Rand Paul in Contentious Interview with Stephanopoulos

[pileonjustice]

All the civil rights act does is protect the racists from themselves, not the people being discriminated. Why in the world would you want to give a racist business your money? The civil rights act hides that information by forcing the business to pretend to be non-discriminatory.

[shaindaman13]

You can't unring a bell and these pointy headed little liberals are smart enough to know that. So they just say whatever they want regardless of truth or tact, put it out there and see how descent people respond. It doesn't matter that it's false or wrong. Even thought Dr. Paul answers his question, he's already been vilified by the statement. The left are disgusting and will lead this country to ruin.

[rgs11]

It's amazing how stupid you liberals really are. Stephanopoulos is no dummy (political strategy anyway) and he knows exactly what he's doing here and he, at least and even if the majority of you leftist idiots dont, knows that this BS is disingenuous to say the least. He also knows that Rand Paul is against racism even while he GS tries to convince his viewers otherwise. Don't you think there might be something wrong with your positions when you can't just tell the truth???

[jimmyjohnsman1]

RAND PAUL IS A FUCKING BADASS

[100CommonCents]

So many people here don't understand where Rand is coming from.

disagree with him all you like. but if you actually think he is a racist, you are an idiot.

when he talks about people's right to sell to whomever they like, its not because he secretly wants to support racists

think of it this way. do people have the right to say 'nigger' in a derogatory way?

yes, even if we don't like it - its free speech

what if i then say, you support that person's right to say that because you're racist?

[worldnewsbbc1]

Rand is a neo-confederate racist. He and his father both use the libertarian ideology to promote a white supremacist agenda. They simply want to roll back the laws that prevent whites from discriminating against blacks. It's not about freedom.

[GregoryKells]

@worldnewsbbc1 bullshit. The Libertarian ideology supports private ownership rights. Private ownership rights allow for a great many liberties, one of which is the right to do business with whomever you choose. Had the single title of the Civil Liberties Act in question not been included, private industry would have desegregated on its own due to the shift in public opinion and desire to compete.

[rgs11]

@worldnewsbbc1 FAIL! You're just a slimy propagandist; try telling the truth, scum...

[gombis666]

Love the rug, Mr Paul. Is that a dead cat?

[TheAskMegChannel]

I'm ashamed this two-bit piece of shit Rand Paul is running in MY state of Kentucky. We need to run his a$s out of this state, on the same burning cross his buddies want to light in mind.

Rand Paul, I will campaign to insure you don't represent MY state in this country in any way. Move to Tennessee, birthplace of the Klan.

[Satori1800]

@TheAskMegChannel Great passionate comment. Hope you succeed :)

jd

[Joe11Blue]

@TheAskMegChannel How fif all of that hate work out for you?

[rbairos1]

Rand Paul's biggest flaw is he won't answer the question directly, and take the disingenuous race-baiters head on.

"Would you have repealed the fair housing act or portions of the civil rights movement?" "Hell yah" should have been his reply.

"Are you a racist". "Hell no".

[sophiemarie49]

It is a shame that Rand Paul can't answer an honest question.

Why can't he understand that people in general are very disturbed by his racist remarks?

[rbairos1]

@sophiemarie49 In answer to your question: You.

You Sophie, are the reason Rand Paul can't answer such questions directly.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge his stance on freedom of association and instead label him a racist, is the reason he cannot be more forthcoming.

Hope thats clear.

[sophiemarie49]

@rbairos1, saying it would be okay for a doctor, pharmacist, ambulance, or hospital to deny service based on color is racist. What else would you call it? Someone's life is hanging in the balance but some 'freedom of association' bullsh*t would be used as the excuse. Freedom of association is what you do in your free time, not on the job.

Hope that's clear enough for you.

[rbairos1]

@sophiemarie49 sophiemarie, recognizing someone's right to be racist (or a flat-earther) or a Christian doesn't make that person a racist (or flat-earther) or Christian.

You still have no right to violently coerce others to value the same things you do, even if it would save someone else's life.

Why don't I break into your home and steal $5 to save an African childs life since you probably spent at least that much on a coffee last week?

This is the part where you obfuscate..

[rbairos1]

@sophiemarie49 "Why can't he understand that people in general are very disturbed by his racist remarks"

A racist remark is a statement inferring racial superiority of one race over another. What exactly was his racist remark? If you cannot come up with one then you should do the honorable thing and retract your libel.

[junglepoppa]

Would someone please, please cut this man's tongue out and shove it up his ass. Thanks.

[schlummieleinchen]

Rand Paul will crawl back under that moist rock from where he emerged. His utopian views, laced in white supremicist teachings are out of place in 21st century America. Sure, he will dazzle a crowd of tea baggers, but the mainstream is left cold by his bizarre looney talk.

By the way, who is older, he or his Dad? They both look like toothless death warmed over. A change of barbers may be in order as well. The poodle look hasn't been popular since ass were in style.

[farkman1]

@schlummieleinchen Nice spamming looser.

[farkman1]

@schlummieleinchen Absolutely everything you just said is wrong.

[mytube373]

I love how Rand pointed out that Byrd filibustered the civil rights act. George got bitch slapped.

[farkman1]

@mytube373 Paul came packing heat this time and georgie should have known it. I don't think george really wanted to go in the direction of maddow or oreilly (lame), oh well, now he's a certified douchebag.

[vv901vv901]

His political standpoints are important and obviously well-intended for the American people and ultimately the whole world, but he digs himself deeper in the mess he’s in every time he tries to answer a simple question. He always responds in a defensive manner as if he’s being attacked by any journalist asking him fair questions. He unjustifiably attacks and interrupts reporters. Any sane person realizes that he’s not a racist, but unlike his father he sadly is an awful conversationalist.

[schlummieleinchen]

Rand Paul seeks to excuse his alarming recent and current views about the Civil Rights Act by digging up the opposition by Democrats from the 1960s? Sorry, Rand, but the way you feel TODAY is obviously more worrisome than how a Democrat felt 45 years ago. Please deal with YOUR extremist views and explain how the rest of America is supposed to accept the fact that a right wing fringe harbors racist feelings?

This is 21st Century America, NOT the Deep South 60s!

[farkman1]

@schlummieleinchen Extremists like Bill Ayers?

[anitas411]

Yep - moonshine.

[nododon]

All Rand Paul is saying is:

Let Stupid People Do Stupid Things ...

.... And Leave Me The Hell Alone

This is wonderful. Look at all the media attention Dr. Paul is getting!

Sensible people will see through the tactic the establishment media is using to attempt to discredit Dr. Paul. The voters of Kentucky are not stupid. They will ask Dr. Paul what exactly he means and he will clarify what the media has done to destroy his credibility.

I LOVE IT!

[ekidon]

Stephanopolus. Dope. Rand paul is super. Small Government. Not socialist goernment. Fear mongering NBC goons.

[scully2222]

how dare george quote rand paul's own words back to him! that's not fair n balanced journalism

[b4ihang]

I think Rand Paul virtually pulled George Snuffleupagus' underwear over his face--he looked like he wanted to cry.

[hawkermustang]

When the leftstream media hate a man I know he will be good for the country. Go Rand Paul!

[madmoddersparkler]

No one has said that he is for repealing the civil rights act. He has been asked if he believes that people should be able to discriminate in thier businesses based on race. He has been asked if people should be able to discriminate in who they rent or sell their homes to based on race. When he has answered in more local media outlets it has been in the affirmative. When he has been asked in the national media he has dodged the question. He should have the courage of his convictions.

[chjoezen]

The answer he should say is yes, privately owned businesses should be able to discriminate against anyone based on their race, creed, , sexual preference, age, gender, craziness, if they took a bath recently, or if they are armed with a gun or not. His argument is that the Federal Powers should not extend to privately owned businesses. There is a lot of good that came from that one title in the Civil Rights Act but it is still unconstitutional.

[scully2222]

@chjoezen thank you supreme court justice chjoezen. unfortunately for you, those whose opinions count, namely the supreme court, ruled to the contrary.

[chjoezen]

@scully2222

Yeah the bill of rights is just a series of opinions that should be pissed on when we disagree with them.

[scully2222]

@chjoezen if the supreme court disagree w/ chjoezen, theyre pissing on the bill of rights lol brilliant logic there

[chjoezen]

Read it for yourself

Amendment V

nor shall private property be taken for public use

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If private business owners are not allowed to discriminate, then doesn't that make their employment open for public use?

[scully2222]

@chjoezen have u ever heard of the commerce clause? it's in the constitution too, in case you didnt know. ;) govt can regulate your property if your property is involve in commerce. ;)

[chjoezen]

@scully2222

The commerce clause does not explicitly state that it can bypass Amendment V or any other amendment to the constitution.

[scully2222]

@chjoezen congress can regulate commerce. thats pretty explicit. lol if your private property is engaged in commerce, it can be regulated. no way around it. congress has a constitutional right to regulate your property if ur engaged in commerce. hence you cant discriminate against blacks if youre running a business, no matter how badly you want to. ;)

[chjoezen]

Where does it say that the commerce clause allows congress to ignore Amendment V? Quote it for me. As I said before, title vii of the Civil Rights Act was great, at least for people of color, gender and whatever. It was great for Capitalists as well since it allowed for discrimination against Communists. (Sort of a punishment to them for advocating labor and Civil Rights) I don't want to discriminate against blacks and I wouldn't. But congress is technically breaking the law.

[chjoezen]

I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing though. This may be one instance where congress was right to usurp the bill of rights. Although I frown at the rather ironic communist party discrimination, a lot of good came from it. We don't have to be like christian fundamentalists and think that the bill of rights is a flawless piece of parchment set in stone.

[chjoezen]

I was actually jerking your chain there. The constitution was devised and carefully thought out by some of the most brilliant men of our time. Even if the Civil Rights Act had a positive effect on our country (which I believe it did), the Constitution was meant to protect the rights of everyone, not just any certain group. You keep watching your liberal and conservative pundits on the corporately own media though. I believe in Ron and Rand and what they stand for which is the Constitution.

[whiff1962]

@chjoezen I couldn't have articulated that any clearer. BTW, the short, Greek guy was pwned!

[b4ihang]

@scully2222 A government doesn't grant an individual rights, people are born with rights. The government can call it whatever they want, it doesn't make it true.

[scully2222]

@madmoddersparkler he wants to be elected is his primary conviction. hence answering neither yes or no

[sodie77]

Rand just tore him a new one!

[tweb57]

Rand Paul emasculated George Stephanopoulos on national TV.  I am a little impressed. It was a clear one sided knockout on Stephanopoulos's home court. Paul was polite, calm and in total control of the situation. G.S. is no push over either. Paul ripped him a new one. Watch out for this guy, he's smart, well spoken and can express an idea (one that's more than just a political slogan) in a clear logical manner. He's got a new fan in Pennsylvania and I'll be watching.

[collinsullivan]

Rand Paul is using a pretty typical politician trick throughout this entire segment. He's answering his own questions poised to himself. At no point did George Stephanopoulos ask Rand if he was in favor of repealing these acts. At no point did Rachel Madow ask this question either in her interview. George simply asked if Rand Paul, a man who may soon be in a position to shape future government policies, stands behind his previous statements and we the viewers did not get an answer.

[collinsullivan]

Presumably because the answer to any question of the sort, whether on the Americans with disabilities act, the Civil Rights Act, or the Fair Housing Act, the answers are all the same. While Rand Paul may not make an effort to repeal these acts, he's not in favor of them or what they stand for. These are not opinions that win elections and so the only option is to evade accordingly and throw blame at the "loony liberals".

[whiff1962]

@collinsullivan The answers are based on the same source: the constitution. I am not saying that the CRA wasn't a good, however, as far as I read constitutionality, it wasn't an unalloyed good. The State must often make concessions, as it did with the CRA. These concessions are one of the means that the State exacts its loyalties, and remains in power. However, it can be a slippery slope, just like convincing its citizens to pay for a very expensive war! LIbertarianism fares well for all.

[b4ihang]

@collinsullivan You got it wrong. Why would anyone answer trick questions?

[collinsullivan]

@b4ihang Please do explain in detail how asking a person if they still stand behind previous public statements qualifies as a trick question. As far as I can tell, the only trick played was when we didn't get an answer to any question asked, instead Rand decided to answer his own question that no one but himself had brought up.

[b4ihang]

@collinsullivan Because that is not what is at issue here. There is no rule that says a person must answer dumb questions because if they don't they are not honest. Only a fool answers a loaded question like that. The question itself may not be loaded, but the framework of the argument around the question sure as hell is!

[whiff1962]

@collinsullivan I can't imagine how easy it would be for a Libertarian to cleave to the Constitution in helping to shape the laws. It certainly won't be a hit with many of the bloated colleagues to his left...and right.

[farkman1]

@collinsullivan He said NO, he wouldn't more then once on this clip and also on maddow. How deaf to reality to you have to be to not hear that, or not to see what's actually going on? Indoctrination doesn't justify ignorance or selective hearing.

[collinsullivan]

@farkman1 The word "no" is not even in the transcript of this video. That fact alone is pretty damning to your argument but lets move on. You throw around the words ignorance and selective hearing but I suggest you look into your selective alternate reality. Read this slowly, AT NO POINT DID GEORGE ASK RAND IF HE WAS IN FAVOR OF REPEALING THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT. The only questions Rand answered in this video were his own questions that NO ONE ASKED.

[farkman1]

@collinsullivan Don't you understand what a red herring is?

[collinsullivan]

@farkman1 Whether he stands by his previous statements and writings (which did not mention repeal) can ONLY be defined as a separate question from whether or not he would like to repeal any act. Yet when asked all he would say is he does not want to repeal the civil rights act. NO ONE ASKED HIM THAT. I really can't spell this out for you any clearer or more indisputably. Rand Paul did not answer a single question given to him in this interview clip.

[farkman1]

@collinsullivan Maybe it's that you don't seem to understand what a libertarian is or stands for. Rand believes that it's up to "WE the people" (just as the constitution) and not "ME the leader" to make these kinds of decisions. Therefore george and rachel aren't asking relevent questions, they're just trying to see how many fools take the bait. It's called a red herring, and you fell for it, but the question is, are you going to continue to buy it?

[collinsullivan]

@farkman1 Here's what I understand. I have presented you with only facts about this interview. When I said there was not a single question presented to Rand that was answered, that is a fact. The only question Rand answered was his own question about repeal which was brought up by him and only him. This is an interview trick to avoid answering. Now instead of factually debunking anything I have to say, instead what you are doing is changing the subject, diverting attention and damage control.

[farkman1]

@collinsullivanAnd i'll say it again, it's a red herring question to make you think it's valid. You don't really have to be fooled by it do you?

[collinsullivan]

@farkman1If you want to admit that Rand did not answer one question given to him in this interview then I can debate you on the separate question of why he did not answer any question given to him.

[farkman1]

@collinsullivan Your right, he didn't fall for it, but i wouldn't really expect anything less from him. Why would anyone answer biased questions in the first place? Any media from the left or rights going to be biased, so you might as well be gettting your news from a clown show. Just because were so used to getting partial information, doesn't make it right.

[BadHabit202]

@collinsullivan

@WilliamHCarney

It makes me laugh to watch this.

John King on CNN asked 'hypothetical' questions to Rand Paul like 'would you have voted for the Civil Rights act" Rand Paul said 'yes' to this theoretical (imagined scenario) question.

Next segment: John King praise Chris Byrd for being one of the 'all time great' speakers and a Congressional 'lion'.........even though this guy 'filibustered' the Civil Rights Act!

THE LEFT IS A JOKE!

[collinsullivan]

@BadHabit202 You have done the unthinkable. You have proven the hypocrisy and faulty ideology of OUR GREAT LEADER OF THE LEFT AND REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL THINGS LIBERAL JOHN KING. Surely now the only thing to do is sit back and watch the domino effect as the left topples down. I hope you're happy. Our great leader and representative will be missed but what was his name again........John King?

[BadHabit202]

@collinsullivan John King is your 'typical' newscaster. Implying that the news is typically bias against conservatives.

You completely missed the 'implication'......which is proved......considering I never said John King was your great leader.

[TheAskMegChannel]

@collinsullivan Not answering is an answer, too. In the Paul family's mindset.

[WSWarthog]

@collinsullivan

Stephanopoulos: "So you believe if someone doesn't wanna sell their house to someone else based on the color of their skin, that's ok?"

Rand Paul: "What I say is I'm against...repealing the fair housing act, I've never campaigned on that. It's not part of our platform."

Sounds like a straight answer to me.

[blogegog]

Anyone willing to stand up to liberal media thugs gets my vote.

[laplante31]

@blogegog Amen brotha!!!

[lemurianchick]

"Democrat" talking points...caught that? Hey, that sounds familiar! Reminds me of El Douchebo! Actually, I agree with Paul about this. A person owning PERSONAL property (like, say, a landlord) has the right to decide who s/he want to rent to, as in his example of noisy children.

[laplante31]

@lemurianchick yep just like affirmative action crap it all garbage government should butt the hell out!

[gringott12]

Yes, anyone who is not a Democrat is a racist! And all people from Kentucky are racists! Ha ah ahahahahha. Little Georgie Democrat Bitch.

[bobby200606]

Good Job Rachel Maddow.....expose all these racist for who they are!!!!

Tea Bagging Rednecks!!!!

[lemurianchick]

@bobby200606 : Racist? The Fair Housing Act covers more than people of color and discrimination. If you own an apartment building and live in it yourself, how do you feel about being forced to rent to a woman with kids instead of a retiree or whatever? I think a person who owns property has the right to decide who lives in that property.

[WANGZOOMZIP]

Stephanopoulos.... what a douche bag.

winds of change are a coming... The elitist democrats are shaking in their expensive shoes.

[p3snooper]

Sigh...... Another forked-tongue, two-faced, double-speak politician.

[djussila]

Rand needs to be straight and to the point, this made him look weak.

[LiberaLib]

@djussila he can't be, because his statement is obvious. yes, he thought private companies should be allowed to segregate, and yes, he thought home sellers should be allowed to discriminate. it's there, crystal clear, in his own legislation.

prediction: rand paul is going to step down and the republicans are going to put up another candidate, or kentucky is going to have a democratic senator. this guy is done. you can't advocate segregation and expect to get into the senate.

[MutantKush]

The media is scared of Rand! hahahaha