CPAC Presidential Straw Poll Picks Guy Who Thinks Whites-Only Lunch Counters Should B

[dblack]

Rand Paul did not say that he supports discrimination--------the OP is a lie.

Actually, the OP didn't say that. It was a pretty straight up representation of Paul's views.

No, its bullshit. Bullshit created by a lying left wing shit eating website.

Read it again. Seriously. It's an honest accounting of Paul's views. I read it and thought "Yeah, that sounds about right. I might consider voting for him." I have other reservations about Paul, but the article wasn't a smear. Many will, no doubt, assume his views are motivated by racism rather than principle, but I don't think that's the fault of the OP.

 

[Redfish]

Actually, the OP didn't say that. It was a pretty straight up representation of Paul's views.

No, its bullshit. Bullshit created by a lying left wing shit eating website.

Read it again. Seriously. It's an honest accounting of Paul's views. I read it and thought "Yeah, that sounds about right. I might consider voting for him." I have other reservations about Paul, but the article wasn't a smear. Many will, no doubt, assume his views are motivated by racism rather than principle, but I don't think that's the fault of the OP.

I guess you missed the title of the thread. It is a gross misrepresentation of what he said-----------it is a lie.

 

[dblack]

No, its bullshit. Bullshit created by a lying left wing shit eating website.

Read it again. Seriously. It's an honest accounting of Paul's views. I read it and thought "Yeah, that sounds about right. I might consider voting for him." I have other reservations about Paul, but the article wasn't a smear. Many will, no doubt, assume his views are motivated by racism rather than principle, but I don't think that's the fault of the OP.

I guess you missed the title of the thread. It is a gross misrepresentation of what he said-----------it is a lie.

How is it a lie? He does think they should be legal. So do I. How is it a misrepresentation?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Since the immediate issue that gave rise to this discussion is the Arizona debate over a business owner being able to deny service to gay people (specifically wedding services like cakes and photography) because of their religious views on homosexuality, I'd like to "regress" to that issue.

I would think that in the vast majority of cases, the situation could be handled well without a legal debate.

What if the photographer or the baker was just honest with the potential customers and said, "Look, I'll provide my services if you absolutely demand it. But I have very strong religious beliefs against what you are doing, so my heart will not be in it and I doubt that I will be able to give you my very best effort. Wouldn't you be much happier contracting with someone who can join in - wholeheartedly - with the celebration of your very special day?"

Wouldn't that take care of 99.9% of the problems?

 

[dblack]

Since the immediate issue that gave rise to this discussion is the Arizona debate over a business owner being able to deny service to gay people (specifically wedding services like cakes and photography) because of their religious views on homosexuality, I'd like to "regress" to that issue.

I would think that in the vast majority of cases, the situation could be handled well without a legal debate.

What if the photographer or the baker was just honest with the potential customers and said, "Look, I'll provide my services if you absolutely demand it. But I have very strong religious beliefs against what you are doing, so my heart will not be in it and I doubt that I will be able to give you my very best effort. Wouldn't you be much happier contracting with someone who can join in - wholeheartedly - with the celebration of your very special day?"

Wouldn't that take care of 99.9% of the problems?

I don't think the (AZ) law had much at all to do with any 'real' problems. It's not like there's an epidemic of fundamentalist bakers being martyred for their beliefs.

It was proposed and passed as a political statement of principle and a deliberate attempt to challenge precedent. But I think that's valid, nonetheless.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Since the immediate issue that gave rise to this discussion is the Arizona debate over a business owner being able to deny service to gay people (specifically wedding services like cakes and photography) because of their religious views on homosexuality, I'd like to "regress" to that issue.

I would think that in the vast majority of cases, the situation could be handled well without a legal debate.

What if the photographer or the baker was just honest with the potential customers and said, "Look, I'll provide my services if you absolutely demand it. But I have very strong religious beliefs against what you are doing, so my heart will not be in it and I doubt that I will be able to give you my very best effort. Wouldn't you be much happier contracting with someone who can join in - wholeheartedly - with the celebration of your very special day?"

Wouldn't that take care of 99.9% of the problems?

I don't think the (AZ) law had much at all to do with any 'real' problems. It's not like there's an epidemic of fundamentalist bakers being martyred for their beliefs.

It was proposed and passed as a political statement of principle and a deliberate attempt to challenge precedent. But I think that's valid, nonetheless.

Just like the couple of lawsuits I heard about that were filed in other states were not an attempt to secure the services of particular businesses. They were filed to try to push an agenda. And that is probably just as legitimate imho.

I think it is ironic that it is still very legal in Arizona for an employer to fire someone because they are gay.

From what I understand, they can just walk up to you and say, "you're outta here queer."

But you gotta bake him a cake on his way out?????

 

[rdean]

This thread is a perfect example of liberal horseshit. Not a word of truth in it. full of libtardian lies and innuendo.

Paul is for FREEDOM for everyone. EQUAL freedom for everyone.

What you assholes refuse to understand is that there is a price for real freedom. The price is that you are responsible for your actions, you are responsible to take care of yourself (unless you are truly mentally or physically unable).

The free cheese may be ending for you leeches, the american people are fed up with you.

One of your democrat heroes said it quite well "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" JFK understood freedom, obozo and most of you do not.

Freedom to have "White Only" lunch counters? How long before "White only" bathrooms, hospitals and so on?

Again?

Republicans don't see this as a problem. The only see the "good old days".

See, Pete, I told you they were going to call you a racist. If you oppose government taking your money, then you hate the poor and favor the rich. If you support freedom of speech, then you support printing racist literature. If you support freedom of association, then you want to bring back whites-only lunch counters.

That's how the liberal "mind" works.

Paul Ryan says it's good for poor children to be hungry. And look at Republican congressmen getting free food at expensive restaurants on the government dole, even spending thousands on bottled water.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, that's Michelle Obama pushing childhood hunger while she goes out for arugula salad and million dollar trips to Spain.

 

[The T]

No, that's Michelle Obama pushing childhood hunger while she goes out for arugula salad and million dollar trips to Spain.

​

 

[rdean]

^^^^^^

butt backwards

America being 70% Christian isn't "butt backwards." It's an inconvenient truth.

President Obama is a Christian.

Too bad right wingers don't treat him like one.

 

[rdean]

No, that's Michelle Obama pushing childhood hunger while she goes out for arugula salad and million dollar trips to Spain.

No, it's Paul Ryan:

A story too good to check: Paul Ryan and the tale of the brown paper bag

 

[mamooth]

So what place in the straw poll did Putin finish? Oh, I bet the Rand backers arranged for Putin to be left out, because they knew Putin would win.

Conservatives, good luck with the whole "JIM CROW IS FREEDOM!" thing. We'd appreciate it if you'd shout that opinion even louder.

 

[Wildman]

Actually, the OP didn't say that. It was a pretty straight up representation of Paul's views.

No, its bullshit. Bullshit created by a lying left wing shit eating website.

Read it again. Seriously. It's an honest accounting of Paul's views. I read it and thought "Yeah, that sounds about right. I might consider voting for him." I have other reservations about Paul, but the article wasn't a smear. Many will, no doubt, assume his views are motivated by racism rather than principle, but I don't think that's the fault of the OP.

why not ? when someone posts a link or an article, they should take responsibility for it's content, after all the poster believes it will back up or refute his/her stance on the topic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Actually, the OP didn't say that. It was a pretty straight up representation of Paul's views.

No, its bullshit. Bullshit created by a lying left wing shit eating website.

Read it again. Seriously. It's an honest accounting of Paul's views. I read it and thought "Yeah, that sounds about right. I might consider voting for him." I have other reservations about Paul, but the article wasn't a smear. Many will, no doubt, assume his views are motivated by racism rather than principle, but I don't think that's the fault of the OP.

Paul isn’t ‘racist,’ he’s simply ignorant and naïve, as are most libertarians; indeed, libertarianism is in essence utopian political dogma.

It’s naïve and inane, for example, to think that if public accommodations laws were eliminated, and businesses allowed to discriminate based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, ‘decent’ society would ‘shun’ such practices and those businesses would either go under or stop discriminating, free from government ‘coercion.’

Needless to say nothing could be further from the truth, as businesses that discriminate would continue to thrive.

And as with most libertarians, Paul is a reactionary, fearful of change, in a pathetic search for an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with.

 

[Barb]

Meanwhile, Paul Ryan looks to be running for Veep again, bringing up the batshit contingent

The Amazing Base - Power of Love - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 03/10/14 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

 

[dblack]

No, its bullshit. Bullshit created by a lying left wing shit eating website.

Read it again. Seriously. It's an honest accounting of Paul's views. I read it and thought "Yeah, that sounds about right. I might consider voting for him." I have other reservations about Paul, but the article wasn't a smear. Many will, no doubt, assume his views are motivated by racism rather than principle, but I don't think that's the fault of the OP.

why not ? when someone posts a link or an article, they should take responsibility for it's content, after all the poster believes it will back up or refute his/her stance on the topic.

The content doesn't say Paul is a racist. I understand the demagoguery going on here. I'm just saying that the OP isn't a lie. The issue is the stupidity of people who equate reasonable arguments against public accommodations laws as racist in nature.

 

[dblack]

And as with most libertarians, Paul is a reactionary, fearful of change, in a pathetic search for an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with.

Your posts are getting dumber all the time, but they're also turning to sheer dishonesty. If anything, you're the reactionary these days - stooping to pretty much anything to defend the status quo.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, its bullshit. Bullshit created by a lying left wing shit eating website.

Read it again. Seriously. It's an honest accounting of Paul's views. I read it and thought "Yeah, that sounds about right. I might consider voting for him." I have other reservations about Paul, but the article wasn't a smear. Many will, no doubt, assume his views are motivated by racism rather than principle, but I don't think that's the fault of the OP.

Paul isn’t ‘racist,’ he’s simply ignorant and naïve, as are most libertarians; indeed, libertarianism is in essence utopian political dogma.

It’s naïve and inane, for example, to think that if public accommodations laws were eliminated, and businesses allowed to discriminate based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, ‘decent’ society would ‘shun’ such practices and those businesses would either go under or stop discriminating, free from government ‘coercion.’

Needless to say nothing could be further from the truth, as businesses that discriminate would continue to thrive.

And as with most libertarians, Paul is a reactionary, fearful of change, in a pathetic search for an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with.

I think you're the naive one here.
Do you honestly think if gov't eliminated racial laws then suddenly everyone would revert to a 1950s mindset? Hotels would bar Jews and blacks. Restaurants would be white only?
That's absurd and without foundation. Society has changed considerably. I tell 18 and 19yr old kids sometimes, You know in this very city it was illegal for blacks to drink out of White Only water fountains and they think I'm talking about Mars.
Busineses do not thrive by turning away customers Business is far more competitive today than it was 50 years ago. They would go under in many circumstances if they started posting No Blacks signs.

Paul is not fearful of change. Paul wants change. It is you who cling to an outmoded past.

 

[Mac1958]

I think you're the naive one here.
Do you honestly think if gov't eliminated racial laws then suddenly everyone would revert to a 1950s mindset? Hotels would bar Jews and blacks. Restaurants would be white only?
That's absurd and without foundation. Society has changed considerably. I tell 18 and 19yr old kids sometimes, You know in this very city it was illegal for blacks to drink out of White Only water fountains and they think I'm talking about Mars.
Busineses do not thrive by turning away customers Business is far more competitive today than it was 50 years ago. They would go under in many circumstances if they started posting No Blacks signs.

My kids would be on the front line of people protesting the coffee shop of some bigot who wouldn't serve blacks, and I'd be there with them. That place would be gone soon.

The Left somehow thinks that without Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning to take care of us, we'd disintegrate on the spot, into a little puddle on the sidewalk. They don't have much faith in people outside of the government.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think you're the naive one here.
Do you honestly think if gov't eliminated racial laws then suddenly everyone would revert to a 1950s mindset? Hotels would bar Jews and blacks. Restaurants would be white only?
That's absurd and without foundation. Society has changed considerably. I tell 18 and 19yr old kids sometimes, You know in this very city it was illegal for blacks to drink out of White Only water fountains and they think I'm talking about Mars.
Busineses do not thrive by turning away customers Business is far more competitive today than it was 50 years ago. They would go under in many circumstances if they started posting No Blacks signs.

My kids would be on the front line of people protesting the coffee shop of some bigot who wouldn't serve blacks, and I'd be there with them. That place would be gone soon.

The Left somehow thinks that without Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning to take care of us, we'd disintegrate on the spot, into a little puddle on the sidewalk. They don't have much faith in people outside of the government.

.

The Left thinks that without government mandates we'd all be living in mud huts eating bugs.