Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (567203)	5/20/2010 11:12:36 AM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Respond to of 1578094

Lets just use Mexican immigration Laws, will that make you libs happy ?

To: bentway who wrote (567203)	5/20/2010 12:04:10 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1578094

Tuesday’s son-of-Ron-Paul victory fortifies not only Tea Party campaigns across the country, but the ambitions of almost every would-be politician who is passionately aggrieved. It could be that anybody who is weird has just about the best chance in modern history of getting elected in November. It could be that the weirder you are—the angrier, the more self-righteous, the more certain of grand conspiracies and of our current era’s historic apostasy—the more likely it is that you’ll run, and, depending only on the relative badness of economy, win. Rand Paul goes beyond just being weird. His opinions on civil rights are more reflective of the 1950s than now. I am really curious to see how well he does in KY.

To: bentway who wrote (567203)	5/20/2010 12:05:01 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1578094

* In the first polls of Kentucky's Senate race since the primaries, Rasmussen finds right-wing ophthalmologist Rand Paul leading state Attorney General Jack Conway, 59% to 34%.

To: bentway who wrote (567203)	5/20/2010 2:40:39 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578094

RAND PAUL ATTEMPTS TO CLARIFY.... As the controversy over his remarks on the Civil Rights Act gains steam, Republican Senate hopeful Rand Paul seems to realize that the story is getting away from him. Paul's campaign in Kentucky issued a statement about an hour ago, intending to "set the record straight." Most of the 325-word statement is about what one would expect -- the right-wing ophthalmologist opposes racism and discrimination; he believes the "federal government has far overreached in its power grabs"; the "liberal establishment" is out to get him, etc. But here's the heart of the matter: "Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964. "Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws. "As I have said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts in the intervening years." Let's unpack this a bit. Rand Paul doesn't want to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and I'm glad, but that's not the point. He was asked whether he would have voted for it, and Paul suggested he would not have because of concerns about government interference with private enterprise. No one's talking about specific votes he might cast; everyone's talking about his extremist worldview. Similarly, he believes these issues "have been settled by federal courts," and they have. But that misses the point, too. The concern here is that Rand Paul, due to his strange ideology, disagrees with those court rulings. If it were up to him, the matter would have "been settled" in the other direction. And then there's the key quote: "I support the Civil Rights Act." Of course, that's not what he said yesterday, and it's the kind of insincere "support" that would have led Paul to oppose the very legislation he now claims to endorse. My concern here is that the media will see the words "I support the Civil Rights Act" and assume the matter has been resolved. It has not. The Republican nominee for Senate has, on more than one occasion, articulated his philosophical opposition to the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and other bedrocks of American society. A misleading walk-back should make the situation worse for the candidate, not better.