The Left Can’t Stop Lying About Rand Paul

[Zona]

You had me at "The left can't stop lying".

and Rand had me at "whites only".


How can any of you guys defend this tripe?

 

[JimH52]

I thought Middle Schoolers weren't allowed on this board?

 

[Oddball]

You had me at "The left can't stop lying".

and Rand had me at "whites only".


How can any of you guys defend this tripe?

Because that's not at all what he meant, and race baiting hack dirtballs like you know it.

 

[Zona]

Who cares about Rand Paul.

If he's anything like his father he's a nut-case.

Apparently a couple people care about ol Rand in Kentucky it seems. I wonder how many rea baggers agree with him. I mean out in the real world, not just in here. WE all know who agrees with him in here.

 

[Ravi]

Rand Paul did not "attack" the Civil Rights Act but merely attempted to discuss its implications in the realm of private ownership and individual rights.

He repeated many times he was strongly opposed to what he calls institutional racism, but admitted to feeling contradictions may exist between the Civil Rights Act private property. Fact is, Rand Paul is exactly right - these contradictions have long been discussed, and racism does not exist out of that fact.

The Arizona immigration law/debate is very similar in playing out those contradictions.

Rand Paul gave a far more intellectual response than "Yes We Can" - and for that the left will attempt to castigate him as a racist.

It's not working though - Kentucky appears to be very supportive of Rand Paul...

You might want to rethink your post.

Here is a link to an NPR radio interview. Examining Rand Paul's Civil Rights Record : NPR

Paul initially suggested the federal government has no right to impose discrimination guidelines on private businesses.

Of course not. The constitution is apparently un-American.

 

[Ravi]

You had me at "The left can't stop lying".

and Rand had me at "whites only".


How can any of you guys defend this tripe?

Because that's not at all what he meant, and race baiting hack dirtballs like you know it.

You mean to say he misspoke.

 

[Zona]

You had me at "The left can't stop lying".

and Rand had me at "whites only".


How can any of you guys defend this tripe?

Because that's not at all what he meant, and race baiting hack dirtballs like you know it.

What he said was very specific. He feels as though the goverment should not be allowed to tell businesses what races they can or cannot allow to serve.

In other words, "no blacks allowed" would be fine with him. Refute this.

What year is he lving in? 63?

 

[Sinatra]

It is sad to see so many showing an inability to understand what Rand Paul was attempting to discuss on the issue of the Civil Rights Act.

There is far more to the Civil Rights Act than merely "Black and White".

The implications regarding individual freedom and private property - both foundational institutions of the Republic, are very deeply imbedded within the 1964 law.

Rand Paul was attempting to actually have a conversation regarding the law and its implication, not give an easy "Yes We Can" soundbite.

Have you seen the sign "We reserve the right to refuse service"? That simple sign, placed in so many businesses throughout the country, serves as a constant reminder of the very complexities Rand Paul was discussing in relation to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

One can raise questions regarding the Civil Rights Act without being a racist. It is a very very sad commentary on the lack of intellectual understanding some appear to have regarding the issue...

 

[Zona]

Rand Paul did not "attack" the Civil Rights Act but merely attempted to discuss its implications in the realm of private ownership and individual rights.

He repeated many times he was strongly opposed to what he calls institutional racism, but admitted to feeling contradictions may exist between the Civil Rights Act private property. Fact is, Rand Paul is exactly right - these contradictions have long been discussed, and racism does not exist out of that fact.

The Arizona immigration law/debate is very similar in playing out those contradictions.

Rand Paul gave a far more intellectual response than "Yes We Can" - and for that the left will attempt to castigate him as a racist.

It's not working though - Kentucky appears to be very supportive of Rand Paul...

Yup, those Kentuckians (sp) sure do love ol Rand. Do you honestly think he will play well in the rest of America?

Here is a hint, he got pulled back hard by his party and told to stfu. Heard from him lately?

He represents tea baggers perfectly though. I wish he would have kept on talking, but sadely he will back peddle.

 

[Sinatra]

+

It is sad to see so many showing an inability to understand what Rand Paul was attempting to discuss on the issue of the Civil Rights Act.

There is far more to the Civil Rights Act than merely "Black and White".

The implications regarding individual freedom and private property - both foundational institutions of the Republic, are very deeply imbedded within the 1964 law.

Rand Paul was attempting to actually have a conversation regarding the law and its implication, not give an easy "Yes We Can" soundbite.

Have you seen the sign "We reserve the right to refuse service"? That simple sign, placed in so many businesses throughout the country, serves as a constant reminder of the very complexities Rand Paul was discussing in relation to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

One can raise questions regarding the Civil Rights Act without being a racist. It is a very very sad commentary on the lack of intellectual understanding some appear to have regarding the issue...

 

[Oddball]

They have the ability (well, a lot of them anyways)...They're just so stuck in knee-jerk identity politics and race baiting that the ability to think critically gets tossed aside.

 

[Ravi]

It is sad to see so many showing an inability to understand what Rand Paul was attempting to discuss on the issue of the Civil Rights Act.

There is far more to the Civil Rights Act than merely "Black and White".

The implications regarding individual freedom and private property - both foundational institutions of the Republic, are very deeply imbedded within the 1964 law.

Rand Paul was attempting to actually have a conversation regarding the law and its implication, not give an easy "Yes We Can" soundbite.

Have you seen the sign "We reserve the right to refuse service"? That simple sign, placed in so many businesses throughout the country, serves as a constant reminder of the very complexities Rand Paul was discussing in relation to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

One can raise questions regarding the Civil Rights Act without being a racist. It is a very very sad commentary on the lack of intellectual understanding some appear to have regarding the issue...

Sinatra, how does it feel to be an apologist for racism?

No one can withhold the right to serve someone if the reason is unconstitutional.

 

[Sinatra]

They have the ability...They're just so stuck in knee-jerk identity politics and race baiting that the ability gets ignored.

You are quite correct.

 

[Sinatra]

It is sad to see so many showing an inability to understand what Rand Paul was attempting to discuss on the issue of the Civil Rights Act.

There is far more to the Civil Rights Act than merely "Black and White".

The implications regarding individual freedom and private property - both foundational institutions of the Republic, are very deeply imbedded within the 1964 law.

Rand Paul was attempting to actually have a conversation regarding the law and its implication, not give an easy "Yes We Can" soundbite.

Have you seen the sign "We reserve the right to refuse service"? That simple sign, placed in so many businesses throughout the country, serves as a constant reminder of the very complexities Rand Paul was discussing in relation to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

One can raise questions regarding the Civil Rights Act without being a racist. It is a very very sad commentary on the lack of intellectual understanding some appear to have regarding the issue...

Sinatra, how does it feel to be an apologist for racism?

No one can withhold the right to serve someone if the reason is unconstitutional.

You are putting your inability - or in Dude's words, refusal to utilize said ability, fully on display now.

Very sad...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Now it’s the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Tim Kaine, who “does a Maddow” and flat-out lies on national television about Rand Paul. On Fox News Sunday Kaine claimed that Paul said it was “un-American to hold BP accountable” for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Host Chris Wallace called him out by pointing out that what Paul said was “un-American” was a Democratic pol’s grandstanding bloviation that “we should put a boot on the neck of BP.” Paul said that such rhetoric is un-American, not holding BP accountable for damage it has caused.

such rhetoric is un-America


"Liar!" - GOP Rep. Wilson during a State of the Union Speech





---

"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,'" Rand said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America." "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/66427

 

[Zona]

They have the ability...They're just so stuck in knee-jerk identity politics and race baiting that the ability gets ignored.

You are quite correct.

Sinatra, Dude, you can be racist as you want to be. If you act in a discriminatory way, there are laws and retributions that will be had. God bless America and this is not 1963.

Defend this nut Rand all you want,but we passed a law for a reason. You and he lose again sirs.

Good day.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is sad to see so many showing an inability to understand what Rand Paul was attempting to discuss on the issue of the Civil Rights Act.

There is far more to the Civil Rights Act than merely "Black and White".

The implications regarding individual freedom and private property - both foundational institutions of the Republic, are very deeply imbedded within the 1964 law.

Rand Paul was attempting to actually have a conversation regarding the law and its implication, not give an easy "Yes We Can" soundbite.

Have you seen the sign "We reserve the right to refuse service"? That simple sign, placed in so many businesses throughout the country, serves as a constant reminder of the very complexities Rand Paul was discussing in relation to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

One can raise questions regarding the Civil Rights Act without being a racist. It is a very very sad commentary on the lack of intellectual understanding some appear to have regarding the issue...

Nonsense.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You had me at "The left can't stop lying".

sad part is the thread title was cut and pasted. It's part of the noise machine.

The Left Can't Stop Lying About Rand Paul « LewRockwell.com Blog
May 23, 2010 ... Paul said that such rhetoric is un-American, not holding BP

"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,'" Rand said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America." "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/66427

 

[Sinatra]

They have the ability...They're just so stuck in knee-jerk identity politics and race baiting that the ability gets ignored.

You are quite correct.

Sinatra, Dude, you can be racist as you want to be. If you act in a discriminatory way, there are laws and retributions that will be had. God bless America and this is not 1963.

Defend this nut Rand all you want,but we passed a law for a reason. You and he lose again sirs.

Good day.

___

You run from the discussion - refusing to actually learn of the implications at play within the contradictory nature of the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Again - so very sad...

 

[Ravi]

You had me at "The left can't stop lying".

sad part is the thread title was cut and pasted. It's part of the noise machine.

The Left Can't Stop Lying About Rand Paul « LewRockwell.com Blog
May 23, 2010 ... Paul said that such rhetoric is un-American, not holding BP

Sweet...plagiarists defending each other.