Rand Paul: Obama's criticism of BP 'un-American'

First, we had the Civil Rights comments which got him in a heap of trouble....it doesn't matter on an ideology basis or not....it's hurt him badly.

Now...I simply can't believe this one either...

Rand Paul: Obama's criticism of BP 'un-American'

WASHINGTON – Taking another unconventional stand, Kentucky's Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul criticized President Barack Obama's handling of the Gulf oil spill Friday as anti-business and sounding "really un-American."

"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,'" Paul said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America." "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."

news.yahoo.com...

What the hell is he doing? He's defending BP who is responsible for what could be responsible for the largest economic disaster of our time?

THEY WERE SELF REGULATORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Does he realize that BP stands for BRITISH PETROLEUM???

What the hell is he doing?

What about the 11 people that died, the effect this has on OTHER BUSINESSES...not to mention wildlife/ecosystem?

WOW


[edit on 21-5-2010 by David9176]

The Ron/Rand Paul movement is going to die because of idiotic comments such as these.

Who in their right mind is going to side with BP???

IT"S AN INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION>>>>I THOUGHT YOU GUYS WERE AGAINST THIS????????????

It's almost as if he's destroying the entire liberty movement....2 major missteps in a matter of days.

The Democrats will take the seat he is running for.

It's virtually guaranteed now.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by David9176]

I kind of see where he is coming from.

BP hasn't said anything to make one think they wouldn't pay for the damages and the WH keeps going on television saying how they are going to pretty much force them to do something they never said they wouldn't.

They are being overly aggressive when there isn't a need to do so. BP does a lot of buisness in the US so it being a british company plays doesn't really matter. They employ thousands of American people, so as far as we should be concerned it is also an American buisness also.

Dr.Paul has always been for keeping governent out of private buisnesses. His comments of late doesn't really suprise me. I actually kind of like them and I never was a fan of the Paul family either.

As much as I like Ron Paul I am quickly coming to the realization that Rand Paul is a either a complete moron, or shouldn't be in politics. Of course the two don't have to be exclusive.

reply to post by Miracle Man

BP hasn't said anything to make one think they wouldn't pay for the damages and the WH keeps going on television saying how they are going to pretty much force them to do something they never said they wouldn't.

BP has lied about how bad this leak was since DAY 1. This is going to be devastating for other businesses....do they not matter? ANd obviously...they weren't prepared because we weren't forcing regulations to keep this from happening.

He's blowing it...I thought he was against corporatism?

WHAT THE HELL RAND????

THIS IS THE US COAST LINE FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by David9176



They can lie about how it happened all day long. Hell, a dolphin could have ran into the line, knocked a big ass hole in it and at the end they would still be responsible for clean up.

Lying about how it happened isn't the issue. Them never saying they wasn't responsible for clean up and still getting strong armed by the WH is what he is talking about.

He is for less government in all faucets of our lives. We might not always agree with it, but ateast he is sticking to his guns no matter how unpopular it may be.

I can see where he is coming from on this. The current administration definitely talks the talk, but when it comes to walking the walk they are still crawling.
I think where he is coming from is reminiscent of the T. roosevelt days, the "Walk softly and carry a big stick" attitude. They don't need to threaten BP with idle threats like "We will put our boot heal on the throaght of BP". Just take action. Fine them! Shut them down if need be! These people act absolutely powerless when facing a major corporation or bank it makes you wonder if this administration has any balls at all! I challenge the current administration to take the steps it should have taken in the begining of this fiasco now and start fining them by the barrel for the spill! Hit them where it hurts(in the wallet) and I gaurantee you they will find solutions as quick as you can say "What spill?"!

[edit on 5/21/2010 by SpaDe_]

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by Miracle Man

 

BP hasn't said anything to make one think they wouldn't pay for the damages and the WH keeps going on television saying how they are going to pretty much force them to do something they never said they wouldn't.

BP has lied about how bad this leak was since DAY 1. This is going to be devastating for other businesses....do they not matter? ANd obviously...they weren't prepared because we weren't forcing regulations to keep this from happening.

He's blowing it...I thought he was against corporatism?

WHAT THE HELL RAND????

THIS IS THE US COAST LINE FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They sure did. The part that really confused me about the whole interview was when he said:

"And I think it's part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it's always got to be somebody's fault instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen," Paul said.

Err? I'm not following you here Rand. Are you saying that the fact that there was catasrophic failure which could have been prevented but wasn't, because it was 'too costly,' not a good enough reason to, dare I say it, blame bP!?

[edit on 21-5-2010 by xEphon]

reply to post by xEphon


He's stating that there should be no regulations at all...who cares if people die or other businesses suffer because of it.

I am staunchly against corporatism...and I thought BOTH Pauls were as well...especially international ones...and then he states THIS?

For cripes sakes.

I'm embarrassed for supporting him.

He isnt defending BP so much as he is saying it's "unAmerican" for the American government to drag out private businesses and assault them further demonizing them in the eyes of the less bright among us.

It's cheap brownie points for the gov to play nanny to the bad business. It's hard as hell and self deprecating apparently to not only not do that but to say "hey, you shouldn't be doing that either."

Like people really want to see the BP guys dragged out and shot in the street? You know, I bet a lot of people do.

Less government is less government. You start picking and choosing and you become some flip-flopping hypocrite who doesnt really believe what he's preaching.

Rand is Right

Its not their fault that government regulation and oversight made them blow up the rig and people. Plus the government is here to clean it up, this is why we pay taxes after all. Shame on Obama for speaking badness on business -
Them fishermens should have thought about oil spills before becaming fishermens

Am I hearing this right?

Not only is Rand defending BP but people here on ATS are also defending BP???

Crazyness. How can anyone defend BP on this?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
He isnt defending BP so much as he is saying it's "unAmerican" for the American government to drag out private businesses and assault them further demonizing them in the eyes of the less bright among us.



Less government is less government. You start picking and choosing and you become some flip-flopping hypocrite who doesnt really believe what he's preaching.

Star for this post!

I couldn't have said it better, and I couldn't agree with you more! This is the SAME scenario that Rand Paul was taliking about with the Civil Rights act. It's not that he doesn't believe in what the act stands for, just that he believes in a non-interventionist approach by the government. A racist business or a wreck-less oil company will get their just due without the government needing to step in and control everything.

His stance is purely Libertarian...If some people don't believe in that, fine...but people shouldn't paint him with a certain brush of their choosing simply because they don't understand why he's saying these things.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Less government is less government. You start picking and choosing and you become some flip-flopping hypocrite who doesnt really believe what he's preaching.

I actually agree with this. And most people who cry for less government really just want the line of government interference in our lives where THEY want it, instead of where it is.

Rand Paul is turning out to be a fiasco. If he wants no government in our lives, then he can live in a place without housing codes, food regulation, roads departments and so on. But here, in America, the government IS involved in providing for the general welfare of the people.

And I agree that Obama needs to put his money where his mouth is. He's not all-powerful, as some think, but I think he can and should do more to hold BP accountable.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


So, you're saying that less government intervention = no right for the government to criticize corporations when they screw up otherwise = un American?

Because thats the logic train im seeing here.

Dang, I guess no one can be mad at the banks that helped tank the economy anymore

Originally posted by Miracle Man
reply to post by David9176

 

He is for less government in all faucets of our lives. We might not always agree with it, but ateast he is sticking to his guns no matter how unpopular it may be.

He couldn't be more wrong. This is the type of thing the government needs to get involved in. We are talking a oil spill that has the potential to affect much of the gulf coastline and possible the east coast. With the possibility of wiping out much of the coastal fishing industry.

This isn't some small business that is suffering under government interference. BP is a international company that has caused a huge environmental disaster due to negligence. You can bet that the coastal states will be suing BP once the oil hits their beaches.

Originally posted by Kaploink
He couldn't be more wrong. This is the type of thing the government needs to get involved in.

Exactly! Very well-said. We NEED government in our lives for some things or we might as well not have one at all. And THIS is where they need to be involved.

He's defending a TRANS NATIONAL CORPORATION that is going to severely going to hurt OUR ECONOMY...SMALL BUSINESSES>>>AMERICAN BUSINESSES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GEEZUS...THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How is it UN-AMERICAN to to criticize a trans national corporations disaster on our shores that GOD knows how bad it's going to affect our entire economy and environment??

Rand Paul in the course of one week has destroyed his credibility and half of his fathers. You get the sense he isn't thinking before opening his mouth.

This stuff is so scary the it almost seems as if its deliberate.

reply to post by Kaploink


So what does their suing BP have to do with the government?

Play this whole thing out assuming there is no fed.

Company rig blows up kills some people and causes crazy pollution to the Gulf resulting in sick animals, sick people and lost business.

So the states and BP start their clean up.

Eventually the states and the business and the fishermen and fishermens families sue BP.

Where in there does the fed do something that has to be done? What is the thing that only the fed can do that nobody else can do?

In the end the fed wont do anything but the fed will still be there to get it's chunk of change out of BP's pocket. A chunk of change that should go to the states involved and the business and people who will suffer.

To add: there is a fed so we dont have to pretend here. What is it doing? After the Valdez crashed the fed came out and not only said but made it law that the company was responsible for the clean up not the grand old gov. So.....what are they doing that we absolutely need them for then?

[edit on 21-5-2010 by thisguyrighthere]