PDA

View Full Version : "Individual Rights" - Great New Commentary by Rand Paul Himself! [BG Daily News]




MRoCkEd
06-06-2010, 08:24 AM
http://bgdailynews.com/articles/2010/06/06/opinion/commentary/comm1.txt


Individual rights
I support Civil Rights Act, but 2010 battles are about government overreach in lives
By Rand Paul
Saturday, June 5, 2010 11:50 PM CDT

Kundera writes of a balcony scene in the winter snow of 1948 Prague. Clementis offers his fur cap to the new leader Gottwald. Later Clementis is purged by the Communists and airbrushed from all the photos. All that remains of Clementis is the fur cap on Gottwald’s head.

In the end, all that remains of any of us is our reputation. Mine has been sullied over the past week by lies and innuendo.

I’ve spent the past 14 months traveling around the commonwealth, giving more than 400 speeches, and talking to thousands of Kentuckians.

Throughout these speeches, I never once had reason to discuss the Civil Rights Act of 1964, much less call for the repeal of this settled law 46 years later.

So you can imagine my shock when my wife called the day after the election to tell me that Jack Conway was on MSNBC saying - outright lying - claiming that I had called for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act. Even though these lies were evident by watching the video footage, commentators on MSNBC and elsewhere have been repeating it as fact for more than a week now.

If you watch any of my interviews, you’ll see I never stated that I did not support the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and I certainly never called for its repeal.

I was asked if I supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I stated that “I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.” In response, the interviewer asked me about private domains, and I did what typical candidates don’t - I discussed some philosophical issues with government mandating rules on private businesses. I think the federal government has often gone too far in regulating private citizens and businesses.

I made comparisons to the First Amendment and how it allows people in a free society to say things that may be abhorrent, but that is a challenge of a free society. I was speaking abstractly, not to any piece of legislation, since in general my political views are rooted in the rights of the individual over the state.

The interviewer then brought me back to the literal world of life in 1964, saying, “But it’s different with race, because much of the discrimination based on race was codified into law.” In the video you’ll see me agree with her, ending the discussion by saying, “Exactly, it was institutionalized. And that’s why we had to end all institutional racism and I’m completely in favor of that.”

I think that statement is very clear. This did not stop my opponent and the liberal media from implying that I meant the opposite.

I am unlike many folks who run for office. I am an idealist. When I read history I side with abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglas who fought for 30 years to end slavery and to integrate public transportation in the free North in the 1840s. I see our failure to end slavery for decade after decade as a failure of weak-kneed politicians.

I cheer the abolitionist Lysander Spooner, who argued that slavery was unconstitutional 20 years before the Civil War. I cheer Lerone Bennet when he argues that the right of habeas corpus guaranteed in the Constitution should have derailed slavery long before the Civil War.

Only when the brave idealists, the abolitionists, finally provoked the weak-kneed politicians into action, did the emancipation proclamation come about. Our body politic has enough pragmatists, we need a few idealists.

Segregation ended only after a great and momentous uprising by idealists like Martin Luther King Jr., who provoked weak-kneed politicians to action.

In 2010, there are battles that need to be fought, and they have nothing to do with race or discrimination, but rather the rights of people to be free from a nanny state.

For example, I am opposed to the government telling restaurant owners that they cannot allow smoking in their establishments. I believe we as consumers can choose whether to patronize a smoke-filled restaurant or do business with a smoke-free option.

Think about it - this overreach is now extending to mandates about fat and calorie counts in menus. Do we really need the government managing all of these decisions for us?

My overriding principle is this: I believe in the natural right of all individuals to have their God-given liberty protected. And that’s why I believe the Civil Rights Act was necessary, and that I would have voted for it.

I have long been a fan of what Martin Luther King wrote, “That an unjust law is any code that a numerical majority enforces on a minority but not make binding on itself.”

Now the media is twisting my small government message, making me out to be a crusader for repeal of the Americans for Disabilities Act and The Fair Housing Act. Again, this is patently untrue. I have simply pointed out areas within these broad federal laws that have financially burdened many smaller businesses.

For example, should a small business in a two-story building have to put in a costly elevator, even if it threatens their economic viability? Wouldn’t it be better to allow that business to give a handicapped employee a ground floor office? We need more businesses and jobs, not fewer.

This much is clear: the federal government has overreached in its power grabs. Just look at the national health care schemes, which my opponent supports. Look at the out of control EPA, trying to make law by overreaching regulations that will harm Kentucky coal.

Our country faces a difficult financial future. I see issues not in terms of party but in terms of principles and I will do my very best to deserve the honor that has been bestowed upon me to run for office.

Editor’s note: Rand Paul of Bowling Green is the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate.

Wow!

BamaFanNKy
06-06-2010, 08:37 AM
I feel like Rand is ready to attack. Must read while listening to this song:
YouTube - Led zeppelin - immigrant song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCvMKcNJCAY)

silverhandorder
06-06-2010, 08:39 AM
This was an awesome article.

Cowlesy
06-06-2010, 09:05 AM
How many people in Kentucky know who Milan Kundera is?

Nonetheless, I am glad Rand is in the media firing back.

silverhandorder
06-06-2010, 09:06 AM
How many people in Kentucky know who Milan Kundera is?

Nonetheless, I am glad Rand is in the media firing back.

Not many but I want to learn about it. Anyone knowledgeble wants to save me time? :)

Cowlesy
06-06-2010, 09:09 AM
Moved the philosophy debate here. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=248551)

direct link - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=248551

Jeremy Tyler
06-06-2010, 09:17 AM
Was a great article. Hopefully it reaches a lot of people.

sailingaway
06-06-2010, 09:28 AM
" Our body politic has enough pragmatists, we need a few idealists. "

Amen.

On the other hand, I thought this issue was finally dying down and the media was looking to most as being in the wrong, raising an issue Rand never raised himself. I'm afraid this may start a new round.

BamaFanNKy
06-06-2010, 09:37 AM
" Our body politic has enough pragmatists, we need a few idealists. "

Amen.

On the other hand, I thought this issue was finally dying down and the media was looking to most as being in the wrong, raising an issue Rand never raised himself. I'm afraid this may start a new round.

Think again. This is a great retort in full.

Remember MSNBC is about to go on their smear campaign.

TheDriver
06-06-2010, 09:38 AM
I guess Rand has to try to defend himself, but believe it or not the polling shows Kentuckians don't care about individual rights as much as we would like to think.

From a Jan Ramussen poll:
12* Some people say that there is a natural tension between protecting individual rights and national security. In the United States today, does our legal system worry too much about protecting individual rights, too much about protecting national security, or is the balance about right?

50% Legal system worries too much about protecting individual rights
15% Legal system worries too much about protecting national security
25% Balance is about right
11% Not sure

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/kentucky/toplines/toplines_2010_kentucky_senate_race_january_6_2010

BamaFanNKy
06-06-2010, 09:41 AM
I guess Rand has to try to defend himself, but believe it or not the polling shows Kentuckians don't care about individual rights as much as we would like to think.

From a Jan Ramussen poll:
12* Some people say that there is a natural tension between protecting individual rights and national security. In the United States today, does our legal system worry too much about protecting individual rights, too much about protecting national security, or is the balance about right?

50% Legal system worries too much about protecting individual rights
15% Legal system worries too much about protecting national security
25% Balance is about right
11% Not sure

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/kentucky/toplines/toplines_2010_kentucky_senate_race_january_6_2010

Driver, this poll sounds like people are thinking about Civil rights (aka gays and minorities). Remember most Kentuckians love THEIR individual rights. Ask, "Would you support President Obama in a need to collect all private citizens guns to keep our national security."

See what the results would be.

MRoCkEd
06-06-2010, 09:42 AM
I guess Rand has to try to defend himself, but believe it or not the polling shows Kentuckians don't care about individual rights as much as we would like to think.

From a Jan Ramussen poll:
12* Some people say that there is a natural tension between protecting individual rights and national security. In the United States today, does our legal system worry too much about protecting individual rights, too much about protecting national security, or is the balance about right?

50% Legal system worries too much about protecting individual rights
15% Legal system worries too much about protecting national security
25% Balance is about right
11% Not sure

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/kentucky/toplines/toplines_2010_kentucky_senate_race_january_6_2010
Wow
Shitty question though, making them choose between national security and individual rights.

What if they believe the legal system doesn't worry enough about either? No option for that.

BamaFanNKy
06-06-2010, 09:44 AM
Wow
Shitty question though, making them choose between national security and individual rights.

What if they believe the legal system doesn't worry enough about either? No option for that.

Again, that poll is biased as is my question. Kentuckians by nature are self reliant, no special rights, get off my land you bastards type people.

For the love of god we export bourbon, horse racing, coal, marijuana etc.

TheDriver
06-06-2010, 09:48 AM
Wow
Shitty question though, making them choose between national security and individual rights.

What if they believe the legal system doesn't worry enough about either? No option for that.

I don't think many average voters remember this line from ole Ben:
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

The majority of voters are sheep, they are not educated in politics, they do not understand liberty...

All they want is for someone to tell them everything is going to be all right and I'm going to make sure we fix things. Anything else confuses the masses.:p

sailingaway
06-06-2010, 09:48 AM
I guess Rand has to try to defend himself, but believe it or not the polling shows Kentuckians don't care about individual rights as much as we would like to think.

From a Jan Ramussen poll:
12* Some people say that there is a natural tension between protecting individual rights and national security. In the United States today, does our legal system worry too much about protecting individual rights, too much about protecting national security, or is the balance about right?

50% Legal system worries too much about protecting individual rights
15% Legal system worries too much about protecting national security
25% Balance is about right
11% Not sure

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/kentucky/toplines/toplines_2010_kentucky_senate_race_january_6_2010

Yeah, I saw that and gagged.

BamaFan - I'm on Rand's side. I don't think the letter is bad, I think it is good. I also don't know when it was written just because the paper decided to publish it today. It just gives them an excuse to churn on this non-issue, by 'asking what he meant' when it isn't the focus of the campaign.

Cowlesy
06-06-2010, 09:49 AM
I don't think many average voters remember this line from ole Ben:
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

The majority of voters are sheep, they are not educated in politics, they do not understand liberty...

All they want is for someone to tell them everything is going to be all right and I'm going to make sure we fix things. Anything else confuses the masses.:p

"I Pledge to bring NASCAR in HD to every home across the State."

BamaFanNKy
06-06-2010, 10:01 AM
Yeah, I saw that and gagged.

BamaFan - I'm on Rand's side. I don't think the letter is bad, I think it is good. I also don't know when it was written just because the paper decided to publish it today. It just gives them an excuse to churn on this non-issue, by 'asking what he meant' when it isn't the focus of the campaign.

I don't think the Daily news is like that. They are a right leaning family owned Kentucky newspaper.

BamaFanNKy
06-06-2010, 10:02 AM
"i pledge to bring uk basketball and ufc in hd to every home across the state."

fify

TheDriver
06-06-2010, 10:08 AM
I don't think the Daily news is like that. They are a right leaning family owned Kentucky newspaper.

Do what?

Right leaning my ass!

Try a heavy left-leaning paper. :p

TheDriver
06-06-2010, 10:11 AM
"I Pledge to bring NASCAR in HD to every home across the State."
Yes, pretty much, lol!

I think many voters would like to hear about what is best for the economy.

Conway is going to claim jobs, jobs, jobs and Paul is extreme.


Paul is going to claim Conway is Obama and government is big.

sailingaway
06-06-2010, 10:12 AM
I don't think the Daily news is like that. They are a right leaning family owned Kentucky newspaper.

Stephonofowhosis used a letter Rand wrote to a paper some time ago to open a line of questioning. It could be used in any interview. However, if interviewers are going that route they are going to pull something out of the air, if they don't have that. I mean, that is how we got into the civil rights act, to begin with.

BamaFanNKy
06-06-2010, 10:13 AM
Do what?

Right leaning my ass!

Try a heavy left-leaning paper. :p

You obviously are joking. That is a paper we can count on to support the more conservative candidate. Just like WBKO.

BamaFanNKy
06-06-2010, 10:14 AM
Stephonofowhosis used a letter Rand wrote to a paper some time ago to open a line of questioning. It could be used in any interview. However, if interviewers are going that route they are going to pull something out of the air, if they don't have that. I mean, that is how we got into the civil rights act, to begin with.

Yes, but... the fact is the Daily News is not a lefty paper.

TheDriver
06-06-2010, 10:14 AM
You obviously are joking. That is a paper we can count on to support the more conservative candidate. Just like WBKO.

I'm not joking at all!

Ask around my friend! How long have you lived in the Bowling Green area?

TheDriver
06-06-2010, 10:15 AM
Yes, but... the fact is the Daily News is not a lefty paper.

Just curious...

Have you ever meet any of their tree-hugger reporters? :p


I'll bet gold, coal or bourbon they endorse Conway!

BamaFanNKy
06-06-2010, 10:16 AM
I'm not joking at all!

Ask around my friend! How long have you lived in the Bowling Green area?

Pfffft. Let's put it this way. I know most of the writers. They are Pro-Life pro GOP as it gets. I also, have lived here for almost a decade. You want lefty, go read the Herald Leader.

TheDriver
06-06-2010, 10:17 AM
They are Pro-Life pro GOP as it gets.

I call bullshit, sorry.

BamaFanNKy
06-06-2010, 10:17 AM
Just curious...

Have you ever meet any of their tree-hugger reporters? :p


I'll bet gold, coal or bourbon they endorse Conway!

So you think Pipes Gaines is a tree hugger? Really?

BamaFanNKy
06-06-2010, 10:18 AM
I call bullshit, sorry.

That's fine. You obviously don't read it much.

Their last 4 presidential endorsements:
McCain-2008
Bush- 2004
Bush- 2000
Dole- 1996.

Big lefty paper!

TheDriver
06-06-2010, 10:24 AM
So you think Pipes Gaines is a tree hugger? Really?

He donated to Trey Grayson, that should tell you something. ;)
GAINES, JOHN P
BOWLING GREEN, KY 42102
DAILY NEWS/NEWSPAPER PUBLISHER

GRAYSON, C M 'TREY'
VIA FRIENDS OF TREY GRAYSON
10/21/2009 250.00 10020122131
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/qind/


But, he isn't writing the stories I've read!

BamaFanNKy
06-06-2010, 10:28 AM
He donated to Trey Grayson, that should tell you something. ;)
GAINES, JOHN P
BOWLING GREEN, KY 42102
DAILY NEWS/NEWSPAPER PUBLISHER

GRAYSON, C M 'TREY'
VIA FRIENDS OF TREY GRAYSON
10/21/2009 250.00 10020122131
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/qind/


But, he isn't writing the stories I've read!

Ah yes, our Democrat liberal Sec. of state?!?

I didn't say they weren't neo-cons. I said they weren't liberal.

Plus, we are a college town. Most kids who they hire will have some liberal bias. Most, are not who stay very long.

rprprs
06-06-2010, 10:30 AM
Driver, this poll sounds like people are thinking about Civil rights (aka gays and minorities). Remember most Kentuckians love THEIR individual rights. Ask, "Would you support President Obama in a need to collect all private citizens guns to keep our national security."

See what the results would be.

I pretty much agree. Though the question should be simple enough, I believe that, in the minds of many, it somehow becomes linked to special rights bestowed on or extended to individuals as a member of a group... an ethnic minority, a gay activist, an illegal alien, a terrorist suspect or prisoner at Guantanamo, etc... something that they see foreign to the "common good", or that they, themselves, can't identify with. It's akin to what they fear when they think of an 'activist' Supreme Court Justice ruling in favor of some minority opinion to achieve 'social justice'.

TheDriver
06-06-2010, 10:33 AM
If you focus on how they have reported on Rand Paul since April of 2009 (Tea Party) and after.

They have seemed reluctant to cover him. In fact, I've seen more news stories on WBKO than the local newspaper concerning Paul.

But, obviously, Daily News isn't the C-J or Lexington-Herald but I haven't seen much right-leaning writing on Rand Paul during this race from the writers they pay.

I mean if they were truly right-leaning wouldn't they have addressed private property on this civil rights issue?

sailingaway
06-06-2010, 10:38 AM
If you focus on how they have reported on Rand Paul since April of 2009 (Tea Party) and after.

They have seemed reluctant to cover him. In fact, I've seen more news stories on WBKO than the local newspaper concerning Paul.

But, obviously, Daily News isn't the C-J or Lexington-Herald but I haven't seen much right-leaning writing on Rand Paul during this race from the writers they pay.

I mean if they were truly right-leaning wouldn't they have addressed private property on this civil rights issue?

But if they were Grayson supporters, that makes sense. It still doesn't mean that as between Rand and Conway they support Conway.

TheDriver
06-06-2010, 10:41 AM
But if they were Grayson supporters, that makes sense. It still doesn't mean that as between Rand and Conway they support Conway.

True, I hope Bama is right. I love being wrong when it's best for liberty. :D

BamaFanNKy
06-06-2010, 10:48 AM
If you focus on how they have reported on Rand Paul since April of 2009 (Tea Party) and after.

They have seemed reluctant to cover him. In fact, I've seen more news stories on WBKO than the local newspaper concerning Paul.

But, obviously, Daily News isn't the C-J or Lexington-Herald but I haven't seen much right-leaning writing on Rand Paul during this race from the writers they pay.

I mean if they were truly right-leaning wouldn't they have addressed private property on this civil rights issue?

Well, they were Trey supporters. But, they really didn't rake him over the coals either after Maddow.

Granted we had our own scandal still fresh in most minds:
http://www.bgky.org/citycommission/images/commissioner_hamilton-09.jpg

specsaregood
06-06-2010, 10:49 AM
Driver, this poll sounds like people are thinking about Civil rights (aka gays and minorities).

But the question specifically asks about individual rights in respect to national security.


"In the United States today, does our legal system worry too much about protecting individual rights, too much about protecting national security, or is the balance about right?"


It would be tough for somebody to mistake that for asking about gay/minority civil rights. But even then this is less than surprising. Watch tv for a bit, all the cop shows, and 24. all you ever see is "civil rights" getting in the way of the cops doing their job to bust the bad guy. You never see on those shows, the innocent person being protected because of those civil rights. Hell, we had presidential candidates last go-around saying they want a "jack bauer" torturer to interrogate and get information in the name of national security. So all they ever see is the "bad" side, never the good side. With that in mind, the fact that only 50% think the government worries too much about civil rights is somewhat encouraging. :eek:

TheDriver
06-06-2010, 10:50 AM
Well, they were Trey supporters. But, they really didn't rake him over the coals either after Maddow.

Granted we had our own scandal still fresh in most minds:
http://www.bgky.org/citycommission/images/commissioner_hamilton-09.jpg

Now, that was truly news worthy.

hahahaha

And what man doesn't want to take a little walk in the park with her?

BamaFanNKy
06-06-2010, 10:52 AM
Now, that was truly news worthy.

hahahaha

And what man doesn't want to take a little walk in the park with her?

It's funny how the park was flooded the week later. Like God was washing it .

Tend yer biscuits.
06-06-2010, 10:55 AM
Didn't someone point out awhile ago that the Disabilities Act doesn't require elevators in businesses less than three stories? I feel like it was a link to Daily Kos.

TheDriver
06-06-2010, 11:00 AM
Didn't someone point out awhile ago that the Disabilities Act doesn't require elevators in businesses less than three stories? I feel like it was a link to Daily Kos.

From my understanding, it's 3 stories and higher for new construction but renovation laws can nail 2 story buildings.


http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/05/23/rand-paul-and-the-ada/

specsaregood
06-06-2010, 11:01 AM
Didn't someone point out awhile ago that the Disabilities Act doesn't require elevators in businesses less than three stories? I feel like it was a link to Daily Kos.

I don't know, but I would hardly suggest using the kos as a reliable source of information.

Or was your goal to futher point out the irrationality of federal legislation? So if I have a business that is 3 stories I have to have an elevator because it isn't fair for disabled people to stay on the 1st floor? But if I have a 2-story business all of a sudden it is fair? :confused:

brandon
06-06-2010, 11:04 AM
Good read. My only qualm is his support for the emancipation proclamation. (serious lol) Does he really think that piece of paper meant anything or had any significance? :)

MRoCkEd
06-06-2010, 11:13 AM
Good read. My only qualm is his support for the emancipation proclamation. (serious lol) Does he really think that piece of paper meant anything or had any significance? :)
lol. True, but I see it more like dissing how long it took for the government to recognize slavery as wrong.


Only when the brave idealists, the abolitionists, finally provoked the weak-kneed politicians into action, did the emancipation proclamation come about.

This jives with the true history that Lincoln wasn't willing to fight a war over slavery, an institution he opposed for little more than political cover. He couldn't give a shit about slavery. He wanted his "union."

Matt Collins
06-06-2010, 11:40 AM
Was a great article.
This was an awesome article.It wasn't an article, it was an opinion piece. There is a big difference. :)

Matt Collins
06-06-2010, 11:40 AM
Granted we had our own scandal still fresh in most minds:
http://www.bgky.org/citycommission/images/commissioner_hamilton-09.jpg


Is that the local BG Councilwoman / Commissioner?


.

0zzy
06-06-2010, 12:59 PM
Good read. My only qualm is his support for the emancipation proclamation. (serious lol) Does he really think that piece of paper meant anything or had any significance? :)

according to Booker T Washington it did,


As the great day drew nearer, there was more singing in the slave quarters than usual. It was bolder, had more ring, and lasted later into the night. Most of the verses of the plantation songs had some reference to freedom.... Some man who seemed to be a stranger (a United States officer, I presume) made a little speech and then read a rather long paper -- the Emancipation Proclamation, I think. After the reading we were told that we were all free, and could go when and where we pleased. My mother, who was standing by my side, leaned over and kissed her children, while tears of joy ran down her cheeks. She explained to us what it all meant, that this was the day for which she had been so long praying, but fearing that she would never live to s

sailingaway
06-06-2010, 01:21 PM
Think Progress came out with a response to Rand's LETTER TO THE NEWSPAPER for heaven's sake. I refuse to post a link but they are basically mocking him, it started 'Rand Paul is comparing himself to idealists like MLK...' and I would have had to click to read more.

Frankly, I think he may have written the letter back when it was timely and I am sorry if it opens things again. This never was an issue, to begin with.

0zzy
06-06-2010, 01:30 PM
Think Progress came out with a response to Rand's LETTER TO THE NEWSPAPER for heaven's sake. I refuse to post a link but they are basically mocking him, it started 'Rand Paul is comparing himself to idealists like MLK...' and I would have had to click to read more.

Frankly, I think he may have written the letter back when it was timely and I am sorry if it opens things again. This never was an issue, to begin with.

ya wish it was like the day after rather than 2 weeks :)

Matt Collins
06-06-2010, 02:06 PM
This just made the local press in Nashville:

http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2010/06/06/randinavian-defense/

0zzy
06-06-2010, 03:49 PM
This just made the local press in Nashville:

http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2010/06/06/randinavian-defense/

you love that blog.

Cowlesy
06-06-2010, 03:56 PM
you love that blog.

yes he does lol

RonPaulFanInGA
06-06-2010, 04:00 PM
you love that blog.

More like spams it because Collins is friends with someone of prominence at that blog.

teamrican1
06-06-2010, 04:06 PM
I think it's poorly written and meandering and obviously I object to the sell out ending. But I don't even see why he's talking about this thing at all anymore. The talk the past week has been all about Anchor Babies, which is a HUGE winning issue for him. Why change the topic back to this confusing loser of an issue? It's almost like Jesse Benton is his campaign manager.

Chieftain1776
06-06-2010, 04:11 PM
I think it's poorly written and meandering and obviously object to the sell out ending. But I don't even see why he's talking about this thing at all anymore. The talk the past week has been all about Anchor Babies, which is a HUGE winning issue for him. Why change the topic back to this confusing loser of an issue? It's almost like Jesse Benton is his campaign manager.

^This^ :rolleyes:

RonPaulFanInGA
06-06-2010, 04:26 PM
But I don't even see why he's talking about this thing at all anymore. The talk the past week has been all about Anchor Babies, which is a HUGE winning issue for him. Why change the topic back to this confusing loser of an issue? It's almost like Jesse Benton is his campaign manager.

This I agree with. Everyone else is finally moving on and Rand Paul's campaign wants to stay on this loser issue?

Matt Collins
06-06-2010, 04:31 PM
More like spams it because Collins is friends with someone of prominence at that blog.Actually I am not. I hardly even know the guy who runs it, never met him in person. I don't get any kickbacks, I don't get any bribes, or anything else out of it :rolleyes:


you love that blog.It is the best news source for politics in Tennessee, and Bowling Green is in the same media market as Nashville. That's why it's relevant to Rand.


.

Matt Collins
06-06-2010, 05:12 PM
This I agree with. Everyone else is finally moving on and Rand Paul's campaign wants to stay on this loser issue?
I think they just want to set the record straight and put the issue to rest.

0zzy
06-06-2010, 05:18 PM
I think it's poorly written and meandering and obviously I object to the sell out ending. But I don't even see why he's talking about this thing at all anymore. The talk the past week has been all about Anchor Babies, which is a HUGE winning issue for him. Why change the topic back to this confusing loser of an issue? It's almost like Jesse Benton is his campaign manager.

hahahahaha. ohhh, how bashing Benton makes me laugh :).


I think they just want to set the record straight and put the issue to rest.


it was set, record was straight, and all was at rest. Anchor baby article would of been better.


It is the best news source for politics in Tennessee, and Bowling Green is in the same media market as Nashville. That's why it's relevant to Rand.

I refuse to believe that the blog has any substantial influence on KY politics until I see the numbers. it's a blog, blogblogblog. it might be different if it was the newspaper writing about it but that, that my friend, that is a blog.

low preference guy
06-06-2010, 05:38 PM
I refuse to believe that the blog has any substantial influence on KY politics until I see the numbers. it's a blog, blogblogblog. it might be different if it was the newspaper writing about it but that, that my friend, that is a blog.

yep, that's what i thought too. how many in KY read the blog? 3?

Matt Collins
06-06-2010, 06:02 PM
I refuse to believe that the blog has any substantial influence on KY politics Never said it did. And what numbers to which are you referring? :rolleyes:

that is a blog.Actually it's a blogroll. The two are not one in the same. :)

angelatc
06-06-2010, 07:46 PM
How many people in Kentucky know who Milan Kundera is?

Nonetheless, I am glad Rand is in the media firing back.

Heh. I wonder how many people in the media know who Milan Kundera is.

sailingaway
06-07-2010, 07:20 AM
By the way, redstate has picked this up.

http://www.redstate.com/rand_paul/2010/06/07/individual-rights/

It still seems odd to see redstate supporting Rand.

AlterEgo
06-08-2010, 02:40 PM
where does he draw the line at the authority of the federal government and upon what principles?