Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think Rand Paul has trouble carefully articulating his views. It's problematic.
When has he had problems "carefully articulating his views?" He's made his positions pretty clear on a number of things. A lot of posters on here find some bizarre hang ups with Rand Paul. I mean just come out and say you don't like him instead of inventing reasons to not like him. I'm not talking about you in particular Chi just in general.
Rand Paul isn't ready for prime time.
He shushed one female reporter, talked over another, got schooled by Megyn Kelly, and now walked out of a Guardian interview.
The persecution complex is strong in that man.
so are you saying, he doesn't respect women or are you saying he isn't up to the interview circuit or are you saying, good or bad ideas, he can't be President? I happen to think he needs to develop a tough skin and at the rate he is going, he will end up like his dad: always running but not forward enough. I do not think this has anything to do with gender interviews or his feelings toward women. I don't think it has much to do with whether he is ready. I just am not sure his temporment will withstand the political trail that is ahead for him.
When has he had problems "carefully articulating his views?" He's made his positions pretty clear on a number of things. A lot of posters on here find some bizarre hang ups with Rand Paul. I mean just come out and say you don't like him instead of inventing reasons to not like him. I'm not talking about you in particular Chi just in general.
I think he's had trouble articulating his views on the Civil Rights Acts. He's had difficulty for years & even though his views have apparently changed over the years, I don't think he's gotten any better at clarifying.
Rational persuasion includes the ability to offer logical arguments to suggest why your perspective is better or the best out of several plausible choices, options or alternatives.
It's problematic that Rand Paul cannot articulate how his disagreements with the Civil Rights Act would have resulted in a better outcome. Jim Crow laws resulted in over a 100 years of economic oppression & indefensible discrimination. The Civil Right Acts of the 1960s may not have resulted in a perfection in the universality of fundamental rights, although what point is Rand Paul making by continuing to have fundamental disagreements? Is he disagreeing with the outcomes?
I dunno if I have hang ups with Rand Paul although I desire rational persuasion. What are the real questions our Country is facing? What are the facts & circumstances framing the most pressing problems? What are the most plausible options leading to solutions? What is our best course of action, all things considered?
We can't time travel back to certain points in our history, we're here now & there's work to do.
I think he's had trouble articulating his views on the Civil Rights Acts. He's had difficulty for years & even though his views have apparently changed over the years, I don't think he's gotten any better at clarifying.
Rational persuasion includes the ability to offer logical arguments to suggest why your perspective is better or the best out of several plausible choices, options or alternatives.
It's problematic that Rand Paul cannot articulate how his disagreements with the Civil Rights Act would have resulted in a better outcome. Jim Crow laws resulted in over a 100 years of economic oppression & indefensible discrimination. The Civil Right Acts of the 1960s may not have resulted in a perfection in the universality of fundamental rights, although what point is Rand Paul making by continuing to have fundamental disagreements? Is he disagreeing with the outcomes?
I dunno if I have hang ups with Rand Paul although I desire rational persuasion. What are the real questions our Country is facing? What are the facts & circumstances framing the most pressing problems? What are the most plausible options leading to solutions? What is our best course of action, all things considered?
We can't time travel back to certain points in our history, we're here now & there's work to do.
Yes, let's focus on the here and now, and not legislation that passed when Rand Paul was a toddler.
I think he articulates his positions quite well, on issues that are important today, not long settled law.
Randy is a racist just like his daddy whose coat tails he rides. I sincerely HOPE he's the Republican nominee... because his hemming and hawing on the Civil Rights Act shows pretty clearly where his racist ideological roots lie. And makes him totally unelectable.
Randy is a racist just like his daddy whose coat tails he rides. I sincerely HOPE he's the Republican nominee... because his hemming and hawing on the Civil Rights Act shows pretty clearly where his racist ideological roots lie. And makes him totally unelectable.
In April 2010, Paul was asked by the Louisville Courier-Journal about his thoughts on the Civil Rights Act. He hailed the law for striving to end discrimination in the public domain, but he didn't fully approve of the government's role in the process."I think it's a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant — but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership," he said. He added that he agrees any publicly-funded entities should not be allowed to discriminate, but the law shouldn't necessarily apply to private businesses. "And that's most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind."So how would he resolve the problem? Consistent with his small-government philosophy, he said it should be up to the people to self-correct the issue. "In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people who have abhorrent behavior. But if we're civilized people, we publicly criticize that and don't belong to those groups, or don't associate with those people," he added.
Doesn't sound racist to me but it might to a far left crazed PC liberal...
In April 2010, Paul was asked by the Louisville Courier-Journal about his thoughts on the Civil Rights Act. He hailed the law for striving to end discrimination in the public domain, but he didn't fully approve of the government's role in the process."I think it's a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant — but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership," he said. He added that he agrees any publicly-funded entities should not be allowed to discriminate, but the law shouldn't necessarily apply to private businesses. "And that's most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind."So how would he resolve the problem? Consistent with his small-government philosophy, he said it should be up to the people to self-correct the issue. "In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people who have abhorrent behavior. But if we're civilized people, we publicly criticize that and don't belong to those groups, or don't associate with those people," he added.
Doesn't sound racist to me but it might to a far left crazed PC liberal...
Like I said- hemming and hawing. What you've quoted there is a really wordy and convoluted version of the "freedom of association" argument against the Civil Rights Act.
In other words... clearer words: Rand Paul is lamenting the fact that the Civil Rights Act doesn't allow businesses to discriminate. Period.
Like I said- hemming and hawing. What you've quoted there is a really wordy and convoluted version of the "freedom of association" argument against the Civil Rights Act.
In other words... clearer words: Rand Paul is lamenting the fact that the Civil Rights Act doesn't allow businesses to discriminate. Period.
You'll just never understand the concept of liberty will you? If you are not free to discriminate then you are not really free. Freedom of association is one of the lynchpins of a truly free society. I guess some people, such as yourself, need the government to tell them what is right and what is wrong. Ironically you probably would have been on the side of Jim Crow because well the government told us it was for our own good.
“There’s a group of folks in our party who would have troops in six countries right now — maybe more,” the Kentucky senator told hundreds of activists at a GOP cattle call that has drawn every major presidential aspirant. “This is something, if you watch closely, that will separate me from many other Republicans. The other Republicans will criticize Hillary Clinton and the president for their foreign policy, but they would have done the same thing – just 10 times over!”
The Kentucky senator went on the offensive against the militarists in his own party – using his strongest language on the subject since formally kicking off his candidacy two weeks ago.
Speaking of the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Paul asked: “Why the hell did we ever go into Libya in the first place?”
“Everyone who will criticize me wanted troops on the ground, our troops on the ground, in Libya,” he said. “It was a mistake to be in Libya. We are less safe. Jihadists swim in our swimming pool now. It’s a disaster.”
Paul framed his foreign policy approach as more realpolitik than isolationist.
“Every time we’ve toppled a secular dictator, a secular strongman, we’ve gotten chaos and the rise of radical Islam,” he said. “We have to decide when getting involved is good and when it’s not so good. There’s a group of folks in our party who think it’s always good … There’s people in our party who supported giving arms to [Muammar] Gaddafi before they supported giving arms to the ‘freedom fighters,’ who turned out to be al Qaeda. I’m not saying don’t be involved in the world. I’m not saying don’t defend our interests. But think about it. As a physician, we’re taught: first, do no harm.”
The only candidate in the race right now with a truly different foreign policy. Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, and to a lesser extent Ted Cruz all have the same neocon foreign policy.
Randy is a racist just like his daddy whose coat tails he rides. I sincerely HOPE he's the Republican nominee... because his hemming and hawing on the Civil Rights Act shows pretty clearly where his racist ideological roots lie. And makes him totally unelectable.
Here is ol' "racist Randy" talking about oppressing black folk again:
Quote:
Paul got in an even more subtle contrast with former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. Two days earlier, Bush had told reporters that Senate Republicans needed to confirm Loretta Lynch, President Obama's nominee for attorney general, who — as Democrats have said with diminishing amounts of tact — would be the first black woman to hold that job.
"Civil forfeiture — this is where the government can take your stuff without you being charged with a crime," said Paul. "Disproportionately, the people affected by it are minorities. Disproportionately, the people affected by it are poor... you know who the biggest defender of it is?"
"Loretta Lynch!" yelled Norman Trezenga, a former member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives.
"This is the main reason I oppose her," said Paul, to more applause. "Nobody on the Democratic side is doing a damn thing about this."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You'll just never understand the concept of liberty will you? If you are not free to discriminate then you are not really free. Freedom of association is one of the lynchpins of a truly free society. I guess some people, such as yourself, need the government to tell them what is right and what is wrong. Ironically you probably would have been on the side of Jim Crow because well the government told us it was for our own good.
