Rand Paul Slams "Partisan Cranks And Hacks" At MSNBC [VIDEO]...

[bendog]

Exactly. But had he done the "evolution thing," he'd have to explain why he came to think that outlawing private segregation is both constitutional and socially a good thing. Since he avoided this road, which would have avoiding seeing himself outed in an out and out lie ..... wanna bet he hasn't changed his mind in the least, and he still thinks Lester Maddux should've been able to keep the sign "no negroes served here?"

The option he selected just means the questions will not go away. No matter how much he complains.

Bullshit.

The lies and attacks will not go away no matter what he says.

So he either just ignores it or marginalizes it by calling it what it is.

Bullshit.

Ain't no lie. Rand changed his tune.

 

[Pete7469]

Exactly. But had he done the "evolution thing," he'd have to explain why he came to think that outlawing private segregation is both constitutional and socially a good thing. Since he avoided this road, which would have avoiding seeing himself outed in an out and out lie ..... wanna bet he hasn't changed his mind in the least, and he still thinks Lester Maddux should've been able to keep the sign "no negroes served here?"

The option he selected just means the questions will not go away. No matter how much he complains.

Bullshit.

The lies and attacks will not go away no matter what he says.

So he either just ignores it or marginalizes it by calling it what it is.

Bullshit.

And just too illustrate a point, you bed wetters still insist Sarah Palin said:

You can see Russia from my house

Never mind that's what a comedian said while parodying her.

No matter what she says she's attacked for it, no matter how insignificant and absent of any political power whatsoever, she lives rent free inside the empty skulls of moonbats right Next to Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

There will NEVER be a satisfactory answer for your accusations, unless it's something that you can use to further disparage your enemies.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Exactly. But had he done the "evolution thing," he'd have to explain why he came to think that outlawing private segregation is both constitutional and socially a good thing. Since he avoided this road, which would have avoiding seeing himself outed in an out and out lie ..... wanna bet he hasn't changed his mind in the least, and he still thinks Lester Maddux should've been able to keep the sign "no negroes served here?"

The option he selected just means the questions will not go away. No matter how much he complains.

Exactly. And to be clear this is one of the few issues about which I really agree with the guy. There's a belief that had the fed govt not overstepped into peoples individual actions, multinationals like KFC would have driven the Lester Maddux's into bankruptcy, and the national and intl moral outrage at large corps like Woolworths who practiced segregation, would have put a stop to it. And there wouldn't be this simmering anger in the older whites that the govt was "taking sides."

Still, I realize my belief is by far a minority, and there's a larger reality that it was an outrage and wrong. The problem is whether we apply the same interventionist action to anti-gay bigots on a natl level. I hope not because it will lead to a feeling of victimization.

I see and appreciate your point. And in theory, I'd agree 100%. But when you apply the practical theory to the real world, I'm convinced that you wind up in a place I don't want to go.

I've never seen the marketplace cure big social ills.

 

[Pete7469]

Exactly. And to be clear this is one of the few issues about which I really agree with the guy. There's a belief that had the fed govt not overstepped into peoples individual actions, multinationals like KFC would have driven the Lester Maddux's into bankruptcy, and the national and intl moral outrage at large corps like Woolworths who practiced segregation, would have put a stop to it. And there wouldn't be this simmering anger in the older whites that the govt was "taking sides."

Still, I realize my belief is by far a minority, and there's a larger reality that it was an outrage and wrong. The problem is whether we apply the same interventionist action to anti-gay bigots on a natl level. I hope not because it will lead to a feeling of victimization.

This is one of the few times I agree with you.

The feds have WAY TO MUCH influence over private interactions.

Now I can agree with laws that prevent people from being hired based on race. It's bullshit to deny an opportunity to work, but the quota system is bullshit.

When gays are forcing bakeries to make wedding cakes the baker doesn't want to? That's bullshit too.

Furthermore regarding "this simmering anger in the older whites", there is a deep resentment I think in many blacks because discrimination wasn't ended willingly, it was done so by force. As far as I can tell blacks were being integrated, albeit slowly, through changing attitudes that people made on their own. I would find it difficult to believe I was regarded as an equal, when there was a possibility that the only reason I was tolerated somewhere was because the gov't enforced it.

Of course even in liberal Boston they RIOTED when blacks were bussed in and there was violence over it into the 1970's. So obviously people resent being forced into shit, and I can certainly understand why blacks would be bitter knowing that people resented their presence so strongly they rioted. Again this was in BOSTON, not Savana, not Selma and not Jasper. Affirmative action is the same issue, I wonder how many blacks either believe they're only there to fill a quota thus having less satisfation with their jobs, or even know they can't be fired and do things half assed.

I don't believe there would be this level or racial animosity to this day, had the feds not forced their way into every aspect of people's lives and demanded they behave a certain way.

 

[Pete7469]

The option he selected just means the questions will not go away. No matter how much he complains.

Exactly. And to be clear this is one of the few issues about which I really agree with the guy. There's a belief that had the fed govt not overstepped into peoples individual actions, multinationals like KFC would have driven the Lester Maddux's into bankruptcy, and the national and intl moral outrage at large corps like Woolworths who practiced segregation, would have put a stop to it. And there wouldn't be this simmering anger in the older whites that the govt was "taking sides."

Still, I realize my belief is by far a minority, and there's a larger reality that it was an outrage and wrong. The problem is whether we apply the same interventionist action to anti-gay bigots on a natl level. I hope not because it will lead to a feeling of victimization.

I see and appreciate your point. And in theory, I'd agree 100%. But when you apply the practical theory to the real world, I'm convinced that you wind up in a place I don't want to go.

I've never seen the marketplace cure big social ills.

You're a statist, you don't believe in the inherent good of the individual nor would be willing to let people cure social ills on their own.