Libertarian, tea-partier and new Kentucky republican senatorial nominee Rand Paul (eye-doctor *** of the celebrated Ron Paul) showed his racist colors in flaming red on the Rachel Maddow show last night. It's in 2 parts and takes almost 20 minutes to watch but it's worth it, believe me. If you have any sense of the principle of equality for all, you'll be appalled like I am:
If it were up to Dr. Paul, segregated lunchcounters and restrooms would be back in vogue. Businesses would be allowed to arbitrarily refuse service to anyone they choose for no reason other than perhaps the color of their skin, their ethnic background or their religious beliefs. :eek:
Staunch party stalwarts like Mitch McConnell and Dick Cheney supported his opponent but the right wingnuts overran them. They have subsequently been silent on this issue. I wonder how Michael Steele feels about Dr. Paul's views. :dunno:
This is the new direction of the republican party? I'm sure there will be some here who welcome this trend. Personally, I see the proliferation of this type of political philosophy as not only morally wrong but, in fact, suicidal to the GOP. In some type of knee-jerk reaction to what they perceive as the left-wing extremism of the Obama administration, the republican party, led by banner-wavers like Wasilla Sarah and Rand Paul, is pushing their agenda further and further to the right. Rather than reaching out to centrists and moderates who may also share some trepidations about the direction the country is taking (like me, for instance), they choose to huddle around their hard-core right-wing base. Huge mistake.
How did this acorn (oops....bad word maybe? ) fall so far from the tree? Or, perhaps a better question is, did it? :dunno: Leads me to some serious doubts about his ****** now....whom I previously had held in the utmost esteem.
I'm a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. There is no one who speaks for me in this political process anymore. The democrats want to spend-spend-spend and give everyone a free ride regardless of their contribution (or lack thereof) to the cause and the republicans want to return this nation to the early 19th century.
Good post....Also one must bear in mind it isnt the past, Your completely outnumbered if this **** ever got in the backlash would be unbelievable and the white man comfortable in his complacency may get a well deserved kick in the teeth.
i think you guys are thinking too much.
the news woman was trying to trap him.
he said repeatedly that he is against discrimination and segregation , and that he may have changed some wording in the act.
whats the prob bob?
I disagree that Rand Paul is racist, however I think he is too blindly allied to his theoretical libertarian ideals to appreciate why his position is wrong.
To Paul, it is simply a question of government interference in private business. This position ignores the fact, however, that if it weren't for that "government interference", civil rights would not be a reality today. Paul supports and applauds the positive effect of the Civil Rights Act, but his libertarian ideals won't let him concede that this positive effect was only possible through "large government" involvement.
Look, it all goes back to that basic question of Freedom VS Security. In order to make ourselves safe, secure and prosperous in a complex society, we ALL give up certain individual and collective liberties, simply to serve the greater good. That greater good MUST be the intent of the laws that govern any collective society & the intent of the people who decide to either follow or break those laws.
2) Great stride???? You have elected a guy with a more than questionable personality and questionable beliefs. A community organizer who was only good for uniting the america of the poor, the ghetto crowd, oprah, reverend jesse jackson and all. Yet, you still think it is an America like that real patriotic Americans wanted. That is completely false. Plus he is trying to implement socialism in the USA, wondering how it is not anti American
I disagree that Rand Paul is racist, however I think he is too blindly allied to his theoretical libertarian ideals to appreciate why his position is wrong.
To Paul, it is simply a question of government interference in private business. This position ignores the fact, however, that if it weren't for that "government interference", civil rights would not be a reality today. Paul supports and applauds the positive effect of the Civil Rights Act, but his libertarian ideals refuse to allow him to concede that this positive effect was only possible through "large government" involvement.
Look, it all goes back to that basic question of Freedom VS Security. In order to make ourselves safe, secure and prosperous in a complex society, we ALL give up certain individual and collective liberties, simply to serve the greater good. That greater good MUST be the intent of the laws that govern any collective society. Otherwise, what is the point?
i think you guys are thinking too much.
the news woman was trying to trap him.
he said repeatedly that he is against discrimination and segregation , and that he may have changed some wording in the act.
whats the prob bob?
Watch the video again. She wasn't trying to "trap" him, MP. He trapped himself by refusing to directly answer her question and continuously repeating his libertarian mantra. She was doing what any good journalist should do....get him to answer the question. He never did.
I disagree that Rand Paul is racist, however I think he is too blindly allied to his theoretical libertarian ideals to appreciate why his position is wrong.
Very well stated, glock. OK everyone....I don't really think that Paul is a racist either. However, his comments could easily be construed to be in sympathy with racists and that makes him appear, well, racist. It is appalling that he would let his "libertarian principles" overshadow any sense of right and wrong that might be bouncing around in the noggin of his. I wouldn't vote for this guy to be dogcatcher. The tea-party nutballs can keep a lock-step dogmatic automaton like Rand Paul.
I disagree that Rand Paul is racist, however I think he is too blindly allied to his theoretical libertarian ideals to appreciate why his position is wrong.
To Paul, it is simply a question of government interference in private business. This position ignores the fact, however, that if it weren't for that "government interference", civil rights would not be a reality today. Paul supports and applauds the positive effect of the Civil Rights Act, but his libertarian ideals won't let him concede that this positive effect was only possible through "large government" involvement.
Look, it all goes back to that basic question of Freedom VS Security. In order to make ourselves safe, secure and prosperous in a complex society, we ALL give up certain individual and collective liberties, simply to serve the greater good. That greater good MUST be the intent of the laws that govern any collective society & the intent of the people who decide to either follow or break those laws.
And if people care to look logically at the one of the interviews in question, what he said was that he supports free speech, even if that mean having to tolerate some fringe "racists" spouting off their illogical bile. Because in the end, to ***** people to think/believe certain social norms, even for a "good" cause, is dangerous because in the future we could all be on the short end of an argument and those same arguments could be used to shut us up as a free citizen with our own minds and opinions... the Constitution grants that freedom because the Founders knew well the dangerous nature or tyranny of the majority... because we all know the majority is not always correct. Even when that means upholding the right for someone to hold views that we may find morally repugnant (as long as they do so peacefully of course). :2 cents:
Very well stated, glock. OK everyone....I don't really think that Paul is a racist either. However, his comments could easily be construed to be in sympathy with racists and that makes him appear, well, racist. It is appalling that he would let his "libertarian principles" overshadow any sense of right and wrong that might be bouncing around in the noggin of his. I wouldn't vote for this guy to be dogcatcher. The tea-party nutballs can keep a lock-step dogmatic automaton like Rand Paul.
The thing is, he really isn't saying that he has any intention to try repeal the act...or that he wouldn't have voted for it. Over and over he stated that he's answering these questions on a philosophic individualist level, not a political one. He said he had a philosophical argument with one aspect, but never said that it would cause to to vote against it if he was placed in that scenario. And I have to disagree that allowing a poor behavior borders on condoning it...or being affiliated with it.
This thread reminds me of the way Ron Paul was called a ********* advocate because he promotes abolishing anti-pot and **** laws. And yes, I know that's a complete separate issue with separate consequences, but it's an example of the worst case scenario defining the agenda. There's absolutely plenty of room to criticize his stance on the Civil Rights Act or Libertarian ideology in general, but that's not what's going to happen in the media and campaign trail. Instead he's now simply just "the racist."
And, although I'm clearly not a fan, Maddow earns some kudos for allowing Paul ample time to clear himself, or in this case, kindly gave him enough rope. Outside of meet the press or Chris Wallace, I don't know where else I could see such a thing.
I think she was anything but hostile. And, even if she was, what better way to see if Rand can prove his salt?
Watch the videos, I say. His words speak better for him than his opponents and supporters do. He could have handled himself better, me thinks, but I see no evidence of him trying to be slippery.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 33% of voters are opposed to enactment of that kind of law. Another 12% are not sure... 68% of Mainstream voters favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state... [and] A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Arizona finds that 71% now favor the immigration law... Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party are much more supportive than Democrats of having a law like Arizona’s in their home state. But when asked the separate question of whether police officers should be required to check the immigration status of those stopped for other reasons, a majority of Democrats say yes.
Why ... cause she nailed his ass to the wall with his inconsistent believes. Now he's cancelled his appearance on Face The Nation. Only the 3rd person in history to do so. He's hiding from his inconsistent statements.
Today he actually said that oil spill in the gulf is an accident and the Obama administration is being to tough on BP. Plllleeeezzzzeeee .. BP fucked up big time drilling that deep with NO safety net. It won't be long until Oil is running up the east coast. It's horrible.
Today he actually said that oil spill in the gulf is an accident and the Obama administration is being to tough on BP. Plllleeeezzzzeeee .. BP fucked up big time drilling that deep with NO safety net. It won't be long until Oil is running up the east coast. It's horrible.
Wow suddenly you're a petroleum engineer AND an exploration geologist? My word you ARE the Oracle.
Jagger I have no need for blinders. If her record was one of complete consistent unbiased damn good reporting I would have a different opinion. But she's a known lefty....sort of Keith Olbertwink "light" and that makes any of her reporting suspicious.
Wow suddenly you're a petroleum engineer AND an exploration geologist? My word you ARE the Oracle.
Jagger I have no need for blinders. If her record was one of complete consistent unbiased damn good reporting I would have a different opinion. But she's a known lefty....sort of Keith Olbertwink "light" and that makes any of her reporting suspicious.
Then you must certainly refuse to watch Hannity, O'Reilly and Beck and listen to Limbaugh, Ingraham, Savage, etc for the same reason (except they are known as "righties") in you are to be consistent in your standards....unless of course you prefer to gather your information only from sources to which you are already predisposed to be in agreement. In that case, I would consider you to most certainly have blinders on irrespective of your protestations to the contrary.
The video speaks for itself and you can draw your own conclusions if it is "biased" reporting. Maddow most certainly did not put Paul's foot in his mouth for him.
Before calling someone stupid make sure you enough the person to call her stupid. I am a middle class guy too with bachelor degree in commerce and sales management as well as cambridge economic certificate in economics but I am not for a system where the ones who work and bust their asses off more than daily have to pay for others. France has implemented the free healthcare system and the social helps for the non working people in 1975 (90% of these people are migrants from the magrheb or africa who are just taking profit of these helps and a lot of them are often lazy and ********* to work people) and till today it continues. Why France has been indebted ? Because of assisting ********* to work as well as social healthcare and social help leechers.
And by who was implemented this fucking system? By the socialists.
They had that kind of system in Sweden some years ago when socialists were leading the country, but when the right wing got elected it stopped. So before saying that you know socialism, may sure you can give concrete examples of what is socialism from what is not. I can solidly claim what is socialism because I live in a country that has been governed 25 years by incompetant leftist socialist governements.
Before calling someone stupid make sure you enough the person to call her stupid. I am a middle class guy too with bachelor degree in commerce and sales management as well as cambridge economic certificate in economics but I am not for a system where the ones who work and bust their asses off more than daily have to pay for others. France has implemented the free healthcare system and the social helps for the non working people in 1975 (90% of these people are migrants from the magrheb or africa who are just taking profit of these helps and a lot of them are often lazy and ********* to work people) and till today it continues. Why France has been indebted ? Because of assisting ********* to work as well as social healthcare and social help leechers.
And by who was implemented this fucking system? By the socialists.
They had that kind of system in Sweden some years ago when socialists were leading the country, but when the right wing got elected it stopped. So before saying that you know socialism, may sure you can give concrete examples of what is socialism from what is not. I can solidly claim what is socialism because I live in a country that has been governed 25 years by incompetant leftist socialist governements.
Georges .... you are correct I should probably not use the "word" stupid.
Although the definition of socialism is broad and varied for the purpose of this discussion I will use the Merriam-Webster dictionary version; "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods".
To say the Obama administration is "socialism" is just ridiculous and so far away from socialism that I believe people that claim that don't understand the definition of socialism. Putting some regulations in place so that American's don't get screwed by corporations is not socialism.
In a truly socialist run state there is is little or no private property. Most are calling Obama socialist because of the current USA healthcare debate. Obama never tried to put into place a truly 100% Government run health care system.
According to the World Health Organization the USA is rated 37th in the world of providing quality Health Care to it's citizens. We are the richest country in the world, yet 37th in the world in providing quality health care. I believe that is wrong. According to the WHO France is rated #1.
Now with that said I agree the systems are totally different. The USA system is largely private (except for Medicare) and the France is largely public (funded by taxes) so that is a huge difference.
Here is my complaints for the USA system.
1. Healthcare should NOT be tied to your job. Don't know if you have lived/worked in the USA but your employer controls your health care and once a person becomes ill or gets a chronic decease they become slaves to their employer. They cannot switch jobs for fear of not being able to get healthcare.
2. In the USA insurance companies are for profit entities. Therefore, their motivation is spend as little as possible covering people that are ill. It is very common for people that become ill in the USA to be dropped from their health care provider at the exact time they need the services most. This is wrong. For example, some people pay into their health care plans for 20 - 30 years then suddenly become sick and then are dropped because the "cost to much" to fix.
3. Pre-existing conditions - If you have a pre-exisiting condition in the USA your chance of switching health care providers is almost impossible. None of them want you because you are "too expensive". Then you simply become a burden of the state anyway.
4. Therefore, private insurance companies get the benefits of all your premium payments but then when it's time for you to cash in on the benefits you loss your insurance because you are fired from your job and then you lose the health care. What happens next, the state takes over or your die. So insurance companies get all the money paid in, but many times the gov't ends up paying anyway.
Th Obama administration is not trying to put in place 100% government run health care. They are trying to put in place a system with health care can be affordable for all and a system that prevents Private insurers from just dropping you because you've become ill. What's wrong with that?
Finally, I will say this about the people that cry "socialism". Many of the people that I talk with on the far right cry socialism but when asked whether Social Security and Medicare should be abolished they say NO! Both of those programs are socialist in the way they are run. The public contributes for the benefit of all. So for people that are anti-socialism to support Social Security and Medicare show they are talking out both sides of their mouth.
That's all for now and thanks for the nice discussion. But I do believe in this modern world a combination of capitalism and socialism are required to run society smoothing.
I could go on and on but I will stop rambling because most won't read it anyway LOL!
I was going to tell somebody the sky was blue the other day, but since I wasn't a particle physicist, meteorologist, and astronomer I didn't because I wasn't qualified to do so.
