|
Post by agito on May 20, 2010 11:42:36 GMT -6
I'm nowhere near the tea party on the political end of the spectrum, but I was really dissappointed in Rachel Maddow's interview with Rand Paul last night.
Rand Paul is a relative newcomer, most of the nation isn't familiar with him, so you would think you would get a rundown of his entire platform.
What's it called when you search through an entire platform, pick out an obsequious quote from history and ignore all the other issues.
a hit piece.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 20, 2010 17:23:46 GMT -6
I agree. I watched the 1st part of it, and then turned it off. It was worthless. All Maddow tried to do was embarrass Paul on one particular point. Maddow needs to remove her Obamaphilic blinders, and at least consider how the Obama-Dodd-Geithner-Bernanke consortium is continuing to rob taxpayers to bail out big banks. Rand Paul would certainly serve as a counterweight against our current ponzified bankrotocracy. It's that aspect of Paul that she should have been focusing on. Olbermann & Maddow both have a real bad habit of creating racial issues wherever possible, resulting in their under-coverage of issues much more threatening and damaging.
|
|
|
Post by waltc on May 20, 2010 23:16:50 GMT -6
Thomas Frank nailed this so called class of "Liberals" years ago.
They are nothing but tools of the rich and have much more in common with say Geithner or Rockefeller than they do with say a rail worker at Union Pacific. Their job is to throw out all sorts of inflammatory social wedge issues that serve to split and put the populace at each others throat while allowing the rich to screw us, nothing more.
They are no friends of the people. Personally I'd love to see someone confront Maddow and ask her why she won't touch economic issues or the rampant corruption/takeover of government by the FIRE industries.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 21, 2010 3:43:31 GMT -6
Rachel was right back at it again. She spent at least 20 minutes of her 60-minute show trying to take down Rand Paul---again.
Drop it, Rachel. Paul's made an excellent argument about why we do allow free speech and we do allow people with disagreeable and even abhorrent ideas to express those views publicly without fear of censorship or reprisal.
Paul's argument is that an individual business should be able to control who comes in its doors, as those "doors" were bought and paid for by that businessman. Regardless of whether you agree that a business should be allowed this freedom, you have to admit that this is a pretty good argument.
In comparison, we are supposed to have the right to determine who we allow in our own house. Should that right be curtailed, if we are "discriminating" on the basis of race, sexual orientation....or even previous criminal activity?
After Rachel had gone after Paul for at least a total of 40 minutes over 2 consecutive evenings, my view actually changed into agreeing with Rand Paul.
Like Paul, I wouldn't do business or purchase goods/services from any organization that discriminates of the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, etc.
But at the same time, at least in most cases, I'd defend any private individual's right to do so in his own establishment.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on May 21, 2010 7:27:12 GMT -6
Maybe the real dividing line should be proprietors vs. corporations. Since corps are chartered by the various states, they should conform to rules laid on govt entities.
GB
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 21, 2010 12:17:20 GMT -6
Maybe the real dividing line should be proprietors vs. corporations. Since corps are chartered by the various states, they should conform to rules laid on govt entities. Exactly. Paul's main point was that any government entity; or entity receiving any government funds, support, backstopping; or with any governmental ties whatsoever--should be forbidden from discrimination under the Civil Rights Act. As Paul pointed out, this applies to most private entities. If they receive a government loan, tax exemption, etc., then they're covered by the Civil Rights Act.
|
|
|
Post by waltc on May 21, 2010 20:49:26 GMT -6
ULC wrote: As Paul pointed out, this applies to most private entities. If they receive a government loan, tax exemption, etc., then they're covered by the Civil Rights Act.
Yep, take any private company that gets a contract with the DoD has to obey all Federal employment and Civil Rights laws plus having to obey all affirmative action employment quotas as well.
It's not a good day when you get a visit from the EEOC telling you, you need 'x' number of minorities working for your company or else you get sued big time.
As a result many companies who can do DoD work(at tier 3 or lower) won't touch it with a 10 ft pole and often causes primary contractors to sole source certain items which causes insane price increases as a result.
|
|