry, in the Senate.

    Well done!

  11. You know, for all of the people who trash Ron Paul as a nutcase, they sure seem to overlook the superlative parenting job he has accomplished. I think Rand is the more nationally palatable version of Ron.

    1. He’s certainly a better speaker.

  12. Heard an ABC radio report on this, they cut it to make him sound like a raving lunatic. My guess is that’s how MSM will spin it.

    1. Just caught the headline at Salon. I knew better than to read the article.

    2. They are spinning it as, “Rand Paul thinks poop is more important than abortion rights.”

      1. Seeing as an aborted baby is thought of the same way as a dump by the women who get them, I could see that being accurate.

    3. While the MSM is always going to try to spin any statement of libertarianism as insanity, in this case Rand is guilty of making it easy for them. I mean, you’re trying to make a serious point and you go rambling off about how your toilet doesn’t work?

      Just like his dad, he either hires terrible staffers who don’t prepare him for public appearances like this, or he’s too stubborn to listen to them. I mean, I’m a rank amateur at public speaking and red flags were lighting up in my brain like a Christmas tree during his rambling question.

      1. I didn’t see it that way at all. I thought that rant was full of win.

        1. Of course, you agree with him on the issue behind the rant.

          View it from the perspective of someone who disagrees with him and is trying to find a reason not to take him seriously.

          1. Fuck those who are looking for a reason.

            Most people who have never thought about this issue already know that low flow toilets suck, so it resonates with them.

          2. There is the fallacy. There are those who agree or disagree with him, not because of what he says but who he is. They don’t need to look for anything to not take him seriously. They already don’t.

            1. Mange appears to be considerable smarter than Minge.

          3. “View it from the perspective of someone who disagrees with him and is trying to find a reason not to take him seriously.”

            Unfortunately, I’m incapable of doing that, because I can’t seem to tune out the little voice in the back of my mind that’s screaming, “That doesn’t make any sense!” It’s the same reason I stopped being Catholic.

  13. So I take it that Rand Paul is pro-abortions?

    1. You took it wrong.

      1. So he’s basically a hypocrite that cares more about his poop than a woman’s body?

        That’s the take home message for his opponents.

        1. Which woman? The one that wants to expel a defenseless human growing inside her uterus or the one who cannot defend her personhood against a vacuum cleaner or miniature meat hook?

        2. Jesus christ. It’s not about his poop; it’s about the money and time that is wasted by these ridiculous new (not so new anymore) toilets.

      2. Didn’t he just say that he is pro-choice? And didn’t he lambast the witness, asking her that if she was pro-choice wrt abortion, why was she anti-choice wrt toilets? Why isn’t the inverse true?

  14. Do I make you Rand-y baby?

  15. I have a stockpile of incandescent light bulbs.

    1. I have a stockpile of incandescent light bulbs.

      Ditto.

      1. Just wait for the SWAT raids once they’re illegal. When they see your power bill is a bit too high for a home with CFL’s don’t expect them to knock before shooting your dog. And a stockpile? For your own use? Suuuure. Looks like “intent to distribute” to me. That’ll raise it to a felony for sure.

  16. If he keeps this up, he’ll end up on the top of the 2016 Team Red ticket if Obama wins the (short term) future in 2012.

    1. Rand Paul ’16 baby!

      1. Leader of what kind of country?

  17. god I’m jealous he gets to say that to the face of that stupid *unt.

    * not an a

    1. I keep wanting more people to go in front of congress and let them have it, whether they be the baseball commissioner, or whoever, and tell them to go fuck themselves. But this is pretty good.

      1. “Contempt of Congress? I don’t know about that, but my contempt for Congress is limitless.”

        1. “Hey Senator, can you read lips? Fuck you.”

      2. a friend has that has his retirement plan.

      3. On the proviso that they’re private citizens, and not government officials. After all, the Constitution gives Congress the right to look into the executive branch.

  18. It’s not a toilet, it’s a cauldron of awesomeness.

    1. A FEDERALLY REGULATED cauldron of awesomeness.
      Much like nuclear warheads and orbiting spacecraft, some technology simply must have oversight at the highest levels.

      1. I have to admit, I stole the phrase from Charlie Sheen.

        1. Is there anything awesome that didn’t originate from him?

          1. It all did, that’s why he’s winning.

  19. First machine guns, then 5 gallon per flush toilets, what next.

  20. If it’s brown, flush it down.
    If it’s yellow, let it mellow.
    -Bernie Focker

    1. If it’s red, call a doctor!

    2. For a green batch, light a match.

      1. Every now and then it’s a neon Mountain Dew green, what is that about?

        1. That’s caused by a particular flavor of Gatorade.

          1. Don’t leave us hanging, which flavor is it?

            1. There are different flavors? I always thought that Gatorade was water + vitamins + food coloring.

              1. I did have a blue turd once when I was a kid after eating like 3 cans of blue play-doh.

                1. Pics or it didn’t happen….

              2. No, it’s water + sugar (HFCS) + salt + flavoring + food coloring.

          2. I guess it could be an energy drink vitamin interaction thing.

            Also I love the spinach. You can create gastronomical horror stories with spinach alone.

            In fact, I just had a fine dish. I substituted tortilla shells with fine sliced roasted chicken, stuffed spinach, ricotta cheese and pine nuts inside, dipped them in egg and a breader, and fried to perfection. Pretty fucking delicious.

            1. Try a combo of spinach and Olestra. Hours of fun!

    3. I always flush twice….cause it’s a long way to Washington, DC

      1. I always flush twice….cause it’s a long way to Washington, DC Ann Arbor.

  21. That would be a great comment, except that Paul’s solution to this is to let everyone use the lightbulbs they want, and then BAN abortion.

    So why isn’t he just as big a hypocrit? and about something (abortion) about 10 thousand times more serious than a fucking lightbulb.

    1. I love herring. Especially the grilled red kind.

    2. Yes, of course. Lightbulbs, serious disagreement about when life begins. Hypocrisy.

    3. Can’t all right-minded people agree that government regulation of light bulbs and toilets is not right? Oh, but I guess we can only deal in absolutes and litmus tests to appease dickheads like Junior here.

    4. Because your obvious red herring, are you stating that there are no thoughtful arguments against abortion from the perspective of a Libertarian? There is plenty of nuance to be hashed out there that you completely ignore.

    5. That would be a great comment, except that Paul’s solution to this is to let everyone use the lightbulbs they want, and then BAN abortion.

      You are aware that not every libertarian agrees with you about when a fetus becomes a human being and acquires the right to live?

      You may disagree with Rand Paul about when that transition takes place — I disagree with Rand Paul about that — but that doesn’t make his POV on abortion necessarily unlibertarian.

      1. Whereas he is spot-on about the topic of his rant, nanny-state banning of things where no libertarian disagrees with his POV.

    6. To be fair to Junior, superficially his claim of hypocrisy is just as valid as Rand Paul’s was. Comparing abortion to light bulb purchases is comparing apples and oranges, for different reasons on both sides of the abortion debate.

  22. Like, ZOMGZ BIPARTISAN!1!!11!!

  23. Rand is anti-abortion and then some. He gets a big goose egg on that end of the libertarian spectrum. On the opposite end of the fence, I guess it would be great to let consumers pick what they want 100% of the time, but something tells me that the net effects on the country would be abysmal. Just visit China any time you want to have zero product regulations. They have children dropping dead left and right.

    1. They have children dropping dead left and right.

      No, that’s North Korea, and those children are dropping dead from famine caused by a totalitarian, anti-market government.

      1. Frododo, are you saying I don’t regulate every detail of life in China???

    2. OK, I think we need to add China to roads and SOMALIA!!1! as the latest triggers in the Reason drinking game.

      We have a motion on the floor.

      1. I’ll second.

        1. Forget voting on it. DRINK!

      2. I’ll have to casually sip water for another 38 days of this game, but I’m drunk in spirit.

        1. Pansy, real men only drink beer for 40 days.

          1. Monks are hardcore, that’s for sure.

    3. They have children dropping dead left and right.

      Master Frodo, you may not have noticed that China’s population is still growing. And it’s sure as hell not immigration.

      1. China’s population is still growing.

        And that is with its harsh population control measures. To wit, “Nature finds a way.”

    4. Rand is anti-abortion and then some. He gets a big goose egg on that end of the libertarian spectrum.

      Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. You mean to tell me that half the commentors on H&R also get a big goose egg on that end of the libertarian perspective, because from what I’ve seen, libertarians are pretty evenly divided on abortion (what with questions about the start of personhood, human rights and all that).

      Does that mean a lot of posters here including me have got to turn in our decoder rings and go elsewhere? Or does it mean that you shouldn’t try to pigeonhole everyone into your definition of what a libertarian is?

    5. Re: Frodo,

      Rand is anti-abortion and then some. He gets a big goose egg on that end of the libertarian spectrum

      Why is that? If one believes life is not anybody’s to take by force, then why would thinking abortion is murder take one to unlibertarian waters?

      but something tells me that the net effects on the country would be abysmal.

      I see. “People are stupid, therefore: Government!”

      1. ?e?

    6. Just visit China any time you want to have zero product regulations.

      Also visit China when you want to see the effects of centralized planning, i.e. the epitome of regulation.

    7. I wasn’t aware that Chinese were free to “pick what they wanted 100% of the time”.

      When did this happen?

      Better tell all the Chinese who want to google info not sanctioned by the government that the coast is clear now.

  24. Now go to Salon.com and read their take on this.

    1. If you offered that crowd “abortions for all” in exchange for functioning toilets and light bulbs, they wouldn’t take the deal.

    2. I love the part about “white male solipsism”.
      For those of you unfamilliar with the usage of this term, the subtext seems to be thus:

      When will you people learn that the only reason you argue for logical consistency is because you only see it from the white male point of view? If you’d only step back, you’d see that your demand for logical consistency is inteferring with giving all of our poor, oppressed groups any damn thing they want? This clearly makes you both sexist and racist.

      1. I also like this comment from the article:

        Just in case anyone was surprised by Rand Paul’s display of personal exceptionalism, let’s take a moment to remember that he is the ophthalmologist who created his own certification board because he couldn’t be bothered with the American Board of Ophthalmology. The only person certifying that Rand Paul had demonstrated continuing proficiency in his field of medicine was…Rand Paul. And yet, somehow the teabaggers in Kentucky elected him. I hate to dis one of the fifty states, but…what were they thinking?

        He’s not government certified!!!The Horror!!!Unclean!!!

        1. Nope self-certified. Wonder if he’s ever failed the tests he makes for himself.

          1. As opposed to regulatory capture with grandfather clauses where they don’t have to follow any certifications, yet they still get that government stamp of approval?

            Yep, your preferred system sounds just perfect.

  25. Looks like the tendency to ramble on for 4 minutes rather than asking a series of concise, devastating questions is genetic. We get it, Rand, you’re insulted. You don’t have to repeat it ten times.

    And, as usual, when one of the Pauls rambles like this, the target of the question finds some minor point in the ramble to fixate on so as to avoid the main point. Though Ms Hogan is not as expert at this as Bernanke or Clinton, as she left Rand a gigantic opening when she started to say that so long as you can purchase some sort of lighting, your choice hasn’t been restricted. Unfortunately Rand interrupted her self-hanging and went off in the toilet direction.

  26. I am flummoxed by the fact that the bureaucrats do not just cop to the fact that they are limiting choice, and then throw a boatload of examples where a majority of people think it’s OK to limit choice:

    1. Limiting SO2 emissions to cut back on acid rain.
    2. Limits and regulations on mercury use and emissions.
    3. Limiting the choice to determine how you spend your money by forcefully taking it.
    4. Limiting your choice to go 200 MPH on the interstate highways.

    I do not agree with limiting choice, FWIW, but I am just stunned that these people cannot just admit that they do limit choice, and the American public is OK with that in some circumstances.

    1. Most people agree with those restrictions, though. There are a shitload of people who are fed up on the showerhead and light bulb restrictions.

      1. Limiting the choice to initiate force by harming others via pollution is different from limiting the choice to make decisions that harm no one else except some liberal’s uber-sensitive feelings about how us proles should live our lives if we would only listen to our betters.

        1. Pollution isn’t “force” unless you stretch the definition of force to the point where it’s meaningless.

          1. Really? It’s OK to harm someone by dumping toxic chemicals in the air or the water used by your neighbor? You don’t think that is an initiation of force?

            1. Not unless it’s done with the intent to harm or with reckless disregard for the harms likely to result…in which case the govt response should be directed at the harms that occurred, not the act of polluting itself.

              Highly indirect processes like contributing to ozone depletion, acid rain, or global warming are not plausibly considered force, any more than stomping up and down on the precipice of a cliff makes you guilty of murder when a year later, it collapses with someone standing on it.

              1. So you can avoid responsibility for damaging the commons if you just feign ignorance that dumping toxic shit into it does any harm?

                Eh, worked for the oil companies for quite a long time.

                1. The point went right over your head, didn’t it? Cannot say I am surprised.

                2. So you can avoid responsibility for damaging the commons if you just feign ignorance that dumping toxic shit into it does any harm?

                  Eh, worked for the oil companies for quite a long time.

                  No doubt some did. Now I’m sure you will admit that the government has perpetuated similar offenses as well, right?

                3. No, it just becomes a civil matter… and if the stuff is widely known to be toxic that constitutes gross negligence.

                  1. Great so we can have decades-long litigation every time someone commits abuse. Other than maybe big tobacco I can’t think of anyone, citizen or business, who’d prefer that to prior regulations. More expense, more government, more abuse, dirtier world… All to appease government phobia.

                    1. Bull shit, Tony. The pressure from negative publicity is a pretty strong inducement for companies to do the right thing. Probably more so than pre-emptive regulation, which essentially creates barriers to entry (explaining why so many existing companies are so keen on it).

                      Remember the Suzuki Samurai?

                    2. The pressure from negative publicity is a pretty strong inducement for companies to do the right thing.

                      To an extent, but if you’re powerful enough you can manipulate publicity, just as tobacco and oil and wal-mart and everyone else with the ability has tried to do. That is no reason not to have legal requirements for minimum standards. The force of law is definitely more persuasive than public opinion which can be molded.

                    3. The fuck are you talking about? Negative publicity caused major policy revisions with Wal-Mart, Evul Tobacko, and Big Scary Oil Inc. many a times.
                      In fact, negative publicity tends to result in a loss of market share and/or a huge chunk of a customer base, where regulations (specifically, the regulation’s sponsors) can be directly manipulated into weeding out competition and allowing special deals for favored companies. After all, if the regulation makes you the only game in town, what the fuck are you going to do about it?

                      Bottom line: companies are way the fuck more worried about losing customers than getting slapped with a fine by the EPA.

    2. I am just stunned that these people cannot just admit that they do limit choice

      Because if they did, they’d be fired. First rule of politics — never admit to bad stuff. Say complete bullshit if necessary that everyone in the room knows is BS, because people outside the room don’t know it’s BS.

      That line of questioning about are you “pro-choice” was an excellent trap, which she sidestepped with complete bullshit, IIRC, “we are in favor of choice for light bulbs.”

      1. I thought she said she was in favor of choice for bombs. But that makes more sense.

      2. ‘”we are in favor of choice for light bulbs.”‘

        That choice, of course, being CFLs or…???

  27. He called her a busybody right to her face. Nicely done.

  28. Of course regulations limit choice. You don’t get to choose to be a wasteful slob if it affects other people.

    Rand Paul’s worldview never graduated the 8th grade. Like any teenager, he couples his ignorance of the world with laughably undeserved arrogance.

    1. Of course regulations limit choice. You don’t get to choose to be a wasteful slob if it affects other people.

      Like, you can’t be a person who has made really bad choices in life, like not getting an education, or getting pregnant very early on, or becoming an addict, and then ask for welfare, right?

      1. Well, what about the child? Does it have to be punished for the mother’s poor choices?

        1. The money has to come from somewhere, Tony. Do the taxpayers have to be punished for her poor choices?

          Not to mention the people who have to wait in line behind said mother while they check if her WIC card covers microwave popcorn.

          1. So letting a child starve because of the poor choices oh her mother is preferable to you giving up a few cents to prevent that. Even though we’re talking about making people responsible for their actions, that being the excuse for letting the mother suffer. Libertarianism really falls apart when you acknowledge the existence of children.

            1. “So letting a child starve because of the poor choices oh her mother is preferable to you giving up a few cents to prevent that.”

              No… who said that? Oh wait, when you say ‘giving up a few cents’ do you mean ‘having a few cents taken from you by force’? Because if you do, I think perhaps you were being a little disingenuous.

              1. You dont get to dismiss the reality of the situation by appealing to this force stuff. The entire reason your worldview is fucked is because you think taxation and the implied force behind it is a greater imposition and injustice than letting a child starve for the crimes of her mother. Life is about trade offs. You don’t get zero taxes and civilization at the same time, for instance. Most people are ok with this balance.

                1. So you’re saying if there are no taxes it’s impossible to feed children with impoverished parents? And I don’t think the mother in this case has committed any crimes. I just don’t think that if a child starves somewhere in the world I’m responsible for its death.

                2. Also, your argument ad populum can take a walk.

                3. “The entire reason your worldview is fucked is because you think taxation and the implied force behind it is a greater imposition and injustice than letting a child starve for the crimes of her mother.”

                  +100

            2. So letting a child starve because of the poor choices oh her mother is preferable to you giving up a few cents to prevent that. Even though we’re talking about making people responsible for their actions, that being the excuse for letting the mother suffer. Libertarianism really falls apart when you acknowledge the existence of children.

              I knew that you would fixate on the mother anecdote, since it was the easiest to make an emotive appeal. The point I made was to demonstrate that you don’t hold to the very principle you espouse:

              You don’t get to choose to be a wasteful slob if it affects other people.

              Yes, you most certainly can under your system, because we know it happens every day.

              1. Ok, I should have said, if it “negatively” affects other people. You being taxed to pay for a social safety net doesn’t negatively affect you. It’s a net positive for you.

                1. No taxation to feed hungry children… hmm, I wish there was something called CHARITY that could have been doing this for thousands of years and still doing this today…

                  Seriously, stop dictating what other people do with their money, Tony.

                  1. Tony hates charity because it’s in complete contradiction to Tony’s perception of humanity. In Tony-land, people only help others in need when government says you have to do it or go to jail.

        2. Well, what about the child? Does it have to be punished for the mother’s poor choices?

          It does until it’s born. After that, it takes a village, right Tony?

    2. I wrote this before watching the video. It’s not his signature arrogance that comes through here. I just had the overwhelming urge to stick a pacifier in his mouth.

      1. The urge to stick what in his mouth?

    3. By your logic, Socon laws that regulate sex are justified. Irresponsibly engaging in sex often affects other people right? The rest of society has to pay for unwanted children and STDS after all? So why don’t liberals like you support these type of laws? Is it because you only support regulations on behaviors that don’t affect your personal life?

      1. Im all for subsidized sex ed and condom distribution and the like.

        1. They don’t working 100% of the time.

          1. They don’t working 100% of the time.

            The very small failure rate of condoms is swallowed up by the cultural and personal pressures to not wear one. You can hand them out by the cases and if people don’t wear them they are only good for party balloons.

            1. The very small failure rate of condoms is swallowed up by the cultural and personal pressures to not wear one.

              I always thought it was swallowed up by something else. [rimshot]

    4. Re: Tony,

      Of course regulations limit choice. You don’t get to choose to be a wasteful slob if it affects other people.

      Curously you seem not to have given much thought at the required utilitarian process to avoid “affecting other people.” The number of possible alternatives can fill the Universe with numbers, which is why NO human operates like that, instead relying on some basic principles like non-agression, respect for other people’s property, etc. “Regulations” are not born from the utilitarian premise, they can’t be.

      http://mises.org/daily/5085/Ac…..ernalities

      Rand Paul’s worldview never graduated the 8th grade. Like any teenager, he couples his ignorance of the world with laughably undeserved arrogance.

      The donkey talking about ears…

      1. Tony is wasting brain cells, and that has a detrimental affect on society, because of lot of idiots like him continue to choose inhibit freedom and restrict choice.

    5. Homosexual behavior affects other people. Seeing gay guys kiss makes many people want to vomit, so does that mean we can ban gay PDAs?

      1. You seem to be becoming aware that it’s almost impossible not to affect others when you live in the world. Luckily etiquette takes care of PDA and such.

        1. I’ve been aware of that for quite some time, thanks Tony. The point is that if mere “affecting” of others is sufficient to justify regulation, then practically every action or inaction we take is going to be decided by government, even in your sacred sphere of sexual activity.

          1. As I tried to say, all interactions are governed. Many are governed by informal rules such as those found in etiquette. Others require government. Sometimes government steps in when etiquette fails.

            1. Statist Fuck

            2. Holy shit, you’ve been at Neu Mejican’s school of semantic manipulation.

              The two types of governing you’re talking about have as much similarity as a power plant and a potted plant.

              1. It’s a continuum. Governments of informal and formal natures form naturally as a result of intelligent animals interacting in a finite world. You just think the most formal form of government is the boogiemonster.

                1. Rational people do not believe the President is like the Pope: infallible. Many people, willfully ignorant or otherwise, do. Your belief in a “finite” world is your rationalization of a belief in the zero-sum game — which is in itself a denial of intelligence and human creativity. Furthermore it is not a gentle segue from mass-murder to justice. Blather, blather blather….

    6. >You don’t get to choose to be a wasteful slob if it affects other people.

      So, why do politicians get to waste trillions of dollars of our hard-earned money?

      -jcr

  29. You don’t get to choose to be a wasteful slob if it affects other people.

    Even if it’s within the confines of your own home, right Tony? Greater good and all that nonsense.

    Jesus Christ. You are truly special.

    1. Notice I said “if it affects other people.”

      Most of us are on a grid. It’s hard not to make choices that don’t affect other people.

      The only people trying to restrict personal, private choices are the Christians.

      1. The only people trying to restrict personal, private choices are the Christians.

        This is true, only if by “personal, private choices”, you mean sexual. If you mean the expanded understanding of “personal” and “private” then no, Christians are not the only ones.

      2. The only people trying to restrict personal, private choices are the Christians.

        I know you’re being willfully obtuse about personal, private choices, but even you agree that the WOD needs to end. You really think that it’s only Christians pushing that monstrosity?

        1. Well, people who want restrictions on drugs from the left would probably cite the societal problems drug use causes.

          I happen to know that liberalization of drugs actually helps ease these problems, many of which are caused by prohibition and not the drugs themselves. But that would be an error of being acquainted with facts on their part, not a desire to control people’s personal lives.

          Nope only the theocrats like Rand Paul want to do that.

          1. And his belief of life at conception is different… how? While I don’t agree with him, those misguided democrats can just pick up a damn book. The genesis of a life isn’t quite so cut-and-dried.

            1. Life began billions of years ago in a swamp or something. The issue is where the legal rights of personhood begin.

              1. ???
                Weaksauce, Tony.
                Weaksauce.

                ………………….and I said “a life”.

                1. Neu Mejican has taught Tony well.

                2. I know what you meant, sorry.

                  I just don’t see the point of arbitrarily defining personhood in such a way to restrict women’s personal rights. Government should force women to give birth against their will… because? Because it makes baby Jesus cry?

                  1. Government should force women to give birth against their will… because? Because it makes baby Jesus cry?

                    No, but maybe because it takes away the rights of the person she is killing.

                    When does personhood start, Tony? Can you define it?

                    1. That depends on how we define pershonhood, which is to draw a mostly arbitrary line. If we’re going to take on all of the known problems with abortion prohibition, we should have a good reason, and baby jesus’s tears aren’t enough.

      3. Because all action, or inaction, for that matter, in some way (particularly in the aggregate), affects others, wouldn’t this imply that the Government may forbid or proscribe any human activity or inactivity? In other words, the Government would have unlimited power, also known as Unlimited Government?

        1. Sorry: “mandate” for “proscribe.” What is this preview button you speak of?

        2. No. Most social interactions don’t need government. Some do, especially if at least one party is interested in having the decisions enforced.

          Of course government *may* do whatever it has the power to do.

          1. Of course government *may* do whatever it has the power to do.

            Now you know why the Second Amendment is so much more important to us than it is to you.

            1. Because when you are easily taken out by this government, you want to look like a cabin-dwelling idiot in the process?

              1. And when you’re easily taken out by this government you want to have your hands around your ankles.

              2. “Because when you are easily taken out by this government, you want to look like a cabin-dwelling idiot in the process?”

                Tony’s proud of his country’s ability and willingness to murder innocent civilians.. and he approves.

      4. “The only people trying to restrict personal, private choices are the Christians.”

        christians are trying to keep me from eating hamburgers, transfats, and salts?

  30. I think Rand Paul is great.

    I also think Rand Paul’s behavior here was boorish, inappropriate, and suggested a stunted social development.

    It is rude to ask someone from the Department of Energy testifying in their professional capacity about energy standards their position on abortion. It was bullying and weird, and she had every right to tell him to go fuck himself, which is what I would have done.

    More significantly, his position is poorly articulated. Almost everyone accepts that there are some areas where government can limit consumer choice – for example, banning anthrax in food; or arguably restricting the free use of antibiotics. The relevant question is, is this one of the limited areas where government involvement prevents such significant evils that it outweighs the heavy burden which it places on consumer choice (it doesn’t.).

    By grandstanding about ‘choice’ generally, Rand massively oversimplified the debate, and those chortling on message boards about how they have the right to consume anthrax-laden water are right to poke fun.

    1. If lightbulbs could cause harm like anthrax-laden water, I would agree.

      “”The relevant question is, is this one of the limited areas where government involvement prevents such significant evils that it outweighs the heavy burden which it places on consumer choice (it doesn’t.).”””

      In a free loving country, that would not be the relevant question.

    2. Yes because there was so much anthrax in food before we starting regulating it! Why my great grandparents couldn’t buy a lb of ground beef without the anthrax getting all over them.

      And thank goodness regular people don’t have greater access to anti-bodics. It’s not like our wise doctor’s would ever over prescribe anti-bodics.

    3. putting anthrax in food is akin to putting bullets in people. It’s called MURDER! So yeah, the government would naturally say, “no, you can’t put things that will kill most people in food.”

      1. Not to mention that murdering you’re customers is a very poor buisness model.

        1. Son of a…

          Not to mention that murdering
          you’re your customers is a very poor buisness business model.

  31. Government regulation of Rand Paul’s toilets = bad.

    Government regulation of women’s internal organs = good.

    1. Ah, I see. It makes far more sense for the government to try and micromanage the trivialities of people’s lives than to protect unborn human beings (and I say this as someone who is pro-abortion – I’m just pointing out your position is bullshit).

      1. Not if you believe in the 1st Amendment, which restricts religious bullshit from influencing policy. Fetuses being persons is an idea originating in religious bullshit, nowhere else.

        1. You don’t know any atheists who are against abortion? Do you live in a box?

          1. A box is where you put the fetus if you’re not a woman.

            1. Hi, I’m Kant feel Pietzsche, atheist, and agnostic concerning abortion.

              i.e., the position that a fetus is merely a tumor invading a woman’s body is every bit as simplistic as the position that it is a person at the moment of conception.

          2. You don’t know any atheists who are against abortion?

            Hi! I’m Old Mexican, atheist and anti-abortion.

            1. Uh-oh. But I’m sure Tony will be back to admit his mistake.

            2. How embarrassing for you that you’ve let Christian fantasy influence your opinion instead of legal tradition or scientific consistency.

              1. Dude, I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure OM is anti-abortion for philosophical reasons. I do like the implication though that if Roe Vs. Wade had gone the other way, you’d be arguing against abortion right now since your opinion is apparently determined by ‘legal consistency’. Science has nothing to say about when it’s morally okay to kill something. Claiming otherwise is abuse of the concept of science.

                1. Sorry, ‘legal tradition’.

                2. Let me expand. By legal tradition I’m not referring to Roe, but to common law. Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think fetuses became people until modern Christians decided to make an issue of it (that is, marry their patriarchal anti-abortion stance with civil rights language.)

                  No science can’t say when personhood begins. But to be consistent with what we know about embryology- that a large portion of the things being called persons are flushed away naturally- you’d have to claim nature is inflicting an unacceptable holocaust on the unborn.

                  1. “you’d have to claim nature is inflicting an unacceptable holocaust on the unborn”

                    No, you wouldn’t. Because that’s insane. It’s clearly insane to make moral judgements of nature. That’s fucked up. If the regularity of miscarriages is an unacceptable holocaust of the unborn then malaria is an unacceptable holocaust of the born. And please don’t argue that personhood doesn’t begin until you’re completely safe from malaria.

                    I don’t think your appeal to common law does the desired work anyway. Before modern Christians made an issue of it there were unmodern Christians, and back then there were far fewer non-believers, and the science of embryology is itself fairly modern, so there’s really no precedent there. My point though, even though I specifically mentioned Roe v. Wade, is that if you base your opinions on legal precedent you’re basically giving others the responsibility of deciding what you believe. I mean, seriously, if abortion was illegal in the US right now, would you not be arguing for its legalisation?

                    1. It’s insane to assign moral responsibility to nature, but we generally work to mitigate it’s worst abuses. We try to cure malaria. If spontaneous abortions represent the horror that condistency must make us think it is if we believe in the personhood of an embryo, then we should try to fix it somehow. Or at least mourn about it. But we don’t because we are not actually inclined to think that way, and it would be pointless to do so.

                      So historically being against abortion is more about men wanting control over their progeny. The idea that a fetus or embryo has human rights was tacked on later. And it still doesn’t make sense.

                    2. “If spontaneous abortions represent the horror that condistency must make us think it is if we believe in the personhood of an embryo, then we should try to fix it somehow. Or at least mourn about it. But we don’t…”

                      1) Doctors and pregnant women do try to prevent spontaneous abortions from occuring by diagnosing and treating any underlying causes. We do “try to fix it somehow.”

                      2) Do you know a woman who’s lost a pregnancy? Did she and her family “mourn”? I would assume yes.

                  2. Tony, a human fetus is still a human, just as a human infant is still a human. Some could argue that personhood does not begin until 2 or 3 years old. There is no universal consensus as to when personhood begins. But no one can deny that a human embryo is, in fact, human. No one can deny that a human fetus is a member of the homo sapiens sapiens. They are HUMAN.

                    As far as humans being naturally aborted… humans die every day from natural occurrences. Hell, thousands got snuffed out by a tsunami yesterday. Nature murders us everyday. Sure, it is unacceptable, but there’s nothing we can do about it, yet. We mitigated some things that nature inflicts, but we cannot stop it all.

              2. Yup, science is totally against the idea that a fetus is a human being distinct from the mother.

                Fucking DNA, how does it work?

              3. How embarrassing for you that you’ve let Christian fantasy influence your opinion instead of legal tradition or scientific consistency.

                At this point, it might be helpful to point out that stoning executions and slavery used to be “legal tradition”.

                cum stain…………

                1. stare decisis is rarely appealed to by libs and progressives. except in the case of abortion.

                  fwiw, i’m pro-choice (although not pro abortion on demand in 3rd trimester, to distinguish), but i am amazed when i hear progressives constantly use the term “settled law” as if that SETTLES the issue.

                  1. dunphy I think both sides are prone to supporting precedent when it agrees with them and not supporting it when it doesn’t. Saying abortion is OK because the law makes it OK is a copout, yes. But the fact is that prohibiting abortion is worse than allowing it. One major reason is that women with means will still be able to get abortions if they want, just by hopping over to a country where it’s legal. Poor women will either suffer from a lack of equality in this regard, or from horrific medical consequences from black market abortions. Not to mention you’d have government forcing women to give birth against their will, something I’d expect callous, absolute-freedom loving libertarians to find abhorrent. Unless they only care about such for men.

                    1. Dude, seriously. Some people here (not me) think that fetuses are people and killing them is the equivalent of murder. So when they say they’re against abortion, they’re saying they want to stop murders from taking place. You can disagree with them – I disagree with them – but you can’t pretend that you’re the only one who cares about people. As far as they’re concerned, they’re trying to protect human beings, male and female.

                    2. i agree with this. the meme that pro-life people are “anti-women” or other such rubbish drives me nuts. i may be pro-choice, but i have pro-life friends and NONE of them are anti-women.

                      it is as simple as this. if you think the right of the fetus to live OUTWEIGHS the right of the woman to terminate/kill it, then that’s the only consideration.

                      personally, i don’t think a first semester fetus is developed enough such that its right outweighs the woman’s such that she must carry it to term. when it comes to third trimester, absent some very particular circumstances , I *do* think it has that right.

        2. Besides, my point was people should have both kinds of choices, and that it doesn’t make more sense to regulate trivial things than it does to regulate important things, as was implied in your post.

        3. I must have a different copy of the first amendment then. I don’t see the words “restricts religious bullshit from influencing policy” anywhere.

        4. Technically murder and theft also originate with some kind of religious/moral code. If some kind of religious based morality didn’t influence our legal system, we’d pretty much still think it was okay for the strongest people do whatever they want to everyone else.

          1. Religion didn’t invent the concept that theft and murder are wrong.

            1. Yeah dummies, government did!

            2. nor did religion invent the claim that abortion is wrong (and again, i am pro-choice)…

              furthermore, i find it ironic that the same people who think it’s somehow wrong or unconstitutional when religious people have their views affected by their religion, don’t realize that MLK , etc. frequently commented on how their views were informed by… religion.

              having one’s views informed by religion is not wrong, to a progressive, if it’s views they agree with (anti-death penalty, social justice christianity, etc.)

              1. Religion may happen to agree with rational morality at times, but it’s never necessary for it.

                1. i’m not claiming that. maybe someone else is. don’t know. i am saying that some of the greatest heroes of the left, the same people that say people should keep their religion out of the law, were in fact strongly informed by their religion, MLK being a great example. kucinich is another

        5. Not if you believe in the 1st Amendment, which restricts religious bullshit from influencing policy.

          Bullshit. Complete, utter, unadulterated bullshit, and I say that as an atheist myself. The reasoning behind a law is irrelevant to its constitutionality.

          1. If there is no secular motivation then it violates the establishment clause.

            1. Do legislators have to proclaim a motive, then?

              1. Courts can figure it out.

                1. Actually you’re right, that was a dumb question.

            2. If there is no secular motivation then it violates the establishment clause.

              Ah, this is quite a bit weaker than your previous statement that anything even influenced by religion is taboo. But you’re still wrong — the establishment clause merely prevents giving money or coercive power to churches. It doesn’t concern legislative motivation.

              1. All I said is that religious bullshit is restricted, which seems obvious. I really think the legal standard is that legislation has to advance a secular purpose.

                1. it’s a false distinction.

        6. If the First Amendment restricts religious bullshit from influencing policy, then kindly shut the fuck up about how letting children starve to death is more gravely immoral than forcibly confiscating people’s wealth. I do not subscribe to your religion.

          1. Well you can be nonreligious and have morals. And judge others for their warped moral priorities.

            1. You sure seem to be able to judge others.

              How do you feel about established legal principles governments enforce relative to homosexuality? After all, they *may* do whatever they have the power to do, right?

              1. I don’t like them… wtf? It’s a trivially tautological truth that governments can do whatever they have the power to do. Just because I believe governments should exist doesn’t mean I’m OK with everything they are capable of doing.

            2. The idea of giving money to the poor originated with religions.

            3. What Tony’s trying to say is that he knows all that can be known, including the meaning of life. So, submit to his all-knowing statist ideology.

            4. It’s a shame no one can call themselves “religious” without hearing Tony say the first amendment restricts “religious bullshit,” which I take he means “those who are religiously motivated.”

              I guess it’s OK if you’re ideologically motivated, like Tony here, but if you are motivated by your belief in Christ or whoever, then by Science the 1st restricts your sorry religious ass.

              1. MLK was strongly religiously motivated, so clearly his attempts (successful) to influence policy, law, etc. were wrong to tony?

                god knows (heh) dennis kucinich is also deeply religious and it informs his views substantially as he has said in many interviews, etc.

                BELIEFNET: You had interesting comments about the Founding Fathers and separation of church and state. “Our founders wanted a separation of church and state, but never intended that America would become separated from the spiritual principles which animated the founding of this country.” What do you think the spiritual principles that animated the founding of the country?

                KUCINICH: An understanding of the role of divine providence. An understanding of the connection between God and nature. An appreciation for the possibility that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness flowed from a transcendent source. Things like that

                Read more: http://www.beliefnet.com/News/…..z1GSFan7BG

                1. But isn’t the relevant point that religion=bullshit?

                  1. whether or not it is is entirely tangential and thus NOT relevant at all to the claims made, etc.

        7. http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

          Well, I’ll be… People don’t need G-d to believe a fetus should not be murdered in the womb.

      2. I will say, though, that while I agree with the senator 100% in the above video, and actually get excited hearing such talk come out of the mouth of a U.S. senator, his stance on abortion keeps me from fully and wholly being excited about him.

    2. Re: Tony,

      Government regulation of women’s internal organs = good.

      Government regulates internal organs?

      Somebody pinch me!

      By the way, the required comment:

      World – mee the nitwit who thinks a fetus is “a woman’s internal organ.”

      1. Just try selling your internal organs

        1. Anyone else find it ironic that it’s much easier to sell aborted fetuses than one’s own kidney or bone marrow.

          1. i find it ironic that the same people who conceive abortion as “regulating a woman’s internal organs” as if doing so violates some sacrosanct principal (and failing to acknowledge that a 25 week old fetus is hardly HER internal organ), are rarely also willing to legalize all drug use, prostitution, organ bartering, and any surgical procedure mutually agreed upon by a physician and a patient w.o any government interference.

  32. So has Rand Paul drawn up a bill to repeal Bush’s lightbulb bullshit?

  33. Did Rand Paul really just equate a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body with his right to buy a toilet?

    1. Not once. He asked her if she was pro-choice and then proved that she was not. He never asked her about abortion.

    2. Re: drella,

      Did Rand Paul really just equate a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body[…]

      You mean use drugs?

      1. Possibly prostitution – COYOTE used to be considered a feminist group, believe it or not.

  34. FYI, here are comments from PZ Myers blog:

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyn…..p#comments

  35. I have often wondered if any of the cunt head, ass sucking scum bags who promoted and shoved through congress the imbecilic toilet tank regulations have ever addressed the fact that their asshole regulations have actually resulted in greater water usage in as much as it typically takes several additional flushes to get a decent sized turd to go down with one of these asinine, low water usage toilets? Can you detect that I despise this people heart and soul, or was I too subtle?

    1. It will be ok senator, write yourself a prescription or something.

    2. There is probably a link between “green” low water toilets and the rise of certain GI viral and bacterial bugs with consequent real loss to economic productivity.
      “Progress” is not a one-way street.
      Water conservation is a manifestation of the decline of Western Civilization.

  36. This speech nearly made me cream in my jeans.

  37. Pro-choice and the mantra “my body; my choice” is dead with the fact that government can tell you what you can or cannot put in your own bodies, and will not let you sell your organs, or allow you to sell your vagina or penis for money.

    1. You can buy my penis from my cold, dead hands.

      1. “You can buy pry my penis from my cold, dead hands.”

  38. “…or allow you to sell your vagina or penis for money.”

    It’s not selling. It’s more like a short-term lease.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.