NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
libturds and bullshit.. same old shit different day..
How did you get into an adult conversation? Fake I.D.?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
libturds and bullshit.. same old shit different day..
libturds and bullshit.. same old shit different day..
How did you get into an adult conversation? Fake I.D.?
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.
Rand Paul will be a Senator.
Deal with it....
Lone-cell Logic seems to think when a business opens its doors to the general public, they are looking for "friends."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?
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?
libturds and bullshit.. same old shit different day..
How did you get into an adult conversation? Fake I.D.?
hit a nerve huh?
Lone-cell Logic seems to think when a business opens its doors to the general public, they are looking for "friends."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?
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.
At what point did NY Carb turn the discussion into "friends" when discussion the CRA and the constitutionality aspect?Lone-cell Logic seems to think when a business opens its doors to the general public, they are looking for "friends."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?
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?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!!
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.
At what point did NY Carb turn the discussion into "friends" when discussion the CRA and the constitutionality aspect?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!!
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!
But it was his ANAL-ogy!!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
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
I got a couple snappy come backs for ya pertaining to this guy if you want them...Looks a little like Eddie Haskell to me
That's all you desperate morons have to come back with after another defeat? LMAO! ~BH
Well, David Duke, Republican, did.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