examiner.com — Will the real Rand Paul please step forward? Tonight on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow show, host Rachel Maddow grilled the victorious Tea Party candidate Rand Paul, who last night in a landslide victory, won the GOP primary for the U.S. Senate seat in Kentucky. After such a good night last night, Dr. Paul was clearly sweating on the hot seat tonight.
May 20, 2010 View in Crawl 4
laminarcissusMay 23, 2010
Okay bobcat -- since black folks don't seem to be a hot button for you, how about the Fair Labor Standards Act?The child labor provisions of the FLSA regulate all business, not just those that do interstate business. And it was necessary for the federal government to to take action because local governments were often either under the direct control of major industries in their area, or were too afraid to pass child labor laws for fear of damaging their local economy.Do you feel that the child labor provisions of the FLSA, setting minimum ages for workers in jobs considered hazardous, was an over-reach of government power even when state or local governments refused to act in the face of eight-year-olds losing hands crawling through mechanical looms to collect lint?Do you feel that telling private business owners that they cannot employ children is a violation of their rights? Should putting children in textile factories or mines be "up to the owner of the business, since he/she is the one who deals with the success or failure of the business, to determine the way to run the business?"
moogullMay 23, 2010
westboro baptist church bulls**t is a scam. they try and draw people into a slander lawsuit and then countersue for freedom of speech
bobcat7407May 24, 2010
Interestingly enough, here were the questions I asked:"I think I'll do like Rand and just keep asking you where do you get the right to force your morality on someone else? Where is it in the Constitution for the federal government to tell a private business who it can serve?"None of your rant about the Fair Labor Standards Act answers those questions. Although I will say that I have found your rant, and the research I have done, to be very educational. You are right that I was not as informed as I felt I was.I would disagree with your reasoning in that I do not see anywhere how commerce includes the production of the product. Commerce is the exchange that happens. That is what Congress is allowed to regulate, the exchange part. Not the production part. Regulating the price is not in there, no matter how the price was achieved. They can regulate the exchange of something of value, but not set the value. That is an overstep of Congressional power. How do you equate production to commerce? Also, since the idea that production could be regulated as part of the Commerce Clause did not come about until the early 19th century, what changed? Why was it not allowed, but then suddenly it could be defined differently than before? Since you say my link is a "Sesame Street Guide" then I'll just quote from it and see how you answer:"[I]f Congress may regulate all matters that substantially affect commerce, there is no need for the Constitution to specify that Congress may enact bankruptcy laws, [Art. I, § 8,] cl. 4, or coin money and fix the standard of weights and measures, cl. 5, or punish counterfeiters of United States coin and securities, cl. 6. Likewise, Congress would not need the separate authority to establish post offices and post roads, cl. 7, or to grant patents and copyrights, cl. 8, or to "punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas," cl. 10. It might not even need the power to raise and support an Army and Navy, cls. 12 and 13, for fewer people would engage in commercial shipping if they thought that a foreign power could expropriate their property with ease. Indeed, if Congress could regulate matters that substantially affect interstate commerce, there would have been no need to specify that Congress can regulate international trade and commerce with the Indians. As the Framers surely understood, these other branches of trade substantially affect interstate commerce."I am sorry that I accused you of only using emotion. You clearly have thought out your position on this and I did not give you credit. While I disagree with you, I was wrong to make assumptions about you. I think I have posted a legitimate response, but if you think I am just posting useless posts then feel free to tell me to screw off and quit answering me. I have certainly been a jerk in parts of this post and would deserve such a response. <a class="user" href="http://www.investordictionary.com/definition/commerce.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://www.investordictionary.com/definition/comme ...</a>
compositesenseMay 29, 2010
Rachel Maddow and Ann Coulter work for the same people. The powerful and elite. The people who suppressed Tesla. The people who outlawed hemp - which could have made ethanol and paper. The people who created the Federal Reserve and took us off the gold standard, causing outrageous inflation. The people who outsourced our industries to third world countries. The people who outlawed recreational drugs and created the "Drug War." The Democrats and Republicans are the same. Work for the same elite. Wake up. Rachel Maddow is a shill and a puppet. So is Coulter. History will not be kind to the United States of 2010. A thousand years from now, if there is a resurgence of freedom at that time, and people finally can know the TRUTH, children will learn of the failed Republic called the USA that DIED around 2060 ... sweet dreams, Sheeple... Maddow is being used by her puppet masters to attack Rand Paul because he is like his father, Ron Paul. Both want to destroy the Fed and scale down our military presence around the world. That THREATENS the powers that CONTROL MADDOW... don't be fooled. Just cause she's a lesbian does not mean she is not a corporate fascist shill.
kwanijmlJun 2, 2010
@BookantOf course you (and just about everyone else here) twisted it. . . because you have no real logical foundation to your thought process. You know exactly what I mean when I said it is not self-evident. I'm talking about the government essentially granting something to one racial group or another, at the expense of all; that is not what is self-evident. What is self-evident is that it is your right to not be forced into slavery or subservience. . .in other words, have something taking away from you. A right is something which cannot be taken away except by force. You don't have the right to be served by any private business that does not want to serve you, no matter your race. This is a privilege that the government has decided to grant, at the expense of everyone. You people cannot seem to get through your thick skulls that equality based on race is self-evident, privilege based on race is not. Quit twisting words, and start facing the truth.
glassagateJun 3, 2010
Something about a person going into a bar, where they are probably going to get drunk, and carrying a gunwith them, doesn't sound all that much like a good idea to me.It's the same sort of thing as letting a drunk person drive a car.
kevineJun 3, 2010
No,The KKK isn't a protected class.Likewise a white restaurant owner isn't required to serve a black man wearing a robe and t-shirt if the establishment has a dress code barring all customers wearing that outfit.That video claims that "race isn't the issue, but a distraction", but in reality, the question it poses is the distraction. Instead of a hypothetical that is *not* covered by the civil rights act, how about posing others, and see how people feel about them?Should the only company with a permit for a gas station in town be allowed to deny service to someone based on their religion?Should a private hospital be able to turn away someone in need of urgent care based on race? Hey...it's their establishment...their property!Should a real estate company be allowed to discriminate against who it sells houses to based on any of the other protected classes?What about airlines, trains, etc...And of course there's the issue of jobs, education, etc...Really, when it comes to having a law that prohibits discrimination on the protected classes, who does this really hurt? Some f**king racist? Great, the benefit far outweighs the harm.