A class act on the Democratic ticket in Kentucky! Who would have thunk! Mary McConnell’s seat is going blue!

Ahhh. Rand Paul to kick around. What fun!

O sez “We will not rest until the well is shut.” I thought he was sleeping soundly at night.

I think all the Press Hacks who defended Rand also deserve going after. They say Rand was not ready for Prime Time, he misspoke, etc.
Rand knew exactly what part of the Civil Rights act he would not vote for. For a guy who misspoke he seems very well informed.
Every Press Hack who defended Rand is Racist.

Will this bring up the latest McAyn staff shake up again? all to the good.

Rand Paul’s “Hamlet moment,” has sealed his fate. A simple “no” would have sufficed in response to RM’s question concerning C-RL.

Self interest is a funny thing! No one wants help when they do not need it, and “self reliance” is a fragile thing, given the complexities of life. However when help is needed and self interest dictates help is required, the real world kicks in and sophomoric analytical endeavors die in the face of death and destruction. Got that BP and RP?

BP won’t provide respirators for cleanup workers & fires workers who provide their own respirators: democracynow.

A No answer would have been taken as a blanket acceptance of racism. Rand was trying to appear nuanced…but he’s still a racist.

Napolitano won’t do anything about cleanup workers’ health. DN guest met with her. Sounds just like Whitman. Just more shit that O has normalized.

Morning BT, Firepups:

Anyone see the spokesman from BP on CNN this morning? (Sorry, I don’t know his name.) The dude seemed like he’s been gobbling down benzodiazepines by the handful. One zoned out dude…

Why does BP like being sued by sick workers? Would they like Michael Moore to make a film and take some of those sick workers to Cuba for treatment they won’t get in America?
BP is acting like America won’t Nationalize its oil wells on public lands. If the oil spill is still happening in November anything is possible.

DN guest wants O to man-up. Bwahahahahaha.

Where the hell is obama’s OSHA with a big thick ticket book writing up infractions.

Can it be that citizen/person BP does want to follow the little people laws.

BP has greater chance of being sued if workers wear protective gear because that would indicate there might be a problem. It BP won’t allow them to wear protective gear, BP can argue in court that there was no danger.

See my 9.

Mornin’, BT, pups

So are the libertarians of the country climbing on Paul’s bandwagon? Seems he’d be their knight in shining armour.

Ok twisted but good reason the thing is that plan works if the spill is fixed quick. BP never planned for a long term spill or thought to change its plans.
2 weeks? and workers are getting sick now BP instead of avoiding liability is now proving it.
I bet BP thinks they are the smartest guys in the room. ( falls down laughing)

He fired his campaign manager ha ha! The campaign manager cant make the candidate shut up when he is making a complete fool of himself on national TV. The candidate has to be able to answer an easy question.

I think it is actually more nuanced than that (and Rand Paul gives me the creeps). He may not be personally racist as much as simply uncaring about others, whether they’re minorities or disabled or unemployed or any of the others who are sometimes less fortunate that our laws are designed to protect. He doesn’t want gubmint to interfere to protect anyone.

Of course he is perfectly happy to have gubmint interfere in womens’ bodies. Apparently that is “different” somehow.

I heard that last week. I’m surprised BP hasn’t caught on to the PR nightmare that brings.

How quaint of you to think BP gives a ff about PR nightmares. They’ll just produce slick ads which they’ll blanket the corp media with & regular Americans will not hear about the workers.

Oh, and I think OSHA is under DoLabor, headed by Solis, who was supposed to be one of the good guys. Guess she’s all cozied down in the veal pen.

Good question the Paulites here in the diaries have been in denial that he said that, Rachel put words in his mouth etc.
Nationwide I think Rand has cost the GOP suburban voters Racism is unfashionable.
Rand is Tea Bagger and Anti Immigrant now he ties those groups in openly with the racists.
Just wait till they find out he’s anti Gay Marriage and pro forcing women who have been raped to have the kid.

Ugh. Mary Landrieu on WJ. Drill, baby, drill.

The campaign manager cant make the candidate shut up when he is making a complete fool of himself on national TV.

There’s a 60-70 percent chance Rand could be made to shut up by using the “top kill” procedure. Just pump in thousands of gallons of mud until he shuts up, and then seal off his mouth with concrete.

By the way, this just might work on Sarah Palin, John Boehner (etal), too.

Hey…I’m just here to help.

That is too funny!

The Paulites/libertarians on the threads are in denial about reality. They think Mill’s utopian philosophy is the be all to end all. Not that Mill doesn’t have some nice ideas but reality has a knack of getting in the way of utopian paradises.

BP attorneys will drag any and all litigation out for generations. The great great grandchildren of today’s victims might receive some compensation. By then the Gulf coast may be one of the Unnatural Wonders of the world bringing in tourists from around the world to bear witness to the avarice and corruption of a nation.

LOL!

I disagree.

As someone whom registered a Libertarian at the age of 20 when moving to California. I can say Rand is a flawed messenger. And in addition I refute your assertion Libertarians engage in groupthink to the extent members of the current political duopoly(whom rarely differ on issues of war, and money) do.

Couple generations of BP lawyers will make fortunes keeping victims from getting any of BP’s money. What money the victims’ descendants get will pale in comparison to the compensation paid to BP’s lawyers.

First, let’s distinguish between libertarians in general and those we see on these threads, the ones I’m talking about.

Disagree all you like. I stand by what I stated.

He may not be personally racist as much as simply uncaring about others, whether they’re minorities or disabled or unemployed or any of the others who are sometimes less fortunate that our laws are designed to protect. He doesn’t want gubmint to interfere to protect anyone.

My bold he is racist to assume the White guy is always the best candidate for the job. Turning down Dark People with money who want to buy stuff though because you don’t like them that at the very least is anti free market, I would like the Paulites here to answer that one.

In addition to the money they will receive in insurance.

BP will NOT lose money.

Privatize PROFIT Socialize LOSS: Kleptocracy 101

They are openly displaying the Cognitive Dissonance the GOPers have yet to display. There maybe some hope for them.
But given the 8 years of Bush and no cognitive dissonance I’m starting to wonder if the 20% have souls, Empathy for others etc.

Well I wont claim to know the panoply of libertarian coments at this site, but I can assure this one does not

“think Mill’s utopian philosophy is the be all to end all.”-SD

Fine prove it the next time a troll pops up defending Rand. If the Libs want an alliance with the Left they need to work for it and police their own.

Off to swim in the great capitalist cesspool.

US KIA Irak: 4,400

US KIA Afghanistan: 1,085

Iraki and Afghan casualties: estimates vary to over 1.5M

US MBS 2010: 18,104 and counting

Be good to yourselves, and all other living things.

Namaste

It may be discovered that “Top Kill” has wide applicability.

One wonders when a certain 1% may come to rue such violent terminology?

The mods at FDL could have helped whoever came up with that name.

What happens when all of “their” “Serious Stuff” becomes a sick joke and a laughingstock?

(Bring on the clowns, Barack, you and Bee Pee need some bright and shiny diversions.)

Don’t you all find Obama’s scripted anger/rants to be cute? In a lackadaisical sort of Sunsteinian way, of course, as President Obama is nobly above the fray and “owns” none of this …?

Poor old Bee Pee and the President, both can’t wait until things return to “normal” …that is, bidness as usual.

Will they be disappointed?

Only time and the slow-grinding wheels of what was once called justice, now “ju$tice”, with money in its rightful and proper place, of course, will tell.

DW

I ask my fellow progressives to try to use restraint in calling people racists.

This disturbing trend began about the time Obama came on the scene. During the primaries, Obama’s supporters thought it was cool to call everyone and his brother a racist. They evidently thought this was a brilliant party-building strategy, when of course, it is the worst kind of political behavior.

Fellow progs, let’s not act like O-holes. Let’s reserve the term “racist” for people who call themselves racists.

I refute your assertion Libertarians engage in groupthink to the extent members of the current political duopoly(whom rarely differ on issues of war, and money) do.

How do you refute something without stating facts? SD was referring to the fact FDL’s diaries have been a twitter with Lib Paulites defending Rand. We have not seen Libs attacking Rand, nope we’ve been doing all the heavy work.
If the Libs don’t engage in group think then where are the Libs who don’t like racism?

There are folks of various philosophical persuasions that are against the wars, want financial accountability, etc, etc and we can find a lot of common ground on those issues. I can join with the Communist Party USA and anarchists on some issues but cannot support other stands they take.

Agreed this is the first Lib I’ve seen who disagrees…that they all don’t think alike. However saying Rand is a flawed messenger does not tell us just what he disagrees with Rand about.
Notice he does not say what he disagrees with rand about racism, abortion, gay marriage…. telling the truth about what you feel to the press.

No if Rand says I can’t go to a store any store in America and buy something just because I’m brown and Rand doesn’t think they have to serve if they don’t want to.
Then how does putting the right to be Racist over my my Right to buy stuff not Racist.
How does hiring not the best candidate for the job but the white candidate not racist and anti darwin?

True those groups I’m not with 100% but I can work with them. With Rand however you get Racism, anti gay marriage, anti immigrant, and he wants to force women who are raped to keep the rapist’s kid.
Rand has pushed the Paulites past my line of tolerance. Heck I’m surprised I lasted this long given Ron’s ties to racism.
If the Libs want an alliance they need to axe Ron and Rand themselves. I am not for cooperating with Ron anymore I don’t want to legitimize him with the Lake’s Cred.

I’m still trying to figure out the difference between the Libertarians and the “average” (whatever the heck that means) Republican. They seem to share a lot in common, and I would posit that the Libs and Repubs seem more alike than not.

I’m fine with making common cause with different groups, but, for me, the Paul family (Pere et fils)fails the test of racism. I do like *some* of their political philosophy, but then again, I can find numerous points of agreement with Republican philosophy, too. And so…

I think where it falls apart – for me as a leftist – is that, so far as I can tell, Republicans, Tea Partiers and Libertarians (at least those who appear to wholeheartedly embrace the Pauls – which has been quite a few posting here, perhaps present company notwithstanding) – tend to be racist, *claim* that they want “govt out of my life” (whatever that means), don’t want to pay taxes ever, and so on.

Despite the valient words by Republics/Tea Partiers/Libs about “govt out of my life,” they ALL want to have govt be in my bedroom telling me who I can and cannot have sex with, as well as forcing me to have unwanted children, even at the expense of my own life. Plus they are, often, quite racist.

Hence, I have to choose carefully those with whom I make common cause. I would *love* for Republics to the so-called “fiscal conservatives” that they claim they are, but they’re not.

Libs are anti-war, which is great, but then they don’t want any regulations on anything, so… eh?

I don’t think these are the people with whom I can make common cause, albeit I am still open to discussion.

Rand Paul has an opponent? Who knew? I thought it was settled. Rand Paul would be the next emperor and we would all go back to 1964.

Rand Paul’s comments and the hoopla surrounding them are meant to serve as one such diversion.

workingclass @47: that would be 1864 for people like Paul before those nasty Republicans instituted Reconstruction and the 14th Amendment with which he so adamantly disagrees.

Yeah. Some are content to re-fight the civil rights movement. Others want to re-fight the civil war. The Texas Board of Education wants to redo everything from Thomas Jefferson forward. As if we didn’t have real problems in real time. So what about this Democrat who is going to save us from Rand Paul. Is he different from the Democrats that are destroying whats left of the country?

If you read more and babbled less you’d know (and have a lot better understanding of what you’ve been talking so incompetently about as well).

Paul is hardly a good spokesman for libertarian ideals: though his concerns about Title 2 of the CRA probably reflect them, many of his other positions do not, and they’ve stated that they may run their own candidate against him.

Exactly what part of the contradiction between “they ALL want to have govt be in my bedroom telling me who I can and cannot have sex with, as well as forcing me to have unwanted children, even at the expense of my own life” and “Libs are anti-war, which is great, but then they don’t want any regulations on anything” has managed to escape you?

Does anyone here have any actual interest in getting a clue, or do you all prefer to chatter on like incompetent Tea Baggers calling Obama a socialist?

Obama is NOT a socialist. He’s a US President which means his group of advisors tell him what he should do and he either agrees or disagrees. Presidents don’t really have much power despite what you were taught in school. All the info he gets come from mostly CFR advisors.

OK – I’m going to try this one more time:

Exactly what ‘right to buy stuff’ are you citing? Because until Title 2 of the CRA took effect no one (regardless of race) in this country had EVER had such a right.

By contrast, until Title 2 of the CRA took effect the rights of businesspeople to decide whom they wanted to do business with were an inherent part of the rights of ownership of that business and the property on which it sat.

Pretty much the same as the rights of a homeowner – which AFAIK still allow him/her to deny entry based on race. Or (to pick an example which the state licenses in a manner similar to business) the right of a car owner to do the same.

Title 2 of the CRA takes a position opposite to that in the First Amendment: while the latter makes an individual’s right to free expression near-absolute (save when the public safety is threatened), even at the expense of decency, the former completely subjugates the right to make use of privately-owned property as one sees fit (save when the public safety is threatened) and instead mandates decency. Those who think that legislating decency in other areas (e.g., with respect to distribution of material deemed – by whatever authority – obscene or pornographic where no abuse is present) is suspect should see some similarities here. Title 2 might have chosen to try to BALANCE the ‘rights’ involved (as Roe v. Wade does between the rights of a woman and the rights of a developing fetus) – but it did not.

That’s a pretty major shift and questioning whether it constituted over-reaction is legitimate. Getting racism out of all PUBLIC endeavors (especially government) was appropriate and vital, and involved no such swapping of an existing right for a newly-minted one. Paul seems to be saying that might have been sufficient to move to a non-racist society without adding the requirements of Title 2: sure, the movement wouldn’t have been immediate (though since racism is still with us nearly a half-century after passage of the CRA the movement wasn’t immediate anyway), but without having tried it there’s no way to tell whether it would have been slower or faster (the latter possibility because mandating private behavior as Title 2 did sure as hell made a lot of people VERY angry – in some of the same ways that the prospect of mandating purchase of private insurance is making people angry today).

It’s really not legitimate to call that concern racist per se unless you’re also going to call support for the First Amendment’s protection of even racist speech racist per se. Both represent philosophical issues of the caliber discussed extensively during the framing of the Constitution itself, and while the Bill of Rights chose to protect only one of them explicitly it’s entirely possible that’s because the framers could not even envision that government would presume to interfere with the other (being mostly concerned with protection of people from government repression rather than with interactions between private individuals).

Paul has said that he would have voted for the CRA despite his concerns about this one part of it. That’s no inherent contradiction: politicians do this all the time with bills where they feel that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. He’s also said that he has no desire to try to change the CRA – again, not an inherent contradiction.

His only ‘not ready for prime-time error’ (at least as far as Maddow reported – I literally know nothing about any earlier statements he may have made, but the fact that none have come up here is suggestive) was to be forthright about his concerns about a specific part of legislation which he acknowledges is well-established and should not be changed. The pig-pile of uninformed criticism which followed will certainly tend to make politicians a lot less forthright in the future, which IMO is not a desirable result.