Rand Paul

[Kulindahr]

No, no, no, Ambrocious. Freedom of Speech simply doesn't apply to businesses.

In certain ways, yes: by accepting employment, you have contracted to limit your exercise of your right, though in many if not most cases in a fashion not specified anywhere.

Think about it: at my workplace, can I tell a customer to how horrible our food is?

Sure, if the customer is visiting from another country and won't ever be back.

Can I tell my coworker I wanna suck his dick?

Only on break.

Can I tell someone the financial details of my company? Can I be just plain rude to all my customers? Of course not. What I say at work can, and will, get me fired. There is no freedom of speech in the marketplace.

(BTW, if you think you can say anything you damn well please on JUB's board....think again.)

I contend that, for businesses to claim the same right that they (necessarily) deny to others, is hypocritical.

Well, it's more than that. They can claim free speech only because of two things: imprecision in the law, and stupidity in the law (i.e. calling a corporation a person). That was why the Citizens United decision was both a victory and madness: it freed up the speech of people banded together for speech, but also freed up the speech of special interests.

What we need is corporate designations like web addresses -- .inc, .nfp, .pac, etc. Then the courts could rule that .inc corporations lie outside the protected zone, since they aren't organized for the purpose of citizens banding together for a common cause.

 

[Ambrocious]

You owe Johann an apology. He never said or implied that Paul is a racist.

Johann did reference a policy position of Paul's, which is that Paul believes businesses have a constitutional right to discriminate based on race. That is his position, and he's clear about it.

If you think that makes him a racist you should take it up with him rather than lying about Johann.

Your right to a part and Johan, I am sorry about my misunderstanding there. I wasn't however calling HIM a racist, I was misunderstood at first what he was saying thinking that he was using the discrimination card in the same hand as the racist card. I was thinking that he was basically calling Rand Paul racist based loosely on his explanation of discrimination. I was pointing out how people were using ANYTHING as an excuse to call someone racist and how childlike it was. So Johann, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding and I already reported with the appropriate response afterward on page 2.


I do understand that when you join a business or a job, you have rules that you have to follow which you must obey, including acting, feeling, thinking, and even communicating in ways that your work place requires. This does not mean a total freedom of speech is removed. It means that wherever you work, you must follow the rules of the work place, it's all about being professional.

In my understanding of things, people who have been taught to hate freedom of speech have never really been free or they once have had their will broken to the point where submission and mental enslavement feels good (political BDSM). I think it is vitally important to cherish your freedom of speech while you still can because soon enough, it seems likely that it will be stripped down. While the people scream to have freedom of speech taken away because it is hateful and bad, they at the same time do not realize that this means ALL speech can be found guilty at ANY time and can be punishable (if enforced) by imprisonment or in extreme cases in other countries who lack this freedom, DEATH. Cherish your freedom, not hate it.

 

[MercuryJones]

I contend that, for businesses to claim the same right that they (necessarily) deny to others, is hypocritical.

I must respectfully disagree. Businesses don't really deny employees free speech. They set the limits on speech while on the business dime. Similarly, I may set limits on your speech in my home - if don't like what you say while you are my guest I can kick you out. Would that mean govt. can deny my free speech?

Of course, though I disagree on this matter, I understand the Civil Rights Act to be well established, constitutionally sound law.

 

[Ambrocious]

An update on the supposed "discrimination" against Rand Paul simply shows the fraud of mainstream media. Time after time, it is proven that unless your a "thumbs up" government incumbent, you WILL be smeared with lies and disinformation to rally the masses of people who TRUST mainstream media to either hate or love something. Here is the truth that was withheld from you all and Rand Paul has the right to sue for slander.

Producer Rob Dew of Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.com has given me express permission to post full articles from these two websites. Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.com are sister websites both owned by Alex Jones.

Corporate Media Uses Fraudulent MSNBC Transcript to Portray Rand Paul as a Racist​

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
May 26, 2010
____________



In order to smear and discredit Rand Paul and prevent him from going to the Senate, MSNBC has modified a transcript of his appearance on the Rachel Maddow Show. Paul appeared on the show after he won the primary in Kentucky.

The modified transcript reads as follows:

Maddow: Do you think that a private business has the right to say, “We don’t serve black people”?

Paul: Yes. I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form…

As Before It’s News notes, Paul’s “yes” was “some sort of insignificant vocalization to maintain the flow of conversation that was already made difficult by the satellite delay.”


Here is a YouTube video of the exchange cued up the exact moment followed by the entire video:
RAND PAUL VS RACHEL MADDOW Pt.1



Here is the uncorrected transcript on the MSNBC website and a screen capture of the specific quote taken out of context.

MSNBC’s fraudulent transcript is now making the rounds in the corporate media — the usual suspects: the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC News, the Associated Press, and many others — in order to portray Rand Paul as a racist.

Only an idiot — or a disingenuous Democrat determined to shoot down Paul at all cost — would come away with the impression that Paul is a closet member of the Ku Klux Klan after watching the exchange with Maddow.

The establishment is petrified of Rand Paul and his defense of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It much prefers constitutional morons like House Minority Leader John Boehner who cannot tell the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Expect the corporate media to continue its dishonest attempt to slam Paul as the November election approaches. Other Tea Party inspired candidates will be characterized as racists and fringe nutters.







.

 

[MercuryJones]

Oh good lord. Paul Rand believes businesses should have the legal right to discriminate based on race or whatever criteria they like. He doesn't deny it. That's his policy position.

Saying he's not a racist or a kkk member is beside the point. The issue is his stance on policy, in particular the Civil Rights Act.

(And I don't think he's particularly racist. Just ignorant.)

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh good lord. Paul Rand believes businesses should have the legal right to discriminate based on race or whatever criteria they like. He doesn't deny it. That's his policy position.

Saying he's not a racist or a kkk member is beside the point. The issue is his stance on policy, in particular the Civil Rights Act.

(And I don't think he's particularly racist. Just ignorant.)

The ignorance lies with those who aren't thinking about the definition of private property. If, as Paul and many others hold, having private property means being able to do with it as you please, then Rand Paul is right, and the Civil Rights Act is wrong -- one can't say "unconstitutional", because the Constitution nowhere defines private property -- though the writings of the Framers tend to support Paul's definition.

We have obviously changed our definition over the course of the last half century. Unfortunately, no one has bothered to actually reframe the definition. In my thread about a solution to discrimination, I offer an approach that would take care not only of the discrimination issue, but of environmental laws as well.

I'd love to see someone confront Mr. Rand Paul with it, because it happens to be a rather common libertarian position -- besides actually having firm rational ground, which his does not.

 

[Ambrocious]

I don't think just one man can get anything done that can change the whole world for the better anymore, no matter how good or bad they are, I am doubtful he can do any good even if he makes it all the way. I'd like to think that because Ron Paul is his dad that Rand is overall a good guy...but sadly this isn't the case in many other cases so it's possible that Rand isn't all that great.

What can make a real change? If all free human beings on this planet stand up against the mega corporations who have hijacked nearly ALL aspects of life on planet earth by the consolidation of wealth and power. The more wealth, the more power that is readily available to them. What is worth more though: Being on the winning side of the future even if it is tyrannical OR being on the right side of history standing together as human beings, no matter what race we belong to so we can dethrone the corporate wanna be "gods"? We all have the responsibility to learn the truth and defend it or we can deny it and cowardly side with whichever side appears to be "popular" and winning.

Your choice: freedom or enslavement. Don't be afraid to investigate some of the stuff I say; no one is above your shoulder ready to laugh because you actually went to see if it was true.

 

[MercuryJones]

Well here's an enjoyable tidbit:

Kentucky Republican senatorial candidate Rand Paul wrote in a newspaper four years ago that he would have pardoned himself if he had been the state's scandal-plagued governor at the time.

Paul's opinion piece in the now-defunct Kentucky Post appeared shortly before a judge dismissed accusations that then-Gov. Ernie Fletcher, a Republican, had violated state hiring laws. The same judge had previously ruled that Fletcher could not be tried while in office.

***

Weighing in on Fletcher's predicament, Paul wrote, "What would I do if I were governor? First, I'd have pardoned myself and everyone included nearly a year ago. Without a pardon the case goes on and on."

More at http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2010/06/23/1494709/rand-paul-on-ky-govs-troubles.html

How awesome of Rand to share his philosophy on dealing with scandal, in advance of an election.

 

[MercuryJones]

And this week Rand Paul refused to answer, when asked, if he's (in essence) a creationist.

 

[palemale]

And this week Rand Paul refused to answer, when asked, if he's (in essence) a creationist.

He's trying to corner the superstitious vote.

 

[MercuryJones]

He's trying to corner the superstitious vote.

He pretty much has to.

What's so amusing is that Rand Paul did the teabagger talk of being outspoken and not part of politics as usual, but when it comes down to it he's too much of a pussy to actually say where stands.

 

[laikaNYC]

The most recent polling has Paul ahead 49% to the Democrats 41%

and Jones, it's not nice to disparage your opponents with name calling.

 

[Kulindahr]

And this week Rand Paul refused to answer, when asked, if he's (in essence) a creationist.

It depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is.


BTW, shouldn't your caption be "Messenger of the Neighbor Gods"?

 

[MercuryJones]

BTW, shouldn't your caption be "Messenger of the Neighbor Gods"?

For you, Kulindahr, anything.