Rand Paul wins Senate Primary, soon to be a pro-legalization senator!

[White-rhino]

I still don't get the leftists clinging to this one senatorial candidate, trying to portray him as a racist when their own party has the "congressional black caucus", a publicly funded entity whose offices are inside the capital building and an organization that openly forbids non-blacks from joining.

That there is the definition of racism.

And we already know their stance on black panthers standing outside the polls with clubs in their hand, turning away white voters and telling black voters who they BETTER vote for. The official stance is, its ok, and even after being prosecuted went out of their way to vacate the verdict from INSIDE the white house. Once again, the definition of racism.

 

[ROJO145]

LOL,He's the best thing to ever happen to the GOP!!!!Keep openin yer mouth Rand,LOL!!!!

 

[anikas88]

Im all for change, but this guy isnt it. He is a "libertarian", but not really. He is a political creature, the country is tired of republicans and democrats, and he and other so called "libertarians" are tapping into the populist rage for votes. This guy will back the republican party almost 100%. The real libertarians should see through the facade, that the republican party is hijacking the libertarian party. Come on sarah palin is considering being labeled a "libertarian" now ( i dont have the link,im to lazy to find it). The truth is that this countries government and policies are so corrupt and out of tune with the a large percentage of the populace. Of course people want new politicians and new leaders who will fight for them. But dont be blinded by politicians like Rand Paul.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

You guys are a trip. Looking for your idea of a textbook flip flop because you don't like the sound of the word. I've got news for ya. The flippant flopalong doesn't make that much difference to me. But you can't wipe the stink off hatred. And he's risking getting some stink on him when strokes the hate of private business owners.

I guess it's fine for state primary but that shit won't fly on a national level. It doesn't take a phd to learn if you're gonna defend somebody elses right to do something, you better not fuck up and pick racism.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Disco thinks that folks like Maddow are only trying to interview folks like Paul for the truth of a story. When the fact is that she is on a fishing expedition trying to angle the race thing (or anything else derogatory) in.
And he knew what she was doing, all those liberal biased newsphonys do it.
And they use their vivid imaginations to stretch their reasoning into what they need it to be, just like Disco does.
But really, who gives a ripe rats toss about what folks like Disco think anyway?
The way I see it, the good folks of Kentucky don't need the approval of any democrat at all. Fuck what they think, they aren't going to vote for the man anyway.
The only reasons they argue so hard are to 1) hear some rattling in between their ears, and 2) to convince simple people who sit on fences to think like they do. And many of these simple folks do...in fact, it is these very simple people in the middle..the ones with no firm convictions..that allow the minority of folks, like disco and maddow, to run rough shod through our society.
The sad truth is, it takes a simple show to please a simple crowd, and as much as I can't stand the prgressive left and know that they are the real problem with our society, my real loathe is for the middle. The know-nothing, do-nothings. You know...the Rojo's.

LOL...really, when it all boils down, you folks can just sit back and watch what Kentucky does and wonder about it later. And unless there is something that happens that turns around the sad direction the left is leading us in the next few months, you folks are going to see a Paul in the senate. No matter how much the elitist left throws their baseless racist charges.
And pretty soon, folks are also going to start seeing who the real racists and bigots are.

 

[anikas88]

I use to be a ron paul supporter, not so much anymore. I agree with alot what he says though. Wow seems like he liked to masturbate to atlas shrugged.

 

[ROJO145]

GOOOOooooooooooo Rand!!!LOLYeah,lets see who ties themselves with this clown!!!!You got it all figured out Hoosier,whats that now?Oh,yer still a goose egg and everyone else is up!!!But keep fightin the good fight!!!
This guys the biggest joke yet,and people are running from him like the plague,his political career just ended!!!But I could be wrong,we'll see.....

 

[hoosierdaddy]

You are wrong, because you really don't have a clue as to what you are on about.
You are only cheer-leading, and probably a suitable place for you too.

 

[ROJO145]

You are wrong, because you really don't have a clue as to what you are on about.
You are only cheer-leading, and probably a suitable place for you too.

LOL,As USUAL nobody has a fucking clue but you!!!Nobody else knows anything but you!!It must be amazing some of the talks you have with yourself,nobody else can understand!!!!

 

[ItsGrowTime]

GOOOOooooooooooo Rand!!!LOLYeah,lets see who ties themselves with this clown!!!!You got it all figured out Hoosier,whats that now?Oh,yer still a goose egg and everyone else is up!!!But keep fightin the good fight!!!
This guys the biggest joke yet,and people are running from him like the plague,his political career just ended!!!But I could be wrong,we'll see.....

The only people running from him are the people who weren't going to vote for him in the first place. His recent comments, love em or hate em, have solidified support from the Republicans and Libertarians and Constitutionalists. The more MSNBC attacks him the better he will do. Now he's stepping away from the media for awhile to let things cool down. The election isn't until November. Acting like Rand is sunk only makes you look like a fool. Once Rand starts tying Conway to Obama, look out. Rand hasn't even started to attack yet.

 

[JackTheGrower]

The only people running from him are the people who weren't going to vote for him in the first place. His recent comments, love em or hate em, have solidified support from the Republicans and Libertarians and Constitutionalists. The more MSNBC attacks him the better he will do. Now he's stepping away from the media for awhile to let things cool down. The election isn't until November. Acting like Rand is sunk only makes you look like a fool. Once Rand starts tying Conway to Obama, look out. Rand hasn't even started to attack yet.

I think it was an interesting "testing the Waters."


This was all about 2012...

I'm tired of fat-cats keeping me poor.. When does the Trickle down get to us working folks, So far the only trickle down we have from so many years of conservative policies is poverty and unemployment.

Rand isn't going to do a damn thing about economic injustice.. He is a pussy.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Economic injustice...I would like for you to describe that concept and what it means to you.

I am also curious what you expect to trickle down? Do you think that concept means that wealth and prosperity will simply slide down the pole your way?

 

[Botanist]

I use to be a ron paul supporter, not so much anymore. I agree with alot what he says though. Wow seems like he liked to masturbate to atlas shrugged.

I like to masturbate to atlas shrugged. May I ask what you have against that?

No really. What do you have against Atlas? As far as I can tell is air tight.

 

[bs0]

Being a libertarian is very difficult... supporting peoples rights to do things you dont approve of necessarily... is just part of that difficulty.

Mmmm humm, it's amazing what kinda crap passes for libertarianism... I've seen people proclaim to be libertarian and then condemn gay marriage and drug rights in the same speech. Or champion the Patriot Act. We people who champion individual rights are really lacking in useful leadership these days.

I understand where Paul is coming from, both the civil rights act and the ADA go as far as to dictate personal rights over private property...

I also disagree with all these ridiculous 'no smoking' laws that keep getting implemented.

But aside from any of this... I don't think that Hate is a personal right.

I don't like the tea-bagger affiliation of Paul, but I commend him for taking an unpopular stance. I even agree with him on this. And damnit, like tex here says, you feel like total scum when your pro-personal rights stances coincide with that of deplorable racists.

Our personal rights are being eroded. I hope that something can be done about it.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Disco thinks that folks like Maddow are only trying to interview folks like Paul for the truth of a story. When the fact is that she is on a fishing expedition trying to angle the race thing (or anything else derogatory) in.

You're within your right to introduce the fish analogy. I think it's pretty appropriate for a guy that Mitch McConnell said he was happy to see the lid shut when Mr. Paul said he would have voted for CRA of 1964. Even though he was previously quoted publicly that the chamber would have at least received an earful. Doesn't sound like a guy that would vote yes although it's possible. But most folks know when they run for office anything they say on the record may reflect any controversial views. Any deviation from views are subject to additional scrutiny. The same scrutiny you're free to exercise with any politician of your choosing.

Mr. Paul's addendum, (I call it retraction) that he would have voted for the CRA of 1964 might settle the issue with some voters as it's their right..

Mr. Paul's collective record of public statements might complicate, even nullify Mr. Paul's potential aspirations for national office. This comment in no way suggests that every voter in Kentucky condones Mr. Paul's comments, nor the controversial opinion to make such statements publicly.

You're old enough to know that your own political views aren't enough to ensure enough votes for a man that supports a bigot's right to hate. Personal disassociation as well as narrowing to private business owners won't pass scrutiny beyond the enclaves of bigots and those that hate Federal government enough to justify not only racism but nationally sanctioned racism in private business. Mr. Paul only had to win a primary to be exposed as at-least racially insensitive. He's already surpassed his Macaca Moment for any presidential aspirations he might have manifested, either past present or future.

So Rachel Maddow sets up an interview with Mr. Paul in the wings [via satellite] listening to his past, public statements that are considered inflammatory on the grounds Mr. Paul supports discrimination for private business owners (that directly violates the private business portion of CRA.) Then Ms. Maddow asks Mr. Paul whether her representation was incorrect and if so would he correct said representation. But Mr. Paul didn't take the opportunity to correct Ms. Maddow, as he'd have difficulty appearing sane denying himself on the screen, stating exactly what Ms. Maddow's question involved. On the contrary, Mr. Paul defended his statements (meaning he didn't retract them) and in addition, gave additional insight with the comparison to gun toters and folks of ethnic origin.

Two Phds who, by the way know the difference between a questions and answers interview and what you're attempting to suggest. Even though Mr. Paul clearly dodged the question regarding his past statements of racial intolerance. In addition, Mr. Paul defense of his statements with a rather thin example, that the right to deny access to a gun toter affords the right to deny access to other human beings only bolstered the controversy that he's racially insensitive.

cheap demo but nonetheless a demonstration......

So here comes a gun toter....I hate guns around booze so he can't bring it in the bar (or whatever business.) But put that gun somewhere off my premises and come on back, we'll have a beer.

compared to.......

So here comes a ethnic minority. The private owner says, "I hate ethnic minorities so he can't bring his carcass in the bar. End of story. And I want federal sanction over freedom of speech to legally declare I not only hate ethic minorities, I can legally show the rest of the world my personal pride of such hatred."

The (Rhodes scholar) Phd offered 20 minutes to get an answer and the other Phd recognized that outside the enclave, [his] past statements don't pass the smell test. Nobody's denying Ms. Maddow's providing the opportunity for Mr. Paul to clear any misconceptions but your "fishing expedition" is technically "fish already caught".... "fish on plate". It's not a matter of "let's eat the fish." On the contrary. It's more like "yuk, something stinks. ...is it that fish on the plate?

The interview was an opportunity for Mr. Paul to declare, "I'm not a stinky fish and here's why......." Unfortunately, more stink resonated.

Let's return this to the human context, shall we?. The human that advocates the right of humans (private business owners) to hate other humans (of ethnic origin), based on the repeal of parameters on the private business section of CRA. Then the human goes on to justify advocacy, saying he would have nothing to do with these hating humans yet supports their right to hate. All in the name of free speech.

Apparently it's not satisfying enough to hate somebody when the law says private business owners can't express their hatred in the form of racial discrimination.

And he knew what she was doing, all those liberal biased newsphonys do it.

I think Mr. Paul's pejorative was "loony left" when asked about the controversial Maddow interview. Funny how Mr. Paul's own admission that he officially announced his candidacy on his first appearance on "The Rachael Maddow Show" turned into "the loony left." Sounds like an attempt to pander to folks that defend interview as illegitimate.

Maybe Mr. Paul's "looney left" comment was indicative of his willingness to deflect attention from his (stinky fish) coments he only managed to perpetuate, long enough to release two additional public statements that conflicted with each other. Only to about-face in the Wolf Blitzer interview. Mr. Blitzer asked the same question until Mr. Paul provided an answer capable of clearing any misconsceptions over Mr. Paul's controversial statements (stinky fish). Then he canceled his appearance on "Meet The Press", which happens about once every 20 years.

Too bad Mr. Paul's answer of "yes" was a 180 from logical deduction of past comments. IMO, logical deduction is sound when he said would have at least objected on the floor, lending credible doubt to either statement. More closely, he'd probably resist until it became clear his controversial views were no longer politically expedient.

So there's your scenario of flip flop. When you fail to correct my personal take and substitute pejorative of me personally, you fail to establish any fact behind your support. You also show a shallow perception or even spirit of the debate you brought on yourself.

And they use their vivid imaginations to stretch their reasoning into what they need it to be, just like Disco does.

The "stretch" is hoosierdaddy's imagination that a yes/no question's express intent is anything other than the interviewees own opportunity to clear the record. Or, in this case defend the record. Mr. Paul answered an unequivocal "yes" he would have voted for CRA of 1964, conflicting with past public statements in addition to the dodge in the Maddow interview. Plus subsequent defense of his position that would roll the clock on civil rights back to 1963.

There's nothing "phony" about recognizing what was said and who said it.

But really, who gives a ripe rats toss about what folks like Disco think anyway?

Folks that don't want the Federal government to sanction racial discrimination in private business. that's who. We don't really care about private memberships that express their bigotry by denying folks for any reason. This gives most folks (even Mr. Paul) reason to not only disassociate with but also publicly express their disassociation.

Only when private memberships become national stigma is it any different. Not unlike the private golf clubs who's membership applications expressly barred African Americans from participating, up to and during the time the PGA successfully lobbied to allow their biggest draw (that just happened Afican American.) We jumped that hurdle but recognized the PGA's legacy as the last professional sport that shed is association with the dying gasp of racial discrimination.

The way I see it, the good folks of Kentucky don't need the approval of any democrat at all. Fuck what they think, they aren't going to vote for the man anyway.

Careful, you don't want to pin that stinky fish on a collective party, especially one you're a card carrying member. I also be careful over rubbing it on the state of Kentucy, especially since you call is home. Flippant responses such as "Fuck what they think) sounds like you're giving up the argument that folks in favor of racial discrimination aren't in a word, racist. Especially when you offer NOTHING in lieu of their main stream justification. That's when assumptions by the rest of the country that don't defend the right to discriminate deduce the obvious.

The only reasons they argue so hard are to 1) hear some rattling in between their ears, and 2) to convince simple people who sit on fences to think like they do.

The argument was settled in 1964. Almost two centuries after the founding fathers declared "all men are created equal." You've got "all [white] men are created equal rattling in between your ears. Although we went on to include women and eventually minorities, some still want to go back to the old way.

The reasons we debate the issue is all American citizens are equal and we won't shut up for an enclave that sees differently due to racial discrimination. We shed that identity, at least on a national level with the CRA of 1964.

And many of these simple folks do...in fact, it is these very simple people in the middle..the ones with no firm convictions..that allow the minority of folks, like disco and maddow, to run rough shod through our society.

Coming from a fence farmer such as yourself, you ought to be careful who you call "simple" and suggest they have no conviction. It's the middle that suppresses the wing elements of society in the voter booth. Rolling back the clock to 1963 is a wing phenomenon, no where near the majority you recognize in your sleep. Keep on rubbing that stinky fish on your hide and see how many "simple", "no firm convictions" you attract. Then check to if any of em are "stink free".

The sad truth is, it takes a simple show to please a simple crowd, and as much as I can't stand the prgressive left and know that they are the real problem with our society, my real loathe is for the middle. The know-nothing, do-nothings. You know...the Rojo's.

It takes a simple series of (public) statements to ask the question, "Do you really support this view or are you being misrepresented?" The actual sad truth is Mr. Paul's non-answer with added defense of his racially insensitive (public) statements. As Mr. Paul flies the confines of his enclave, more folks will learn his views, his ambivalence, and ultimately his future (public) statements regarding his controversial stance.

You're one to talk about folks that don't satisfy the idea of transparency. Racial discrimination is the grunge in the bottom of the bucket of humanity, worse than greed. So much a pariah you won't personally associate. But you're willing to defend a man who wants it to exist, even though his excuse is his own personal disassociation.

Mr. Paul wants the right for private businesses to reap their reward from American citizens while simultaneously discriminating on the basis of race, all the while recognizing the stench enough to stand back and unrealistically hope none splatters on him. Sorry, that don't get it.

LOL...really, when it all boils down, you folks can just sit back and watch what Kentucky does and wonder about it later.

Nah, we'll wonder whenever we want. And when an upstart fucks up and receives attention from ill advised public statements, we'll keep inviting them on the media outlets to wonder further. When the upstart (or even verteran) of national office is dumb enough to admit, then point the finger at the messenger, we'll have enough info to make sure they're exposed to future wonder with every controversial statement they make as a national representative.

So what if an enclave successfully elects a bigot? We have to live with that but the folks that elect him have to be a little squirmy over Mr. Paul's propensity to misidentify allies as a sign he thinks his bigoted views are main stream. The main stream won't afford the luxury of personal disassociation with racist's right to federal endorsement of discrimination.

And unless there is something that happens that turns around the sad direction the left is leading us in the next few months, you folks are going to see a Paul in the senate. No matter how much the elitist left throws their baseless racist charges.
And pretty soon, folks are also going to start seeing who the real racists and bigots are.

Like I already said, those who don't afford the opportunity to embrace racial discrimination with personal disassociation will make their own decision. I don't dis the enclave as much as the ones that defend yet disassociate. Especially when they offer nothing to correct any misconception they accuse.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I'm always happy to offer my 2 cents. Not to slam you personally, even though I'll get slammed for reminding you that your views are the right edge of your party, not your party's majority view. Let alone a majority of the country. Republicans win some and they lose some. They'll win some more but that's no indication your most extreme beliefs have anything to do with winning working majorities.

So...

Economic injustice...I would like for you to describe that concept and what it means to you.

What do you want, an encyclopedia? That's as broad as it is long. But here's a single aspect, disparity with blacks in prison as compared to their white counterparts who are far likelier to receive monetary fines and probation.

Economic injustice isn't 100% racial discrimination but the sentiment that eventually culminated into CRA in 1964 still exists today. It's not big and bad as the 1960s, (you do remember the horrible, racially motivated violence of the 60s?) But it's rearing it's head in the form of wanting the Federal government to recognize one's right to demonstrate their hatred toward minorities by banning folks of ethnic origin from their private business.

The idea you seem to need an example of economic injustice is blind to the fact you needn't look any further than the position you defend, the right to discriminate. It wasn't enough to make slaves legal citizens that eventually earned the right to vote. Enough of the old guard wanted nothing to do with the majority of minorities for so long, getting a job, buying a home, saving for your kids' education as well as a comfortable retirement were foreign territory to minorities, at the benefit of business owners, public and private who kept them down.

Do you think the guy that can't buy lunch at the counter is going to get a job as a cook or even a dishwasher, and maybe even avoid welfare? Sounds like a way for the white man to stay a leg up if you ask me. Making it legal sounds like a way to let others know it's acceptable. Lyndon Johnson said he signed the South away for 40 years. Thank jeebus there's enough folks that support the decision.

I am also curious what you expect to trickle down? Do you think that concept means that wealth and prosperity will simply slide down the pole your way?

Trickle down was the Reagan concept that unlike your suggestion, wasn't trickle-down welfare to 98% of the country. Welfare has gone up for the top 2% to the point income disparity is greater than any time since 1929.

Trickle down actually was a concept (it never really existed in the first place.) But the idea was that commerce would grow if fat cats got fatter and generated more commerce. What does that mean? Tax breaks for the rich. But only real, tangible commerce reaps benefits for the masses and keeps the welfare rolls low. Real commerce that keeps people employed, manufacturing products and delivering services to the (then) nation as global commerce wasn't on the scale it is today. And paying taxes on profits because part of the deal was to lower my taxes and I'll still pay them.

But that wasn't enough for fat cats. They parked their already lowered tax rate profits in offshore bank accounts. Their now tax-free profits depleted the government's ability to not only pay as they go, no way Jose on the chance of making a dent in the National Debt.

Still not enough as fat cats jumped ship when a decade of lobbying produced The North American Free Trade Agreement, the first step in moving once domestic manufacturing and service corporations to foreign countries for the bottom line. So much in fact we have unemployment as high as it is, even though Wall Street has made impressive gains from the low in 2008.

Why hasn't Main Street had the same impressive return as Wall Street? Wall Street plus a half dozen of the biggest national banks stopped lending to........you guessed it. Real commerce. As comparison to the days before the last series of economic busts, tech energy and housing, Wall Street and banks have shifted to derivatives and betting against the market. A casino has replaced real commerce as the game to get no risk fast payouts that return better than real commerce. Until the next series of busts because the game hasn't changed. In fact, the culture in Washington is so corrupt that Senator Richard Durbin publicly stated he'd given up fighting the banks, they're stronger than Congress.

So there's two concepts you requested. I hope anybody reading it remembers you might not get what you want but it's a reflection of the facts and not an opportunity to insult or slander.

The previous post I responded that requested such, received insults over political discourse. If there's any rebuttal to this post, please consider making your comments substantive.

What does Bill O'Reilly say? Don't be a popping jay?

 

[JackTheGrower]

Economic injustice...I would like for you to describe that concept and what it means to you.

I am also curious what you expect to trickle down? Do you think that concept means that wealth and prosperity will simply slide down the pole your way?

It will boil down to they kill us or we kill them. Have you noticed the population keeps growing?

If Rand is in favor of fences and barring people form services while cutting taxes for his friends then I see what Side of the killing he is on.. Kill US the poor landless needy billions!

Draw a line no Race can cross.. Don't sell food and supplies to those not like us. All under the guise of "It's my right."

I am understanding what this stink is. It's the smell of Closet Racism.

Do you hear the man saying his priority is prosperity for Americans? I don't he is mumbling about the right to refuse to serve people based on their Race.

Come On.. And Yes I expect prosperity and I am willing to remove all those from power that keep so much for themselves while millions die from lack of food and water all over the world.

Sure the idea is grand of the American Experiment but, the reality is the billions have to be cared for or killed in the long run and I think Rand is on the "Kill them to protect a select few's claim to the wealth side of the fence."


We humans fail to see that nothing is separate from the Universe. We create religions, politics, governments all to create the illusion of permanence and separateness.

There is nothing permanent or separate about the Human Being or the Universe. The Beliefs are a fraud. The claim to power an illusion.

So Yes I damn well expect prosperity as a working class man and so do a billion others.

But I guess we shall now see that we are sub-standard and that because someone's Grandfather left them money they are Gods and we can take what is left over from a Failed Capital system as we have in the USA.
Sure we can imagine folks work hard and achieve but that is not the case anymore really... Look at the Unemployment. This American World War is causing the problem.

I am so thankful Obama has led the Congress to bestow some compassion for the unemployed.
That Senator from Oklahoma thinks no one should get anything. In his state I assume it's normal for him to see little babies in the poor shacks folks call homes there.

When we work and spend our lives giving profit to a corporation there should be something for a lifetime of dedication to a company when they tell you you are no longer useful to them and they are moving to cheaper labor and more pollution freedom...

Some way to stand up as an older worker and not be forced to work for minimum wage and accept food stamps to survive.
BTW any working class person not for working class people are fools. You get them.. Orthodox Jews that believe the Holistic didn't happen. Poor people not voting for better conditions and fearful worshippers of God(s) submitting their will to a religious government that keeps them down.

I see it.. I see another 100 years of getting ready to handle the masses. 100 years getting ready to fence off the farm lands and militarized corporate zones around the world including the USA.
100 year to kill billions to save the Wealth for 1 to 2 % of the Worlds population. After all We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone remember?

I see the World as one large ranch and the people are the cattle. The sooner we all realize no one loves anyone the sooner we can create a world where people do love each other and the World.

So yes.. I expect prosperity. It's happening for the very wealthy with the backing of the Taxpayer and without a vote by the Tax payer I might add.

Yea I am good enough!

I also see all of us suggesting we can win if we just grab wealth now and keep it from others like frightened rats running from a fire.

We do not need a clever Racist Wealth protector we need answers to what we will do with all life on this planet.

Do we use it all up until we are killing each other over a scrap of bread tossed into the holding area by a guard that has had enough or do we give every man woman and child on this planet a sense of being while we work to undo the harm that has been done by Capitalism.


It isn't the Rands' of the World that are true leaders. Anyone can come up with a plan to take more away from the poor to save themselves.

 

[JackTheGrower]

Hey the thread WAS slowing down... LOL

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

It isn't the Rands' of the World that are true leaders. Anyone can come up with a plan to take more away from the poor to save themselves.

That's exactly what Mr. Paul is doing, according to Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-SC. Rep. Clyburn appeared on one of the media outlets to respond to Mr. Paul's past statements. Then Mr. Clyburn stated that Mr. Paul requested Congress to reduce funding for either Medicare or Medicaid but wanted the doctor reimbursements to remain the same. They ought to indicate where his interests are. Maybe he could afford to turn away a few minorities from his clinic.

 

[Leon Brooks]

you must spread some reputation around before giving it to DiscoBiscuit again.

that is all.