Rand Paul

Buzzfeed Engages in Self-Reflexive Media Malpractice with Headline 'Rand Paul Doesn't Believe in the Concept of Gay Rights'

Paul Speaks of Basic Individual Rights, Slammed for Allegedly Not Believing in "Behavioral Rights."

|

Buzzfeed goes for a very weak and misleading attack on Rand Paul today, completely distorting his meaning to any typical reader in both headline and text: "Rand Paul Doesn't Believe in the Concept of Gay Rights."

They got this scoop, no less, in "a videotaped interview that has received little attention since it was recorded in 2013!" (YouTubers seeking to up your channel's hits, start larding it with old Rand Paul video, since an army of oppo journalists and candidates will be watching til their eyes fall out.)

Paul, naturally, went on to say how of course there should be no legal punishment for beating and murdering gays and stealing their property, right? I mean, he doesn't believe in gay rights!

Here's what Paul started the interview clip with:

"I'm for rights for individuals, but I'm not for judging individuals based on their behavior" before later on stumbling into the gotcha phrase the article quotes: "I don't think I've ever used the word gay rights, because I don't really believe in rights based on your behavior."

That can't be understood outside of both the context of his initial statement, and the general context of libertarian-ish thinking in which we all as humans have an equal set of rights, and no particular special ones based on status or on the specifics of what we choose to do.

To the libertarian minded—and this certainly provided no proof Rand Paul isn't libertarian-minded in this respect—part of individual rights is the legal right to indulge in any behavior that isn't directly damaging others rights or property, so the Buzzfeed writer disingenuously stumbling on to wonder what other behaviors have no rights protection is barking up the wrong tree and deliberately misunderstanding Paul:

But it's unclear how far—and to whom—Paul extends the argument that rights cannot be defined by behavior.

Practicing religion, for example, is a behavior enshrined as a primary American right. Free speech is behavior protected by the Bill of Rights…

Ironically, this headline that is sweeping the globe, "Rand Paul Doesn't Believe in the Concept of Gay Rights," is meta-criticized in the very clip the article is based on, in which Paul muses that "the problem of bad journalism sometimes…is actually the titles to stories" in which "men and women putting headlines on sometimes put inflammatory stuff on there."

Here's the video, you can listen for yourself, though Buzzfeed is certainly counting on most readers not bothering to do so:

Advertisement

NEXT: When may jury no-death-penalty decisions be trumped by the judge?

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.

  1. First rule of Buzzfeed?

    That’s right.

    1. First rule of what?

    2. I think that’s the first rule of living a sane life.

  2. Shouldn’t this be some sort of GIF filled list?

  3. And it’s just going to get stupider. I’m actually both dreading yet fascinated at how stupid everything is going to be, oh, around mid-2016.

    1. *crawls under desk and repetitively mumbles “moonbase” while in fetal position*

    2. I knew this was coming, but it’s extra pathetic to actually see it in practice. Really, why don’t these leftist nutjobs just move all the way to pure emotion and have their cerebral cortices completely removed?

      1. Can it be done holistically? Can we force insurance companies and/or the 1% to pay for it? Ha! that would stick in those tea-baggers craw… Let’s do it!

    1. But where do they get all their renovation, fashion, and clubbing money?

      1. They appropriate it from women of color I hear.

      2. They get it from all the money they save not having to pay for a wife and kids, child support, alimony, excessive liquor, and finally, a pistol with one round in the chamber.

        Fun fact: in Britain, they call the savings accrued through homosexuality “the pink pound.”

    2. Discrimination! Quick pass a law against it.

    3. “gay men lag in wages”

      They do what…. in where?!

      1. *Triggered*

      2. Wages of sin and all that jazz…

  4. My audio wasn’t fantastic but my worry is at the very end he starts to go down the road of “our Founding Fathers’ concept of marriage being very different.” I may have misheard or misinterpreted but it’s probably better to just say, “government should stay the hell out of it.” Either way, taken in context with his previous comment, the Buzzfeed headline is a pretty gross distortion.

    1. That would be nice, but 1) what he said may be more in line with what he believes, and 2) the libertarian “get the state out of marriage” line probably doesn’t get many people excited. Paeans to “traditional marriage” gets asses out of seats.

  5. A Buzzfeed writer doesn’t understand what is meant by individual rights? Or doesn’t care so long as he can smear Paul? Bojack Horseman was mentioned earlier, so to take a line from that show:

    They found something that will get them a shit ton of hearts, or digs, or smileys, or whatever the hell it is they measure their journalism with.

    1. They measure it in Batin units.

      1. I’m pretty sure it’s BTUs, to measure the hatred their readers exude.

      1. Banana stickers…

        1. *twinkles up*

    2. a shit ton of hearts, or digs, or smileys, or whatever the hell it is they measure their journalism with.

      Maeby they use a crocodile.

      1. They should be using a croco something else…

  6. Is there even a *clearly stated* concept of Gay Rights out there?

    1. Gay People Have Rights.

      There, I said it. WOT M8!

      1. I think people really don’t understand that gays? have MORE rights than even regular people! I mean, because oppression. Also, religion. I mean seriously if you don’t vote for Hillary its like you might as well just be saying “Murder all the gays”, which is pretty much what Rand Paul said anyway.

        1. regular people?

          Listen, cis shitlord.

          1. he mean cis normative heterosexuals, ok.

    2. They want to be added as a protected class.

      1. That’s wrong! they just want cake. and cab rides.

        1. Don’t forget firefightersmen at the parades!

    3. This is as clear as I think it might get

  7. Gee, it is almost as if left wing journalists are deliberately finding quotes they can twist out of proportion into a stupid gaffe.

    Avoiding saying something “stupid” is easier said than done, is it not?

    1. Well, is it a twisting, or are they just not capable of seeing rights as always on an individual level?

      Since this has been framed as, “This group of people can’t do something they want, the proper response is to ensure that group has the right after all”, they are pretty much conditioned to see it in the collective.

      Oh, I do believe that some are mendacious twats, but it seems likely that most just go with the flow, and don’t analyze the fundamentals.

      1. I’m sure that they would have been just as outraged if he had said “I think gays have equal rights to straights.”

        Doesn’t he know that since gays have had it tough in the past, that now they have extra rights to make up for that? Why would you limit them to having the same rights as anyone else?

        1. Doesn’t he know that since gays have had it tough in the past, that now they have extra rights to make up for that?

          Yup! It never even occurs to them what they’re proposing. I guess it’s too much to hope that they someday get the idea that, if all those shtity laws were just repealed/not enacted to begin with, people would have been enjoying those rights all along.

          Hey news people, I know were social creatures and all, but has it ever entered your feeble minds to not think in collectivist terms??? Is it really too difficult for you to conceive that were individuals first?

          1. I have a suspicion that in order to graduate journalism school you have to be thoroughly indoctrinated with the works of Erving Goffman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erving_Goffman). I don’t know how to make links.

            Basically, Goffman believes that an individual is really nothing more than the totality of all the social roles they fulfill. Similar to the way leftists think: there are no individuals; a person is merely the sum of their ‘relevant’ features, i.e., race, gender, orientation, and class.

          2. I have a suspicion that in order to graduate journalism school you have to be thoroughly indoctrinated with the works of Erving Goffman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erving_Goffman). I don’t know how to make links.

            Basically, Goffman believes that an individual is really nothing more than the totality of all the social roles they fulfill. Similar to the way leftists think: there are no individuals; a person is merely the sum of their ‘relevant’ features, i.e., race, gender, orientation, and class.

  8. I don’t know anyone in real life who checks Buzzfeed. I know 2 who check reason, and at least 3 or 4 who read HuffPo.

  9. WELL I LOVE GAYS SO MUCH THAT I AM REMOVING INDIANA FROM ALL THE MAPS IN MY HOUSE

    *And Kentucky!! (shakes fist) You’re getting a haircut too!! (because cutting those squiggly lines is a pain, right?), and also this “Rand” Paul fellow is such a gay-hater OMG

    1. Why don’t you just cover up the affected area with a sign that says “here be monsters”?

      1. Uh, well, DUH?! that would be monsterphobic

        1. So the Monsters and Trans-Monster groups would boycott you for comparing them to Hoosiers?

          Fuck, the more you know…

        2. Monsterphobic?

          Or monsterphilic?

          One man’s warning is another man’s advertisement, after all.

          1. uhm, look, I don’t know how you people didnt get the Message? but like, No One has called them “Monsters” for like ages… i mean, if you have to be like, culturally-specific and stuff, “Kaiju” shows some sensitivity? But i mean just because someone has a genetic connection to both “Dinosaurs” and “Giant Insects”? and Maybe was over-exposed to radiation at the bottom of the ocean at some point*…

            (**which BTW is like A SERIOUS PROBLEM!! which we need to hashtag more about #FUK-U-FUKOSHIMA)

            …i mean, its totally showing your Homosapien privilege and stuff to be like, biased against People of Extraordinarily Large Fire Breathing Dimensions.

  10. Buzzfeed? The media aggregator that made its fortune by producing almost 150 videos of millennial hipsters acting like finicky, obnoxious toddlers when presented with any food more exotic than a peanut butter and jelly sandwich?

    That Buzzfeed?

    That’s the Buzzfeed you’re expecting us to take seriously?

    That’s the Buzzfeed you felt necessary to respond to with an article?

    1. Listen, patriarchal oppressor, Don’t other them with your micro-aggressions…

    2. OMG HE SAID “MADE BY A THAI JEW” ++ LOL!!
      But seriously, like, that’s totally not Ok. uhm, you know.

      1. But seriously, like, that’s totally not Ok. uhm, you know.

        Why not? That phrase accurately describes 2/3rds of my kid, at least.

        1. Well then duh it was othering at least half of his heritage

          I mean, please. Snacks are serious and should not be used to make disparaging ethnic remarks. They should be celebrated for their diversity

          1. Well then duh it was othering at least half of his heritage

            “Her,” you othering monster.

            1. “it”

              all children are “it” to me.

              1. That was my nickname in grade school.

    3. 1st time seeing it. I wouldn’t describe its subjects that way. They’re sex-segregated pairs asked to evaluate foods, like focus group panelists, edited to bare essentials with non-intrusive yet cute mood music. No masterpiece, but gently entertaining, slightly educational. It’d be lotsa work for most people to find such an assortment of unusual foods & try them on that many friends, so there’s novelty to the vid. Almost 150? I’m sure it’d be boring after a few, but who’s expected to watch more than a small fraction? I’m sure they produced many to increase chance of being hit in searches or YouTube recommend’ns, but the marginal cost of #100 must’ve been small, so why not?

      I like the YouTube series of Crazy Russian Hacker & Meanwhile In Russia, instructionals & results of fireworks construction & for American football, & cute wild & domesticated animal footage.

      Contrast w the vanity YouTubes by families working to an apparent formula about life w children, preteen girls showing how they mix their own toiletries (from commercial toiletries), women & girls showing how they take all day to wash their face w successive procedures, bot-made scrolling plagiarized texts, token vids as place-holders for unrelated “explanatory” texts, some short-clip concept called “Vines” I don’t get, instructionals widely available as text that don’t need demonstr’n, & slides as place-holders for audio programs (Uh, SoundCloud?), & you can see there’s a use for a Buzzfeed to cut thru the clutter.

      1. “slightly educational”

        And what did you learn.

        1. I learned about several kinds of prepared food I had no idea existed, let alone that they were Thai. I got several opinions about each of them as well. Makes me interested in eating some of them.

          Oh, OK, any mention of food makes me want to eat it. I’m a Nielsen panelist, and a stock answer I give when they survey me about particular foods when asked what I’d like about them is, “It’s food.” I’m over 300#.

            1. You must be the curly lady.

      2. Let me guess, you’re a “picky” eater.

  11. Simple answer:

    “I believe in human rights. I don’t believe some people have more rights than others. If by “gay rights” you mean some people having more rights than others, then no, I don’t believe in gay rights, any more than I believe in white rights, male rights, or anything else that assigns special rights to members of certain groups. Why? Do you believe in equal rights like me, or do you believe some people should have more rights than others?”

    1. And…

      What Buzzfeed will actually print…

      I believe in human rights. I don’t believe some people have more rights than others. If by “gay rights” you mean some people having more rights than others, then no, I don’t believe in gay rights, any more than I believe in white rights, male rights, or anything else that assigns special rights to members of certain groups. Why? Do you believe in equal rights like me, or do you believe some people should have more rights than others?”

    2. What RP said:

      If by “gay rights” you mean some people having more rights than others, then no, I don’t believe in gay rights, any more than I believe in white rights, male rights, or anything else that assigns special rights to members of certain groups.

      What Buzzfeed will quote RP as saying:

      I don’t believe in gay rights

      It’s hardly worth worrying about.

      1. Correction:

        They’ll also quote him as saying:

        I [?] believe in white rights, male rights

    3. Yeah, good point. Gave ’em a freebie sound bite.

      If by “gay rights” you mean some people having more rights than others, then no, I don’t believe in gay rights, any more than I believe in white rights, male rights, or anything else that assigns special rights to members of certain groups.

    4. (laughing) Was the Rand cult asleep when he called gay marriage a “moral crisis” and part of the fix must be “tent revival meetings” across America? Or did Reason also do selective reporting (again).

      Rand Paul, before sanitizing by Reason
      “We need a revival in the country. We need another Great Awakening with tent revivals of thousands of people saying reform or see what’s going to happen if we don’t reform,” he said.

      http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyf…..-time.aspx

      How many other bigots have been drawn to the movement by the Pauls states-rights-masquerading-as-federalism? Is this why the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians? (accepted by only 5.3% of Americans) But 59% accept the label of Nolan libertarians (fiscally conservative and socially liberal) …. while were in “libertarian moment,” despite NO change in over 30 years (when the “libertarian era” really began)? (Survey data by Cato)

      Time we all learn to speak Chinese.

      1. Michael – deep breath.

        First, in a period where the Federal government is ascendant, states rights IS federalism. The only way to have federalism is to increase state’s rights. I understand you have difficulty understanding this because you are a crazy person, but that’s the fact.

        Also, all those numbers you threw out there…mind providing a link to the Cato survey and explaining what you mean? Because most people call themselves ‘fiscally conservative and socially liberal’ but if you actually ask them what they believe, they are neither. So your entire argument is based on self-reported claims that are contradicted by the policies the people actually support, but for some reason you have difficulty understanding the problem here.

        1. First, in a period where the Federal government is ascendant, states rights IS federalism. The only way to have federalism is to increase state’s rights

          Without amending the constitution — to repeal the 9th and 14th Amendments???

          a link to the Cato survey and explaining what you mean?

          Umm, I mean what CATO said.

          http://www.cato.org/policy-rep…..-2004-2006

          So your entire argument is based on self-reported claims that are contradicted

          Cato defined the terms. And Zogby, a major political pollster.

          Because most people call themselves ‘fiscally conservative and socially liberal’ but if you actually ask them what they believe, they are neither

          1) Largely our fault, NEVER showing people how liberty would work … no policies EVER. Just Ivory Tower bullshit.

          2) Tens of thousands of libertarians have been elected to local office by structuring campaigns to the Nolan Profile. For decades.

          3)Who caused the growing acceptance of gay equality, school choice, legalization, etc. — the 5.32% Movement Libertarians, or the 59% Nolan Libertarians?

          4) Also clueless how people evolve WITHIN libertarianism

          Proof: Your friend asks you what are the libertarian policies for the top issues of the day … to restore jobs and the economy — and stop the massive looting of income taxes by Medicare.

          You and your ilk have no answer, which makes YOU the cause of our 91% rejection.
          Thanks.

      2. Fortunately you provided a link to the context of what you quoted misleadingly:

        ultimately Washington, D.C., politicians won’t solve America’s problems and instead a spiritual revival is what is needed.

        “We need a revival in the country. We need another Great Awakening with tent revivals of thousands of people saying reform or see what’s going to happen if we don’t reform,” he said.

        By wrenching it into a different context, you make it seem like he was saying gay marriage was a moral crisis that needed to be addressed by evangelic Protestantism proselytizing.

        1. I assume you’re being sarcastic. That is precisely what he said.

          1. Help me out here, Michael.

            The article you linked to contains no references to either “gay” or “marriage”.

            So, were they talking about gay marriage, or not? Because if not, I have hard time getting to “he was saying gay marriage was a moral crisis that needed to be addressed by evangelic Protestantism proselytizing.”

            1. Well duh, of course you can’t see it. Because only Michael had the aluminum deposits in his brain indicative of Alzheimer’s secret Orphan Annie decoder ring.

              1. Beautiful Bean Footage
                Well duh, of course you can’t see it. Because only Michael had the aluminum deposits in his brain indicative of Alzheimer’s secret Orphan Annie decoder ring

                See this link, retard.

                https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..nt_5194833

                Your tribe cracks me up. The enforcers of GroupThink.

            2. Those are Robert’s words.

              Here’s the title of the original report in Reason:
              “Rand Paul Reaches Out to Evangelicals over ‘Moral Crisis’ Connected to Gay Marriage

              https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..elicals-ov

              Help me out here, Michael.

              Gladly. Which way did you get in? 🙂

              1. But didn’t you just say Reason didn’t report on it? And now you’re saying they did?

                And most importantly: who gives a fuck? Gay marriage at any rate is a low tier issue imo, for the simple reason that marriage is little else but a piece of paper which confers the right to get fleeced by the state (ok, and maybe some tax credits, for some reason).

                Considering that every other viable candidate (including those on the left) have gone off the deep end in far more egregious and practically important ways, I’m having trouble taking this as a big deal. So what exactly was your thesis again? Vote for Hillary?

                1. But didn’t you just say Reason didn’t report on it? And now you’re saying they did?

                  Literacy?

                  And most importantly: who gives a fuck?

                  Libertarians. Aparently, you know nothing about us,

                  Gay marriage at any rate is a low tier issue imo, for the simple reason that marriage is little else but a piece of paper which confers the right to get fleeced by the state (ok, and maybe some tax credits, for some reason).

                  So you’re also ignorant of what marriage is. And don’t give a fuck about equal rights, or the constitution.

                  Considering that every other viable candidate (including those on the left) have gone off the deep end in gone off the deep end in far more egregious and practically important ways,

                  That makes no sense. But fits here nicely.

                  I’m having trouble taking this as a big deal.

                  No surprise, but why should anybody give a damn?

                  So what exactly was your thesis again? Vote for Hillary?

                  I’ll again question your literacy. Since you’re you’re the one who doesn’t give a fuck about constitutional rights — and seems to be proud of it, liberty, you would be the Hillary voter.

                  Are you even of voting age?

        2. Robert
          By wrenching it into a different context, you make it seem like he was saying gay marriage was a moral crisis that needed to be addressed by evangelic Protestantism proselytizing.

          You lose again, Robert. That’s precisielty what he said … per Reason. Here’s the title and link: “Rand Paul Reaches Out to Evangelicals over ‘Moral Crisis’ Connected to Gay Marriage”

          https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..ov#comment

          You’re also clueless about the context. But a loyal cultist.

          1. What cult? I’m not even in his father‘s cult. In 1988 his campaign tried to justify restrictions on immigr’n by invoking trespass on the property of people at the borders.

            Both Drs. Paul are great guys, but I’ve no problem criticizing their campaign positions.

    5. “I believe…some people…like me…. Do you believe some people…?”

  12. I KNEW that either Doherty or Gillespie would have another bullshit excuse for Rand Paul. Rand and his father pull the same con job for decades.

    When Rand says Justice should be blind, he means the same thing his father means. That judges have no power to “impose their views on a state.” — same excuse Orval Faubus used to block the schoolhouse door in 1957, using his State Militia Eisenhower sent in federal troops to use force, if needed, to register 9 black kids in Little Rock’s Central High School.

    Where does Reason stand, with Faubus or “rogue President, Eisenhower. Ron Paul says it was “rogue judges” who struck down federal restrictions in DOMA. He had already tried to forbid homsexuals from defending equal rights in the courts, by denying ANY appeals to DOMA. That’s the worst abuse of individual rights since FDR’s Japanese Internment Camps. Reason says …. not a fucking thing. Shameful.

    Do we have equal and unalienable rights, with the judiciary providing a check on both state and federal legislatures? Was the Court being “rogue” or doing its job with the DOMA ruling? When were the 9th and 14th Amendments repealed?

    Did I mention that both Rand and Ron are full of shit about the Constitution? We have “libertarians” saying that states have powers which have never been delegated. (duh) So did Stalin,Hitler, Pol Pot and the others.

    But the Rand Tribe is just like any other cult of loyal followers.

    1. What Rand said: I believe in individual rights rather than rights based on what collective you belong to.

      What Michael “I might literally be going insane” Hihn heard: Gays and blacks should have their rights eliminated.

      I’m also laughing my ass of at your hysterical appeal to Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot. Take your medication.

      1. (laughing) Here’s what he said that Reason censored for suckers like you,.

        “We need a revival in the country. We need another Great Awakening with tent revivals of thousands of people saying reform or see what’s going to happen if we don’t reform,” he said.

        http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyf…..-time.aspx

        That’s like his crazy-ass father who insists that separation of church does not appear in the constitution — as if it had to (lol) — nor in any writings of the founders (uhh, Jefferson and the entire US Senate????) The very craziest of the Christian Taliban. Pandering to the Santorum crowd, And you defend them.

        Cannot challenge a word I said. And I never said a word about blacks,
        Just believe whatever you’re told by your Tribe. As you stand with Orval Faubus and George Wallace.

      2. “? Rand Paul spoke at a prayer breakfast inside the Capitol Hill Club, right between the House offices and the Republican National Committee. The Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody had exclusive access to the meeting, and had a camera right on Paul as he urged ministers and activist to battle the “moral crisis” that has led to mass acceptance of gay marriage.

        “Don’t always look to Washington to solve anything,” said Paul. “In fact, the moral crisis we have in our country, there is a role for us trying to figure out things like marriage, there’s also a moral crisis that allows people to think that there would be some sort of other marriage. And so, really there’s a role outside and inside government but the exhortation to sort of change people’s thoughts has to come through the countryside, from outside of Washington.”

        “The video was flagged by People for the American Way’s Right Wing Watch, which (unlike Brody) saw the “moral crisis” quote as the news. Two days on, CBN’s version of the video has been taken off line. The RWW video remains, and has been covered as a pre-presidential bid Rand Paul flip-flop. “It seems the pressure to be all things to all people is resulting in the breakdown of his political brand,” wrote Olivia Nuzzi in The Daily Beast.

        http://www.bloomberg.com/polit…..a-timeline

        They already destroyed the libertarian brand.

        1. Ah, there it is.

          Thanks.

          1. You actually think that content makes Mike Hihn’s rendering of that quote as, “Was the Rand cult asleep when he called gay marriage a `moral crisis’ and part of the fix must be “tent revival meetings” across America?” objective? Or were you being ironic?

            1. Nah. I was just looking for some mention of gay marriage at that meeting.

              Looks like there was one.

              Now, even as someone who has no problem with gay people getting married, I’m having a hard time getting my panties bunched up over his call for people to assert themselves politically, regardless of whether they live in the imperial city.

            2. You actually think that content makes Mike Hihn’s rendering of that quote as, “Was the Rand cult asleep when he called gay marriage a `moral crisis’

              Actually, Reason used those words. But your cult is duly noted.

      3. Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns|3.31.15 @ 5:43PM|#
        I’m also laughing my ass of at your hysterical appeal to Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot.

        That’s major, considering you’re a TOTAL ass.

        What I said is that Ron and Rand Paul bullshit about the constitution. So we get *libertarians* claiming states have rights which have never been delegated. Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot said the same thing.

        When you’re finished laughing your ass off — and if there’s anything left of you — please explain to us how state governments (or any level) can have powers that have never been delegated … have you never heard the concept of “delegated powers?”

        But you served the Cult of Ron Paul SO well.

    2. He had already tried to forbid homosexuals from defending equal rights in the courts, by denying ANY appeals to DOMA. That’s the worst abuse of individual rights since FDR’s Japanese Internment Camps.

      People were slaughtered in Cambodia, Boko Haram runs amok in Nigeria, there’s been a war on drugs,…and that’s the worst abuse of individual rights??!!!

      1. The FDR comparison was the clue you missed.

        Tell us anyone else who tried to deny constitutional rights to an entire single class of Americans … optional: based on bullshitting the constitution.

        1. What’d I miss? Since the Japanese internment, that bit about DOMA was the worst abuse?

          By bringing up “the FDR comparison” & “anyone else”, do you mean to say you were referring to the worst abuser rather than worst abuse? That’s even more absurd.

          Tell us anyone else who tried to deny constitutional rights to an entire single class of Americans … optional: based on bullshitting the constitution.

          Any single class? It’s hard to know where to stop the list of victim classes: blacks, drug users & businesspeople, minors, males, male homosexuals, gun keepers…& the number of people who’ve tried to deny these constitutional rights numbers in the millions. Probably the great majority of Americans have wanted to deny some Constitutional rights to some groups of people.

          1. Robert: What’d I miss?

            (laughing).

            Robert:
            People were slaughtered in Cambodia, Boko Haram runs amok in Nigeria, there’s been a war on drugs,…and that’s the worst abuse of individual rights??!!!

            CALL OUT: “The FDR comparison was the clue you missed.”

            Now Robert denies what he quoted in his own comment!!!!!

            https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..nt_5194676

            HIHN (Ron Paul) He had already tried to forbid homosexuals from defending equal rights in the courts, by denying ANY appeals to DOMA. That’s the worst abuse of individual rights since FDR’s Japanese Internment Camps.

            Robert: “People were slaughtered in Cambodia, Boko Haram runs amok in Nigeria, there’s been a war on drugs,…and that’s the worst abuse of individual rights??!”

            It gets funnier

            Any single class?

            Homsexuals are a single class … the class YOU quoted me talking about.

            Even funnier:

            the great majority of Americans have wanted to deny some Constitutional rights to some groups of people.

            Did they sponsor a fucking law forbidding an entire class of Americans from defending their constitutional rights in court like Ron Paul did … as YOU quoted me describing?

            Paul’s cult is desperate to hide his record.

            1. No matter how many times you bring up the clause about FDR, that doesn’t make it make sense. I was assuming there was something that made sense in there that I missed, but if so I still can’t see it.

              As to how many people sponsored laws forbidding classes of Americans from defending rights in court, well, shit, how many people are in the US senate & get to sponsor laws, period? They would if they could!

        2. Re: Michael Hindered,

          Tell us anyone else who tried to deny constitutional rights to an entire single class of Americans

          Socialists and German-Americans?
          Italian-Americans?

          1. Hihn: Tell us anyone else who tried to deny constitutional rights to an entire single class of Americans

            Socialists and German-Americans?
            Italian-Americans?

            Sorry, when and how did they try to deny constitutional rights to an entire class of Americans, like Ron Paul did?

      2. That’s the worst abuse of individual rights since FDR’s Japanese Internment Camps.

        Worse than this?

        http://media-3.web.britannica……8CB497.jpg

        Howsabout this?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till

        Jeebus, Michael, get a clue.

        1. Worse than this?
          http://media-3.web.britannica……8CB497.jpg

          Ummm, How were they legally denied their right to defend their constitutional rights in court?

          Howsabout this?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till

          You say Emmett Till was legally denied his right to defend his constitutional rights in court …. But your own link makes a fool of you, He was murdered in 1955, and they kept trying to establish guilt in …. wait for it … 2004!

          The Ron Paul cult tries to suppress the facts. Other than Ron Paul, who ever tried to legally deny an entire group of Americans the right to defend their constitutional rights in court (and FDR as the example)?

          And you DARE to defend his moral atrocity? Shameful

          1. How many times can you move the goalposts & still be on the same field?

    3. Re: Michael Hindered,

      When Rand says Justice should be blind, he means the same thing his father means. That judges have no power to “impose their views on a state.”

      Like for instance pot legalization, perhaps?

      same excuse Orval Faubus used to block the schoolhouse door in 1957

      Oh, well, I guess then that the concept of State rights is invalidated by that little piece of history. Never mind other things like pot legalization and the like. No State rights because someone used it as an excuse, somewhere.

      Idiot.

      We have “libertarians” saying that states have powers which have never been delegated. (duh) So did Stalin,Hitler, Pol Pot and the others.

      Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot never said they were in favor of state rights. They were in fact clearly against the notion of State rights. none more so than Stalin. You’re not only an ignorant little shit, you;’re a fucking liar – the scum of the Earth, to put it succinctly.

      1. In this country, the Republicans, who libertarians mostly ally with including the Pauls, have historically championed states’ rights when it came to protect the majority and the comfortable, such as preferring a powerful state versus the civil rights movement, but have been silent or hostile to states’ rights when it comes to protecting the less powerful, such as with the war on drugs.
        Individuals may have differing views, but those in power have historically used states’ rights to empower the state against the people, but not to empower the people.

        1. Happy Chandler|3.31.15 @ 7:05PM|#
          but have been silent or hostile to states’ rights when it comes to protecting the less powerful, such as with the war on drugs.

          Drugs are NOT a states rights issue, except for some minor aspects. 9th Amendment.

          Individuals may have differing views, but those in power have historically used states’ rights to empower the state against the people, but not to empower the people.

          That MAY be an anti-libertarian rant, but your insights are still correct.. And the abuses have almost always been used by bigots to suppress people. I prefer using federalism as the constitutional standard and states rights as the abuse.

          States don’t have rights. People do. States Rights is a bullshit excuse to violate fundamental rights at the state level … to reject equal rights as properly defended by the federal courts. And Ron Paul is the worst abuser since Faubus, Wallace et al in the 50s. He uses liberty rhetoric — not for us — but to make the bigots seem legitimate. We (some of us) get suckered by the liberty rhetoric, never seeing how crazy it is. Tribalism.

          Rand Paul is an exception, essentially invented and promoted by Reason as a fundraising tool, a libertarian moment when we’re actually at the Eve of Destruction.
          You won’t see such total idolatry and excuse-making anywhere else in the movement. I call them Ron Paul’s Ministry of Propaganda.

        2. Right, we need a strong federal government to empower “the people”. I also think I can fix this migraine by sticking my head in a wood chip.

          1. Right, we need a strong federal government to empower “the people”.

            I’m not responsible for your insane conclusions.
            The Constitution delegates to NO level of government any power over marriage.
            But you’re frozen in the statist delusion that one of them MUST have power.

            I also think I can fix this migraine by sticking my head in a wood chip

            Instead of your head being filled with wood chips?

            1. I’m not responsible for your insane conclusions.

              FTFY

              1. juris imprudent (aptly named) defends government power over marriage

                quotes me:
                I’m not responsible for your insane conclusions.
                The Constitution delegates to NO level of government any power over marriage. But you’re frozen in the statist delusion that one of them MUST have power.

                “reponds”
                FTFY

                One more bobblehead from the Cult of Ron Paul.
                Anyone else believe ANY government was EVER delegated ANY power over marriage? … and that it was “rogue judges” who decided Brown v Board of Education … and cheers Ron Paul’s attempt to legally forbid those hateful homosexuals from defending their rights in Court?

              2. FTFY

                Umm,really? It’s an insane lie that I argued for “a strong federal government to empower ‘the people.'”

                Simply copy and paste my words which caused your hissy fit.

                Drugs are NOT a states rights issue, except for some minor aspects. 9th Amendment.

                (I quote who I responding to)

                That MAY be an anti-libertarian rant, but your insights are still correct.. And the abuses have almost always been used by bigots to suppress people. I prefer using federalism as the constitutional standard and states rights as the abuse.

                States don’t have rights. People do. States Rights is a bullshit excuse to violate fundamental rights at the state level … to reject equal rights as properly defended by the federal courts. And Ron Paul is the worst abuser since Faubus, Wallace et al in the 50s. He uses liberty rhetoric — not for us — but to make the bigots seem legitimate. We (some of us) get suckered by the liberty rhetoric, never seeing how crazy it is. Tribalism.

                Rand Paul is an exception, essentially invented and promoted by Reason as a fundraising tool, a libertarian moment when we’re actually at the Eve of Destruction.

                You won’t see such total idolatry and excuse-making anywhere else in the movement. I call them Ron Paul’s Ministry of Propaganda.

                Then tell us where ANY level of government has EVER been delegated ANY power over marriage. You’ve been called out.

                1. Judges everywhere have been delegated power over marriage every time people took to court a case that hinged on whether a couple was married.

      2. HIHN: “same excuse Orval Faubus used to block the schoolhouse door in 1957”

        Oh, well, I guess then that the concept of State rights is invalidated by that little piece of history.

        It shows that it’s never was a state’s rights issue .

        Never mind other things like pot legalization and the like.

        (lol) Now you’re defending state regulation of pot!!!

        Idiot.

        It’s you and Ron Paul defending state regulation of marriage. The constitution already prohibits all levels of government any power over marriage. That’s what a real libertarian would fight for. But Ron and Rand are fucking tools of the Christian Taliban.

        Here’s what I really said:

        https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..nt_5194552
        Did I mention that both Rand and Ron are full of shit about the Constitution? We have “libertarians” saying that states have powers which have never been delegated. So did Stalin,Hitler, Pol Pot and the others.

        Now the Cult follower

        Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot never said they were in favor of state rights. They were in fact clearly against the notion of State rights. none more so than Stalin. You’re not only an ignorant little shit, you;’re a fucking liar – the scum of the Earth, to put it succinctly.

        Umm, trashmouth defended states having undelegated powers!.

        1. It really is painful to listen to you Michael Hihn. You are quickly becoming The Most Obnoxious Troll On Reason.

          Congratulations.

          1. jay_dubya|3.31.15 @ 9:49PM
            You are quickly becoming The Most Obnoxious Troll On Reason.

            Ron Paul’s Cult Follower is pissed that I made an ass out of his puppetmaster.

            So dubya defends lying about the constitution to support rank bigotry by the Christian Taliban.

            And dubya believes states can have power that has never been delegated — thus rejecting the “government of delegated powers”

            These folks have damn near killed the libertarian movement.

        2. “States having undelegated powers.” Errr, powers not delegated to the federal government default to the states. That’s just a fact, learn to live with it.

          The Pauls’ position, quite simply, was to favor limitations on the ability of the federal government to interfere with state legislation, as states, they believe, better represent the interests of their particular constituents. You throw a fit over gay marriage, but you forget that the shoe is as often as not on the other foot, such as the federal government sending people to prison for drug crimes regardless of what the constituents of the state want within that state. In other words, the federal government is every bit as capable (more actually) of depriving people of their liberties as the state governments. The argument (which you willfully ignore) would be that enfranchising the federal government to interfere with state legislation (which you justify as facilitating gay marriage legalization) would also enfranchise the federal government to violate the rights of citizens in myriad ways.

          You are willfully myopic. Court rulings have consequences beyond their immediate effects. But the empowerment of the federal government, even for whatever nice little good intentions you have, would come back to bite everyone in the ass soon enough. You unshackle a larger beast to combat a smaller one, never considering that the former might turn on you when he’s done with the latter.

          1. MarkLastName reveals the Paulist Cult Fallacy

            Errr, powers not delegated to the federal government default to the states. That’s just a fact, learn to live with it.

            You fucked up the 10th amendment and reject the 9th. .

            The Pauls’ position, quite simply, was to favor limitations on the ability of the federal government to interfere with state legislation,

            I know their position. It’s identical to the KKK, and I’ve already explained your error.

            In other words, the federal government is every bit as capable (more actually) of depriving people of their liberties as the state governments.

            DUH, OF COURSE, Your cult would leave us defenseless. Without the Judiciary protecting our rights, you’d leaving us at the mercy of legislatures. Learn what Balance of Powers mean. And Checks and Balances.

            The argument (which you willfully ignore)

            (snicker)

            would be that enfranchising the federal government to interfere with state legislation (which you justify as facilitating gay marriage legalization) would also enfranchise the federal government to violate the rights of citizens in myriad ways.

            Defending individual rights is a threat to individual rights????
            Umm, what you say works in both directions. But YOU would eave us defenseless.

    4. “…the worst abuse of individual rights since FDR’s Japanese Internment Camps.”
      Did you just have an aneurysm, Michael?

      1. MartkLastName and the shame of Ron Paul’s Cult (gasp)

        Quotes me
        “Ron Paul tried to legallly forbid homsexuals from defending equal rights in the courts, by denying ANY appeals to DOMA. That’s the worst abuse of individual rights since FDR’s Japanese Internment Camps.

        Defends Paul’s abuse of power:

        Did you just have an aneurysm, Michael?

        How can you defend Ron Paul’s shameful attempt to legally forbid gays from defending their constitutional rights in Court ,,, by forbidding any legal appeals to DOMA … under the pretense of Phony Federalism?

        How low must you sink before you catch on?

  13. Celebrity Troll Match: Michael Hihn vs. Bo Cara Esq. Who wins and why?

    1. HazelMeade, tribal enforcer, shouting down heretics.
      Can we get her to state her positions on anything here?
      Or just a rock thrower?

  14. Any thread that mentions a Paul will get the Hihnbeast to appear. It’s painful to watch and I’m embarrassed for him.

    1. The Ron Paul Cult defends the “federalism” of the KKK, denies the judiciary any role in defending constitutional rights ? lies about the 10th Amendment and reject the Ninth and 14th ? celebrates Ron Paul’s shameful attempt to legally forbid gays the right to defend their rights in Court.

      The Ron Paul Cult believes “rogue judges” decided Brown v Board of Education

      Ninth Amendment

      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

      Simple English. When the puppets say marriage is never mentioned in the Constitution, that’s because the power was never delegated. Ron Paul says he wants government out of marriage … it already is.. DUH

      It’s painful to watch and I’m embarrassed for him.

      I pity the bobblehead who believe the Courts “overreached” in Brown v Board of Education. Shame on you.

      14th Amendment

      No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      I protested bigots in the 50s … and today. PrivateFUQ is a victim of GroupThink.

  15. Correct me if I’m wrong (I don’t read buzzfeed… It’s possibly the first place on the internet I consciously boycott), but if it’s a buzzfeed article, doesn’t that mean it was written by some random millennial that registered on the site the day before?

  16. And this is like the worst chat room ever.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.