I respect Rand Paul for going to Howard University (Reagan, brainwashing, independent)

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by HeyJude514

You continue to ignore the fact that Rand said he would be okay with using DRONES to take out a liquor store thief, without benefit of charges, a trial or a sentence being passed. And you seem okay with that, too, as long as a gun is involved that could possibly be used in other crimes. No need for due process, huh?

Rand said something stupid. Admit it and let it go.

Please ignore the fact that the thief had a gun. Don't ever mention that fact. Do not mention the fact that a policeman would shoot that same thief without due process.
So yes when others are threatened the police do not need due process.
You said something stupid. Admit it and let it go.

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Your comment said and i quote "Why does 1 person get to go to a good school and someone else doesn't? Because you say so? So 1 person gets bussed to a better school and that place is now taken so another looses out.
It's fun for you big government types to hand pick the winners and losers isn't it? So instead of fixing the cause of the problem, which is a lower quality school, your answer is to ship the kids elsewhere??

Keep treating he symptoms instead of the cause right? Is it any wonder the big government policies you back stink? "

That is exactly what vouchers do. So either you confused my words for Rand' and vice versa, or you honestly have no clue what you are talking about.

I understand about vouchers. The point was, "but not at the expense of others."

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Your comment was in response to mine, correct,and i was talking about A specific bill and so was Rand. And again, Your argument is deflecting just as Rand's was. Rand's claim was that they could vote down the amendment to the bill if they didnt like it , but he know that isnt true because voting down said amendment means voting down the entire bill, so again why are you dodging the question just like your idol ?

If someone offers an amendment it does not automatically get added to the bill. If substantial amendments are made a new bill will be introduced. Since when is the truth deflection?
Get it now?

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Im not missing the point, you are just dodging the content of the question.

Yes you are missing the point. And no I am not deflecting. You're just getting it handed to you because you have little substance so you make things up.

Originally Posted by dsjj251

1. All poor people do not get government assistance, so yelling out the same question over and over again makes nosense.

Prove to me I said all poor people get government assistance. The only nonsense is lying about what I've said.

Originally Posted by dsjj251

2. voter ID is not the same as government assistance. You can not even use the same things to get government assistance that you can to vote in alot of these states.

Prove to me I said voter id is the same as government assitance. So if I said you need an ID to write a check for food according to you grocery shopping is the same as voting?

Originally Posted by dsjj251

3. My response to Rand Paul, that YOU responded to, was about the reality of voter id, not its intended purpose. There for, you are purposefully ignoring the content of my comment simply because you can not answer truthfully to what i have said.

You made something up in a sentence that makes no sense. Perfect.

Originally Posted by dsjj251

You made a claim that you can not back up, so you responded to me by perpetuating the same lie again.

The only lies are coming from your silly agenda when you say YOU know what the speaker means more so than the speaker.

Originally Posted by dsjj251

I fell the same about everything you typed. keep dodging.

I haven't dodges a thing. That is your absurd claim because you have no substance to back up your emotional rant. keep trying though, it's good for a laugh.

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Again you claim im lying, so lets be specific. Where am i lying ? Are you claiming Rand Paul never said the power of the EPA should be stripped ?

LMAO Do you ever read what you are responding to or just make things up?

He said that many of the EPA regulations go too far and hurt property owners and should be repealed. How hard is that to understand?

Originally Posted by dsjj251

again, tell me specifically what i am making up ?

Again, your response about the EPA does not discredit a single thing I said. So I will ask one more time, Are you claiming Rand Paul never said he wanted to strip the EPA of all its regulatory power ?

again, your response to my statement about the EPA does not discredit what I've said. So I will respond one more time. He said that many of the EPA regulations go too far and hurt property owners and should be repealed. How hard is that to understand?

Originally Posted by dsjj251

I was thinking all those things about your post.

really? you had a thought process? .

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry

I understand about vouchers. The point was, "but not at the expense of others."

so again, you agree winners and losers shouldnt be picked, which is my point.

If someone offers an amendment it does not automatically get added to the bill. If substantial amendments are made a new bill will be introduced. Since when is the truth deflection?

Get it now?

again, he said they could have voted down the specific amendment and kept on going, which is untrue.

Yes you are missing the point. And no I am not deflecting. You're just getting it handed to you because you have little substance so you make things up.

Prove to me I said all poor people get government assistance. The only nonsense is lying about what I've said.

Prove to me I said voter id is the same as government assitance. So if I said you need an ID to write a check for food according to you grocery shopping is the same as voting?.

Your comment said and i quote, Again you missed the point. How does one receive government assistance without an ID? Get a clue then post.

IF you are claiming you did not mean this in the absolute(all voters) then there was no need for your to even ask the question(which was my point).

as for that 4th paragraph, i was talking about the requirements to get them.

.You made something up in a sentence that makes no sense. Perfect.

LMFAO ROTF, How am i making anything up ??? Are you arguing that Rand Paul didnt say Voter I.D. was there to stop fraud ?????????

Im guessing since you wrote my comment didnt make sense that this is your response when you simply dont understand. Dont call people liars when you dont understand,we well explain it to you if asked.

The Student raised a question on voter ID and how it disproportionally effects minorities, elderly and poor.

Rand Paul responded by saying that the PURPOSE of Voter ID was to stop fraud.

He never actually responded to the kids question about it hurting eligible poor voters.

The only lies are coming from your silly agenda when you say YOU know what the speaker means more so than the speaker.

again, so post something to refute me ...

I haven't dodges a thing. That is your absurd claim because you have no substance to back up your emotional rant. keep trying though, it's good for a laugh.

You have continued to dodge my questions in the same way Rand did in the above. it is like you cut out half of the content of my comment and only respond to that,even though you know the other half is key to the response itself.

LMAO Do you ever read what you are responding to or just make things up?

Love, you responded to my comment, not the other way around. You have continuously called me a liar without providing any proof that I lied and you have only responded to have the content of specific responses and changed the dynamics of them.

He said that many of the EPA regulations go too far and hurt property owners and should be repealed. How hard is that to understand?

It isnt about understanding what Paul said on the stage, i fully understand that.

MY response was about the fact that in the past, he has called for a stripping of the EPA's regulatory power. That would counteract what he said on the stage.

Now do you get it ? im not saying what he said on the stage is untrue(because i have stated 3 times, i agree with him there), I am simply saying he has said different in the past.

I dont know if you are trolling or not, but you seem to simply not understand my comments rather than disagreeing with me on most of it. If you simply asked for a better explanation instead of attacking people, things would go alot smoother.

[LexusNexus]

Rand Paul has absolutely NO chance to beat any Democrat. His dad is an absolutely idiot stuck during a time when Slavery existed. Rand just a younger version and just as backwards.

Hard to support a guy who looks like a racist Mr. Fred Rogers, from the sticks of the Confederacy.

Hilary obliterates this fool if it comes to that.

[D-Towner]

Originally Posted by LexusNexus

Rand Paul has absolutely NO chance to beat any Democrat. His dad is an absolutely idiot stuck during a time when Slavery existed. Rand just a younger version and just as backwards.

Hard to support a guy who looks like a racist Mr. Fred Rogers, from the sticks of the Confederacy.

Hilary obliterates this fool if it comes to that.

You mean that confused weasel who couldn't figure out what to say on the stand because she knew she was part of a giant cover up.

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

so again, you agree winners and losers shouldnt be picked, which is my point.

If that was your point okay. But the point I was trying to make is that is a basic premise of his policies and not to treat the symptom by moving some children around but instead treat the cause by fixing the school.

Originally Posted by dsjj251

again, he said they could have voted down the specific amendment and kept on going, which is untrue.

Yes they can. If the bill changes it is voted on again.
Maybe this will help you undestand the process
How a bill becomes a law | Learn | U.S. Senator Chris Coons of Delaware

8. The bill now moves onto a conference committee, which is made up of members from each House. The committee works out any differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. The revised bill is sent back to both houses for their final approval.

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Your comment said and i quote, Again you missed the point. How does one receive government assistance without an ID? Get a clue then post.

IF you are claiming you did not mean this in the absolute(all voters) then there was no need for your to even ask the question(which was my point).
as for that 4th paragraph, i was talking about the requirements to get them.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I think it's silly that an id isnt asked for to prevent voter fraud. It's a joke to think otherwise. An idiotic democratic talking point.

Originally Posted by dsjj251

LMFAO ROTF, How am i making anything up ??? Are you arguing that Rand Paul didnt say Voter I.D. was there to stop fraud ?????????

Im guessing since you wrote my comment didnt make sense that this is your response when you simply dont understand. Dont call people liars when you dont understand,we well explain it to you if asked.

The Student raised a question on voter ID and how it disproportionally effects minorities, elderly and poor.

Rand Paul responded by saying that the PURPOSE of Voter ID was to stop fraud.

He never actually responded to the kids question about it hurting eligible poor voters.

LMFAO ROTF
A perfect answer from someone who wants government to run their lives from cradle to grave. How do I tie my shoe? How does someone get a voter id? The dems make it sound like it's almost impossible to do. Oh woe is me. Help me government help me. I can't figure out how to get an id. They are so costly. $20 here pffffft
Like I said a bunch of drama queens.

Originally Posted by dsjj251

again, so post something to refute me ...

Again, I already did. My posts have been about your drama queen perception on YOUR posts which say this is what he meant when he said it.

Originally Posted by dsjj251

You have continued to dodge my questions in the same way Rand did in the above. it is like you cut out half of the content of my comment and only respond to that,even though you know the other half is key to the response itself.

What responses have you given that have actual questions? Except drama queen garbage which is a joke of a perception.

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Love, you responded to my comment, not the other way around. You have continuously called me a liar without providing any proof that I lied and you have only responded to have the content of specific responses and changed the dynamics of them.

LMAO You haven't said anything showing PROOF. You made a few assumptions based on the drama queen emotional theory that has no substance what soever.

Originally Posted by dsjj251

It isnt about understanding what Paul said on the stage, i fully understand that.

I've read your posts. No you don't or you are purposely lying about what he meant.

Originally Posted by dsjj251

My response was about the fact that in the past, he has called for a stripping of the EPA's regulatory power. That would counteract what he said on the stage.

Now do you get it ? im not saying what he said on the stage is untrue(because i have stated 3 times, i agree with him there), I am simply saying he has said different in the past.

No YOU are the one who doesn't get it by trying to make something of nothing. Again drama queen mentality.
How hard is it to go from doing away with the EPA to lessening their impact by a large amount? If one cannot dissolve it, as a senator cannot, the next best thing is to weaken it. The same thought process with the amendments to bills. (the process which you don't understand either)

Originally Posted by dsjj251

I dont know if you are trolling or not, but you seem to simply not understand my comments rather than disagreeing with me on most of it. If you simply asked for a better explanation instead of attacking people, things would go alot smoother.

You haven't said much of substance. If you had, instead of making up silly perceptions and weren't a hypocrite when it comes to your candidates, then things would go alot smoother. When you call someone out for something make sure you know what you are talking about. Always best to not make mountains out of molehills while completely ignoring the hypocrites you back who continue to lie their way around the White House.

Yea lets make things up and say there is a big difference between getting rid of the EPA and weakening it tremendously so the states can have more power. And ignore the plethora of flip flops and out right lies from your King in the White House. Why listen to you? Your posts show little to no credibility when it comes to honestly accessing a situation and knowing what is important.

[residinghere2007]

I thought it was hilarious that he was at an HBCU and acted like he was educating black students about black history and how Lincoln was a Republican.

Even though I also think he is taking the GOP on the right path by visiting more diverse institutions, he IMO would have left a bad taste in my mouth due to that alone in that believing that black college students at an HBCU don't know about American history, especially about history that greatly affected the majority of the ancestors of that fine institution. HU is considered a "black Harvard" to many black Americans and to think that they wouldn't educate their students about elementary American history was pretty ridiculous and insulting.

Hopefully he will see their response of "we know our history" as an education to himself and the GOP that black people are not idiots.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry

If that was your point okay...............

We are going to have to agree to disagree because you are simply dodging my questions and statements now.

In part of your response you are ever saying it doesnt matter what Rand said in the past, because he is making a different case now(EPA), but the point was that Rand denied saying it in the first place.

When it comes to how a bill is passed, you are again dodging my actual question(and what Paul said). Again he claimed you could vote down the amendment itself and that the bill would keep on moving, that isnt true and what you just posted confirms that. The bill has to go back to committee.

As for Voter ID. What i was trying to say is that your argument was a strawman argument, not all poor people are on government assistance,so equating of government assistance to voter I.D. made no sense. Last night my local news station did a story on how long it takes to get a licence. Did you know in most states it is an excused absence from work and school to get a licence, and this is done because it takes so long to get it at the DMV. They did a calculation for how much it cost one guy just to get a licence. he lived in the southern portion of the county(DMV is in the north). It cost him 1, 12 hour shift, 40 dollars in gas and the 23 dollar renewal fee. It came out to like 260 dollars all together. Do you really think poor people can afford to lose a day's pay ? And for the ones without cars, you substitute a bus ride for gas.

As for the rogue responses about me lying, no where in my comments am I interpreting what Rand Paul meant. I am going by what he actually said. You claimed i lied about the EPA for about 3 post straight then you realized you were wrong and changed your argument to " he said it, but he has evolved so that no longer matters"

And where is this drama queen thing coming from, You claim you where responding to that but you called me a liar in the previous post. For me to be lying there has to be something i was lying about, that is why i asked you to post specifics and you never did. The drama queen thing you are talking about is a deflection because as i said earlier, I am talking about what Paul actually said not an interpretation.

LMFAO ROTF
A perfect answer from someone who wants government to run their lives from cradle to grave. How do I tie my shoe? How does someone get a voter id? The dems make it sound like it's almost impossible to do. Oh woe is me. Help me government help me. I can't figure out how to get an id. They are so costly. $20 here pffffft
Like I said a bunch of drama queens.

again, you responded to my post, which was about Rand Paul not responding to the question asked to him. How does it make someone a drama queen or make it seem they want government to do anything for them, by simply asking a question..... that was never even answered ???? Love, you are dodging.

Why do you try to degrade people when you dont understand the question instead of simply asking for an explanation ???

[silverkris]

Originally Posted by itshim

Honestly, I don't know why they even do it.

There really is no point in reaching out to black voters in you're a republican candidate. Anything, and everything that you suggest or say will be anal probed, flipped and contorted as some sort of insult.

Black voters generally are seeking out a reason not to vote for a republican candidate--not the other way around. There is virtually no bipartisanship on this issues. It is all wasted effort and resources. I don't know how the GOP hasn't figured this out yet.

I remember Romney made a trip to the decrepid ghettos of West Philadelphia in an effort to 'understand the issues' of the people there, and they naturally booed and hissed him out of there before he could utter a word.

Well, maybe it's to at least look like they're trying, to appeal to moderate white voters in showing that the GOP isn't a bunch of old reactionary white guys who are stuck with the Southern Strategy.

But if Paul and other GOP politicians truly want to appeal to black voters, they've got to change their approach, change their stance on policy issues, and stop trying to lecture African Americans as if they're foolish to follow the Democrats. They've got to give them a real reason to vote for them besides telling them they're "on the Democratic plantation" and make them feel welcome.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by silverkris

Well, maybe it's to at least look like they're trying, to appeal to moderate white voters in showing that the GOP isn't a bunch of old reactionary white guys who are stuck with the Southern Strategy.

But if Paul and other GOP politicians truly want to appeal to black voters, they've got to change their approach, change their stance on policy issues, and stop trying to lecture African Americans as if they're foolish to follow the Democrats. They've got to give them a real reason to vote for them besides telling them they're "on the Democratic plantation" and make them feel welcome.

One thing that is amazing to me; why do so many want to say: the GOP is nothing but a bunch of old white guys? How many US governors are women and how many are Republicans? Did they get elected only by old White men and how many are actually minority women?