Rand Paul the gift that keeps on giving.."Obama's criticism of BP 'un-American'"
Options
stringer bell
Members Posts: 26,212 ✭✭✭✭✭
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hcWDDpnvzUBPOjd-av800lfTR8AQD9FRA2TO4
...............Rand Paul: Obama's criticism of BP 'un-American'
By MICHELE SALCEDO (AP) – 1 hour ago
WASHINGTON — Taking another unconventional stand, Kentucky's Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul criticized President Barack Obama's handling of the Gulf oil spill Friday as putting "his boot heel on the throat of BP" and "really un-American."
Paul's defense of the oil company came during an interview as he tried to explain his controversial take on civil rights law, an issue that has overtaken his campaign since his victory in Tuesday's GOP primary.
"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,'" Paul said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America." "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."
Other Republicans have criticized the administration's handling of the oil spill, but few have been so vocal in defending BP, the company responsible for the deep well and offshore rig that exploded last month, killing 11 workers.
Paul appeared two days after a landslide primary victory over the Republican establishment's candidate, Trey Grayson. He has been scrambling to explain remarks suggesting businesses be allowed to deny service to minorities without fear of federal interference, even though he says he personally abhors discrimination. On Friday he said he wouldn't seek to repeal the Civil Rights Act or Fair Housing Act, which prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of race, among other areas.
On the oil spill, Paul, a libertarian and tea party favorite, said he had heard nothing from BP indicating it wouldn't pay for the spill that threatens devastating environmental damage along the Gulf of Mexico coast.
"And I think it's part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it's always got to be somebody's fault instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen," Paul said.
The senate candidate referred to a Kentucky coal mine accident that killed two men, saying he had met with the families and he admired the coal miners' courage.
"We had a mining accident that was very tragic. ... Then we come in and it's always someone's fault. Maybe sometimes accidents happen," he said.
An eye doctor and political novice, Paul defeated a rival recruited by Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell. He immediately invited Obama, whose approval ratings in Kentucky are fairly low, to campaign for the state's Democrats.
Paul, 47, credited tea party activists with powering him to victory on Tuesday. The first opinion poll since then showed him with a wide lead over his Democratic rival, Jack Conway.
Paul blamed the 24-hour news cycle for the controversy over his civil rights law comments, a point his father, Rep. Ron Paul, -Tex., endorsed.
In a sometimes testy exchange with reporters in the Capitol on Thursday, the elder Paul said liberals were treating his son unfairly and reporters were hoping to stop his political momentum with "gotcha" questions based on out-of-context remarks.
"Making something out of nothing is just not fair," he said.
Comments
-
Not feeling it.
-
Hes a ? clown i was watching this ? yesterday talking about civil rights.. and how private places of business shouldnt have to follow the edict handed down by hte passing of the bill
-
like father like son
-
playmaker88 wrote: »Hes a ? clown i was watching this ? yesterday talking about civil rights.. and how private places of business shouldnt have to follow the edict handed down by hte passing of the bill
So you believe in forced association. -
bornnraisedoffCMR wrote: »So you believe in forced association.
Man you know that forced association refers to someone in order to belong to a group or organization has to follow their beliefs. Such as a muslim going to a christian school, would have to follow the christian faith in order to attend that school. It has nothing to do with segregation, because a human is a human no matter the ethnicity and if you do not associate with the human species you do not have to, and do not have to do business at all. -
getchamoneyrigh wrote: »Man you know that forced association refers to someone in order to belong to a group or organization has to follow their beliefs. Such as a muslim going to a christian school, would have to follow the christian faith in order to attend that school. It has nothing to do with segregation, because a human is a human no matter the ethnicity and if you do not associate with the human species you do not have to, and do not have to do business at all.
I agree with that, and that is a social ill that we faced, no only in America but in countries and communities all over the world....segregation and skin color prejudice has existed or still exists. Rand Paul was saying that he is for most of the Civil Rights Act, like the parts that repeal separate but equal laws in government buildings, institutions, or businesses receiving public funds, but he is against the provision in the CRA require private businesses to not discriminate. It's a private business, the government should not be telling a business how to operate, period. Is it bad? ? yeah. My mother told me stories about how she used to have to walk miles to the "black" store when there was another store right around the corner but it was white only, thats some ? up ? and I cant even imagine having to live like that. My problem with that specific provision is it set the precedent of government infringing on individual and business rights. Racism, is a social problem that still exists today, but the government cannot solve social problems, because the only way government tries to solve problems is through the barrel of a gun, and that does nothing but instigate the problem.
My thing is, what makes you think they if that provision wasn't included in the CRA, that we would still have rampant segregated businesses today? Those businesses that decided to serve whites only would have eventually suffered, they would sit there and watch as their competitors who served all people prospered, and expanded. The racist businesses would have eventually failed! In the meantime, us blacks could have focused on building up our own communities, our own businesses, banks, serving our own people instead of "integrating" with whitey. We could have organized our own defense force instead of rioting and burning down our own neighborhoods. Still to this day we run to the white man for crumbs. I think would be much more better off without that provision because we would have had to look to ourselves. Why would we want to give our business and our money to people that hate us? I rather the upfront racism rather than the hidden racism than we had today because at least you know who you enemies are, ya feel? Also, what they dont talk about is the thousands of businesses that voluntarily integrated once they saw how it was bad for business. Because believe it or not, there were white people back then to who boycotted businesses that were segregated....if we could have built up a movement like that, overtime we probably would have done even better than what the CRA did, but without the government coercion.
But I know me and you are like night and day when it comes to government intervention in business so I don't expect you to agree. I just wanted to point out that just because you are opposed to that specific provision in the CRA, doesn't not mean you are pro-racism, pro-segregation, etc. I dont know much about Rand Paul, but I am big supporter of his father and I know if he is anything like his father he doesn't have a racist bone his body.
It's hard for me to take this position because to take this position as a supporter of liberty, that means you have to be in favor of liberty for everybody, including racists. -
I agree with most you have said, and also agree that Rand Paul has decent intentions as far as the freedoms of the country. However, some things just need to be enforced on moral grounds, this is one of them. Your grandmother told you those stories and they are true, the civil rights act passed and it was the law of the land. Because of government infringment the social problem has improved dramtically. It took the US gov't to long but the fact is that because of that law their are now more equal rights and people have changed their beliefs.
Affect is a powerful thing that is hard to change. If someone is racist than it is hard for them not to be, however the strongest way to change affect is laws. It has been proven.
And changing of the law and bringing it back to Jim Crow days (of course to a lesser extent as because of civil rights less people would be inclined to actually have "white only" signs on their windows because racist has declined). However, it would only create more racism and segration and not improve the problem. Because the change in the law to allow the private companies to do this, a new law, would actually give people a greater ability to be racist and it be normal. Again change the affect in a negative way.
