Cleo's Mom

Same old theme - breaking the law, illegal things, consequences. As I have been saying - it'a all punitive to you. That is your message. This is your attitude: Women who have sex risk getting pregnant and if they do, well they made their bed let them lie in it. Don't expect me to support one tax dollar to help them get free and easy access to prescription birth control. Just make abortion illegal and throw them all in jail if they get one. None of this has one thing to do with saving a "life" by preventing an abortion - it's all about laws, responsibility, paying the consequences, breaking the law, jail, etc.. Very condemning attitude.

Yes, I believe it. Just go back and look at your posts on this subject, including this one. It's always about laws, consequences, punishment, breaking the law, going to jail, etc.. I believe in personal responsibility but I also believe that if someone were seriously interested in reducing the number of abortions and readily available prescription birth control available to any female contemplating having sex was a big way to do that, then I would think they would support that and support the government paying for it if saving a life were the bigger issue and not the money, taxes, punishment, jail, etc.. But saving lives never trumps the bigger issue of the punitive message. That seems to be what you harp on over and over and over again. If you really care about saving lives then endorse this statement: Whereas using prescription birth control that is highly effective is a major contributor to reducing abortions and whereas I support reducing abortions, then I support whatever mean are available, including tax dollars, to provide easy access and reduced or free cost. But you won't because it's all about: If a woman has sex then she has to be responsible and plan and pay and pay the price if she gets pregnant and be prepared to raise a child and I don't want to pay for her easy or free access to birth control either. Let's just make it as difficult and costly as possible. And no abortions, either, or if she attempts one, she breaks the law and put her in jail. That is how you sound and it is VERY PUNITIVE. And I think it sounds stupid.

Originally Posted by Cleo's Mom And leave it to a religious right neocon to put the WHOLE burden on the woman. The planning, buying, cost and consequences. And then if they can't afford it or the birth control doesn't work - well then, how did you put it? Just be prepared to raise a child. :cursing: And why shouldn't the WHOLE burden be put onto her and the guy she had sex with. If she CHOSE to lay with a man and was in no shape to care for the "consequence" that sometimes comes with sex, then she needs to be responsible for carrying it through. The man should also be responsible for the care of the child. Well, when woman have the babies they would be forced to have under your plan, the men don't care (pay) for the babies - so I guess we put them in jail and the woman on welfare. And if your real goal was to reduce the number of abortions (which it isn't) Which it is and not to punish women (which it is) which it isn't then you would support free birth control and easy access and yes, have the government pay for it because the money wouldn't matter, the lives being saved would. Liberals do NOT like to be responsible for their actions. They want everyone else to pay for everything! It's just UNbelieveable to me how you liberals desire the government to hand you everything in life that will make it easier on you. Grow up and take responsiblity for your actions and be held accountable for them, why don't you! I DO NOT support FREE birth control for everyone. Nor do I support FREE anything for anyone who hasn't worked for it. Oh yeah.... There's that dirty word again. Your posts are always about consequences, breaking the law, putting women in jail, etc.. VERY PUNITIVE. If you were really interested in reducing the number of abortions then you would passionately support those things that do (cheap or free and greater access to birth control) and stop preaching so much about all the other stuff. And I'm sure the cost would be a pittance compared to corporate welfare. They would hardly notice it if we took the money from big oil, big banks, big anything and used it to fund free birth control (the kind doctors prescribe, you know, the more effective and easier to use types rather than drugstore brands.) I wouldn't want to pay for someone elses birth control or anything else for that matter, so why should I expect anyone else to? Liberals feel that if you have it, give me some! And you religious right anti-abortion hypocrites just want to punish women for having sex and getting pregnant. You arent' interested in reducing the number of abortions. The republican who just resigned (another pesky sex scandal - he was married, 3 kids, you know the rest..) well he made abstinence videos. He was a family value's guy, you know. So, here is the hypocritical republican definition of abstinence only education: DON'T HAVE SEX WITH SOMEONE YOU'RE NOT MARRIED TO..UNTIL AFTER YOU'RE MARRIED. :cool:

Aside from your feelings about the band, the fact that your doctor did your surgery within a week of seeing you is troubling. Unless you had all the pre-operative tests by then, which are imperative. Obese people can have many conditions which need to be evaluated or treated prior to surgery including diabetes, high blood pressure and sleep apnea. Additionally you should have met with a nutritionist to discuss the expectations and eating after the band. It doesn't appear from your post that any of this happened. While I do recognize that head hunger exists, I believe too many doctors use that term as a "blame the victim" excuse. If you are hungry after getting 7.5ml in a 9ml then a competent surgeon would recognize that you have not reached your sweet spot. And he would work with you to help you achieve it. I am so tired of hearing "the band is only a tool" because if this tool isn't doing it's job, then it's not your fault. It is your doctor's job to get this tool to work and your job to eat healthy and exercise and chew and not drink with your meals. The band is sold as a tool that should make you feel satisfied with less (but healthy) food and keep you feeling satisfied for a certain length of time. If you are doing your part and this isn't happening, it is NOT your fault. If your surgeon is making you feel guilty and blaming you, then I would seriously search for a new, and more competent doctor. Yours does not seem to grasp the follow up care that is needed. That is a very common problem I see - the surgeons can do the mechanics of the surgery but are horrible at follow up because they frankly don't understand the band and have unrealistic expectations and then blame the patient. I think many see the patients success as their own, but the patient's failures as the fault of the patient. Please look for another surgeon. You do not want to have every appt. be a confrontation with you feeling guilty. That is not good post-op care and unfair to you. Good luck.

Very well said, BJean. And you will also notice that her kind uses the bible in selective ways that suits them. The bible passages that support helping the least among us? Well, those just mean neighbors helping neighbors, not the government. But the bible passages against abortion and homosexuality? Well, obviously those passage cry out for government laws against these things. Such hypocrisy and twisted logic are an abuse of biblical interpretations.

And leave it to a religious right neocon to put the WHOLE burden on the woman. The planning, buying, cost and consequences. And then if they can't afford it or the birth control doesn't work - well then, how did you put it? Just be prepared to raise a child. And if your real goal was to reduce the number of abortions (which it isn't) and not to punish women (which it is) then you would support free birth control and easy access and yes, have the government pay for it because the money wouldn't matter, the lives being saved would. And I'm sure the cost would be a pittance compared to corporate welfare. They would hardly notice it if we took the money from big oil, big banks, big anything and used it to fund free birth control (the kind doctors prescribe, you know, the more effective and easier to use types rather than drugstore brands.) The republican who just resigned (another pesky sex scandal - he was married, 3 kids, you know the rest..) well he made abstinence videos. He was a family value's guy, you know. So, here is the hypocritical republican definition of abstinence only education: DON'T HAVE SEX WITH SOMEONE YOU'RE NOT MARRIED TO..UNTIL AFTER YOU'RE MARRIED.

October 12, 2007 Making Abortion Illegal Does Not Reduce Abortion Rate, Study Finds Posted by Christine C. “A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it,” writes Elisabeth Rosenthal in The New York Times. Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of women’s deaths during pregnancy and childbirth, and there are 31 abortions for every 100 live births, the study said. The results of the study, a collaboration between scientists from the World Health Organization in Geneva and the Guttmacher Institute in New York, a reproductive rights group, are being published Friday in the journal Lancet. According to the study, the number of abortions worldwide dropped from about 46 million in 1995 to slightly less than 42 million in 2003. About 20 million unsafe abortions are performed each year, mostly in countries where abortion is illegal, and 67,000 women die as a result of complications from these abortions. Here is the study’s abstract; registration is required for the full text. The kicker is the study found that access to contraceptives is the best way to reduce abortion rates — not making abortion illegal. This, of course, is what feminist health advocates have been arguing for some time. Abortion rates in Eastern Europe, for instance, declined 50 percent since the fall of Communism allowed easier access to contraceptives. Here’s another example cited in the NYT story — and a look at how U.S. politics comes into play: In Uganda, where abortion is illegal and sex education programs focus only on abstinence, the estimated abortion rate was 54 per 1,000 women in 2003, more than twice the rate in the United States, 21 per 1,000 in that year. The lowest rate, 12 per 1,000, was in Western Europe, with legal abortion and widely available contraception. The Bush administration’s multibillion-dollar campaign against H.I.V./AIDS in Africa has directed money to programs that promote abstinence before marriage, and to condoms only as a last resort. It has prohibited the use of American money to support overseas family planning groups that provide abortions or promote abortion as a method of family planning. Of course making access to birth control easy and cheap or free would NEVER be acceptable to the anti-abortionists. That's because they start with the premise that any woman who has an unplanned pregnancy is to blame. And their approach is punitive. Make it illegal and throw all those who seek abortions or get one in jail. And those 67,000 women who died from illegal abortions - well, they don't matter. They had it coming for NOT OBEYING THE LAW.

BJean, why should you apologize to her when she has called me a racist and asked "are you black or something?" I'm still trying to figure out the "or something". Pattygreen likes to hurl insults but cries fowl when they come her way (or get threads shut down).

I can say it as often as you post your lies about Obama and the deficit.

The country was reeling after 9/11, and bush was spewing forth his one-liners: you're either with us or you're with the terrorists. Because the american people bought bush's lies that 9/11 was linked to Iraq, as did members of congress (who weren't allowed to see all the intelligence that bush saw), they were afraid not to vote to allow him the authority to wage war, but the republicans didn't need the democrats votes, they had enough. And Pres. Obama wasn't in Congress when they voted on the war. And everyone in congress was NOT all for it. There were some brave enough to vote against it.

the civil rights bill protects against sexism (gender) as well as racism - you should read it.

Thank you. I'm getting ready to go down to the hospital again today. Can't see enough of him.

Thank you. It is incredible. My daughter lives in the area but not in my town (I wish), so I have to travel almost an hour to get there (because of my driving, LOL). And my son and his wife (who do live closer) will make me a grandma again in September. Another grandson. The only sad part to all of this is that my beloved husband, who died 4 years ago, is not here to share in all this joy. Thanks again.

Thank you.

On a personal note, I became a grandmother today when my daughter gave birth to my beautiful grandson. I couldn't be happier. A future democrat!!

Why don't we ask republican secretary of defense, Gates? He should know. Defense Secretary Gates Blasts Military Spending Andrea Stone Senior Washington Correspondent AOL News WASHINGTON (May 8) -- In a speech crafted for history but liable to be swept into the dustbin like so many before it, Defense Secretary Robert Gates today called for a sweeping overhaul of Pentagon spending that would not only kill expensive weapons programs but also cut military health care costs and reduce the number of generals in the ranks. Speaking at the Eisenhower Library in Abilene, Kan., on the 65th anniversary of the Allied victory in Europe during World War II, Gates said the "gusher of defense spending" that opened after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and doubled the military budget over the past decade would be capped. "The gusher has been turned off and will stay off for a good period of time," he said in prepared remarks released on an embargoed basis Friday. Gates said if combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are to be sustained at the level necessary to succeed, hard choices must be made as the Pentagon begins preparing its fiscal 2012 budget request. "What is required going forward is not more study. Nor do we need more legislation. It is not a great mystery what needs to change," he said today from the home of World War II general and 34th president, Dwight D. Eisenhower. "What it takes is the political will and willingness, as Eisenhower possessed, to make hard choices -- choices that will displease powerful people both inside the Pentagon and out." That may be be an understatement. Gates hinted at big changes earlier this week in a speech to the Navy League in which he asked whether the Navy really needed 11 carrier groups and no fewer than 32 of its planned next-generation destroyers. But today's speech made clear that weapons cuts -- like granting the Air Force just 20 of the 132 B-2 bombers it wanted -- was "only a start. More is needed -- much more." On the Chopping Block Besides canceling costly procurement programs, Gates advocated: Cuts in military health care spending: "Leaving aside the sacred obligation we have to America's wounded warriors, health care costs are eating the Defense Department alive," Gates said. He noted that the cost of providing military retirees' health care has risen from $19 billion a decade ago to $50 billion, even as many veterans with full-time civilian jobs are opting for the taxpayer-funded TRICARE program instead of getting insurance through their employers. At a time when civilians are seeing their premiums and co-pays go up by double digits, all proposals for "modest increases" by the Pentagon have "been met with a furious response from the Congress and veterans groups" and have gone on to "routinely die an ignominious death on Capitol Hill," he said. He suggested that despite the "admirable sentiment" in protecting veterans from higher health care costs, they must foot a bigger share of the bill. Reducing the number of flag officers: Gates said there are simply too many generals and admirals. At a time when corporations are streamlining their management structures, no fewer than five four-star headquarters must sign off on a request for a dog-handling team in Afghanistan. He noted that while the post-Cold War military was trimmed by 40 percent, the number of generals and admirals was cut by about half that. "How many of our headquarters and secretariats are primarily in the business of reporting to or supervising other headquarters and secretariats, as opposed to overseeing activity related to real-world needs and missions?" he asked. Gates urged that more positions now held by an officer with stars be converted to a lower rank. But he also noted that a similar proposal made a few years ago, which targeted 37 positions out of more than 1,300 active and reserve flag officer billets, resulted in none being downgraded. "In considering these questions, we have to be mindful of the Iron law of bureaucracies," he said, "that the definition of essential work expands proportionally with the seniority of the person in charge and the quantity of time and staff available -- with 50-page PowerPoint briefings being one result." Minding the "gaps": Gates said military planners must change the way they decide there are "alleged 'gaps' " in their requirements, and think twice before they ask for more resources. "Should we really be up in arms over a temporary projected shortfall of about 100 Navy and Marine strike fighters relative to the number of carrier wings, when America's military possesses more than 3,200 tactical combat aircraft of all kinds?" he asked rhetorically. "Does the number of warships we have and are building really put America at risk when the U.S. battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined, 11 of which belong to allies and partners?" A Nod to Eisenhower The choice of venue was squarely aimed at upping the speech's impact. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell alerted military reporters far ahead of time that a big speech was planned in Kansas and made sure journalists had a copy of it in time for Sunday analysis pieces. Gates observed that the last time he had been at the Eisenhower Library was with his sixth-grade class from Wichita 54 years ago. He chose the spot in the nation's heartland to better evoke Eisenhower's famous "military-industrial complex" farewell speech in 1961, in which he spoke about the need to maintain balance among national programs. There at the boyhood home of one of America's few five-star generals, he noted that President Eisenhower once said, "No one ever comes up and says, 'Let's get rid of something,' " and that he also remarked it took the Army 50 years to get rid of horses. President Barack Obama, too, referred to Eisenhower's historic speech at West Point last December, when he laid out his case for this summer's troop surge in Afghanistan. While administration critics often like to quote another two-term Republican president, the one who oversaw the biggest military buildup since World War II, Obama and Gates have made clear their preference for Eisenhower under whom, the defense secretary said, "real choices were made, priorities set and limits enforced." Not that Gates is the first defense secretary to call for spending reform at the Pentagon. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld gave a major speech challenging the military budget-busting bureaucracy. Few remembered it the next day when a plane crashed into the Pentagon. Chances for Success Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, an Arlington, Va., think tank, said Gates' speech was significant because until now, the focus has been on junking military hardware. "Now he is casting the net wider than just wayward weapons systems," Thompson said, "because he's asking questions about why military health care costs so much, the need for some commands and asking why so many generals are needed." But whether Gates, and by extension his boss in the White House, can push through reforms is questionable. "Secretary Gates is to be highly praised for new actions on reducing officer bloat, now at gigantic proportions, and against pork, of which the C-17 is a classic example," said Winslow Wheeler, who heads a military reform project at the Center for Defense Information. "On the other hand, we have a long way to go to make fundamental reform the operative condition in the Pentagon: pleading for still more money above our post-World War II spending high, even as war costs are going down, will not get us there." Moreover, members of Congress are unlikely to look approvingly on cuts in defense jobs in their districts in an election year. Nor is the idea of trimming TRICARE and turning a myth of the health reform debate at least partly into reality something lawmakers are likely to embrace. "This is not going to be well received on Capitol Hill, but it's what needed to be said," Thompson maintained. And with Gates, the only Cabinet holdover from the Bush administration, now approaching the time he has said he will stay at the Pentagon, "this is the kind of pronouncement you get from a defense secretary who's thinking about departing. "He is saying some very tough things that the political system won't like," Thompson said, "but maybe now is the right time because his successor will be the one to take care of it."

My second mantra, as you should know, is regulate, baby, regulate. And I'm glad my government has emission controls on cars, clean air and Water laws, work place safety laws, food and drug safety laws. I don't want lead in my paint or toys or bridges made quickly and cheaply (no pesky government regs), etc.. Without these regulations it's russian roulette when you go to work or eat your food or drink your water. I don't want to live that way. I don't think most people do.

Government Spending and Economic Expansions Posted by Rdan | 5/24/2010 05:10:00 AM by Mike Kimel Cross posted on the Presimetrics blog. Government Spending and Economic Expansions It is conventional wisdom that raising taxes, particularly during and just after a recession, will harm the economy. Last week I checked whether that was true. (The post appeared in the Presimetrics blog and the Angry Bear blog.) The post looked at every recession since 1929, and it showed that recessions that were accompanied by marginal tax rate cuts were followed by shorter, slower expansions than recessions that weren't accompanied by marginal tax rate cuts. (Expansion, btw, is the term for the period between recessions.) This week I will look at the effect of cutting back on government spending during and just after a recession. I'm going to do that with three graphs. The first shows the length (in months) of every expansion since 1929. The second looks at the annualized growth in real GDP per capita for each expansion period, and the third looks at the total growth rate in real GDP per capita over the length of the expansion period. In each graph, recoveries are divided into three groups based on what happened to the federal government's spending as a share of GDP from the start of the recession to the period one year after the end of the recession. Before I get started, let me describe the data I'm going to use… Data on the starting and ending dates for recessions comes from the NBER, the folks who call the start and end. Real GDP per capita comes from the Bureau of Economic Analysis' National Income and Product Accounts ("NIPA") Table 7.1, updated on April of 2010. Real GDP per capita is available annually from 1929 to 1946, and quarterly thereafter. Data on federal government spending comes from NIPA Table 3.2, and GDP figures come from NIPA Table 1.1.5. As I did last week, I am going to assume that the real GDP per capita in any month is equal to the real GDP per capita for the quarter (or if prior to 1947, the year) in which it fits. In other words, the real GDP per capita (in 2005 dollars) for the first quarter of 2008 is $43,997, and I am assuming that the real GDP per capita in any of the three months in that quarter (i.e., January, February, or March of 2008) is equal to $43,997. Government spending and GDP are treated the same way. That assumption shouldn’t cause any major changes in the results and it will keep me from having to go off on tangents about how the data was smoothed. With that, here we go. The first graph shows the length of each expansion, in months. Figure 1 There aren't a lot of recessions during which spending was cut, but on average, they tended to produce the shortest expansions. The next figure shows the annualized growth rate during each expansion. Figure 2 Once again, on average, the recessions during which federal government spending shrunk as a percentage of GDP tended to producer slower economic growth. Two out of the three recessions for which the government cut spending were among the three that produced the slowest economic growth. The third one actually produced rapid growth, but as the first graph showed, that expansion didn't last all that long either. Which leads us to the third graph, which shows the total increase in real GDP per capita during each expansion. Figure 3 To summarize - while there were weren't all that many recessions during which federal government spending as a share of GDP fell, those recessions tended to produce shorter, slower expansions than other recessions. And btw, we get similar results if we use total government spending (i.e., federal, state & local) as opposed to just federal government spending. Now... consider last week's post, which showed that recessions during which marginal tax rates were followed by underperforming expansions. The two findings seem to suggest that when it comes to getting the economy moving again during and just after a recession, government spending seems to be more important than private sector spending. One reason this might true - during recessions most private sector players companies hunker down and cut spending, and they usually don't start investing and hiring people until they're reasonably sure there's going to be demand for their products and services. Meanwhile, individuals cut back too, fearful they might lose their jobs. With everyone waiting until the other guy moves first, there isn't much of a foundation set down for future growth. But if the government steps in and acts when nobody else is willing to do so, it could create that more stable environment the private sector needs in order to get off the ground. Your premise is not supported by this in-depth look at government spending, recessions and periods of economic expansion (the periods between recessions).

I think the following explains the 1920's economic growth better than anything Harding did: Economic Growth in the 1920s Despite the 1920-1921 depression and the minor interruptions in 1924 and 1927, the American economy exhibited impressive economic growth during the 1920s. Though some commentators in later years thought that the existence of some slow growing or declining sectors in the twenties suggested weaknesses that might have helped bring on the Great Depression, few now argue this. Economic growth never occurs in all sectors at the same time and at the same rate. Growth reallocates resources from declining or slower growing sectors to the more rapidly expanding sectors in accordance with new technologies, new products and services, and changing consumer tastes. Economic growth in the 1920s was impressive. Ownership of cars, new household appliances, and housing was spread widely through the population. New products and processes of producing those products drove this growth. The combination of the widening use of electricity in production and the growing adoption of the moving assembly line in manufacturing combined to bring on a continuing rise in the productivity of labor and capital. Though the average workweek in most manufacturing remained essentially constant throughout the 1920s, in a few industries, such as railroads and coal production, it declined. (Whaples 2001) New products and services created new markets such as the markets for radios, electric iceboxes, electric irons, fans, electric lighting, vacuum cleaners, and other laborsaving household appliances. This electricity was distributed by the growing electric utilities. The stocks of those companies helped create the stock market boom of the late twenties. RCA, one of the glamour stocks of the era, paid no dividends but its value appreciated because of expectations for the new company. Like the Internet boom of the late 1990s, the electricity boom of the 1920s fed a rapid expansion in the stock market. Fed by continuing productivity advances and new products and services and facilitated by an environment of stable prices that encouraged production and risk taking, the American economy embarked on a sustained expansion in the 1920s. The expansion of consumer demand is what fueled the economic growth of the 1920's. In other words, spending money on radios, iceboxes, cars, fans, lamps, etc...Plus there was an expansion of roads into suburbs and people moving there. More spending. Moreover, if people were spending, the government didn't need to, unlike the economy bush left Pres. Obama. No one was spending.

We live in a country of laws written by our representatives and enforced by our courts. Our power is in our voting for representatives who share our views. This is why who our judges are is so important. They will decide the legality of our laws. If we elect 60 Rand Pauls we could become a country where there were no government regulations of private businesses. They could be free to discriminate at will. Massey Mines would have no safety laws to ignore, our paint and toys could contain lead, polluters could poison our air and Water, our bridges made quick and cheaply, and the list goes on. If this were the direction that the voters in this country want to go with the election of people like Rand Paul and Sarah Palin and all those who wish to undo all the progress of the last 80 years, then that is when I leave and move to Canada. Or Ireland. It would no longer be the great country of America that it is now. I would hope the destroyers of it would change its name, too. Maybe Libertaraination. But I will do everything in my power to prevent our country from being taken over by these out of the mainstream people.

Rand Paul on Civil Rights: Private Restaurants Wouldn’t Have To Serve Martin Luther King Interview with Louieville Courier in April of Rand Paul Question: Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Rand Paul: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains and I’m all in favor of that. Questioner: But…? Rand Paul: (nervous laugh) You had to ask me the “but.” um.. I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners – I abhor racism – I think it’s a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time I do believe in private ownership. But I think there should be absolutely no discrimination on anything that gets any public funding and that’s most of what the Civil Rights Act was about to my mind. Questioner: And then it was extended by most to most localities to include all… Would you be in favor of just local– Rand Paul: On a local basis it might be a little different. The thing is I would speak out in favor of it. (pause) I mean, I look at the speeches of Martin Luther King, and I tell you I become emotional watching the speeches of Martin Luther King. I love it because he was a transformational figure… [...] (goes on to talk about Martin Luther King for a few moments) Questioner: But under your philosophy it would be okay for Dr. King to not be served at the counter at Woolworths? Rand Paul: I would not go to that Woolworth’s, and I would stand up in my community and say it’s abhorrent. um… But the hard part, and this is the hard part about believing in freedom is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example, you to, for example– most good defenders will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things, and we’re here at the bastion of newspaperdom (sic) and I’m sure you believe in the First Amendment, so I’m sure you understand people can say bad things. It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society we will tolerate boorish people who have abhorrent behavior, but if we’re civilized people we publicly criticize that and don’t belong to those groups or associate with those people. Questioner: But it’s different with race, certainly a hundred years, discrimination based on race was codified under federal law. Rand Paul: Exactly, it was institutionalize and that’s why we had to end all of the institutional racism in um.. I was in favor of completely of that … It’s just stunning. The current playbook being used by Rand Paul was first used in Virginia by Bob McDonnell, regardless of whether they know each other or not. It’s simply how ultra conservative candidates are running their races, focusing on economic issues, while hiding their extreme views on social issues, including women’s right, but now also on civil rights where Rand Paul is concerned. There is an undercurrent of opinion dogging the Tea Party that posits they are racist. It has also dogged the Republican Party since their Southern strategy was implemented, of which the Tea Party is an extreme element. From the Louisville Courier-Journal editorial board, after their interview with Rand Paul, an article entitled “In Republican Senate race, a dismal choice,” slammed the Republicans in the race. That judgment was an understatement where Rand Paul is concerned. The trouble with Dr. Paul is that despite his independent thinking, much of what he stands for is repulsive to people in the mainstream. For instance, he holds an unacceptable view of civil rights, saying that while the federal government can enforce integration of government jobs and facilities, private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people, or gays, or any other minority group. He quickly emphasizes that he personally would not agree with any form of discrimination, but he just doesn’t think it should be legislated. His perspectives — like Mr. Grayson’s — are repellent to those who believe in a woman’s right to choose whether to have an abortion. Indeed, Dr. Paul wouldn’t even permit exceptions in the case of rape or incest. He says the mother and the unborn zygote have equal rights. If you still care, considering Paul’s civil rights views, on Sarah Palin being qualified to be president he says “absolutely,” also saying he feels “a kinship with her,” because of her Alaska outsider status that catapulted her to power. “She also has something you can’t buy and that’s likability,” he said of Palin. But it’s Rand Paul’s view on women’s rights, but especially civil rights that is so hair raising. But it’s the nakedness and naïveté of Mr. Paul’s views civil rights laws, that legislation should not impact businesses, that is not only evidence that he’s unfit for Congress, but that he’s actually dangerous. To think that the United States would no longer require laws to protect minorities is just ignorant and lacking in experience in the real world. That he’s from Kentucky makes this even more amazing. As a Missourian, I shiver to think what would have continued without the Civil Rights Act. As for his anti-women’s rights views, especially on individual freedoms, it’s absolutely discriminatory against women. It’s appalling in this day and age that a doctor would believe that women should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will. The editorial board found his views “repellent” and they are correct. To say that the unborn has “equal” rights to the woman is simply wrong. As for DADT, Mr. Paul danced around it, but came down on a “non-fraternization” policy for everyone. Oh, but Rand Paul doesn’t think Barack Obama is the anti-Christ. He just doesn’t believe a private business should have to serve the President of the United States if they don’t want to So Rand Paul tries to justify his position that private businesses should not be told by the government who they can and can't serve by hiding behind the first amendment.

And that political philosophy should be repulsive to americans because that is not who we are as a people or a country. I understand perfectly what he stands for. I don't need the media or anyone else's interpretation of what his word yes meant. You need to say whether YOU support signs that say "Whites Only", "Blacks Only", "No Jews Served" or "No Christians Served". I am on record as saying I am not, and therefore don't support the position of Rand Paul.

I watched the entire Rachel Maddow interview on the day it happened. I heard and cringed at almost everything Rand Paul said. He later said that he thought her interview was fair. I have heard his word "yes" analyzed on MSNBC and what it really meant. There was no fake anything or misinterpretation. This is hardly a case of the media being afraid or having a grip on our government. It's a case of reporting on what a whacko Rand Paul's libertarian views are. Here it is in a nutshell: He wants private businesses to be able to discriminate against the protected classes in the civil rights bill. He, AND THOSE WHO SUPPORT HIM, are okay with a "Whites Only" or "No Jews Served" signs in a place of business. I am not, and most of america supports my position on this. PERIOD.

Here's republican candidate Vaughn Ward stealing Pres. Obama's speeches: Oh, and by the way, another republican support by palin. Boy, can she pick them.

I do not believe that what he did was right. He has an impressive resume and certainly didn't need to lie to embelish it. I was hoping he would step down from his candidacy but he didn't. That being said, that doesn't mean I wouldn't support his political philosophy and agenda and how he would vote once elected. He would probably vote the way I would. What bothers me more is the philosophy of someone like Rand Paul. Very scary in my opinion. And bad for america, but hey, the tea party and Sarah Palin love him.