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

[nodoginnafight]

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.

Translation: I demonstrated how YOU posted spin and it hurt your feelings.

I don't care what you believe. You can "fill in the gaps" of what I say in accordance with what you find more palatable just like you do for Bill O'Reilly.

I know how I've voted - I was there.
You were not.

 

[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.

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

Exactly right! The government isn't the people. The government works for the people, we own it.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Dems said the same about Ronald Reagan. How'd that work out for them?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Exactly right! The government isn't the people. The government works for the people, we own it.

In that sense the gov't is the people. The people are the gov't. It's hard to separate the two culturally.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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

Dems said the same about Ronald Reagan. How'd that work out for them?

You saying Rand Paul is another Ronald Reagan?

Well .... I guess we will have to see about that

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Dems said the same about Ronald Reagan. How'd that work out for them?

You saying Rand Paul is another Ronald Reagan?

Well .... I guess we will have to see about that

People didnt think Ronald Reagan was a Ronald Reagan.

Try wrapping your small mind around that one.

 

[Iceweasel]

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

Exactly right! The government isn't the people. The government works for the people, we own it.

In that sense the gov't is the people. The people are the gov't. It's hard to separate the two culturally.

I have very little in common with government culture.

 

[The Rabbi]

Exactly right! The government isn't the people. The government works for the people, we own it.

In that sense the gov't is the people. The people are the gov't. It's hard to separate the two culturally.

I have very little in common with government culture.

You probably have a neighbor who works for the gov't. You and your neighbor are culturally very alike.
Now, if you mean culture as an outlook on the role and responsibility of government in society, then yes there isn't a lot of similarity there.

 

[kaz]

Once again you're too lazy to walk across the street from a business you don't want to deal with to one that you do, government needs to take care of that for you.

A) That's not always an option especially in the small town redneck racist neck of the woods.

B) There's the issue of our National Character. Racists, homophobes, and xenophobes damage us as a country--they make us look like some third world backwards Theocracy.

C) Part of making amends for past mistakes is changing your behavior. Our country is guilty of some horrible shit in our history. We make amends for this by enforcing the belief that all men are equal and entitled to equal treatment under law--extending that protection to businesses that serve the public.


It's not about "political correctness", it's about a character of tolerance -- a truly Christian nation would not have problem with love and tolerance.

There's the issue of our National Character. Racists, homophobes, and xenophobes damage us as a country--they make us look like some third world backwards Theocracy.

so....these people dont exist elsewhere?...

Yep, after 5 awful years under Obama where he amplified W's failed economic approach, it's the only tool in their belt, so every situation looks like "racism."

 

[Iceweasel]

In that sense the gov't is the people. The people are the gov't. It's hard to separate the two culturally.

I have very little in common with government culture.

You probably have a neighbor who works for the gov't. You and your neighbor are culturally very alike.
Now, if you mean culture as an outlook on the role and responsibility of government in society, then yes there isn't a lot of similarity there.

I very definitely have a lot of neighbors working for the government and we are polar opposites in about every way. We might agree on what day of the week it is.

 

[Harry Dresden]

A) That's not always an option especially in the small town redneck racist neck of the woods.

B) There's the issue of our National Character. Racists, homophobes, and xenophobes damage us as a country--they make us look like some third world backwards Theocracy.

C) Part of making amends for past mistakes is changing your behavior. Our country is guilty of some horrible shit in our history. We make amends for this by enforcing the belief that all men are equal and entitled to equal treatment under law--extending that protection to businesses that serve the public.


It's not about "political correctness", it's about a character of tolerance -- a truly Christian nation would not have problem with love and tolerance.

There's the issue of our National Character. Racists, homophobes, and xenophobes damage us as a country--they make us look like some third world backwards Theocracy.

so....these people dont exist elsewhere?...

Yep, after 5 awful years under Obama where he amplified W's failed economic approach, it's the only tool in their belt, so every situation looks like "racism."

Hazel never seems to reply to me.....so im either on ignore or the little fuck is scared of me.....i wonder which one it is?...its not like i treat him like shit....

 

[Jarhead]

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

Dems said the same about Ronald Reagan. How'd that work out for them?

You saying Rand Paul is another Ronald Reagan?

Well .... I guess we will have to see about that

He didn't say that.

He simply said that the democrats were quick to discount Reagan and it proved to be an error.

He was comparing the actions/sentiments of democrats back then to democrats now.

He was not comparing Paul to Reagan.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Dems said the same about Ronald Reagan. How'd that work out for them?

You saying Rand Paul is another Ronald Reagan?

Well .... I guess we will have to see about that

People didnt think Ronald Reagan was a Ronald Reagan.

Try wrapping your small mind around that one.

Yeah, people didn't think Mario Cuomo was a Ronald Reagan either.
In fact of all the people who weren't thought of as a Ronald Reagan - only one really turned out to be a Ronald Reagan.

 

[martybegan]

There's the issue of our National Character. Racists, homophobes, and xenophobes damage us as a country--they make us look like some third world backwards Theocracy.

so....these people dont exist elsewhere?...

Yep, after 5 awful years under Obama where he amplified W's failed economic approach, it's the only tool in their belt, so every situation looks like "racism."

Hazel never seems to reply to me.....so im either on ignore or the little fuck is scared of me.....i wonder which one it is?...its not like i treat him like shit....

Hazlnutter is a Progressive hufflepuffle spambot. He splooges his crap on the board, and then slithers away.

 

[The Rabbi]

You saying Rand Paul is another Ronald Reagan?

Well .... I guess we will have to see about that

People didnt think Ronald Reagan was a Ronald Reagan.

Try wrapping your small mind around that one.

Yeah, people didn't think Mario Cuomo was a Ronald Reagan either.
In fact of all the people who weren't thought of as a Ronald Reagan - only one really turned out to be a Ronald Reagan.

Darn I knew you wouldn't get it. Just something about the quality of your thought told me it would go over your head.
To spell it out for small minds:
Reagan was regarded by the press et all as an outmoded joke, a B-grade actor pushing 1950s solutions for 1980s problems. At best he would fail miserably. At worst he would embroil us in WW3. He couldn't put a sentence together coherently and he constantly mis-stated facts.

In actuality he was among the most articulate presidents we had (Can you recall one line from any of Obama's speeches--other than "you didnt build that"?). His policies reversed decades of bad fiscal policy and his foreign policy was exceptional. Not perfect, but exceptional. Far from embroiling us in WW3, his actions made such a thing nearly impossible.

That's what I meant.

 

[Contumacious]

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

No, sireeeeee bob, he won't be.

We need someone who is "electable" which means someone who supports, without reservations , the welfare/warfare police state.

.

 

[nodoginnafight]

People didnt think Ronald Reagan was a Ronald Reagan.

Try wrapping your small mind around that one.

Yeah, people didn't think Mario Cuomo was a Ronald Reagan either.
In fact of all the people who weren't thought of as a Ronald Reagan - only one really turned out to be a Ronald Reagan.

Darn I knew you wouldn't get it. Just something about the quality of your thought told me it would go over your head.
To spell it out for small minds:
Reagan was regarded by the press et all as an outmoded joke, a B-grade actor pushing 1950s solutions for 1980s problems. At best he would fail miserably. At worst he would embroil us in WW3. He couldn't put a sentence together coherently and he constantly mis-stated facts.

In actuality he was among the most articulate presidents we had (Can you recall one line from any of Obama's speeches--other than "you didnt build that"?). His policies reversed decades of bad fiscal policy and his foreign policy was exceptional. Not perfect, but exceptional. Far from embroiling us in WW3, his actions made such a thing nearly impossible.

That's what I meant.

I really liked Ronald Reagan. I voted for him twice.

But to suggest (as you did) that Rand Paul has the vision, the leadership ability, or the charisma that it would take for him to explode onto the seen like Ronald Reagan is beyond absurd.

THAT is what I meant.

(I won't make personal insults about you not getting it, like you tried to do. It's a simple-minded tactic.)

 

[ScienceRocks]

He's soooooooo 1950s....






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

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

With 31 percent of the vote, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) won the closely watched Conservative Political Action Conference presidential straw poll this weekend, dwarfing second place finisher Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) 11 percent of the vote.
The son of libertarian icon and former Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), Rand Paul has emerged as the nation’s leading spokesperson for an anti-government philosophy that would undo nearly all the accomplishments of the New Deal and the Civil Rights Era. As a Senate candidate in 2010, Paul came out against the Civil Rights Act of 1964′s bans on private discrimination — including the bans on employment discrimination and whites-only lunch counters — claiming that the right of “private ownership” should trump African Americans’ and other minorities’ right to be free from invidious discrimination. Permitting private discrimination, according to Paul, is “the hard part about believing in freedom.”
Nor are Paul’s libertarian views limited to his skepticism towards civil rights protections. In 2013, Paul endorsed a long-ago overruled Supreme Court decision called Lochner v. New York. The Court’s Lochner opinion relied on a fabricated “right to contract” that it and subsequent cases used to strike down various laws protecting workers from exploitative employers — on the idea that if a worker signs a contract that forces them to work 16 hours a day for barely subsistence wages then it would somehow violate the worker’s rights to pay them more money for fewer hours work.

Would we expect anything different from a group which hopes to return the United States to the early 18th Century?

The US was doing pretty well in the 18th century. You progressives want to turn the US into Soviet Russia circa 1937. How did that work out for the Russians? Say around 25 million or so, who never went home...

America led the world in the 40's, 50's and 60's. We had the best innovation, science and infrastructure on earth. Why go back to the 18th century?

 

[nodoginnafight]

The US was doing pretty well in the 18th century.

That depends entirely upon who you look at.

For the white, male, protestant, wealthy elite - yeah, it was great. For everyone else - not so much.

Besides, I like air conditioning and ice cubes that come out of the front of my refrigerator.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah, people didn't think Mario Cuomo was a Ronald Reagan either.
In fact of all the people who weren't thought of as a Ronald Reagan - only one really turned out to be a Ronald Reagan.

Darn I knew you wouldn't get it. Just something about the quality of your thought told me it would go over your head.
To spell it out for small minds:
Reagan was regarded by the press et all as an outmoded joke, a B-grade actor pushing 1950s solutions for 1980s problems. At best he would fail miserably. At worst he would embroil us in WW3. He couldn't put a sentence together coherently and he constantly mis-stated facts.

In actuality he was among the most articulate presidents we had (Can you recall one line from any of Obama's speeches--other than "you didnt build that"?). His policies reversed decades of bad fiscal policy and his foreign policy was exceptional. Not perfect, but exceptional. Far from embroiling us in WW3, his actions made such a thing nearly impossible.

That's what I meant.

I really liked Ronald Reagan. I voted for him twice.

But to suggest (as you did) that Rand Paul has the vision, the leadership ability, or the charisma that it would take for him to explode onto the seen like Ronald Reagan is beyond absurd.

THAT is what I meant.

(I won't make personal insults about you not getting it, like you tried to do. It's a simple-minded tactic.)

I ddint say he did. I personally dont think he does. I won't vote for Paul in the primaries if he runs.
But the leftists around here are snarking all over the potential GOP candidates and forgetting they did the same thing with Reagan.