Rand Paul Slams "Partisan Cranks And Hacks" At MSNBC [VIDEO]...

[ThoughtCrimes]

Senator: "apologize for all the lousy lies you've been saying about me for four years"

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has hit out at MSNBC, pledging not to appear on the network again until it “apologizes” for pushing “lousy lies” about his policies.

The Senator made the comments Wednesday night during a speech to the libertarian group Young Americans for Liberty. Earlier in the day, Paul had appeared on an MSNBC show to talk about criminal justice reform proposals. Instead, the anchor dredged up comments about the Civil Rights Act that Paul made four years ago, comments that have consistently been taken out of context and used by the network to bash the Senator.

Rand Paul pledged four years ago that he would never return to MSNBC after his Maddow interview during his run for the Senate, UNTIL Maddow and MSNBC apologized for the same damn thing. He got no apology because none was required; he said what he said.

Fast forward four years and there he is on MSNBC hoping to be considered for his party's Presidential nomination, without that required apology he vowed he must have before he was ever to be on MSNBC again, flatly refused to acknowledge his previous statements AGAIN, which are a matter of video record both present and 4 years ago, then he goes off whining again vowing to never appear on MSNBC unless/until they apologize to him.

Taking the totality of Paul's lying, his hypocrisy and his abject dishonesty by theft with years of his documented plagiarism, anyone who would consider Rand Paul Presidential timber doesn't have their grits cooked or should be looking in another closet at least. This nation doesn't need another duplicitous idiot in the Oval Office like the last two; Obama and Bush.

 

[BlindBoo]

But...he did directly say he opposes the government preventing private institutions from refusing to service minorities....

Do me the favor and back your claim up with text/video. Do it or I'll assume you are going off memory and are wrong. I need a direct quote. Go get it.

K

MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we
don't serve black people?

PAUL: Yes.

Thursday, May 20th - msnbc - Rachel Maddow show | NBC News

 

[Avorysuds]

Standard weaseling from Rand. He says he was never against the Civil Rights Act, even though he stated he was against one very important part of it, the public access part. His logic is that since he was for 9/10 the Civil Rights act, his statement that private businesses should be allowed to not serve blacks doesn't mean anything, and that the liberals are just big meanies for bringing it up.

Rand Paul?s rewriting of his own remarks on the Civil Rights Act - The Washington Post

Needless to say, he's toast as far as any presidential aspirations go. His weasel act plays well with his base, but everyone else sees through it. If he had guts and honesty, he'd explain his former statement, and why he's moved away from it.

So anytime someone supports 9/10ths of something they are liars for supporting it?

Government made segregation legal you numbnuts... A power Government should not have IE, the power to tell people how to live their lives or in this case run their business.

Once you give Government the power to control you, you can't get it back, as proven with the CRact. Government was forced to stop discriminating, controlling people, (by the people, citizens) but found a way to keep controlling peoples actions by forcing them to serve people they might not want too.

The issue was never if Rand supported the CR act, he clearly does. The issue was for lefties to make him out to be racist seeing as it's the only thing they have. Rand is clearly not racist so that's why this semantics issue is blown up.

Should Government have the right to tell business's who to serve and who they can;t serve? The non dictatorial answer is no. What is your answer?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rand Paul has been caught in an outright lie and has chosen to dig himself an even deeper hole.

Not a good choice.

 

[Sallow]

Senator: "apologize for all the lousy lies you've been saying about me for four years"

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has hit out at MSNBC, pledging not to appear on the network again until it “apologizes” for pushing “lousy lies” about his policies.

The Senator made the comments Wednesday night during a speech to the libertarian group Young Americans for Liberty. Earlier in the day, Paul had appeared on an MSNBC show to talk about criminal justice reform proposals. Instead, the anchor dredged up comments about the Civil Rights Act that Paul made four years ago, comments that have consistently been taken out of context and used by the network to bash the Senator.


Rand Pall calls out MSNBC? on MSNBC - YouTube

What lies?

And if Paul thinks this sort of behavior is going to win votes?

He's mistaken.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Standard weaseling from Rand. He says he was never against the Civil Rights Act, even though he stated he was against one very important part of it, the public access part. His logic is that since he was for 9/10 the Civil Rights act, his statement that private businesses should be allowed to not serve blacks doesn't mean anything, and that the liberals are just big meanies for bringing it up.

Rand Paul?s rewriting of his own remarks on the Civil Rights Act - The Washington Post

Needless to say, he's toast as far as any presidential aspirations go. His weasel act plays well with his base, but everyone else sees through it. If he had guts and honesty, he'd explain his former statement, and why he's moved away from it.

So anytime someone supports 9/10ths of something they are liars for supporting it?

Government made segregation legal you numbnuts... A power Government should not have IE, the power to tell people how to live their lives or in this case run their business.

Once you give Government the power to control you, you can't get it back, as proven with the CRact. Government was forced to stop discriminating, controlling people, (by the people, citizens) but found a way to keep controlling peoples actions by forcing them to serve people they might not want too.

The issue was never if Rand supported the CR act, he clearly does. The issue was for lefties to make him out to be racist seeing as it's the only thing they have. Rand is clearly not racist so that's why this semantics issue is blown up.

Should Government have the right to tell business's who to serve and who they can;t serve? The non dictatorial answer is no. What is your answer?

Most Americans don't support the idea that a business should be able to refuse service to black people because they are black.

Rand Paul believes they should be able to refuse service to blacks for being black.

That is Rand Paul's problem in a nutshell.

 

[Sallow]

Standard weaseling from Rand. He says he was never against the Civil Rights Act, even though he stated he was against one very important part of it, the public access part. His logic is that since he was for 9/10 the Civil Rights act, his statement that private businesses should be allowed to not serve blacks doesn't mean anything, and that the liberals are just big meanies for bringing it up.

Rand Paul?s rewriting of his own remarks on the Civil Rights Act - The Washington Post

Needless to say, he's toast as far as any presidential aspirations go. His weasel act plays well with his base, but everyone else sees through it. If he had guts and honesty, he'd explain his former statement, and why he's moved away from it.

So anytime someone supports 9/10ths of something they are liars for supporting it?

Government made segregation legal you numbnuts... A power Government should not have IE, the power to tell people how to live their lives or in this case run their business.

Once you give Government the power to control you, you can't get it back, as proven with the CRact. Government was forced to stop discriminating, controlling people, (by the people, citizens) but found a way to keep controlling peoples actions by forcing them to serve people they might not want too.

The issue was never if Rand supported the CR act, he clearly does. The issue was for lefties to make him out to be racist seeing as it's the only thing they have. Rand is clearly not racist so that's why this semantics issue is blown up.

Should Government have the right to tell business's who to serve and who they can;t serve? The non dictatorial answer is no. What is your answer?

That's not the point.

Rand Paul was asked directly if he ever said he didn't support the Federal Government compelling private businesses to serve everyone, regardless of race.

Paul, at one point, clearly stated he didn't support that.

And now? He answers that he never said that.

It's a lie.

And a lost opportunity.

No one is looking for a perfect candidate.

But Americans like candidates who are as honest as possible. And they also like folks who can admit mistakes, apologize and move on.

 

[Avorysuds]

But...he did directly say he opposes the government preventing private institutions from refusing to service minorities....

Do me the favor and back your claim up with text/video. Do it or I'll assume you are going off memory and are wrong. I need a direct quote. Go get it.

K

MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we
don't serve black people?

PAUL: Yes.

Thursday, May 20th - msnbc - Rachel Maddow show | NBC News

The problem is you used Madcow, Madcow asks blacks because it makes him look bad... Why didn't she ask about not serving whites? Because as long as it appears that his position is only to not serve blacks or "minorities" you can call him a racist.

So your answer does not work as Rand Paul did not actually say what you wish so hard for him to say.

You lose again. But hey keep it up because in all honesty more and more people see the bullshit coming from the left (and the right) every year. Madcows rating shrink because she is not even a journalist, she's opinionated "news." As people realize there can be deeper answers to stances on issues you will only lose more and more voters. Dems lost 7 million voters last election, the most, ever. In fact both parties have always grown, Dems are the first to shrink. Reps caught up 2% from 2008 to 2014. Numbers are all out there, go look for yourself.

 

[Sallow]

Rand Paul would make a good presidential candidate because he seems to have appeal to people on the left as well as the right. He's gotten several standing ovations speaking to left wing audiences in very heavily Democratic enclaves like the San Francisco Bay Area. Of course, that doesn't mean at the end of the day those people will vote for him, so I'm not going to make any predictions this far in advance how well he would fare in an election. A lot of it also will depend on who his opponent would be. The far right nutters will also use his cross over appeal against him so who knows if he'll be able to make it through the primary.

He's got a slight appeal to Democrats. Some like his stance on privacy and ex convicts. He's also grown a bit as a politician, however, he's got a lot further to go. And he's not doing himself any favors by lying about his past.

That said, it's still not too late.

 

[R.D.]

But...he did directly say he opposes the government preventing private institutions from refusing to service minorities....

Do me the favor and back your claim up with text/video. Do it or I'll assume you are going off memory and are wrong. I need a direct quote. Go get it.

K

MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we
don't serve black people?

PAUL: Yes.

Thursday, May 20th - msnbc - Rachel Maddow show | NBC News

What happened? You can only read a few words and comprehend even less?

His full answer and then some...

PAUL: Yes. I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I
would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do
have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race.
But I think what's important about this debate is not written into any
specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question: what about freedom of
speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we
limit racists from speaking?
I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want
to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and
uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things freedom requires is
that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean
we approve of it. I think the problem with this debate is by getting
muddled down into it, the implication is somehow that I would approve of
any racism or discrimination, and I don't in any form or fashion.

Paul: I'm in favor of. I'm in favor of
everything with regards to ending institutional racism.

PAUL: 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.

PAUL: I abhor racism. I think it's a bad business
decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same
time, I do believe in private ownership. But I think there should be
absolutely no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding

And to the other point. He most certainly did not say anything of the kind in the vid as you tried to suggest

 

[Avorysuds]

Standard weaseling from Rand. He says he was never against the Civil Rights Act, even though he stated he was against one very important part of it, the public access part. His logic is that since he was for 9/10 the Civil Rights act, his statement that private businesses should be allowed to not serve blacks doesn't mean anything, and that the liberals are just big meanies for bringing it up.

Rand Paul?s rewriting of his own remarks on the Civil Rights Act - The Washington Post

Needless to say, he's toast as far as any presidential aspirations go. His weasel act plays well with his base, but everyone else sees through it. If he had guts and honesty, he'd explain his former statement, and why he's moved away from it.

So anytime someone supports 9/10ths of something they are liars for supporting it?

Government made segregation legal you numbnuts... A power Government should not have IE, the power to tell people how to live their lives or in this case run their business.

Once you give Government the power to control you, you can't get it back, as proven with the CRact. Government was forced to stop discriminating, controlling people, (by the people, citizens) but found a way to keep controlling peoples actions by forcing them to serve people they might not want too.

The issue was never if Rand supported the CR act, he clearly does. The issue was for lefties to make him out to be racist seeing as it's the only thing they have. Rand is clearly not racist so that's why this semantics issue is blown up.

Should Government have the right to tell business's who to serve and who they can;t serve? The non dictatorial answer is no. What is your answer?

That's not the point.

Rand Paul was asked directly if he ever said he didn't support the Federal Government compelling private businesses to serve everyone, regardless of race.

Paul, at one point, clearly stated he didn't support that.

And now? He answers that he never said that.

It's a lie.

And a lost opportunity.

No one is looking for a perfect candidate.

But Americans like candidates who are as honest as possible. And they also like folks who can admit mistakes, apologize and move on.

Wtf are you talking about? He didn't say he "never said that." He clearly states that he tried to have a philosophical conversation about his position on the civil rights act and people like you took it so far out of context it's now a lie and a topic he won't even talk about with msnbc until they stop lying.

And no shit people are not looking for a perfect candidate but f Americans liked candidates that are as honest as possible how the **** is there still 40% that like Obama? Lie of the year to least transparent President in US history whole managing to fail on almost all campaign promises. It's not even debatable if Obama is a liar or not...

 

[paulitician]

Hopefully Rand Paul can rise above the Communist/Progressive & Neocon hate. But it is an uphill struggle for sure. Both will do their best to destroy him. It's a shame, because he really is the only one out there who can cross ideological lines. But America might not be ready for that. I guess we'll see.

 

[BlindBoo]

Do me the favor and back your claim up with text/video. Do it or I'll assume you are going off memory and are wrong. I need a direct quote. Go get it.

K

MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we
don't serve black people?

PAUL: Yes.

Thursday, May 20th - msnbc - Rachel Maddow show | NBC News

The problem is you used Madcow, Madcow asks blacks because it makes him look bad... Why didn't she ask about not serving whites? Because as long as it appears that his position is only to not serve blacks or "minorities" you can call him a racist.

So your answer does not work as Rand Paul did not actually say what you wish so hard for him to say.

You lose again. But hey keep it up because in all honesty more and more people see the bullshit coming from the left (and the right) every year. Madcows rating shrink because she is not even a journalist, she's opinionated "news." As people realize there can be deeper answers to stances on issues you will only lose more and more voters. Dems lost 7 million voters last election, the most, ever. In fact both parties have always grown, Dems are the first to shrink. Reps caught up 2% from 2008 to 2014. Numbers are all out there, go look for yourself.

That was the transcript you asked for. That is what he said, now, he says he didn't say it.

Problem for you is that he did say it. He should just say he changed his mind about it if he did or, come right out and say he still believes private businesses operating in the public sphere should have the right to discriminate against anyone they wish.

 

[Avorysuds]

I re-watched the video, Rand is quite amazing in front of a camera. His father while I loved his message and position was always hard as **** to watch, I'd literally walk away while he gave answers it was so hard to watch.

But Rand, he's like his farther politically but appears to have learned from watching the media attack his dad on these positions. He clearly says msnbc is not honest enough to have complex debate, and he refuses to do so on this issue until msnbc stops lying.

See, it's easy to understand the tactic, it's guilt by just asking the person the question... Over and over and over and over and over. His position is clear, his position is actually the only moral and logical position, but if you can keep spamming "why do you feel a business should be allowed to not serve blacks," well then you have avoided his answer and made him seem racist.

The answer is, Rand feels Government does not have the right to force a business to serve everyone. Rand supports the CR act but takes issue with one of the parts of it as it goes to far.

MSNBC's answer is "Rand does not want Business's to serve blacks..." And, "Rand does not support the CR act."

Am I wrong here? Cuz I'm not even exaggerating from what I can tell.

 

[BlindBoo]

Do me the favor and back your claim up with text/video. Do it or I'll assume you are going off memory and are wrong. I need a direct quote. Go get it.

K

MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we
don't serve black people?

PAUL: Yes.

Thursday, May 20th - msnbc - Rachel Maddow show | NBC News

What happened? You can only read a few words and comprehend even less?

His full answer and then some...

PAUL: Yes. I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I
would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do
have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race.
But I think what's important about this debate is not written into any
specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question: what about freedom of
speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we
limit racists from speaking?
I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want
to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and
uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things freedom requires is
that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean
we approve of it. I think the problem with this debate is by getting
muddled down into it, the implication is somehow that I would approve of
any racism or discrimination, and I don't in any form or fashion.

Paul: I'm in favor of. I'm in favor of
everything with regards to ending institutional racism.

PAUL: 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.

PAUL: I abhor racism. I think it's a bad business
decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same
time, I do believe in private ownership. But I think there should be
absolutely no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding

And to the other point. He most certainly did not say anything of the kind in the vid as you tried to suggest

Everything after his answer of "Yes" was a distraction. He made it very plain in other parts of the interview that personally he thinks it would be a poor business model of turning customers of any color away, but he was very clear with his "Yes" that private businesses should have the right to discriminate against whomever they want.

 

[Avorysuds]

K

MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we
don't serve black people?

PAUL: Yes.

Thursday, May 20th - msnbc - Rachel Maddow show | NBC News

The problem is you used Madcow, Madcow asks blacks because it makes him look bad... Why didn't she ask about not serving whites? Because as long as it appears that his position is only to not serve blacks or "minorities" you can call him a racist.

So your answer does not work as Rand Paul did not actually say what you wish so hard for him to say.

You lose again. But hey keep it up because in all honesty more and more people see the bullshit coming from the left (and the right) every year. Madcows rating shrink because she is not even a journalist, she's opinionated "news." As people realize there can be deeper answers to stances on issues you will only lose more and more voters. Dems lost 7 million voters last election, the most, ever. In fact both parties have always grown, Dems are the first to shrink. Reps caught up 2% from 2008 to 2014. Numbers are all out there, go look for yourself.

That was the transcript you asked for. That is what he said, now, he says he didn't say it.

Problem for you is that he did say it. He should just say he changed his mind about it if he did or, come right out and say he still believes private businesses operating in the public sphere should have the right to discriminate against anyone they wish.

You are incorrect. The original question was not about blacks or minorities, it was an open ended question and Rand answered it in depth. Madcow comes along and realizes she can then re-ask the question with specifics, avoiding an entirety.

To be clear and I wanted to avoid this, but by the post you did that I'm quoting it's obvious you understand Rand's actual position and that you prolly even agree with it. What I wanted to avoid was going back and directly having to quote the guy I was talking to and my question. Minorities was the word used, I bolded it and made it larger so that was clear. You are talking about blacks, blacks are not the only minority. I asked for text/video of Rand saying minorities.

You might not see a difference, but there is, because Madcows question leads her ignorant audience.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Let's just say that they're no better than the tea party. Both using stupid shit to divide this country and weaken it from the inside.

 

[Sallow]

So anytime someone supports 9/10ths of something they are liars for supporting it?

Government made segregation legal you numbnuts... A power Government should not have IE, the power to tell people how to live their lives or in this case run their business.

Once you give Government the power to control you, you can't get it back, as proven with the CRact. Government was forced to stop discriminating, controlling people, (by the people, citizens) but found a way to keep controlling peoples actions by forcing them to serve people they might not want too.

The issue was never if Rand supported the CR act, he clearly does. The issue was for lefties to make him out to be racist seeing as it's the only thing they have. Rand is clearly not racist so that's why this semantics issue is blown up.

Should Government have the right to tell business's who to serve and who they can;t serve? The non dictatorial answer is no. What is your answer?

That's not the point.

Rand Paul was asked directly if he ever said he didn't support the Federal Government compelling private businesses to serve everyone, regardless of race.

Paul, at one point, clearly stated he didn't support that.

And now? He answers that he never said that.

It's a lie.

And a lost opportunity.

No one is looking for a perfect candidate.

But Americans like candidates who are as honest as possible. And they also like folks who can admit mistakes, apologize and move on.

Wtf are you talking about? He didn't say he "never said that." He clearly states that he tried to have a philosophical conversation about his position on the civil rights act and people like you took it so far out of context it's now a lie and a topic he won't even talk about with msnbc until they stop lying.

And no shit people are not looking for a perfect candidate but f Americans liked candidates that are as honest as possible how the **** is there still 40% that like Obama? Lie of the year to least transparent President in US history whole managing to fail on almost all campaign promises. It's not even debatable if Obama is a liar or not...

That's EXACTLY what he said.

It's on tape.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZfqdJieNTM]Rachel Maddow - Record shows Rand Paul's Civil Rights Act lie - YouTube[/ame]

 

[nodoginnafight]

"I prefer to pretend I didn't say that. Play along with me or I'll just take my marbles and go home."

 

[Pete7469]

I was going to post this, but you beat me too it.

The more I see of Rand the more convinced I am that he has a great chance at the nomination.

If all the bed wetters can come up with is the charge of "racism", then for sure he's well on his way. No one with any brains even listens when some sniveling moonbat says it anymore.

They need to create some other deviant "past" like they did to Herman Cain, and they better do it soon.