So Rand Paul is against the Civil Rights Act?

[Oscar Wao]

That's not true. He DOES refer to restaurants serving people. It's in the interview, I heard it a couple hours ago, I just heard it this minute on tv.

It's not all about Race though Carb. Come on bro, don't play that fucking card with this. You know why he has trouble telling people what to do. You know damn well why. ~BH

He's in the Goldwater camp, philosophically, that thinks that states' rights are more important than civil rights.

Okay, fair enough, he's entitled to his opinion. But so are the people who may or may not vote for him.

It's Kentucky we're talking about. Not exactly the most swing state in the country.

Now, if he were in Virginia, Pennsylvania, or Florida, I could also argue that he has a possibility of losing.

 

[rdean]

I wouldn't repeal the Civil Rights Act. However, businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone because of race, religion, etc. On that note though, those same businesses should have a nice sign on the outside of their business about who they don't serve.

Then we'll see real fast how long the racists stay in business.

Like I said, for the red states, this may not be a problem.

 

[Oscar Wao]

Or maybe he chose "Rand" because he doesn't like "Randy" as a nickname and/or because he doesn't like being addressed by his full name by those he knows.

I like being called "Paul," not "Paulie/Pauly." Something about being addressed by the latter annoys me for some reason.

I'm not saying anything about his name being related to Ayn Rand or anything. I'm just saying his father's obsession with Ayn Rand and his position of taking Christianity over civil liberties is troubling. I'm wondering if his son is the same, which he probably is.

He doesn't "take Christianity over civil liberties." If he did, he'd probably have voted for the Marriage Amendment in 2004. He probably would be doing lots of other "federally religious" things, too.

 

[Modbert]

Like I said, for the red states, this may not be a problem.

Doesn't matter. Let the racists do their thing. However, when all the non-white people and plenty of white people leave due to the racists, they'll be missing their tourism dollars. Plus, tourists are less likely to go to such places.

Let's see how long they can stay in business.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

I wouldn't repeal the Civil Rights Act. However, businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone because of race, religion, etc. On that note though, those same businesses should have a nice sign on the outside of their business about who they don't serve.

Then we'll see real fast how long the racists stay in business.

I think it's more about who they hire than serve bert. ~BH

 

[rdean]

It's not all about Race though Carb. Come on bro, don't play that fucking card with this. You know why he has trouble telling people what to do. You know damn well why. ~BH

He's in the Goldwater camp, philosophically, that thinks that states' rights are more important than civil rights.

Okay, fair enough, he's entitled to his opinion. But so are the people who may or may not vote for him.

It's Kentucky we're talking about. Not exactly the most swing state in the country.

Now, if he were in Virginia, Pennsylvania, or Florida, I could also argue that he has a possibility of losing.

I'm not so sure. First off, for every dollar Kentucky give to the federal government, they get more than a dollar back.

If you listen to the video, he talks about lazy people getting up and going to school Do know how much school costs? Of course, his dad is rich. For him it was no problem.

Then he goes on about cutting taxes. For the rich that's great, the the unemployed, not so much. Can anyone guess why?

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Go back and listen. He said it's a poor business decision to exclude someone from your restaurant, but he hated telling someone they couldn't do it. What do you think that means? And he wasn't talking about just restaurants, obviously.

Did that really need to be explained? Oh wait, you're confederate. Do you have the tats?

I did listen dick Lip. He spent most of the time talking bad about racism. He was honest because he doesn't want the Government telling people what they can or can't do with their business. It's not about race you dumb shits.

Tats? No not my thing. Never really found one that I would want to look at for the rest of my life anyway. A Confederate? Are you fucking stupid? While I do support States rights, I am a Yankee from occupied California.

Let me make this clear you fucks, You guys want to make it about race. I personally don't believe that anyone should not get a job because of the color of their skin, but some other reasons should be left up to the private owner. ~BH

Oh wow, gee, maybe I can help you out. You know, it would be better if I spoke in your language. That might help.

Listen up dipshit, get your fucking head out of your fat ass. You can't have it both ways you drooling idiot moron.

"I personally don't believe that anyone should not get a job because of the color of their skin"

What do you think he's talking about you stepped on piece of dog shit.

There, did that help? Do you understand now? Did I translate that correctly?

LOL!, I was trying to use your language. No seriously though, You don't know my language puke bag. Fat? I would run circles around you bro. You give the Typical confused, race baiting opinion yuh fucking asshole. He doesn't mean that you dumb shit. He means not telling people who they should have to hire. That's what those Paul's are about, freedom of choice and freedom from Government. They are not racists. Are you on dope or something? ~BH

 

[Modbert]

He doesn't "take Christianity over civil liberties." If he did, he'd probably have voted for the Marriage Amendment in 2004. He probably would be doing lots of other "federally religious" things, too.

LOL WUT?

Paul opposes all federal efforts to define marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well. He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, and not subjected to "judicial activism".[181] For this reason, Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004.

But here's why:

In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (passed in 1996) which uses the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause to prohibit states from being compelled to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages, even if treated as marriages in other states. The Defense of Marriage Act also prohibits the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if treated as marriages in other states. He co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.[181][182]

Now how can Ron Paul support DOMA and co-sponsor the Marriage Protection Act. He wants to pass a bill that effects the federal level, but then make it so the constitutionality of the actual bill cannot be reviewed? Hmm.

Then there is his position on Abortion.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

He's in the Goldwater camp, philosophically, that thinks that states' rights are more important than civil rights.

Okay, fair enough, he's entitled to his opinion. But so are the people who may or may not vote for him.

It's Kentucky we're talking about. Not exactly the most swing state in the country.

Now, if he were in Virginia, Pennsylvania, or Florida, I could also argue that he has a possibility of losing.

I'm not so sure. First off, for every dollar Kentucky give to the federal government, they get more than a dollar back.

If you listen to the video, he talks about lazy people getting up and going to school Do know how much school costs? Of course, his dad is rich. For him it was no problem.

Then he goes on about cutting taxes. For the rich that's great, the the unemployed, not so much. Can anyone guess why?

Ummm, Excuse me Dick, I mean Rich? You left out where he said that we should get those on welfare back to work. What is wrong with that? ~BH

 

[Modbert]

I think it's more about who they hire than serve bert. ~BH

Same deal. They don't want to hire African Americans? Be sure to have a nice sign up front. We'll see how long they stay in business.

And another thing. Such places cannot receive federal funds in any manner.

Like I said, we'll see how long the racists last.

 

[Zander]

I heard he doesn't like Obama either, clearly he's a racist.......

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I wouldn't repeal the Civil Rights Act. However, businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone because of race, religion, etc. On that note though, those same businesses should have a nice sign on the outside of their business about who they don't serve.

Then we'll see real fast how long the racists stay in business.

Businesses are licensed. They are not private clubs. Businesses 'open to the public' should never be allowed be allowed to use prejudice of the sort you mention. I think there are state laws against such.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. - Amendment XIV
​

That doesn't mean I have the right to give Old Country Buffet my business after church on Sundays and not be denied service because I'm a Latino.

I think there are state laws about accommodation in public places.The Buffet is NOT a private business as it is open to the public.

pay attention people. you are almost all misreading the Constitution and the laws of the land.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

I think it's more about who they hire than serve bert. ~BH

Same deal. They don't want to hire African Americans? Be sure to have a nice sign up front. We'll see how long they stay in business.

And another thing. Such places cannot receive federal funds in any manner.

Like I said, we'll see how long the racists last.

Like I said before, I don't agree with that. However, Some dirt bag that never takes a shower serving food? Nah, Sorry bro. I am sure if you owned a place of business you would hire the dirt bag in order to feel good right? Oh, You also can't force someone to put a sign on their place of business. This isn't nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia like the madman Obama and his group of windy city gangstars wish it was. Also, They will make up some other excuse to not hire them like certain racist business owners already do. ~BH

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No, It's called freedom of choice when it's your business. You telling me someone should have to hire some dirt bag to work as a waiter? Somebody that doesn't take a shower or groom themselves whatsoever? Get the fuck out of here. As if you guys would hire them in your business. LOL!!! Yeah right bro. ~BH

No, you can't discriminate. Discrimination has a meaning. Go look it up.

But you cannot judge if the reasons for hiring were discriminatory or not, or of there are more people of a certain race than other races working at the business is based on discriminatory reasons.

It's official: you're a feeble minded moron.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'd be more worried if Rand has the same obsession with Ayn Rand and religion over civil liberties as his father.

Or maybe he chose "Rand" because he doesn't like "Randy" as a nickname and/or because he doesn't like being addressed by his full name by those he knows.

I like being called "Paul," not "Paulie/Pauly." Something about being addressed by the latter annoys me for some reason.

you moron, Paul said he and his wife are huge fans of Ayn Rand and it never occurred to them that there might be connections made.

 

[Oscar Wao]

I'd be more worried if Rand has the same obsession with Ayn Rand and religion over civil liberties as his father.

Or maybe he chose "Rand" because he doesn't like "Randy" as a nickname and/or because he doesn't like being addressed by his full name by those he knows.

I like being called "Paul," not "Paulie/Pauly." Something about being addressed by the latter annoys me for some reason.

you moron, Paul said he and his wife are huge fans of Ayn Rand and it never occurred to them that there might be connections made.

I will not speak with you until your stupid attacks cease.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

No, you can't discriminate. Discrimination has a meaning. Go look it up.

But you cannot judge if the reasons for hiring were discriminatory or not, or of there are more people of a certain race than other races working at the business is based on discriminatory reasons.

It's official: you're a feeble minded moron.

Hey, Take it easy on the kid. He's been civil to you. If you want to start some shit, do it with me bro. ~BH

 

[mudwhistle]

Extremism of any kind is bad.

 

[Modbert]

Businesses are licensed. They are not private clubs. Businesses 'open to the public' should never be allowed be allowed to use prejudice of the sort you mention. I think there are state laws against such.

Oh I'm sure there are. I'm just saying it would be a good way for the racists to learn that hate is not a appealing business factor.