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.
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.
MSNBC’s Fake Transcript of the Rand Paul Interview
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...ves/58246.htmlRachel 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.
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".
A conspiracy. Of course.
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 su ious in any way, what does strike me as su ious 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 su ious 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.
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 goes anywhere near this topic critically when they want to get elected?
Rachel Maddow- NY Times get Rand Paul quote wrong
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg5zO...layer_embedded
WOW.. the media distorts someone that is a threat to the establishment? I am surprised... NOT!!
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.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 su ious 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.
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?
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 ins ution serving the public IS a huge issue.
Just another right-winger exposing his agreement with widespread right-wing racism.
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.
Self-awarded. How hacky...
"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/...l-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.
Who gives a ? This is the kind of bull that people are upset with. Rand's customers can decide if they want to see him or not. They don't need some ed 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.
"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.
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 bull . Mountains in the desert don't have a watershed. And some mountains are by themself, they do not have neighbors.
That is without a doubt the weakest attempt to change the subject ever.That's bull . Mountains in the desert don't have a watershed. And some mountains are by themself, they do not have neighbors.
so if you are the randowner, you own the water underneath the rand?
Rand Paul, pitbull , the Nevada nutjob, all too chicken to face raw questions. Too right-wingers, talk tough when they shoveling the out, but refuse to have their 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/...-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?
R U goin' to throw a temper Randtrum?
Last edited by Galileo; 06-16-2010 at 01:27 PM.
ughR U goin' to throw a temper Randtrum?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
