Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When faced with RP vs Hill, the dems (hopefully) will realize that he beats the balls off her on the war, the patriot act (and many other issues).

[/ QUOTE ]

Hillary isn't liberal enough, so instead, the Democrats will cross the aisle to vote for the only man in Congress who is on the record as being against the Civil Rights Act.

In what world would this scenario be plausible to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, I'm black and superficially it would seem the Civil Rights Act matters far less to me than it does to you (you've brought this up in numerous threads). I wonder why the Jewish population didn't need legislation to break into dominant positions in the population of Ivy League schools and prominent centers of finance. I think the reason you keep repeating this meme is part of this affliction of "intentions over outcomes" that many liberals have. When you say ZOMG Civil Rights Act, it never comes with a specific policy issue you're trying to address, rather than trying to equivocate Ron Paul's rational opposition with some vision of the racist '60s. Why should we care NOW that he's explicitly opposed? Wasn't George Wallace a Democrat?