Rand Paul Racist or Flip Flopper?

[punked]

Apparently Joe Sestak has admitted that the White House offered him a high-ranking job, to keep him from running against Arlen Specter in the Democrat primary.

So?

[Shady]

So?

It's pretty seedy.

[punked]

It's pretty seedy.

How?

[punked]

Ps where the conservative outrage over this Liar? Oh there isn't cause he is one of theirs.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/has-devore-stretched-the-truth-about-being-shot-at-in-lebanon.php?ref=fpc

PS, I really don't care.

[Shady]

How?

It's a bribe. But I think I'm gonna have to start a topic. This story seems to be getting larger by the day.

[punked]

It's a bribe. But I think I'm gonna have to start a topic. This story seems to be getting larger by the day.

So you are saying he is unqualified for the job the white house may have offered him?

Seems more like the white house offered him a job and he would have had to give up the Senate to take that job, not them offering it to give up the Senate race. I like Sestak I supported him, and I am sure whatever job the Whitehouse had in mind for him he would have been great at. He will be better at being a Senator though.

Edited May 24, 2010 by punked

[punked]

Oh noes Shady.

Rand Paul ® 44 (42)

Jack Conway (D) 40 (39)

Undecided 9

But in CT that guy is still leading the Republicans by 25 points. HAHAHAHA.

[Michael Hardner]

Oh noes Shady.

Rand Paul ® 44 (42)

Jack Conway (D) 40 (39)

Undecided 9

But in CT that guy is still leading the Republicans by 25 points. HAHAHAHA.

As much as I would like to see Rand (nice name) go down the pipes immediately, I'm kind of sad that we won't get to see some of his nuttiness bursting through the sky like fireworks.

Also - you need to link up that poll if it's real.

[punked]

As much as I would like to see Rand (nice name) go down the pipes immediately, I'm kind of sad that we won't get to see some of his nuttiness bursting through the sky like fireworks.

Also - you need to link up that poll if it's real.

No prob I will link them both.

44% Paul ®, 41% Conway (D)

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/ky_2010_sen_kos_52426.php

56% Blumenthal, 31% McMahon

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/ct_blumenthal_56_mcmahon_31_qu.php

[dre]

I think Rand Paul was trying to say this :

If everyone was equal under the law from the start, then there would have been no reason to even have a civil rights movement legislation to vote on. We'd all be treated equally already.

Ya well... if gravity didnt pull down so hard it would easier to carry stuff!

[punked]

Ohhhhhh where is Shady's outrage??? Where is it. Mark Kirk Republican running for IL Senate, has been found to be claiming to serve in Iraq, when he actually didn't serve there and was state side the whole time. I guess for Shady it is only when Dems make mis-statements which are actually corrected during the same speech that it matters.

Another example of Republicans being hypocrites.

http://nitpicker.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-blumenthal-but-not-kirk.html

Edited May 29, 2010 by punked

[punked]

Here we go, now where is that Shady.

The Republican candidate for President Obama's old Senate seat has admitted to inaccurately claiming he received the U.S. Navy's Intelligence Officer of the Year award for his service during NATO's conflict with Serbia in the late 1990s.

Rep. Mark Kirk, a Navy reservist who was elected to Congress in 2001, acknowledged the error in his official biography after The Washington Post began looking into whether he had received the prestigious award, which is given by top Navy officials to a single individual annually.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/29/AR2010052903029_pf.html

[Pliny]

I think Rand Paul was trying to say this :

If everyone was equal under the law from the start, then there would have been no reason to even have a civil rights movement legislation to vote on. We'd all be treated equally already.

I agree.

[WIP]

And the award for best description of Rand Paul goes to Bill Maher: "But how to describe Rand Paul! I mean he's a doctor -- it's as if Sarah Palin made it through medical school. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/22/bill-maher-describes-rand_n_585852.html

[WIP]

I agree.

Re: Rand Paul's comments on the Civil Rights Act; he got 15 minutes on the Rachel Maddow Show to explain his views and finally conceded that he did not agree with the provision that prevented private business owners from refusing customers because of race. It wasn't until the next day, after another grilling on Good Morning America that he made the statement that he would have voted in favour of the Civil Rights Act.....horses already out of the barn etc.

But the worst blunder by Rand Paul is not on civil rights, it's his pro-business philosophy that drove him to complain the Obama Administrations handling of BP, and say:"Sometimes accidents happen." As the carnage in the Gulf grows, these are the words that are going to bury his political career and send him back to doing Lasic surgery.

[naomiglover]

I would vote for Rand Paul, over majority of Democrats and Republicans.

[lictor616]

NO he doesn't did you read the link Shady. He flipped flopped and now says he agrees with the Civil rights act. So either he was wrong and has changed his position or he is Lying. You pick which one it is.

BTW Shady the left aren't scared. It is the right who is trying to dial it back cause they know they got nothing. Ann Coulter wrote today

Wow even the crazy right things Shady is wrong.

First off anyone who uses a montage from the loathsome rachel "madcow" show is doubtless not interested in reasonable discussion.

The man is merely stating a fact when he says that the restrictive policies of the Civil "Riots" act leads to decreased freedom of association, decreased freedom to hire and fire who you want and of course GREATLY increases the incidence of government intervention and regimentation of the relationships between citizens. If anyone can dispute that with a straight face... then that person is either an idiot or suffering from severe nearsightedness and what would amount to paralysis of the cerebrum.

This brings to mind some "controversial" (cough cough) statements made by one Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a libertarian who teaches economics at University of Nevada at Las Vegas

Professor Hoppe takes the interesting view that democracies are inferior to monarchies... largely because Monarchs aim to increase the value of their kingdom (because they own it) and benefit if their people increase in quality. An analogy comes to mind: one who owns a car is more likely to take good care of it then one that merely rents a car... Likewise in a democracy the maximum leader merely is renting the "kingdom" who want to get as much out of their temporary ownership as possible (by braking hard, driving recklessly, fiddling with the gears etc).

"They have to appeal to the mob to be elected, and once in office care more about short-term exploitation than long-term improvements."

"An owner/king has a simple immigration policy: He expels criminals and losers and admits only productive people. Prof. Hoppe explains how presidents are different"

viz:

I quote the sagacious professor:

“ums and unproductive people may well be preferred as residents and citizens, because they create more so-called ‘social problems,’ and democratic rulers thrive on the existence of such problems. Moreover, bums and inferior people will likely support egalitarian policies, whereas geniuses and superior people will not. The result of this policy of non-discrimination [in immigration policy] is forced integration: the forcing of masses of inferior immigrants onto domestic property owners who, if the decision were left to them, would have sharply discriminated and chosen very different neighbors for themselves.”

breath of fresh air...

Edited May 30, 2010 by lictor616

[lictor616]

I would vote for Rand Paul, over majority of Democrats and Republicans.

if the cotrolled mass media are apoplectic about a statement of his, he must be doing something right then.

[bloodyminded]

First off anyone who uses a montage from the loathsome rachel "madcow" show is doubtless not interested in reasonable discussion.

Unlike those who quote from the hostile-to-thought elitist sycophant you provide for us later in your post.

“ums and unproductive people may well be preferred as residents and citizens, because they create more so-called ‘social problems,’ and democratic rulers thrive on the existence of such problems. Moreover, bums and inferior people will likely support egalitarian policies, whereas geniuses and superior people will not.

I have heard extensive and continual assertions, including on this forum, from people who oppose egalitarian policies; and if you truly believe them to be "geniuses," then you are actively, wilfully averting your gaze from the obvious.

As for "superior people"....well, isn't that something. Awesome. Your man here is not only an insufferable elitist; also, like many self-styled "libertarians," he is actually servile, obedient--worshipful of powerful and wealthy men.

This is one of the basic hallmarks of the statist reactionary.

[lictor616]

I have heard extensive and continual assertions, including on this forum, from people who oppose egalitarian policies; and if you truly believe them to be "geniuses," then you are actively, wilfully averting your gaze from the obvious.

As for "superior people"....well, isn't that something. Awesome. Your man here is not only an insufferable elitist; also, like many self-styled "libertarians," he is actually servile, obedient--worshipful of powerful and wealthy men.

If you sample the bleating sheeple worshiping Obama as a god, in a sea of mindless emotionalism for this mediocrity of a man- you don't see a contradiction with your statement...

[bloodyminded]

If you sample the bleating sheeple worshiping Obama as a god, in a sea of mindless emotionalism for this mediocrity of a man- you don't see a contradiction with your statement...

But I don't worship Obama as a God, and I certainly wouldn't worship a person based on their power.

And I notice you avoid my points altogether: about elitism and Power-worship. If your point is that many of those of a liberal persuasion, including Obama supporters, suffer from similar problems of servility to Power--I agree.

Just like the man you quote in your post. That obedient little fellow.

[lictor616]

I have heard extensive and continual assertions, including on this forum, from people who oppose egalitarian policies; and if you truly believe them to be "geniuses," then you are actively, wilfully averting your gaze from the obvious.

“Masculine republics decline into feminine democracies and democracies into despotism.” –Aristotle

I think we're nearing the final stage... see what crypto-communist nanny state welfarism has brought you?

[bloodyminded]

“Masculine republics decline into feminine democracies and democracies into despotism.” –Aristotle

I think we're nearing the final stage... see what crypto-communist nanny state welfarism has brought you?

Me?

[lictor616]

Me?

well, er, all of us.

[M.Dancer]

if the cotrolled mass media are apoplectic about a statement of his, he must be doing something right then.

If the measure of correctness or appropriateness of an individual is linked to the degree of stupidity of the comments he makes, you too could have a shot at political greatness.

But it ain't...stupid comments like the people who make them are a dime a dozen and they are only noitable when they come from someone who has previoulsy escaped scrutiny.