RANDSLIDE! (Map)

[Galileo]

RANDSLIDE! (Map)

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/135089

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/135089

:lobt2:

Congratulations Rand! Spectacular Victory Speech

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/135022

:rollin

:ihit

:lol

[boutons_deux]

Will see if he votes any differently from how Bunning voted, or if he is more effective as a single vote than Paul's father. My guess is he will vote straight Repug party line 99% of the time.

Winning primaries is very different from winning elections.

Winning elections is very different from making any difference in legislation.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't get why all the people who like Ron Paul like this guy. They share the same last name, but their platforms are very very very different.

[Galileo]

Ron and Rand are almost exactly the same on every issue. You have been duped by campaign rhetoric.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

They be pretty similar.

[mookie2001]

I would try and distance myself from the stupid ass tea party (really not to scoff chumpdumper)


The tea party can't even agree on what they stand for, 90% of them are probably neocons who think Obama is a muslim

still I'm a Rand man myself

[MannyIsGod]

Actually you are right. I was wrong on some issues regarding Dr. Paul and I had no idea he was so bad in those issues. Fuck me.

Anyway, Rand had some nice quotes regarding Race yesterday on NPR and national TV.

Expect backpedaling today.

[boutons_deux]

Rand Paul: Trying Hard To "Lie Well"


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-greener/rand-paul-trying-hard-to_b_583504.html?view=print

the Maddow destruction of Rand Paul:

Rachel Maddow holds Rand Paul's Tea Party feet to the fire

http://www.examiner.com/x-40953-Political-Media-Examiner~y2010m5d19-Rachel-Maddow-holds-Rand-Pauls-Tea-Party-feet-to-the-fire

====

RP figures racism will get him elected in a hilly billy KY.

[Galileo]

Wow! The big government racists who want the war on drugs are out in force today.

[MannyIsGod]

Wow! The big government racists who want the war on drugs are out in force today.

Um, ok.

[Galileo]

MSNBC POLL: DO YOU THINK THE GOP SHOULD DUMP RAND PAUL? 1-877-336-7622 PRESS #2 FOR NO!

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/135248

[EmptyMan]

It's funny seeing the game being played. Same old racist smoke and mirrors lame adult-kid agenda game.

Rand should know politics is not about substance but public perception. Stupid on his part.

But lol at the americants falling into the same ol' traps. Matthews is such a goddamned clown.

[ChumpDumper]

Rand sure sounded like a "same ol'" politician when he wouldn't give a straight answer.

[Winehole23]

His message control slipped briefly. The reversion to form seems already to have happened.

[ChumpDumper]

I can't believe no one shut him up after blowing through multiple commercial breaks on Maddow.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

So:

Manny expected backpeddling but none actually happened


ChumpDumper expected him to directly answer Rachel Maddow's questions so that he'd paint himself into a corner, but he was politicianally smart enough not to paint himself into any corner (because he's not even a politician yet, CD you know this, you know this) and he actually plays the situation almost perfectly.

Prahps.

Rand fucking rules thus far as a politician and he will be the babyface of anti-incumbents for this next election.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Chumpdumper:

But he did not answer Rachel Maddow's questions in the ways she phrased the questions!

[Cant_Be_Faded]

But I'm chumpdumper and I am asking questions in my Chumpdumper way as if he's not trying to win an election! Girders!!! Girder strength!!!! Girder integrity!!!

[CuckingFunt]

Every time I see this thread title I have to remind myself it's not making fun of Japanese people.

[ChumpDumper]

It was quite obvious what Paul was doing.

It was very much like a politician. I guess you can pretend he's different if it makes you feel better.

If he's afraid to say what he really thinks, good for him.

[UV Ray]

Rand sure sounded like a "same ol'" politician when he wouldn't give a straight answer.

Just sounded like an inexperienced politician.

[ChumpDumper]

You got that right.

Same ol'.

[UV Ray]

Rand sure sounded like a "same ol'" politician when he wouldn't give a straight answer.


You got that right.

Same ol'.

So bizarre. Why don't people understand that crap (shit)?

[Blake]

the Maddow destruction of Rand Paul:

Rachel Maddow holds Rand Paul's Tea Party feet to the fire

http://www.examiner.com/x-40953-Political-Media-Examiner~y2010m5d19-Rachel-Maddow-holds-Rand-Pauls-Tea-Party-feet-to-the-fire



Paul not answering a yes or no to the lunch counter question, in effect, meant he answered it.

he's a jackass, imo

[Stringer_Bell]

This " Civil Rights issue" is the product of the media being unable to talk about anything other than the oil spill, the viewers getting burnt out, and an opportunity to demonize the actual Tea Party (not the Sarah Palin Express). Rand Paul is not running on a platform to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964, yet he is being painted as an "ideological extremist" even though he's doing nothing more than following the necessary implications regarding public regulation of private enterprise. If anything, he's exposing the gray in our country and the politicians and pundits (armchair politicians) are the extremists trying to paint everything black and white.

He's not a politician, otherwise he'd have backtracked and been afraid to have this discussion. I am officially out of the Maddow/Keith club, they took this shit too far knowing, as students of politics, that this particular MEDIA GENERATED issue is not a simple yes/no affair. YES, private business owners have a right to be assholes in a free society. NO, it is not right and we should do everything we can in our free society to express our dissapproval of RACE, GENDER, RELIGIOUS, POLITICAL, ARTISTIC, etc etc discrimination. Bottom Line: the Civil Rights Act accomplished what almost 100 years after the Civil War could not and Rand Paul would not have voted against it.

For real ya'll, no need to knee jerk into the game.

[MannyIsGod]

CBF, he backpedaled like a motherfucker yesterday. Are you kidding me? He rails against what the CRA does then he yesterday he would have voted for it? Thats not backpeddling?

And then today:


He added: "I think it's part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it's always got to be someone's fault instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen."

Thats on Obama being critical of BP. Are you fucking kidding me? Now what happened in the Gulf isn't BPs fault? I know you love Ron Paul, but come the fuck on.

[Stringer_Bell]

CBF, he backpedaled like a motherfucker yesterday. Are you kidding me? He rails against what the CRA does then he yesterday he would have voted for it? Thats not backpeddling?

And then today:



Thats on Obama being critical of BP. Are you fucking kidding me? Now what happened in the Gulf isn't BPs fault? I know you love Ron Paul, but come the fuck on.

You know? Don't play that shit with me, dawg. The only person I attribute straightline stances to is WC, but even he surprises me sometimes to the point where I won't stoop to pretending I know what he loves/hates on a regular basis.

Rand Paul did not rail against anything, he never made the CRA a focal point of anything. Prior to the primaries, a journalist found a quote/speech and asked him about it - Rand owned up to it and has thus far explained himself just fine. If it's unacceptable to people, it's because they are the ideological extremists attempting to see everything as black and white.

[boutons_deux]

"Over the course of 24 hours, Paul went from opposing the Civil Rights Act to opposing repeal of the Civil Rights Act to considering the Civil Rights Act settled law to actually supporting the legislation he said he would have opposed.

[Paul] said he would have voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act if he were in the Senate at the time, calling the racial climate at the time “a stain on the South and our history.”

“There was an overriding problem in the South that was so big that it did require federal intervention in the Sixties,” he said. “The Southern states weren’t correcting it, and there was a need for federal intervention.”

Presented again with the original question that got him in trouble in the first place, the Kentucky Republican said, “Yes, I would have voted yes” on the Civil Rights Act."

:lol

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/05/21/the-stunning-speed-of-rand-pauls-civil-rights-act-flip-flop/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet

[MannyIsGod]

You know? Don't play that shit with me, dawg. The only person I attribute straightline stances to is WC, but even he surprises me sometimes to the point where I won't stoop to pretending I know what he loves/hates on a regular basis.


Before you decide to rant on what I know or don't know maybe you should ask Can't Be Faded if I'm right or not about his love for Ron Paul. You may not want to attribute straightline stances to anyone and thats fine (I don't even know why that matters since I'm not doing that) but you may also not know CBF as well as I do.

Thanks.



Rand Paul did not rail against anything, he never made the CRA a focal point of anything. Prior to the primaries, a journalist found a quote/speech and asked him about it - Rand owned up to it and has thus far explained himself just fine. If it's unacceptable to people, it's because they are the ideological extremists attempting to see everything as black and white.

"A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin."

-- Rand Paul (R), in a letter to the Bowling Green Daily News (http://pageonekentucky.com/2010/05/20/rand-paul-made-same-racial-comments-in-2002/) in 2002.

Those are his word, and yeah its pretty unacceptable to me. That is precisely what the Civil Rights Act was outlawing.

So he writes to a paper saying that we shouldn't be doing what the CRA is doing, and that isn't supposed to mean he's against the CRA? I don't know how supporting one of the biggest pieces of United States legislation in the past century makes me an ideological extremist (:lol really) but OK.

And then yesterday, of course he says he would have voted for the CRA which is a complete backpedal on what he said before. How exactly is that owning up to it?

[MannyIsGod]

But the Daily News ignores, as does the Fair Housing Act, the distinction between private and public property. Should it be prohibited for public, taxpayer-financed institutions such as schools to reject someone based on an individual’s beliefs or attributes? Most certainly. Should it be prohibited for private entities such as a church, bed and breakfast or retirement neighborhood that doesn’t want noisy children? Absolutely not.
Decisions concerning private property and associations should in a free society be unhindered. As a consequence, some associations will discriminate.http://pageonekentucky.com/2010/05/20/rand-paul-made-same-racial-comments-in-2002/

Just to be clear, I don't believe that makes him a racist. I don't think its acceptable policy considering what the history of said discrimination is (and how it continued up to today even with the CRA and other acts) and I think he most definitely back peddled yesterday.

[Stringer_Bell]

Before you decide to rant on what I know or don't know maybe you should ask Can't Be Faded if I'm right or not about his love for Ron Paul. You may not want to attribute straightline stances to anyone and thats fine (I don't even know why that matters since I'm not doing that) but you may also not know CBF as well as I do.

Thanks.

:lmao

Wow, when I saw CBF I thought you meant I "can't be fucked" from my position defending Rand Paul's comments. The lingo threw me off so I thought you were telling me I loved Ron Paul. Miscommunication, my bad yo. :p:

Edit: What this is all comes down to is that in a free society, the assholes are free to be assholes (unless they beat/kill/terrorize). To say that Rand Paul is against one of the "most important parts of our democracy" is totally unauthentic, and downright ignorant, since this country has only existed without institutional racism since 1964 (institutional racism being the part that Rand has never once said he advocates or feels is protected). If you truly believe in a free democracy, you must accept its good fruit and bad fruit.

Assholes are free to be assholes, yet they aren't at the same time.

[MannyIsGod]

Sure assholes are free to be assholes but they're not free to discriminate in the way Rand Paul wanted them to be. Look, there's really not much of a debate here. He made comments in a letter to a newspaper that were directly aimed at the Fair Housing Act and the Civil Rights Acts. You can't even argue that his comments are being taken out of context because it wasn't some sound bite on MSNBC but a LETTER HE WROTE that started this.

You can agree with his stance and that is completely fine. Like I said I don't believe it to be good policy, but what he said was in writing and it was very clear. I don't think its even arguable how important the Civil Rights Act is and I think Rand Paul realizes that or else he wouldn't have gone on air in support of it yesterday. He realized how he fucked up before and how untenable his position was so he did what any politician would and said that he loved the CRA after he said we shouldn't have it.

Democracy isn't about accepting the bad fruit. We don't accept murder, we don't accept rape, we don't accept a whole slew of things that we declare illegal. Discrimination on the basis of race is one of those things we don't accept. That is completely democratic.

[Stringer_Bell]

Democracy isn't about accepting the bad fruit. We don't accept murder, we don't accept rape, we don't accept a whole slew of things that we declare illegal. Discrimination on the basis of race is one of those things we don't accept. That is completely democratic.

Are you suggesting that the United States of America was not a democracy until 1964 when the CRA was passed?

[MannyIsGod]

Are you suggesting that the United States of America was not a democracy until 1964 when the CRA was passed?

Of course not. I'm suggesting that today and back then America was an evolving democracy and that such things are never a black and white constant but a fluid changing dynamic. There are discrimination's that occour today that will be eradicated and the future. We are not a perfect country today nor were we back then, but in my opinion (And apparently now in Paul's since he says act was necessary) the CRA was a step in the right direction. We're not a perfect democracy and we may never well be but we should keep trying to reach that goal.

[ChumpDumper]

Are you suggesting that the United States of America was not a democracy until 1964 when the CRA was passed?Definitely a more flawed democracy.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh and ever the libertarian




Tea party favorite Rand Paulhas rocketed to the lead ahead of Tuesday’s Republican Senate primary here on a resolute pledge to balance the federal budget and slash the size of government.
But on Thursday evening, the ophthalmologist from Bowling Green said there was one thing he would not cut: Medicare physician payments.
In fact, Paul — who says 50% of his patients are on Medicare — wants to end cuts to physician payments under a program now in place called the sustained growth rate, or SGR. “Physicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living.




Less government for you, same amount for me!

[Blake]

Oh and ever the libertarian

Less government for you, same amount for me!


I just don't get the appeal of this guy.

[EmptyMan]

Rand sure sounded like a "same ol'" politician when he wouldn't give a straight answer.

Bro the loaded questions that are being tossed to him are being asked on such a low level compared to the conversation he is actually trying to have it is comical. These people are grown ass adults and they still suck trash off the bottom.

Just because they have a camera pointed at them, comb their hair to the left, get a clean shave, and put on some bifocals doesn't mean they are actually trying to have an intelligent debate. And that's just Maddow...

[ChumpDumper]

Bro the loaded questions that are being tossed to him are being asked on such a low level compared to the conversation he is actually trying to have it is comical. These people are grown ass adults and they still suck trash off the bottom.Bro his dancing and backpedaling made him look comical. Any journalist is going to jump on that. Sorry it made u mad.

[EmptyMan]

lol when you rely on medicare and can't find a doctor


lol indeed

[MannyIsGod]

lol when you rely on medicare and can't find a doctor

LOL you could just go to Paul. He loves Medicare.

[EmptyMan]

Bro his dancing and backpedaling made him look comical. Any journalist is going to jump on that. Sorry it made u mad.


http://i44.tinypic.com/2ljgy1h.jpg

[EmptyMan]

LOL you could just go to Paul. He loves Medicare.

But for how long....


Sir Paul will soon be a Senator.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Every time I see this thread title I have to remind myself it's not making fun of Japanese people.

ha! me too, but not quite

randsride!!

[boutons_deux]

"Less government for you, same amount for me"

yep, govt-haters only hate govt when it isn't enriching them.

[ChumpDumper]

But for how long....


Sir Paul will soon be a Senator.You think he will flip-flop on Medicare once he no longer has a personal stake in its providing him a comfortable living?

[boutons_deux]

Rand Paul is now getting fully exposed and critiqued, and it's not pretty.

Anyway, KY hilly-billys will send any old shit up to DC.

[DMX7]

Rand Paul on Minning Accident:

"We had a mining accident that was very tragic. ... Then we come in and it's always someone's fault. Maybe sometimes accidents happen," he said.


Accidents happen you guys... It had nothing to do with this:

Over the past two years, controversial coal boss Don Blankenship has twice agreed to courtroom settlements requiring his company to clean up a checkered safety record, yet federal documents show Massey Energy mines continued to rack up serious violations in advance of the explosion that killed 29 miners this week.

Massey subsidiary Aracoma Coal Co. pleaded guilty to “willful” safety violations in the 2006 mine fire that led to the suffocation deaths of two workers there.

http://www.dreamlegalteam.com/law_blog/2010/04/10/west-virginia-mine-disaster-coal-company-had-twice-settled-court-cases-by-promising-safety-upgrades.html

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Manny - didn't see that latest shit and haven't been able to reply till now

yeah that's pretty much a back pedal but at the same time I understand what he was trying to say, I don't believe he's racist.

Knock on him for saying "i would have voted for the CRA" but I have no problem with his original point. It doesn't offend me at all.

Theres really nothing much I can say that Stringer Bell has not said pretty well already, but heres a brief reply in my own words:

It's creating a phantom argument because people just refuse to hear a man who is afraid of slippery slopes.
He has a problem with the implications of governments telling private enterprise what to do. That's all this is about. It's his stand as a person, and he said over and over again that he does not stand for racism himself.

If the McDonalds down the street said it did not serve minorities and was allowed to put up a sign that said so, it would go out of business. Hence the logic in his free business point of view.

He has problems with the original act. He's not unlike Ron in that he thinks government control tends to go in one direction only. Theres nothing really here that is too shocking, other than he's getting stuck into being seen as someone who wants business to be be racist and bigoted, when in fact he's simply against the government reaching into private business affairs.

It's all nitpicking. He should not have let himself get painted into the corner and but he's a politician trying to win an election at the same time. So a general election politicking move with his backpedalling.

But I see the logic in his original point, and have no problem with it. He was trying to talk idealistically not unlike the way his dad straight up says toss the Fed out, toss the CIA out, close the foreign bases, and then seen as a pro-muslim wimpy republican.

[ChumpDumper]

Too bad, I was looking forward to his appearance on Meet the Press.

[DMX7]

Too bad, I was looking forward to his appearance on Meet the Press.

Accidents happen.

[MannyIsGod]

Manny - didn't see that latest shit and haven't been able to reply till now

yeah that's pretty much a back pedal but at the same time I understand what he was trying to say, I don't believe he's racist.

Knock on him for saying "i would have voted for the CRA" but I have no problem with his original point. It doesn't offend me at all.

Theres really nothing much I can say that Stringer Bell has not said pretty well already, but heres a brief reply in my own words:

It's creating a phantom argument because people just refuse to hear a man who is afraid of slippery slopes.
He has a problem with the implications of governments telling private enterprise what to do. That's all this is about. It's his stand as a person, and he said over and over again that he does not stand for racism himself.

If the McDonalds down the street said it did not serve minorities and was allowed to put up a sign that said so, it would go out of business. Hence the logic in his free business point of view.

He has problems with the original act. He's not unlike Ron in that he thinks government control tends to go in one direction only. Theres nothing really here that is too shocking, other than he's getting stuck into being seen as someone who wants business to be be racist and bigoted, when in fact he's simply against the government reaching into private business affairs.

It's all nitpicking. He should not have let himself get painted into the corner and but he's a politician trying to win an election at the same time. So a general election politicking move with his backpedalling.

But I see the logic in his original point, and have no problem with it. He was trying to talk idealistically not unlike the way his dad straight up says toss the Fed out, toss the CIA out, close the foreign bases, and then seen as a pro-muslim wimpy republican.

I don't believe he's a racist either. I said that earlier. I don't have a problem with a lot of the stuff and and papa Paul would do regarding foreign policy - in fact I love it. Its the domestic shit that really worries me.

Plus honestly the whole I'm against but LETS KEEP MEDICARE PAYMENTS really just annoys me only because he's a doctor and just wants to keep the stuff that lines his pockets. I agree that Medicare needs to stay, but coming form him I find it so annoying since its just about money in HIS pockets.

[Blake]

If the McDonalds down the street said it did not serve minorities and was allowed to put up a sign that said so, it would go out of business.

down what street in what year?

[DMX7]

That's all this is about. It's his stand as a person, and he said over and over again that he does not stand for racism himself.

If the McDonalds down the street said it did not serve minorities and was allowed to put up a sign that said so, it would go out of business. Hence the logic in his free business point of view.

He has problems with the original act. He's not unlike Ron in that he thinks government control tends to go in one direction only. Theres nothing really here that is too shocking, other than he's getting stuck into being seen as someone who wants business to be be racist and bigoted, when in fact he's simply against the government reaching into private business affairs.


That he doesn't "stand for racism", whatever that means, is beside the point.

He defends the legal right of a private business to discriminate.

“A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination — even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37256695/ns/politics/


down what street in what year?

Exactly.

[boutons_deux]

Rand Paul Cancels His ‘Meet the Press’ Interview

Posted By Alex Seitz-Wald On May 21, 2010 @ 4:07 pm In Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Kentucky Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul has been lampooned in recent days for his radical anti-government views. First, he expressed opposition to parts of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act. Today, he attacked President Obama’s criticism of BP as “un-American,” and refused to say whether or not the minimum wage. MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell joked that Paul is the “gift that keeps on giving.”

But he is giving no more. He “simply does not want to answer direct questions about the proper role of the Federal government in regulating the private sector,” the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent noted. “He visibly bristles when asked to clarify his views on these matters,” Sargent added.

After his upset victory Tuesday night, Paul agreed to appear on NBC’s Meet The Press Sunday for what would surely be wide ranging interview that would delve into these issues:

But Meet The Press’ executive producer Betsy Fischer revealed an hour ago that Paul was “trying to cancel” his big interview:

The Washington Post reports that Paul has indeed canceled because “he’s had a long week.” A Paul spokesperson explained, “Rand did Good Morning America today, set the record straight, and now we are done talking about it. … No more national interviews on the topic.” Paul joins Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar as the only guests to cancel a Meet the Press interview in recent history.

As MSNBC host Joe Scarborough told ThinkProgress today, referring to Paul’s embarrassing interview with fellow host Rachel Maddow, “if a politician can’t handle an interview, they can’t handle the Senate.”

Article printed from SpeakEasy: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy

URL to article: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/05/21/rand-paul-cancels-his-meet-the-press-interview/

[ChumpDumper]

As MSNBC host Joe Scarborough told ThinkProgress today, referring to Paul’s embarrassing interview with fellow host Rachel Maddow, “if a politician can’t handle an interview, they can’t handle the Senate.”He could probably be a half-term governor, though.

[boutons_deux]

Rand's racist dog whistle has the racist hounds howling


Fox News' Stossel Calls For Repeal of Part of Civil Rights Act

By Matt McLaughlin, Media Matters for America
Posted on May 21, 2010, Printed on May 22, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/146968/

On the Thursday edition Fox News' America Live, Fox analyst John Stossel discussed the 1964 Civil Rights Act with host Megyn Kelly. Kelly asked, "How do you know that these private business owners, who owned restaurants and so on, would have said, 'You know what? We will take blacks. We'll take gays. We'll take lesbians,' if they hadn't been forced to do it?"

Stossel replied, "Because eventually they would have lost business. The free market competition would have cleaned the clocks of the people who didn't serve most customers."

Stossel went on to say, "[I]t's time now to repeal" the Public Accommodation section, "because private businesses ought to get to discriminate. And I won't won't ever go to a place that's racist and I will tell everybody else not to and I'll speak against them. But it should be their right to be racist."

The Public Accommodation section of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination "on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin" by businesses open to the general public, such as restaurants, hotels, and theaters.

John Stossel's argument that the Public Accommodation section in the Civil Rights Act should be repealed and that the "free market" likely would have resolved the issue of racial discrimination by businesses is "ahistorical" and "unempirical," a civil rights expert said.

In an interview with Media Matters, Andrew Grant-Thomas, deputy director of the Ohio State's Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity, characterized Stossel's comments as "a silly statement," adding, "Market forces hadn't exactly made anti-black discrimination disappear during the several centuries before the Civil Rights Act."

When asked about Stossel's remarks, Grant-Thomas noted that even with the progress made since the Civil Rights Act's passage, racial discrimination is still a problem. "If you look at any market for which we've done extensive studies, significant discrimination remains," Grant-Thomas said. "It's clearly better than it was. But there's still discrimination."

Grant-Thomas pointed to the housing and employment markets as domains where the free market has not entirely dealt with the problem of racial discrimination.

"There are plenty of private organizations that currently -- and legally -- discriminate on the basis of race, or other grounds, in their membership. That hasn't caused them to go under," he said. "Indeed ... in some key arenas -- like housing and schools, some people pay more for segregated settings."

Ultimately, Grant-Thomas took issue with Stossel's suggestion that a market would be the source of solution to the moral problem of discrimination. "The Civil Rights Act wasn't passed on economic grounds, but on moral and ethical grounds," he said. "Suggesting that market logic would have sufficed to weed out discriminators is pretty much besides the point in that respect."

...

[Ignignokt]

That he doesn't "stand for racism", whatever that means, is beside the point.

He defends the legal right of a private business to discriminate.

“A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination — even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37256695/ns/politics/



Exactly.


Is Rand Paul a racist?

[Ignignokt]

It's your property, you should do what ever you want with it.

[Ignignokt]

You guys are so stupid.

That's like saying
If you're pro choice, that must mean you love abortions.

and Manny billed himself to be some nuanced great political mind, but the truth has come out.

[DMX7]

Is Rand Paul a racist?

No, and his moral beliefs are not at debate, his legal beliefs are.

Shifting the debate to "is Rand Paul a racist?" is a diversionary tactic to ignore and blunt the reckless and irresponsible consequences of his libertarian ideology, which approves of a business' legal, not moral, right to discriminate against people based on the color of their skin. He has said he doesn't approve of that morally; however he does legislatively. That's an important distinction.

[Winehole23]

Manny billed himself to be some nuanced great political mind...I don't recall he did any such thing.

Link?

[Stringer_Bell]

No, and his moral beliefs are not at debate, his legal beliefs are.

Shifting the debate to "is Rand Paul a racist?" is a diversionary tactic to ignore and blunt the reckless and irresponsible consequences of his libertarian ideology, which approves of a business' legal, not moral, right to discriminate against people based on the color of their skin. He has said he doesn't approve of that morally; however he does legislatively. That's an important distinction.

Exactly. Legislatively, "this debate" has ZERO implications whatsoever on the Senate because they'd never have "this debate" within their own chambers. "This debate" was brought upon by the media in an attempt to capatilize on his "victory for the Tea Party" comment in a way that reflects badly on the actual Tea Party crowd that voted for Rand, the people that were there before Sarah Palin. There seems to be an assumption that in this modern era, ANY private business would willingly segregate knowing the economic consequences. With enough people speaking out against them, in keeping with the speech afforded in a free democracy, those places can be put out of business and new ones could open up. This of course is all hypothetical, but the knee-jerk reactions of people believing that everything would somehow go back to pre-1964 America shows how little faith they have in their fellow citizens. Having the freedom to be an asshole, yet choosing to be accepting of all people...damn, I could've sworn that's what made us different than the intolerant evil-doers around the world. The rhetoric around the blogs and television is nearly as hate-filled as the hate they are speaking out against. It boggles the mind yo.

As for the medicare/medicaid stuff, I don't know enough about that and I actually did take issue with Rand's father saying doctors don't have an obligation to provide healthcare services for all people regardless of economic/health hardship...it's a service and it needs to be paid for. I won't go into that, but it doesn't surprise me that Rand thinks along the same lines and believes doctors are entitled to a comfortable lifestyle (I've met more than a few shitty doctors in my day, so maybe I'm biased against that entitlement).

[boutons_deux]

Poll: Rand Paul Surges Ahead of Palin Among Voters Who Describe Themselves as Morons


Key Constituency for Two Hopefuls

MINNEAPOLIS (The Borowitz Report) - In a sign of his increasing prominence in the so-called Tea Party movement, a new poll shows Kentucky senatorial candidate Rand Paul topping former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin among voters who describe themselves as morons.

In the poll, conducted by the University of Minnesota's Opinion Research Institute, 42% preferred Paul, 36% preferred Palin, and the remaining 22% were unsure what the word "prefer"� meant.

According to Davis Logsdon, who supervised the poll for the University of Minnesota, Paul's surging popularity among morons is bad news for Palin, who previously had a lock on that important constituency.

"I never thought I'd say this, but if Palin is going to stay competitive with Paul, she's going to have to start dumbing down her message.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't recall he did any such thing.

Link?

He's just mad that I don't consider Rand Paul racist yet I still don't agree with his policy. Or maybe I'm just not nuanced enough to understand why being against big government is good except when it lines your pockets.

[MannyIsGod]

Exactly. Legislatively, "this debate" has ZERO implications whatsoever on the Senate because they'd never have "this debate" within their own chambers. "This debate" was brought upon by the media in an attempt to capatilize on his "victory for the Tea Party" comment in a way that reflects badly on the actual Tea Party crowd that voted for Rand, the people that were there before Sarah Palin. There seems to be an assumption that in this modern era, ANY private business would willingly segregate knowing the economic consequences. With enough people speaking out against them, in keeping with the speech afforded in a free democracy, those places can be put out of business and new ones could open up. This of course is all hypothetical, but the knee-jerk reactions of people believing that everything would somehow go back to pre-1964 America shows how little faith they have in their fellow citizens. Having the freedom to be an asshole, yet choosing to be accepting of all people...damn, I could've sworn that's what made us different than the intolerant evil-doers around the world. The rhetoric around the blogs and television is nearly as hate-filled as the hate they are speaking out against. It boggles the mind yo.

As for the medicare/medicaid stuff, I don't know enough about that and I actually did take issue with Rand's father saying doctors don't have an obligation to provide healthcare services for all people regardless of economic/health hardship...it's a service and it needs to be paid for. I won't go into that, but it doesn't surprise me that Rand thinks along the same lines and believes doctors are entitled to a comfortable lifestyle (I've met more than a few shitty doctors in my day, so maybe I'm biased against that entitlement).

You can pin this on the national media wanting to point out the Tea Party is racist, but talk about thinking about conspiracies. Its much simpler than that and its just the fact that what he said are what many people consider controversial comments. Even strong real libertarians across the internet have taken issue with what was said.

[Ignignokt]

He's just mad that I don't consider Rand Paul racist yet I still don't agree with his policy. Or maybe I'm just not nuanced enough to understand why being against big government is good except when it lines your pockets.

You're such a hack.

How does Medicare line the pockets of doctors. If that's the case, then you wouldn't have doctors dropping patients with Medicare.

Please bring back something else besides Obama talking points.

http://www.caller.com/news/2010/may/18/more-texas-doctors-dropping-medicare-patients/


HOUSTON — Experts blame declining Medicare reimbursement for hundreds of Texas doctors dropping out of the federal health care program for senior citizens.

The Houston Chronicle reported Tuesday that more than 300 Texas doctors have dropped the program in the last two years, including 50 in the first three months of 2010.

The Texas Medical Association, which did the survey, said the numbers far exceeded their assumptions.

Dr. Susan Bailey, president of the Texas Medical Association, says if Congress doesn't fix Medicare soon, there will be more and more doctors dropping out. She says the congressional promise to provide medical care to seniors "will be broken."

The opt-outs follow years of declining Medicare reimbursement that led to a looming 21 percent cut this year.

[Ignignokt]

No, and his moral beliefs are not at debate, his legal beliefs are.

Shifting the debate to "is Rand Paul a racist?" is a diversionary tactic to ignore and blunt the reckless and irresponsible consequences of his libertarian ideology, which approves of a business' legal, not moral, right to discriminate against people based on the color of their skin. He has said he doesn't approve of that morally; however he does legislatively. That's an important distinction.

When it was necessary to preach Ben Franklin's line "He who trades freedom for security deserves neither." towards people for the patriot act, mirandizing terrorist, and guantanamo, alot of the same people talking this sort of language did are now overlooking this exact same phrase.

So we agree that liberty allows for bad consequences, no shit. Yet i don't hear many of you bitch about the equally bad consequences of statist programs like the Great Society and the New Deal.

Are we a nation that protects property rights? Or just the right to protect vices, orientation, and other sorts. Where do you think the right for individual rights come from? Property rights.

Let everybody be everybody, why should we legislate morality?

[MannyIsGod]

You're such a hack.

How does Medicare line the pockets of doctors. If that's the case, then you wouldn't have doctors dropping patients with Medicare.

Please bring back something else besides Obama talking points.

http://www.caller.com/news/2010/may/18/more-texas-doctors-dropping-medicare-patients/


HOUSTON — Experts blame declining Medicare reimbursement for hundreds of Texas doctors dropping out of the federal health care program for senior citizens.

The Houston Chronicle reported Tuesday that more than 300 Texas doctors have dropped the program in the last two years, including 50 in the first three months of 2010.

The Texas Medical Association, which did the survey, said the numbers far exceeded their assumptions.

Dr. Susan Bailey, president of the Texas Medical Association, says if Congress doesn't fix Medicare soon, there will be more and more doctors dropping out. She says the congressional promise to provide medical care to seniors "will be broken."

The opt-outs follow years of declining Medicare reimbursement that led to a looming 21 percent cut this year.

LOL What?

So you're telling me Medicare payments to doctors are not medicare payments to doctors?

I'm the hack?

:lol !!!!!

Medicare is as libertarian as shit comes!

[Ignignokt]

LOL What?

So you're telling me Medicare payments to doctors are not medicare payments to doctors?

I'm the hack?

:lol !!!!!

Medicare is as libertarian as shit comes!

You're right.. medicare is totally not libertarian, at the same time, it's not a lucrative gold pot like you're saying. Many doctors don't take Medicare before the cuts. There is a lot of paperwork you have to deal with when you have medicare. Doctors have to hire staff to deal with that paperwork.


So, you saying that it lines up his pockets is bullshit, and implying that he only cares about making money is a lie. In his private practice he took patients without insurance and negotiated prices with them.

[MannyIsGod]

You're right.. medicare is totally not libertarian, at the same time, it's not a lucrative gold pot like you're saying. Many doctors don't take Medicare before the cuts. There is a lot of paperwork you have to deal with when you have medicare. Doctors have to hire staff to deal with that paperwork.

The only reason he's for it is because he makes money from it. I don't remember saying anything more, but maybe you can link it for me and refresh my memory.



So, you saying that it lines up his pockets is bullshit, and implying that he only cares about making money is a lie. In his private practice he took patients without insurance and negotiated prices with them.

Wow - you totally disproved that the only reason Rand wants Medicare to stick around is because he gets money from it. Good job. Except what other reasons are there? Why don't those other reasons apply to over big government programs? What percentage of Rand's patients are using medicare? How much money does his practice get in a year from Medicare claims?

[Ignignokt]

The only reason he's for it is because he makes money from it. I don't remember saying anything more, but maybe you can link it for me and refresh my memory.



Wow - you totally disproved that the only reason Rand wants Medicare to stick around is because he gets money from it. Good job. Except what other reasons are there? Why don't those other reasons apply to over big government programs? What percentage of Rand's patients are using medicare? How much money does his practice get in a year from Medicare claims?

So with that inconsitency you decide to dismiss all his other arguments. I never saw you hold The Won to that measure.

[Ignignokt]

LOL What?

So you're telling me Medicare payments to doctors are not medicare payments to doctors?

I'm the hack?

:lol !!!!!

Medicare is as libertarian as shit comes!


but before that there was this..


You can pin this on the national media wanting to point out the Tea Party is racist, but talk about thinking about conspiracies. Its much simpler than that and its just the fact that what he said are what many people consider controversial comments. Even strong real libertarians across the internet have taken issue with what was said.

So the REAL Libertarians as you say had an issue with the purely libertarian argument of freedom of association and private property that the Civil Rights Act violates, and that caused you to coin them real libertarians.

But Rand Paul has one inconsitency with Medicare, and you think he's a faux libertarian.

I guess real libertarians is just a whimsical temporary moniker you assign to whichever libertarian agrees with you at the moment rather than the belief system.

In this case, you either don't know what true libertarianism means, or you slyly misconstrue the meaning of the word to help you strenghten your weak stance.

[MannyIsGod]

So with that inconsitency you decide to dismiss all his other arguments. I never saw you hold The Won to that measure.

I said that where? Jesus you sure do like to make things up as you go. You get your ass kicked in a debate so you just make things up so you can seem right?

[MannyIsGod]

but before that there was this..



So the REAL Libertarians as you say had an issue with Purely Libertarian argument, and that caused you to coin them as Libertarian.

But Rand Paul has one inconsitency with Medicare, and you think he's a faux libertarian.

I guess real libertarians is just a whimsical temporary moniker you assign to whichever libertarian agrees with you at the moment rather than the belief system.

Real libertarians as opposed to tea party idiots who fancy themselves libertarians aka the people who sprouted up through the woodwork when a man of color became president but praised Lord George Bush throughout his term. Those people.

[MannyIsGod]

Dude, Gtown. Just say, I like MOST Of his platform and it will be OK. No one ever said he had to be 100% right.

[Ignignokt]

I said that where? Jesus you sure do like to make things up as you go. You get your ass kicked in a debate so you just make things up so you can seem right?

Where did i say you "said" that. I didn't say you said that. I'm saying you're doing that right now.

You're trying to avoid talking about the legitimacy of Rand Paul's argument by bring up his other inconsistency. As we all know, all politicians are riddled with them, even the Nadermeister was no saint himself.

So the fact that you are trying to bring up medicare is just a way for you to dismiss his argument.

I never saw you do that with BO. His inconsistencies you glossed over.

[Ignignokt]

Real libertarians as opposed to tea party idiots who fancy themselves libertarians aka the people who sprouted up through the woodwork when a man of color became president but praised Lord George Bush throughout his term. Those people.

These supposed real libertarians you bring up are having problems with the REAL Libertarian argument about freedom of association. So whatever tea party jabbing you're trying to stick in has no relevance to the fact that the real libertarians you cite are not real libertarians in this stance either.

I just want you to know that you're not making sense.

Have you said other libertarians rather than REAL libertarians, you're argument would be solid in that one point. But you didn't.

[MannyIsGod]

There is no doubt that Obama had ideological inconsistencies. However, AFAIK, Obama wasn't running on a certain platform that changed when it involved his finances. When one's platform choices are made based upon how much money one get can out of it then I think there should be a pretty clear concern.

Also, Randall Paul isn't running for the office of President while his predecessor was involved in huge foreign policy boondoggles.

Besides, I have no real voting interest in this race. I'm not one of his possible constituents. So I'm never really going to have to decide if I like Paul or not. I can just post shit like this and watch to see how long it takes you to admit one of his platform faults is a platform fault.

[Ignignokt]

There is no doubt that Obama had ideological inconsistencies. However, AFAIK, Obama wasn't running on a certain platform that changed when it involved his finances. When one's platform choices are made based upon how much money one get can out of it then I think there should be a pretty clear concern.

Excuses, so you made it a qualifier that it be decisions based on finance that should be cause for concern. You're right to a certain extent. But finance is nothing but money and money is power. The bailout issue with BO in which he helped his freinds and ignored his ideological stance on corporate welfare is just as eggregious, i would say more.



Also, Randall Paul isn't running for the office of President while his predecessor was involved in huge foreign policy boondoggles.

Hmmkay.. i don't know where you're going with that nugget there. If you're tying a predecessors mistakes to a new politician out of the same party, could i do the same for your favorite candidates of the Democrat party who have ties to Larry Summers?



Besides, I have no real voting interest in this race. I'm not one of his possible constituents. So I'm never really going to have to decide if I like Paul or not. I can just post shit like this and watch to see how long it takes you to admit one of his platform faults is a platform fault.



Incredible.:lmao

Because you can't vote in these elections that gives you a right to fling no substance arguments. I'll remember this whenever you try to lecture us lesser beings on the ettiquete of Spurstalk Political Forum discussion.

[Stringer_Bell]

Besides, I have no real voting interest in this race. I'm not one of his possible constituents. So I'm never really going to have to decide if I like Paul or not. I can just post shit like this and watch to see how long it takes you to admit one of his platform faults is a platform fault.

The CRA was never a part of Paul's platform, but I assume you are referring to his healthcare platform. Taken straight from the man's campaign site, here's where he stands...

I therefore support:
* Making all medical expenses tax deductible.
* Eliminating federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage.
* Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.
* Making every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA.

[DMX7]

Exactly. Legislatively, "this debate" has ZERO implications whatsoever on the Senate because they'd never have "this debate" within their own chambers.

That's not a very convincing argument. You're essentially saying other people are smart enough to keep his dumbass in check, so it doesn't matter how irresponsible he is. What a ringing endorsement.

[Stringer_Bell]

That's not a very convincing argument. You're essentially saying other people are smart enough to keep his dumbass in check, so it doesn't matter how irresponsible he is. What a ringing endorsement.

No, Rand Paul himself would not even bring it to the table in the Senate, it's a non-issue for the session. It's not part of his platform, but some folks are spinning it as if it was something he's been running on and that the actual Tea Party (pre-Palin folk) are propping up some crazy agenda that they want to take to Washington DC. Don't buy the hype.

[ChumpDumper]

So you're saying if there is something like an addition to the ADA, Rand Paul will neither oppose nor even debate federal provisions that would apply to private entities?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

down what street in what year?

obviously i mean down any street in this year we are in right now

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I was thinking some more about this today.


We will know nothing until the general election takes place.

This could either go down as a tragic case of a politician who was front page news for all the right reasons one day and front page news for all the wrong reasons the next, finishing his political career before it even truly started.

Or

It could go down as one of the best things to ever happen to him. It's put his name farther out there than him simply winning the primary ever would have. Think about all the stupid shit hicks who worship every wrinkle on Palin's cougary face. They line up in droves for her book signings and she gets to charge 100k+ to speak to people about how she's a hot mom politician.
This could end up with Paul having a parallel die-hard core of constituents and supporters.
Just something to throw out there. If we're talking about average joe marriott voters, then some of them have to be sick and tired of any and all incumbents. Some of these are probably tea-partiers. And a big chunk of them probably don't give a fuck about reading into details and finding out answers for themselves. They hear and see shit on TV and either take one side, or the other (Always and only TWO sides to every political argument, the way TV portrays them, even ones they foment and nurture like this paper political argument)

Some of them probably will just see this as a pathetic pathetic attempt by liberal media trying to slander an up-and-comer who only five days ago was just trying to be different than incumbents and stand for old school fiscal conservative values, etc.

Not saying I think this way, but people who do could end up becoming vice-grip followers of Rand.

If the mindset of the USA Marriott Public today (maybe cuz of all the fucked up shit going on much more important than painting an aspiring politician a racist) is such that Sarah fucking Palin was able to cement herself a loyal following..... by basically being a hot piece of ass that winks all cute-like.....why not Rand?



It will be super interesting to see the results of the upcoming elections. Also interesting to follow Rand if he wins and begins a political career. If this course follows I'll have no choice but to believe this whole episode actually helped him, and if we're all still alive I'll bump my comment for some prized internet blog gloating :lol

[Stringer_Bell]

So you're saying if there is something like an addition to the ADA, Rand Paul will neither oppose nor even debate federal provisions that would apply to private entities?

Can you point to any recent or upcoming legislative proposal regarding the ADA? It may have gotten buried under all the other "important" stories which is why I don't recall it being an issue.


A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Kentucky, taken Wednesday night, shows Paul earning 59% of the vote, while Conway picks up 34% support. Four percent (4%) percent prefer some other candidate, and three percent (3%) are undecided.

Paul consistently led Conway prior to winning the Republican primary, but had never earned more than 50% support. Conway has been stuck in the 30s since the first of the year.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/kentucky/election_2010_kentucky_senate

As horrendously one-sided as the discussion has been in the media, I can't blame the Democrats for attempting to level the electoral playing field with this issue. We'll see in a week or two if this really has any effect on the Kentucky voters. I'm awaiting the rest of America to be offended if Rand's numbers stay the same or move up to 60% - not because the Democrat is losing, but because Kentucky proved itself smarter than the knee-jerk's trying to rile up outrage (although the same tools will just call the state "racist").

[ChumpDumper]

Can you point to any recent or upcoming legislative proposal regarding the ADA? It may have gotten buried under all the other "important" stories which is why I don't recall it being an issue.You don't think there will be any issue of federal regulation of private entities ever again the US Senate?

:lmao

Don't stop believin'!

In case you didn't know, the ADA was amended just two years ago. If you think it could nevah evah happen again, cool.

[Winehole23]

Kentucky proved itself smarter than the knee-jerk's trying to rile up outrage (although the same tools will just call the state "racist").Including Sen. McConnell? Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't he and the RNC for the other guy?

[Winehole23]

Isn't it just possible that some scared shitless GOPers are still rooting against Rand Paul too, just like they did in the primary?

[Winehole23]

A few of em threw wood on the pile, and suggested the propriety of an apology as I recall.

[Winehole23]

Even John Cornyn.

[boutons_deux]

"I (Rand Paul) therefore support:
* Making all medical expenses tax deductible.

... making medical bills, like for ophthalmology, more affordable. self-serving


* Eliminating federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage.

... for stuff like ophthalmology. self-serving If he were really smartly greedy, he would support a strong public option, Medicare for all, rather than have companies be involved in any way in buying, tax-free, health insurance for their employees.


* Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.

... a doctor has any negotiating power with a mega-corp? GMAFB

* Making every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA.

... is redundant with his first point.

Paul is probably making a few $100K/year. I bet he's all for cutting taxes on the "victimized" wealthy, such as himself.

[Stringer_Bell]

Including Sen. McConnell? Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't he and the RNC for the other guy?

What does McConnell have to do with the polls? I said we'll see if polls have been affected in a week or two...Rand was decently ahead of the Dem the entire time before this was put into the news cycle, I'm interested in new poll numbers.

McConnell and Cornyn = non-issues, those guys don't have backbone. And please don't argue "well, if they have no backbone, what does that say against Rand Paul that they aren't in support of him?" They don't matter.

2008 ADA had nothing to do with elevators, amiright? It dealt with definitions of disability, I think. Either way, it's a non-issue since it's not part of the platform. It's his opinion, until I'm shown where he says he's making it a focus (or even partial focus) of his agenda.

[Ignignokt]

chump got pwned i saiiiiiiddd!!!

[ChumpDumper]

You don't think there will be any issue of federal regulation of private entities ever again the US Senate regarding any kind of discrimination, gtown?


Yes or no.

[gtownspur]

You don't think there will be any issue of federal regulation of private entities ever again the US Senate regarding any kind of discrimination, gtown?


Yes or no.

Ofcourse, anything can happen.

[ChumpDumper]

Ofcourse, anything can happen.Thanks again. :tu

[Ignignokt]

Thanks again. :tu

for what?

[ChumpDumper]

for what?That makes it even better. :tu

[Blake]

obviously i mean down any street in this year we are in right now

Obviously.....because in 1964, that wasn't the case.

Rand Paul says he would have marched with MLK but if the marching group were to stop for a bite to eat, Paul would have been the only one able to eat at the lunch counter and would have been ok with it under the shroud of free enterprise.

Ridiculous.

[Blake]

He's just mad that I don't consider Rand Paul racist yet I still don't agree with his policy. Or maybe I'm just not nuanced enough to understand why being against big government is good except when it lines your pockets.

If Paul isn't racist, then I'd really specifically like to know what he feels the role of government should be regarding businesses.

I wonder if he likes the secure feeling of knowing a health inspector has checked out the quality of his food, or a building inspector has checked to make sure the electrical or fire codes are in compliance while he is inside.

[Galileo]

MSNBC’s Fake Transcript of the Rand Paul Interview


Rachel Maddow is a lying weasel. She and her network issued a FAKE TRANSCRIPT of the Rand Paul interview, which was then repeated by all the other lying weasels in the “mainstream” media, and they refuse to apologize for their lies.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/58246.html

[Blake]

MSNBC’s Fake Transcript of the Rand Paul Interview

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/58246.html

Yeah, that's pretty crappy of Maddow, etc to quote the word "yes" in his response.

However, after having watched the interview, it's not hard to decipher that not answering with a resounding "no" from him equalled a "yes".

[admiralsnackbar]

MSNBC’s Fake Transcript of the Rand Paul Interview



http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/58246.html

A conspiracy. Of course. :wakeup

He says "yeah." The transcript says "yes."

If the MSM is mis-using the "yes," that's on them and their lazy reporters, not on the transcript. Moreover, what he says following the "yeah," contradicts a racist answer to Maddow's question -- if reporters weren't so desperate for a sound-bite, they may have noticed it. Perhaps the damage is done, but the offending "yes," has since been removed.

The trouble with Rand on the surface isn't that he in any way seems to be supporting racism as much as voicing a libertarian opinion about the role of government in private life, about the freedom of individuals. Can't fault him for having a philosophy. That said, I think Maddow is right to take his position to it's logical and ugly conclusion in a way Paul doesn't seem to want to. His dodging of the question could be taken as a desire to not concede a genuine sound-byte, but it also undermines his position that he wants to have an intelligent discussion about the subject.

In the end, I don't think his position is demonstrably racist or suspicious in any way, what does strike me as suspicious is his decision to make an issue of it when there are clearly bigger fish to fry in national politics. That seems very weird to me, especially given Ron Paul's association with racist publications in the past. Seems to call both gentlemen's dismissal of racist tendencies into question in one fell swoop.

[Stringer_Bell]

In the end, I don't think his position is demonstrably racist or suspicious in any way, what does strike me as suspicious is his decision to make an issue of it when there are clearly bigger fish to fry in national politics. That seems very weird to me, especially given Ron Paul's association with racist publications in the past. Seems to call both gentlemen's dismissal of racist tendencies into question in one fell swoop.

Admiral, please please please find it in your heart of hearts to recognize that Rand Paul never made it an issue, nor part of his campaign platform, nor part of his speeches to gain Tea Party support. The media is making it an issue, attempting to FORCE it, when he was clearly poised to take the Kentucky Senate seat. I'm not saying there's a conspiracy, but it is suspicious in the sense that everyone has been burned out on the oil spill and other tedious news...they needed something to rile people up to get people interested in the news, and sadly it seems to have worked. If nothing else, it is the gross insistence of, forgive me for using this term, MSM big wigs to make an issue out of this for their own benefit. If it gets ratings and coverage for a few days, the story has done its job regardless of the ignorance and needless damage it creates.

I troll people on here a lot, but this is serious business.
http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-03-09/1236634933412.jpg

[admiralsnackbar]

:lol Awright, SB.

I truly agree with you, I just think a smarter man would have kept his trap shut with regards to laws that are taken for granted by most of us. The fact that he didn't may just mean he's not a smarter man, but it may suggest that he couldn't resist but opine on something dear to his heart. I mean seriously -- SERIOUS BUSINESSLY -- who the fuck goes anywhere near this topic critically when they want to get elected?

[Galileo]

Rachel Maddow- NY Times get Rand Paul quote wrong
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg5zOQ05b9E&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg5zOQ05b9E&feature=player_embedded


WOW.. the media distorts someone that is a threat to the establishment?  I am surprised... NOT!!

[Blake]

Admiral, please please please find it in your heart of hearts to recognize that Rand Paul never made it an issue, nor part of his campaign platform, nor part of his speeches to gain Tea Party support. The media is making it an issue, attempting to FORCE it, when he was clearly poised to take the Kentucky Senate seat. I'm not saying there's a conspiracy, but it is suspicious in the sense that everyone has been burned out on the oil spill and other tedious news...they needed something to rile people up to get people interested in the news, and sadly it seems to have worked. If nothing else, it is the gross insistence of, forgive me for using this term, MSM big wigs to make an issue out of this for their own benefit. If it gets ratings and coverage for a few days, the story has done its job regardless of the ignorance and needless damage it creates.

I troll people on here a lot, but this is serious business.
http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-03-09/1236634933412.jpg

It was a trivial question the first time it was asked, but the way he answered then and his subsequent responses on Maddow's show make it a very pointed issue.

Is he for private businesses being able to discriminate the way they want to or not?
He can spin as many times as he wants, but at the end of the day, it's either yes or no.

and if he's not a racist per se and instead just an extremist, then exactly how extreme is he and at what point will he inevitably contradict himself?

[boutons_deux]

Paul saying, 45 years of after it became the law of the land and survived (so far) the Repug-packed activist/extremist anti-stare-decisis SCOTUS, that he denies the right of US citizens to enter into institution serving the public IS a huge issue.

Just another right-winger exposing his agreement with widespread right-wing racism.

[Nbadan]

Rand Paul has claimed to be board certified, but it turns out he is certified by a board (National Board of Ophthalmology) that he incorporated and heads, and of which his wife is vice-president...

KY-Sen: Rand Paul inaccurately claiming to be board certified


Panel doesn't recognize Paul certification


The national clearinghouse for ophthalmologist board certifications says Rand Paul has not been certified for the past five years. Rand Paul has claimed to be board certified, but it turns out he is certified by a board (National Board of Ophthalmology) that he incorporated and heads, and of which his wife is vice-president. The CJ could only find seven ophthalmologists besides Paul who were members of or were certified by Paul's group, and all of them also had the "real certification" of the American Board of Ophthalmology.

.........

It seems that the American Board began requiring ophthalmologists to re-certify every 10 years, but the older ophthalmologists were grandfathered in so that they did not have to re-certify. This angered Rand Paul and some young ophthalmologists, who decided to make their own board which requires everyone to re-certify, young and old. While this "re-certification for all" rule sounds fair to me, the American Board of Medical Specialties (which works with the AMA) did not recognize Rand Paul's group (for unknown reasons,) and so Paul had not had a nationally recognized certification for years. That hasn't stopped him from advertising to his patients that he is board certified.

[Winehole23]

Self-awarded. How hacky...

[boutons_deux]

"Paul On Mountaintop Removal: ‘I Don’t Think Anyone’s Going To Be Missing A Hill Or Two Here And There’"

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/06/13/rand-paul-mountaintop/

.... conveniently ignoring the water pollution that extends well beyond a the removal area.

I guess neighbors have the libertarian right to level the mountains they own AND to destroy their neighbor's/region's water doing it.

The Great American People love freedom, as long as no responsibility is attached.

[Galileo]

"Paul On Mountaintop Removal: ‘I Don’t Think Anyone’s Going To Be Missing A Hill Or Two Here And There’"

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/06/13/rand-paul-mountaintop/

.... conveniently ignoring the water pollution that extends well beyond a the removal area.

I guess neighbors have the libertarian right to level the mountains they own AND to destroy their neighbor's/region's water doing it.

The Great American People love freedom, as long as no responsibility is attached.

You don't understand libertarian principles. You are not allowed to pollute other people's property under libertarianism. That is a violation of property rights. Today, large corporations get away with polluting because libertarian principles are not being followed by the government. You are an idiot.

[Galileo]

Rand Paul has claimed to be board certified, but it turns out he is certified by a board (National Board of Ophthalmology) that he incorporated and heads, and of which his wife is vice-president...

KY-Sen: Rand Paul inaccurately claiming to be board certified


Panel doesn't recognize Paul certification

Who gives a shit? This is the kind of bullshit that people are upset with. Rand's customers can decide if they want to see him or not. They don't need some fucked up bureaucrat to decide for them. The people against Rand just want to keep the war in Iraq running for another 10 years, that is the root of the issue.

[boutons_deux]

"You are not allowed to pollute other people's property under libertarianism."

There's no way to remove mountains without destroying the water, so you and PAUL can go GFY

Same is true for gas fracking, and shale oil.

[Galileo]

"You are not allowed to pollute other people's property under libertarianism."

There's no way to remove mountains without destroying the water, so you and PAUL can go GFY

Same is true for gas fracking, and shale oil.

That's baloney. Rand said that if you owned the mountain you could remove the top of it. If you own the mountain, then you own the water in or on the mountain.

You are a communist.

[boutons_deux]

You can't remove a single mountain while not disturbing if not destroying neighboring mountains and watershed. GFY

=========

Do right wingers EVER tell the truth about anything? Seems like their entire approach is lie, slander, bad faith in all directions.

"LOUISVILLE, Ky. - The national panel that approves doctors as board certified said U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul isn't on the list, even though he has campaigned as holding the endorsement."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37672158

[Galileo]

You can't remove a single mountain while not disturbing if not destroying neighboring mountains and watershed. GFY

=========

Do right wingers EVER tell the truth about anything? Seems like their entire approach is lie, slander, bad faith in all directions.

"LOUISVILLE, Ky. - The national panel that approves doctors as board certified said U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul isn't on the list, even though he has campaigned as holding the endorsement."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37672158

That's bullshit. Mountains in the desert don't have a watershed. And some mountains are by themself, they do not have neighbors.

:rollin

[EmptyMan]

http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr172/andahotplate/HatersGonnaHate.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

That's bullshit. Mountains in the desert don't have a watershed. And some mountains are by themself, they do not have neighbors.

:rollinThat is without a doubt the weakest attempt to change the subject ever.

[Blake]

That's baloney. Rand said that if you owned the mountain you could remove the top of it. If you own the mountain, then you own the water in or on the mountain.

You are a communist.

so if you are the randowner, you own the water underneath the rand?

[boutons_deux]

Rand Paul, pitbull bitch, the Nevada nutjob, all too chickenshit to face raw questions. Too right-wingers, talk tough when they shoveling the shit out, but refuse to have their shit thrown back at them.

Rand Paul Takes Page From Palin Playbook, Refuses to Answer Questions That Aren’t Pre-Screened


http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/06/16/rand-paul-takes-page-from-palin-playbook-refuses-to-answer-questions-that-arent-pre-screened/

============

No solitary mountains in deserts in WV or in the Rockies. Where are there solitary US mountains in deserts being leveled for mining? :lol GFY, libertarian asshole.

[Galileo]

so if you are the randowner, you own the water underneath the rand?

R U goin' to throw a temper Randtrum?

:lmao

[Blake]

R U goin' to throw a temper Randtrum?

:lmao

ugh

:td