Kland Paul's co-author and staffer is a neo-confederate racist

[Dusty Bake Activate]

We should make this the new flabby and sick smilie. The oversized izod polo, the carpenter pants and I'm sure he's wearing New Balance sneakers with calf length tube socks.

His whole outfit looks like it cost a grand total of $29.95 from the clearance rack at K-Mart.

I guess that's "the lifestyle"...looking like a swagless nearsighted 45 year old school bus driver in bifocals and South Pole jeans.

 

[theworldismine13]

There is no bigger endorsement for a candidate/party than giving them your vote, unless you are an idiot

a vote is not necessarily an endorsement

apparently you dont really understand how voting works or the definition of endorsement, but there are various way you can end up voting for somebody without endorsing their views because a lot of people vote strategically, emotionally or whatever criteria they came up with including race and gender

on top of that people split their vote a lot of times, so for example you can vote for a democratic president, republican senator and third party mayor etc, those votes arent necessarily endorsements of the candidates views or politcal parties, i dont really see you can know what i voter is thinking by just looking at their votes unless they tell you directly

And I find it bizarre that you shame black people for voting Democrat, but then vote for Obama only because he is black, disregarding his 1st term of either ignoring or outright working against the black population

i dont know how many times im gonna say it, but my view is that black people should vote however the hell they want, as long as you can present your views logically i can respect it, i dont have a problem with you or anybody else supporting romney, in fact my whole point was to defend black republicans, my point and why I is that your anti GOP rants dont align with you previous support for romney

you can find it as bizarre as you want but me voting for obama because he is black is not a contradiction of anything ive said before, my ideology is about black domination, i think black people need to dominate both parties, so my statements are consistent with my previous statements and views, if my statements contradict with your views that is not my problem

imo obama's main job is to get on tv with his wife and family and look pretty, and do a half way decent job as president, i never endorsed the democratic party so i dont give a fuk if he gets his liberal agenda through congress, im not aware of obama doing anything against black people and the liberal agenda is not the black agenda

Its like you are more concerned with theory and platitudes than history and practice... it doesn't matter what people do as long as you like what they say/claim to represent

i dont know where you get this from, if i cared about theory and platitudes i would just go with the democratic party, they have a lot of theories and platitudes concerning black people

what concerns me is individual freedom, economic freedom and improving black culture, if you have other concerns that's you, im not you

 

[Type Username Here]

States Rights is always code for racism.

Its a beautiful idea wrapped around a turd.

Absurd statement.

Plenty of good things have come from "States Rights". Now, I concede that the most vocal group of people who use this term are still butthurt about the Civil War, but it doesn't mean the concept is automatically invalid and racist.

Things like Medical Marijuana, Gay Marriage, Banning Slavery, Environmental protections, etc.. are a product of states' rights mentality.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

apparently you dont really understand how voting works or the definition of endorsement, but there are various way you can end up voting for somebody without endorsing their views because a lot of people vote strategically, emotionally or whatever criteria they came up with including race and gender

on top of that people split their vote a lot of times, so for example you can vote for a democratic president, republican senator and third party mayor etc, those votes arent necessarily endorsements of the candidates views or politcal parties, i dont really see you can know what i voter is thinking by just looking at their votes unless they tell you directly

a vote is not necessarily an endorsement

Voting for a democratic president is voting for a democratic president. Voting for a Republican sentator is voting for a Republican senator. "Splitting the vote" doesn't work on an individual level, it has to be a concerted collective effort

And voting for someone, no matter what "strategic auspice" you hide it under, is an endorsement. You might not cosign everything a candidate is about but at the same time they are not so bad you wouldn't throw away a vote for them. That is an endorsement at the most basic level. Because there can be a candidate (and in many cases are- 2008 GOP ticket for example) who is so bad splitting the vote is not worth risking putting them in office, even if you don't agree with their competitor 100%

i dont know how many times im gonna say it, but my view is that black people should vote however the hell they want, as long as you can present your views logically i can respect it, i dont have a problem with you or anybody else supporting romney, in fact my whole point was to defend black republicans, my point and why I is that your anti GOP rants dont align with you previous support for romney

Again, people's views change over time... if you don't progress or change in your thinking over time you are an idiot

you can find it as bizarre as you want but me voting for obama because he is black is not a contradiction of anything ive said before, my ideology is about black domination, i think black people need to dominate both parties, so my statements are consistent with my previous statements and views, if my statements contradict with your views that is not my problem

Just because Obama is black doesn't mean he is good for black people (and he isn't). You definitely don't make that argument with modern hip hop. And this contradicts your idea of "splitting the vote". By this logic if there are no black people on the GOP ticket why vote for them?

imo obama's main job is to get on tv with his wife and family and look pretty, and do a half way decent job as president, i never endorsed the democratic party so i dont give a fuk if he gets his liberal agenda through congress, im not aware of obama doing anything against black people and the liberal agenda is not the black agenda

So if the liberal agenda is not the black agenda, and Obama's agenda is the liberal agenda, and as you have said many times before the liberal agenda is BAD for black people (by marginalizing us through AA and welfare) HOW IS OBAMA GOOD FOR BLACK PEOPLE????

i dont know where you get this from, if i cared about theory and platitudes i would just go with the democratic party, they have a lot of theories and platitudes concerning black people

what concerns me is individual freedom, economic freedom and improving black culture, if you have other concerns that's you, im not you

All you care about is theory and platitudes because none of the ideas you propose bear fruit in the real world. Just because a candidate is black doesn't mean he will be good for black people. David Dinkins wasn't good for black people. Mariam Berry wasn't good for black people. Obama isn't good for black people. There aren't any black elected officials who have actually made good on your "theory" that black officials will lead to black economic power. In fact, you have often argued the opposite with examples

And lol @ talking about individual & economic freedom under Obama. Under his presidency we have seen the death of the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments in major major ways. Obama doesn't even communicate with black people, let alone black elected officials, and his presence in black inner cities is pretty much non existent beyond the occasional bootstraps speech. So he's not really helping black culture either. Theoretically, an educated black man who came up through community outreach in Chicago would make for a great president for black people. But where are the results? Here is where you excuse Obama's non-performance by blaming "black culture". Your whole way of thinking is a joke

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Yo Walt the streets NEED you to speak on that MCHG fam

Man after BP3 and all his recent lackluster efforts like Open Letter, I was ready to shyt on MCHG mercilessly.

Then I heard it and it was pretty dope to me.

All I could come up with was this.

http://www.the-coli.com/booth/12946...-part-ii-most-embarassingly.html#.Ud8nYaO3PFo

 

[theworldismine13]

Voting for a democratic president is voting for a democratic president. Voting for a Republican sentator is voting for a Republican senator. "Splitting the vote" doesn't work on an individual level, it has to be a concerted collective effort

i think you are confused about your own argument, you said that voting for somebody is an endorsement of the person and their party, so my point is if somebody votes a democratic president and a republican senator, which party are they endorsing?

im just pointing out why your definition of a vote as an endorsement doesn't make any sense, a vote is not an endorsement because there are multiple factors and reasons why somebody would vote for somebody while not endorsing their views or endorsing the party

therefore my vote for obama is not necessarily an endorsement of the democratic party or an endorsement of his views

"Splitting the vote" doesn't work on an individual level, it has to be a concerted collective effort

its a free country, you can vote however the fuk you want to vote

And voting for someone, no matter what "strategic auspice" you hide it under, is an endorsement. You might not cosign everything a candidate is about but at the same time they are not so bad you wouldn't throw away a vote for them. That is an endorsement at the most basic level. Because there can be a candidate (and in many cases are- 2008 GOP ticket for example) who is so bad splitting the vote is not worth risking putting them in office, even if you don't agree with their competitor 100%

im not a mind reader, so i cant tell what a voter is thinking by looking at their vote, but apparently you can, more power to you

but under a private voting system its completely possible to vote for somebody and not endorse their views and their party, im not sure why you have a hard time comprehending that

Again, people's views change over time... if you don't progress or change in your thinking over time you are an idiot

im happy for you that you are progressing

Just because Obama is black doesn't mean he is good for black people (and he isn't). You definitely don't make that argument with modern hip hop. And this contradicts your idea of "splitting the vote". By this logic if there are no black people on the GOP ticket why vote for them?

this is where you train goes off the track

whether obama is good or bad for black people is a matter of opinion, if you think obama is bad for black people that is fine, that is your OPINION

but you can't use your OPINION to say I am contradicting myself, i think obama is good for black people, so aside from acknowledging a difference of opinion im not sure how you can prove anything or what it is you are trying to say, your opinion is not evidence that im contradicting myself

if you want to have an argument about whether obama is good or bad for black people we can have that argument, but you accused me of contradicting myself and of endorsing the democratic party

your views of obama are your opinion, whether i contradicted myself or endorsed the democratic party are FACTS or NON FACTS, you cannot use your opinion to prove or disprove facts

i said i voted for obama because he is black, i have no idea what that has to do with hip hop or splitting votes

So if the liberal agenda is not the black agenda, and Obama's agenda is the liberal agenda, and as you have said many times before the liberal agenda is BAD for black people (by marginalizing us through AA and welfare) HOW IS OBAMA GOOD FOR BLACK PEOPLE????

the main way obama is good for black people is the cultural and psychological impact of having a black president, that trumps ideology and policy IMO

All you care about is theory and platitudes because none of the ideas you propose bear fruit in the real world. Just because a candidate is black doesn't mean he will be good for black people. David Dinkins wasn't good for black people. Mariam Berry wasn't good for black people. Obama isn't good for black people. There aren't any black elected officials who have actually made good on your "theory" that black officials will lead to black economic power. In fact, you have often argued the opposite with examples

under my "theory" black people barely have the basics or the foundation that are needed to develop into an economic and political power, we only recently have had access to some individual freedom, we have a little bit of economic freedom and have a long way to go to improve the culture, dinkins and marion barry are black leaders that i would criticize, i think they confuse civil rights with an actual economic plan, they dont represent what i was saying

i never thought that 4 or 8 years of obama will lead to black economic power, i think 4 or 8 years will lay the foundation for black economic power, i think Obama is more akin to the civil rights movement of the 60's that laid the foundation for Obama, IMO Obama is Phase II, Phase III people are being born right now in the Obama era, I think they will have better perspective and more knowledge in the same way we today have a better perspective than black people from the 50's

and also economic power starts at the grassroots, that is why i think addressing culture is vital, i think culture determines economics, i dont think its the other way around, which is why i critique the dinkins and barrys

And lol @ talking about individual & economic freedom under Obama. Under his presidency we have seen the death of the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments in major major ways. Obama doesn't even communicate with black people, let alone black elected officials, and his presence in black inner cities is pretty much non existent beyond the occasional bootstraps speech. So he's not really helping black culture either. Theoretically, an educated black man who came up through community outreach in Chicago would make for a great president for black people. But where are the results? Here is where you excuse Obama's non-performance by blaming "black culture". Your whole way of thinking is a joke

well first im not aware of obama doing anything unconstitutional

second i think obama has done a good job in addressing inner cities and black problems

 

[theworldismine13]

he is progressing like Gina

Rand Paul Defends ‘Embarrassed’ Aide With Neo-Confederate Past - ABC News

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Progress is better than taking blatant racism on with a smile to do nothing but spite your own people

But when push comes to shove you will vote Democrat anyway so all your lip service is meaningless

 

[theworldismine13]

Progress is better than taking blatant racism on with a smile to do nothing but spite your own people

But when push comes to shove you will vote Democrat anyway so all your lip service is meaningless

i have no idea what you are referring to, you are just making up stuff and hoping it sticks, the only thing i have promoted is intellectual freedom and the intellectual development of the hip hop nation and ive dropped some jewels here and there for the people

 

[Consigliere]

Absurd statement.

Plenty of good things have come from "States Rights". Now, I concede that the most vocal group of people who use this term are still butthurt about the Civil War, but it doesn't mean the concept is automatically invalid and racist.

Things like Medical Marijuana, Gay Marriage, Banning Slavery, Environmental protections, etc.. are a product of states' rights mentality.

You could use the handle of a screwdriver to hammer nails. Doesn't change the primary purpose of the tool.

"You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968, you can't say "******" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******." - Lee Atwater

In the modern political context this is what States Rights entails. The ineptitude and intransigence of the Federal government in acting on sensible policies does not change the foundation of the States Rights movement.

 

[Type Username Here]

You could use the handle of a screwdriver to hammer nails. Doesn't change the primary purpose of the tool.

In the modern political context this is what States Rights entails. The ineptitude and intransigence of the Federal government in acting on sensible policies does not change the foundation of the States Rights movement.

So you're saying that when Massachusetts decreed that slavery was illegally in 1783 and all slaves were immediately freed, that they were using a tool whose primary purpose was racism/discrimination? Nearly 100 years before the Civil War? Nearly 200 years before Lee Atwater?

Quock Walker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is that what you're saying?

Are you saying that Medical Marijuana proponents who argue for States' Rights when the Federal Government is busting up legal Dispensaries are being racist? Can you describe your logic to that leads you to claiming those people are automatically being racist?

Blumenauer Pushes States Rights' Medical Marijuana Bill in Congress [FEATURE] | StoptheDrugWar.org

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

So you're saying that when Massachusetts decreed that slavery was illegally in 1783 and all slaves were immediately freed, that they were using a tool whose primary purpose was racism/discrimination? Nearly 100 years before the Civil War? Nearly 200 years before Lee Atwater?

Quock Walker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is that what you're saying?

Are you saying that Medical Marijuana proponents who argue for States' Rights when the Federal Government is busting up legal Dispensaries are being racist? Can you describe your logic to that leads you to claiming those people are automatically being racist?

Blumenauer Pushes States Rights' Medical Marijuana Bill in Congress [FEATURE] | StoptheDrugWar.org

Dawg those are side effects. Lee Atwater, the gawdfather of Reagan's campaign and modern conservatism, literally said "states rights" is just a codeword for racist policy. Coming from the GOP, it always has been, is, and probably always will be. That left leaning states and people are using states rights for good and not evil doesn't change that

 

[Type Username Here]

Dawg those are side effects. Lee Atwater, the gawdfather of Reagan's campaign and modern conservatism, literally said "states rights" is just a codeword for racist policy. Coming from the GOP, it always has been, is, and probably always will be. That left leaning states and people are using states rights for good and not evil doesn't change that

How is the fact that states used it 100 years before the civil war and 200 years before Lee Atwater a side effect?

Doesn't it seem more likely that the term was hijacked?

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

How is the fact that states used it 100 years before the civil war and 200 years before Lee Atwater a side effect?

Doesn't it seem more likely that the term was hijacked?

Who the fukk said anything about 100, 200 years ago?

If you hear a GOP rep or stan say "state rights" in 2013 they are talking about racist policies

And I dont know if I would call it "hijacked"... the GOP has been about fukking minorities over for at least the last 50 years. Even now in their bid for non-white male votes they make it clear that they are just looking to leverage power and when push comes to shove will stay loyal to their race... I mean base, loyal to their base So please stop playing coy like the GOP "changed". They've been the same racist paranoid impotent party for longer than any of us have been alive.

 

[Consigliere]

So you're saying that when Massachusetts decreed that slavery was illegally in 1783 and all slaves were immediately freed, that they were using a tool whose primary purpose was racism/discrimination? Nearly 100 years before the Civil War? Nearly 200 years before Lee Atwater?

Quock Walker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is that what you're saying?[/url]

Bruh, I explicitly and specifically said in the modern political context. For some reason you responded with the equivalent of 'the Republican Party is the party of Lincoln.'