Rand Paul will be on Maddow tonight

First off, I believe that Rand had a grand total of 45 minutes of sleep last night and probably not much more than that the previous night.

Secondly, this I think is our cold shower wake up call after the daze we are all in from yesterday. Seriously, there hasn't been a victory like this since Goldwater getting into the Senate. Rand will win hands down, but it won't be easy for sure.

Third, the left was well prepared for Rand because they knew he would be the victor.

Fourth, having the left openly attack Rand is good to unify the GOP and other conservatives behind him.

Fifth, this gives us a bit of an understanding of the bs and nonsense we are going to be up against, so it allows us to prepare both mentally and otherwise for what to expect over the next 6 (ugh) months.

Use it as a lesson not to get complacent and then move on. Rand will win, we just have to get him there.

Matt,

I have a great respect for you, but honestly, none of these reasons really excuses Rand, or ANYONE, of being a classic politician and dancing around the question. He should clearly answer the question and set the record straight: "Yes, I support the right of private business owners, under the First Amendment of the Constitution, to decide who they want to serve."

Also, this is not "BS and nonsense". It was a fair and honest question posed by Maddow. It was Rand who refused to go on the record.

We've got a classic politician here, folks. We've come to love Ron Paul precisely because he doesn't do shit like this.
 
Let's not forget self-interest. Rachel is a lesbian, and this issue is no doubt near and dear to her. She (and her friends) have been waiting to ask that question...
 
Matt,

I have a great respect for you, but honestly, none of these reasons really excuses Rand, or ANYONE, of being a classic politician and dancing around the question. He should clearly answer the question and set the record straight: "Yes, I support the right of private business owners, under the First Amendment of the Constitution, to decide who they want to serve."

Also, this is not "BS and nonsense". It was a fair and honest question posed by Maddow. It was Rand who refused to go on the record.

We've got a classic politician here, folks. We've come to love Ron Paul precisely because he doesn't do shit like this.

I think Rand argued poorly, but the argument he is making is the same one that you succinctly state.

He needs to get some sleep and will have a chance to turn the tide on this one.

It should be framed like this:



Do you support freedom of speech?

1. That doesn't make you racist.

2. It doesn't mean you support people saying racist things.

Do you support the freedoms of private property ownership?

1. That doesn't make you racist either.

2. It doesn't mean you support businesses who would discriminate.
 
And I will keep posting this until it gets through to someone...

Wayne Dyer's, "Letter to Politicians From a Spiritual Working Stiff"...

Excerpt:

YOU ARE NOT OUR LEADERS. No one that I know goes to sleep at night saying, "My leaders are in Washington, D.C." I fume when you refer to yourselves as our leaders. You may pass laws while sitting in committees and having Rose Garden ceremonies, but the laws come after the real leadership has been implemented.

No politician was responsible for leading us in the struggle for civil rights. Rosa Parks was a leader. Those who marched and ignored the racist laws passed by lawmakers were the leaders of the civil rights movement.

Who were the leaders of the Renaissance? The office holders? The politicians? No! The leaders were those who brought the world a new consciousness through their writing, art, music, and through challenging the entrenched ideologies of the office holders. These were the leaders.

When I hear you refer to yourselves as our leaders, I am always amused by such arrogance. We go to work and send up to 50 percent of our earnings to you. You use our earnings to make yourselves more privileged than we are, with unlimited medical care, overly generous retirement guarantees, and perks galore! All that you really do is write the rules using our funds to do so. This might be hard to accept, but try it on for size. We are not sheep who need to be led. We need servants who care. We are perfectly capable of leading ourselves; in fact, we do it every day.

This is a philosophical battle. Modern day liberals would make the same case as Rachel Maddow, and they just STOP there. We need to take them one step further along the debate. Politicians didn't end racism. The fucking PEOPLE did, black AND white, together. The government enforced Jim Crowe laws! Point this out, point out the hypocrisy. Point out exactly who is responsible for the important societal changes that have been made over time. Brave individuals that's who.

We need to tap into Wayne Dyer's message more in this letter. Read the whole thing here... http://www.ofspirit.com/drwaynedyer1.htm
 
She understands the libertarian position on civil rights etc, she's just using this to spin it racist for her less enlightened viewers and turn him into a bigot which is intellectually dishonest on her part and sleazy as hell. Hang him with his own rope basically. I'm not surprised she'd do this, they all will.
 
She understands the libertarian position on civil rights etc, she's just using this to spin it racist for her less enlightened viewers and turn him into a bigot which is intellectually dishonest on her part and sleazy as hell. Hang him with his own rope basically. I'm not surprised she'd do this, they all will.

Honestly I think Rand did well. He guides the listener along, and forces them to look at his perspective FIRST, before the interviewee has a chance to throw him under the bus. I'm not so sure Maddow is being intellectually dishonest. I think she might actually believe that the sole reason for the integration of blacks & whites in this country, has been because of government force.

I just think there needs to be a little more appeal to emotion when arguing his point. Appeal to the "less enlightened" to win races :D
 
Take a fucking stand for god's sake. These weasely, political answers are what infuriate me about watching Rand Paul. He wants to be everything to everybody. He wants to be an Israel-first, Iran hater to the neocons, he wants to be a liberty candidate to his dad's supporters, he wants to be an independent to the left-wingers, he wants to be a tea-partier to that group.

People respect honesty, whether you agree with them or not. People do no respect wishy-washy, weasely bullshit.
 
She was arguing for more government while Rand and the Liberty movement argues for less - and she tried to snag him.
"Don't you see what a GOOD thing big government is? Don't you see what a TERRIBLE world this would be without government intervention???"
 
definitely an uncomfortable few minutes. BUT I love how he didn't crumble to this butch mad cow's liberal interview tactics to peg him as a racist because he believes business owners should be allowed to conduct business with whoever they want.

he should have said that in this day and age very few walk-in type establishments would last very long if they conducted business like that and that we should let the free market work it out, not the feds.
 
Take a f***** stand for god's sake. These weasely, political answers are what infuriate me about watching Rand Paul. He wants to be everything to everybody. He wants to be an Israel-first, Iran hater to the neocons, he wants to be a liberty candidate to his dad's supporters, he wants to be an independent to the left-wingers, he wants to be a tea-partier to that group.

People respect honesty, whether you agree with them or not. People do no respect wishy-washy, weasely b******.


I made that same argument here months ago. People jumped on me saying "that's how you win elections."
 
I made that same argument here months ago. People jumped on me saying "that's how you win elections."

WTF are you two talking about? Rand does not "mince" words :D... I think he was pretty clear.

He's actually pretty fuckin Zen-like. I like Zen-like Christians... I prefer them over Baptists now that I think of it.
 
Anyone know where there is a lunch counter that doesn't serve left-wing statists? I'd love to eat there and support them.

There is a strong collegiate rivalry near me and I wouldn't be surprised if some business owners discriminated against fans of the rival school. Can anyone blame them??


If maddow is lesbian maybe she is pissed because she's lived through feelings of inadequacy that are festered by the treatment(s) from others that may not even feel she is "lesser" or "bad" just "sorry/sad" for her as someone who is "different" on at least one level (morally).

I don't believe the federal government has the right to make churches and or religious organizations hire or retain gays/lesbian employees just as they would not hire other people that may be discovered to be unrepentant in some other sinful behavior which is contrary to their purposes. (but there are gays/lesbians that do not practice that lifestyle...and color of skin is not a sin)
 
Last edited:
Matt,

I have a great respect for you, but honestly, none of these reasons really excuses Rand, or ANYONE, of being a classic politician and dancing around the question. He should clearly answer the question and set the record straight: "Yes, I support the right of private business owners, under the First Amendment of the Constitution, to decide who they want to serve."

Also, this is not "BS and nonsense". It was a fair and honest question posed by Maddow. It was Rand who refused to go on the record.

We've got a classic politician here, folks. We've come to love Ron Paul precisely because he doesn't do shit like this.
Take a fucking stand for god's sake. These weasely, political answers are what infuriate me about watching Rand Paul. He wants to be everything to everybody. He wants to be an Israel-first, Iran hater to the neocons, he wants to be a liberty candidate to his dad's supporters, he wants to be an independent to the left-wingers, he wants to be a tea-partier to that group.

People respect honesty, whether you agree with them or not. People do no respect wishy-washy, weasely bullshit.


Gentlemen... you should some time take a look at the rhetoric used to get Ron elected in his home district. It might just surprise you :)
 
WTF are you two talking about? Rand does not "mince" words :D... I think he was pretty clear.

He's actually pretty fuckin Zen-like. I like Zen-like Christians... I prefer them over Baptists now that I think of it.

OK, it's even worse then. He's not a politician. He really does want to deny "natural" rights to "terrorists," and he really does lean neocon on foreign policy.
 
Back
Top