Teabagger Rand Paul wastes no time proving he's a flaky right-wing cuckoo bird

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2010 3:20 AM GMT
    He's been the Teabagger/Republican nominee in the KY Senate race for two days, and he's already shown what a nutcase he is.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100520/pl_ynews/ynews_pl2154_6


    AND he's a MAJOR blatant flip-flopper.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100520/pl_ynews/ynews_pl2171
  • Mepark

    Posts: 806

    May 21, 2010 4:56 AM GMT
    Big deal. He's not the only one, Democrat or Republican, to flip-flop. More importantly, he can't do shit about, so who cares. Plus, he's a libertarian, not conservative.... Big diff.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2010 5:08 AM GMT
    Who cares, Mepark?
    The Republican party cares - about the fact that they have a batshit crazy nutbag for their nominee in this KY race.
    And anyone who self-defines as a libertarian cares - that this crazy teabagger is going to be defining what a libertarian is for the next 6 months.
    AND the Democratic party cares - about the fact they now have a good chance to win this seat come Nov.
  • Mepark

    Posts: 806

    May 21, 2010 5:18 AM GMT
    ONE: there is nothing crazy about "teabaggers." The media feeds you on the left and you sound just as uninformed and clueless as they do on the right. Get over yourself and the Tea Party.

    TWO: Nothing about what he said or believes deserves your comments. You may not agree with it, and I may not either, but it's called a philosophical difference. We tend to have that in a democracy and I wanna keep it. That means it's alright to have a "crazy" opposition.

    THREE: a Dem will not win in KY.

    FOUR: he flip-flopped. I take his word for it. Case closed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2010 5:37 AM GMT
    Mepark saidONE: there is nothing crazy about "teabaggers." The media feeds you on the left and you sound just as uninformed and clueless as they do on the right. Get over yourself and the Tea Party.

    TWO: Nothing about what he said or believes deserves your comments. You may not agree with it, and I may not either, but it's called a philosophical difference. We tend to have that in a democracy and I wanna keep it. That means it's alright to have a "crazy" opposition.

    THREE: a Dem will not win in KY.

    FOUR: he flip-flopped. I take his word for it. Case closed.




    This just in!

    Nutbagger Rand Paul flip-flops BACK!

    http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/05/20/more-on-rand-paul/?xid=rss-topstories

    And, re: your comments:

    YES - the teabaggers are totally illogical and are nothing more than the extreme right wing of the Republican party and NO - I don't need to "get over" the baggers.
    They only make me laugh.

    And, NEVER at any point have I ever said that anyone should shut up or that ANYONE has no right to speak their mind.
    What I said is that Rand Paul is a nutty flip-flopping bagger.
    I have every right to state my opinion.
    YOU are the one who is trying to shut down Democratic debate, NOT me.
    I have the same freedom to make whatever comment I choose, and so do you.
    That's what makes America such a great country.
    I DO NOT need a lecture about that from you.
    If you don't like what I posted - tough shit.

    Case closed.
  • Mepark

    Posts: 806

    May 21, 2010 5:48 AM GMT
    What happened to the liberal anti-war movement I'm just curious. Seems like they went silent ever since Obama took office, flip-flopped on Guantanamo, expanded a war, and didn't do shit about ending the so-called pointless one... You know that one where he went abroad and told the troops that because of them, Iraq is a better place without Hussein.

    And my complaint was about your ignorant pointless wording about the man. It would just make you sound a lot smarter when you don't use words like nutbag, nutcase, crazy, or even teabagger. Interesting way to have a Democratic debate I guess.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2010 1:58 PM GMT
    just a true nutter or a secret KKK member.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2010 2:17 PM GMT
    To the general voting public - ESPECIALLY the geniuses that make up the majority of Kentucky - there is little if any difference between a Libertarian and a Conservative. They're both Republicans, aren't they? Yeah, that's what I thought.

    He's a racist. There's no flip-flopping on an issue like this. His original responses (key being he gave the same response to three different broadcast networks) cannot be considered a mis-communication.

    He's a racist. If that's what Kentucky wants as a leader, then they will vote him into office, but Washington won't take him seriously, and he won't be able to move the needle during his first, and likely to be his only, term in office.

    He's a racist, and I say that anyone agreeing with his p.o.v. is a racist, too. That's all.
  • darkeyedresol...

    Posts: 171

    May 21, 2010 2:24 PM GMT
    Not sure how he is a racist when he said, several times, that he would never go to an establishment that discriminated against people before of their race. He just believes the federal government should be used a last resort and not the solution to every problem.

    He should have flipped things around and used the example of What If the Federal Government had been pushing a law that would have allowed for segregation while some states were trying to push integration policies. He would have been just as opposed to that law, because he sees it as an over reach of federal government power. He is just following his views on keeping the Fed as weak as possible, it has nothing to do with race.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2010 2:28 PM GMT
    I don't think this is a big issue. He clearly stated that he has huge problems with institutionalized segragation... he just does not like government telling businesses what they can and cannot do.

    Same thing with LGBT issues... in many places business can discriminate against LGBT consumers. If some business has a problem with me, I'd rather know so I could spend my money some place else.

    Rand Paul said he only disagreed with one out of the ten issues involved in the Civil Rights Act. I certainly see his position... but not sure if I agree with him.

    But this is a non issue... a red herring. He is clearly against discrimination... and also "big government."
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    May 21, 2010 2:29 PM GMT
    Mepark saidWhat happened to the liberal anti-war movement I'm just curious. Seems like they went silent ever since Obama took office, flip-flopped on Guantanamo, expanded a war, and didn't do shit about ending the so-called pointless one... You know that one where he went abroad and told the troops that because of them, Iraq is a better place without Hussein.

    And my complaint was about your ignorant pointless wording about the man. It would just make you sound a lot smarter when you don't use words like nutbag, nutcase, crazy, or even teabagger. Interesting way to have a Democratic debate I guess.



    MePark, I wouldn't waste your time trying to reason with RickRick, he'll just hit the REPEAT button and print the same rant he's posted over and over and over and over AND over again in every thread. I'm surprised he didn't find a way to somehow blame George Bush in the MADONNA vs. LADY GAGA thread. Better to just sit back and watch his total meltdown come November. Oh and don't forget the popcorn icon_wink.gif

    brenda.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2010 2:30 PM GMT
    Mepark saidWhat happened to the liberal anti-war movement I'm just curious. Seems like they went silent ever since Obama took office, flip-flopped on Guantanamo, expanded a war, and didn't do shit about ending the so-called pointless one... You know that one where he went abroad and told the troops that because of them, Iraq is a better place without Hussein.

    And my complaint was about your ignorant pointless wording about the man. It would just make you sound a lot smarter when you don't use words like nutbag, nutcase, crazy, or even teabagger. Interesting way to have a Democratic debate I guess.


    Republicans do the same thing. Both parties are corrupt. Hypocrisy. Double Standards. Do as I say, not as I do. And most importantly... never admit when your party is wrong or has made mistakes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2010 2:34 PM GMT
    darkeyedresolve saidNot sure how he is a racist when he said, several times, that he would never go to an establishment that discriminated against people before of their race. He just believes the federal government should be used a last resort and not the solution to every problem.

    He should have flipped things around and used the example of What If the Federal Government had been pushing a law that would have allowed for segregation while some states were trying to push integration policies. He would have been just as opposed to that law, because he sees it as an over reach of federal government power. He is just following his views on keeping the Fed as weak as possible, it has nothing to do with race.


    It has everything to do with race. Don't paraphrase what he said. Quote what he said verbatim, then tell me he's not a racist.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2010 2:36 PM GMT
    conscienti1984 saidI don't think this is a big issue. He clearly stated that he has huge problems with institutionalized segragation... he just does not like government telling businesses what they can and cannot do.

    Same thing with LGBT issues... in many places business can discriminate against LGBT consumers. If some business has a problem with me, I'd rather know so I could spend my money some place else.

    Rand Paul said he only disagreed with one out of the ten issues involved in the Civil Rights Act. I certainly see his position... but not sure if I agree with him.

    But this is a non issue... a red herring. He is clearly against discrimination... and also "big government."


    If he were against discrimination, then he would've kept his mouth shut. It really is that cut and dry.
  • darkeyedresol...

    Posts: 171

    May 21, 2010 2:38 PM GMT
    "Paul told CNN he would have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a statement he declined to make one day earlier" on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show. Maddow asked: "Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?" Paul answered: "Yes. I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things freedom requires." "

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/05/21/2324667.aspx

    I'm not sure how I can make it clearer, it states it right there. If you want to live in a free society you have to deal with all the good and evil that it brings.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2010 2:40 PM GMT
    darkeyedresolve saidNot sure how he is a racist when he said, several times, that he would never go to an establishment that discriminated against people before of their race. He just believes the federal government should be used a last resort and not the solution to every problem.

    He should have flipped things around and used the example of What If the Federal Government had been pushing a law that would have allowed for segregation while some states were trying to push integration policies. He would have been just as opposed to that law, because he sees it as an over reach of federal government power. He is just following his views on keeping the Fed as weak as possible, it has nothing to do with race.

    Defending States Rights was the cover for segregation during the civil rights struggle of the 1950s and '60s. Sounds reasonable on paper, but in practice it was double-speak meant to prevent integration. Now it rears its ugly head again, and unless you know your US history, you'll be fooled by these misleading tactics.

    The same tactics, BTW, that are used against gay rights & marriage, too. US Federalism allocates certain governmental responsibilities to the individual States. It does NOT give the States the right to deny civil rights to US citizens, regardless of their State of residence. Civil rights are a US Constitutional guarantee, and indeed are considered to be natural & inherent human rights, which government does not grant, but rather protects.

    As for "private" businesses, the Congress & Courts have long ruled that such concepts as public accommodation make them liable to civil rights laws. Only truly private organizations, such as the Boy Scouts and some private membership clubs fall outside these laws (and even the Scouts are still being debated and litigated). Rand Paul proves either that he is ignorant of US history & law, or he is indeed a closet racist, or both.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2010 2:49 PM GMT
    darkeyedresolve said"Paul told CNN he would have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a statement he declined to make one day earlier" on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show. Maddow asked: "Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?" Paul answered: "Yes. I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things freedom requires." "

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/05/21/2324667.aspx

    I'm not sure how I can make it clearer, it states it right there. If you want to live in a free society you have to deal with all the good and evil that it brings.


    Yeah, I know. I've lived through Nixon, Reagan and two Bush's in office. I know all about evil.

    Just because you can say it doesn't mean that you should say it, especially if you're a politician. Paul's statements to the press tell me he's ignorant and full of hate. "White Power Paul" ... now there's a campaign slogan I'm sure he would readily adopt.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2010 2:49 PM GMT
    jprichva saidI don't know that Rand Paul is a racist, although his father certainly is.
    But I do know that the libertarian philosophy is inflexible nonsense, appealing only to adolescent boys and men who are still in their intellectual adolescence.


    Like father, like son.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2010 2:50 PM GMT
    There are plenty of smart libertarians but they are so ideological that reality is irrelevant to them. Opposing this particular provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act requires complete ignorance of what this country, particularly the South, was like at that time.

    LIbertarians, who eschew communitarian values, always end up looking ridiculous. Their philosophy has never been subjected to real-life testing (despite their absurd claims about the Federalist Papers). It would create complete chaos. In any real-life scenario, Libertarians inevitably flip-flop. This is a predictable outcome of their ideology -- not a matter of factual error or specific policies.

    Mepark's observations about the anti-war left are quite true. Obama has institutionalized and expanded George Bush's policies and his supporters have remained mainly silent. Meanwhile the death toll in Afghanistan rises.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2010 2:52 PM GMT
    reppaT said
    conscienti1984 saidI don't think this is a big issue. He clearly stated that he has huge problems with institutionalized segragation... he just does not like government telling businesses what they can and cannot do.

    Same thing with LGBT issues... in many places business can discriminate against LGBT consumers. If some business has a problem with me, I'd rather know so I could spend my money some place else.

    Rand Paul said he only disagreed with one out of the ten issues involved in the Civil Rights Act. I certainly see his position... but not sure if I agree with him.

    But this is a non issue... a red herring. He is clearly against discrimination... and also "big government."


    If he were against discrimination, then he would've kept his mouth shut. It really is that cut and dry.


    Discrimination is always an emotional issue... but that is not the issue here.

    Rand Paul is talking about big government... not discrimination. Everyone is upset ( and rightly so) because this story digs up an ugly part of our history.

    Why is he a bigot for saying (hypothetically), 'I'm against institutionalized discrimination... but not for government telling businesses what they can and cannot do?'

    He brought up the gun issue as well--if government wants to force businesses to end discrimination than it has to force businesses to follow the state gun laws by allowing consumers to openly-carry guns into their businesses (Ex. Businesses couldn't ban guns from their stores in states where it is legal to carry guns).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2010 2:53 PM GMT
    The head of the NAACP takes up the question of whether Rand is a racist in this interview with Rachel Maddow:

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2010 3:06 PM GMT
    Starts @ 2:20.

    Unlike Rand Paul, Benjamin is a consummate professional. He does say that what Paul said does not mean he's a racist, but he also questions Paul. Listen to the entire interview.

    I grew up in Ohio, and spent way too much of my childhood in Kentucky, Michigan, Indiana and West Virginia, and I can tell you that I know - because it has been bred into my white trash ass - that The Paul's are a group of racist fucks.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2010 3:17 PM GMT
    Mmm your white trash ass... distraction or what?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2010 3:24 PM GMT
    You know, I used to buy into the notion that Rand Paul's position had nothing to do with race, until today, actually. I don't think he's intentionally bigoted, but I do think that he's an entitled educated white man who has yet to walk a mile in someone else's shoes.

    He may think racism is wrong, and he may beleive himself not to be a racist person, but when you implicitly condone an action by refusing to stand against it, it does say something about your view of the people who are most likely to be hurt by your policy position.

    Moreover, since compnies are given the right to operate by the government; how is it an infringement on businesses' liberties to say that discrimination based on anything beyond a person's control is ok?

    This goes right to the point of an interveiw that state senator Obama gave NPR back in 2001, and he hit the nail on the head: The constitution, for all it's virtues, is a document filled with "negative liberties" -- in other words, "this is what the govenment CAN'T do to you", and almost nowhere are there positive liberties -- "this is what the government MUST do FOR you". That needs to change.

    This notion of absolute liberty, without the slightest degree of responsibility, is absurd. Sometimes things as basic as anti-discrimination rules are a matter preserving a civil society.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2010 3:26 PM GMT
    reppaT saidStarts @ 2:20.

    Unlike Rand Paul, Benjamin is a consummate professional. He does say that what Paul said does not mean he's a racist, but he also questions Paul. Listen to the entire interview.

    I grew up in Ohio, and spent way too much of my childhood in Kentucky, Michigan, Indiana and West Virginia, and I can tell you that I know - because it has been bred into my white trash ass - that The Paul's are a group of racist fucks.



    Joan Walsh on Salon is also rushing to retract her characterization of Paul as a racist. It's the usual weak-kneed position many progressives assume after they dare to cite the truth.

    Republicans issued the same kinds of retractions after they dared to call out Rush Limbaugh.