florida drug test for welfare recipiants

[Banned]

"Mercury laden fish, dead streams, dead miners, support of race discrimination are ALL things YOU JOE, indirectly stand for and you cannot deny it"

OH, I do deny it. Just because you post it does not make it true.

[Hawk]

During a recent hearing on the one-year anniversary of the deadly mine disaster, Sen. Paul (R-KY) reportedly argued against a new rule that would limit miners' exposure to coal dust, which causes black-lung disease, saying that the regulation would be too "burdensome." As reported by the Courier-Journal:

Sen. Rand Paul questioned the need Thursday for new federal new coal-mining rules to reduce black-lung disease, despite federal figures showing the illness has been on the rise in recent years, killing about 1,500 miners annually. [...]

"Every regulation doesn't save lives," Paul said at a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. "There is a point or a balancing act between when a regulation becomes burdensome and our energy production is stifled. We have to assess the cost."

Paul said during the hearing that the government had done "a pretty good job" in recent decades of reducing the incidence of black lung - an often incurable and fatal disease caused by breathing years of coal dust.

But figures from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health show a spike in black lung rates in recent years.

As offensive and outrageous as his comments are, they are reflective of Paul's deep disdain for the role of government in safeguarding American workers and citizens. Indeed, the senator's virulent anti-regulatory streak explains why he has introduced legislation to overturn current and block future federal regulations that ensure our health and safety. His bill is called the "Regulations of the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act" -- commonly referred to as the REINS Act. (As in to "rein" in government, get it?)

Sen. Paul's legislation is explicitly designed to make it much more difficult to implement safeguards, including those that protect public health, the environment, and food safety. His bill would kill any significant safeguard that both houses of Congress did not approve in 70 days. Requiring such second-guessing by Congress of every potential public health advance would shift decision-making from experts to politicians; allow Congress to undermine existing laws without amending them; and enable a majority in one House of Congress to void legal protections, dispensing with the role of the other body and the President.

The REINS Act may seem ridiculous but it represents a very real threat to all of us.

[Hawk]

"Mercury laden fish, dead streams, dead miners, support of race discrimination are ALL things YOU JOE, indirectly stand for and you cannot deny it"

OH, I do deny it. Just because you post it does not make it true.

Oh but it is true. You are against regulating coal burning which leads to Mercury poison ! Deny that !

You already admitted you would allow any racist who owns a business open to the public to discriminate against minorities, even throwing a mighty "white" comment, "I would also support a black if he wanted to discriminate against whites". Deny that !

You support Rand Paul who is on record against many mining regulations. Deny that !

[Banned]

Seems to me that you misunderstood the word "new" rule for "no" rules or regulations.

That is not fair. You said he was for NO mining regulations. He seems to against this new regulation under consideration.

I agree with Rand Paul on most of that statement. I do not have a current working knowledge of all the coal mining regulations there are, nor do I know the exact wording of this new rule.

He said "Every regulation doesn't save lives," I agree with that.

The government regulates drugs, yet somehow people still die from drugs. Not every regulation works nor is needed.

Rand Paul said during the hearing that the government had done "a pretty good job" in recent decades of reducing the incidence of black lung----that does not sound like someone who wants NO regulations.

Bill, I think you fibbed a little about Rand Paul.

[lonewolf]

During a recent hearing on the one-year anniversary of the deadly mine disaster, Sen. Paul (R-KY) reportedly argued against a new rule that would limit miners' exposure to coal dust, which causes black-lung disease, saying that the regulation would be too "burdensome." As reported by the Courier-Journal:

Sen. Rand Paul questioned the need Thursday for new federal new coal-mining rules to reduce black-lung disease, despite federal figures showing the illness has been on the rise in recent years, killing about 1,500 miners annually. [...]

"Every regulation doesn't save lives," Paul said at a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. "There is a point or a balancing act between when a regulation becomes burdensome and our energy production is stifled. We have to assess the cost."

Paul said during the hearing that the government had done "a pretty good job" in recent decades of reducing the incidence of black lung - an often incurable and fatal disease caused by breathing years of coal dust.

But figures from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health show a spike in black lung rates in recent years.

As offensive and outrageous as his comments are, they are reflective of Paul's deep disdain for the role of government in safeguarding American workers and citizens. Indeed, the senator's virulent anti-regulatory streak explains why he has introduced legislation to overturn current and block future federal regulations that ensure our health and safety. His bill is called the "Regulations of the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act" -- commonly referred to as the REINS Act. (As in to "rein" in government, get it?)

Sen. Paul's legislation is explicitly designed to make it much more difficult to implement safeguards, including those that protect public health, the environment, and food safety. His bill would kill any significant safeguard that both houses of Congress did not approve in 70 days. Requiring such second-guessing by Congress of every potential public health advance would shift decision-making from experts to politicians; allow Congress to undermine existing laws without amending them; and enable a majority in one House of Congress to void legal protections, dispensing with the role of the other body and the President.

The REINS Act may seem ridiculous but it represents a very real threat to all of us.

Is there any evidence that these proposed government regulations are effective?

Just because a senator proposes regulations doesn't mean that they are useful for anything.

It just seems like senators who have been life long politicians and haven't done anything but legislate, suddenly become mining engineers and are experts on black lung.

The only thing they are really good at is getting re-elected.

[Banned]

Oh but it is true. You are against regulating coal burning which leads to Mercury poison ! Deny that !


Show me the post where I actually said that.


You already admitted you would allow any racist who owns a business open to the public to discriminate against minorities, even throwing a mighty "white" comment, "I would also support a black if he wanted to discriminate against whites". Deny that !


I support property rights.


You support Rand Paul who is on record against many mining regulations. Deny that !

You changed it from NO regulations to "many" regulations? Which one am I answering Mr. Prosecutor?

[Hawk]

Oh but it is true. You are against regulating coal burning which leads to Mercury poison ! Deny that !


Show me the post where I actually said that.


You already admitted you would allow any racist who owns a business open to the public to discriminate against minorities, even throwing a mighty "white" comment, "I would also support a black if he wanted to discriminate against whites". Deny that !


I support property rights.


You support Rand Paul who is on record against many mining regulations. Deny that !

You changed it from NO regulations to "many" regulations? Which one am I answering Mr. Prosecutor?

I heard him say NO regulations.

[Hawk]

Germany under the Nazis had a capatalistic economy. Pure socailism is communism. I am against socailism, I am for some necessary social projects.

BTW one of the first things the Nazi's did was ban workers unions. Where do you stand on unions Joe ?

[Banned]

Well you post shows no such statement. That is why I asked for a real, clear source. You distort so many things about libertarians, I cannot trust what you think you heard.

He is questioning a new regulation. As Lonewolf posts, who here knows if it is a good or a needed regulation. I state that none of us are qualified to make decisions on whether this new regulation is effective or needed.

You jump to the conclusion that questioning a new rule is the same as wanting no rules or regulations.

That won't fly here.

[Hawk]

Well you post shows no such statement. That is why I asked for a real, clear source. You distort so many things about libertarians, I cannot trust what you think you heard.

He is questioning a new regulation. As Lonewolf posts, who here knows if it is a good or a needed regulation. I state that none of us are qualified to make decisions on whether this new regulation is effective or needed.

You jump to the conclusion that questioning a new rule is the same as wanting no rules or regulations.

That won't fly here.

That post has nothing to do with what I heard him say. That was just more of what I found that he said.

[Banned]

Germany under the Nazis had a capatalistic economy. Pure socailism is communism. I am against socailism, I am for some necessary social projects.

BTW one of the first things the Nazi's did was ban workers unions. Where do you stand on unions Joe ?

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

You should read that Bill. Says the socialist Nazis despised communism.

You should read this too, it describes what you want in politics to the T.

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

"It differs from classical liberalism in that it believes it to be a legitimate role of the state to address economic and social issues such as unemployment, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding civil rights."

[Banned]

Well you post shows no such statement. That is why I asked for a real, clear source. You distort so many things about libertarians, I cannot trust what you think you heard.

He is questioning a new regulation. As Lonewolf posts, who here knows if it is a good or a needed regulation. I state that none of us are qualified to make decisions on whether this new regulation is effective or needed.

You jump to the conclusion that questioning a new rule is the same as wanting no rules or regulations.

That won't fly here.

That post has nothing to do with what I heard him say. That was just more of what I found that he said.

Because he really did not say it. You wanted him to say it, and that is what you thought you heard.

[lonewolf]

Germany under the Nazis had a capatalistic economy. Pure socailism is communism. I am against socailism, I am for some necessary social projects.

BTW one of the first things the Nazi's did was ban workers unions. Where do you stand on unions Joe ?

Incorrect. Nazi Germany used something called the Third Position economy which is centrally managed and has very few aspects of capitalism. As the name implies, National Socialism promoted many aspects of socialism, including several protections for workers.

Technically, socialism is an economic system and communism is one of many political systems that utilize a socialist economic system.

[Hawk]

Rand Paul: Government should not regulate mine industry
By Matt DeLong

In a new profile in Details magazine, Kentucky GOP Senate candidate Rand Paul is quoted arguing that the coal mining industry should be allowed to self-regulate without interference from the federal government. Here's a quote from a speech Paul gave recently at a coal facility operated by a subsidiary of Massey Energy, the owner of the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia, where an explosion killed 29 miners in April.


"Is there a certain amount of accidents and unfortunate things that do happen, no matter what the regulations are?" Paul says at the Harlan Center, in response to a question about the Big Branch disaster. "The bottom line is I'm not an expert, so don't give me the power in Washington to be making rules. You live here, and you have to work in the mines. You'd try to make good rules to protect your people here. If you don't, I'm thinking that no one will apply for those jobs."

Paul also said that the practice of mountaintop removal mining simply needs to be rebranded.


"I think they should name it something better," he says. "The top ends up flatter, but we're not talking about Mount Everest. We're talking about these little knobby hills that are everywhere out here. And I've seen the reclaimed lands. One of them is 800 acres, with a sports complex on it, elk roaming, covered in grass." Most people, he continues, "would say the land is of enhanced value, because now you can build on it."

(Via The Hill)

Now the interview I saw was Rand explaining that statement. When ask, he repeated "The government should not be making regulations." And he repeated that the mines should be "SELF REGULATED" and if they're unsafe he thinks people can choose to not work there.

I'll expect an appoligy...I did not tell a lie.

[autumnsky]

HOLY CHEEZEBALLS!!! Some one PULEEEZE cue the music!!!

[Banned]

"Is there a certain amount of accidents and unfortunate things that do happen, no matter what the regulations are?" Paul says at the Harlan Center, in response to a question about the Big Branch disaster. "The bottom line is I'm not an expert, so don't give me the power in Washington to be making rules. You live here, and you have to work in the mines. You'd try to make good rules to protect your people here. If you don't, I'm thinking that no one will apply for those jobs."

What is wrong with that statement? Is he supposed to be like other politicians and claim he is an expert on all things?

"I think they should name it something better," he says. "The top ends up flatter, but we're not talking about Mount Everest. We're talking about these little knobby hills that are everywhere out here. And I've seen the reclaimed lands. One of them is 800 acres, with a sports complex on it, elk roaming, covered in grass." Most people, he continues, "would say the land is of enhanced value, because now you can build on it."

This sounds a little different from how you describe the air and water Bill. I have no problem with this.

"Now the interview I saw was Rand explaining that statement. When ask, he repeated "The government should not be making regulations." And he repeated that the mines should be "SELF REGULATED" and if they're unsafe he thinks people can choose to not work there."

Can you provide a link verifying the quotes, and in context. Just taking a few words out and using them as you wish does not fly either.

[ZappasXWife]

Wasn't this thread about drug testing? You have totally lost me and many others on this thread, so...I guess have at it by yourselves. Bye!

[Banned]

Wasn't this thread about drug testing? You have totally lost me and many others on this thread, so...I guess have at it by yourselves. Bye!

a few here are smoking their haddock

[Banned]

I posted about drug testing. Against it. Against drug laws.

Bill used another opportunity to attack and distort libertarianism.

[slackin@dabass]

Actually, I do see two wrongs...1st is the welfare state itself. It has done nothing but create a government sanctioned slave state. The so called "War on Poverty", instituted in the early 60's has begat us nothing but greater poverty. Personally, I'd abolish the welfare state and let private charities handle the situation. IMO, they've done a better job.

The 2nd, is,
yes, the invasion of privacy that comes with mandatory drug testing. Keep in mind, this is not coming from a private institution (which I have no problem with), this is coming from the government...is that really how a government should treat it's citizens? I'd also decriminalize drugs. The "War on Drugs" has created nothing more than increased drug usage, more potent drugs, militarized our police, and criminalized an entire segment of our population.

You know, politicians are nothing more than people who are living off the tax payers money...should we require a drug test of them too?

If you get a check from the government you should be piss tested. So just a question... if all drugs were legalized today would it be ok with you if private companies still required piss tests?

How about those with and on SSI disabilities? Should they be piss tested?

"Legalization" of drugs..what does that mean? All those drugs that are restricted and classified for that which you now need a script from a licencesd M.D. should be freelay available without?? Do YOu or anyone here have the expertise to to safley "self-prescribe" this stuff??

Does an ssi check come from the government? I know of people that collect disabilty and work under the table and do drugs. Yea, test them.

And legalization of class 1 narcotics. You know that list, its the one with heroin amd weed in it. Cuz sooooooo many people od on pot.

[slackin@dabass]

Zappa's ex, your right, they do only pay if they test hot. But the harder stuff passes through your system faster? Really? Never heard that before. Now i may not be as old as you but ive been around my share of users and whatnot and that is the first ive ever heard that. Dosnt really matyer though... how lany "occasional" junkies you ever heard about?

[Hawk]

"Is there a certain amount of accidents and unfortunate things that do happen, no matter what the regulations are?" Paul says at the Harlan Center, in response to a question about the Big Branch disaster. "The bottom line is I'm not an expert, so don't give me the power in Washington to be making rules. You live here, and you have to work in the mines. You'd try to make good rules to protect your people here. If you don't, I'm thinking that no one will apply for those jobs."

What is wrong with that statement? Is he supposed to be like other politicians and claim he is an expert on all things?

"I think they should name it something better," he says. "The top ends up flatter, but we're not talking about Mount Everest. We're talking about these little knobby hills that are everywhere out here. And I've seen the reclaimed lands. One of them is 800 acres, with a sports complex on it, elk roaming, covered in grass." Most people, he continues, "would say the land is of enhanced value, because now you can build on it."

This sounds a little different from how you describe the air and water Bill. I have no problem with this.

"Now the interview I saw was Rand explaining that statement. When ask, he repeated "The government should not be making regulations." And he repeated that the mines should be "SELF REGULATED" and if they're unsafe he thinks people can choose to not work there."

Can you provide a link verifying the quotes, and in context. Just taking a few words out and using them as you wish does not fly either.

The regulations are made based on needs, not because they know more. People die. Why did they die. Because methane wasn't vented. Well, let's make a regulation that they need to properly vent methane.

A mine with NO government regulations is like putting a fox in charge of the hen house. That's what's wrong with that statement.

On the second paragraph, Rand did not explain WHY the EPA was against the mountain top procedure. Why would he ? He's not going to tell you about the polution that it is causing ? And you chose a blind eye to that which you already knew. Hmmm.

I know Nazis hate communism. I've been trying to tell you that. It's because the communists are socialists. The Germans used the word socialist as in the social community aspect of "everyone for the fatherland". NOT in the context that everyone worked for the government. They did not.

Joe, This IS funny. If a group of American Nazi's bought and opened a restaurant, you would support their right to allow ONLY WHITE PEOPLE in to the shop. Who's the Nazi lover now Joe ?

What your stance on unions Joe, the same as the Nazis ? Hell yes.

Joe:
"Seems to me that you misunderstood the word "new" rule for "no" rules or regulations.

That is not fair. You said he was for NO mining regulations. He seems to against this new regulation under consideration. "

Seems to me he said "NO" government regulations.

Joe:
"Because he really did not say it. You wanted him to say it, and that is what you thought you heard."

Seems you were afraid he said "NO". You wanted him to say something else so you would not believe me.

Joe:
"Can you provide a link verifying the quotes, and in context. Just taking a few words out and using them as you wish does not fly either."

I gave you the quotes in context, the author and the magazine it was in. Do you want me to read it aloud to you ?

[Hawk]

I posted about drug testing. Against it. Against drug laws.

Bill used another opportunity to attack and distort libertarianism.

Joe is right. He spewed his Libertarian view on drugs and I called him on it. Then It was my fault that I brought in three other problems I have with his principals. No distortions though. Joe you are welcomed to list the distortions as you see them.

I posed no opinion on drug testing, only possible effects of it. Joe proposed legalizing all drugs, hard or soft. I have a problem with making hard drugs legal.

[Banned]

"Is there a certain amount of accidents and unfortunate things that do happen, no matter what the regulations are?" Paul says at the Harlan Center, in response to a question about the Big Branch disaster. "The bottom line is I'm not an expert, so don't give me the power in Washington to be making rules. You live here, and you have to work in the mines. You'd try to make good rules to protect your people here. If you don't, I'm thinking that no one will apply for those jobs."

What is wrong with that statement? Is he supposed to be like other politicians and claim he is an expert on all things?

"I think they should name it something better," he says. "The top ends up flatter, but we're not talking about Mount Everest. We're talking about these little knobby hills that are everywhere out here. And I've seen the reclaimed lands. One of them is 800 acres, with a sports complex on it, elk roaming, covered in grass." Most people, he continues, "would say the land is of enhanced value, because now you can build on it."

This sounds a little different from how you describe the air and water Bill. I have no problem with this.

"Now the interview I saw was Rand explaining that statement. When ask, he repeated "The government should not be making regulations." And he repeated that the mines should be "SELF REGULATED" and if they're unsafe he thinks people can choose to not work there."

Can you provide a link verifying the quotes, and in context. Just taking a few words out and using them as you wish does not fly either.

The regulations are made based on needs, not because they know more. People die. Why did they die. Because methane wasn't vented. Well, let's make a regulation that they need to properly vent methane.

So, you know for certain there are no regulations on methane venting?

A mine with NO government regulations is like putting a fox in charge of the hen house. That's what's wrong with that statement.

Back to NO regulations. Rand seems to be talking about a new regulation they were condidering. Is it NO or new? There is a defference.

On the second paragraph, Rand did not explain WHY the EPA was against the mountain top procedure. Why would he ? He's not going to tell you about the polution that it is causing ? And you chose a blind eye to that which you already knew. Hmmm.

How do I know there is pollution? Because you said so? Bill this thread has shown to me not to take you at your word. I must see the source.

I know Nazis hate communism. I've been trying to tell you that. It's because the communists are socialists. The Germans used the word socialist as in the social community aspect of "everyone for the fatherland". NOT in the context that everyone worked for the government. They did not.

So the socialists were not socialists because you say so?

Joe, This IS funny. If a group of American Nazi's bought and opened a restaurant, you would support their right to allow ONLY WHITE PEOPLE in to the shop. Who's the Nazi lover now Joe ?

What your stance on unions Joe, the same as the Nazis ? Hell yes.

Bill, I am for letting Jewish union members live, unlike the socialist Nazis.

Joe:

"Seems to me that you misunderstood the word "new" rule for "no" rules or regulations.

That is not fair. You said he was for NO mining regulations. He seems to against this new regulation under consideration. "

Seems to me he said "NO" government regulations.

Joe:
"Because he really did not say it. You wanted him to say it, and that is what you thought you heard."

Seems you were afraid he said "NO". You wanted him to say something else so you would not believe me.

Joe:
"Can you provide a link verifying the quotes, and in context. Just taking a few words out and using them as you wish does not fly either."

I gave you the quotes in context, the author and the magazine it was in. Do you want me to read it aloud to you ?

You ask my opinion on Rand Paul saying he is for NO regulations. Yet the source you provide does not say that. You distort what Rand Paul and libertarians in general stand for.

I can understand you not being comfortable being called on it.

[Hawk]

"Is there a certain amount of accidents and unfortunate things that do happen, no matter what the regulations are?" Paul says at the Harlan Center, in response to a question about the Big Branch disaster. "The bottom line is I'm not an expert, so don't give me the power in Washington to be making rules. You live here, and you have to work in the mines. You'd try to make good rules to protect your people here. If you don't, I'm thinking that no one will apply for those jobs."

What is wrong with that statement? Is he supposed to be like other politicians and claim he is an expert on all things?

"I think they should name it something better," he says. "The top ends up flatter, but we're not talking about Mount Everest. We're talking about these little knobby hills that are everywhere out here. And I've seen the reclaimed lands. One of them is 800 acres, with a sports complex on it, elk roaming, covered in grass." Most people, he continues, "would say the land is of enhanced value, because now you can build on it."

This sounds a little different from how you describe the air and water Bill. I have no problem with this.

"Now the interview I saw was Rand explaining that statement. When ask, he repeated "The government should not be making regulations." And he repeated that the mines should be "SELF REGULATED" and if they're unsafe he thinks people can choose to not work there."

Can you provide a link verifying the quotes, and in context. Just taking a few words out and using them as you wish does not fly either.

The regulations are made based on needs, not because they know more. People die. Why did they die. Because methane wasn't vented. Well, let's make a regulation that they need to properly vent methane.

So, you know for certain there are no regulations on methane venting?

A mine with NO government regulations is like putting a fox in charge of the hen house. That's what's wrong with that statement.

Back to NO regulations. Rand seems to be talking about a new regulation they were condidering. Is it NO or new? There is a defference.

On the second paragraph, Rand did not explain WHY the EPA was against the mountain top procedure. Why would he ? He's not going to tell you about the polution that it is causing ? And you chose a blind eye to that which you already knew. Hmmm.

How do I know there is pollution? Because you said so? Bill this thread has shown to me not to take you at your word. I must see the source.

I know Nazis hate communism. I've been trying to tell you that. It's because the communists are socialists. The Germans used the word socialist as in the social community aspect of "everyone for the fatherland". NOT in the context that everyone worked for the government. They did not.

So the socialists were not socialists because you say so?

Joe, This IS funny. If a group of American Nazi's bought and opened a restaurant, you would support their right to allow ONLY WHITE PEOPLE in to the shop. Who's the Nazi lover now Joe ?

What your stance on unions Joe, the same as the Nazis ? Hell yes.

Bill, I am for letting Jewish union members live, unlike the socialist Nazis.

Joe:

"Seems to me that you misunderstood the word "new" rule for "no" rules or regulations.

That is not fair. You said he was for NO mining regulations. He seems to against this new regulation under consideration. "

Seems to me he said "NO" government regulations.

Joe:
"Because he really did not say it. You wanted him to say it, and that is what you thought you heard."

Seems you were afraid he said "NO". You wanted him to say something else so you would not believe me.

Joe:
"Can you provide a link verifying the quotes, and in context. Just taking a few words out and using them as you wish does not fly either."

I gave you the quotes in context, the author and the magazine it was in. Do you want me to read it aloud to you ?

You ask my opinion on Rand Paul saying he is for NO regulations. Yet the source you provide does not say that. You distort what Rand Paul and libertarians in general stand for.

I can understand you not being comfortable being called on it.

You mean this source ?
Rand Paul: Government should not regulate mine industry
By Matt DeLong

Yes, there are methane regulations. i described how they came about, a need arose and the government made the regulation.

Links relative to mountain top pollution:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/13/1 ... -mine.html

http://www.jnabs.org/doi/abs/10.1899/08-015.1

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 214742.htm

http://blog.nwf.org/wildlifepromise/201 ... dget-deal/

Would you like to eat some of those fish ? Or are you saving them for the next generation ?


Hawk:
Oh but it is true. You are against regulating coal burning which leads to Mercury poison ! Deny that !

Joe;
Show me the post where I actually said that.

So you are FOR coal burning regulations ?

Joe:
Back to NO regulations. Rand seems to be talking about a new regulation they were condidering. Is it NO or new? There is a defference.

Check the dates Joe. He said he was against any government regulations first. Then he commented on the proposed bill at a later date.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 025022.php
August 3, 2010
RAND PAUL FACES HEAT OVER OPPOSITION TO MINER SAFETY.... Kentucky's Rand Paul (R), the extremist Senate candidate, explained recently that he rejects the notion that the government should establish safety regulations to protect mine workers. This week, he's starting take some heat for it.

As Paul explained, he doesn't understand mine safety rules, "so don't give me the power in Washington to be making rules." He added that, by honoring the free market above all, "no one will apply for those jobs" if a mine doesn't do a good job protecting worker safety.

In Kentucky's mining areas, Paul's remarks didn't go over especially well.

Members of the United Mine Workers from Kentucky have scheduled a news conference via phone Tuesday to take Paul to task for the remarks.

Tony Oppegard, a Lexington attorney who is a mine-safety advocate, called Paul's statement "idiotic."

He said it shows a lack of understanding of Eastern Kentucky, the region's economy and of the history of underground coal mining in the region, where for generations coal operators strongly opposed efforts by workers to form unions. In Harlan County, deadly battles over union organizing helped earned the county the nickname "Bloody Harlan."

Working conditions in underground mines are dangerous enough with federal and state rules, Oppegard said. If the industry were unregulated by government, "there would be a bloodbath," he said.

Paul is misinformed when he says no one would take jobs in mines that weren't safe, Oppegard said. Miners would take jobs even in unsafe mines because they need work, he said.

"There's no other job opportunities," Oppegard said.



This touches on what I like most about this story. Rand Paul has a nice little worldview, shaped by a bizarre, inflexible libertarianism. And in this little world Paul has created in his mind, everything should work as he envisions -- the free market can and should dictate safety regulations at coal mines. If employers don't look out for their workers, those employers won't have applicants for job openings, which means less business, less profit, etc.

And while Rand Paul's nice little vision is just delightful in an Ayn Rand novel, it's contradicted by everything we know and have seen about reality. Indeed, how does the Republican Senate hopeful explain the nightmarish conditions miners faced before federal safety regulations? Shouldn't the free market have prevented such a disastrous set of circumstances and prevented the dangerous exploitation of desperate workers?

It's not uncommon for conservatives to suggest that "liberal elites" don't understand the "real world" because their political ideals are rooted in an "ivory tower." This, of course, is backwards -- it's the far-right worldview that crumbles when subjected to real-world conditions.

Seems I'm not the only one that thinks Rand lives in a fantasy world of his own.