Rand Paul caught lying on video

[Mad_Cabbie]

Why are you replying to the Obama posts vs the Rand Paul ones? Is it that Rand wasn't lying and this thread is bunk?

Please feel free to read my comments on Rand Paul, the actual SUBJECT of this thread.

I have not commented on Obama, except to point out that this thread is NOT about Obama.

So this is the this is not about Obama thread? AKA the deflection from Obama's latest attempts to destroy our country thread?

You might want to read the OP and get back to me.

It doesn't look like you have any clue as to what this thread is about or even what is going on.

 

[RKMBrown]

I think that Rand did back-track on this. I think he did so, because he wants to distance himself from those comments.

Firstly, I don't hold the earlier opinion about this against him in the least.

Secondly, I wish he had just said that he he had changed his mind, instead of denying it, which he clearly did.

Lastly, I do not hold this (back-tracking) against him; It's not a huge deal to me anyway - It certainly should not put a damper on his presidential aspirations.


Edit: I really like his dad and there are times I wish Rand was more like Ron.

Bullcarp.

In 2010 Rand Paul said, “I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.”

Like and in favor of is not the same as dislike and not in favor of.

In 2010 Rand Paul also said, “I abhor racism."

In 2010 Rand Paul further said, “I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant."

In 2010 Rand Paul still further said, “I do believe in private ownership.”

The hit piece on Rand, however, made tons of conjecture about Rand's connection to his father Ron Paul while explaining how much the writer hates libertarian view points. The hit piece went on to explain how Rand Paul keeps trying to deny that he has objections to the Civil rights Act, as if you have to be a democrat to understand that Rand Paul is not allowed to be in favor of the Civil Rights Act and therefore must be lying.

This is not hard cabbie, the only liars in this OP thread are the poster of the OP, the writer he copied it from, and the ones continuing to presume that being in favor of something means you must have been against it before you were for it, therefore are a liar.

 

[RKMBrown]

Please feel free to read my comments on Rand Paul, the actual SUBJECT of this thread.

I have not commented on Obama, except to point out that this thread is NOT about Obama.

So this is the this is not about Obama thread? AKA the deflection from Obama's latest attempts to destroy our country thread?

You might want to read the OP and get back to me.

It doesn't look like you have any clue as to what this thread is about or even what is going on.

Looks to me like all you want to do talk about deflections and start new deflections.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

I think that Rand did back-track on this. I think he did so, because he wants to distance himself from those comments.

Firstly, I don't hold the earlier opinion about this against him in the least.

Secondly, I wish he had just said that he he had changed his mind, instead of denying it, which he clearly did.

Lastly, I do not hold this (back-tracking) against him; It's not a huge deal to me anyway - It certainly should not put a damper on his presidential aspirations.


Edit: I really like his dad and there are times I wish Rand was more like Ron.

Bullcarp.

In 2010 Rand Paul said, “I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.”

Like and in favor of is not the same as dislike and not in favor of.

In 2010 Rand Paul also said, “I abhor racism."

In 2010 Rand Paul further said, “I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant."

In 2010 Rand Paul still further said, “I do believe in private ownership.”

The hit piece on Rand, however, made tons of conjecture about Rand's connection to his father Ron Paul while explaining how much the writer hates libertarian view points. The hit piece went on to explain how Rand Paul keeps trying to deny that he has objections to the Civil rights Act, as if you have to be a democrat to understand that Rand Paul is not allowed to be in favor of the Civil Rights Act and therefore must be lying.

This is not hard cabbie, the only liars in this OP thread are the poster of the OP, the writer he copied it from, and the ones continuing to presume that being in favor of something means you must have been against it before you were for it, therefore are a liar.

I stand behind what I wrote, the video backs it up - Rand said that he never had issue with the part of the act that dealt with private business, he clearly did.

Did you even watch the vid where he denied having issue with it?

Like I said, though, I don't really have a problem with it. I'm not even saying that he lied - he just might not remember.

Pointing at Obama is deflecting, not vise versa.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

So this is the this is not about Obama thread? AKA the deflection from Obama's latest attempts to destroy our country thread?

You might want to read the OP and get back to me.

It doesn't look like you have any clue as to what this thread is about or even what is going on.

Looks to me like all you want to do talk about deflections and start new deflections.

Wrong again, this thread is about Paul, for you and others to steadily bring "but ... but ... Obama!" Into this, is the real deflection.

Not everything has to be about Obama - it's quite tiresome.

 

[RKMBrown]

You might want to read the OP and get back to me.

It doesn't look like you have any clue as to what this thread is about or even what is going on.

Looks to me like all you want to do talk about deflections and start new deflections.

Wrong again, this thread is about Paul, for you and others to steadily bring "but ... but ... Obama!" Into this, is the real deflection.

Not everything has to be about Obama - it's quite tiresome.

No. Your post that you just posted is about you wanting to complain about people deflecting from this deflection.

 

[RKMBrown]

I think that Rand did back-track on this. I think he did so, because he wants to distance himself from those comments.

Firstly, I don't hold the earlier opinion about this against him in the least.

Secondly, I wish he had just said that he he had changed his mind, instead of denying it, which he clearly did.

Lastly, I do not hold this (back-tracking) against him; It's not a huge deal to me anyway - It certainly should not put a damper on his presidential aspirations.


Edit: I really like his dad and there are times I wish Rand was more like Ron.

Bullcarp.

In 2010 Rand Paul said, “I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.”

Like and in favor of is not the same as dislike and not in favor of.

In 2010 Rand Paul also said, “I abhor racism."

In 2010 Rand Paul further said, “I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant."

In 2010 Rand Paul still further said, “I do believe in private ownership.”

The hit piece on Rand, however, made tons of conjecture about Rand's connection to his father Ron Paul while explaining how much the writer hates libertarian view points. The hit piece went on to explain how Rand Paul keeps trying to deny that he has objections to the Civil rights Act, as if you have to be a democrat to understand that Rand Paul is not allowed to be in favor of the Civil Rights Act and therefore must be lying.

This is not hard cabbie, the only liars in this OP thread are the poster of the OP, the writer he copied it from, and the ones continuing to presume that being in favor of something means you must have been against it before you were for it, therefore are a liar.

I stand behind what I wrote, the video backs it up - Rand said that he never had issue with the part of the act that dealt with private business, he clearly did.

Did you even watch the vid where he denied having issue with it?

Like I said, though, I don't really have a problem with it. I'm not even saying that he lied - he just might not remember.

Pointing at Obama is deflecting, not vise versa.

Yes, I watched the video. What he said is "he was absolutely in favor of 9 of the 10 titles that dealt with public institutions." What he also said was "he would have been in favor of discussing and possibly modifying one of the titles that dealt with private companies." This is not hard, being in favor of modifying is not the same as being completely against something. He did not clarify in the video how he would have modified the title. He did not say he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act. In fact he said he was in favor of it.

Then in the context of the CONSTANT BADGERING from democrat MSM press he said he never said he was against the title about private ownership, which is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. He merely said he had trouble with the part about taking people's liberty away from them. Clearly you can't resolve the "esoteric" subtlety of things like freedom of speech having to allow abhorrent things like racist speech.

You'll note that the private title only applies to public services, if the private entity has a private club, the private club can discriminate with regard to who they accept into the club. Then provide private club services. This is why it's not illegal for churches to discriminate who they marry. For example, you may have to be a member of the church in good standing to get married by the church.

Rand did not clarify what he wanted to modify or how. But wanting to discuss and modify is not the same as having a problem with it and being against it. It may mean merely making it better. For example, the private title of the act could have been modified to describe certain locations where private business are required to serve the public without discrimination. Eg. not on a public sidewalk. Or not when the service is advertised in the public domain. etc....

 

[Bull_ok]

Lies. It’s like you have to lie to live. You’re a lie-abetic. You have lie-abetes. Twice a day, you have to take a shot of insu-lyin’.
Stan Smith "American Dad" (c)

 

[Discombobulated]

And what's really hilarious is that Republican lawmakers voted against Obama care without knowing what was actually in the bill. I wonder why they didn't know that you couldn't keep your doctor? Isn't it their business to know exactly what they're voting against? Why didn't they know?

Honestly, the Republicans are truly STUPID...Given ONE DAY to go over some 2700 pages before a vote is preposterous! But with the way Reid set them up with only needing 51 votes to pass the bill, they were simply OUTPLAYED by men who are MUCH MORE DIABOLICAL than honest!

You surprise me, that's a pretty good answer. In truth there are no honest politicians, they all lie all the time. And I'm no fan of Obama, but I think his critics would do better if they just told the truth. Why make shit up when the reality is already so terrible?

 

[dblack]

Democracy in this country pretty much boils down to demagogue-ing the dummies. This thread is a case in point.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Bullcarp.

In 2010 Rand Paul said, “I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.”

Like and in favor of is not the same as dislike and not in favor of.

In 2010 Rand Paul also said, “I abhor racism."

In 2010 Rand Paul further said, “I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant."

In 2010 Rand Paul still further said, “I do believe in private ownership.”

The hit piece on Rand, however, made tons of conjecture about Rand's connection to his father Ron Paul while explaining how much the writer hates libertarian view points. The hit piece went on to explain how Rand Paul keeps trying to deny that he has objections to the Civil rights Act, as if you have to be a democrat to understand that Rand Paul is not allowed to be in favor of the Civil Rights Act and therefore must be lying.

This is not hard cabbie, the only liars in this OP thread are the poster of the OP, the writer he copied it from, and the ones continuing to presume that being in favor of something means you must have been against it before you were for it, therefore are a liar.

I stand behind what I wrote, the video backs it up - Rand said that he never had issue with the part of the act that dealt with private business, he clearly did.

Did you even watch the vid where he denied having issue with it?

Like I said, though, I don't really have a problem with it. I'm not even saying that he lied - he just might not remember.

Pointing at Obama is deflecting, not vise versa.

Yes, I watched the video. What he said is "he was absolutely in favor of 9 of the 10 titles that dealt with public institutions." What he also said was "he would have been in favor of discussing and possibly modifying one of the titles that dealt with private companies." This is not hard, being in favor of modifying is not the same as being completely against something. He did not clarify in the video how he would have modified the title. He did not say he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act. In fact he said he was in favor of it.

Then in the context of the CONSTANT BADGERING from democrat MSM press he said he never said he was against the title about private ownership, which is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. He merely said he had trouble with the part about taking people's liberty away from them. Clearly you can't resolve the "esoteric" subtlety of things like freedom of speech having to allow abhorrent things like racist speech.

You'll note that the private title only applies to public services, if the private entity has a private club, the private club can discriminate with regard to who they accept into the club. Then provide private club services. This is why it's not illegal for churches to discriminate who they marry. For example, you may have to be a member of the church in good standing to get married by the church.

Rand did not clarify what he wanted to modify or how. But wanting to discuss and modify is not the same as having a problem with it and being against it. It may mean merely making it better. For example, the private title of the act could have been modified to describe certain locations where private business are required to serve the public without discrimination. Eg. not on a public sidewalk. Or not when the service is advertised in the public domain. etc....

I've stated my case and feel no pressing need to keep pointing it out.

Take care.

 

[LiberalMedia]

"I abhor racism. ...but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership."

Because you can't own private property without being a racist. Capitalist pigs are also racists by default, according to champions of free market capitalism like Rand Paul. I'm glad we cleared that one up, white "people." Communism is the only economic system that brings equality. Capitalism breeds slavery at the hands of racist, white property owners.

Of course, if the right-wingers here would like to deny that, I'd love to hear you refute this argument and explain in detail why Rand Paul is wrong.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

"I abhor racism. ...but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership."

Because you can't own private property without being a racist. Capitalist pigs are also racists by default, according to champions of free market capitalism like Rand Paul. I'm glad we cleared that one up, white "people." Communism is the only economic system that brings equality. Capitalism breeds slavery at the hands of racist, white property owners.

Of course, if the right-wingers here would like to deny that, I'd love to hear you refute this argument and explain in detail why Rand Paul is wrong.

What the hell????

 

[Missourian]

I always find the equivalency replies the best and funniest, all the right needs to do to soothe their moral and political conscience is find an example of another's wrongdoing or misstep and they feel like they have actually replied.

The funny part is how somehow the OP managed to spot the speck of sawdust in Paul's eye while ignoring the 2x4 protruding from Obama's head.

If Paul lied, hold him to account.

But HOLD YOUR OWN GUY ACCOUNTABLE TO THE SAME STANDARD.

Is that so much to ask?

 

[Meister]

Ok start with this one....

7 Lies In Under 2 Minutes - YouTube

Now maybe you can explain where the lies are......as if you ever had any idea. Where are they? Explain in detail numbers one through seven, or do you have to rely on the video to do your thinking for you?

I'm sorry, I should realize you fucking subversives don't understand English when it's in complete disagreement with your agenda.... and the answers to your questions are spoken on a video... Damn, these asshole LIE in front of us, and don't expect anyone to question them! ...The entertainment is picking up tonight!

Sadly, this has been the troll's mo since coming to this site. He always skirts the truth and deflects.

Obama lies and has been busted several times, it was the only way he could have gotten our healthcare insurance on the path to being socialized.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Watch: Rand Paul Caught Red-Handed Lying about past Objections to Civil Rights Act | Occupy Democrats

Presidential hopeful and Tea Party darling Rand Paul has long held objections to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, shamefully arguing that private businesses that serve the general public should have the right to discriminate.

The landmark civil rights legislation outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, including in private businesses that serve the general public, such as restaurants and hotels.

When asked by the Louisville Courier-Journal in 2010 if he would have voted for the civil rights acts of 1964, Paul evasively replied, “I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.”

“But?” the interviewer asked him, in response to which Paul chuckled as if questioning substantive provisions in the Civil Rights Act were a laughing matter.

“You had to ask me the ‘but.’ I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners — I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant — but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership.”

The Courier-Journal reported in 2010 that Paul’s critique of the Civil Rights Act echoed “the views of his father [Rep. Ron Paul], who stood up on the House floor when it celebrated the 40th anniversary of the act in 2004 and denounced it as ‘a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society.’”

Paul took a similar position that year when asked by Rachel Maddow, who has been following Paul’s attempts to deny his history of statements objecting to sections of Civil Rights Act.

Paul recently told NBC that he is not longer concerned about any of the titles in the Civil Rights Act, and that he never said that he was.

This chronic liar is definitely running for prez.

Now, watch the RWs say they agree with him and/or make excuses for his reprehensible position and his lies.

He also said those things on an interview with Rachel Maddow in 2010, around the same time, I think.

 

[JWBooth]

"I abhor racism. ...but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership."

Because you can't own private property without being a racist. Capitalist pigs are also racists by default, according to champions of free market capitalism like Rand Paul. I'm glad we cleared that one up, white "people." Communism is the only economic system that brings equality. Capitalism breeds slavery at the hands of racist, white property owners.

Of course, if the right-wingers here would like to deny that, I'd love to hear you refute this argument and explain in detail why Rand Paul is wrong.

Wrong again bitch, but that is what makes you so endearing.
Private property ownership is the bedrock on which freedom and liberty are built.

 

[RKMBrown]

I stand behind what I wrote, the video backs it up - Rand said that he never had issue with the part of the act that dealt with private business, he clearly did.

Did you even watch the vid where he denied having issue with it?

Like I said, though, I don't really have a problem with it. I'm not even saying that he lied - he just might not remember.

Pointing at Obama is deflecting, not vise versa.

Yes, I watched the video. What he said is "he was absolutely in favor of 9 of the 10 titles that dealt with public institutions." What he also said was "he would have been in favor of discussing and possibly modifying one of the titles that dealt with private companies." This is not hard, being in favor of modifying is not the same as being completely against something. He did not clarify in the video how he would have modified the title. He did not say he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act. In fact he said he was in favor of it.

Then in the context of the CONSTANT BADGERING from democrat MSM press he said he never said he was against the title about private ownership, which is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. He merely said he had trouble with the part about taking people's liberty away from them. Clearly you can't resolve the "esoteric" subtlety of things like freedom of speech having to allow abhorrent things like racist speech.

You'll note that the private title only applies to public services, if the private entity has a private club, the private club can discriminate with regard to who they accept into the club. Then provide private club services. This is why it's not illegal for churches to discriminate who they marry. For example, you may have to be a member of the church in good standing to get married by the church.

Rand did not clarify what he wanted to modify or how. But wanting to discuss and modify is not the same as having a problem with it and being against it. It may mean merely making it better. For example, the private title of the act could have been modified to describe certain locations where private business are required to serve the public without discrimination. Eg. not on a public sidewalk. Or not when the service is advertised in the public domain. etc....

I've stated my case and feel no pressing need to keep pointing it out.

Take care.

With respect. You did not state a case. You merely stated, "I think that Rand did back-track on this." You provided no evidence to back up your statement. Then you continued by accusing him, with no evidence, of backtracking "because he wants to distance himself from those comments."

Thus, in the absence of any evidence you assumed to speak for Rand Paul because as you stated you liked Rand's father's view points. Uhmmm... hello, your opinions are not a statement of a case. They are not even admissible.

 

[LiberalMedia]

"I abhor racism. ...but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership."

Because you can't own private property without being a racist. Capitalist pigs are also racists by default, according to champions of free market capitalism like Rand Paul. I'm glad we cleared that one up, white "people." Communism is the only economic system that brings equality. Capitalism breeds slavery at the hands of racist, white property owners.

Of course, if the right-wingers here would like to deny that, I'd love to hear you refute this argument and explain in detail why Rand Paul is wrong.

Wrong again bitch, but that is what makes you so endearing.

While I like the way you're responding to Rand Paul's comments that private property ownership is racism, you haven't explained in detail why he is wrong.

Private property ownership is the bedrock on which freedom and liberty are built.

Prove it.

 

[dblack]

Because you can't own private property without being a racist. Capitalist pigs are also racists by default, according to champions of free market capitalism like Rand Paul. I'm glad we cleared that one up, white "people." Communism is the only economic system that brings equality. Capitalism breeds slavery at the hands of racist, white property owners.

Of course, if the right-wingers here would like to deny that, I'd love to hear you refute this argument and explain in detail why Rand Paul is wrong.

Wrong again bitch, but that is what makes you so endearing.

While I like the way you're responding to Rand Paul's comments that private property ownership is racism, you haven't explained in detail why he is wrong.

Private property ownership is the bedrock on which freedom and liberty are built.

Prove it.

Because ownership is control. If you don't own yourself and your stuff, you don't control it. Someone else does. That's the opposite of liberty.