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

[bendog]

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.

yeah he should have gone with the tried and true "My views evolved (assuming evolution exists, which it probably doesn't, or probably does, depending on whom I'm talking to) over time (and no I don't know how old the earth is)."

 

[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.

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.

Whelp you don;t like gay people... and I have watched you try and evolve on that issue. But you don;t really have too seeing as no other progressives seem to care that you're a homophobe.... because you're a Democrat. Funny how that works!

 

[Sallow]

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.

yeah he should have gone with the tried and true "My views evolved (assuming evolution exists, which it probably doesn't, or probably does, depending on whom I'm talking to) over time (and no I don't know how old the earth is)."

Which would have been fine.

The only people he would have angered would have been far right tea party types who believe change is wrong and a sign of weakness.

Most folks in the center and probably some Liberals would have appreciated the position.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Wand don't wanna be cawled a wiya! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Dude thinks anyone cares if he doesn't appear on their show?

 

[Pete7469]

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.

That's the whole point.

The attack is central to the entire discussion. The facts of the matter are an obsticale to the narrative. They hate the man because he is a republican for (1, a white man for (2, and has the sort of charisma that is attracting younger voters who value their individual rights for (3. Just like Herman Cain, they saw the (R) and that was all they needed to hate him.

The whole endeavor of engaging these sniveling fascist pigs is pointless. I'm just glad to know that the guy I'm most keen on getting the WH in 2016, can garner the vitriol of these fuckheads.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Whelp you don;t like gay people... and I have watched you try and evolve on that issue. But you don;t really have too seeing as no other progressives seem to care that you're a homophobe.... because you're a Democrat. Funny how that works!

I think homosexuality is disgusting.

I've made that pretty plain.

But what people do in private is their bag, and none of my business. No one should be persecuted for their private stuff because I think it's disgusting.

See how that works?

 

[Sallow]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Wand don't wanna be cawled a wiya! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Dude thinks anyone cares if he doesn't appear on their show?

Actually Rachel wants him back on..

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Any party that will be the first to drop the bull shit in focus on
1. Infrastructure investment
2. Education reform
3. science investment
4. r&d investment
5. minimum wage for all. Should be $10 bucks per hour.

The democrats have a lot of sense but there's a lot of idiocy that should be dropped. Idiocy divides this country instead of promoting a stronger country. Issues of race and sex are very damaging and harmful to this country.

So is wealth redistribution and the central planning mentality.

Got liberty?

 

[Pete7469]

Any party that will be the first to drop the bull shit in focus on
1. Infrastructure investment
2. Education reform
3. science investment
4. r&d investment
5. minimum wage for all. Should be $10 bucks per hour.

The democrats have a lot of sense but there's a lot of idiocy that should be dropped. Idiocy divides this country instead of promoting a stronger country. Issues of race and sex are very damaging and harmful to this country.

So is wealth redistribution and the central planning mentality.

Got liberty?

He doesn't have the sack for liberty.

Liberty TERRIFIES bed wetting liberals, because then they have to earn shit. Nanny government isn't there to wipe your nose everytime someone offends you, or won't let you in their club. Liberals are those kids in school no one liked, now they're getting revenge.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Wand don't wanna be cawled a wiya! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Dude thinks anyone cares if he doesn't appear on their show?

Actually Rachel wants him back on..

Sure. I get it. But they ain't begging the ******.

 

[bendog]

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.

That's the whole point.

The attack is central to the entire discussion. The facts of the matter are an obsticale to the narrative. They hate the man because he is a republican for (1, a white man for (2, and has the sort of charisma that is attracting younger voters who value their individual rights for (3. Just like Herman Cain, they saw the (R) and that was all they needed to hate him.

The whole endeavor of engaging these sniveling fascist pigs is pointless. I'm just glad to know that the guy I'm most keen on getting the WH in 2016, can garner the vitriol of these fuckheads.

he has a certain charisma, and he's trying to siphon off a point or two of black voters, and that's probably why he's being asked the question. In the South, we whites have a view on this issue of private discrimination as "even when some things are true, you don't say them." This is the exact same thing that got Trent Lott in trouble. Yes, ole Strom was right, and economics would have forced woolworths to serve all, in the long run.

I just wonder was he naïve enough to think he could say this, or is he just willing to change depending upon who is asking the question?

 

[Sallow]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Wand don't wanna be cawled a wiya! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Dude thinks anyone cares if he doesn't appear on their show?

Actually Rachel wants him back on..

Sure. I get it. But they ain't begging the ******.

He's been getting "better" as a candidate and has a certain appeal. That said? I don't think he will ever be a US President. His Charisma is very limited, he takes things very personally, he does terrible in debates and he gets flustered easily. Having a few talking points that appeal to more then just red meat tea party types isn't going to cut it.

But..the GOP might put him up anyway. Right now? As bad as the Civil Rights thing is? He hasn't got the same baggage Christie or Jeb Bush has..

And I don't think Huckabee or Romney are serious candidates at this point.

But we'll see.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Rand Paul: I abhor racism but I'll stick up for racists any day of the week!

Just what we need, another whiny politician with a chip on his shoulder.

 

[Pete7469]

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.

That's the whole point.

The attack is central to the entire discussion. The facts of the matter are an obsticale to the narrative. They hate the man because he is a republican for (1, a white man for (2, and has the sort of charisma that is attracting younger voters who value their individual rights for (3. Just like Herman Cain, they saw the (R) and that was all they needed to hate him.

The whole endeavor of engaging these sniveling fascist pigs is pointless. I'm just glad to know that the guy I'm most keen on getting the WH in 2016, can garner the vitriol of these fuckheads.

he has a certain charisma, and he's trying to siphon off a point or two of black voters, and that's probably why he's being asked the question. In the South, we whites have a view on this issue of private discrimination as "even when some things are true, you don't say them." This is the exact same thing that got Trent Lott in trouble. Yes, ole Strom was right, and economics would have forced woolworths to serve all, in the long run.

I just wonder was he naïve enough to think he could say this, or is he just willing to change depending upon who is asking the question?

Glad you don't represent all of us here in the south.

He's shaving more than a point or two from the black vote I'd guess, as well as some numbers from the youth or he wouldn't be getting attacked for saying some things that are true.

I don't comprehend the mentality of "even when some things are true, you don't say them".

That's bullshit.

If people are too afraid to speak the truth, how can issues such as racism ever be resolved? I would stipulate that the left doesn't want these issues resolved. They have their "oppressed" victim consituency by the heels, why would they want a discussion that might make their victims turn around and see exactly has them by the heels?

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

That's the whole point.

The attack is central to the entire discussion. The facts of the matter are an obsticale to the narrative. They hate the man because he is a republican for (1, a white man for (2, and has the sort of charisma that is attracting younger voters who value their individual rights for (3. Just like Herman Cain, they saw the (R) and that was all they needed to hate him.

The whole endeavor of engaging these sniveling fascist pigs is pointless. I'm just glad to know that the guy I'm most keen on getting the WH in 2016, can garner the vitriol of these fuckheads.

he has a certain charisma, and he's trying to siphon off a point or two of black voters, and that's probably why he's being asked the question. In the South, we whites have a view on this issue of private discrimination as "even when some things are true, you don't say them." This is the exact same thing that got Trent Lott in trouble. Yes, ole Strom was right, and economics would have forced woolworths to serve all, in the long run.

I just wonder was he naïve enough to think he could say this, or is he just willing to change depending upon who is asking the question?

I don't think Paul expects to peel off any black voters. I think he is trying to position himself. Among moderates, he is thought of as an extremist. I think he wants those moderates to recast him as not a scary extremist but as a viable national candidate.

And I think that has a lot to do with why he has been so busy re-positioning himself lately.

Just MHO.

 

[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.

Rand Paul: I abhor racism but I'll stick up for racists any day of the week!

Just what we need, another whiny politician with a chip on his shoulder.

It's kind of a weird argument to make in this day and age. Especially after the 60s. It's the same with contraception and abortion. Or work place equality. But the GOP as a whole? Well they are more than willing to stir up these wedge issues..because..well..just because!

Ultimately they are loser issues and do nothing more than make people really really angry.

Not only that, Paul hooked his wagon to some pretty strange stuff. That diatribe during the Benghazi hearings about Turkey isn't going to do him any favors. Same with some of his weird "Wiki" speeches.

But again? At this point he still doesn't have the same baggage as the rest.

 

[paulitician]

Rand Paul has never opposed the Civil Rights Act. Period, end of story. Onto the next faux Race-Baiting outrage. I'm sure there's many more to come from the usual suspects.

 

[Pete7469]

That's the whole point.

The attack is central to the entire discussion. The facts of the matter are an obsticale to the narrative. They hate the man because he is a republican for (1, a white man for (2, and has the sort of charisma that is attracting younger voters who value their individual rights for (3. Just like Herman Cain, they saw the (R) and that was all they needed to hate him.

The whole endeavor of engaging these sniveling fascist pigs is pointless. I'm just glad to know that the guy I'm most keen on getting the WH in 2016, can garner the vitriol of these fuckheads.

he has a certain charisma, and he's trying to siphon off a point or two of black voters, and that's probably why he's being asked the question. In the South, we whites have a view on this issue of private discrimination as "even when some things are true, you don't say them." This is the exact same thing that got Trent Lott in trouble. Yes, ole Strom was right, and economics would have forced woolworths to serve all, in the long run.

I just wonder was he naïve enough to think he could say this, or is he just willing to change depending upon who is asking the question?

I don't think Paul expects to peel off any black voters. I think he is trying to position himself. Among moderates, he is thought of as an extremist. I think he wants those moderates to recast him as not a scary extremist but as a viable national candidate.

And I think that has a lot to do with why he has been so busy re-positioning himself lately.

Just MHO.

Bullshit.

He's no more "repositioning" himself, than your moonbat messiah did when he opposed gay marriage as a candidate, and now supports every aspect of gay "rights" now that he's not a candidate.

RP has been mostly consistent with everything as I've been following him. It's your messiah that "repositions himself".

Just ask Larry Sinclair.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Rand Paul: I abhor racism but I'll stick up for racists any day of the week!

Just what we need, another whiny politician with a chip on his shoulder.

Just like swallow despises rump rangers but he'll defend their rights to pack fudge in private right?

That's ok right?

He can say the most vile and contemptible shit about gays, but as long as he swears allegiance to all your other issues he's just fine?

Just what we need, more hypocritical bed wetters attacking politicians who promote liberty.

Sallow isn't a politician, one. And two, he wouldn't oppose rights for gays or excuse business owners from serving them.

Rand Paul on the other hand, actively demonstrates that if given a chance he will side with racist business owners over minorities any day of the week.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Rand Paul has never opposed the Civil Rights Act. Period, end of story. Onto the next faux Race-Baiting outrage. I'm sure there's many more to come from the usual suspects.

Dude won't be POTUS. He'd better make an attempt to do something for the middle class if he wants to keep being a Senator. KY might turn blue before Texas does.