BOOM!!!! Rand Paul Wins

[silastristan]

Hi...,

I didnt understood your post. Because I am newbie to this foruma. I hopr some oneels will help you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rand Paul will be a Senator.

Deal with it....

Dealing with racism and its enablers is nothing new in America.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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...

Depth? It's one's 'depth' that causes one to believe in such an extremist view of the Constitution that that view denies the Constitution one of its most fundamental purposes?

indeed

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Then why did he try to completely reverse his position less than 24 hours after it became a national story?

What kind of 'depth' is it that causes a man to totally abandon his stated principle, and try to replace it with completely the opposite position, at the drop of a hat?

What, now, is the public supposed to believe about Rand Paul? His old view? His new view?

 

[NYcarbineer]

A very substantial margin of victory for the Tea Party candidate.
Paul will now quickly mend fences with the Republican Party machine, but will, by the significance of his victory, be in the driver's seat when dictating terms.

And so the conservative tide heading into November 2010 grows...

What a difference a day makes. Maddow rules! This guy is so done. OH and there were idiots who thanked you when you first posted this crap.....

AquaAthena (05-18-2010), blu (05-18-2010), code1211 (05-18-2010), Conspiracist (Yesterday), Foxfyre (Yesterday), Middleman (05-18-2010), Nonelitist (05-18-2010), Wicked Jester (05-18-2010), WillowTree (05-18-2010), Zander (05-18-2010)


Morons. You look so damn dumb at this point, its just sad.

He will mend fences? The republicans are RUNNING away from this nut. He represents the tea baggers perfectly. But no, there are no racists in that party!

Hey, they're not racists. They're just people who think racism is okay, relatively speaking.

The equation goes like this:

They are people who think that given a choice between racial discrimination, or having a federal government powerful enough to outlaw racial discrimination,

racial discrimination is the lesser of the two 'evils'.

 

[paperview]

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.

Then why did he try to completely reverse his position less than 24 hours after it became a national story?

What kind of 'depth' is it that causes a man to totally abandon his stated principle, and try to replace it with completely the opposite position, at the drop of a hat?

What, now, is the public supposed to believe about Rand Paul? His old view? His new view?

All I know -as far as my view - is this is going to be one hellofa good show coming up.

I love it!

 

[rightwinger]

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?

I don't believe for a minute that Rand Paul is a racist. But he is so wrapped up in his libertarian doctrine that he is willing to stomp on other peoples rights to achieve his free libertarian utopia.

He needs to learn to temper his overall objectives with an understanding of what America is like today. If he can't he will fail

 

[NYcarbineer]

Boooom. Seems Sen. Jim Demint and Rep. Eric Cantor are backing away from Dr. Paul. How many others will throw him under the bus?

Jesus said to him, Truly I say to you, That this night, before the cock crow, you shall deny me thrice. (Matthew 26:34)

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

I don't believe for a minute that rand Paul is a racist. But he is so wrapped up in his libertarian doctrine that he is willing to stomp on other peoples rights to achieve his free libertarian utopia.

He needs to learn to temper his overall objectives with an understanding of what America is like today. If he can't he will fail

Well, remember, we can't be pro-choice, we have to be pro-abortion, so I've been told repeatedly from voices on the right.

So I'll let those who subscribe to that principle decide whether or not to apply that principle to Rand Paul's belief. Does his belief that people should have to the right to racially discriminate make him pro-choice on racism, or pro-racism?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Additionally, it was very weasely of Paul to try to blame this on the media.

 

[nraforlife]

A very substantial margin of victory for the Tea Party candidate.

Paul will now quickly mend fences with the Republican Party machine, but will, by the significance of his victory, be in the driver's seat when dictating terms.

And so the conservative tide heading into November 2010 grows...

___


LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Rand Paul defeated Republican establishment favorite Trey Grayson in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate, a closely watched race that was a key test of the tea party movement's strength.

Paul, the son of former presidential candidate U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, on Tuesday gave the tea party its first victory in a statewide election — one that could embolden the fledgling political movement in other states. With 31 percent of precincts reporting, Paul was leading with 65,702 votes, or 59 percent, to Grayson's 40,767 votes or 37 percent.


Paul wins Ky. Sen. primary in test of tea party | Top AP Stories | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

Look for LOTS of 'moderate' repugs to endorse the democrat because of Paul's 'extremism'.

 

[paperview]

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?

I don't believe for a minute that rand Paul is a racist. But he is so wrapped up in his libertarian doctrine that he is willing to stomp on other peoples rights to achieve his free libertarian utopia.

He needs to learn to temper his overall objectives with an understanding of what America is like today. If he can't he will fail

Well, remember, we can't be pro-choice, we have to be pro-abortion, so I've been told repeatedly from voices on the right.

So I'll let those who subscribe to that principle decide whether or not to apply that principle to Rand Paul's belief. Does his belief that people should have to the right to racially discriminate make him pro-choice on racism, or pro-racism?

A post so nice, it should be seen twice.

 

[saveliberty]

Additionally, it was very weasely of Paul to try to blame this on the media.

Good point, we all know America has a blameless media.

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

 

[Ravi]

LOL! Now he thinks BP shouldn't be faulted for the gulf gusher.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When a person decides that the right to discriminate is more important than the right not to be discriminated against,

they have taken a VERY un-American, anti-Constititutional view of the matter.

 

[NYcarbineer]

LOL! Now he thinks BP shouldn't be faulted for the gulf gusher.

I just saw that. Somebody needs to remind this guy he's running for Senator of Kentucky, not mayor of Wasilla.

 

[WillowTree]

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

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.