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.

 

Rand Paul stumbles on Maddow show

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Thank you, I appreciate the distinction. It all has to do with the way questions are asked. If what you say or ask discriminates in the slightest way, one could be liable for discrimination.

They had their lawyer write up the questions for me to ask and precisely which ones not to ask.

To me, it is getting frelling ridiculous. To run a simple business you have to have a damn lawyer.

Wonder why THAT is? To protect yourself or just to make money for the lawyers?


reply to post by inforeal
 


Sorry if i inferred the wrong meaning behind the part I had bolded in your statement.

But, you could have been a little more concise with your comment.

My apologies given.





[edit on 5/20/2010 by endisnighe]




posted on May, 20 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lilitu
reply to post by harpsounds
 


A teabagger is exposed to be a dirty racist? Oh say it ain't so!


The leftist media going out of their way to make a TEA Party supporter seem racist? Say it ain't so!



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Jabronie
 


well you are right i did not catch Hanity attacking Rand, but the guy right before beck was trying to make it out to be a big deal.

I was unmoved by the argument.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





How easy would it have been for Paul to say he supports something he really doesn't?


Well they may have gotten their wish, because now he's stating that he WOULD have voted for the Civil Rights Act.

It was that easy. Took less than 24 hours.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


The commerce clause only effects state to state commerce.

It does not effect a business privately owned.

Now if a Multi state corporation trades between the states then yes.

However everything else is left up to the individuals themselves or the states.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jabronie
This is a prime example of how the left works. They take this extreme hypothetical and use it to label the good doctor a racist. Why not allow him to talk about the philosophical issue of capitalism vs. socialism or, more directly, freedom vs. statism?

And I predict the right will be no different. Hannity will be attacking Rand Paul on national defense (aka: national OFFENSE) any time now, ignoring the real issue of whether or not America is constitutionally allowed to maintain a global military empire.


[edit on 5/20/2010 by Jabronie]
They most CERTAINLY did not take an extreme hypothetical. Rachel Madcow was asking about his won words, published in my city paper. He did the do SI do around it and thats a turn off. So typical. He did say it and all he had to do was own it. In the beginning of the interview he CLEARLY had the debate advantage, and blew his power lead. he is not slick he has bad handlers and the avoidance is nauseating so typical. Why is everyone creaming over such a typical pandering politician??

I live in KY I had to sit through his nasty campaign ad, and ttrust me they will ruin summer viewing for us here in KY.

I have posted on the topic elsewhere so if you are not lazy you can get the links to back up what I say.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4

Originally posted by Lilitu
reply to post by harpsounds
 


A teabagger is exposed to be a dirty racist? Oh say it ain't so!


The leftist media going out of their way to make a TEA Party supporter seem racist? Say it ain't so!
Pretty sure his OWN WORDS to the Courier Journal exposed him to appear to be a dirty racist. It was his complete back pedaling avoidance of Madcows questions that made him look foolish.

What did he expect? KY politics are historically NASTY. This man got the nod he should have been better prepared. I dont want someone like this representing me, he doesnt even know what he is doing, it appears.

get it together Pand Paul.

All he has to do is OWN hos WORDS and stand firm in his opinions and beliefs. Madcow made him look weak.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by OldDragger
 


Things did change because people became 'nicer.' Laws didnt force protesters to march in the streets. You've got the process all backwards. The laws came in after people got fed up with the situation.


Have you ever taken a history class? The laws came BEFORE integration. What are you confusing here? Laws FORCED people to integrate and they are still having trouble being nice.


To push the point further no law or collection of laws made any one racist stop being a racist. They still exist to this day despite all the laws in the world.


Right, but laws do prevent that racist from carrying his racist ideology into the public marketplace.


The 'law' came in way after the fact, claimed it made all the difference, yet is still incapable of turning a bigot into a non-bigot.


Nothing you are saying makes any sense. Business were segregated by choice of the establishment UNTIL it was illegal to do so. How did you miss this? Your narrative does not even make sense. Are you saying that people protested, people got nicer, integrated, then came civil rights laws?



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldDragger
You think things have changed because, what? People became nicer?

No, it's because of the law. Interesting that so many of you just don't like the idea of equal rights. What does that say? Hmmmm


If that was a fact, how in the world did legislators, listening to their constituents, pass the civil rights act?! Are politicians more moral and just than the rest of the population....History tells us a different story.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

Originally posted by Carseller4

Originally posted by Lilitu
reply to post by harpsounds
 


A teabagger is exposed to be a dirty racist? Oh say it ain't so!


The leftist media going out of their way to make a TEA Party supporter seem racist? Say it ain't so!
Pretty sure his OWN WORDS to the Courier Journal exposed him to appear to be a dirty racist. It was his complete back pedaling avoidance of Madcows questions that made him look foolish.

What did he expect? KY politics are historically NASTY. This man got the nod he should have been better prepared. I dont want someone like this representing me, he doesnt even know what he is doing, it appears.

get it together Pand Paul.

All he has to do is OWN hos WORDS and stand firm in his opinions and beliefs. Madcow made him look weak.


I watched the whole Courier Journal program with Paul and thought the whole racist accusation was the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. But you are welcome to outline which words you suppose make him racist. Is it the ones where he states that property rights are important and we should in a free country spend our money how we see fit?

I'm sorry you are wrong. Rand Paul isn't a racist but you are anti-freedom and anti-liberty if you think that I shouldn't be able to spend my own money how I see fit... that's all that Rand Paul is saying. I don't see why making perfect sense makes someone a racist.

The Paul family is very obviously in the born-again camp of Christians, who generally are not racist at all. So no, Ron Paul is not racist and neither is Rand Paul.

Ron Paul got the same accusations, and yet black people were hugely supportive of him because they know better and realize that there may be a reason Rand only agrees with 90% of the Civil Rights legislation rather than 100% of it. Hispanics were not as supportive because of Ron Paul's immigration stance but minorities as a whole were very supportive.

Unlike Rand Paul's opponent, Rand Paul is probably far more against the war on drugs. Therefore his policies should be very beneficial to minorities who get the book thrown at them over nothing at all and the victimless crime of being involved with drugs. Being against the war on drugs should be especially beneficial to the hispanic crowds who are having their lives torn apart in Mexico and other places due to the harmful war on drugs.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   
If someone put a sign in the window "NO PAGANS ALLOWED" I'd kinda like that. I'd like to know where I wasn't wanted, so I'd not spend my money there.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
If that was a fact, how in the world did legislators, listening to their constituents, pass the civil rights act?! Are politicians more moral and just than the rest of the population....History tells us a different story.


So the civil rights act was passed after it was no longer needed?

Please explain to me why they would pass laws that were no longer needed.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

Originally posted by Carseller4

Originally posted by Lilitu
reply to post by harpsounds
 


A teabagger is exposed to be a dirty racist? Oh say it ain't so!


The leftist media going out of their way to make a TEA Party supporter seem racist? Say it ain't so!
Pretty sure his OWN WORDS to the Courier Journal exposed him to appear to be a dirty racist. It was his complete back pedaling avoidance of Madcows questions that made him look foolish.

What did he expect? KY politics are historically NASTY. This man got the nod he should have been better prepared. I dont want someone like this representing me, he doesnt even know what he is doing, it appears.

get it together Pand Paul.

All he has to do is OWN hos WORDS and stand firm in his opinions and beliefs. Madcow made him look weak.


I watched the whole Courier Journal program with Paul and thought the whole racist accusation was the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. But you are welcome to outline which words you suppose make him racist. Is it the ones where he states that property rights are important and we should in a free country spend our money how we see fit?

I'm sorry you are wrong. Rand Paul isn't a racist but you are anti-freedom and anti-liberty if you think that I shouldn't be able to spend my own money how I see fit... that's all that Rand Paul is saying. I don't see why making perfect sense makes someone a racist.

The Paul family is very obviously in the born-again camp of Christians, who generally are not racist at all. So no, Ron Paul is not racist and neither is Rand Paul.

Ron Paul got the same accusations, and yet black people were hugely supportive of him because they know better and realize that there may be a reason Rand only agrees with 90% of the Civil Rights legislation rather than 100% of it. Hispanics were not as supportive because of Ron Paul's immigration stance but minorities as a whole were very supportive.

Unlike Rand Paul's opponent, Rand Paul is probably far more against the war on drugs. Therefore his policies should be very beneficial to minorities who get the book thrown at them over nothing at all and the victimless crime of being involved with drugs. Being against the war on drugs should be especially beneficial to the hispanic crowds who are having their lives torn apart in Mexico and other places due to the harmful war on drugs.
It was more likely the editorial of his words that caused the masses to think he is racist. After all if the Courier Journal says its so most of the people will lap it up. That's life in America.

I would appreciate a link to the video itself, if you would not mind to share it. I want to see exactly where this originated. I am fairly certain most people who oppose him took the RACIST card from the printed editorial I have linked to in the other Rand Paul thread.

Thanks for responding to my post.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Which law was it that told Rosa Parks to sit where she wanted?

And these laws absolutely do not keep bigoted business from operating among the public. It just keeps the customer in the dark over the position of the business.

How many pounds of bodily fluids do you think nasty owner/operators have put into the mouths of the customers they hate over the years? And they get to pay for the privilege of eating some Klansmens load. And you can't not hire that Klansman. Not just because he's a Klansman. That would be discriminatory.

I think I know what you and others are doing. You're assuming the a "law" has to exist. So you're concluding in your mind that should no "anti-discriminatory" laws exist the void will naturally be filled with "discriminatory" laws. Here's an idea.....hang on...........NO like laws or 'discrimination' mandates of any sort.

People arent going to grow up until the babysitter goes home. Especially this cracked-out whore of a babysitter we have sitting on our faces now.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by thisguyrighthere]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


I think that the interview was at this URL:
www.courier-journal.com...

But at the moment its just showing a mostly blank page


Hopefully it will come back up soon.

The whole focus on racism upsets me because I don't believe any serious pro-liberty activist could possibly be racist at the same time. They are very much counter-productive values that don't mesh. I work with libertarian circles from time to time and have yet to meet any libertarian who is the slightest bit racist at all.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by maybereal11



Consider the worst case scenario. Say slavery is suddenly lawful. True slavery, not the wage and tax slavery we currently live under. Who the hell would do business with a "slave made" business? Certainly some folks would but enough to sustain a successful enterprise?



Enough to keep the Publix chain of grocery stores profitable. The tomatos you buy at Publix are picked by workers who must pick 4,000 pounds a day to make minimum wage and who are sometimes chained to their truck and have to pay $5.00 from their wages to take a shower. There have now been 7 slavery prosecutions against Publix suppliers. Google Coalition of Imokalee Workers for more info and boycott Publix.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


That goes back to the difference between "slavery next door" and "slavery in another country." It's much easier for people to turn a blind eye to children in a Nike shop in China or children having their arms lopped off because dad didnt pull enough iPod material from the mine in Africa or lines of thirsty and hungry pickers in a Mexican field than it is to turn away from the same situation a few towns over.

I have no idea what a 'Publix' is but I imagine their use of 'slave' labor is no different than any other supermarket. This is an issue with globalism and 'free trade'. Not local 'anti-discrimination' law.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I just really do not even know what to say. Either you are purposely being ignorant or your lack of understanding of history is frightening. If you think that Rosa Parks sitting in the front of the bus was because became became more civil, you should not have dropped out in the 3rd grade. I am simply stunned that you would even try to pass that off as logic.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


She did it because was tired of the nonsense. Which led to more defiance. Which led to folks noticing "hey, that is pretty messed up." Which led to ever increasing outrage where people did in fact become 'nicer.' Where people who had never given it a thought were finally thinking. The relative speed with which the movement grew is an indication many Americans were already 'nicer.' They had just never been called upon to act in such large numbers.

You can lay off the juvenile attacks a bit. They aren't helping you any.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
I just took a look at this.

Looks to me more like Paul kicked Maddow's (vibrating) a$$ on the subject when he brought up dem senator byrd's actual record vs. Paul's assumed record.





top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join