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

[bripat9643]

I have to agree with that - and it's my principal frustration with Rand, and where, in my view, he fails his father's legacy.

I can't believe that Paul surrounded himself with neo-confederates and racists without knowing it. If he did, then he's not very good at vetting people and that would be a problem. If he vetted them properly and still gave them the highest positions on his staff, then he must agree with them.

Either way - he won't ever get my vote.

so you support and will vote for Hillary? or will you stay home and vote for her by not voting against her?

that kind of thinking is part of what got us 8 years of obama--------------lets not make that same mistake again.

nodoginnafight is a libturd. He's going to dutifully vote for whatever candidate the Dims put up.

 

[bripat9643]

How many businesses do you people actually think would deny service to people for whatever reason?

My bet is that it would be damn few and the ones that did would see a mass exodus of customers and would most likely go under.

Seems to me that is a desirable result.

The reason they passed Jim Crow laws in the first place was the fact that businesses refused to turn away paying customers, and the racists didn't like that.

If you want to get a clearer understanding of what actually occurred under Jim Crow, read a book named "The Strange Career of Jim Crow." You can download it here:

The Strange Career of Jim Crow ? Woodward | PDF, EPUB, DOC Free Download EBook and Audiobook

The book is no longer copyrighted.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No kiddo, it's based upon how it was founded and how it makes its laws. We make Secular laws here, because we are a Secular nation. Because God said so doesn't justify a law here but it works in Vatican City. We aren't Vatican City.

I'm not your kid, get your nose out of the paint can. The majority of the population is Christian and it's ingrained in the culture. A Muslim country is most Muslim. An atheist country, mostly atheist, so secular. Separation between church and state doesn't mean that church doesn't exist.

Lots of religious people here but the country is Secular. That's why you salute the flag, not Jesus.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I can't believe that Paul surrounded himself with neo-confederates and racists without knowing it. If he did, then he's not very good at vetting people and that would be a problem. If he vetted them properly and still gave them the highest positions on his staff, then he must agree with them.

Either way - he won't ever get my vote.

so you support and will vote for Hillary? or will you stay home and vote for her by not voting against her?

that kind of thinking is part of what got us 8 years of obama--------------lets not make that same mistake again.

nodoginnafight is a libturd. He's going to dutifully vote for whatever candidate the Dims put up.

Yeah that's why in the nine presidential elections since I have been of voting age, I've voted Republican five times, Libertarian twice, and Democrat twice.

Why would you want to invent a personality for someone who you know absolutely nothing about? It just makes you look stupid.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

my question is.....is it not a good thing to know what food places dont want your "kind" there?.....if they have to serve you but they dont want you there,is the cook spitting in your food?.....so now that everyone knows the mindset of the owner....you can go somewhere that WANTS your business,and if the bigoted owner loses a lot of business and then decides he had better take down that sign,well the damage to his business has been done and he just might go under,which he would deserve, and the good places will pick up the slack....

In a magic world it would all work out fine. We don't live in that world.

so does that answer my question?.....would you go to a restaurant that you knew did not want your "kind" there?....now that the owner told you so....would you not feel better knowing that you now know?....i mean **** the guy....let him go out of business...

I go where I like the food. And as long as I bring money and am clothed and reasonable I expect to be served. By law, under those conditions, I am.

 

[nodoginnafight]

But even if 99% are Christian - it still doesn't make us a "Christian" nation in that the Unites States of America does not promote one religion above any others. Some folks don't like that, but tough.

Likeing has nothing to do with it. Laws and culture have two different meanings.

I never stated otherwise.

Our laws and our Constitution do not promote one religion over another one. Period.

 

[Jarhead]

so you support and will vote for Hillary? or will you stay home and vote for her by not voting against her?

that kind of thinking is part of what got us 8 years of obama--------------lets not make that same mistake again.

nodoginnafight is a libturd. He's going to dutifully vote for whatever candidate the Dims put up.

Yeah that's why in the nine presidential elections since I have been of voting age, I've voted Republican five times, Libertarian twice, and Democrat twice.

Why would you want to invent a personality for someone who you know absolutely nothing about? It just makes you look stupid.

you sit there and post spin hyperbole and rhetoric that are nothing more than left wing talking points.

I don't believe you vote republican. Ever.

 

[peach174]

It's a Secular country with many religious people and freedoms.

"endowed by their creator" is not a secular statement
"In God we trust" is not a secular statement
"under God" is not a secular statement

our entire statute of laws is based on the judeo/Christian code of right and wrong.

I know that you don't believe in anything but the founders did and most of America still does.

YOU are the minority, my sad little frog. Maybe there is a place for you in north korea. they believe as you do.

the first amendment protects us from you.

the founders were deists... not Christians and they didn't want anyone's religion forced down anyone's throat or there wouldn't be a first amendment and the constitution wouldn't have specifically prohibited religious tests to obtain public office.

if he is the minority, HE is the one the constitution was supposed to protect from you. a constitution isn't needed to protect the "majority" (even a self-professed one).

see how that works.

You have been taught wrong about our civil rights and our Constitution.

The 1st amendment protects us to worship as we please without government interference.
It has nothing to do with non believers protection from believers. As non believers they have that right to not believe, but not the right to enforce their views onto believers.
No Christian is forcing you to become religious.
There were 3 founders that were Episcopalian Deists. Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and Cornelius Harnett.
Out of the 204 all were Christian except for the 3 listed above. Later in life Jefferson and Franklin changed their views on being Deists and became full Christians.

The Constitution protects us all from Government controlling us, something that the Government has ignored for over 100 years.
The Constitution is for the majority as well as the minority. It is for every single citizen of the U.S.A. Not us vs them. which the left are doing.
You have been taught by the progressives to believe the lies about our Constitution and it's history.

 

[Iceweasel]

Lots of religious people here but the country is Secular. That's why you salute the flag, not Jesus.

Like I said, separation between church and state doesn't make the church irrelevant when we discuss the culture.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"endowed by their creator" is not a secular statement
"In God we trust" is not a secular statement
"under God" is not a secular statement

our entire statute of laws is based on the judeo/Christian code of right and wrong.

I know that you don't believe in anything but the founders did and most of America still does.

YOU are the minority, my sad little frog. Maybe there is a place for you in north korea. they believe as you do.

the first amendment protects us from you.

the founders were deists... not Christians and they didn't want anyone's religion forced down anyone's throat or there wouldn't be a first amendment and the constitution wouldn't have specifically prohibited religious tests to obtain public office.

if he is the minority, HE is the one the constitution was supposed to protect from you. a constitution isn't needed to protect the "majority" (even a self-professed one).

see how that works.

You have been taught wrong about our civil rights and our Constitution.

The 1st amendment protects us to worship as we please without government interference.
It has nothing to do with non believers protection from believers. As non believers they have that right to not believe, but not the right to enforce their views onto believers.
No Christian is forcing you to become religious.
There were 3 founders that were Episcopalian Deists. Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and Cornelius Harnett.
Out of the 204 all were Christian except for the 3 listed above. Later in life Jefferson and Franklin changed their views on being Deists and became full Christians.

The Constitution protects us all from Government controlling us, something that the Government has ignored for over 100 years.
The Constitution is for the majority as well as the minority. It is for every single citizen of the U.S.A. Not us vs them. which the left are doing.
You have been taught by the progressives to believe the lies about our Constitution and it's history.

And yet these religious men left god out of the Constitution entirely and based it on Enlightenment thinking. Odd eh? Well, not really.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Lots of religious people here but the country is Secular. That's why you salute the flag, not Jesus.

Like I said, separation between church and state doesn't make the church irrelevant when we discuss the culture.

Oh the culture is plenty Christian. It's their government that isn't.

 

[Contumacious]

He's soooooooo 1950s....

CPAC Presidential Straw Poll Picks Guy Who Thinks Whites-Only Lunch Counters Should Be Legal
.

"Our case law, firmly establishes that individuals have a right to privacy of belief and association."

Doe v. Reed, No. 09-559 (U.S. 06/24/2010)

I guess those rights are only applicable when they don't clash with political correctness.

 

[Spiderman]

How many businesses do you people actually think would deny service to people for whatever reason?

My bet is that it would be damn few and the ones that did would see a mass exodus of customers and would most likely go under.

Seems to me that is a desirable result.

The reason they passed Jim Crow laws in the first place was the fact that businesses refused to turn away paying customers, and the racists didn't like that.

If you want to get a clearer understanding of what actually occurred under Jim Crow, read a book named "The Strange Career of Jim Crow." You can download it here:

The Strange Career of Jim Crow ? Woodward | PDF, EPUB, DOC Free Download EBook and Audiobook

The book is no longer copyrighted.

Do you really think that would happen today?

I don't. If fact what I think would happen if a business posted a white only sign in the window is that people would protest and picket and most people would patronize another business. Any remaining bigots who would patronize the white only business would probably not be enough to keep it open.

 

[Harry Dresden]

In a magic world it would all work out fine. We don't live in that world.

so does that answer my question?.....would you go to a restaurant that you knew did not want your "kind" there?....now that the owner told you so....would you not feel better knowing that you now know?....i mean **** the guy....let him go out of business...

I go where I like the food. And as long as I bring money and am clothed and reasonable I expect to be served. By law, under those conditions, I am.

ok ....avoid the question i asked.....so even if you knew the guy did not want you there you would still go in and not worry the cook might spit on your plate because.....you like the chow there?.....maybe the spit adds to the flavor....

 

[The Rabbi]

"endowed by their creator" is not a secular statement
"In God we trust" is not a secular statement
"under God" is not a secular statement

our entire statute of laws is based on the judeo/Christian code of right and wrong.

I know that you don't believe in anything but the founders did and most of America still does.

YOU are the minority, my sad little frog. Maybe there is a place for you in north korea. they believe as you do.

the first amendment protects us from you.

the founders were deists... not Christians and they didn't want anyone's religion forced down anyone's throat or there wouldn't be a first amendment and the constitution wouldn't have specifically prohibited religious tests to obtain public office.

if he is the minority, HE is the one the constitution was supposed to protect from you. a constitution isn't needed to protect the "majority" (even a self-professed one).

see how that works.

You have been taught wrong about our civil rights and our Constitution.

The 1st amendment protects us to worship as we please without government interference.
It has nothing to do with non believers protection from believers. As non believers they have that right to not believe, but not the right to enforce their views onto believers.
No Christian is forcing you to become religious.
There were 3 founders that were Episcopalian Deists. Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and Cornelius Harnett.
Out of the 204 all were Christian except for the 3 listed above. Later in life Jefferson and Franklin changed their views on being Deists and became full Christians.

The Constitution protects us all from Government controlling us, something that the Government has ignored for over 100 years.
The Constitution is for the majority as well as the minority. It is for every single citizen of the U.S.A. Not us vs them. which the left are doing.
You have been taught by the progressives to believe the lies about our Constitution and it's history.

Jillian is a know-nothing nit wit.
The 1A applied ONLY to the federal government. States were free to establish their own religious tests. And did so. But the Founders did not want conflict between i.e. the Quakers of PA and the Protestants of MA.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

so does that answer my question?.....would you go to a restaurant that you knew did not want your "kind" there?....now that the owner told you so....would you not feel better knowing that you now know?....i mean **** the guy....let him go out of business...

I go where I like the food. And as long as I bring money and am clothed and reasonable I expect to be served. By law, under those conditions, I am.

ok ....avoid the question i asked.....so even if you knew the guy did not want you there you would still go in and not worry the cook might spit on your plate because.....you like the chow there?.....maybe the spit adds to the flavor....

If you like the food, don't go in the kitchen. You won't like it afterward if you do. Not to mention that altering the food is illegal, and it also happens. My fears do not dictate my behavior.

 

[hangover]

Hey cons, is Rand Paul really going to be your nominee? I sure hope so. BWAH HA HA HA HA!!!!!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

How many businesses do you people actually think would deny service to people for whatever reason?

My bet is that it would be damn few and the ones that did would see a mass exodus of customers and would most likely go under.

Seems to me that is a desirable result.

The reason they passed Jim Crow laws in the first place was the fact that businesses refused to turn away paying customers, and the racists didn't like that.

If you want to get a clearer understanding of what actually occurred under Jim Crow, read a book named "The Strange Career of Jim Crow." You can download it here:

The Strange Career of Jim Crow ? Woodward | PDF, EPUB, DOC Free Download EBook and Audiobook

The book is no longer copyrighted.

Do you really think that would happen today?

I don't. If fact what I think would happen if a business posted a white only sign in the window is that people would protest and picket and most people would patronize another business. Any remaining bigots who would patronize the white only business would probably not be enough to keep it open.

The point is, been there done that. We're moving on, most of us...

 

[Spiderman]

The reason they passed Jim Crow laws in the first place was the fact that businesses refused to turn away paying customers, and the racists didn't like that.

If you want to get a clearer understanding of what actually occurred under Jim Crow, read a book named "The Strange Career of Jim Crow." You can download it here:

The Strange Career of Jim Crow ? Woodward | PDF, EPUB, DOC Free Download EBook and Audiobook

The book is no longer copyrighted.

Do you really think that would happen today?

I don't. If fact what I think would happen if a business posted a white only sign in the window is that people would protest and picket and most people would patronize another business. Any remaining bigots who would patronize the white only business would probably not be enough to keep it open.

The point is, been there done that. We're moving on, most of us...

My point is let the bigots be bigots and they will pay the price.

I know I would not patronize a business with a whites only sign.

Look at what happened to that bakery that wouldn't bake a cake for a gay couple.

Out of business.

 

[peach174]

Lots of religious people here but the country is Secular. That's why you salute the flag, not Jesus.

Like I said, separation between church and state doesn't make the church irrelevant when we discuss the culture.

Separation between Church and State meant that Jefferson as the President, could not interfere in the State nor could Congress. It was up to them as Citizens of their State to change their predicament. It was forbidden by the Federal Government.
Our Amendments (Civil Rights) forbids the Federal Government from making any laws that are listed as Amendments.
Amendment 16 should be unconstitutional because it is for the Government, not for the people. It gives the right to Congress, not the people.
Our Congress now thinks that they can make any laws they please and it's up to the courts do decide. This type of thinking is absolutely wrong and totally against our Constitutional rights.
That did not mean the Federal Government was forbidden to have God.