It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rachel Maddow ambushes Rand Paul on Civil Rights Act of 1964 (segregation)

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Earlier tonight on Rachel Maddow Show, she had Rand Paul on as a guest. I don't know what Rand Paul thought he was getting into...especially since he just won a Republican nomination for Kentucky's Senator. He probably thought he was going to talk about the Tea Party movement that he's been associated with and how he wants to shrink government and balance budgets, etc etc.

Anyway, Maddow made the ENTIRE interview completely about the Civil Rights Act of 1964...and NOTHING else.

She was essentially trying to make him look like a racist.

I will also note, Maddow had been EXTREMELY friendly to Rand in the past...and now did a 180 and hammered him. I think he is the candidate Democrat, Liberals, and Progressives wanted.

He also supported Jim Bunning blocking unemployment benefits earlier this year...which he will get hammered for soon as well.

The whole interview was very uncomfortable....I felt uneasy just watching it myself.




I will also note that this is the SAME THING his father (RON PAUL) went through during his Presidential campaign.

Edit to add:

This is the first interview she did with Rand Paul when he announced he would run for Kentucky Senator. Completely different tone....



Now...I'm going to share the allegations of "racism" that were accused of his father, Ron Paul.





[edit on 19-5-2010 by David9176]




posted on May, 19 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


I like Rand Paul, not on everything but on most things. He is definitly not racist, the only reason he is coming under fire is because he was not allowed to explain his stance. Even if he could explain it, they would ignore it.

He supports equal rights, but you don't need the 1964 civil rights legislation to say so. No one would ever dare make laws directly against another persons race, or it's the end of their political career and possibly their life.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


I agree...I don't think he's racist either. That's why I titled the thread as an ambush...because that's exactly what it looked like.

You could tell he wasn't prepared for the questioning...especially the hit piece that was put together right before he walked out. He's a novice at the politics thing...and it showed in this interview...he didn't handle himself well.

This is going to be used against him...it's what happened to his old man.

It's going to hurt him just as it did his dad.

I like many of his stances....Auditing the Fed, Campaign Finance Reform, Anti-war, etc.

Cripes, this is why i HATE politics.



[edit on 19-5-2010 by David9176]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 





Rachel Maddow ambushes Rand Paul on Civil Rights Act of 1964

She received her marching orders directly from the DNC. It's not important though, because nobody watches Maddow, except for a few wackos.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I saw it, and it made me realize something. You can only go so far with the "Constitution only" ideal without sounding misplaced in time and society. Rand Paul's views simply do not meld properly with the current culture, and therefore he was made to look like he supported racist practices. The fact remains that companies, especially private, will maintain discriminatory policies against any type of individuals without Government oversight. That's just fact, because it is contemporary human nature.
I doubt Rand Paul is a racist, however, I doubt his views represent the majority of the voting electorate. The Republicans are in a tough position with the Tea Party carrying this (R) beside their names.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


That's not going to matter though...this will soon be everywhere and will be ramped up big time when election day nears.

It's the same exact thing that happened to Ron Paul. I think the GOP is now going to be worried about losing a seat...a seat that McConnell forced out the incumbent on to handpick a successor...only to see him lose.

ALso, Rand Paul supporting Senator Jim Bunning on blocking unemployment benefits earlier this year is going to be used against him as well.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


I just finished watching it as Rachel was on tv again. I think he could have shut her up within the first 3 minutes by not playing the political game with her and simply saying yes or no and giving a quick and blunt explanation.

Like when she asked him whether we should allow segregation in public places he simply said absolutely not. But when she said segregation in private places he tried to play the political game, he should have said, "Yes I do, I don't condone racism in any way and would not support or have any affiliation with a racist establishment, but they are a private business and how they decide to run their business is their choicee and not the government or anyone elses choice. If they want to ruin their business and their reputation let them, they will pay a price for being racist."

[edit on 5/19/10 by Misoir]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


HEY
I am not a wacko! I am a Classical liberal... so I guess I am a little wacko.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TheOneElectric
 





The fact remains that companies, especially private, will maintain discriminatory policies against any type of individuals without Government oversight.


And it's not discrimination by just race either. It's done by weight, looks, sex, and countless other things.

Businesses will always be discriminatory in one fashion or another...that doesn't make it right...but that's just how it is.



I doubt Rand Paul is a racist, however, I doubt his views represent the majority of the voting electorate. The Republicans are in a tough position with the Tea Party carrying this (R) beside their names.


I agree...I didn't initially think that yesterday...but now however i think it's going to be much more difficult for him to win that seat....even though I probably agree with more than I disagree with on many of his stances.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 





I just finished watching it as Rachel was on tv again. I think he could have shut her up within the first 3 minutes by not playing the political game with her and simply saying yes or no and giving a quick and blunt explanation.


I agree....I just simply think he wasn't ready for the questioning. As I stated, he probably thought he was going to get a nice interview like he had in the past...instead he got hammered relentlessly.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 





That's not going to matter though...this will soon be everywhere and will be ramped up big time when election day nears.

The liberals day will come though. When people tire of their garbage, Americans will take it to the next level, and people like Maddow will have no one to blame but themselves.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 





The liberals day will come though. When people tire of their garbage, Americans will take it to the next level, and people like Maddow will have no one to blame but themselves.


I don't know Prof. I really can't predict what is going to happen...my guess is as good as yours. (I'm not going to trash Liberals or Conservatives on the issue either) I'm just stating that this doesn't look good for Rand Paul...and no matter what we all see here on ATS...the masses will not. Grandma and Grandpa in the nursing home aren't going to be looking up information on the internet...they will get their news from the corporate media just like everyone else.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Rand Paul's biggest mistake was going into agreement with "civil rights" and "legal rights", and he himself even said that in a free society we "allow" people to act boorishly. Had Rand Paul insisted on being in favor of Inalienable Rights, and opposed to any form of "legal" granted rights, he could have very easily turned the tables on Maddow. Simply staying on point and insisting that all people regardless of race, sex, creed, or religion, are born with inherent rights. When Maddow asked if Paul thought a business had a "legal right" to discriminate, if Paul answered that the federal government does not have the authority to grant rights, and kept the debate on Inalienable versus "civil" rights, the whole business and discrimination issue would have been lost in the debate. It would have forced Maddow to either dismiss Inalienable rights as not being enough, which if pushed further would have forced her to point to slavery, which could have been easily used to frame her as if she was in support of slavery.

Paul is trying too hard to be a politician, and be all things to all people. In these turbulent times his real strength lies in stressing that rights are not granted by government but exist in all people and do so from birth. That no legislation is required to protect rights as the Bill of Rights, and all state constitutions and their declaration of rights, make clear that the rights of the people shall not be disparaged. This then becomes an issue of what the government is prohibited from doing, and the strongest argument one can make against those who are attempting to make Paul look racist, is to simply insist that all people are free to do what they choose to do as long as such actions do not cause another harm. This would not at all hurt Paul with his own constituency and while it may not win over many progressives, Paul seems to be in opposition to progressive views and should make a stand.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 





Grandma and Grandpa in the nursing home aren't going to be looking up information on the internet.

Hey, watch it there. Although we are not in a nursing home, my wife and I get most of our information on the internet. We long ago, gave up believing anything we hear on TV. Most of our friends are seniors, and they are a lot more attuned to the internet than you give them credit for. In addition, most, having grown up in the 40's and 50's, are QUITE conservative, and don't buy the lies of those who hate this country.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Backpedal much? I was uncomfortable...with his double talk and avoidance of her question.

What does Pand expect now that he is in a big time race for this seat?

He clearly told the CJ he was for private business having rights to freedoms of who comes in. He kept trying to say I am not racist, well that was not the question dude. Who cares if he is a racist, I am more concerned with his anti female stance, and his being a Christian and using these issues to Pander for cheap and easy votes in his home state.

He had a lot of good things to say but he is nothing more than a typical Pandering Politician, the back pedaling and avoidance in this what six minute interview was nauseating. If Pand cannot even handle Maddow, how is gonna hold up and represent us well?

It will just get uglier and uglier I cannot stand the nasty ads my state lawmakers come out with.

Here is Pand's nauseating ad that scooped in many of his easy votes:

truthupfront.blogspot.com...

PLEASE read the article, it is an opinion piece but aint they all.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


You're right...probably a bad choice of words on my part...I apologize if I offended you or anyone else.

Was just stating that the majority of voters aren't going to look into anything and just believe everything on television.

My parents do it, my grandparents do it, and most everyone I know does it.

I wish it wasn't that way, it would go a long way in fixing everything that is wrong and get some real change going...but I just don't see it happening.

When older voters find out that Rand is for legalizing Marijuana...they will most likely vote for the other candidate.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by Misoir
 





I just finished watching it as Rachel was on tv again. I think he could have shut her up within the first 3 minutes by not playing the political game with her and simply saying yes or no and giving a quick and blunt explanation.


I agree....I just simply think he wasn't ready for the questioning. As I stated, he probably thought he was going to get a nice interview like he had in the past...instead he got hammered relentlessly.

Oh give me a break. If he is that stupid then I sure as hecll dont want him representing ME in my state!! He is a doctor. My brother is a dr, and he is a very intelligent man. Ron Paul is an intelligent man and I bet Rand is quite intelligent too.

Or are you really trying to say he is stupid?

He has to have handlers and a team, please do not expect me to swallow he was not prepared for this, he just won the nod the gloves are OFF.

Man it goes this way EVERY election!!



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 





He has to have handlers and a team, please do not expect me to swallow he was not prepared for this, he just won the nod the gloves are OFF.


I'm not expecting you to believe anything. I was expressing my OPINION to Misoir...not you. Sorry if you were offended.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
No one would ever dare make laws directly against another persons race, or it's the end of their political career and possibly their life.


I guess that means the end of admission tests,competency test,qualification test,sat test for college, jobs, etc. Why lets eliminate all tests. We wouldnt want to discriminate. Any idiot can apply to school, go, graduate,and be operating on your (OP) brain in no time at all. Yeah thats the ticket.
Perfect equality. Its going to be wonderful.




[edit on 19-5-2010 by RRokkyy]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Rand Paul came off as a weak pussy.

Rand needed to reframe the debate.

Rachel Maddow was trying to frame the debate to make Rand Paul look like a racist who supported racists in their discrimination of black people or the disabled.

Rand Paul needed to reframe the debate in terms of individualism versus collectivism. The rights of the individual versus the collective good.

I will stand for individualism any day. I think racism is abhorrent, ignorant, and just plain stupid. At the same time do you think the shareholders of Walmart, a store in virtually every major city in the country, is going to vote to support discrimination against people because of their race or disability?

Hell no they won't, it is bad for business.

Rand Paul and Ron Paul for that matter need to learn how to reframe the debate while still answering the question.


Thank you for smoking.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join