BOOM!!!! Rand Paul Wins

[NYcarbineer]

libturds and bullshit.. same old shit different day..

How did you get into an adult conversation? Fake I.D.?

 

[WillowTree]

libturds and bullshit.. same old shit different day..

How did you get into an adult conversation? Fake I.D.?

hit a nerve huh?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Rand Paul is doing fine - his take on the Civil Rights Act actually shows a depth that goes beyond the superficial race card politics of the liberal left.

He has considerable momentum and appears poised to win the Senate Seat...

Um, while I fully agree that it doesn't make him a "racist", his take on civil rights specifically didn't show "depth". It showed that his devotion to ideology blinded him to other factors.

However, his recanting on his original purely Libertarian stance does show that he can be reasonable, when backed into a corner anyway.

How does the desire to protect the right of someone to discriminate against a fellow American based on that person's race not translate into being racist? That would make one an accessory, wouldn't it?

There is no higher principle involved here; there is no explicit/implicit right to discriminate anywhere in the Constitution; there is if anything more of a prohibition of such discrimination. There is no legitimate claim to allegiance to some loftier principle here.

There is no explicit right to choose your friends anywhere in the Constitution, so does that mean we don't have the right to choose who we befriend? If a black man chooses only black friends is he in violation of anti-descrimination laws?

 

[GHook93]

Rand Paul will be a Senator.

Deal with it....

I like some of what Rand Paul stands for, but I would never vote for such a radical. And yes he is a radical. Most would place me as a rightwinger and I'm OK with that, but being an extreme right-winger is almost as dangerous as being an extreme left-winger. I won't be the only conservative to believe this. Many conservatives, slight leaners right, moderates and even right-wingers will disagree with Rand's extremism.

I'm afraid he is going to do the impossible and allow the KY Senate seat to fall to a Democrats. Some of his views are really going to hurt him:

(1) Opposition to ANYTHING in the Civil Right Act -
Whatever he thinks, he should have said. "What kind of question is that Maddow, give me a better one!" and moved on. He should not of came off in any way that he disagreed with anything in the bill. Very rookie mistake!

(2) Standing up for BP:
Are you serious. Even the biggest capitalist are pissed at BP. They are going to create an environmental and economic disaster in that region for DECADES! Obama is right blasting them!
News Headlines - Rand Paul: Obama's criticism of BP 'un-American' : Townhall.com

(3) Abortion:
In KY I assume more are prolife, but few people would take it to the extremes like Rand. His view is that abortion is wrong in all circumstances, even in the case of rape, incest or the mother's life is in danger. Sorry Rand, but this view will lose you votes even amongst pro-lifers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/us/politics/26kentucky.html?_r=1

(4) He is for ending law enforcement arms like the DEA! Not politicially smart move. Imagine the attack ads. This will be a field day. The article only mentions the DEA, but if he is like his father (which I assume he is) then is also for closing the FBI, CIA and DHLS! Very politically unpopular moves whether your right or left.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/us/politics/26kentucky.html?_r=1

(5) Against the Department of Education and Pro-Privation of Schools:
Yep education in America is a mess, but only a small minority of people are for ending public education and making it entirely privatized. Whether you agree or disagree, this viewpoint will lose him even right-leaning voters.

(6) Doesn't support Americans with Disability Act -
Sorry, but this will be a good attack point against him. Not supporting the disabled is well pretty low even for a libertarian. Sorry, but this government intervention is needed. There are some people that need ramps to get into buildings and WE AS AMERICAN are more than JUSTIFIED in demanding them! Rookie mistake! This law would never get repealed, so why in god's name come out against it?

(7) Against the Fair Housing Act and Pro-Allowing Restaurants, Businesses, Hotels, Employers the right to discriminate:
Sorry folks this is radical and EXTREMELY WRONG!!! Discrimination in business, hotel, housing and in employment is a black eye on America and we are right to legislate against it. Again this stance isn't going to win him any votes either.

In the end I think he is going to come off as a wackjob and Democrats will take a very red senate seat!

 

[paperview]

Um, while I fully agree that it doesn't make him a "racist", his take on civil rights specifically didn't show "depth". It showed that his devotion to ideology blinded him to other factors.

However, his recanting on his original purely Libertarian stance does show that he can be reasonable, when backed into a corner anyway.

How does the desire to protect the right of someone to discriminate against a fellow American based on that person's race not translate into being racist? That would make one an accessory, wouldn't it?

There is no higher principle involved here; there is no explicit/implicit right to discriminate anywhere in the Constitution; there is if anything more of a prohibition of such discrimination. There is no legitimate claim to allegiance to some loftier principle here.

There is no explicit right to choose your friends anywhere in the Constitution, so does that mean we don't have the right to choose who we befriend? If a black man chooses only black friends is he in violation of anti-descrimination laws?

Lone-cell Logic seems to think when a business opens its doors to the general public, they are looking for "friends."

 

[NYcarbineer]

Um, while I fully agree that it doesn't make him a "racist", his take on civil rights specifically didn't show "depth". It showed that his devotion to ideology blinded him to other factors.

However, his recanting on his original purely Libertarian stance does show that he can be reasonable, when backed into a corner anyway.

How does the desire to protect the right of someone to discriminate against a fellow American based on that person's race not translate into being racist? That would make one an accessory, wouldn't it?

There is no higher principle involved here; there is no explicit/implicit right to discriminate anywhere in the Constitution; there is if anything more of a prohibition of such discrimination. There is no legitimate claim to allegiance to some loftier principle here.

There is no explicit right to choose your friends anywhere in the Constitution, so does that mean we don't have the right to choose who we befriend? If a black man chooses only black friends is he in violation of anti-descrimination laws?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not apply to personal friendship. Freedom of association is a right. It is however distinct from doing BUSINESS in the United States.

 

[NYcarbineer]

libturds and bullshit.. same old shit different day..

How did you get into an adult conversation? Fake I.D.?

hit a nerve huh?

Oh I don't think anyone disputes your ability to get on people's nerves. Ill mannered children are notoriously adept at getting on people's nerves.

You could, of course, try offering a mature substantive opinion on the issue at hand. Who knows, you might find the experience refreshing.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

How does the desire to protect the right of someone to discriminate against a fellow American based on that person's race not translate into being racist? That would make one an accessory, wouldn't it?

There is no higher principle involved here; there is no explicit/implicit right to discriminate anywhere in the Constitution; there is if anything more of a prohibition of such discrimination. There is no legitimate claim to allegiance to some loftier principle here.

There is no explicit right to choose your friends anywhere in the Constitution, so does that mean we don't have the right to choose who we befriend? If a black man chooses only black friends is he in violation of anti-descrimination laws?

Lone-cell Logic seems to think when a business opens its doors to the general public, they are looking for "friends."

Hey stupid, do you know what an analogy is? Fact is the post I was speaking to said nothing about businesses it was speaking directly to descrimination.

Damn you are one stupid fuck!!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

How does the desire to protect the right of someone to discriminate against a fellow American based on that person's race not translate into being racist? That would make one an accessory, wouldn't it?

There is no higher principle involved here; there is no explicit/implicit right to discriminate anywhere in the Constitution; there is if anything more of a prohibition of such discrimination. There is no legitimate claim to allegiance to some loftier principle here.

There is no explicit right to choose your friends anywhere in the Constitution, so does that mean we don't have the right to choose who we befriend? If a black man chooses only black friends is he in violation of anti-descrimination laws?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not apply to personal friendship. Freedom of association is a right. It is however distinct from doing BUSINESS in the United States.

You weren't talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 you were speaking about the Constitution. Wise up and read what you write.

 

[paperview]

There is no explicit right to choose your friends anywhere in the Constitution, so does that mean we don't have the right to choose who we befriend? If a black man chooses only black friends is he in violation of anti-descrimination laws?

Lone-cell Logic seems to think when a business opens its doors to the general public, they are looking for "friends."

Hey stupid, do you know what an analogy is? Fact is the post I was speaking to said nothing about businesses it was speaking directly to descrimination.

Damn you are one stupid fuck!!

At what point did NY Carb turn the discussion into "friends" when discussion the CRA and the constitutionality aspect?

No where. Reading his reply the Vast LWC and Sinatra, it was clear:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2329969-post400.html

It's pretty obvious who the "dumb fuck" is here, and it ain't me.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Lone-cell Logic seems to think when a business opens its doors to the general public, they are looking for "friends."

Hey stupid, do you know what an analogy is? Fact is the post I was speaking to said nothing about businesses it was speaking directly to descrimination.

Damn you are one stupid fuck!!

At what point did NY Carb turn the discussion into "friends" when discussion the CRA and the constitutionality aspect?

No where. Reading his reply the Vast LWC and Sinatra, it was clear:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2329969-post400.html

It's pretty obvious who the "dumb fuck" is here, and it ain't me.

Hey stupid I used friends as an analogy! Get your head out of your ass and pay attention!

You are one stupid fuck!

 

[rightwinger]

Hey stupid, do you know what an analogy is? Fact is the post I was speaking to said nothing about businesses it was speaking directly to descrimination.

Damn you are one stupid fuck!!

At what point did NY Carb turn the discussion into "friends" when discussion the CRA and the constitutionality aspect?

No where. Reading his reply the Vast LWC and Sinatra, it was clear:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2329969-post400.html

It's pretty obvious who the "dumb fuck" is here, and it ain't me.

Hey stupid I used friends as an analogy! Get your head out of your ass and pay attention!

You are one stupid fuck!

Your analogy had nothing to do with the subject at hand or the 1964 Civil rights act

Nice try though

 

[paperview]

At what point did NY Carb turn the discussion into "friends" when discussion the CRA and the constitutionality aspect?

No where. Reading his reply the Vast LWC and Sinatra, it was clear:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2329969-post400.html

It's pretty obvious who the "dumb fuck" is here, and it ain't me.

Hey stupid I used friends as an analogy! Get your head out of your ass and pay attention!

You are one stupid fuck!

Your analogy had nothing to do with the subject at hand or the 1964 Civil rights act

Nice try though

But it was his ANAL-ogy!!

 

[The T]

Um, while I fully agree that it doesn't make him a "racist", his take on civil rights specifically didn't show "depth". It showed that his devotion to ideology blinded him to other factors.

However, his recanting on his original purely Libertarian stance does show that he can be reasonable, when backed into a corner anyway.

How does the desire to protect the right of someone to discriminate against a fellow American based on that person's race not translate into being racist? That would make one an accessory, wouldn't it?

There is no higher principle involved here; there is no explicit/implicit right to discriminate anywhere in the Constitution; there is if anything more of a prohibition of such discrimination. There is no legitimate claim to allegiance to some loftier principle here.

There is no explicit right to choose your friends anywhere in the Constitution, so does that mean we don't have the right to choose who we befriend? If a black man chooses only black friends is he in violation of anti-descrimination laws?

Nope. He isn't.

 

[The T]

How does the desire to protect the right of someone to discriminate against a fellow American based on that person's race not translate into being racist? That would make one an accessory, wouldn't it?

There is no higher principle involved here; there is no explicit/implicit right to discriminate anywhere in the Constitution; there is if anything more of a prohibition of such discrimination. There is no legitimate claim to allegiance to some loftier principle here.

There is no explicit right to choose your friends anywhere in the Constitution, so does that mean we don't have the right to choose who we befriend? If a black man chooses only black friends is he in violation of anti-descrimination laws?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not apply to personal friendship. Freedom of association is a right. It is however distinct from doing BUSINESS in the United States.

...there is no explicit/implicit right to discriminate anywhere in the Constitution; there is if anything more of a prohibition of such discrimination.

Your words I presume?

 

[Vast LWC]

How does the desire to protect the right of someone to discriminate against a fellow American based on that person's race not translate into being racist? That would make one an accessory, wouldn't it?

There is no higher principle involved here; there is no explicit/implicit right to discriminate anywhere in the Constitution; there is if anything more of a prohibition of such discrimination. There is no legitimate claim to allegiance to some loftier principle here.

It's not "racist" because it's part of a larger philosophy that has nothing to do with race.

His belief that the law is not needed is obviously based on the fact that he believes profit is a more powerful motivator than other factors like racism.

Now, personally I believe that to be incorrect. And obviously I am a firm believer in the Civil Rights Act myself, always have been.

But that doesn't make him a "racist", it makes him naive and misguided.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

As far as this particular person is concerned though, I would say he is not racist, just an idealogue.

If you understand the basic tenets of Libertarianism, you realize that they simply don't want any government intervention in general, and affirmative action just happens to fall under that heading.

That is not racism.

Now yuh see Vast, I do respect you because you're a reasonable person. I wish you convince some of your fellow comrades to abandon their mentally ill race baiting assumptions about this Man. It only makes them look like bottomfeeding Jackals. ~BH

So Rand Paul is not a racist in the sense that someone who believed that its not the business of the federal government to prevent discrimination against Jews is not a Nazi?

You poor desperate racist you. ~BH

 

[BolshevikHunter]

How does the desire to protect the right of someone to discriminate against a fellow American based on that person's race not translate into being racist? That would make one an accessory, wouldn't it?

There is no higher principle involved here; there is no explicit/implicit right to discriminate anywhere in the Constitution; there is if anything more of a prohibition of such discrimination. There is no legitimate claim to allegiance to some loftier principle here.

It's not "racist" because it's part of a larger philosophy that has nothing to do with race.

His belief that the law is not needed is obviously based on the fact that he believes profit is a more powerful motivator than other factors like racism.

Now, personally I believe that to be incorrect. And obviously I am a firm believer in the Civil Rights Act myself, always have been.

But that doesn't make him a "racist", it makes him naive and misguided.

He's too fucking consumed with reverse racism to understand commonsense. The guy is ignorant and really is a racist himself. ~BH

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Looks a little like Eddie Haskell to me

That's all you desperate morons have to come back with after another defeat? LMAO! ~BH

I got a couple snappy come backs for ya pertaining to this guy if you want them...

Knock yourself out. By the way, Your Eagles are gonna suck penis this Season bro. Can't wait to see The Redskins humiliate you guys. Probably the only time I will ever root for them. ~BH

 

[Political Junky]

Don't you clowns have a Senator by the name of Robert Bird that is a former KKK member?

Oh but I guess that's ok because it's you assholes? ~BH

Yeah, Byrd is former KKK. Rand Paul appears to be present and future KKK. I'd say that's a difference.

Yeah, Rand wants to burn crosses and kill black people? If you believe that then You're truly a fucking idiot bro. ~BH

Well, David Duke, Republican, did.