Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
This? This is the big hero of the Tea party movement? The guy who does not agree with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and thinks that people with disabilities should just be able to work on the first floor so that there is no real reason for the Americans with Disabilities Act?
He keeps making the point that he personally would not support any discrimination but fails to understand that allowing business owners to refuse to allow somebody into their establishment because of their race would still be happening today if we had not passed a law making it illegal. And his conflating this with being allowed to carry guns into private businesses is either terminally ignorant or some kind of poorly thought out double speak. Either way it makes hims sound like an idiot. (By the way for those people on the short bus let me remind you that you CAN leave your firearm at home, but your skin color goes with you everywhere you roam.)
The Teabaggers are going to eviscerate Rachel over this interview, but if you listen carefully she tried to give Mr. Paul an out multiple times but he simply refused to take it.
And I don't know about you guys, but I watched this segment with my mouth hanging open in disbelieve the entire time. Thank God nobody took my picture.
Teh stoopid...it buurrrrnnnnssssss!
ReplyDeleteknittingbull
The little man is going to lose in Nov.
ReplyDeleteI watched this guy on Rachel's show, and I was amazed. How did he get elected? The other guy must have been a riot.
ReplyDeleteUnlike his charming father, Rand Paul does not have a good style of speaking (though he has Sarah beat by a mile). He also does not have too many facts at his disposal, so he tried his best to change the topic with Rachel. She talked about racial discrimination and he turned it into gun rights. No, not the same thing.
If Rand Paul represents the face of the Tea Party (aside from Sarah, Glenn, Michelle and the other crazy people), I can see that they may win some local races, but I do not see how they can win the presidency in 2012. They still haven't been able to articulate a positive program. And, I think that Paul showed us how little he studies the issue-- just like some other Tea Party People.
there are so many things wrong with that very short clip that it would take a book to point them all out. this is a classic example of someone blatantly ignoring key parts of an issue in order to make their point or support their position.
ReplyDeletegreat job kentucky!! jeezus fc this is close to unbelievable.
You can look up Stormfront (neo-nazi site) and The Birch Society sites to see them cheering Rand Paul's win. It's a very very bad direction for the US, and I'm very surprised the media or anyone has not called this out yet.
ReplyDeleteCheck out Palin on this video. of course she loves Rand, but there is more.
ReplyDelete"Palin's answer revealed that she thought Burns was running against Specter: “I think Burns will pull this off tonight.
And just like the Rand-slide that we were just talking about, you’re gonna see Burns, having this representation of a smaller, smarter"
http://www.newshounds.us/2010/05/18/sarah_palin_thinks_democratic_senator_arlen_specter_was_running_against_republican_house_candidate_tim_burns.php
I was impressed with Dr. Paul. He seems to understand the situation and is very intelligent and certainly artful in dodging. I think we have to realize that although Jim Crow is technically dead, it survives.
ReplyDeleteA couple of years ago, I checked into a motel in Georgia. The motel was well filled, and the receptionist asked me if I objected to being in a handicapped room. I said it didn't matter as long as it was non-smoking.
(I am very white.) I noticed the people in the rooms on my "side" of the motel were all black. I guess that was some kind of code that I, from the west coast, didn't understand.
I could have caught flies in mine Gryph..... Unfreakin believable.....
ReplyDeletePaul doesn't want to alienate kkkrazy david duke(dotcom) or storm front(dotcom). They both support him but the msm never covers that aspect.
ReplyDeleteOt--but here's another pretend teabagger endorsed by Palin--Rick Perry
From Wayne Slater of the Dallas Morning News: "Labor to Rick Perry: Won't You Be Our Neighbor?"
" The Texas AFL-CIO says one way to save taxpayer money is for Gov. Rick Perry to leave his $1.8 million hilltop rental house and move into less lavish quarters. So today they offered the Republican governor the use of a mobile home for $1 a year. The green-and-white mobile home was parked on cinder blocks in the parking lot of the labor building in Austin, next door to the Governor's Mansion, which is being renovated after a fire.
Labor president Becky Moeller says Texas faces an $18 billion shortfall. so some budget-cutting is in order. "We think it is a continuing mistake for Texans to spend an additional $600,000 - and counting - in mansion rent when the state could easily have bought the governor a very comfortable temporary home," Moeller told reporters.
I'll have much more on this tomorrow morning, including some video. For now, enjoy the photo:"
www.burntorangereport.com/ - The picture is hilarious.
This clip will be Rand Paul's undoing. Rachael did an excellent job, and Paul was obviously squirming.
ReplyDeleteAll Rand's opponent has to do is show clips of this interview (in campaign ads).
Rand Paul is DONE- his racism now exposed for all to see.
Dan Sullivan and him should get together. By the way why haven't we heard anything on our Mayors little fling lately. Did he dodge the bullet on his affair. I called up the Fagan show and asked if the Mayor was ever going to come on his show so we could ask him some questions. I got a call back from Fagan after I hung up and he was damn mad at me
ReplyDeleteThe essence of his argument is: If you make a federal law requiring a restaurant to serve blacks, then you have to have a federal law that does not let the restaurant owner prohibit guns from coming in.
ReplyDeletePalin endorsed him: Does she agree with that premise?
"Teabagger hero" sums it up for me. The only thing I would change is that I wouldn't call it a "Tea party movement," I would call it a "Teabagger Movement." As in, "Rand Paul is a fine representative of the Teabagger Movement."
ReplyDeletewonder how Palin really feels ? having a disabled son and all. I guarantee one thing if this was a democrat making the same statements she'd be all over it like white on rice just like the whole retarded kerfuffle
ReplyDeleteOMG...what a blathering idiot. . . .can he really take one thought and move it another totally unrelated thought and think it makes sense. . . .teabaggers do have a mental illness. . . . .
ReplyDeleteSandra, even if it exists in some rare places in some unsaid way, that is no defence for thinking the law is wrong and therefore allowing ALL private businesses to engage in their bigotry.
ReplyDeleteHe used the gun analogy - simply because his followers are too dim to realise it is invalid - a gun can be left at home, skin colour or sexual orientation cannot. One is a safety issue, one is a personal bigotry issue.
He deserves no respect because he refused to answer the question straight the entire time. We know his view now, and he also know he is too poor a man to own it too. Two strikes out of two.
Gryphen:
ReplyDeletePlease take this in the spirit it is offered: that of genuine concern
You need a vacation. Your posts have become more and more angry and strident; you are not the person who started this blog.
Sometimes in this world things don't go your way, but you can't let it drive you crazy. Yes, things ARE important, but coming across as a super-angry idealogue only makes you ineffective, and the angrier you are, the easier you are to dismiss.
Look at the blogosphere: the people who are the most effective are cool and above it all. Andrew Sullivan comes to mind, as I know you are a fan.
As for the Tea Party: you are not going to have any effect by calling them names. We all know what a teabagger is; for those of you who do not, just look it up on Urban Dictionary; it is a term of denigration. The Tea Party people will respond to that kind of stuff the same way you would if people started laughing at you as an Alaskan Hillbilly with two teeth on top and none on bottom: it changes no one's mind and just hardens their position.
If Tea Partiers are inconsistent, point it out. You have in some places; good for you. You have very deftly pointed out Sarah Palin's lies, and half of the blogosphere quotes you when they, too, point them out.
I suggest a little time off from this blog; you seem at times a little unhinged. I'm sure that is not true, but it makes you very ineffective, and your blog is followed by enough people that you have the responsibility to not let that happen.
Jim
Then he has no business being in Congress. Because these words are in conflict with the oath he must take b4 entering office:
ReplyDeleteI do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
If one points this out to him he'll probably hmm and haw about he supports the Constitution and he believes the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional. If he's so gung-ho on THAT position, then he should pursue it thru the courts. Until then, a senator has an obligation to uphold the laws of this land.
Dr. Paul gives an intelligent defense of his position and, listening to him, that position sounds perfectly reasonable. I would like to ask him, however, if it bothers him that abhorrent people are attracted to his ideas because it provides a justification for their abhorrent views. I'm sure he would talk about free speech, marketplace of ideas, and so on, but when you are in a position of authority such as U.S. Senator you have to take responsibility for the consequences of what you advocate. That is a problem with the Tea Party and the conservative talkers they follow--no one takes responsibility and says enough is enough. Heads would literally explode if Limbaugh ever said that he was changing positions because of how his words and ideas were being misused.
ReplyDelete....and the BIG difference between a Rachel Maddow interview, even when the interviewee is a cretin such as Ayn Rand Paul,and a Fox """"News"""" interview is that Rachel is gracious and smart and has no ax to grind, whilst all the Foxsters are "minds" made up dolts who don't even listen to their cretin interviewees
ReplyDeleteCongratulations for the link from Crooks and Liars Gryphen! Awesome.
ReplyDeleteRand Paul is an I.D.I.O.T. just like Palin and that makes him dangerous. Mitch McConnell's hand-picked BFF, Greyson would have meant more and much more of the same old same old. The voters there were between a rock and a hard place.
If you leave your guns at home they ain't no use in protecting you. Same as your skin.
ReplyDeleteGood post Gryphen. Keep it up!
ReplyDeleteWTF?!? Really, "for those people on the short bus"? How is the need for disability transportation equivalent to mental impairment? Or, for that matter, how is mental impairment, over which a person also has no control, a basis for your derision and sarcasm? Not cool. At all.
ReplyDeleteI watched this last night, Did he really ever answer the question. He pulled a Palin and accused her of baiting him. I just kept saying the same thing over and over and did not answer what Rachel was asking him. She tried. I love Rachel, she is so smart.
ReplyDeleteI really expected him to say "I have a lot of Black Friends"
ReplyDeleteI wonder how many black people belong to the Country Club he had his party at? Buehler? Buehler?
ReplyDeleteTwo points:
ReplyDeleteFirst - racism exists. Always has, always will. You cannot legislate people's prejudices, paranoia or preferences. I was recently in Raleigh and I went into a pool room to kill a couple of hours. The place was all Latino and I'm not. It was very obvious that I was not welcome. So I left. Did I have a right to stay? Sure. Did I want to? Not so much.
Second - This issue of property rights is very big with the Baggers, Libertarians and free-marketeers. And Progressives are going to have to come to terms with some contradictions and inconvenient truths. As a business owner, do I have the right to refuse service to anyone? Under what conditions do I get to choose whom I want to do business with? When do I get to decide that serving customer A may hurt my overall business? Even if you remove race from the equation, the issue still begs for clarity. What are my rights as the property owner?
WOW - I am left speechless. I truly hope this is picked up by the MSM and the people of Kentucky realize that this is NOT the person they want to represent them
ReplyDeleteDuh!?
ReplyDeletePeople call themselves "libertarians" because the nicest possible face you can put on their world-view is the idea that in their utopia, the gummint would have next to zero (zero would be ananrchy) power over individual liberty.
But libertarians always have an agenda. They want the gummint to stop interfering with their right to take away someone else's rights. In our corporate society, the practical impact of shrinking government to next-to-nothing, would be to leave big money free to to do whatever it wanted to thee and to me, right on up to debt slavery (I mean out-and-out debt slavery. We already have much of the de facto reality of debt slavery.).
Enabling private racial discrimination, and that in a libertarian paradise in which the private sphere is the only sphere left after the gummint has been shrunk to nothing, would, of course, return us to Jim Crow. And, of course, to these people that a feature, and not a bug. That's old hat, very old hat. Jim Crow was defended two generations ago largely as a set of individual rights. Slavery was defended 150 years ago as a property right.
Nobody is ever for racism per se. It's always just a consequence of the noble defense of the individual liberty to screw thy neighbor without that damn gummint getting in the way.
And the liberty to be racist isn't even the worst liberty that the Rand brand of libertarianism seeks to secure for the crackerocracy. Just the other day, his campaign manager couldn't give a simple "no" answer to the question of whether the 2d Amendment means that Americans have the right to take up arms against the gummint. Of course they can! How the hell else is the white majority to protect itself from Kenyan usurpers, dammit, should the electorate unaccountably give him a second term?
Oy vey!!
ReplyDeleteSo, by not answering the hypotheticals, he has answered. The answer, I can conclude, is that YES, he would allow private businesses to put up signs that say "No Blacks". He won't say it because he knows it will make him sound like a racist--even if "in his heart" he doesn't think he is.
And Gryphen, no, I do not think you are become unhinged.....it IS important to point out what Mr. Paul's views on civil rights are, and the WAY he explains things that might sound reasonable to people who aren't paying attention. This is extremely important!!
The gun analogy he used was waaaay off, too. There is nothing inherently dangerous about someone having black skin, brown skin, needing a wheelchair, or being gay.
Gryph, interesting link found via a comment on HuffPo:
ReplyDeletehttp://barefootandprogressive.blogspot.com/2009/12/rand-pauls-spokesperson-is-satanic.html
If this is at all true (and why to doubt it?) I'm sure it will come out eventually, and Dr. Paul's political career (all the other nonsensical comments he's made nonwithstanding) is toast.
anony@3:17 you said exactly what i would have said. Another word salad person,when they can't think of an answer.
ReplyDeleteSo, Palin objects to the use of the word retarded, yet she supports this man who would do away with the American's with Disabilities Act.
ReplyDeleteHmmm....Interesting. Again, she shows that she is a hypocrite.
go to Rightosphere.com and comment on this article. They actually think over there that Palin and Rand walk on water, and are 'god chosen'. Comments, backed up by facts, are needed, and it's very easy to comment there.
ReplyDeleteGo. Just go. Show them what the world thinks of the baggers. (oh, and tossing in that David Duke is now a Tea Bagger and linking it to his site, is always a good thing).
The good news about the Tea Party is that they split the GOP, siphon away money, and drive away moderates and independent voters. The extreme drive away the reasonable.
ReplyDelete"Rand Paul is a fine representative of the Teabagger Movement."
ReplyDeleteOh yeah he's a movement alright. Just a little back of the balls type of movement.
Rand Paul reminds me of an infamous gay-basher over here in my city, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. Bill Whatcott doesn't believe in killing gays, but thinks it should be legal to say "kill the gays".
ReplyDeleteWhatcott ran for mayor some years back and one of the planks on his platform was to move the Human Rights Commission outside of the city limits. Sure, because the Human Rights Commission defends those evil gays and feminists.
I felt I was in a maze last night watching Rachel, and still not get his point.
ReplyDeleteI'm 100% sure that Sarah Palin either doesn't know Rand Paul's views on the Civil Rights Act, or doesn't understand them.
ReplyDeleteAnon @7:08 AM, my point exactly!
ReplyDeletejust went to the blogspot on a comment above @ barefootandprogressive.blogspot.com.
ReplyDeleteHilarious progressive site with all sorts of great insight on Rand Paul and his now "doomed" Senate campaign. What idiot scheduled him on Rachel...have they never watched her eviscerate an unprepared guest! It was a beautiful sight to behold and Jack Conway has 19 minutes for his commercials that need to start immediately!
You know when Joe Scarborough says you're toast...you're toast!
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy...snark intended.
gryph....you MIGHT need a vacation as suggested earlier. hell. everyone needs a vacay!!!! but hello, your doing a FANTASTIC job and i LOVE your little site. i appreciate everything you do...and do NOT want you to go away. you are, what they call, wide awake in america.
ReplyDeletei love my country, and these fools are ruining it.
thank you for being you, and never change!!!!
btw.....i say 'short bus' all the time. as a product of the 80's it is a learned behavior. i mean, as you do, no disrespect. its just getting a point across. i know your wonderful and everyone else does too!!!!
keep on keepin' on!!!!!!
No wonder Palin endorsed this cretin. He appeals to the same narrow-minded bigots that she does. Regardless of whether he is personally a racist, in essence he is condoning the rights of others to be racist. One problem with "smaller government" proponents is the inconsistency of their views. They like big government when it suits their aganda. Still another problem is that they seemingly think there is almost no role for government to play in anything. Their views, if carried to their logical conclusion, would mean that the passage of the Disabilities Act and the Civil Rights Act would have been left to the whims of people who would not necessarily have had the interests of minorities and handicapped people at heart. In their infinite "wisdom," they see the free market as the solution to everything, in spite of overwhelming evidence through the years that it does not work. Some of them are the same ones talking about states' rights. In that case, they want to have it both ways--choosing what national directives to follow and which to disregard.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, Rand Paul has given us ample reason to keep him from ever joining Congress with just this one issue. It's almost comical how the Teabaggers keep walking into minefields that are the result of their cluelessness and the inability or unwillingness to look past their noses to see the big picture of things.
The 1964 Civil Right Act? Wasn't that the bill that Democratic Senator (and former KKK Kleagal) Robert Byrd filibustered? And wasn't that the bill that was passed with more support from Republicans (by percentage) than Democrats?
ReplyDeleteYes, I thought so.
As to the point at issue: I'm no Paul fan (either Ron or Rand), but from what I can gather he was making the point - as a libertarian - that he opposes government intrusion into private business affairs, not that he opposes Civil Rights for blacks or anyone else.