Students sent home from school for wearing American flag t-shirts on May 5

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Keep trusting our mainstream media. What they are doing is clear evidence that they FEAR the TEA Party/Libertarian movement - lest they loose their grip on our government. They cannot conceive power returning to The People's hands. As evidence by the fake transcripts produced by MSNBC and spread around the remainder of the MSM.

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.

[ariscus99 1]

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.

In the official transcripts released by MSNBC they said Mr. Paul said "yes" he did agree that people should be able to discriminate, and since you watched the interview live you know better cm, here is the interview, cued up to the right moment when the question is asked and answered.

They are also okay with "Blacks Only" and "No Christians Served" signs in business.

Edited May 25, 2010 by ariscus99

[Cleo's Mom 257]

In the official transcripts released by MSNBC they said Mr. Paul said "yes" he did agree that people should be able to discriminate, and since you watched the interview live you know better cm, here is the interview, cued up to the right moment when the question is asked and answered.

They are also okay with "Blacks Only" and "No Christians Served" signs in business.

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.

[ariscus99 1]

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.

And thats where the debate is just comical buy the left. All he said, if you re-watch the clip with unbiased eyes and ears you'll see, is that, if, he were around back then, he would have like some more debate on the issue of private businesses not being allowed to serve who they want. Why can a business have a sign, and enforce it, that said business can refuse service to anyone for any reason? But back to the point, he said he would have liked more debate on the subject, and furthermore that he is against discrimination in any form and wants nothing to do with anyone who discriminates. What rachel maddow and the rest of left are doing is taking something that she said was his view, and broadcasting it around as fact, when he said just seconds later that NO in fact that is not his view. But the more the left can get that lie out there and circulated and the faster, the more they can get people to believe it. Watch the interview again, most of what I've read on this board in regard to Rand Paul has been untrue. When it comes to that interview. rachel maddow is the person who said Rand Paul was against the civil rights act, he countered immediately that he was not, but she just kept saying he was, and now people on the left are also saying that is his stance when he has made it very clear that it is not.

[leroyspuds 0]

Keep trusting our mainstream media. What they are doing is clear evidence that they FEAR the TEA Party/Libertarian movement - lest they loose their grip on our government. They cannot conceive power returning to The People's hands. As evidence by the fake transcripts produced by MSNBC and spread around the remainder of the MSM.

DUCK ARISCUS OR THE BLACK HELICOPTERS WILL SEE YOU! :biggrin:

Libertarians have always been a fringe group because their philosphy is inplausible. The government is the people, and as one of the people I want some protection from the greedy and the hateful.

If there was no regulation of business they would have carte blanche to victimize consumers and ruin the environment. Even with regulations they've already nearly bankrupted the world, sucked up our tax dollars to save their butts, and damaged our air and Water. Say, why don't you go down to Louisana and help clean up the oilspill? Maybe you'd like to have your health insurance dropped because you got sick? How 'bout nice plate of food tainted with bacteria?

If we left the ensuring of liberty in the hands of neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, gay bashers, KKK and the like a large percentage of Americans would be hanging from trees.

Assuming everything will be hunky dory by leaving it all up to the good will and cooperation of people is assinine. So long as people like Rand Paul are out there making fools of themselves I have no fear of those of his ilk coming to power.

[ariscus99 1]

*sigh* We don't live in a democracy where two wolves and a sheep can merely "vote" on what's for dinner. Our governmental system is not simply based on what you cna get 51% of the people to agree on. We live in a Constituional Repulblic, which protects certain "rights" as a matter of principle. By your way of thinking, if most people suddenly decided that they wanted racial segregation again, we should be able to have it, and not only that, but that it would be correct . . . by your line of reasoning.

So, how does this make you hypocrite? Because you are perfectly fine with men with guns forcing views on others in the private sector, as long as it is something you agree with. However, the converse is not true. Would you be fine with men with guns making sure minorities had to sit a certain part of an eating establishment as government policy? When you understand why you would not be ok with the latter, you will then understand your inconsistencies and why you are a hypocrite.

[leroyspuds 0]

No it's based on a majority vote by those we the people elected to office to represent us. [/color]We live in a Constituional Repulblic' date=' which protects certain "rights" as a matter of principle. By your way of thinking, if most people suddenly decided that they wanted racial segregation again, we should be able to have it, and not only that, but that it would be correct . . . by your line of reasoning. No, by your way of reasoning everything would be left up to an uncontrolled mob served only by self interest.

So, how does this make you hypocrite? How does this make you paranoid? Because you are perfectly fine with men with guns forcing views on others in the private sector, as long as it is something you agree with. No, we the people agree with it by virtue of Congress passing laws on our behalf. However, the converse is not true. Would you be fine with men with guns making sure minorities had to sit a certain part of an eating establishment as government policy? When you understand why you would not be ok with the latter, you will then understand your inconsistencies and why you are a hypocrite. When you get your head out of your ass then you will understand why you are so full of shit.

By the way, I'm making an exception to my policy against name calling since you've taken it upon yourself to do so.

[ariscus99 1]

By the way, I'm making an exception to my policy against name calling since you've taken it upon yourself to do so.

Go ahead and re-read that when your own prejudices aren't flaring up so wildly. As it's pretty logical to most people who aren't left wing loons.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

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.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[leroyspuds 0]

"Go ahead and re-read that when your own prejudices aren't flaring up so wildly. As it's pretty logical to most people who aren't left wing loons"

-------------------------------------------------------------

No Ariscus, I'll simply ignore you as being a person whose intellect isn't up to the task of a logical debate. Hey, I think your show is on --are you smarter than a 5th grader? Of course you haven't been out of the 5th grade that long have you?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

*sigh* We don't live in a democracy where two wolves and a sheep can merely "vote" on what's for dinner. Our governmental system is not simply based on what you cna get 51% of the people to agree on. We live in a Constituional Repulblic, which protects certain "rights" as a matter of principle. By your way of thinking, if most people suddenly decided that they wanted racial segregation again, we should be able to have it, and not only that, but that it would be correct . . . by your line of reasoning.

So, how does this make you hypocrite? Because you are perfectly fine with men with guns forcing views on others in the private sector, as long as it is something you agree with. However, the converse is not true. Would you be fine with men with guns making sure minorities had to sit a certain part of an eating establishment as government policy? When you understand why you would not be ok with the latter, you will then understand your inconsistencies and why you are a hypocrite.

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.

[ariscus99 1]

[i

No Ariscus, I'll simply ignore you as being a person whose intellect isn't up to the task of a logical debate. Hey, I think your show is on --are you smarter than a 5th grader? Of course you haven't been out of the 5th grade that long have you?/I]

It's good to see I've got you so worked up your being completely illogical and even name calling. Your that far off base just by a couple little comments you don't agree with? Your handling things like like the group of people you just tried to put me in. Your just making my case for me more and more, by showing your fear, incompetence, inability to reason and understand. You talk about illogical debate? What do you think your last post says about you?

[leroyspuds 0]

You talk about illogical debate? What do you think your last post says about you?

You're right I shouldn't have stooped so low. I guess I started it with my statement about black helicopters. Then you called me hypocrit and insulted my intelligence. Then it became a pissin' match. So, can we agree to get back to a civil debate? I'm willing.

[ariscus99 1]

All I said was you were being hypocritical, nothing in that statement says a word about your intelligence. Like I said, please re-read it.

[leroyspuds 0]

All I said was you were being hypocritical, nothing in that statement says a word about your intelligence. Like I said, please re-read it.

I found the post to be insulting. In any case, I've held out the olive branch and am willing to move on to other topics.

So in this spirit of a topic change, what do you think of Obama sending troops to the southern border? Do you think it will help?