RANDSLIDE! (Map)

[MannyIsGod]

CBF, he backpedaled like a mother er 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 ing kidding me? Now what happened in the Gulf isn't BPs fault? I know you love Ron Paul, but come the on.

[Stringer_Bell]

CBF, he backpedaled like a mother er 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 ing kidding me? Now what happened in the Gulf isn't BPs fault? I know you love Ron Paul, but come the on.

You know? Don't play that 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."



http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/...paign=alternet

[MannyIsGod]

You know? Don't play that 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 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 ( 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 ins utions such as schools to reject someone based on an individual’s beliefs or attributes? Most certainly. Should it be prohibited for private en ies 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/2010/05/2...ments-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.

Wow, when I saw CBF I thought you meant I "can't be ed" 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.

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 ins utional racism since 1964 (ins utional 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 ed 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.

[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 le 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 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 do ents 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_bl...-upgrades.html

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Manny - didn't see that latest 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.