Has Jeb Bush quit the New World Order?

[Galileo]

Has Jeb Bush quit the New World Order?

Jeb Bush to appear at Rand Paul fundraiser in Ky.

Tea party favorite Rand Paul is getting help from a well-known Republican later this month, when Jeb Bush will attend a fundraiser for the Kentucky Senate candidate.

Paul's campaign said Friday that the former Florida governor will attend the fundraiser July 26 at a private home in the Louisville area. Paul campaign manager Jesse Benton said tickets will start at $1,000 per person.Bush served two terms as Florida's governor, and he is the son and brother of former Republican presidents.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gQVREKmjiAG7r_74Bs--OoD5dyugD9H0AB7G0

Who says we can't beat the NWO?

:lmao

[boutons_deux]

Great Bill Mahr urban-snob joke: The Bush family, where the SMART brother is named "Jeb".

Looks like tea partier radical extremist, self-certifying (It's My Association) Rand Paul really is getting co-opted, willingly, by the Repug mucky-mucks.

[ChuckD]

You didn't get the memo about COMIC SANS?

[ChumpDumper]

Rand Paul is a lifelong member of the Republican party. What makes you think he isn't a member of the NWO?

[ElNono]

Isn't it time to drop 'New' from the NWO?

[ChumpDumper]

During the primary season, Rand Paul pledged not to accept campaign donations from any lawmaker who voted for the Wall Street bailout. But little more than a month after he won the nomination, the GOP candidate was feted at a Washington fundraiser hosted by Senator Mitch McConnell and attended by eight other Republican senators who voted for the bill.

http://theweek.com/article/index/204695/rand-pauls-poll-slump-5-theories

Welcome to the NWO, Rand.

[DMX7]

Rand Paul isn't a fan of the whole Civil Rights thing.

[Trainwreck2100]

sleeper agent

[Galileo]

http://theweek.com/article/index/204695/rand-pauls-poll-slump-5-theories

Welcome to the NWO, Rand.

Rand can't help, it if people give him money. What better thing to do than impoverish these people?

[Galileo]

Rand Paul isn't a fan of the whole Civil Rights thing.

Wrong. Rand is the srtongest defender of the Bill-of-Rights up for election in the Senate this fall. Rand is a Libertarian, a defender of liberty.

[ChumpDumper]

Rand can't help, it if people give him money.Sure he can. He can refuse their money and help very easily.
What better thing to do than impoverish these people?He is clearly not impoverishing these people. The better thing to do would be for Rand to stick to his principles.

He didn't.

He's just another lying politician.

[boutons_deux]

"defender of liberty"

great slogan, for all the paranoid fucktards imagining The Guvmint is coming after their liberty. Any practical "liberty" policy from Rand or any other right-winger?

how about, keeping negroes out my business premises?

[Parker2112]

"defender of liberty"

great slogan, for all the paranoid fucktards imagining The Guvmint is coming after their liberty. Any practical "liberty" policy from Rand or any other right-winger?

how about, keeping negroes out my business premises?

Its not that simple. Libertarians would let businesses conduct racist practices because, under the principles of liberty, they have a right to do so.

But they would also have the right to be sued under state law, to go bankrupt after massive protesting. And if the state wanted to back racist principles, they would face revolt from the citizens.

The federal government is not the place to look for for help. Just ask the people people of louisiana.

[ChumpDumper]

Its not that simple. Libertarians would let businesses conduct racist practices because, under the principles of liberty, they have a right to do so.

But they would also have the right to be sued under state law, to go bankrupt after massive protesting. And if the state wanted to back racist principles, they would face revolt from the citizens.

The federal government is not the place to look for for help. Just ask the people people of louisiana.Look at the black kids who can eat at lunch counters.

I doubt a true libertarian would make the distinction between federal and local government when it comes to anti-discrimination laws.

[DMX7]

Wrong. Rand is the srtongest defender of the Bill-of-Rights up for election in the Senate this fall. Rand is a Libertarian, a defender of liberty.

Are you saying the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the same as the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution (A.K.A. the Bill of Rights)?

[Parker2112]

Look at the black kids who can eat at lunch counters.

I doubt a true libertarian would make the distinction between federal and local government when it comes to anti-discrimination laws.

it aint the 1960s. I am all for civil rights, and I dont regret anything that has taken place in the past, but the centralized power in the federal government is out of control. The massive powers in the fed gov are like an abscessed tooth that needs to be pulled before the body is irreperably infected.

Sure, you can reflect to all the use you got from that tooth, but if you just pull the damn thing, you will still be able to chew, and you wont find yourself on life support for being stubborn.

And as for the distinction, you would be wrong. Libertarians believe that liberty=being represented locally, by those who can continue to be held accountable. When you ship the power off to Washington, there is no way to keep it in check, no way to hold those folks feet to the fire.

It remains the principles that US was founded on, and as for me, oil spill in the gulf showed me everything I needed to know to understand that the fed gov is hopelessly lost.

[DMX7]

And if the state wanted to back racist principles, they would face revolt from the citizens.


Which state and in what year?

[Parker2112]

Look at the parallels between old england, the colonies, and now the states and washington. The peoples interests are no longer being represented by washington. Im not condoning revolt, Im saying we need to start electing candidates who will PULL THE DAMN TOOTH. Term limits. Saying no to federal spending on wars and pork, severing the dependence we are devolping on federal dollars that ultimately cause inflation and hurt the poor.

Who better serves minorities...someone who would offer federal protections for thier rights, or someone who would keep the doolar strong so they could afford to raise a family?

The answer is, the federal protections come with federal beaurocracy, and they come with a dildo, ready to fuck minorities by reducing their quality of life.

[ChumpDumper]

it aint the 1960s. I am all for civil rights, and I dont regret anything that has taken place in the past, but the centralized power in the federal government is out of control.I think the Civil Rights Act is probably the poorest example of an "out of control" federal government anyone could possibly put forth.


And as for the distinction, you would be wrong. Libertarians believe that liberty=being represented locally, by those who can continue to be held accountable.So libertarians would willingly give up their liberties as long as they were taken away locally?

Nice.


It remains the principles that US was founded on, and as for me, oil spill in the gulf showed me everything I needed to know to understand that the fed gov is hopelessly lost.Please explain.

[Ignignokt]

I think the Civil Rights Act is probably the poorest example of an "out of control" federal government anyone could possibly put forth.


Is the CRA a violation of private property rights, yes or no?

[Ignignokt]

Are you saying the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the same as the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution (A.K.A. the Bill of Rights)?

No, and that's the point. The CRA violates the Bill of right's concept of private property rights.

[ChumpDumper]

Is the CRA a violation of private property rights, yes or no?Rights codified in which law?

[Ignignokt]

when the state tells you what you can and can't do with your private property, that is a violation of the principles of this country.

I don't understand how some of you don't understand the concept of prinicples, and how good causes can sometimes be applied in the wrong way.

CRA is an example of the violation of american principles, and how a good cause (racial progress) was used in the wrong way.

Not saying you have to agree with me or Parker2112 in his own right. But that is where we are coming from.

[Ignignokt]

Rights codified in which law?

the fifth ammendment.

And since you didn't know that, you proved were coming from an ignorant premise on the libertarian argument for the CRA.

Glad I could educate you.

[ChumpDumper]

when the state tells you what you can and can't do with your private property, that is a violation of the principles of this country.They should have written that down if they thought it was that important.


I don't understand how some of you don't understand the concept of prinicples, and how good causes can sometimes be applied in the wrong way.Principles are reflected in laws. If you want a pro-discrimination amendment, I suggest you contact your representatives in Congress.


Not saying you have to agree with me or Parker2112 in his own right. But that is where we are coming from.I understand where you are coming from, but the principles are rarely inviolate -- as Rand Paul has been proving rather consistently of late.

[ChumpDumper]

the fifth ammendment.

And since you didn't know that, you proved were coming from an ignorant premise on the libertarian argument for the CRA.

Glad I could educate you.Sorry, the passing of a congressional act is clearly due process of law.

Since you didn't know that, you proved you were coming from an ignorant premise on the logical argument for the CRA.

Glad I could educate you.

[Ignignokt]

They should have written that down if they thought it was that important.

Principles are reflected in laws. If you want a pro-discrimination amendment, I suggest you contact your representatives in Congress.

I understand where you are coming from, but the principles are rarely inviolate -- as Rand Paul has been proving rather consistently of late.

None of these arguments, personal fault of said believers, the fact that you haven't read the fifth ammendment, and your purposeful mischarecterization of someone as being pro discrimintation have anything to do with the fact the fifth ammendment grants us property rights.

[Parker2112]

Which state and in what year?

I'm talking about the current, and any state outside the armpit.

Do you think any state would allow re-segregation, if the federal gov all of a sudden says "not our business"? Honestly?

[DMX7]

the fifth ammendment.

And since you didn't know that, you proved were coming from an ignorant premise on the libertarian argument for the CRA.

Glad I could educate you.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

:lmao

Wrong amendment?

[Ignignokt]

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

:lmao

Wrong amendment?

illiterate?

[ChumpDumper]

None of these arguments, personal fault of said believers, the fact that you haven't read the fifth ammendmentI read the whole amendment. You didn't.


and your purposeful mischarecterization of someone as being pro discrimintationYou are for the right to discriminate on the basis of race because property is more important to you.


have anything to do with the fact the fifth ammendment grants us property rights.That can be abridged by due process of law.

[ChumpDumper]

illiterate?
due process of law
illiterate?

[Parker2112]

Look at the parallels between old england, the colonies, and now the states and washington. The peoples interests are no longer being represented by washington. Im not condoning revolt, Im saying we need to start electing candidates who will PULL THE DAMN TOOTH. Term limits. Saying no to federal spending on wars and pork, severing the dependence we are devolping on federal dollars that ultimately cause inflation and hurt the poor.

Who better serves minorities...someone who would offer federal protections for thier rights, or someone who would keep the doolar strong so they could afford to raise a family?

The answer is, the federal protections come with federal beaurocracy, and they come with a dildo, ready to fuck minorities by reducing their quality of life.


I think the Civil Rights Act is probably the poorest example of an "out of control" federal government anyone could possibly put forth.

So libertarians would willingly give up their liberties as long as they were taken away locally?

Nice.

Please explain.

First see above.

Ultimately, as far as state rep vs fed representation, The point is, you dont give up freedoms to local govt, you wont have to. Those representatives live in your community, they shop where you shop, they go to church where you go to church, they eat at restaurants you eat at...etc

They are limited as to how far they can take advantage of the electorate.

Ron Paul would say, if you dont like the politics locally, either move to a state/community that reflects your values (move to cali if you want to toke it up) or change the roster in office with your own power as a voter.

Think about how detached everyone is from gov, they hand away thier responsibilities to wealthy officials in washington who know how to make the best use of them. Dont you think the public would be more involved if these sort of major decisions were made at the state level?

[DMX7]

illiterate?



That can be abridged by "due process of law".

[Ignignokt]

[SIZE="7"]illiterate?

You're a moron.

Due process does not mean legislation, but court rulings.

THe CRA was a legislative peice.

Ignorant of the Constitution much?

[ChumpDumper]

You're a moron.

Due process does not mean legislation, but court rulings.
THe CRA was a legislative peice.

Ignorant of the Constitution much?The law is passed then it it ruled upon by the courts.

It is a process.

Of law.

Ignorant of the process of law much?

[Parker2112]

You're a moron.

Due process does not mean legislation, but court rulings.

THe CRA was a legislative peice.

Ignorant of the Constitution much?

your wrong sir. Due process is that amount of legal process required to ensure that citizens are afforded the right to be present, be aware, be present, mount a defense, whenever the government seeks to interfere with life liberty or property.

Sometimes that comes through legislation, specifically when you are talking about entitlement programs. If the SSA takes your benefits, you are afforded due process through the enacting legislation, and you will seek those rights first through administrative avenues, not through the judiciary.

[ChumpDumper]

First see above.

Ultimately, as far as state rep vs fed representation, The point is, you dont give up freedoms to local govt, you wont have to. Those representatives live in your community, they shop where you shop, they go to church where you go to church, they eat at restaurants you eat at...etc

They are limited as to how far they can take advantage of the electorate.

Ron Paul would say, if you dont like the politics locally, either move to a state/community that reflects your values (move to cali if you want to toke it up) or change the roster in office with your own power as a voter.

Think about how detached everyone is from gov, they hand away thier responsibilities to wealthy officials in washington who know how to make the best use of them. Dont you think the public would be more involved if these sort of major decisions were made at the state level?No. I think most people don't give much of a shit at any level. If something really bugs them, they will get involved, but that's a very high threshold for most.

[Ignignokt]

The law is passed then it it ruled upon by the courts.

It is a process.

Of law.

Ignorant of the process of law much?

THat's not the process of law at all.

After legislation passes the courts are not next in order to rule upon, it is the executive who executes.

Legislation passes and it might be ruled by the courts if the case is brought up.

[DMX7]

After legislation passes the courts are not next in order to rule upon, it is the executive who executes.

Legislation passes and it might be ruled by the courts if the case is brought up.

You mean like this?

"The judiciary, most notably the Supreme Court, plays a crucial role in interpreting the extent of the civil rights. A single Supreme Court ruling can change the very nature of a right throughout the entire country. Supreme Court decisions can also affect the manner in which Congress enacts civil rights legislation, as occurred with the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_rights

[Parker2112]

No. I think most people don't give much of a shit at any level. If something really bugs them, they will get involved, but that's a very high threshold for most.

But if that involvement is limited to federal elections, they are pissing away the effort. which keeps us on our knees.

[Ignignokt]

your wrong sir. Due process is that amount of legal process required to ensure that citizens are afforded the right to be present, be aware, be present, mount a defense, whenever the government seeks to interfere with life liberty or property.

Sometimes that comes through legislation, specifically when you are talking about entitlement programs. If the SSA takes your benefits, you are afforded due process through the enacting legislation, and you will seek those rights first through administrative avenues, not through the judiciary.

You're wrong sir, that's only half the story

Here's a founding father on the issue;

"The words 'due process' have a precise technical import, and are only applicable to the process and proceedings of the courts of justice; they can never be referred to an act of legislature."-Alexander Hamilton

[ChumpDumper]

THat's not the process of law at all.

After legislation passes the courts are not next in order to rule upon, it is the executive who executes.

Legislation passes and it might be ruled by the courts if the case is brought up.So it's not solely the courts?

Thanks for admitting you were completely wrong about that. :toast

Yeah, if by execute you mean "sign into law" -- I can go along with that. I don't think the executive has to actively enforce a law for it to be challenged in a court.

If there were no laws to process, there would be no process.

Can you provide the court challenges to the CRA?

[Parker2112]

You're wrong sir, that's only half the story

Here's a founding father on the issue;

"The words 'due process' have a precise technical import, and are only applicable to the process and proceedings of the courts of justice; they can never be referred to an act of legislature."-Alexander Hamilton

in his day that was the case. There was no such thing as federal entitlements in those days.

Technically the due process doesnt end with the legislation, but the process is laid out there and the ultimate authority for these types of programs, as well as regulation enforced by federal agencies is through the regulatory process.

Start dumping solid waste and the EPA is going to be where you are afforded due process, as set forth in legislation.

[Ignignokt]

You mean like this?

"The judiciary, most notably the Supreme Court, plays a crucial role in interpreting the extent of the civil rights. A single Supreme Court ruling can change the very nature of a right throughout the entire country. Supreme Court decisions can also affect the manner in which Congress enacts civil rights legislation, as occurred with the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_rights


Exactly, it is the power of the supreme courts to interpret that by the Law of the Land, the constitution. That is due process.

The courts can get it wrong, or produce some bullshit excuse, doesn't mean that you can or cannot argue the CRA's violation of the 5th ammendemnt's principle.

“examine the constitution itself, to see whether this process be in conflict with any of its provisions....”-Murray vs Hoboken Land, US 59 272 1855

So, only thru due process can a court strip away property but it must not violate and must be beholden to the constitution.

Due process and Law of the land were interchangeable terms legally in the beggining of this nation.

[Parker2112]

I lie. administrative bodies wouldnt have the ultimate authority, but you would get your ass kicked out of court if you didnt follow the requirements for challenging the procedures reqd in the legislation, which would mean a regulatory agency determination first.

[Ignignokt]

So it's not solely the courts?

Thanks for admitting you were completely wrong about that. :toast

Yeah, if by execute you mean "sign into law" -- I can go along with that. I don't think the executive has to actively enforce a law for it to be challenged in a court.

If there were no laws to process, there would be no process.

Can you provide the court challenges to the CRA?

Don't be an ass and put words in my mouth.

Process of law does not equate to due process.

Process of law can mean many things.

You are still clueless as to what due process law means.

It's not the about how a bill is made, Dumbass. :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

Don't be an ass and put words in my mouth.

Process of law does not equate to due process.

Process of law can mean many things.

You are still clueless as to what due process law means.

It's not the about how a bill is made, Dumbass. :lmaoNo, I know what you are getting a -- the process of a law's being duly processed is quite clear, but it's been 46 years -- seems like there has been plenty of time to mount a successful challenge to the Civil Rights Act based on the 5th Amendment.

I have asked you to provide that.

All I have gotten is your Cliff's Notes version of the Wikipedia article on due process, dumbass. :lmao

[Ignignokt]

No, I know what you are getting at, but it's been 46 years -- seems like there has been plenty of time to mount a successful challenge to the Civil Rights Act.

I have asked you to provide that.

All I have gotten is your Cliff's Notes version of the Wikipedia article on due process. :lmao

I don't deny that the CRA is still enforced.

But, that's because lately nobody has had the stones to defend the principle, and no politician would risk their livelihood to do that.

But with such arguments as " You're pro discrimination" it's no surprise people are too afraid to touch that issue.

[Parker2112]

Exactly, it is the power of the supreme courts to interpret that by the Law of the Land, the constitution. That is due process.

The courts can get it wrong, or produce some bullshit excuse, doesn't mean that you can or cannot argue the CRA's violation of the 5th ammendemnt's principle.

“examine the constitution itself, to see whether this process be in conflict with any of its provisions....”-Murray vs Hoboken Land, US 59 272 1855

So, only thru due process can a court strip away property but it must not violate and must be beholden to the constitution.

Due process and Law of the land were interchangeable terms legally in the beggining of this nation.

wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Due process is judicially construed, and wasnt around at our founding. We had rights, but they had yet to be specifically enumerated by our govt. The constitution did not provide the specific guarantees that encompass due process.

Courts have fleshed it out. you are guaranteed the right to have notice of charges, you are guaranteed the right to have a lawyer if you want one, you are guaranteed the right to have the opportunity to be present if your rights are in jeopardy, you are guaranteed the right to be heard in your own defense. Those things have come to being inside courts throughout the twentieth century.

You are actually on the right track, but you need to do some more investigation...you dont grasp the whole concept here.

[Ignignokt]

All I have gotten is your Cliff's Notes version of the Wikipedia article on due process, dumbass. :lmao

I've given you a court case example, dumbass.

[ChumpDumper]

I've given you a court case example, dumbass.No, you didn't. You gave me a quote from the wiki article you've been mining.

Show me a challenge to the CRA based on the 5th amendment. I think it's rather paradoxical as you are demanding due process be fully implemented before enforcing a law, but the process cannot take place until a law is indeed enforced.

[Ignignokt]

wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Due process is judicially construed, and wasnt around at our founding. We had rights, but they had yet to be specifically enumerated by our govt. The constitution did not provide the specific guarantees that encompass due process.

Courts have fleshed it out. you are guaranteed the right to have notice of charges, you are guaranteed the right to have a lawyer if you want one, you are guaranteed the right to have the opportunity to be present if your rights are in jeopardy, you are guaranteed the right to be heard in your own defense. Those things have come to being inside courts throughout the twentieth century.

You are actually on the right track, but you need to do some more investigation...you dont grasp the whole concept here.


whotTTTTt???

That's been my argument, all that shit you described is what happens in a court hearing, not a legislative meeting.

[Ignignokt]

Your assertion that Due process wasn't around in the beggining of our nation is false too, it was taken from the magna carta.
"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."

[Ignignokt]

So, what that means is that you can't have your property seized unless tried in court through dilligence in a jury of your peers, or a judge, sans Emminent domain.

[ChumpDumper]

You should just post the entire wiki article in one place, gtown:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

[Ignignokt]

No, you didn't. You gave me a quote from the wiki article you've been mining.

Show me a challenge to the CRA based on the 5th amendment. I think it's rather paradoxical as you are demanding due process be fully implemented before enforcing a law, but the process cannot take place until a law is indeed enforced.

what, i'm not demanding that. the fuck, i'm not saying courts should rule on every idea before it becomes a bill.

I said that only individual court rulings can deny property rights, that's a totally different thing there.

Either you're dishonest, or can't read.

[Ignignokt]

You should just post the entire wiki article in one place, gtown:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

LOL, so you got owned by Wikipedia, don't bitch. :lmao:lmao:lmao

[Ignignokt]

Also, hamilton made that statement in 1788 and the BOR was solidified in 1789. So, paker, you argument is weak.

[ChumpDumper]

what, i'm not demanding that. the fuck, i'm not saying courts should rule on every idea before it becomes a bill.

I said that only individual court rulings can deny property rights, that's a totally different thing there.

Either you're dishonest, or can't read.Nah, you're being quote dishonest here, or can't understand your own argument. I'll believe either one.


LOL, so you got owned by Wikipedia, don't bitch. :lmao:lmao:lmaoNot at all, there was some good info in there, but it owned you more than anyone once you started quoting it. :lmao:lmao:lmao

[Ignignokt]

Nah, you're being quote dishonest here, or can't understand your own argument. I'll believe either one.

Not at all, there was some good info in there, but it owned you more than anyone once you started quoting it. :lmao:lmao:lmao

Ha, you haven't refuted shit, except mischaraterzied my arguments, got called on it, and bitching and crying about me using wiki is proof.


And now since you've been reading it, you've abandoned your argument and now resorting to strawman tactics.

[ChumpDumper]

Ha, you haven't refuted shit, except mischaraterzied my arguments, got called on it, and bitching and crying about me using wiki is proof.Not at all. You have shown nothing to prove that the CRA hasn't gone through any due process, only that you are bitching that the courts never ruled the way you think they should have. Your own wiki quote says that due process and law of the land were used interchangeably in the early US.


And now since you've been reading it, you've abandoned your argument and now resorting to strawman tactics.Not at all. The Civil Rights Act is by constitutional definition the law of the land, and there has been over four decades of due process to prove you completely wrong.

You have been wrong your entire life. Thanks for using wiki to prove it! :lmao:lmao:lmao

[Parker2112]

So, what that means is that you can't have your property seized unless tried in court through dilligence in a jury of your peers, or a judge, sans Emminent domain.

You can have property siezed by a federal agency, and though you will be afforded due process, you may never reach the courts.

[DMX7]

Exactly, it is the power of the supreme courts to interpret that by the Law of the Land, the constitution. That is due process.

The courts can get it wrong, or produce some bullshit excuse, doesn't mean that you can or cannot argue the CRA's violation of the 5th ammendemnt's principle.

So, only thru due process can a court strip away property but it must not violate and must be beholden to the constitution.


Well... First of all, we're not talking about courts stripping away property. We're talking about your "liberty", presumably your "liberty" to discriminate against black people in private businesses, being denied. (How sad by the way :cry)

And that would only be a violation of the fifth amendment of the Constitution if you weren't afforded "due process", but you were. You just admitted it! So how is CRA a violation of the Constitution? It's not.

[Galileo]

Look at the black kids who can eat at lunch counters.

I doubt a true libertarian would make the distinction between federal and local government when it comes to anti-discrimination laws.

You're just upset that another of your NWO brethren has defected to the pro-Liberty movement.

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

You're just upset that another of your NWO brethren has defected to the pro-Liberty movement.

:lmaoYou're just upset that Rand Paul isn't the person you thought and never was.

:lmao

[Galileo]

You're just upset that Rand Paul isn't the person you thought and never was.

:lmao

You're just upset that Rand is kicking the shit out of the liberals!

:lmao :lmao :lmao

:rollin :rollin

:nope

[ChumpDumper]

You're just upset that Rand is kicking the shit out of the liberals!

:lmao :lmao :lmao

:rollin :rollin

:nopeYou're just upset that Rand is losing his lead in the race and compromising his "principles" to get elected!

:lmao :lmao :lmao

:rollin :rollin

:nope

[Galileo]

You're just upset that Rand is losing his lead in the race and compromising his "principles" to get elected!

:lmao :lmao :lmao

:rollin :rollin

:nope

You're just suffering liberal rage!!!

:depressed:toast:bang:hat:lobt2: :lobt: :rolleyes:p::nope:greedy:ihit:rollin:lmao:wakeup:w hine:lol:sleep:downspin: :sleep:p: :lol:downspin: :nope:rolleyes

[ChumpDumper]

You're the one freaking out with the emoiticons.

Rand could still win, but probably after selling out a bit more.

[Galileo]

You're the one freaking out with the emoiticons.

Rand could still win, but probably after selling out a bit more.

Jeb Bush is the one who sold out!!

Ha! Ha!

:sleep

[ChumpDumper]

Jeb Bush is the one who sold out!!

Ha! Ha!

:sleep
During the primary season, Rand Paul pledged not to accept campaign donations from any lawmaker who voted for the Wall Street bailout. But little more than a month after he won the nomination, the GOP candidate was feted at a Washington fundraiser hosted by Senator Mitch McConnell and attended by eight other Republican senators who voted for the bill.

http://theweek.com/article/index/204695/rand-pauls-poll-slump-5-theories

Ha! Ha!

:sleep

[Galileo]

http://theweek.com/article/index/204695/rand-pauls-poll-slump-5-theories

Ha! Ha!

:sleep

How does that help the NWO???

:bang :bang :bang

:ihit :ihit

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

How does that help the NWO???They will own another senator.

[Galileo]

They will own another senator.

Rand Paul can't be bought. You fear him.

[ChumpDumper]

Rand Paul can't be bought. You fear him.Read the quote.

He was bought.

[DMX7]

Rand Paul can't be bought.

:lmao

[Galileo]

:lmao

The NWO sold out to Rand Paul.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:hat

[spursncowboys]

http://theweek.com/article/index/204695/rand-pauls-poll-slump-5-theories

Ha! Ha!

:sleep


This poll is wrong
"Color me skeptical" about this poll, says Jim Geraghty at the National Review. Granted, some of Paul's controversial remarks might "drive some Republicans to stay home." But a five point swing in a state known to have "pretty darn low" approval of Obama and the Democrats? Not even Paul can "single-handedly repel GOP voters eager to send a message to Washington."

[DMX7]

Oh Wow, the National Review thinks the poll is wrong. That's a shocker.

[spursncowboys]

It's weird how they used logic too huh. oh wow

[ChumpDumper]

Oh Wow, the National Review thinks the poll is wrong. That's a shocker.:lol

Rand is sure acting like it's not wrong.

[ChumpDumper]

It's weird how they used logic too huh. oh wowYes, and precise, scientific terms like "pretty darn low" concerning the support of someone who isn't in the election.

[DMX7]

It's weird how they used logic too huh. oh wow


We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in 'reality.' And reality has a well known liberal bias.

:toast

[spursncowboys]

Irregardless(yes I know it's not a word) the fact is there is no way he would lose a true 5 point drop that fast.

[EmptyMan]

Great Bill Mahr urban-snob joke: The Bush family, where the SMART brother is named "Jeb".

lmao

[EmptyMan]

"defender of liberty"

great slogan, for all the paranoid fucktards imagining The Guvmint is coming after their liberty. Any practical "liberty" policy from Rand or any other right-winger?

how about, keeping negroes out my business premises?


Keep "negroes" out of your business. Alienate all potential customers other than backwoods racist bubbas and have fun keeping the doors open.

Rand basically said people have the right to screw over themselves. He made a big mistake having a theoretical discussion using the times of now instead of the law during the times of old.


ITT: we try to get others into believing Rand Paul is an anti-civil rights racist because we have the political game of a 5th grader running for class president in this great country of americants.

Don't blame yourself though. Your grown-up :rollin ivy league:rollin leaders do the same.

[ChumpDumper]

Irregardless(yes I know it's not a word) the fact is there is no way he would lose a true 5 point drop that fast.With margins of error being what they are and Rand's selling out, of course it's possible.

[spursncowboys]

lmao

what is funny is bill mahr thinks he is smart.

[DMX7]

Rand Paul's favorability rating in December was net positive and now it's net negative. I wonder why. Tee-hee. :lol

[Galileo]

Rand Paul's favorability rating in December was net positive and now it's net negative. I wonder why. Tee-hee. :lol

likely

[Parker2112]

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/04/22/rand-paul-and-israel

[Parker2112]

Man, I'm a fan of Ron, but this guy is hiding too much.

[Blake]

what is funny is bill mahr thinks he is smart.

what is really funny is how butthurt you obviously get by what bill mahr says

[jack sommerset]

what is really funny is how butthurt you obviously get by what bill mahr says

What's even funnier is how asshurt you obviously get by what spursncowboys says. You're a faggot.

[George Gervin's Afro]

What's even funnier is how asshurt you obviously get by what spursncowboys says. You're a faggot.

oh jack... you and your sister snc make a fine pair... like my nuts

[jack sommerset]

oh jack... you and your sister snc make a fine pair... like my nuts

You're a faggot.

[Blake]

What's even funnier is how asshurt you obviously get by what spursncowboys says. You're a faggot.

:lol

it would be a sad day if I got asshurt by something someone posted on a forum board.

sadder still if it was something said by a goofball like snc.

[Blake]

You're a faggot.

how sad.

[spursncowboys]

blake, if you are asshurt it's alright. It would make sense that you post just to see your name on the screen because it can't be for anything else.

[spursncowboys]

how sad.

stop being so sensitive. fag.

[Blake]

stop being so sensitive. fag.

me pointing out how sad someone else is does not make me sad or sensitive.

you (and jack) calling me "fag" is a fine example what a sensitive red ass is.

I also find it humorous that such staunch protestors against gay marriage like yourselves like to use the word "fag" so freely. :tu

[jack sommerset]

me pointing out how sad someone else is does not make me sad or sensitive.

you (and jack) calling me "fag" is a fine example what a sensitive red ass is.

I also find it humorous that such staunch protestors against gay marriage like yourselves like to use the word "fag" so freely. :tu

You are a fag, fag.

[spursncowboys]

me pointing out how sad someone else is does not make me sad or sensitive.

you (and jack) calling me "fag" is a fine example what a sensitive red ass is.

I also find it humorous that such staunch protestors against gay marriage like yourselves like to use the word "fag" so freely. :tu

I'm against gay marriage?

[Blake]

You are a fag, fag.

how sadly sad

[Blake]

I'm against gay marriage?

you're not?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142132&highlight=marriage