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

[Avorysuds]

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]

Just watched it, he in fact didn't say it.... He clearly avoids answering it and even states why, because of people like you and Madcow. So, you lied, again.

 

[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

Ok, I watched Part 1 and 2 of the interview and:

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

PAUL: Yes.

never happened...

Part 1 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U4FTd-1m-o]Rand Paul on Rachel Maddow Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]
Part 2 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27r0y8hZGRo]Rand Paul on Rachel Maddow Part 2 - YouTube[/ame]

So, you lied, or were mistaken or you have an interview that I never saw, this is including the one you provided in the link as well.

Soooooo.... will swallow who thanked you apologize as well, will you? Nope, because you guys really don;t care about being right.

I posted direct quotes from the article. That was from 2010. He definitely opposed the idea that the Federal Government can tell private businesses they cannot refuse to serve some people based upon their race.

 

[Sallow]

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]

Just watched it, he in fact didn't say it.... He clearly avoids answering it and even states why, because of people like you and Madcow. So, you lied, again.

Haven't lied at all.

Rand Paul said very clearly he opposed the Federal Government compelling a private business into serving all the public..regardless of race.

That was a huge component of the civil rights act.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

He's making a distinction between the public and the private sectors with regard to inalienable human rights. He's talking about the free market of commerce and ideas. He's talking about the dynamics of liberty, which, unlike the arbitrarily imposed morality of the mob via the instruments of the state, are the very best checks against stupidity and depravity.

He hasn't change his position. You just don't understand it.

 

[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

Ok, I watched Part 1 and 2 of the interview and:

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

PAUL: Yes.

never happened...

Part 1 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U4FTd-1m-o]Rand Paul on Rachel Maddow Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]
Part 2 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27r0y8hZGRo]Rand Paul on Rachel Maddow Part 2 - YouTube[/ame]

So, you lied, or were mistaken or you have an interview that I never saw, this is including the one you provided in the link as well.

Soooooo.... will swallow who thanked you apologize as well, will you? Nope, because you guys really don;t care about being right.

I posted direct quotes from the article. That was from 2010. He definitely opposed the idea that the Federal Government can tell private businesses they cannot refuse to serve some people based upon their race.

Last time and I'm out.

Rand never said as you claimed, and you claimed

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

PAUL: Yes.


And remember guys:

“Lower health care premiums by $2,500”
“You can keep your current plan”
"Fast and Furious" began under the Bush administration."
"We’ve got close to 7 million Americans who have access to health care for the first time because of Medicaid expansion."
Under President Barack Obama, the United States has "doubled our exports."
"I didn't raise taxes once."
"The vast majority of the money I got was from small donors all across the country.''


So many more The Obameter: Campaign Promises that are Promise Broken | PolitiFact
All False statements involving Barack Obama | PolitiFact

and more and more....
All False statements involving Barack Obama | PolitiFact


man, you guys reaaaaaallly care about politicians being honest, bet you could never support one!

Seriously though, maybe you guys should actually vet your next candidate even half as much as you are doing to Rand on this one issue. That would be 10x more than you did to Obama.

 

[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.

He's making a distinction between the public and the private sectors with regard to inalienable human rights. He's talking about the free market of commerce and ideas. He's talking about the dynamics of liberty, which, unlike the arbitrarily imposed morality of the mob via the instruments of the state, are the very best checks against stupidity and depravity.

He hasn't change his position. You just don't understand it.

Well yeah he did. And he tried to make an esoteric argument.

It isn't. People actually died so that other people could patronize any business that served the public.

Things are very different when rubber hits the road and you aren't talking to your college dorm buddies about what dead men that wore powdered wigs and tri cornered hats, actually meant.

 

[Avorysuds]

That's EXACTLY what he said.

It's on tape.

Rachel Maddow - Record shows Rand Paul's Civil Rights Act lie - YouTube

Just watched it, he in fact didn't say it.... He clearly avoids answering it and even states why, because of people like you and Madcow. So, you lied, again.

Haven't lied at all.

Rand Paul said very clearly he opposed the Federal Government compelling a private business into serving all the public..regardless of race.

That was a huge component of the civil rights act.

Man, wonder why Madcow does not take on issues where blacks or other minorities get grants, funds, education, housing or help from privet organizations based 100% off skin color....

 

[nodoginnafight]

Just watched it, he in fact didn't say it.... He clearly avoids answering it and even states why, because of people like you and Madcow. So, you lied, again.

Haven't lied at all.

Rand Paul said very clearly he opposed the Federal Government compelling a private business into serving all the public..regardless of race.

That was a huge component of the civil rights act.

Man, wonder why Madcow does not take on issues where blacks or other minorities get grants, funds, education, housing or help from privet organizations based 100% off skin color....

Does that excuse Paul?

 

[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.

He's making a distinction between the public and the private sectors with regard to inalienable human rights. He's talking about the free market of commerce and ideas. He's talking about the dynamics of liberty, which, unlike the arbitrarily imposed morality of the mob via the instruments of the state, are the very best checks against stupidity and depravity.

He hasn't change his position. You just don't understand it.

Well yeah he did. And he tried to make an esoteric argument.

It isn't. People actually died so that other people could patronize any business that served the public.

Things are very different when rubber hits the road and you aren't talking to your college dorm buddies about what dead men that wore powdered wigs and tri cornered hats, actually meant.

Your kinda an idiot who voted 2 times for one of the biggest liars in Presidential history... I honestly just don;t care if you think Rand is a liar because you only care due to him being white..... and republican.

 

[Avorysuds]

Haven't lied at all.

Rand Paul said very clearly he opposed the Federal Government compelling a private business into serving all the public..regardless of race.

That was a huge component of the civil rights act.

Man, wonder why Madcow does not take on issues where blacks or other minorities get grants, funds, education, housing or help from privet organizations based 100% off skin color....

Does that excuse Paul?

Paul's situation is a little different. He spent hours talking with people to clarify his position, and he does a incredibly good job of doing so... And you racist fuckers won't give up. So I can see why me might just take the position of "I'm done." He never lied, he simply got tired of you guys asking the same question hoping it would make him look bad.

Basically, you don;t stop lying so he turned off the noise.

 

[Pete7469]

I posted direct quotes from the article. That was from 2010. He definitely opposed the idea that the Federal Government can tell private businesses they cannot refuse to serve some people based upon their race.

How does that make him a racist, or even imply that he would discriminate against someone himself?

It should be the right of a business owner to discriminate if the sort of people they wish to cater to are the sorts of assholes who just can't eat near minorities? It's the business owners loss of revenue, you don't have to eat there yourself.

The government has no right to dictate to private individual who they have to do business with.

I'm sure you authoritarian statist sociopaths have no problem with it, but you parasites have no respect for individual rights or property.

 

[R.D.]

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

Ok, I watched Part 1 and 2 of the interview and:

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

PAUL: Yes.

never happened...

Part 1 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U4FTd-1m-o]Rand Paul on Rachel Maddow Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]
Part 2 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27r0y8hZGRo]Rand Paul on Rachel Maddow Part 2 - YouTube[/ame]

So, you lied, or were mistaken or you have an interview that I never saw, this is including the one you provided in the link as well.

Soooooo.... will swallow who thanked you apologize as well, will you? Nope, because you guys really don;t care about being right.

You are right. The transcript the left uses does not reflect the discussion honestly

Paul is much smarter than the liberals fighting this and Maddow is leading them. Its almost embarrassing to see adults be so easily played.

 

[Avorysuds]

Right now, in this moment every single one of you know his answer, yet you will still ask the questions... Why? Because his answer makes sense but you believe asking the question is more damaging. That's it, that's the whole point to the attack. No honesty, not care about minorities or racism.

 

[Sallow]

He's making a distinction between the public and the private sectors with regard to inalienable human rights. He's talking about the free market of commerce and ideas. He's talking about the dynamics of liberty, which, unlike the arbitrarily imposed morality of the mob via the instruments of the state, are the very best checks against stupidity and depravity.

He hasn't change his position. You just don't understand it.

Well yeah he did. And he tried to make an esoteric argument.

It isn't. People actually died so that other people could patronize any business that served the public.

Things are very different when rubber hits the road and you aren't talking to your college dorm buddies about what dead men that wore powdered wigs and tri cornered hats, actually meant.

Your kinda an idiot who voted 2 times for one of the biggest liars in Presidential history... I honestly just don;t care if you think Rand is a liar because you only care due to him being white..... and republican.

Basically I am pointing out the problems with Rand Paul's candidacy and specifically on this topic. I like discussing politics and issues. It's not a personal thing..it's more of a mental exercise.

It's a pretty interesting topic too.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

He's making a distinction between the public and the private sectors with regard to inalienable human rights. He's talking about the free market of commerce and ideas. He's talking about the dynamics of liberty, which, unlike the arbitrarily imposed morality of the mob via the instruments of the state, are the very best checks against stupidity and depravity.

He hasn't change his position. You just don't understand it.

Well yeah he did. And he tried to make an esoteric argument.

It isn't. People actually died so that other people could patronize any business that served the public.

Things are very different when rubber hits the road and you aren't talking to your college dorm buddies about what dead men that wore powdered wigs and tri cornered hats, actually meant.

Well, no, he didn't. More hysterical baby talk from a statist demagogue who doesn't grasp the real-world dynamics of liberty.

 

[bendog]

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.

He's making a distinction between the public and the private sectors with regard to inalienable human rights. He's talking about the free market of commerce and ideas. He's talking about the dynamics of liberty, which, unlike the arbitrarily imposed morality of the mob via the instruments of the state, are the very best checks against stupidity and depravity.

He hasn't change his position. You just don't understand it.

He's changed it. He's no longer saying private biz can choose to not serve a person cause of skin color.

 

[Pete7469]

Does that excuse Paul?

It doesn't excuse you bed wetters.

If something benefits a "protected" minority, regardless of how much it infringes on the rights or even if it destroys the livelyhood of the people you hate you will support it tooth and nail.

Just let an asian girl get admission into college based on her merits, when an affirmative action law that would have gotten a black student ahead of her were it not for a court ruling and you sick cocksuckers come unglued.

Your "reverse racism" is just as malevolent as it was when you democrook assholes were lynching blacks while wearing sheets.

 

[Sallow]

He's making a distinction between the public and the private sectors with regard to inalienable human rights. He's talking about the free market of commerce and ideas. He's talking about the dynamics of liberty, which, unlike the arbitrarily imposed morality of the mob via the instruments of the state, are the very best checks against stupidity and depravity.

He hasn't change his position. You just don't understand it.

Well yeah he did. And he tried to make an esoteric argument.

It isn't. People actually died so that other people could patronize any business that served the public.

Things are very different when rubber hits the road and you aren't talking to your college dorm buddies about what dead men that wore powdered wigs and tri cornered hats, actually meant.

Well, no, he didn't. More hysterical baby talk from a statist demagogue who doesn't grasp the real-world dynamics of liberty.

Didn't do what?

Say that private business should have the right to discriminate?

You're saying that he didn't at one point support that notion?

That's incorrect.

He's supported in multiple interviews.

No amount of "clarification" is going to change that.

Now if you want to argue that view? Fine.

But Rand Paul lied about it. Because now he's saying he never held that view.

It's simple as that.

 

[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.

He's making a distinction between the public and the private sectors with regard to inalienable human rights. He's talking about the free market of commerce and ideas. He's talking about the dynamics of liberty, which, unlike the arbitrarily imposed morality of the mob via the instruments of the state, are the very best checks against stupidity and depravity.

He hasn't change his position. You just don't understand it.

He's changed it. He's no longer saying private biz can choose to not serve a person cause of skin color.

Absolutely.

 

[Avorysuds]

Well yeah he did. And he tried to make an esoteric argument.

It isn't. People actually died so that other people could patronize any business that served the public.

Things are very different when rubber hits the road and you aren't talking to your college dorm buddies about what dead men that wore powdered wigs and tri cornered hats, actually meant.

Your kinda an idiot who voted 2 times for one of the biggest liars in Presidential history... I honestly just don;t care if you think Rand is a liar because you only care due to him being white..... and republican.

Basically I am pointing out the problems with Rand Paul's candidacy and specifically on this topic. I like discussing politics and issues. It's not a personal thing..it's more of a mental exercise.

It's a pretty interesting topic too.

Well shit for brains, Obama was still elected and he lied almost non stop... He wins as the lest trustworthy President. I look forward to the mental exercises you do in the coming days, weeks and months where Obama lies. Wait, why would I waste my time thinking you would ever hold an elected official accountable when their a Democrat when you have a philosophical debate on one provision of the CR act to make Rand look racist on despite him clearly not being. After all, Obama can write books with racism but Rand can't be consistent on not wanting Government overstepping it's authority....

You're a real intellectual....