Rand Paul wins Senate Primary, soon to be a pro-legalization senator!

[Clackamas Coot]

I agree with the Apostle Paul - if a white cracker down in Butt Crack, Georgia doesn't want to eat with 'coloreds' or worse - the handicapped!!! Gasp!

The Apostle Paul wants to take 'America Back' - back to the good ol' days when PANs (Potentially Angry Negroes) and the crippleds didn't dare offend a shuffling, drooling white cracker.

God bless John Wayne!

This moron doesn't stand a chance in the US Senate. The US Senate isn't made up of hillbillies from the trailer parks that dot Kentucky and other bastions of white rule in the Southeast.

How many Repuba-Bubba Senators are going to stand with this moron on his positions about 'coloreds' and 'cripples' - other than to opine that hiring cripples is a good thing as they're fun to watch? 2? 3?

Laughable. Even if this ass-clown is elected he still has to deal with 'real politik' and one has to wonder how many of the GOP will want to be identified with his goofy position on coloreds and cripples?

At the very least it will be fun to watch. Junior senators are given little, if any, awards for bucking the national Repuba-Bubba evangelical base. They'll cut him to ribbons in a New York minute.

Watch.

CC

 

[Bill O'Reilly]

He has really been coming under fire lately. I winced a little when he seemed to retract his position a little bit. Seemed like a Debra Medina moment if anybody remembers her.

I still believe Rand is a GOOD guy in the long run. He will not suddenly vote to raise taxes or legislate mandatory minimum sentences.

Ron Paul just did a great interview with Alan Colmes, and hopefully Rand was listening to the things he was saying. His Dad is fucking teflon these days and I think he is setting himself up perfectly to run for POTUS in 12.

Question:
Should a black restaurant owner be forced by the government to serve peaceable Ku Klux Klan members?

Even Martin Luther King did not support the creation of new laws regarding race because identifying people as groups is intrinsically segregating.

-BILLO

 

[darrylRouson]

They are trying to pin him as a racist, cause he believes business owners should make all their own business decisions, even bad ones. Don't these people get it, we shouldn't need gov't to make moral decisions for us. I am white as can be, and if a business only opened its doors to whites, I would be outside picketing and actively boycotting..

I spent a few hours today watching clips out of context, was pretty much split on the issue. After watching the raw footage, not so much split on the issue.

Watch the full raw shit and tell me theyre "pinning" him. My ass. http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/rachel-maddow-corners-rand-paul-his-e Fucked up shit starts at 7:00

He keeps talking about gun rights, and freedom of speach, which has nothing to do with civil rights. Saying "no blacks allowed" is NOT a form of expression. What about that thing in the news where the private school banned inter-racial dating? That should be upheld by the courts? That is what Rand Paul implied he supports.

The item of debate is discrimination, not racism. There is a huge fucking difference folks. The former an action, the latter an expression.

There are 500 cases filed every week under the 1964 civil rights act. Are you protesting all of them?

Saying "you can't ban black people" and "you cant enforce a dress code" are two different things. The former needs to be be illegal, the latter is an example of a business decision.

The law is in place for a reason, because until it was put into place, "negroes" had to piss in glass jars because gas stations turned them away. Thats not right and you know it.

You don't see parents with screaming 2yr olds screaming racism when they get kicked out of the restaurant. Rand Paul is so busy philosphising and worrying about the rare event of someone exploiting the law, he is ignoring (abstracting out) the 500 cases a week where someone IS discriminated against.

Plus, the idiot already reverted his position because he realized he fucked up. He's a puppet then. No one has called him a racist, from what I've seen though. The head of the NAACP doesn't think he's a racist, he is just mis-informed and not fit for law making. This is the problem with single issue voting, you vote for him because you want weed. In exchange you're going to reverse the stuff Martin Luther King gave his life to fighting for.

The civil rights act applies to those providing a public service. Its pretty straight forward and should not be an item of debate, which is why its appalling for this lunatic to bring it up. If you own a restaurant, you can't ban black people. If you run a private club, you can. That makes sense to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9kT1yO4MGg
know your history; sheep. You were probably too stoned when they went over the fire hoses in history class. It sure is easy to dismiss civil rights when you're rich white & successful, that doesn't make it right. It sure is easy to dismiss weed when you're an 80yr old retiree don't smoke it; that isn't right either.

...I'll just leave this here...

Must watch raw footage of Rand Paul's illogical form of rationale: http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/rachel-maddow-corners-rand-paul-his-e

Listen to Him. He contradicts himself. He says he every bit of his being is against discrimination. Yet at the same time, he himself starts talking about "abstraction" in reference to civil rights. Abstraction. Definition: removing detail. In other words, he's admitting he is ignoring what actually happened to "colored folk" before these laws were passed, he abstracted them out and then chose to become a philosopher. If he wants to philosophize, that's great, but I'd rather have Albert Einstein [someone who challenges their own positions to consolidate with real world observations] than David Hume [someone who "abstracts"] running my country, LOL

Make sure your law makers observe real world consequences.

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aabstract

 

[armedoldhippy]

There are 500 cases filed every week under the 1964 civil rights act. Are you protesting all of them?

Saying "you can't ban black people" and "you cant enforce a dress code" are two different things. The former needs to be be illegal, the latter is an example of a business decision.

The law is in place for a reason, because until it was put into place, "negroes" had to piss in glass jars because gas stations turned them away. Thats not right and you know it.

You don't see parents with screaming 2yr olds screaming racism when they get kicked out of the restaurant. ( HAH! they will if they aren't WHITE! )

Plus, the idiot already reverted his position because he realized he fucked up. He's a puppet then. No one has called him a racist, from what I've seen though. The head of the NAACP doesn't think he's a racist, he is just mis-informed and not fit for law making. This is the problem with single issue voting, you vote for him because you want weed. In exchange you're going to reverse the stuff Martin Luther King gave his life to fighting for.

The civil rights act applies to those providing a public service. Its pretty straight forward and should not be an item of debate, which is why its appalling for this lunatic to bring it up. If you own a restaurant, you can't ban black people. If you run a private club, you can. That makes sense to me.

have you never gone into a place that had a sign saying "we reserve the right to refuse service" ? that is not racism, it is a private business decision. it may cost them, it may help them, but it is THEIR decision. lots of places have signs up saying "no public restrooms". is THAT racist, or just common sense? because the general public is a band of poorly house-trained swine. i wouldn't let most of YOU folks use MY bathroom either...well, not until i got to know you a mite better.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

I agree with the Apostle Paul - if a white cracker down in Butt Crack, Georgia doesn't want to eat with 'coloreds' or worse - the handicapped!!! Gasp!

The Apostle Paul wants to take 'America Back' - back to the good ol' days when PANs (Potentially Angry Negroes) and the crippleds didn't dare offend a shuffling, drooling white cracker.

God bless John Wayne!

This moron doesn't stand a chance in the US Senate. The US Senate isn't made up of hillbillies from the trailer parks that dot Kentucky and other bastions of white rule in the Southeast.

How many Repuba-Bubba Senators are going to stand with this moron on his positions about 'coloreds' and 'cripples' - other than to opine that hiring cripples is a good thing as they're fun to watch? 2? 3?

Laughable. Even if this ass-clown is elected he still has to deal with 'real politik' and one has to wonder how many of the GOP will want to be identified with his goofy position on coloreds and cripples?

At the very least it will be fun to watch. Junior senators are given little, if any, awards for bucking the national Repuba-Bubba evangelical base. They'll cut him to ribbons in a New York minute.

Watch.

CC

See here is the thing...
Folks with limited understanding of the ideology that shapes the conservative mind, just don't get it. They can't seem to grasp concepts that are past what their preconceived notions of how things are.

Folks like Coot, and even the supposedly intelligent types like Rachel Maddow, show their ignorance when they refuse to look past their high and mighty glasses.
See, if things were as they should be, when a business puts up a sign that says no service to blacks, it would probably mean the end of that business doing much business. It would also expose the business owner as a person that has issues, which would also hurt him socially because clear thinking people don't befriend and hang out with folks that they know are off their bean.

But, ignorant types seem to think that morality needs to be legislated. And that is their problem. You can't legislate morality, and even if you could, one mans moral is another mans sin.
Leftists don't get this...and I fully understand it is mainly due to their secular nature. Such a hollow existence leads to hollow thoughts.

And some, like coot, are trying to throw stones at a man and charging him being a bigot..when the truth is Paul is not being a bigot by his stance on the civil rights legislation issue. Not at all. His reasons are completely unrelated to racism. But, coot doesn't get that...and to make it worse on himself he show us that HE is indeed a bigot that has no fucking clue about people. Just about as rude as it gets...bigoted and rude. And I am just about certain a fucking racist to boot.
Amazing how you folks (read; fucks) show your colors.

A prime example of the ignorance that costs this nation so dearly.

 

[Clackamas Coot]

Hoosier

You obviously haven't read the Apostle Paul's latest 'explanation' about his comments.

Perhaps if you actually READ his comments and not necessarily the comments by the Beck/O'Reilly crowd you might want to amend/edit your latest screed.

BTW - do you still support people who sodomize children? Like TN?

Just curious as usual.

CC

 

[Danks2005]

Look, if a business owner is a racist you wouldn't know it do the the federal laws, thus this business owner is lining his pockets, from hard earned money from those he HATES.

If said business owner was brazen enough to put up a sign "whites only", which I too believe would be his choice, though a poor one both morally and in business. Then at least you know where he stands, and you have the right to picket/protest, and BOYCOTT his business and hopefully hit him where it hurts, in the wallet, with any luck losing his business. I am white as can be, and I would rush to the picket line. We can't say we live in a free country, when the gov't makes our moral decisions for us.

We as people of a free nation, need to make our own personal decisions, even if they are the wrong ones. If a tv channel is offensive, change the channel. If a radio station is offensive, change the station. If someones business practice is offensive, don't do business with them, or associate with them personally. EVERYONE deserves freedom in the land of the free.

 

[White-rhino]

Funny bceause I am not that old but have seen signs that say "No blacks". It was in Cicero, outside of Chicago, in the 1980's. And they would just as soon lynch a republican in that town as lynch a black. And the bar window that sign was in damn sure meant it. Blacks DID NOT enter that bar. A guy I worked with at Sportsmans park, good friend, drove out there from CA with me, and weed/meth connect (back in the day of my meth partaking) was black. He wouldn't go in it. Maybe its changed since then, but that wasn't long ago.

 

[Danks2005]

Just because the Fed Gov't says you can't discriminate, doesn't magically change racist business owner's views, they are still racist, but you don't know it. I personally would rather know if you are racist so that I can keep my money out of your hands.

I am 100% libertarian, I hate gov't control of our personal lives. We the people can sort out the assholes.

 

[darrylRouson]

have you never gone into a place that had a sign saying "we reserve the right to refuse service" ? that is not racism, it is a private business decision.

We're talking specifically about a sign that says "niggers not allowed". Stop abstracting. Civil liberties does not prevent me from kicking a crying baby out, or a man with no shirt, or even kicking them out over their political views. It addresses discrimination based on RACE.

lots of places have signs up saying "no public restrooms". is THAT racist,

No. But a sign that says 'bathroom for blacks only' is.

i wouldn't let most of YOU folks use MY bathroom either...well, not until i got to know you a mite better.

Your private residence is not governed by the civil rights act of 1964 because your house is not a public place. If you ran a bed and breakfast and only let black people shit in your toilet, that would be illegal.

 

[darrylRouson]

Then at least you know where he stands, and you have the right to picket/protest, and BOYCOTT his business and hopefully hit him where it hurts.

Again, the debate is on discrimination, not racism. Do you think the 1,000 kids hit with fire hoses & subsequently arrested for peacefully protesting, do you think they were worried about your fringe argument when they protested for equal rights?

descrimination - unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice - CIVIL LIBERTIES
racism - Racism is the belief- FREE SPEECH

Clearly two different issues. 2nd amendment vs 13th amendment. You don't understand the difference.

The opening of the United States Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, states as follows:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;[6]
​

The same concept appears in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, which was written mostly by John Adams.[7] The Declaration of Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts which opens that constitution states:

Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.[8]​

Using the bathroom is a pretty fucking essential right.

The founding fathers were clearly not "hard left". http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Us_declaration_independence.jpg
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html

 

[GP73LPC]

I am 100% libertarian, I hate gov't control of our personal lives. We the people can sort out the assholes.

i agree that we can sort out the aholes, with guns...

is that the world we want to live in... ?

 

[darrylRouson]

See, if things were as they should be, when a business puts up a sign that says no service to blacks, it would probably mean the end of that business doing much business.

If things were as if they should be. But they werent for 140 years, therefore the laws were created.

But, ignorant types seem to think that morality needs to be legislated.

You're right. BP spilling half a million gallons of oil per day is PERFECTLY FINE. I am going to boycott BP and the oceans will be fine. Boycotts solve all my problems. wheee I live in a perfect world! 300 Million Americans will keep buying from BP but since I am boycotting them I feel great about the fact my kids won't ever be able to go swimming in our Florida Beaches without getting tar balls.

The reality is, there is some morality that needs to be regulated, some that doesn't. Kicking a man out for no shirt should be a business owner's choice. We already decided he doesn't have the choice to do so over the race of that man. I can choose to leave my shirt at home, I can't choose to leave my black at home.

 

[Danks2005]

Ok. Well just because a business owner does not discriminate, does not mean he is not a racist, and if he is racist, i do not want to contribute to his wealth.

If a restaurant put out a sign that said "no handicapped allowed", would you still eat there if you were not handicapped? I wouldn't. If you need a law to dictate your morality, something is wrong with YOU, and society will weed you out.

This is a moot point anyway, Paul is not going to go back and undo the civil rights act. He just wants you, the citizen, to make your own decisions, even bad ones.

 

[darrylRouson]

If a restaurant put out a sign that said "no handicapped allowed", would you still eat there if you were not handicapped? I wouldn't. If you need a law to dictate your morality, something is wrong with YOU, and society will weed you out.

Society has a history of immorality. Segregation didn't end itself. It had a 140yr opportunity to end via free market, it did not.

This is a moot point anyway, Paul is not going to go back and undo the civil rights act.

It is a valid point. We know hes not undoing it. The fact he is naively acting in the worst interest of 50% of America is the cause for concern. They are saying he is naive, not racist.

 

[Danks2005]

So, you would rather a racist business owner be racist behind closed doors, after he counts your money. The law doesn't change his views. He may be taking your money, and donating it to the KKK or skinheads.

I didn't say sort out the assholes with guns. We sort them out financially or by disassociation. If the asshole causes a direct threat to you or your family physically, then you can sort them out with guns, ie. self defence.

 

[darrylRouson]

So, you would rather a racist business owner be racist behind closed doors, after he counts your money. The law doesn't change his views. He may be taking your money, and donating it to the KKK or skinheads.

Are you saying you support his "right" to ban blacks, however you do not support his freedom of speech/freedom not to speak?

Again mixing freedom of speech with civil liberties. two unrelated issues.

 

[Danks2005]

I support both, but I don't want to FUND his opinion or his "right" which I don't agree with.

I live in the south, and I see blacks, whites, hispanics, and others, all getting along just fine. I'd like to think we are a more unified nation now more than ever. This is not the 1960's.

I do see where you are coming from, I just don't like being told what to do in a free country.

On that note, I need to get some sleep, I'll be back tomorrow. Peace.

 

[darrylRouson]

I'd like to think we are a more unified nation now more than ever. This is not the 1960's.

And the civil rights bill of 1960 had nothing to do what so ever with the cultural shift? We should look backwards towards reversing these decisions instead of looking forwards & expanding on these social-economic freedoms?

I just don't like being told what to do in a free country.

yo its a free country dawg why I can't shoot up the mall? (characterization of hard liberals)

 

[MarquisBlack]

Society has a history of immorality. Segregation didn't end itself. It had a 140yr opportunity to end via free market, it did not.

How is this applicable? Is this just a frivolous shot at free-market economics or what? It's a moot point because nowadays we both know that most companies would go out of business overnight after instituting a racist policy. The mentalities between the generations being compared are too vastly different. There is almost no denying that today the free market WOULD sort things out.