Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Right....Rand was talking about how the "boot on the throat" phraseology was un-American, not criticizing BP per se.
But I don't expect partisan hacks to ever read or listen for context and comprehension.
Hack right back at ya, you hack.
Rand Paul is obviously unfamiliar with the concept of a metaphor
We did not really intend to put a boot on their throat. But given their performance to date, it is looking more and more necessary
You are quite correct.
Sinatra, Dude, you can be racist as you want to be. If you act in a discriminatory way, there are laws and retributions that will be had. God bless America and this is not 1963.
Defend this nut Rand all you want,but we passed a law for a reason. You and he lose again sirs.
Good day.
___
You run from the discussion - refusing to actually learn of the implications at play within the contradictory nature of the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Again - so very sad...
Sinatra, Dude, you can be racist as you want to be. If you act in a discriminatory way, there are laws and retributions that will be had. God bless America and this is not 1963.
Defend this nut Rand all you want,but we passed a law for a reason. You and he lose again sirs.
Good day.
___
You run from the discussion - refusing to actually learn of the implications at play within the contradictory nature of the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Again - so very sad...
I know what the implications at play are and there is no contradictory nature of the Constitution and the civil rights act of 64.
You are the one who disagrees with the civil rights act. You and that nut Rand.
I want to throw something at you...you don't agree with the constitution? You want the America I fought for for 20 years to go back to 63?
You want it so a business can tell a returning service person who happens to be a minority, they cant eat at your business and get away with that legally? I am not running away from anything, so please address this specifically. Don't divert, stay specific about this scenario, I dare you.
+
See - now even Dante is admitting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a far more complex and contradictory entity than far too many politicians of today appear capable of understanding - similar to what Rand Paul was attempting to explain.
Well done sir!!
____
Okay class. Last time we went over the basics of the manifoil principle.
==========================
This time we'll dig into the flawed reasoning and fractured premises contained in the principle. We will also touch upon the issues raised by accepting the logical conclusions of the principle.
3 major manifoil principle premises:
1) a civil right is a protection for the individual against what the government is allowed to do
2)the government cannot arbitrarily impose a determination of fairness when protecting a civil right for an individual, because civil rights are only a protection for the individual against what the government is allowed to do. the government does not determine what is a civil right
3) if the government is imposing anything, it is by definition an infringement on civil rights rather than an expansion or protection
---
We will be dealing with necessity and the blind eye of libertarian principles phenomena, where principles go into hiding in order to defend what the manifoil principle originally states is indefensible:
Eliminating bad policies of government was (and is always) necessary.
Telling a person they have no right to decide whom they'll do business with was NEVER necessary, yet a point taken into consideration is necessity.
If people get sick, they may die because of bad business practices whether or not they are constitutional, and because times are different, the manifoil principle dictates that if an act is unconstitutional yet necessary (for example, some think the following are unconstitutional: Louisiana Purchase, the ICC Act, Civil Rights Acts, etc)., we simply pretend they are constitutional if they are necessary.
The manifoil principle allows going deaf, dumb and blind, to principle, because for better or worse, doing the right thing overrides a civil right, and justifies the government arbitrarily imposing a determination of fairness in enforcing a civil right, that is not a civil right.
note: any errors of content may be corrected as this is a rough outline of course material (pun?)
+
See - now even Dante is admitting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a far more complex and contradictory entity than far too many politicians of today appear capable of understanding - similar to what Rand Paul was attempting to explain.
Well done sir!!
____
naw, Rand Paul took a stand. He is now running away from it as fast as he can.
Has he come out of hiding yet?
The retarded one is he who cannot read and listen for context and substance....And that retard would be you.Right....Rand was talking about how the "boot on the throat" phraseology was un-American, not criticizing BP per se.
But I don't expect partisan hacks to ever read or listen for context and comprehension.
Hack right back at ya, you hack.
"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.' I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business,"
Dude, are you retarded? You are the definition of a ack if you are trying to defend this. Seriously.
___
You run from the discussion - refusing to actually learn of the implications at play within the contradictory nature of the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Again - so very sad...
I know what the implications at play are and there is no contradictory nature of the Constitution and the civil rights act of 64.
You are the one who disagrees with the civil rights act. You and that nut Rand.
I want to throw something at you...you don't agree with the constitution? You want the America I fought for for 20 years to go back to 63?
You want it so a business can tell a returning service person who happens to be a minority, they cant eat at your business and get away with that legally? I am not running away from anything, so please address this specifically. Don't divert, stay specific about this scenario, I dare you.
There you go again - I never said any of that.
I support the act, while at the same time understanding said implications. You clearly do not, and that is again, rather sad...
Oh, btw, what is un-American about holding someone accountable for their fuckups?
Oh, btw, what is un-American about holding someone accountable for their fuckups?
Do you hold Obama accountable for his fuckups?
"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.' I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business.
I know what the implications at play are and there is no contradictory nature of the Constitution and the civil rights act of 64.
You are the one who disagrees with the civil rights act. You and that nut Rand.
I want to throw something at you...you don't agree with the constitution? You want the America I fought for for 20 years to go back to 63?
You want it so a business can tell a returning service person who happens to be a minority, they cant eat at your business and get away with that legally? I am not running away from anything, so please address this specifically. Don't divert, stay specific about this scenario, I dare you.
There you go again - I never said any of that.
I support the act, while at the same time understanding said implications. You clearly do not, and that is again, rather sad...
So should businesses be allowed to hang signs and enforce racists acts if they want to? Would you vote to change the Civil rights act as it stands now? Do you disagree with ol Rand?
Please, just this once try to stay on point.
The Left Cant Stop Lying About Rand Paul
The Left Cant Stop Lying About Rand Paul
What is there to lie about Rand Paul? What you see is what you get.
Now its the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Tim Kaine, who does a Maddow and flat-out lies on national television about Rand Paul. On Fox News Sunday Kaine claimed that Paul said it was un-American to hold BP accountable for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Host Chris Wallace called him out by pointing out that what Paul said was un-American was a Democratic pols grandstanding bloviation that we should put a boot on the neck of BP. Paul said that such rhetoric is un-American, not holding BP accountable for damage it has caused.
Now its the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Tim Kaine, who does a Maddow and flat-out lies on national television about Rand Paul. On Fox News Sunday Kaine claimed that Paul said it was un-American to hold BP accountable for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Host Chris Wallace called him out by pointing out that what Paul said was un-American was a Democratic pols grandstanding bloviation that we should put a boot on the neck of BP. Paul said that such rhetoric is un-American, not holding BP accountable for damage it has caused.
Can someone please explain to me why some mealy-mouthed optometrist from Kentucky is suddenly national news?
There is shit going on that MATTERS, in case anyone here gives a fuck. You all have less than EIGHT HOURS to raise sand about a 400% increase in the federal gas tax.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/118574-make-your-thoughts-known-now.html
Stop picking on Kentucky, for Gawd's sake. T'aint like there's no assholes wherever the fuck YOU live.
The Left Cant Stop Lying About Rand Paul
What is there to lie about Rand Paul? What you see is what you get.
AGREED!
Now its the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Tim Kaine, who does a Maddow and flat-out lies on national television about Rand Paul. On Fox News Sunday Kaine claimed that Paul said it was un-American to hold BP accountable for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Host Chris Wallace called him out by pointing out that what Paul said was un-American was a Democratic pols grandstanding bloviation that we should put a boot on the neck of BP. Paul said that such rhetoric is un-American, not holding BP accountable for damage it has caused.
Can someone please explain to me why some mealy-mouthed optometrist from Kentucky is suddenly national news?
There is shit going on that MATTERS, in case anyone here gives a fuck. You all have less than EIGHT HOURS to raise sand about a 400% increase in the federal gas tax.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/118574-make-your-thoughts-known-now.html
Stop picking on Kentucky, for Gawd's sake. T'aint like there's no assholes wherever the fuck YOU live.
