RANDSLIDE! (Map)

[DMX7]

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

Accidents happen.

[MannyIsGod]

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.

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 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 Mitc 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/...ess-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 compe ion 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 Ins ute 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 en led to a comfortable lifestyle (I've met more than a few ty doctors in my day, so maybe I'm biased against that en lement).

[boutons_deux]

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


Key Cons uency 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 Ins ute, 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 cons uency.

"I never thought I'd say this, but if Palin is going to stay compe ive 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 en led to a comfortable lifestyle (I've met more than a few ty doctors in my day, so maybe I'm biased against that en lement).

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/...care-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 . Yet i don't hear many of you 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/...care-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?

!!!!!

Medicare is as libertarian as comes!

[Ignignokt]

LOL What?

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

I'm the hack?

!!!!!

Medicare is as libertarian as 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 bull , 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 bull , 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?

!!!!!

Medicare is as libertarian as 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.