The gutless Paul is running away and hiding from his Libertarian views. it is not 'gotch' journalism to try to get someone to say what their views are; in this case to answer the question whether he believes the government has a right to force a restaurant owner to serve Mexicans or blacks or asians or whatever. He clearly believes the government should not have that power but he is too cowardly to say so.

Joe

You are right - Rand Paul is gutless. His views were front and Center on the Rachel Maddow show.

He already said "so" on Rachel Maddow and now he's trying to back peddle. Intelligent people aren't buying his "back peddle".

Rand Paul "breaks his silence" with another teabagger - big whoppie doo there. It's like Sarah Palin on Fox - even soft ball questions to their ilk are "gotcha questions". Hell Beck asked Sarah Palin who her favorite Founding Father was - she stutters, looks for the answer in the palm of her hand and when she couldn't find them written there, she says all of them and then Beck prompts her with "how about George Washington" and she jumps all over the helpful hint.

Rachel gave Rand Paul umpteen dozen times to rectify his statement - he just kept digging that racist hole. The Democrats only have to keep playing that interview and the interview with the radio dude who outed him on the Disabled Veterans bill - put a fork in Rand Paul - his political career is cooked for the rest of Americans. We don't tolerate bigots and racist. The Teabagger Party is a racist/bigoted cartoon of a party - nothing more.

Who is advising this guy? Did NOBODY say to him "Hey, Rand...maybe if you are trying to walk back your comments on allowing store owners to discriminate on the basis of race and prove to everyone that you're not a racist...perhaps LIMBAUGH isn't your best option for a return to interviewing."

Debeki... I think you're wrong about Rand Paul being a racist. nothing he said indicated he's a racist and we should take his word at it unless he proves otherwise. The issue is that he thinks the government does not have the authority to require a restaurant to serve all people regardless of race.... it's about his nutty Libertarian political philosophy of limited (i.e. handcuffed) government, not Paul being a racist.

the man is clearly a member in the kkk .nice coment Cjn and truth and honesty you repubs just spew what you want and blame msnbc. try fox that has no credibility they are not a news organization they are properganda station for the repubs,completely unreliable info

"gotcha" journalism? she asked a question and you answered....If you cant take the heat run to rush he wont ask you such "loaded" questions

In the 18 plus minuet interview Rand had with Ms Maddow he answered no to the question "should lunch counters be segregated" several times but he was clearly tired and Rachel kept pounding away until she got the 15 sec sound bite she wanted. To the larger question at hand, 50 people apply for one job and only one gets it, do the other 49 have a basis for a discrimination lawsuit? A country club opens up it's membership to all races, can I still sue for discrimination because I can't afford to join?

Rand Paul is the TRUE face of the Tea Party… Racist, Bigoted Homophobe…

I’m looking forward to what will eventually come out in the open, once his closet doors are opened… And they will be opened…

The righties are hateful, bible thumping, Un-American hypocrites…

And he watches Fox News, you forgot that one :)

Don't dissent from the prevailing wisdom of the media and the ruling party's if you do you will be ridiculed and considered crazy. I don't agree with discrimination however if someone didn't want to serve people named Carlos at a restaraunt I would rather know about it and leave rather than drink pee in my lemonade. So government intervention is not always a perfect solution. Sadly civil rights violations occur and the big all knowing all seeing government cannot fix it, if they could it would be fixed by now we have had plenty of time. Why don't the media thinkers ridicule the government lovers who have had decades to make their vision work and have only sunk the country into debt? It seems crazy to trust them if you ask me.

Carlos, are you insulting Bush I and II and Reagan? All ran huge deficits. As a matter of fact, during their presidencies, Reagan tripled the national debt and Bush II doubled it. I doubt either one would consider themselves "government lovers... who have only sunk the country into debt."

Carlos, I think the media has done a fairly decent job of covering the failures of the Great Society approach to dealing with our social ills. Other government functions like environmental protection and financial regulation are obviously necessary but very difficult to do them without harming the economy.... we need to do these things better and smarter... the meat axe approach favored by conservatives would result in degradation and chaos.

If Rand and Sarah Palin put both their brains together they would still be just half prepared for an intelligent discussion.

To the larger question at hand, 50 people apply for one job and only one gets it, do the other 49 have a basis for a discrimination lawsuit?

Depends on why the 49 didn't get the job. Or why the 50th did.

"priority to people who are going to give a fair story and not practice a 'gotcha journalism'

The question wasn't the problem....it was his answer! Typical clueless politician. He should stick to his day job cause he sure sucks at politics.

joe motto reagan took 350 billion out of ss, bush sr.took 300 billon, little georgeee boy took 800 billion.that what these great leaders did to this country,and that only the tip of the iceburg

heck ron ... jr. left an iou..

BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]

...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]

The guttless people are the responses looking for loopholes in the Constitution expecting the money to never run out. Well you are right if you just keep printing you never run out until you have no money left to buy paper and ink.

The Supreme Court is supposed to be the Watch Dog protecting the Constitutiion, but has made a bad swis cheese of it. Socialism is here in the guise of liberalism.

History of Lennin, Castro, Chaves. And now shed a tear saddly for our once great America.

I think both party's have demonstrated their incompetence, arrogance and fiscal irresponsibility so yes I blame all of the leaders from both party's who have neglected their responsibility for the last 70 or so years, republican or democrat. The problem with the partisan followers is they justify the incompetence of their guys by pointing out the incompetence of the other guys. I don't trust any professional politician or anyone else who holds power and neither should you.

paul is an ignorant ass !!! I would like to send this bastard back 60 years and let the little F_CKER live the life of a BLACK MAN IN THE SEGREGATED SOUTH !!!

This freak sullied himself. You would think Papa would give him some pointers. Hilarious.

Actually, Paul is absolutely correct! What he needs to do is offer a better explanation of his viewpoint because most people aren't smart enough to understand constitutional principles. Paul understands the concept of federalism and the limits the Constitution places on the federal government. The civil rights act, which, by the way, was enacted because of Republican support and was opposed mostly by the dems, does more than just say there is equality of rights. As Paul was pointing out, with the passage of that act, and a heck of a lot of other legislation, Congress and everyone who agrees with the passage of the act, has said that: "Yep, the federal government has the right to come into every business in America and tell them how to run their business". The problem, which we are seeing today, is that once people agree that the government has the power, then they will exercise it. Most people seem to not mind the exercise of the power as long as it is exercised the way they want. As we are seeing with this current administration, the Constitution means nothing to them, they are going to do whatever they damn well please. Because they are exercising power in a way that people disagree with, they are angry. If only the Constitution had been the primary focus from the beginning, we wouldn't be in this situation as there would be no power to do what is being done. That is why conservatives are bringing the Constitution back into the equation. Without it, it becomes a matter of whoever is in control doing whatever they want. That is clearly not what the founders intended. They knew that all this federal power would lead to the destruction of the Union, and they were right.

That is why conservatives are bringing the Constitution back into the equation.

That's funny. Conservatives treat the Constitution the same way they treat the bible. They pick out the sections that they can manipulate to support their opinions, and then ignore the rest.

He was an eye doctor.

cjn, find new rthetoric I could have written your spiel. Both party's suck.

What a Surprise! Another Republican that only speaks with Rush Limaugh and Fox News.

Yawn.

His specialty must be myopia.

All you liberal punks are just scared that your welfare is going to get cut and you will actually have to work for a change.

In his defense, Rand Paul opposes the Iraq war.

What I find amusing is that his foreign policy views on war, torture, and American exceptionalism are completely opposite those of the teabaggers - apparently neither mainstream republicans or wingnuts understood what they were getting when they voted for Paul.

I think that's the real reason Paul has been quiet lately - the Republican party asked him to shut up, because he's off-message from their viewpoint.

Rid,

So all liberals are on welfare? that i find funny, I for one get up and go to work every day and have been doing so for the past 27 years straight.

Oops i guess that blows a hole in your mental picture of America.

bse -- you too? And here I thought I was the only liberal who worked for a living!

What on earth are you smoking?

Truth, what facts in this article did you feel were distorterd?

truth and honesty - Perhaps you need to change your tag line. I saw the Rachel Maddow interview with Rand Paul and she was more than fair with him and gave him ample time to explain his positions. The problem was that Rand Paul's positions are way out of the main stream and possibly unconsitutional. It's not Ms. Maddow's fault that Paul put his foot in his mouth. Perhaps his ideas are just plain nutty.

So, Truth and Honesty, why do go to the MSNBC website and post comments to the stories? Why not stay where you believe the truth is being told and comment on those websites? Just want to rant...is that why you are here? Be truthful and Honest now.

To Truth and Honesty: It's obvious to me that you didn't hear the Madow interview. Had you listened to it in it's entirety you would never have written such garbage. You fit the mold of many baggers...."don't bother me with the facts because they won't change my mind".

Get a life!

Simple... MSNBC demands that RACE is ultimately and always the cause of anything or anyone who disagrees with liberal, left-wing policies... and they love to subliminally continue the ongoing divide between the races.... all the while trying to generate more and more hatred.... and at the same time, casually denying any such involvement.

America can actually disagree with the current disgusting political environment.... and should not be labeled as a racist for their discontent.... but, not as far as the hate-monger MSNBC is concerned.

No wonder America is so digusted with their distored lies.... simply look at their pitiful television ratings.... that pretty well sums up the quality and quantity of their viewing audience.... they could all switch to C-Span if they legitimately want to see factual government at work.

Truth, all they did was relate Paul's position on discrimination, which he says should be allowed.

How do you spin that into "disgusting hate" and "obsession" and distorting facts?

And you still didn't answer the initial question. What exactly in this article was distorted. Pick a sentence.

truth and honesty, you're evading the issue. the issue is not about race. not one bit. it's about the reach of government. in this case the question is whether the government has the authority to force a restaurant owner to serve Mexicans or blacks or asians or whites or whatevers. Rand thinks not, but he is too cowardly to come out and say so... he and the other tea partiers are trying to run away from the issue by attempting to make it about race. but it's not. it's about government authority, and Paul and the rest of the tea party are way out of the mainstream.

Who on earth watches Rachel Maddow and considers that a good interview???

Go RAND PAUL!!

Rand Paul believing racial discrimination should be allowed is MSNBC's fault! Rand Paul's racist beliefs is MSNBC's causing racial divide?

Rand Paul's admission to wanting to do away with the Civil Rights Act is gothca journalism?

Truth and Honesty, you should change your name to Lost and Fact-less.

vote... I don't watch Rachel very often (too partisan), but did watch the Rand Paul interview...she showed him to be a paper tiger. all talk, no guts. he can rant and rave about how horrible our government is and blame democrats for every ill in this world, but he can not stand up and state his political philosophy. he's probably smart enough to know that he's a wing nut and that if people really knew his beliefs, they would reject him. For the rest of the campaign he'll seek out soft interviews from people who will not ask any questions that don't lead to an answer of blaming the democrats for everything bad.

Sorry, I can't stomach more than 1 second of that poor thing. MSNBC would be better off canceling that show. Not reporting the news at all. Pure entertainment on cable in order to continue blaming someone else for the current problems we have today.

no one at msnbc distorted anything he said, i was watching the show and he said exactly what was reported. he's as bad as palin,thinks she can get on the public stage and say anything she wants.then she gets mad when people comment on it .if you can't take it stay out of the public forum.

Vote, did you see the interview you are so roundly dismissing? What did you think was unprofessional or "gotcha" journalism?

Seemed pretty straight forward to me.

I don't personally care much for Rand Paul but I don't think he is being cowardly. He has said numerous times that he would NEVER repeal the Civil Rights Act. I think his purpose of picking and choosing forums to speak is a way of TRYING to get people to focus on issues at hand like government overspending. He is for less government involvement in everyday private business and our personal daily lives. Like him or not that is all he is trying to get across. The media is determined to focus on this race issue even though it isn't an issue. Politicians constantly choose what and who they want to do interviews with. Many times they are scripted (example Obama and his teleprompter and Bush picking what questions were at his press conferences which I'm sure Obama also does). If Rand wants to stick with networks and forums that he knows he can get the message he wants to get across then why wouldn't he do that? I personally think it will only hurt him in the long run since most people watch mainstream media and he would could more exposure but if that is what he chooses to do then that is his choice. I live in KY and am tired of hearing about the racial stuff. I have heard him speak numerous times where I live and race has never once come up. He also didn't do the blame game as much as others and when he did he blamed Bush and the previous administration just as much as this one...he did tend to focus more on the solutions than his opponent Conway who constantly plays the blame game. As a Kentuckian I want to know what both canditates are going to do for our state and for our country, not discuss something that will never be an issue.....I still haven't decided who I'm voting on come Nov since really it seems that both aren't cut out for the job....but so far Conway hasn't shown anything to brag about (he would rather bash Rand than talk about what he stands for) at least Rand has made it known that his main goal is to cut spending, improve private sector employment, and not raise taxes so if he is elected hopefully he will stick to his views on those things if he happens to get elected....

"...when he suggested that government should not require private businesses to serve minorities."

This statement in itself is a total MSNBC distortion of the truth.... MSNBC typically uses these subliminal verbs in their articles which have a powerful effect in their wording....

Mr. Paul never once said, "I suggest that government not require private businesses to serve minorities".... THESE ARE MSNBC's words.... and that's the real truth that MSNBC will NOT admit.

Mr. Paul did state that direct, uncontrolled government regulation on private business does hinder business, in general.... both in growth and employment.

MSNBC directly twisted that to mean that Rand Paul is a racist who would not allow minorities to be seated in a restaurant.... and he emphatically and repeately stated that he was completely against such civil rights discrimination such as that and stated he would have even voted IN FAVOR of the 1964 Civil Rights legislation if he had been in Congress at that time.

MSNBC is this country's fact-distorting HATE-MONGER !!!

Muphese8, Paul says he is for "less government" but he, along with all the other tea partiers, refuses to say how much less. that's why the question about whether the government has the authority to prohibit restaurant owners from discriminating on the basis of race is so important. saying you're for "less government" is about as meaningful as saying you're for "better weather". Maddow's question was not about race, it was about political philosophy, and Paul ran away and hid from it like so many other politicians who avoid answering questions if they're afraid the truth might offend a potential voter. If I was a Kentuckian I'd keep pressing him to explain what he believes and how his beliefs would play out in reality. The voters deserve that, not vague promises and empty slogans. We've been letting politicians get away with that for years. Time to stop. Make them explain themselves.

Joe, I agree, and like I said he isn't my favorite but neither is Conway so yet again it will be choosing between the less of two evils. In Paul's speeches that I've listened to when visiting our town (he has been here numerous times while Conway has yet to visit), he actually did go into more detail on his beliefs and solutions and when he comes back hopefully we can get him to talk about that more. He is against agriculture subsitities which many Kentuckians don't like obviously....(am not educated enough on the subject to have an opinion on that one). It is just hard for me to wrap my head around trillion of dollars of debt when I live by a strick budget and don't expect anything from anyone else but myself. I'm young and still have a lot to learn but I worked in social services for some time and saw generation after generation depend on the government. I believe in some government involvement and regulations but it needs to be refined and encourage those to do better for themselves. Anywho, hopefully I can find out more about how both canditates feel about this sort of thing by Nov but I just don't think I can vote for anyone who wants even more government programs without fixing the ones we have in place first which unfortunately sounds a lot like what Conway stands for....again it will be picking between the lesser of the two evils.

muphse8, good luck with that. I'm in Florida and am happy about the opportunity to vote for Charlie Crist, who broke ranks with the tea party/sarah palin wing of the republicans and is running as an independent.

Truthless -\

what's the problem - if no one watches msnbc what's the beef?

and no one had to distort Rands words - afterall, they were his...

muhpse8, one more thing... don't judge Conway by what Paul and his supporters say about him any more than you'd judge Paul by what Conway and his supporters say about him. One thing you can be absolutely certain about is that whatever a politician says about his or her opponent is not the whole truth. check out Conway's web site and Paul's web site. read their own statements about what they'd do and treat anything either one of them says about their opponent with a grain of salt. be suspicious of what anyone with a political agenda has to say.

msnbc did not put the words in Rands mouth - he spewed them himself!

MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?

PAUL: Yes.

Well, OK, strictly speaking, he did NOT actually say the words. He just answered the question in the affirmative.

truth....if anyone is distorting comments, you are. Rand Paul did indeed suggest that it is inappropriate for the government to dictate to private businesses who they should serve. That is EXACTLY what Paul suggested. I watched the entire interview. Paul was also allowed to articulate on his answer and he said that he wasn't suggesting that.....

1. The government itself should be allowed to discriminate

2. That he himself didn't advocate discrimination and thought that doing so would be a poor business decision.

He just didn't believe that government should have the ability to tell private business who they had to service.

If MSNBC were going to distort Paul's view or comments, he wouldn't have been given so much airtime to try and climb out of the hole he dug.

mota

muphse8, good luck with that. I'm in Florida and am happy about the opportunity to vote for Charlie Crist, who broke ranks with the tea party/sarah palin wing of the republicans and is running as an independent.

hey joe as an independent i'll be more than happy to cancel out your vote for crist. first of all he is not nor ever was an independent! his only concern is his political future the same as specter.

here's what Paul and his followers fail to wrap their heads around.

Paul is saying business being private have the right to exclude who they want of the public they depend on for their lively hood. But that is wrong and discrimination.

But when is it their right to determine who the public is ? if you are open to the public then you are open to all of the public.

if said businesses wanted to exclude some from their clientele ? they should truly become private... by having clientele by invitation only or by charging a yearly due as some businesses do.

Paul doesn't have a clue.

don't like it ? don't do business.

the only time a business has the right to refuse service ? is when it puts the business or clients at harm. aka no shoes , no shirt no service. there are certain rules by which business runs to keep it's self safe... like only 2 kids in at a time. The ejection of drunks.

but discrimination by ethnicity or appearance ? lame. ignorant .

peggy, your vote does not cancel my vote. you're free to vote for the tea party pandering Rubio, with his empty rhetoric and history of lavish spending and high living at others' expense. My vote for Crist will count. Crist is a pragmatist who will get things done, and we need to get things done. Rubio's just a mouthpiece for the far right who will obstruct progress in order to advance his narrow ideology.

My favorite was an interview with a woman at a local tea party event a couple of months back. Turns out she has 10 kids and is on Medicaid, yet is all for cutting spending ... that benefits everyone else. She truly could not see the hypocrisy because according to her "every child is a blessing".

Case in point, New Jersey. Yes we voted for Governor Chris Christie to come in and cut government spending and now everyone is yelling because he's cutting things people need and want.

Exactly. And that is what Americans deserve too. When you vote for someone who says they are going to stop spending, you'd better look around to see if you're using any of those services.

'Angry' Americans are going to get exactly what they deserve. Those who rely on the programs and skipped out on the vote will too.

Rand Paul looks a fool, because he's defending Libertarian ideals against a background of Reality. Good ideals -> lousy policies.

My favorite was an interview with a woman at a local tea party event a couple of months back. Turns out she has 10 kids and is on Medicaid, yet is all for cutting spending ... that benefits everyone else.

yea right, looks like a left loon infiltrated. get real, and you actually bought it? was her name peggy? i'm sure you remember, "now that obama has been elected i won't have to worry about paying my mortgage or putting gas in my car".

An "empty suit" underneath an "empty head" equipped with a mouth-full of BS.

You guys must be talking about Obama!!!

ummmm....this article is about Rand Paul...isn't it?

Jesse, you're on "ignore" now. Your worthless, juvenile comments aren't worth the space they take up.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!

He's quiet because balancing the budget and cutting taxes is an oxymoron. .....and him being a moron sort of work hand in hand.

Hampster Oslumbo is the totalitarian leader. Rand Paul believes in freedom. Get it right pinhead. Everything you wrote above is all lies and either you know it or you are stupid. Probably both.

Hey 123 Rand the man Paul is nothing more than a liar! Paulie old boy wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the ass!

every, you are too funny. The only commies around are in the Democrat-Communist Party. You progressive fools dislike downsizing the bloated federal government. Probably because you fleabaggers are living off the rest of us that work.

You're not doing your "cause" any good by waging personal attacks on other posters, Jesse. It just proves you're not smart enough to present a decent argument about the issue at hand, which is Rand Paul's cowardly blaming of the press for his own idiotic statements.

FACT: In communist countries the media is controlled by the politicians.

FACT: Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, and Michele Bachmann regularly attempt to control the media.

LOGICAL CONCLUSION: Paul, Palin, and Bachmann are closet commies and they don't even know it!

LOGICAL CONCLUSION #2: A poster called "Jesse" supports the above politicians therefore JESSE is also a COMMIE :)

Too funny every1. You are the communist. Hell, you adore one, Barack Hussein Obama.

Jesse - You are too much of a bottom feeder to waste any more time on. I have you on "ignore" and hopefully everyone else who posts will do the same, and you'll just be a dim memory, like the tea-partiers.

We can clear this up right now.

If Jesse can give us one redeeming quality of Paul, Bachmann or Palin we can close the case.

Jesse, anything.....are they pragmatic, intelligent, good policy, what?

The tea partiers will be out in force in November. Then maybe you will be required to get a job. And stop your fleabagging ways. Patriots will never go away. Learn to deal with it!

Don't throw - I guess Jesse's the loser. Maybe he doesn't know what "redeeming" means.

Don't throw stones...They are all against Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Hussein Obama. Paul is a Dr., Bachmann is in the U.S. House of Representatives, and Palin is the former governor of Alaska and McCain's VP pick.

This story is about Rand Paul, not Palin or Bachmann. I have you on ignore now every1. You are bottom feeding.

if you people will notice there are very few teabaggers that what to talk about little rand how come when the repubs try to stir some bullcrap there all over that teabaggers are nothing more than kkk goodbye rand nice not toknow you

To Jesse and any others who subscribe to the fairy tale that in November the baggers are going to take over I've got a surprise for you. The people who sway elections to in either conservative or progressive directions are the voters in the middle and if you think they're going to swallow the extremist views you embrace you'd do well to take a reality pill or two.

I sincerely hope you keep pushing the Republicans further and further to your positions because come November the Dems are going to find themselves in much better shape then many are currently forecasting. The centrists will make a huge difference.

Exactly - it's a slippery way of playing the "victim" of his own words.

Jack, think you could join the Congressional Black Caucus?

Jesse, in case you don't know in 1992 Congress added to the civil rights act the Americans With Disabilities laws, which covers Americans of ALL colors, white black, red, yellow, purple, green and any other color that might cross your mind. And to others backing Paul's stance, for God's sake please don't parse words. If you bothered to listen to the Madow interview you would know that despite the many opportunities she gave Paul to restate his position regarding the ability of private parties to discriminate he refused to do so. I believe that he personally is in favor of the legislation but he painted himself into the corner that all libertarians and other anti-"big"-government people do by railing against it in any form. Truth is that there many legitimate and necessary roles for government. For instance, I wonder what these folks are saying now about the role government has or should have been be playing in the gulf spill. Hands off? Not enough hands on deck? Leave it up to BP? Leave it up to the State of Louisiana? Organize a citizen posse to clean it up? C'mon.

Jesse, in case you don't know in 1992 Congress added to the civil rights act the Americans With Disabilities laws, which covers Americans of ALL colors, white black, red, yellow, purple, green and any other color that might cross your mind.

He can't hear you. He put everyone on ignore. Now the only ones he'll have to argue with are the voices in his head.

Rand Paul is not affiliated with the KKK. Now Democrat Robert Byrd is another story.

Rand Paul IS the KKK. Kuckoo Knuckle-dragging Klan.

every1, you are too funny. And stupid!

If the tea baggers are not racists, they why do they get behind these born again Klansmen?

?????????????????????????????????

Why can't white girls be in the black Miss America pagent.

You mean those conservatives that have controlled Congress and spending since 2007??? Yea, those idiot conservatives. The sure ruin everything...

Well when you have this much devistation it takes a while to fix up. How can you expect anyone to clean up a mess that took decades to create? Besides you will also see I was careful not to use the words Democrats or Republicans in my post.

Vote Dem Out - Let's get a few things straight. If you recall....George Bush was President way back in 2007 when you say the Democrats "controlled" Congress and Spending. Didn't President Bush veto anything that the so called majority was able to get through Congress and wasn't it also so that the Democrats only controlled the Senate by 1 or 2 votes?? What kind of control do you think the Democrats actually had to get anything through Congress?? Your kind loves to say that the Democrats controlled Congress back in 2007 but that's not the true facts of the situation.

Vote Dem Out!!

First of all, the Republicans had total control of the House and Senate from 1995-2006. And from 2001-2008 it was also a Republican administration. The Democrats were in the Minority. And from 2006-2008 the democrats were Filibustered at every turn by the Republicans. So to blame this on the Democrats and Barrack Obama is ridiculous....

Yea we should let the Republicans back in because they didn't quite manage to sell away the entire country or decimate the entire environment the first time. I'm just wondering how many more disasters we need to see before these clueless wonders realize their ideology is fundamentally flawed and doesn't work.

I do too. To hell with being politically correct. Enough is enough. Either call it a duck or get out of Washington.

Time to be honest within our own country and quit lying and ignoring the facts.

bill, you clearly did not watch the Maddow interview... he twisted himself into knots to avoid answering the question about his views of the appropriate reach of government... a true gutless and devious politician. he believes that a restaurant owner should be able to refuse to serve people based on their race because the government does not have the legitimate authority to force him to do so. that's the issue and all the tea partiers are dancing around it.

I agree. That way we can avoid electing them in the first place.

Kinda like how Obama twists himself into knots everytime he's asked a question too? And Gibbs? Oh, they don't answer questions these days...my bad.

vote... you're using the "jimmy did it first" defense to run away from the issue.

All politians are the same period!!! Rand, Bush, Pelosi, Obama, Gibbs, all of them. All they care about is their public perception. They all try and get out of tough questions. It would be nice if someone would say what they stood for and stick to it regardless of popular opinion but that will never happen because those people would never be elected. It's all a silly game for our votes.

Vote Dem Out!!

Obviously, you weren't watching when Obama took on the entire Republican camp in their own backyard... They had questions drawn up earlier and Obama knew nothing about the questions. The end result the Republicans looked stupid and the President of the United States took them all on in their backyard....

Obama would never stumble like that....

and they get away with it because most voters will vote for their party no matter what they don't say. the vast majority of Kentucky republicans are going to vote for Paul and they don't care if he's a libertarian and don't really care about finding out. they'll vote against whatever democrat is running because they think all democrats are alike and all democrats think exactly the way Rush Limaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Pallin describes it. Same for democrats... all republicans are slaves to big business who want to shove their churchiness down your throat. It's all crap, of course, but it benefits the incumbents so they encourage it.

according to the libertarian viewpoint, if I want to open up a 1200 acre pig farm next to your house, the government does not have the authority to stop me. libertarianism is a concept that belongs in policital science class, not government.

affair girl ----Well - why don't all you libertarians just start a commune of your own? And you all can "work it out" when certain people in your group dislike being "excluded" from your "private businesses"? And you guys can shun all the drug addicts and criminals you want, within the walls of your own compound, that is.

Libertarians want smaller less intrusive government not ......NO government. Certainly some regulation is required for certain things.

girl, Libertarians do not believe the government should be able to control community development via zoning laws. they don't believe the government should inspect food. I'm not sure of all the things libertarians believe the government should not do because they are generally too gutless to come out and say what they believe in, other than sweeping generalities that make nice sound bites.

It sounds like Libertarian and Anarchist have a lot in common. Just as it wouldn't be pleasant to live in a town without a sheriff, it's not pleasant to live in a nation without regulation. Morality is bad for business. If Libertarians can't see that now, then they haven't been paying attention. Or more accurately they have been ignoring reality.

Affairgirl, do you realize what you're advocating? Do you really want private businesses to have the right to refuse service to anyone? My friend, you are truly scary and my fervent wish is for you to live in a country where this type of discrimination takes place. I guarantee that you will think differently if you're the one being shut out.

youre wrong, people do self regulate and work things out. houston has very few zoning laws and busin4ess is booming there as a result compared to some northern towns like cinnciati ohio that has so many zoning laws no one will attempt to open a business there.

as far as a business's that dont want to serve me, you or anyone else......you must be crazy. if someone has the cash they will not be denied service for long.......some one will be tickled pink to serve them. your afraid of what may happen but if anything like you think would occur it would be small scale and not the norm of big business. the public could control it and the media would be all over it. so again the government has no place in it.......

girl...Alan Greenspan admitted that his biggest error regarding the recent financial collapse and near catastrophe was his assumption that business would self regulate, acting in their own self interest to avoid taking stupid risks.... turns out he was wrong about that.. the individuals involved put their companies at risk because they were blinded by their own greed. self interest does not work if people are so delusional they do not see the problems. there are many factors contributing to Houson's economic success over Cincinatti, as well as reasons Houston can get by with fewer zoning laws (assuming your claim is correct). for one Houston is benefitting hugely from oil income while Cincinatti sits in the rust belt and declines. you simply have no evidence to support your claim that Houston's current success is due to lax zoning. Zoning laws and the planning process result in more liveable communities. the government's authority to guide development is supported by most people, excepting those who benefit financially from unrestrained urban sprawl such as developers and builders. Likewise government regulation that reduces air pollution is essential to protect the health of children. Where regulation is burdensome, it should be made more efficient. A Libertarian approach to sports would result in chaos on the field with few rules and lax enforcement. It would be boring. The biggest cheaters would always win.

Libertarianism is an interesting concept, to be sure, but it's an anachronism from the 19th century which, along with socialism, has no place in modern governance.

You know somehow people think that if they repeat themselves over and over they can change the truth. Businesses were allowed to self regulate. THEY FAILED! Liberals aren't saying you're wrong, reality is. It's time we start to realize that, while stupid might be cute, it has no place running a country.

And yet we have so much of that in office???? Go figure

Kinda like saying you're for world peace. Now, how are you going to achieve that? Which programs are you going to cut and who are you going to screw in the process?

have one question for all you folks calling Rand Paul a racist...do you know who Dr. Walter Williams is?

also do you know who jerimiah wright is? of course he would never be considered a racist! actually i would consider him a hate filled racist!

or maybe I should say "clannish" instead of "cultish"? (snicker snicker)

yybba, you diminish Paul's statements by alluding to them as "the real world of politics".