Congress 2010 Thread

[Famine]

If you're part of a group that has appalling historical record & you're advocating the same things - yes.

How would anyone know unless I was in that shop wearing a red shirt and proclaiming I've come to take my country back? See the earlier example on the KKK member in a shirt and slacks.

I would say there are examples where people are entitled to be protected from intimidation by hateful speech, especially where there is a history of violence associated with that hateful speech. I have never heard of Japanese or Brits parading around the streets in the US advocating killing Americans - it's a totally spurious "Straw Man" scenario.

Interesting that you felt, in a previous thread, that Libertarian "right to property" ideals would be hamstrung by past misdeeds requiring present-day reparations that you're now glossing over.

 

[Biggles]

How would anyone know unless I was in that shop wearing a red shirt and proclaiming I've come to take my country back? See the earlier example on the KKK member in a shirt and slacks.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Somebody, of any group or belief, who goes about his business in an unthreatening, unintimidating manner should not be discriminated against.

I'm not arguing for or against an absolute right of freedom of speech. I think in certain circumstances it may be reasonable to limit free speech. What those circumstances should be, is a legitimate area of debate.

Interesting that you felt, in a previous thread, that Libertarian "right to property" ideals would be hamstrung by past misdeeds requiring present-day reparations that you're now glossing over.

Again, you are completely misunderstanding, or misrepresenting, the issue. Human experience encompasses many complex & contradictory circumstances. I wouldn't argue against property rights in a general sense, but I am deeply sceptical of a ideology that insists that property rights should be the fundamental philosophical principle governing human relations. The problem with libertarianism, like every "ism", is that by insisting on one "logical", "irrefutable" way of looking at the world, it creates an ideological tyranny, very much in evidence on these forums, which to me is no less disturbing because it's an ideology that claims to promote "individual liberty". As I've said before, I agree with some of the things said by libertarians, but not everything.

 

[FoolKiller]

it creates an ideological tyranny, very much in evidence on these forums, which to me is no less disturbing because it's an ideology that claims to promote "individual liberty".

I'm curious what you mean by this.

 

[hambone8611]

Like I've said earlier, I completely agree with Paul on this issue. I think a business owner should be able to block anyone from entering his or her store for any reason whatsoever. I mentioned that I might be taking Canada's social values for granted, but that doesn't change my opinion.


It's private property. Like Keef's example with the house, I can deny anyone entry to my house, which is private property, but because I sell burgers and fries I have to admit everyone to my restaurant? (hint hint, private property)

I just don't see the middle step where you have a right to deny someone's entry in to your house, but when you sell discount sunglasses you lose that right.

The issue is more complex than selling a cheese sandwich from a café. The power company where I live is a co-op which means private business should they be allowed to shut off power based on skin color

 

[Famine]

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Somebody, of any group or belief, who goes about his business in an unthreatening, unintimidating manner should not be discriminated against.

I'm trying to establish exactly what "threatening" and "intimidating" are. Currently it seems that it's a white costume and dunce cap regardless of the behaviour of the person within it.

Some people are intimidated by tattooed, pierced people - would they be fine to discriminate against? Some people are genuinely intimidated by black people - or by homosexuals. So presumably it's fine to discriminate against them on grounds of race or sexuality if you're genuinely intimidated by them?

I'm not arguing for or against an absolute right of freedom of speech. I think in certain circumstances it may be reasonable to limit free speech. What those circumstances should be, is a legitimate area of debate.

Who decides what the limit is? What's to stop them deciding they don't like your accent and deny you right to speak at all?

Again, you are completely misunderstanding, or misrepresenting, the issue.

Not at all. I'm asking you for introspection. Your answers to the same approximate situation in two completely unconnected circumstances differ - on the one hand, no-one should expect to be discriminated against for the acts of their ancestors, but on the other no-one should expect to be forgiven for the acts of their ancestors?

I wouldn't argue against property rights in a general sense, but I am deeply sceptical of a ideology that insists that property rights should be the fundamental philosophical principle governing human relations.

They're not. They're an emergent property (no pun intended) of the actual fundamental right - right to self.

The problem with libertarianism, like every "ism", is that by insisting on one "logical", "irrefutable" way of looking at the world, it creates an ideological tyranny, very much in evidence on these forums, which to me is no less disturbing because it's an ideology that claims to promote "individual liberty".

Then refute it. If you do not agree it is logical, use logic to refute it. I keep telling you and asking you to do this, but each time you prefer just to mock it with "quote" marks and phrases like ideological tyranny.

The entire philosophy is based on logic. If you believe it to be flawed, use logic to beat it.

As I've said before, I agree with some of the things said by libertarians, but not everything.

And Libertarians often disagree within themselves - though a basic, ballpark Libertarian view is "as little government as is necessary", the last three words are quite tricky. In fact, you'd probably be hard-pressed to find anyone, Libertarian or not, who'd disagree - I know many through-and-through Socialists who objected to the UK's National Identity Card scheme as being more government than was necessary...

 

[Joel]

The issue is more complex than selling a cheese sandwich from a café. The power company where I live is a co-op which means private business should they be allowed to shut off power based on skin color

If a private company wishes to stop service, they should have every right to do so (unless bound by contract).

What's the difference between the company shutting off power or just picking up and leaving?

 

[hambone8611]

If a private company wishes to stop service, they should have every right to do so (unless bound by contract).

What's the difference between the company shutting off power or just picking up and leaving?

There is a huge difference between denying power service for racist reasons and going out of business in fact they are not remotely similar one means closed the other is nothing short of oppression.
There is no law against leaving

 

[Joel]

There is a huge difference between denying power service for racist reasons and going out of business in fact they are not remotely similar one means closed the other is nothing short of oppression.
There is no law against leaving

Why? A private company should not be forced to provide service to anyone for any reason.

And if it's oppression, don't go to the business. A consumer isn't forced to go to any particular business, why are owners forced to provide service to a particular person?

 

[hambone8611]

Why? A private company should not be forced to provide service to anyone for any reason.

And if it's oppression, don't go to the business. A consumer isn't forced to go to any particular business, why are owners forced to provide service to a particular person?

There are some circumstances when private business should be forced. Our electric service provider is the only one available to me, it’s not like I have another option, should I be denied what most would consider a basic human right based on race, or should the government take over the power companies to prevent such racist practices. Being a business owner I would prefer a slight infringement on what you would call my right.

 

[livemusic]

It's the only option because the government gives said company the monopoly for providing this kind of service in your area. At least that's how it works over here for energy and water.

 

[Joel]

There are some circumstances when private business should be forced. Our electric service provider is the only one available to me, it’s not like I have another option, should I be denied what most would consider a basic human right based on race, or should the government take over the power companies to prevent such racist practices. Being a business owner I would prefer a slight infringement on what you would call my right.

You would rather have the government tell you you have to serve everybody, regardless of your personal opinion? And I personally don't think electricity is a right. There's too many "rights" in today's society that aren't really rights. (TV, Internet, elec., etc.)



DISCLAIMER: Were I a business owner, I would have no problem serving anyone regardless of race. I would have a problem with being told I have to serve them.

 

[FoolKiller]

Actually, hambone8611 has a legitimate point with the power company (and most utilities). However, that is because the power company benefits from a legally enforced monopoly. That cozy relationship actually works as a contract with the local government.

Even looking at it from a purely contractual basis the government does have the ability to tell them that they cannot discriminate, purely by the nature of the agreement they made to get in a situation where they have no competition.

The only cases where that would not be allowed to happen is if there are competing utilities. Those are far and few between. Any utility that wants out of that kind of binding relationship should lobby for competition to be allowed in. But it is more profitable for them to be forced to service everyone than compete for their business.



However, what this means is that hamobone8611's original argument, that it is more than just a matter of denying someone a sandwich is incorrect. Even being in a co-op, that co-op is granted a government enforced monopoly. This is not an issue where someone will be denied access to utilities.

 

[Keef]

My credit union wants me to "Take Action!" against some provision in a bill by sending a letter. Something about limiting the interchange fee "paid by merchants" when they accept a debit or credit card transaction, and that supposedly will force the credit union to take up some of the leftover cost, passing it onto me. But wouldn't the merchant already pass on fees like this to me via the item's price? Seems to me like I either get charged by the merchant or charged by the credit union depending on this bill, and the credit union is just petitioning me so their own costs don't go up.

So which is it, legitimate concern or business as usual?

 

[FoolKiller]

My credit union wants me to "Take Action!" against some provision in a bill by sending a letter. Something about limiting the interchange fee "paid by merchants" when they accept a debit or credit card transaction, and that supposedly will force the credit union to take up some of the leftover cost, passing it onto me. But wouldn't the merchant already pass on fees like this to me via the item's price? Seems to me like I either get charged by the merchant or charged by the credit union depending on this bill, and the credit union is just petitioning me so their own costs don't go up.

So which is it, legitimate concern or business as usual?

This is a small fee added on to every credit or debit card transaction to charge for the convenience. Currently you are paying for it in the cost of your goods, yes.

I am unfamiliar with the details of the law, but it could very well become something your bank begins charging you, like an ATM fee. I need to do more research.

 

[Omnis]

Well, today was the primary for my district and Donna didn't win. Oh well. The sad part is that the other guy that I didn't mind winning also didn't win. Guess I won't be voting anymore for a while. I'll vote Snitker for senate, but then it's back to waiting for 2012.

Florida elections are depressing. All of the candidates in our races are in the top 10 list for the most corrupt politicians in the country.

 

[Keef]

You should do what you can to let people know that then, because they obviously don't. They just want their beaches to stay clean.

 

[Omnis]

Too late now. I was excited because there was a chance to get that dumb bitch Wasserman Schultz out of office. But the republican that won the primary is like a Palin clone from when she was fed McCain campaign trail mix. So if she wins, yes, we finally get the incumbent off of Obama's royal penis, but the replacement has her serious issues to be afraid of too.

 

[Keef]

Wasserman Schultz

95% chance she likes sauerkraut. I bet she eats luftwaffles for breakfast. Schmoke and a Blitzkrieg.

 

[Tornado]

I suppose this isn't directly Congress related, but it is mid-term elections related:


I saw something that made me absolutely lose it during a commercial break in last night's Criminal Minds. They were doing the typical October attack ads, and they actually played them right after another. They did Jerry Brown's nonsense about how he doesn't plan on raising taxes and etc., and immediately afterwards they played the Whitman one talking about how much Brown would raise taxes. I thought it was hilarious that they would play them right after another, because I'd never seen that done before. I wonder if you could request them to do that for you if you paid them more to do so or something.

 

[Keef]

That's pretty funny. But living here in Ohio, I have to watch an ad for John Kasich literally every other Youtube video. The same ad over and over. I don't give a damn how much they paid Google to do that, if I was Google I'd have turned it down because it's such an annoying inconvenience to viewers.

 

[YSSMAN]

They're doing it here for the race between Schauer and Walberg just south of here for the Michigan 7th. Personally, I think they're both idiots. Then I remember that Amash is winning in my district.

There is little hope for my state.

 

[Omnis]

I think this whole Rand Paul supporter head-stomping thing was a set-up by MoveOn. They always try to sabotage people right before election week. Acorn did similar saboteur actions at Campaign For Liberty rallies, although I don't recall them being violent like this.

 

[Keef]

I think this whole Rand Paul supporter head-stomping thing was a set-up by MoveOn. They always try to sabotage people right before election week. Acorn did similar saboteur actions at Campaign For Liberty rallies, although I don't recall them being violent like this.

Post man, post. Share. I'm just over the border so I don't get to see all these attack ads on the regular.

Even despite them, Rand is still leading, and even the liberal media has shown disdain towards Whats-his-names's attack ads.

 

[FoolKiller]

I think this whole Rand Paul supporter head-stomping thing was a set-up by MoveOn. They always try to sabotage people right before election week. Acorn did similar saboteur actions at Campaign For Liberty rallies, although I don't recall them being violent like this.

I am suspicious because the videos end immediately after that. Being in eastern Kentucky I wouldn't be surprised if some redneck did that out of pure spite and stupidity, but there are questions.

Why are the only videos of the event from Conway supporters?
Why do all the videos cut off without showing the aftermath?
Why did the woman try to sneakily approach Rand while in disguise, but wearing a bright red shirt and holding a fake red Rand Paul sign? Rand's signs are blue, Conway's are yellow. It almost seems like she was identifying herself so she could be easily picked out.
Why was the "stomp" done in a gentle manner?

Post man, post. Share. I'm just over the border so I don't get to see all these attack ads on the regular.

Even despite them, Rand is still leading, and even the liberal media has shown disdain towards Whats-his-names's attack ads.

This whole race has made national news. I'm surprised you haven't seen this yet.

 

[NapalmSanctuary]

that Paul-Conway race is getting nasty. love how Conway brought up the VAT tax and talked about it like it was the fair tax, slamming Paul just cuz he wasnt for the VAT and treating him like a hypocrite. Conway must think yall are stupid or something.

 

[FoolKiller]

that Paul-Conway race is getting nasty. love how Conway brought up the VAT tax and talked about it like it was the fair tax, slamming Paul just cuz he wasnt for the VAT and treating him like a hypocrite. Conway must think yall are stupid or something.

Conway also talks about it like Paul is wanting to add that tax without removing income tax.

But in all honesty, both the Senate and House races in my district have ticked me off. With only a few exceptions almost all the ads so far tell me why I shouldn't vote for the other guy. If the best any of these guys has to give me is that I don't want the other guy then they need to decide if they think they can make a coherent argument when discussing bills in office. If they can they have failed to prove it to me.

 

[Keef]

Conway also talks about it like Paul is wanting to add that tax without removing income tax.

But in all honesty, bot the Senate and House races in my district have ticked me off. With only a few exceptions almost all the ads so far tell me why I shouldn't vote for the other guy. If the best any of these guys has to give me is that I don't want the other guy then they need to decide if they think they can make a coherent argument when discussing bills in office. If they can they have failed to prove it to me.

The problem is that all these people want to be in office. Wasn't it George Washington who commented on the office of President being the worst job ever? I do believe he's the only one who has never actually wanted the job.

 

[NapalmSanctuary]

The problem is that all these people want to be in office. Wasn't it George Washington who commented on the office of President being the worst job ever? I do believe he's the only one who has never actually wanted the job.

"haven't i served my country enough?" i believe were Washington's exact words when the electorate asked him to be president.

 

[Omnis]

Gentlemen? This thread will soon go the ways of the dinosaurs. It's been real.

So which one did you vote for?

 

[DK]

Well, if I could vote:

I'd vote for the douche, because a turd sandwich stinks way more, plus it complains too much about "high" taxes.