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

[PaintMyHouse]

Well I don't drink,I am an Atheist,got no jack boots unfortunately. They are in the storage unit they finally bit the dust after 5 years of stomping little shit stains like you into the ground. . I have a busy day tomorrow enjoy the trolling kid. Oh and ORION is just a saying its not JUST FOR a Klan group...you have the saying correct but that Klan group is just named that for some reason...Not in the Klan as I would need to be a xtian to do that.

Atheists Nazis must burn churches then? Boring.

 

[dblack]

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.

This makes him sound pretty good, but I'm still not sure I could vote for him in a real election.

 

[dblack]

Put another way, the guy who came in first at CPAC believes that American businesses should have the right to discriminate against the guy who came in third at CPAC.

Or the guy who came in first. Endorsing the freedom of others to do only what you want them to do is a dubious conception of freedom. And it's pretty much what the statists are selling these days.

 

[Stephanie]

You see folks? what website would put that title up and expect to be taken seriously?

Seriously....that title is only meant to stir up hate against people...

It's an ugly tactic of the left....shut them out....

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You see folks? what website would put that title up and expect to be taken seriously?

Seriously....that title is only meant to stir up hate against people...

It's an ugly tactic of the left....shut them out....

The ugly tactic is saying such a thing there in front of supporters and then pretending that you didn't when you need those votes of people who think that's immoral.

 

[Redfish]

You see folks? what website would put that title up and expect to be taken seriously?

Seriously....that title is only meant to stir up hate against people...

It's an ugly tactic of the left....shut them out....

The ugly tactic is saying such a thing there in front of supporters and then pretending that you didn't when you need those votes of people who think that's immoral.

He did not say that----------you and the OP are lying bastards.

 

[Stephanie]

You see folks? what website would put that title up and expect to be taken seriously?

Seriously....that title is only meant to stir up hate against people...

It's an ugly tactic of the left....shut them out....

The ugly tactic is saying such a thing there in front of supporters and then pretending that you didn't when you need those votes of people who think that's immoral.

the only ugly here is that you take something from a website (thinkprogress LEFTWING hate propaganda) NO questions asked and swallow it hook, line and stinker...it's because you have this NEED to paint Republicans/conservatives in a bad light

If that's what make your life better, carry on

 

[dblack]

You see folks? what website would put that title up and expect to be taken seriously?

Seriously....that title is only meant to stir up hate against people...

It's an ugly tactic of the left....shut them out....

The ugly tactic is saying such a thing there in front of supporters and then pretending that you didn't when you need those votes of people who think that's immoral.

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.

 

[nodoginnafight]

You see folks? what website would put that title up and expect to be taken seriously?

Seriously....that title is only meant to stir up hate against people...

It's an ugly tactic of the left....shut them out....

The ugly tactic is saying such a thing there in front of supporters and then pretending that you didn't when you need those votes of people who think that's immoral.

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.

 

[Redfish]

The ugly tactic is saying such a thing there in front of supporters and then pretending that you didn't when you need those votes of people who think that's immoral.

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]

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.

You are assuming that Paul will be the GOP nominee.
I really doubt that.
But, nope. I can't vote for Hillary

 

[Redfish]

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.

You are assuming that Paul will be the GOP nominee.
I really doubt that.
But, nope. I can't vote for Hillary

He may or may not be the nominee. All I am trying to point out is that the conservatives and republicans who stayed home the last time---------elected obama.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

You are assuming that Paul will be the GOP nominee.
I really doubt that.
But, nope. I can't vote for Hillary

He may or may not be the nominee. All I am trying to point out is that the conservatives and republicans who stayed home the last time---------elected obama.

And my position is that makes it very important for the GOP to select a good candidate.
I realize that means different things for different people.

But it has to be about more than no.

It has to be about a vision for America, ideas about how to get there, and generating enthusiasm for doing what it takes to get there. IMHO.

 

[Redfish]

You are assuming that Paul will be the GOP nominee.
I really doubt that.
But, nope. I can't vote for Hillary

He may or may not be the nominee. All I am trying to point out is that the conservatives and republicans who stayed home the last time---------elected obama.

And my position is that makes it very important for the GOP to select a good candidate.
I realize that means different things for different people.

But it has to be about more than no.

It has to be about a vision for America, ideas about how to get there, and generating enthusiasm for doing what it takes to get there. IMHO.

Romney was a good candidate, he would have been an excellent president. McCain was a bad candidate and would have been no better than obama.

who is your choice for 2016? Will you vote for the GOP nominee or will you stay home and de facto vote for hillary?

 

[Harry Dresden]

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

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?...

 

[Redfish]

You are assuming that Paul will be the GOP nominee.
I really doubt that.
But, nope. I can't vote for Hillary

He may or may not be the nominee. All I am trying to point out is that the conservatives and republicans who stayed home the last time---------elected obama.

And my position is that makes it very important for the GOP to select a good candidate.
I realize that means different things for different people.

But it has to be about more than no.

It has to be about a vision for America, ideas about how to get there, and generating enthusiasm for doing what it takes to get there. IMHO.

sounds like you are already making excuses to stay home and help elect hillary. why would you do that?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

He may or may not be the nominee. All I am trying to point out is that the conservatives and republicans who stayed home the last time---------elected obama.

And my position is that makes it very important for the GOP to select a good candidate.
I realize that means different things for different people.

But it has to be about more than no.

It has to be about a vision for America, ideas about how to get there, and generating enthusiasm for doing what it takes to get there. IMHO.

Romney was a good candidate, he would have been an excellent president. McCain was a bad candidate and would have been no better than obama.

who is your choice for 2016? Will you vote for the GOP nominee or will you stay home and de facto vote for hillary?

A good candidate that 20% of the population wouldn't for because if his cult? Think again.

 

[nodoginnafight]

He may or may not be the nominee. All I am trying to point out is that the conservatives and republicans who stayed home the last time---------elected obama.

And my position is that makes it very important for the GOP to select a good candidate.
I realize that means different things for different people.

But it has to be about more than no.

It has to be about a vision for America, ideas about how to get there, and generating enthusiasm for doing what it takes to get there. IMHO.

Romney was a good candidate, he would have been an excellent president. McCain was a bad candidate and would have been no better than obama.

who is your choice for 2016? Will you vote for the GOP nominee or will you stay home and de facto vote for hillary?

McCain 2000 was far better than any of the above.
But that was before he spent 8 years kissing butt in order to strengthen his position within the GOP. The irony is that McCain the true maverick really was a good choice. McCain, the pretend maverick was lousy.

Just MHO.

 

[Redfish]

And my position is that makes it very important for the GOP to select a good candidate.
I realize that means different things for different people.

But it has to be about more than no.

It has to be about a vision for America, ideas about how to get there, and generating enthusiasm for doing what it takes to get there. IMHO.

Romney was a good candidate, he would have been an excellent president. McCain was a bad candidate and would have been no better than obama.

who is your choice for 2016? Will you vote for the GOP nominee or will you stay home and de facto vote for hillary?

McCain 2000 was far better than any of the above.
But that was before he spent 8 years kissing butt in order to strengthen his position within the GOP. The irony is that McCain the true maverick really was a good choice. McCain, the pretend maverick was lousy.

Just MHO.

sounds like we agree, McCain was a political hypocrit. Now, he is nothing but a democrat with an R behind his name. But he does seem to love war, maybe his time in viet nam caused that.

 

[The Rabbi]

And my position is that makes it very important for the GOP to select a good candidate.
I realize that means different things for different people.

But it has to be about more than no.

It has to be about a vision for America, ideas about how to get there, and generating enthusiasm for doing what it takes to get there. IMHO.

Romney was a good candidate, he would have been an excellent president. McCain was a bad candidate and would have been no better than obama.

who is your choice for 2016? Will you vote for the GOP nominee or will you stay home and de facto vote for hillary?

McCain 2000 was far better than any of the above.
But that was before he spent 8 years kissing butt in order to strengthen his position within the GOP. The irony is that McCain the true maverick really was a good choice. McCain, the pretend maverick was lousy.

Just MHO.

McCain was a lousy candidate. Especially when the economy went south and he had to enunciate an economic policy. His wasnt much different from Obama's. Which is why he lost.