Rand Paul Leader of the Teabaggers!
 

Rand Paul is your leader. Go and following him off a cliff.


Teabag movement is the most illogical movement ever.

yes he just said that Obama coming down on BP (which i havent seen much evidence of anyway) was "un-american."
what a fucking douche!

Aww he's like a wittle ron paul :3

He actually said the "way" Obama was coming down not that he was coming down... but hey who needs facts its politics right...:upsidedow

the guy thinks businessess should still be allowed to not serve blacks LOL

"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,'" Rand said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America." "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."

he's a douche.

problem is obama hasn't really done anything, if he really wanted to do something the heads of BP would be in jail right now, or preferably 5,000 feet deep in the ocean plugging a leak...with their own corpulent bodies:thumbsup

No he thinks whites should have the same rights as blacks. He also thinks that people should be based on their character and not the color of their skin.

Unlike this guy




Clearing up the issue on CNN

Shit, he'd make a better president than the center-right corporate apologist that morons think is a marxist we have right now.

Atleast he freely admits that he would love nothing more than to take a deep dicking from the corporate cock.

I think that if BP is indeed to blame for negligence or something that caused the oil spill, then BP should pay for the damages.

What he goes on CNN and says after he makes a dumb statement has nothing to do with his original statement. LOL

Its a simple question and a simple answer:

Whatever he states after those words mean jack shit LOL

Everytime someone says something dumb they go on media spree and claim "I didnt say that" LOL It doesnt make it true.

PS black are racist too, thats not what this thread is about.

It's ok. In the primary even the losing democratic candidate got more votes than the winning GOP candidate, rand paul.

Apparently have not seen the polls and this is why the left is trying to paint him as a racist.

Kentucky Senate: Paul 59%, Conway 34%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...entucky_senate

So should the Congressional Black Caucus allow whites or not? If not, why do blacks have special rights? See Rand Paul thinks it is OK for the Black Congressional Congress and other similar groups to not allow non-blacks. Because he believes in property rights. So now is he racist against whites? lol

C'mon IllTestYourGirls, you are way too smart for that. It was proven that even though he despises racism he believes a business has the right to discriminate, he also has publicly stated he thinks it is unfair to make businesses make their businesses accessible to people with disabilities and that the fair housing act should be eliminated. It is a straight libertarian argument and different people will see that differently but the shit he said on CNN about voting yes for the 1964 civil rights act was a complete flip flop from his stated position made one day earlier and on at least one other public occasion... He said it for political expediency and trying to save a career he just started and already damaged... don't worry though, I live in Kentucky and while this has hurt him I have no doubt he will win the seat if he stays in the race

Nobody takes these liberals seriously. They can't even get their facts straight.

The crap you are trying to bait me with has nothing to do with the topic, thread, or man this discussion is about.

If you do not understand the ideology you can never understand his answer. So it has everything to do with the topic.

Im not trying to bait. Im trying to explain the ideology.

:2 cents::thumbsup
I have oft times wondered about this myself. Another thing I have wondered about and this will piss off any liberals who may be here, why in the world would a black guy want to be a member of say an 'all white' country club or something? I have heard the arguments of networking, business opportunities and things along those lines.... but if the people in the club dont want you there, just how much business are you going to get done? To me that makes no sense, but I am sure there is a very strong argument to be made for inclusion in a hostile group, I just dont get it

My facts are very straight. Rand Paul is on the record with what he actually said. I do not know about other 'liberals' but I recognize it for exactly what it is... it is pure libertarian ideology. I am not condemning it at all, it is what it is. But Paul proved he is politically retarded voicing that publicly. The spin would go crazy with it and he should have known that

Excuse me? You are talking about an opinion poll. Thats nice.

Now what I'd said is that it wont matter because the NUMBER OF VOTERS who ACTUALLY VOTED for the losing democratic candidate got MORE ACTUAL VOTES FROM ACTUAL VOTERS than the GOP winning candidate, Rand Paul.

Another thing, I'm not "the left". I vote sometimes for dem, sometimes for rep. It depends on the person. Folks who only vote one party need to believe that everyone is like them, I understand that. But it doesnt make it true.

I may be confusing one of the other primary turnouts, but still you replying to one thing with something totally different is just bullshit dude. Whats the point?

I didn't call you from the left, sorry if you thought that, and was pointing out that it does not matter what the dem voter turn out was.

Well I think it does matter. Kentucky has about 600,000 more registered democrats than registered republicans.

You clearly did not listen to the interview: https://youtube.com/watch?v=6VGdP2mNPeo#t=8m00s



It is at the 8 minute mark.

He was misquoted even in the official MSNBC transcript.

The fact is government mandated segregation from around 1876 to 1965. Had the government done the right thing and made it law that no public buildings or public transportation could be segregated back in the late 1800's then no civil right act would have been necessary in the 1960's. Had the civil rights act only applied to public property do you really think there would be a black drive thru and a white drive thru at McDonalds today? If even they dropped the part of the law that requires private business not to segregate do you think anything would change?

Watch this...

hmmm, that is an interesting statistic and I do not doubt it. It is also traditionally reddest states in the union with a very strong track record of voting for conservative candidates. This is not even close to a purple state and to suggest it leans blue is laughable... not a happy laugh but a pained, hurtful and cynical laugh that stings the lips

Kentucky was the very first state in the 08 election to go McCain/Palin

Lots of blue dogs that tend to vote R in national and D in local/state.

oh man...

Yeah just keep drinking the mainstream media kool-aid there bud. You know that when the media starts with the attack campaigns they're doing it for a reason. Ron and Rand are American Patriots.

Nobody says anything about a president that has to have BEERGATE to cover up his racism. Or dis's Israel and bow to Arab countries by not using the word Radical Islam

Every human being has the right to use his own property the way he sees fit as long as he doesn't cause any damage to another person or another person's property.

This means that in a free society every human being has the right to discriminate.... I know that sounds strange/wrong/whatever....

If Person A owns a shop, that shop and everything in it is his property... Person A has the right to do business with whoever he wants and has the right to refuse to do business with whoever he wants. If person A refuses to do business with (for example) Canadians then ethically there's nothing wrong with that. Person A merely uses his own property the way he wants without causing harm to another person or another person's property. If Person B doesn't agree with the fact that person A refuses to do business with Canadians, then person B can either talk to person A or use social or economic discrimination (a boycott) to 'convince' person A to to business with Canadians. However, the second person B uses actual force (violence / fines ( = theft)) to force person A to do business with Canadians then person B commits an act of aggression.

That's the difference between ethics and morality. Ethically there's nothing wrong refusing to do business with certain groups of people. Morally of course we are opposed to this and we should fight it every way we can (without committing an act of aggression that is).

(Just take a look at the movie 'Milk' for example where the gay community boycotted shops that were anti-gay....)

It's very important to understand the difference between 'ethics' and 'morality'. Ethics are universal, morality is personal. Just imagine what would happen to the adult industry if certain groups of people were allowed to force their idea of morality onto others....

Rand and Ron are a bit different. From the little bit I've seen of rand anyways. I saw him say on fox that he would keep nuking iran on the table. WTF? haha I don't care anymore

Personally I believe that private businesses should have the right to provide service or deny service on any basis they like. I agree that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a massive unconstitutional overreach of the Federal Government. Having said that......... Rand Paul seems to be completely politically tone deaf if he believes he can make that point in the current political environment.

I think it is somewhat interesting that the media waited to move in and destroy him until right after the primaries. Who says the mainstream media is not just the propaganda arm of the DNC? :winkwink:

Since your only requirement for a candidate is that they will commit to unconditional surrender to the lslamists............. your options are going to be limited to Kucinich or Ron Paul I think. :1orglaugh

Wow theres a bunch of status quo bitches up in here. You love getting fucked in the ass eh?

This just in. . . Rand Paul also thinks that Obama is being too harsh on BP.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...id=jkGbexypbP4

He says of Obama's criticism of BP: " "I think it's part of this blame game society in the sense that it's always got to be someone's fault, instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen."

Do you think BP made the oil leak on purpose?

Here is the entire quote...

"What I don't like from the President's administration is this sort of, you know, I'll put my boot heal on the throat of BP. I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. I've heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill and I think it's part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it's always got to be someone's fault instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen."

I think both the government and BP are to blame for the oil spill. BP for not taking proper safety precautions and the government for giving BP a waiver and not requiring them to take the proper safety precautions. It is going to take about 3 months to drill relief wells to fix this problem so it won't be going away anytime soon.

I agree with you completely. Both BP and the government are to blame. The government should never had even made it possible for them to drill without the safety valves in place. Yes, they are expensive, but now we are seeing what can happen when they aren't used. Let's not forget it was the republicans under Bush that made it so that those valves would not have to be used.

As for Paul, he is off base. Obama has every right to be hyper critical of BP and put his foot down on them. It was an accident, yes, but there were safety precautions available to them that they chose not to use in order to save some money and now they have caused a natural disaster of epic proportion. Aside from not have the valves in place they clearly have/had no real plan in place about what to do if something like this happened. If you can't tear into a company for acting irresponsibly for something like this, than what can you criticize them for?

I have to agree with Rand Paul on that one. Obama believes that the government should determine winners and losers instead of the market (see General Motors, Chrysler, AIG, etc., etc.)........ but no true libertarian could support corporatist socialism of the Obama variety.

Sure they do. Relief wells. Unfortunately, the solution is not fast. It takes at least 3 months and possibly much longer. They could also nuke the hole... :Oh crap

I'm not saying they should not be criticized.

There is a huge difference between a company failing or doing something stupid that causes its own downfall and a company doing something that causes one of the largest disasters in the history of our country.

So you think the government should just stay out of it and let the market handle this? You think that if people are mad enough about what is happening they will not buy BP products and BP will either go out of business or lose its US market share? That isn't realistic. The simple reality is that there are so many hands in the pie it is hard to know how all to boycott in order to not support those responsible for this disaster. Not to mention that one of the companies involved, Haliburton, gets billions in defense contracts from the US so we could never buy gas from BP again and they probably wouldn't be hurt.

There is no way to know just how much damage this spill will end up causing not just to the environment, but to our economy. In a case like this I think it is fine for the government to step in and demand some answers.

The question is, will those work? They also thought the dome would work and the siphon lines would work and a few other things would work. None of them have so far. Hell in three months the thing might be empty and the damage done in that time may be so large in scale it could never be fixed.