Reply With Quote
where are all the blacks on this? They stand mute.
Star Parker: Rand Paul works to help black people
February 16, 2015 - 7:43pm
By Star Parker
Center for Urban Renewal and Education
MORE:The Congressional Black Caucus will forgo no opportunity to re black progress and undermine the ideals that were once understood to be the goals of the civil rights movement.
In the latest example, the caucus has issued a press release calling Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., a racist for opposing confirmation of Loretta Lynch as the next U.S. Attorney General.
Paul earlier issued a press release stating three reasons for his opposition to Lynch. The caucus ignored two and called the third, her support for civil asset forfeiture, “...nothing but an excuse to keep an African American legal scholar from holding this high position. ...”
http://cjonline.com/opinion/2015-02-...bLk5c.facebook
where are all the blacks on this? They stand mute.
Conspiracy nutters love them some Ron/Rand Paul.
right-wingers don't for non-whites, they do TO non-whites
Last edited by boutons_deux; 02-17-2015 at 03:39 PM.
Whatever the Paul family is paying you, it's too much.
Did you have a mild stroke recently?
Rand Paul’s big mistake: Why his unofficial presidential campaign is flailing already
Just before sundown on Monday, Politico unveiled a report on how Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s support for auditing the Federal Reserve has been received thus far on Wall Street. “Very poorly” seems to be the answer. According to Politico, in fact, the likely presidential candidate’s attempts to bring “the Fed” into the light may have permanently lowered the stock of “the most interesting man in politics” — at least among the conservative members of the 1 percent. “The Fed is the pre-eminent central bank on the planet,” said one anonymous Wall Street big shot, “and no one wants to put that at risk.” The party establishment, he added, would “go on red alert” if necessary to deny Paul the GOP nomination.
the Politico report is a surprise — as well as an example of why Paul’s chance at the nomination has always been overstated. Because while you’d expect the GOP’s establishment types to disdain Paul’s anti-Fed populism, you wouldn’t figure the pushback would come this early or this strong. And although you’d imagine that a pseudo-libertarian like Paul would flourish in the Tea Party-era GOP, you’d be mistaken if you saw the years spent talking about free-markets and liberty as anything more than simple branding. Each one would be a serious misstep; and it looks right now like Paul made ‘em both.
close observers of theinvisible primary for the GOP’s presidential nomination knew that it was only a matter of time until the party’s Wall Street wing tried to sink Paul. Yet most figured it would happen later, after the primary had begun in earnest and once the establishment-friendly candidates had quarreled over donors enough to wear each other down and expose one another’s weaknesses.
the other Paul misstep is more relevant to country at large. (And it reveals another reason why Paul should regard Bush’s quick ascendance as such a threat.) From today’s vantage, it looks like Paul made a real error by taking the rhetoric of the Tea Party so seriously.
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/17/rand...iling_already/
Salon? This is the same outfit that just threw sludge on the Boston Tea Party.
Salon? This is the same outfit that just threw sludge on the Boston Tea Party.
in your dreams
Rand Paul slams gay rights in unearthed 2013 interview: “I don’t really believe in rights based on your behavior”
It never ceases to amaze how many people assume that because Rand Paul says reasonable things about the drug war and describes himself as a libertarian conservative, he must be down with the gay rights movement. This isn’t simply a belief shared by low-information voters; indeed, it often creeps into media coverage of the Kentucky senator and likely 2016 presidential candidate. In 2014, NPR described Paul as the candidate of GOP voters “more tolerant of same-sex marriage,” and Politico has suggested that Paul would offer the gay community “a presidential pat on the head.”
But despite the widely held perception that Paul represents a break with the GOP’s anti-gay record, there’s little that separates Paul from Rick Santorum on LGBT issues.
He has long opposed marriage equality and non-discrimination protections, and just within the past month,
Paul has declared that same-sex nuptials “offend” him and called marriage equality a sign of a “moral crisis” in American society.
Now, thanks to BuzzFeed’s Dominic Holden, we have further evidence of Paul’s deep-seated anti-gay views.
Holden unearthed a little-noticed 2013 interview in which Paul effectively tried to marry his libertarian views with his opposition to gay equality, declaring that he supports rights for individuals, but not those for groups and not those based on “behavior.”
“I don’t think I’ve ever used the word gay rights, because I don’t really believe in rights based on your behavior,” Paul said.
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/31/rand...your_behavior/
iow, Paul, pere et fils, are racists, bigots, anti-freedom hypocritical assholes just like run-of-the-mill Confederate Christian Taliban.
All people have rights, not just gay people, got.
To repeat ad nauseam, Rand Paul is saying he doesn't "believe" in some rights, and certainly wouldn't ENFORCE those rights if he had the chance, without enforcement, ALL CLAIMED RIGHTS ARE ALIENABLE.
I stand with Star Parker. All people have the same rights.
don't vote for paul because conspiracy theorists vote for him
don't vote for Paul because he and libertarianism are totally fraudulent
Libertarianism is fraudulent ain't it?
croutons has a fetish for being wire-tapped
and it's so cute when non-americans comment on our politics
libertarians, if they ever won national power, wouldn't dare touch the NSA/FBI/CIA/mlitarized police state.
Rand voted NO on the extension. Cruz and Obama supported it.
RP has no power, so his vote is meaningless. What would he do if he had real power to fulfill your dream, to sign a mythical bill (it won't happen) to scale back the police state if he were Pres?
its not about signing mythical bills, it's about vetoing the extension of previous ones.
iow, RP has no power to veto. Given the power (he'll never have it) to really restrain the police state, iow, eyeball-to-eyeball with the police state, he wouldn't restrain .
only time I'll ever care enough to vote for a president is if they promise to do away with big brother and admit that the Patriot Act has been misused and is unethical
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
