Congress 2010 Thread

[FoolKiller]

A neat reminder why I'm staying out of these discussions more these days - with insults like these (albeit directed at someone else), who needs debate...

Pointing out that someone is ignorant of facts is an insult? Sure, I could have been less blunt about pointing it out, but I am pointing out that his opinion appears to be based on his being ignorant of the details.

And pointing out that Rand Paul would never have had Joey's support is insulting how?

 

[Touring Mars]

pointing out that Rand Paul would never have had Joey's support is insulting how?

It is your insinuation that your opponent is distinct from "ideologically principled people" that I find insulting. Again, perhaps it is your choice of words or your lack of sensitivity to the attitudes of others that I'm misconstruing as insulting.

Anyway, I found this article quite interesting - http://www.newsweek.com/id/238323.

 

[Joey D]

As for Rand Paul's comments on the Civil Rights Act, I can't say I'm surprised. While his point may be that 'if private institutions chose to be racist, they run the risk of people not patronising them', he is sending out a very wrong message here. While he is quick to point out that he doesn't want to be associated with the type of people who would discriminate against others on the basis of race (obviously, he is a politician and is clearly not that monumentally stupid), he is basically saying that civilised society must tolerate such abhorrent views because that is the price of freedom, and hence we must all tacitly accept racism as part of our 'free' society. Good luck with that.

Well said! 👍

+ invisi rep!

Speaking of ignorance, I take it you didn't see the nearly 15 minute interview with Rachel Maddow that never left this topic. It was not a simple yes to a single question. I was ready to accuse the NYT article you quoted of poor journalism, but I realize the error isn't theirs after reading it. You failed to completely read the article you quoted.

Two more paragraphs with his complete statement. Not a simple yes. And that came near the end of the interview in question. Maybe you should actually watch it before judging its contents? It is available in various places on line. Just a thought.

Calling me ignorant? Do we really have to play these games? Play the ball not the man in a discussion. I did read the whole article.

The only reason I quoted the New York Times article was to source what I was talking about instead of just throwing out a simple, this is what he said. I could have quoted anything. And what he said following the statement doesn't clear anything up. He still said "yes" when asked if a business should be allowed to refuse serving blacks. You don't answer that kind of a question with a "yes" even with an explanation if you are running for office. This is why I'm claiming ignorance on his part.

There is a lot to criticize Dr. Paul about in how that interview went, but his ignorance in how the politics would play out is not one of them.

In your opinion, I think the man is an ignorant fool who just ruined his chances at trying to make it into office with a statement like that. Anyone running for office should know that an opponent is going to eat you alive with remarks like that.

What I find funny is you are acting as if he did something bad by not playing typical politics and being honest. Do you think it would be much more respectable if he just lied?

You can still be 100% honest with carefully chosen words that eliminates chances for repercussion later on by your opponent.

Is there? Did the Klansmen say anything? Or did he just try to buy a bottle of water? Could a white man refuse to serve a Muslim man wearing all black robes and turban and looking angry for being threatening? It is enough to get you questioned on a plane.

Or is the black man refusing to serve the Klansman based on political discrimination, which is also illegal?

The klansmen doesn't need to say anything, his dress alone is threatening. The KKK has known values which is upholds in many areas of the country. And really do you honestly think a klansmen would go into a store run or owned by a black person? And if they did, do you honestly think the klansmen would leave that store without breaking a law? My guess is no.

Traditional Muslim garb isn't threatening since Islam doesn't preach the killing of people with different skin colours. Yes some people see it that way. To deny service to a Muslim based solely on what he or she is wearing is discrimination since there is no ground in which to base the refusal of service.

What if the Klansman were back in his khakis and polo, but the black man recognized his face?

Then there is no ground in which to base refusal of service. Face recognition is often flawed as well.

My office is a production office with key card entry, clearly not publicly accessible. Can I use racial discrimination in my business practices? What about GE? Their appliances factory here in Louisville is surrounded by tall chain link fences and a security card is required just to step from the parking lot to the grass, and then another to actually enter the building.

I don't understand what this has to do with the discussion at hand, it's illegal to deny someone employment based on their race. We are talking about serving someone in the public accessible places.

Based on your comments from other discussion in regard to how you feel about ideologically principled people, particularly those with a libertarian leaning mindset, I doubt he would have ever had your support to begin with.

Probably not, I think people like that are the wrong candidates for the job of running our country. I, however, do not know enough about him to really say if I would have supported him to begin with anyway. Based on his comments with the civil rights vs. property rights I would have dropped support for him right then and there if I would have supported him.

 

[Omnis]

It is your insinuation that your opponent is distinct from "ideologically principled people" that I find insulting. Again, perhaps it is your choice of words or your lack of sensitivity to the attitudes of others that I'm misconstruing as insulting.

Anyway, I found this article quite interesting - http://www.newsweek.com/id/238323.

Wow, you're really looking for a reason to be insulted there. How is it that Rand being ideologically principled means that, say, Joey isn't? You can be principled in respect to different beliefs.

I think this conversation is making mountains out of mole hills.

 

[Keef]

You can still be 100% honest with carefully chosen words that eliminates chances for repercussion later on by your opponent.

You can also be easily misunderstood by going out of your way to avoid criticism. Career politicians make...a career out of dodging bullets. I'd much rather my guy be brutally honest so I can understand his ideals clearly and don't have to go sifting through ******** and flipping pages in the dictionary. Your comment suggests that you want your politicians to be lying scoundrels, as long as they use cryptic language when they speak.

The klansmen doesn't need to say anything, his dress alone is threatening. The KKK has known values which is upholds in many areas of the country. And really do you honestly think a klansmen would go into a store run or owned by a black person? And if they did, do you honestly think the klansmen would leave that store without breaking a law? My guess is no.

A klansman is still a klansman no matter what he is wearing. I completely understand how a black man would feel threatened by a person wearing KKK garb, and I agree that he should have the right to refuse that person service on his property. Refuse the person service, not the outfit. If he saw that same person in casual attire like FK brought up he should still have the right to refuse that person. There's no way to no whether any white person is a KKK member or not if you don't know for sure, and therefore a black man should have the right to refuse service to any white man, based solely on race. There should be no exception whatsoever. I would hope he didn't refuse me service when I'm thirsty, but he should have the right to, just as I should have the right to refuse him service in my own store. Castle doctrines in some states allow a person to defend any place legally occupied--a home, a business, even a workplace--with deadly force no matter who the intruder is. How can you honestly reserve the right to take a dangerous customer's life without having the right to simply refuse them service beforehand? There should be no exception to who or what is entering your property whether it's with a smile, a gun, or a five dollar bill. That's a principle because it applies in every situation.

Traditional Muslim garb isn't threatening since Islam doesn't preach the killing of people with different skin colours. Yes some people see it that way. To deny service to a Muslim based solely on what he or she is wearing is discrimination since there is no ground in which to base the refusal of service.

Who is to judge if traditional Muslim clothing is threatening or not? You say some people see it that way, and that certainly means those people find it threatening. You just contradicted yourself.

Say a Muslim bombed my trade center. He is threatening to me. Now it's your turn Joey, argue that that Muslim person is not threatening to me.

Then there is no ground in which to base refusal of service. Face recognition is often flawed as well.

But sometimes it is not flawed. You clearly lack principle in these situations. You're making exceptions. Sometimes it's okay, but other times it's not. A right should never have any exceptions, it should always be true no matter what. Everyone should have the right to be racist. Hopefully they choose otherwise, but everyone should have the right because sometimes a person's concern for race is legitimate.

I don't understand what this has to do with the discussion at hand, it's illegal to deny someone employment based on their race. We are talking about serving someone in the public accessible places.

I think the reason he brings it up is another issue of principle. If it's okay to be racist in one situation, why is it not okay to be racist in another. By principle the right must apply in all situations. An interviewer is in his workplace, and if an interview is a threat to him then the employee is allowed to take that person's life. Again, how can you reserve the right to kill somebody without first having the right to say "go away".

There have been circumstances in my own work history where a racial stereotype has come true concerning a new hire, but the employer was not allowed to fire that person solely because the wanted to because the employee could have called it racism, and could have won the court case. But if a white person would have done the same and he would have been fired and he would have filed a racism case the judge would have laughed in his face.

That's an exception. There should be no exceptions. The only way to remove all exceptions is to allow everyone the right.

 

[Joey D]

You can also be easily misunderstood by going out of your way to avoid criticism. Career politicians make...a career out of dodging bullets. I'd much rather my guy be brutally honest so I can understand his ideals clearly and don't have to go sifting through ******** and flipping pages in the dictionary. Your comment suggests that you want your politicians to be lying scoundrels, as long as they use cryptic language when they speak.

There is still a difference between cryptic language, lying and saying something flat out stupid. What Paul said was flat out stupid for his political career. Answer it honestly but answer it with some tact. Saying "yes" right away to being questioned if people should be allowed to not serve blacks isn't answering with tact my opinion. Even if you explain it you still answered it with a flat out yes and that will bite you in the backside.

A klansman is still a klansman no matter what he is wearing. I completely understand how a black man would feel threatened by a person wearing KKK garb, and I agree that he should have the right to refuse that person service on his property. Refuse the person service, not the outfit. If he saw that same person in casual attire like FK brought up he should still have the right to refuse that person. There's no way to no whether any white person is a KKK member or not if you don't know for sure, and therefore a black man should have the right to refuse service to any white man, based solely on race. There should be no exception whatsoever. I would hope he didn't refuse me service when I'm thirsty, but he should have the right to, just as I should have the right to refuse him service in my own store. Castle doctrines in some states allow a person to defend any place legally occupied--a home, a business, even a workplace--with deadly force no matter who the intruder is. How can you honestly reserve the right to take a dangerous customer's life without having the right to simply refuse them service beforehand? There should be no exception to who or what is entering your property whether it's with a smile, a gun, or a five dollar bill. That's a principle because it applies in every situation.

By wearing a klansmen costume you are making a threatening statement, by wearing a polo shirt and kakhi's you aren't. That's the difference.

Who is to judge if traditional Muslim clothing is threatening or not? You say some people see it that way, and that certainly means those people find it threatening. You just contradicted yourself.

There is nothing threatening about traditional Muslim garb at all, there is everything threatening about a klansmen's costume. There is nothing contradicting about that since one is known to be a terrorist organisation and one is known to be a religion.

Say a Muslim bombed my trade center. He is threatening to me. Now it's your turn Joey, argue that that Muslim person is not threatening to me.

A Muslim extremist and terrorist bombed your trade centre, an average Joe..errr an average Mohammed didn't.

I don't understand your point here, Islam and the KKK are two very different organisations so it's unrelated. To not serve someone who's Muslim because of their religion is being discriminatory, not serving someone, and kicking them out of the establishment, in KKK garb is getting rid of someone who is being threatening.

But sometimes it is not flawed. You clearly lack principle in these situations. You're making exceptions. Sometimes it's okay, but other times it's not. A right should never have any exceptions, it should always be true no matter what. Everyone should have the right to be racist. Hopefully they choose otherwise, but everyone should have the right because sometimes a person's concern for race is legitimate.

It's not making exceptions. By wearing a klansmen outfit you are being threatening by default. By being black you aren't. I'm done explaining that.

 

[hambone8611]

and Joey D wins hands down.

 

[Keef]

There is still a difference between cryptic language, lying and saying something flat out stupid. What Paul said was flat out stupid for his political career. Answer it honestly but answer it with some tact. Saying "yes" right away to being questioned if people should be allowed to not serve blacks isn't answering with tact my opinion. Even if you explain it you still answered it with a flat out yes and that will bite you in the backside.

The sad thing is that you're right, it probably will hurt him because people are generally idiots and will only read the glaring "yes" and pay no attention to the explanation below. I understand your point, but In my opinion I'd prefer a clear answer to one I had to decipher. I think we all should wish more politicians were immediately clear and honest because I bet the most of them wouldn't be in office right now.

By wearing a klansmen costume you are making a threatening statement, by wearing a polo shirt and kakhi's you aren't. That's the difference.

But what if that KKK member who was not wearing his KKK outfit pulls a gun out and kills the black store owner? The store owner did not know he was a KKK member. He lost his life because he did not have the right to refuse white people. If he did have that right he may still have his life because he may have refused that white man service. It would have been his decision to make, but we'll never know because he is dead. The law killed him. The law infringed his human right to protect his life.

There is nothing threatening about traditional Muslim garb at all, there is everything threatening about a klansmen's costume. There is nothing contradicting about that since one is known to be a terrorist organisation and one is known to be a religion.

By definition you're right, the KKK hangs black people and Muslim's are a peaceful bunch. Try telling that to the guy typing away on the 79th floor. I person who has been emotionally scarred like that can never know if a Muslim customer, or anybody who has the same skin one, is going to blow themselves up in his store. He could be scared. He could feel his life is in danger. He should have the right to simply ask the person to leave.

I don't understand your point here, Islam and the KKK are two very different organisations so it's unrelated. To not serve someone who's Muslim because of their religion is being discriminatory, not serving someone, and kicking them out of the establishment, in KKK garb is getting rid of someone who is being threatening.

Like I said before, ask yourself what would happen if that KKK member wasn't wearing KKK clothing. He's still a KKK member.

A business owner's goal is to make money. If he refuses a certain race of people any service he will obviously make less money because he'll have fewer customers. But it's reasonable to think that some business owners would choose instead to make the money, because business owners like money. But they still have the right just in case. Just because you have the right doesn't mean you have to use it.

 

[hambone8611]

Grasping at straws and losing miserably.

 

[Joey D]

The sad thing is that you're right, it probably will hurt him because people are generally idiots and will only read the glaring "yes" and pay no attention to the explanation below. I understand your point, but In my opinion I'd prefer a clear answer to one I had to decipher. I think we all should wish more politicians were immediately clear and honest because I bet the most of them wouldn't be in office right now.

And there you go, you have gotten my point on that. And while you may prefer a clear answer, it's not the best course of action in this situation, which makes Paul a fool.

But what if that KKK member who was not wearing his KKK outfit pulls a gun out and kills the black store owner? The store owner did not know he was a KKK member. He lost his life because he did not have the right to refuse white people. If he did have that right he may still have his life because he may have refused that white man service. It would have been his decision to make, but we'll never know because he is dead. The law killed him. The law infringed his human right to protect his life.

What? This example is getting more and more ridiculous. If you have no idea the guy was a KKK member and he kills you because you are black then he's committed a crime and will more then like spend the next 20 years behind bars, even more if it can be proven it was premeditated.

If a black store clerk refuses to serve a white patron solely based on the fact they are white, that's discrimination and the white patron as every right to pursue legal action for being discriminated against.

By definition you're right, the KKK hangs black people and Muslim's are a peaceful bunch. Try telling that to the guy typing away on the 79th floor. I person who has been emotionally scarred like that can never know if a Muslim customer, or anybody who has the same skin one, is going to blow themselves up in his store. He could be scared. He could feel his life is in danger. He should have the right to simply ask the person to leave.

No he shouldn't ask them to leave, irrational fears doesn't make it justifiable to be a bigot. The men who committed the tragedies on September 11th were extremist and terrorist who happened to be Muslim. They don't represent what the Islam stands for, because Islam is a peaceful religion. The KKK however stands for the advancement of the white race through violent means. There is a huge difference between being OK to dislike one but not the other.

Like I said before, ask yourself what would happen if that KKK member wasn't wearing KKK clothing. He's still a KKK member.

Right but it's the costume that's being threatening to the store clerk. If a guy came in, made no mention he was a klansmen then what bases does the clerk have for denying him service? He has none and thus he'd be discriminating the patron for no reason.

A business owner's goal is to make money. If he refuses a certain race of people any service he will obviously make less money because he'll have fewer customers. But it's reasonable to think that some business owners would choose instead to make the money, because business owners like money. But they still have the right just in case. Just because you have the right doesn't mean you have to use it.

Not necessarily. If I opened a "white's only" store in many areas of the south I bet I would make more money then I would if I had a non-bigoted store. You forget how backwards many areas of our country are.

You shouldn't be allowed to refuse someone the right to be in your place that you have opened to the public based on race, sex, religion, or sexual preference. You should be allowed to refuse service to someone threatening or disruptive as you are protecting your other customers, your property and yourself from problems.

I'm really failing to see why I have to keep explaining this.

 

[Joel]

While in my opinion there's nothing wrong with what Paul said, it was a stupid move.

 

[Keef]

How about this then. You should have the right to refuse anybody service on your own property. It's a right to property. I guess what I'm trying to say is that racism may be a side effect of property rights that we just have to deal with.

 

[TigJackson]

In your opinion, I think the man is an ignorant fool who just ruined his chances at trying to make it into office with a statement like that.

Well, no one's even mentioning paul's distortions of supposed ADA imposed, unreasonable burdens on small-business owners, but you're forgetting that this is kentucky....he's most likely a hero there at this time, and he will most likely win by another randslide in the general election as well.

 

[Biggles]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that racism may be a side effect of property rights that we just have to deal with.

Brilliantly put!

In fact, the whole god-awful mess libertarian extremism would make of civil society could be dismissed as a "side effect" of "property rights".

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Brilliantly put!

In fact, the whole god-awful mess libertarian extremism would make of civil society could be dismissed as a "side effect" of "property rights".

No, as far as I can see racism is permitted by("side effect" of) the 1st Amendment.

 

[Joel]

Brilliantly put!

In fact, the whole god-awful mess libertarian extremism would make of civil society could be dismissed as a "side effect" of "property rights".

So.... you think a privately owned company should be forced to serve all adults?

A private company should have the right to refuse sale or service to anyone, for whatever reason they wish.

 

[Dotini]

In fact, the whole god-awful mess libertarian extremism would make of civil society could be dismissed as a "side effect" of "property rights".

Dearest Biggles,

In today's deeply damaged society, enmeshed as we are in futile wars and thrust deep into a bottomless pit of debt, we who are still sane and rational are alas obliged to make some hard choices. I have come to the unsurprising insight that if you are broke and fighting, then you are finished - there is nothing else you can accomplish. Accordingly, it must be accepted that getting out of the war and empire business, and getting out of debt, are the two most important issues our society faces. If we serious about survival and avoiding extinction, these twin problems must be at the top of the list of things to do. For decades neither Republicans nor Democrats, neither liberals nor what has become today's "conservatives", have offered the slightest hopes of salvation. ONLY libertarians and paleo-conservatives have offered an anti-war and fiscally sound agenda. Therefore, it sadly must be accepted that libertarians' slightly daffy notions of personal liberty, personal responsibility and property rights must be swallowed whole, however unpalatable and politically incorrect in these parlous times. If we are not serious about surviving, then we can all go down with the Titanic while the band plays Kumbaya.

In deepest sympathy,
Dotini

 

[Joel]

Dearest Biggles,

In today's deeply damaged society, enmeshed as we are in futile wars and thrust deep into a bottomless pit of debt, we who are still sane and rational are alas obliged to make some hard choices. I have come to the unsurprising insight that if you are broke and fighting, then you are finished - there is nothing else you can accomplish. Accordingly, it must be accepted that getting out of the war and empire business, and getting out of debt, are the two most important issues our society faces. If we serious about survival and avoiding extinction, these twin problems must be at the top of the list of things to do. For decades neither Republicans nor Democrats, neither liberals nor what has become today's "conservatives", have offered the slightest hopes of salvation. ONLY libertarians and paleo-conservatives have offered an anti-war and fiscally sound agenda. Therefore, it sadly must be accepted that libertarians' slightly daffy notions of personal liberty, personal responsibility and property rights must be swallowed whole, however unpalatable and politically incorrect in these parlous times. If we are not serious about surviving, then we can all go down with the Titanic while the band plays Kumbaya.

In deepest sympathy,
Dotini

Thank you. You echo my sentiment on the Libertarian agenda. While it may not be the most politically correct and "progressive", it is pretty much the only practical, logical, and most importantly, fair solution.

 

[FoolKiller]

It is your insinuation that your opponent is distinct from "ideologically principled people" that I find insulting. Again, perhaps it is your choice of words or your lack of sensitivity to the attitudes of others that I'm misconstruing as insulting.

Let's look at my statement again.

Based on your comments from other discussion in regard to how you feel about ideologically principled people, particularly those with a libertarian leaning mindset, I doubt he would have ever had your support to begin with.

So, looking at the full quote, and noting that the subject in my statement is Joey's past comments in other discussions, one should assume it is his comments that I am basing my assumption on, and nothing to do with his character. Sounds to me like my statement was justified when discussing a man that was self-billed as a libertarian leaning Republican.

As exhibit A, I present:

Honestly how the way many Libertarians I know act, has turned me off from the party completely because I don't wish to associate myself with people like that. Outside of politics they are fine though.

Exhibit B:

In my experience many people who consider themselves Libertarian or subscribe to libertarian come across as extremely arrogant in conversations involving political ideology. To me, many of them can't see past their own self righteousness to see that much of their way of thinking is based on a utopian society and is not feasible in the real world. That's my problem with it and believe it or not I can actually think for myself on the subject.

This all could be said for a lot of political ideologies, it just seems those in the Libertarian camp are more extreme about it or I just notice it more.

This almost sounds like a way one would describe Rand Paul's stance on this issue.

And exhibit C:

I don't like Libertarian thought because the way I see it, it's based purely on fantasy and does not take into account the real world. Would it be nice to live in a world run by libertarian ideals? Probably, but to change the world to it now would, in my opinion, doom way to many people. That's my biggest issue with it and why I can't support it. It works great in theory but not in practice, it's like Communism in that sense.

I was simply making a point, based on Joey's past statements regarding people who think like Rand Paul, that he wouldn't have supported Rand Paul before this.

I would not take any offense to someone pointing out that I would never have been an Obama supporter based on my past record of speaking poorly of progressives. It is a statement based on evidence, not some accusation that I am unable to be progressive.

Calling me ignorant? Do we really have to play these games? Play the ball not the man in a discussion. I did read the whole article.

The only reason I quoted the New York Times article was to source what I was talking about instead of just throwing out a simple, this is what he said. I could have quoted anything.

But I was responding to you saying:

No he's ignorant. Making statements like that is just plain stupid. A better way to have addressed the question would have been "while I fully support the Civil Rights Act, I also support the rights of the property owner." Coming off with a simple "yes" was poorly played.

You claimed he had a simple yes, when he clearly went on to explain that it was a property rights issue.

If you are aware that he did say more than a simple yes and I am misinterpreting your words, then no I do not believe you are ignorant of the facts.

And what he said following the statement doesn't clear anything up. He still said "yes" when asked if a business should be allowed to refuse serving blacks. You don't answer that kind of a question with a "yes" even with an explanation if you are running for office. This is why I'm claiming ignorance on his part.

So by claiming ignorance on his part, you believe that he wasn't aware that he ran a risk of political backlash? You truly believe him to be unaware of how that would play out after a primary where he was accused of being weak on national security because he was honest about being opposed to the Patriot Act? He is not ignorant. He knew. The fact that he knew and still said it while running for office is what, in my opinion, makes him significantly better than any politician. Telling the truth, even if at the cost of losing the election, shows integrity.

In your opinion, I think the man is an ignorant fool who just ruined his chances at trying to make it into office with a statement like that. Anyone running for office should know that an opponent is going to eat you alive with remarks like that.

Um, how is it my opinion that he did know how it would play out? Either he did or didn't know. The fact that it took Maddow nearly the entire interview to get him say that "yes," and he accused her of playing "gotcha," tells me he did know. Knowing is the opposite of ignorance.

You can still be 100% honest with carefully chosen words that eliminates chances for repercussion later on by your opponent.

How do you say that you support a racist business owner's right to refuse service to someone of another race 100% honestly without that being used against you?


Do you find it fine that politicians lie, flip flop on positions, and do whatever it takes to get your vote, and you don't know for sure what you are getting? Or when you vote for or against someone would you rather know with a fair amount of certainty that what you based your vote on is pretty accurate? Agree or disagree with him, you know without a doubt where Rand Paul stands on this issue, because he chose honesty at the risk of a loss in November. Is it politically bad, maybe even stupid? Yep. Does it show he might just be honest? Yep. Would I prefer if every politician were this honest? You're gorram right I would.

There is still a difference between cryptic language, lying and saying something flat out stupid. What Paul said was flat out stupid for his political career. Answer it honestly but answer it with some tact. Saying "yes" right away to being questioned if people should be allowed to not serve blacks isn't answering with tact my opinion. Even if you explain it you still answered it with a flat out yes and that will bite you in the backside.

This is why I suggested you actually watch the interview. It wasn't right away. She wouldn't stop until he gave a yes or no answer, even to the point of her telling him to give her a yes or no before she would move on, which she never did.

The klansmen doesn't need to say anything, his dress alone is threatening. The KKK has known values which is upholds in many areas of the country.

But you can't refuse him service for that unless he truly is a threat. Just his presence is not a threat. If it were they would be illegal. Their marches would be illegal.

And really do you honestly think a klansmen would go into a store run or owned by a black person?

Replace klansman with black man and replace black person with known racist.

Do you really think a black man would go into a store run or owned by a known racist?

And if they did, do you honestly think the klansmen would leave that store without breaking a law? My guess is no.

I don't know. I don't know any of them. He'd probably be sure to use the word, "Boy." At least that's what Hollywood tells me.

Traditional Muslim garb isn't threatening since Islam doesn't preach the killing of people with different skin colours. Yes some people see it that way. To deny service to a Muslim based solely on what he or she is wearing is discrimination since there is no ground in which to base the refusal of service.

To deny service to a white man based solely on what he or she is wearing is discrimination since there is no ground in which to base the refusal of service. even if it is bed sheets and a dunce cap.

Better yet, the media has portrayed Rand Paul as a racist in all this. My car has a Rand Paul bumper sticker and a Rand Paul yard sign in the back window. Could a black man refuse to serve me for being threatening because he believes I proudly display my support of racism?

Then there is no ground in which to base refusal of service. Face recognition is often flawed as well.

The use of the word, "Boy," might give him away.

I don't understand what this has to do with the discussion at hand, it's illegal to deny someone employment based on their race. We are talking about serving someone in the public accessible places.

I still have clients that I produce products for.

Probably not, I think people like that are the wrong candidates for the job of running our country. I, however, do not know enough about him to really say if I would have supported him to begin with anyway. Based on his comments with the civil rights vs. property rights I would have dropped support for him right then and there if I would have supported him.

He has a Web site and has been self-billed as libertarian leaning or old-school conservative.

So, based on this page:
http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/

and Joey D wins hands down.

Grasping at straws and losing miserably.

Hey, John Madden. You just adding color commentary or do you have an opinion?

Well, no one's even mentioning paul's distortions of supposed ADA imposed, unreasonable burdens on small-business owners,

If you wish to discuss them, or the connected property rights discussion that will break down to exactly the same discussion we are having now, feel free to start us off.

but you're forgetting that this is kentucky....he's most likely a hero there at this time, and he will most likely win by another randslide in the general election as well.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you didn't just insinuate that the majority of people in my home state are racists. Clearly, you are saying that they are fairly libertarian minded, right?

 

[hambone8611]

I thought Joey said it quite well, better than I could have. I also thought my color commentary was telling of my opinion. Fact is society does have the right to enforce cretin rules on the way business is run in a civilized society and restricting racist behavior falls in that category, and the private property argument is just a smoke screen.

 

[Keef]

Rights aren't a smoke screen for anything. Rights are the the reasons we have laws to begin with. The laws are there to guarantee that the rights are protected. The goal of the Civic Rights act was to guarantee everyone's rights, but in some cases it has granted special privileges to certain groups of people, thereby infringing the rights of other groups. I'm sorry, but a one's skin color is simply not above another person's right to make their own decisions concerning their property. If racism has to exist in order to guarantee these rights then so be it. At least everyone will be able to pick and choose and snicker in the same capacity. You asked for it, you got it, equality. Everyone hates each other equally, but at least you're allowed to keep your own stuff.

 

[FoolKiller]

Fact is society does have the right to enforce cretin rules on the way business is run in a civilized society and restricting racist behavior falls in that category, and the private property argument is just a smoke screen.

So, a racist man can go down the public street saying ever derogatory name in the book at another person and that is legitimate, but a guy who owns his own business can't serve who he wants?

Fact is, in the US there is a legal limit to what the government can prevent people from doing. The argument presented by Dr. Paul is that the government has overstepped those bounds.

And who is using it as a smoke screen? Are you talking about racist property owners only? Or are you referring to everyone that defends property rights as using it as a smoke screen for racism?

And if you feel it is a smoke screen then what are people who use the property rights argument for things like allowing smoking or serving trans fats using it for?

 

[Omnis]

I thought Joey said it quite well, better than I could have. I also thought my color commentary was telling of my opinion. Fact is society does have the right to enforce cretin rules on the way business is run in a civilized society and restricting racist behavior falls in that category, and the private property argument is just a smoke screen.

This is called commerce. With freedom, we already have natural consequences of certain behaviors. Racism is not economically smart, and will eventually die out in an individualist society.

 

[DK]

There would be similar controversies over here in Ireland over blocking entry into shops. I was watching this current events show last Wednesday, and there was this woman who put up a warning sign over a group of gypsies who regularly shoplifted from her store, and ended up being called a "fascist" by some people for having that sign. If someone does regularly steal from your store, I think you should be allowed to deny them entry. But if it's just because they're Hispanic, Asian, black or any other minority, you shouldn't deny them entry. So, in short, if the person has shoplifted many times from your shop, you should be allowed to deny them entry, but if they're a different race than you and they haven't done anything wrong, you should by all means let them in. I seriously think this topic deserves its own thread.

 

[Biggles]

Dearest Biggles,

In today's deeply damaged society, enmeshed as we are in futile wars and thrust deep into a bottomless pit of debt, we who are still sane and rational are alas obliged to make some hard choices. I have come to the unsurprising insight that if you are broke and fighting, then you are finished - there is nothing else you can accomplish. Accordingly, it must be accepted that getting out of the war and empire business, and getting out of debt, are the two most important issues our society faces. If we serious about survival and avoiding extinction, these twin problems must be at the top of the list of things to do. For decades neither Republicans nor Democrats, neither liberals nor what has become today's "conservatives", have offered the slightest hopes of salvation. ONLY libertarians and paleo-conservatives have offered an anti-war and fiscally sound agenda. Therefore, it sadly must be accepted that libertarians' slightly daffy notions of personal liberty, personal responsibility and property rights must be swallowed whole, however unpalatable and politically incorrect in these parlous times. If we are not serious about surviving, then we can all go down with the Titanic while the band plays Kumbaya.

In deepest sympathy,
Dotini

My Very Dear Dotini,

While I agree with your concerns about the pursuit of "war & empire", I don't agree that only libertarians have offered a consistent counter-voice. By aligning themselves with Republicans, who have a particularly incestuous relationship with the "military-industrial complex" libertarians shed doubt on their ability to deliver on their "anti-imperialist" rhetoric. Unfortunately, the US political system allows little space for alternative voices, which places libertarians (& all other independent voices) in a difficult position. (Libertarians' consistent opposition to campaign finance reform (based on their free-speech concerns) is one more area where I disagree strongly with their "principled" stand.)

Rights aren't a smoke screen for anything. Rights are the the reasons we have laws to begin with. The laws are there to guarantee that the rights are protected.

As I have already showed in another thread: the "laws" that were put in place at the founding of the US, did nothing to protect the rights of the slaves. Even after the Civil War the rights of African-Americans were consistently & grossly violated for another hundred years, before organized, collective action (eventually backed up by the "coercive" power of the federal government) limited the systemic violation of African-American's rights. The legacy of those violations continues through the present, however.

 

[hambone8611]

Rights aren't a smoke screen for anything. Rights are the the reasons we have laws to begin with. The laws are there to guarantee that the rights are protected. The goal of the Civic Rights act was to guarantee everyone's rights, but in some cases it has granted special privileges to certain groups of people, thereby infringing the rights of other groups. I'm sorry, but a one's skin color is simply not above another person's right to make their own decisions concerning their property. If racism has to exist in order to guarantee these rights then so be it. At least everyone will be able to pick and choose and snicker in the same capacity. You asked for it, you got it, equality. Everyone hates each other equally, but at least you're allowed to keep your own stuff.

A store or restaurant may be privately owned but are not private property and this is where the private property argument becomes a smoke screen it’s not a murky line.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

A store or restaurant may be privately owned but are not private property

Yeah they are.

 

[Omnis]

My Very Dear Dotini,

While I agree with your concerns about the pursuit of "war & empire", I don't agree that only libertarians have offered a consistent counter-voice. By aligning themselves with Republicans, who have a particularly incestuous relationship with the "military-industrial complex" libertarians shed doubt on their ability to deliver on their "anti-imperialist" rhetoric. Unfortunately, the US political system allows little space for alternative voices, which places libertarians (& all other independent voices) in a difficult position. (Libertarians' consistent opposition to campaign finance reform (based on their free-speech concerns) is one more area where I disagree strongly with their "principled" stand.)



As I have already showed in another thread: the "laws" that were put in place at the founding of the US, did nothing to protect the rights of the slaves. Even after the Civil War the rights of African-Americans were consistently & grossly violated for another hundred years, before organized, collective action (eventually backed up by the "coercive" power of the federal government) limited the systemic violation of African-American's rights. The legacy of those violations continues through the present, however.

You say that like democrats are not incestuously involved with the MIC. Obama and crew are every bit the warmongers that Bush and co. were.

In respect to early America, the laws were fine. The problem was that blacks weren't regarded as persons under the law. Furthermore, the discrimination and segregation of blacks were fostered by bad laws more than any other factor. The elimination of those laws and of mainstream racism was never due to government cracking down on racism. That was the result of the social movement created by civil rights leaders, to which the government had no choice but to respond.

 

[hambone8611]

So, a racist man can go down the public street saying ever derogatory name in the book at another person and that is legitimate, but a guy who owns his own business can't serve who he wants?

Fact is, in the US there is a legal limit to what the government can prevent people from doing. The argument presented by Dr. Paul is that the government has overstepped those bounds.

And who is using it as a smoke screen? Are you talking about racist property owners only? Or are you referring to everyone that defends property rights as using it as a smoke screen for racism?

And if you feel it is a smoke screen then what are people who use the property rights argument for things like allowing smoking or serving trans fats using it for?

You do draw ridicules lines. However you are correct that government has overstepped its bounds in many ways but the issue at hand is not one of them; laws that restrict racist business practices are truly just.

 

[Biggles]

You say that like democrats are not incestuously involved with the MIC. Obama and crew are every bit the warmongers that Bush and co. were.

I didn't say that. The Democrats are far from blameless, & on a practical level are also heavily compromised by the MIC. However, it was the Bush administration that initiated the "preemptive" war in Iraq & Republicans who led the cheerleading. Libertarians, to the extent they may have some influence on the Republican mainstream, may be providing a valuable check to the nationalism & militarism that is a signature trademark of the Republican rhetoric.

In respect to early America, the laws were fine. The problem was that blacks weren't regarded as persons under the law. Furthermore, the discrimination and segregation of blacks were fostered by bad laws more than any other factor. The elimination of those laws and of mainstream racism was never due to government cracking down on racism. That was the result of the social movement created by civil rights leaders, to which the government had no choice but to respond.

The point, again, is that those with power interpreted & manipulated the "laws" to suit their own interests. History repeatedly shows this to be an inevitable outcome of great disparities in wealth & power. Many other groups, among them native Americans, immigrant minorities & women suffered similar discrimination. The reason the federal government responded (eventually), was because national pressure - democratic pressure - finally over-rode entrenched special interests & the concomitant claim of "states rights".