s this truly creepy??

[foweler]

Quote:
It's both, actually. I like to go with two universal terms for the two varieties of politicians: Republicrats and Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is currently the only non-Republicrat.

Dems do wiretapping as well. Note the extension of the so-called "Patriot" Act. Frankly, I'm more scared of Obama than Bush for one reason: Obama is charismatic. I'll give him that, he speaks well. Too well. In other news:

Compare with:

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Ron Paul the father of that tea party candidate that thinks private businesses should be able to discriminate, the one that wouldn't of voted for the Civil Rights Act? I wonder how he came up with those ideologies? You know what they say the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Rand Paul has been quoted out of both the context of the topic he was speaking on at the time and the context of his entire worldwiew whenever it pleases those against freedom to do so.

I ask you 2 questions:

1) Is it OK for a black store owner to refuse service to someone who enters his store wearing a white hood and Arian symbology?
2) If so, why? What are the rights of his refusal based on?

 

[Q9]

Quote:
Ron Paul the father of that tea party candidate that thinks private businesses should be able to discriminate, the one that wouldn't of voted for the Civil Rights Act? I wonder how he came up with those ideologies? You know what they say the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Rand Paul has been quoted out of both the context of the topic he was speaking on at the time and the context of his entire worldwiew whenever it pleases those against freedom to do so.

I ask you 2 questions:

1) Is it OK for a black store owner to refuse service to someone who enters his store wearing a white hood and Arian symbology?
2) If so, why?

Why is it that I can NEVER make an argument as clear as this?! I try and try, but I can never do it! Oh, well. Hat's off to you.

 

[foweler]

How do I get to Carnegie (that crook) hall?
Practice.

 

[foweler]

The frightening thing is how long it took for people to figure out how outrageous this fake site was.
What does that say for how pre-conditioned the average American is for this kind of stuff to really start appearing?
We already have great big "Turn in Drunk Drivers" billboards on the roads here.
People just don't get that their good intentions are the rope they will be hung with later.

 

[Q9]

Quote:
People assume, naively, that politicians have their best interests in mind. I keep having to remind people that politicians are just as greedy as any corporation, except that politicians have guns to get what they want. Most congresspeople are complete totalitarians that want to control your life. You give the Feds power, the Feds will use that power - ON YOU. It's like a law of nature.

 

[foweler]

It IS a law of nature. Look up "public choice theory", that is if you haven't already.

 

[Organics North]

Parrotchick:::"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."-Benjamin Franklin

Some one should have remembered that when they came up with the "patriot act" What a sack that was...

AT least my Senetor Feingold (D-Wis) opposed it ALONE!!!! (That took guts..)

ON​

 

[Q9]

Quote:
Some one should have remembered that when they came up with the "patriot act" What a sack that was...

AT least my Senetor Feingold (D-Wis) opposed it ALONE!!!! (That took guts..)

ON

Hmmm... Was Ron Paul in Congress then? I don't recall. If he was, there's no way Feingold went it alone. Unless you mean alone in the Senate.

 

[Gonzo]

Thats terrible! We should be teaching our kids to respect privacy, not invade it! Wow!

 

[cmjust0]

Quote:
"Those against freedom".. Nice.

I'm from Kentucky, so I hear a lot about Rand Paul. And I hear a lot *from* Rand Paul.. My personal opinion, as a Kentuckian to whom this will ultimately matter, is that Rand Paul is a raving lunatic.

More tangibly, though, he's really wishy-washy. Back when he first won the nomination -- when his handlers were still actually allowing him to speak off the cuff -- Rand Paul could do more waffling by 9am than most candidates do during the entire election cycle. Within a matter of about a week, he called to abolish the Dept of Education, but then backpedaled when people figured out what that would mean in Kentucky...he called Obama "un-American" for holding BP accountable for the oil spill, but had to backtrack on account of all the shock and outrage of his seemingly lovey support for BP...he said private business owners should be able to deny service to patrons based on race, but then went back and said the Civil Rights act was absolutely necessary.

And then there's the whole thing about his "board certification" for opthamology...where he's the president of the certification board he created out of thin air, and which otherwise consists of his own family.

I know it's probably irritating to libertarians and teapartiers that he's kinda the 'poster child' for yall's movement right now, but let's face it...that doesn't mean he's not a loon. He really, really is.

That's my opinion, of course, but do consider that I've basically got front-row on this one..

I ask you 2 questions:

1) Is it OK for a black store owner to refuse service to someone who enters his store wearing a white hood and Arian symbology?
2) If so, why? What are the rights of his refusal based on?

Yes, it's OK for a black store owner to refuse service to someone who enters his store wearing a white hood and Arian symbology.
Why?...because the simple act of walking into a black shop owner's place of business in a KKKlown kostume would almost certainly be grounds for arrest on charges of terroristic threatening.

Perhaps one of these days you'll come to realize that the world's not quite as cut and dried as you think it is. We don't live in a vacuum. Whether you like it or not, and whether or not you had anything to do with it, the fact remains that certain things have happened -- specifically, that white people have historically done some pretty bad things to non-white people -- that created a need for our society to enact laws designed to afford non-white people certain protections that white people typically aren't able to take advantage of. I know that rubs white randpaulians the wrong way because "it's not fair!"....but that's how it is.

And, let's face it...the more you and folks like you push back *against* protections like that, the more necessary they seem. Seriously.. It's a real Catch-22, huh?!?

Now, the question you *should* have asked, but didn't, is whether it's OK for a black store owner to refuse service to a white guy **because he's white**. The answer there is no, because it's illegal under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

And, for the record, Rand Paul both agrees and disagrees with it being illegal, depending on which of Rand Paul's opinions is the one you believe he actually holds. Sometimes he says we should be able to discriminate based on race if we want, whereas other times he says the Civil Rights Act was absolutely required and that he wouldn't dare work to have it repealed.

You be the judge.

As for me, I personally think he's a jagaloon.