Congress 2010 Thread

[hambone8611]

Yeah they are.

Why do you suppose a cop can write a ticket in the grocery store parking lot?

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Why do you suppose a cop can write a ticket in the grocery store parking lot?

Because there are laws which allow them. What's your point?

 

[hambone8611]

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.

In a perfect world you would be right but such is not the case and there can be huge economic benefits to racist business practices. Just imagine what a group of people with the right resources could accomplish by refusing to sell supplies or advertizing space or equipment to one grope while selling to another grope at fair prices you could easily manipulate markets and financially cripple entire races of people and it would beguine with the right to refuse business based on race.

 

[hambone8611]

Because there are laws which allow them. What's your point?

My point is that private property that is open to the public is subject to different set of laws than private property that is not open to public so race till your hart is content on your own property just don’t put an open sign out and you will be fine

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

My point is that private property that is open to the public is subject to different set of laws than private property that is not open to public so race till your hart is content on your own property just don’t put an open sign out and you will be fine

Yeah I see how that works.

 

[Omnis]

Why am I not surprised? Why won't the NYT just hurry up and die.

 

[FoolKiller]

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.

What exactly are my ridiculous lines that I am drawing? I firmly believe that restricting businesses from an otherwise legal activity is wrong. Racism is not illegal. In fact, disliking anyone for whatever reason is not illegal, yet we restrict business owners from reflecting those legal activities in their business practices. Until we become like some other countries, where it becomes illegal to even utter government labeled "hate speech" then I think we should not hold private businesses to an entirely different standard.

Why do you suppose a cop can write a ticket in the grocery store parking lot?

Actually, whether he can or not is dependent on your state and what the situation is. Writing a ticket after you pull into a parking lot for a moving violation on the street: Fine. The ticket is not in regard to anything in the parking lot. Similar if it is a citation in regard to a complaint from the property owners. But, even though my office building has cops patrol the area at our request due to some past vandalism we have to call them to complain about non-handicap marked cars using handicap spaces.

As a major example: I was once struck in a campus parking lot by a woman pulling out of a parking spot. A Lexington City police officer responded to the call, as they were who a witness called. He wrote up the accident report for our insurance but he did not assign blame. When I asked him about that, fearing I would have a fight on my hands, he explained that we are on campus property and out of his jurisdiction. He can write a report but not assign blame or write a citation, but if he were campus police he could.

(Video, actually explaining Rand Paul interview)

Why am I not surprised? Why won't the NYT just hurry up and die.

Thank you. This is the point I have been trying to make to Joey. The way the interview has been reported is not how it actually happened, and thus accusing Dr. Paul of ignorance or stupidity based on that is wrong.

 

[Joel]

Thanks for bringing up the "hate speech" thing. That's one of the few things I truly do hate about Canada. We have protective "hate speech" legislation for gays in particular. I absolutely hate that legislation. (Don't get me wrong though, Canada allowing gay marriage is one of the things that I am proud of, and absolutely love about Canada).


You can't allow one group to say what they believe in, but not allow another. I hate the Westboro Baptist Church as much as anyone, but do I think there should be laws preventing them from speaking out? No. Freedom of speech is the most important thing in a free society.


Back to the topic at hand, I take back my "While Paul didn't say anything wrong, it was a stupid move". It was a perfectly fine comment in all respects, but this "controversy" is the fault of the horrible interpretation rather than what Rand Paul actually did say.

 

[Joey D]

Thank you. This is the point I have been trying to make to Joey. The way the interview has been reported is not how it actually happened, and thus accusing Dr. Paul of ignorance or stupidity based on that is wrong.

Uh I still he's still stupid and ignorant for stating that business owners should be able to refuse serving blacks. He started with a simple yes, then went on to explain it. It's stupid to answer that sort of question with a yes when you are attempting to run for office since it's going to come back around and bit you in the backside. I was under the impression I had explained this well enough.

You accuse me of selective reading but you are doing the same exact thing.

I'm sorry I don't like the candidate you support.

 

[Omnis]

But he didn't answer it with a yes. Never did he just say "yes." The "yeah" was an audible pause, or rather an indicator that he would like Rachel to stop talking so that he can start a sentence. It sounds like an answer in the transcript because there is a delay in the AV feed. To run with it like most media outlets did is just dirt-poor journalism. Whether it's laziness or purposeful mud-dragging, there's really no excuse for it.

Like I said much earlier... mountains out of molehills. Big government folks took the only thing they could get and layed it on good. I've never seen so much dirty laundry on a pine-needle-sized hook. It's too bad they can't face him on pertinent issues that will actually affect Americans instead of whether or not Kimbo Slice can eat at the Cracker Reich Saloon.

 

[Joey D]

But he didn't answer it with a yes. Never did he just say "yes." The "yeah" was an audible pause, or rather an indicator that he would like Rachel to stop talking so that he can start a sentence. It sounds like an answer in the transcript because there is a delay in the AV feed.

Like I said much earlier... mountains out of molehills. Big government folks took the only thing they could get and layed it on good. I've never seen so much dirty laundry on a pine-needle-sized hook. It's too bad they can't face him on pertinent issues that will actually affect Americans instead of whether or not Kimbo Slice can eat at the Cracker Reich Saloon.

'Yes', 'Yeah', whatever. You need to be careful with that sort of thing when you are running for office because of what will come of it. That's my point in all of this which seems to be getting lost. It comes down to not thinking clearly and being ignorant of what the fallout is going to be.

I still don't agree with him supporting the idea that a business owner has the right to refuse service of someone because of their skin colour though.

 

[FoolKiller]

'Yes', 'Yeah', whatever. You need to be careful with that sort of thing when you are running for office because of what will come of it. That's my point in all of this which seems to be getting lost. It comes down to not thinking clearly and being ignorant of what the fallout is going to be.

I still don't agree with him supporting the idea that a business owner has the right to refuse service of someone because of their skin colour though.

Wait, I'm getting confused. I clearly get that you disagree with his point. I understand that. But is it his point that you are finding ignorant, or his publicly admitting it while running for office? Your own words tell me that you think:

Anyone running for office should know that an opponent is going to eat you alive with remarks like that.

That is what I am disagreeing with you about, that you have accused him of being ignorant of what the fallout would be if he did things the way you claim he did. You have not shown anything to show that he is ignorant of that fact. The fact that you are also basing your assumption on inaccurate second-hand accounts doesn't help me think your opinion on that is well founded in facts.

I agree that it isn't smart to admit to that politically incorrect stance when you are running for political office, but I think it shows a lot more integrity and character to be willing to lose an honest campaign than win one that began with a blatant lie.

 

[Joey D]

Wait, I'm getting confused. I clearly get that you disagree with his point. I understand that. But is it his point that you are finding ignorant, or his publicly admitting it while running for office?

OK maybe I'm not being clear enough.

He's ignorant for saying "yes","yeah", whatever with that statement because he's running for office and his opponent and the media are going to eat him alive for it. When you are running for office you need to choose your words carefully and make sure things can't be taken out of context.

I don't agree with his statement of saying businesses should be allowed to refuse service to blacks if they wish. It doesn't make him ignorant, I think it makes him backwards.

 

[Famine]

I still don't agree with him supporting the idea that a business owner has the right to refuse service of someone because of their skin colour though.

I don't get it. Why?

Surely the best way to rid ourselves of racism can't be to keep making laws that draw attention to differences between races?

 

[FoolKiller]

OK maybe I'm not being clear enough.

He's ignorant for saying "yes","yeah", whatever with that statement because he's running for office and his opponent and the media are going to eat him alive for it. When you are running for office you need to choose your words carefully and make sure things can't be taken out of context.

And this is where my contention is:

Ignorant \Ig"no*rant\, a. [F., fr. L. ignorans, -antis, p. pr. of ignorare to be ignorant. See Ignore.]

1. Destitute of knowledge; uninstructed or uninformed; untaught; unenlightened.

Saying he is ignorant means he lacks the knowledge (thus why me calling someone ignorant should not be seen as an insult) to know there would be political backfire. I am calling into question how you reach the conclusion that he is ignorant, lacks the information to know, of the risk of political backfire.

 

[Joey D]

I don't get it. Why?

Surely the best way to rid ourselves of racism can't be to keep making laws that draw attention to differences between races?

The best way to rid ourselves of racism is take racism out of the equation. If you allow racist to operate their businesses like that you could very well see segregation spring up in some communities, especially in parts of the south. The Civil Rights fight in the US was long and ugly, and I would hope we'd moved on from that, but unfortunately we haven't.

Saying he is ignorant means he lacks the knowledge (thus why me calling someone ignorant should not be seen as an insult) to know there would be political backfire. I am calling into question how you reach the conclusion that he is ignorant, lacks the information to know, of the risk of political backfire.

If you are a politician you should know that by saying anything that could be remotely taken the wrong way is going to cause you problems. If you don't then you are just being naïve to the way the system works. If Paul had any political sense he would know that a comment like that would be used against him.

I don't care if he is right, wrong or indifferent either. That's not the point. He made a foolish statement.

 

[Famine]

The best way to rid ourselves of racism is take racism out of the equation. If you allow racist to operate their businesses like that you could very well see segregation spring up in some communities, especially in parts of the south. The Civil Rights fight in the US was long and ugly, and I would hope we'd moved on from that, but unfortunately we haven't.

So we make laws that say "Actually, race is different. You can refuse your business to anyone so long as the reason isn't that they're a different race."? Doesn't make much sense to "take racism out of the equation" by repeatedly highlighting race.

Incidentally, I'm a white, straight male and wouldn't frequent any establishment that refused service to non-whites, women/transgendered or homosexual/bisexual people on those grounds. Similarly, if someone didn't want to sell me their product because I'm white, straight, male or any combination, that's their problem (and quite a large one). Not sure why I need laws to tell them not to do it.

For instance, in the UK recently there was a story which "rocked" the papers - a gay couple turned up to a bed and breakfast (mini-hotel in a house, if you're not familiar) and were turned away despite booking in advance. The papers had a right old paddy about it, though eventually had to concede that, no, there's not a law against it. The owner, a Catholic woman, believed homosexuality is a sin. Fair enough - she was sticking to her principles. And letting everyone in the UK know she's a nasty, small-minded bigot. But hey, it's her house and I won't be going in it any time soon...

 

[Joey D]

So we make laws that say "Actually, race is different. You can refuse your business to anyone so long as the reason isn't that they're a different race."?

No we make a law saying you can't deny someone service in a publicly accessible institution based on their race, sex, sexual orientation, or creed.

I've already explained why klansmen shouldn't be served.

Incidentally, I'm a white, straight male and wouldn't frequent any establishment that refused service to non-whites, women/transgendered or homosexual/bisexual people on those grounds. Not sure why I need laws to tell them not to do it.

OK and? There are a lot of people in the US that are white, straight, males that would only frequent an establishment that refused to serve those who are different.

I'm really failing to see your point here.

 

[Joel]

I share the opinion of Famine, but I fear I may be taking Canada's relatively progressive social values for granted.

 

[Famine]

No we make a law saying you can't deny someone service in a publicly accessible institution based on their race, sex, sexual orientation, or creed.

Why? Will that prevent racism, sexism, homophobia and... errr... creedism?

Or will it, as with the UK, lead to a rise in membership of extremist organisations like the British National Party, due to people being unhappy with legislation they believe infringes their rights to be nasty, small-minded bigots.

Could give it a whirl I suppose. Might not turn out to be a costly exercise in futility like Prohibition was.

I've already explained why klansmen shouldn't be served.

Ghosts are scary.

OK and? There are a lot of people in the US that are white, straight, males that would only frequent an establishment that refused to serve those who are different.

I'm sure they will.

I'm really failing to see your point here.

Educating people is far better than legislating against them. They're far more resistant to being told what to do and think than you might expect.

 

[Joey D]

Why? Will that prevent racism, sexism, homophobia and... errr... creedism?

Or will it, as with the UK, lead to a rise in membership of extremist organisations like the British National Party, due to people being unhappy with legislation they believe infringes their rights to be nasty, small-minded bigots.

Could give it a whirl I suppose. Might not turn out to be a costly exercise in futility like Prohibition was.

I don't know, neither do you. I would prefer to make it illegal, that's my personal opinion which I would assume you could respect since there is no correct answer here.

Educating people is far better than legislating against them. They're far more resistant to being told what to do and think than you might expect.

Wishful thinking. We've been education people for years about not drinking and driving yet we still do it all the time. Education typically falls on deaf ears, especially when you've been raised to be a racist.

 

[Keef]

Joey, Famine's point is that racism is made worse by the government making laws saying "you are black" and "you are white". You simply can't make laws concerning racism because it separates people into groups and inevitably allows somebody a privilege in some situation that somebody else won't have.

Racism exists, and it always will. Sexism exists. Making fun of retards (oops) exists. It will never go away as long as people have different skin colors, different organs, and bum legs, because it's in our Human nature to classify things. That's why an apple is an apple and an orange is an orange. That's just what we do.

We also waste money trying to fix problems that won't go away because we don't want to lose our high-paying and perk-filled legislative job by admitting we're idiots.

You say there is no correct answer here, which basically means you've given up. Try to prove your opinion as the correct one and then it will be the correct one. You haven't done that yet.

 

[Famine]

I don't know, neither do you. I would prefer to make it illegal, that's my personal opinion which I would assume you could respect since there is no correct answer here.

I might respect that you hold it, but I'm never going to support an opinion which would have people's right to free speech infringed simply because they sell instant cameras and sunblock.

I get that you don't like racism - nobody in their right mind does. In order to have a free society we have to accept that racists exist and give them the same right to express themselves that we grant ourselves. We can't stop people saying things based on what we don't like - unless the whole planet is muted.

Wishful thinking. We've been education people for years about not drinking and driving yet we still do it all the time.

Not to mention legislation on drinking and driving.

Since it still happens anyway, which method is less of a waste of taxpayer's money?

 

[FoolKiller]

If you are a politician you should know that by saying anything that could be remotely taken the wrong way is going to cause you problems. If you don't then you are just being naïve to the way the system works.

Right, and I am still asking you to show me evidence that he didn't know that. You say he was ignorant or should have known what would happen. I am saying he isn't ignorant and likely did know.

If Paul had any political sense he would know that a comment like that would be used against him.

And I am trying to point out that he likely does have political sense (he played a major role in his father's past campaigns) but his integrity outweighs that.

My question has been, and still is; whether you agree or disagree, why is it bad for a man to be honest, and hold his integrity above winning political office?

It appears that you are holding playing politics and being deceptive as a more important virtue than being honest.

I've already explained why klansmen shouldn't be served.

OK, fine. They are threatening. I wonder if easily recognizable KKK members, like David Duke and Robert Byrd are still threatening, and can justifiably be turned away?

But I will ask the questions that John Stossel asked in his blog.

Will government tell the Black Student Association that they must admit Whites? Tell gay groups they must admit straights?



I do have to wonder though, since the biggest argument against the property rights argument is that segregation was horrible before the Civil Rights Act, why are people so willing to make a judgment based on a time when the law prevented integration? Why is it that people will point to incidents related to Jim Crow laws? If private businesses are so willing to turn us into a segregated hell hole then why did the government feel the need to create Jim Crow laws in the first place? Was the government regulating preemptively against the day when all those racist business owners started integrating?

 

[Joey D]

Joey, Famine's point is that racism is made worse by the government making laws saying "you are black" and "you are white". You simply can't make laws concerning racism because it separates people into groups and inevitably allows somebody a privilege in some situation that somebody else won't have.

By making a law making it illegal to discriminate on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation and sex. You aren't labelling people, you are taking the labels away. It puts us on a level playing field. I'm not suggesting we have laws that just states all black people should be served.

I might respect that you hold it, but I'm never going to support an opinion which would have people's right to free speech infringed simply because they sell instant cameras and sunblock.

And that is your prerogative. I respect you hold that opinion, doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Like I said, there is no right or wrong answer here.

I get that you don't like racism - nobody in their right mind does. In order to have a free society we have to accept that racists exist and give them the same right to express themselves that we grant ourselves. We can't stop people saying things based on what we don't like - unless the whole planet is muted.

I don't agree with that. Racist don't make for a free society in my opinion because they are out to infringe on the rights of others, specifically those of the races they don't like.

Touring Mars already addressed this point though and I agree with him.

Not to mention legislation on drinking and driving.

Since it still happens anyway, which method is less of a waste of taxpayer's money?

I don't know, it's hard to say since I don't know the data. I don't think legislation against things is a waste of money though.

Right, and I am still asking you to show me evidence that he didn't know that. You say he was ignorant or should have known what would happen. I am saying he isn't ignorant and likely did know.

Look at the backlash. There is your evidence. He should have known that when he made the slightest inclination that store owners should be allowed to not serve blacks that there would be an issue made out of it. Political history should tell you that. Hell I know that and I'm not a politician. All one has to do is watch the TV during election time to see the mud slinging.

My question has been, and still is; whether you agree or disagree, why is it bad for a man to be honest, and hold his integrity above winning political office?

It appears that you are holding playing politics and being deceptive as a more important virtue than being honest.

Really? I need to keep answering this?

I have never said it's bad for a politician to be honest, I have addressed this several times now actually. I said a politician who's smart chooses their words carefully so things don't bite them in the backside later on.

OK, fine. They are threatening. I wonder if easily recognizable KKK members, like David Duke and Robert Byrd are still threatening, and can justifiably be turned away?

Unless they are doing something to cause a scene, then no, what bases would the store keeper have for turning them away?

Will government tell the Black Student Association that they must admit Whites? Tell gay groups they must admit straights?

I don't see why whites should be allowed in the Black Student Association or straights in homosexual groups. At Oakland it was campus policy that all groups had to admit all people, I knew several straights people that were in the homosexual organisations.

 

[livemusic]

Look at the backlash. There is your evidence. He should have known that when he made the slightest inclination that store owners should be allowed to not serve blacks that there would be an issue made out of it. Political history should tell you that. Hell I know that and I'm not a politician. All one has to do is watch the TV during election time to see the mud slinging.

But that's what FoolKiller is saying. That he did know the media would probably make an issue out of his answer, but he's chosen to be honest about it anyway.

 

[Biggles]

i fear I may be taking Canada's relatively progressive social values for granted.

Exactly, noob. I spend a lot of time in the US on business - I really believe that Canada has a clearer social consensus & a better balance between individual liberty & civic responsibility. In contrast, the US seems to tearing itself apart by constantly accentuating divisive issues.

Educating people is far better than legislating against them. They're far more resistant to being told what to do and think than you might expect.

I think telling people it's "OK" to discriminate against people based on race if you want to, is the wrong education.

Ghosts are scary.

It's easy for you to make a glib reply - until recently white supremacists in the southern US were able to terrorize, beat & murder African-Americans with impunity. Maybe they & their relatives wouldn't find your comment amusing.

 

[Omnis]

OK maybe I'm not being clear enough.

He's ignorant for saying "yes","yeah", whatever with that statement because he's running for office and his opponent and the media are going to eat him alive for it. When you are running for office you need to choose your words carefully and make sure things can't be taken out of context.

I don't agree with his statement of saying businesses should be allowed to refuse service to blacks if they wish. It doesn't make him ignorant, I think it makes him backwards.

Did you watch the interview, and specifically that clip I posted? He never answered "yes" or "yeah" to any question. The "yeah" was not part of his answer... the "yeah" was to get Rachel Maddow to stop talking so he could start a sentence. His sentence was the answer to her question.

The fact that the transcripts don't read like that is very, very disingenuous, especially when you consider how the collectivist news media went and reported the wrong information based on an incorrect transcript.

Anyway, I think the invalid assumption that we would have violent racism in the absence of these laws is an insult to the population. I like to think that enough of us have moved on from the Jim Crow era. The idiots that haven't will be left to their own economic peril, or at most will linger in obscurity until they die out.

 

[YSSMAN]

It depends on where you are in the country, I assume. Up here in the North, we've figured out how not to be outwardly racist, but it always seems like everything is sitting on pretty uneven ground. Of course much of that has to do with our parents than us, what they grew up with, and what we did not. Time will tell.

RE: What Rand Said

Having seen/heard this stuff, I gave all of it a solid *shrug* by the time most of it was over. While I absolutely do not agree with the points Rand was getting at, among some of his other positions, I still find him to be a pretty reasonable person. The entire thing to keep in mind is that, well, he isn't representing me in congress. Sure, I can say "Yeah, I don't care much for that guy," but it really doesn't mean much unless he goes for a national position. So... I'm indifferent. I don't agree with him, but I still like the guy.


If the GOP want to walk the walk and make this guy the face for their "movement," by all means. Just don't count on winning everywhere with it.

 

[Omnis]

Lol, are you serious? He's the face of the grassroots movement, but I seriously doubt the GOP are going to line up behind him . McConnell already tried to sabotage his campaign. I mean, I hope they do, but only as a result of all the current losers in there being thrown out. Otherwise we'll just have the same kind of BS republican revolution like we had in the Clinton years.

How come politicians always have to pull dick moves on people who disagree with them? Probably has to do with their lack of a good argument.