"I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
"Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws."
"As I have said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts in the intervening years."
"My opponent's statement on MSNBC Wednesday that I favor repeal of the Civil Rights Act was irresponsible and knowingly false. I hope he will correct the record and retract his claims."
"The issue of civil rights is one with a tortured history in this country. We have made great strides, but there is still work to be done to ensure the great promise of Liberty is granted to all Americans."
"This much is clear: The federal government has far overreached in its power grabs. Just look at the recent national healthcare schemes, which my opponent supports. The federal government, for the first time ever, is mandating that individuals purchase a product. The federal government is out of control, and those who love liberty and value individual and state's rights must stand up to it."
"These attacks prove one thing for certain: the liberal establishment is desperate to keep leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign."
Okay well now that Paul can simply issue a statement at his leisure, without an interviewer asking him for further clarification, what he is saying he sounds relatively reasonable. But the fact remains that when asked on Rachel Maddow yesterday and on NPR's All Things Considered what his views were about the Civil Rights Act he could not provide a coherent response that did not make him sound either like a racist or an imbecile.
You know when somebody else writes her Facebook posts for her, even Sarah Palin sounds somewhat lucid. But when interviewed by a reporter who is not a genuflecting sycophant she sounds like she is slowly recovering from a devastating head injury.
My comparison stands. Rand Paul is simply Sarah Palin with a few more functioning brain cells, and if his dad was not named Ron Paul he would have had NO chance at victory in Kentucky.
Sarah Palin earned her notoriety by performing the immaculate deception with the birth of Trig Palin, and Ron Paul earned his by being the son of the Teabagger's God. Not really that much difference if you think about it.
No, there is not a lot of difference. Idiots all. I hope that oil spill stays away from Europe.
ReplyDeleteAnd let' not forget that Rand Paul believes in government interference in the most private sphere...a woman's womb. He believes abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape and incest and danger to the mother.
ReplyDeleteHe also does not support legalizing gay marriage.
he abhors racism but he supports the right of private business to practice racism.
ReplyDeleteto rand, private property rights are more important than human rights. private business owners should be able to have the "freedom" to discriminate against others. this is just flat out twisted and completely ignores the reality of what would still be going on today if we didn't have the civil rights act (ALL of it). fuck him. people like this have no business being in government.
What really gets me is that he either doesn't understand or refuses to acknowledge the link between discrimination in private venues and institutional racism.
ReplyDeleteAnd, he lives in Kentucky, where segregation was alive and well not that long ago and where the free market in many towns will not drive out the White's only lunch counters. In fact, these venues will thrive and prosper.
There's a reason the White Power crowd supports him.
"We are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign." YEAH, from HIM.
ReplyDeleteHe also wrote a letter to the editor of a Bowling Green KY paper in 2002 disagreeing with the 'Fair Housing Act'. What a guy,,,,,not. And to think that Scarah endorsed him.
ReplyDeletehehe, he is under a microscope. A civil rights leader won't let go either.
ReplyDelete"Here is a man who is answering 14th amendment questions with second amendment responses. This is absolutely appalling. And now today, he's put out a statement that limits his acceptance to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
I want to say to him that voting rights are found in the '65 civil rights act, that fair housing, which is private, in the '68 civil rights act and not until 1972 did we outlaw discrimination in the public sector.
So once again, he is parsing his words, he is saying things, sending signals that I hope the vast majority of the people who voted for him would reject and I am sure that come November, they will."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/rand-paul-blasted-by-civi_n_583640.html
Here's to hoping that the MSM is finally waking up and asking TOUGH questions of any and all public wanna-be- figures (like $arah and Bri$tol, also, too!)
ReplyDeletedef looks like it's ghostwritten.
ReplyDeleteoh, and Paul does in fact some government intrusion and spending ... as long as the money goes into his pocket.
as a physician, he's all for medicare.
Rand Paul does not admit that his private business extends to large corporations and large companies that are privately held. Add to this, we hear all the time how the small business community is the largest employer in the private sector. So, okay, that would cover millions of jobs where the ADA and the anti-discrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act would not apply if Paul Rand had his way.
ReplyDeleteEven with these federal laws in place, there are dozens of lawsuits every year because private business still unfairly discriminates against minorities and the disabled. We haven't even come close to discussing age discrimination yet, but that will be an increasing issue as the Boomers look for work to supplement inadequate Social Security and devastated retirement plans.
Rand Paul has concentrated his concern and compassion for business, not for working people.
His followers do not realize yet that he is not, and never has been, "one of them." If elected and empowered to make changes, he would undo benefits that make life tolerable for millions of hard-working people who just don't happen to have rich parents or a professional-level income.
Why anyone would vote against their own interests, their family's welfare is beyond me.
He is a smarmy liar just like Sarah Palin; both pretend to care but don't give a damn for anyone but themselves and their rich friends.
It's a familiar game. When you get outed, blame the media.
ReplyDeleteSpin, Baby, Spin.
ReplyDeleteA bit off topic; If a healthy 27 year old man with no health insurance and no means to pay for treatment, shows up at a hospital with a ruptured appendics, do you let him die? Of course not! If he then cannot pay the bill, who does pay? The rest of the public, that's who. So why not make him pay a premium ahead of time. If he cannot afford the premium, help him out. The point is, looking out for human life is not an option so why would opting out of health insurance be. The way to better health is single payer.
ReplyDeleteGwen@ 4:28
ReplyDeleteyup, in 2002 he stated same views refering to fair housing.
" A free society will abade unofficial, private discrimination-even when that means allowing hate filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin."
hey, the guy has an opinion, he just doesn't like others repeating what he said.
The washington post blog writer refers to Rand's opinions in the letter as a "wrinkle" on the damage control statement.
Way to soften the blow.
So the protection of individuals from discrimination shouldn't be allowed because it's 'government control' of privately owned businesses.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, isn't there one person who can explain to him in a way he can understand that no matter how many different ways he says it and no matter how many things he tries to compare it to.....it's wrong and he's wrong!
In discussing the ADA, Mr Paul stated that a business should be allowed to accommodate someone on the first floor instead of being forced to build a lift to the second second. Mr Paul's comments show he simply does not understand how our built environment affects - and discriminates against - people with a mobility impairment. I work in allied health, specialising in wheeled mobility (primarily wheelchairs). Here are some very basic flaws in his argument:
ReplyDelete1. It assumes that the business has space on both the first (ground) and second floors. I can point to thousands of small businesses in my local area that rent a single office on a higher floor and do not have a presence on the ground (street level) floor.
2. It assumes that the street level offices are indeed accessible from the street, and are accessible inside. Many older building are not - they have steps (even a single step or raised entry can prevent wheelchair access), narrow doorsways, small circulation space in hallways (meaning a wheelchair or pram or scooter or walker can't be turned around), inaccessible bathrooms.
3. Many small businesses do not own the building in which they operate - they rent the space. What happens when the small business
owner employs someone with a mobility impairment? The owner of the building is forcing the employer to discriminate if the owner does not modify the building, does not allow the building to be modified, and/or inisists the tenant pay the costs of renovation. The decisions made by the building owner, and before that, the developer, impact on every person who uses the building.
I'd like to see people scrutinize every single venue Mr Paul uses for campaign events and campaign activites. If he so adamently opposes discrimination, and would never frequent a business that engaged in discrimination, he should ensure that every single function room and office space he uses is located on street level and is fully accessible (ramp access into the building and function room, accessible
toilets, hallways and access areas that meet minimum standards for clearance / turn space, etc). If not, we have legitimate grounds to ask
why he is discriminating against those with a mobility impairment.
Exactly, Anon@4:53 PM. And, imnofred @ 5:00 PM is soooo right. Just like $paylin, blame the media. No you all are racists, and thought you could talk that trash to the media like you do to your supporters. We have Jack Conway in Ky. and he is going to win in Nov. Go on back to your office Doc. You can accept who you choose there. All that gov $$ rolling in, why he might accept ya even if not white.
ReplyDeleteSeriously OT, but relevant to previous posts about Sherry Johnston and her sentence.
ReplyDeleteI live near Chicago where there was a hit and run traffic case that is being sensationalized in our media. An 18 year old girl entered an intersection without looking and hit a 16 year old girl. The 16 year old is in serious condition in the hospital with possible brain trauma.
The 18 year old knew that she hit something, heard the scream, and left the scene. (She wanted to go home). The case has been in the media because the driver admitted smoking pot the night before which subjected her to toxicology tests. Since her family could not raise the high bond, there was a chance that the nice girl from the nice suburbs could end up in Cook County Jail General Population while awaiting results of the tests.
As the story developed, today I read about the 18 year old's parents. Mom had been arrested for hosting a drinking party for underage teens. More seriously, the mother of the driver was arrested for selling an eight of an ounce of marijuana to a police information. At the time of her arrest, she admitted that she had sold small amounts of pot to her daughter's friends two to five times a day from February to May, 2009. She was charged with marijuana delivery but later pleaded to a reduced charge of pot possession. She was sentenced to 100 hours of community service, ordered to pay $400. in fines and received one year of supervision.
I couldn't believe how the mother was treated compared to Sherry Johnston. The mother in this story admitted to selling pot to kids 2 to 5 times a day for four months. That strikes me as much more serious than one oxycotin sale and Sherry's original tough sentence (wasn't it originally five years?)
Four months of continuous drug sales to minors compared to one drug sting. I guess that is Alaska Justice.
Ron Paul Rises to Son’s Defense in Civil Rights Dust-Up.
ReplyDeleteIt’s a conspiracy by the left, of course. Default wingnut response to setbacks:
“Rep. Ron Paul said Thursday the criticism of his son Rand Paul’s comments regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act is “unfair” and dismissed the fracas as an attempt by the left to hurt his son’s Senate campaign.
“I think it’s contrived because he’s done so well and the left has to knock him down,” the Texas Republican said.
Rand Paul, the GOP nominee in the Kentucky Senate race, ignited a political firestorm this week by suggesting he disagrees with the landmark civil rights law’s prohibition on segregation at privately owned facilities open to the public.
“It’s not fair,” Ron Paul said, adding that as a parent it was hard to see his son pilloried on the national stage and to see his libertarian views characterized as racist.”
http://www.rollcall.com/news/46485-1.html
this from the man who taught his son so well.
and playing the “it’s not fair” card? Bwahahahahahahahaha! Suck it, whining Paultard!
In 2004, Ron Paul was the only member of Congress who voted “NO” on a resolution to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act.
How can you condone racism and not be a racist? Public or private, it doesn't matter!
ReplyDeleteoh so now ol' crazy pants ron is saying the entire problem is that his son is being called a racist. these people are so fucking stupid.
ReplyDeletethe issue is not whether or not his son is a racist (he may not be). the issue is that his son (where did he learn it from?) thinks that private business should be able to practice racism. and as a potential government official, that is simply an unacceptable position to hold.
so stfu ron. if you're really too dense to see what the real issue is here, then you need to retire. whythehell are you still in congress anyway?
@anon 6:18, I have a funny story about handicapped accessible in older buildings. My husband and I were at a local hospital to have the torn ligaments in his knee repaired by surgery. I pulled up the car, he was loaded into a wheel chair, the valet parked the car and we proceeded to admissions.
ReplyDeleteThat's when the problem occurred. The hospital supplied wheel chair was wider than the door into the admissions office. He was ordered by the doctor to stay off that foot. I looked at the gal behind the desk and asked why a hospital was not handicapped accessible, especially since they might be having a larger percentage of handicapped people there than usual.
She laughed about it, saying that was why they had to put up a new addition, with wider doors. The addition would be open next month. Some one found my husband a walker, and he hopped into the registration office. Of all places that could not accommodate people with special needs!
Bye bye Rand, it wasn't very nice knowing you.
ReplyDeleteI read a political commentator's suggestion (can't remember who--sorry) that someone should ask the libertarians why they aren't as vocal in their disagreement with Jim Crow laws as they are about the Civil Rights Act. After all, if this truly is about government overreach, isn't having government tell you that you can't serve blacks and whites equally just as intrusive to your business? The vapidness of their 'free market' position is revealed by their selective application of it to policies that are pro-minority.
ReplyDeleteThe people who support this dope are most likely handicapped themselves. A lot of old white people use those handicapped driver plaques, use the ramps for their walkers, , wheel chairs, and easier access to buildings. The man they support wants to end the requirement for the very things they use.
ReplyDeleteWTFH is wrong with these angry white morons? Don't they realize that like health care (medicare, et al), they are getting the lions share of the benefits from government programs? Are these idiots willing to give up their access to places to support this cheese dick? If not, then they are 110% hypocrites.
I was afraid R.P was going to clam up and not give anymore interviews, and would run his campaign from Fox and through his spokesman...uh...guess not...he's effectively doubled down on the crazy, claiming now that the president is "un-American" for criticizing British Petroleum, for messing up our country...Ah...it's going to be easy to be a Democrat in Kentucky this year...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/21/rand-paul-obama-sounds-un_n_584661.html
Rand Paul digs a bigger and bigger hole for himself every time he speaks, which is why the GOP wants him muzzled. First, how can you say you "abhor" racism and in the next breath say that places have the right to be racist, making a false equivalency between racial discrimination and guns? No one was being "irresponsible" toward him. With his own hands, he provided the rope he needed to hang himself. He tripped over a banana peel that he provided himself in trying to defend an indefensible stance.
ReplyDeleteAnd how insensitive can anyone be to suggest that the ADA Act went too far, when it greatly increased the ability of countless people to more fully participate in the pluses of citizenship most of us take for granted?
But what really took the cake was when he called the president "unAmerican" for criticizing BP, which is totally culpable for fouling up the Gulf waters and costing 11 men their lives.
It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad, to read the lame defenses of this man who obviously has no business in politics. There is NO way to put a positive spin on his ignorance, any more than there is to put one on Palin's ignorance. No wonder she endorsed him!