So Rand Paul is against the Civil Rights Act?

It makes him a complete fuck-up moron because he doesn't believe in equal employment opportunity.

Anything public funded he said he supports. He said Private business owners should be able to hire who they choose. It's called freedom of choice. Remember that one fuckO? ~BH

I wanna live in a nation where employment opportunity does not depend on race. You don't. That's the difference.

See what I mean about rabid dog liberals painting anyone who they disagree with as a racist? :clap2::clap2::clap2:
 
Uh, Dean, if a restaurant said "NO BLACKS ALLOWED" or "NO LATINOS ALLOWED" or "NO MIDDLE-EASTERNERS ALLOWED" they would lose business fast and have to either allow any patron to enter their establishment or shut down business if they really have that attitude.

Yeah that worked real well in the years before the Civil Rights act.
 
Anything public funded he said he supports. He said Private business owners should be able to hire who they choose. It's called freedom of choice. Remember that one fuckO? ~BH

I wanna live in a nation where employment opportunity does not depend on race. You don't. That's the difference.

See what I mean about rabid dog liberals painting anyone who they disagree with as a racist? :clap2::clap2::clap2:

I didn't call anyone a racist you whore.
 
rachel madow just asked rand paul if woolworth's lunch counter should have been allowed to remain segregated.

he can't even answer her.

She should have followed up by asking him if slavery should have been allowed as long as the slaveowner wasn't receiving any government money. :lol:
 
rachel madow just asked rand paul if woolworth's lunch counter should have been allowed to remain segregated.

he can't even answer her.

She should have followed up by asking him if slavery should have been allowed as long as the slaveowner wasn't receiving any government money. :lol:

you obviously miss the point of the protections provided by the constitution
 
rachel madow just asked rand paul if woolworth's lunch counter should have been allowed to remain segregated.

he can't even answer her.

She should have followed up by asking him if slavery should have been allowed as long as the slaveowner wasn't receiving any government money. :lol:

you obviously miss the point of the protections provided by the constitution

You have no clue
 
why wouldn't it be? we have a totally congressional black caucus that refuses to admit whites. we gonna be hypocrites or are we gonna do away with racism??

you know, willow, sometimes it might help you to remember the adage that if you remain quiet people might think you're stupid, but if you open it, they know for sure.

poor willow.

Jill she has a point.....so its ok to have a Blacks only club,or a Latino and Asian Club.....but if its the White guy club it becomes a "Racist" club.....even though they are together for the same reason....
 
rachel madow just asked rand paul if woolworth's lunch counter should have been allowed to remain segregated.

he can't even answer her.

She should have followed up by asking him if slavery should have been allowed as long as the slaveowner wasn't receiving any government money. :lol:

you obviously miss the point of the protections provided by the constitution

No, Rand Paul doesn't know what protections are provided by the Constitution.
 
Joe Scarborough got it right this morning, talking about the political aspects of this - I'm paraphrasing...

If you're a politician and someone asks you if you support the Civil Rights Act of 1964...

...you say 'yes'.
 
Wait till they ask him about SS and other programs

In that same interview he said he wanted to get rid of the EPA. I guess because environmental issues aren't a national concern. Maybe he should put out a statement to all his followers who are also attacking the Obama administration for not doing enough about the oil spill; maybe he can explain to them that pollution is not the federal government's problem.
 
Wait till they ask him about SS and other programs

In that same interview he said he wanted to get rid of the EPA. I guess because environmental issues aren't a national concern. Maybe he should put out a statement to all his followers who are also attacking the Obama administration for not doing enough about the oil spill; maybe he can explain to them that pollution is not the federal government's problem.

is there any part of "the guberment" that you don't worship?
man you lefties can't seem to live your lives unless you have a friggen nanny.
 
Wait till they ask him about SS and other programs

In that same interview he said he wanted to get rid of the EPA. I guess because environmental issues aren't a national concern. Maybe he should put out a statement to all his followers who are also attacking the Obama administration for not doing enough about the oil spill; maybe he can explain to them that pollution is not the federal government's problem.

What part of the constitution states that the government is responsible for the environment?
 
Wait till they ask him about SS and other programs

In that same interview he said he wanted to get rid of the EPA. I guess because environmental issues aren't a national concern. Maybe he should put out a statement to all his followers who are also attacking the Obama administration for not doing enough about the oil spill; maybe he can explain to them that pollution is not the federal government's problem.

is there any part of "the guberment" that you don't worship?
man you lefties can't seem to live your lives unless you have a friggen nanny.

There it is people. Conservatism reduced to its essence. If you want a government that works to keep your environment clean, that goes after polluters, then you're a gubmint worshipper.
 
You ignorant liberals forget that 80 percent of the House Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while only 61 percent of the Democrats voted for it. In the Senate, 82 percent Republicans voted for it, while only 69 percent of the Democrats supported it. Cloture in the Senate was 66 percent Democrats , 82 percent Republicans voted in favor.
 
New controversy for Rand Paul | WHAS11.com | Politics, Election Results | WHAS11.com | News for Louisville, Kentucky


In the category of “it would be funny if it weren’t so tragic” comes this from Rand Paul. While calling for an increase in the Social Security retirement age, the abolishment of the Departments of Agriculture and Education, the elimination of farm subsidies, the elimination of earmarked funding for Kentucky infrastructure projects and cuts in almost every other government function, Paul opposes cuts in government payments to physicians – payments he relies on to make a living.

From the Wall Street Journal: “Physicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living,” he told a gathering of neighbors in the back yard of Chris and Linda Wakild, just behind the 10th hole of a golf course.
 
In that same interview he said he wanted to get rid of the EPA. I guess because environmental issues aren't a national concern. Maybe he should put out a statement to all his followers who are also attacking the Obama administration for not doing enough about the oil spill; maybe he can explain to them that pollution is not the federal government's problem.

is there any part of "the guberment" that you don't worship?
man you lefties can't seem to live your lives unless you have a friggen nanny.

There it is people. Conservatism reduced to its essence. If you want a government that works to keep your environment clean, that goes after polluters, then you're a gubmint worshipper.

like I said, can you not make a FREE choice to help keep your environment clean without someone telling you to do it or expecting a part of a guberment body forcing people in what to do?. good gawd, do you people ever think freely for yourselves.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top