Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

ETFsRule (< 20)

Silence on TMF Homepage?



May 22, 2010 – Comments (16) | RELATED TICKERS: BP

I just realized something strange. It seems like, every other day there is a political post on TMF's homepage criticizing Obama, criticizing Paul Krugman, etc, etc.

So, it seems strange that there has been nothing written about this infamous interview with Rand Paul about the BP oil spill.

TMF's writers are usually quick to respond to these sorts of economic/political stories... but they have been silent on this one. Is Obama really being unfair and putting his "boot heel on the throat of BP"?

Is the government being "really un-American" in their handling of the crisis thus far?

It it fair to say that, "maybe sometimes accidents happen"?

I would love to hear the Fool's writers chime in on these comments.

16 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On May 22, 2010 at 11:08 AM, dbjella (< 20) wrote:

It it fair to say that, "maybe sometimes accidents happen"?


Report this comment
#2) On May 22, 2010 at 12:53 PM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

A the moment I am really displeased with the Obama administration, Rand Paul, federal laws, Halliburton, Transocean and British Petroleum over this whole mess. If I started to attack one I would have to rant about the others.

If I had the time to write what I would want I could probably fill 8 - 10 typed pages that could be boiled down to "Everyone, stop dragging your heels and put a stopper in the flow! Fight about the who what where when and whys later!"

Report this comment
#3) On May 23, 2010 at 4:50 PM, leohaas (30.12) wrote:

I guess you are a newbie here. This is not exactly a place where Obama (or Krugman) fans hang out. Get used to it.

Report this comment
#4) On May 23, 2010 at 7:44 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

If you don't even know the Liberal position on discrimination, I can't imagine that you could criticize the Libertarian one.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#5) On May 23, 2010 at 9:09 PM, ETFsRule (< 20) wrote:

David: huh?

leohaas: I know. I just wanted to point out that there is more than 1 type of Libertarian. There are some reasonable ones, with legitimate viewpoints, who are willing to criticize another Libertarian when they say something stupid. I put people like catoismymotor in the "reasonable" camp of Libertarians. Unfortunately, he is the only one of this "type" that I have encountered on this site.

Interestingly, the GOP is now starting to criticize Rand Paul over his comments. I wonder if Tea Party and Libertarian leaders will take the same path, or if they will ignore his comments and blindly continue to support him.

Report this comment
#6) On May 24, 2010 at 12:24 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:


Which comments did you find to be wrong and why?

(p.s. this will be a lot of fun)

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#7) On May 24, 2010 at 12:41 AM, topsecret09 (85.37) wrote:

Rand Paul on Maddow

Whether Rachel Maddow and our race baiting PROGRESSIVE CROWD likes it or not, Rand Paul’s thinking, with regard to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is not only based upon carefully thought out moral grounds, but is within the four corners of our written Constitution!

Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is asserted to be authorized under the 14th Amendment of our Constitution, let us examine the true intentions and beliefs under which the 14th Amendment was adopted. In fact, the 14th Amendment’s limited objectives were to first make Blacks Citizens of the united states and of the State wherein they resided, and then was intended to forbid every State to make or enforce any law which made distinctions based upon race, color or previous condition of slavery. In essence, the 14th Amendment was intended to put an end to Black Code laws and to make state laws equally applicable to Blacks as they were to Whites! These limited objectives are, without question, a noble cause and appear to be agreeable to Rand Paul as they were agreeable to America when the Amendment was adopted.

In regard to the expressed limited intentions for which the 14th Amendment was adopted, as stated by one of its supporters during its creation, they are summed up as follows:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293

The irrefutable truth concerning the goals of the 14th Amendment, as the historical record establishes, was to forbid the use of government force which made distinctions based upon race, color or previous condition of slavery. It was never intended to interfere with the day to day decision making of private citizens in the course of their everyday activities. Rand Paul’s displeasure with that part of the 1964’s Civil Rights Act which is today used to assume power and dictate the actions of private citizens as they conduct their day to day activities, when the amendment was specifically intended to only apply to state actions and state government force, is in fact a legitimate criticism as to how the 14th Amendment has been perverted and is today used to usurp power by our progressive gang in Washington, D.C.

There is a vast difference between criticizing the use of federal power for a function not authorized by our Constitution and defending those who judge other human beings based upon their race or color. Rand Paul’s statements are focused upon our federal government’s unauthorized exercised of power and this is something which every loyal and patriotic American ought to be focused upon, especially when federal power is being used to trample upon the most fundamental inalienable rights of individuals!

And just what is the mindset of Rachel Maddow and those who now beat the drum of racism in an attempt to discredit Rand Paul‘s run for the Senate? Welcome to America’s progressive gang who, under the cloak of racism, cleverly attack a person whose moral compass instinctively recoils from our federal government’s assault upon the most fundamental inalienable rights of mankind, especially those associated with property ownership, and those connected with people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations. This is our progressive gang’s real objective and has nothing to do with racism. Their objective is to seize government control over rights associated with property ownership in such a manner as to allow progressives in government to redistribute the benefits of that private property as they see fit.

For example, the 14th Amendment was never intended to allow the enactment and enforcement of the Americans with disabilities Act, and then allow Martin, a cripple, to demand the PGA tournament to allow him as a participant in the event to ride around in a golf cart. Nor was the 14th Amendment intended to allow a lesbian to sue a photographer for not taking pictures of her wedding, or, was the amendment intended to allow E-Harmony to be sued by homosexuals because E-Harmony’s business only catered to heterosexuals. In addition, the 14th Amendment was surely not adopted to prohibit distinctions based upon sex and which Justice Ginsburg, a radical progressive, fraudulently asserted was the intention of the 14th Amendment when commanding VMI to admit females into the academy alongside males. But note, in each of the above cited cases, private property was really the target, race was never the issue, and a fraudulent misrepresentation of the 14th Amendment was the path for un-American lawyers to use to seize control over the benefits of private property.

And now that someone who is running for an office of public trust who is distressed that the 14th Amendment is being used in a manner not consistent with the intentions the American People had when adopting the amendment, but is used to impinge upon some of the most fundamental inalienable rights of mankind, including the theft of property, the race card is played by Rachel Maddow and others to switch the subject to race and avoid any discussion of how the 14th Amendment’s limited goals have been perverted by progressives who spit upon our Constitution, despise rights associated with property ownership, and are determined to control and regulate every aspect of the American people’s lives.

And where is the Republican Party Leadership in this fight? Have they come to defend Rand Paul? And why would the Republican Party Leadership defend Rand Paul when the Republican Party leadership has cleverly worked hand in hand with progressives to overturn our constitutionally limited system of government?

America, we have a problem, we have been attacked from within! We are being destroyed from within by a group of domestic enemies who have managed to seize political power and whose mission is in fact to bring “change” to America ___ the dismantling of our military defensive power; the allowance of our borders to be overrun by foreign invaders, the diluting of our election process by allowing ineligible persons to vote; the destruction of our manufacturing capabilities; the strangulation of our agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity; the looting of both our federal treasury and a mandatory retirement pension fund; the brainwashing of our nation’s children in government operated schools; the creation of an iron fisted control unauthorized by our written Constitution over America’s businesses and industries; the devaluation of our nation’s currency, and, the future enslavement of our children and grand children via unbridled debt and inflation, not to mention an iron fisted government which intends to rule their very lives!     Other than that I have no opinion.....    TS

Report this comment
#8) On May 24, 2010 at 12:54 AM, topsecret09 (85.37) wrote:

 Opps ..   wrong Interview...   But you get the picture....    TS

Report this comment
#9) On May 24, 2010 at 12:55 AM, topsecret09 (85.37) wrote:

Oops !!!   LOL  !!!......

Report this comment
#10) On May 24, 2010 at 1:05 AM, bigcat1969 (81.58) wrote:

How far does free speech,  ownership of a business, etc... allow someone to go and what should the limits be.  In Canada if one engages in hate speech against certain protected classes in a public speech he can be prosecuted.  The US seems to be edging toward a same basic law.  If business ownership and free speech are both trumped by politically incorrect speech will that be the end of it or will the law go further as time goes along.  Will all forms of speech disliked by the establishment be punishable.  Certainly China, which might have a form of government that grows more popular as the depression goes on, has extreme limits on speech and ideas.  Even now there seems to be a slowly growing belief that anyone calling for a revolution or a state's right to leave the union is a traitor and should be tried as such, though the founding fathers clearly stated that when government got too corrupt folks have a moral duty to break up that government.  As more control is needed of an ever larger population, the laws will grow stricter until de facto the constitution will have no bearing on law and will be a historical novelty.

Report this comment
#11) On May 24, 2010 at 1:13 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

I bet you $10 that ETF'sRule has no idea that the ACLU and Rand Paul have the exact same position on discrimination on private property.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#12) On May 24, 2010 at 8:24 AM, ETFsRule (< 20) wrote:

David: Not everything is about you. And I'm not going to waste my time with you, because you have shown over and over again that you are incapable of engaging in any form of meaningful discussion. All you are capable of doing is ignoring anyone who disagrees with you, repeating the same talking points over and over again, and spamming the discussion with off-topic links to Libertarian websites. I'm not interested.

But, I would be interested to hear which side of the issue TMF's writers are on. If they support Rand Paul's comments, I hope they will have the guts to make a post saying, "I agree with his comments 100%".

Report this comment
#13) On May 24, 2010 at 9:00 AM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

I'm "reasonable"? Thanks. I try to be. Please pass word along to devoish. He seems to be of a differing opinion.

I doubt you'll read anything from TMF writers on the subject of what Rand had to share. And it is not because they are without opinions, or are cowards. It is simply good business. If they put in writing that they agree with Rand they'll catch hell. The same would happen they disagree. The risk to the company's coffers and reputation is too great to issue such declaritive statements. I believe they rely on the bloggers to hash this out, quietly cheer on one POV or another.

Report this comment
#14) On May 25, 2010 at 10:21 PM, goldminingXpert (28.82) wrote:

Wow people are getting so pressed. Quit throwing shade ETFSrule ... you can disagree with people without being a dingleberry.

Report this comment
#15) On May 25, 2010 at 10:23 PM, goldminingXpert (28.82) wrote:

P.S. Does this post have something to do with investing? If you want to waste your time with partisan bickering, redstate (for you Republicrats) and dailykos (for you Demicans) are good places to feel holier-than-thou without messing with our investing community. Gracias.


Report this comment
#16) On May 26, 2010 at 10:38 AM, ETFsRule (< 20) wrote:

GMX: I think you missed the point. I would love it if TMF were only an investing site, and had nothing to do with politics.

But, if TMF is going to devote so much time to bashing liberals, bashing Obama, and bashing Keynesians... they should at least be consistant about it, and engage in the discussion when one of "their guys" makes such controversial statements.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners