Sarah Palin Endorses Clint Didier For Senate

[over the mountain]

im not trying to push my own interpretation of the Constitution. What i've written and cited to in this thread is the SC's very own rulings and opinions.

And i may be wrong, im not fact checking what i write but just going off what i remember from law school.

no need to get all snippy with me buddy. if i say burning a cross is not protected free speech, im not saying that its my opinion or interpretation, im saying the SC said so in their interpretation of the Constitution that hate speech is not protected speech and that burning a cross is hate speech.

The SC said hotels cant discriminate, thats their interpretation not mine.

Im going by what the SC has said and interpreted.

go wear a shirt with a dick on it in public and you will find that the SC has interpreted such speech as offensive and not protected. im not telling you that, the SC is.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

My feelings and yours about Rachel Maddow aside for a moment, did you actually see the interview? All of it? Because I did. And I'm 100% sure no one cornered Rand Paul into doing an interview with Rachel Maddow.

Yes and agreed (and Maddow does have the same haircut as Matthews). What I mean by cornered is that he was completely off balance in the interview and should've had the "three word" answer to shoot down the inferences of racism ready to go.

In fact the tone was civil and there were no gotcha moments or questions. Now If Paul wants to thrust himself onto the scene as a national candidate worthy of the electorate's consideration to lead the state of Kentucky, and perhaps the country one day, then he should account for his views and articulate his policy prescriptions. I think that's fair and reasonable.

Prior to the Maddow interview he made some controversial statements on NPR that raised a few eyebrows. The Maddow interview was more or less a follow-up to simply dig in a little more and allow Mr. Paul to clarify a few points regarding the Civil Rights Act and previous statements.

Agree on the first para. On the ADA thing mentioned on NPR, I do a good amount of Fed work and I can tell you his point is spot on about the $ 100K elevator. The Fed requirements of Section 508 add ridiculous costs when there are often more cost effective and common-sense solutions to accomodate those with disabilities.

But let's really cut to the chase where all of this is headed. Conservatives would like to paint this as some witch hunt by the "looney left" to bring down Rand Paul and portray him as a racist.

But it's so fun and easy to do

For the record, I don't think he would stand a bat's chance in hell of winning a national election and I don't believe he's a racist. But his libertarian views, I feel, would open the door to racial tension and undo much of the progress we've made over the past several decades. So on one hand no one is really trying to infer, at least I'm not, that Rand Paul is racist but on the other the unintended consequences of some of his views could very well lead us down that road. And that's just dangerous and irresponsible if you ask me.

But seriously, I agree here with you and that's my concern with many conservative candidates that would be very helpful to the country in terms of fiscal responsibility and scaling back the size/scope of govt'. They often allow themselves by trying to be true to their core beliefs (limited gov't) to be drawn into a black & white discussion with no allowance for shades of gray.

For the first time since the berth of the Tea Party movement, we now have a national candidate and a voice that we can reasonably assume espouse their views and sentiments. During his victory speech, he openly declared himself as the voice of the Tea Party (paraphrased). So from here on out, as the anointed spokesman for the Tea Party, we can look no further than Rand Paul to see what it is they believe. When they say things like "take my country back", how does that look in terms of actual policy? That's the big question Rand Paul and the Tea Party will have to answer in the coming days.

I thought his statement clarifying his position was solid, but it should never even have been needed. He should've seen the attacks coming and been prepared. A simple response, "I completely support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While I advocate limited government there are extreme cases of gross injustice where the Federal government is required to act. However the Federal gov't attempt to privatize health care.....etc, etc. etc."

[joethiesmanfan]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

im not trying to push my own interpretation of the Constitution. What i've written and cited to in this thread is the SC's very own rulings and opinions.

And i may be wrong, im not fact checking what i write but just going off what i remember from law school.

no need to get all snippy with me buddy. if i say burning a cross is not protected free speech, im not saying that its my opinion or interpretation, im saying the SC said so in their interpretation of the Constitution that hate speech is not protected speech and that burning a cross is hate speech.

The SC said hotels cant discriminate, thats their interpretation not mine.

Im going by what the SC has said and interpreted.

go wear a shirt with a dick on it in public and you will find that the SC has interpreted such speech as offensive and not protected. im not telling you that, the SC is.

LOL, cool i get it now.

[saden1]

SS33, if this was 1964 you think it's ok if he said he wouldn't vote for the Civil Rights Act? You understand Paul brought this subject up right?

Looks like heavenly sent Rand Paul is taking a cue from Palin and won't do anymore interviews. It's a shame, I wanted to see him wiggle some more. Best of luck to his opponent. I suppose he'll be replacing Jim Bunning so it isn't a big deal if one dummy is replaced by another dummy.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

SS33, if this was 1964 you think it's ok if he said he wouldn't vote for the Civil Rights Act? You understand Paul brought this subject up right?

I hope that's not what you took away from my posts. I thought I was pretty clear, but I guess not. So to be clear....It would not be OK for Paul to not vote for the CRA.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by saden1

SS33, if this was 1964 you think it's ok if he said he wouldn't vote for the Civil Rights Act? You understand Paul brought this subject up right?

Looks like heavenly sent Rand Paul is taking a cue from Palin and won't do anymore interviews. It's a shame, I wanted to see him wiggle some more. Best of luck to his opponent. I suppose he'll be replacing Jim Bunning so it isn't a big deal if one dummy is replaced by another dummy.

He's only the third person in 62 years --- 62 freakin years!-- to cancel an appearance on Meet The Press. If his positions are so solid, let's hear it then.

Stick a fork in this clown, he's done.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

He's only the third person in 62 years --- 62 freakin years!-- to cancel an appearance on Meet The Press. If his positions are so solid, let's hear it then.

Stick a fork in this clown, he's done.

I wish he was done but he isn't...I put his chance of winning at 60% despite his short comings. Let's he is stupid enough to talks about his views more....one can only dream.

[Beemnseven]

By November, this incident will be ancient history. If the Dems were smart, they would have held off on this story until mid-October or so.

From here on out, Paul's going to beat the drum of bailouts, spending, and health care; and that's what the voters care about. Not some silly academic/philisophic discussion on legislation passed ages ago.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

By November, this incident will be ancient history. If the Dems were smart, they would have held off on this story until mid-October or so.

From here on out, Paul's going to beat the drum of bailouts, spending, and health care; and that's what the voters care about. Not some silly academic/philisophic discussion on legislation passed ages ago.

I don't think there's anything trivial --then or now-- about the Civil Rights Act. You may feel that way, but I don't. And if it's so trivial, why does it keep coming up and why did Paul just cancel the biggest interview of his political career?

Surely Paul could have sat down with David Gregory on "Meet", allay all concerns during the first 15 minutes of the program and campaign, on the very issues you just mentioned, for the second 15 minutes on probably the most respected Sunday talk show. And I'll bet a shiny nickel that this story will still be hot come November. In fact, I think it's only going to grow whenever the Tea Party or Rand Paul's name is mentioned. Every time Paul speaks it becomes more and more apparent that his views are not within the mainstream.

Besides, his latest blunder is calling the president un-American for calling out BP and being too tough on them over the recent oil spill. Really Rand Paul, you're defending a British oil company for polluting American waters and affecting tens of thousands of American lives in the Gulf region? Just whose side is this dude on anyway?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I don't think there's anything trivial --then or now-- about the Civil Rights Act. You may feel that way, but I don't. And if it's so trivial, why does it keep coming up and why did Paul just cancel the biggest interview of his political career?

Surely Paul could have sat down with David Gregory on "Meet", allay all concerns during the first 15 minutes of the program and campaign, on the very issues you just mentioned, for the second 15 minutes on probably the most respected Sunday talk show. And I'll bet a shiny nickel that this story will still be hot come November. In fact, I think it's only going to grow whenever the Tea Party or Rand Paul's name is mentioned. Every time Paul speaks it becomes more and more apparent that his views are not within the mainstream.

Besides, his latest blunder is calling the president un-American for calling out BP and being too tough on them over the recent oil spill. Really Rand Paul, you're defending a British oil company for polluting American waters and affecting tens of thousands of American lives in the Gulf region? Just whose side is this dude on anyway?

LOL @ un-american. This story isn't going so long as he is dodging the media. He is not a smart guy at all.

[wolfeskins]

is he considering running for president ?

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

is he considering running for president ?

My personal take on it is that largely depends on how well he does over the next two or three years, provided that he doesn't fall to the Dem candidate in the general. If Paul can hone his message, yeah, he'll believe the hype and probably run. But the Salahi's are more likely to get closer to the White House than Rand Paul.

[saden1]

How did shutting-out the media work out for Palin? From a political standpoint the media is to be used not recused. If he continues being this reclusive his background and philosophy will be on the forefront...they'll go for his eyes and balls befor it's all said and done.

[12thMan]

He's totally trying out to Palin Palin it seems. Just to bring the thread full circle again

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I don't think there's anything trivial --then or now-- about the Civil Rights Act. You may feel that way, but I don't. And if it's so trivial, why does it keep coming up and why did Paul just cancel the biggest interview of his political career?

Surely Paul could have sat down with David Gregory on "Meet", allay all concerns during the first 15 minutes of the program and campaign, on the very issues you just mentioned, for the second 15 minutes on probably the most respected Sunday talk show. And I'll bet a shiny nickel that this story will still be hot come November. In fact, I think it's only going to grow whenever the Tea Party or Rand Paul's name is mentioned. Every time Paul speaks it becomes more and more apparent that his views are not within the mainstream.

Besides, his latest blunder is calling the president un-American for calling out BP and being too tough on them over the recent oil spill. Really Rand Paul, you're defending a British oil company for polluting American waters and affecting tens of thousands of American lives in the Gulf region? Just whose side is this dude on anyway?

I didn't say the issue was trivial. Property rights is extremely important. Again, that was his contention with the Civil Rights Act. But the issue and the law is settled, and in the end, I'm saying the voters will be on to more current, pressing issues. They're more concerned with the policies of fiscal insanity.

Now, this thing about being "mainstream" -- did it ever occur to you that people might be starting to see that "mainstream" political views is what got government to its current pathetic state? The republicans and democrats have been in complete control of everything for well over a hundred years, they've squandered and spent our money into oblivion and now have to borrow or print the money out of thin air and it's put us into bankruptcy.

Yes, Rand Paul is standing up for private business. That surprises you? This president wants a centrally-planned economy, works in direct opposition to the free enterprise system, and doesn't miss a chance to criticize, demonize, and make the case for outright control of the sectors of the economy that he and his minions don't particularly like. We've seen that already with the car industry, the health care industry, and the banking and finance industries.

If you believe that come November, the voters will forget all of that and instead focus on comments made to an obscure newspaper about legislation passed 46 years ago -- then hopefully the DNC will hire you as their national campaign director.