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

[Sallow]

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.

Rand Paul said he opposed the part of the civil rights act as it pertained to private business.

Catch up.

 

[Pete7469]

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.

So people have a right to be homophobic assholes, but defending the right of someone to be a racist asshole is a source of contention for you?

Way to be consistent.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

I don't condone any of the flip flops "my messiah" has committed and it is one thing to "re-position" only AFTER you've gotten elected. It is less offensive to me to flip flop before getting elected as long as you don't do it every 24 hours (Romney).

But any honest observer has seen Paul re-positioning himself. No need to get all huffy about it. Just decide if you can live with his positions and how much you trust that he really embraces his new positions.

 

[Ravi]

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.

So people have a right to be homophobic assholes, but defending the right of someone to be a racist asshole is a source of contention for you?

Way to be consistent.

I don't care if Rand Paul is racist. I only care about how he would vote. It takes a big person to realize their personal views shouldn't cloud their duty to do what is right and Rand Paul is not that big person.

Here's some big people for you: Lincoln and LBJ. Both supposed racists that did the right thing anyway. Here's a small person for you: Jefferson. Pretended to not be a racist while owning slaves.

 

[BlindBoo]

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 Rand Paul on Rachel Maddow Part 1 - YouTube
Part 2 Rand Paul on Rachel Maddow Part 2 - YouTube

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.

It was at about 8:15 on the first part. Although the transcript say Yes. Rand Paul said Yeah, (half hearted at best)

 

[Pete7469]

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.

I don't condone any of the flip flops "my messiah" has committed and it is one thing to "re-position" only AFTER you've gotten elected. It is less offensive to me to flip flop before getting elected as long as you don't do it every 24 hours (Romney).

But any honest observer has seen Paul re-positioning himself. No need to get all huffy about it. Just decide if you can live with his positions and how much you trust that he really embraces his new positions.

I see...

So if the guy you like pretends to be something he's not, just to get elected he can change after he gets in. Gee, I would call that a fraud.

But if it's a guy you hate because he's rich, he better not pander to anyone in any way or clarify a position among a hostile crowd.

Please provide credible evidence of RP's "repositioning" himself.

And that means REAL flip flops, like Joke Kerry being for the war before he opposed it.

 

[bendog]

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?

What? You disagree with Rand on the govt should not be able to tell private biz they can refuse service to blacks? OR You don't agree that he was unwise to give voice to that truth?

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

I don't condone any of the flip flops "my messiah" has committed and it is one thing to "re-position" only AFTER you've gotten elected. It is less offensive to me to flip flop before getting elected as long as you don't do it every 24 hours (Romney).

But any honest observer has seen Paul re-positioning himself. No need to get all huffy about it. Just decide if you can live with his positions and how much you trust that he really embraces his new positions.

I see...

So if the guy you like pretends to be something he's not, just to get elected he can change after he gets in. Gee, I would call that a fraud.

But if it's a guy you hate because he's rich, he better not pander to anyone in any way or clarify a position among a hostile crowd.

Please provide credible evidence of RP's "repositioning" himself.

And that means REAL flip flops, like Joke Kerry being for the war before he opposed it.

Dude - are you reading Challenged?????

I said I don't condone those flip flop AFTER an election.
The very opposite of what you are claiming here.

Did you just shift things in your mind or something?
Just like you do for Paul - so that it all comes out "consistent" for you?????

Lemme dumb it down for you

Flip - flopping before election = bad
Taking one position BEFORE the election, and changing it AFTER the election = worse.

 

[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.

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

My concern goes to rightly parsing the philosophical distinction between the public and private sectors, and rightly understanding the dynamics of liberty with regard to the unfettered competition of commerce and ideas. I have nothing but contempt for those, like mamooth, who demagogue the matter, imagining racism, for example, where non exists.

Paul is not a racist! And neither are those who rightly understand him. Pull the race card, and I'm going to kick your ass across the room, verbally/metaphorically speaking, you understand.

Moving on. . . .

You say he has changed his position. Okay. Fine. That's a different matter than what mamooth seemed to be implying. I don't see that in the videos in the above, though I didn't view the convention video. And I don't see that in the video you posted. It doesn't appear to me that you leftists understand what he's getting at.

In any event. I have no problem with the government enforcing civil rights protections against private businesses on the basis of ubiquitous/benign characteristics like skin color or gender. So I don't entirely agree with Paul. Yes. I understand his point about respecting the fundamental rights of those who hold abhorrent ideas. Notwithstanding, this nation was not founded on any such nonsense regarding the essence of humanity. This nation was founded on the proposition that all men are created equal. That's the social contract! And the Constitution outlines the governing apparatus of that social contract. Discrimination on the basis of skin color or gender is unacceptable, in both the public and private sectors, with some exceptions, of course. It's contrary to the natural law of this nation's founding. On the other hand, what I do have a very serious problem with is the government enforcing civil rights protections on the basis of ideological/behavioral factors. That's a violation of inalienable human rights. That's the government imposing the worldview of one faction on another.

 

[Pete7469]

I don't condone any of the flip flops "my messiah" has committed and it is one thing to "re-position" only AFTER you've gotten elected. It is less offensive to me to flip flop before getting elected as long as you don't do it every 24 hours (Romney).

But any honest observer has seen Paul re-positioning himself. No need to get all huffy about it. Just decide if you can live with his positions and how much you trust that he really embraces his new positions.

I see...

So if the guy you like pretends to be something he's not, just to get elected he can change after he gets in. Gee, I would call that a fraud.

But if it's a guy you hate because he's rich, he better not pander to anyone in any way or clarify a position among a hostile crowd.

Please provide credible evidence of RP's "repositioning" himself.

And that means REAL flip flops, like Joke Kerry being for the war before he opposed it.

Dude - are you reading Challenged?????

I said I don't condone those flip flop AFTER an election.
The very opposite of what you are claiming here.

Did you just shift things in your mind or something?
Just like you do for Paul - so that it all comes out "consistent" for you?????

Lemme dumb it down for you

Flip - flopping before election = bad
Taking one position BEFORE the election, and changing it AFTER the election = worse.

If you think your statement was clear, you need help with your writting skills. It doesn't help that I do indeed skim over bed wetter posts, because the stupidity of them can be painful.

Just glad to know you're more offended by the fraud epitomized by your moonbat messiah, than the pandering of that republicrat Romney.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Boy, this thread has gained a bit of steam!

He said she said he shot John, but she said he said she shot John! Those arguments aren't going to shift the opinions of another with dug-in heels with binding fealty to a lying, plagiaristic political prostitute lacking any sense of honor.

There is only one truth in the matter and no middle ground, so.... For those of you who wish to support or even vote for Rand Paul, go ahead and support or vote for that whoring politician. Be good little simians and hear, see and speak no evil about your anointed! And STFU with the cover that Paul never said that because he didn't use the EXACT PHRASING behind which you all are taking rhetorical refuge. On back to the playground now with ye wee ones!

 

[paulitician]

He's the only candidate out there today who can cross some ideological lines. And obviously that's a very dangerous thing. The Communists/Progressives and Neocons will do anything to cling to power. They will work very hard to destroy the man. Hopefully Americans will see beyond the usual petty hate and elect him. But i guess we'll see.

 

[Pete7469]

He's the only candidate out there today who can cross some ideological lines. And obviously that's a very dangerous thing. The Communists/Progressives and Neocons will do anything to cling to power. They will work very hard to destroy the man. Hopefully Americans will see beyond the usual petty hate and elect him. But i guess we'll see.

The issues that he's crossing lines over are directly related to freedom.

It (SHOULD BE EXTREMELY) is difficult to argue FOR oppression, and easy to convince people that their individual rights are sacred.

It's not like McLame arguing for higher taxes, or some other RINO "compromise" where the fascist democrooks get the other half of the "compromise" before the ink on the "compromise" bill is dry.

I think most Americans have the capacity to understand that and will hopefully see through the bullshit these parasites are regurgitating. These assholes are consumed with hatred, they'll never see through it because they're devoted to it.

 

[paulitician]

He's the only candidate out there today who can cross some ideological lines. And obviously that's a very dangerous thing. The Communists/Progressives and Neocons will do anything to cling to power. They will work very hard to destroy the man. Hopefully Americans will see beyond the usual petty hate and elect him. But i guess we'll see.

The issues that he's crossing lines over are directly related to freedom.

It (SHOULD BE EXTREMELY) is difficult to argue FOR oppression, and easy to convince people that their individual rights are sacred.

It's not like McLame arguing for higher taxes, or some other RINO "compromise" where the fascist democrooks get the other half of the "compromise" before the ink on the "compromise" bill is dry.

I think most Americans have the capacity to understand that and will hopefully see through the bullshit these parasites are regurgitating. These assholes are consumed with hatred, they'll never see through it because they're devoted to it.

Just like his Father, he will be persecuted. He can appeal to some on the Left and Right. And that makes him very dangerous to the powers-that-be. The Communists/Progressives and Neocons have a stranglehold on power. Breaking that grip won't be easy. They'll do anything to hang on. They like the current paradigm just the way it is. It ensures they both hang onto power. But i have hope. I think Americans can get past the usual deception & hate. I'm optimistic.

 

[bendog]

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.

Exactly. But had he done the "evolution thing," he'd have to explain why he came to think that outlawing private segregation is both constitutional and socially a good thing. Since he avoided this road, which would have avoiding seeing himself outed in an out and out lie ..... wanna bet he hasn't changed his mind in the least, and he still thinks Lester Maddux should've been able to keep the sign "no negroes served here?"

 

[Pete7469]

He's the only candidate out there today who can cross some ideological lines. And obviously that's a very dangerous thing. The Communists/Progressives and Neocons will do anything to cling to power. They will work very hard to destroy the man. Hopefully Americans will see beyond the usual petty hate and elect him. But i guess we'll see.

The issues that he's crossing lines over are directly related to freedom.

It (SHOULD BE EXTREMELY) is difficult to argue FOR oppression, and easy to convince people that their individual rights are sacred.

It's not like McLame arguing for higher taxes, or some other RINO "compromise" where the fascist democrooks get the other half of the "compromise" before the ink on the "compromise" bill is dry.

I think most Americans have the capacity to understand that and will hopefully see through the bullshit these parasites are regurgitating. These assholes are consumed with hatred, they'll never see through it because they're devoted to it.

Just like his Father, he will be persecuted. He can appeal to some on the Left and Right. And that makes him very dangerous to the powers-that-be. The Communists/Progressives and Neocons have a stranglehold on power. Breaking that grip won't be easy. They'll do anything to hang on. They like the current paradigm just the way it is. It ensures they both hang onto power. But i have hope. I think Americans can get past the usual deception & hate. I'm optimistic.

I think another problem Ron had was his sometimes abrasive attitude, he lacked the charisma his son has. I thought his voice was annoying when he'd start talking about "all these wars". It pissed me off when he slammed Bachman as "she doesn't like muslims". By the time of the 2012 debates the wars were either over or winding down. They were a non-issue in my mind. The spending was the main issue, and the war accounted for little of it. He also shot himself in the foot by allowing fringe malcontents from Alex Jones' Tin Foil Hat Brigade to associate themselves with him.

Debra Medina was a good candidate for Gov here in TX and she had a great chance, until Glen Beck put her on the spot and she didn't immediately distance herself from the truthtards.

All in all I liked most of Ron's ideas about fiscal/monetary policy and the libertarian domestic policies he promoted.

I was less than impressed with how he spoke regarding foriegn policy, and Rand doesn't seem to share his father's absolutist "non-intervention" policies. I think there's room for an active engagement with our military, without being aggressively interventionist as we have been.

I just hope that Ron's die hard supporters are willing to accept a less than perfect candidate this time around. NO ONE will be perfect for all of us, but I think we can all agree a democrook will be a disaster for all of us. As long as it isn't a globalist RINO like Jeb or Crispy Kreme I'll be happy. If it;'s a guy like RP or Ted Cruz I'll be delighted.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I see...

So if the guy you like pretends to be something he's not, just to get elected he can change after he gets in. Gee, I would call that a fraud.

But if it's a guy you hate because he's rich, he better not pander to anyone in any way or clarify a position among a hostile crowd.

Please provide credible evidence of RP's "repositioning" himself.

And that means REAL flip flops, like Joke Kerry being for the war before he opposed it.

Dude - are you reading Challenged?????

I said I don't condone those flip flop AFTER an election.
The very opposite of what you are claiming here.

Did you just shift things in your mind or something?
Just like you do for Paul - so that it all comes out "consistent" for you?????

Lemme dumb it down for you

Flip - flopping before election = bad
Taking one position BEFORE the election, and changing it AFTER the election = worse.

If you think your statement was clear, you need help with your writting skills. It doesn't help that I do indeed skim over bed wetter posts, because the stupidity of them can be painful.

Just glad to know you're more offended by the fraud epitomized by your moonbat messiah, than the pandering of that republicrat Romney.

Apology accepted

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

Exactly. But had he done the "evolution thing," he'd have to explain why he came to think that outlawing private segregation is both constitutional and socially a good thing. Since he avoided this road, which would have avoiding seeing himself outed in an out and out lie ..... wanna bet he hasn't changed his mind in the least, and he still thinks Lester Maddux should've been able to keep the sign "no negroes served here?"

The option he selected just means the questions will not go away. No matter how much he complains.

 

[Pete7469]

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.

Exactly. But had he done the "evolution thing," he'd have to explain why he came to think that outlawing private segregation is both constitutional and socially a good thing. Since he avoided this road, which would have avoiding seeing himself outed in an out and out lie ..... wanna bet he hasn't changed his mind in the least, and he still thinks Lester Maddux should've been able to keep the sign "no negroes served here?"

The option he selected just means the questions will not go away. No matter how much he complains.

Bullshit.

The lies and attacks will not go away no matter what he says.

So he either just ignores it or marginalizes it by calling it what it is.

Bullshit.

 

[bendog]

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.

Exactly. But had he done the "evolution thing," he'd have to explain why he came to think that outlawing private segregation is both constitutional and socially a good thing. Since he avoided this road, which would have avoiding seeing himself outed in an out and out lie ..... wanna bet he hasn't changed his mind in the least, and he still thinks Lester Maddux should've been able to keep the sign "no negroes served here?"

The option he selected just means the questions will not go away. No matter how much he complains.

Exactly. And to be clear this is one of the few issues about which I really agree with the guy. There's a belief that had the fed govt not overstepped into peoples individual actions, multinationals like KFC would have driven the Lester Maddux's into bankruptcy, and the national and intl moral outrage at large corps like Woolworths who practiced segregation, would have put a stop to it. And there wouldn't be this simmering anger in the older whites that the govt was "taking sides."

Still, I realize my belief is by far a minority, and there's a larger reality that it was an outrage and wrong. The problem is whether we apply the same interventionist action to anti-gay bigots on a natl level. I hope not because it will lead to a feeling of victimization.